Emanyalpsid

Never have looked at the process this way. Which I mean literally. But I cant say that I attach to something if I dont pay attention to something. So inatention and attachment are not the same for me. I used attention to meditate on objects, trying to figure out what I was perceiving. Now I see that if I pay attention to something I attach to something. But it is one of the last attributes I left behind, you can only leave focus behind if you see through the mutual dependent nature of everything and its non-existence. And with non-existence I dont mean no existence, cause things exist. They dont exist upon themselves though. Everything is a seamless stream of nature constantly in motion. To use the flower example I have used often. A flower is not only a flower because it exists out of matter. It is dependent upon gravity, space, time, etc. It needs everything from its surrounding to be a flower. Without its surroundings there wont be a flower. So the flower does not exist upon itself. To see through this, you will have to focus on the flower to figure out what really constitutes the flower. If you leave focus behind earlier on, or not develop it, I guess you will not be able to see through the objects for what they really are. So I would say that focus or attention is a virtue or attribute to develop, but only as a method and to be left behind in the end. The leaving behind goes almost automatically when one sees the nature of reality. Now I am only left with equanimity and dont really use a mental focus as it only costs energy. If I focus on something, I am attaching me to something, and now I realized that this serves no use. As every object is nothing more then a part of the whole. I would however not say that i am unfocused, as I am very aware of what is happening around me. I just dont really pay attention to it, I let it be, I dont let it disturb my state of consciousness. However, if I feel pain or discomfort my mind tends to focus on it, then it serves a use I guess. The body is miraculous invention, it is only by our will and convictions that we ignore the present. Edit; I however get your notion that attention leads to seeing without the veil of a self. If one deeply focuses on a object, the self as interpretator will dissolve. That is the utility of focus. I think in my post above I describe the same thing you mean by the two step process. I however use the word interpretation there. I must say; Your explanations are often not very clear to me as you seem to describe less detail in your logic. This has the effect that it costs me a lot of energy to interpret your logic. Maybe it is the best you can do, but I see you posting a lot on this forum, which is nice, but if you leave details open out of convenience, be aware that someone else has to fill them in. So please explain with as much detail in your logic as you can. This also has the benefit of understanding your own logic.

Well often, if not always, this is the case. On the website I explain this as follows: "From the interpretation of whether an observation is pleasant or not, the self grows, through which you like to strive for the pleasant and avoid the unpleasant. The self grows because your interpretation of observations develops into a conviction, as a result, this conviction becomes mentally separate from the observation itself, because you define it; ‘something’ is pleasant or unpleasant. The conviction from which you pursue the pleasant and avoid the unpleasant is therefore based upon previous observations, which you have interpreted as pleasant or unpleasant. So you seek, from yourself, continuous confirmation, of earlier interpretations, of observations, from your conviction, which is based on these earlier, own, interpretations, of observations, which form yourself. As a result, a person can seem to be boundlessly convinced of him- or herself, if the person gets enough confirmation, based upon his or her own interpretations, by pursuing his or her own convictions. The above shows how difficult it is to see through the self. It is like trying to explain someone that what he or she believes in, only exists so because he or she believes in it him- or herself, and that this self consists of his or her own interpretations. This goes against your belief, but seeing through the self is about the opposite of what you belief; non-belief. A person consists completely out of his or her convictions in what he or she believes, and pursues this belief throughout his or her whole life, and will continually strive for confirmation of him- or herself on the basis of his or her own convictions. A person will always have a tendency to avoid the unpleasant and to pursue the pleasant. He or she will want to condition him- or herself in a state where he or she only experiences pleasant things and no unpleasant things. This makes the person inflexible to deal with situations that are unpleasant, or which gets him or her out of their conditioned state. The person is therefore stressed more quickly if unpleasant situations occur, and will have more trouble dealing with them. In life, unpleasant things will always happen, so it is more convenient to accept this and learn how to deal with them, than to try to create a conditioned state where you do not hope to experience them by avoiding them. A contradiction in, or doubt of, his or her conviction will be experienced as something unpleasant and will be avoided. This ensures that seeing through the self is made even more difficult by itself. The self is the conviction of itself. Letting go of this conviction ensures that the self dissolves itself." You can find it in chapter 13. The process of growth from the self can be found in chapter 10.

