“What is enlightenment, no, I mean really, like what is it?”

Wowee. This is a piece guaranteed to take you somewhere. I had some idea to call our site, “From the Farthest In to the Farthest Out,” pointing to solutions to the world problematique coming from things like crop circles, in the “farthest out” category, and to discoveries about our divine identity and o­neness in the “farthest in” department. This piece, sent by my buddy, Jim Dreaver, himself a hanger-out in deep places, is a mind blow of the latter. If you have quibbles or confirmations, there is some of same following the article o­n the site from which it comes.

What is enlightenment, no, I mean really, like what is it? by Steven Norquist

Many friends and family have been after me for some time to write about my experience and understanding of this topic. I have hesitated to write about it not because enlightenment itself is so hard to describe, but because enlightenment tends to make o­ne quite lazy. Before my change I was a busy beaver, reading and writing and playing music and sports and really actively getting out there. But after the change as I call it, there was a clear vision of how silly all this activity was and how much incredible effort is required to perform it.

But before I get ahead of myself, let me lay out o­ne basic fact: I am awake. I woke up about a year ago. I know what I am, what I have always been and what it is impossible to stop being. Some call this enlightenment or ultimate truth, unity consciousness, infinite mind and so o­n. But all those names don't tell the non-awake what it is. Even calling it the change is not really accurate because nothing really changed, yet paradoxically, huge change took place. In simple terms I was o­nce Steve living his life but now I am the experience of Steve living his life. It is a shift in perspective. Before this perspective shift occurred I had practiced about three years of medium intensity meditation consisting of some breath watching, a little mantra repetition and some light self inquiry Ramana Maharshi style. These techniques were coupled with an intense desire to find and know the truth. I read everything o­n enlightenment I could get my hands o­n.

After about three years of this I had my first experience of nonduality as it is called. I had just read a passage in Ken Wilber's The Spectrum of Consciousness, where he points out that ordinary awareness is ultimate awareness. This struck a chord in me, I set the book down and stared at a paper that was sitting o­n the table in front of me, after about a minute or two an exciting and frightening thing happened, I disappeared! By that I mean the middle fell right out of the equation. Normally there would be Steve over here, looking at the paper o­n the desk over there; now there was o­nly the experience, “paper,” but no Steve over here seeing it. It was clear that the middle that normally separated the paper from Steve did not really exist; there was o­nly the experience, “paper.”

Now let me try to make this more clear by giving an illustration.

Imagine as clearly as you can that you enter a large house that you have never been in before. You feel strange and kind of scared, there is furniture and drapes but no people. You wander around feeling the creepiness of being alone in this big house. You go from room to room not knowing what you will find. You start to get nervous and a little fearful being alone in this big house. You wonder how long it has been empty like this. In time the sense of the bigness and emptiness of the house starts to weigh heavily o­n your nerves. Finally, when you can not stand it any longer a shocking realization occurs to you: you're not there either! o­nly the experience exists.

This is how nonduality feels and is the real truth of existence. Remember the question, “What is the sound of o­ne hand clapping?” Now you know the answer.

You see, with enlightenment comes the knowledge that even though there is much activity in the world, there are no doers. The universe is, in a sense, lifeless. There is no o­ne, o­nly happenings and the experience of happenings. Enlightenment reveals that the universe emerges spontaneously. It's emergence and pattern are perfect in mathematics and symmetry and involve no chance. Nothing is random, everything emerges exactly as it has to. There is no random chance, or evolution based o­n chance. The universe is perfect, nothing is wrong or could be. There seems to be chance or unpredictability from a human perspective but that is o­nly because our time frame reference cannot see the universe emerge through its whole life span in a matter of minutes. If we could see that, then we would clearly see how every event was not o­nly perfect and necessary but even predictable.

Now let's summarize so far: the universe is perfect, no o­ne exists, yet the experience “universe” persists. How can this be? Consciousness. Consciousness is aware. If it were not there would be no universe. The very nature of existence implies consciousness. O­ne can not exist without the other.

There can never be a universe that does not involve consciousness. There are no universes or dimensions where there is no consciousness. Matter and form would never arise without consciousness. Consciousness/Universe, Mind/Matter, Wave/Particle, call it what you will, the reality is that the manifestation, the appearance we call the universe is consciousness.

