I am enlightened. Sincere seekers: ask me anything

[Preetom]

13 minutes ago, winterknight said:

By the strictest nonduality standards, nothing can be said at all, really, not even this sentence (so this is already one step down from that strictest standard). And thus nothing can be said of anything, either -- neither existence nor non-existence can be attributed, and no objects can be named. Not even the idea of "object" can be admitted.

The mind hears this and formulates an idea how it will go dumb and mute zombie after enlightenment for the rest of it's life.

Who needs april fool when you got a companion like this right? 

[Forestluv]

32 minutes ago, winterknight said:

By the strictest nonduality standards, nothing can be said at all, really, not even this sentence (so this is already one step down from that strictest standard). And thus nothing can be said of anything, either -- neither existence nor non-existence can be attributed, and no objects can be named.

When a phrase is beyond description, sometimes you give a couple statements: One that is closer to the Truth and one that is next closest to the Truth.

A phrase like "the brain does not exist" seems like it can have different meanings / level of understandings. 

1) The brain does not exist, because by strict nondual standards, nothing can be said at all. Merely saying "brain" is a step too far. Thus, the brain (or anything) neither has existence or non-existence.

2) The brain does not exist, because by non-strict nondual standards, there is One Everything. If there is One Everything, then there is No Thing - then Everything = No Thing = Nothing. The brain (or any thing) cannot exist separate from One Everything.

3) Since nothing can exist separate from One Everything/Nothing, both nonduality and duality collapse into One. The Absolute and the Relative are One. From the perspective of the Absolute, there is no brain that exists separate from the Absolute. From the perspective of the Relative, the brain does exist if one accepts relative terms. Thus, the brain is neither existence or non-existence and is simultaneously existence and non-existence.

4) All of reality is a like a dream. Literally, none of it exists. It's all an illusion.

5) The "brain" is just a concept that does not physically exist. If we examine a brain very closely with highly technical equipment  - beyond atoms and quarks - we find empty space.

I've come across all of these explanations and I can "get" each one if I assume different contexts and word usages. Would you say that one or more of the statements are "closer" to the Truth? Are one or more further from the Truth? Do they overlap with each other and kinda say the same thing in different ways?

I think this can be an area of confusion for seekers and something I'd like to clarify within my "brain".

 

 

[Preetom]

21 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Would you say that one or more of the statements are "closer" to the Truth? Are one or more further from the Truth? Do they overlap with each other and kinda say the same thing in different ways?

I think that's a great question. As Truth itself is incommunicable, we have different levels of understanding in the realm of communication.

Just like you can explain the theory of sex one way to a child and another way to a virgin adult. The adult version would definitely be more 'evolved' and seemingly 'closer' to the actual thing. But the irony is, both the child and the virgin adult haven't experienced it, so it still is just a concept.

That's why intellectual questions are answered based on the level of question. No Truth is ever communicated anyway. The purpose becomes helping the questioner at his own level and satisfying his urge to know stuff.

You can still play around with all the concepts, as long as it is not turned into a dogma. As Leo mentioned in the last video that he loves nitpicking models and concepts. He wouldn't know what else to do other than this. It certainly provides a sense of intellectual security, a kind of refined Eudaimonic pleasure; undoubtedly far greater than some other gross hedonic pleasures and search for a false security.  

Edited December 11, 2018 by Preetom

[winterknight]

36 minutes ago, Preetom said:

The mind hears this and formulates an idea how it will go dumb and mute zombie after enlightenment for the rest of it's life.

Who needs april fool when you got a companion like this right? 

28 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

When a phrase is beyond description, sometimes you give a couple statements: One that is closer to the Truth and one that is next closest to the Truth.

A phrase like "the brain does not exist" seems like it can have different meanings / level of understandings. 

1) The brain does not exist, because by strict nondual standards, nothing can be said at all. Merely saying "brain" is a step too far. Thus, the brain (or anything) neither has existence or non-existence.

