I have a good friend with whom I often disagree on spiritual issues. I think on some level we enjoy our disagreement, even though on another level we often react to each other as if to say, “Are you nuts?” Recently we exchanged a few emails, and I sent him a message today that I’m quite certain he won’t like. Afterwards, I thought, “Hey, if my friend won’t like it, I’m sure it will irritate others, too.” Of course, that means I need to publish it here. 
Truth is a not a state of being or consciousness or anything. The truth is what is. When you awaken, you simply drop into being able to know that which is, without any interference from your mind. No state. Just pure awareness. Awareness aware of itself. Because what it perceives is that everything it perceives is itself. Total unity.
Some of the quantum physics people who have gotten all new-agey like to speak of the fundamental field of reality, or the ground or field out of which all things arise. This field is the Buddhist “nothingness”. Same thing with spirit, consciousness, awareness, etc. All are empty in the sense of no-thing-ness, ie, they aren’t objects to be perceived.
And so, when awakening occurs, when enlightenment happens, one becomes fully aware of the truth, i.e., that all is merely an appearance of this fundamental ground of being, all is this complete totality, all one essence, all one intelligence, all one awareness, conscious, awake, alive, aware.
No states of anything. Just pure beingness. In essence, that’s really all there is to enlightenment.
Namaste.
It seems whenever we attempt to define enlightenment it’s not really enlightenment we are talking about anymore. “Awareness aware of itself” is a great way to sum it up, but I can see how it would irritate some people who just keep thinking ‘Yeah, but *what* is it?’. It’s something to be experienced, not defined, and therein I think lies the essence.
Thanks for the insightful post Tom.
Hah! After that set-up, I was expecting something I wouldn’t agree with. Actually, I agree with you completely. Enlightenment is the experience of complete Oneness. What else could it be?
Not quite sure why this would be irritating …
Blessings,
Andrea
Truth = accuracy seems to be your idea.
But truth also embraces the correspondence between a conception and a reality. In short it embraces the cognitive.
And correspondence (implied in accuracy) means two not one.
Trust this is irritating (one of the characteristics of life!).
Great way of putting it
I think the problem for most people is that we try and intellectualise it. The truth is that you cannot put into words that exact moment of awakeness. However you try and explain it – it just does not properly explain the feeling, the knowingness, the connection …
Love and Light
C
Hi Tom,
Yes, states are only a figment of mind and not what is. I wholely agree…saw nothing to cause irritation.
Namaste,
~ Eric
Hi Everyone!
Thanks for the comments. It seems that you all are far less irritated than my friend.
He wasn’t happy at all. Oh how I love spirituality!! We can hold the strangest ideas about it. Until we don’t. And even then, it really isn’t about our ideas at all, is it?
@ Tom:Don’t know why, but this cane to mind as I was reading your post; The experience of awareness is not awareness any more than the taste of the apple is the apple.
@Evan: You comments are helpful in nailing down definitions so we may better understand one another.
“And correspondence (implied in accuracy) means two not one.” This I can understand, But is it reciprocal? Is accuracy implied in correspondence? I think not since something is always lost in the translation. The problem is we are using dualistic artifacts,words, to express non-dualistic experiences and concepts. Approximation is the best we will ever do and, fortunately, some are more artful than others in their use of words. But the fact remains, IMHO, that words will never convey the truth of reality, of what we are. Were it possible it would have been done long ago and these conversations would not be taking place.
“But truth also embraces the correspondence between a conception and a reality. In short it embraces the cognitive.” Again, turn the statement around and see if you believe it to be true (accurate) that the cognitive embraces the truth. I question that since the cognitive arises from perception, not awareness. The two are vastly different. I do concede though that perception arises within reality, the truth, awareness,(call it what you will) and therefore demands attention. It is still, though, only a representation of truth, the taste of the apple, not the apple itself.
Hi Eric,
Why does turning around something invalidate the other way? Why does correspondence not meaning accuracy imply that accuracy embraces correspondence is wrong? This just seems incoherent.
Words fall short of reality of course. However if a word is a finger pointing to the moon it is still important that it points to the moon not the sun or the edge of a cliff. This can have consequences.
The apple example is misleading. It is better to say that the taste is not all of the apple. This doesn’t mean taste (or the apple) doesn’t exist. The taste wouldn’t be there without the apple or the eater. Taste is the meeting of these. It is real though – next time you eat an apple try not tasting it.
