I am enlightened. Sincere seekers: ask me anything

[Forestluv]

2 hours ago, Outer said:

That's why I brought up dual aspect monism too. It seems as the researchers according to Dr. Carhart-Harris are tackling consciousness on the basis that it is circular with matter and not casually, linearly created by matter. Isn't subjective experience or dualism (or dual aspect monism) given credit by anyone's direct experience?

Yep. Just as scientists get stuck in scientific paradigms - spiritualists get stuck in spiritual paradigms. It boils down to ideology. I know it well, I was trapped in the scientific paradigm for over 20 years.

Science as materialism is a limited belief. Materialism is *within* science. The scientific method is open to the immaterial. 

[winterknight]

19 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Be mindful of your lack of direct experience and knowledge. I've spent well over 50,000 hours immersed in conducting and evaluating science. I became full immersed into science as an expert, then transcended science. From this direct experience, the views you offer on science appear very naive. It seems you are making assumptions about science without direct experience and knowledge. You are stuck within the same scientific paradigm that 99% of scientists are - yet from the outside looking in.

It's like you are speaking of the essence of a Peruvian tribe without ever visiting Peru.

For example, science is not limited to materialism.

I appreciate your thoughts but I disagree. I'm not particularly interested in getting into a debate about it, though.

24 minutes ago, Outer said:

@winterknightSee the slide at 55:00. Matter do not create  mind in a linear casual way, the relationship is circular.

Thanks, but the truth it doesn't really matter all that much one way or the other in the end. There is a direct experience of the Truth that is more important than the theories.

21 minutes ago, SoonHei said:

@winterknight

Hi

I would like to know:

1. Once you awaken /  Once you are watching and witnessing life complete from the point of view of the absolute, then:

I presume that then there are still sounds, sight, taste, sensation etc ... But no "you" to be experiencing them as that duality has collapsed...

So if there is still those senses, there must also be pain (physical pain)...

For example if, God forbid, you slipped and fell and broke your leg as a result, there would be pain... Is the degree or intensity of the pain be the same for you (winter Knight) vs for me (ego SoonHei) ? 

Does an enlightened being feel the pain equally but someone is still free from it? Or it doesn't "hurt" them anymore? Could you try and explain the pain? I guess it must be felt the same way as other senses of taste. Feel, hearing seeing etc... 

But I'd like to hear your point of view

Thanks 

 

2. Is enlightenment largely the combination of the following:

i : quieting of the mind (and)

ii: if there is still some occasional mind, then having 0 attachment with that mind? And any thoughts which arise are seen as not you and merely observed.

 

So in conclusion, am I correct to understand this intellectually that with enlightenment, this body which I currently think I am.would basically been seen to self animate itself with all actions, walking, eating driving etc. All senses would work the same way and about talking, it would just arise "automatically" without a me there running the show... Without a mind... It would just be spontaneous and it would be in tune with the "best / optimal" flow of life.

 

Thank you winter Knight.

1. Whether there is pain depends upon your context. There may appear that there is, but there is not, actually. This can only be understood when you know your true nature yourself.

2. No, enlightenment is a matter of piercing the illusion of personal identity. The best way is Ramana Maharshi's self-inquiry combined with other practices to quiet the mind.

There's no real use trying to understand the enlightened state beforehand, except to know that it is pure truth and bliss. It is beyond words and concepts, actually, and best not to weigh yourself down with expectations.

21 minutes ago, NathanKa said:

How can I truly surrender? Please, teach me to surrender with every fiber of my being.

You cannot fully surrender on your own. You can only partially surrender -- that's the most you can do. What that means is that you accept whatever happens -- both in the outside world, and in terms of your thoughts and emotions. Let it go. Let it all go. Let decisions go. Let pain go. Let the need to change things go. Or if you feel that need, let that go. Whatever you do, think, or feel, let it go, let it go, let it go. Whatever pain you experience, let it go. Whatever desire you have, let it go.

