Enlightened you seeing versus Being seeing

from: From YSBS to ESBS, 2008, July 31

Relative and ultimate ways of viewing reality

Sky Szimmer: Had an interesting chat this afternoon with Quilty, Avastu and genesis about relative v. ultimate reality. Avastu doesn't seem to indulge the notion of relative reality that has responsibilities and consequences. Ultimately who has responsibilities as there is no doer. All happens.
Sky Szimmer: So, taking care of my child just happens. I am not responsible. Hard to fly with that. I see his point… ultimately.
Pema Pera: Well, "I am not responsible" is a mix when there is an "I". That I should be responsible, don't you think? The "I" is in the relative picture and there responsibility is really important. It can be quite dangerous to mix elements from the two pictures
Sky Szimmer: Quite so. Avastu doesn't respond too clearly on that one. I understand his point but can be easily misconstrued.
Pema Pera: If we really stay in the relative part, we can try to live our life as well as we can there. And if we squarely jump to the absolute part, that's fine too. But the problem is that all of us have the tendency -- me included -- to do it half-way and it is very important to notice that
Gaya Ethaniel: The decision depends on personal circumstances isn't it?
Pema Pera: It is not so much a decision, perhaps as so much lingering habits. For a moment we get a glimpse of the absolute, the next moment we're back in the relative. But still we try to hold on to the picture of the absolute
Sky Szimmer: exactly Pema. Lingering habits, so when we are in the "I" picture, we should act responsibly and when we are in the Being picture, all is OK. Trying to translate it into relative terms.
Pema Pera: But trying to embed the absolute in terms of the content of memory in the relative is the dangerous part. There is where arrogance and pride and confusion can easily come about.
Gaya Ethaniel: So be aware of where we are and be responsive to each situation?
Pema Pera: Yes, Gaya. And in case of doubt, leave it out (the absolute perspective)
Sky Szimmer: Yes it is easy to get sucked into the arrogance, pride and confusion because we have a memory and an insight.
Gaya Ethaniel: So an example for the dangerous situation could be clinging onto the experience of Being?
Pema Pera: Sure, yes
Pema Pera: Being sees a glimpse of Being, and then a moment later, the "I" says "hey, that's great, I just saw Being" -- and that's putting things on its head. But saying "wow, Being saw Being, how neat, I'd like to learn to step aside better and more often" -- that's perfect
Gaya Ethaniel: So these days, RL person talks to Gaya about it, feels better for it. It helps me to realise it's not a 'person' being aware of Being... does it make sense?
Pema Pera: Yes, that's crucial, central. A person can never be aware of Being
Gaya Ethaniel: But it's awkward when talking in PaB though
Pema Pera: Sure. And we have to bend words and language to talk. I often talk losely, hoping the context is clear. Avastu is more systematic. Each has its advantage. More systematic is more precise, for sure. More loose may sometimes help to get the flavor more.
Pema Pera: I like both :) It would be nice to be able to type in two colors. So we know for each sentence which was is in the relative, and which is the absolute realm.
Points of views at PaB
Gaya Ethaniel: different people at PaB offer unique point of views that i can absorb as i see it fit
Sky Szimmer: So, I like to ask about perspective or point of view
Pema Pera: Yes, Sky?
Gaya Ethaniel: Sure
Pema Pera: And yes, Gaya!
Gaya Ethaniel smiles
Sky Szimmer: It seems that in doing the exercise, there is a wider opening in the perspective. So it is not so much "seeing" through the eyes right?
Pema Pera: You mean the BS part of YSBS, Sky?
Sky Szimmer: Yes.
Pema Pera: indeed, not through the eyes
Gaya Ethaniel: no... not through eyes
Pema Pera: You let Being see. Being sees in/as everything. Being has no need for eyes. No need for you even. Certainly no need for your eyes :-)
Sky Szimmer: But still, I sense that the perspective is still somewhat linked to my body. It is not like I am floating above and looking down as I do now.
Pema Pera: No, it isn't. The light of the projector is not linked to any particular person appearing in the movie
Pema Pera: Can you say more, Sky?
Gaya Ethaniel: Maybe Pema, Sky is talking about my previous experience we talked about, like something looking down above my body.
Sky Szimmer: I sense what you just described. Pema, but yet I can't see in back of my head, i can't see above myself. My point of view is still through "mouseview"
Pema Pera: That is YS in YSBS. The BS part has no perspective, no vantage point. It is everywhere, like mist floating in a valley. Like the love of a mother being everywhere in the room of the child.
Sky Szimmer: ah. I sense what you are saying. I am not there yet. The awareness is not there yet
Pema Pera: You will never be there ;) But you can step aside and let Being be there. Being is already there
Sky Szimmer: I haven't been able to let go completely
Pema Pera: Yes, Sky, and it is interesting to look more closely at that

