Search the Community

They do... I have hunch that they may transform? into something deeper, beyond emotion, beyond description... rather than disappear. @ajasatya Thanks, do you have any specific teachers you recommend? Hmm... The awakening allowed me to see through fear and completely see fear as an illusion to be laughed at. Yet, I see how I would not want to live that way all the time. So I appreciate fear yet know it as an illusion. I'm back to a level a lot like I was at before the awakening. I'm experiencing a lot of highs and bliss states that are much stronger than before, a high level of excitement for life but also some lack of direction and experience some low grade frustrations. One of my biggest challenges was a loss of focus, I'm lucky to be self employed and have a business that I could do the bare minimum to maintain. I've gone back to working, am really inspired to do my work again and I have my life (fairly) organized again. I've become really good at noticing when I'm feeling off and I'm good about taking time to do what I need to do to interrupt that downward spiral. My go to is going outside in nature and getting sunlight so I'm interested to see how I do when winter comes and I have to embrace the darkness. I understand my own psyche a lot better and on a much deeper level thanks to the awakening so I also have better tools to understand my own emotional states.

Witchcraft will be divided into 3 groups One is Rose witchcraft which deals with the aesthetic appeal. The goddess of Rose witchcraft is Persephone the goddess of aesthetics and beauty. This witchcraft will be more about abundance and different editions of bewitching. It involves meditation, spa, relaxation, beauty and care. Represented by dried roses. Willow witchcraft Which deals with invoking hecate with drum music and doing daily witchcraft and magic for goals in jars, sigil and daily magick work with sigils and spells. The goddess is Hecate. Represented by Willow and jars and feathers and rune stones. Oak witchcraft The goddess is moon goddess and the god is Odin. Represented by acorns and lavender flowers. Which deals with all the seasons like imbolc, ostara, beltane, litha, lammas, mabon, samhain and Yule. It follows the story of primordial, struggle, war, sadness and then success to a state of enlightenment and peace, grounding.. The story of the wheel of the year Imbolc Begins with the primordial lavender peace and tranquil and just the seeds emerging and germination in the primordial seed and ball or lump of clay. Everything was perfect and the world was being born. It was beautiful and peaceful and grounded. Ostara It's spring. Everything is in bloom and pastel colors. Season of eggs and rabbits and flowers and blooming. Beltane Beltane is the season of fire and chaos. Wars and battles and chaos and problems that have just begun. Everything is so hard. The body is still ready and healthy to fight. The mind is engaged in rapture and romance. The unawareness of what lays ahead, the wild enjoyment of the present moment combined with excitement of both good and evil. Lack of humility and wasteful indulgence. Ignorance is truly bliss. Litha Season of great hardships. It's growth but slow and sluggish filled with obstruction and problems. The realization that the devil has taken over. It's scorching summer and the body is tired. Too much hard work has taken a toll. Lammas A short reprieve. Some problems have been sorted and some good news has arrived. A season of success and achievement and celebration which is going to be short. Mabon The season of mourning and sadness and drinking wine to forget the woes. Samhain Halloween The season of great fear and terror and mystery and the realization towards the path of enlightenment. Relinquishing of carnal desires and illusions and walking the path to peace. Lighting the palo Santo essence and finally putting things in order towards the end of samhain. Yule Success Finding enlightenment and peace again. Celebrated as a sea witch. What starts from the dust meets the dust. The world becomes like imbolc again and peace is restored once again. The primordial has succeeded. Final Celebrations.

@Alex bliss Hell is: craving, attachment, violence, neediness, distractions etc. It might be a lot closer than you think. Or maybe you're already living in it?

@mandyjw “I have a theory that hell realms and the appearances of "evil" spirits show you that you have shadow work that needs addressing. They are an aspect of you, your psyche creates them to wake you up.” Absolutely. Human psyche sneakiness is boundless sans awareness of the inherent duality, and the knowing of the inherent Good of the one source of all. The philosophical wrestling in avoiding one’s own conscience creates such elaborate stories, sometimes so literally insane - that others actually buy into it, and look up to it. Hat’s off to you for the ‘work’ such clarity required. ♥️ Funny how reality is one, how being is infinite and inseparable, how nothing is hidden at all, right now....and yet how sneaky linguistic write offs like “realms” can be utilized to create apparent hierarchy & apparent separation. “There’s a hell realm.....buuuuttttt .... I can __________ for you.” Ignorance can astoundingly appear as bliss indeed. @Truth Addict Are you open to the possibility that he is you, and you are creating your emotions (and your hate) without noticing...yet?

