Search the Community

This gets into the construct of a self. There are both consistent patterns and continual changes of a self construct. Asking what if I became a Trump supporter is like asking "What if we took a clay elephant and remolded it into a giraffe?". Then the clay mold has undergone changes. I would say some changes are very unlikely. For example, patterns of "me" include being introverted and speaking English. It's very unlikely I will wake up tomorrow as a Bollywood dancer that speaks Hindi. Of course. All constructs are imagined. Of course. All constructs are imagined. That is the nature of creating constructs. Yes, a construct of constructs has assumptions. Yes, there are domains in which actuality is not constructed in the manner I am doing here. This is a tricky area. . . What is "valid"? And who decides what is "valid". There is groundless grounding. Formless form. We can create definitions of "valid", yet upon closer inspection, there is no definition that is 100% universal, since universal is One. From one perspective, constructs are unimportant. From the essence of infinity, ISness can be interpreted infinitely. Imagine reading every book that has ever been written and then someone asking you "Tell me what the book was about?". From one perspective, this is pointless. You have read millions of books, to create one contextualization means that you are dismissing millions of other contextualizations. Why even bother? Yet to create contextualizations is part of human nature. Humans love to create and tell all sorts of stories. They would much rather tell one story of millions of possibilities than to tell know story. Yet any book I describe to you, you can say "but that's just one book! There are lots of other books!". Of course, yet I cannot describe millions of books simultaneously. All I could say is "Nothing", "Everything" or remain silent. Some awakened beings choose to do this and live simple lives of Beingness. Other awakened beings have a desire to create stories and share those stories with others. I can see that. Bigger picture / holistic mindsets are oriented toward inclusion. Therefore, they value truth such that value and truth become similar. For example, if we were contracting maps of Europe, a holistic thinker would value including as many nuggets of truth as possible. This mindset would want to include various aspects of geography, politics, climate, architecture, history into the map. If someone pointed out that they were missing a piece from Hungary, a holistic mindset would want to include it - since a holistic mindset wants as many pieces of the puzzle included as possible. Yet as you seem to suggest, there can be a price for doing this. For example, if we include too many pieces, we may never finish creating our map. Or if we are creating a map for hikers, we want zoomed in details of hiking trails. Zooming too far out can mean adding in extraneous stuff, like explanations of storms from the 1970s, that don't have much relevance to the task at hand. Quite often, holistic thinkers go into zones that are impractical for tasks at hand. I agree that bigger picture/holistic thinking is not absolute truth. I would go one step further and say big picture thinking is no closer to absolute truth than small picture thinking. I've gone into conscious states of infinite complexity, in which there were an infinite number of connections appearing as One. If also entered conscious states of infinite simplicity. One time I stared at a single blade of grass and realized it's infinite nature. I have a friend who is super simplistic. Sometimes when I am creating stories and concepts she will shrug and simply say "It is what it is". . . She isn't stupid, she can see the simplicity of what is. Intellectuals will gloss over that phrase since it's so simplistic, yet it goes extremely deep. I like this point. The mind likes narrative control and is strongly influenced by what it perceives as value. I also agree that the human mind is limited and cannot know everything. I use the analogy of holding three grains of sand as knowledge. Relative to all the grains of sand in all the beaches, three sand grains is virtually nothing. Being aware of this will spare a mind from many tensions. A mind can become aware of this by entering transcendent consciousness in which the human mind becomes super human. Now, the mind has become all the sand in the world. As it returns to human mind form, it cannot capture all the sand. Back in a limited human mind, it may realize it now hold six grains of sand, rather than three grains of sand. That is a 100% increase, which may feel massive to the person. Yet I would say the bigger realization is the awareness of sandy beaches, even if it is no longer held by the person. For minds that resonate with psychedelics, it can go from holding a few grains of sand to a bucket of sand, to a beach, to all beaches. Yet when the mind returns to conventional human form, the mind tries to make sense of it. Yet confusion and contractions often occur. The mind tries to create beaches with the six grains of sand it holds. This is a very low resolution - which is why most minds need to return to beach form 100s of times. The trick is that most minds are not aware of this limitation, that in human form they only hold a few grains of sand. Collectively, we are all all beaches. At the human level, there is an enormous price to pay for this realization + embodiment, yet at the transhuman level the payoff is also enormous.

Consciousness in its ultimate formless state has no fear. Many of the forms Consciousness creates also have no fear, because they aren't evolved enough to feel emotions. The more awakened you are as a human being, the less fear you will feel, because you directly realize your identity as Consciousness. Nothing that is ultimately real can be threatened; only things that are relatively real suffer and die. Fear is just another form of attachment. The less attached you are to relative reality, the less fear you will experience, and the more free you will be.

