I am enlightened. Sincere seekers: ask me anything

[Emanyalpsid]

1 hour ago, SoonHei said:

@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

 

You believe in them because you think there is a truth right? But what is truth really? To help you a bit, it is the same as asking yourself; what is I really?

 

Edited November 13, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[Hellspeed]

If someone wants to know how paranormal abilities work ask me in private or I don't know, let's open a thread about this. I use psychic abilities for remote healing per example in my experience.

Best of luck!

[seeking_brilliance]

1 hour ago, winterknight said:

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

Gotcha, thank you.... Yeah "I" feel sorry for them (wow that's Meta) 

[Jack River]

12 hours ago, Mu_ said:

The less of one the less of the other.

Fosho dude. The emotion tends to feed the  thought and thought the emotion, back and forth. The cycle of reaction/action. 

12 hours ago, Mu_ said:

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?

 

Well what I think is besides the point 

But I see what your saying brah..absolutely not, thought is a most excellent tool dude. The problem is when thought moves in order of cover up the fact in order to ignore It. This seems to strengthen the illusion as the independent “me” that moves in one way or another to avoid the fact to control its effect on the psychy. That implies the control. 

As far as “Awakening”, I feel to start with supreme humility is important. To me, freedom from there reactionary movements of psychological seeking seem to need to end first. Then we can “seek” without distortion/corruption of the pursuit. 

12 hours ago, Mu_ said:

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.

Oh no, none of that dude that is all resistance/attachment or fear resisting itself by clinging to thought(what has been accumulated over time as an idea, concept, and such. 

Again thought being a movement from the past to the future is to anticipate and solve problems in the physical environment or to control situations as it is then a practical-functional application. But when we look to thought to solve psychological problems is where we inherently have exceeded the limit of thought itself. We seem to act in accordance to the belief that the “me” is actually a separate entity, different in nature from the content that that “self” is seeking security in. 

Again this is what I mean by psychological becoming/time. An example, Fear will tend to run from itself in the idea of any idea that implies its opposite or thinks will bring about a sense of security/contentment and such. So the psychological becoming, of I am this but I will be that in time, is self looking to thought to run from itself. This seems to strengthen the divison between self and its contents such as its thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and such.

So yeah fosho I feel ya, any movement away from what is is resistance/attachment/identification, or to escape. That will feed the falsness of “me” which will keep that loop of conflict/suffering going. It’s a very gnarly cycle dude. I spend my whole life in conflict/suffering. No more dude?

Edited November 13, 2018 by Jack River

[Privet]

@winterknight

1) What is the difference between peak experience and permanent awakening that "clicks"? Is it just a matter of permanence, that nothing can hide this obvious fact anymore? Did you have many non-dual experiences before it "clicked"?

2) People say that there's possibly no limit to the degree of liberation, how does your insight deepen when you have already experienced that permanent shift? Is it about being able to experience more and more intense pain without loosing it? If that's the case then how can we call this insight ever-present if pain can cause loss of it?

3) What was your motivation to awaken? To end suffering? Curiosity of your true nature? Yearning towards feeling of completeness?

On 11.11.2018 at 1:35 PM, winterknight said:

Only much later did I realize that this very lack of motivation was a giant pointer to the Self.

4) What do you mean by that? How does it point to the Self?

Edited November 13, 2018 by Privet

[Jack River]

8 hours ago, Mu_ said:

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)

No that is what thinking is for dude. To plan/anticipate. For me recently, thought functions when needed. To work, organize and express words to write this, to drive the car that I don’t drive or to fix my rv when I starts to fall apart. 

But when there is no need for thought to operate it simply doesn’t. Namean dude

When psychological seeking actually ends, which means no psychological becoming of any kind, those self referential thoughts don’t even arise. It’s actuly quite simple. Awareness itself sees that whole movement as it arises and doesn’t walk in the direction. There is simply a stop to that movement. It’s most excellent to stop this movement of psychological continuity. 

Edited November 13, 2018 by Jack River

[winterknight]

17 minutes ago, Privet said:

1) What is the difference between peak experience and permanent awakening that "clicks"? Is it just a matter of permanence, that nothing can hide this obvious fact anymore? Did you have many non-dual experiences before it "clicked"?

