FoxFoxFox

Who am I to doubt Who am I to deny Who am I to take Who am I to write, the little light that burns so bright off as mere superstition of backwards tribals?

Everyone's and imposter, chief among them God, who's been playing games, since the birth of time.

The greatest act of love is God's selfless sacrifice which makes all of this possible.

@Aakash Does that mean "everything is an illusion" is also an illusion?

@Schahin What is before you at any moment is only possible through infinite suffering on God's part. Every moment God sacrifices itself an infinite times so this life can go on. Jesus on the cross symbolizes God sacrificing itself to wash away your sin (ignorance) so you can know yourself. That is the divine plan. Know yourself.

God hmm it's a repeat post, even though the search doesn't show it.

@Preetom Oh, that's okay. There are no enlightened beings

@Aakash Out of curiosity, what's an E-BEING?

Time will change everything on its own. You take care of your own affairs. The world will take care of itself.

@Gili Trawangan pretty good.

@Petals When you are in deep sleep and someone calls your name or makes a loud sound you wake up. Yet you believe you do not exist in deep sleep. You think you go somewhere indeterminate. But why would you wake up if you weren't fully present? Awareness is unbroken at all times, no matter what's on display (if anything at all!). So, now that you are awake, what has been added to your experience that makes you search for your true Self? This is self-inquiry from another direction. By taking away all the non-essential elements of your direct experience, you'll dilute it to its essential core, and voila the Self is 'realized'.

It's not correct to say that you are the only one, when you still operate from within God's mind, as a subject of experience. It's not the same thing as saying that God, or the Self is the only thing that there is. That statement itself is not even true, it's only a convenient approximation. When the Self is realized these notions no longer make any sense. The Self does not recognize loneliness as something that it is subjected too, but rather loneliness is recognized as the object of awareness (still an inaccurate approximation). The quickest way to recognize this 1. to have a good intellectual understanding of the subject matter, and 2. have enough quiet of the mind for the knowledge to integrate.

No because what we call enlightenment for convenience's sake is not a state at all, meditative or otherwise. @Kushu2000

@lmfao Real insight is not known through words, either as a mental narrative inside or speech uttered to others. Insight is pure knowing - an inherent quality of universe. Beliefs are almost always verbal. That is their foundation is based on logic, reasoning etc. no matter how outlandish the particular train of thought might be.

Shoot.

@SoonHei Haha yeah i get what you mean, but i'd say the Self is incredibly forgetful. I'm having trouble recalling even an hour ago. But it's okay. The Self really doesn't have anywhere to go, since only it is to begin with. I would say that with repeated stepping into your true self, each subsequent attempt becomes easier and easier until "attempt" loses all meaning. Conventionally, people will tell you that one day the "state" becomes permanent. But right now, that there is no state, and that the Self is always unbroken is much more agreeable.

@Aakash It's a good explanation as far as explanations go, but ultimately it's not the case either. Better to abandon the "logical" ship altogether asap. A truly quiet mind is synonymous with bliss. That's good enough explanation imo. Effort directed towards quieting the mind will be more beneficial than all philosophizing. I mean infinite itself is an idea. Idea itself is an idea. That an idea is an idea is itself is an idea, ad infinitum. The moment one engages in this activity, true knowledge is lost.

@Aakash TBH, i have no idea what you just said :')

@winterknight Gotcha

You don't get there. You are always it. It's the activity of the mind that causes the belief that you are not it. Every obstacle in front of this realization is mental. The thought that you are somebody who has to get there itself is the problem. The thought that there are obstacles itself is the problem. At first glance this sounds like a real catch-22, but if you can just abandon that frame of reference, all will make sense. A quiet mind is probably the best aid.

