A Reflective Self-Inquiry Into My Teaching Practices With: Fill & Download for Free

Hello, dear ones. Based on the high volume of questions & answers about spiritual enlightenment we’ve shared on Quora, and perhaps what people have heard or read in various spiritual teachings, it occurred to me to pose this question to all who participate in this topic, to sort of lob an “inquiry grenade” into the space, inviting all to participate in this inquiry, for the benefit of all.This is a wide open, valuable question. My answer and perspective (below) is only my leading inquiry. There are no right or wrong answers, and I’m delightfully curious to see all your insights on this question:What’s all this concern about “attaining enlightenment” while you are “human?” Why are we asking about it, looking into it? Why should we care? Here’s one perspective:THERE “seems” (to us “humans”) to be two possible modes of existence:identified with an “individual me,” (mind-ego, includes body)Abiding in Being - with the illusory “separate me” identity having relented or receded deep into the background, revealing the foundational Pure Being Consciousness, the Absolute Peace, Silence and Emptiness (non-manifestation) underlying everything.The (illusory) shift from the former mode of existence & perspective to the latter has been called “enlightenment.”Enlightenment has continually been mistakenly misunderstood as something the illusory “me” could “attain,” or at least have some say in and make progress towards, through its own efforts and volition, or through the Grace of God or a Guru.The exquisite enigma is that this is both unnecessary and impossible. The “me” is, by its very nature, an illusion, a mere shadow cast by Consciousness. A shadow can never shift into becoming that which is casting it, and something that is illusory and unreal has no need for “enlightenment.”And Consciousness only experience is It’s own already-enlightened, everything-exactly-as-it-is perfection. So there’s nothing in its Nature to inspire any motion towards shifting Itelf or any part of It.So the truth is:The “seemingly-separate individual” in the 1st mode of existence can do nothing to “transform” itself into abiding in Being, and Consciousness can never make any motion towards the illusory “separate individual” to help it “attain” enlightenment because it doesn’t see any separate unenlightened beings, only it’s complete and perfect Self.In this way, it renders all our questions & answers about enlightenment, as well as all other enlightenment pursuits - trying to attain it through meditation, inquiry or other spiritual practices, searching for a guru who can “lead us to it,” discussing it, yearning for it, or feeling we are on “the path” towards it - a moot point.And yet so many illusory “humans,” who can do nothing about enlightenment and already are the Pure Being Consciousness they seek, feel compelled to study and learn about awakening & enlightenment, ask questions about it, meditate, do self-inquiry, and seek guidance from supposedly-enlightened teachers & mentors.Is that simply an outgrowth of feeling very identified with the body-mind and yearning for a way out of its inherent suffering? Or is it the Play of Consciousness, a sort of lose-Itself-find-Itself duality game that it plays to complete its “intended mission,” which may be to reflect the nature of existence back to the Absolute, which otherwise could not “experience” that?Your responses and insights are welcome!

Yes, but the relationship between physical features and personality traits is only approximate and most people aren’t very good at recognizing it.Below are four photographs, each a composite of several faces from a study of the relationship between personality traits and facial characteristics. Two of these photos were made from the top 10% most extroverted participants, while the other two were made from the most introverted. Can you tell which are which? We'll come back to these pictures later.A Brief History of PhysiognomyThe notion that one's personality can be determined through analysis of facial features is a practice that dates back to the First Babylonian Dynasty, though the first written records detailing such analysis are credited to Aristotle. Called Physiognomy, the Greeks derived personality traits from features by comparing those features to animals. For example, a person with a hooked nose was said to resemble a hawk, and was therefore ferocious. Even during Greek times, this kind of analysis was disputed and not taken that seriously.Physiognomy had a resurgence in the Middle Ages, during which time it was considered a high art taught in universities across England until it was banned by Henry VIII in 1531. It once again rose to prominence in the 18th century following the publication of Essays on Physiognomy by Johann Lavater. In his four-volume work, the Swiss pastor exhaustively described the associations between facial features and personality traits, characterizing them as either positive or negative. "Perfect" features suggested perfection in relevant character traits while "flawed" features suggested character flaws. In the early 19th century, Alexander Walker, a Scottish scientist in anatomy and physiology, expanded on Lavator's work by explaining why certain physical and personality traits were linked. Lips, for example, being sensitive and near the tongue, were an indicator of desire, with thin lips suggesting little desire and full lips suggesting great desire.