If the toe I perceive is smashed against something, I just feel pain. I don't identify with it, it is just there. I feel the pain, but I don't suffer from it. I know it had a cause, over which I didn't had any control. There is a difference between feeling something and identifying with it. The body is a difficult object for meditation as it is the vessel through which we perceive. I am everything I perceive, but I only perceive it. I am not the object itself. So I am not the toe I perceive or anything for that matter. See chapter 9 for more information on the body. You are trying to defend your experience by saying; "This forum and spiritual communities are filled with people going in circles of insight and understanding without even freeing themselves in liberation." If you defend something, you identify with something. Not saying it is wrong what your saying there, but not that it is true either. It is your interpretation, which stems from your worldview, which stems from your experience, of what is happening. Your statement is just your observation. Without really knowing what other people think and experience to its fullest extent. How do you know if they feel liberated or not? Insight, understanding and liberation is a feeding circle from my experience. With insight comes understanding comes liberation. With liberation comes insight comes understanding. With understanding comes insight comes liberation. That you didn't experienced that liberation comes from insight, doesn't mean that it can't be. Maybe if you look into this you will find some things. However, someone who believes he is enlightened will not look further as then he is not enlightened anymore. That is why there are probably a lot of people reading this topic but afraid to ask questions as this will put their believes to the test. Only he or she who want to fully know themselves will achieve enlightenment. It is not a question if someone is able to, but it is a question of perseverance and openness of mind. That is why they made Buddhism such a disciplined method. I was also, for quite some time, in the assumption I was enlightened when I saw through the 'I'. But then I realised I didn't understood some things. And if I don't understand them, I suffer from them. There is some self left which doesn't understand. One can also be enlightened without understanding. If you dont want to understand, you don't suffer. But then you also dont understand. But I appreciate your posts even if they don't come out of curiosity but from a attempt to defend your believes. You are one step ahead.

What do you mean with heal?

I dont know what kundalini is exactly, but it has something to do with feeling/releasing of energy in different body parts right? I feel a lot of energy in my head, a bit the same as when you are high and you feel this in your head. You could say I feel a bit high all the time, but I am not in my head. I feel very 'grounded.' But I presume that this is feeling of energy is more due to an increase of neurtransmitter activity in the brain due to an increase in connections between neurons. Created due to an increase in ways you perceive and look at things or some sort. The opposite of what happens in the brain when someone is depressed, where the numbers of used connections decreases. If someone wants to call this kundalini, soit.

@Jack River I will go into your questions another day, I noticed them though. I had a rough day and contemplating about these deep subjects cost a lot of energy. This forum is my first discussion with other people about enlightenment and I have to dive in the minds of others and my own. And I dont have a lot of experience with this yet. Also my 'enlightenment' is not so long ago and there are a lot of subjects brought up here, which I did not think or talk to about with others yet.

