tsuki

@Victor Mgazi You have connected to the oneness and you know that everything is nothing. So did I. I am not (only) the psychological person that arrived at oneness. The person keeps asking questions though. The person arrived at oneness through various paths, but it is the same oneness it saw at the beginning. Each path revealed the same thing, but from a different perspective. The psychological person had changed through all of these encounters. There may be people that are simply content with enlightening and seeing the nature of everything. I am not one of them. I did not seek enlightenment, enlightenment found me. I simply asked questions, which I still do. I know the the answer to all questions, but asking them and seeking the path is what drives the psychological me. I simply let it do its thing. So yes, after enlightenment: chop wood, carry water. What if chopping wood and carrying water is asking questions, though?

You may have awakened to your true nature, but there are still things that you are ignorant of (like I am). You know what you are, but what is the other? What is language? What is thought? What is understanding? What is a 'what'? Just like you can become directly aware of what you are, you can become directly aware of other things as well. In a sense, the original awakening is something that lets you perceive things differently and this perception is something to be integrated with your everyday experience. It's a work that will consume your whole life if you're into it. I am.

@Kamo The relationship between your inner hearing and the other is that the inner voice always has a recipient of the talk. Just like there is the verbal talk you do out loud, there is a written talk that I do right now and there is an inner talk that you do, unless you engage in the other two. There are always two parties that are being engaged in the talk. The I, and the other. The other is always something concrete, just like you are something concrete that I communicate with. My understanding of you is informed by the post in which you described your revelations. My interaction with you is informed by the way in which I understood what you wrote, so in essence - all interactions via talk are interactions of the self with the self. That is because the self is what both talks and interprets what is being said in response. Let's say that you imaginatively argue with your mother via inner hearing. You say mean things to her and she is upset and grounds you for a week (in your imagination). This mother you just argued with your inner voice is the same mother that you talk to when you speak out loud. That is because the inner interaction with her informs the image of her you have, and will influence further interactions with her via verbal voice. You will interpret her verbal words in relation to your past interactions with her (even the mental ones). That is why you are right - everyone, always, knows what you think, so thoughts influencing reality is a thing.

@Viking I wrote about a similar experiences in this thread: I hope you find it useful.

@PsiloPutty Can you tell me more about what I write? Why is it easy to understand? I'm asking because I oftentimes experiment with putting enlightenment to words and I don't understand the meaning as I write them. I can tell that various things that I do (not only say) are an expression of enlightenment, but there is still this vagueness about what links all those expressions. I believe that repeated exposure to these expressions of awakening will deepen my understanding and allow for more clarity. This is my main motivation to write on the forums.

@molosku You are a thing that does not know what it is (without knowing that it is a thing that does not know what it is). It is simple, unless you put it into words. The only words that are of value are the ones that confuse you into looking with your own eyes.

@electroBeam Very good. Can you see what is the extent of interpretation? Interpretation is yet another thing that you 'see'. The tricky thing to notice is that the intepretation and what is being perceived occurs in the same space. Look at your hand. Its 'handness' is not 'in here', behind your eyes, but 'out there', juxtaposed with what you see. The link between the hand and its 'handness' is what we call obviousness. Contemplating obviousness is a great tool of self-inquiry.

@molosku I link my first deep awakening with reading Martin Heidegger's Being and time. It is a book that gives you tools for self-contemplation and I used this knowledge to explore myself. I did not know that I was looking for enlightenment at the time and I think that it is an important factor that prevented me from distractions. There are benefits to reading, because books are food for thought when you try to re-contextualize them to apply them to your everyday experience. It can be beneficial for enlightenment, but if you do that to read what enlightenment is, it may get tricky very fast. The problem with spontaneous awakenings is that you have no context to ground your experience and it becomes very difficult to integrate it. In my case, proper integration took place a few years after the experience. Only after I learned things from @Leo Gura's channel. By no means I was hopeless on my own, but knowledge helped me a great deal to re-connect to what had happened. The question of whether I'm fully awakened, or not remains open (even to me), so you will have to judge for yourself whether this post is of any relevance to you. If full awakening (whatever it means) is the main criterion for you, you may have a hard time getting responses here, as even Leo seems to be seeking it via 5-MeO.