Followers of Leo should understand by now that enlightenment is a specific internal experience with an unmistakable before and after. So is Kundalini awakening!!! Most people who talk about Kundalini do not know anything about Kundalini. They so often, knowingly or unknowingly, distort the truth and cause confusion for those actually having this experience. What most are experiencing is something different. People try to force Kundalini with particular actions, but She doesn't like that. If those people only knew how foolish they are. If you have experienced Kundalini awakening and did not become enlightened instantly (if you still suffer from fear) then you will probably have experienced some kind of temporary detachment from your thoughts followed by bliss. You will regularly feel energy travelling the length of your spine. You may, at some stage, begin to be able to feel the area between your eyebrows tingle when you place focus there. This stage may be preceded by temporary dizziness, headaches and nose bleeds. This is the beginning of one process to becoming enlightened. If you fail to become enlightened at some point after awakening Kundalini you will eventually become insane. These are the two possibilities when you dance with the serpent. If there was no risk there could be no reward. How to avoid becoming insane: Trust the process. Do not allow your mind to convince you that there is something wrong with you. Instead focus on the fact that there is something wrong with almost everybody else. Do not allow others, especially western doctors or psychologists who ignore philosophy, to define you. These people tend to have little to no awareness of their own ignorance. Everything they think they know is based on assumption and faith, yet they parade as if they are the most rational ones. Such fools are a danger to the innocent. They have power but lack wisdom. They will likely try to sell you drugs that hinder the spiritual process. You must trust Kundalini above yourself and above everybody else, for She is the guru of gurus. Know that She is deceptive, and She will lead you to suffering. You must learn to embrace Her even while you resist. If you embrace this process you may experience the highest high followed by the lowest low. The true gift is not in the high but in the low that follows. The suffering that Kundalini will bring about for you is the great gift. Kundalini wants you to give up everything, but you will likely begin with no idea how to actually give up. So make giving up your goal. If you can't do that then make setting the goal of giving up your back up plan for when things go wrong. You will probably only set this goal after you begin to tire of suffering. This is precisely why you must suffer. Everything is born out of its opposite. The goal of the mystic is to truly live, therefore the mystic must experience internal death (while remaining physically alive). Life is like a horse race. Only the ones who fall behind will give up and climb off the horse. Kundalini will eventually make your horse slow down. She can get away with things that few human gurus ever could. This is why Kundalini is the greatest guru. She answers to nobody. She cannot be killed or arrested for doing what truly needs to be done. She does not suffer consequences. She will force you to suffer and your suffering will bring her great delight, because she knows suffering is sacred. If you want a nice teacher do not call to her. If you want an effective guru then call to her with humility. But what do I know? I'm just an untrained eclectic without a live teacher, a nobody. I do not have approval from those who have approval, nor do I care for it. Many people of great discipline would not respect me. Many of them would beat me with a stick. So use your own discernment.

@lmfao deep/amazing? I don't know. There is not much knowledge or intellectual understanding to take away, if that is what you mean. It's not trying to teach you anything, it's just trying to make you see and feel that love is all there is. I was simply blown away by the energy from page one. It really resonated. Each time I looked into it, great bliss would come over me, so much so that I had trouble reading. Might not be like that for you... But yeah, in this way, it is super amazing.

@JonasVE12 You are in luck because humor, amusement and positive emotions are exactly what enlightenment is about experiencing more of. Our ego gets in the way of those and many other beautiful things about being. The thing that needs to be surrendered is not the bliss of positive emotions but the thing that tries to claim them. There are a lot of paradoxical truths that have to be integrated. I highly recommend listening to Abraham Hicks in addition to Leo and other teachers.

Yes. To be honest about hell realms, yes they’re real. However, there’s two ways to be “saved” from them. One is that you can be pulled out of infinity (literally impossible but there are impossible “beings” that can do it). Two (this is what’s taught on this forum) what’s painful or hellish is relative. It’s possible to attain a state of bliss so great that you feel joyful even in “hellish” realms. The first method is Grace, the second is Enlightenment.

