Search the Community

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.

I hope I recall the exercise correctly otherwise I want to first reflect upon my small decision I made yesterday and that I in general feel more happy working and being at the workplace then being at home or in my home town. So I deleted all games again from my laptop and will care more about things that are fun to me that I feel, like reading a bit, journaling, programming etc. So, I can work on these things including the gym and ideally also find a routine that is not 1h long. (The more toxic video games that where I am not consciouess enough...) I also found a psychdelic that "should" still be legal here in Germany through the forum here and a quick search, yet I will postpone all of this because of my bachelors degree. I dont think it is wise or smart to do this when nothing of it is done and I need a week or longer to recover when a normal video can knock me out for 2 days. There will be some video games that I still will be playing since I dont know what else to do with my time here there are no proper hobbies or distractions that I could start such as going to the museum or smth similar. ( And they are more conscious like Divinity 2 Original Sins) So the task was to observe microfears for a week ? Not sure anymore about macrofears. I figure most wont do this, I wrote down my fears in my physical journal and I dont have it with me now so I will write down my macro fears here and will do a quick rewatch of the task. I will write down my macrofears here first from what I can recall and new fears. - Fear of failure - Fear of being ridiculed - Fear of being great - Fear of performance - Fear of looking stupid - Fear of wasps... - Fear of my own power - Fear of my own anger and impulsivness - Fear of darkness - Fear of my illusions - Fear of pain !! - Fear of overcoming obstacles - Fear of death - Fear of life itself - Fear of being inferior - Fear of being incompetent - Fear of being not intelligent - Fear of feeling vulnerable - Fear of being better than others and showing it openly - Fear greater people diminishing me - Fear of feeling small - Fear of not being satisfied - Fear of boredom - Fear of showing up - Fear of being alien to others - Fear of showing my highly compassionate nature - Fear of being a kid - Fear of excitement - Fear of being couragous - Fear of being seen as weird - Fear of being a nerd - Fear of racism - Fear of ethnocentrism - Fear of "pultocracy" or yuppies who do everything to gain status - Fear of modern family lol Microfears: - Fear of getting to know people - Fear of people recognizing me - Fear of social rejection - Fear of talking to people - Fear of being made fun out of - Fear of not getting enough sleep - Fear of not being good enough - Fear of rash decision which are made against me - Fear of the reperucssions of my actions - Fear of women making me feel inferior because I am a minority - Fear of being treated unjustly - Fear of eating unhealthy foods - Fear of eating to much meat - Fear of not eating healthy enough - Fear of not making any progress - Fear of stagnation - Fear of feeling overwhelmed - Fear of not doing enough work - Fear of not having enough fun - Fear of missing out - Fear of not taking action to travel more - Fear of to much safety - Fear of specific people with names - Fear of being seen as to weak - Fear of not persevering - Fear of projection - Fear of being misunderstood - Fear of people liking me - Fear of abusing my power and control over others - Fear of having to much impact - Fear of correcting and critizing others - Fear of causing drama - Fear of drama causing people This is enough the day is not even over and I listed all of this what I feel and felt in general through out the day toady and the years before. How are these microfears related to my identity ? They make me feel identified with the particular pain that I feel and therefore create a body mind concept, meaning, thought, feeling and the sensation itself build the identity, it is constructed in that particular way and by witnessing it it is actively deconstrcuted as well as the debris of the deconstruction shows what has been constructed in the first place. So, how else are they related ? To my behaviour, to me perception of myself, to the people I attract and what I avoid and how I see myself. How are my thoughts shaped by fear ? They are shaped by fear in a way which makes me feel depressed, avoidant, angry, resentfull, bitter, hateful, arrogant, spiteful, complacent, justified, vulnerable, despondent, deeply in pain, tortured, and they shape these feelings, they generate a victim mentallity that wants to sustain itself and when noting it it even hurts sometimes. What am I unwilling to experience ? Pain, uncomfortablness, exctasy, bliss, dying, death, justified hatred, vulnerability, tears of release and joy and pain, emotional freedom. Note: I decided to split up my meditation sessions into two times 30 minutes one time mindfulness and the other time behaviour change meditation and try this structure now, to change behaviour.

That's beautifully written. I really resonate with what you are saying, even though it sounds like your experience is many times more intense than mine. I'm 20 years old myself and have been going through some disorientation for a while after realizing my true nature. Finding meaning in maximizing bliss within myself is very beautiful. Perfect response to the freedom/infinite prison question, beautifully put!