I’m not sure about your distinction between perception and awareness. Unless you are equating awareness with reality and truth. In which case I would say that truth has to do with correspondence.
I hope I’m making sense.
Hi Tom
Well – perhaps I’ll be the naysayer then. (laughs)
Much I fully agreed with. But in the body of the post, you threw in a few things that are perspectives that do arise in states. Thus there was a bit of contradiction.
“all is merely an appearance” for example, is a perspective that sees the world as illusion. This is not the same thing as complete totality. Complete totality is totality, so even the world is found to be what is. This may seem a subtle point, but it is the difference between seeing the world as illusion and seeing the world as Self. And that changes everything.
There is a few minor other points that could raised about things like awareness and perception, but you get the idea. There is a distinction between of and is.
@Davidya I see that the word merely gave an impression I did not wish to give. The full sentence “all is merely an appearance of this fundamental ground of being” was attempting to say that what you see IS the fundamental ground of being appearing as form. Not MERELY as in illusory. The merely was intended to indicate to my friend that the world isn’t something other than the totality. It is totality appearing as the chair, the light, the person and the word MERELY on a computer screen.
Yes, I know that there are distinctions between various words, but why bother being overly precise? You really can’t be precise no matter what you do. Words are, to abuse that wonderful Zen expression, fingers pointing at the moon. We can get too hung-up on individual words and their exact meaning.
I used to teach math. Now there is a subject filled with precision (and imprecision, too). If you take a number like “the square root of 2″ and write it with the nice little square root symbol, you are being incredibly precise. However, if you try to write the square root of 2 as a rational number (1.4142…), ah, well, you are going to be writing for a long, long time. Words to me feel like rational numbers in a see of irrationality! They just can’t quite get there!
The key for me is simply to invoke an “ah-ha” in the reader. Nothing more is needed or intended, at least by the writing I do. Others may have a different view or need for their writing. Essence, flavor, that’s what I hope to bring. Have you noticed I usually avoid debates about the details? That’s why.
I know some will disagree with this view of mine, but disagreement seems to be the norm on the web, eh? Namaste, my friend.
Hi Tom
Thanks for the clarification. As we have discussed here before, meaning can be both rich and misleading.
In another discussion group, someone spoke of the rise of the feminine. I observed this was not, as the poster suggested, for the feminine to win but rather for balance and wholeness to be restored. Another poster took exception to this, suggesting I was being abusive and needed to clean up the mess men had created. Certainly illustrates how broadly meaning can be seen…
It did however generate much honest discussion.
@Davidya DISCUSSIONS!! I love a good discussion. We can talk about things until the cows come home, have fun doing so, and not take any of it too seriously. That’s how I like it. I hope I didn’t give the impression I don’t like discussion. I do. But I see a certain futility in taking it seriously. Then it becomes a debate. I know you well enough to know that you love a good discussion and you DON’T take it seriously. We can sit in front of the barbershop and have a nice friendly chat.
@Tom
Actually I made the point to have a discussion
Taking it too seriously also gets in the way of progress. If I took it too seriously, I’d have had a much more difficult time each time reality changed again. (laughs)
It would be interesting to sit in front of a barber shop. Don’t have them here anymore. That in itself would be a subject…
Reality shifts. Pining for the small town and loathing of the large mall.
Though I don’t suppose we would meet to discuss without this very large scale technology.
No need to pine or loath. Simply favour.
hmm – wonder if its a sign were getting old that we’d enjoy chatting out front of a barber shop.
No women there, nor dancing. (laughs)
And why is it called a pine tree?
@Davidya Enjoying the discussion.
I have a barbershop I go to each month. Can’t sit in front, but inside it is so traditional. 5 or 6 barbers, all talking baseball and football and college basketball, telling obnoxious jokes about everything under the sun. They even wet shave the back of the neck and around the ears. Hot lather! I love the barbershop. 
@Evan I love the technology. Virtual barbershop. But no pining. I live in a small town and go to the mall. I love the streets of NYC and my little Mayberry. All of it is great to me. But then again, I’m an odd duck, huh? Well, at least Tom is.
Hi Evan,
I tend to think that if a=b then b should= a. I tend to be too literal. Negating your view was not my attempt; just offering a different way of looking at it.
