SOUL

Well, the body naturally creates the sense of self identity although we can expand our awareness to be conscious of the unity in all things. Since mind subconsciously creates the sense of self identity the effects of this is evident in creating paradigms of separation but if someone is authentically awakened to unity it will differ drastically... at least in my own experience of it.

Does it matter if I disagree? It shouldn't and that is why I ask what if someone has a differing experience perspective, it shouldn't matter. Although, there are people who express that their experience perspective is the absolute truth by using absolute terms in how they speak about it. I don't tell people they are already enlightened and that they don't have to do anything, that's you lying again since you already admit you lie but I am aware enough to recognize you building a false narrative straw man even without your admission. I say what I said to who I was speaking to, not to everyone I ever talk to so what I say to someone who has no understanding isn't what I say to the person who I made that post to. You are again building a false narrative straw man because you yourself say you change what you say for who you are speaking to, why can't I? You can't deceive me! It doesn't matter to be considered "enlightened" and isn't why I ask people if they exclude others based on experience perspective. I ask because if they genuinely are seeking unity they would recognize creating separation but if they want to be acknowledged as "enlightened" they will speak in exclusionary terms so expose their own intentions in answering. If someone authentically has an experience perspective of unity they will recognize it in others and won't deny it others. Isn't that essentially what Namaste means? So, I prefer to focus on the already existing unity we share and seek to help others be aware of self created separation that may remain so awareness of our unity is increasing in clarity. I don't understand why people will seek to limit experience perspective by telling others that the absolute is limited by using absolute terms. It's a paradox that absolute is relative in how each of us perceives it so using absolute terms actually attempts to limit the infinite so it fits our own perspective but doesn't actually limit the infinite in any way, obviously. We don't have to illuminate the sense of separation in others, they perceive it in themselves already as the sense of self creates it subconsciously. So adding additional separation perspectives only creates more stumbling blocks to being aware of the unity that exists. Even recognizing that the sense of separation is part of the whole absolute weakens that sense's empowering hold on someone perspective. Acknowledging the absolute is in unity on both sides of the sense of separation and even is the sense of it shatters the illusion once realized so why lie about it as a teaching tool, be genuine about it from the start. My way of speaking about my experience may differ from others but I don't tell them they are wrong or flawed in their experience. Although, if they are speaking about separation from the perspective of separation it's going to be different than speaking about separation from the perspective of unity, I speak from unity. Does this reply satisfy what you sought from me? Or will you ask me again since you seem to think I'm somehow not responding to your queries to your satisfaction?

You actually speaking from a perception of unity is you "mistook" it? That's even funnier! BAHAHAHAHAAAAAA Oh this is just priceless...

Too funny.....haha

BAHAHA! It's hilarious that you say things like this, just so funny.

@dorg It appears you are the only one who appreciates my sharing and I thank you for the kind words.

I get it, you are just another who creates and teaches from the perception of separation and you want me to stop creating and speaking from unity as it apparently disturbs you. I'm not sure if I told you before but I will say it this time, I will speak as I see fit and if you don't like it then put me on ignore. You have no authority to silence me and I am not insulting or offending anyone by speaking my own peace. Thank you and be at peace with it.

If I want answers that are viewed from someone who creates the separation and duality in perception and teaches others from that duality perception of separation I will ask you. Until then I am at peace with a perspective that is in unity but thank you for the offer. Is that short enough for you?

If one has no control then how does one awaken, liberate, detach, observe and/or be aware at all?

You added "which you actually dont know about" to what you think belief means. It doesn't matter whether someone 'knows' it or not, if one accepts that it is true/exists, that is belief. You accept as true that "No belief is true when it comes to Absolute" "Dont you know the difference between Absolute and Relative truth?" All 'truth' is relative since truth is the quality of being true, it depends on being true to something for it to be 'truth'. The "Absolute" isn't separate from the ever changing experience of life that people call maya, illusion or the dream so the "Absolute" is actually changing, too. People who are 'enlightening' their consciousness are attuning their awareness to the aspect of the "Absolute" they believe is the unchanging, the 'universal constant' so to speak, whether it really is the 'unchanging' or not. All of existence is one and there is no separation except what someone would perceive so the "Absolute" is comprised of all of it, even "maya". That is what is enlightenment, right? Our awareness of that unity of the whole and that includes all of it, including "maya". There is no separation between the changing or unchanging, it's whole in unity so if one transcends in awareness to the "Absolute" this is evident. Now you want to know why are we discussing this? Limiting belief.... it's not just all or any belief, it's the limiting belief. All ways lead to the "Absolute" and all effects are from our interacting with "Absolute" even the effect that is the sense of separation which some call the self since it's all one. When we "accept as true/exists" in limiting ways by saying 'enlightenment is only this and is not that' we are creating separation in our perception of the "Absolute" that is not really the genuine nature of it because, it's unlimited, it's infinite, it's whole. This is using the sense of separation that creates self identity which exists within the "Absolute" to define the "Absolute" within the limitations of what is accepted instead of transcending the limiting sense of separation in awareness to recognize that even the sense of separation is "Absolute". It's that sense of separation that has people limit enlightenment as only this or it's not that, that some are and others aren't. They limit the "Absolute" to only what they perceive it to be as an esoteric understanding that they have and another doesn't. You want the "Absolute truth"? Anywhere someone draws a line to separate 'enlightened' from 'darkened'.....the absolute exists on both sides of that line and is that line even if one isn't aware of it.... so I suggest awaken to it

