Water by the River
Member-
Content count
1,202 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Water by the River
-
-
5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:What happened to me is that I studied so many different gurus and traditions that their contradictions became unbearable to me.
They align in the Absolute (by definition), if they have realized it. By definition, because there can only be one Infinite Absolute. And if they have realized, their pointers need to point in the same "direction".
They disagree on their understanding of the mechanisms of form/appearance. As is to be expected.
That is also a nice indicator to see if we are talking about the Absolute, or relative stuff... and that is where much of the confusion and perceived non-alignment comes from.
Water by the River
-
3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:I once showed a video of Sadhguru explaining Mahasamadhi. Ralston said it was stupid nonsense.
Who is right? And more importantly, how do you decide that?
On Sadhguru I have big doubts, yet I don't know him in detail. And even then: What is the big importance of Mahasamadhi? Is Absolute Reality not always already here eternally?
-
14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:That's just not the case.
Then let me have the cases which you consider fully enlightened that don't align. I will try to align them and their pointers if the pointers are about the Absolute, and the examples know what they are talking about.
"Rupert Spira says that solpsism is madness. Ramana Maharshi says there are no others. Rupert Spira says consciousness is love, Ralston says love is just an emotion. "
I could align that. All 4 cases know what they are talking about.
Spira: Solipsism from the perspective of an unenlightened separate self is madness. From the unenlighened mindstream Solipsism is just not true, because the "I" refered to is not the Absolute, or Impersonal Infintie Consciousness, Reality itself.
Ramana: From the Absolute perspective there are no others. But that needs Enlightenment, and a deep identity shift towards Infinite Impersonal Consciousness, Reality itself. If one is then inclined to talk fully from the Absolute Side of the street: No problem.
Spira: Consciousness is love: Ones True Nature, Impersonal Infinite Consciousness opens the mindstream towards love and bliss, or loving all that is and arises. Very clear once enlightened.
Ralston: Love an emotion in the meaning that some mindstreams show a little bit of it sometimes, others more often, the permanently enlightened mindstream needs that as basis to stay enlightened/awakened, but also produces that love as result of staying in ones nature on a consistent basis. It is a perspective on love as state that can dominate a mindstream or not.
Water by the River
-
42 minutes ago, jimwell said:So, what's the ultimate purpose of human existence? Yes, it's spirituality. But spirituality is more than just a profound understanding of existence; it also encompasses a deep reverence for it. It's a celebration of life, an intense appreciation of its magnificence, sacredness, and splendor. To simplify, the ultimate purpose is ROMANCE WITH EXISTENCE.
... and that is called Tantric Buddhism, or Vajrayana. What you describe with the focus on Nirvana and the excessive focus on the end of suffering and so on comes from the early forms of Buddhism.
https://www.shambhala.com/historical-introduction-excerpt-integral-buddhism/
One Taste, Wilber:
"The integral sage, the nondual sage, is here to show us otherwise. Known generally as “Tantric,” these sages insist on transcending life by living it. They insist on finding release by engagement, finding nirvana in the midst of samsara, finding total liberation by complete immersion. They enter with awareness the nine rings of hell, for nowhere else are the nine heavens found. Nothing is alien to them, for there is nothing that is not One Taste. Indeed, the whole point is to be fully at home in the body and its desires, the mind and its ideas, the spirit and its light. To embrace them fully, evenly, simultaneously, since all are equally gestures of the One and Only Taste. To inhabit lust and watch it play; to enter ideas and follow their brilliance; to be swallowed by Spirit and awaken to a glory that time forgot to name. Body and mind and spirit, all contained, equally contained, in the ever-present awareness that grounds the entire display. In the stillness of the night, the Goddess whispers. In the brightness of the day, dear God roars. Life pulses, mind imagines, emotions wave, thoughts wander. What are all these but the endless movements of One Taste, forever at play with its own gestures, whispering quietly to all who would listen: is this not you yourself? When the thunder roars, do you not hear your Self? When the lightning cracks, do you not see your Self? When clouds float quietly across the sky, is this not your very own limitless Being, waving back at you?"
The blue part is literal. It is not poetic.
Bon voyage!