I remember in one of EJ Gold’s books. He said that after awakening, we tend to nap. This goes also with a saying in the Work I’ve heard that after awakening one will never sleep quite as comfortably again. There was one excerpt on spiritual sleep in the Diamond Approach glossary. At least one lineage of the Gurdjieff Work was influential on Almaas’s learning which impacted his Teaching that later developed. I’m pretty sure that Gurdjieff was the first to frame the spiritual sleep of contemporary man as “the terror of the situation”. Just remembered it was a chapter title in Beelzebub’s Tales to his Grandson. Anyway, from the glossary,,,, Recognizing How Lost We Are Unless guidance comes from that source beyond, we keep moving from one place in the conventional dimension to another place in the same dimension. We haven't got the vaguest idea of what awaits us, of what is possible in our potential. We don't know the extent, the depth, the infinite possibilities that lie underneath the surface. So we tend to judge everything by our knowledge, attitudes, and feelings that come from the surface. We don't know that by taking that knowledge to be final knowledge, we identify with the very barriers that prevent the depth from emerging and guiding us. This is why the conventional dimension is a state of spiritual sleep, of being spiritually lost. When we recognize that we are lost and that we cannot move out of our lostness with the conventional knowledge we have, we become aware of the terror of our situation. We recognize just how lost we are and how scary that is. We realize that whatever we try to do -- read books, practice this or that technique, attend this or that workshop, try to figure out things ourselves -- we do not feel any less lost. Our situation really is much more difficult, much more profound, than we allow ourselves to see for a long time. That's why we speak of the terror of the situation -- because it is so frightening to finally realize and admit how lost we are, and how at the mercy we are of so many elements that we have no handle on. The terror of the situation has a lot to do with how much we believe what we think we know, with how much we are caught in the gravity of our planet of conventional reality, believing it to be the centre of the universe -- and sometimes all that exists. We usually do not realize that our experience of reality has to shift only a little bit and all will disappear, leaving us totally terrified. Our only hope is a guidance, a discernment, an indication that comes from a realm beyond. Spacecruiser Inquiry, pg. 210 Good article about the Terror of the situation here- http://sun-angel.com/articles/pw/thework/chapt1.html The following are a few of the sentences that the author of this article put down in bold print. A sincere evaluation of one's capacity to live in the moment will reveal that it is the singular most difficult thing to do. It is possible to expand the brief moments we experience of a more awakened state if we are willing to undertake a deep examination of ourselves and our situation in order to uncover the barriers that exist in our inner world. Verify everything!! Believe nothing "The illusion is not external, but internal. our inner world is a chaotic place inhabited by a gang of disorderly people, we are inhabited by many 'I's, Self-observation is an essential practice for this.

Not in your current state of consciousness or even in most awakened states. In most awakened states you are just God waking up to itself and realizing what the fuck is really going on.. Leo wasn't kidding when he said there are Infinite states much higher than the one you find yourself in now. Your current state of consciousness is there precisely so you wouldn't be able to make the wall disappear. If you could, you would not be able to experience this particular dream - it would just melt away.

I agree. But it's kinda trippy. Where did I come from? You have no memory of your very first months and of your birth... Yet others can confirm to you that you were Born. After all just because you have no memory of your birth.. Doesn't mean that human avatar you're inhabiting wasn't born and not gonna die. Doesn't mean it does either. I awakened to the fact that only my direct subjective experience is certain to be true. Don't know if call that God realization

I had my deepest awakening last night. It hit me that all pain and suffering was created by me, myself. Every single thought that I attached myself to was bullshit, layers and layers of lies upon lies. I've awakened and experienced myself as I am, and I've come to inhabit a new world. My inner state was keeping me in hell. I was my own prisoner. Now I realize why enlightened teachers talk in such a confusing way for unconscious people. You simply are awake or you aren't, and most humans are so deep in delusion that there's nothing you can say to wake them up. All you can do is try and point them to the light, by being the light. Ever wondered why you feel pain? Because you have chosen to create pain, so you experience what you created. Finally a question for those who have awakened- what are you doing with yourselves? A funny question to ask myself I know, but I am so curious

No, your assumption is false. You should not. Absolute Consciousness is so powerful that it can dream lesser states in which it is not conscious of itself as Absolute, even though it still is Absolute. Infinite Consciousness is capable of modulating itself down to finite consciousness. If it could not do that it would not be infinite. I keep saying, consciousness is like light. It comes in infinite degrees of brightness. A candle has the same light as the sun, but the sun has much more of it to illuminate reality with. Your current state of consciousness is like a candle. And awakened states of consciousness are like the sun.

