I am enlightened. Sincere seekers: ask me anything

[Hellspeed]

1 minute ago, i am I AM said:

But  if you came from conflict, how can you now be free of it?

Or those that came from no conflict, what is becoming of them, according to self?

There must be another category or more, besides these two.

No conflict, no growth, the Pacifism idea is just an idea to control the zombies who sleep. 

Edited November 12, 2018 by Hellspeed

[Jack River]

1 minute ago, Hellspeed said:

And to awaken one has to discover the 6 & 9 Fibonacci spirals in the body if you know what I mean, they are physical, don't ask me, ask your breath or follow the fancy mind of yours. 

love you man?

[Hellspeed]

Just now, Jack River said:

love you man?

I don't, only Appreciate you. 

[Jack River]

 

[Hellspeed]

1 minute ago, Jack River said:

 

Use more of the horns, the shaka shaka will make you have a big awesome brain with full of something, i hope you get my jokes. 

[i am I AM]

That's not pacifism....that's everything.

To you it is symbols on a website, or not everything. Unless you're myself. So how can anyone teach anything? 

I think theys are talking to themselves! 

And yeah, I would've had a hard time really believing that if it were on a less similar venue. 

But I would like to add, in spite of all the above par.'s: Is that important to You? Is that the missing infos? Or do you need something more?

 

...(And by more I mean less, for the lessone.)

[Hellspeed]

7 minutes ago, i am I AM said:

That's not pacifism....that's everything.

To you it is symbols on a website, or not everything. Unless you're myself. So how can anyone teach anything? 

I think theys are talking to themselves! 

And yeah, I would've had a hard time really believing that if it were on a less similar venue. 

But I would like to add, in spite of all the above par.'s: Is that important to You? Is that the missing infos? Or do you need something more?

 

...(And by more I mean less, for the lessone.)

But at the same time, we are 100% separate from anything else while being connected hihihi. So, in reality, I talk to myself and not, what is the third? 

[Hellspeed]

Doing my doing is not your doing and your doing is not my doing.@i am I AM

[Wisebaxter]

@winterknight I've heard it said that concepts and thoughts are illusions and all there is is actuality, or being, but aren't thoughts and concepts themselves just as much a part of being as anything else? Why is an 'I' thought any less real than that object which looks like a tree? Both are real things and have a being-ness to them, even if one seems more abstract. Thoughts and concepts seem to be downgraded in spirituality but they seem as much a part of the world as anything else, so why can't they be real?

Edited November 12, 2018 by Wisebaxter

[graded24]

On 11/9/2018 at 11:28 AM, winterknight said:

This is a tricky question for me to answer -- I don't really think of things in that way. I know some people consider an absence of self-referential thoughts to be the hallmark of a quiet mind, but the truth is that I think the distinction is artificial.

Anything that is recognized as a "thought" has an element of self-reference to it. Whether one says the word "I" or not, if there is a thought, there is an implied I. The sense of disturbance that accompanies it, that sense of "identification," is really what might mark it as self-referential.

The problem is that that sense of identification is itself an illusion... so we are asking about the details of a mirage here.

How often do you get "thoughts" ? 

[i am I AM]

@Hellspeed The link is the other category. An example is how scientists are trying to reconcile/link physical and quantum processes.

[winterknight]

20 minutes ago, Wisebaxter said:

@winterknight I've heard it said that concepts and thoughts are illusions and all there is is actuality, or being, but aren't thoughts and concepts themselves just as much a part of being as anything else? Why is an 'I' thought any less real than that object which looks like a tree? Both are real things and have a being-ness to them, even if one seems more abstract. Thoughts and concepts seem to be downgraded in spirituality but they seem as much a part of the world as anything else, so why can't they be real?

We have to understand carefully what is meant by the idea that they are not "real." What that means is that they are not what they seem to be. What they seem to be is "concepts and thoughts." But this is the result of a mistaken belief about what we are.

That is, we define objects from a kind of perspective that assumes that we are independent selves viewing objects. Only by occupying this mistaken position is it possible to see these kinds of objects, to draw these kinds of boundaries.

If we remove, through self-inquiry, that mistaken belief about what we are -- then we will no longer be able to see the objects this way. The objects will no longer seem to be what we thought they were. 

It's as if we were looking through a weird set of distorting glasses. Take the glasses off, and -- boom -- things look totally different. Through the glasses we might see what we thought was a man. Take the glasses off and it turns out it was a tree. Where'd the man go? Wasn't the man real? Well, no, the man simply never was.

Or we we think of a cool idea in our dreams -- we think it's going to change the world. When we wake up, it's total gibberish. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Wasn't it real, what we thought? No -- what we thought simply was nonsense. Only we didn't realize it at the time in the dream.

So similarly, it turns out that the very idea of  "concepts and thoughts" is itself part of the result of that mistaken belief about ourselves.

So what are these things actually? Well, all we can say upon recognizing our true identity is that 

a) they are not what we thought they were

b) they are so much not what we thought they were that we cannot even call them "objects" or "concepts" or "thoughts"

c) they are so much not what we thought they were that we cannot even call them "things" -- we cannot even call them "them"

d) they are so much not what we thought they were that we cannot even say that they "are"

e) whatever they are, they must be nothing other than the Self

9 minutes ago, graded24 said:

How often do you get "thoughts" ? 

Technically, I am not the one who thinks, so never. But if you prefer me to admit for the sake of discussion that I am the one who thinks, then -- sometimes, but less than before.

