Forestluv

Nice work and good luck.

I’n this case, attraction to opposite would be very unhealthy. It would be a woman that is emotionally unavailable and narcissistic. In the past, I have actually been attracted to that and it turns into a bad story.

@moon777light I would fo everything I could to get as much space and distance as possible, yet not to the point that it started to harm family relationships and dynamics. I say go for it. I would set up a very clear communication agreement as low as possible - and immerse myself into the retreat as much as possible. 10 seconds a day of distraction is not that big a deal, imo. It’s what you do with the other 23hr :59min:50sec that matter.

@Aakash Ahhh yes, perhaps the illusionary personality will be exposed. Then perhaps illusionary humanness. Yes, letting go of attachments to beliefs can free up some space. Beliefs tend to crowd the room.

The subjective experience of being human won’t go away after enlightenment. Do you think you will turn into a kangaroo? ?

@Inliytened1 Good point. I think I understood, yet I misinterpret at times, so who knows. I was trying to point from a different direction. Perhaps not the most elegant pointer though ? From one direction, I would say concept is pure being in that both are illusions. Is the illusory beingness of a dream character different than the illusory concepts within the dream character? From one perspective, I’d say no, it’s all dream stuff of one dream.

The below vermillion flycatcher recently went extinct. It was an amazing bird. I bet you didn’t know anything about it. What was it like living a life not knowing about it? As well, you only perceive about one tenth of a trillionth of the information around you. You already know and perceive virtually nothing. There’s no need to imagine what it’s like, it is essentially your direct experience right now. Your mind is simply playing tricks on you. Newly-recognised as a distinct species in 2016, this glossy, scarlet-and-black insectivore has the unwanted distinction of becoming the first avian extinction recorded in the Galapagos. First discovered during Charles Darwin's voyage in 1835, invasive plants soon began crowding out the islands' native vegetation, which in turn led to the decline of the bird's favoured insects. The resultant food shortages, coupled with avian pox and malaria, probably led to the species' demise as the last reliable sighting was in 1987.

I would say to trust your intuition and what your body is trying to tell you. Your direct experience is the most powerful teacher you have. To me, it sounds like a legit glimpse into something profound

That's a good question and I'm not sure what a good answer would be. . . I've seen a lot of people get really immersed in a spiritual path and seem to go overboard with it. They seem to get isolated and immersed in spirituality and end up getting contracted. Yet they generally don't have these dramatic lives with stuff like gambling, abuse etc. I've also seen people that seem dedicated to mindfulness and truth, yet engage with a lot of human endeavors and are still within the personality - with some periods of being in an "observer + object" phase. I would put myself in this category. I've gotten into a lot of unhealthy self-centered situations, yet I'd say I've experienced more peace, fulfilment and happiness than I would have otherwise, even though I didn't fully realize the self. I still don't think I have. I would estimate about 70%, if it can be put into that. . . I would also say that it helped give "glimpses" into profound direct experiences and insights. They passed, yet I don't think I would have had them as much without the spiritual practices.

Ahhh yes, I know this thinking mind very well. Ime, seeing it too much as a "problem" keeps the thinking mind relevant. My thoughts say "This thinking is causing me problems, I better figure out how to stop thinking". It's absurd. Worrying as well are impulses. I've had much of my life being a worrier. Rather than trying to eat the whole enchilada in one bite, I would cut it up into bite size chunks. Rather than saying "I can't spend a day without thinking or worrying", I would go for a smaller bite. I have found it helpful to set a scenario in which I can let go of worries for say 30min. Do what you need to do and the stuff you still need to do will be there after 30min. Then mediate, do yoga, art or whatever and give yourself permission to get completely immersed into it. The thinking mind will have a fit, yet just ask him politely to put the damn cowbell down for 30min. Getting into a "zone" for 30min. was a success for me. Regarding thoughts. For many many years I had a constant stream of thoughts. Then one day, one of my teachers said that there are tiny "gaps" between thoughts yet we don't notice them. If we pay attention, we will notice them. So then I went on the lookout for these gaps between thoughts. And sure enough I noticed them. Very very small short gaps and my thinking mind immediately wanted control again - to figure out what these gaps mean and how to use them. Over time, these gaps got longer and longer - especially as I reached deeper and deeper states of relaxation. A couple years ago, I reached a point in which the gaps where long enough that I could "rest" in them. I would go about 10 seconds without a thought or image. Nothing. Silence. - I never *thought* that was possible. Once I could rest in the gaps, I started asking "from where does the thought arise?". Here my curiosity was stronger than my intellect's desire to control the narrative. So I started sitting and waiting for that next thought - like a cat waiting for a mouse to leave a cupboard. What I found was that the thoughts slowed down even more. The one time I actually wanted to think, there was silence. It's like thoughts didn't want to be observed - they wanted to arise in the shadows of awareness. When I turned on the light to see from where they arise, they scattered into the cupboards like mice. . .