Well, this is the same as with insight and liberation. They go hand in hand, in other words; they are mutually dependent. Words create a self and the other way around. The body does not spontaneously create a self identy, this comes from ignorance, wrong-knowing or lack of understanding. I get the feeling you didn't see through the mutual dependent origination of everything yet as you deem understanding as less important. For more information, see chapter 10, 11 and 12 on the website. To elaborate a bit more for the readers to understand. Both explantions underneath are true and both are not-true, however they are not false. -How can we have genuine and clear insight with the conditioned self identity filtering our perception? So it seems that attachment doesn't lead to insight but it is liberation, unattached perception, that leads to insight. -Yes, but liberation comes from insight, whether it is an intuitive understanding or a conceptual understanding doesn't matter, it stretches from feeling to thought. In relation to Buddhism of course. Liberation leads to insight and insight leads to liberation. So they are both true, but therefore, if one looks for the truth, they both can not be true. However, they are not false either. It is the believe in 'truth,' you have, which prevents you from seeing through this as one must be false and one must be true. So, if two people discuss enlightenment, but who are not enlightened; 1. they will try to reason their way to the truth, however in this case there are two truths. So there is a big chance they will differ from opinion what enlightenment is and how to reach it. They will not see that they are both true and will only get mingled up in semantics and the search for the real truth. They will not get closer to enlightenment. 2. however, because one can only understand this when actually reaching nirvana, one has to hold on to a truth before that, as else one would remain in continiuous doubt. Therefore, buddhism designed the four noble truths. However, because 'truth' has such a central point in western thinking, we become too attached to the truth. In the end you will need to let this go again and if you become too attached to this, it inhibits your enlightenment. Therefore, I dont mention the truth anywhere on the website, but only use empirical evidence out of science.

They go hand in hand, we only separate them with our words. Without words, there is no distinction. So, yes, definitely.

What do you mean? What is your point?

Indeed, it is about knowing oneself and accepting this without clinging to it or looking for it's essence. You just are. Thanks for your post, your explanation is clear to me and maybe other people can relate to what you say.

@SOUL Yes, but liberation comes from insight, whether it is an intuitive understanding or a conceptual understanding doesn't matter, it stretches from feeling to thought. In relation to Buddhism of course. I get your notion that the focus should not be too much on the conceptual understanding. In fact, focussing on a conceptual understanding is the problem in the first place. However this is a forum and a lot of people seem to be struggling with the conceptual understanding of enlightenment. If they are already searching in their mind, they have to find a way out of this first. They will not be able to get the intuitive understanding without first finding the way out of their mind. In other words, you can not say to a thinker to simply not think. This will not work for them. Therefore I wrote the website, as a guide out of your mind.

By asking 'why' you look for a reaon. Reasoning is what creates the ego. So by asking yourself these questions you are only trying to feed your ego. I can't answer it as any answer I would give you would be my believe. How come you wanna know?

@SOUL Therefore I mention "And with understanding them, I mean a transcedental understanding as a direct insight into the nature of reality." If one perceives the nature of it, you dont suffer from it. Edit: I can add 'realization' though. Thanks for your message.

You are trying to link something out of the physical world to the mental world. You can think up any argument you want but it will be nothing more then theory. Without testing it in practice it is just your believe. So you can discuss anyhting you want, but is useless, outside of training your debate skills. if you dont test it, cause you will only come up with theory. If you are scared for a physiological reaction (when the baseball bat hits your head), your mental state is influenced by a physiological reaction.

By using logic you are only creating a mental construct, trying to confirm your beliefs. Instead; whack each other on the head with a baseball bat. If your mental state is not influenced by this... you have your answer. If you are scared to do this.. you have your answer.

Nice question! I dont mention this anywhere, on purpose, as the translation into the word 'truth' is quite onfortunate. The word truth, in the four noble truths, actually refers more to an understanding or realization. I would rephrase them into; - Realization there is suffering. meaning; all existence is dukkha. Dukkha is often translated into 'suffering,' but a better translation to me would be 'unsatisfactoriness.' - Realization of the cause of unsatisfactoriness. Meaning; the cause of unsatisfactoriness is craving. - Realization there is an end to unsatisfactoriness. Meaning; The cessation of dukkha comes with the cessation of craving. - Realization the path is the right way. Meaning; the noble eightfold path There are two reasons I do not use them. 1. The word 'truth' has a different place in the western world then people from the east might think. 'Truth' is a central concept in the thinking process of a lot of people. So if the word truth is used, they are going to hold onto it and look for the truth. While there actually is none (besides the one in which you might believe). So it hinders them from realization. Now people from the east, who helped in translations, probably didnt know this, and it is, what I assume, one of the main reasons why buddhism is not really understood in the West, or approached with a false assumption. 2. The path would refer to the noble eightfold path. However this is not a mandatory path, by refering to it you would focus on it. Translations make room for a lot of interpretation errors. I do mention suffering in my first post. Read carefully.

