deci belle

hi sarapr… wonderful! But just keep watching, and watching, and watching~ because it's not just the whole body that resonates according to conditions. What it is has no particular location. You'll see as you keep watching the thinking compulsion.

It's hard to act independently when it's still hard to act independently~ especially when a beautiful man proposes… What is so hard (due to habit-energy) is keeping that clear intent intact (fueling the power of your blocking) because of doubts. As I recognize this situation (if accurately so), one must hide (secure the basis of) this bit of knowledge (that fueled your action) where there is no intellectualism/emotionalism, not so it won't hurt, but so you won't waste any energy. It hurts. What hurts (if I read this situation accurately), is a sense of recognizing something I will call unrefined potential. That hurts. If I am accurately reading this situation, setting aside doubts and secreting this unrefined potential where there is no intellectualism will result in your accrual of something real by this very experience where you already knew what to do (block the basis of desire) because the perceived gap (the opportunity) wasn't backed by the few key facts. It is essential to follow one's desire without stepping over the line. Without desire, there is no potential. Confucious said that when he provided one corner (a revelatory statement) and the other person couldn't come up with the other three corners, he wouldn't talk to them any more. You had the personal power to attract (if I'm reading this situation correctly) and gather a bit of potential by virtue of this situation. Now that you acted~ it's too late for regrets. So don't throw it away by entertaining the luxury of habit-energy (doubts) …let this cook (and no fair peeking!!). Otherwise the power of sexual desire will do what it will, and steal that potential back~ heehee!! We can't have our cake and eat it too, hmmmm? As for your last line, how about if you make the consequential proposal? Until you can set aside desire yourself, how will you ever know? Who engages who without desire? Hardly anyone I know. ed note: added a few words here and there

In my definition, reality is seen by the mind that does not think— it doesn't think, it's just awake. Its knowledge is immediate, as in knowing whether water tastes cold or not without deliberation. That's what knows. Actually, it's who knows. Who is that? It's just selfless awareness, your own mind right now. It's not just that non-discursive mind sees reality— it alone is what is reality. I can say that! When oneself partakes of reality, then one sees reality. It's not good or bad, it's just what is, and you can see it as it really is without discriminatory psychological projections. Reality is spiritual; it is non-psychological. In my experience, reality looks exactly the same as delusion. So reality is not appearances, and though it is subtle to discern, there is no difficulty or deliberation required— that is, it is not attributable to thinking. Also, reality is not different than delusion. If not for delusion, there is no way to see reality. That's not philosophy— this world is inconceivable, and so are people. Being happily bound by the human mentality is just a reflection of habit-energy (thought). In Faceless' last line: Being bound, happily or not, is not what is known as liberation. Liberation is seeing what is, as it is, without deliberation— that is, non-discursively or non-psychologically. So the nature of reality is …what? Even better, since reality can actually be seen, not explained, in the midst of everyday ordinary situations, what is the point of so-called spiritual practice? I can say that so-called effective spiritual practice is that which results in the cessation of habit-energy. Habit energy is kinetic; it has momentum. What is the result of cessation of habit-energy? Spontaneity; presence; enlightening activity that responds impersonally to inevitability without relying on one's own power. How? It's spontaneous impersonal response to conditions by virtue of non-psychologically aware presence. Buddhism calls this spiritual adaption, or mutual response, or arrow-points meeting, or box and cover fitting. One's personal self is not separate from situations, as the potential for spiritual response is inherent in the situation itself— therefore, one does not rely on one's own power to meet creation due to its (creation's) inherent latent spiritual potential if you can see it. It's the meaning of non-doing. Non-doing in response to situations is authentic spiritual practice. Renunciatory and remedial programs are not quite on par with enlightening activity, but we all have our parts to carry out— in concert. The reason why it is essential to wonder what the nature of reality is, as Faceless has articulated, is to bring its inconceivable potential into one's sphere of attention— and that is a matter of will, or intent. Even the Absolute, which is prior to the primal organization constituting incrementality, or process-oriented causation, is an impersonal, selflessly aware intent. Intent is an extremely powerful, if subtle, innate aspect of humanity. It eventually enables people to enter the inconceivable; the Causeless. I would say, beyond any speculation, that in terms of humanity's potential for reversion to, and actualization of, its innate spiritual, non-psychological capacity (which ego is best-suited to serve without peer), is a burgeoning sense of openly sincere objectless intent, as the most direct path to realizing the nature of reality, which must first be recognized, and only then (eventually) harmonized with conditions spontaneously after a maturation process requiring the individual to withdraw from conventional activity in a discrete and subtle way without shrinking from society. The nature of reality isn't a thing. The Absolute is all-at-once; Duality is incremental; they are not different, nor are they the same. Buddhism calls this Suchness. Adepts are able to see reality in the midst of delusion and have developed the "skill" necessary to operate within the context of delusion without going along with creation in such a way as to give karma its due while they "steal" its potential to develop inconceivable awareness for the benefit of oneself and others.. Why? Obviously it's not about good or bad, self, other, or before or after— it's about using potential for self-refinement. To be sure, self-refinement isn't about good and bad, right and wrong. Enlightenment is just a sign-post on the endless path of perpetual transformations entering into the profound mystery without end. For those who seek within the clarity of spiritual potential, there is only wonder. It's not particularly easy or difficult.