This is what enlightenment means from a QiGong Masters perspective. An excerpt from Zhuan Falun: "So if energy practices have such a long history, you might be wondering just what exactly they’re for. I can tell you that ours is an advanced Buddhist method of spiritual practice, and so it seeks to bring you to divinity, or what’s known as “Buddhahood.” And Daoist methods, similarly, seek to foster enlightenment, or enable you to “attain the Way,” as it’s called. The idea of becoming divine shouldn’t seem absurd, or far out, as it may to some. For example, take the concept of Buddha. It’s a term from the ancient Indian language known as Sanskrit. The term has undergone various permutations in China since arriving there long ago, being translated phonetically as foah-toah, foo-too, and eventually just foah. Translated into our own language today, the term simply means “one who has awakened,” and refers to any being who has gained a state of awakening through spiritual discipline. So it shouldn’t seem that far-fetched. Consider that extraordinary powers can come to those who engage in spiritual discipline. While six types of powers are now generally recognized, there are in fact a myriad number that exist. There are individuals who can, just while sitting in place, do things that normally even physical action couldn’t accomplish; or they might be able to see the true workings of the universe in multiple dimensions, and how it really is, and see things that are invisible to others. I think you would have to agree, then, that they have attained a higher state of awakening, or spiritual attainment, and are no longer mere mortals. So it’s only fitting to call them spiritually awakened, holy, or divine—or in ancient Indian terms, a “Buddha.” And this is what these practices are in fact meant to achieve." from Zhuan Falun (Turning The Law Wheel) : https://en.falundafa.org/eng/pdf/Zhuan-Falun-2018.pdf

Let's say awakened

They aren't the same, but share similarities. There are hundreds of different states of awakened consciousness. So you're rolling the dice as to which one you get. Not all enlightened people have the same state either. Some have radically alien and different states and levels of consciousness. There really is no such thing as "enlightenment" as a singular thing. There are thousands of different off-shoots of it which are very challenging to understand and map because you'd have to experience them all and you basically can't.

Great! ?? Enlightened teachers are not enlightened teachers. If you are enlightened everything is, there is no unconscious people. Who have awakened/who have not awakened is a duality that collapses with a self realization. It's more like not-doing, just enjoying the experience. Who knows that you are not fully awake? "Not fully awake" is just a thought. This is it when you know literally nothing, be an empty vessel in God's Mind, a pure miracle here is.

@VeganAwake Interesting, this is not either what I really meant though lol. (I suck at having you guys on the same track as me?) Have you seen the monks who de condition themselves too much, they forget how to eat, speak properly and things like that. The way you function in this world is your conditioning, does that make sense or have I misunderstood something, I feel that it is more a manner of using/shaping your conditioning in a intelligent way, which is done by creation itself in liberation. Also I was actually earlier referring to the unconscious which you do not have much control over. 10000 people might look at two children fighting but how your intelligence will understand the situation in front of you will differ even without conditioning, one might only see one part of the whole picture another will see different things = your conditioning is that which makes you react with a situation in the way that you did(does this make sense? Maybe conditioning is the wrong word?). I guess how capable you are as a human being determines your ability to function well in this world. So let's say you were to live like Shiva, one who has over the years strengthened his perception and perceptive skills might see situations with much more clarity than another who comes into awakening then liberation/freedom who isn't as capable intellectually and therefore might make stupid decisions from anothers point of view. Maybe this is why spiritual people always critisised each other, actually this just really opened my eyes to what I was looking for. Every man has their flaws and their strengths even though these words are just ideas in a sense you probably get what I mean. Your path is pretty sacred then. Things start to fall together. Everything above which bored you to death aside which doesn't have anything to do woth this - I could liberate myself right now, I have prepared myself for awhile. I just felt like discussing stuff maybe the last time here on the forum. Perhaps you remember me from a couple of months ago. I said to everyone I had awakened and I am not taking it back, I have spend these months actually understanding things and know how to liberate myself and I won't fall into the pitfalls (probably). It is still a little early and everyone would criticise me asking this question as in a direct indicator that I am stupid spiritually. But. I have just barely enough prepared externally for my liberation, @VeganAwakeShould I do it? It means I will be heavily involved in this world, and life will turn upside down, will be a great story to tell. Should I do it? I will drop out of school Do I do it? I will jump and I will not go back only foward. What do you say, two single words "Do It" is all the push I need and I wont regret anything the day after. Because I am prepared, do I do it? You are not allowed to answer anything else than Yes or No

