Wow, thanks for sharing that. It sounds wonderful. It made me feel good just reading it!
I live next to the mountains here, so I can easily imagine.
Whenever I go up in the mountains the silence touches me. I live in the city so usually I only find that silence on the inside. Then I go to my friends cabin in the mountains less than an hour from here, and I stop and listen- to nothing! I can hear a breeze coming from miles away.
Cosmic Troll wrote:
“If ecstatic bliss is all I ever get, I’m totally down.
Maybe ecstatic bliss IS enlightenment… who knows”
I assume by ‘totally down’ you mean ‘sign me up?’
I must confess, dear friends, that for myself I’ve found a fountain of as much bliss as I can tolerate. I’m about to give up all my other toys and exercises and just focus on what I’ve described elsewhere here, and most recently at “Need suggestions on exercise routine” in the cafe area. Not that I won’t continue to meditate now and then, just for the pleasure of ‘soaking in the pool,’ but at least at the level I’m at right now, I’ve got everything I need to melt away any time I’m not in a social situation, and I’m working on a subvocal version for that as well.
Beams and blessings - questions happily anwered.
For those wondering about my attempt to set up a meditation group in San Francisco, I’ve had three inquiries but so far nothing has been set up. I’m still thinking of starting in our very own living room, which I think might hold up to eight. I might mention this elsewhere also, if I can find whatever topic I posted to (smile).
Yes, you assume correctly 
. It’s urban slang… I learned it from Snoop Dogg 
Hari OM
Folks, regarding this string… choose what you believe is right…but its perfectly clear, we are all wired to become enlightened. If you choose not to, think about choosing not to breathe…see how long it lasts.
All of us, with or without choice, is destined to this level. Maybe not this life, next or the next 100. But it will come. Its in the DNA. Its in every molecule.
You do not own the design, but are part of it.
Every desire, is a desire for expanision, for fullness, to feel whole.
Chose as you must , soon-or-later the natural tendency of nature wins… See ya then!
agnir satyam rtam brhat Frank in San-Diego
Just read “Divine Ecstasy - Is That All There Is?” in the new lessons list.
Very interesting, but my first thought was that if someone is not happy with the level of bliss they’re achieving, they must not be feeling what I’m feeling. Or else I’m just a cheap ‘drunk’ on the yogic scale. Does this deserve a topic of its own, or is there one somewhere already?
Hi Frank 
You wrote:
I see your point. Let me clarify mine:
The thing for me, was to drop the choosing all together. It is not that I choose not to be enlightened. I simply dropped the whole issue. We ARE enlightened beings. We just don’t see it. The inner drive to know truth will always be there in me. But it became a more focused drive when I let go of the “becoming enlightened”-thing. Becoming enlightened was always somewhere in the future…I was constantly trying to reach the horizon. The horizon simply moved when I did. When I stopped running and sat down; the horizion all of a sudden was all over the place. It was HERE. Like my breath. Like you say: “think about choosing not to breathe”. Exactly. Choosing not to breathe is not constructive (and only possible for a restricted time). But neither is choosing to breathe. Choosing to breathe is like adding butter to fat: Completely reduntant. It happenes by itself. Why struggle with it? Granted; some effort is needed for me to see truth. But so far, by far the most constructive effort has been the effort I invested in learning how to do nothing gracefully. How to simply be.
May all your Nows be Here
Great job, Katrine.
I think now you’re touching on the reason some sages have written it is not necessary to make any effort to become enlightened as we already are.
But for most of us it is necessary to make some effort for something .
maybe we just don’t agree on what to call it.
No, I’m not “doing a krishnamurthi”.
Read again. And try to feel it rather than mentally process it.
i meant Katrine’s post.
But here’s a theory along these lines:
What if there’s a “small self”, or ego based perception of the world,
and a “big self”, non ego based perception of the world, and we have
the ability to shift between the two.
the problem is the small self is in pain because of ignorance and desire to be important. So it can only be enticed by grandiose concepts like “riches” and “fame” and “a book directly from God” and “immaculate conception” and “magical powers” and “enlightenment”.
maybe the true meaning of enlightenment is the realization that we don’t need enlightenment because we don’t need anything. That would be complete faith in “God” or whatever.
But since the everyday world normally operates from the small self, we need a “carrot on a stick” approach otherwise the small self would never get to that realization.
So whether there is or isn’t, or an effort is necessary or not, all depends on which self is speaking. It depends on the perception of the writer.
If this were true, then “enlightenment” IS a reality from the perception of the small self. It WILL get rid of suffering, make us feel better, etc.
The only illusion is that the small self doesn’t understand the nature
of what enlightenment is.
