I am enlightened. Sincere seekers: ask me anything

[Emanyalpsid]

Sorry, I dont want to overload you. Thanks for asking the questions. I am just trying to understand Brahman. But it seems you cant understand it right? You have to experience it? Else, you would have been able to explain what it is. Or you can understand it but you have not understood it.

To give a bit more background to why I am asking this. I am an enlightened Buddhist, meaning someone who attained nirvana in the buddhist context, and I am just trying to establish the differences between Brahman and what I will call here 'no-thingness' (which is not nothing) following Nirvana in buddhism. You are the only one I know of on this forum who attained enlightenment, in the Advaita vedanta view. Therefore, I hope that you would be able to help shine a light on this Brahman. 

The no-thingness in buddhism can be understood and explained.

So either there is a difference between Brahman and no-thingness. Meaning, no-thingness in buddhism can be explained and Brahman not.

Or there is a difference between our understanding of these and they are the same. Meaning, you dont understand Brahman, but you do experience it.

Edited December 12, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[winterknight]

8 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

Sorry, I dont want to overload you. Thanks for asking the questions. I am just trying to understand Brahman. But it seems you cant understand it right? You have to experience it? Else, you would have been able to explain what it is. Or you can understand it but you have not understood it.

To give a bit more background to why I am asking this. I am an enlightened Buddhist, meaning someone who attained nirvana in the buddhist context, and I am just trying to establish the differences between Brahman and what I will call here 'no-thingness' (which is not nothing) following Nirvana in buddhism. You are the only one I know of on this forum who attained enlightenment, in the Advaita vedanta view. Therefore, I hope that you would be able to help shine a light on this Brahman. 

The no-thingness in buddhism can be understood and explained.

So either there is a difference between Brahman and no-thingness. Meaning, no-thingness in buddhism can be explained and Brahman not.

Or there is a difference between our understanding of these and they are the same. Meaning, you dont understand Brahman, but you do experience it.

I also wonder why it has a name? Why Brahman?

Understanding can only go so far. So far as Brahman can be understood, I understand it. But the seeker must realize that the Truth goes beyond intellectual understanding.

If the Buddhist no-thingness can be fully understood and explained, then it is merely an object. Frankly I doubt that.

Technically Brahman is beyond being experienced as well, experience being a category, and Brahman being beyond categories.

And Brahman is also not a name, merely a pointer.

These things can all be only comprehended when the veils have been cleared from the mind...

Edited December 12, 2018 by winterknight

[FoxFoxFox]

@winterknight When speaking of 'reincarnation', are the teachings referring to the illusion of 'karma' in this life or actual reincarnation in another biological form? This has never been clearly explained. I am not asking whether reincarnation into another body is a real phenomenon or not, but the intention of the texts. What is your understanding? 

Additionally, are you familiar with the Tibetan Book of the Dead?

[winterknight]

3 minutes ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@winterknight When speaking of 'reincarnation', are the teachings referring to the illusion of 'karma' in this life or actual reincarnation in another biological form? This has never been clearly explained. I am not asking whether reincarnation into another body is a real phenomenon or not, but the intention of the texts. What is your understanding? 

Additionally, are you familiar with the Tibetan Book of the Dead?

The texts are referring to reincarnation of the subtle and causal bodies -- that is, the mind and its accumulated memories and karmas -- into another biological form -- or perhaps, if we're talking about heavens and hells, just the "subtle body" without normal biological limitations. Or biology itself may vary from plane to plane of existence.

I know of the Book of the Dead, but not familiar. 

Edited December 12, 2018 by winterknight

[Bauer1977]

Would you agree that the illusion of duality and everything, sprung from nothingness and the simple sense of being? Because that's my conclusion after realizing that I is God.

[Emanyalpsid]

3 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Understanding can only go so far. So far as Brahman can be understood, I understand it. But the seeker must realize that the Truth goes beyond intellectual understanding.

Okay, so it can not be explained and can not be understood. What truth? Is there a truth opposed to no-truth?

3 minutes ago, winterknight said:

If the Buddhist no-thingness can be fully understood and explained, then it is merely an object. Frankly I doubt that.

It can be and it is not an object, you can explain the relative. If someone can understand the explanation is something else.

May I invite you to read my explanations from page 6 in this topic? https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/28840-differences-between-hinduism-and-buddhism/?page=6

3 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Technically Brahman is beyond being experienced as well, experience being a category, and Brahman being beyond categories.

Beyond being experienced? So, it is supernatural, outside nature.

3 minutes ago, winterknight said:

And Brahman is also not a name, merely a pointer.

A pointer to something which is beyond experience?

3 minutes ago, winterknight said:

These things can all be only comprehended when the veils have been cleared from the mind...

My mind is gone, I am fully open-mindedness.

