Emanyalpsid

Ah, but it is there formless, you just can't identify it yet. If you can identify it, you can investigate it. I know you are trying to find something which you can identify with in me. What is seeking and what does it try to identify with? Okey, have it your way then. Thanks for the connect.

Ah you are trying to project something on me. That is worth investigating. What journey? I never came and will never go.

I posed the questions to you, for you to answer for yourself. Here there is no one to explore anymore, I already completed the final inquiry. Maybe interesting for your progress; I myself dwelled in a state beyond non-duality for some time, where I was aware of dependent arising, but I was still attached to consciousness on a formless level.

Thanks for answering this. I have trouble with this truth thing, I never worked with it.

Which concepts? Which dynamic? Which ownership? Attachment to this cognitive dynamic? Which embodiment? What I am writing is just experience, like writing that a leaf falls from a tree. It is true, but the words are empty, just like the leaf falling from the tree. The words are just a manifestation, just like the flower. You sense attachment, so this attachment is in you. What are you attached to? I myself dwelled in a state beyond non-duality for some time, where I was aware of dependent arising, but I was still attached to consciousness. Have you done the inquiry? Everything should be revealed there.

So you are more then experience? Then you don't want to go into the inquiry. Which is fine.

Can you elaborate? I don't get you.

What do you mean with 'here'? That is why it is the final inquiry. After answering the last question, no questions remain. You dissolve (Nirvana) from being one (non-duality). Edit: I don't know if you got my starting point. The starting point is non-duality (one), the distinctions have already collapsed.

Indeed, and the emptiness is a big hint to the answers. This goes beyond thought.

But the experience of them is there, they are there, although they are formless (not manifested). So what are they? But you are in the right direction that it is not a particular 'thing', because they are formless they are hard to identify. However, they manifest in form if the conditions are met. A flower is the manifestation of 'is'. If the flower has not manifested because the conditions are not met, it is formless. To use an example with the flower; if you plant the seed you already know that the flower is there, it however has not manifested itself yet (it is formless) because it needs to grow. But you cannot say the flower was never there, it is just formless. So you can plant the seed and let the flower manifest, or you do not plant the seed and let the flower be formless. You know the flower is in the seed. The same goes for consciousness, it can manifest if the conditions are met, which means you identify with it in the mind. It can manifest if a human body grows and identifies with experience. You don't even have to call it consciousness, the identification with experience suffices. But it is the same as with the flower (manifestation), it was already present in the seed (formless). Now we have identified them, still the question remains what they are. You are right in that the words would only be concepts, but they can describe what is happening, that is the inquiry. Like I did above. After the inquiry it can be summarized. Like I said, you must not look for a word or a thing, then you look for form consciousness.

@tedens I already did (posted a link to the topic), but I am interested if someone is willing to inquire into this, as it is the last stage before completely dissolving. Before venturing into the inquiry you are one (non-duality; transcended consciousness), after the inquiry you are none (Nirvana, dissolved, cessation of consciousness).

The vision (ideology) is always the moral problem. The same for Leo. If there is no vision, there is no moral problem.

Thanks for your response, but highly effective describes how you value it, not what it is. Can be called refers to a synonym.

What source?

1. You cannot be in Nirvana without understanding the nature of things. If you understand the nature of things, you can describe them. 2. If it is not spoken about, it is not spoken about. Let's stop with avoiding and questioning the simple questions. If you are fully enlightened, these questions should be relatively easy to answer. Not answering them, but questiong, or ignoring them is just an undermining tactic to not go into the inquiry. So please, either answer the questions or partake in the inquiry. You didn't answer the question I posed to you earlier, will you do this?

Let's not drop into subject-object level. My question was directed to your experience, where do your sun and birds come from?

Yes, but this is on a formless level. But if realized, can be put into words.

What sun, what birds?

That is why I said it is not about looking for words or answers, but about identifying what is. The questions are not conceptual, but to start the inquiry. But what is found, can be put in words, if understood.

Indeed the answer follows out of the question, but can you answer them? If you have no more questions you must know everything, or you do not want to gain wisdom. Now you are just stating the obvious to let us know you are there. So, what is? What typed your post?

@Preetom What is? If something is, there is clinging. So, it is not about naming, but about identifying (without naming).

But do you exist experience out of consciousness, absolute infinity, or Brahman, without calling it that?

Are you consciousness, absolute infinity, or Brahman?

That's your excuse?

But you know it is only you who makes this distinction. The thing is that Leo cannot check himself, he needs the community to do this for him. You can only look from the inside to the outside, not from the outside within. This would not be a problem if the community was the whole mankind. Like if everybody in the world would be on this forum, then the bullshit would not prevail. But this forum is only a small sample of humanity, interested in a specific direction. Besides this, not everybody here has a stable mind and are more easy to manipulate. So I get that Leo can't allow all criticism and closes some topics (someone has to control this beast), but it is important that topics such as this are allowed so that concerns are able to be discussed, in order for Leo to reflect upon. The bigger the community grows, the less important it becomes. The community will then take this role over. Because this is still a relatively small community, it is quite important. If Leo doesn't reflect honestly, then we have a problem. At this moment, to me, he seems like a honest guy on a path. He is doing the work. He is human so he can make mistakes, it depends on us if we forgive him or not.