snowleopard

Here is an article that may be of interest and relevance here, on the neural correlates of transcendent states ... https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/transcending-the-brain/

@EyeOfTheStorm Ah well, perhaps half the process is realizing that there is such a realization. But maybe best not to have some fixated expectation of how that has to happen, or appear. Keep the faith ... Hopefully the good news is that there isn't really a right or wrong direction on a strange loop. Either way, one gets back to the future Btw, love the choice of name the 'eye of the storm' which also makes for a great metaphor. If one imagines the storm to be a strange loop, then it seems that the stillness at the center may be the best perspective from which to grok that the two sides are not-two.

@EyeOfTheStorm If you haven't checked it out already, I recommend Leo's wonderful video about strange loops, as such strange loops are a perfect example and symbol of the paradox of awakening, in that they seem to have two separate sides of an apparent duality, which in actuality are the same side, and exist in unity. So if one imagines being on one side, let's call it the unawakened state, it seems as if the other side is the opposite of that, and somehow difficult to attain, and one wonders how to get to the other side, that there must be some magic trick to it. And so one diligently traverses the 'unawakened' side, ever hopeful of finding the secret of getting to the 'awakened' side, not realizing that there are never actually two sides. That it was the same side all along. There is only the state of being what you never actually were not, except insofar as it is strangely imagined to be otherwise. And then one may have a good laugh about it! This is what Ramana Maharshi meant when he said: "There is no greater mystery than this: always being Reality, we seek to attain Reality. We think that there is something hiding Reality and rather it must be overcome before the Reality is gained. It is ridiculous. A day will dawn when you will laugh at all your past efforts. That which will be the day you laugh is also here and now." Meanwhile, it's hard to go wrong with some consistent self-inquiry in quiet contemplation, and practicing compassion ... and just keep on traversing the strange loop that only apparently has two sides.

@Cameron Just because there is a loss of fear of death, doesn't mean that there is a loss of appreciation for life. In any true examples of the awakened state, there seems to be an awakening of the heart that compels one toward a life of compassion, to be a clear example of what is possible. So in that sense, there is perhaps more reason to live and love than ever. And whenever the death of the body-form comes, as it inevitably will, then it can be accepted with equanimity and grace, knowing that it was a life lived well fulfilled. I'm not seeing how some pointless death would serve that cause.

@Edvard Perhaps there's something to be said in favour of the buddhist idea of emptiness, rather than nothingness , which can have a nihilistic connotation ... Even emptifullness might better express the paradox of it.

@blazed Yup ... if there is 'someone' who is 'self'-identifying as being enlightened, then there would seem to be some dispelling yet to happen

Isn't the 'you' that is dispelled just the exclusive identification trap ... I am such and such, vs all those things I am not? Seems that even 'I am enlightened' is also such a trap. Apparently that too is imaginable.

It's true that what 'one' (for lack of a better name for the nameless), is in essence is no thing, has no identity, and is empty of selfness. Suffering is all about things and identities and selfness. The mystery is why that which 'one' is in essence seems compelled to imagine it to be so. And then imagines to dispel that. Seems one can only imagine that it has some telos. If not, why bother? Could it only be for the sheer thrill of it, like some suspension of disbelief while watching a movie? 'Who' knows? ... Carry on.

@Stephyk8 If you aren't already aware, perhaps the most prolific interviewer of what he calls 'awakening' individuals is Rick Archer of batgap.com -- wherein one can find over 400 discussions. I'm not sure of what proportion are women, but it must certainly be in the hundreds. Whether or not one appreciates his interviewing style, it would surely be at least a good introduction to become familiar with some of the many female perspectives available. There is an alphabetical list of interviewees to peruse, from which the women should be easy to find, going by their names. From there, you'll also find countless links to other sources to follow up ... https://batgap.com/past-interviews/alphabetical-index-guests/

@John Iverson That which 'you' are in essence does not depend upon what appears as a body-form interacting with what appears to be a tree-form -- or any other form. However, as a conscious agent within the context of this spacetime construct, any kind of sensual interaction or communication does depend upon the appearance of forms, for the sake of having this kind of relational experience. In the same way, any communication or interaction within the limited context of this forum depends upon the appearance of word-forms. If not active in this forum, these word-forms have no relevance to you, as they are just electrical data inside an information processor. Analogously, if 'you' are not focused in this spacetime construct, then its forms have no relevance. What all such forms are in essence could then be likened to potential information inside a cosmic mind at large, which is only relevant when you, as a conscious agent, are focused on that. In the dreamtime context, that focus is much more relaxed, and a lot of shape shifting and dimensional shifting can happen -- as in an NDE or OBE or other altered states, which are not limited to the rule-set of this spacetime construct. So that could be some example of what it's like when 'you' leave it after the body-form is no longer relevant.

The ancient spiritual traditions take quite different approaches to this question of Awareness. Vedanta's name for the Absolute is Brahman, which is considered inseparable from the triune of satchitananda, meaning: Being/Consciousness/Bliss. Buddhism, meanwhile, seems to make little mention of consciousness or awareness. I've always resonated with Taoism's approach to defining such terms ... From the Tao Te Ching: "The tao that can be told is not the eternal tao ... The name that can be named is not the eternal name". Even the choice of the word Tao seems quite deliberately nondescript, perhaps to avoid any definitive conceptualization. In any case, somehow it seems best to not get too attached to definitions and names, because what is truly essential is a profound realization of that which is being referred to, and ultimately defies all names and definitions -- which, given the inherent limitations of language, are always going to have to settle for 'true enough under the circumstances'. As such, even the name 'The Absolute' can be problematic, if it is seen in prioritized opposition to 'the relative', and there is then some exclusive identification as I am That, as opposed to other-than-that, thus falling back into the dualism trap, when in nondual terms, however paradoxical it may seem, the absolute is not other than the relative, and vice versa. This is also what Buddhism's Heart Sutra is getting at when it states that "emptiness is not other than form, and form is not other than emptiness" -- albeit, that statement doesn't seem to be in contradiction to 'Awareness.' So perhaps it's as good a name as any other -- keeping in mind, as Leo rightly points out, that it's not to be confused with some dichotomous subject/object awareness, in the conventional way that perception it is understood.