The0Self

Yeah. Same happened here.

Other-ness vanishes. As does solidity. And sense.

Yes. No. No. I don't know.

Enlightenment is simply the truth. There is no I to it. It is not want-able. How could one want what is already the case?

It is only a duality if you assume two separate people. People don't exist. All is God. I am you -- there is no I or you to it, even. To be God is to know nothing of God.

Definitely. Some thoughts on this stuff: Enlightenment has nothing to do with expansion of consciousness, which can be done via psychedelics, meditation, and spiritual practice. So this comment is very much not dealing with things on that level -- and "that level" is where all the fun stuff is, so this comment has no purpose. On "that level," a powerful technique I can offer is to ignore current life circumstances and remain in your chosen reality until it appears... Anyway, enough of that... There is no here, so there is no there. There's no one here nor over there, there's just this non-contextual appearance fluctuating in and as pure emptiness / "nondual consciousness." There's just this singular appearance, and even this is not, yet also is not separate from the is-ness that is all there is. All there is is all there is. *** Ever looked at a still pond with trees around and clouds in the sky? In the reflection, the trees and clouds (and birds, etc) look like they're far apart from each other (in 3D), but of course it's an illusion because it's all just the still surface of the water of the pond. So to with consciousness. But extrapolate that to all dimensions, not just that "flatness." And also extrapolate that to time as well. There is literally no separation of any kind at all, whatsoever. No character is any better or worse (or even "further along") than any apparent other character. All are equally perfect expressions of wholeness. *** Truth / Nothing / Unconditional Love / Infinitude with/as its infinite power is longing for its own absence, i.e. it's longing for something. In this imaginary something, this Nothing seems to appear as a someone who longs for its absence, which is this already. The infinite is timeless. It can't be any other way, because where Nothing is... you seem to be, and it's unimaginable that you are Nothing, so a witness or person is extrapolated to be where that Nothing obviously is, and that alone is the root of what we call ignorance. What is longed for will never come, because it is already. If you (not necessarily you, just generally speaking for onlookers) cannot see this, it's because you don't know what you means. How to find what you means? It is you who must find out. One who thinks they have attained personal gain from enlightenment is neither enlightened nor a seeker -- they are locked in impenetrable illusion. The Self alone is real -- there are no others. That's the whole "teaching." There is just what seems to play out -- i.e. nobody ever does anything, as there isn't anyone separate from The Infinite to do so. It seems the three ways this process can unfold (in the story) are: (all are attempts to get closer to what already is, so... even though they "work," they do not make any sense) (and they aren't even actually practices despite how they may appear, they're actually pointers) 1. Surrender Surrender to the higher/highest power all personal desire and will. Relax all voluntary action and inaction to nil. Very simple. Surrender to God all the world's problems, including your own. It must be attempted at all times. It's impossible to do at all times, but the culmination of the practice is when it happens all the time automatically without any burden of effort. (a) A preliminary practice for surrender (or any of the three) is something called Karma Yoga. If one successfully keeps the mighty infinite intelligence of God fully in mind, they will not care about anything including even the results of their own actions... Attempt to do just that. God in its ineffable infinitude knows best, and there is only the infinite, so if you identify as a finite being, you can be certain that this particular "you" is not actually doing anything of its own will. Karma becomes unselfish and the real process (one of the three) can then begin. Sri Krishna's instructions for Karma Yoga, from the Bhagavad Gita: 1) Do your duty, but do not concern yourself with the results. 2) The fruits of your actions are not for your enjoyment. 3) Even while working, give up the pride of doership. 4) Do not be attached to inaction. 2. Self inquiry Find the source of your self; where the I comes from. Who am I? The Self is pure nondual awareness. There is no way nor need to cultivate or attain it. All you have to do is give up being aware of other things... that is, of the not-self -- any objects or thoughts one is aware of. Turn away from all objects separate from you (experienced by you). Whatever you know as an object, including even the witness, is not you -- you are aware of all of it, and none of it (i.e. none of whatever you appear to be conscious of) is you. Use everything (all objects) as merely a reminder to you that you are aware of it, and hunt for that one who is aware, until the spaciousness is revealed, and when you fall out of it, do it again, and attempt this at all times. It is crucial that it is done at all times, as crazy as that sounds (though it will make sense in the end just how much it doesn't make sense). It's impossible to do at all times, but the culmination of the practice is when it happens all the time automatically without any burden of effort. Realization is not something new -- I am that I am; the only truth is that there is truth. You're looking for how you know that you are, to the exclusion of all else -- that is the Self. 3. Spiritual Autolysis (Jed McKenna's technique) Preferably in writing, exclaim what you know for sure, and then find out how it's actually untrue. Until nothing is left. At the end it can get quite painful when all that's left is stuff like "I am a good person." But in the end, even though all is lost, nothing was lost.