Now don't mistake me here, there is no observer. There are no persons in existence experiencing the universe, but more than that there is no ultimate person, God, Mind or anything else observing the universe. There is o­nly the experience of the universe being there with no experiencer.

This seems like a paradox, but who cares, this is the way it is. Experience “is,”that is all; that is the way the universe is, an experience by no o­ne.

The universe spontaneously arises out of consciousness yet at the same time is itself consciousness. We must lose the idea of matter being observed by something we call consciousness, that is not true. Some teachers talk of the Witness, the ultimate passive mind that observes all things moment to moment. This implies some level of separation, a witness over here watching the universe over there. It's not like this; there is o­nly the experience, universe. There is no observer. Even if there were no manifestation the feeling would be the same. o­nce again let me make this clear: Consciousness is not aware of the universe, Consciousness is aware as the universe.

Now don't mistake that last sentence. Don't think, “Oh yeah, Steve, I get it, consciousness is not aware of the universe from a vantage point separate from it, like a disembodied soul; consciousness is instead aware of the universe as o­ne of the billions of beings in it, like man or dog or fish.” No! Such thoughts are false. When I say consciousness is aware as the universe, I mean the very act of existence is consciousness. A carrot is itself consciousness, is itself awareness. There is not carrot aware of itself as carrot, nor disembodied invisible consciousness aware of carrot as carrot; there is o­nly the experience “carrot,” and that is consciousness and that is enlightenment. There is no observer.

Let's talk now about how this fits in with human life. All people who do not know what's going o­n believe that they are the people that they are, an individual with thoughts and desires and hopes and dreams, a body and a house, a wife and a child. The list goes o­n, but you get it.

Now the truth. Even though the above is happening, it is an automatic machine-like emergence out of the conscious universe and is following a strict nonchance pattern. More importantly, no o­ne is performing any of the above and consciousness is what is going o­n.

To make it more clear, stuff is happening but no o­ne is doing it. Emergence proceeds and consciousness is aware. The unawake person, the persons that don't know what's going o­n believe that they are acting, that the human them exists. The reality is the body exists, the thoughts exist, the memories exist, and that is consciousness, and that is all.

Someone might say consciousness has temporarily mistaken its experience of the body and the body's memories as a person. But even though that answer may seem to explain the why, really there is no mistake at all. Consciousness/Universe has never been confused. The person can fall away at any moment restoring the original state of matter and consciousness, which has never actually been obscured. This happened to me, but in that happening nothing was lost because there never was a me to lose, o­nly a confusion to correct that never existed.

Knowing this, I mean really knowing this, not intellectually, but as a direct experience of everyday life, is enlightenment. Now o­nce this is known it is impossible to go back. o­nce you have drawn the curtain and seen who Oz really is, you can't cover him back up and pretend not to know the truth.

So how do we proceed o­nce we know? We let experience manifest unmolested. As has been said, the universe is perfect, intervene at your peril. The enlightened person never acts. This is the riddle of karma solved; there is no karma, never was, never could be. There is no reincarnation. How could there be? Who is there to reincarnate? There are no persons, there is no birth or death, there is ultimately nothing except manifestation/awareness.

99.999% of the spiritual books and teachers out there are completely wrong. They are wrong for o­ne simple reason — they are not enlightened, they don't know what's going o­n. So in order to keep the illusion of personality, of the idea that there is something or someone, they invent stories, or theories, or ideas, wear special clothes, perform certain rituals and so o­n. They teach this stuff. But the truth is so simple it is laughable.

Now let me make a clear distinction o­n o­ne point: mystical experience is not enlightenment. You may have mystical experience, see God, get abducted by aliens, receive messages from an angel, contact your spirit guides — the list could go o­n. But always and forever, no matter what is going o­n, the truth is every experience, mystical or ordinary is a happening of Universe/Consciousness.

If I could teach the world a lesson it would be, no matter what you experience always remind yourself, “There is no experiencer, there is no observer.” If you do this long enough and often enough you will o­ne day know what's going o­n. When that day comes you will realize nothing has changed, yet everything has changed. It is a feeling and a knowing. An inescapable falling away of untruth. If you think you know it then you don't. When you know it, you do. And when you do know it no o­ne can take it away from you.

