Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Truth

Truth is not in the heart (feelings).
Truth is not in the mind (thoughts).
Truth is not in the soul (individuality).
Truth is the very fact of being,
It needs no proof--IT IS.
Who can deny this? The very denial is an affirmation.

Saturday, April 23, 2011

Bliss

Bliss is not a sensory experience. Many seekers have the idea that bliss is a state that one can reach where they will be happy and feel good all of the time. When, after many years of various spiritual and devotional techniques, they still haven't achieved this permanent state, they may wonder why. The reason is that no thought, feeling or perception is eternal.

Bliss is that which underlies and is aware of the objects of experience. It is the ever present field of being. Every thing is only an appearance of this backdrop--everything. While the images and thought forms are fixated on, there is a tendency to get lost in the dramas and conflicts that appear but, when it is seen that all arises within undivided consciousness, then ideas of struggle cease and only naked presence remains. This presence shines all of the events of life into manifestation with equanimity. No sensation or experience is favored above any other. Even in the "bad" or painful happenings, what we really are remains at peace. This is bliss.

Thought can't create oneness

Thought conceptually dissects life and then tries to put it all back together again. The catch is that things were never apart to begin with! Thought imagines disintegration and then tries to reintegrate the illusory multiplicity, which it is incapable of. It's much easier to realize that oneness was never broken in the first place. When the projections of the intellect are no longer mistaken for reality then there is a natural sense of peace and unity. This is what is sometimes referred to as "the natural state" though it really isn't a state at all--it is the ever present background on which the universe appears. 

Friday, April 15, 2011

If you were enlightened, would you know it?

When the ego (thought) isn't active, is there any criteria by which to measure one's progress or station in life? No. When thought is silent, all such abstractions are gone and there is only the naked, essential witnessing presence. In this open presence, words such as sage and saint loose their meaning -- in pure, conscious perception, such things aren't designated and differentiated between. This is always the case but sometimes overlooked in favor of arising thought stories.

For there to be an "enlightened one", there would have to be an "unenlightened one" and such a distinctions appear only in thought, not actuality. Anyone trying to sell you on the idea of their "specialness" is still worshiping at the throne of ego. Being is an undivided field and to call one aspect "special" and another "common" is an unreal abstraction, looking non-conceptually, no such divisions appear -- it's all one.

Simplicity itself

What is always being pointed at, that which is referred to as Advaita, is not some special, vaunted experience but simple, everyday, garden variety consciousness. When separation (the ego idea) is believed in, there is the idea that one needs an experience of reunion with all that is. But, when one realizes that they were never limited by arising images but, instead, are the open, borderless presence in which everything appears, then the search is over.

Saturday, April 9, 2011

Authoritarian power structures

When one hears accounts of the relationship between gurus and disciples, it seems that their social organizations are often modeled on a sort of hive mentality with the guru representing the "queen" and everyone else being workers, warriors or drones. All decisions come from the guru and move downward through the organization. Is such a surrendering of one's will to another healthy? Is the guru actually closer to truth/God than any of their followers? If they are such a great, wise teacher, why aren't they able to help their students to become self-realized and independent?

We've all heard the phrase "Power corrupts" but I think it could also be said that only the corrupt seek power. A teacher may start out with the greatest of intentions but, once the idea that they are special and others are not enters the picture, it's clear that the false self-image of ego is rearing its ugly head. Consciousness is universal. For one appearance to aggrandize itself at the expense of another is pure egoic delusion, no matter if the person doing it is considered a saint or not.

A good book on Sri Chinmoy's organization is "Cartwheels in a Sari". It is suggested reading for those interested in how "spiritual" groups become corrupted. Of course political power structures operate on the same principles but generally there is less of a pretense of holiness.

The pinnacle of control seems to be repression of the human sexual instinct. Most gurus demand to be the center of attention and romantic love certainly thwarts this, so many "spiritual" groups develop rules against sex. Truly, to control sex by blind obedience is an amazing feat. Of course, one of the main functions of these bodies isn't so easily suppressed so sexual deviancy usually results and we find that the guru, priest or whatever has often broken all of their own rules and, often, worse.

If God is the creator, maintainer and destroyer of the universe, then who created sex? Isn't the answer obvious? To brand sexuality evil is ignorance and leads to true perversions, if in doubt, look at the problems within the Catholic Church.