HereNowThisMoment

@Society of the Spect The mind can think about past or future, but those objects of awareness are always known to the same, constant awareness. No experience can ever change awareness. You, awareness, are ALWAYS present. So, no, enlightenment is not a matter of keeping your mind grounded in the current moment because the mind is merely a reflection of awareness. What you are is the awareness that knows the mind and that is constant and unaffected by the objects which appear in the mind.

Ask yourself this: If I think about the past or the future do I get transported to those times? The answer is no. You are always in the present moment, regardless of what you experience, think about, etc. Anything that ever occurs only happens in the present moment. So no, this "you must be in the Now" path is not enlightenment. Also what quantifies the Now? Is it within one second of your current experience, one minute, one hour? Ever think about how time seems to move faster or slower depending on your attitude towards your current experience? Time is relative. I have read Tolle's book, it is a stepping stone, but it isn't the real deal.

Not completely true, I initially rejected what he was saying, holding adamantly to my view that was based on many many hours spent on reading The Book of Not Knowing (Ralston), Zen Mind Beginner's Mind (Suzuki), Three Pillars of Zen (Kapleau), No Self No Problem (Thubten), a couple of McKenna's books, several by Krishnamurthi, etc. Plus TONS of time spent on my own contemplating, watching Leo's videos, and plenty of other video sources. Since I had so much time and effort invested into those teachings I wanted to defend them to a certain extent. But then @Matthew Lamot made the point that I was blindly believing and following those other teachings, so it would be hypocritical to not also be open to Advaita. And I agreed because I believe that a person that is truly openminded should have the willingness to see all points of view regardless of how intensely they may be shared. I care about the validity of the message, not the delivery. I care about finding what works to find the truth of reality, freedom, and happiness. That cannot be achieved without being open to all possibilities. That doesn't mean I have to agree with all of them, or that I shouldn't think critically, just that I should be open to giving someone else's point of view a real chance before deciding whether I should look into it further. I started reading some Advaita stuff, and while I am still very new to it I do see a clarity and consistency in the teaching that was insufficient in pretty much all the others that I had tried before. Einstein said, "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." That seems like an accurate description for how I was approaching enlightenment, convincing myself that if I contemplated "Who am I?" tens of thousands of times as is suggested by most that I would magically, spontaneously become enlightened in one flash, as if some happenstance experience could make me any more conscious than I already am. The main point of contemplation is the realization that you are the consciousness in which and of which all experience and objects are perceived and composed, beyond that I would argue that proper teachings help to understand the nature of reality. Those teachings can be explored through direct experience and evaluated for their worth, serving as a guide for deeper understanding. As it stands, Matt and I have had an ongoing discussion and I can tell you that it has been quite constructive despite my initial rejection. So feel free to agree or disagree, but try to be open enough to explore all points of view before dismissal.

What is authentic, especially about personality? Personality is largely a conglomeration of pre-programmed behavior patterns. The personality that is outwardly visible as actions and demeanor is largely based on holding certain beliefs above others i.e. "I am this way but not that way." These beliefs of who someone is causes them to react in certain situations in a way that "feels" authentic to him or her. But realizing that beliefs about the egoic "I" are false causes a collapse to the structure of personality. So then how does one determine which actions are authentic? Where does one draw the line between being aware of thoughts and acting on certain thoughts? If someone is enlightened, meaning he/she has transcended thoughts by realizing that the objects of the mind are illusory, that person could respond in any way that "feels right" in the moment (those "the universe is acting through me" type of statements). It seems to me that if I act on anything in particular that has to come from a deep, possibly unconscious, emotional response or belief that leads to the preference of one action over another. Action can only occur due to the preference of one thing over another. Of course, no choice is also a choice, so are we just puppets in this grand charade without any semblance of authenticity? Can authenticity even exist if it is always grounded in something that is not real? This post was fueled by some of the statements that Leo made in this post so reading that might help with the discourse here:

This right here was what I was trying to figure out... I wanted to know if you were speaking from experience or from just parroting teachings. This is a good argument, point taken, I'll look into Advaita. Never even heard of Teal Swan haha I'll look into Maharshi's teachings

@Matthew Lamot Maharshi?