Relax the thinking mind and listen to what your body is trying to tell you. The heart won't steer you wrong.

He shoots, he scores!!!!!!!

I've spent a lot of time trying to understand this and I don't think I will ever understand it on an intellectual level. Perhaps it could be understood on some existential nonverbal level. . . What comes to mind is a mouse asking why it's a mouse and living a life as a mouse. It seems kinda silly to me. Yet is it not just as silly for humans to do that as well? Sometimes it all seems like this bizarre cosmic joke and it's best to just go with the flow as if it's real. . .

I'm not professionally trained in imminent suicide prevention. I can only encourage you to see a specialist in this area or to speak to someone that may help you. Have you tried calling a hotline? I imagine there are 24hr. hotlines with people trained in this area that can help you.

It's a combination. I would be genuine. To me, the term "conceal" suggests "hiding" something. It might be easier to explain this on an intellectual line. I teach genetics at a University. Sometimes I go on a date with someone and something related to genetics pop up. Maybe something in the news about genetics or perhaps a friend just had stem cell therapy and she is curious about genetics. Should I speak to her at a University level of genetics? No way. That would be inappropriate. It would come across as being arrogant and would not be helpful to her. It would be overwhelming and would cause tension. Rather, I would explain things in simpler terms - yet I would also appreciate her curiosity and I would feel good that I had knowledge to offer her. I wouldn't say I was "concealing" knowledge. I would say that I was offering knowledge at the level of the situation. Similarly, if I went out on a date, I would get a feel for the level of emotional depth the other person is comfortable with. If she casually mentions an insecurity she has at work and I go deep into the existential nature of human insecurity and fears of intimacy etc. that is inappropriate. As well, if I try to connect emotionally and there is a nonverbal boundary - I need to respect that and not dig deeper. Just like I wouldn't start talking about complex genetics concepts. The key for me is to sense this - it is often nonverbal. I feel an essence. Or she may change the topic or turn her body away. I would screen for people that have a certain level of emotional IQ and openness when I first meet them. Yet this is also developed over time. It is not "either / or". There are certainly times when I meet someone and she is totally closed down with major defenses and is totally out of touch with emotions. I would pass on this one. Yet another extreme is also a red flag. If someone totally opens up on the first date and becomes an emotional mess. . . no way. I'm attracted to women that have a sense of maturity about their emotions. They are grounded and have an openness that is appropriate for the situation. Also, that they have an interest to explore emotions and develop emotional bonds. Yet that takes time. Someone grasping at that on a first date looks very immature to me. I would say exploring your own emotions solo and with others - yet not in a "frothy" or "clingy" or "needy" kind of way. I also found it helpful to listen to heart-centered spiritual videos. As well, express emotions more. Write poetry, do art - allow those emotions to be expressed.

I'm not sure if this is written in the metaphorical "ego death" sense or the literal physical death. If it is referring to physical death, I encourage you to contact someone specialized in suicide prevention.