@Mikael89 No idea, only assumptions about this. When a person seeks enlightenment, he may very well spend his whole life looking for it in various places. After attaining it somehow, he realizes that his whole life was used to accumulate knowledge that becomes useless in a sense once you awaken. The only other thing you can do with it is to teach others how to enlighten. This is how I can explain the origin of a person that calls himself a guru. According to Osho, the defining quality of a guru is that his presence pulls you towards yourself. It may be a universal quality of enlightened people, or a technique one accumulates via being in the presence of gurus your entire life. My enlightenment has something to do with manipulation of meaning, so I'm wondering whether it is possible to make anything (any mundane thing) into a guru for me. I can treat ordinary people like gurus and listen to their unrecognized wisdom, but inanimate objects are a different thing entirely (for now). Infinite wisdom, huh?

@Nahm That's beautiful. Is it a photo?

@Mikael89 The fact that it is a simple realization does not diminish its value as something incredible. This realization is so simple, that you can listen to your mother scolding you for not doing your bed and become enlightened. You can listen to the sounds of the forest and get it. It is so basic and simple that the fact that everybody seems to miss it is the most incredible thing. What I was referring to when I said that no description can amount to what is revealed is the fact that enlightenment has something to do with escaping description. With making yourself perpetually confused (in a sense) by making meaning balanced. Balanced in a sense that all perceptions occur in one field in which phenomena are not ordered with respect to significance. Everything is equal (in equilibrium). Words/stories about enlightenment are a double-edged sword, as they are heavily imbalanced with respect to significance. We tend to treat them as primary phenomena. It can be useful however, when the effect of the words is equalizing. For example, deconstruction/self-inquiry is a very powerful equalizing tool. It is not to be treated as the truth (the primary significance), because it will undermine its own strength. The same thing applies to other tools, such as psychedelics, meditation, and in my case - dialectic self-inquiry (which I'm doing right now with you=me).

@SoonHei Sorry, I got carried away. It seems that my reading is what was lazy The problem with seeking enlightenment is that the stories about it that you are given by the scriptures are more like riddles. You are supposed to work on them yourself and in solving them, wake up. They are true in the sense that I can map what I experience onto them and see that they fit, but enlightenment has something to do with making everything fit with everything else, so in a sense - everything is true. It is more like an effortless activity that is happening. I'm saying this because I can sense that you are looking for an answer that confirms something that you know. What you are asking is true, but that will not help you enlighten. There will be a new you once you get it, but the point is not to replace the old you with a new you. The point is to see that any you is replaceable and in fact, it is not something constant, but constantly changing. The point is not to experience one awakening moment, but to awaken each second, letting go everything that happens. In doing that there will be deep realizations available, but they will be unusable in a sense. They can manifest themselves only if there is no you to benefit from them.

@SoonHei Are these legitimate questions, or you are simply being a smartass? The guy asked a question about something that he has not yet experienced. How am I supposed to answer it other than trying to express it in terms of his (presumed) current understanding? Pointing out that my answer is self-contradictory is lazy (assuming that's what you did). It has to be self-contradictory, as it tries to express something inexpressible. It's like trying to express Klein's bottle in three-dimensional space. It can't fit, so it intersects itself.

None. There will be no you once you get it. Not in the same sense you currently have about 'you'. It is a form of self-transformation. You just have to see it for yourself. If you can stop yourself from pursuing it, then go ahead and do so.

@BramscoChill Yep. Use of logic is illogical. Do not reject logic prematurely though.

@Sockrattes To address your original question (in the topic name): turquoise people are not infallible. Stages of spiral dynamics have nothing to do with being successful. They are a measurement of the degree of complexity you can deal with. A turquoise person lets himself see the world as much more complex and nuanced than a blue person sees. That doesn't make that person any more effective with dealing with it. It makes that person's solutions more complex, or far-reaching in response. It can obviously backfire when you cannot gauge the importance of the problem and over-analyze it, via various tools. A turquoise person can 'solve' any problem by detaching from it, so that can also backfire on you really badly.

@Sockrattes Sadhguru knows that the democratic system can be broken (he even mentions that in the talk). What he is stating is simply that the other alternative is bloodshed. Electing Hitler has led to the second world war with millions of deaths. That is true. Did people stop him with their protests? No. That is because there are loopholes in the democratic system that allow people like him to win. The people did not stop him, because once he is elected - he is the one that has the power and will defend his rule, even if it comes to bloodshed. The question is: why was Hitler elected? Because of larger socio-economical reasons combined with his charisma. He was able to convince people that he is the right ruler and in doing so - he exposed his own methods so that the public is more resistant to them today. We haven't had any Hitlers since. We haven't had any world wars since. That is because we have learned our (very expensive) lesson. When it comes to Trump - he is also a product of larger socio-economical reasons. He is able to manipulate the public to the degree that allowed him to win the election. He is the product of exploitation of the mass-media, but he has exposed his methods and hopefully - we will learn our lessons. Electing idiots by the public is the strength of the democracy, because electing idiots makes the public wiser the next time. To deny the idiots' right to learn is idiotic. America will be fine. It takes more than one 'idiot' to bring it down.

