FoxFoxFox

"When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner as the outer, and the upper as the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male shall not be male, and the female shall not be female: . . . then you will enter [the kingdom]." - Jesus Christ

@winterknight What is your understanding of self-referential thoughts? In your own work, you refer to the absolute insight as the final analysis. That is of course not the ground for this question. But on a relative level, do you believe that any thought can be NOT self-referential? Second question, as someone who is teaching these stuff, how would you go about intuiting that some one else is enlightened or not?

@BlackVoid Hehe. Alright.

1. Who is this "I" who wants to do all that? Inquire into that. See if this "I" actually exists first. 2. That someone dies. 3. In the sense that if your psyche is fragile, your mind might develop ailments that impair it from its usual functioning. Also even with enlightenment (in absence of drugs) you might sometimes have the sense that you are possessed. But this is all illusions caused by the mind.

@Tony 845 Nah. Also the idea that you will become more caring of the environment is just that, an idea. You read the Bhagavad Gita, the entire point of that book is for Vishnu to convince Arjuna that he should in fact go and kill his "brethren" who have taken up arms against him.

@winterknight The idea to these stages (god, unity consciousness) is that even when you are self-realized, there is still more attachments to be shed. These no longer involve attachment to the ego or the false I, but to subtler domains of existence. I am not claiming to have personal knowledge in the matter. Simply sharing what i've read/heard from other enlightened beings. The person I am mostly inferring from is Jan Esman. He quiet clearly states that God and unity consciousness are deeper stages of enlightenment for lack of a better turn of phrase. He even has a counter argument against neo-advaitan people who tell him that these stages are dual. Again, this is just interesting stuff I wanted to share.

@winterknight Lastly, have you any interest in pursuing bliss/Kundalini/chakra work? There is also speak of things such god-consciousness, unity-consciousness etc among legitimate contemporary sages. Have you any experience in that regard?

@winterknight Yes, divine comedy, really.

A personal question if I may. Have you noticed any changes in your animal fears? I previously read that you said that sex has remained the same but without the craving. Have you noticed any other biological changes?

@winterknight That does actually sufficiently answer the question. Thank you. Ramana's beautiful analogy that the Self is like a screen upon which all this plays out becomes more and more profound.

@winterknight This question is difficult to phrase properly, nevertheless I shall try. When speaking of Maya, what exactly are the texts referring to? Is it the experiences provided by the senses, the conceptual framework which the mind overlays on this experience or both? If both, does that mean that absolute reality is always unmanifest?

@Ampresus So here's the thing, I suggest you to find the path that is most clear to you. The one that you can understand the best. Rumi was a Persian poet. The most significant of his work lies in the book "The Masnavi". There are several factors here that could impede a correct understanding of what enlightenment is about. The Masnavi is first and foremost not written in prose, and is full of poetic metaphor and as such can be confusing by nature. The Masnavi was written in Persian, and unless you have a good grasp of Farsi, you are going to have to read translations. The issue there is that you'd have to (a) trust that the translation is accurate (which is not, I assure you) and (b) you'll be confined to the translator's lens, so to speak. Sufism in general is a very esoteric and not-so-well documented practice. For certain, there are historical accounts of Sufi saints such as Shams Tabrizi and Rumi who were truly enlightened, however, you are not likely to find more contemporary saints who'd teach in language which is more graspable for you. I wholeheartedly recommend you to find a lineage that is most comprehensible to you, and read its literature (for me it was Ramana Maharshi). Better yet, find a real guru who you can get in personal touch with. Also (and this is just personal opinion, not meant to insult anyone) is to give up islam. While Mohammed's teaching (complete surrender to Allah) is definitely truthful, Islam in general is more of a political religion than one interested in enlightenment, and as such, most of the scholarly work you'd find in the islamic world concerns itself with politics, sociology, law etc. and not enlightenment.

IMO zen koans are a really round-about way of doing it. There is already so much confusion in the path. One should stick to the clearest, most direct approach.

There's no need to be so fatalistic. Rarely anybody who enters the path is ready to, as you say, let all go. Even Jesus wasn't. The path itself will crush the ego until the soul is ripe for self-realization. If people were to take your advice, none would ever be enlightened.

Neither one is authentic. This "I" which you have taken to be your "self" is an illusion.

@winterknight It really doesn't.

@winterknight Well how to put this then. If there is doubt, then that's the mind's problem. It's just bodies talking to each other isn't it? Has this all been a movie? How does nothingness talk?

@winterknight Weird. Nothing at all. Well i guess i would like peace for the world. You are right. This is without a doubt enlightenment. But really there is energy all over the body, inside, like electric fire. Quite evidently its a reflection of the Self in this body. Where to take this?

@winterknight That feeling has disappeared. Is enlightenment supposed to feel any particular way? Is it supposed to be grandiose?

@winterknight No one.

@winterknight You know I really feel like I'm on a precipice, waiting to fall. I've done enough meditation. I've done enough self-inquiry. I've seen through the illusion of the fake I, and as far as I'm concerned I've seen the true nature of being as self-sustained awareness. I'm just waiting for the time when there is no longer the thought of an I. I was wondering, how did it happen in your case? Did you lose consciousness one day and wake up forgetting the "I" completely? Did happen suddenly or was it gradual? And how thorough is it? Do you *ever* have an I thought?

@winterknight You have been gracefully answering my questions. Do you have any idea where the distortion is in my understanding judging by the questions? When I witness, i come to the point where my mind is silent. I exist, without even having a thought about existing - i can only say this in retrospect. The actions which were previously associated with "I" carry on of their own accord. I might be convinced to call it pure being. There is no association with the body or the mind. Or the thought form, I. Yet, other times the ethereal mechanisms that cause identification with the fake "I" return. I believe true enlightenment is when this no longer happens, correct? In other words, I seem to have prolonged experiences of "no-mind" as pure, unmarred and unlabeled existence, yet they are temporary. What is the best course of action for one such as this?

@winterknight What course of action do you recommend for someone who has very thoroughly dis-identified with ego? The teachings tell us to identify the source of "I am-ness". What can you tell us about this sense? Is it correct to say that it is not coming from anywhere in particular? Also is this different from the feeling of the body being alive? That is a sensation coming from somewhere in the heart. Are the two different or the same? Another way of saying this, is that there is no particular sensation or feeling that corresponds to being. The best explanation i can give is that this is some sort of "knowledge" that exists before the mind or anything else for that matter. It is some sort of knowing. An example self-inquiry goes like this: I become a witness of all thoughts/emotions/sensations/objects > I become a witness of the witness. At this point, there is no end to the search for the ultimate witness. The only worthwhile realization here is that I-am is awareness itself, and it is not coming from anywhere particular. Is this a correct understanding?

More question: Sages say that "bliss" or "happiness" or "peace" is our true nature. Sat, Cit, Ananda are said to be the three main "qualities", if one can use those terms. Sat and Cit are reconcilable, but why Ananda? Is this a feeling or a sensation felt by the body? Is it simple "knowledge" of the absolute - meaning awareness of it?

Why are we here? Just to suffer?