This was posted at the same time that I posted my other response, but yes, you're right about that. I was so adamantly holding onto my point of view and I didn't want to let go of it, it was about my ego. To be honest I didn't even realize it before you made that other post... so that's good evidence to me that I have blindspots that I'm not noticing because of my biases.

Although I don't actually follow Mooji, Tolle, and barely follow Adyashanti, I do understand the argument that you're making. You're right, I am blindly following some teachers like Ralston and Krishnamurthi but I've been quick to discount what you're saying. I apologize for being hypocritical. I'm open to hearing what you have to say, where do we start?

So I guess you have no evidence or reason to believe what you're saying other than because you said so? Look, I have nothing against you or what you're trying to say, and again, I am open to it, but openness doesn't mean blindly accepting, especially because you made some very bold claims.

Yes, I've heard Rupert Spira talk about that before but haven't contemplated it enough on my own. If you honestly don't see how dogmatic this view is then I don't even know what to say. There is simply no evidence for this assertion but if you have some feel free to share it. This logic is the same as saying he's short therefore he can't like cotton candy, there is no basis or evidence for causation. Assuming that the Buddha was real, just about everyone would agree that he was enlightened... so to say "he's a Buddhist, therefore he cannot be enlightened" seems like an unfounded argument. Again though, feel free to prove me wrong, I welcome it, but I'm not open to simply accepting something because someone told me that I should. Have you ever considered that those teachings may be confirmed as correct because those who follow them and hold them as authority simply seek to confirm it in their experience? If they are truly correct then shouldn't other people also come upon those truths without hearing about them first? This to me sounds kinda like the placebo effect... wanting something to be real and so it becomes real for that person. No, you are setting yourself up for believing something because you were told that you should believe it. This is no different than accepting any other religious teaching just because an authority figure told you to.

As I said before, I am completely open to discussion, and I also apologize if my response seemed defensive, that was not my intent. My response was intended to keep the discussion moving forward, you made your statements and I made mine to question your premise. In an endeavor that is based on finding what is true, questions and disagreements are bound to happen, especially if the participants are thinking critically rather than simply accepting what is being said.

For what it's worth, Rupert Spira comes from advaita school of thought and his teachings were what prompted me to write my first post where you commented "You need some proper teachings."

I didn't mean to imply that you did either, but your statement "Adviata is the one true statement that is true for everyone" sounds very absolute. To say it is the one true statement and that it is true for everyone is what I would interpret to be an absolute statement. This is similar to using words like always, never, etc. But that being said, I don't want to get lost in semantical discussions, that's not important to me. I'm completely open to giving it a chance, I'm definitely not discounting it, but the statements you make make it seem as though the only enlightened people are those who come from that school of thought and that's not true. I never said that anything and everything works. But in saying that I "need Adviatia" is the same as saying that that is the only "path." My only point in quoting that statement was that different schools of thought seem to be similarly successful. Several widely accepted enlightened people such as Krishnamurti and Adyashanti renounced their ties to any specific teaching. Krishnamurthi's teaching was basically to observe oneself, which is essentially the same teaching that every other sect also touts. And my understanding of why it is pathless is because the inner workings of each person is different. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but just casting a blanket statement saying I have "absolutely no understanding" does nothing to help me understand...

I'm not trying to label it, but I can't help but question it when someone points to a teaching and says that it is absolutely true. As Krishnamurthi said "truth is a pathless land." Thanks @cetus56

The teachers who influenced me the most are Peter Ralston, Leo, Rupert Spira, Jiddu Krishnamurthi, Suzuki, Kapleau, and a bit of Adyashanti. I read/watch things by other people sometimes but not much. I was under the impression that those teachers knew what they were talking about. I will look up James Swartz and Ramana. What are the rules? Isn't that a bit dogmatic...? Don't worry, I'm not quitting until I find the truth.

It's not so much that I'm trying to manufacture an authentic personality, it's that I'm wondering if my personality is innate or if it feels innate due to programming and social conditioning. It's a subtle distinction but enough to make me wonder. The response I wrote below is for your quote and Travis's below. Honestly, I'm stuck with my contemplations at "I am aware." I have experienced that I am not my thoughts, perceptions, sensations, emotions, etc. But I still view my body as inseparable from awareness. I get that it is out of awareness that I am aware of my body, but I also think that if I were to incapacitated somehow then I am no longer aware. If I were knocked unconscious, awareness of the universe still exists, but my awareness of reality does not. I still view it as something separate from my experience, even though awareness is the totality of experience. I guess a part of me is still expecting some grand awakening based on what I've heard and another part is saying "I am already awake and this is as good as it gets." That's the inner conflict that I can't seem to resolve.