Shanmugam has all the bases covered. The disease is to be used as the cure. Whether mind is active or empty, just observe mind— there is no goal, no reason, no hurry. The unbending intent to subtly scrutinize mental activity by silent illumination is one from beginning to end for one's whole lifetime. Ultimately, continuous nonjudgemental concentration by subtle observation over a long period of time results in cessation of ingrained habitual patterns of self-reflective mentally chattering activity, and the flower of one's virtuous innate aware potential begins to open. It is especially important to realize that when it seems most difficult to not get lost in obliviously following mental activity unawares— that is the most important time to redouble the fire of one's firm resolve. Conversely, when it is easy to maintain subtle concentration, then remove the fire and relax a bit. The idea is to keep "it" warm at all times, like a hen sending mental energy to the egg she is sitting on until it hatches. Eventually, there will come a time when "dragging a boat through mud and water" will lessen and one will reach open water, which symbolizes the degree of self-refinement that results in realizing the nature of clarified consciousness for the first time. Then it gets easier. Using objects or breathing or physical/psychosomatic exercises for conjuring mental focus is still using externals as a crutch— not because of the exercises themselves, but because of the nature of the rational mentality that perpetuates it reasons for being in the first place (that's ego's job). We don't want to take ego's job away (it's impossible). We just want to re-orient ego's thinking reason for perpetuating itself at all costs and instead put its tireless efforts toward serving the recondite selfless shining mind that knows instantaneously beyond thought. We employ observation of mind to exercise the non-discursive quality of Mind at the expense of the self-consciousness of the individual's rationally neurotic patterns of mental activity. If one needs the crutch, that is fine, but it is best when one is able, to use mind itself to gather mind. This is because there are no two minds. If you want to end up with the flower of mind's potential unfolding in perpetuity, it is essential to take up that potential from the beginning. Then you make your practice transcendent from the start and forever detach from remedial programs which often keep you in a "holding pattern" for lifetimes. This is precisely the bane of religious programs of teaching tradition that only perpetuate themselves— one must be wary.

I eat a bunch of fruit and nuts and some yogurt/kefer/milk in the morning (early or late), then later between 2 and 4pm I eat something else~ some soup and salad (hopefully) or a sandwich~ then a little cookie and a chocolate truffle. That's about twice-a-day that I have something to eat. In the middle of the day I like to have a single espresso though. If I'm doing something really strenuous like climbing or skiing all day …I generally eat even less if it's not very convenient~ go figure— but then I'll really try to eat some soup of some sort then have nuts and dried fruit again at night-time. I think you are fine eating only twice a day~but it really depends what your body wants! I've always been kind of a bird-food person…