[winterknight]

2 hours ago, Bauer1977 said:

After reading your response, it occurred to me that all the "I am"  entries should be changed to "I is". I went back into the void tonight with that knowledge and tried this again.... when I was in that presence in nothing ness, Here is what I observed:

- I is a presence, a non dual singularity, pure Consciousness.

- I know that God is a presence, a non dual singularity, pure Consciousness.

- Therefore I is God!

Its clear to me now how ego, free will and will power are illusions feeding a perspective of individuality. It is the illusion of free will and will power that keep the illusion of an individual ego relevant. And God lets the illusion play out like a dog chasing its tail. The part that always stumped me, was that we must have will power if we, as ego, can choose to find God. But now I see how its a part of the illusion as well. Once the illusion of will power seeks to resolve the illusion of free will and ego, all 3 appear to collapse upon themselves. But it also now makes sense that if ego doesn't choose to use its own illusion of will power to seek out its own truth, the illusion of its own existence will remain intact. So in a way, the ego actually does have a certain amount of control over its own idea of existence, as it feeds its own illusion. No wonder this has been so hard to understand. Will power does affect the individual perspective/experience until it is acknowledged as being an illusion and is surrendered to God. It can now be recognized as always having been God, but with blinders on. Now, with I as God, there clearly is no ego, no free will and no will power. I is a singularity. 

This realization still never triggered an awe inspiring spiritual experience where my energy is the universes energy, like I read about others having. But now the nature of ego and God seem so obvious. What I will hold in my mind moving forward is, I is God.

 

Sorry for not responding to this earlier. Great, sounds like huge progress. Is this understanding peaceful? If so, stay in that peace, and if you find yourself out of it, go back, as many times as needed.

3 minutes ago, Bauer1977 said:

Would you agree that the illusion of duality and everything, sprung from nothingness and the simple sense of being? Because that's my conclusion after realizing that I is God.

Well in the end it cannot be said to have sprung at all...

[Bauer1977]

1 minute ago, winterknight said:

 

Sorry for not responding to this earlier. Great, sounds like huge progress. Is this understanding peaceful? If so, stay in that peace, and if you find yourself out of it, go back, as many times as needed.

Well in the end it cannot be said to have sprung at all...

No worries..... and yes, it is a peaceful place. The ultimate with regards to peacefulness.

[winterknight]

5 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

Okay, so it can not be explained and can not be understood. What truth? Is there a truth opposed to no-truth?

It can be and it is not an object, you can explain the relative. If someone can understand the explanation is something else.

May I invite you to read my explanations from page 6 in this topic? https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/28840-differences-between-hinduism-and-buddhism/?page=6

Beyond being experienced? So, it is supernatural, outside nature.

A pointer to something which is beyond experience?

My mind is gone, I am fully open-mindedness.

Yes, there is truth, but it is not opposed to non-truth; non-truth is delusion, actually.

No, it is not supernatural. Yes, it is a pointer to something beyond experience.

Anyway, if you're at peace, I'm happy for you.

[Emanyalpsid]

4 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Yes, there is truth, but it is not opposed to non-truth; non-truth is delusion, actually.

If there is truth, there is non-truth, cause what would this truth be if it were not true? What is this truth?

Quote

No, it is not supernatural. Yes, it is a pointer to something beyond experience.

If it is beyond categories, it is beyond nature.

 

Edited December 12, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[winterknight]

1 minute ago, Emanyalpsid said:

What is this truth?

If it is beyond categories, it is beyond nature.

 

Follow the path and you will find that truth that is beyond words.

No, "beyond nature" is itself a categorical description.

[FoxFoxFox]

@winterknight That being the case, have you any experience with karma of your own past lives? Have you had any vivid experiences where you 'knew' you were shedding some attachment that belonged to a previous life?

What about siddhis? I realize that the greatest achievement is Self realization, and that almost anything could be considered a siddhi, but have you noticed new capabilities that stand out?

For my own part, I seem to recall very clear memories of life as a Catholic priest in Italy. These memories are just there in the mind, without any basis. They are not imaginations either, as far as i know. Of course one cannot be certain.

[Emanyalpsid]

6 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Follow the path and you will find that truth that is beyond words.

If there is truth, there is non-truth, cause what would this truth be if it were not true?

Truth beyond words is also supernatural.

Quote

No, "beyond nature" is itself a categorical description.

Yes, of course the words "beyond nature" are. As these words are within nature, which is categorized. If it is not categorized, or beyond experience, it is outside nature or supernatural.

Thank you for answering my questions, I know enough.

Edited December 12, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[winterknight]

1 hour ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@winterknight That being the case, have you any experience with karma of your own past lives? Have you had any vivid experiences where you 'knew' you were shedding some attachment that belonged to a previous life?

