Is there anything more after Samadhi?

[Applegarden8]

Only answer who know. So I can see so many Jeevasamadhis. Do you people know? I certainly don't, I have only heard stories. If you really do, good for you, but I don't believe most of you.

[Sugarcoat]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

its impossible to having no sense of self, or at least I don't want that. It's not necessary to reach that point; rather, you need to learn to have no sense of self for a while, at will. Then, the sense of self returns, and it's quite solid. A solid self is essential, as challenges will constantly arise.

How you know it’s impossible? Because this brain is designed to have sense of self or? How about people like Jim Newman talking about non duality and how there is “no position” , him and few others seem to be permanently devoid of a self. But maybe there’s still some self/ego structure in place I can’t know for sure. They seem to be at peace so that would be desirable imo

It would be cool as you say to have no sense of self at will, I’ve not been able to do that. 
 

Why would a self be necessary for challenges? Doesn’t the brain still work without it?

 

[Sugarcoat]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

Yes, you have to reach total openness, where you are the limitless. At that point, there's no question of whether there's more, since that's everything 

Isn’t this limitlessness you talk about “no self”? But you mean you don’t wanna be in that “state” permanently? 

Or can a self be included in this limitlessness, but it’s seen that it’s just an appearance and not absolutely real? That’s a thought that just came to me. Maybe one could juggle both simultaneously 

[Breakingthewall]

Just now, Sugarcoat said:

How you know it’s impossible? Because this brain is designed to have sense of self or? How about people like Jim Newman talking about non duality and how there is “no position” , him and few others seem to be permanently devoid of a self. But maybe there’s still some self/ego structure in place I can’t know for sure. They seem to be at peace so that would be desirable imo

It would be cool as you say to have no sense of self at will, I’ve not been able to do that. 
 

Why would a self be necessary for challenges? Doesn’t the brain still work without it?

 

Without a sense of self, you wouldn't care whether you lived or died, and those teachers wouldn't care whether they taught or not. What does it matter whether you helped people? What's the difference between humanity disappearing in an endless war or everyone being enlightened and happy? From an infinite perspective, it's exactly the same. Only the self sees the difference.

[Breakingthewall]

12 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

Isn’t this limitlessness you talk about “no self”? But you mean you don’t wanna be in that “state” permanently? 

Or can a self be included in this limitlessness, but it’s seen that it’s just an appearance and not absolutely real? That’s a thought that just came to me. Maybe one could juggle both simultaneously 

The substance of the reality is limitlessness, or better than substance, the nature of reality, what you última are. For that reason, it exists in a limited form. Saying "apparently" limited is like saying you've "apparently" broken your leg. There's no difference with really broken. The point is, you'd rather not break your leg. You can realize your total nature every day; that doesn't mean you'd rather not go to a Russian prison for 25 years. 

But maybe you get a level of openess where for you it's the same anything, you are absolutely out of the form, only in the substance. Sure that this is possible, but first a bit, little by little. In my case, i prefer balancing both. I wouldn't like being a mystic absolutely out of the form, the form is beautiful, but being able to break the limits sometimes is absolutely useful, removes all the sadness, makes your life open

Edited 12 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Sugarcoat]

3 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Without a sense of self, you wouldn't care whether you lived or died, and those teachers wouldn't care whether they taught or not. What does it matter whether you helped people? What's the difference between humanity disappearing in an endless war or everyone being enlightened and happy? From an infinite perspective, it's exactly the same. Only the self sees the difference.

From what I’ve heard someone like Jim Newman seems to be in such a selfless state. He has said things like “killing babies doesn’t matter”. He doesn’t say he is “teaching” either. I bet he doesn’t care. 

[Sugarcoat]

3 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

The substance of the reality is limitlessness, or better than substance, the nature of reality, what you última are. For that reason, it exists in a limited form. Saying "apparently" limited is like saying you've "apparently" broken your leg. There's no difference with really broken. The point is, you'd rather not break your leg. You can realize your total nature every day; that doesn't mean you'd rather not go to a Russian prison for 25 years. 

But maybe you get a level of openess where for you it's the same anything, you are absolutely out of the form, only in the substance. Sure that this is possible, but first a bit, little by little. In my case, i prefer balancing both. I wouldn't like being a mystic absolutely out of the form, the form is beautiful, but being able to break the limits sometimes is absolutely useful, removes all the sadness, makes your life open

I have thought about this recently. If something appears exactly as something, then it’s the same as it being it. But I guess it’s infinity seeming limited, because even from a materialistic science perspective, science hasn’t found any actual limits right?