[1] Towards the mid-18th century, an understanding of Physiognomy became popular among intellectuals, many of whom employed Physiognomonic "truths" when writing fiction. For example, in Jane Eyre, Charlotte Bronte described Jane as follows:"I sometimes wished to have rosy cheeks, a straight nose and small cherry mouth; I desired to be tall, stately, and finely developed in figure; I felt it a misfortune that I was so little, so pale, and had features so irregular and so marked."Likewise, here is how she described Mr. Mason:"He repelled me exceedingly: there was no power in that smooth-skinned face of a full oval shape: no firmness in that aquiline nose and small cherry mouth; there was no thought on the low, even forehead; no command in that blank, brown eye."These physical descriptions carried significance as personality indicators, and thus conveyed character to contemporaries in a way most modern readers cannot recognize.In 1883, Francis Galton, economist, scientist, and cousin of Charles Darwin, sought to explore the validity of Physiognomy through photography. By creating composites of various photographs, he hoped to identify the physical features which distinguished various personality characteristics. His most famous experiment involved composites of criminals. While Galton was unable to discern a physical indicator inherent to crime, this experiment is famous for discovering that composite faces tend to be more physically attractive than those that make them up, eventually leading us to realize that "averageness" is a physically attractive trait in humans.Francis Galton's criminal composites.[2]In 1924, researchers Cleeton and Knight conducted research into the validity of Physiognomic claims. "The physical factors purporting to measure the same trait do not present even a suspicion of agreement." "The correlation between ratings of casual observers and physical measurements is best represented by 0.000."[3] Facial features that were supposed to indicate a personality trait could not be related to each other or to those traits. Physiognomy had been debunked.The modern understanding of how physical features relate to personalityIf Physiognomy is false, why did I open my answer with a "yes?" In debunking the claims made by Physiognomy, Cleeton and Knight happened upon another discovery. Though the physical traits claimed to be associated with various features showed no correlation with the judgments of observers, the observers' judgments correlated strongly with each other. Whether or not the judgments of observers were accurate was unclear, but there appeared to be consensus between observers that something about a person's physical features suggested personality characteristics.Modern research has explored the topic further, and our capacity to discern personality through physical features appears to have some merit. When subjects rated the faces of CEOs for competence, their ratings were correlated with the successful management of companies and higher profits.[4] When observers were asked to assess the personalities of subjects in video clips, their assessments agreed with the self-assessments made by the individuals in those clips.[5] People are able to read something, but are they truly reading facial features, or are they picking up on clothing, body language, or other confounding factors?At the start of this answer, I showed you four composite photos related to extroversion. If you guessed that the left man and the right woman were the extroverts, you were right. These composites come from a study conducted by Dr. Penton-Voak and his team that tested agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness, in addition to extroversion. All featured cues that observers could identify.[6]One thing you might notice about these photos is that people with "desirable" qualities tend to be more physically attractive. Perhaps people aren't reading desirable qualities in these faces, but rather recognizing beauty, and projecting desirable qualities onto it? Indeed, in the study, men who self-reported as high in agreeableness, extroversion, conscientiousness, and emotional stability were rated as significantly more physically attractive than men at the opposite ends of those spectra, with similar results for women who self-reported as high in extroversion, agreeableness, and openness. To address the beauty question, further research found that even when comparably attractive faces were paired, observers were still able to identify specific qualities like extroversion and agreeableness.[7] Rather than projecting positive qualities onto beauty, it appears that either people with positive qualities tend to be more attractive, or attractive people tend to have more positive qualities.Have a look at this next set of photos. Care to wager a guess as to what personality trait differentiates these composites?These photos are taken from a study analyzing the association between facial features and sociosexuality. The left composites were formed from people who are only interested in sex in the context of a long-term monogamous relationship. The right composites are made from people interested in "no strings attached" sex.