I am enlightened. Sincere seekers: ask me anything

[Jack River]

For purpose of understanding it seems easier to say to recognize implies an experience. 

So if there is not experience then there was recognizing. Right? 

But some speak according to traditional texts and refer to that unrecognizing as recognizing. Just like I say ending of knowledge in which others refer to as knowledge beyond thought. 

[Mu_]

3 minutes ago, Jack River said:

Right. To recognize a thing means it was already known.

So then non-experience is a type/sub set of experience? Because right now the use of non-experience is like saying a dog speaks spanish.

[winterknight]

2 minutes ago, Jack River said:

This I can relate to most definitely. This non experience. It’s pure mystery. 

Yes it certainly is. The holy mystery.

1 minute ago, Mu_ said:

Hmm we may have to leave it at that, because to me that sounds like one of the many infinite varieties/vantage points of Self that are always taking place, one being you and one being me (which are not different and yet are). 

What ever your point to though sounds nice, but again how can the noticing of something/or acknowledgement of something that you obviously  describee as continuous with no pause, yet isn't an experience.  Are we in semantic criss cross?  My definition of experience is fairly straightforward here.  If its noticed, its experience, if its dust mite biting you behind your ear, but you dont notice it, its not experienced.  
So what are you saying?

Unfortunately it cannot be pinned down in language like this. It can neither be said to be noticed or unnoticed. 

It's not merely theoretical. It's not merely a firm mental understanding.

It is Being knowing itself directly.

There's no way to explain it further than that...

2 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

@winterknight

Also when I use the word knowledge/understanding Im referring to a knowing.  Like if asked you is something happening, it would be obvious that something is happening.  You may call this something, Self, and I would agree, or not, but either way there is knowing of some sort that something is happening.

But "something is happening" is a mental knowing... it is not mind that knows Self. Mind can never know Self.

[Jack River]

2 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

So then non-experience is a type/sub set of experience? Because right now the use of non-experience is like saying a dog speaks spanish.

I mean when I use the word experience I mean a divided/limited perception through the filter of thought.

To me an experience is a projection of thought. As in I interpret a experience according to the content of thought identified with. 

Example to experience Jesus is a conditioned projection of thought. We label/give meaning to an experience from the known (knowledge/past occurrence) and how we labeled the occurrence. Or thought content. 

Make sense? Or am I to green at explaining? 

[Mu_]

2 hours ago, winterknight said:

Yes it certainly is. The holy mystery.

Unfortunately it cannot be pinned down in language like this. It can neither be said to be noticed or unnoticed. 

It's not merely theoretical. It's not merely a firm mental understanding.

It is Being knowing itself directly.

There's no way to explain it further than that...

But "something is happening" is a mental knowing... it is not mind that knows Self. Mind can never know Self.

Something happening/Something being/something is both a mental knowing and a part of the Self.  What did you just describe to me if nothing is LITERALLY happening.  Nothing happening is a void in which NOTHING is happening zero, abscense, but since Self is ALL, there is no abscense, there is no LITERAL nothing.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Mu_

[Mu_]

7 minutes ago, Jack River said:

I mean when I use the word experience I mean a divided/limited perception through the filter of thought.

To me an experience is a projection of thought. As in I interpret a experience according to the content of thought identified with. 

Example to experience Jesus is a conditioned projection of thought. We label/give meaning to an experience from the known (knowledge/past occurrence) and how we labeled the occurrence. Or thought content. 

Make sense? Or am I to green at explaining? 

Oh I'm with you.  Non-experience is a metaphor, not literal, on your end.  However since we are all putting ourselves out there,  And this is to you Jack, at what point do "you" actually know that your experience is not influenced by thought.  What objectivity has proven to you that your experience is clear of thought/divided/limited perception?  Do you just believe it in the moment, make no further assumption at this point, see some conveyor belt going by that you then can stamp as clear of thought influence, clear of limited perception, etc....

Edited November 13, 2018 by Mu_

[Jack River]

21 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

And this is to you Jack, at what point do "you" actually know that your experience is not influenced by thought.

There is no actual image being projected at that moment. It’s not a thought imposed realty as well. It starts with non psychological reaction and grows into a silent “state” of no responding of past knowledge/experience. Simply there is no identification with thought and its content. 