Even if you realize your nature, you still have a brain with preferences, and you can still feel physical pain right? That’s why you wouldn’t wanna go to Russian prison for 25 years

What you described as your balance sounds amazing 

[Breakingthewall]

6 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

From what I’ve heard someone like Jim Newman seems to be in such a selfless state. He has said things like “killing babies doesn’t matter”. He doesn’t say he is “teaching” either. I bet he doesn’t care. 

I just finished reading a little bit of Jim Newman, which I'd never heard of before, and in two minutes, in my very humble opinion, he doesn't know what he's talking about. He's lost in the idea of no self and all that. The self is real, it's genetically encoded over millions of years of evolution, it's an energetic structure as solid as a steel box. Can be broken, but more difficult that a steel box. 

there is a seeker, and there is an end to the search. All that "this is all there is, there is nothing else, and it is complete." It's simply a failure to understand how reality hides itself from itself with the creation of the self. The self is a real process, and repeating that there is no self won't stop it. There is no depth in Newman's message; it's flat, empty, dead.

[Breakingthewall]

13 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

Even if you realize your nature, you still have a brain with preferences, and you can still feel physical pain right? That’s why you wouldn’t wanna go to Russian prison for 25 years

There could exist someone whose energetic structure is such that they are completely open to the absolute being, and for them it would be the same to have lung cancer as to be on a paradise beach. Form is just form; essence is everything to him.  Pain and pleasure are the same, transparent holograms through which the absolute shines through with total clarity. It is total now, always, beyond time and any human preference.

But given the energetic structure that is created by being human, it is extremely difficult to find this, maybe impossible 

[Sugarcoat]

46 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

I just finished reading a little bit of Jim Newman, which I'd never heard of before, and in two minutes, in my very humble opinion, he doesn't know what he's talking about. He's lost in the idea of no self and all that. The self is real, it's genetically encoded over millions of years of evolution, it's an energetic structure as solid as a steel box. Can be broken, but more difficult that a steel box. 

there is a seeker, and there is an end to the search. All that "this is all there is, there is nothing else, and it is complete." It's simply a failure to understand how reality hides itself from itself with the creation of the self. The self is a real process, and repeating that there is no self won't stop it. There is no depth in Newman's message; it's flat, empty, dead.

Jim Newman , Tony parsons, Lisa cairns are three examples of people who seem to me to be genuinely speaking from that place of “no self” or “source” or non duality, I  cannot know with 100% certainty, but it’s just the way they speak, it’s so direct and clear and with no hesitation, it doesn’t sound to me like they’re speaking from a place of having read about non duality then adopting it as a world view. 
 

The self seems real to me yea, so I can’t say it’s illusion. 
 

They all mention how the self “veils” oneness

His message is really simple yea and basic, 

 

[Sugarcoat]

47 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

There could exist someone whose energetic structure is such that they are completely open to the absolute being, and for them it would be the same to have lung cancer as to be on a paradise beach. Form is just form; essence is everything to him.  Pain and pleasure are the same, transparent holograms through which the absolute shines through with total clarity. It is total now, always, beyond time and any human preference.

But given the energetic structure that is created by being human, it is extremely difficult to find this, maybe impossible 

Yea there seems to be an extremely  small percent of humans living permanently open to the absolute. 
 

It’s like the brain creates the self so something very deep in there has to be shaken maybe spontaneously or through extreme practices and drugs . 

[Breakingthewall]

Just now, Sugarcoat said:

Jim Newman , Tony parsons, Lisa cairns are three examples of people who seem to me to be genuinely speaking from that place of “no self” or “source” or non duality, I  cannot know with 100% certainty, but it’s just the way they speak, it’s so direct and clear and with no hesitation, it doesn’t sound to me like they’re speaking from a place of having read about non duality then adopting it as a world view. 
 

The self seems real to me yea, so I can’t say it’s illusion. 
 

They all mention how the self “veils” oneness

His message is really simple yea and basic, 

 

Newman says this: 

Within this apparent paradox arises an experience. That experience is, that this appearance is happening to 'me'. That experience is not paradoxical; it feels very real. There's no space, no room, no possibility for the reality, that 'this' isn't happening to ‚me’. That experience of duality is dissatisfying. It's uncomfortable. Out of that experience arises the need to bring about a wholeness, to cover up the feeling that what is, isn't complete, to make the feeling that it's not okay - okay. Out of that arises the need for good and bad and right and wrong. So this appearance then turns into ‚my life‘, and my life is the need to make 'this' better, 'this' good, to find out or to solve the problem of why I don't feel like it's okay, why I feel like something's wrong, why I feel like I need to seek, to find something else.