Subsequent posts have talked about the inadequacy of words to convey the author’s meaning. I think I applied another definition to “correspondence” than you intended. Seen another way I would have to agree with your comment since truth embraces all that is.
Does anyone else sometimes feel that all this talk and reading about truth serves only to distract us from the truth? Not that I don’t enjoy it, and even feel like I need it, but could that need be, or become, an addiction? Then there’s the other voice that says how wonderful it is that our minds turn to these thoughts and questions. I guess it’s for everyone to find the right balance in their life.
@Eric In the end, I think we all have to recognize that teachers and teachings will only get us so far. They often can be the catalyst for Consciousness to begin to stir. They can be incredibly useful. But necessary? No. And quite often, we reach a place where we have to say goodbye to the teachers and teachings. Then we just sit. Often for hours and hours.
I’m not saying one has to sit to awaken. But given that most do, it seems like a safe bet to make. We sit with one purpose: to know the truth of what we are. And we will know.
That’s how it looks from here!
Thanks Eric.
If a totally equalled the totality of b then b would equal a.
Words are imperfect and all the talking can get in the way. For me though there is a relation between truth and words (eg. John Howard is a towering genius and a politician of integriry is a lie – substitute the politician of choice from your country – I’m in Australia.) Our ability to communicate with others I think is precious. Hope this makes sense.
There shouldn’t be any arguments when it comes to spiritual beliefs, to each its own. Thanks for sharing such a great article here.
Hi Evan,
Yes that ability is extremely precious. I am constantly reminded not to let the impreciseness of the medium (words) reflect back on the one communicating. The world is very fragmented and the chances of two people viewing any one fragment, let alone a series of fragments, exactly the same is just about nil. It’s amazing we communicate as well as we do on a subjective topic like this.
This is why folks like Tom turned to mathematics. It is a language designed for exactitude. And it has it’s place in discussions like these when it veers into quantum physics, right Tom?
As for awareness vs. perception, I see perception as my experience filtered through a learned belief system. This implies judgment,comparing and discernment which also implies an acceptance of a past, present and future.
Awareness is the witness of perception. The word witness, for me, suggests non-judgment and an allowing that takes place only in the present.
Your Mr. Howard sounds very much like our Mr. Bush. I refuse to call him president. He has never represented me. That was a judgment (perception) that my awareness just witnessed (laughs).
On the matter of the apple and taste I will bow to your wisdom. After all, anyone who can figure out how to get their picture up there with their post is way smarter than I. Not that a photo of me would be a good thing, I’m just damned curious as to how it’s done!
Hi Eric,
The pic is to do with avatars or gravatars or something. Someone put a pic of me on the computer when we were promoting a book we wrote. So now all I have to do is find it through a browser and click on it. Thankfully, I’m very poor technically.
On maths I’m an agnostic. It follows once the premises are accepted – and this has the advantage of a certain kind of rigour. I think it can be helpful in this way.
Howard and Bush were quite similar. I am glad we are rid of both of them. Let’s hope that the newly elected do make a difference.
Hi Eric
Yeah, having pictures on blog comments like this has to be done with a 3rd party as blogs are hosted by a number of different ISP’s -some jointly, some independently. I asked Tom about it myself.
Just go to http://en.gravatar.com/ and set up a free account.
Hi,
I’m new here.
Loved it! Thanks!
Diane
I would also have to agree!
Thanks for this post, it was a great read.
Hi Eric,
I like this paragraph you wrote:
“As for awareness vs. perception, I see perception as my experience filtered through a learned belief system. This implies judgment,comparing and discernment which also implies an acceptance of a past, present and future.”
I have one question: What would the paragraph mean to you if you substituted the word “chosen” for the word “learned”?
Hi Tom!
I just did some writing for my book, Enlightenment on Demand, and felt moved to share them on your site. Perhaps they will be of value to some of your readers.
Enjoy!
Love and Serenity,
-Michael
The Magic of Non-Resistance
A few nights ago I was watching videos on YouTube of the seventies brother and sister team, the Carpenters. Afterwards, when I tried to go to sleep, my mind decided that that was the perfect time to get stuck on the song, “The end of the world.” Over and over it played, and no matter what I did I couldn’t get Karen Carpenter’s haunting vocals out of my head!
For several minutes I tossed and turned, as it was quite frustrating. But then I suddenly remembered one of life’s most important truths: what we resist, persists. I was resisting what was! Big time.