For some reason we mechanically impose the image/thought content onto each moment. Maybe to respond to environmental conditions. But we also do this unnecessary psychologically. That psychological movement seems to call on the movement of thought itself to respond. 

But awarness of thought as movement itself puts an ending to that psychological movement. The seeing stops the responding of the image/concept from even entering in. It’s like a switch is flipped and there is no compulsion to cling to the image/memory. When I observe the movement of thought as it is I see that movement as resistance/attachment and stop moving once that direction or any direction for that matter. 

Atleast this is what I have come to see so far. 

Edited November 13, 2018 by Jack River

[graded24]

@winterknight Please tell me if the following analogy about what happens to the body-mind-world after enlightenment is correct..
We can see a picture on a laptop of a landscape with a man standing in it. But if we go closer and look ever more closely, at some point we will only see the screen, the pixels.. so in a sense the landscape and the man was appearing only because we had a poor view of the situation. Looking closely, there is just the screen, no landscape, no man. We learn that it was all a mind construct made out of a distracted view of the reality (screen). 

Self is the screen in this analogy of course. 

[Mu_]

10 minutes ago, Jack River said:

There is no actual image being projected at that moment. It’s not a thought imposed realty as well. It starts with non psychological reaction and grows into a silent “state” of no responding of past knowledge/experience. Simply there is no identification with thought and its content. 

For some reason we mechanically impose the image/thought content onto each moment. Maybe to respond to environmental conditions. But we also do this unnecessary psychologically. That psychological movement seems to call on the movement of thought itself to respond. 

Atleast this is what I have come to see so far. 

I would even go as far to say, its not a intentional mechanic, its happening, and it sometimes feels like there is control of doing it or the belief of having part in it, but ultimately it is just happening.

[Jack River]

10 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

I would even go as far to say, its not a intentional mechanic, its happening, and it sometimes feels like there is control of doing it or the belief of having part in it, but ultimately it is just happening.

Maybe. When I say mechanically I mean how habitually we react to the thought/emotion cycle. This is a continuous cycle of resistance to the changing moment or happening. I think maybe it arises by resisting what is the case at a specific moment. It’s referred to as psychological time. Anyway I notice that when I am psychologically moving, as in psychological becoming this reaction/compulsion seems to really intensify. When there is no movement to psychologically become, as in seeking psychological security in thought, then thought seems to slow in occurrence. The more awareness on this movement seems to bring about less thought projection. 

But I am still trying to understand what is going on here so. 

Edited November 13, 2018 by Jack River

[Preetom]

1 hour ago, winterknight said:

The goal is actually not quite either understanding/knowledge (though that may be in the mind) nor a tactile experience... There is a very specific nondual, indescribable, "experience-that-is-not-an-experience" that is going on continuously, without the slightest tiniest pause ever. It feels like nothing at all, and yet it is absolutely perfect.

It's the clear and continuous recognition of this -- which can only happen by clearing away all the thoughts that usually hide it -- that constitutes the spiritual goal.

Is this ''non-objective experience'' bliss itself? Are you aware of 'it' all your waking hours?

This really resonates with me. Everytime I've had lightbulb moments through self-inquiry, it always felt blissful...for absolutely no reason at all. It wasn't an experience, there was really nothing special going on. The first thought that arises is, ''oh crap! this is soo obvious. How come I ever missed it? How can I ever loose this?''

But then again, this 'stateless state' would eventually be forgotten due latent mental tendencies/Vasanas/thoughts.

When you never forget that Self no matter what, is that permanent Enlightenment?

Edited November 13, 2018 by Preetom

[Mu_]

8 hours ago, Jack River said:

Maybe. When I say mechanically I mean how habitually we react to the thought/emotion cycle. This is a continuous cycle of resistance to the changing moment or happening. I think maybe it arises by resisting what is the case at a specific moment. It’s referred to as psychological time. Anyway I notice that when I am psychologically moving, as in psychological becoming this reaction/compulsion seems to really intensify. When there is no movement to psychologically become, as in seeking psychological security in thought, then thought seems to slow in occurrence. The more awareness on this movement seems to bring about less thought projection. 

But I am still trying to understand what is going on here so. 

