Göran Backlund: "Starting now, my book Refuting The External World is free in the kindle store for the next 5 days."
https://www.amazon.com/Refuting-External-World-Goran-Backlund-ebook/dp/B00NOXW8QE
http://www.uncoveringlife.com/enlightenment-what-it-is/
Enlightenment: What It Is And How To Get It
The
purpose of this essay is to get you to understand Enlightenment – what
it is and how to attain it. To attain enlightenment is sometimes
referred to as
Waking up, which is a shorter way of saying
Awakening to Enlightenment – but what that actually
means requires some further explanation.
So what does ‘awakening’ mean?
In order to understand what Awakening to enlightenment really means,
we need to first understand the nature of reality – and the short
version goes something like this:
You’ve seen the movie The Matrix, right? If you haven’t, please go
and do that now. But assuming you have, envision the matrix but without
anything outside. No machines, no big computer running things, no space,
no time; nothing at all – in fact,
there isn’t even an outside. Are you imagining it?
That’s our reality. Put differently, there
is no material universe out there
beyond our experience. There are no atoms. No planets. No stars. No
space. There’s only subjectivity. There’s only this ever-changing field
of experiencing otherwise known as
consciousness or
awareness.
That’s the short version. The long version—where I actually provide the proof for all this—is detailed in
my book;
and this essay is somewhat targeted to those of you who already read it
but are now ready to step off that cliff and turn these truths into
a living reality.
Anyway, the key point is:
- There’s no objective reality – there’s only experiencing
But to the un-enlightened, things don’t
seem that way. Rather,
it seems as if we’re human beings walking around on planet earth; as if
we exist as physical entities in a universe of time and space. It seems
as if we experience an
objectively existing world – as opposed
to, let’s say, a field of subjectivity that’s perpetually transforming,
morphing and modulating itself – which is how the awakened experiences
life: as a mere flow of ever-changing phenomenality.
But why does it seem like we’re entities in a universe that exist independently of us? Why does it feel like there’s
me on the one hand, and something else that’s
not-me on the other?
It’s because of the way in which we divide our experience.
Undivided experience
Now, here’s the thing. Our experience
isn’t actually divided. There is no separation in the way we usually think about it – that is, the triad of
seer,
seeing and
seen that
we tacitly assume is present is never actually part of our direct
experience. That division simply isn’t there. But let’s go through it in
detail so you can see what I mean.
First we’ll investigate whether a seer, a subject, can be found in direct experience.
Go on. Find
your self.
Have you looked yet? You can look all you want, but you won’t find anything. We can’t find a subject, because if we
could, we would have to admit of a further subject
, to which
whatever we just found is known – making what we found
an object,
not a subject – And so,
ad infinitum.
That’s one reason as to why we can never find a subject –
we’re logically precluded from doing so.
The other reason would be:
there simply is no subject. Remember, there is no objective reality. The presumed seer doesn’t exist – nothing does.
There’s only this field of experiencing.
So the key insight here is:
- No subject can be found in direct experience
Okay, now let’s turn to vision and see if we
can find another element of that triad – the ‘object.’ In other words,
let’s find out whether we can find something that is ‘seen.’ (I’m using vision in this example, but the same exact principle applies to all sense modalities.)
First, let’s state some self-evident facts.
- The objects of our visual experience consist solely of colors.
- That is, nothing is given in direct visual experience except colors.
- In other words, we don’t see objects and their colors – we only see the colors.
- Put differently, nothing is found in vision other than patterns of color.
Now, here’s the thing: While the presence of color is what we mean by the word ‘color,’ the presence of color is
also what we mean by the word ‘seeing.’ (Now, think about that until you realize that I’m actually right – or read more about that
here)
Therefore, we must concede that ‘seeing’ and ‘color’ are merely different words for the exact same thing, namely ‘seeing.’
In other words, colors aren’t ‘colors’ in the way we usually think
about them – glued to objects, waiting to be seen – instead, what they
are
is nothing other than seeing itself.
And since the ‘objects’ of our experience consists solely of colors,
we must now understand that they actually don’t – what they’re really
made out of is ‘seeing.’
And finally, the last step in this reduction is to simply understand that ‘seeing’ is just another word for awareness. Awareness, or
consciousness, doesn’t signify a
thing – these words simply refer to the presence of
seeing,
feeling,
hearing,
tasting,
smelling and
thinking.
To summarize:
- There’s no subject given in experience.
- There are no objects—or ‘colors’—given in experience.
