WindInTheLeaf

Then what is the problem? If everything is perfect then even the ego is perfect, but so is everything else, and when everything is perfect there is no reason to do anything, yet every reason to enjoy the doing.

So if God is both creation and creator existing as act/play/spirit/dance(whatever we may call it) of creation, how is anyone not who or where they should be? How is anything or anyone not perfect as they are, as an expression of God, as God?

I am a bit confused, looking for clarification. God is something separate from creation? And he has infinite consciousness through which he creates his creation? Is creator, spirit of creation and creation separate things?

What crisis? Family is part of your world, so perhaps the question is if your girl is part of your family?

Everyone who values should have simplicity as their number one value, but wouldn't it be simpler to have no values at all?

Time exists for an observer that still believes he is a manifestation of reality and not reality in and of itself. That he is somehow something separate from what is, as experienced from his point of view, in the now that is timeless. Does an observer become God when he surrenders completely to the source, the flow, the now, that which is?

You already have the answer, but fear that you'll somehow do wrong if you have no ideas to act upon, no anchors in reality. Is it a fact that you need to survive? And is it a fact that you need a fact to survive? Or are they just illusions of your mind that is still afraid to die ? Is there any problems that needs solving, when you no longer perceive them into existence? And what other points of view are you trying to make it perfect by? From any point of view the only point of view to be concerned about not to concern about, is one's own.

If the tree lies inherent in the current state of the seed(which is ofcourse not an isolated seed but rather contains everything), would one be able to see the future by surrendering completely to the present? The future must lie in the present just as much as the past lies in the present, and as the past disappears, the future perhaps becomes crystal clear?

And if your true being is everything that is, becoming that would mean accessing all experience within you, the infinite possibilities of nothingness. But it would require you to be both nothing and something, like one foot in the finite and one in the infinite. Like lucid dreaming, where you become aware that you are dreaming but remain in a dream that is now under your control.

@Nahm Yes of course. The seed and the tree are one and the same, and cannot be separated from the rest of the universe, as everything is contained in every part. And since everything is nothingness manifested in infinite ways, the seed nor the tree nor anything else is there, but is mere imagination. But if reality is illusion, then illusion is reality, and although everything is nothingness it is not nothing. Patterns arise, following lines of intelligent design, designing itself. So if one became enlightened to the degree of becoming the impartial creative force behind it all, in a way becoming the universe, then one would be able to see things happening before they happen, as everything springs out of nothingness or creative force or whatever we might call it. And if one completely surrenders to the source of all things, and every result lies within the source - IS the source - would that person that is no longer a person not be able to see everything without looking? I have not had much sleep and a 12-hour shift, i don't know if this makes any sense or if its just a dream.

You are questioning where to draw the line between dream and reality, and want someone to tell you how it is, but what if there is no line to be drawn between the two? You already have the answer, but the answer is too simple so you keep asking questions. How do you tell the difference between someone who knows and someone who does not ? Would you not make that judgement on behalf of what you believe makes sense, and if this is so, then how can anyone tell you anything you do not already know? See, if someone gives you a reply that does not satisfy your idea of reality, you would not consider him to really have knowledge, but would consider him a fool. And if someone gives you a reply that sounds wise to you, you would believe to have come closer to the truth. But if wise and foolish are merely value judgments based on what you believe to know about the ups and downs of reality, how can you know that what you believe to be wise is not in fact foolish and what you believe to be foolish is not in fact wise?

Discussions such as these that dissolve my ego-boundaries and which might also help others on their own journey towards no-thought, is why i enjoy spending time on this forum(hehe, here i go talking about time again..). Hope you got something out of it, i sure did.

My own journey has been a process of retracing my steps, and ridding myself of my illusions one by one. Thought/reflection has been an important part of my own healing process, which is why i wanted to share this insight(which might very well be nothing but another illusion), especially as you seem to take a stance opposing this.

You have to accept that although from your point of view time might not exist, it does so for probably most people in the world. I am not promoting, merely pointing towards something that exists for everyone who is not enlightened. We have to work with what we've got. I might very well be wrong, but i encourage you to reflect on how to better convey the message of the light to people who have never seen it. Edit: And i have to accept that talking about time will never bring an ending to time. I might have been mentally masturbating for these past posts, as all it requires is one to fully transcend, for everyone to. So i guess you are right that we shouldn't be talking about shadows.

That the cultivation of time is a means to transition towards no-time. You can prepare them for the cliff, but you cannot make them jump. But then again, if they jump because they are ready to jump, the cultivation of time is a means to end time. As people are stuck in time already, you cannot avoid using time/duality to help them escape it.

But they will invariably read and contemplate what you write, as you have come really far compared to many others on this forum. With power comes responsibility. The more you embody nothingness - no-seeking - the more people will seek you out, and look towards you for words of wisdom. You cannot avoid people looking for answers, so why not provide the answers that are questions?

If you took someone who has never cliff-dived before to the highest cliff and told them to dive into the water far below, they would probably become scared of cliff-diving. If you instead took them to some of the lower cliffs first, and progress to higher and higher cliffs just by having fun, they might be ready for the big one sooner than you think.

My point is, that instead of insisting on explaining non-duality, explain the peculiarity of duality. It's like making people start questioning instead of trying to give them the answers.

You can never show the complete insight. Thought cannot bring an ending to thought. Thought is always concerned with manifestations of the whole, and is the tool to prepare someone for the enlightenment experience, by reducing the shock of ego-death.

Exactly(as exact as exact can be). Yes I see, but if your aim is to show the unitary movement of thought within one self(to bring an ending to thought by illuminating it), it is important to write it in a way in which those who seek guidance can understand, such as to not cause more thought-entanglement.

I believe this is why everything is shattered. The light is too strong as one, to remain one.

By writing, thinking, speaking, we are already in the cave. How do you explain the light to those who have never been outside the cave, other than through the use of the familiar, that is the shadows? As with any big truth, most cannot handle all of it at once, so you have to give it in pieces.

Where can we draw the line between the doer and the done? Isn't that which is done doing the doer as much as that which does is doing the done?

Yet the whole is already in pieces. It is easier to convey a message if you speak the same language as the listener. Endless frustration can come from trying to explain that which cannot be explained. Better untangle the mess of thought little by little. Back into the cave and talking about shadows we must, if we are to speak with the goal of ending thought.

Thoughts and desires are tools, and as with any tool its goal is to become obsolete. If the I is a collection of thoughts and desires, it has to create a self-perpetuating loop to stay alive. I require thoughts and desires to exist. If I did not constantly create problems and goals, I would quickly perish into nothingness. But as my true self is nothingness, by perishing I flourish.