Ibn Sina

One who has forever stopped 'egoic' suffering , the kind that arises out of ignorance. His suffering has the presence of the TRUTH, and sees suffering much more clearly.

Then what would you count on?

An enlightened being will show the traits that are the consequence of a dissolved ego and the embracing of the totality of existence.

There are signs.

@Nahm All I am saying is I don't find many 'enlightened professionals' (whose meaning I have already in my original post). That's all. If you know any such people who are like that, then you can tell me. A few that come to my mind is- poets like Kabir and Rumi. But again, that's not a huge contrast. The space between poetry and spirituality is not as huge as , physicists and spiritual teacher. Imagine Sadhguru was a PhD Nuclear physicist or a Stock analyst. How many people like that have you met? That's what I am asking.

In which video did he talk about that ? May be he influenced me, but I don't know where he has said about that, you can help me.

This question comes from reflecting on my own life. I am a busy person who has to spend a lot of time in education/money making, but I am also interested in spirituality and think it is one of the chief purposes of life, however it does not generate good money and food as effectively as other professions. Also, I find too much suffering and pain in the dualistic world, where money and status is god, and because of people seeking that there is too much suffering. At the same time, I find that the dual should not be completed eliminated like that of the monks. I think 'enlightened professionals' is the highest ideal that should be strived for. Yes, being an Arhat is not bad, but if everyone became an Arhat, then the world will perish into parinirvana. That is why Osho used to rank Krishna as much more higher than the Buddha. Here was a man who had mastered both the dual and the non-dual.

I will assume you don't know. Someone who knows it doesn't try to avoid answering a simple question.

What exactly did you experience that brought you to this conclusion? I hope you are not trying to avoid answering it. I also have come across similar conclusion but I can tell you exactly how I came to it ( my personal experience). Certainly I wouldn't try an easy escape with "My personal experience".

What made you come to this conclusion?

The litmus test of truth is that it endures.

Could you give me the links or sources where they are documented?

Bhikku Bodhi gave a great definition of Omniscience which is often associated with Enlightened beings. Omniscience doesn't literally mean 'Knowing everything' like knowing how to do everything from cardiothoracic surgery to developing an operating system. It means knowing everything that one needs to know. Once you are enlightened , you now know everything that you need to know, now you don't have the need to know anything else. All those need ceases, you have attained the ultimate knowledge and now there's no need of any other knowledge. This is Omniscience.

@Serotoninluv I could be responding to each of your answers and show how inauthentic and false they are just like I did with all my other reply, but I am not going to post any further. I don't think you are a credible source to learn spirituality from. I don't want to waste my time. I have no idea where or how you learned spirituality, all I can say is there is nothing for me to learn from you, the thngs you say are unoriginal, has nothing new or profound, although your ego might find it hard to accept that , and what you write are designed to show that you have a better understanding of non-duality, better than mine, better than Buddha, and I am very certain that you don't possess any such wisdom, because you fail to recognize wisdom when it is present, non-duality when it present. I want to improve my life by spirituality, that's the bottom line. I am studying other sources like Leo, Bhikku Bodhi, Peter Ralston, Osho etc , I won't be wasting time on you. I learn from sources like this one-

'Duality judging'- Continuosly judging a non-dual statement as dual although it is perfectly non-dual. Not finding the non-dual in a statement. Every single statement that Buddha says is saturated with non-duality. And yet you say , buddha is only saying half the coin. You are seeing the half coin. It is the entire coin he is throwing, just be receptive.

