SOUL

The dude just deleted a ton of videos and uploaded a video of text about changing his content in the future to not be antagonistic towards 'personalities'. It seems that he was getting some copyright dings from someone or few he's been criticizing and it likely would have resulted in his channel being taken down if he didn't delete that content that included it. This may have been the motivation behind his reassessment of his content and the direction of his channel but it's great that he recognizes the distraction of that activity even if it came externally in awakening him to it. I didn't watch very many of his videos because his repetitive criticisms were cringy to me even if accurate sometimes. It will be interesting to see what direction he goes without his 'debunker' identity on the channel but at least the targets of his criticisms will have one less detractor making 'negative' content about them. I'm doing to watch some of his own spiritual path descriptions since it's pretty much all he has left on his channel and it's easy to know which are those videos.

Don't overthink it, @Aakash , it's not about understanding it, it's just being it. 'True self' is a buzzword label the ego wants to create identity through and has a complicated method of things one must do to get it 'right'. Although being is simple, even a child can just be in the moment but the 'adult' mind wants to make it a complex process of this, that and the other thing so it's an accomplishment it achieves. It's simply aware being present in the moment.

He who? Who he? @Inliytened1 The he you speak of didn't speak of being here not in spirit not in theory not even in word once in passing. Nothing doesn't exist so what's to think about it and being doesn't require concentration to be, being transcends the activity of the mind. Just be aware of presence in the moment....of being now. All of manifest existence is ultimately a willful toss of the fated bouncing die with everything on the line and nothing in hand.

Goddevil is.....haha

So you are a dualist?

............. ? !

I'm not going to speak for the original poster but if I may interject something from my own experience. Life is lived like before except now it's from just being present in the moment without attachment to the story. This doesn't mean I have to eradicate or demonize the story but just not to attach to the story and keep my awareness on the presence of being in the moment. The mind will continue to conjure up the story for awareness to attach to in self identity but I abide in unattached awareness of being as continuously as I can. It may not be an easy thing at first to be present but eventually it will become a more natural conscious experience and the mind's conjuring will have less and less power to distract from being present. Then eventually the mind will transform into a subconscious that conjures up a perspective that is agreement with being present in the moment. When that harmony is experienced throughout consciousness it allows for a type of transcendence that couldn't be imagined before that harmony exists. In that harmony there is no conflict between awareness and mind within our experience of being. I hope that helps clarify.

All of the atoms are laughing at your fiction.

I've tried to watch some of his other videos and I found myself disinterested in it very quickly because he's pretty repetitive in his criticisms. Then I remembered that I have met him personally many years ago in Sedona when we crossed paths in each our own spiritual journey. I understand his frustration with the new age rhetoric because I too find it tiresome. The difference is that I sought to transcend my feelings and opinions in life and about those contrived and quite often contradictory spiritual ideologies to instead focus on the cessation of self suffering and how to bring that to realization. He has chosen to craft his own identity around being 'the debunker' story and he appears to get some sort of self satisfying reward from it. Yes, it's quite clear there are many scammy purveyors of new age psychobabble and this forum's very own founder has dabbled in the art of nonsense at times. The miscommunication arises when people make objective 'truth' claims about subjective 'truth' revelations that aren't unverifiable and others try to impose objective 'truth' requirements upon subjective 'truth' experiences that cannot be scientifically validated.

Now that you have been observing the self what comes next in how to relate to it is to stop believing it. Those thoughts, emotions, concepts and motivations which rise up in us..... cease to endorse them. When we agree with what the subconscious produces we only empower it to be 'real' to us, to become our self identity. So from the perspective of pure awareness just allow them to come and go without any reaction to them. The ceasing to believe in what rises from the subconscious will break down the patterns and sense of fixed self which will allows us to create another pattern and sense of self that we see fit even one wants to attempt to empty it of all content.

Who is asking this of who after remembering a member name and password to log on a specifically sought out internet forum to instruct someone in 'enlightenment'? Your advice would be to find that and dissolve it.

I don't know what her motivations or intentions are, @peanutspathtotruth .

Well, @Mu_ , self suffering was the primary inspiration in setting me on a spiritual path and the experience in liberation from self suffering transcends any of the knowledge I have gained along the way. Liberation transforms my experience of being in a way that no amount of knowledge or understanding ever has. So, in my experience I perceive that someone having liberation from self suffering has a lasting effect that fills every aspect of one's life. I just find that people chasing knowledge rarely experience liberation from that pursuit which allows me to see a distinction between those different motivations. I may value freedom from self suffering more than others do so this might be why I view it that way.

What's the sound of one hand tweeting?

@Joseph Maynor Sometimes ancient words work very well with an update.... wisdom2.0..... hehe Well, @Serotoninluv , it's better understood as pellucid

If you meet Buddha on the internet, troll him.

Why should I talk about 'deeper spiritual dynamics' when the simple ones suffice for pointing to liberation from self suffering? The ego wants 'deeper', it wants complex, it wants intricate and detailed methods and techniques to secure it's identity as the 'spiritual seeker'. What she really does express beautifully is the simple nature of just being present. That's an empowering expression of being but her trying to describe what is and is not it without realizing that her description is just from her own perspective of it and not any absolute truth about it was a distraction that could cause self suffering. Yes, we are experiencing our spirituality from a subjective perception of it and language isn't always effective in communicating our experience to others. Although, to excuse the obvious double speak that is central to many 'teaching' because of that difficulty to describe is enabling the distraction by it.

