Heart of Space

True they are what we call words, but that's all they are. Now point the beliefs that are in my subjective experience. Can you? Rhetorical question. The answer is no because you don't know my reality. Could I be full of shit as you seem to think? The answer is yes because everyone has the potential to be full of shit. Whether or not you see me as full of shit, or actually giving an intelligible thing to say is up to your interpretation. You see me as full of shit, and contradicting myself, because that's how you interpret the words on your screen next to my name. That's fine. You've received nothing of value from me and that's ok. Hopefully the OP got something of value, but if he too thinks I'm full of shit that's ok too. Good day, m'lord.

Those are words on a screen. I was only trying to help. If you disagree, or see some sort of flaw in what I'm saying that's fine, friend. @zedprotect Take what I say for what it is. Hope I was helpful in some way at least.

Thanks man. I actually randomly remembered something you said at some point and it was very helpful and rang very true. Thanks for being such a fantastic human, Nahm. Nothing off the top of my head, but don't worry I'll have a joke or more for you at some point.

Oh well, I guess all I was trying to put across is that it's not just a belief in the physicality of the world that "blocks enlightenment" as you say. Any narrative about reality has the same effect. So, I was just trying to mention that just so you are aware of that. It is correct to say that the belief in the physicality of the universe is false, but the mistake is to take that information and simply alter your narrative or belief about reality rather than seeing reality as it is. Is-ness is the only way to enlightenment. All this intellectual philosophizing and contemplating about reality is fun, but understand narrative for what it is. Does that make more sense? Enlightenment? Yes. @SOUL

You. Just read this guys post. He said it well:

Believing in any narrative about reality is not enlightenment. Whether or not you think its fake, real, physical, a dream, a hologram, or whatever. Reality isn't anything. It just is.

I'll try in different ways to put it into words. No desire to seek enlightenment anymore. Not that I won’t meditate, I still will meditate and incorporate a mindfulness into my life, it just won’t be the focal point of my life. It will be how I live rather than what I live for. All narrative is false. There is only what is. The obvious false narratives conditioned by modern western culture. But also even the narratives of spirituality, such as that I need to attain enlightenment. I don't need to attain anything at all. I can still imbibe in narrative, I just won’t do it so seriously because I understand it for what it is. Fulfillment is lack of unfulfillment. Missing a that old shard of glass in my soul. I'm not special, I didn't gain anything that others don't have. Ordinary and normal as could be. One of the best quotes about enlightenment is that one "before enlightenment chop wood carry water, after enlightenment chop wood, carry water." It really conveys the ordinary-ness of what it really is. It's so incredibly ordinary. I've finally learned how to live and now I can live my life fully.

Based on what you are saying. I think it may be a good idea to get professional outside help. Take a break from your meditating in the very least. Do you have a loved one you can contact?

Tail end of LSD trip. Got enlightened. I was trying to convey something, I think I failed lol, oh well.

You should study this one really awesome one. I think his Sri enlightened lord-ness goes by the name of @Joseph Maynor. Jokes aside, just meditate dude.

So true. Very profound.

It's a bit difficult to escape rebirth when you are God, infinity, and all its forms. Haha

What are chakras relating to your actual experience of reality? I've always kind of seen them as just another belief that could potentially limit your growth. For example, like I can't feel the feelings related to the heart chakra until I believe it's open. I'm totally ignorant about this stuff. Like what does the actual chakra feel like?

Did he kill anyone though? Or did he just attract crazy people who did? You should look into this case. His trial was a witch hunt. I'm not saying Manson was a spiritual role model or anything, but you should look at the facts of this case you may be surprised. He literally used LSD as a means of killing the ego in the consciousness of his followers in his commune. The word enlightenment is very relevant here. You guys really should look into this case, it's really interesting.

I had an insight about him recently, I don't know how accurate it is, but yes he is actually enlightened to some degree. He's dead inside, which is why if you listen to him talk you can almost get this ineffable feeling that he is. But he's filled his consciousness with complete trash though, so he's definitely not someone to get spiritual advice from.

Very well put, friend. I was trying to make that point a little earlier in my discussion with @Outer. Great points.

Oh ok, I actually think we're in agreement, at least with that last statement regarding IQ and the speed of learning. That absolutely effects your ability to do this work and the speed at which you progress. You're totally right, it does make a difference in that regard.

So, I take it you disagree with Leo and the majority of major spiritual teacher's on their idea of what enlightenment is? I'm not chastising you, I'm genuinely asking. Correct, it is. No doubt, some brains definitely have a higher processing power, that's very true. Still, you haven't explained what your definition of truth is and then how this higher processing power is somehow necessary to get to that truth.

But, just saying 'knowing truth' as your definition is too vague. What is truth? Is it not what I've been talking about this whole time? Then you say you agree with my definition of awakening, which is seeing reality as it is, as in lack of separation of ego and world. Again, if you truly understand what this means you would know that intellect is not necessary for this and is in fact actually one of the primary culprits for why you have to start enlightenment work in the first place to uncondition your mind. Like I said previously, I think that intellect could help with your ability to more effectively uncondition the mind, but it is not a prerequisite.

So, your definition of enlightenment is 'knowing truth?' So, what is truth? Is it not that your ego creates an illusion of separation from the world? That's always been a major facet of every school of spirituality I've studied. Then again, I won't pretend like I know everything, because I definitely do not. What's your specific definition of enlightenment, or awakening? How do 'you' use the word? Isn't being 'more awake' as you say simply just seeing reality as it is to a higher degree than you did previously? As in ultimately seeing more of the one-ness of reality? This does not require the type of intellect that IQ measures my friend. I could see how, once you have been conditioned into illusion, that intelligence could aid you greatly in your ability to effectively uncondition yourself out of illusion. But ultimately, intelligence is not a prerequisite.

If there is no separation of an individual self and the world you are enlightened. Cows are enlightened. Lizards are enlightened. The most mentally handicapped person in the world can be enlightened as long as they have consciousness. The problem is that you're conflating states of the human mind with 'higher' or 'lower' consciousness. This has almost nothing to do with enlightenment. Ironically, it's our modern sense of intellect that moves us more into the illusion of being separate from our world.

Prerequisites for enlightenment: 1) Have consciousness 2) That's it

@egoless You're giving something attention that is the opposite of productive with this thread. You're feeding into a negative aspect of a certain mind. Sorry for the vague-ness, trying not to make anyone feel bad.

You're not looking past to what the words are pointing at. Rupert Spira is correct in the sense that enlightenment is the most ordinary thing. Leo's experience could also totally be authentic and not contradictory. Ever heard people say that there is no enlightenment to work for because you are already are enlightened? Ever heard people also say the seemingly very contradictory idea that you have to work very heard in meditation practice for enlightenment? If you understand what enlightenment is, you see very clearly, that they are both 100% correct. They're just talking about aspects of enlightenment in different ways. Don't focus so much on the petty content of people's words when they talk about this stuff. Try to see where they're pointing. There's a really good quote I heard somewhere that says something like "a wise man points at the moon, the ignorant person looks at the finger." You're looking at the finger, which is why you're so confused. You'll understand better as you progress.