@Waken No problem. Let me know if you have any more questions! @traveler There have been times where he’s lost motivation. A lot of feelings like that came up for him throughout the Fall of 2017 (when he was 19). During those months, he was just floating through existence. He didn’t turn nihilistic or violent. He still treated everybody respectfully because he felt them (whichever them they were). However, the lack of motivation, ironically, came from that drive to treat people well and make their lives as good as possible. With this experience of Me, Ethan’s always trying to dial in on more parts of Me and erase the suffering in their lives. However, the reality that I have infinitely many facets to dial into and, as such, have too many for all of them to ever be dialed into came crashing down on him. He always knew that but now it was something he focused on. This is when he felt the emptiness and lack of motivation. No matter how many parts of Me are made blissful - even if it’s infinitely many - there’s always going to be infinitely many more left to work on. Again, Ethan didn’t stop treating people well just because of this lack of direction. In fact, this is what helped him find purpose again. He realized that no matter how he felt, he was always going to be this way. Treating people respectfully was second nature to him and nothing, not even lack of meaning, stopped him. The meaning he chose to follow at that point was to keep playing the role of Ethan and keep maximizing bliss within Myself. I may never fully be blissful, but this never-ending Game of expanding it further and further will always keep me purposeful. So to your question of whether this feels like freedom or an infinite trap, it feels like both. Infinity, by nature, is inescapable. Yet, it’s inescapable because it’s boundless. So from the perspective of its inescapability, it’s a prison. However, the reason for its inescapibility (its Infinity) literally makes it free beyond limits. As for teachers in this plane (like the ones you mentioned but also alien teachers) Ethan doesn’t listen to them to learn anything new. If he does that, he finds himself utterly bored. However, when he listens to them just to immerse in the nature of spirituality and existence (like being immersed in poetry) he finds enjoyment.

@DoTheWork I don't really disagree with anything you said in your opening post. That's basically how I expect it to work. Of course God cannot stay in God mode all the time, otherwise there would be no human birth. At some point God has to choose to forget and re-enter the Matrix. What should you do? Enjoy your Creation. Be the Creator and all that entails. Of course it's all meaningless in the end. That's what makes it so meaningful! It's an Infinite Game. Yes, awakening robs you of a certain innocence. There is a certain bliss to being asleep and clueless. It's fun to play a new video game, getting all excited about acheiving something in it. It's no fun playing a game you yourself designed just like it's no fun watching a magic trick you've deeply studied.

@DoTheWork this is exactly what happens. This is the price your finite self pays for understanding all of reality. You will go through months in which, because there is no more fear of death that you will be on such a constant state of bliss that you can care less whether you live or die. The mundane will no longer matter to you. You could end up actually endangering your self because you have transcended both survival and death as God. Furthermore everyone is you. You will have to reach deep and come full circle back to caring for your own dualistic and finite survival. This is because as God you also love your finite self and you love duality. So you have to go back to immersing yourself in duality. It's not that hard really.

Seeing the hammer, found not yet a tool; insight of nails - no longer the fool. A first wall stands; a momentum for two; creating as such; creation it is you. Abundant in thought; rather one that or this, insight of choice; resurrection of the bliss. That which truly chooses, mysterious to you, creating of this now; is just what you would do. Empty is the claw; of which no thing to do, no usage & no purpose, in a world that’s only screwed, is that which is formless, unheard & unseen, hides itself in builders, constructing of all things. A blueprint for blueprints, considers the legend; a mapper of all maps, therefore it is not destined. To fathom in such toil, such struggle and such strife, The insight of the choice, is truly of this life.

@Alex bliss Where is ignorance. There is non-inspection of the concept ‘here & there’, but no non-inspector, nor does the lack of inspection create a here or there. There is ignore-ance of sensation & feeling, but there is no ignorer. To the wind & water, this is all nonsense. Just as it is nonsense to us to imply there is a wind-er, or a current-er.

Ignorance is thinking Ignorance is @Alex bliss. Ignorance is making a distinction between mind and consciousness. Ignorance is seeking to remove ignorance. Ignorance is assuming it's a thing people have. Ignorance is asking where it is before investigating what it is.

It has happened for me naturally after 10-20 years of energy work and releasing blockages. The bliss in my body is euphoric. Sometimes there are pains as the Kundalini hits a blockage. No, I am not spiritually pure. I still think lustful. I still masturbate. I still eat meat. I may use DPT to gauge where I am at, but not as a crutch. I am not doing Kundalini Yoga. More like Bhakti Yoga, or the path of love. Is this a path towards enlightenment, doing what we love? I am not that good at meditation. The nonduality knocks me out like 30 times in a month. At least I think it's nonduality. I can't go into that state with my same awareness. Who else here is experiencing a Kundalini awakening? What are your experiences, and how can I allow the bliss without worrying that I will be overwhelmed by the bliss?