So if I understand you right, your saying that when you stop wanting to avoid discomfort this slows down the movement of thought.  That make sense to me, since resisting/avoiding is done through thought and emotion.  The less of one the less of the other.

However my sense of you from reading your posts and this may be wrong, is that you sometimes have some idea's of thought and thinking, that see them negatively in some way.  Like you believe that less of them is closer to awakening.  Am I correct in this observation?

Because I was going to make a post about the false idea of this notion, since its a common spiritual inference that I've read about and seen people get caught up in and deal dealt with in myself.

Thought and thinking in of themselves hold no bearing on suffering or not, or are inherently a barrier to waking up.  Its the compulsion, the believing of scenarios of stress/fear/hate/worry/shame/guilt etc..., the habit of this and the type of thoughts we have of ourselves, is what CAN cause suffering. (again a important capitilization, because its not always the case and is not to be learned as a rule or create a new mode of functioning for you to try and emulate enlightenment, or right functioning, or supposed to be this way type of behavior).  But to demonize the activity of thinking itself and the thought process is also to get lost in another form of bondage and suffering, one in which "You" are trying to avoid thoughts, feelings, beliefs, or re-write them in yourself, or think they aren't there, or believe that your not thinking them, and that keeps your eyes off of knowing yourself and just living.

Thinking, planning and the arisal of thoughts that happen during this process and just on their own (like a dripping facet, that is of no control of our own) is normal and is apart of being human, is not taking "You" away or create some sort of barrier preventing something (another subtle belief within seeker circles that keeps the vigilant/sincere seeker confused and frustrated when such normal functioning is present)

Edited November 13, 2018 by Mu_

[Emanyalpsid]

Indeed, a thought is a self inherently. However, it is when we cling to the them or want to avoid them (the opposite of clinging) is when we suffer from them. As a thought is nothing more then the result of the desire to give meaning to something, which you believe exists upon it self, and can be given meaning to.

For example, if we define something as a flower, we think that the flower exists upon itself and we can give meaning to the flower. We are in the believe that it exists out of matter and that this matter constitutes the flower. However that which really constitutes a flower is of dependent origin, as the flower is dependent upon space, time, gravity, matter,etc. Its essence is therefor empty. You can not define the flower by only mentioning the matter. Where would this flower be without space, time and gravity?

So, there is nothing that exists upon itself, everything is constantly in motion. Every object is dependent upon everything else. You can't grasp anything.

So a thought will never be true, it is just the believe in it which makes it true. 

This however does not mean that thoughts are false, it is just our interpretation of what we experience. And to survive, they are very helpful.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[Emanyalpsid]

This all is what makes the end, meaning being close to Nirvana, so difficult to communicate. As concepts start to fall apart. You dwell between 

Perceiving and non-perceiving

Existence and non-existence

Truth and non-truth

The clinging to these concepts is what is left of your self as they give meaning to it self. You can identify with them. 

The key is in seeing that after dissolving your personal self, there is still itself left; the believe that reality exists upon itself. At first you will not see this, the same as you didn't see that the 'I' was just a self-sustaining belief.

To sustain this believe in itself you use concepts as 'truth,' meaning you believe in them, and reasoning is its method.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[Jordan94]

@winterknight

So I've started self-inquiry as described in this thread, just to be sure that i'm practicing fine :

Here's what I'm doing, I try to locate my consciousness, where does it come from/where is it located, and as you said if I can be aware/feel where I thought it come from, then I realise that it's not it and try to look out what is aware of it / where is this 'thing' that is aware of it

Or another way I'm practicing, if I feel a sensation, I'm asking myself and try to find who is aware of this sensation (same thing for viewing something 'who is seeing this?' / 'who is perceiving this?')

Is it correct ?

[seeking_brilliance]

@winterknight what happens if this particular stream of me-thoughts does not... Whatever... Become enlightened or whatever... Is it important to do this or is it just kindu of (or very) cool? 

Edited November 13, 2018 by seeking_brilliance

[Andreas]

How do you unlock cities and paranormal abilities? 

[SoonHei]

@Emanyalpsid so how does one overcome that, the belief in concepts such as truth/existence etc...

