SOUL

Hmm

Hehe

I'm roamin'......

The whole no self response to this of 'there is nobody here' often is impractical and empty rhetoric in the way we live our lives. Fear is an instinctual response generated by the biological organism to motivate behavior to protect it's own life in a primal response. The self conscious also generates certain 'fear' impulses to protect us from what it perceives as dangerous situations that may not be an immediate or current threat but could be in the mind's imagination. Then there is the fear that the ego generates to protect it's identity and this is rarely about keeping the body safe and alive but is typically more about preserving the narrative of identity. So some of the who is those different aspects of our physical experience but then another aspect of the who question is 'who' are these being generated for? To motivate 'who'? Our awareness is the 'who' that is observing all of this going on and it can initiate a course of action with all these generated influences serving as the information database to guide...or disregard if one sees fit. Even if we are of the perspective that there is no 'who' in awareness and no 'free will' that initiates any action we still have to behave in a way that allows us to navigate in the world successfully. So how do we guide our behavior if there is no 'free will who' in whoville? The bus is coming at us do we jump? The alley is dark ahead of us do we walk? The boss is jerk to us do we speak? It doesn't matter if we hold the mystical belief there is no self, that's an abstract concept meant to help free our awareness from the lure of attachment to what is generated by the body, self conscious and ego but we can still cease to attach to it without the belief concept. If we do hold the perspective that there is a 'who' in awareness we can still remain in awareness unattached as an observer to the influences generated by the body. So if someone tells you the only way to be unattached is to see it as no self they are attached to the concept of no self. After all this examination and exploration there is one thing that is clear, there is an aware being at the core of all the conscious activity for each one of us and all the mystical conceptualization doesn't erase it from being......an aware being.

I have used the word 'seeking' in a variety of ways but I think it can be useful to describe the distinctions that it can be expressed and it isn't limited to just these I suggest here. There is the 'seeking' as if we are looking for something in the context of not having it or not being it. There is the 'seeking' of exploring in the imagination the potential of consciousness expanding. There is the 'seeking' in the sense of introspection, of self examination. There is the 'seeking' of awareness in observation of what is. When does it end? That depends on which one is being considered. One doesn't need to even begin and another doesn't ever end.

@Prevailer I didn't say or think awareness and consciousness are separate, they are facets of a whole.

The subjectivity is in our experience of our spiritual life, how we perceive it is specifically attuned to our perspective and doesn't necessarily map exactly on anyone elses. The forum can be a place where we can explore our spiritual life with like minded people even if there is a diversity in how we express our path.

Was someone really banned for 'questioning something about Leo while he is away'? Huh. It's unfortunate to see @Lento go, a compassionate contributor should be valued on a forum such as this and not sure the 'infraction' was that egregious if it was only that so I +1 @Keyhole

Consciousness is comprised of multiple facets that combine into a whole that many consider 'consciousness' and if we become aware of them and their influence intimately. One facet is the self conscious and it is not very neutral, it's creating stimuli to motivate behavior to perverse the biological entity, it's acting on behalf of the body living. The ego creates a narrative perspective to motivate behavior to preserve identity. It's an extension of the self conscious in that our identity can provide the motivation to preserve the body but it's not a necessary component because identity can 'die' while the body lives on yet when the body dies the identity dies with it. There is another part of consciousness that we know as awareness which is the present moment facet and though the self conscious and the ego exert influence in the present to stimulate behavior in the present the conditioning of them comes from past events and often seeks to motivate for preservation into an imagined future. Our awareness is the part of consciousness that is by it's nature neutral but this doesn't mean it remains neutral. In fact, if we are unawakened to it's place in consciousness it can very easily be co-opted by the self conscious and ego into doing it's bidding by attaching to the stimuli and identity creates and ceasing to be neutral. If we grow aware of this transpiring we can stay present in awareness as an observer of what passes through the mind without becoming attached to it. In being a 'passive observer' in awareness we can create the inner environment instead of allowing the ego to create it and it can be one that could be referred to as neutral. If we create imaginary conditions our mind needs to exist in to be neutral we are actually ceasing to be neutral in awareness. If we hold the perspective that things are good or bad we are taking a less than neutral position about them. This isn't to say that this is good or bad, just that it's the way it is and we can be aware of it's influence in consciousness.