I understand what you are saying. I warned and then I proceeded to provide what I warned about. I understand that. There is also another "view" that I was pointing to that comes "prior" to the statement above. It is not imagery or conceptual. I think the only way to "see" it is to have the direct experience. It is really hard to point to and I am unable to transmit it to you. I would if I could, yet I clearly can't here. I'm doing the best I can, yet I can't transmit it to you here. . . Yet, that happens to me a lot. I've only met a few people in my life with the direct experience. That is why I often avoid pointing to it - it generally is misinterpreted and causes confusion as has happened here. It is not the fault of the receiver or the tansmitter. It's just so difficult to transmit. Perhaps, words may plant a "seed" in which the direct experience may arise. From the orientation you have been speaking, yes. I agree with that. I agree that this orientation and pointer has a lot of value here. Allowing for the existence of a timeline, I also agree with this. I would say that would depend on context. In many contexts, I agree that using the simplest of terms with little description is often beneficial. I see a lot of value in integrating perspectives and holism. I spend a lot of time in this space and see a lot of value here. Yet in it's truest sense, what I was pointing to is not about integrating perspectives or holism. It's not about using short descriptions or long descriptions. "Here", one word is too many and a million words are not enough. I again go back to the clear translucent crystal. It is not the actual crystal itself. It is not the image of the crystal. It is not conceptually about a crystal and ideas about everything and nothing. It comes prior to that. That which comes prior is doing it's best to express itself. But it can only use words and images to do so here. Yet it is not the words or images. As soon as the mind thinks in words and concepts, it is too late. All distinctions would need to dissolve for the direct experience to arise. To me, the crystal makes sense because of the direct experience of "prior". It's not even "me" that has had the direct experience because it's "prior" to that. To see it through a clear crystal, one would need to let go of the image of a clear crystal and that "I" am perceiving it through a clear crystal. It's more like from the clarity of the clear crystal everything arises from nothing. To me, "it" trying to express itself makes sense. Not because my mind can make sense of it, but because the direct experience that comes prior to imagery knows itself. This is the best I can do. Perhaps it may be helpful to someone reading the thread. Perhaps not.

Yea, I didn't mean to jump in and be all "spiritually correct". I now better understand the sentiment of your question. I would say that there is a certain type of happiness a person can experience. You asked whether a person could experience "true happiness" along the path. Are you asking about a deeper true happiness than standard personal happiness most people think of. Like the happiness of getting a good job, having free time to watch movies, having a good meal etc.? I would say there is a deeper true happiness than this. Ime, I had "glimpses" of this deeper happiness - a type of peace, stillness, bliss. Yet only glimpses. Ime, "transcending" the self is necessary because it is a more expansive happiness. If I am contracted within the personality construct, happiness will be limited to within that construct. Yet when consciousness expands beyond the personality, a deeper more expansive happiness arises. Perhaps I am just using the term "transcending the personality" and you might be calling it "enlightenment". I don't mean to be a stickler on terms. The sentiment is more important. . . I would say that some type of personal transcendence is correlated with the arising of that deeper / expansive happiness. At least ime. It seems to be the case from what I read about others as well.

From one perspective, you are saying somewhere is somewhere - which I agree with. One cannot point from nowhere. Yet, I also see your point and how I can improve my description for this situation, which I have attempted in the below post. That is not quite what I am pointing to. Yet I can see how your pointer would be more helpful in this situation. I have rephrased my description below. That is not my intention, yet I can see how a mind can view it that way. I appreciate your input. It helps me to see another perspective and how I can develop a more helpful pointer in certain contexts. I've taken your input and have attempted to create a better view from for this situation (written below). Hopefully, it's improved! Thanks for your input. I'm still learning and your perspective is helpful.

@Paul92 From one perspective, this is an ego that has hit rock bottom and is ready to surrender. Many people on the forum have direct experience with that and can be helpful. Many people on the forum have tried to offer you help with that and would continue to do so if you are open to it. From another perspective, this is a mind-body that is is telling us it wants to commit physical suicide. In such a case, no one on the forum is professionally trained in suicide prevention and therapy. If you are on the edge of committing physical suicide, it is a very serious issue. Just realize noone here is professionally trained in suicide prevention. I would strongly recommend seeking professional help with someone who is formally trained in this area.

You are not seeing my pointer. To be somewhere, I need to be somewhere. Yes, I am doing my best to point to nowhere, yet I need to be a somewhere to do so. You are saying the other person and I are both somewhere. Of course we are. As soon as one thought or word is spoken, it is a somewhere. I am not saying my somewhere is nowhere and his somewhere is somewhere. Rather, I am pointing out that his somewhere is somewhere. I am aware my somewhere is also somewhere. For this realization, I think it is essential to have the direct experience of nowhere. Not in imagery or thoughts. The direct experience of the actuality of nothing. In doing so, a human mind can observe the complete dismantling of all distinctions to nothing and the reassembly of distinctions into everything. I cannot offer a being that direct experience. The best I can do is point to it - and in doing so, it is a somewhere. I am not trying to point to a somewhere I call "nowhere" - that of course would be another somewhere. I am trying to point to the actuality of nowhere and I must be a somewhere to do so. These realizations come "prior" to the psychological dynamic of associating "enlightenment" to a "person". It would have been of no value for me to address distinctions that are prior to the distinctions of the question asked.