Water by the River
PS: When considering "buying" Buddhism, don't just buy the Iphone 2 (Theravada, Hinayana). At least consider the Iphone 14, or some forms of Tantric Buddhism. Comes with Dzogchen, Mahamudra, and uhm, the juicy stuff: Tantra.
Below: "Hevajra in union with his consort Nairātmyā". What exactly are they doing?
Heaven and Earth, Consciousness and form, Emptiness and Appearance madly in loving union, dancing the cosmic dance in embrace until the end of time...
-
19 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:You will never get 100% agreement with spiritual masters. None of them even agree with each other. That's been my experience. I don't think I've ever found 2 spiritual masters who fully agree with each other. What does that tell you?
Hm... I do see if they point at the moon. And I know if they have seen fully seen the moon and know what they are talking about. Or not.
If they have fully seen it, they all align perfectly. The language and pointeres are vastly different, just take Buddhism pointing more from the Emptiness- or Madhyamaka side, and Vedanta pointing from the Eternal Consciousness side. But having seen the moon, one can tell if they talk and point to the moon.
Doesn't matter if they are dead since 1000 years...
Why is that? At the moon, all duality or concepts or pointers collapse. Since they all only have meaning because they have an opposite. And Reality doesn't have an opposite. Yet, it can be pointed to. And these pointers can be evaluated.
They disagree on relative stuff for sure, where they can be blatantly (!) wrong (see for example Zen at war, Victoria).
On the Absolute, they align. If they have realized it.
Water by the River
-
4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:When you say you have transcended or negated Buddhism, you haven't. It still runs your whole mind and worldview.
When I "look" into the essence of every concept, there is THAT. Suchness. Infinite Consciousness. Reality itself.
Buddhism is a bundle of concepts and thoughts sometimes floating and moving within That which I am. I am happy with any pointer, concept or -ISM as long as it points efficiently to what You, Reality, every other being and also my true essence really is. Some pointers and systems of pointers do, some rather not.
Luckily, I know the spring and don't need to drink out of the jar, and can now tell from my own experience which pointers point in the right direction and which not.
Don't worry, the time where concepts could cloud what I really am, and make me truly believe in any of them, is long gone.
Yet, it is interesting that you say you are able see to see into my mind concerning the transcendence of Buddhism (and its concepts). Telepatic Skills? I assume you somehow deduct it from my writing . You have never met me, so you can't know for sure which states of consciousness I am in. But well, if it seems it is easier to put me into the "Buddhism-box", it is fine. I can assure you that Reality is not Buddhism. It is beyond all of that, and on that we agree, and there we do meet. Already.
Water by the River
PS: I wish you all the best concerning your health. Get well soon.
-
4 hours ago, UnbornTao said:You're holding enlightenment as a "thing" (relative), that is presumably mediated by brain chemistry. If it's absolute, it isn't a thing. Do you think enlightenment "happens" when the right chemicals are in place? Is enlightenment lost after the "right" chemicals change? You may be talking about a change in state, which is always temporary.
His work is also aimed at understanding the relative domain -- transformation, healing, empowerment. Peter isn't saying that certain activities can't help or that they're useless, but that nothing produces direct consciousness but you.
Exactly, he's saying just that: nothing -- no activity, process, method or accomplishment -- can take you to the absolute because enlightenment isn't relative nor is it a process. Nothing done within a dream can wake you up. Best you can do is contemplate with the intent to make a leap in consciousness which is always direct.
The point is that the brain, genetics, methods are irrelevant here. By that logic a certain brain chemistry has to occur before awakening happens. There's no such thing as requisites to awakening except you becoming conscious.
Yes. All there is is Suchness, or Consciousness. Nondual. "IT" is also the only consciousness "thing" that can perceive anything. Since there is only "itself" (all appearances, every world/dimension), It can only perceive "itself". Normally as an "other", not nondual.
But that also means, since "it" is the only consciousness "thing" there is: "It" can only understand itself. There is nothing else.
"Enlightenment is an accident. Practice makes accident prone.":
We can call that "accident" of Enlightenment whatever we want: IT/Absolute is also infinitely intelligent, and an infinite network of perspectives/holons within Indras Net has to align/"approve"/whatever before ones perspective (the sentient being/you) understands/gets what "It" is ("Full Enlightenment").