Then, according to him, to cover the sensation of not complete of this experience, arises the need for good and bad. Well, id say that it arises after having the experience of being impaled and your children sold as slaves, eaten millions of times by crocodiles, abused, tortured, extincted, rejected, mutilated, enjailed, submitted.  From you were alone in the jungle surrounded by monsters that wanted to kill you and killed you and your entire family billions of times. Then you created an energetic structure that we call fear, and others structures that we call desire, because without them you couldn't exist. 

And at a certain point, language and the self appeared, drawing on millions of years of war. This self began its own wars, which were far more savage than those of the jungle, millions and millions of times over. War, desire, death, birth.

And this is a concept? More solid than the most solid steel box. A riddle within a riddle within a riddle. An extreme labyrinth, the ultimate game, when the rat that emerged from the hole can align its entire energy system, created over the eons, and open itself to its absolute nature.

[Breakingthewall]

14 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

but it’s just the way they speak, it’s so direct and clear and with no hesitation, it doesn’t sound to me like they’re speaking from a place of having read about non duality then adopting it as a world view. 

They could be absolutely and genuinely sure of what they say and absolutely wrong. 

[Sugarcoat]

Just now, Breakingthewall said:

They could be absolutely and genuinely sure of what they say and absolutely wrong. 

You’re funny. I’d listen to your talks if you did them

[Sugarcoat]

4 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

being impaled and your children sold as slaves, eaten millions of times by crocodiles, abused, tortured, extincted, rejected, mutilated, enjailed, submitted.  From you were alone in the jungle surrounded by monsters that wanted to kill you and killed you and your entire family billions of times.

😂😂😂ok I get it

[Sugarcoat]

5 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

And this is a concept?

He didn’t say it’s a concept he said it’s an experience/appearance which id agree I call it a “sense” 

[Sugarcoat]

9 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Then you created an energetic structure that we call fear, and others structures that we call desire, because without them you couldn't exist. 

And at a certain point, language and the self appeared, drawing on millions of years of war. This self began its own wars, which were far more savage than those of the jungle, millions and millions of times over. War, desire, death, birth.

Maybe the self arose that way. I don’t know. But for the person it seems to just plop up during childhood . That’s what I think he talks about, how it appears in one persons lifetime. I don’t think he denies science as a relative truth

Edited 7 hours ago by Sugarcoat

[Breakingthewall]

20 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

Maybe the self arose that way. I don’t know. But for the person it seems to just plop up during childhood . That’s what I think he talks about, how it appears in one persons lifetime. I don’t think he denies science as a relative truth

Their line of thinking implies that the self is a kind of conceptual error and is a real energetic structure. It's as real as something physical, just on another plane of existence. For nondualists, enlightenment is realizing that they are not the self that appears, but the complete experience—"this" as they say.

In my opinion, this is confusing and irrelevant. It's the same to think you are the separate self or the complete experience; the important thing is the openness to what you are, what your nature, your substance, is.

What they talk about is a change of mental schema, but that's still within the mind. Openness is the actual breaking of boundaries, transcending experience and being the ultimate unlimited nature. It doesn't matter if you are the separate self or everything, or whatever, if you can't break through the barrier of experience. The experience must appear as a transparent hologram, irrelevant, simply an experience. Just behind it, beneath the surface, is the whole. The whole requires total surrender, totally letting go of the mind and totally opening the heart. This means totally eliminating fear for a moment. Surrender to reality, to the total absence of foundation, knowledge, understanding, or grounding. There are energy chains that prevent you from doing this; you must dissolve them. 

Listening to non-dualists, it becomes clear that they cannot escape their prison because they do not perceive it. They truly think they are free, and are trapped in the experience.

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Sugarcoat said:

You’re funny. I’d listen to your talks if you did them

So bored talking alone, I couldn't 

[Breakingthewall]

Btw, If you seek total openness, there's something you'll find sooner, or at least in my experience: total absence, absolute emptiness. It's a very difficult experience that shrinks your soul, squeezes you, and before you can look away, you've seen absolute horror. This, for me, is typical of experiences with 5 meo, but also just meditation. Ultimately, reality is empty, lacking everything, dead, absolute death. 

This realization occurs because one last movement is missing.  there is something in the reality, there is you. What are you then? Who observes the empty reality? Are you alone in cosmic solitude observing the empty reality? Who observes? You are not observing; you are the reality. Then it opens. You are everything; there are no limits. The cup is absolutely full.