Yea, I feel that I might be banned soon for such statements. Its coz forum lost its radical approach to reality, and became conservative lol. Instead of radicalness, obscurantism, making absurd nature of reality to become evident, freedom and intellectual revolution, its now conforming to nondual paradigm. btw when Moses came to Pharaoh, Pharaoh too was under nondual paradigm and he didn't want to lose it. Coz it confirmed that Pharaoh is God (He said that he is the most high god himself). It can be found in Quran, when Allah is citing Pharaoh who said that he is god. And Pharaoh is always used as an example of people who had natural metaphysics but had no revelation. It happens with all religions, Muhammad is radical, but then Sufis change everything into conservativism. Jesus is radical but then popes turn everything into conservativism Now we all must submit to Infinite, and to lose ourselves in the infinite. Its cult of Great Being now. cult of satan. And all moderators worship and love infinite being. its their idol. and they will surely prevent any insult towards their lovely gurus who are adepts of infinite. its disappointing that any place of radical discussion soon enough turn into conservative discussion where good and evil is fully defined. oneness, infinite is good and whatever is not about oneness and rainbows is evil. before though i am banned, let me highjack this thread and let me continue listing LGBT adepts movement: look at their faces and try not to have thought that it is gay-ish face. gay-ish face is the result of them being an image of lucifer: AS i pointed before: being gay is metaphysically equal to being fully aligned and one with devil. its metaphysical outcome of such spiritual practices.. they became infinite but for that they lost their soul. they became gay in return of their soul, coz devil takes all and in return he only give you his true nature: homosexuality. and these gurus love their idol a lot. coz they are gay and their idol is gay. its a match. their idol is bliss and it gives them warmth and comfort. how can you not love such idol. of course everyone will be caught in devil's hands since he is so nice. I hope Leo one day will return to radical approach and that he will stop clinging to infinite being. its wrong direction. -OBVIOUSLY A GAY FACE. -another gay face - DALAI IS ONE OF THE BEST DEVIL'S FRIENDS. LAMAIST TIBETIANS ARE ANTICIPATING ANTICHRIST. THEY EVEN HAVE DOCTRINE ABOUT IT. THEY ARE WAITING FOR ANTICHRIST TO COME AND ANTICHRIST IS THEIR MESSIAH WHO WILL RETURN THEM INTO GOLDEN AGE, INTO PRE-FALL PARADISE. ALL CLERICS WANT TO RETURN TO GOLDEN AGE, INTO MOTHER'S WOMB, AND ALL THEIR DOCTRINES ARE BASED AROUND RETURNING TO GOLDEN AGE. AND IN THE BATTLE OF THE END TIMES- THEY WILL FIGHT MLECHHA (MUSLIMS). DEEPAK IS FAMOUS GUY. HE IS GOOD SERVANT OF DEVIL. HE LIKES TO UNDERSTAND AND DESCRIBE INDESCRIBABLE REALITY WHICH IS DEVIL'S FAVOURITE GAME. -HE EVEN HAS IDOL IN HIS ROOM, AND HIS BOOKS UP THERE ARE ALL ABOUT PAGAN METAPHYSICS. LIKE PLATO. AND HIS LAUGHTER IS DEVIL'S LAUGHTER. AND HE IS OBSESSED WITH ELIMINATING SUFFERING. HE IS CLEARLY DEVIL'S FRIEND. -I AM THAT. WHAT IS THAT? THAT IS INFINITE BEING, the devil. so NIS MAHARAJ SAID THAT I AM DEVIL. -EVEN J KRISHNAMURTI IS ONLY A SERVANT OF LUCIFER. EVEN SUCH HIGHBROW CLEVER GUY. - YES THIS LOVELY GUY TOO. HE IS PART OF THAT PARTY. HIS DISCOURSE IS ALL ABOUT CHASING SOME HIGHEST GOOD. ALL ABOUT TRANSCENDING PAIN. WHICH IS GAY DISCOURSE. WHATEVER IS ABOUT ELIMINATING SUFFERING IS SATAN'S SPIRITUALITY. -HE IS SYMBOLIST, AND HE LIKES LITURGY, ICONS, IMAGES, MUSIC, SYMBOLIC MEANING. ALL OF THAT IS DEVIL'S TOYS. -OSHO IS OF COURSE DEVIL'S BFF. JUST LOOK AT HIS GAY FACE. -SRI AUROBINDO AND MIRRA ALFASSA ARE SINCERE SERVANT'S OF DEVIL'S SPIRITUALITY. I WAS INTERESTED IN THEIR TEACHINGS BEFORE, BUT NOW I KNOW THAT THEIR TEACHING ABOUT EVOLUTION AND SUPER-HUMAN IS DEVIL'S TEACHING. - THIS ONE IS NO COMMENT. ITS QUITE OBVIOUS. -RUPERT IS NICE CHARMING GUY AS WELL AS ALL GAYS. and HE SAYS WE NEED TO STOP BEING KING LEAR AND TO BECOME JOHN SMITH AGAIN. THATS DEVILS DECEPTION. YOU INSTEAD SHOULD ACTUALIZE KING LEAR, AND TO EMANCIPATE URSELF FROM JOHN SMITH, FROM ARCHETYPE, FROM DEVIL. STOP BEING AN IMAGE AND REFLECTION OF ORIGINAL, OF JOHN SMITH. AND PLAY YOUR PART AS KING LEAR. BUT RUPERT SAYS TOTAL OPPOSITE TO TRUTH. BECAUSE HE IS SERVANT OF DEVIL. -ALL HIS INTERVIEWS ARE ALL THE SAME AND BORING, AND ABOUT HOW DEVIL IS AWESOME. AND HIS FACE IS RATHER GAY. -EXTREMELY GAY FACE -WELL SADGURU JUST ADMITTED BLATANTLY THAT HE IS GAY IN THIS VIDEO. MORE THAN THAT, WHATEVER HE SAYS IS BORING RUBBISH WISDOM. AND HE IS ADEPT OF SHIVA, AND AS WE KNOW SHIVA IS DEVIL. -SAI BABA. HIS HAIRCUT IS ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THAT HE IS GAY. AND HE IS AVATAR OF LUCIFER. AS WELL AS ALL HINDU AVATARS. HE KILLED FAMILY OF ONE RUSSIAN AWAKENED GURU WHO IS TEACHING NOW IN RUSSIA, BECAUSE THIS RUSSIAN GURU DIDN'T WANT TO COME TO INDIA WHEN SAI BABA INVITED HER TO BECOME HIS STUDENT. THEN, HE KILLED HER FAMILY AND SAID: WILL YOU NOW COME?. AND SHE SAID: OKAY I WILL, AND SHE BECAME HIS STUDENT FOR 9 YEARS, AND SHE LOVED HIM A LOT. SHE SIMPLY THOUGHT THAT HE KILLED HER FAMILY JUST SO TO MAKE HER GREAT HUMAN BEING AND SAVIOUR OF HUMAN RACE. HE SAID THAT HE DID IT OUT OF MERCY TO HER. SUCH A LIE FROM DEVIL. DIABOLIC WISDOM. HE JUST MADE HER TO SPEND HER LIFE IN ASHRAM, BECAUSE DEVIL WANTS TO MISLEAD ALL AWAKENED PEOPLE. AND SO SAI BABA MADE THAT RUSSIAN GURU TO BECOME FULLY ALIGNED AND ONE AND INSEPARATE FROM INFINITE BEING. FROM DEVIL. AND SHE NOW LOOKS LIKE PINOCCHIO. DOLL. THATS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN U WANT INFINITE, AND WHEN U CONFORM WITH DEVIL'S WISDOM, U BECOME PUPPET. - THESE DUDES ARE SO FEMININE. NO COMMENTS. -LESBIAN FACE.