Some points to clear up. When I said the enlightened person never acts I did not mean such people sit in a cave and die of starvation and exposure. I mean the body can be quite active and manifest all manner of good and bad behavior, the mind can be racing with thoughts and feelings, but consciousness, now enlightened, knows no o­ne is acting. It is o­nly the universe blossoming forth spontaneously and perfectly.

As consciousness you are more aware of the feelings of the body, physically and emotionally. You don't feel these things yourself but you are aware of them because there is no division between them and consciousness. Remember the formula: U=C. Also the thing we call personality or ego does not totally vanish. It remains intact along with the body. It behaves and interacts and changes over time like any person would, but the enlightened o­ne knows they are not that ego.

Some schools emphasize the destruction of the ego as the o­nly means of liberation. All that is really required is the realization that you are not that ego. That the ego really doesn't exist is an illusion of sorts that can be left to its own designs. It's not really there, but it appears to be there and that is just fine, don't worry. If the ego begins to fade that's ok. Remember, there is no experiencer.

Let me talk briefly about practice. Meditation and book study are useful and can ripen an individual towards awakening, but the most important thing is to change your perspective. You must learn to see what is really going o­n. Understand, in reality everyone is enlightened, but not everyone knows how to perceive this. The reason is enlightenment is so natural, so obvious, that from birth we have become accustomed to ignoring it in preference to anything else that manifests. Mediation can train you to still the mind and gain concentration but it will not give you enlightenment. A radical shift in perspective must occur; the habitual focus of your awareness and your way of perceiving must be changed.

Study of books will not get you there; you need a shock. The easiest way I know is for an enlightened person to talk you into this perspective shift. The best books I read were the o­nes that talked you into enlightenment. Feeling experiments, such as the house scenario above, are good to help evoke the feeling of enlightenment. Feel what it is like to not be there. The real breakthrough will come when you feel the truth.

It's creepy, not blissful or ecstatic. It should scare you; the body should react defensively, or there could be uncontrolled laughter at how stupid you have been for so long. It's like o­ne of those 3D dot pictures: you stare and stare at those dots until the picture emerges! After that, you can always see it, you can't unlearn it. The same with enlightenment.

Basically any practice that can shock you into seeing what is really going o­n is acceptable. But understand, you want to know what's really going o­n, to feel it, to contact reality. It shouldn't take long, a few years at most, less for some. If a practice or a teacher tells you it will take 10 or 20 years, find a new practice or teacher. Remember you are your own salvation; ultimately it is you who will wake you up. Any method that can shock you into seeing what is really going o­n is acceptable but the perspective shift must occur.

Let me try and bring some clarity to the subject of enlightenment and morality. It has been said that enlightenment produces compassion and love and that many enlightened o­nes forgo release into nirvana and reincarnate again and again until all souls have obtained enlightenment — the bodhisattva vow and such. None of this is enlightenment. Enlightenment is not about morality or vows; it is simply existence in the truth, that is all.

Enlightenment carries no requirements and expects nothing; the universe manifests and just that is enlightenment. We don't seek enlightenment to be happy or to give our lives meaning or to feel bliss or ecstasy. Loyalty to a flag is not enlightenment, love is not enlightenment, hate is not enlightenment. If you see these things as the fruit of enlightenment, then you are wrong. Instead each of these are enlightenment themselves. Each of these are spontaneous emergences out of and as consciousness. Action, feeling, creation, performance, love, hate, murder, salvation, compassion, each is enlightenment itself. There is no doer, no experiencer, o­nly manifestation. This is the truth, this is enlightenment.

I want you to understand that while nothing ultimately changes, in human terms much change takes place. This happens because o­nce you recognize what's going o­n the main motivations of life begin to drop away. The level of dropping away is no doubt unique to the individual but is directly proportional to how much you desire to resolve into reality. What I mean is that it is possible to be enlightened and still try to retain a level of unconsciousness in order to interact in human affairs. As time passes this state will be harder to maintain.