2) The brain does not exist, because by non-strict nondual standards, there is One Everything. If there is One Everything, then there is No Thing - then Everything = No Thing = Nothing. The brain (or any thing) cannot exist separate from One Everything.

3) Since nothing can exist separate from One Everything/Nothing, both nonduality and duality collapse into One. The Absolute and the Relative are One. From the perspective of the Absolute, there is no brain that exists separate from the Absolute. From the perspective of the Relative, the brain does exist if one accepts relative terms. Thus, the brain is neither existence or non-existence and is simultaneously existence and non-existence.

4) All of reality is a like a dream. Literally, none of it exists. It's all an illusion.

5) The "brain" is just a concept that does not physically exist. If we examine a brain very closely with highly technical equipment  - beyond atoms and quarks - we find empty space.

I've come across all of these explanations and I can "get" each one if I assume different contexts and word usages. Would you say that one or more of the statements are "closer" to the Truth? Are one or more further from the Truth? Do they overlap with each other and kinda say the same thing in different ways?

I think this can be an area of confusion for seekers and something I'd like to clarify within my "brain".

Well as I indicated earlier, #1 is the closest in words to the truth.

For #2 and #3: all the concepts of the "One" are useful for a certain level of understanding but ultimately dangerous. There's a reason it's called "advaita" -- "not two."

#3 and #4 are reasonably fine levels of understanding for most seekers -- they can relate to it, and it motivates them.

#5 might help a few people, but is really neither here nor there.

Edited December 11, 2018 by winterknight

[Forestluv]

@Preetom It seems like as we evolve, we need to unlearn things from a low conscious level and re-learn them at higher level understandings to communicate. For example, I had to unlearn and relearn "God", "Emptiness", "Nothing", "Consciousness" etc. at different consciousness levels (if we use the conscious "levels" framework). I think a lot of people get trapped thinking they understand term usage, yet they haven't reached a stage capable of understanding the usage at a higher level.

[winterknight]

37 minutes ago, Preetom said:

This answer reminds me one of Ramana's himself.

Q: What is wisdom-insight?

A: Remaining quiet is what is called wisdom-insight

Yup. Indeed Ramana's ultimate instruction for mature, ripe minds has always been: just be. 

[Preetom]

3 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Preetom It seems like as we evolve, we need to unlearn things from a low conscious level and re-learn them at higher level understandings to communicate. For example, I had to unlearn and relearn "God", "Emptiness", "Nothing", "Consciousness" etc. at different consciousness levels (if we use the conscious "levels" framework). I think a lot of people get trapped thinking they understand term usage, yet they haven't reached a stage capable of understanding the usage at a higher level.

That is so true..

Actually our relationship and appreciation of language itself changes/evolves over time if we care to look. 

Our relationship with language varies from our childhood, in 20s, 30s, so on...if we are sensitive enough to look into this matter.

Leo has already framed 'learning' or growth as 1) Observation and 2) Behavioral change.

I guess a 3rd way to frame it would be, learning=unlearning 

[Forestluv]

27 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Well as I indicated earlier, #1 is the closest in words to the truth.

For #2 and #3. All the concepts of the "One" are useful for a certain level of understanding but ultimately dangerous. There's a reason it's called "advaita" -- "not two."

#3 and #4 are reasonably fine levels of understanding for most seekers -- they can relate to it, and it motivates them.

#5 might help a few people, but is really neither here nor there.

Super. #1 is actually peaceful to the mind, because it's "Game Over" - there is nothing to think about or figure out. It becomes a non-issue.

For #2 and #3, why is the One pointer dangerous? Is it because the term "One" directly implies separation and "Not Two" just indirectly suggests separation?

Also, what do you think of the term "Everything" as a nondual pointer? The mind is conditioned to think dualistically, yet it seems that continually guiding the mind back to "Everything", can loosen the mind's attachments. For example, the mind may become attached to thoughts like "Consciousness is this. . . ". Oops, that thought is within "Everything", let it go. "There is no spiritual path. . . ". Oops that thought is within "Everything". Let it go. . . If the mind is ready and willing, I've found any the attachment to any thought can be loosened by simply returning to "Everything". 

