traveler

You can't quit searching until you realise all you're ever looking for is here already. The search for enlightenment arises from an energy that says that something needs to happen for this happening to be okay.

Interesting

Edit: I deleted my post as I feel like the purpose of this thread has little to do with what I'm/we're talking about. I'll leave this great Alan Watts vid.

!! That reality is anything in particular "perfect," "good" or "love" is an idea. Saying it is perfect, good or love is just not what it is, but saying it is perfect, good or love is just what it is, it is ______. Nothing can be said. I think you might have picked up some identification with the role of the "enlightened person," nothing wrong with it, just throwing it out there. You're trying to fit a holistic pov into a relative context when you say "This BAD, and this GOOD - This is in alignment, and this is not." Non-duality/The absolute has no laws, it becomes a religion when we preach Good vs Evil. Don't have to realize it, I'm sitting in it. The absolute is sitting in itself, writing this as Traveler, talking to itself as WaveInTheOcean. There is nothing to realize and no one to realize it. Dude, we're getting a little side-tracked here, but anyway. I'm not promoting inquiry into "no-self." I'm not particular in my descriptions of reality, because the dream of "me having to wake up" is not here anymore. There is no goal for me to wake someone else up, only suggestions pointing to that in which concepts of Love/The absolute/This apparently arise and are misunderstood as reality. I genuinely don't know if this is directed at "me." Are you just coming up with a possible problem, that isn't here? I do agree with the statement, but there is either a major misunderstanding of what I'm saying or you're speaking to an imaginary audience in order to help them avoid a mistake you have made. Of course, but as you said so eloquently : “when you listen to them your brain interprets them and the result is not necessarily what the words are pointing to, just as my finger pointing to the moon is not the moon.“ And that is "this." That is what is, ALREADY. If there is still an idea that someone has to "get" that or travel that journey, there is still an illusory dream.

Have you seen the vid? Rape is not in alignment with your IDEA of what God/The Absolute/Love/Perfectness/Selflessness is. Let's say there was an "absolute POV" (there isn't), from that perspective everything is as it should be. Leo touches on this in the video. A rapist is a bundle of experiences leading up to the moment of the rape, perfectly formed by every factor that goes into creating the mind that is capable of doing that. Just as your ideas of perfection are a consequence of everything leading up to this moment.

I think the "problem" is that our interpretations of words are different. I'm not talking about going beyond experience into a mystical fractal sort of "state." What is happening is not an experience, an experience is a happening in time, it has a start and an end. Example: "I was at Tivoli and I tried the "Golden Tower," that was a great experience." Experiences are stories but I'm not saying they didn't happen, they apparently did. I'm pointing to that in which apparent experiences happen, but that is not a "thing," hence "no thing" is a good pointer IMO. I think we're close to talking about the same non thing. Same, haha. Alright, I'd say what I said is a "level" deeper, that comes down to my point about "nothing," which is everything by nature. Something is specific, everything is not. I will agree that nothing and everything are opposite in conceptual thinking but actually absolutely identical "in reality." I don't know actually, I've never looked into that. From reading on the internet I would say that I can see both Type 5 and Type 9 in "myself."

Yes, it is true if we're speaking on the level of story (the world, others, life, time, etc.). Yeees. But the dropping away of the separate self is that it never happened, so it doesn't actually drop away. When it isn't there no one knows it or realizes "no self." The loop of the self is that it wants to know what is left when it isn't there. No it is INDEED not something. That is what we're stuck on and the one thing I can't get across. That is an insight, an experience. It is a fleeting moment of clarity, that is totally not what I'm talking about. But that is not happening "here" for "me." What I'm pointing too is not complicated at all, it is not a thing or a concept. There is no one here sitting in a space of "no self" holding on to an experience of nothing. You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Haha, we will go on forever, but it's no problem, this is fun. Of course. It is nothingsomethingness and not nothingsomethingness. As I said, we're doing our best to describe the indescribable. You don't seem to like the "non" words, maybe because they're not something (not fun for type Five not to have something to figure out). But who is doing that? I have said many times that nothing is everything, the point is that 'no thing' - 'not a thing' - 'not something' points to what it is not, it is not opposite to "something" because you need "something" to have an opposite. Get it!? As you would say: these words come from direct experience. But that is not a sufficient description imo, I would say that these words appear from nothing. They are an apparent happening without ownership; there is no one having a direct experience finding the right words to describe a state.

Licking Scarlett Johanssons nipples would appear to happen if that offer was there.

Words are words, concepts are words paired with form or meaning. "Ball" is not a concept, it is "Ball," but "Ball" can be paired with an image, the feeling and functioning of a ball, which creates the concept. If you try to understand "nothing" it becomes a concept, if not it is just what it points to: Nothing. A word. No substance. Empty. Like the Ant example you used. There is no clear image in the mind of "nothing," so it has to create an idea of what "nothing" is in order to grasp it. That is the problem with this message, nothing is an impossibility to grasp, it is not a concept. Unconditional Love. Any word that is ungraspable in nature are great pointers, because their nature reflect what is pointed too.

Definitely ? It applies to no one, bro!!! Jk It seems like a standard, automatic, robotic reply because you think you know what I'm saying. You think you've heard it before. The words "Nothing", "no self", "no one", "everything", "this", all seem to me to be the most direct and the cleanest- least contaminated by concepts. I don't claim to know more than you, I haven't gotten anything. I had a lot more written down, good stuff, but my phone thought it was a fun joke to delete everything I wrote. But peace and love to you too my friend.