There is nothing to be done at THAT point of practice, because any doing would be an arising/movement of thoughts/intentions in consciousness. An a movement of thought/ego is FORM, an appearance, and arising, starting-moving-ending IN THAT/Consciousness/Reality/You. So that is not "It".
At the right state, it can happen. That state needs to be cultivated normally over a longtime (practice makes accident-prone).
From (for example a description from the Mahamudra-system, but that step-logic of practice is in most systems): Yoga of One Taste (=already nondual) cultivating that state in which the accident can happen, to Yoga of Nonmeditation, in which all activity is stopped, and the meditation does itself, keeping the field nondual, boundless, timeless, mere appearance. In that state the reckognition can happen.
When God/The Absolute/The Totality of Indras Net "aligns" and "says yes", "you" get enlightened (the accident). At that point it is grace, Karma, brain chemistry, an act of all of Reality/the Universe/whatever one wants to call it. God/Being/Reality suddenly understanding itself in THAT perspective that is your mindstream of this life. And its impersonal, its not what you think what you are, but what you really are. And the fact that its impersonal is not bad at all...
And if Absolute Reality "says": No. Then not today darling... Please more preparation for the "accident". Then, not today darling... Even with DMT.
Ok, probably I have confused pretty much everybody with the twisted musings above, but maybe it is useful for some.
Water by the River
-
1 hour ago, OBEler said:@r0ckyreed Yeah but my ego did not invented the iPhone. God did and I can experience gods invention.
Yes.
or:
Nietzsche: God is dead.
God: Nietzsche is dead.
God (if one is inclined to call it so. Absolute Reality comes a bit less... "God-loaden") contains the ego. But the ego ist for sure not God. The essence of the ego is the same essence as everything else. The ego may think its God, but... well, you know the rest.
Actually it is not so difficult to get, both in theory in practice, but apparently its just too much fun for certain egos to consider themselves God.
Well, the show made out of that confusion (ego=God) here is .... well. Great Show
IMPERSONAL Infinite Consciousness. Which is the same as EMPTY Infinite Consciousness. Which is Reality. That contains it all, ego & character & reality & all the rest.
An example: The Reality/essence of a gold ring is gold. If the ring is molten, the essence is still the same. So the essence/God/Reality/Infinite Impersonal Consciousness IS the gold, not the ring. To say the Reality/God is the Ring is incorrect, because the ring can be gone.
The ring thinking it is all that exists = Conceptual Solipsism. The gold/IMPERSONAL Empty Infinite Consciousness understanding/realizing its Reality = True Nondual "Solipsism". But if there is only One, or better Oneness, whats the point of talking about Solipsism? To whom? Then the ring is no longer believed. It is seen through. It stops existing as being anything more than an Illusion-arising. Telling other rings/Egos "you are God" only boosts the ring, the clouding over of the actual state of things. It is a trap.
What is never the case: Ego = God. Ego = an arising within God/Reality. A part of it. Contained in it. One ring appearing in and made out of an infinite Sea of gold/Impersonal Consciousness/Reality. That is why Awakening is not stable for Psychedelic-only aficionados.
Psychedelics "bomb" large parts of the ego/separate self out of functionality (but not all of them), stoppling large parts of the clouding over of the true state of things, revealing larger parts of how Reality/True Nature really is. But not all of them. And especially not when off the trip.
And that is why suffering doesn't stop. Ego=separate self= self contraction = regular suffering.
Water by the River
-
17 minutes ago, Adam M said:Sometimes, the most spiritual thing you can do is to be a regular guy…
Yes.
10. Return to Society
Barefooted and naked of breast,
I mingle with the people of the world.
My clothes are ragged and dust-laden,
and I am ever blissful.
I use no magic to extend my life;
Now, before me, the dead trees
become alive. -
6 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:I declare just the opposite. Suffering is the heaven. Existence is.
