I am enlightened. Sincere seekers: ask me anything

[winterknight]

16 minutes ago, i am I AM said:

@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.)

The end of suffering, that's what's best.

[winterknight]

5 minutes ago, Mikael89 said:

I can't trust your words. 

You said it yourself:

"Nothing that can be spoken about or named"

(Including even that sentence.)

True, but a seeker has to grasp on to anything they can!

For example, it is ultimately true that "there is nothing to be done. You are already the Truth."

But for a seeker there very much is something to be done. Effort must be exerted. Even not to exert any effort at all -- surrender -- requires effort for the seeker.

So to know that enlightenment is worthwhile -- even if it cannot be explained exactly how -- can be motivating...and that can be helpful for a seeker.

So for a seeker, there is an ultimate truth (say, effortlessness), and an apparent truth (effort).

Or the ultimate truth is that nothing can be said about it, but the apparent truth is that it's the best possible thing in life to obtain.

Seekers need to keep both these truths in mind, until the apparent truth resolves into the ultimate.

Edited November 13, 2018 by winterknight

[winterknight]

43 minutes ago, Anna1 said:

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?"

Yes, that's because they are still seekers, and that's a zen tactic to get them out of intellectualizing things.

[i am I AM]

@winterknight That sounds like evangelism. But of course, what more can I ask for, if I am ever a disturbance in an otherwise peaceful and undisturbed waters?

[Ananta]

29 minutes ago, winterknight said:

The end of suffering, that's what's best.

Hello Winterknight, 

Yes, it's the end of suffering that is the point really. I mean what else, well, of course knowing the ultimate truth, that's the other. Not some fantasy some ppl try to portray enlightenment to be. I mean really what's looking is what all are looking for, yes? Having that flash of realization, then assimilatin that onto ones apparent life. That's enlightenment, as far as I'm concerned.

I find this comment of yours interesting-

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

My apologies I couldn't quote it with the other quote (or I don't know how). So, for you, you are not still associated with the body/mind/sense complex  (aka, person)? It is not "within" your awareness,... here and now? 

 

 

 

[winterknight]

1 minute ago, Mikael89 said:

@winterknight "Nothing exists, not even illusions." what you are saying would make sense from my perspective if you would be a philosophical zombie. And I would be the only one Conscious in Existence. That would mean I'm your and everyone elses God.

I can imagine a "enlightened philosophical zombie" (a empty shell who seems to have a inner world but really doesn't) would talk like you do.

But.. you will say that I don't exist either. So, if I believe that one sentence, then I will be nothing. But if I don't believe that, then I would be God. 

It's not that you don't exist or I don't exist, but that we are not what we think we are.

[winterknight]

3 minutes ago, Anna1 said:

Hello Winterknight, 

Yes, it's the end of suffering that is the point really. I mean what else, well, of course knowing the ultimate truth, that's the other. Not some fantasy some ppl try to portray enlightenment to be. I mean really what's looking is what all are looking for, yes? Having that flash of realization, then assimilatin that onto ones apparent life. That's enlightenment, as far as I'm concerned.

I find this comment of yours interesting-

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

My apologies I couldn't quote it with the other quote (or I don't know how). So, for you, you are not still associated with the body/mind/sense complex  (aka, person)? It is not "within" your awareness,... here and now? 

Correct, "it" cannot be said to be "within" "my" "awareness", because "within," "my," "it," "awareness" -- all these are concepts... concepts are mental only. If you realize the beyond-mental is the true Self, then how can any of those be said to be the case? It's like asking whether the hero of a novel is still thinking after you've shut the book.

Edited November 13, 2018 by winterknight

[graded24]

1 hour ago, winterknight said:

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

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.

This sounds very much like a quantum mechanical statement, where states of things are not expressible as either this or that or both or not. Have you read any quantum? 

[winterknight]

Just now, graded24 said:

This sounds very much like a quantum mechanical statement, where states of things are not expressible as either this or that or both or not. Have you read any quantum? 

Heh, very little. I know lots of people have tried to draw connections between the Copenhagen interpretation and spirituality, but I'm not very familiar with those debates...  but you're right, there is definitely a similarity in the language.

[winterknight]

7 minutes ago, Mikael89 said:

So enlightenment is God closing the book. Poof Mikael is gone/dead. God continues reading other novels.

I'm a puppet.

But nvm, Truth is beyond any of these analogies.

You got it! 

[graded24]

@winterknight what is time to you? Do you have a memory of how Time was to you few years ago. What has changed?

 

[winterknight]

2 minutes ago, Mikael89 said:

This part?:

"So enlightenment is God closing the book. Poof Mikael is gone/dead. God continues reading other novels.

I'm a puppet."

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

Or this part?: "But nvm, Truth is beyond any of these analogies."

All of the above. But especially the last.

[winterknight]

4 minutes ago, graded24 said:

@winterknight what is time to you? Do you have a memory of how Time was to you few years ago. What has changed?

Another of these questions, I see . The problem is I can't answer them honestly because I don't accept that I am the person who experiences time. It's like asking about the details of a mirage.

The mind experiences time, and I am not the mind. Time is in the realm of illusion, just like all other objects. It is certainly one of the mysterious aspects of illusion.