Edited November 12, 2018 by winterknight

[Wisebaxter]

@winterknight That was an in-depth and illuminating answer, thank you

[graded24]

@winterknight  Could you please clarify the following for me. Sorry if some of these are something you have already answered,

1- If there is no "I" then what is the meaning of "I am enlightened" ? Who started this post?

2- If there is no separate you from me, then how come there is Ignorance "here" but not "there"? (I didnt ask why is there enlightenment there but not here because I know you'd reply that it is here but i dont see it :P)

2- Is it possible to follow the path and get enlightened without causing too much trouble for your family, which means managing wife, kids and a successful career (a successful career because i am already on that path and leaving that will cause my dependent suffering) ? 

3- Ramana maharshi and others say the Self has an I-AMness to it which the ego appropriates. "The source of ego is God" as Ramana maharshi puts it. But Nisaragadatta emphasizes that the Absolute is beyong this I-AMness. "The Absolute does not know it is". Could you please clarify this one for me? 

 

Thank you,

[graded24]

9 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Technically, I am not the one who thinks, so never. But if you prefer me to admit for the sake of discussion that I am the one who thinks, then -- sometimes, but less than before.

Well, I certainly did not ask how often you 'think thoughts'. I can ask the question in a twisted language avoiding a thinker altogether, but of course you understand what i mean in any case. 

In almost all traditions, advaita and Buddhists alike, frequency of thoughts is a litmus-test against any self-delusions of realizing the Self. I remember a story from Sam Harris's book Waking Up about a female Student of Poonja-ji in India. She  declared enlightenment and was ordained by her Guru as a nondual Teacher. Then harris traveled to a Buddhist place with her where the Buddhist monk clearly saw through her claim and said "ok, we are going to sit here calmly until you get the next thought. Let us know". And within minutes she was like "uh, oh here is one..". Harris commented on this that Advaita for all its greatness runs into this problem often. 

[winterknight]

3 minutes ago, graded24 said:

@winterknight  Could you please clarify the following for me. Sorry if some of these are something you have already answered,

1- If there is no "I" then what is the meaning of "I am enlightened" ? Who started this post?

2- If there is no separate you from me, then how come there is Ignorance "here" but not "there"? (I didnt ask why is there enlightenment there but not here because I know you'd reply that it is here but i dont see it :P)

2- Is it possible to follow the path and get enlightened without causing too much trouble for your family, which means managing wife, kids and a successful career (a successful career because i am already on that path and leaving that will cause my dependent suffering) ? 

3- Ramana maharshi and others say the Self has an I-AMness to it which the ego appropriates. "The source of ego is God" as Ramana maharshi puts it. But Nisaragadatta emphasizes that the Absolute is beyong this I-AMness. "The Absolute does not know it is". Could you please clarify this one for me? 

1. It's a paradox. It's a message to seekers, who will find later on that it is a contradiction.

2. Ignorance is not here but not there. To think that is itself ignorance. And to understand that statement, you have to follow the path.

3. Yes. Whatever you are doing, wherever you are, you can engage in Ramana Maharshi's self-inquiry. It may take a little bit of practice at first, but you will quickly get the hang of it. You will do no worse than you otherwise would have done. 

4. They are using the words "I am" in different ways. In this particular case, RM's "I am" is the true I am, which knows itself nondually. Nisargadatta is talking about the dualistic "I am," which feels that it is, which knows itself as an object. "The Absolute does not know it is" as an object. It knows itself nondually. So they are simply using slightly different terminology.

Just now, graded24 said:

Well, I certainly did not ask how often you 'think thoughts'. I can ask the question in a twisted language avoiding a thinker altogether, but of course you understand what i mean in any case. 

In almost all traditions, advaita and Buddhists alike, frequency of thoughts is a litmus-test against any self-delusions of realizing the Self. I remember a story from Sam Harris's book Waking Up about a female Student of Poonja-ji in India. She  declared enlightenment and was ordained by her Guru as a nondual Teacher. Then harris traveled to a Buddhist place with her where the Buddhist monk clearly saw through her claim and said "ok, we are going to sit here calmly until you get the next thought. Let us know". And within minutes she was like "uh, oh here is one..". Harris commented on this that Advaita for all its greatness runs into this problem often. 

For the enlightened one, even thought is non-thought. Conversely, even the absence of thought is thought. The one who understands this understands their true nature.

[graded24]

8 minutes ago, winterknight said:

For the enlightened one, even thought is non-thought. Conversely, even the absence of thought is thought. The one who understands this understands their true nature.

What is the 'enlightened one' ? For there to be one, there is also an unenlightened one. Why is this  duality there? 

[winterknight]

Just now, graded24 said:

What is the 'enlightened one' ? For there to be one, there is also an unenlightened one. Why is this  duality there? 

You were talking about tests of self-delusion. Such a test already invokes a duality, a duality which has to be pierced with another duality. If there are no enlightened ones, then there are also no unenlightened ones and no tests for self-delusion.  You pick the context...

[i am I AM]

@graded24 Not to mention, if the enlightened is witnessing self/consciousness/ourselves, then what are we but all the same one? So who is teaching?

Intriguing. The no self deal has so far been too complicated, and it would be cool if someone could simplify it to a more "democratic level". I don't think I'm qualified to do that.

[i am I AM]

@winterknight So pick whatever one believes seems preferable, et al.?

Sorry but that's what I got from your symbols, lol.