Reminds me of a joke:
A guy dies and is sent to hell. Extremely frightened because of that, he is very surprised when he arrives; beach, palm trees, sun is shining, happy people around in shorts and bikinis. Behind the next corner there are people eating great food and there's some cool music playing. After some time of wondering, a man in an expensive suit approaches him and says: "Hi, you must be the new one. Welcome to hell, I'm the devil. As you're gonna spend eternity here, make yourself comfortable and have a drink. If anything bothers you, always feel free to ask me." The guy still doesn't really understand what's going on, this is not what he expected. But finally he decides to inspect the area. Everywhere he goes, there are people laughing and having a great time, there's games, party and fun all around. Then he arrives at a steep cliff that divides the paradise hell from an area underneath, and there is hell as we know it: demons torturing the doomed, there's fire and the smell of brimstone. Shocked, he runs to the devil and says "Devil, how can that be? Here, we have the sweet eternity and down there people are tortured and burned! How can that be?!" The devil laughs and says "Oh, that. That's the Catholics - they want it that way."
5 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:there is a thin nuance to what we are trying to express. maybe it's the same.
Yes. Anyway, no big disagreements. You are on the path, which is all that counts. I am just making commercials of the lovely holiday-destination soon to be reached, so to say.
9 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:I understand what you are saying about the contraction
And understanding that is extremly valueable. The contraction that kicks in shortly before fully waking up while slumbering, if you ever had that kind of experience. It is a very real and feelable contraction in the head, that at least I couldn't dissolve when I first started noticing it while waking up. It is that contraction that evaporates into/"becoming" the visual field/Infinity when nondual awakened states start to begin/kick in.
And when that contraction/self-contraction is dissolved during waking-life, suffering is just not more possible. Vast spacious tension-free Suchness of Reality, no thought-arising "gripping". It is that what one searches in every experience one normally seeks.
It is that self-contraction/localization (often in the head) that psychedelics tend to blast away, among doing other stuff also.
Imagine you could do that with just cutting your thought-stream and staying "on-top" of it, watching it (the thought stream) spool down in you, but not "gripping" "you". That is a wonderful relief, physically and energetically felt in the body. It is not escapism, its an additional degree of freedom to live ones life from that state.
That is not the end of the story, a subtle identity (althought non-localized) is still left-over after this point, but here its starts to get really lovely.
Selling Water by the River
-
8 minutes ago, Michal__ said:While I'm not a Buddhist and I personally do a mix of Leo's methods, heavy meditation and other methods I think it's important to note that Buddhists are not into stopping thinking at all! No serious Buddhist actually claims that!
They want to remove all emotional resistance from thinking/seperate thoughts and emotions from the rest of sensory experience.
Even those "masters" that claim not to think eventually admit that it's actually more accurate to call it "thinking not thinking" - taking non identification as far as possible
Yes. As a very experienced meditator with longterm-practice and seasoned in Awakening one can do two things
a) completely shut off the thought-flow: A high-speed cut-off at the beginning stage of a thought-emergence. The thought doesn't look like a thought in this earliest emergence phase of it, more like a ripening "seed" that is cut off. Lots of training until that point... And to continue that high-speed-cutoff of emerging thought "capsules" can stop the thought-flow completely. Until having had it, hard to imagine.
b) second, and much more important: Staying lucid while thinking, "riding" with ones awareness on the thought-stream. Pretty impossible to describe, stems partly from the ability to do a) . That skill allows to carry the meditation/awareness into daily life.
It also causes (due to its momentum in daily life more so than a), since one cant act/work without a thought flow running) the Awakened States of nonduality/one with the visual field, mere appearance (solidity of visual field removed), timelessness (time is imagined right here in THAT), boundlessness (any limit would be imagined in THAT. All of the states that psychedelics also cause. But "without the pill".
And it also it cuts the separate-self-contraction in the head which just dissolves, opening up a flow of bliss that is so strong to just overpower the suffering that the remaining separate-self tends to cause in cycles.
These are "hard" states of consciousness, not some wishful thinking or some soft states.
The separate-self/ego main-building block is regular suffering/being unsatisfied, rejecting or wanting something that is not present in that state, seeking it, getting it or not getting it, and suffering again.
Water by the River
-
5 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:I agree with Leo that Buddhism is false, I wanted him to say exactly why he thinks it is false but he didn't say it.
funny, hm?
6 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:I tell you why I think it is false and where I see the error in your line of thought. For you there is a samsara, maya, from which you have to scape to enter the bliss of true nature. the principle of Buddhism: the end of suffering. moksha would agree with you. there is none of this, that implies a duality that is not real, it is illusory and that is why enlightenment and Buddhism are illusory.