2) People say that there's possibly no limit to the degree of liberation, how does your insight deepen when you have already experienced that permanent shift? Is it about being able to experience more and more intense pain without loosing it? If that's the case then how can we call this insight ever-present if pain can cause loss of it?

3) What do you mean by that? How does it point to the Self?

1. Well, it's not just a matter of permanence now but the realization that it has always been permanent. Yes, there are many glimpses before this realization dawns -- the realization that the realization has already dawned, has never not been there.

2. Liberation is one and has no 'degrees.' The mind may have various other insights, or it may grow quieter over time, but there is a single thing called liberation, and you are it, and it is perfect.

3. When one has a lack of desire to do other things, it may be a desire just to be. And just being is the nature of the Self. But if one cannot recognize the Self because the mind is turbulent, then just being will feel very dissatisfying. It will feel like nothing, boring, ordinary, unimpressive. That's why effort has to be extended to bridge the gap... but the end of that effort as for me to that what was "lack of motivation" was actually the motivation towards the Self.

[Outer]

What were your political opinions before and after Realization? Were they any different or did they stay the same?

[graded24]

2 hours ago, winterknight said:

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.

No, I understand that I will have to give up the mind to get there completely. But it is not the spiritual-me who is asking it is the physicist-me who is asking the question about the physical world.  
You see all of physics actually runs on analogies. For example, we cannot 'experience' the black hole, but we can still talk about it reliably using analogies (mathematical equations). No one has experienced the 10 dimensions but that doesnt stop us from calculating properties of a 10 dimensional universe using analogies.  That's why I want to know that when you say the physical world is not real to you anymore, in what sense it is not. Is it like upon waking up a dream is not real? Or going close to a mirage and finding it was never there? or the screen  analogy? 
There has to be an analogy! 

[winterknight]

32 minutes ago, Outer said:

What were your political opinions before and after Realization? Were they any different or did they stay the same?

Unchanged. Liberal, basically.

24 minutes ago, graded24 said:

No, I understand that I will have to give up the mind to get there completely. But it is not the spiritual-me who is asking it is the physicist-me who is asking the question about the physical world.  
You see all of physics actually runs on analogies. For example, we cannot 'experience' the black hole, but we can still talk about it reliably using analogies (mathematical equations). No one has experienced the 10 dimensions but that doesnt stop us from calculating properties of a 10 dimensional universe using analogies.  That's why I want to know that when you say the physical world is not real to you anymore, in what sense it is not. Is it like upon waking up a dream is not real? Or going close to a mirage and finding it was never there? or the screen  analogy? 
There has to be an analogy! 

Yes, physicist-you will never be able to understand this, because this is not science. There are analogies but all of them are wrong. They are only useful as pointers -- meaning, ways to stop the mind of the seeker -- not as descriptors or predictors.

But ok, I can give you more.

1. You used to think you lived in a lake. But then you noticed that what you thought was a lake is itself has no boundaries and is surrounded on all sides by water in an ocean. Where did the lake go?

2. You walk around a university, say the University of Texas, looking at all the buildings. "I see this building and that building and various academic-looking types," you ask, "But where is the University of Texas? I don't actually see it anywhere."

Now when you realize that this is in fact the University of Texas, and that you had made a mistake regarding what it even means to be a university, where did the old University of Texas, the one you understood to be the case before, go?

3. You used to think that "alskdjalskdjaslkdjas" was a word. You thought you understood exactly what it meant. Then you realized: no, that word doesn't actually refer to anything. In what way is "alskdjalskdjaslkdjas" not real anymore to you? 

Edited November 13, 2018 by winterknight

[Outer]

3 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Unchanged. Liberal, basically.

Why are you a Liberal after Realization?

[Nick5050]

On 9-11-2018 at 8:31 PM, NoSelfSelf said:

How do i get million dollars by not doing anything?

I like this question, can you answer this please.

[winterknight]

8 minutes ago, Outer said:

Why are you a Liberal after Realization?

Well the body-mind only appears to exist and does not really, so in that sense I have no political views. But if we have to talk about the appearance of the body-mind... it must be because it believes and feels that to be the better political philosophy. It has nothing to do with Realization.

Edited November 13, 2018 by winterknight

[winterknight]

1 minute ago, Nick5050 said:

I like this question, can you answer this please.

Get really lucky

[Forestluv]

8 minutes ago, winterknight said:

 

2. You walk around a university, say the University of Texas, looking at all the buildings. "I see this building and that building and various academic-looking types," you ask, "But where is the University of Texas? I don't actually see it anywhere."

 

Is this in the area of what is actual vs. imagined?

Leo gives an exercise in which one looks and feels their hand. Then, they put their hand behind their back and imagine looking and feeling their hand. For me, the lesson is that the mind conflates what is actual in the moment and what is imagined. The mind often groups it all together as "real". One can look around the room and explore what is actual. Then imagine being born, your memories, a deadline at work etc. - all fantasy. Over time one learns to distinguish what is actual and what is an imagined concept.

Would this be aligned with your example? The buildings would be actual in the person's field of perception, the University of Texas is an imagined concept and not actual.

If we dig deeper. . . are the buildings in the perception field "real"? Isn't a degree of separation necessary to distinguish the object (building) and subject (me)?

Even if the buildings aren't technically real, can we still make a distinction between what is actual now vs. what is imagined? Or is it all equally imagined?

[Jack River]

2 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Well the body-mind only appears to exist and does not really, so in that sense I have no political views. But if we have to talk about the appearance of the body-mind... it must be because it believes and feels that to be the better political philosophy. It has nothing to do with Realization.

Life is relationship and that comes first. Any action taken that is not a whole action (action that arises from freedom), is inherently pushing relationship away as being less important. To me action needs to be indivisible. Which means there must be an actual sense of individualiality. And that means I am not divided within. Then what ever action taken is coherent. 

That seems to be a pretty responsible way to contribute to life to me 

 

[winterknight]

1 minute ago, Serotoninluv said:

Is this in the area of what is actual vs. imagined?

Leo gives an exercise in which one looks and feels their hand. Then, they put their hand behind their back and imagine looking and feeling their hand. For me, the lesson is that the mind conflates what is actual in the moment and what is imagined. The mind often groups it all together as "real". One can look around the room and explore what is actual. Then imagine being born, your memories, a deadline at work etc. - all fantasy. Over time one learns to distinguish what is actual and what is an imagined concept.

Would this be aligned with your example? The buildings would be actual in the person's field of perception, the University of Texas is an imagined concept and not actual.

If we dig deeper. . . are the buildings in the perception field "real"? Isn't a degree of separation necessary to distinguish the object (building) and subject (me)?

Even if the buildings aren't technically real, can we still make a distinction between what is actual now vs. what is imagined? Or is it all equally imagined?

No, this is a different point than this analogy is making. The point of the analogy is that a mistake is made about what it means to be a university. the person is looking for the university, and thinks it is some sort of building or monument or person or something like that.

Actually the university is not a physical entity like that.

That's not wrong. The point of the analogy is not to say that the university doesn't exist or that it's imaginary. The point of the analogy is to say that the idea of the university as something localizable, something you can point to and say "That's the university!" -- that idea is wrong.

So there's a misunderstanding that is corrected... a mistake about what it even means to be something. That's what I was pointing to...

[Outer]

So realization is like seeing reality but knowing it doesn't exist? Or that it is a mirage? It is a dream?

I was watching a video about China developing and deploying solar panels and then I imagined (thought) about it in my mind's eye but then there came a barrier. There was no need to think about it. Or I did and it was just blank. It was a relief. It was similar to when I did self-inquiry to stop thought and I did, and then a bunch of thoughts came up that everything was obviously determined. Because I've seen it to be true.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Outer

[Jack River]

5 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Actually the university is not a physical entity like that.

It’s an abstraction, that what you mean to say dude? 

Edited November 13, 2018 by Jack River

[Emanyalpsid]

@Serotoninluv @winterknight

You are not understanding eachother but are refering to the same thing.

Serotoningluv said: the University of Texas is an imagined concept and not actual.

Winterknight said: the idea of the university as something localizable, something you can point to and say "That's the university!" -- that idea is wrong.

Thats the same.

 

I know what winterknight is pointing to but only because I have the insight already. Let me think of an example to explain it in a different way.