Enlightenment is not easily measured; one can be very conscious and create very holistic art but not fully awakened. However, I think some of the greatest works of art came from people who are at least awake to a degree. But the more conscious the art, the harder it is for it to go mainstream. The closer you are to describing the truth, the more abstract and confusing it becomes. So a lot of the greats are not recognized by the public. You can judge the wholeness/consciousness of the art based on either the art's content or its structure or both. Some arts are very high conscious in their content. Meaning the subject the art is trying to convey is very high conscious (existence, God, love, consciousness, etc.). And some arts are not super conscious in their content, but their structure can create such an extreme sense of wholeness within people. To the point where it can create altered states of consciousness. (A lot of classical music are like this) Some arts are both high conscious in content and structure, and those are the really profound ones. But here is a list of artists that I think are at least awakened to some degree. Or at least can create art that is extremely high conscious and whole. Music: Estas Tonne Jeff Buckley Leonard Cohen Claude Debussy Misk'i Takiy Olafur Arnalds Sam Garrett Dan Deacon Film: Andrei Tarkovsky Alejandro Jodorowsky Novels: Ted Chiang Kana Akatsuki Manga/Anime: Hiromu Arakawa Poetry: William Blake Charles Bukowski Architecture: Christopher Alexander Games: David OReilly Tetsuya Mizuguchi Hidetaka Miyazaki

There is no evil from an absolute perspective. This does not mean evil does not exist. Evil exists as a relative interpretation of reality created by humans or other survival-focused organisms to further the survival agenda. Every mainstream spiritual master has been ego driven. A fully awakened being would not feel the need to teach, preach of Love or God, etc. Jesus and the Buddha are not the highest. The ones you’ve never even heard of are, but it ultimately does the relative world a lot of good that these mainstream partially awakened people did what they did.

@Phyllis Wagner I saw this the other day and thought the entire thing was really, really good. I especially loved how he described the two extreme viewpoints on how to get awakened, that you can force it into being or that there's nothing you can do. The "suffering helps too a little bit *chuckle*" remark really got me. ? I immersed myself in his books and videos years ago. He had the deepest teachings I'd ever found that were making an enormous impact on my life but I had no spiritual community to speak of or any knowledge of other teachers. That was probably for the best at the time. Once you go back to listen you realize the depth of understanding was a limitation of the filter of "you" more than the teacher.

Cause it’s not a thing, and because there is much to express in you. Love is no thing. All “things” are apparent, and of the apparent continuum, in the sense “reality”. All things share that the more you give away, the less of that thing, you have. No thing is the opposite. Give it away! Give it away! Give it away! You only ‘have’, ‘know’, ‘feel’ more. I’m speculating, but perhaps ‘race’ is not meant like a competition, like race cars, but in the sense ‘human’ race, that we are not a human race, but the race of love, that is love. Love is all there is. There can’t be a lack of all there is. Paradoxically perhaps, what the world could use most, is the love that the world is. This is due to the simple fact that infinite can not know finite. In love terms, there is no finite, only the belief that there is, similarly, there is no lack of love, only the belief that there is. There is no “more love”, there is “the fall”, or, “the fallout”. For infinite being, which is unconditional love, to experience, infinite being must be that very experience, and thus infinite being ‘forgets’ it’s own infinitude, of and as love. There isn’t. It’s an appearance of the light & love that (eternally, infinitely) is. While someone is collecting shoelaces, someone else is building nuclear bombs. I take “silliness” to mean nonsense. That which does not resonate with the true nature. The song “Royals” by Lord comes to mind. “We’ll never be royals. It don’t run in our blood. That kind of lux just ain’t for us, we crave a different kind of buzz. Let me ? be your ruler, you can call me queen b, and I’ll rule, I’ll rule, I’ll rule...let me live that fantasy.” Jesus used the word “me” in the same way, pointing to the true “me”, the true nature. To me, this points to the end of the hierarchy of the race, the “royals” and the “peasants”, and us all living the ‘real’ fantasy, a world awakened to the true nature of the world.

The more you watch D'angelos video the more you see how much pain he is in, how much black and white thinking he ascribes too, how little research he has done, how self biased he is. Awakened people need not worry about the opinions of unawakened people. Though, yeah its hard. Don't give your authority to anyone. The universe is your teacher. And, maybe keep some things to yourself for now. Not everyone needs to know how smart you or leo is. People are going to be wary of Actualized.org being a cult and rightfully should be. Our minds are valuable and people want to make sure they are protecting themselves and their family. Leo talks about a lot of deep subjects which are very sensitive and it is a great responsibility. The goal is to open your mind, so remember to read many sources, contemplate, do the practices and open your mind as much as you can.