[8] Subjects were generally able to identify the sexual preferences both of the composites and in normal photographs, with women performing exceptionally well at identifying the sexual interests of other women.In these studies, the average accuracy for identifying personality characteristics from faces was 60%, which is certainly better than chance, but hardly extraordinary. Some subjects were exceptionally skilled, performing with better than 90% accuracy. Individuals possessing particular traits were better at identifying those traits in others, for example, extroverts could recognize other extroverts with ease. Warm-hearted and generous people were exceptionally bad at judging faces, whereas those who rated themselves as cold-hearted were the strongest performers.Why is there an association?Determining why there is an apparent discernible association between facial features and personality involves the difficult and complicated question about how our personalities develop in the first place. Twin studies suggest that genetics account for about 50% of our personality, with experiences playing an equal developing role.[9] It is likely, though difficult to prove, that interpretations of a child's facial features influence how people treat that child, thus training that child to adopt complementary personality habits. For example, masculine-looking babies tend to be considered less attractive and are assumed to require less care.[10] If we imagine a baby boy who's genes pre-dispose him to high levels of testosterone, he will look less cute and old for his age, and his mom, dad, and friends are less likely to cuddle him, more likely to pick on him, and generally treat him as if he were more mature, encouraging the archetypal masculine traits of independence and self-reliance. In short, our appearance provokes prejudices in others, which shapes how they treat us, which in turn shapes our personalities. It's also possible that the prejudices are, to some degree, justified. In the case of masculinity, for example, large amounts of testosterone are associated with domineering and assertive behavior, and also produce masculine-looking facial ridges in adolescence.[11] How much of this correlation is a result of a genetic relationship between personality and appearance, and how much is a result of social influences, may be impossible to tell.Another factor contributing to why our faces reflect our personalities is repetition of predominant expressions. Older people with a history of aggression tend to look angry even when displaying a neutral expression.[12] There is also evidence that spouses come to resemble each other over time, perhaps due to mirroring each other's expressions, or going through similar life experiences.[13] To some degree, we earn the faces we have, especially when we're older.In summary, past claims about what physical features suggest about our personalities are largely false, however humans appear to have an intuition that can predict personalities based on physical features better than chance, with some humans showing extraordinary skill. Such intuition may be a self-fulfilling prophecy, in which we systematically treat children in specific ways in response to our assumptions, teaching them to behave consistently with our expectations. Our expectations may also be in response to hormonal developments that are associated with particular facial features. We may also be identifying facial features that develop due to repeated use of expressions throughout our lives.[1] Walker, A. (1834) Physiognomy Founded on Physiology, and Applied to Various Countries, Professions, and Individuals: with an Appendix on the Bones of Hythe, and Sculls of the Ancient Inhabitants of Britain and its Invaders. Lond: Smith, Elder, & Co.[2] Galton, F. (1883) Inquiries into Human Faculty and its Development. London: Macmillan.[3] Cleeton, G.U. & Knight, F.B. (1924) The validity of character judgments based on external criteria.Journal of Applied Psychology 8: 215-231[4] Rule, N.O. & Ambady, N. (2008) The face of success: inferences from Chief Executive Officers’ appearance predict company profits. Psychological Science 19: 109–111.[5] Zebrowitz, L.A. (1997) Reading Faces: Window to the Soul? Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.[6] Penton-Voak, I.S., Pound, N., Little, A.C. & Perrett, D.I. (2006) Personality judgments from natural and composite face images: more evidence for a ‘kernel of truth’. Social Cognition 24: 490–524.[7] Ibid[8] Boothroyd, L.G., Jones, B.C., Burt, D.M., DeBruine, L.M. & Perrett, D.I. (2008) Facial correlates of sociosexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior 29: 211–218.[9] Jang. K.L., W.J. & Vemon, P.A. (2006) Heritability of the Big Five personality dimensions and their faces: a twin study. Journal of Personality 64: 577-592.[10] Wiffen, B. (2007) What Makes Babies Cute? Testing Preferences for Masculinity and Femininity in Baby Faces. British Psychology Society Scottish Branch Undergraduate Conference, 14/3/07. University of Edinburgh.McCabe, V. (1988) Facial proportions, perceived age and care-giving. In: Alley, T.R. (ed.) Social and Applied Aspects of Perceiving Faces, pp.89–100. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Zebrowitz, L.A., Kendall-Tackett, K. & Fafel, J. (1991) The influence of children's facial maturity on parental expectations and punishment. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 52: 221-238[11] Carre, J.M. & McCormick, C.M. (2008) In your face: facial metrics predict aggressive behaviour in the laboratory and in varsity and professional hockey players. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 275: 2651–2656.[12] Malatesta, C.Z., Fiore, M.J. & Messina, J.J. (1987) Affect, personality and facial expression characteristics of older people. Psychology and Aging 2: 64–69.[13] Zajonc, R. B., Adelmann, P. K., Murphy, S. T., & Niedenthal, P. M. (1987). Convergence in the physical appearance of spouses.Motivation and Emotion Motiv Emot, 11(4), 335-346.General BibliographyPerrett, D. (2010). In your face: The new science of human attraction. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan

I have lots of little awakenings since an early age. When I was a wee little boy I was ashamed because I kept wetting my bed. I tried to stop. I was so worried I would wet the bed that before going to sleep I would tell myself that I had to wake up to use the bathroom if I had to pee. What happened is that I would dream that I woke up and went to the bathroom and as I was dreaming that I was peeing in the toilet I would realize I was dreaming. That was my first experience with lucid dreaming and I became good at it (and I stopped wetting the bed). I didn’t know that lucid dreaming was a thing and thought that it was normal but I soon realized that nobody I knew was a lucid dreamer. I would also have lots of experiences with sleep paralysis and some out of body experiences. I soon learned to not fear such experiences but to enjoy them.From these experiences I became very interested in what happens after death, since I knew that awareness can exist without the body. I would stay up at night doing self-inquiry. Again I didn’t know this was a thing already. I would say that my first awakening was when I realized that there was no me as such. There was only awareness which had nothing to do with me, even though the ego identifies with it. I saw through this illusion. Even though it was a temporary insight that soon became just a memory, it still profoundly effected me and my whole point of view. I was probably ten or eleven at the time.I continued lucid dreaming since then. My next little awakening was after I got some meditation lessons from a yogi and practiced looking into a mirror and concentrating on the space behind my eyes in the reflection while asking ‘what am I?’ I was about 19 years old. I saw that when I was distracted by thought I couldn’t see clearly. It was as if the thoughts came in between me and my object of meditation, forming a film or screen between me and the object. I realized the nature of attention and distraction. This also had a profound effect on me. I had the aspiration to renounce the worldly life and live as a yogi. However I was too young and hormonal and full of desire to do so, so I became frustrated and pretended to be something I wasn’t.My next and most powerful awakening was when I was 38. I was sick of being frustrated and my desire to be free from suffering overcame my worldly desires. By this time I was wise enough to know that desires cannot be quenched by fulfilling them. I was wise enough to look back on my life and see that I had wasted it pursuing worldly desires and I was still the same ordinary suffering person I had been. I made a vow that I would sit down and concentrate on my most authentic need and most authentic self-nature (remembering my past awakenings) and dig out the root of the ego, as if it was a matter of life and death. What happened is that it worked! Because I was so motivated. I wrestled with my mind at first to bring it under control, and I did, then I followed the ego to its source and I realized the ego is an illusion (again, but more profound). I followed the empty feeling which desires in my heart to its source and found the fulfillment of all desires in the bottom or center of my heart, bubbling like a fountain, shining out. I felt love for everything.I next searched for flaws in my meditation and corrected them. I searched for flaws in my realization and investigated these unanswered questions and found them. Because I was in jhana, my mind was able to investigate its nature accurately.This has profoundly re-oriented my life and it has only deepened since then.Bear in mind that I still am a beginner and I am not claiming that awakening is the same as enlightenment, but it is a glimpse of enlightenment. It is an iniation. Since then I have devoted myself to spirituality and found the best teachings in Buddhism and the best guides in Buddhist teachers and scriptures. I follow the instructions as best as I can and study the philosophy as best I can and try to realize it in my own experience as best I can.The unique teaching about Buddhism is that consciousness is also not my true identity and that all phenomena, including consciousness, is empty of inherent existence. Before I had thought that I was consciousness and consciousness was my true identity. With the help of meditating on Buddhist philosophy and the Emptiness Teachings I realized that there is no transcendent consciousness which to aspire to, but that enlightenment was here in the world, nondual with the world which we percieve. Form (shapes and colors and other sensory phenomena) is known by virtue of it appearing, and there is no separate consciousness which percieves it. A red flower appears vividly and we call that ‘consciousness of a red flower’, however, consciousness is the red flower. The world is the mind. Consciousness is to a red flower as wetness is to water; they are not two. Objects don’t appear ‘out there’ and there is no ‘in here’.Now I continue to cultivate stability in meditation and work on maintaining mindfulness throughout the day and night. Negative emotions still arise and disturb me and I am working on bringing more mindfulness to them and healing them with equanimity. I still have hopes and desires for the future and dissatisfaction with the present. I am far from done, and I know it. I still hope for more opportunities for extended solitary meditation retreat to devote to working through what I need to, and still remain dissatisfied with worldly activities which seem to get in the way, like earning a living and having expectations to fulfill.