Difficulties in stepping aside

Sky Szimmer: Maybe it is too much observation
Pema Pera: What does it mean that you haven't been able to step aside? Can you describe that carefully?
Sky Szimmer: I have a perspective, a consciousness. So when I look out into the world, I see it through the consciousness. I am aware of all that is including myself. But then, even if I am not fully aware of my body, I am still somewhat looking through it, not consciously.
Gaya Ethaniel: sounds like you're doing 'BS' except maybe too caught up with 'seeing' part literally
Sky Szimmer: Let me rephrase. When I look out, I am conscious of everything including my body. I view from the body though there is an awareness there is no body. This is so mumble jumble
Gaya Ethaniel: No Sky I understand you here
Pema Pera: Yes, that is the normal way of looking, the way you usually view the world, the YS part, right?
Sky Szimmer: No. I think it is different. In YS, it is not as expansive
Gaya Ethaniel: To me you sound as though half way there. Later you would not 'see' yourself in that experience
Pema Pera: ah, but you said "I view." Isn't that YS?
Sky Szimmer: No consciousness view. Awareness of all that is going on. There are no borders between the body within and without.

ESBS

Pema Pera: Perhaps it is time to sharpen YSBS here, as we discussed when we met in RL, Sky. Let me summarize for Gaya.
Pema Pera: Originally, when first talking about YSBS, almost two weeks ago, I considered YS the normal, every-day way of looking at the world, without trying to practice or look in any special way and BS the way to let Being see. But then an alternative form offered itself later and I mentioned that to Sky when we met. Namely to do the YS in a kind of idealized way.
Pema Pera: Let me explain: You can imagine how it would be to do the YS part if you were fully enlightened. Imagine that you had practiced for many lifetimes. And you had reached the best possible way of seeing, living, being as a person, but still as a person, with a you who would be a super-realized you. How would it be to see as that you, in YS? And then you can contrast that with BS, letting Being see.
Gaya Ethaniel: If fully enlightened, surely there is no distinction between YS & BS?
Pema Pera: Most likely, initially, there is no difference. But after some practice, you might see some difference
Sky Szimmer: I agree with Gaya. Wouldn't that be the same, an enlightened one and Being
Gaya Ethaniel: Pema - are you saying that the fully enlightened person would have different 'characters' to deal with different relative realities and ultimate reality as they arise
Pema Pera: No, let me be careful and slow in trying to describe this new YSBS. Hmmm, let us give it a different name.
Sky Szimmer: ESBS
Pema Pera: Yes. Was just thinking about that too :) Enlightened you seeing vs Being seeing
Pema Pera: So what do I mean with ES?
Gaya Ethaniel: Pls tell me what an 'enlightened you' means here
Pema Pera: We are speaking now on the relative level, right? Let us establish that first
Gaya Ethaniel: In terms of YS?
Sky Szimmer: ES
Pema Pera: Even when we talk about "absolute level" here we are talking within the relative level about the absolute level.
Pema Pera: Slowly! please :)
Gaya Ethaniel: Or ES sure but just waiting for definition of E.
Pema Pera: Before any YS ES or BS, let us first establish the paradox of talking about relative vs absolute all within the relative. Any words we are using here are firmly embedded in the relative. So when I say "absolute" I use a relative word "absolute" within a relative sentence in relative points of view that we all share here, hoping that it somehow can point to something else, labeled absolute, right?
Pema Pera: sorry to go so slow, but this is crucial