Enlightenment is so before the first thought— it doesn't exist after the first thought, I assure you— hahahhaa!! If it's you experiencing "enlightenment"— it's not enlightenment. If the experience is utterly impersonal~ then there's potential for refinement. I also assure you that enlightening experience is a cosmic reversion to who you are really is, which is not the person. Is that wonderful? Not yet. This thread becoming a discussion of drug-aids's validity for spiritual/awareness evolution works fine… enlightening experience is no different— and that goes for how any benefit is to be realized in terms of an experientially transcendent event's aftermath (which is the OP's stated concern). If you think that psychedelics can give you mental baggage… delusion does not miraculously go away after any kind of experience (someone wanted to make a distinction between experience and one's "state" of mind. One's life, not to mention this universe, is impermanent— and it's hardly worth splitting a hair's difference between the two in that regard. Enlightenment is a HUGE dose of what one's inconceivable nature is. D'ya think experiential knowledge of the absence of nothing is a trifle to get over? The point is, mind is one; enlightened or deluded. Obviously, it's a real challenge for most everybody to just forget to think. That, essentially, is what constitutes seeing one's nature (forgetting thought). Thought is itself what constitutes ego and the whole cluster of psychic patterns constituting the psychological apparatus of the being that is going to die. That's all it amounts to. Drug use can help, yes— but not without the right approach, which is different for each individual. Some don't need it, and others should absolutely defer. Otherwise, there really is a benefit to a proper introduction for employing effective drug usage when psychotropics are taken at the right time for the right reason by certain people. But there is this thing called topic drift, so in getting back to what the above post touched on… As Simon said (heehee), in his last line, when you see that there is no thing (matter)~ then what's the matter? Knowing that is liberation. It's real. Contemplating, or just accepting Simon's no enlightenment is fine as an intellectual abstract, but there really is a point of illumination. Being jerked around by psychotropics, even if by chance one IS jolted out of one's mind (in the most beneficial way) to trigger a mystic vision beyond the self-referenced to arrive at seeing one's impersonal, inconceivable nature— is beyond a meaningless waste unless it can be beneficially incorporated into one's life. If one is not ready to harness one's innate inconceivable potential in a VERY real way …which is not so obvious, there will be no benefit. "Enlightenment" is not a kick— something to tick off one's bucket-list. Even those imbued with the secret light of virtuous reception of open sincerity are already practicing the authentic spiritual operations beyond convention without even bothering with concerns about seeing one's nature (with or without the aid of drugs) before sudden enlightenment. Enlightenment is not the deal. It's merely the result of seeing reality as is and adapting to ordinary conditions impersonally. I sense there is a faction on this forum that considers enlightenment a "thing". The potential for enlightenment is what karma is made of. It's not somewhere else. It's not something you get from anything, much less drugs. Situations are already your own mind. It's inconceivable. Wonder of wonders. Buddhism calls this fact the Supreme Vehicle of buddhas~ it's not within the capacity of hipsters with a penchant to employ ultimate ambitions for unconventional kicks to enter into. Yet one must be prepared somehow. As if. I would suggest cultivating a sense of wonder imbued with beatitude. How might one come to such a "state"? It's called self-refinement. Self-refinement has nothing to do with good or bad, right or wrong, before or after~ it's a matter of open sincerity. At any rate, Smileyone said, speaking of ingesting drugs: I must disagree with this absolutely fallacious statement at the first word— and there is nothing I could