I associate that with falling back to the egoic suffering that we normal stage orange have, those who are not into non-duality, have. I was referring to your analysis (or whatever, prior analysis, you put it). I was talking about you. First you write your description in extensive detail ( or analysis, the word is irrelevant), and I say such verbose words has no value, then you say exactly, it has no value. So basically, your extensive descriptions are valueless ,baseless, hollow words you have written for no reason at all? Also, I have already gone through the door to the transcendence of the valuelessness of words. And I did that years ago. Another duality judgement about what I am saying. Not in the egoic, dual sense. No need for such depth. It is straight forward. And I also know about the direct experience and all. I am aware of the sides. Don't think I am not aware. Don't underestimate. Yet you put the words I say 'analysis', 'needs' etc under quotation marks and make judgements about them. You are not looking at the meaning of the words (I don't care about relationship of the word). Bascially, I am saying one thing, you think (or whatever you want to say) I am saying something else. You and I agree, but for me it's about simplicity and directness. I like simple language like the great masters that is direct and profound. This is the first time I have ever read that suggest that being non-dual and the language used have a connection. They have 0 connection. I might be writing about Stock Markets and Buisness, but still it's possible that I am as enlightened as the Buddha. You are going through extensive analysis, thinking, words on and on and on. I don't find any value in such things. For me it's just formulas and awareness. Your words have no value to me. None. Also never have I have read anywhere that reading such things that you write is helpful for enlightenment. This is something that I have seen in this forum only. Not anywhere else. I am not. Why do you say such things? My understanding is much more non-dual. Again you are pushing the idea that I am being dual. I didn't say it is not. The problem is you always understand things partially. You understand what I say partially. You understand what Buddha says partially. That's the problem. It's not partially. In every sentence Buddha says, there is the entire nondual. I am not making any constructs. You are saying that I am making. Good lord, by now you have made about 50-60 judgements about what I am saying. All of them are false. All I can say is I am not saying what you think you think I am saying based on what I am writing. No matter how many judgements , misinterpretations you make about what I am saying, all I can do is say that is not what I am saying. I am also doing 'Beyond thinking'/prior thinking/metathinking, not just you. You can't see how I am doing it, but I have embodied it. This is Wilber's "pre/trans" fallacy. Do you see the problem? 'Judgemnet' or whatever word you want to give to the activity that you are doing, which is - misinterpreting, misrepresenting, saying what I say is something else. Give whatever word you want to give. And that is exactly how I said you will be misinterpreting and bring down Buddha's statement. What you don't realize is , it is within the statement itself. It's like you are closing one of your eye and looking at it partially. Open both your eyes.

In Dhammapad , 90th quote Buddha says- 90. There is no suffering for him who has finished his journey, and abandoned grief, who has freed himself on all sides, and thrown off all fetters. Now if I am going to analyze (or whatever the word you wish) this simple and beautiful statement the way you are analyzing, then again there will be many many problems, and it may look like Buddha is not non-dual but very dual and materialistic. I can say, there is emphasis on 'him', which is wrong, there is no him. Who is there to have grief? Who is there to have a journey? If there is no one , then who is even seeking? Such analysis (or whatever the word you wish) has no value at all. It doesn't lead to anything. Buddha's statement is straightforward, and useful as such. It has value, but it shouldn't be brought down by such analysis (or whatever you want to say) and interpreted as not non-dual.

Yes, I did spoke about attaining bliss and suffering. And Yes, I did say there is no one to attain suffering. This is my answer. And this problem can't be resolved by words. But still what I have written holds true. At the end, it's all peace, enlightenment, nibanna whatever. That is what Buddha's goal was. No matter how you try to say it, peace is suffering, peace is peace, peace is blissfulness, at the end it's all peace, Nibanna, enlightenment, and that's what I am talking about. And it's not suffering. Even if it it contains suffering peace, terror, absolute peace, everything that you have written, the cherry at the top is peace, bliss. What you and I are saying is basically one and the same. You are just adding more nuance to it, but I already know the depth of the word, I don't have to add. You are suggesting that you are operating from a mode beyond thinking and analysis. I am aware that there are such modes, but there is nothing that supports your claim that you are operating from. Also here 'thinking' is irrelevant. I don't care whether you are 'thinking, or metathinking or beyond thinking, what you wrote about what you think (again, this is irrelevant, you can replace it with whatever you want, meta thinking, beyond thinking, supernatural thinking it doesn't matter)I am saying , is not what I am saying. Because Enlightenement is both the presence and absence of suffering (look at the meaning not the words), in the sense that there is suffering, but still there is the realization and complete acceptance. and enlightenment is to be sought because it is the cessation of suffering (look at the meaning not the words) The words here are conflating, but if you comprehend the meaning, it's different. All I can say is that the - 'essence' that your mind'/ whatever has got/grasped/whatever, which you have written and think is the message I am conveying, is not what I am saying. What I have seen is that you give a huge meaning to every single word I say. I wrote 'analysis' and now you have are saying it's scientific , it's stage orange materialistic. My words do not have that much weight that you are putting. What is worse is you put a HUGE weight to single words, like I say 'analysis' and you have made a big judgement from there, the weight is in my message. You should stop this habit of constantly making judgement from single words. I write words like 'you', 'need', 'analysis' and that puts a huge influence on what you understand. They have nothing to do with what I am saying. Don't look at words. Look at the message. All I can say is don't try to modify, or change the message that I am trying to convey. I am conveying one thing, but you are pushing the idea that I am saying something different.