From the seeker's viewpoint, though, the stiller the mind, the slower time will seem to go, and when the mind is completely quiet, time will appear to stop. The still mind lives in eternity.

[Ananta]

30 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Correct, "it" cannot be said to be "within" "my" "awareness", because "within," "my," "it," "awareness" -- all these are concepts... concepts are mental only. If you realize the beyond-mental is the true Self, then how can any of those be said to be the case? It's like asking whether the hero of a novel is still thinking after you've shut the book.

Language is dualistic and the best we have to communicate. Um, yes, the "beyond mental" IS the true Self (capital S), but what does that have to do with what I asked you? You seem to want to only answer from the Self  (aka, awareness) perspective. Ppl who do that just deny, deny, deny (there is no thought, there is no person, etc) and that is the basis of their supposed "teaching".. (no offense). Its a "neo" advaita tactic and only gets the seeker so far. 

Yes, you identify as Self/awareness (you) and not the apparent person, but you are still "associated" for better or worse until the body dies. So, why deny it??
 

 

Edited November 13, 2018 by Anna1

[graded24]

1 minute ago, winterknight said:

Another of these questions, I see . The problem is I can't answer them honestly because I don't accept that I am the person who experiences time. It's like asking about the details of a mirage.

The mind experiences time, and I am not the mind. Time is in the realm of illusion, just like all other objects. It is certainly one of the mysterious aspects of illusion.

From the seeker's viewpoint, though, the stiller the mind, the slower time will seem to go, and when the mind is completely quiet, time will appear to stop. The still mind lives in eternity.

This is slightly confusing. I understand you are not the mind. But somehow you, or whatever it is that is capable of reading these questions and replying, has access to the mind and it's experiences and can write about it. Its like I don't identify with the table but can still report it's state to others. Would you say it is analogous between you and the mind like it is with me and the table?

[winterknight]

4 minutes ago, Anna1 said:

Language is dualistic and the best we have to communicate. Um, yes, the "beyond mental" IS the true Self (capital S), but what does that have to do with what I asked you? You seem to want to only answer from the Self  (aka, awareness) perspective. Ppl who do that just deny, deny, deny (there is no thought, there is no person, etc) and that is the basis of their supposed "teaching".. (no offense). Its a "neo" advaita tactic and only gets the seeker so far. 

The problem is you're asking about my experience. If you ask about my experience, that's the kind of answer you will have to get, because what I see is literally incomprehensible to someone who is not seeing the same. I could lie and tell you, "yes, the body-mind is within my awareness." But why not ask about your experience?

2 minutes ago, graded24 said:

This is slightly confusing. I understand you are not the mind. But somehow you, or whatever it is that is capable of reading these questions and replying, has access to the mind and it's experiences and can write about it. Its like I don't identify with the table but can still report it's state to others. Would you say it is analogous between you and the mind like it is with me and the table?

No, it's more like you had an idea for an invention in a dream that you thought was amazing. When you woke up, it literally did not make any sense. Put two teacups together and they form an airplane? What?

The analogy between me and the mind is like between you and that idea.

[graded24]

10 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Another of these questions, I see . The problem is I can't answer them honestly because I don't accept that I am the person who experiences time. It's like asking about the details of a mirage.

The mind experiences time, and I am not the mind. Time is in the realm of illusion, just like all other objects. It is certainly one of the mysterious aspects of illusion.

From the seeker's viewpoint, though, the stiller the mind, the slower time will seem to go, and when the mind is completely quiet, time will appear to stop. The still mind lives in eternity.

Or taking the mirage analogy.. if I saw a mirage but now standing there I just see sand.. isn't that simple to describe ? Like you were deluded into believing the construction of time by the thought, but now may be the construction still happens but you can see it for what it is, a mind construct ?

[winterknight]

Just now, graded24 said:

Or taking the mirage analogy.. if I saw a mirage but now standing there I just see sand.. isn't that simple to describe ? Like you were deluded into believing the construction of time by the thought, but now may be the construction still happens but you can see it for what it is, a mind construct ?

That's the problem with the mirage analogy. It only goes so far. In the spiritual context, even the idea that there is a mirage at all is part of the mirage. 

[Ananta]

@winterknight

 Not to be disrespectful, but you are not being truthful and I feel badly for the ppl here on this thread that are believing what you're selling. You have a spiritual ego and it's eating up all the attention you are getting from ppl that don't know any better. 

Peace out. I have better things to do.

[graded24]

5 minutes ago, winterknight said:

The problem is you're asking about my experience. If you ask about my experience, that's the kind of answer you will have to get, because what I see is literally incomprehensible to someone who is not seeing the same. I could lie and tell you, "yes, the body-mind is within my awareness." But why not ask about your experience?

No, it's more like you had an idea for an invention in a dream that you thought was amazing. When you woke up, it literally did not make any sense. Put two teacups together and they form an airplane? What?

The analogy between me and the mind is like between you and that idea.

Ok great, this analogy explains what you meant. 

So let me push further. In my case, upon waking up, id see that the idea was stupid and only seemed real because I was asleep.  But the rough idea would still be here with me even now. 

Is it the same with you and mind? Is the mind still there with you and just is not as meaningful or real as it once looked when you were 'asleep'?