raphaelbaumann

This exercise is about how meaning is generated and I am sure that many of you already have done it. Become right now conscious of this word: GOAT Where is the meaning of the word "GOAT" located? Is it in the Word? Or where is it? Try to become conscious that in actuality there is no meaning in the word Goat. GOAT Now look at the word below, which also means goat in belarusian. Notice that it actually means nothing. казёл Notice that as you read this sentence that there is meaning. Where is the meaning of these words? Is it in the words? Notice that these two words are actually literally the same being: GOAT - казёл Where is the meaning?

As soon as you distinguish between Actuality and Concept your gone be liberated in many ways. Just start to see that any concept about reality, whatever it is, is not what is actual there. You might wanna check out Leo's Episode on this "What is Actuality? - Distinguish Dirrect Experience vs Concept. That's gonna make a huuuuuuuge difference

Watch the video in this thread. Then your Question may be answered

@Inliytened1 Alright alright thanks! Mahasamadhi = Formlessness stops making distinctions within itself = Absolute POV = Includes all relative POV's Would you agree on this conceptual understanding?

@Inliytened1 Alright alright thanks^^. Mahasamadhi however is a different matter then? As if Nothingness stopped imagined infinity there would literally be Nothing left. (other than formlessness) In contrast to Mahasamadhi however, we would still be left if anyone goes into mahasamadhi, so it would be false to say that Infinity ends at the point of mahasamadhi. Thanks for being so patient

Why it's not making any sense to me is that I would not say that there is My mind or your mind but just Nothingness aka Self which is imagening all things. (Which is as you said our shared reality) And if everything truly would end there wouldn't be anything left at all other than this Nothingess which stopped imagening infinty/everything, or not?

By Infinity I mean all the infinite number of forms that Nothingness is imagening. (Formed side of Nothingess = Infinity , in my understanding) What I was asking was whether you think that infinite imagination will end when you merge into Nothingness/Mahasamadhi. As I see what many people is confusing here on the forum, me aswell, is how there can be anything left after the first person going into mahasamadhi, as Leo says "Everything ends" . So I don't get why there are any forms left when truly everything would end ? Hope that makes sense

Do you say that infinty ends and only the formlessness remains after Mahasamadhi? Or do you say that only one of the infinite bubbles (POV's) withing the formless bursts and becomes the formless?

It's not improper to it's just that suffering is the natural consequence of not being in your true nature. Suffering is mostly caused just by thoughts, so just start by looking at them from another place. Learn to observe them without judging them

@Farnaby There is actually no duality between Awareness and its apparent objects. The observer is observed / the witness is the witnessed. There is nothing seperate away from a thought witnessing the thought. The thought is Awareness itself.

Person= appearance in consciousness , as everything else that appears to be. But how do we still remain here when everything really ends when somebody goes into mahasamadhi? The Imagination kinda remains ?

If the universe really ends then, shouldn't then the first person doing it be the last one aswell? I mean how otherwise? I'm actually really interested in understanding why you often make this point @Leo Gura

When studying the teachings of Peter Ralston, he often describes this: Our perception / experience of reality is never direct and that perception cannot provide your true nature or the true nature of anything. The average Non-Dual teacher, like Rupert Spira, Mooji and Eckhart Tolle, points out to recognize our true nature as Awareness which is by their definition, that which is aware of our experience. However Peter points out that becoming directly conscious of what something is, is not to be confused by being aware of something. Being conscious: Directly grasping what something IS (direct) Being aware: being aware of experience / perception (non-direct) What's your understanding of that? If anyone has directly grasped what something is , for example a cup , how did it differ from being aware of it?

I've done further research on the topic how yogis for example can have direct consciousness how it is to be an orchid, an atom etc. One could make this distinction between experiencing what we call "the visual appearance of an orchid" and “being the orchid itself" although that doesn't make one more direct than another. Read the book "Samadhi - by Santata Gamana" if you are interested in how yogis can experience what it's like to be an orchid etc. However, not sure if Peter means this when he says "as itself" in his teachings. @Leo Gura @Dodo

Beautifully explained, thanks!

I really don't know dude what Peter is about here..

Ok I realized the most basic Non-Dual truth aka Noself and I get that there is no "I" experiencing anything. I get also that Awareness never encounters anything but is Beingness itself (nothing more to experience than Awareness) But after realizing Beingness my experience didn't change. It was more like a recontextualization. So I was wondering like why he's saying "indirect" when it has always been direct from the beginning. @WaveInTheOcean Yes that's what I would say aswell. It 's just like I don't get why he emphasizes alot that perception isn't direct and is more like radar of what's there and not actually what's there. As after the realization that consciousness is also all form the seight of an apple is exactly the same as before the realization. Not anymore direct than before. Rather a recontextualization? @Leo Gura

@Gesundheit

hey Wanted to make a thread where everyone could share how they inquired into distinctions and what caused the AHA moment for them. Also share what questions were most helpful for you or which videos/books helped you the most. Any other pointer are nice too!

@Nahm Good point. That's the nature of Form and Formlessness aka Non duality.

Peace This topic has already been mentioned on the forum but it still doesn't seem clear to me. "You will take the entire universe with you" "You are imagening the entire universe" How is it that we are still here after people have entered Mahasamadhi again and again. If they take everything with them, shouldn't it be all inclusive? Something is missing in my conceptual understanding. If you got it conceptually, glad to hear about it

Absolutely that's also what I would imagine it to be and thanks for clearing it up. The other two possibilities seems absurd. Yet still at 1:50:00 it really sounds like that everything would end but of course the probability that I misinterpret what he said is high. I totally agree but as for my conceptual understanding of enlightenment this was just a too huge contradiction that I needed to inquire into. But as we discovered, it was probably my fault so sorry for that!

He didn't. He said that you would take everybody with you and that nothing remains.

That's what I would say aswell. But when did Leo say that there will remain the imagination of the suffering of his relatives if he dies/mahasamadhi?