@Stretch That is a big mystery for me as well. First of all, unless you are enlightened - you have no idea what you are looking for. No description can amount to what will be revealed once you get it, even this one. Therefore - the only reason for searching enlightenment is ignorance. The real question is: why would persistence in being ignorant grant you wisdom? All of us are already enlightened from the moment we were born, so the seeking is really a way to understand our true nature that we have access to RIGHT NOW (not to confuse with an idea of a being present). To me, it seems like there is this seed, or idea of 'enlightenment' that we accumulate at some point and as we naturally expand, it becomes apparent that what we experience matches up with what has been described in various ways. This expansion is what enables us to gradually let in more and more things at once and see a universal pattern. This universal pattern is what is the Realization. Absolute relativity. Śūnyatā. Wisdom. Ignorance gives rise to wisdom, because ignorance and wisdom are an expression of one 'thing'. From the point of view of enlightened person, everything is one and therefore - nothing exists (in a sense).

Martin Heidegger's "Being and Time". It may fuck you over big time, like it did with me.

Asking questions about total, universal, substance is pointless. No answers can be given in this realm of generality. That is because there is no way to create contrast to something else (not-consciousness) and in doing so, reveal properties of consciousness. Consciousness has contradictory properties because, by definition, everything is made of it. It is a way to conceptualize a world in which there is no perceiver, but only the perception. By inventing imaginary substance that everything is made of. Unless you can observe this phenomenon yourself, no amount of talking can reveal it to you.

@Nadosa There are no answers to your questions and that is what the mind cannot accept (yet). If meaning-making is all that you know, it will take a while to reorient yourself to see a new kind of being. Funnily enough, what gave me most comfort in my several experiences like yours was aspiring to be like a tree. A tree needs no reason to grow. It simply does. As you continuously die, I'm sure that you can relate to a wish of simply being, undisturbed. Try looking up to a tree and treat it as a role model. Let the mind do its things. Work, sleep, eat and meet. When you have spare time in which questions arise, it is a sign that that you have solved all of your problems and now the mind has nothing to do. If the suffering of emptiness becomes a problem somehow, then the mind will try to solve it. Do you understand what is the solution for having no problems? Creating them. If you let yourself be a problem, then the mind will turn on you and do all kinds of things to keep itself occupied. Do you know what is the best solution to a restless, problem-seeking mind? Sitting. Just sit and grow like a tree. It is the best thing to do when all problems are solved. Problems will come to you on their own, without your guidance. Sitting is the greatest luxury, really. You can call sitting meditation, but do not try to still your mind. Let the mind do its thing. Let it chase itself. This is what it is supposed to do. Solve problems. Let it try to solve itself until it finally sees what it is - whatever is the conclusion. If you have truly seen though the mind, you will know what is the value of that knowledge.

An ocean has nothing to do with molecules. It is not an emergent property of molecules, but of your perception. You see something, dissect it via theory into atoms, and then wonder why is there an ocean. There is no such thing ego out there. Ego is a word with a structure associated to it. You can apply this structure to various aspects of your experience and decide whether it fits. This does not mean however that whatever you call ego is out there, because where it fits is predicated on the structure that you gave it. Theories are a description of the world, as much as they are a description of you. They are empty in the sense that you can mold them into fitting various things because they are ultimately ambiguous. The same thing applies to emergence, properties, physicality, body and a universe. Therefore, a question: should ideally be answered with silence. (Which I failed, btw.)

@Uchira Mental illness is inability to translate your experience to others. The moment you think that you're mentally ill is the moment in which your experience vastly exceeds whatever you've experienced before. You can recollect your mind if you create a story that links your identity with this disjoint experience in a constructive manner. Contacting the doctor will let you create meaning for what happened, but it will mean that you are broken and need fixing. Medicating yourself will never let you decide whether what you've felt was valid or not. It may make it go away, however. The eleven seven thing cracked me up as well . Why did you run away from it?