Of course. I am communicating on the human level. In doing so, I use imagery that human minds can understand to point beyond the imagery. If I communicated with human minds as if they were dog minds - it would be meaningless. Likewise, I would communicate very differently with a dog, bird or tree - since their relative reality is quite different than that of a human and they would not have the capacity to understand clear crystal imagery - at least not in the way humans might. I suppose if we want to get more "spiritually correct" I could say. . . "Based on the relative nature of a human mind, one might point to "enlightenment" as being sort of like a clear crystal that contains both everything and nothing. Yet this in and of itself is only a partial truth, since the full truth cannot be described. Any description would be a piece of a more expansive truth and only relative to an organism perceiving it. Even this description is a tiny partial truth. So is that last statement and this statement". . . Yet to me this is never-ending bulkiness, so I tried to trim it down. But yea, your point is essentially that being somewhere in]s not being nowhere. Yes, yet any thing is a somewhere. Any pointer is a somewhere.

This is just what is arising for me. . .Notice how you once again asked if one can follow this path and find some level of happiness without becoming enlightened. Part of the enlightenment story is that a person becomes enlightened. Ime, this is a huge distraction. . . Why not just ask if a mind-body can experience happiness? Or if happiness be found within the storyline? Why add in the "enlightenment" bit? It's just a distraction imo. It's reflective of a personality dynamic associating some goodies with an idea of enlightenment. . . Can a person find some level of happiness without becoming a tree in China? The question doesn't make any sense without the personal association. At the level of the human/person, I would say "yes". That a mind-body can experience happiness. My mind-body has experienced sensations of happiness, so my direct experience is "yes". . . Yet I would draw a distinction with human/person "happiness" and a transcendental "happiness".

I would be careful about getting too immersed into an "enlightenment story". Within this story all sorts of images and expectations are placed upon enlightenment. Yet enlightenment is like a perfectly clear translucent crystal - it contains nothing and everything. Who is that "someone" to live a happy life? Is there a someone to become happy or is there simply happiness with no owner? Who is that someone that owns happiness? The psychological self will always perceive through a filter of "what's in it for me? would I become truly happy if I gain enlightenment?". This will produce a distorted and cloudy view. One will not see the clarity within the crystal. Is not true happiness within the great clear crystal that contains both everything and nothing? Look into a clear crystal and see happiness within that clarity. If by "happy" you are referring to pleasurable sensations within a mind-body, that is a very different question, imo.

@LambChop Sometimes I feel like there is a beautiful glass statue inside of me. It is so sweet, delicate, gentle, innocent and loving. Yet that stature has been handled roughly in the past and got banged up quite a bit by a few people. So, that glass statue got put in a safe place so it won't get harmed. Yet, relationships just aren't the same when I keep that part of me locked up. My tendency in the past has been to over-share that part of me and getting burned. I may like a gal and open up - I might write her some poetry and start falling in love, under the illusion she is with me. Then finding out she has been just keeping me around and is cheating on me. It's devasting to that inner part of me and it gets locked up. Yet then the next relationship is just on the surface and I feel like I'm just going through the motions - it isn't meaningful or satisfying. What's helped me is to practice self love - not in a selfish egostical way. Rather in a loving way - like how I would treat others. To be kind to myself. Prepare a healthy meal for myself. Do yoga and take a bath occasionally. When I can reach a level of self love, I am not dependent on the other person for love. I don't try to please them so they will love me or give me attention. I don't need to open up my inner self on the third date and hope that they will approve of me. I am grounded in love, whether or not they are emotionally available. I am not dependent on them. I also need to establish healthy personal boundaries and respect their personal boundaries. Together, this allows a gradual trust to develop. You mentioned trust and I think this is a really important factor. Trust and also mutual support. Yet I've found I cannot develop that if I am not grounded in love and my well-being is dependent on what another person thinks of me or treats me.