Basically you are equating Omniscience with the 'Aha'/ Satori/ Mystical insight (which I have had many times) however you want to put it Okay. I understand what you are saying, you are also not wrong, but from my own way, what I said (Bhikku Bodhi said) is also right. And his definition got my mind blown , that's why I shared it on this forum. I always used to think, what , did Buddha know everything from modern medicine to AI? How's that possible? I got my doubt cleared.

Okay so you think what I am saying is duality saying what non-duality is like, which you are doing through words. I hope we are not disagreeing on this. But then you say- "You seem to think I am analyzing the pointer, which I am not. " , which I don't think is authentic, because in this forum there is nothing else but the words I am writing. You have nothing else to analyze but the pointer, however you are saying there is something else to analyze. And also you have written the reason why you think I come from a source of duality , you say- For example, you have written a lot about attaining peace/bliss and the cessation of suffering. *Who/what* attains that peace/bliss? To "whom/what" does suffering cease? You seem to have a subtle underlying personal/human framework that I don't think you are aware of. This is the reason why you think I am duality talking about nonduality. ( I hope we are not disagreeing on this) I don't need to talk about - who, what, whom what, when I am talking about bliss, to show that I am talking about nonduality. If I was an enlightened person, it doesn't mean I wouldn't be talking with the words 'you' 'I' etc. Buddha's suttas are full of those words. In case you might be wondering, I do not attach my isness with my ego. There is no one to attain bliss, there is no one to attain peace. But still, I will talk using 'you' and 'I'. It doesn't directly mean I am talking from duality. I don't know where you learned that using language that way indicates duality. Also don't say you are not looking at the pointer. There is nothing else but the pointer in this forum. I literally have. Enlightenment is the presence and absence of suffering Absence of suffering from the perspective of duality, is the motivation. That's what motivated Leo to start this entire project. If you say this isn't the case, I disagree. That's what started the Buddha legend. I don't think peace is suffering. From nonduality, there is no one desiring the end to suffering. From duality, the ego is desiring. Ego finds suffering painful . The sense which you have got by interpreting the words I have written the way you think the meaning has been conveyed.

@Serotoninluv I don't think words and the meaning they seem to generate judging by the words alone, have anything to do with the message that is being conveyed. I might say , Omniscience means knowing everything that one needs to know. And you might rephrase this in a way that shows non-duality. It does not mean the message I am conveying is different from yours. It means I don't know how to phrase it the way you phrase it that shows or seems to show non-duality more ( for you and people who think like you) than the way I have phrased You say- "Seekers are strongly attracted toward peace/bliss and this will create many spiritual teachers that fill this *need* of seekers. Spiritual retreats generally have the theme of peace and bliss. There is nothing wrong with this, yet it goes deeper. For example, would you agree that suffering is peace? That frustration, insecurity and fear is blissfulness? If not, there are still conditions and greater depths to go. There is an unconditional peace that is eternally present Now under all conditions. Absolute peace during meditation, absolute peace laying on a beach, absolute peace during sex, absolute peace while being stabbed with a knife, absolute peace during a panic attack" Basically you are underestimating me. The line where you say 'deeper' is not deeper for me. It has not pushed my boundaries. I completely agree with what you are saying. But the words I used made you think something else. All I am finding is underestimation and misinterpretation again and again and again.