While reading a few of the posts on here yesterday I came across strong determination sitting for the first time. I watched Leo's video about it shortly after ("Meditation on Steroids") and then gave it a try last night for an hour. I was pretty surprised to find that I wound up enjoying the practice quite a bit with a recurrent thought saying "this is a beautiful practice." There were definitely points where it became uncomfortable but that passed as everything does. Strangely 1 hour only felt like 20 minutes, it was a bizarre experience that i've only had happen a few times before. This is the most valuable meditation practice I've come across so far (I mainly just practice "do nothing") and the rush of sensations when I stood up when the timer went off was so ecstatic that all I could do was lie down and just savor it. I was wondering if anyone has any suggestions on how to make the practice less comfortable. Is the only way to increase the duration? I felt like I could keep going so I don't know if just increasing time would make it harder. As an aside, last summer I woke up one morning and decided I wanted to do something horribly painful for fun so I decided to row 100 km on my erg without training for it or using any distractions like music, other people, movies, etc... it wound up taking 12 hours and after that experience I can't imagine anything being any more uncomfortable than that. So if anyone has any suggestions to get even more (maybe I'm just being greedy haha) out of this meditation practice I'd love to hear them. Thanks!

Follow up: If all things are existentially the same awareness how can it take so many different forms both in physical objects and in intangible objects like personality? Am I intellectualizing everything too much? That's a trap that I can't seem to escape...

@Leo Gura Thanks for the clarification! Well... I guess in that case I'm naturally more of a dick (not intentionally mean but very straightforward) than I previously thought because that's what started coming out as I stopped always telling myself that I should be nice/sugarcoat things. But then I started second-guessing whether that was authentic or if I was just using this work as an excuse to be that way. I should probably re-watch all of your enlightenment videos so that I can stay on track because right now I think I'm just piling up misconceptions and misinterpretations. Thanks again.

Reading books, contemplating, and meditating are the main things that I do to "increase" consciousness. My biggest passion aside from that is exploring human movement such as various sports, dance, martial arts, gymnastics, etc. which causes a high degree of mental clarity and often allows me to observe that things happen through me rather than by me. That has helped a lot with disassociating from the idea that I am a body, experiencing more and more what was meant by Bruce Lee when he said "I do not hit, it hits all by itself."

@Emerald Wilkins Yeah, I think I'm going to just increase duration until I can sit for a few hours, thanks! If it works for enlightened monks then I probably shouldn't mess with the process haha

Great ideas, thank you everyone!

@Wormon Blatburm yeah I was thinking that environmental things would probably be what I should change up, thanks! By the way, it was your post that led me to this practice so thanks for that too haha!

No, evolution is an ongoing process that occurs constantly in all living things. Animals are not more evolved, they are differently evolved. "Memory" is the genome of the organism and there are plants that have more base pairs than animals and vice versa. Genome size alone does not determine the complexity of an organism due to phenomena such as differential gene splicing, protein activation/inactivation, etc. Your body doesn't "have to" digest everything and cannot digest everything. Cellulose is a polymer of glucose in plants but due to the type of bonds between molecules and a lack of an enzyme to cleave the bonds it cannot be metabolized by humans. Again, this is just flat-out untrue. Glucose is a monosaccharide, a simple sugar, but if I were to just eat a bunch of glucose I can promise you that I will develop health issues. And in case you mean, "simpler" in the sense of genetic complexity, eating a simple, single-celled organism like E. coli three times a day isn't going to be any better for you. Also, based on that video, Sadhguru clearly has no real foundation in science so I suggest you get health/diet advice from people who do.

Ask yourself why you view these circumstances/people negatively. Is it because their views don't line up with your views? Is it because you don't like seeing them as the center of attention? What defines a "negative post" for you? And so on. You don't need to answer any of these questions here, just question yourself and look for honest answers. That being said, it may be fine to just remove those people from your life for awhile as well.