Relative vs. absolute distinction

Pema Pera: so when we now talk about enlightenment, we are trying to picture what that could be. We may have a naive picture as a kind of hero or super-human or we can have a very sophisticated picture of someone having stepped aside, as I like to say. But whatever picture we have, as long as it is a picture, it is in effect still a YS version, no matter how refined
Gaya Ethaniel: But that someone is unable to step aside all the time or always stepped aside Pema?
Pema Pera: well, Gaya, that's an interesting question, but if you don't mind, let's keep that question on hold for just a few minutes
Gaya Ethaniel: Sure. So I guess looking at your statement [2:01] Pema Pera: but whatever picture we have, as long as it is a picture, it is in effect still a YS version - my question is not really relevant
Pema Pera: I'd like to make the point that no matter how clever or experienced or intuitively cool we are -- anything we can think about or imagine about a fully enlightened person is still a version of YS
Sky Szimmer: ah. When I picture an enlightened person, i am still seeing a person there, but maybe in ES, there is no person there?
Pema Pera: This is very subtle. In ES, there is a person thinking there is no person. A very good try, important to try to do and also very important then to notice how that fails.
Sky Szimmer: ah. In Being, there is no person thinking there is no person, right?
Gaya Ethaniel: mm hmm
Pema Pera: exactly, Sky
Pema Pera: Six hours ago Adelene talked about the importance of failure. So if we contrast ES and BS, we may get a sense of the subtle difference between the two. Aubtle but HUGE
Sky Szimmer: this is subtle alright and it is HUGE!
Gaya Ethaniel is all ears
Sky Szimmer: me too
Pema Pera: :)

Closing on the new ESBS exploration

Pema Pera: So in ES there is a "be all you can be" and there are many many levels. You can do this for the rest of your life and discover new levels all the time. More and more subtle ways of noticing how there is some egg shell of the self left sticking to what you thought was BS. Being Seeing
Gaya Ethaniel: So Pema in regards to E, really there isn't a being that is enlightened we could say?
Pema Pera: That is correct Gaya. The whole notion of enlightenment is totally false. Absolutely speaking and yet can be very inspiring, relatively speaking
Gaya Ethaniel: Wow... finally i think i understand what you meant Pema when you said the other day " 'fully enlightened' "
Pema Pera: Paradox of paradoxes. Everything is fully enlightened as it is, already . . . "Reaching" enlightenment is totally impossible.

Another angle on enlightenment

Vertigo Ethaniel: It depends on what you define as enlightened. I consider the journey to enlightenment what counts. Life is a thing to be cherished and enjoyed, and enlightenment shouldnt be viewed as an unobtainable goal, even if it is… but the journey towards it can provide its own enlightening moments. And what you make of that, is what makes your life unique.
Pema Pera: That is the perfect way to view it, within our world, in which we find ourselves,
which earlier, before you came, we called a relative perspective. If we find a self and other, in relation to each other, relative then that is the best way to proceed. And if everyone would do that, this world would be so much more beautiful . . .  even if a few people would do that, it would make a huge difference.
Vertigo Ethaniel: Each person is living their life according to their own path. That they are choosing one way and not another is only indicative of the teachings they have acquired.
Pema Pera: And of their own intuition, yes. A combination, I think. Nature and nurture, both :)
Gaya Ethaniel: teachings can come from intuition also
Vertigo Ethaniel: I think most people would consider the path to inner peace a myth and a fairytale, which saddens me
Pema Pera: yes, that is very sad
Pema Pera: Given the choice of laughing about a path or journey, and trying to take it seriously, by all means take it. But there may come a point where you begin to wonder where it will ultimately lead
Vertigo Ethaniel: Perhaps. But that’s the fun of the journey isn’t it?
Pema Pera: Sure but sometimes things are not that much fun, though. Then what? Hope that walking on, things will get better?
Gaya Ethaniel: No, no expectation. Leave what i lived behind and live in present fully and no wondering about what has not yet passed

Life

Vertigo Ethaniel: Things can take a different turn, but perhaps it’s merely a new direction to take your life and I don’t think that inherently bad. However, it can be different to what you expected! And thats a different thing I guess :)
Vertigo Ethaniel: For instance, having your heart set on a path in life, only to realise it may never happen. I’ve been in that situation many times already but it’s just led me to my current life. And I don’t think I would change things
Vertigo Ethaniel: well, it’s not necessarily failure... things can happen of which you have no control. And things can happen of which you had total control. In either case, its the path your life took, and so must be cherished.