The two worlds are the same, neither creation nor destruction happened in literal nothing. so there is no event to which a person could become enlightened and a thing to that which they could have been enlightened to however, the unification of all dualities is the point of it all. and therefore the path must be taken. or else it will be fictious beliefs, you need to get to the land where your mind is saturated with only one belief and that is that which ever you take to the absolute truth of all absolute truth. Even if that's subjective so if you sufi's is is good, then let suffi ism be good if someone else says sufi ism is bad, then let them say sufi ism is bad we take advice without recieving anything and we give advice without giving. All we recieve is more nothing, but as we can not escape duality, it is probably better that it be the highest consciousness possible for all. In this case, sufi ism is the absolute truth that you are an illusion and that you are god, but you are god in your illusion form unable to escape it. you know all browski's with no actual animosity towards each other for what ever decision they make because it is not real but there is a point where, it starts affecting your life. So that's why we fight, to stand our ground. That's okay, it really is. who is there to argue against, just let them have their way LOL. in this sense your saying "okay, bro, i love you, you do you" and nothing more, no big complications, hence silence is the teaching if someone is not willing to listen. if they listen then feel free to tell them more. even the idea of the end itself, is just an idea of creation and destruction is still an idea in the end, to whom your helping. So just leave them alone LOL. in this sense as the masters of the world, you offer help to those who need it and let the others be for themselves. Ignorance is bliss after all, you told them and then they can do what ever they want with the information. You yourself can not be the source of truth because you are human like I. you must go to "i" yourself. so in the grand scheme of things its inevitable.

Sinking the mind in the breath: day #16 The mind is the sneakiest in the morning by either providing amazing insights, or spiraling down in subtle fears. Noticing fears became very easy when they reach a certain threshold and thanks to meditation, my 'I don't give a fuck' muscle is strong enough to release them. Being lured in by insights is much more deceptive because it is so awesome that I forget that peace is the highest bliss. Surrendering this creative energy is so counter-intuitive that fall into this trap over and over again. Today's session was short, but powerful. I started as the person, AUMing my voice-tube, tuning it, and releasing various tensions. When I close my mouth at M, there is this weird nasal reverberation that I could never put my finger (tongue?) on. As it turns out, I can actually steer the sound with my throat and have it expressed through my mouth, or my nose without using my tongue. Having the air exit through both openings gives a very pleasant sound and a very smooth transition between the 'letters'. Speaking of letters, once the sound is properly set up, the mind can be tuned against it by contemplating the meaning of the mantra. The more mechanistic the chanting is, the less surrendered the mind is. The chant needs to be a smooth, pure and uninterpreted sound, without any linguistical distinctions. The reflex to recognize letters, change facial expressions rapidly, move the tongue, and all bodily tensions need to be surrendered until, what Allan Watts calls "am I doing it, or is it doing me?" happens. Of course, this tuning process is mechanistic in itself, so grasping it tightly can give its own set of needless tensions. At some point, devotion came up and I stopped being a person tuning my voice-tube, and recognized AUM to be the name of God. At this point, deep flow happened and I surrendered in a semi-religious/mystical trance. Yoga sutra was immensely illuminating today. It theoretically answered my questions regarding confinement to particular body, but I will need to stay grounded in direct experience and perhaps, become enlightened to this facet of reality: I was also watching some of the RSD material because I'm tempted to get my social skills in order. While I gained very little theoretical understanding, I felt a shift in energy after watching these videos and I know that projecting it in social situations would be beneficial. There is a part of me that is in resistance because I view these kinds of interactions with strangers as shallow (in the sense of depth, penetration). I do not mean this in a derogatory way, they are simply a beginning of something deeper. It is probably a form of impatience that I must work through. Maybe, my 'lack of order in social skills' is simply a wound I need to heal. My next LSD trip will be a massive shedding. I'm excited.

There is No Evil Person Seeing things from this perspective, we see that there is no one who is really bad. No one is evil in an absolute way. Everyone does what he thinks is good. There is no bad person, there is no evil person; there is only the ignorant person. The Dichotomy of Good and Evil The most frequently noted dichotomy on the way toward nonconceptual freedom is that of good and evil, or more exactly, good and bad. Without concepts there is no sense that one thing is good and another is bad. First, there is no separation between forms, because separation happens only through the reification of concepts, and there are no concepts here to reify. Because of this there cannot be a comparison between them, all forms are equal in being pure awareness. Second, since there is perception of difference between forms but no recognition of what the difference is, it is not possible to value one form and not another. All appear equal. The moment we recognize something as good in contrast to something else as bad, we are definitely existing in the conceptual realm. Recognizing that the distinction between good and bad is ultimately conceptual, pure awareness emerges and equalizes all forms and experiences as manifestations of true nature. Experientially, the notions of good and bad are connected mostly to pleasure and pain, happiness and suffering, gain and loss, expansion and contraction, and so on. In the unutterable bliss of nonconceptuality, these dichotomies disappear. The Inner Journey Home, pg. 336 All Spiritual Work Would be Pointless if There Were Such a Thing as Ultimate Evil As we have seen, each Holy Idea is a characteristic of reality at all locations, at all times, and at all levels. Holy Truth explicates this understanding. Here, we are saying that not only is reality just one presence that is boundless and real, but that it is also positive, blissful, and wonderful. So not only is God one, but God is also wonderful and made of love. The truth, then, is loving and lovable, which is why we say in the Diamond Approach that you must love truth for its own sake. If your orientation is that you love truth so that it will change you and make you a happier person, your orientation is out of sync with how things objectively are; if you see reality as it is, you can’t help but love it. It follows, then, that objectively there is no evil. We see evil only when we perceive reality through a filter. A person who behaves in what we consider evil ways is a person acting through a distortion. In spiritual work, concepts of a devil, of dark forces, of some evil that exists on its own outside of the goodness of reality are considered manifestations of ignorance, both in terms of believing in such concepts and in terms of the manifestations attributed to such forces. All spiritual work would be pointless if there were such a thing as ultimate evil. Facets of Unity, pg. 215