I need new perspectives. I wanted a partner in my life. A man. So, I imagined him holding me when I sleep, imagined him kiss me while I wash the dishes, slapping my butt...all the good stuff. I used the emotional charge I had from falling in love with a man who didn't want a relationship (and I realized he was in my life to bring out unseen aspects of myself, in interactions with men, to take me to embrace my feminine more) I write three pages every morning. One night I had a dream. I was on a rooftop, (it felt like home) and my man just came home. He was a tall, strong man. With long, dark hair and a long beard. He had this air of punk-rock...I grabbed his beard, played with it, and said 'My painter!'. Then kissed him. In my dream, I was the woman and the one seeing the whole picture from afar - awareness wasn't veiled in that dream We laid on a lounge, there on the rooftop, under the stars... I then woke up. I asked, thinking about this painter: 'Who are you? Where are you? When will you come?' As I felt he was the one I was waiting for. I wrote about the dream that morning, in my three pages. 7 days later I went to a lake in my hometown. The sun finally came out. I wanted to feel it on my skin, and have a bath in the icy water. I took the opportunity to shoot a YouTube video on 'How to have an Ice Cold Bath' (part of my work) Two days later, I edited and posted the video. That night, one of my subscribers, made a love statement in a comment: "I wanna be yours right now and for forever, you look like a world of fun omg can't stop smiling and being amazed :)) running that trail to the lake and then on top of that a cold bath, now that's FUN :))) be mine!" This was a guy I had met 15 years ago. He wanted a transfer from one art class into another. I wanted a transfer from a normal high school to the Arts Highschool. Our first encounter was some five hours, sitting in a classroom, just the two of us, drawing and talking. We saw each other two years during school, as friends. Not much. We then went our separate ways. I didn't know anything about him until about a month ago when he wrote to me, saying he saw my videos, and he appreciates my work. He asked me when I'll shoot the next, how I am...all that. He told me he is working on his master's degree in painting. He said he would like to go and fry some mushrooms outdoors with me, one day (turns out we're both vegans) I found it exciting to hear from him, back then. As I kinda liked him when I first saw him. We had a similar style. I am quite punkish myself. But that was it. He didn't write again. When I saw his comment on YouTube, I was amazed. I wanted to see him. I hadn't seen him in 15 years. I wanted to know how he looks. But he didn't have any pictures on social media. Except a few from 10 years ago. I did, however, said yes. I wrote him and told him to come kiss me. He showed up at my door and I was amazed. He was the painter I had dreamed of 10 days prior to this encounter. Medium, dark hair, exact same beard, same body, same feeling...I instantly knew it was him. We spent some 10 minutes looking into each other's eyes, hugging, laughing. There was this strong recognition. He said something like: "I've been waiting for you for so long!" My feelings were mutual. We spent a few hours together, hugging, kissing staring into each other eyes. It's been four days. We have spent a few hours each day. I have come to learn that he is a brute force of nature. And I love this about him. I find him fascinating. I have awakened to the nature of reality a while back. I have been working to create a life for me, that is in tune with my understanding. I gave up all drugs, for a few years now. I've built good, strong habits. Good morning routine. Plans, actions, creation. I still work to embody my understanding in the process. He, on the other hand, has come to see the nature of reality and has taken a different path. His approach is more on the complete freedom of being. And he feels like a tornado sometimes. He rises like a dragon, he even makes sounds like one. He has a strong passion and desire to punish people for their ignorant actions. He has great compassion for animals, but not much for humans. He doesn't really want to hurt humans, but his way of waking people up is through shaking their reality, like an earthquake. He feels a lot like God's justice sword. On my journeys, I have shown people the nature of reality through embodying kindness, love, compassion, self-sacrifice, to such a degree, that people couldn't remain ignorant and made them rethink their approach to life. He, on the other side, made people rethink their approach through his violent joy, absolute freedom of being. Drugged up, drunk, composed, spreading love through force (approaching sad, stressed people on the street with some silly games, roars, buffooning around ). You know your classic punk junkie. We talked a lot about his ways, his experiences. I can see his role. It makes me wonder what is his role in my life. Is he my partner? He has a tough time caring for himself. And he seems to enjoy being homeless (he had some three weeks of living on the streets and he enjoyed it) Can't say that I blame him. I sometimes wonder what it would be like to be homeless. To let yourself go completely into the hands of God. I have this fantasy of owning nothing but a backpack with some clothes, my laptop, my phone, my Nikon, crayons, paint, sketchbooks, taking Europe on foot, sleeping wherever, taking photos, shooting videos, drawing, writing about my experience, and showing it to people. On the other hand, there is this dream I am currently working towards - becoming an English teacher. Teach teenagers about life, while they develop their knowledge of the English language. Continue writing, and painting. Take my part in society. And then I wonder if society is worth keeping. I guess this is where he comes in. He doesn't want any part in it. He only wants to shake it to its very core. What do you make of this experience?