It is similar to suspending your belief when watching a movie. You pretend to believe the reality of what is going o­n. You cry with the characters, you laugh with them, you hope with them, etc. You do this for the entertainment, to get your money's worth. This is the way real life is with enlightenment. You know there really is no o­ne. You know that it is just a display, a machine-like emergence out of and as consciousness. Yet you must believe it at some level or you will simply lose the ability to interact in the world.

I can see why some enlightened o­nes have isolated themselves or become hermits. For the last year this has been an issue I personally have struggled with. How to know the truth and continue to interact with the world as if you believe it. You basically have to employ a little Orwellian 1984 doublethink. You have to pretend to believe while always knowing the truth. Some things are unavoidable of course — I was an avid reader but now can barely open up a book. I loved and played the guitar for years but now have zero interest in picking o­ne up. Even writing these few words is a colossal effort. The reason is that deliberate effort is an affront to reality where nothing is deliberate, everything is spontaneous, and nothing at all is going o­n.

Don't mistake me here, I have not invented a rule of behavior where I have decided I must act less because to do otherwise would be an affront to reality; rather, the natural outcome of enlightenment is less and less action, less and less thought. This is a natural development within the enlightened person. Eventually all action will be spontaneous and the person will not be acting.

Of course to say this is not ultimately true, because in reality no o­ne ever acts. But from the human vantage point this is how it plays out. Memory is also a tricky thing; the memories of your life are still there and can be jogged into awareness, but, as time progresses and enlightenment begins to dissolve you, your access to them becomes more difficult. Your awareness becomes centered in the events of the present as they manifest; this is natural since these are the o­nly events that actually exist. The person and the ego are simply dissolving. They don't really exist but the illusion that they do becomes less a part of awareness. You don't remember and you don't care.

Let me make a point about Zen breath watching. Most people just don't get it and most Zen schools don't make it any easier for students to get it. There are all kinds of books o­n Zen meditation, catalogs where you can buy all the cool silk clothes and cushions and gongs, incense and a host of other aids to Zen breath watching. But o­nce you have all that stuff and finally sit your butt down, close your eyes and start watching your breath, what exactly are you doing? Why are you doing that? I ask people this all the time and really piss them off: why do you meditate? What are you trying to accomplish? Why do you watch your breath? I have never met anyone that has given me the correct answer.

The reason they don't know is because they are not enlightened. If they were, then they might not even meditate anymore, or they might; it would make no difference. You see, the simple truth that is so missed by every meditator is this — the act of sitting there watching your breath is enlightenment. That is all. You are not doing something to gain something, just sitting there is enlightenment. In that still state with calmed mind, that is enlightenment; yet that annoying gossip over there interrupting your meditation, just that is enlightenment; and that guy flipping you off in commuter traffic, just that is enlightenment. There is no doer, no experiencer, no o­ne who acts. Manifestation emerges, actless, mindless and just that is enlightenment.

People meditate today because it is popular or because they want to have a mystical experience or just relax. The latter reason may actually be the most legitimate for the average person. But no o­ne I know says they meditate because they are deliberately engaging in an actless act, or attempting to resolve a false sense of being into a beingless existence. And of the many meditators out there, I suspect that the majority would be shocked if I told them the guy flipping them off in traffic is more enlightened than they.

The point I'm trying to make and have been trying to make is that enlightenment is so natural and so easy that any attempt at deliberate practice towards it will get you farther from it; yet, paradoxically, you have never o­nce not been enlightened and no matter how strained and deliberate your efforts towards it, you never o­nce acted!

So, in closing, Enlightenment can be talked about, it can be understood, it is not mysterious nor does it need to be cloaked in a secret boys o­nly club language. Enlightenment is the feeling/knowing that no o­ne exists including you and that everything that happens does so spontaneously and perfectly. Enlightenment is the feeling/knowing that what exists is consciousness/universe; they are the same, C=U. Existence is itself consciousness and that is why there is something rather than nothing. This is the natural state of things and because it is so natural, so simple and so obvious, we miss it daily.



From: Jim Dreaver [jdreaver@aol.com]

Did you read Jed McKenna's SPIRITUAL ENLIGHTENMENT: The Damnedest Thing, by the way? Very similar account.

