I am enlightened. Sincere seekers: ask me anything

[legendary]

@winterknight 

Are you fully enlightened/liberated?

I believe self-inquiry can lead to genuine insights into the true nature of reality, however, that may not be permanent + it may not be complete.

In Buddhist/Hindu jargon, what I'm asking is whether you have escaped from the cycle of death & rebirth.

Also, do you dream at night?

Do you still have a shadow-self?

Thanks! Apologies if this has already been answered.

[EvilAngel]

4 minutes ago, winterknight said:

It certainly seems like that to the one who feels like they have to put forth effort. But in fact enlightenment is the realization that that person doesn't exist... so I would say enlightenment is both simple and easy. So simple and easy that in fact it is already accomplished.

Sweet.

[winterknight]

4 minutes ago, legendary said:

@winterknight 

Are you fully enlightened/liberated?

I believe self-inquiry can lead to genuine insights into the true nature of reality, however, that may not be permanent + it may not be complete.

In Buddhist/Hindu jargon, what I'm asking is whether you have escaped from the cycle of death & rebirth.

Also, do you dream at night?

Do you still have a shadow-self?

Thanks! Apologies if this has already been answered.

Yes, I am. "Dreams" and "shadow self" are terminology in the paradigm of maya. Only if we accept maya then they exist. And I do not accept maya. But if I did, then, yes, there are still dreams at night and shadow selves.

[Jack River]

44 minutes ago, winterknight said:

It can be. The mind focuses on one thought. The one thought is the relative silence that will lead to the absolute silence.

Does this relative silence with its focusing/excluding imply a imposed silence? Does this movement of focus/control sustain psychological conflict/division? As it does imply a controller. 

[Jack River]

Kinda reminds me of how I use to meditate with an intention to bring about a desired state of contentment. 

[winterknight]

3 minutes ago, Jack River said:

Does this relative silence with its focusing/excluding imply a imposed silence? Does this movement of focus/control sustain psychological conflict/division? As it does imply a controller. 

It's true, it is a kind of focus/control that implies a controller, but the seeker already believes there is a controller. So they must be led through that idea into something else. It does not sustain psychological division but first reduces it, and then destroys it.

As Ramana Maharshi used to say, spiritual practice is like the stick that is used to light a funeral pyre. First it burns everything else, and then it itself burns away.

You seem to be on more of a "surrender" path, which is equally wonderful... but even surrender implies effort and control.

Edited November 10, 2018 by winterknight

[Annoynymous]

@winterknight Is death beautiful?

[Emanyalpsid]

1 hour ago, winterknight said:

Yes, but when you use words you are trapped by them. The experience I'm talking about is the realization of the inadequacy of words to speak about the truth. 

If you insist on asking great philosophical questions while in the world of words, don't expect answers. They are not to be had.

These are not great philosophical questions but are very practical oriented questions. That you don`t understand the questions is something different.

I will help you though. Non-self is only half of the path to enlightenment in terms of the buddhist use of this term.

The right answer, in terms of insight into the nature of reality, would be: It does not exist upon itself as it is of dependent origin. For the flower to exist it is dependent upon space, time, matter, gravity etc. So the essence of the flower is empty as it is of dependent origin.

If the flower would only exist out of matter, for example, it would exist upon itself; the matter. If it exists upon itself, you can perceive, or give meaning to it through itself. So one might have let go of the believe of the self, but one is left with the believe of itself. That is the self of it, thinking it exists upon itself. This is your `higher` ego, the ego of it. 

For the flower to be perceived, something needs to be conscious of it. As your consciousness is also dependent on matter, gravity, space and time, as you need eyes, etc. to perceive the flower and you need a certain distance from the flower to see it, there is nothing actually being perceived. For what is being perceived, is being perceived through it. It came mutually dependent into existence.

 

Therefore it doesn't need to experience itself as it knows that itself came into existence through it. Itself will dissolve, Nirvana.

Edit: if you don´t undertand this based upon this text alone, read http://www.foundationsofhumanlife.com. Everything is explained there from beginning to end. Read and reflect! But I would advice to read everything and from the beginning.

Edited November 10, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[winterknight]

1 minute ago, Ero said:

@winterknight Will this overwhelm you at some point? The thread I mean. 

I don't think so. I may get bored of it eventually, or I might feel like I've stopped helping people, at which time I might stop.

1 minute ago, Annoynymous said:

@winterknight Is death beautiful?

Hard to say. There is no death.

1 minute ago, Emanyalpsid said:

Therefore it doesn't need to experience itself as it knows that itself came into existence through it. 

Glad you have the answers. Enjoy.

[Forestluv]

18 minutes ago, winterknight said:

And I do not accept maya. But if I did, then, yes, there are still dreams at night and shadow selves.

How would you describe the “I” that does not accept maya? 

[winterknight]

1 minute ago, Serotoninluv said:

How would you describe the “I” that does not accept maya? 

As also maya.

[Jack River]

 

3 minutes ago, winterknight said:

So they must be led through that idea into something else. It does not sustain psychological division but first reduces it, and then destroys it.

But can we say that this sustains conflict as it is resistance/attachment which brings about reaction itself? Can we say that conflict itself sustains self/divison? It’s kinda like saying psychological time will end by moving on that path of psychological time. Do you understand what I mean dude? 

[Annoynymous]

@winterknight Is there any life?

[Forestluv]

2 minutes ago, winterknight said:

As also maya.

Ahhh, so the “I” that doesn’t accept maya, is itself maya. Great stuff

[Wisebaxter]

@winterknight 

1. It seems a theme in spirituality that the world I see is born from some unmanifested void which I am, that when I look away from objects, they no longer exist, until I look at them again. Is this true? That I'm God and I'm creating it all? The world around me seems to have such an independent existence from me...

 

Edited November 10, 2018 by Wisebaxter

[Jack River]

8 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

How would you describe the “I” that does not accept maya? 

Resistance

 

3 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Ahhh, so the “I” that doesn’t accept maya, is itself maya. Great stuff

Any choice to accept or deny is a movement of thought as self is still in psychological pursuit. Therefore the illusion is still in movement. Thought going beyond its limit. 

Edited November 10, 2018 by Jack River

[Annoynymous]

@winterknight asking question and seeing your answer seems fruitless to me. Everything that you say goes way aside to understand for me and it is frustrating. Its not your fault. Maybe these things can not be delivered through words. Its enlightment and its realization.

[Emanyalpsid]

14 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Glad you have the answers. Enjoy.

That you dont know this means that you are only enlightened in the western sense of the word enlightened, with which I mean; the realization of non-self. There are several people on this forum who also reached this state from my interpretation. This state is however only half of the insight, or half of the path to full enlightenment, as thought by the buddha. 

But congrats, enjoy and may you be well.

[Outer]

You write a bit like Jed McKenna. But Jed makes Truth seems so unpalatable.

@winterknight

Edited November 10, 2018 by Outer

[Jack River]

43 minutes ago, winterknight said:

You seem to be on more of a "surrender" path, which is equally wonderful... but even surrender implies effort and control.

 

Well I would say when I saw that the self and the path are one movement of time that huge insight put order in thought and therefore psychological freedom without intention/effort/motive/psychological time..Then there was no path that was creating conflict as I was not in pursuit in the first place. When there was freedom by seeing the fact that the self and the path were actually the same process of divison in movement, that was truth/acting on that movement of thought/divison which ended that movement. 

For me I would say there was actually no control which is effort in this action. Actually control/effort to attain an outcome is a divided action itself. What I am speaking of is total action that is not divided. It is not action influenced by a progression of cultivation to become, but the result of an insight/understanding beyond the intellectual/verbal/conceptual of the intellect.

It is an insight that sees thought as a unit of movement. It sees the whole of thought and its process. In this seeing there is a total ending of movement as the self/thought. In this holistic insight awareness is aware of its own movement and doesn’t react to that movement as to sustain it. 

Edited November 10, 2018 by Jack River