Location: Istanbul, Turkey
Dear Francis, This long question relates to Enlightenment and Knowledge. Few of the last words of my previous teacher, Dan Eltzroth, before he passed away were, “Bedri, you are already enlightened.” It is indeed my direct experience that “Awareness that I AM” knows Itself, and when there is living in surrender to That Truth, to that Silent Knowing that I AM, instead of living in belief to thoughts/feelings that sometimes claim the contrary, I would agree with Dan that Enlightenment is my natural non-state because the Knowledge of Who I Am cannot be forgotten and is eternally present. Thus, I am always in Light, is what I truly Know. Given this, I experience puzzlement as to why there is relapse at times back to ignorance and there is thinking, feeling, and acting as if I am a separate and limited Consciousness consisting of a body/mind! It is as if I go back and forth between enlightened and ignorant states of Being. Does this imply the final glimpse that Consciousness is Universal and Divine has not yet happened, or could it be a part of what you call as the post-enlightenment path, where old tendencies are coming to the surface? How would one know the difference? It is not important for me to be enlightened and It is not what I seek, and yet, it is utterly important for me that I do not accept my mind telling me that that there is a “lack” in me, that is, I am missing the experience of Enlightenment, which would be in contradiction with the Perfume of Peace I feel and know, certainly pointing at Wholeness within that nothing is truly missing. Taking the Perfume of Peace as my guidance, I have to accept Enlightenment is a Knowledge already present in me to which I surrender to, or that I choose, rather than an experience that I will attain at some distant time in the future. Is this correct? However, there is then the conflict in me as to why I do not recall a radical Awakening experience such as the one you have described on your web-site when you experienced Enlightenment during meditation in your living room with two of your friends. I sometimes wonder if it is the lack of such radical experience to be the reason of my alternating between 2 worlds of Enlightenment and Endarkenment? But to accept that option is to accept a lack in me, which is unacceptable. :) And if Enlightenment is indeed such a radical experience, it would mean that it is not available to everyone at any moment, even though the simple Knowledge of I am Awareness is available to everyone NOW? However, Dan has also spoken of his holy experience that he had at the age of 22 as the following radical event: “it was so holy that I realized everything I experienced until that moment was unreal and that moment was my first real experience, and with that I realized what God was, and the fear of death and all sense of insecurities has left my mind forever.” And yet still, at the moment of his Awakening, there appeared an inner guide, who told him that this experience would not last. Indeed, his experience of enlightenment seemed to disappear some 20 years later, to which he remarked as “I accepted one illusion, and all other illusions of suffering came with it,” and after that he found himself being a seeker for some time. I, myself, do not recall any such radical experiences but only a simple Knowledge I got up from one of my meditations that revealed Peace of God as the only Truth there is, and is always in me, only and simply, awaiting my Choice, or my Surrender to It. The point I am making is if Enlightenment were an experience, rather than a Knowledge, would it not have a beginning and end, and would it not be subject to forgetfulness as all experience is of memory and of the past. In fact, I must have been totally free in Perfect Knowledge of my Being prior to my identification with this body/mind, and so if I fell asleep to ignorance during childhood, what guarantee is there after my Awakening that I will not relapse back to ignorance yet one more time, or perhaps many more times? To summarize, if Enlightenment is a state, then it can be forgotten, and if it is Knowledge, then it can be ignored as It was ignored before. So then, what quality of Enlightenment would guarantee that It is there to stay permanently? Is Enlightenment perhaps a Knowledge to which we will learn, by new habit, to surrender to, and that would involve training the mind to remember to make that choice over and over again? And yet, if the mind is involved, we also get the uncertainty that comes with it–and thus no apparent guarantee for a final resolution or stabilization…. I would be most grateful if you can shine Light to resolve the apparent conflict above? All my Love, Bedri Cetin
Dear Bedri,
Does this imply the final glimpse that Consciousness is Universal and Divine has not yet happened?