By my definition of enlightenment, it is a tiny proportion of people, and even they don't fully meet the standard, because they are still human. Enlightenment means "to be filled with light", which is the dissolving of every attachment, and perpetually being unconditional love. If what you are asking is why awakened people meditate, it is primarily because the practice strengthens their spiritual discipline, and makes it easier to swim upstream, against the current of their conditioned mind. Waking up is only the first step in the soul journey back to our unconditioned Self.

I have the impression that If there is still suffering then it's not a full awakening. Fully awakened people who can meditate because they feel bliss when they do. There is no goal behind the meditation.

I am confused about the point of enlightenment work, especially at the ultra-high levels. How do we reconcile the following (this is my terrified interpretation): On the one hand, no possible life can have true happiness, fulfillment and peace of mind, even if all your wishes were met and you dominated the world, without becoming spiritually enlightened. The most fantastic life we can conceive of would be nothing compared to being enlightened. On the other hand, to enlighten oneself is to annihilate oneself. And further, to realize one is God, Love, Infinity, and all the rest, is just too much to take. To go into that territory I must kick and scream and burn in purgatory. If I knew what I really asked for, I would not want it. @Leo Gura says "YOU DON’T WANT IT." Jed McKenna says "Waking up is kinda dumb." When we say "You don’t want it", we mean "I, me, the ego, this person right here talking, yes me!" don’t want it, but do we also somehow point to something beyond "me/I" that don’t want it, whatever that even means? I mean can there be resistance to deeper awakenings even long after one sees through or "destroys" the ego? How is it possible to not be able to stomach deeper awakenings if there is no ego at all to have preferences and have to "stomach" things? See I can’t help but think somehow one could regret having awakened, or at least becoming conscious of specific things (God, Love, etc.). I’ve got the impression that some awakenings can be so deep and radical that they’re just too much to handle EVEN for someone who has lost their ego long ago and have no stakes in life or preferences, that beyond a certain point awakenings will only be more hellish. Behind reality’s final curtain there is eternal hellfire. In short, it is simply not possible to completely surrender and not suffer at the deepest of the deepest insights of reality. It seems twisted that pursuing deeper and deeper awakenings can lead to greater and greater hell, but I know that to have a nihilistic view of spiritual enlightenment is to misunderstand it. Yet this is my impression that I’m trying to sort out. I don’t know what do make of it and what to do with myself. I hope what I’m asking makes sense, but in short it boils down to the question: How is it possible to not be able to stomach deeper awakenings if there is no ego at all to have preferences and have to "stomach" things? Or simplified: How and why are deeper awakenings beyond ego-death challenging and difficult? Thanks! Gustav