I did just explain it... quite clearly.... using language and words... without having contradiction... it's not impossible... it's actually quite simple.

It's not about being right, she may very well have the experience of empty stillness in contrast to the full activity of the mind and life so associates the stillness with being. Being is present in all kinds of expression but even 'being' when perceived from the perspective of just awareness is full and active in comparison. Within awareness there are even degrees of fullness and emptiness or stillness and activity. Besides, who is it that decides the empty stillness is the 'true self', the ultimate of being or 'true spirituality'? Not just in the 'no self' who sense of it.... but it seems like there is this doctrine of discourse that is accepted as the 'truth' about spirituality and a expression of behavior that is perceived as some sort of proof which supposedly signals to others that one has it. Although, there are many varieties of teachers with many varieties of methods and expressions. So, is it just a matter of preferences or which appeals more in how one would look to others in helping find a way of viewing it? In some ways that may be a consideration but realistically if someone's words doesn't lead to liberation from self suffering what they teach is more distraction than anything else. This is something that only each one of us can really know about the 'teachings' from our own experience. I myself found my way in an autodidact fashion in the pre-internet era but then while circulating around all these spiritual type communities and gurus I began to realize my experience was exceptionally unique. I could see right through all of the spiritual double speak. So my way of articulating it tends to be pretty simplistic and doesn't contain much of the complexities of the more traditional and typical belief systems. It's not a matter of one or another are right or wrong, it really just does come down to liberation from self suffering, does it point to it or does it distract from it? Although, having an attachment to any of them or who teaches it can be a stumbling block to liberation, as well.

She definitely is expressing a conceptual idea of spirituality. @DrewNows @purerogue Although she is suggesting that this is the only way 'true spirituality' is expressed and something other than that is 'distorted' and 'impure', which are the words she used. Presence of being transcends all concepts of characteristics in expression one would have about it. The 'still' and 'empty' isn't any more 'spiritual' than the 'active' and 'full' because being is present through all expressions to one who is awakened. Accept the transitory nature of experience that spirituality is all expression and having conceptual notions about only certain ones being 'true spirituality' sets up expectations that could serve to inspire desire to emulate only certain characteristics instead of being present. Now don't confuse what I'm saying to mean I suggest that she is 'wrong' or that it isn't 'true'. I'm just pointing out that she said it isn't about those dichotomous concepts and yet she went on to portray them in the duality of what is and isn't 'true spirituality'. Being present isn't limited to just the stoic placid sterility of the conceptual empty stillness. Being present is what it is even through the transitory human nature of our thoughts and emotions happening in a manifest existence that swirls around in activity. @Mu_ BAHA!

Stillness n motion so jus be

I'm laughing as I'm listening to this, does anyone else see it? She says there's no true or false then goes on to tell us what is true and not. Says being doesn't find flaws then is finding flaws in others. Everything is everything she says then says 'true spirituality' is only as she says it is. Says no definitions and no understandings then goes about teaching about what she defines and understands it as. What it again and this time really see it for what it is.

Even no concept and no belief is a conceptual belief and even truth is a conceptual belief. This is the type of guru doublespeak that points to someone else's conceptual belief as an illusion and calls their own as the truth. That sort of word dance is the game one plays when trying to be 'right' and having the 'truth' while telling other's they are 'wrong' and 'illusion'. It isn't that there is no conceptual belief that passes through perception at all which makes for the awakened experience that people call the conceptual belief of 'enlightenment'. It's the attachment to that conceptual belief which may cause self suffering in the one it passes through. If a conceptual belief is enshrined as truth it has the power to cause suffering to the one that empowers it. Someone perceptive might say to me 'aha, are you not calling your own truth and another's an illusion'? I'll reply that it's all conceptual belief that passes through perception, even my own perspective but it doesn't cause self suffering because I do not enshrine my perspective as truth. It's a momentary perspective and awakening is the presence of being in the moment not the perspective's contents in that moment. Awakening to oneness will have infinite perspectives of perception to experience in infinite moments of now to experience them but isn't any one of them, all of them or none of them. It's the being present in the moment of perceiving, not what passes through as the content of the perception. Our presence of being allows for whatever passes through perception to be as it is but don't build a shrine to any of it. Realization is awakening to presence of being in the moment, knowledge is what passes through the perception and is expressed infinitely. Attaching to any of it can cause self suffering through our enshrining it as truth but don't enshrine this realization either....let it be what it is.

I would even draw a distinction between knowledge, which is the accumulated understanding of information, compared to knowing, which I would call the intimate direct experience. Realization awakens 'knowing' and simultaneously doesn't need knowledge.

You seem to miss the point of that saying and why I was using it, @thesmileyone. The original post was asserting that relatively routine behavior somehow is an indication of whether someone experiences liberation and that saying asserts it has no real value in showing it. I just updated it....