If you feel like you cannot let it go, let that feeling go too. 

That is the continuous effort of surrender. This will turn into full surrender but you cannot control when that happens.

The other possibility is to practice Ramana Maharshi's self-inquiry at all waking moments, which will automatically turn into full surrender at a certain point.

[i am I AM]

Just now, winterknight said:

 

You cannot fully surrender on your own. You can only partially surrender -- that's the most you can do. What that means is that you accept whatever happens -- both in the outside world, and in terms of your thoughts and emotions. Let it go. Let it all go. Let decisions go. Let pain go. Let the need to change things go. Or if you feel that need, let that go. Whatever you do, think, or feel, let it go, let it go, let it go. Whatever pain you experience, let it go. Whatever desire you have, let it go.

If you feel like you cannot let it go, let that feeling go too. 

That is the continuous effort of surrender. This will turn into full surrender but you cannot control when that happens.

The other possibility is to practice Ramana Maharshi's self-inquiry at all waking moments, which will automatically turn into full surrender at a certain point.

That could lead to depression. Lifelong depression; it's preferable to do this only in times of existential desperation. Yes, you can get that without self-inquiry or self-anything.

[Outer]

The experience of letting go is like choosing to not think obsessively anymore. Letting go of stirring up thoughts.

[graded24]

@winterknight

When you look at a wall, it is not that the wall exists because you are aware of it, because there is no "you looking at it". Wall just IS. It's pure self-aware being. Is that right? 

Does that mean colors that i feel like 'i see' are actually just self aware without needing a 'me'?  So are colors, thoughts, sounds are simply self-aware being?

Edited November 12, 2018 by graded24

[Pouya]

@Emanyalpsid

Language really lacks the utility in this topic tho  thank you for your help

[Evelyn]

@winterknight I started yesterday searching for this feeling of "I". I flexed my fingers, watched my breath, walked, looking very closely at who is doing it and who is observing it. I got the feeling no one is doing anything and no one is really observing anything. They happen by themselves and somehow are aware of themselves. There isn't anyone really observing. Is that the point of meditation and quiting the mind? I usually watch my breath, but that is not the point, the point is to realize no one is watching the breath and no one is doing it, it happens by itself? Am I correct in these things!?  Thank you. 

Edit: I got a new insight, I don't know if it's correct. I don't know how to really put it in words. It feels like the thing I am searching it is the thing itself. The reason I cannot see it it is because it is the thing itself. The reason nobody is doing anything or observing anything it is because everything is the thing. I felt like my whole body was alive and being this thing, this consciousness, my feet, hands, body, all was the same consciousness, there wasn't a part telling another what to do since it was all the same. For the moment I cannot get deeper because my mind is translating all this into words as I feel it and I get into thought trains, or I tend to freak out or get excited... -_-... 

Edited November 12, 2018 by Evelyn

[seeking_brilliance]

@winterknight is there, at any point, a thinker of thoughts? 

[EvilAngel]

On ‎11‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 0:26 AM, Aaron p said:

@Salvijus i think it's like when u cut yourself but don't realise for a moment, and only when you look at the cut does it begin to matter, before that point of realisation, you might experience a kind of "cool" sensation where u cut yourself. I think enlightenment is being able to experience pain, realising that it's not pain. Which enables one to look at the cut and still not feel the pain anyway...

very good analogy

[winterknight]

3 hours ago, graded24 said:

@winterknight

When you look at a wall, it is not that the wall exists because you are aware of it, because there is no "you looking at it". Wall just IS. It's pure self-aware being. Is that right? 

Does that mean colors that i feel like 'i see' are actually just self aware without needing a 'me'?  So are colors, thoughts, sounds are simply self-aware being?

Not exactly. As soon as you say "wall" -- you've brought in a concept. When you have a concept, it's attached to an "I," a mind which thinks that concept. If the mind is still and there is no thinking -- even the idea "wall" will not come to mind. No conceptualization means no wall. 