When you hit yourself with a hammer on the knee that is also illusory. Same as with the separate-self that you mostly consider yourself to be during everday life (at least I assume). It hurts (not all the time, but regularly), and if you don't know how to switch that off and release the self-contraction, you are going to suffer. Illusion yes, but suffering.
8 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:suffering and bliss are the same, they are different states of what you are.
yes. And? You prefer the suffering over the bliss?
9 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:spiritual work is not escaping from the wheel of samsara, there is no such thing.
Oh yes there is.
It feels quite similiar what you get when to go for a trip. Except one doesn't need the psychedelic then. Dissolving the self-contraction/duality/suffering with on-board-devices, independend of the 5-MeO or whatever, and having a blissfull nondual state of infinite release. The visual field turning into mere appearance/clear light "hovering" in infinite consciousness. Ones true being, right here, right now. No more clouds of ignorance/self-contraction.
The suffering IS the mechanism that never lets the separate-self or self-contraction stop seeking and suffering until it is dissolved in its True Being.
14 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:there is no such thing. It is to deepen in the now, in you, to the maximum, for the beauty that this implies.
After doing that long enough, there is a deep switching point of identity and access to this flow of bliss. Its called Full Enlightenment. Look forward to it! That is actually way better news of your(!) Potential than anything you wrote of in your post. It is your own potential, your True Nature. I am not telling you to do anything different (as practice) than what you are doing right now, but just consider to stop declaring heaven inexistent. You know, its a grave sin listed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church to declare heaven non-existant
Water by the River
-
41 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:Is the ego's nature unfortunately.
I´m tired of saying: the mind will always keep you in circles, even if this are refined, profound circles, just elegant entanglement, of understanding and profoundness, one of the sneakiest traps to escape, we all at one point pass through that one.
Yes. I learned here to my amazement that telling about the possiblity of
- opening up infinite bliss and release when the egoic self-contraction is dissolved/shut down (literally a contraction mostly felt in the head, and only felt as having been there when its gone), the ignorant/wrong concepts are cut off, and the solidity of the visual field is replaced with mere appearance/clear light, in an Infinite Opening of Reality without any possible limits, and telling of
- the bliss that that brings on a permanent basis whenever accessing True Nature (which is always here and can not not be here)...
...that all of that is supposedly not possible. Although I have the verification of exactly that every day. And although thousands of people across all times, centuries and cultures, across all wisdom traditions, tell the same.
Honestly, what is left of small-me really rejoices in Big Me of the fact that "I" can verify that for myself without needing anything or anyone, or experiencing anything. Especially, i don't need any kind of -ISM anymore, which can only point the the moon, act as pointer.
IT, or the "moon", is always right here. Can not not be here. And will eternally be here. Never lost, never found, only overlooked and clouded with ignorance and some other funny arisings hiding the Truth.
Well, apparently every being is free to hug
the spokes of the wheel of Samsarathe egoic self-contraction, declare it God (and not contained within God), and affirm its inherent nature of suffering as the only spiritual goal possible, declaring that un-Truth as summum bonum. Well done, I know a gentlemen with style that would be proud of that....Well, God & Gods & Gentlement with style don't seem to get tired of playing that game anytime soon. Until then, lets enjoy the show...
And now, annoying Water-by-the-River, would you please s*** **?
Selling Water by the River
-
5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:I am saying something deeper which you and all your Buddhists are missing. Because you're not seriously thinking.
hey, I wrote many times I don't consider myself "a" Buddhist.
Exactly because of the problems with the buddhISM you write about (and which are true for most other -ISMs also), and the rather not too many enlightened ones in the -ISM without the B. at the beginning.
Although I have some rather tender feelings for that show of mine (B.-ISM) happening in Big Me. Sorry. Stepped too much on the absolute side of the street.
Water by the River
5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:Because you're not seriously thinking.
True, I try to mostly practice not-so-serious-thinking nowadays.
-
2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:@Water by the River Those platitudes and cliches are not the same thing as seeing through Buddhism.
It depends on who says these platitudes. From a certain perspective, they are very true.
3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:See, you had to think just to generate those defenses. And it wasn't any kind of deep, serious thinking.