It's a matter of perspective really. If you are looking from the inside, it'll expand infinitely to all directions, and it'll certainly go deeper and deeper to no end. If you take any piece of matter and look at it under the microscope, you can zoom in forever and you'll never reach an end. From the outside though, you don't really think of this stuff because thoughts themselves are absent. There is no frame of reference for your to judge by. You can use the analogy of the sun. The sun illuminates everything without care. The screen itself is a thought. There is no screen. Love is not something one does. Love is light.

Hey @winterknight could you further explain this paragraph from your blog post: The “I am” thought, which is, after all, just a thought, is painful and binding because of another invisible thought — it’s the ‘veiling’ thought. That is, the fact that the “I am” thought is itself merely a filter for the original pure light, is hidden. There is an invisible thought that ‘covers up’ the fact of the space within which thoughts occur. It hides that space. It hides the reflectivity of thought and perception — the fact that these are all things that occur to us. What do you mean by invisible thought? Is this supposed to mean an unconscious quality? Would it be correct to assume that you are referring to the "I am" thought hogging all of awareness?

@Leo Gura In your understanding, then, what exactly is this "human sense"? What is it and how is it felt/perceived? I'm asking for its subtle forms to bring into consciousness so they can be properly integrated or annihilated. I don't mean conceptually because that is easy to see through, but i cannot find this sense otherwise - other than somatic feelings that are directly experienced which give us the notion of being the body - which again, is very easy to see through as illusory. For me, It's just as easy to accept the notion that my being is the totality of my experience and not centered around the body - this evolves from theoretical knowledge to practical experience in mediation where the center of being dissolves and moves from "behind the eyes" to the totality of being (kinda like a multi sensory media experience, where every sense is just the self and not belonging to separate parts). The issue then, is that if spiritual teachings are to be believed, an experience like this is supposed to irreversibly result in awakening ("in a snap," etc.), but this has not been the case like in your own case (at least if i understood you correctly). There have been extended periods like that, but perpetual returns to that mode has not made it permanent. I judge "enlightenment" by feelings of peace, weightlessness, and absence of "auto-pilot egoic life", btw. also, how do you define the Ego?

Some added context for the post above: To Jung the correct answer to the problem of the unconscious is proper individuation. That is, correct understanding of the God's Mind as opposed to surrendering to its whims. Theoretically, this results in a healthy, happy and functioning individual. He is not arrogant enough to believe that a complete map of the unconscious is possible (due to the it being infinite, and due to the fact that understanding the whole as the part is impossible) but he also believes that it will always be possible to detect unhealthy signs of Egoic repression/expansion in enlightened individuals, even if the subject is Jesus himself. I've heard the same theory (integration after enlightenment rather than pure egoic annihilation) by other people as well, for example Teal Swan.

@Leo Gura Recently I've been reading some of Jung's work, specifically Aion: Researches on the Phenomenology of the Self (vol. 7 of collected works). He refers to God's mind as the collective unconscious (actually uses the terminology "God's mind"). It's quite illuminating how extensive his conceptual understanding of it is and how he can practically utilize it to cure people's psychological trauma (which often happen when people become conscious of unconscious projections without being able to properly integrate this newfound information into their daily lives) . Jung however, adamantly defends the Ego, and considers it to be an inseparable aspect of the Self rather than a clear cut segment of it that should be transcended or annihilated (basically, the Ego or conscious awareness + the collective consciousness + the personal/collective unconscious makes up the totality of the Self). To him, a faulty Ego (whether disproportionately expanded or contracted) is synonymous with psychological dysfunction. In other words, to Jung, a person who loses his sense of conscious being by completely dissolving it in the unconscious (which according to him, is the case with the prophetic/miracle-working types) is a psychic disease, even though the people themselves might not believe it to be the case. He believes that it is a symptom of improper individuation. This view sits in total contrast with the Ego-annihilationist school which believe that the Ego has to be completely transcended for "enlightenment". These are the people who adamantly refuse to acknowledge the relative reality of concepts and phenomena. The people who are completely on the Absolutist side of the spectrum. What are your own thoughts about this issue? Which viewpoint is more truthful?