- There’s only ‘seeing’ or awareness.
Non-dual awareness
But although our analysis reveals that there’s only awareness—only
seeing,
feeling,
hearing,
tasting,
smelling and
thinking actually going on—the unenlightened still feel
like there’s a me—a subject—in here, behind the eyes; a seer that perceives a multitude of objects
out there, in the world.
Why?
It’s because of a specific mode of perceiving that makes it seem as if experience is divided although it’s actually not. This affliction is known as
samsara, or simply
bondage. It’s our ordinary way of looking. It’s what makes it seem like there’s a seer, seeing and something seen.
But there’s another mode of perceiving possible – the
undivided way.
Non-dual awareness.
The phrase
‘Awakening to enlightenment’ signifies the moment
where we shift into that other mode of perceiving. It’s the moment of
cessation of the division that makes it seem as if there’s a
me, a subject of experience, and a
not-me, the object of experience – leaving only
pure seeing, feeling, hearing, smelling, tasting and thinking; simply non-dual beingness without any sense of being
a subject that experiences objects. The sense of being an observer; a witness of experience; vanishes, and instead one’s
sense of being shifts
to encompass the entire field of experience. ‘Awakening’ denotes that
actual shift – ‘Enlightenment’ is where we find ourselves afterwards.
But
true enlightenment is more than a profound shift in
perception. It’s a deep realization of the non-objective nature of
reality; of the hollowness of one’s self – it’s a revelation of the
fallacious nature of objectivity; which inevitably leads to a total
rewrite of the way we think, act and feel.
Key insight:
- Awakening to enlightenment means that we shift into another mode of
perception wherein experiencing no longer seems divided into a me and a not-me.
Now that we know what we’re shooting for, let’s discuss how to actually get it.
The end of ignorance
If we are to cease dividing experience into
me and
not-me, it’s useful to understand why we perceive in this way in the first place.
Why do we perceive in terms of subject-object?
Due to our culturally imposed world view, the act of perceiving is
interpreted in terms of what could best be described as something like a
camera model. That is, we think of ourselves as cameras, moving around,
looking at stuff. And the field of experience is our
view,
wherein the objects of experience briefly appear as we apprehend them
with our sensory faculties. That’s the universe-model in a nutshell.
Now, let’s break it down into detail.
When we encounter an object in direct experience, essentially the
following happens (let’s pretend we see something – a box, for example):
- A particular pattern of color is conceptualized as an ‘object,’ which has a wide range of connotations attached – such as, it’s a space-time entity; it has mass;
it’s made of a material, etc. In other words, the concept that we have
to represent this percept has attached to it a bunch of other concepts,
all of which contribute to our idea of what it is – making us forget that it’s really nothing but patterns of color – which is nothing other than ‘seeing,’ or awareness itself.
- Now, because it’s an ‘object,’ there’s another fundamental connotation involved – namely that of it being perceived by a subject. Which is us. In other words, according to our universe-model of reality, whenever an object is present in our experience, it is so because we as its subject
has encountered it. That is, our field of view simply happened to slide
past that object. Put differently, the very presence of an object
implies us as its perceiving subject. It’s the camera model of perception. Just as the presence of images on a TV screen imply that they were apprehended by some camera, the presence of an object in experience implies that it’s being perceived by us as its subject.
- So the very notion of an ‘object’ entails the presence of a subject
that perceives it. It’s built in to the concept. We cannot help but see
ourselves in this way under the universe-model, because every encounter
with an object reaffirms and reminds us of our existence as its subject.
Now, if we were to abandon this model and instead adopt some other
model, wherein we, let’s say, turn percepts into concepts with entirely
different connotations than those that we currently have, our experience
of the world would naturally start to shift.
But what if we had no model at all? Not because it would be a
‘better’ way to live life(it is), but because we have through careful
inquiry realized that the very nature of models as such are based on a
fundamental error of thought?
We would start to see reality
as it is before any conceptual
overlay. We would, in effect, be at a ‘ground zero’ state. No longer
would it seem as if we’re a camera moving about in the world – instead,
what we previously thought of as the world, we now abide in – finally –
as the very flow of phenomenality itself. With no model laid out over
experiencing there’s just pure non-dual beingness. And that’s the
enlightened mode of perceiving. Ground Zero.
So, there are actually two steps to this process. The first step is to realize that the division that we
think
is there isn’t. The subject-object model that we have is not
representative of what’s actually going on. If you look right now you’ll
see that there’s never any subject nor any objects given in direct
experience – which reveals that the subject-object model of experience
is entirely a mental fabrication – it all hinges on our beliefs
about reality.