No, not specifically ... but who knows -- maybe that's where dreams and so on come from, in part? Could be there are many things seemingly connected to previous lives but that we don't know about.

Quote

What about siddhis? I realize that the greatest achievement is Self realization, and that almost anything could be considered a siddhi, but have you noticed new capabilities that stand out?

For my own part, I seem to recall very clear memories of life as a Catholic priest in Italy. These memories are just there in the mind, without any basis. They are not imaginations either, as far as i know. Of course one cannot be certain.

No particularly new capabilities, no... as far as your prior life as priest, well, there are ways of seeing whether they are accurate, if you're really interested. I think those are the best "scientific" proofs of past lives -- people who have had details that were not in the historical record, but were investigated and later found to be true, to have corroboration.

Edited December 12, 2018 by winterknight

[FoxFoxFox]

@winterknight

Quote

there are ways of seeing whether they are accurate, if you're really interested.

I am interested. What are these ways? 

Another question, if I may. When talking about the causal body, are we referring to the illusion of being the doer? 

[winterknight]

3 minutes ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@winterknight

I am interested. What are these ways? 

Well you'd have to think about your memories and see if you could get very specific details that you could then take to a historian or archaeologist or something and see if that matches up with the truth. Maybe listen to this podcast? 

Quote

 

Another question, if I may. When talking about the causal body, are we referring to the illusion of being the doer?

 

Not exactly. The causal body is a theoretical term for the set of unmanifested karmas that govern our current and future thoughts, feelings, and actions. It manifests in feelings and thoughts -- that manifestation is called the subtle body. When it manifests in material ways -- through sense organs and actions, that's the physical body.

The sense of doership is an effect of ignorance, which has, strictly speaking nothing to do with the causal body. Ignorance is "uncaused."

[FoxFoxFox]

@winterknight

The teachings often tell us that the knowledge of the Self is self-evident in every individual. In your opinion, what is the best way to show this to someone? For example, and individual might believe that there in fact not such thing as "awareness" since that is only a concept. What do we tell this person that would quickly place him in a state that the Self is very palpable? 

I hope i'm not boring you with the constant questioning. Some of these are coming from other people.

Edited December 12, 2018 by FoxFoxFox

[FoxFoxFox]

Also, what about love? Many sages talk about love as a major factor in their enlightenment. What is the nature of this love in your understanding? Is this in the same vein as bliss of the Self, or more of a feeling related to the physical body? 

[winterknight]

13 minutes ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@winterknight

The teachings often tell us that the knowledge of the Self is self-evident in every individual. In your opinion, what is the best way to show this to someone? For example, and individual might believe that there in fact not such thing as "awareness" since that is only a concept. What do we tell this person that would quickly place him in a state that the Self is very palpable? 

I hope i'm not boring you with the constant questioning. Some of these are coming from other people.

Well, self-inquiry can sometimes work for that -- people will get little tastes immediately. Or sometimes people will relate to examples of times when they felt connected to something deeper inside -- experiences of being "in the zone," or experiences of profound peace in nature, or simply thinking of that time just after waking but before memory re-descends. Or sometimes being in the presence of a spiritually advanced person can do this. Sometimes. Or sometimes it can be about resolving various intellectual doubts they have -- they may be interested, but dealing with those doubts will help them.

It really depends on the person and a degree of intuition.

But then again, the person has to be receptive and ripe -- looking. There's a reason it's said in the Gita not to wake the sleepers. This teaching will only connect with people who already are longing for something more, and feel in their hearts a belief that it is there to be found. 

And no worries with the constant questioning. I might be bored, but I'll still answer 

2 minutes ago, FoxFoxFox said:

Also, what about love? Many sages talk about love as a major factor in their enlightenment. What is the nature of this love in your understanding? Is this in the same vein as bliss of the Self, or more of a feeling related to the physical body? 

This can mean many things. The suffering involved in painful experiences of romantic love can lead to the spiritual. Loving-kindness meditation can be a practice that quiets the mind and thus ultimately aids in self-inquiry. Loving others generally and broadly does the same -- seeing them as part of one interconnected whole (even though this is not the final truth). 

But the real love is of course simply your true nature, which is that total completeness... yes, the bliss of the Self.

[FoxFoxFox]

@winterknight

Quote

seeing them as part of one interconnected whole (even though this is not the final truth). 

By final truth you are referring to the teaching that nothing can be said about the Self, correct?

Quote

But the real love is of course simply your true nature, which is that total completeness... yes, the bliss of the Self.

Going back to bliss, I still cannot say that I experience the bliss aspect of the Self. In retrospect I can say that what I experience during the states of "no-mind" or samadhi is complete detachment. There is sometimes uncaused joy, but that is more of a feeling in the body, and not what i would call bliss. What is obstacle here? 

Edited December 12, 2018 by FoxFoxFox