possibly add to that. I've already addressed the last sentence in the above quote. As for "…but it rarely stays with you.", this is the concern of the OP— and a wonderful insight! This is also a key point of contemplation for authentic practice to arrive at the production of the flowering of potential in the midst of ordinary situations that only you can know. People who have not seen their nature rarely conceive of the thought that others can, have, and will see Reality beyond any self-reified conditionality and apply that real knowledge to everyday ordinary situations unbeknownst to anyone. Secret practice by the light of true potential is inconceivable practice, based on Reality. It is not a matter of psychologically perceived postures in terms of conventions of good and bad. Take drugs, then forget drugs. They will never help you get anything of lasting value. Enlightenment is no different: see your nature on your own (because there is nothing to be transmitted being that essence is literally no-thing), then profoundly seek instruction on how to apply its potential. Trying to hang on to any experience, or state, for that matter, is CLINGING. Clinging to an hallucination (be that of a temporal or even absolute nature), is ALREADY delusion. Yet delusion, this one thing (creation) right here and now, is all there is to work with, in terms of enlightening activity. This is the work of buddhas, and there is no one here who is not already a buddha where he or she stands AS IS. Enlightenment is what is reading these words right now. Of course, if you do not have enough power to see it, there is no benefit— yet it is so whether one knows it or not. Clinging is a mental disease that only serves to strengthen the delusion of having a self. The essential definition of the word delusion is being ignorant of the fact of one's ignorance. Yet the knowledge of one's state of true ignorance (not-knowing) is enlightenment. Enlightenment isn't the mystery— creation is the mystery!! The point of really experiencing the inconceivability of the nature of the absolute is to see who you really are as who you really are: it's not you. So who is the knowledge? Awareness is the nature of the selfless. Awake is what is inconceivably so. Enlightenment is actually none other than your essential nature right now— it is unborn; death doesn't exist either. Simon's statement encompasses the idea of the riddle; I don't have the gift of simplicity-- but I go much further in terms of approaching its application —that's my deal. Experience of the absolute is not permanent relative to created karmic evolution in practical mnemonic terms by the individual, but for those who are blessed with inconceivable wonder and begin to enter into its light, living and aware— even as other vie for experiential proofs for the sake of adventure, endless selfless transformations in the midst of karmic bondage are the norm, independent of any instantaneous flash of absolute reality. Some are born knowing. Yet a lifetime is not much more than an instantaneous illusional flash of the dregs of created energy, whereas self-refinement is the process of going in reverse. Some call that alchemy. What taoism calls spiritual immortality is a quest through the actualization of a partnership with creation in such a fashion as to use (steal), incrementally, creation's essential potential, bit by bit, by virtue of one's selfless adaption to ordinary situations. It's not good or bad, but just in seeing its potential (and not using it). Buddhism calls this "saving energy". It's the "sparks" of mystical Judaism. There really is something to this enlightenment thing if you know how to not-do it. It's your mind before the first thought— that's what sees Reality. The trick is to see it when it arises spontaneously, whenever that may occur, over and over and over, until its source becomes stabilized as the world-at-large. Taoism says that "the world is the sage". Reality looks exactly the same as delusion, so it's not a matter of appearances. When you see it, there has never been a context for the OP's concern for gain or loss. ed note: typo in 5th; add the word "usage" in the 6th; "yet" in 21st paragraph