But if this is true, why are we practicing? To protect us from sliding
back to the little self? Or maybe to increase the big self perception?
If so, why not call the path enlightenment?
Ether said:
But since the everyday world normally operates from the small self, we need a “carrot on a stick” approach otherwise the small self would never get to that realization.
So whether there is or isn’t, or an effort is necessary or not, all depends on which self is speaking. It depends on the perception of the writer.
Exactly!
The ‘need’ for the carrot on the stick also depends on perspective.
Hari Om
Hello Katrine,
Yes, well said… thank you for your insights.
agnir satyam rtam brhat Frank in San-Diego
Hi Ether
You wrote:
I agree:
In the words of A.H.Almaas (The Diamond Approach):
Ether, you wrote:
Exactly.
In the words of A.H.Almaas:
May all your Nows be Here
Good choice of “The Diamond Approach” to explain this (not just as reply to Etherfish, but re: my whole point). It’s a fascinating and iconoclastic book. But the same point is made in many other ways in many other places, of course. In fact, what I was trying to do was make the point in a way I hoped would ring true for this place/time.
Jim wrote:
Well - you certainly got my bell chiming
BTW: What is the meaning of the word “iconoclastic” 
May all your Nows be Here
Hi Frank
You wrote:
Ditto
May all your Nows be Here
Katrine asked:
BTW: What is the meaning of the word “iconoclastic”
In the context, it is from meaning 2 here:
iconoclast:
1 : one who destroys religious images or opposes their veneration
2 : one who attacks settled beliefs or institutions
and similarly, ‘iconoclastic’.
Sample sentence:
‘Some people would wish to rid AYP forum of its iconoclastic element’
David’s is the classical definition. But it’s come to be used (and was used by me above) to mean irrverently breaking away from past forms and assumptions.
Katrine wrote, from Aalmas:
“For the normal personality, the ultimate goal is the realization of the ego ideal - to become your ideal, whatever it might be. The problem is that when you are trying to reach the goal, you are separating yourself from your present reality. You are not living in the present, and you are rejecting who you are at the moment…”
I understand the concept, but it sounds like he is saying that this is something that always happens when we set and try to reach goals?
Or maybe just what usually happens, and needs to be corrected?
I think it’s quite possible to be “in the moment” and “be who you are”,
and at the same time have goals. It wouldn’t be much of a life just lying in one place “being who you are.”
Separating ourself from the present is a major part of what makes humans different from animals. We have the ability to be here, and at the same time imagine. Almost any conscious action we take is a result of imagining it first, by stepping outside the present moment.
We have the ability to meditate, and according to patanjali, Samyama is actually doing three things at once.
so Aalmas must be talking about a common “malfunction” to correct, rather than a general instruction for everything.
Hi Ether
You wrote:
Well - these are the paradoxes of Being. To me also, “being in the moment” and “being who I am” is synonymous. However, when this happens, I don’t spend one iota focusing on “goals”. I am there then. And the life in that one place (Now) is indeed much of a life. (In fact - there is no other life). It is not at all static in the way you describe it. It is constant peace, yet from it flows constant change and spontanious actions.
We are imagined. The imagination of Consciousness itself is never outside the present moment. The imagining is the creation. That is why I become spontanious and thus creative when I am present.
There are of course degrees of awareness. As I am favouring the mantra in deep meditation, so I can equally favour presence over planning (“imagining how to do something”) in every day life. I still move; I still clean my house, bake the bread, do my taxes - but I can favour being present while I do them. This way, I always favour Being over “goals”.
Of course, it depends on what you mean by goals. My personality may set the goal of cleaning a window. That is needed. But I don’t have to “try to reach that goal”. I just do it. Same with meditation: I decide to clean my inner window. I don’t fuss about it; I don’t tryto do it; I just do it. The “trying to do it” implies that something is not quiet right. This is exactly how the personality perceives itself: Lacking. Hence the need of an ideal. When in reality; the need is for being.
It is the goals of the personality concerning the “ego ideal” Almaas is talking about. It fills itself with dreams (“imagining”) about a future that is better than today. That dreaming veils the present. The future is never here; Being is always here. The striving to reach these goals are not constructive. My personality never trusts the intelligence of Being. I (my mind) don’t trust that it is Being who will take me “there” (here ) - not me. The ego ideal is always an illusion.
The “ego ideal”-goals. Yes. Because we become split then.The personality has goals. To Being - goals are reduntant. The goal is the being. Being is its own goal. The more I allign myself to Being, the less I will need goals. Of course I still plan to clean my window and do the shopping. The personality is needed for practical reasons. It is a tool, not a master.
Ether. I love this
Thank you for helping me express myself.
May all your Nows be Here