It is said that a great military general has the breadth of heart to take hearts. Enlightening being is having the heart to take the heart of creation, according to the time. The heart is not taken in terms of a motivational desire. The heart of Creation is taken over in terms of the situation. The heart of creation is the heart of heaven and earth; essence is total, yet it is accessed by one's own "heart of heaven and earth" via an initial breakthrough called the aperture of the Mysterious Female. From then on, all the elements and processes of alchemy are found therein. Desire is the phenomenal aspect of compassion leading one along precisely, in a commitment to seeing the inevitable end (of each particular energy cycle), which is karmic. No, there is no end, ultimately, as situations are the stuff of eternity …meanwhile all sorts of things keep popping up and fading out. So what does one's commitment to inevitability depend on? It is up to the time, which is a very peculiar thing. It is not linear, and it is repeatable. It can be compressed. It turns over on itself. And it has gaps. It is really a strange thing, to write about changing or not changing in the midst of whatever is changing or not changing as if it matters. It’s not called subtle adaption by mistake. In the final analysis, one’s freshness of potential, ongoing, through thick and thin, is what passes through, or, rather, essence is the fundamental expression of Unity without remainder. In terms of abiding in unity, arrival is perpetual. To say one resides in the highest good is the same as saying, in perpetuity, the result is nonoriginated. Just this abiding in the pivot of aware presence, neither coming nor going, is resting in the highest good. When you go along with changes, it’s a new old thing; in not going along with changes, the same fresh energy abides. Actually, it’s the same energy either way, yet in seeing potential, there is actually something to this bit about immortalism, after all. To speak of it in terms of reversal is just a device. Actually, there are no words. Adaption is an unchanging process of alternations, yin to yang, until you die. Circumstances themselves are literally a random inert agent. Pure selfless open sincere desire is the motivation for compassion seeing through each cycle. What takes the heart is the knowledge of timing, and the timing is such only by virtue of one’s access to the impersonal awakened real knowledge I refer to as seeing. The Dharma Eye sees through cause without destroying its momentum, or, rather transforming psychological momentum into potential. It's not that seeing changes anything, one just sees reality as is without originating the personality's habitual pattern-awareness perspective. This means that one’s active duty to inevitability is determined by the celestial timing visible through the course of events by one’s awakened Dharma eye. This is another meaning of using the false to arrive at the true. Situationally karmic cycles are the means by which one discerns the real by increments in the situational context. This is the gradual path en total. We use the gradual aspect of incremental temporality to gather the potential reality of the sudden in order to first, see eternity, then step over it, and continue on in the endless path of refining the immaterial energy body naturally. Eventually each one’s karmic momentum is worn out like an old shoe. For example, in theory, as one's situational involvement starts out, one is barefooted. Otherwise, If you're not barefooted, it's not a new energy cycle, or you are wearing shoes where bare-feet are appropriate, and your basis for spontaneous interaction is cloyed— further compounding falsity. Old polluted energy (psychological/karmic momentum) concretized by the fallacious personality, is perpetuating ignorance of reality by virtue of habituation to carrying the burden of cause from created cycle to created cycle. The point is that being barefoot doesn't depend on thoughts or actions; it depends on reality— and that cannot be forced. By pure acceptance in selfless wonder, without enabling clinging energy or concepts of cessation, through a long process of self-refinement, conditioned psychological energy can be seen to slow down naturally and without accruing additional momentum. Eventually, what's left is… bare feet. The allusion to innocence is not accidental. What ultimately needs to be accepted is that the personality is only a circumstantial element, insignificant in and of itself, permitting facilitation of process within the context of nefarious realms of compounded incremental existence. Accepting it in terms of its function, not in terms of one's identity is most advantageous. Why then is it necessary to be able to see the nature of creation as eternity? Because it is a monumental error to conceive of eternity as being of the nature of the celestial, the immortal, the inconceivable. Eternity is the whole of creation. Creation is ultimately the dregs. When people can see creation as it is and know that its essential nature as eternal is not celestial, then they might hesitate to get bogged down in its particular aspects and ramifications relative to the person. Karma is eternal. Yet one must never forget that it is, above all else, created— so enlightening beings do not work with eternity, they just see it for what it is, and without entertaining self-reflective fascinations, they step over it, without rushing ahead. Continuing on, in terms of presence, is not relative to conditions. It is, rather, that eternity moves on by its own conditional momentum. Awareness in itself, has never moved. Reality is neither relative nor absolute~ this being the raison d'être of enlightening activity. Enlightening beings are whole in the midst of karmic cycles coming and going. This is what I mean by continuing on. It is not that one “moves on” and gains “closure”, in terms of situations. “Closure” is the phenomenon of people successfully rationalizing their denial when they cannot rely on the power of ignorance to forget. Earlier I wrote (in another thread), “Closure is for wimps”. What is the basis of continuing on? Although it is the intent of inherent essential nature presently functioning transcendently in the midst of conditions, it is habitual perspectives of the human mentality hopelessly lost in particular aspects of eternity bound to endless karmic rounds of suffering that stultify the spirit of one’s natural transcendent function. As such, the psychological posture of "continuing on" is evidence of karmic bondage, not innocence. The point of penetrating, activating, and then eventually realizing one’s essential nature is that Eternity can only be transcended by the awake, practiced and developed knowledge of the beginningless, of the causeless. One can simply fall into this realization and benefit by it instantaneously for no reason. No reason is what open