God Nothingness Godhead Brahman Emptiness Void Source Silence Bliss Love Goodness Dao Zeus Einsof Yahweh Al-lah Infinity Consciousness Truth Shiva Awareness Nobody No-Self True Self The Universe Absolute Nothing Buddha-Mind Buddha-Nature Teotel 5-MeO-DMT True enlightened masters they are

What is desire without the mental construct of time? What does that feel like? It feels like bliss or truly feeling alive. If you don't allow that state through repression of desire you can't really experience the present moment. The problem is that sometimes we experience the flash of a real desire and feel the bliss of it and let it knock us off our feet. Then we go right into agony of trying to figure out how we can manifest it too soon or why we can't, and since we do this so much we start to think that desire itself is bad. The trick is to learn to stay with the desire/vision without bringing in resistance and inner conflict.

I'm not enlightened, but I would trade everything for the blissful state I'm in right now. I would trade everything for bliss even if I had all the money, food, sex, fame, friends, cars, yachts, properties, etc... in the world.

This is great stuff. . . I am not saying this is wrong. I am saying that there is a transcendence of all this. At the deeper level, you are nibanna - you are Buddha. You are the source of Buddha. Why interpret the words of Buddha's teachings? You are Buddha! You wrote those words! If it is all peace, how can peace not be suffering? A being that has not embodied it, will not be able to recognize it. Once it is embodied, it is very obvious. This is related to Wilber's "pre/trans" fallacy. This is a block. To expand beyond a contracted thinking mode, one would need to care about expanding. They would also need to be open and willing. I understand what you are saying. I am telling you there is a deeper level. You have created a construct you call "Enlightenment" in which there is suffering and the realization and complete acceptance of that suffering. This is a fairly deep "level", yet it goes deeper. Enlightenment and peace IS suffering. Not the presence of suffering. Enlightenment and peace IS suffering. At the human level, this will be very hard to realize - especially if one has been conditioned through literature and teachings to believe the highest level of Enlightenment and peace is not suffering. This is deeper than Buddha. It is deeper than Buddha's teachings. Your construct and the Buddhist teachings you cite are creating a distinction between "suffering" and "non-suffering". That is fine, yet there is a deeper level. You would need to let that go to realize a deeper level through direct experience. EXACTLY. That is a door to transcendence that you don't currently don't recognize. This isn't about analysis. This is about what that which is prior to the analysis. "If you meet Buddha on the road, kill him!" I'm not analyzing the words. I know what they mean because. . . I wrote them!!! That quote is true. Consider it a ladder. Using a ladder to climb to a new level is great. That quote can help a person expand. Yet there is more. That quote is both true and not true - you are only seeing the straightforward useful truth in it. You are not seeing the falsity in it. Don't surrender your authority to a being like Buddha that you have created. You are Buddha! You already recognize and understand the truth in the statement. Now let's consider the falsity. When we consider non-truth, that does NOT mean that it is false. The human mind is conditioned to think in opposites. For example, if a coin is tails then it is not heads. Yet a coin is both tails and heads. When I point to heads, this does not mean that tails is false. Here, when we point at the non-truth of the statement, it does not falsify the truth of the statement. "There is no suffering for him who has finished his journey, and abandoned grief, who has freed himself on all sides" This is true. It is also not true. For example if the journey is the destination, how can one finish the journey? The quote is only one side of the coin - that is that there is a journey toward a destination. Once finishing the journey and arriving at the destination, one has "abandoned grief, who has freed himself on all sides, and thrown off all fetters.". This is one side of the coin. I am not saying this side is wrong. I am trying to show you that there is another side of the coin. This isn't something to be found in spiritual literature or spiritual teachers. It is to be directly experienced. Contraction into one side will prevent realization of the other side. For example, in Buddha's quote, there is a journey and a destination in which grief, fetters and suffering is abandoned. Can you see how this truth is limiting? This is extremely difficult to do, yet also extremely simple and obvious because it is right NOW. There is no journey. You are focusing on a journey with a destination - and imagining the destination should look a certain way. That is fine. Yet the journey itself is also the destination. This is the other side of the coin. The destination is also Now. The destination of Now includes holding on to grief, fetters and suffering. Peace is the grief, fetters and suffering Now. Enlightenment is the grief, fetters and suffering of Now. Buddha's quote expressed the other side of this coin (which is also true). The deeper level is to see both sides and the entire coin. No. I am not saying your words are scientific - I just used the scientist as an example. I would consider your expressions within a transition zone. Again, it is not the words you are using, it is how you are using the words. It is the relationship with the words, not the words themselves. All words have relative meaning. I cannot place objective meaning onto any words you use. I can see that this is being perceived as judgement - and from one perspective it is. The reason I am firmly trying to convey is because you seem really really close to a big breakthrough into an expanded consciousness that few humans realize or that may take decades to realize. I also think there are many seekers on the forum at this transition. This breakthrough is not limited to constructs of enlightenment, peace and bliss. It is much deeper and broader. How could I not desire that for my fellow humans?. . . Yet I also understand that if I try to force, it can be counter-productive. There is a time to back off.