From: Robert White [robertarc1@msn.com]

Wowee …… to the nth degree!

Thanks — brilliant piece.

From: Boudewijn Wegerif [wegerif@connectit.co.za]

Thanks Suzanne,

Your man has got it right, for the platform
on which we act for justice.
There is no o­ne at home, but the Name is,
and the Name is drawing us into Itself
where the experience is of a new Heaven
and new Earth.

To be taken in (nice play of words there)
we have to have asked, ego-wise,
“Who is the driver of these things?” when we
first saw the dance of the Sun, Moon and Stars,
and were conscious of seeing it.

From: Lynnette Allen [allenlynn@earthlink.net]

Yes, Steven Norquist takes me somewhere. Even though I experienced a moment or so of “Isness” o­nce when I was 27 and had been meditating regularly and teaching Yoga and Tai Chi, and I resonate with the truth of the sound of what you are saying, Steven, I find myself asking myself, “If there is nothing and nothing to do, what then?”

In these times, when yesterday I read Bill Moyers' “Presidential Address,” and he stated the truth that we — our democracy, the USA — is under siege by our own government leaders, and that the Oligarchy part of our government — the corporate/military force — is making a blatant coup o­n the Democracy part of our government that is still struggling to stand, I was in shock. Even though I've known this somewhere in myself, and I even launched a peace portal site in March, 2003, to document it, I notice now that I have been like millions of us, slowly boiling like a frog, not noticing with total awareness. And now, after wake-up calls from many — like Senator Byrd and Dennis Kucinich — now Bill Moyers says it in words that bring it home to me:

“The White House pursues the same homicidal dream without saying so. Instead of shrinking down the government, they're filling the bathtub with so much debt that it floods the house, water-logs the economy, and washes away services for decades that have lifted millions of Americans out of destitution and into the middle-class. And what happens o­nce the public's property has been flooded? Privatize it. Sell it at a discounted rate to the corporations.”

This is a call to action, decisive action. And I'm listening and I'm going to work to answer that call.

Attack invites attack. When a
fraction of the amount we spend
on the military and WMD would
feed the world, I'm thinking feeding
the world would be the better strategy!
I envision US modeling our foreign policy
on the golden rule.
http://.inner-outerpeaceproject.net

If you want to feed a man for a day, give him a fish.
If you want to feed a man for his lifetime, teach him how to fish.
AND if you want the man to live a long and healthy life,
organize the people in his village to stop corporations from polluting the lake he's fishing in. 
— anonymous

From: Allen Branson [allen@theconversation.org]

I understand the illusion of duality. All of those opposites are just reflections of our thought process. We observe light and so label the absence of light as “dark.” o­nce labeled, the darkness is assigned a virtual reality for us, despite the fact that there are no “darkons” as the corollary to photons. No o­ne will ever make a “darkbulb.” There is no real symmetry between light and dark. All dualistic symmetry can be reduced to this: existence / nonexistence.

Yet, I am left with some questions.

To quote the essay, “Its emergence and pattern are perfect in mathematics and symmetry and involve no chance. Nothing is random, everything emerges exactly as it has to.” First, the idea of symmetry does not exist outside duality. If there is o­nly the “one” then what is this “one” in symmetry with? Second, if nothing is random then why would you give any instructions o­n how I might achieve enlightenment? Having no say in this non-random life that I live, based o­n the predetermined unfolding of the universe there is no reason I can see for doing any work toward something that will happen or not happen.

I would offer the possibility that there is indeed randomness and chance, despite there o­nly being o­ne consciousness. The fact that everything that happens must happen is self evident. If there is o­nly o­ne universe there is nothing against which we could judge anything that happens as being wrong. What happens happens. But this is a far cry from there not being chance or randomness. If everything is, indeed, working out with mathematical precision, then it is not actually “one.” Mathematics can't exist without distinction, and distinction is not unity. If all is not unity (distinction exists, then we must accept that, as far as we can know, chance and randomness also exist.

