No enlightenment for the seeker

No enlightenmentThe one who is trying to find out who he is, is a mere puppet. To him, he is a person; empowered by volition and in control of his destiny. In truth, he is an appearance in consciousness – and phenomena can have no freedom. He thinks he is living his life – not knowing that every choice and every act, he himself and all else, is governed by the hands of the totality.

In other words, he is ignorant to the fact that as such, he is being lived.

He believes that he can be enlightened. But he can’t – for he is nothing but a cluster of sensations. Visual, tactile and auditory phenomena are construed into a “body” by an act of conceptualizing, which is the functioning whereby objects are fabricated in the mind. Where there is nothing but fleeting sensations, “he” is conjured up by thought.

Colors, sensations and thoughts, which is all that he is, cannot be enlightened – only a person could, and there is none.

Note: Do we decide to decide? Simply by pondering this question can we rid ourselves of the notion of “free will”.
Further reading:

8 Responses to No enlightenment for the seeker

  1. says:

    Great text! really, love the way you said that, quite poetic!

  2. Viv says:

    So if everything is fabricated in the mind, what and where is the mind? That statement doesn’t make sense. You seem to be saying that a mind exists which ‘makes’ everything else. Do you mean that there is only sensation? Saying that there is a mind which produces sensation seems to be an assumption.

    • Kristoffer says:

      Good point. Valid question. Common concern. He is not saying that a mind exists. He uses the concept loosely to paint a picture of the situation that ‘the mind’ can grasp. As he must. As I must. As you must. As all teachings talking about the fabrication of objectivity must. Contradiction is inherent in speaking of it. Sometimes that shows that the guru doesnt know what he is talking about. Sometimes it doesnt. It’s a part of the process to learn to see the difference. Be cautious, but also learn to see in what sense, spirit, or context a concept is used to understand if something is truly off, or if the contradiction is beside the point that is being made.

    • Göran Backlund says:

      Actually, in this case ‘in the mind’ was meant to be interpreted as ‘in thought.’ That is, objects are fabricatied in thought.

  3. Viv says:

    Thanks for the responses. Isn’t thought a sensation itself? How can a thought fabricate anything? Or do you mean that a thought/thoughts appear to subjectivise what is?

    It seems that objects are fabricated out of consciousness and this includes thoughts, which themselves are fabricated objects of consciousness. I don’t see how thoughts can fabricate anything. But I may be misunderstanding the meaning of your post, Goran.

  4. mks says:

    As per Nisargadatta, mind itself arisen from within consciousness however it does not known the same. So it can be termed as unconscious mind. Consciousness is covered number of layers of such unconscious mind. Bad Karma make them stronger and good Karma make it weaker. What Goran is saying is the same..

  5. TruthLover says:

    I don’t get it why if a person is there there can’t be enlightenment because there wouldn’t be a who that would get enlightened.

    Enlightened state simply means the shift of sensations from contracted to open state. Just because there is no one doesn’t mean such a shift can’t happen.

    “Colors, sensations and thoughts, which is all that he is, cannot be enlightened – only a person could, and there is none.”

    Sensation can switch from contracted to sensations of relief. And the simple reconfiguration of the Now into an open state is what is meant by Enlightenment. What is wrong in my line of thinking? Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *