Two Ways of Looking at Enlightenment, How to Reconcile Them

[yawning_]

how to reconcile them?

 

realize there is no one actually looking? or nothing to look with/at?

 

look at them both simultaneously?

 

why not order it like this though:

(0) there is no me

(1) everything is me

 

or better yet like this:

is not nothing everything?

 

by its nature, its paradoxical to put into concept or words...

 

interested to see your take

 

 

n̖͕̥̹̹̯̘̞̙̭̦̝̥͇̗̤ͯͤ̔̒ͩ͌͗̑̇ͪ͆ͩ̌͛̀̅͌̔̓ͅa͕͇͓̖̭͖̭̳͚͇̲̫̪̮͒͛͒̓̒̇͊ͨ͑ͮ̽̄m̗̺̹̬͍͌̆̀̄̊̾a̟͉͍͙͔̪͔̣͙̹͗̒̇͂ͯͯ͛̅̿̈̔̌ͤ̅͂͗ṡ̞̦̤͉̠̖͙̫̞͈ͭ̔̉̒͒̍ͥ̽͆́ͬͅͅt̞̲̪̱͍̯͖͕͙̣͚̲̺̼̹̝̓͋̓̿ͭ̑̅ͮ̃͐̑ͅͅe̹̩̟̘͓̹͖̝̬̒̐̿͑̍̄͗̑̉̾̆̍̊̊͛ͦ͂̚

 

- yawning gap

[Joseph Maynor]

The way I see it 'there is no me' means the Egoic self is an illusion of Maya, and illusion of Thought and Experience.  'Everything is me' means that the true Self is all that actually exists.

Edited September 14, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[tsuki]

16 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Two Ways of Looking at Enlightenment, How to Reconcile Them

(1) Everything is me.

(2) There is no me.

'Me' is defined against the 'other'. I am where the other isn't. 
Boundlessness is neither me, nor the other. Once there is no 'me' and no 'other', there can be no "Everything is me".
Once there is no 'me', the only thing is 'everything=nothing'.

Reconciliation of (1) and (2) is done via polar thinking.
It will not make it any more meaningful though.

30 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

The way I see it 'there is no me' means the Egoic self is an illusion of Maya, and illusion of Thought and Experience.  'Everything is me' means that the true Self is all that actually exists.

It works only if egoic self is not the same as the Self. 

[yawning_]

@Joseph Maynor

well put, i can certainly see it from that perspective

i would love to dive deeper into this ~

 

"all that actually exists" what this is defined as/ referring to is crucial imo

 

would you not consider the concept of the illusory self to exist just as the concept of the true self?

or would you just say concept[ion] is illusory.  & "true self" is not conceptual/definable?

 

in either case, its difficult to say what actually exists

 

ñ̦̖͔̭̹̟̮̠̠̭͍̗̼͕̜̠̞̉̆ͩa̲̞͍̗̥̓͌͌ͭ͆́ͧͤͥ̓m̩͇͙̻̘͔̿̓̿̓ͬ̽a̝̝̳̙̮̗̪̬̟͎̜͈͚͋̆̓̽̋̐͋ͧ̋͊ͦ̏̊̈ͬ̌̊s͍͔̝̯͎̙͉̪̙̪̙̯̗̬̭͙̜ͬ̈́̔̊ͯ̐̃̅̐̆̇ͫ́͋̓̆ͅt͕̻̭̰̼͙̜̞̺̯̺̻͈͌̓̓ͩ̂̉́̅ͦ̆͛ͥ̿̋̆ͤ̒̊ͭe͍̖͎̼̰̩̼̥̱̻̾́͛̆ͅ

 

- yawning gap

Edited September 14, 2018 by yawning_
@

[Joseph Maynor]

16 minutes ago, tsuki said:

'Me' is defined against the 'other'. I am where the other isn't. 
Boundlessness is neither me, nor the other. Once there is no 'me' and no 'other', there can be no "Everything is me".
Once there is no 'me', the only thing is 'everything=nothing'.

Reconciliation of (1) and (2) is done via polar thinking.
It will not make it any more meaningful though.

It works only if egoic self is not the same as the Self. 

The Egoic self is an illusion of Thought and Experience.  The true Self is God Awareness.

Edited September 14, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[tsuki]

19 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

The Egoic self is an illusion of Thought and Experience.  The true Self is God Awareness.

As if such labels make it any less vague.

"Me" is defined by a boundary apart from "the other". Seeing a difference between Egoic self and God Awareness is egoic.

[Consept]

11 hours ago, DrewNows said:

Maybe not directly but don't see how it would hurt  

Distortion could lead to ego-made false truths regarding enlightenment . In my experience, perspective is a powerful tool for introspection 

@Joseph MaynorThanks I enjoy the simplicity 

But there is your issue, how can you understand something logically that can not be understood using logic? 

What you're talking about has to be experienced and can only be seen on that level. Language by its nature is limiting, if I write a book about how an apple tastes and you haven't eaten an apple you will still not know after reading my book, you may think you know but you won't really. Without direct experience all of your ideas are ego made distortions 

[DrewNows]

5 hours ago, Consept said:

But there is your issue, how can you understand something logically that can not be understood using logic? 

There was no claim here that conceptualization is needed to reach enlightenment. You may have assumed that was the point of this topic. 

Yes words can only be used as pointers but there is still merit for gaining a conceptual understanding of enlightenment as long as one recognizes it as only an idea that can only be fully understood with experience

After my enlightenment experience my mind eventually wanted to explain what had occurred but i could not figure out how to put it into words. So realizing the limitations is very important. 

[Joseph Maynor]

On 9/14/2018 at 4:54 AM, tsuki said:

As if such labels make it any less vague.

"Me" is defined by a boundary apart from "the other". Seeing a difference between Egoic self and God Awareness is egoic.

Seeing trumps thinking.  You can see that there’s nothing behind Thought and Experience.  It’s not that Thought and Experience don’t exist, it’s that there’s nothing behind the scenes with it.  So, the only thing that properly exists is Awareness that understands that it exists alone — and this is called God Awareness.  Thinking about non-duality as not carving up Experience is trumped by seeing that Maya a.k.a. Thought and Experience are an illusion.  

Edited September 22, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[who chit]

Only a thing can be experienced. A thought,sensation,perception. But,who/what experiences it?
Can nothing..no-thing,be experienced?

In seeing some-thing/object,does one experience seeing some-thing? Or, is there only the awareness/knowing of seeing?
Does one experience a thought,sensation,perception or is there only the awareness/knowing of it?

If one is identified with, or as, body-mind-me,they will directly experience being thoughts,sensations and perceptions.
The isness that is aware/knowing,does not directly experience such. The formless, does not directly experience, form.

If the body is "mine"/"me",only the "thing/form" (i.e.,body-mind-me), experiences the "things"/objects. 
Thoughts sensations perceptions.

That which is no-thing,is only aware/knowing of,  the "thing/form" that is experiencing a 'thing".
Which = form experiencing form. Thing, experiencing a thing.

In the absence of "things/objects" (i.e.,"every-thing")... only no-thing/emptiness.. is.
Every-thing, comes from no-thing/emptiness,and returns to no-thing/emptiness.
Therefore every-thing is no-thing(emptiness). No-thing/emptiness, is everything.

Only awareness,which is not a thing, i.e,.empty of thingness, is.


 

Edited September 22, 2018 by who chit

[yawning_]

@who chit

excellently broken down!

 

 

n͈̫̭̤̹͙͈̳͚̪̣͉̘͙̜̮̥̦͂ͮ̀̿ͭ̿͂̐͛͌ͮͤͧ̏͋ͤ̒̋̚ͅa͖̮̱̯̣̗̤̣̥ͫ̔̓ͤ̎̏̈́͑͒̇ͭ̂̏ͧ́̚m̼͚̭̝̤̗͔͓͔̬͖̾́̎ͤ̔͗ͪͦͣ͆̾̓̈́̾̒ͮͅä̖̼̺͕̪̺̘̝͈̉͋ͭ̊̅̈́ͬͅś̱͍̣̠͛̄̽͒̿ͯ̏̓̓͗̚t͚͔̣͎̙̮̙͊͛̈ͨ̒̍̌͌͑̎̾́̚ͅe͔̺͙̝̲̐̂̆ͣͩͣ̎

 

- yawning gap

[who chit]

@yawning_

[WelcometoReality]

@who chit Beautifully said. 

If no-thingness can't be experienced can it really exist without thing-ness?

Or is no-thingness and thingness intertwined?

[Joseph Maynor]

On 9/21/2018 at 10:03 PM, who chit said:

Only a thing can be experienced. A thought,sensation,perception. But,who/what experiences it?
Can nothing..no-thing,be experienced?

In seeing some-thing/object,does one experience seeing some-thing? Or, is there only the awareness/knowing of seeing?
Does one experience a thought,sensation,perception or is there only the awareness/knowing of it?

If one is identified with, or as, body-mind-me,they will directly experience being thoughts,sensations and perceptions.
The isness that is aware/knowing,does not directly experience such. The formless, does not directly experience, form.

If the body is "mine"/"me",only the "thing/form" (i.e.,body-mind-me), experiences the "things"/objects. 
Thoughts sensations perceptions.

That which is no-thing,is only aware/knowing of,  the "thing/form" that is experiencing a 'thing".
Which = form experiencing form. Thing, experiencing a thing.

In the absence of "things/objects" (i.e.,"every-thing")... only no-thing/emptiness.. is.
Every-thing, comes from no-thing/emptiness,and returns to no-thing/emptiness.
Therefore every-thing is no-thing(emptiness). No-thing/emptiness, is everything.

Only awareness,which is not a thing, i.e,.empty of thingness, is.


 

This is too Thought-laden.  Seeing is seeing.  Seeing doesn't require Thought.  The Egoic mind loves this kind of analysis, but this doesn't prove anything in true Metaphysics.  The Truth is a seeing not a Thinking. 

Edited September 23, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[who chit]

On 9/23/2018 at 1:12 PM, Joseph Maynor said:

This is too Thought-laden.  Seeing is seeing.  Seeing doesn't require Thought.  The Egoic mind loves this kind of analysis, but this doesn't prove anything in true Metaphysics.  The Truth is a seeing not a Thinking. 

I agree. But is there not the awareness that "seeing is seeing". If one closes their eyes,there is awareness of "not seeing". Open them again,there is awareness of seeing. Awareness itself does not "see or not see". There's only the awareness of seeing,hearing ,tasting,etc., or , the not seeing, not hearing, not tasting etc.. No doer.
The dream or illusion is that there's a doer.

Edited September 28, 2018 by who chit

[Joseph Maynor]

41 minutes ago, who chit said:

I agree. But is there not the awareness that "seeing is seeing". If one closes their eyes,there is awareness of "not seeing". Open them again,there is awareness of seeing. Awareness itself does not "see or not see". There's only the awareness of seeing,hearing ,tasting,etc., or , the not seeing, not hearing, not tasting etc.. No doer.
The dream or illusion is that there's a doer.

Yeah, but we gotta use language to communicate.  What I'm communicating is 'prior to' language and has nothing to do with Thinking; it's a seeing.  It's not like I can mind-meld people without using language.  I'm forced to try to put my seeing into words, otherwise it stays with me.  So, to communicate, we are forced to use Thought in order to point others to see what we see.  Even you're using language to try to refute me.  It's a useless game.  If my insights resonate with you, take them.  If they don't, ignore them or ask me to clarify them.  But to argue with me is pointless, and for me to argue with you is pointless.  I'm simply sharing my personal development.  If you can get something from it, great.  If not, it's pointless to argue with me. You don't argue with George Carlin about his approach to comedy.  It's who he is.  He's just sharing who he is.  It's not to be argued with, it's to be taken as more like a work of art.  And not everybody resonates with the same art.  Ditto for Enlightenment teachings.  Do I consider myself to be an Enlightenment teacher?  No.  But to share insights as I do at this level requires teaching, and so I am a teacher whether I want to be or not to post these insights.

Edited September 28, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[who chit]

Your insights are valued.
If you noticed the first two words of my post ("I agree"),there was not an attempt to argue a point. Only a further clarification of my previous post on awareness,which you called "too thought laden".

Quote

This is too Thought-laden.  Seeing is seeing.  Seeing doesn't require Thought.  The Egoic mind loves this kind of analysis, but this doesn't prove anything in true Metaphysics.  The Truth is a seeing not a Thinking. 

Yet here you post:

40 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

So, to communicate, we are forced to use Thought in order to point others to see what we see.

Which is what my previous post was attempting to do.

 

Quote

 If my insights resonate with you, take them.  If they don't, ignore them or ask me to clarify them. 

I agree .

Edited September 28, 2018 by who chit