I wrote selfiness, not selfishness, as in self-iness, a word I was using for a 'self' like appearance, not the selfishness of common usage. There is no one here, the negative energy imagined you feel is from imagined others that aren't really there. Why believe there is someone else who is doing this to you? Transcend that belief. You are leaving a helpful insight with your self...or should I say with no self about the energy you perceive and believe exists is in imagination but not necessarily where it is imagined to be. No you studies your no self. So it's with you, for you and expressed through you...all the no yous. I still don't know who you think you are talking to but it is the imagination in no self to no self and anything you experience is no self perceiving. So the first person to point the finger is no self at no self. Why does no self do that? Hah...

Neurons exist in the brain...put down the hammer already and stop doing that to yourself before it's too late.

I didn't write 'universal truth' is separate from 'what is', reread what I wrote and become aware of what it is. Our truth, universal truth and absolute, all of which is 'what is'. The holistic 'all' of it includes the infinite facets and the whole in unity, As long as you think others are stuck because they have differing perspective your belief is others are stuck because they don't share your perspective but it's only in your imagination they are stuck and not necessarily that they are stuck. I'm completely aware of no-self mindset but you've been exhibiting plenty of selfiness in here. You logged in and keep replying...that's what is. I'm not sure who you think you are talking to but you are still doing it and according to no-self perspective no-self is accusing no-self of judging no-self...why is no-self doing that? Oh the selfiness....do I need to go through the 'if you believe something it's only your belief but not what is' thing again? Yes, distinctions collapse alright yet 'what is' does not conform to our belief, we create our 'reality' because our imagination creates our perception of it. No-self believes no-self is contradicting no-self but remember no-self is just reading a dualistic translation on a screen. No-self should stop trying to believe that. Your belief isn't 'what is', it's what you believe it is.

@TheAvatarState The distinction is acknowledging 'what is', this 'what is' of my experience and perspective creates my truth and the 'what is' of my truth isn't everybody's truth or universal truth, it's just my experience. I didn't create it, it just is 'what is'. Are you suggesting your truth is everyone's truth and universal truth? Or are you playing games with words thinking you are making some mystical point? Explain.

It seems you are conflating personal truth and universal truth. We have our experience, the perception of it that we trust it is what it is and live according to it, this is a personal truth. Although, I cannot say my personal truth is your truth or anyone else's truth because we all have our personal truth. I guess we can say that we try to align our personal truth with the universal truth but... delusion. Also, universal truth isn't absolute because absolute transcends 'truth', universal truth is 'what is' but absolute isn't limited to what is universal truth, it's 'what is' encompasses more than just universal truth.

I don't really see that much benefit in the exercise of explaining the inexplicable because it is why I question how any one person can suggest they are the arbiter and authority on 'absolute truth'. We all have our own experience and expression of it. Although I pulled out this one comment because I can use it to illustrate what I see is the issue with someone trying to arbiter 'truth'. True and false are just part of the mind's imaginary binary around how it tries to frame 'what is'. 'All' is what is, it's not truth, it's what is. What we say about it can be true or false but that is just a representation of what is and a part of the all that is what is but absolute transcends true and false.

Devil, devilry and evil are a construct of the human mind, it's a paradigm of moral dualism that does not really exist in the manifest as the mind believes it does. We assign the positions of the dualism to behaviors and identity and which ones we do assign them is influenced by so many different variables which often are ever changing. The 'ego' has it's usefulness in the way we evolved to survive and isn't broken or dysfunctional. It's just that when we are trying to transcend the appearance of separation to perceive the unity of all things the ego doesn't help us in that endeavor and through it's nature of identity it hinders by being an obstacle in awakening to it. One only sees this as 'evil' or 'devilry' because of assigning a pole in that moral dualism and the other pole in dualism of 'good' to the unity and...'angelic'? I guess would be a word that could be used for it that is the opposite assignment which is given to awareness that can perceive the unity that transcends the apparent separation.