But this by itself is not enlightenment.

Enlightenment is that even if the idea "wall" comes to mind, that entire wall-mind duality is itself not conceptualized about by the mind. And that is because the background of that pairing is recognized, so that the wall-mind pairing is seen to be unreal.

So the wall-I duality is not seen as a separate thing; it's not conceptualized/identified with. 

2 hours ago, Ero said:

@winterknight

I kinda love to get taken by strong visions I have. I love being immersed in different worlds - during sleep, when I read or when I get taken by strong impressions. This still proceeds with duality in its nature. What is the innate "desire" of the Self which I'm not consciously helping? I mean I totally see this will have no end and, as any pleasure, I'll build up resistance. Have you dealt with something similar? 

The Self has no desires. The desire for visions is a desire of the mind. Nothing wrong with pursuing that desire, but while you pursue it, ask who it is that watches those visions...

2 hours ago, Mikael89 said:

Many scientists today believe that multiverse exists instead of just one single universe.

Is the multiverse eternal? And its eternal mother is Consciousness? 

If yes: it means that the dream is kind of consistent forever. Although the laws of physics can be different in the universes. So the dream isn't perfectly consistent, since in a different universe 1+1 could be 5. But atleast the multiverse aspect would be consistent forever.

Even the universe doesn't exist, let alone the multiverse. 

1 hour ago, Evelyn said:

@winterknight I started yesterday searching for this feeling of "I". I flexed my fingers, watched my breath, walked, looking very closely at who is doing it and who is observing it. I got the feeling no one is doing anything and no one is really observing anything. They happen by themselves and somehow are aware of themselves. There isn't anyone really observing. Is that the point of meditation and quiting the mind? I usually watch my breath, but that is not the point, the point is to realize no one is watching the breath and no one is doing it, it happens by itself? Am I correct in these things!?  Thank you. 

Edit: I got a new insight, I don't know if it's correct. I don't know how to really put it in words. It feels like the thing I am searching it is the thing itself. The reason I cannot see it it is because it is the thing itself. The reason nobody is doing anything or observing anything it is because everything is the thing. I felt like my whole body was alive and being this thing, this consciousness, my feet, hands, body, all was the same consciousness, there wasn't a part telling another what to do since it was all the same. For the moment I cannot get deeper because my mind is translating all this into words as I feel it and I get into thought trains, or I tend to freak or get excited... -_-... 

Yes, yes, these are exactly the insights you need to be having. Now you need to stay with it or proceed until you come to a state of calm peace even while you are doing things in the world -- and then stay with that state. And if you fall out of it, search for the I again until you come back to that state.

1 hour ago, seeking_brilliance said:

@winterknight is there, at any point, a thinker of thoughts? 

No. But don't take my word for it. Inquire yourself and find it out in your own experience. Who asks that question?

Edited November 12, 2018 by winterknight

[winterknight]

Just now, Mikael89 said:

Okay, but atleast the illusion exists, right? Even for you (even if even you are a illusion). You are just aware of that it's a illusion/"images on a TV screen."

Will that illusion exist forever? (A.k.a. images on a TV screen.)

---------------------

Consciousness would be like the TV screen, multiverse like the illumination on the TV screen which makes it possible to see anything on the TV screen, and this specific universe as the image which always changes (different universes.)

Or a alternative: Every Planck time would be a whole universe/image on the TV screen (Consciousness) in the infinite and eternal multiverse which would be the same thing as the eternal and infinite Consciousness.

---------------------

Okay maybe this is mental masturbation.. or.. maybe this is contemplation?

The truth is that to say that the illusion exists is, strictly speaking, wrong... but that's not going to make any sense until you yourself have a direct experience of the truth. The images on a TV screen cannot even be called images on a TV screen. 

But from the seeker's standpoint, it will seem as if the illusion goes on.