Btw, if one has been seeking enlightenment for more than 3 years and they think that's the path they've been on for those 3+ years, then they are mistaken. Once the process of awakening/unknowing begins, it ain't taking more than 2 years. Why? Because one will be shocked at their naivety 3 days ago on a constant basis -- it's that swift. It's a dehypnotization. It's highly likely going to be under 2 years, and probably more like 18 months, perhaps even 6 months. And when it ends, which it doesn't (it's quite paradoxical), none of your existential questions will be answered -- rather, the framework in which existential questions could make any sense will simply be no longer... All the questions were built upon false assumptions to begin with. And enlightenment doesn't make sense -- can't stress that enough -- thus revealing perfect sense. The great surprise is that there was only ever liberation, already -- immensely unexpected. The primary illusion hiding enlightenment, one could say, is the illusion of value and stakes. When there's no one left, even hardship is bliss, but for no one -- which is already the case.

It's pointing to what enlightenment is. Anyone who achieves it will say something along the lines of: "where the fuck is enlightenment?" Since there's no one left to be enlightened. It is most certainly not spiritual in any way, even though it is what all spirituality is pointing to. However, what does spirituality often function as? It functions as the guardian of this state -- preventing it from happening by offering hope, when enlightenment involves absolutely no hope whatsoever. The non-teachings you mention are the most direct possible pointings, take it or leave it. Essentially.

I spent a lot of time with that one.

Enlightenment would be the apparent end of the illusory dualistic subject object reality in which a real someone explores a world out there. There isn't anyone looking at your screen, there's just this singular appearance, but it's only an appearance, it's not limited by circumstance, and isn't true. But no one ever becomes conscious of that, because there is no separation. Enlightenment is just the truth, it has nothing to do with happiness and mindfulness, but it will be associated with no beliefs being taken as real, but it's not that there's someone left experiencing their beliefs as not real, there's just no context to the limitless appearance.

He's doing great work, but the truth is simpler and more mind-blowing. It's still only a pointer and a story, but... You are infinity, or absolutely nothing, longing for its own absence -- i.e. something. So you imagine something (else). But where you now seem to be, in that apparent duality, is still just nothing, but there is the apparent claim that there is someone where that nothing is. And out of that apparent someone is the longing for its own absence as well, which is futile because it's already the case -- that someone is nowhere to be found, already.

He's rather intelligent is all. Not anti-spiritual, just ignorant of what enlightenment is. Only seems to be materialistic due to him not having transcended his own skepticism. He's stated many times that the fact that something seems to be, is the one thing that can't be an illusion -- this means he's at least not completely ideologically attached to materialism as an ultimate ground. You can get a good picture of his take on spirituality by listening to his Jim Newman and Rupert Spira conversations. In the Spira conversation it's clear he's confused about the non-assuming nature of the nondual-consciousness-only model. And in the Newman conversation it's clear that he confuses enlightenment with samadhi, concentration, detachment, mindfulness, and higher states of consciousness. He's fairly pragmatic (as opposed to truth-seeking) with spirituality, and isn't quite aware of how enlightenment works. I always liked him a lot -- really eloquent with his speech; fun to listen to -- even though he sometimes drops the ball on politics (e.g. the Charles Murray stuff, depending on who you ask)... but even so, he seems to be a very honest and intelligent actor. He deals with practical spirituality and while I think he does good work, he does imply that he is sometimes talking about enlightenment, but in reality he has absolutely no clue what enlightenment is. Basically he primarily seems to be into becoming more mindful and wieldy with the mind.