And I don't think this just applies to beginner seekers. I've met many evolved minds that seem attached to very deep and profound spiritual teachings, such as in Buddhism (and including Buddhist monks). Yet at the end of the day, they really believe it is the Truth. Their mind seems unable to acknowledge that all these spiritual teachings, statues, mantras, robes etc. is simply within Everything. I get the sense there is resistance, for admitting that may dissolve the Sangha for which they are so invested in. For me, being able to let the most profound mystical insights dissolve into Everything just as I could with a birdsong is a deep sense of peace and liberation. 

 

[winterknight]

6 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Super. #1 is actually peaceful to the mind, because it's "Game Over" - there is nothing to think about or figure out. It becomes a non-issue.

For #2 and #3, why is the One pointer dangerous? Is it because the term "One" directly implies separation and "Not Two" just indirectly suggests separation?

Pretty much. One implies a "thing." Most people can't just help thinking along those lines -- some big blob of stuff. It's not unhelpful early in the Search to think that way, but it's a hindrance later.

Quote

 

Also, what do you think of the term "Everything" as a nondual pointer? The mind is conditioned to think dualistically, yet it seems that continually guiding the mind back to "Everything", can loosen the mind's attachments. For example, the mind may become attached to thoughts like "Consciousness is this. . . ". Oops, that thought is within "Everything", let it go. "There is no spiritual path. . . ". Oops that thought is within "Everything". Let it go. . . If the mind is ready and willing, I've found any the attachment to any thought can be loosened by simply returning to "Everything". 

 

I personally don't love "Everything" because it suggests that there are things -- and there is the whole collection of them, when in fact the truth is more like the negation of all of those things. Brahman is really closer to No-thing than Everything. 

But you're right, it probably helps some people. What matters is tailoring the prescription to the person. Different temperaments respond well to different language. Every person is a puzzle that they must solve themselves.

 

[Forestluv]

12 minutes ago, winterknight said:

some big blob of stuff.

It seems like the mind can look around, see lots of things and imagine One enormous inter-connected Everything. It seems you would consider this a half-step, because there is still the image of lots of inter-connected thing. And the Everything itself could be imagined as a thing.

Yet, it is possible for perception to go further? I can look around my room and see One inter-connected Everything. I've touched upon a level in which the inter-connected dissolves and there is simply One. Yet as you said this still suggests a One that is a thing. So, what would be "seen" at the next level? All those things, or the One Everything just doesn't disappear and the brain goes blind. If a dog chased me, my brain could recognize the entity. Is it closer to Truth to say the brain still perceives "things", yet there is an underlying "seeing" of Nothingness?

[winterknight]

5 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

It seems like the mind can look around, see lots of things and imagine One enormous inter-connected Everything. It seems you would consider this a half-step, because there is still the image of lots of inter-connected thing. And the Everything itself could be imagined as a thing.

Yet, it is possible for perception to go further? I can look around my room and see One inter-connected Everything. I've touched upon a level in which the inter-connected dissolves and there is simply One. Yet as you said this still suggests a One that is a thing. So, what would be "seen" at the next level? All those things, or the One Everything just doesn't disappear and the brain goes blind. If a dog chased me, my brain could recognize the entity. Is it closer to Truth to say the brain still perceives "things", yet there is an underlying "seeing" of Nothingness?

The closest to the truth would be a mental silence in which there is no question of whether there is seeing or what is seen -- of whether it is or it isn't, or if the things are, or if they are, what they are, or whether the brain sees them or not, or whether they are interconnected or not...

Those questions, even if they arose, would not seem to have arisen. They themselves would not even be recognized as questions.

The closest to the truth is that what ordinary beings consider day the enlightened one considers night, and vice-versa, in the words of the Bhagavad Gita (2.69).

By analogy, let me mention a story from the Yoga Vasistha that Ramana Maharshi narrates as follows:

The devotee asked once again, “What about those who are in complete awareness (sahaja samadhi)?”