Yes, I did spoke about attaining bliss and suffering. And Yes, I did say there is no one to attain suffering. This is my answer. And this problem can't be resolved by words. But still what I have written holds true. At the end, it's all peace, enlightenment, nibanna whatever. That is what Buddha's goal was. No matter how you try to say it, peace is suffering, peace is peace, peace is blissfulness, at the end it's all peace, Nibanna, enlightenment, and that's what I am talking about. And it's not suffering. Even if it it contains suffering peace, terror, absolute peace, everything that you have written, the cherry at the top is peace, bliss. What you and I are saying is basically one and the same. You are just adding more nuance to it, but I already know the depth of the word, I don't have to add. You are suggesting that you are operating from a mode beyond thinking and analysis. I am aware that there are such modes, but there is nothing that supports your claim that you are operating from. Also here 'thinking' is irrelevant. I don't care whether you are 'thinking, or metathinking or beyond thinking, what you wrote about what you think (again, this is irrelevant, you can replace it with whatever you want, meta thinking, beyond thinking, supernatural thinking it doesn't matter)I am saying , is not what I am saying. Because Enlightenement is both the presence and absence of suffering (look at the meaning not the words), in the sense that there is suffering, but still there is the realization and complete acceptance. and enlightenment is to be sought because it is the cessation of suffering (look at the meaning not the words) The words here are conflating, but if you comprehend the meaning, it's different. All I can say is that the - 'essence' that your mind'/ whatever has got/grasped/whatever, which you have written and think is the message I am conveying, is not what I am saying. What I have seen is that you give a huge meaning to every single word I say. I wrote 'analysis' and now you have are saying it's scientific , it's stage orange materialistic. My words do not have that much weight that you are putting. What is worse is you put a HUGE weight to single words, like I say 'analysis' and you have made a big judgement from there, the weight is in my message. You should stop this habit of constantly making judgement from single words. I write words like 'you', 'need', 'analysis' and that puts a huge influence on what you understand. They have nothing to do with what I am saying. Don't look at words. Look at the message. All I can say is don't try to modify, or change the message that I am trying to convey. I am conveying one thing, but you are pushing the idea that I am saying something different.

There is something beyond the words. In terms of SD, immersion and analysis of words is stage Orange. At green and above, non-intellectual modes arise. Imagine observing a painting. There is a nonverbal relationship between observer and painting. A type of essence. There is communication. Now imagine a scientist observing the painting and saying "you are analyzing the ink on canvas". If we try to tell the scientist there is an emergent property beyond they ink and canvas, he won't "get it" because he is contracted within his paradigm. It's not about analyzing the pointer. That would be like saying there is nothing else to analyze but the ink and canvas of a painting. There is a nonverbal essence to the painting. It's not really an "anaylsis". It's a different mode of being. Imagine the scientist saying "You don't understand. I am pointing to something ineffable. Look here. Look how this part of the painting is 30% blue ink, 40% red ink and 30% green ink. Notice that the artist used a broad brush for this portion of the green ink.". . . It would be clear that the scientist is still contracted within a paradigm. He doesn't quite "get" the emergent property of the painting. Now. . . imagine the artist who created this painting. Imagine the artist try to describe the ineffable essence through words. Compare this to the scientist trying to describe what the ineffable essence of the painting is. These are two very different orientations. Do you think an artist could tell the difference between the creator of the work and the scientist? Of course. It's not about the words, it is about how the words are used. There is a conflation between nonduality/duality and absolute/relative going on here. It is not the words, it is the underlying conflation. The realization and knowing of this does not come intellectually. You have repeatedly spoke of the attainment of peace/bliss and the cessation of suffering. If there is no one to attain peace/bliss and no one to be free of suffering - *who/what* is it that attains this peace/bliss and becomes free of suffering? If Enlightenment is both the presence and absence of suffering, why seek the cessation of suffering? If peace is suffering, why seek peace through the cessation of suffering. You are already peace while suffering - why seek peace outside of the suffering? The motivation is the secondary question. There is a prior to that, which you skipped. . . Have you directly experienced pure peace/bliss while experiencing awful suffering? This is the most important orientation expressed so far because it is so direct. This is a place of immense consciousness expansion into deep levels. If you don't think peace is suffering, then you are within a contraction of conditional peace. This is where the direct experience is so important. There is the knowing of absolute peace of suffering. The absolute peace of pain, anxiety, panic and terror. This is realized at a deep level because it is fully transcendent of the person/human. It's not the words. It is the knowing of the peace. This is not serotoninluv trying to describe what absolute peace is like through words. This is absolute peace trying to express itself through words. There is unconditional eternal peace Now, regardless of what is happening. If one places conditions on this peace, they will not come to know this peace. For example, if a being is suffering they may think "this is suffering, not peace". This will block them from the deeper realization. You keep returning to thoughts and analysis. There are modes beyond thinking and analysis, that you don't seem to be aware of. Here, you are not picking up on the post-intellectual modes being conveyed. I am not saying you are wrong. I'm saying there is something that you are missing. . . Imagine a person that speaks Arabic fluently. Do you think this person could recognize a Norwegian tourist that does not speak Arabic? What if this person says "No, no! I'm actually Arabic and speak Arabic. Here are a few Arabic words. . ." Do you think the native Arab would be able to recognize this? Of course. It would be completely obvious because he has the direct experience of being Arabic and is fluent in Arabic. He is not a farmer from rural Canada imaging what Arabic is like. These are very different orientations.