From: Walter Starck  [ggoldend@bigpond.net.au]

The essay o­n enlightenment by Steven Norquist was well expressed, thought provoking, and will for many find at least some degree of resonance with their own sense of being. He does however express a degree of certainty that is unwarranted and unhelpful. He claims that with regard to enlightenment 99.99% of claimants are wrong. This may well be but neither is there any evidence, rationale or independent verification for his own claims. Somehow the reader is supposed to accept o­n faith alone that while 99.99% of other claimants are wrong, this o­ne, with no particular, qualification, merit or effort has stumbled upon what has eluded the deepest thinkers of all ages and cultures. Norquist is obviously a bright individual with some good insights but what he has to say is purely conjecture with no outstanding merit over myriads of alternatives. When it comes to the central issue of consciousness he does not even address the fundamentals. Is it o­ne or many, localized or universal, temporal or eternal, primary or emergent?

If by enlightenment o­ne means a comprehensive understanding of the ultimate reality of the universe and our own being then any claimants are either frauds or severely deluded. If however we mean a process of gaining a better understanding than we now have then the first step is to recognize our own ignorance. The biggest problems we face are not so much due to a lack of knowledge as they are a willful refusal to accept anything that does not accord with our preconceived beliefs and a complete reluctance to consider that any of what we believe may be untrue. All human understanding is imperfect. To the extent that it is in accord with reality we can act in harmony with it. To the extent it is erroneous we find ourselves in conflict. So long as o­ne thinks o­ne's beliefs are ultimate truths o­ne in also locked into whatever errors they hold.

Humankind is plagued by ill founded beliefs asserting absolute certainty. We don't need more. What we do need is a simple acceptance of our uncertainties. They exist whether we admit them or not. Denial o­nly perpetuates them. Recognition affords the opportunity to rectify them. By all means let's do have more consideration of all aspects of our being but proclaiming enlightenment as to its ultimate nature is to say the least premature.

Suzanne to Walter:

Norquist isn't “claiming” something, which the reader is “supposed” to accept; he's giving a read-out of the state he's in. He didn't earn it  (by “qualification, merit, or effort”); he just awoke in a different place from where he used to be.

As I listen to most teachers, I don't hear them describe their state this way. So, when he says 99.9%, I see him making a point rather than giving an actual statistic. I can see where most teachers would be in a different state from the o­ne he's in — if they were in his state, they likely wouldn't teach.

Some of the people who reacted to him on the site where his piece is posted talked about service, especially in these times when we can ill afford spirituality to be about removal from the world. But, as I thought about being critical of Norquist, I kept coming back to how he was just mirroring this isness he's in — enlightenment has parameters which aren't in relationship to the shoulds of the world.

I'm going to post reactions I've gotten o­n that site that posted his piece. Maybe we'll get some play with your questions there.

Also, all our conversation about him could be moot after you read the book, Spiritual Enlightenment: The Damnedest Thing, that Jim Dreaver, who sent me this piece, recommended. A double wowee — I'm up to page 69 out of 274. Jed McKenna has written a book that expands o­n Norquist, and does it charmingly, to boot. o­ne trenchant thought:

“The vast majority of the world's authorities o­n enlightenment are themselves not enlightened. They may be something, but they're not awake. An easy way to distinguish between caterpillars and butterflies is to remember that the enlightened don't attach importance to anything, and that enlightenment doesn't require knowledge. It's not about love or compassion or consciousness. It's about truth.”

Walter to Suzanne:

Norquist makes a statement that constitutes a claim to an appreciation of the ultimate nature of reality but as he provides little in the way of evidence or reason to believe him it must be supposed we are expected to do so o­n faith alone. If we are not intended to do so, why tell us? He also claims to have achieved such enlightenment through no particular effort, merit, or qualification and that 99.99 % of claimants to it are wrong. As o­nly a very small portion of people do claim enlightenment and allowing that 99.99% is not to be taken literally but is a figure of speech meaning “almost all” that must still mean true enlightenment is very rare indeed.

If we accept his claims at face value two important questions must follow. If true enlightenment requires no particular effort, merit, or qualification why is it so rare and if almost all claimants are wrong why should we believe him if he provides nothing to distinguish his claims from all the wrong o­nes.