Bhagavan replied saying, “It is just because of such questions that Vasishta narrated the story of the ‘Sage and the Hunter’ to Rama to illustrate the fourth or turiya state. In a forest, once a great Muni sat in the lotus posture (padmasana) with his eyes open, but in deep trance. A hunter hit a deer with an arrow, but the deer escaped and ran in front of the Muni into the bush nearby and hid itself. The hunter came in hot pursuit of the deer and not seeing it asked the Muni where it had gone. ‘I do not know, my friend,’ said the Muni. The hunter said, ‘Sir, it ran right in front of you and you had your eyes wide open. How could you have not seen it?’ Finding that he would not leave him in peace unless a proper reply was given, the Muni said, ‘My dear man, we are submerged in the Self; we are always in the Fourth State. We do not have the waking or dream or deep sleep states. Everything is alike to us. These three states are the signs of the ego and we have no ego. Egoism is itself the mind and it is that which is responsible for all the deeds done in this world. That ego (ahankara) left us long ago. Hence it does not matter whether we keep our eyes closed or open; we are not conscious of what is happening around us. That being so, how can I tell you about your deer?” 

The hunter thought that it was all sheer nonsense and went his way.

[Strikr]

what is the point of making a point

blablablablablablablablablablablabla

[Forestluv]

@winterknight  Very nice.

Without the attachment, identification and interpretation within the three egoic states what remains is:     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Emanyalpsid]

.

Edited December 12, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[danton]

On 09/11/2018 at 2:15 PM, winterknight said:

I am an expert on the nondual path of spirituality in the Hindu advaita tradition, heavily influenced by Ramana Maharshi (but with my own twists). I'm making myself available here for sincere seekers who want help or clarification on their own path. I'm not really interested in:

a) proving my bona fides (you'll have to get that from my answers)

b) giving an autobiographical description of my path, my realizations, etc.

I probably won't respond to requests for these.

Other than that, anything's game if you're bothered by it. This is a playful experiment... let's see how it goes.

How do U suggest I begin then to get where U are? With Ramana Maharshi?

 

[winterknight]

14 minutes ago, danton said:

How do U suggest I begin then to get where U are? With Ramana Maharshi?

I have general recommendations here and here and in my book. Here are instructions on self-inquiry, suggestions for seekers to get psychoanalytic therapy, and instructions on what I call metaphorization here and here. More stuff on my website generally.

[CreamCat]

• How often are you englightened? Are you always enlightened? Are you enlightened while you are sleeping? Does enlightenment lead to sleep deprivation by preventing you from really falling a sleep?
• How often do you criticize and judge things and people?
• How do you deal with perfectionism?
• How do you deal with subtle addictions other than perfectionism?
• How do you deal with distractions?

[winterknight]

15 minutes ago, CreamCat said:

• How often are you englightened? Are you always enlightened? Are you enlightened while you are sleeping? Does enlightenment lead to sleep deprivation by preventing you from really falling a sleep?
• How often do you criticize and judge things and people?
• How do you deal with perfectionism?
• How do you deal with subtle addictions other than perfectionism?
• How do you deal with distractions?

Enlightenment is not a state. It does not come and go.

I criticize and judge sometimes.

As far as how to deal with the rest, it's about aligning your actions with your desires. That happens by discovering what your real feelings are, and that takes a combination of experimentation, metaphorization, and (if you can, I highly recommend) psychoanalytic therapy.

 

[CreamCat]

Do you mean that enlightenment by itself doesn't necessarily change how you deal with subtle addictions and distractions?

Edited December 12, 2018 by CreamCat

[winterknight]

12 minutes ago, CreamCat said:

Do you mean that enlightenment by itself doesn't necessarily change how you deal with subtle addictions and distractions?

To "get" to enlightenment you will have already had to deal with many of them. As for the rest, enlightenment doesn't have any one specific effect. It plays out differently in different minds. It will lead to a gradual burning out of addiction & distraction... but about how precisely that works no easy generalization can be made.

Edited December 12, 2018 by winterknight