Okay so you think what I am saying is duality saying what non-duality is like, which you are doing through words. I hope we are not disagreeing on this. But then you say- "You seem to think I am analyzing the pointer, which I am not. " , which I don't think is authentic, because in this forum there is nothing else but the words I am writing. You have nothing else to analyze but the pointer, however you are saying there is something else to analyze. And also you have written the reason why you think I come from a source of duality , you say- For example, you have written a lot about attaining peace/bliss and the cessation of suffering. *Who/what* attains that peace/bliss? To "whom/what" does suffering cease? You seem to have a subtle underlying personal/human framework that I don't think you are aware of. This is the reason why you think I am duality talking about nonduality. ( I hope we are not disagreeing on this) I don't need to talk about - who, what, whom what, when I am talking about bliss, to show that I am talking about nonduality. If I was an enlightened person, it doesn't mean I wouldn't be talking with the words 'you' 'I' etc. Buddha's suttas are full of those words. In case you might be wondering, I do not attach my isness with my ego. There is no one to attain bliss, there is no one to attain peace. But still, I will talk using 'you' and 'I'. It doesn't directly mean I am talking from duality. I don't know where you learned that using language that way indicates duality. Also don't say you are not looking at the pointer. There is nothing else but the pointer in this forum. I literally have. Enlightenment is the presence and absence of suffering Absence of suffering from the perspective of duality, is the motivation. That's what motivated Leo to start this entire project. If you say this isn't the case, I disagree. That's what started the Buddha legend. I don't think peace is suffering. From nonduality, there is no one desiring the end to suffering. From duality, the ego is desiring. Ego finds suffering painful . The sense which you have got by interpreting the words I have written the way you think the meaning has been conveyed.

I understand that. I have a lot of experience in nonverbal zones. You seem to think I am analyzing the pointer, which I am not. I know the distinction between dualistic terms used to point and that which is being pointed to. There is a difference between nonduality trying to express itself in dualistic terms and duality trying to express what nonduality is like in dualistic terms. It is not your words you use as a pointer, it is more about the realization that you are holding the pointer, rather than omniscience holding the pointer. This is just my sense: there is an essence about your posts that is conflating - it has aspects of both. I'm not concerned about the words used. I'm concerned with the source of those words and the filter through which those words pass. For example, you have written a lot about attaining peace/bliss and the cessation of suffering. *Who/what* attains that peace/bliss? To "whom/what" does suffering cease? Who/what decides what is "suffering" and what is "peace"? You seem to have a subtle underlying personal/human framework that I don't think you are aware of. For example would you agree that "peace is suffering?". Not at an intellectual level, through direct experience. Have you directly experienced pure peace/bliss while experiencing awful suffering? If so, what is the motivation to seek conditional peace/bliss? If peace is suffering, who/what desires to end suffering? And why? Why seek the footsteps of wise enlightened beings when you have access to the same source as them? Tapping into that source transcends all spiritual literature and sages - because it is the source of all spiritual literature and sages.

@Serotoninluv I don't think words and the meaning they seem to generate judging by the words alone, have anything to do with the message that is being conveyed. I might say , Omniscience means knowing everything that one needs to know. And you might rephrase this in a way that shows non-duality. It does not mean the message I am conveying is different from yours. It means I don't know how to phrase it the way you phrase it that shows or seems to show non-duality more ( for you and people who think like you) than the way I have phrased You say- "Seekers are strongly attracted toward peace/bliss and this will create many spiritual teachers that fill this *need* of seekers. Spiritual retreats generally have the theme of peace and bliss. There is nothing wrong with this, yet it goes deeper. For example, would you agree that suffering is peace? That frustration, insecurity and fear is blissfulness? If not, there are still conditions and greater depths to go. There is an unconditional peace that is eternally present Now under all conditions. Absolute peace during meditation, absolute peace laying on a beach, absolute peace during sex, absolute peace while being stabbed with a knife, absolute peace during a panic attack" Basically you are underestimating me. The line where you say 'deeper' is not deeper for me. It has not pushed my boundaries. I completely agree with what you are saying. But the words I used made you think something else. All I am finding is underestimation and misinterpretation again and again and again.