. Indeed, I didn't have to do deep and serious thinking to come up with these statements. Because for me, and within Buddhism also, it is very clear that at some point the whole(!) conceptual(!) structure of Buddhism must be cut off/transcended/negated also. But better not before that point. That would be the Tony-Parson exit of the road up the mountain.
Water by the River
-
Uuum, lets assume Reality is infinite intelligent. Meaning Impersonal Infinite Consciousness manifests an Intelligence that holds Indras Net in itself, infinitely intelligent.
And lets assume that:
“Enlightenment is an accident. But we can make ourselves more accident prone.”
So Reality wants a certain mindstream/states(like boundless timeless infinite mere appearance infinite consciousness)/not-too-unloving-personality/maybe certain other stuff also... : The making oneself accident prone. And then the accident can happen. Its not for the separate-self to decide when precisely that happens.
Like I wrote before, there are self-guarding mechanisms of Reality. Reality apparently doesn't want too many enlightened uncompassionate egotists basking 24/7 in the bliss of their true nature.
And True Nature = bliss = shutting off the self-contraction in ones head, making the whole field groundless mere appearance floating in infinity, and infinite release a the snap of ones finger. That is just how it is, although many apparently don't like to hear it.
Water by the River
-
57 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:This is where I would suggest that you contemplate and think deeper. Buddhism is a sneaky and strong thought system, despite its pretenses to "no-mind" and so on.
The irony is that it takes a lot of thinking to convince yourself that Buddhism is the ultimate path to Truth. And if you didn't do that then you wouldn't be a Buddhist nor would you hold Buddhism in high regard. You have to think in order to admire Buddhism. And then when I come along and viciously attack your Buddhist ways, you gotta do a lot of thinking to defend yourself.
So this is very, very sneaky.
Short form quote above Buddhist-style: If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.
Short form quote above Advaita style: The spiritual search is like a stick that you use to move everything into the fire, and that it itself get's thrown in the fire at very the end.
Short form quote above Zen style: The old pond, A frog jumps in: Plop!
Water by the River
-
55 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:It takes so much consciousness and independence-of-mind to see through Buddhism. Which is why I warn about it. I am vocal about it because no one else is and it's so easy to overlook.
Easy to overlook that 99,9%+ of Buddhists are not enlightened, and at least 99% of Buddhist teachers on the spiritual market place are not fully enlightened? Yes, the "success rate" of the Buddhist project is not good, not to say abysmal... But its a long journey over many (dream-)lifes, and the other spiritual systems/traditions are also not more successful.
And for the "masses", Buddhism teaches mainly compassion & love & integration into the world/society/other beings, or generally staying open and loving to all that appears in Ones True Being/Reality, which is the same as living a healthy life on the relative level. Dream? Yes, but a dream more on the happy side and not a nightmare-dream. Which is probably precisely what most souls need to learn in this round of the game. And which is necessary to stabilize Awakening. A big part of the Gateless Gate is made out of compassion. I myself was also like "hey, wake up, that is all relative-level-stuff, go directly to Awakening and so on, why so much about this Boddhichitta and compassion-teaching stuff and why not more emphasis on the real Awakening-teachings?", but over the years as I got older that changed a bit....
Ken Wilber once said in One Taste:
"First, although it is generally true that the East has produced a greater number of authentic realizers, nonetheless, the actual percentage of the Eastern population that is engaged in authentic transformative spirituality is, and always has been, pitifully small. I once asked Katagiri Roshi, with whom I had my first breakthrough (hopefully, not a breakdown), how many truly great Ch’an and Zen masters there have historically been. Without hesitating, he said, “Maybe one thousand altogether.” I asked another Zen master how many truly enlightened—deeply enlightened— Japanese Zen masters there were alive today, and he said, “Not more than a dozen.” (that statement from Katagiri was at least 30 years ago, probably rather 40. Nowadays its more for sure (and that quote should not cause any limiting belief), but still shows that one should not take the "Enlightenment" of the next Zen Teacher as the final thing. Chances are way higher that it isn't).
Most Enlightenments/Awakenings are not full/deep Enlightenment (in Zen called Great Enlightenment), where there is no more doubt about the nature of Reality, God, Ones True Self.