The last step is to pick apart those beliefs. To refute objectivity.
To disprove the external world – so that we can abandon the
universe-model and instead shift our experiencing into non-dual
awareness.
Endgame
So stop fucking around. All of this deconstructing-your-ego business
that everybody’s preaching these days is just a waste of time.
Nothing dismantles an ego as effectively as pulling the rug out from underneath its existence as a space-time object.
Moreover, there’s certain movements on the internet that specialize in pointing out something that goes like this:
“Although there’s a body here, there’s no self in it. There’s just a
brain doing the thinking and a body doing the walking, etc.”
That’s just pure nonsense. The idea of a self is the idea that
there’s a space-time entity with perceptual capabilities – it’s as
simple as that; and no amount of this kind of reasoning will ever
‘liberate’ you if you still believe that
there are subjects that perceive objects.
In order to awaken, you must deconstruct the universe-model of
reality – you must understand exactly how and why that model is false,
so that you can begin to untangle the subject-object knot of perception
that’s standing between you and reality in its infinite form.
Get real. Declare it with force and finality, and you’ll
soon find yourself in full appreciation of the beauty and power of that
which has always been staring you right in the face.
..........
Also: http://www.uncoveringlife.com/shift-enlightenment/
A Shift Into Enlightenment
I
think there were two factors that were paramount to my awakening.
First, I spent a lot of time contemplating that color equals seeing, and
that sound equals hearing; that thoughts equal thinking and smells
equal smelling. I did that every spare moment – checking my experience,
confirming that the apparent colors I saw, in fact, were nothing other
than seeing, and that the body sensations I felt were nothing other than
feeling.
I confirmed to myself over and over, not the inseparability of knowing and known, but the total lack of a ‘known’ altogether.
That’s worth saying again: Over and over, I confirmed to myself the total absence of a ‘known’ altogether.
You don’t see a dog. You’re seeing dogly. There’s no known – there’s just knowing.
I did that for months.
The second thing I did was to pierce through the veil of conceptualization. At least that’s how I like to think of it.
In
attempting to induce an awakening, I think that it can be helpful to
view ordinary experience in terms of two layers – namely, raw sensory
data on top of which there’s another layer of conceptuality. Now, of
course, such division is never actually present in our direct
experience, but to artificially divide experience in this way can be
useful in this kind of endeavor.
The key is to
notice that you’re nearly always focused on merely the conceptual aspect
of experience. That is, when looking at something, your perceptual
focus is on what it is—conceptually—rather then the raw sensory data
substratum upon which the concept is based. In other words, looking at a
coffee cup, one is mostly focused on its coffee cup-ness (and thus its
objectness), rather than the actual colors (which, again, are nothing
but seeing) that make up one’s experience of it. Awakening happens when
this veil of conceptuality is pierced. That’s when the shift occurs.
Again,
I wanna emphasize that I don’t mean to say that there’s an actual veil
over experience – just that I think it’s helpful to view experience in
such a way in order to guide one’s attention to this raw aspect of
experiencing, which I believe is what allows for a shift to occur.
I
remember when I started experimenting with this. I used to take an
ordinary object, such as a coffee cup, and just look at it very intently
– trying to really see the colors that made up its existence in my
field of view. And when I did this I would sometimes enter a kind of
super-focused state wherein I suddenly could see the colors very, very
clearly. And if I kept that kind of concentration for a few seconds I
would sometimes experience a shift where the sense of being a subject
that’s observing an object, suddenly would collapse into just pure
seeing.
The first time that happened, I finally knew
what everybody had been talking about – what phrases such as non-dual
awareness, enlightenment and sat-chit-ananda actually meant. But then,
after a few minutes, I reverted back to ordinary perception. But I could
now pretty much enter this super-focused state at will, which would
most often induce another shift. Eventually I started to spontaneously
shift in and out of non-dual awareness during the day, and after about
six months of shifting back and forth, it finally settled into an
abiding non-dual awareness that hasn’t left since.
So,
that’s what I suggest – to look at ordinary objects very intently,
similarly to how one does when trying to read a license plate on a car
from far away. In trying to read that license plate, one must
concentrate and really try to see, which is very similar to the type of
effort required in this excercise. You know you’re doing it right when
you suddenly start to see the colors ‘clearly’ – at which point you just
keep your attention there and keep your fingers crossed until you
shift.
Posts