Yea, this gets into territory in which "you" gets slippery and it's very hard to convey. Yet when trying to describe something like omniscience, I think we need to be careful with the term "you". I would consider omniscience a transcendence of this "you". I don't like the term here because of underlying assumptions of personification. If you say "you" has dissolved, then who is the "you" in "all you need to know"? If this points to a transcendent "You", I think the statement is misleading. If it does refer to a transcendent "You" it is a very very different contextualization. What does this transcendent You need? Ime, "you" and "need" aren't very good terms to communicate omniscience. My preference would be to try to communicate it without highly personal terms. The essence of omniscience without the "me" and "needs". Then why not say "Omniscience is the experience/knowledge/belief beyond which there is nothing more to know". Why add in an entity that is an "experiencer" or a "knower"? Why add in an entity that has "needs". That is adding in a contraction. I realize you are saying that there really isn't a "you" or "needs" - then why add that in there? It seems like you are trying to use a transcendent form of "You", but to me it doesn't seem like you are using it transcendently. In a nondual sense, there is no "You" because there is no "Not You" to contrast it with. Yes, language is dualistic. We can try to point to nondual with dual pointers. Yet to me, it seems like you are using a pointer to point back on itself. Like @Truth Addict suggested, we can imagine multiple "levels" of omniscience. To me, you seem to be in a transitional zone that is overlapping two levels. This is just my impression: it seems like you are cutting associations between Omniscience and ego, yet I think there are still some associations that can be cut. To me, this seems like a human trying to contextualize what Omniscience might be like, rather than Omniscience trying to contextualize itself in a way humans would understand. These are very different perspectives. Imagine being a child trying to describe what being an Astronaut in outer space would be like. Now imagine being an Astronaut trying to explain what being in outer space is like to a child. These are very different orientations. This is a good reflection of what I am pointing to. Notice there is no identification to the ant, yet there is identification to "me". What you are saying is that "I" am not the ant, "I am me". This is *within* something larger. This is right on the edge of a major consciousness expansion. . . This is one of the most common contractions in spirituality - including highly developed sprititualists. It is common for humans to get grounded in concepts such as "enlightenment", "suffering" and "bliss" etc. This can have practical usage as a framework, yet to transcend that, that grounding needs to be let go of. Notice how you have made a distinction between the ant and "enlightenment" and the "cessation of suffering". If enlightenment and cessation of suffering is not related to the ant then *who/what* is enlightenment and the cessation of suffering related to? If you add in "me" or "humans", that is a contraction. Categories have now been created. There is nothing wrong with that, yet there is further expansion. It is like someone saying "I am in Paris". There is nothing wrong with that. Yet within that contraction, there will not be awareness of beingness in France and Europe. As well, notice the association between enlightenment/spirituality with peace/blissfulness. Again, there are "levels" here. Associating enlightenment/spirituality with peace/blissfulness is super common with people on the spiritual path. Many spiritual teachers focus on this - peace/bliss resonates very strongly with seekers. Seekers are strongly attracted toward peace/bliss and this will create many spiritual teachers that fill this *need* of seekers. Spiritual retreats generally have the theme of peace and bliss. There is nothing wrong with this, yet it goes deeper. For example, would you agree that suffering is peace? That frustration, insecurity and fear is blissfulness? If not, there are still conditions and greater depths to go. There is an unconditional peace that is eternally present Now under all conditions. Absolute peace during meditation, absolute peace laying on a beach, absolute peace during sex, absolute peace while being stabbed with a knife, absolute peace during a panic attack. At a more surface level, spirituality is about attaining peace/bliss. Yet if one goes deep enough they will be have to come face-to-face with their construct of peace/bliss. To walk through the next gate, one must surrender that construct. I understand that. To me, it looks like you have broken through more surface levels and are scratching at deeper levels. Like I said earlier, it seems like you are at a transition between two levels and there are components of each. When you write "need = the desire/wish to eliminate all forms of suffering". . . from who/what does that desire arise and to who/what is that desire directed to? I think you still have some associations between omniscience/god with person/human. Notice how you are contextualization this like a human would - based on human wants and desires. You can conceptualize that "omniscience/god is beyond ego and human", yet you are within a human mindset. Notice how you earlier made a distinction between an ant and human and contextualized relative to human needs - at a deeper transcendent level there is no difference since omniscience/god is both ant and human. As well, notice how you are grounded in the "cessation of suffering". This is a very strong desire for the person/human. It is very important for humans to end suffering - first to the self, then to humans, then to all beings. Yet this doesn't necessarily mean that this is important at a trans-personal/human level like a human wold want. For example, what if there was a transcendent desire for unconditional peace. This is a greater peace. Yet humans desire relief from what they find uncomfortable. Which do you consider more transcendent: peace under certain conditions or peace under all conditions? (including pain and suffering). I understand the 2 "you's". At times, you are conflating the two "you's". In the larger context, you are contextualizing from a personal/human (you) perspective, rather than an omniscient/god (You) perspective.

@Mikael89 I don't want to remember nothing, nothing. ??? Trust me feeling the same Sometimes. Ignorance is bliss. ???

Whether the 'you' ceases, or 'need' ceases, that doesn't matter, it all falls under 'all you need to know', and here 'you' is not about the ego, 'need' is not about the ego, it's just words to convey the idea, and 'all you need to know' doesn't mean 'you' hasn't dissolved, it has, 'need' hasn't dissolved, it has, although there's no other way to put it then this way. Omniscience is the experience/knowledge/belief whatever you want to say beyond which there is nothing more to know, there is no need of knowing anything more. You can say, you dissolves, need dissolves etc, which is not wrong, but it all falls under 'everything that you need to know', which has a deeper meaning, a non-dual meaning, you cannot misinterpret saying 'need' dissolves, 'you dissolves', because I am not disagreeing with that at all but the language I use are dual and hence is forced to look like that when seen superficially. I am not associating Omniscience with an ego, but the word I used suggested it , but don't fall into the trap of taking the words literally and thinking I am associating with the ego. If I say, 'knowing all you need to know' it has nothing to do with ego, or you, or anything, it's just a way of saying it. We all know about ego dissolution so of course I am not associating it with ego although due to language reason I am saying 'you', so the reader should already keep this in mind and not misinterpret what I am saying. You say- "Similarly, "need" doesn't quite fit for me either. For example, one may know the essence of being of an ant. This has nothing to do with "my" "needs" ' Knowing the essence of an ant has no relation with Enlightenment or the cessation of suffering. The need I am talking about, is 'ultimate bliss'/ happiness/peace. Instead of an ant, if you are talking about the essence of being of who you are, then yes, it does have something to do with your need, which is feeling blissful, peaceful. Do you disagree that Spiritiuality is about attaining blissfulness? You say "Omnicience will grant *me* the ability to know *my needs*? Sign me up!" " This is not what I am talking about. It's not 'my needs' like the way you are using here. The way I am saying it is, need = the desire/wish to eliminate all forms of suffering. ALL forms of suffering. Which takes the ego and its 'needs' with it. Ego doesn't come anywhere, like you seem to be suggesting. There are 2 'you's. There's the 'ego you' which you misinterpreted my 'you' as. The other you is the 'no you' or 'you ceases, you' or 'God you', which is what I am talking about.

@Alex bliss no WHY questions about enlightenment will make any sense - there is no answer, that's why it is, as it is.