Hi Sartanion~ hopefully your coursework interests you. That matters! Have you discussed anything along these lines with your academic advisors/counsellors? The thing about applying yourself to a single, tangible objective over a long period of time and completing it is at the very least a matter of the virtue (of accomplishing a tangible commitment) being its own reward. I got a university degree over five years~ then I did something totally different. Unless you have something on the cusp (worth dropping whatever you have invested in your academic degree), then my suggestion would be to look beyond your malaise, gird your loins and soldier on~ switch your major if need be. You can't know what will develop in the meantime. The worst thing to do is be influenced by the misguided sentiment called the fear of missing out on something. Rather, be guided by your desire or a particular challenge. If you don't have a smoldering passion you are ready and able to commit to, then continue with the degree track for now~ while you keep that passion tethered, for the time being. Getting a university degree is a rite of passage~ but at the risk of going into debt for someone else's approval (unless they are funding your university coursework), assess this thing impersonally, then do what you must. What is inevitable right now? "All paths are empty, they all lead nowhere." You must travel the path with heart, or you are throwing your life away at this very instance. Whatever seems to be the real challenge facing you right now where you stand (after you take a step back)— see it for what it is, then meet it, then do it again, and again, and again. ed note: add 5th line

Source Mystic said: I would like to condense this just a bit and say that ego is the function that constitutes karmic evolution in terms of creation. Leaving aside concepts for the moment, there is still no "your" either before, during or after experiencing the sudden. Complete perfect enlightenment bears this out. The "fear" expressed in the OP is precisely what destroys the power of nonbeing's objectivity in the aftermath of the sudden by virtue of clinging. Clinging to one's tiny bit of enlightenment in terms of experiencing the absolute is no different than clinging to one's prior false identity. So ego isn't "your" being; rather, it constitutes the locus of the identity-cluster of the psychological apparatus of the being that is going to die. Even in terms of the temporal, there is no "your", and there never has been. This is the meaning of liberation. Yet the point of sudden enlightenment is actualizing enlightenment in the midst of conditions. In and of itself, enlightening experience is the relative extreme of delusion. Dogen said that "people become buddhas and buddhas become people." This is how it works. If enlightenment changes anything, it's not enlightenment. He also said that "further, there are people who attain realization upon realization and people who are deluded within delusion." Both statements are analogous. In terms of carrying out enlightening activity in the midst of ordinary affairs, nothing changes for the awakened person who sees potential and has learned to work with essence directly, whereas ordinary people go along with karmic momentum because they follow their thoughts unawares. Enlightenment is the experience of forgetting thoughts, thinker, knower and known. What is critical to note is that "realization upon realization" is the mind of delusion. "Deluded within delusion" is reality in terms of Suchness. Ego eradication is the interruption of self-refying thought constituting the fallacious identity. Function or no, universally selfless true intent constituting reality is that which is glimpsed in the instant of reversion beyond time preceding creation, karma and infinite existence. So "ego death" is the relative cause of enlightenment as well as the functionality of enlightening activity in the world before and after experiencing the sudden. Therefore "without ego" does not exist, as Source Mystic notes because "without ego" is conceptually relative to "selfless", in terms of conceivability. The boon of complete perfect enlightenment is not only the elimination of the personality's compulsions, but also because ego can now revert to its true purpose which is to serve the immovable shining unborn nonpsychological awareness in the awake being. In the opening of his taoist classic "Understanding Reality", Chang Po-tuan wrote, "If you come upon the great elixir without even looking for it, having come upon it, you are a fool if you do not refine it." This means that sudden enlightenment isn't something to keep, relative to having a self— it is the inconceivable nature of human being (which is a verb). Adapting selflessly to ordinary conditions isn't a matter of precepts or even morality because enlightening activity before or after the sudden is the nature of one's inherent enlightening function, which is inconceivable. In order to do so, it is not only the light of ego-function which is advantageous to keep hidden. So the process before and after the sudden is not separate from its source, having no beginning nor end. Enlightenment is just seeing who is aware— who has always been aglow. There is no one who is not just this right now. Yet "just this" is not people. Wonder of wonders! ed. note: change "result" to "cause" in paragraph 7

The relationship is to be used skillfully (assuming it is a correct relationship to begin with for such purposes as self-refinement). I cannot see how one can evolve but through relationships. Realizing the inability to detach is indicative of having something to work with!! Woohoo!! Work with just that. Absolutely. The most powerfully transformative relationships I have had have not only celibate, but were virtually wordless and spanned thousands of days apiece. No, they were not at all anonymous, they were extremely intense, and not at all private affairs. Amazing, wondrous transformation by virtue of such relationships.

Those are some really practical tips, as well as the powerful insight in the last line offered by HII. It really is fine to get rid of your smartphone if you want to simplify your life a bit temporarily. RossE and molosku are quite correct, but cutting out sources of distraction is an easy and obvious way to target for those wishing to make a commitment toward concentrating attention on psychological hygiene. Renunciatory methods are universally applicable at all stages of development— especially for those who have already penetrated the absolute. Why? Because in the aftermath of the sudden, real knowledge, or lead, in terms of taoist spiritual alchemy, must be gotten rid of. That bit of stripping away took a long time even for Gautama buddha. That's why he continued to sit under the Bodhi tree after his enlightenment. Surely it's ok to temporarily eliminate the major distraction that an over-developed electronic media device insidiously provides! I think that would be an easy and limited bit of renunciation to implement. I have never had a smartphone myself. I only have an old iPod for music and pictures. This being my first post on this forum I can say that I haven't posted on any forums dedicated to spiritual refinement in 2 years or more~ so I have exercised an aspect of inner/outer renunciation for a limited time too. You can alway get a better smartphone some day if you need to again. ed note: added line about HII's suggestions