 

Is it the seeing thru of it? Recognizing that one must let go of this also

 

How does letting go really happen... Since we can't really choose to let go or attach to certain thoughts/beliefs

 

A seeing which can be equated to the example of "seeing the snake for the rope it always was" needs to occur

 

How can I see the reality of the rope to then finally truly automatically let go and understand that the "snake" is harmless as it is just a flippin rope.

[Hellspeed]

Practicality Folks, Practicality...

The Realization of how anything works is not the point of Enlightenment. 

Is beyond all that. 

 

[winterknight]

7 hours ago, Mu_ said:

Something happening/Something being/something is both a mental knowing and a part of the Self.  What did you just describe to me if nothing is LITERALLY happening.  Nothing happening is a void in which NOTHING is happening zero, abscense, but since Self is ALL, there is no abscense, there is no LITERAL nothing.

The Self's very nature is what I'm talking about. The Self's nature is to know itself nondually. That's what it is to be Self.

7 hours ago, graded24 said:

@winterknight Please tell me if the following analogy about what happens to the body-mind-world after enlightenment is correct..
We can see a picture on a laptop of a landscape with a man standing in it. But if we go closer and look ever more closely, at some point we will only see the screen, the pixels.. so in a sense the landscape and the man was appearing only because we had a poor view of the situation. Looking closely, there is just the screen, no landscape, no man. We learn that it was all a mind construct made out of a distracted view of the reality (screen). 

Self is the screen in this analogy of course. 

No, I don't think it's a great analogy, but not for reasons I can explain.

I get the sense you are trying hard to intellectualize the realization. Your mind is working overtime to try to conquer this problem, to digest it, to "know" it. Not gonna happen. Thinking and the mind must, in the end, be given up to see the Truth.

6 hours ago, Preetom said:

Is this ''non-objective experience'' bliss itself? Are you aware of 'it' all your waking hours?

This really resonates with me. Everytime I've had lightbulb moments through self-inquiry, it always felt blissful...for absolutely no reason at all. It wasn't an experience, there was really nothing special going on. The first thought that arises is, ''oh crap! this is soo obvious. How come I ever missed it? How can I ever loose this?''

But then again, this 'stateless state' would eventually be forgotten due latent mental tendencies/Vasanas/thoughts.

When you never forget that Self no matter what, is that permanent Enlightenment?

Yes, it is bliss, yes, I am aware of it all at times -- but it is not the bliss that you think of when you think of mental bliss. It is not mental bliss. Mental bliss exists in contrast: "I wasn't blissful, then I did this (say, self-inquiry), then I was blissful." That's mental bliss, the bliss that comes and goes.

That's not what I'm talking about. The bliss I'm talking about has never stopped.

The mind is not aware of it at all times. I am, though, but not in a mental (that is, dualistic) way.

When you realize that the very idea of forgetting the Self doesn't even make sense... that's Enlightenment.

Look, we could say that the mind is still active, that the enlightened person also has vasanas that arise. In one sense that is true. In a deeper sense, however, it is not, since the enlightened person does not acknowledge the reality -- or even the appearance -- of the mind.

1 hour ago, Jordan94 said:

@winterknight

So I've started self-inquiry as described in this thread, just to be sure that i'm practicing fine :

Here's what I'm doing, I try to locate my consciousness, where does it come from/where is it located, and as you said if I can be aware/feel where I thought it come from, then I realise that it's not it and try to look out what is aware of it / where is this 'thing' that is aware of it

Or another way I'm practicing, if I feel a sensation, I'm asking myself and try to find who is aware of this sensation (same thing for viewing something 'who is seeing this?' / 'who is perceiving this?')

Is it correct ?

Yes, this sounds correct. Good work.

Keep going. Just to be clear, I wouldn't describe it as looking for your consciousness but as looking for the "I." It's a small difference, and they are very related, but I would emphasize the "I."  

"Here's what I'm doing," you write. Who is this "I" who knows what he's doing?

1 hour ago, seeking_brilliance said:

@winterknight what happens if this particular stream of me-thoughts does not... Whatever... Become enlightened or whatever... Is it important to do this or is it just kindu of (or very) cool? 

You're already enlightened, so it doesn't matter. But that stream of me thoughts may seem to be quite unnecessarily unhappy. 

1 hour ago, Andreas said:

How do you unlock cities and paranormal abilities? 

I don't know, sorry. As far as I am concerned these are not related to enlightenment.