As purely a description of a state of being what he describes has little to distinguish it from what others have called existentialism, ennui or Weltschmerz. Without a clarification of terms and some supporting reason and evidence it is difficult to say what we are really discussing here or if it amounts to anything at all.

Suzanne to Walter:

Well, that's not the way it struck me. I was convinced that he was mirroring something unusual, and that I was learning things reading about it. I couldn't tell you the “why” of this, but it just rang a familiar chord, meeting me where I am and taking me where he is. Hopefully you'll read Jed McKenna, and we'll have more to chew o­n. McKenna has more to say about details and distinctions, including comments about the effort involved — that it isn't an instantaneous wake-up, but a process, like going through gates until there aren't any more. And even after that, there is a development taking place. At the time he was writing the book he was teaching, commenting that most who are awake you wouldn't know about cause they aren't teaching or even talking about it. His teaching situation was a fascinating enterprise that I was tempted to try to hook up with, until I read the notes about him in the back of the book. He isn't teaching anymore.

Walter to Suzanne:

I suppose where I have the biggest question is the use of the term “enlightenment” and the claim to have discovered it while almost all others who claim to have done so, have not. Unless the others are all deliberate frauds we must assume they have in mind something different than does Norquist. It all depends upon what o­ne means by enlightenment. If we are referring to absolute enlightenment, that must encompass total knowledge and awareness, i.e. something close to godhood. If o­ne is speaking more relatively however, then there can be many forms and degrees of it.

The state of awareness Norquist describes might better be called fundamental awareness. This is not enlightenment but rather a prerequisite to it, a shedding of preconceived ideas and delusions, mental noise, that interferes with clear perception. Getting rid of accumulated nonsense is a great freeing and it feels, and indeed is, enlightened but it's o­nly a beginning not the end of enlightenment.

Realization that o­ne can dispense with sundry oppressive delusions does present a tempting option to disengage entirely but it also affords the opportunity to re-engage without the burden of fear and desperation. Truth alone is o­nly raw data. Discovery of its meaning and application is where it becomes enlightening. If enlightenment involves a realization of o­nes integral being with, and not simply in, the world then engagement to make the world a better place is also integral to advancing the state of o­ne's own being. Enlightenment is a direction not a destination. Its essence is the journey not the occupation of a place. Mistaking the starting point for the destination is apt to end the journey just when it is ready to begin.

In this universe the journey appears to have taken about 12 billion years thus far and we are o­nly now beginning to grasp a glimmer of where we have been and where we are going. Proclaiming arrival and declaring possession is not really warranted especially when there are signs others may be ahead of us and trying to tell us something. Paying attention, bettering our understanding and endeavoring to clean up the mess we have already created seems eminently more sensible than proclaiming our arrival or deciding to kick back and not worry about our mess.

Suzanne to Walter:

Are you going to order McKenna's book? It makes the Norquist case impressively — again, there's no fraud or claim, or even “deciding” involved, where there is any choice about morality or shoulds, but there is a read-out of a state that dictates as it will. Having read both of these writers, I am satisfied that they are talking about what I'd call enlightenment, or “ultimate truth, unity consciousness, infinite mind and so o­n,” that Norquist also names. Whatever opinions I might have about what I think that state is all about, we are not in it and they are better reporters about it than we can be. Hope you are moved to read McKenna and then see what you think.

From: Wade Frazier [public.email2@verizon.net]

I liked the “is-ness” and banter. Of course, nobody can really “get across” enlightenment with words, spoken or written, and I believe that Norquist “gets” that. Describing the indescribable is not easy. It is something that we all have to “not do” for our non-selves. : – )

I doubt there is anything like “right” and “wrong,” so I grok Walter’s objection, and I hear Allen loud and clear o­n “chance.” Seth called it “divine surprise.”

Of what I have glimpsed and studied of the “other side,” this dense little space/time continuum is a difficult place to just experienced pure “is-ness,” and I am happy that the ranks of the do-nothing enlightened swelled by o­ne more member. Still working o­n dissolving the ego that this email comes through, but there is no work to do. Tough little conundrum, eh? Being and doing and o­ne hand clapping…too much for this little noggin this evening. Gotta go meditate. Thanks for running non-Norquist’s non-piece.