I am enlightened. Sincere seekers: ask me anything

[winterknight]

3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Hmmm, does this go back to the hunter story in which the enlightened being did not “see” the running deer appear and disappear?

Well sort of... that story had many meanings. But it's all facets of the same Inexpressible. Basically all statements are wrong, because all categories are egoic, so the closest statements would be statements to that effect -- negating dualities: it's neither X nor not X.

Edited December 31, 2018 by winterknight

[Aakash]

@Serotoninluv , @Preetom I propose reversing the all duality paradox's all together 

AT current i feel like 

1 and 2 become 1 then that 1 becomes 2 (by natural phenomena) and that becomes 1 then becomes 2 again, the strange loop never ends. YOu are left with paradoxs with no answer at all. 

Given you reverse all paradox's you create new terminological meaning and then you can rearrange with your true ego this time. Its basically what i feel leo is doing. You can't read into a situation properly unless your enlightened to some degree thats one issue

The second issue is that if your enlightened and you end up being content with absolute nothingness or what ever position you are at then thats completely fine as we all know. But it , itself , to me that is. Does not signify it's the end but only grounds for a new landmark to take place. Since i believe something is changing. even if something is nothing. nothing is changing to or non are changing and this is where you end up with @winterknight negating dualities. 

I think here all thats left after this is imagination. Not the imagination of the false ego you create out of unconsciousness but the true ego you create out of consciousness and then you split back into 2 and then go to 1 ,2,1,2,1 and it's a never ending cycle for the whole of infinity. 

[Aakash]

this very post i posted has no logical sense to me... its almost like it contains no meaning from my point of view.. although i'm trying to put it in an coordinated manner ... still the meanings are infinite because you leave it to the imagination of the individual of the infinite on your sides of the screen. Its like a magnificant social-complex as @ivankiss once said to me.. 

I just think if i was to forecast future that lets say everyone was enlightened then what ? the world would stop in absolute nothingness lol there would be nobdoy to enlighten. At this point enlightened ego's would develop ?? they would be from the truth which is absolute nothingness and so you could call them true egos or ! true-trues! 

[Hellspeed]

Oh boy! Why don't you guys ask questions about how to awaken, not only the byproduct of answers on how reality works, hilarious. What a mindfuck you giving to winterknight. So childish to ask so many questions about reality, and for what ? Are not useful to any without experience, hahahaha.

Thumbs up winterknight, tough situation you got here    

[Aakash]

I agree tough situation; however i can also emphasis that there is a need for teachers and masters at every stage of the spiral 1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2 were actually only such baby consciousness if you think about it and its been what? billions of years on this planet supposedly. Wow what an interesting time period to be in. 

[Outer]

'What do you think of sitting in meditation? By that I mean meditation. Like for a certain period each day.

[winterknight]

2 hours ago, Outer said:

'What do you think of sitting in meditation? By that I mean meditation. Like for a certain period each day.

Yeah, it's a good idea for a while. Eventually meditation has to be moved out of sitting meditation and conducted at all times.

[Preetom]

6 hours ago, Aakash said:

@Serotoninluv , @Preetom I propose reversing the all duality paradox's all together 

AT current i feel like 

1 and 2 become 1 then that 1 becomes 2 (by natural phenomena) and that becomes 1 then becomes 2 again, the strange loop never ends. YOu are left with paradoxs with no answer at all. 

Given you reverse all paradox's you create new terminological meaning and then you can rearrange with your true ego this time. Its basically what i feel leo is doing. You can't read into a situation properly unless your enlightened to some degree thats one issue

The second issue is that if your enlightened and you end up being content with absolute nothingness or what ever position you are at then thats completely fine as we all know. But it , itself , to me that is. Does not signify it's the end but only grounds for a new landmark to take place. Since i believe something is changing. even if something is nothing. nothing is changing to or non are changing and this is where you end up with @winterknight negating dualities. 

I think here all thats left after this is imagination. Not the imagination of the false ego you create out of unconsciousness but the true ego you create out of consciousness and then you split back into 2 and then go to 1 ,2,1,2,1 and it's a never ending cycle for the whole of infinity. 