Side stepping using semantics doesn't change the fact they are beliefs derived from subjective experience even if you want to call them "effects of enlightenment" they are purported to be from the enlightenment of "absolute truth" in someone. A belief is accepting that something is true or exists, whether it's an effect or an experience or enlightenment or even "absolute truth" itself. Another semantic side step of saying, 'Well, I don't believe it, I know it' is just belief that one accepts their own 'knowing' is true or exists. Anything we accept/trust as true and/or exists is a belief even if it is our awareness of the now just accepting as it is, being present in the moment. Any of every type of experience that is accepted as it is we are believing it is as it is even if we are call it an illusion or maya or false.

Buddha developed a self help program... an eight step one.... and a religion was built around it.

This whole list is beliefs on "absolute truth" from subjective experience perspective. "be·lief an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something."

@brovakhiin Thank you.

@TheEnlightenedWon People will have awakenings and their experiences will bring a personal perspective of what they assume is 'truth' about the 'absolute'. They often then will measure it against what others express of their perspective and usually will consider their own as more accurate in comparison. This thread is a clear example of an assumption in believing one's own perspective of the 'absolute' is 'truth' and an intolerance of another's perspective.

Mmhmm.... honestly....haha

BAHA!

Or what... hehe

Yes, it is. This is why I question when some speak in absolute terms, there is a paradox in that the 'absolute' is relative in how each one of us experiences it.

Well, philosophical truth is a kind of truth unto itself since it depends on how one defines their own philosophy. Some people's philosophy is to be factually accurate but some only seek to be consistent with their own philosophy even if it's not to be factual. Spiritual 'truth' would be closer to the latter of those two but may not necessarily be as 'true' in logical terms so for philosopher's who seek rational consistency that type of spiritual truth may fall short of their criteria. People undoubtedly develop a certain bias in life and often another's bias appears unfit for them so may not accept another's 'truth' and may not view it as 'credible' depending on their own bias. The 'credibility' that is accepted on this forum is different than that on a scientific forum and different than on one for philosophy even if those latter two are more similar. Then if we go to a religious forum what they deem credible would be vastly different than any other forum with even from different religions. Philosophical 'truth' would seek at least to be self consistent of being true to it's own standard. That's how I view it, it may not be acceptable to everyone's perspective, though.

Haha... an "enlightenment" list is hilarious. Can I ask a question without being accused of ill intention? What if someone has a different experience from what's listed, even what some would consider a contrary experience to some or any of these?

So you believe you have no beliefs. You believe you can assess what is false. You believe that your assessments are accurate. You believe you can read my intention. You believe I "don't get it". I'm not here to cause conflict, I asked clear questions on a comment you made about "false myths" since you felt it important enough to warn the forum about it. I wanted to hear what you thought they were since you warned on it. I also made simple observations about this discussion, if you feel conflict it's your own self centered movements and actions. It doesn't matter how many here come to your defense or chime in with support, your contradictory belief paradigm is very clear. I don't claim to know what's best for others but from your own comments I suggest you may want to stop playing headless enlightened guy online as much as you do and stop blocking out your family as you admit you do with this stuff or you may "loose" them for good. Of course if that happened then you could have your dream of being always headless and live in a cave somewhere like a monk. Life is a wonderful gift so having a family with the joy and love of sharing it with them is worthy of cherishing it as if what goes on in the world doesn't remind us to be thankful for it and not forsake it. Whatever you choose and what results from those choices I do wish you to be well and at peace.

I understand with such clarity it's obvious you feigning cognitive dissonance is so transparent. The projection of criticism and antagonism or just your 'headless' attempt at deflection. At least at least try to stay 'true' to your beliefs and stop acting from self centered 'feelings'. HHaha

You played yourself, it wasn't criticism, it's observation but if you feel criticized by it then you may want to examine your own self. Ah... there it is.... keep a foot in "reality", huh? What is the point of blocking out life? Blocking out your family? It's you who believes this "headless" state has value, there is no authority or objective measure to suggest that it is truth, right, better, enlightenment or anything other than your preference, it's just the way you choose to believe. Some might even say it's the opposite of being present, that it's being absent in going from the zombie hypnosis of self consumed to the zombie hypnosis of headless escapism isn't an example of being awakened and awareness of presence in reality. You are welcome to believe anyway you wish to and I won't call it "false" but when you are calling the way others live 'false' you are just living a belief paradigm of your own dogma with judgement, not free from judgement of "centerlessness". This is the clarity of simple observation....if you feel criticized by it then ask "who" is it that is getting criticized? Baha

Oh, so your authoritative assumption is for "only the known of the false".....well I must admit this is a unique claim but that implies you know truth to distinguish it. Alhough, even if you wantl to say you only know false it's just according tp your perception so to use absolute terms is an assumption from your own belief paradigm.