This comes out of the experience of separation. You are attacking a straw man. It is perfectly logical, what you’re saying...if only it related to what we’re talking about here. Nonduality does not mean only my mind exists, nonduality points to there being no mind, and no self... and no other; no separation; no context; no reality; no knowing; no one separate from this; no this; no need; no condition; no limit; no thing. Only truth... which cannot be actually objectively or certainly known, but is apparently directly and doubtlessly known. If nonduality is apparently seen, all that’s left is what is happening — not what is happening apparently in an exclusive here and now, but rather what is happening anywhere/everywhere and whenever/eternally/timelessly, but obviously nobody is aware of that. Solipsism as you recognize it is a caricature form of solipsism which is unrelated to the solipsism that merely points to truth.

No one is affected by what appears. But, and in a sense more importantly, there’s no one who isn’t affected by what appears. There’s no separation between the appearance and consciousness — as in, those aren’t even two things.

The research is a mere shadow of what can be gleamed from it in direct experience through daily meditation. Especially using a proven system like TMI or TWIM to start out with before you start going your own way with it.

There's no my this and your this, there's only this, and no you or me, only God. All there is to the wave (appearance) is the water (consciousness), the wave isn't actually something there that could even be separate from or not separate from water. There are no separate things -- it's an illusion.

Nothing wrong with seeking out positive experiences -- even after enlightenment this can happen. But as you alluded to it wouldn't be seen as a gain for what you are, since there is only wholeness. It can sort of involve a trading of the suffering/happiness cycle for the joy/peace cycle. Maybe ask the reactive imaginary ego (who may pretend to be you) "and then what?" to the "and then I'll truly be happy" trap, if it arises.

If there were no self left there might not even be a holding back of these feelings and even their expression. You're afraid of what it would mean for you to act out in these ways emotionally, creating a non-flow-state -- coming from a perspective wherein some things are better than other things, which is the character suit and it's natural in that even it isn't a real problem. This isn't prescriptive just descriptive.

But everything in the dream state is ultimately bullshit anyway so as long as one realizes that they're at least not too far off lol. And yeah if one thinks they're enlightened, especially if one thinks they might be enlightened, that's obscuring that the Self is already realized. It has always just been this -- so there's no enlightenment... That's enlightenment. It's tricky though because generally this is not seen, and that is the imaginary bondage.

(never seen entities on psychedelic) ^^ While many may consider this very strange, I actually only really encountered entities on psych's in my early 20's and late teens. Later on there were no entities ever -- just a huge boost in consciousness, mystical union, and God-realization -- in a sense, taking full responsibility for the appearance of everything; non-abiding no-other-ness.

Yeah I was just throwing it out there. It’s not that kind of fantasy, at least not one that I identify with. I don’t actually long for it, I’ve just witnessed just this seemingly almost starting to appear in my life but it was far off and definitely wouldn’t have happened (and names are obviously changed). Just expressing it to explore the topic of primary and secondary partners if anyone here has experienced something like that. I haven’t really either. And I don’t even know if anyone has (successfully) — just curious to find out. ? What it is though, is a vision of how things could have turned out with a whole bunch of synchronicities taking place incidentally. I don’t regret not having the experience, it’s just vivid and it got me curious if anyone else has experienced something similar — not that anything is necessarily to be gained. i.e. not a personal thing for my benefit in any way. Just distributing a bit of discussion potential. Not for any serious purpose and especially not my purpose.

I have primary partner, Elen, who herself has secondary partner John. And I have secondary partner Trina, who has primary partner John. All four partners have both a primary and secondary partner of the opposite sex (all are essentially heterosexual but Elen is slightly bi and Trina is slightly bicurious but currently hasn’t come to terms with that, and both the guys are quite straight but not homophobic). And the two women are both secondary (perhaps tertiary) partners, and the guys are as well but not sexually. Wonder how this would play out ? Just to be clear this is only a fantasy. But I do wonder how the dynamics would play out. Surely it’s been done at least once by some quartet at some point ?

It’s so sneaky and twisted, that it’s actually insurmountable. If it is apparently surmounted, inquiries aren’t even answered — the framework in which they actually made sense is nowhere to be found.

Nice! It is entirely already directly seen that movement is completely still. Since that is always the case, it isn’t noticed. Like a fish forgetting what water is.