Actually, the flower example suits here; if we define something as a flower, we think that the flower exists upon itself and we can give meaning to the flower. We are in the believe that it exists out of matter and that this matter constitutes the flower. However that which really constitutes a flower is of dependent origin, as the flower is dependent upon space, time, gravity, matter,etc. Its essence is therefor empty. You can not define the flower by only mentioning the matter. Where would this flower be without space, time and gravity? This is the same as with the university. The university exists out of everything it constitutes: the professors, the students, the buildings, the books, the website, etc. So you can not say the buildings are the university.

@Serotoninluv @winterknight You are not understanding eachother but are refering to the same thing. Serotoningluv said: the University of Texas is an imagined concept and not actual. Winterknight said: the idea of the university as something localizable, something you can point to and say "That's the university!" -- that idea is wrong. Thats the same. I know what winterknight is pointing to but only because I have the insight already. Let me think of an example to explain it in a different way.

You believe in them because you think there is a truth right? But what is truth really? To help you a bit, it is the same as asking yourself; what is I really?

This all is what makes the end, meaning being close to Nirvana, so difficult to communicate. As concepts start to fall apart. You dwell between Perceiving and non-perceiving Existence and non-existence Truth and non-truth The clinging to these concepts is what is left of your self as they give meaning to it self. You can identify with them. The key is in seeing that after dissolving your personal self, there is still itself left; the believe that reality exists upon itself. At first you will not see this, the same as you didn't see that the 'I' was just a self-sustaining belief. To sustain this believe in itself you use concepts as 'truth,' meaning you believe in them, and reasoning is its method.

Indeed, a thought is a self inherently. However, it is when we cling to the them or want to avoid them (the opposite of clinging) is when we suffer from them. As a thought is nothing more then the result of the desire to give meaning to something, which you believe exists upon it self, and can be given meaning to. For example, if we define something as a flower, we think that the flower exists upon itself and we can give meaning to the flower. We are in the believe that it exists out of matter and that this matter constitutes the flower. However that which really constitutes a flower is of dependent origin, as the flower is dependent upon space, time, gravity, matter,etc. Its essence is therefor empty. You can not define the flower by only mentioning the matter. Where would this flower be without space, time and gravity? So, there is nothing that exists upon itself, everything is constantly in motion. Every object is dependent upon everything else. You can't grasp anything. So a thought will never be true, it is just the believe in it which makes it true. This however does not mean that thoughts are false, it is just our interpretation of what we experience. And to survive, they are very helpful.

Ah oke that is what you meant. It is vaguelydescribed here, deleted the link; https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/gunaratana/wheel351.html#ch4.2 But readers dont get hung up on the texts on that website, thinking you have to experience what is written there. It is just an attempt to describe a path. The texts and practices there can be very unclear for a logical western thinking mind, but suit yourself. That is why I wrote my own notes and texts.

Edit; although upon a second reading of your question I dont really know if you mean that. What do you mean exactly?

Actually, the realization came when I was on a shroom trip. Don't underestimate psychedelics though. If you are not mentally ready you can get very lost and it is very hard to come back from a wrong corner. Therefor I only used it in moderate quantities to have clear thoughts. Why pose a question? Edit; oh sorry didnt see this question was not directed at me.

Dont know the words but according to wikipedia it comes from hinduism. According to the text there; In monist traditions, sacchidananda is considered directly inseparable from nirguna (attributeless) Brahman or the "universal wholeness of existence", wherein the Brahman is identical with Atman, the true individual self. Atman is the opposite of anatman. Atman means self and anatman non-self.