Water by the River
@Leo Gura PS: Deep respect from my side concerning your last blog-post. That takes a very high degree of Integrity, Self-Reflection, and above all staying open. Very(!) few people could do something like that. So really deep respect for that, and hopefully I am not coming across in any way condescending or jovial in any way, because that is not intended. Whatever caused your suffering, I wish you all the best and a swift end of suffering, and a fast return to the bliss & pioneering exploration of the higher realms/dimensions!
PSPS: Maybe you already know some of that material, but if not you will probably find these books quite interesting:
- Jaques Vallee, Passport to Magonia: From Folklore to Flying Saucers Paperback
- Graham Hancock, Supernatural
- Charles Upton, The Alien Disclosure Deception: The Metaphysics of Social Engineering. Although some of that stuff is in my opinion too deeply infused with Traditionalist School (perennialism) of Guénon, Coomaraswamy and Schuon, still a very interesting perspective.
-
Jürgen Ziewe (Out of body explorer over 40 years, with valid Enlightenment-experience-descriptions)
-
for example:
- http://www.multidimensionalman.com/Multidimensional-Man/Model_of_the_Multidimensional_Universe.html
- http://www.multidimensionalman.com/Multidimensional-Man/Life_after_death_-_a_description_of_the_afterlife.html
- http://www.multidimensionalman.com/Multidimensional-Man/Higher_Mental_Planes_or_Heaven_Worlds.html
-
for example:
-
4 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:physical or psychological suffering are ultimately the same, they are a sensation destined to want to avoid a certain situation, or to pursue a certain situation. It is a biological survival mechanism. The fact of being a person who is living a dual experience means that you are functioning in a limited state of consciousness, and one of its limits is suffering. When we talk about awakening we talk about breaking those limits, and therefore breaking suffering, but it is only possible to do this in a punctual and temporary way since you are still a human living a dual experience. this implies suffering and wanting to escape from it is to deny your will to live this dual experience. Obviously, if you are open to your true nature, you will easily endure suffering, but it will continue to exist as long as you are alive. The thing about the monk who is burned alive does not mean enlightenment, it means detachment and renunciation. Watch the fight between Evander Holyfield and Riddick Bowe. do you think they are enlightened? I would say no, and they endure something seemingly impossible
I think we can agree on that I wish you (and everyone else) freedom from suffering, and the bliss of the True Nature each being has at its core.
And the fact that I do know that you underestimate your potential in being free from suffering and enjoying the bliss of what You really are is probably not one of the more challenging “lets agree to disagree”-topics.
In that sense: All the best and Bon Voyage!
Water by the River
-
14 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:Enlightenment can't come about as the result of a process. It is direct. There's nothing you can do that will bring it out, except becoming conscious now. You can focus on a question, aka contemplate. But this is meant to focus the mind, no method can possibly produce consciousness.
Yes.
Someone once said (don't know who):
“Enlightenment is an accident. But we can make ourselves more accident prone.”
That is for example the essence of going from One Taste Yoga of Mahamudra (making the mindstream confirm (or compatible) to the True State of things, like infinite, empty or non-personal, non-conceptual, nondual, boundless, timeless) to Yoga of Nonmeditation of Mahamudra (where one stops doing anything, since "anyone" doing something is an arising in the mindstream covering Impersonal Empty Infinite Consciousness. And the insight of what one really is, and what reality is, is Enlightenment. Can't be forced, happens by itself when the conditions are exactly right. Yes, its tricky. But has a structure to it.
But stopping doing anything BEFORE the mindstream conforms to a structure/state where Enlightenment can happen, one can do "nothing" for a long time and the accident/Enlighenment wont happen. Basically going fully Tony Parson.
Water by the River
-
1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:Imagine that they lock you in a cell and tell you that in one week you will be subjected to the most horrible tortures for another whole week. Wouldn't there be psychological suffering? of course. any of those enlightened would suffer, and it is completely normal and legitimate. it is a natural process. You, as a human, have a self-protection device that impels you to escape from those situations. it does so through a sensation that we perceive as suffering. there is no problem with that, it is something natural.
If such a situation can't be avoided, one better is deeply rooted in ones nature.