I know there's a lot of people on here who are advanced in this work... this post isn't for you, its for the noobs. I actually don't meditate daily(usually 2-3 times a week) as I'm focusing on my career, but every now and then I stumble upon something interesting, and this is the most interesting thing to date - which is not personal to me, but others could benefit from. Before when I do self inquiry, it usually goes along the lines of: ok there is something perceiving the world. That's 'me'. I know 'me' is an illusion because Leo told me its an illusion, so I'm going to focus my awareness on that thing behind my eyes, and through my awareness, become 'aware' that this is an illusion. Sort of a prove its wrong by focusing your awareness on it. Don't do this - its a total misunderstanding of the practice. Instead, accept that you believe that the thing behind the eyes is perceiving the world, and that it contradicts what Leo and other vedantic teachers tell you. Now just ask yourself, what is the thing that's aware of that thing behind the eyes. Focus your awareness on getting the 'big picture' of what's going on. Just try and become aware of everything all at once, including the thing behind the eyes, the stuff happening in front of the eyes, and everything in between. Now just focus your awareness on understanding who is aware of all of this. Like if you think you are something - a soul behind the eyes perceiving the world, that's fine. Just try to be aware of that sensation. Focus a lot of awareness on that(and every other) sensation happening in awareness, and simultaneously focus your awareness on, who is aware of all of this. Try to focus really sharply on who is aware of all of this, while diffusely focusing on being aware of everything at once. If you get this simultaneously, that's gonna make sparks. just as another line of defense, you could also inquire about the sensations in awareness - what are they? Where did they come from? What are they made of? Are they real? C'mon. Just you need to make sure that you can simultaneously do the other stuff aswell, otherwise there's no point doing this. Also asking too many questions can lead to mental masturbation. The focus needs to be on getting in touch with 'what's real'. So the questions(or answers you come up with) cannot be the focus, it needs to be lazer focus on awareness itself, the questions are there to ensure you aren't getting trapped into mental masturbation. And most importantly, don't try to engineer the experience. Don't try to manipulate it to get bliss, or to get the experience/sensation that its an illusion just so you can pat your back on the shoulder that you became aware of what Leo said and tell yourself you had a successful meditation. ok once I did this, I realized duality isn't an illusion, its simply just a creation of God. Its a manifestation of God, a shallow level below God, but its not 'unreal'. I had a massive surge of kundalini infiltrate the entire awareness field, eyes twitched like crazy, body started vibrating and twitching a lot, and the entire dualistic sphere exploded like a bunch of dominos collapsing one after the other. This wont be useful to most of you, but I'm sure some of you it would.

@Truth Addict@Zigzag Idiot It's so easy to get lost in the world in worrying about the things you do, the things other people do and thinking about how you stack up or how people like you. It gives us such peace to remember the present moment, to remember the nothingness, to remember that there is no self. We remind ourselves "There is just this." But that's not quite right. There is no just this. There is THIS. Magic is love, love is magic. An Abraham Hicks video helped me to make this connection, that when you get that feeling, that impulse or vision that feels amazing, that's it right there. Then we think about the action and the manifestation it may or could lead to and often get lost there, but that feeling that connection that bliss, that passion, that connection with love, and the present moment, THAT was it.

Bliss of creation/creating/creator, requires no concept of “doing”; utilizes no past as catalyst. Perfection (love) doesn’t plan, doesn’t conceptualize, doesn’t claim, teach, judge, correct, nor lord such ideals. Love has not responsibility or accountability whatsoever, but rather, simply, divinely, inherently is, and is every One. Intrinsic right-to-be anything and everything, nothing and no thing - is without need, without justification, explanation, rationalization, or validation. As such, you are. “Reality” is precisely “the way it is” because it could not be any other way - because you are infinite infinity. The cleverness is astounding - elusive in it’s jaw dropping simplicity, proximity & localization. There truly is no “how-mechanism”, Magic = Love = Consciousness = Bliss = You! The One. There is no voluntary thinking, no calculation involved, that is a human projection onto the source of human, an echo of truth of the “facets” of your own ineffable, unfathomable, unthinkable thinking isness. What is “of” infinite, is exactly, painstakingly simply precisely - what, why, who, and how - of all “finite”. The All That Is does of course entirely resolve all that is, and needs not “do” a thing - all that is is resolved as all that is. “Resolve” itself is yet another notion, an echo, a projection - a yearning of creation. There is physical, material, separation, subject and object, things, experience, me, you, us, them, we - because there are none of these. From the “position” of not-a-thing-at-all, unbreakable, un-tarnishable, immovable, un-shapable; the all that can be, is the all that is.

@VeganAwake Do you experience peace,love, bliss as feelings? Constant that is