Well, whether it's mental masturbation or not, I have no particular opinions on whether the multiverse concept is correct or not... 

[kieranperez]

21 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Absolutely

Law of attraction baby. Whatever your heart most desires to know it will ultimately receive an answer to. And if you desire nothing you will get nothing.

Metaphysical curiosity is a damn powerful force if you can cultivate it.

Book: The Ancient Science of Mantras by Om Swami

[Forestluv]

2 minutes ago, winterknight said:

The truth is that to say that the illusion exists is, strictly speaking, wrong... but that's not going to make any sense until you yourself have a direct experience of the truth. The images on a TV screen cannot even be called images on a TV screen. 

But from the seeker's standpoint, it will seem as if the illusion goes on.

Well, whether it's mental masturbation or not, I have no particular opinions on whether the multiverse concept is correct or not... 

When the illusion is realized, what remains?

[winterknight]

26 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

When the illusion is realized, what remains?

Nothing that can be spoken about or named

[Forestluv]

6 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Nothing that can be spoken about or named

So, is everything spoken about in this thread illusion?

Is that aligned with the saying "The words are merely pointers to that which cannot be explained"?

[graded24]

1 hour ago, winterknight said:

Not exactly. As soon as you say "wall" -- you've brought in a concept. When you have a concept, it's attached to an "I," a mind which thinks that concept. If the mind is still and there is no thinking -- even the idea "wall" will not come to mind. No conceptualization means no wall. 

But this by itself is not enlightenment.

Enlightenment is that even if the idea "wall" comes to mind, that entire wall-mind duality is itself not conceptualized about by the mind. And that is because the background of that pairing is recognized, so that the wall-mind pairing is seen to be unreal.

So the wall-I duality is not seen as a separate thing; it's not conceptualized/identified with. 

 

Sorry I did not follow what you're trying to say. 
Could you please simply describe what is happening from your vantage point, when your body-mind is sitting say in a room? Could you describe the direct experience and the interpretation you'd give to someone of that experience? 
What is your I-ness now? 
I understand some of it would be hard to communicate but you can try
 

Edited November 13, 2018 by graded24

[winterknight]

24 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

So, is everything spoken about in this thread illusion?

Is that aligned with the saying "The words are merely pointers to that which cannot be explained"?

Sort of and yes. The words are illusion, but what they point to (without being able to accurately capture) is not.

16 minutes ago, graded24 said:

Sorry I did not follow what you're trying to say. 
Could you please simply describe what is happening from your vantage point, when your body-mind is sitting say in a room? Could you describe the direct experience and the interpretation you'd give to someone of that experience? 
I understand some of it would be hard to communicate but you can try

I already tried, but you didn't get it. That's understandable. It's impossible for you to get. For me to try to describe it in ever more elaborate terms is not going to be helpful. It would just be like this:

The room is not there, and the room is not not there. The room is not both there and not there. 

See? Is that useful? Of course not.

[Ananta]

1 hour ago, winterknight said:

The truth is that to say that the illusion exists is, strictly speaking, wrong...

I disagree, the illusion exists, its just not ultimately real. 

When students say to the master...."I dont exist". The master wacks them over the head with a board and says, "now do you exist?"

[winterknight]

23 minutes ago, Mikael89 said:

 I think that can be helpful, atleast for me. Atleast as a pointer that enlightenment is indeed something extreme.

This stuff is deep.

That's the scary thing with enlightenment. Nobody who is not fully enlightened can know what enlightenment really is. It could be something really bad. Some teachers actually say that enlightenment is only a bad thing, I think.

Mind boggling.. 

It's not a bad thing. It's the best possible thing, even though it is unimaginable. 

[i am I AM]

@winterknight Yes, I have always heard enlightenment is the best possible thing. What is best? You haven't told us yet. Perhaps that is easier for me to understand than the information given by you, so far.

(It seems now to me that better and worse can only be labels and determined in the mind.)