That one here even shut down one of the most horrible physical pains possible. Burning alive, and didn't even flinch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thích_Quảng_Đức
Just a humble question: Why not keep that topic OPEN until you can say you are enlightened beyond any possible doubt? Just staying agnostic concerning that topic?
1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:And not all spiritual traditions preach the end of suffering, only one does: the Buddhist.
That is incorrect. All of them (the mystical traditions) teach some form of liberation and Enlightenment, or the end of psychological suffering.
For example:
Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moksha
1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:Buddhism is an anti-life religion. consider life as a curse from which we must escape, stop the wheel of reincarnations, and thus escape from what they fear so much: the suffering. it is a negative religion. focuses on nothingness, flees from everything.
That may be true for some very early form of Buddhism, but that is not where Mahayana and especially Tantric Buddhism ended. It is very much pro life, pro-manifestation and living life, and nondual:
https://www.shambhala.com/historical-introduction-excerpt-integral-buddhism/
1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:We could be deeply awake and suffer same time, accepting or suffering without problem.
Maybe we just have a different definition of terms. I agree with the statement above, as long as suffering is defined not psychological suffering/psychological resistance on top of the suffering that happens. Like for example feeling sad if something bad happens. But a open sadness with open heart, not a closed heart of the ego/self-contraction, or resistance to what is. Ken Wilber has a nice article on that in One Taste:
Water by the River
-
8 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:realizing infinity is only the beginning of understanding reality, not the end. there is no such thing as enlightenment or elimination of suffering. suffering is a mechanism of evolution of life. there will always be suffering as long as you are alive. there is no problem with suffering
If you want to believe that you cut yourself off from the possibility of the end of suffering. That the end of suffering is possible is the message from all Wisdom Traditions, at all times, from all cultures. A universal message that you are declaring non-existant.
Please excuse that I write that so directly.
Why do you not stay agnostic on that topic until you have the Enlightenment that all traditions at all times in all cultures point to? On what they point to is universal. Denying or doubting that possibility is denying the Ultimate Potential of the Human Spiritual Potential. It is nothing else than denying your True Nature, denying the path that leads to it, with all consequences that entails.
Water by the River
-
"Enlightenment is you yourself becoming conscious of what's true directly conscious of what's true like what you are or what existence is"
And that includes by definition the infinite potential for any possible form/appearance, arising in Absolute Reality.
So what is higher and better, or more valueable? What is worth of ones ultimate spiritual concern? Understanding ever more form/appearance (n+1 forever), or understanding once and for all the Absolute Nature of ones True Self and Reality itself? And stabilizing in that realization, that becomes always available once having realized it?
Not knowing ones True Nature is technically called Ignorance in many traditions, and leads to suffering. Waking up to ones True Nature ends the suffering.
Water by the River
-
8 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:You are my hero man. Absolutely hilarious as always. Keep up the good work
Gonna pull a @Water by the River move here:
P.S. Clown Consciousness will be the final Realization. You will roll around the floor crying like a little girl. Don't take my word for it - do the work. If you turn clownness into a belief or a religion, you have missed the boat. Clown Consciousness is derived from deep within. Stare at your hand for at least two hours a day for the next twenty years and you might have a shot at Clown Consciousness. Love ain't got shit on this facet.
Yup, 20 years should do it. Even for the Aliens.
After the aspiring Boddhisattva understood the joke of his own seriousness (and aspiring Boddhisattva-self-contradiction), he still continues his past habit, but in his core keeps a smile for the biggest joke ever played...
Outside my window the beautiful clouds of a cold-front that has passed. On the screen the virtual representation of this lovely Spiritualoholics Anonymous chapter of ours.... What a magnificent show.
Water by the River
PS: Ahem, the move.... so:
PS PS: Bazooka Jesus for president of this lovely chapter of the Spiritualoholics Anonymous here! Got my vote for sure ( :
in Spirituality, Consciousness, Awakening, Mysticism, Meditation, God
Posted
I did Leo. For a long time. When they are fully enlightened and point towards the Absolute, they align. If they point to relative stuff, even the fully enlightened ones can disagree.
I know it is difficult to align all these traditions and teachers. I know what confirmation bias is, but I also do know what they are talking about. And if they are "there" or not.
Since you ask me to keep an open mind on that, I kindly ask you to do the same.
Water by the River