This is a perfect example of what I am pointing to. The absolute isn't objective, you are creating a separation between 'relative' and 'absolute' from a dualism mindset. In my experience and perception of 'absolute' it is neither objective or subjective. Objective and subjective are qualities of the manifest and the absolute actually has qualities of it's own I couldn't even begin to explain to someone who still has a perspective based on separation in dualism without them transcending that in awareness. Absolute and manifest are not separate, they are in holistic unity in a way that one can perceive in awareness if one transcends the perspective of separation. How we perceive and interpret this any and all of this is subjective...even if it were something objective we are perceiving. Should I now say your awakening isn't complete? Am I to say your perception is 'false'? Does your expression need to be censored because it is misleading? Or mine? Since you refused to answer the simple question and instead answer for Leo by suggesting his perspective is law here, it is what is 'absolute truth' and oh by the way, you 'validate' it, too. You can try to claim that 'direct experience', being 'directly conscious' or 'mystical states' are 'objective' to employ an authority to your...and Leo's perspective but it's a self anointed one. You are suggesting that your(and Leo's which you are validating) experience and perspective is the truth for everyone so if they don't agree, theirs is false. There are many perceptions, interpretations, expressions and explanations that happen and everyone of us trust that our experience of them are what is, what is true and therefor they are our 'truth' but that doesn't make them everyone's truth. At least @TheAvatarState says we are all deluded so our perspective isn't in pure clarity to perceive what is as it is. This is accepting the diversity of expression.

That was the best way you could explain? Wow, glad you didnt offer the worst way to explain it. Although, I didn't ask for en explanation, I asked for a simple answer. If someone doesn't experience, perceive and now I will add explain it the same exact way as you do is it 'false' and invalid? It's a pretty straight forward question, no need to explain the unexplainable to answer it.

@Inliytened1 @TheAvatarState So both of you validate your own experience, of course you do otherwise you wouldn't view it as valid. You trust your experience is true, that it is what it is, you believe it because that's what the word means. Although, are you suggesting it is 'valid' for everyone? That if they don't experience and perceive as you do it's invalid? That it's 'false'?

Actually, no two people experience, perceive, interpret and believe identically so each one of differs in expression. It's as varied as dna is, in fact, it's even more varied than dna because identical twins share the same exact dna but they won't share experience, perception, interpretation, belief or expression. Very many including Leo teach about about the infinite potential but when it comes to expression it's quite limited? I'm now going to have to ask what do you mean by 'quite limited' and what is your definition of limited because ours must differ quite a bit. Wait, don't tell me because the answer itself will prove my assertion, it's all varied. I'm of of the few here who does speak about the psychological priming that goes on in people's minds with regard to spirituality and mystical experience. How all of this expression is influenced in our imagination through the books we read, the people who listen to and everything we are exposed to that corrals us into the similar ideas. Even with all that priming there is no two exact expressions, people would have to try really hard to mold their understanding to mimic another's and it's virtually impossible to accomplish such a thing. It's too complex to even be fully aware of own understanding let along transform our understanding to be identical to another's. So if any interpretation is delusion and it's all bullshit then how can anyone say to another 'this is false', call something misleading, that someone has 'incomplete; understanding or awakening and then *lock* thus silencing their expression? How can one teach truth let alone 'absolute truth' if it's all delusion and bullshit? Wouldn't this also be the blind leading the blind? Can we dilute the delusion with more delusion? Does the bullshit become less bullshit because it is anointed acceptable bullshit and the other become even more bullshittier if it is not? How do we teach or even speak any interpretation and expression in the context of it's all delusion and bullshit? If the mods want to intervene in obvious trolling and abusiveness then that makes sense. If they want to contribute in threads that have obvious traps and pitfalls which can lead to people experiencing real harm so they fill in the gaps stuff that fills out the teaching in hopes it doesn't lead people that way then this also makes sense. Although, if this forum becomes a place where only sanctioned by the authority delusion and bullshit is allowed to be taught calling it 'truth' and 'god' with everything and everybody else being silenced as 'false' and 'devils' it will become more and more like what it's critics have suggested it is....you know the word, I don't want to justify it by using it. I have encountered very many communities that have fallen into this behavior through my decades of exploration and it is one of the reasons why I choose to be compassionate about differences in discussion. I also emphasize a key benefit of any teaching is in it's leading to the cessation of self suffering, to liberation and not as much it's 'truthiness'. I don't know what the purpose of the forum is but in that context I hope whatever 'purpose' it serves in the minds of those who create and contribute to the discourse it also leads to the cessation of self suffering. Otherwise it's just deluded bullshit.....so you say.