So, instead of creating negative energy and suffering over what was, I decided to just embrace it and say, “Okay, you want to hear that song over and over, you go mind!” And I just kinda went with. In other words, I totally stopped resisting it. Note, this was not a token effort—I really meant it.
Well, a few minutes later I was thinking about something and it dawned on me that the song had gone away by itself! Once I stopped resisting it, it said, “Oh, you’re no fun!” And went away all on its own. If this ever happens to you, now you know what to do. (And, of course, the concept of non-resistance applies to anything that might be bothering you, not just songs stuck in your head).
The above experience led me to write the following:
The Radio in Your Head
“There’s someone in my head, but it’s not me.” –Pink Floyd
There’s a radio in your head and it’s playing 24/7. Instead of believing that the sounds are you, try just listening to them like you would any other radio broadcast. With detachment. When you listen to the radio in your car, you don’t believe that you are literally the radio. Yet, we do this with the radio in our head all the time! We think that thing making all the noise is us, but it isn’t. Again, it’s space or detachment from the noise that allows the presence to come in.
Now, an interesting thing about presence is that it will NOT fight with you. It will come when sincerely invited, when a genuine opening is provided for it, but it will never force its way in. Love opens the door for presence; judgment closes it.
Another interesting thing is that you can’t have both at the same time. In other words, you can’t both believe you are the sounds in your head AND be present. For me, the choice is a “no-brainer”! Get it? Ha ha, I just made that up!
Hello, Harold.
Great question. It would mean that one has a choice in how one experiences awareness. One does, but it’s not that easy. I believe our thoughts are the filter of experience. So reference Michael’s post. The choice would be to not think, i.e. judge and compare.
Being a Pink Floyd fan, all I can say is read the previous post, then read it again. It says it all through the Roger Waters quote. That someone in my head is what I view the world through; and it’s not me. For me, the goal of meditation is not just stillness, but the genuineness of self it would necessarily engender, the freedom from the dictates of that “someone in my head”.
Hope that answers your question; it’s about as close as I can come.
Hi Eric
Nicely put. Its worth noting though that its not that the thoughts have to end. They may do so in deep meditation. And if they are anxiety driven, may indeed much reduce. But they do not end. What does end is our believing our thoughts. Our thinking these thoughts and beliefs are me or mine. They are, as Michael put it, the Radio in Your Head. Change the station if you don’t like the music (laughs)
@Diane Glad to have you here. Thanks for the comments.
@Sharon Thanks! Glad to have your comments, too.
@Eric, Davidya and Harold You guys are having a nice conversation. I won’t butt in.
Michael, I’m curious as to the book title. on Demand?
As awakening is a process of allowing, I would not have thought to use this term.
Nice web site. It is curious how hard it is to write about such a subject. Always, it is from a certain perspective. Above, we say you are not your thoughts. You concur on the home page with the quote “You are that which is aware of your thoughts”.
Yet, this is only the beginning. Another quote on your site “When I look without and see that I am everything, that is love.” It is all inclusive. Including those thoughts we had stopped being. (laughs)
Such is the cycle of it. As TS Elliot put it, come back to where we started and know the place for the first time…
Hi Davidya,
“Michael, I’m curious as to the book title. on Demand? As awakening is a process of allowing, I would not have thought to use this term.”
Good Question! The book is called Enlightenment on Demand simply because enlightenment is available to you any time you want it, i.e. it is “on demand 24/7” (like cable videos have become).
It’s there for the experiencing at any moment, but you do have to “do the work.” Not work to get anywhere, but work to release your essence from your mind’s death like grip and its past programming as well as what Eckhart calls the “pain body” which, as you know, is the collective conditioning we all take on from previous generations.
On a personal note, I just like the title because we live in age of wanting things right away, and what better gift to give yourself right now this very moment than freedom from identification with your mind.
Until recently, the word “allowing” (the word you prefer) would have felt “more right”
to me too. However, these days I find that it is a bit too passive for my tastes. Currently, I must “demand” to stay conscious, lest my mind creep back in (which it still manages to do anyway)and sweep “me” back into it’s stream of thoughts.
However Davidya, that doesn’t mean that somewhere down the road I won’t “change back,” and prefer allowing once again!