Deepening might happen, but to no one. What I'm saying leaves nothing off the table. I sort of agree with everything you said, but it is a story, it comes from a knower that knows what this is. This knower can with a 100 percent certainty tell us that this is ONENESS. But I can not say that, I can not say anything about what is, because whenever it is described it is made into a thing, a concept, no concepts are needed, the concepts do nothing more than give you a sense that you understand and are safe in that understanding. There is no need to understand it, you actually can't, it can sort of resonate or pop a bubble in the brain sometimes, but it is too 'all there is' to be understood. "Nothing" is the "essence" of these words, you call it infinite, I don't call it anything, hence 'nothing'. Doesn't matter in the end. I know you like the God talk, the ITS ALL YOU talk, but that comes from an experience and it is true, but not necessary or important. That experience is amazing, but it is an experience/a position, it is not what I'm pointing too. What I'm pointing to is the end of looking for more consciousness, the end of a position. With no position all there is is just what is, no preferences, no doer, no one that controls anything, this. These words are exactly that, these words are not separate from what these words attempt to point too.

Yea, I get it. But anything said will be dualistic and contradictory when we pretend that what we're talking about is a thing. See that is just bollocks, but it is all fun and we're doing our best, talking about nothing. I agree.

Yes, just like "non-duality" is used to tell people that believe in "duality" that there is not "duality." No self does not point some thing called a "self" present at times and absent at other times. In other words, "no self" is not something that can be realized, it is already the case. Just like non-duality isn't opposite to duality, it is merely "discarding" the claim of duality.

This is what you damn "selfers"? get confused. No self is pointing to nothing. There is no self being no self, there is just no self. It's a joke. No self is a paradox for the self.?

There is an apparent human body, but that is just words shining light on a particular set of forms. You could say everything is imagination, but compared to what? Every word falls short when you put it into this context, because "everything" has no opposite, no outside, no distinguishable features. It's actually not like that. There is a body, then you come in and say "it is there because I imagined it." You would tend to think that the body being imagination is wild and mysterious, but there just being an apparent body without any context, knowing or description... now that is mysterious, but no one is mystified. You're identifying with a "higher" "I," an I that is beyond existence, an I that is the creator of all appearances. That "I" can not be localized, nor can it be described. It is totally mysterious, even the experience that you might have gotten some sort of answer only superficially fulfills the need to know. This is total anarchy. There is no actual Self, because in all there is there is no other. That is why we say "there is no self," because when you start talking about "God" or "The Self" you're in story land, in "something land." What is longed for is the end of looking/knowing.

But what he is saying is that there is no separate self. The separate self is not the body, it is that which believes it is separate and knows what is happening. "No self" is not a detachment from a real separate self into a "God self" as you seemingly point to. The end of the separate self is this, it is already over, the illusion is that there is somewhere else to go, something else to get. Believing you're a separate self is not proof of a separate self, it doesn't actually matter, it has no value other than the value put upon it by that illusion.

2:55

You just described what is happening.

If "you" kill "yourself," who are "you"? If you die and are aware of it, who dies? And if you die and are not a aware of it, who dies? The search to kill yourself is actually an avoidance of death.

It is impossible to see this from a dreamt pov, but all of that is a story. Can't blame you, many "teachers" teach this bullshit. There isn't a separate you from God that could make a choice. The whole story about God's desire and goodness, is "God" appearing as that story. Anyone that claims they can describe or know God, is God dreaming separation. The dream is that a person can know God, then other people look at that person to tell them about God, missing that that whole "play," is God, it is this. Rape is rape, stopping rape is stopping rape, calling the police is calling the police. The complications, doubt and value is something added on top of the simplicity of what is already.

Where is the meaning?

This sentence is pointing to absolutely nothing. This post is absolutely meaningless, it doesn't point to anything. “in an insane world, a sane man must appear insane." I had a conversation with my sister and this "message" naturally came up, it quickly became apparent that whatever I said would be perceived as totally insane, even though it is the simplest, closest and most sane thing that could ever be said. "I'm talking about nothing" is gibberish, it makes no sense at all, but the freedom is that it doesn't have to, the meaningless meaning of that sentence is that the sentence itself doesn't have to be understood. This either creates a thought loop, which is an attempt at understanding this logically, or it "enlightens" the unspeakable everythingness of nothing. There is an illusory dream that many apparent human beings are living in. In that dream "nothing" is pointing to something.

Yea, there isn't even someone or something to be let go of. When something is actually let go of it is the death and the total absence of that thing. If there is still consciousness of what is claimed to be let go of, it hasn't been let go of. Letting go is absolutely impersonal, it has nothing to do with consciousness. Consciousness is holding on to things, and the mind uses consciousness to try and get rid of it. The ultimate let go is that it isn't here now already, the illusion is that there is an illusion.

Insanity and sanity are both in the story of the "me" in an objective world. Insanity can only be in comparison with an idea of sanity. The nature of reality is non-dual, so the discussion will only make sense within the framework of dreamt duality. You could describe dreamt duality as Insanity and the nature of non-dual reality as Sanity. But that would still be in dreamt duality, where there is an idea of a non-dual reality.

It's a phase. You're still dreaming.