sincere intent is. Camping out in one's inherent unborn mind results in seeing. Yet one must learn to act on this knowledge or the memory of sudden illumination itself becomes a barrier, no different than eternity, to advance enlightening practice. How can that be? It is mind alone. Holding the absolute in referential terms to the facetious knower, thinker and liver of life, liberation reverts to bondage on the spot. It is unborn mind. In order to be it, one must continuously see it. And that, alone, is authentic self-refining practice of subtle continuous concentration observing mind. This your own mind right now, as is. This is just your own functional awareness right now. It is not a matter of philosophy because there is nothing whatsoever to understand. Your real identity is Unborn Mind. It's not the experiential absolute— that's just interruption of consciousness. Your own mind right now is the unborn, as such, void of self-reifying pattern awareness. Just see reality as is without thinking right or wrong, good and bad; leaving out personal values for all time. Of course that means nothing to anyone on an intellectual level. And it also has no power for people who are habituated to using awareness in the most limited ways imaginable. Due to habituation solely to the personality’s center of reason/talking that conceives sensuality to be the only means of perceiving and relating to particulars, people cannot awaken to the power and freedom that nothing to understand is something literally and figuratively beyond reason. The beauty of unbending impersonal intent is that it can be used powerfully to facilitate the very (dis)function that reason craps out in the first place. To do that, one must first penetrate causelessness, and set up camp in terms of nonorigination, so to speak. This is the place where one can begin to see. Anyone can understand understanding, yet only a sage can understand not-understanding. Delusion and enlightenment is the same mind whereby the enlightening function can operate freely within delusion, yet delusion is already deluded within delusion, and cannot fathom enlightening perspective in its midst. Truth be told, enlightening perspective has no perspective, as it is the nature of no-mind. When someone doesn’t mind (in the conventional sense), it is not necessarily that they don’t care, it is that there is nothing to understand (relative to their personal habits, whims or perceived vulnerabilities). This is understanding not-understanding perfectly, as knowledge is a matter of nothing to know. That’s really how it is. It’s “What’s to know?” Penetrating perception based on this what’s to know is reality perceived without bias or inclination in the midst of affairs. Mind is the ever-awakening nature of no-mind aware of its unborn, natural inconceivability functioning beginninglessly and presently in perpetuity. Intellectually biased ignorance must be stripped away in order to see this mind by a long long process of correctly oriented self-refinement. It’s not the equivalent of ego as you might know it, or anti-ego as you might imagine it. If you knew that the real aspect of ego is just a function facilitating the personality of the being that is going to die, you might be able to intuit that the function of your real identity is equally selfless and nonexistent. Perpetuation of ego depends on reason, whereas awakening to and penetrating the function of nonoriginated selflessness depends open sincere intent. Intent’s intent is openly sincere open sincerity. This intent is already inherently in a state of potential until the moment you permanently drop your selfish habitual antics perpetuating the false self and awaken to presence as authentic impersonal spiritual function. "Awakening" to this does not depend on sudden enlightenment. It is simply "nonoriginating" delusion by awakening to the Unborn mind. Nevertheless, stabilizing this awakening comes by fits and starts, the very reason for self-refinement. Ego-consciousness fixating of accomplishing "sudden realization" is to be pitied— even should it succeed. Why? It is analogous to picking a fruit too early. It's not ripe. It's not edible, or if it is, it won't beneficial or as beneficial to the being as if it had been left alone until it "dropped off" naturally. Ask me why I know. Please don’t be hung-up on the personality as you’re stuck with it (mine and yours)!! I’m living proof of that for those of you who are hung up on my supposed narcissism. The personality doesn’t go anywhere. In effectively realized individuals, it just takes up its position in service of the autonomous illumined being within, which has never entered the sphere of the created. Nothing changes except a little swap, like musical chairs whereby the personality permanently attains balance naturally, and continues on by not clinging to situations, places, people and things— because finally, much less is invested in ego function's perpetuation. So, the world at large is not created, while the self-observer (awakened to one’s own unborn awareness) isn’t created as well— and one proves it in everyday ordinary affairs again and again and again. It’s an all-at-once, all-or-nothing proposition (not to discount ones inexorable fits and starts). It is seeing that all things are the nature of awareness, which is unborn. Stabilizing this perspective is the gradual work of self-refinement before and after (in the case of the sudden, should that happen). It’s called work because the world doesn’t know… Creation is a bitch. Do you think she’d go along with you, if she knew? If she knew, she’d get your ass AND whatever’s going along with it too. That’s what she already got your ego to do. Ya gotta give that bitch the slip (without its knowing) and steal back your inherent presence. AND THAT’S NO JOKE. It is called inconceivable spiritual adaption taking over creation and stealing its potential without admitting one’s own power for a reason, it seems. ed note: typo 12 paragraph

Leo said that Enlightenment is what fully raises your capacity to love, but even awakened people can have limited and crude forms of love if they're at a low stage of development, no? Therefore an awakened person can improve their life by developing their relative selves which raises their capacity to love? And for people who aren't awakened, raising their capacity to love by developing their ego would bring them closer to awakening?

Love does not know awakened people, limited and crude forms of love, relative selves, capacities to love, nor stages. Love is ‘who’ you are, which is why these concepts feel off to you love. Love is unconditional, and doesn’t even know people who aren’t awakened.

We need more people like him. What ever this level of awakening is, its wonderful in comparison to the average unconscious person. This trend of awakened bodybuilders/athlete/celebrities is great stuff. Frank, Conner, Mike tyson...