Awakening imhe(in my holistic experience! haha) is becoming aware of something we previously weren't aware of. Complete awareness is being omniscient and to make that claim is hubris no matter what type of powerful awakening experience one has. I am god! I'm omniscient! *knock knock* Who's at the door? There is certainly a significant amount of psychological priming that goes on that people are ironically unaware of that shapes the way they perceive 'what is' when having awakening experiences. This can form dogmatic types of interpretations.

Spirituality, 'enlightenment', awakening and consciousness are very subjective experiences so how they are perceived and interpreted can be quite varied and diverse. It would be an unfortunate circumstance if this forum became a place where the infinite variety of expressions were stifled so that they were limited to select interpretations. I understand this forum is the property of nobody...wait I mean the no self called Leo and he has a vision for it. There is a difference between people who are coming here to purposefully disrupt or mislead for whatever reason they may have and people who may have a differing experience of awakening so share another perception and interpretation. Let's hope this place doesn't become one where only the interpretations and teachings that are 'authorized' by the 'supreme leader' as 'truth' are allowed to be spoken and every one that doesn't fit in are called 'false' with the people who are espousing them 'devils' are shut down and silenced. That would be joyless and unloving situation.

Humanity is very abusive to the point it is blind to it, it's even normalized, not very humane. Online it's so much worse, abuse is celebrated, even more than it is in real life. On this forum it isn't all that abusive but it still is and as a place that I would think is about healing and improving it seems like it harms more because people are coming in vulnerable. It's like going to a therapist and having them hurt the patient. Maybe I'm asking too much but it's just a hope, not necessarily an expectation. So be it.

@VeganAwake Precisely, there was never really a suffer to have suffered. Only if we agree with it, believe in it, attach our identity to it and fill our being with it does it manifest as suffering in us. It's not just undesired thoughts...even desired thoughts. It may start out as releasing from what we don't want but even attaching to what we do want can be a source of suffering. The thoughts of wanting truth, enlightenment, awakening, freedom from suffering, bliss, love is conceptually perceiving a lack of it as if we don't already have all we seek, that we are incomplete. The 'desire' is a yearning as if we don't already have it like hunger is from an empty belly but that yearning is the desire in our consciousness that can fill our being with a sense of emptiness. In liberation there is a sense of fulfillment that quenches the yearning, a peace that transcends conditions, joy that emanates through everything we experience. What's ironic is that when I first did experience liberation I was pretty ignorant of so many things but I didn't even have any desire to understand, I was content in the freedom from self suffering. Yet my lack of desire for knowledge turned out to be the very key to the vault of insight like being served endless meals with already having a full belly and no hunger. So, yes, seeking 'truth' can put some on the treadmill chasing after something they perceive they don't have to feed the desire. It's a yearning that won't ever be quenched because the mind's craving for new knowledge and deeper understanding acts like a belly that needs to be fed 3 times a day to fill it...but only temporarily. The ego will use the search for truth and any perceived truth it gets to justify it's identity but that ego's desire is so difficult to satisfy, the ego won't let it.

Liberation is self unsuffering from whatever means it comes to be. If is happens through unknowing, unlearning, unbelieving, unattaching, unselfing, untruthing as long as the the quest for un-ning doesn't become a source of self suffering because we think need more or are lacking enough 'un-ness'.