@Serotoninluv You are interpreting and misinterpretating the message that I am trying to convey with the words that I am using. You find many contradictions within the words that I am using. But fundamentally my message is non-dual. You cannot make interpretations or judgements by the words that I am using. I am not in disagreement with your version of spirituality, but you are making judgements about what I am saying using the words that I am using, but those meanings which you are making out from my words (which you have written in your answer) is not what I am conveying. I will give you one example- you said - Notice how you have made a distinction between the ant and "enlightenment" and the "cessation of suffering". The words I wrote might look like I did that. But I haven't made any distinction, I am just trying to convey a message which can easily be looked like there is duality in there. But really there isn't. If we are to analyze the same way you are analyzing to Buddha's suttas or Leo's vid then even there you will find many duality and distinctions, but his message is non-dual and so is mine. The reason you are having a problem with what I am writing is because I don't know how to write in a way that indicates non-duality which makes you go "okay, this is nonduality" . But my understanding is not of the kind which you think I have based on what I have written and your interpretation of it. But what I write is irrevelant. The words I am using and how you are interpreting word by word is irrevelant. What is relevant is the message that I am conveying, which some people may grasp rightly, some wrongly. What is relevant is the experience that I am pointing towards.

Whether the 'you' ceases, or 'need' ceases, that doesn't matter, it all falls under 'all you need to know', and here 'you' is not about the ego, 'need' is not about the ego, it's just words to convey the idea, and 'all you need to know' doesn't mean 'you' hasn't dissolved, it has, 'need' hasn't dissolved, it has, although there's no other way to put it then this way. Omniscience is the experience/knowledge/belief whatever you want to say beyond which there is nothing more to know, there is no need of knowing anything more. You can say, you dissolves, need dissolves etc, which is not wrong, but it all falls under 'everything that you need to know', which has a deeper meaning, a non-dual meaning, you cannot misinterpret saying 'need' dissolves, 'you dissolves', because I am not disagreeing with that at all but the language I use are dual and hence is forced to look like that when seen superficially. I am not associating Omniscience with an ego, but the word I used suggested it , but don't fall into the trap of taking the words literally and thinking I am associating with the ego. If I say, 'knowing all you need to know' it has nothing to do with ego, or you, or anything, it's just a way of saying it. We all know about ego dissolution so of course I am not associating it with ego although due to language reason I am saying 'you', so the reader should already keep this in mind and not misinterpret what I am saying. You say- "Similarly, "need" doesn't quite fit for me either. For example, one may know the essence of being of an ant. This has nothing to do with "my" "needs" ' Knowing the essence of an ant has no relation with Enlightenment or the cessation of suffering. The need I am talking about, is 'ultimate bliss'/ happiness/peace. Instead of an ant, if you are talking about the essence of being of who you are, then yes, it does have something to do with your need, which is feeling blissful, peaceful. Do you disagree that Spiritiuality is about attaining blissfulness? You say "Omnicience will grant *me* the ability to know *my needs*? Sign me up!" " This is not what I am talking about. It's not 'my needs' like the way you are using here. The way I am saying it is, need = the desire/wish to eliminate all forms of suffering. ALL forms of suffering. Which takes the ego and its 'needs' with it. Ego doesn't come anywhere, like you seem to be suggesting. There are 2 'you's. There's the 'ego you' which you misinterpreted my 'you' as. The other you is the 'no you' or 'you ceases, you' or 'God you', which is what I am talking about.

@Truth Addict So what are the other orders of magnitude for omniscience? You might give any other definition of omniscience , but no matter what you say I think it all falls under 'Everything that you need to know', which basically means a complete cessation of suffering in all it's forms, the ego and all. There can't be any other definition, can there? Unless you are talking about knowing lottery numbers etc. Omniscience means having all the knowledge you need beyond which there's no other need of anything else, because all suffering ceases. You may give other definition of it like 'you' ceases, or 'need' ceases, or you become infinity, but it all falls under 'Knowing everything beyond which there's nothing more to know because this is the ultimate knowledge and suffering in all it's form ceases and that's the entire point of Spirituality. Also be careful about interpreting my language as anything remotely dual, although I use words like 'you', 'need', which suggest the dual, but this is only for communicating the information, and there's no other way to put it other than this way. So although I say things like 'everything you need to know' you need to grasp it's non-dual meaning instead of taking the surfacial dual meaning.