No
Could it be a part of what you call as the post-enlightenment path, where old tendencies are coming to the surface?
Yes
How would one know the difference?
If the final glimpse has happened, there is no fear of death. There may be some residual fears, but the pure existential fear has vanished.
I have to accept Enlightenment is a Knowledge already present in me to which I surrender to, or that I choose, rather than an experience that I will attain at some distant time in the future. Is this correct?
Yes
I sometimes wonder if it is the lack of such radical experience to be the reason of my alternating between 2 worlds of Enlightenment and Endarkenment?
No. In my case there was a similar alternating for some time even after the experience you referred to.
And if Enlightenment is indeed such a radical experience, it would mean that it is not available to everyone at any moment, even though the simple Knowledge of I am Awareness is available to everyone NOW?
It is available to everyone, but not everyone is open to it, wants it.
“it was so holy that I realized everything I experienced until that moment was unreal and that moment was my first real experience, and with that I realized what God was, and the fear of death and all sense of insecurities has left my mind forever.”
That carries the perfume of a final glimpse.
I got up from one of my meditations that revealed Peace of God as the only Truth there is, and is always in me, only and simply, awaiting my Choice, or my Surrender to It
We have to make this choice and surrender once and for all, then death is no more. The revelation of the peace of God is an important step that paves the way to the dissolution of ignorance in that peace but is not necessarily this dissolution.
The point I am making is if Enlightenment were an experience, rather than a Knowledge, would it not have a beginning and end, and would it not be subject to forgetfulness as all experience is of memory and of the past.
This would be true if enlightenment was a phenomenal experience taking place in time, with a beginning and an end in time. This doesn’t apply to a noumenal, timeless experience. From the vantage point of the mind, this recognition seems to take place in time, whereas in fact it is a visit paid to the timeless Presence. There is no return from there. The mind cannot understand an experience or knowledge that is beyond its scope. You are right regarding the possibility to forget the phenomenal circumstances that surrounded this apperception. But the apperception of the Reality is always present, beyond the mind, beyond forgetfulness. Your objection is based on the assumption that liberation happens to the mind, is a change of mind. But although the body-mind may and will undergo a change as a result of this glimpse, the glimpse is not of the mind or by the mind, but rather of the Self and by the Self.
In fact, I must have been totally free in Perfect Knowledge of my Being prior to my identification with this body/mind, and so if I fell asleep to ignorance during childhood, what guarantee is there after my Awakening that I will not relapse back to ignorance yet one more time, or perhaps many more times?
Who is asking this question, whose problem is it? The Self is not asking this question, for it is not his problem, he has no worries about it. Therefore it is ignorance who wants to make sure that it will never lose a Knowledge to which, as it turns out, it never had nor ever will have access.
To summarize, if Enlightenment is a state, then it can be forgotten, and if it is Knowledge, then it can be ignored as It was ignored before. So then, what quality of Enlightenment would guarantee that It is there to stay permanently?
We must make a distinction between enlightenment, which is not a state, and the enlightened state, which is the natural, stable state of human existence. Human existence here means consciousness perceiving through a human body-mind. Ignorance is an unnatural, unstable state of human existence. It maintains itself through ceaseless activity. Once stability has been reached, it would require effort, activity, desire to leave the natural state. Since the desired goal has been reached, there is no incentive to leave the state during the rest of this human existence. There is only celebration of Presence.
Is Enlightenment perhaps a Knowledge to which we will learn, by new habit, to surrender to, and that would involve training the mind to remember to make that choice over and over again?
Yes, it may look that way from the vantage point of the body mind. After enlightenment, the body-mind unlearns the old patterns of ignorance by surrendering again and again to the newly rediscovered Presence. That is the post enlightenment sadhana. It eventually leads to the establishment of the jnanin in unshakable peace. The assistance of a well qualified teacher (karana guru) is required in most cases.
Sweet to hear from you.
Love,
Francis
Index