-Michael
p.s. Thank you for the compliment on my website. (www.mjeffreys.com)
p.s.s. I like your T.S. Elliot quote: “(We) come back to where we started and know the place for the first time…”
Davidya: I’m aware that I fixate too much on the experience of stillness and that, yes, the problem is not the thoughts but rather the identification with them. This will last as long as it has to and not a second more.
As for changing the station, I prefer to just turn the sucker off. This is an improvement from my wanting to pull the plug 5 or 6 years ago when I was in deep clinical depression. (laughs) Actually, I guess I did change the station.
Tom: Here’s one for you; did I have a choice? Did I change the station from one that spat out self loathing to one that said I was loving and lovable? Or was I just “Blown on the steel breeze” of my destiny. Was life living me? I can’t answer that so I really don’t expect you to. Does it matter anyway if there even is an answer? It would only (temporarily) satisfy the ego and that is not what all this questioning is about. The truth is what it is and one can just stick it in their proverbial pipe and smoke it. Still, the ego wants to know, and know, and know……………..
Hi Michael
Interesting. I know what you mean, but you must be very careful to explain it. It is a very curious process. There is the need for effortless effort and nondoing doing. (laughs)
Allowing is indeed weak. The word that has much more power is surrender but that is also more loaded, so I use allowing. At first, it is moments of allowing that allow openings like self-realization. As it progresses, it reaches a point of “perpetual surrender” which I understand is the fundamental process – consciousness arising within Itself, then falling back again.
For myself, I’ve not come to that place of perpetual surrender but it’s very clear the process is one of refinement and of letting go. Not yet constant but more than the mind can keep up with (laughs)
The mind does eventually ease up. At a certain point, it simply is overshadowed by silence. Mind remains but the silence gets louder. It “roars” as some have said.
Hi Eric
It is a curious thing – we seek to experience what cannot be experienced, to hold what cannot be held.
Your first paragraph is interesting. You mention the issue is identification yet name the identification. You say you fixate too much on it. Do you see that this is the issue itself? The idea that you fixate? NOT the fixation, if it even exists, but the idea of it. That’s mind. It is subtle to catch the mind but that is the identification right there – the flag is when you make it wrong.
Allowing is letting it be what it is. Mind is making it right or wrong.
After I wrote my last comment to you, it occurred to me I was speaking from my experience. If I think about some of the more illustrious sages, they had very few thoughts – only what was needed to function. Mind was very silent. Being in the world means more thoughts are needed. And it is a useful goal to have a very quiet mind. But this comes from time in increased silence of Self. Initially its simply a matter of stepping out of mind. Silence of mind will come naturally with time and further release.
Certainly, some people work to culture silence of mind first. But this is a difficult route as it is not the nature of the mind to be silent. Much easier to transcend the mind, culture the experience of silence. Then mind will become satisfied.
Yes, the ego wants an answer. I became very good at finding answers. But in the end, you discover they are all answers of the dream. Temporary truth. Was there choice? It depends on where you are standing. Who is choosing? Who are you? The answer will change when you change positions.
Hi Davidya,
Yeah, the first paragraph would be a judgment if I were to identify with it, but I don’t (laughs). But of course you are right; the judging is still a constant, it’s just sooooo much more benign than it used to be. Oh well, Rome was not built in a day.
As usual, your insight has helped me to see some of the subtle mechanisms of the ego.
“Do you see that this is the issue itself? The idea that you fixate? NOT the fixation, if it even exists, but the idea of it.”
That’s a little beyond my ken, right now. The fixation is real at times, but I’m learning to laugh at it and just let it go. Discriminating between the action and the idea of it, that will take time. It’s a great pointer though!
@Eric Thanks for the question. I think it merits an entire blog post of its own. But I am fairly confident as to my answer. It all revolves around the word “I” when you ask, “Did I have a choice?” If “I” is a placeholder that you use to reference what you truly are, then I wouldn’t exactly say “you” had a “choice” but there also isn’t a helplessness here either. For the awakened, there isn’t really choice but there isn’t real no choice either. Just Life as Life moving. However, if “I” mean the egoic you, the self, the sense of separateness thinking it is a “me” then the answer is no choice whatsoever. It is always in a push-pull relationship with its experience, never in control, never really choosing, but being blown about by its interactions with everything else. Of course, I’m not claiming to know the truth. Just pointing out what I see.
The post was great! I admit I got a little lost in the comments, though.