 

6 hours ago, Aakash said:

this very post i posted has no logical sense to me... its almost like it contains no meaning from my point of view.. although i'm trying to put it in an coordinated manner ... still the meanings are infinite because you leave it to the imagination of the individual of the infinite on your sides of the screen. Its like a magnificant social-complex as @ivankiss once said to me.. 

I just think if i was to forecast future that lets say everyone was enlightened then what ? the world would stop in absolute nothingness lol there would be nobdoy to enlighten. At this point enlightened ego's would develop ?? they would be from the truth which is absolute nothingness and so you could call them true egos or ! true-trues! 

Hope this video helps you with more clarity in that line of thinking 

I remember Jed Mckenna saying that it's not about destroying a non-existent ego. It's about destroying those parts which can't seem to stop clinging and identifying with ego and it's antiques 

Edited December 31, 2018 by Preetom

[Wisebaxter]

First of all, this quote from Adyashanti:

"When we start to let go into awareness or spirit, we start to recognize that that is who and what we are. We start to see that everything in existence is simply a manifestation of spirit. Everything is an expression of spirit, whether it’s the chair you are sitting on or the floor you are lying on or the shoes you wear. Everything is an expression of spirit: the trees outside, the sky, everything. In the same way, the body that you call “you,” the mind, the ego, the personality—all are expressions of spirit."

My question is, how do we know a tree is comprised of spirit? I can maybe have an experience of myself as spirit because I can do self enquiry and realise I am not my body, mind etc...but how can I speak for a tree, which appears to me as an inanimate object..

[Preetom]

1 hour ago, Wisebaxter said:

First of all, this quote from Adyashanti:

"When we start to let go into awareness or spirit, we start to recognize that that is who and what we are. We start to see that everything in existence is simply a manifestation of spirit. Everything is an expression of spirit, whether it’s the chair you are sitting on or the floor you are lying on or the shoes you wear. Everything is an expression of spirit: the trees outside, the sky, everything. In the same way, the body that you call “you,” the mind, the ego, the personality—all are expressions of spirit."

My question is, how do we know a tree is comprised of spirit? I can maybe have an experience of myself as spirit because I can do self enquiry and realise I am not my body, mind etc...but how can I speak for a tree, which appears to me as an inanimate object..

What he means is that first of all, there is no tree. There is only your perception of the tree. That perception of the tree is pervaded with 'your' knowing of it.

It goes even deeper. It's not like there is one thing called a perception of the tree, and a second thing called your knowing of that perception. ALL there is to that perception, IS the knowing. We never find the knowing 'of it'. We only know knowing aka spirit(the term which Adyashanti uses more)

[winterknight]

6 hours ago, Wisebaxter said:

First of all, this quote from Adyashanti:

"When we start to let go into awareness or spirit, we start to recognize that that is who and what we are. We start to see that everything in existence is simply a manifestation of spirit. Everything is an expression of spirit, whether it’s the chair you are sitting on or the floor you are lying on or the shoes you wear. Everything is an expression of spirit: the trees outside, the sky, everything. In the same way, the body that you call “you,” the mind, the ego, the personality—all are expressions of spirit."

My question is, how do we know a tree is comprised of spirit? I can maybe have an experience of myself as spirit because I can do self enquiry and realise I am not my body, mind etc...but how can I speak for a tree, which appears to me as an inanimate object..

Don't worry about the tree. Find yourself first, and then you will understand the tree.

[Wisebaxter]

12 hours ago, Preetom said:

What he means is that first of all, there is no tree. There is only your perception of the tree. That perception of the tree is pervaded with 'your' knowing of it.

It goes even deeper. It's not like there is one thing called a perception of the tree, and a second thing called your knowing of that perception. ALL there is to that perception, IS the knowing. We never find the knowing 'of it'. We only know knowing aka spirit(the term which Adyashanti uses more)

I've heard Rupert Spira talk about this and yeah I understand it in theory, that there is only the 'knowing' of something, which could suggest that the thing in and of itself doesn't exist outside of this knowing. But for me right now this is only a theory. The opposite, which is that there is a tree and on top of that there is a 'knowing' of the tree, could just as easily be true, indeed it seems more likely to be true. I'm guessing that deep self enquiry, meditation and psychedelics will help me get closer to the truth you speak of though. 

[Preetom]

10 minutes ago, Wisebaxter said:

I've heard Rupert Spira talk about this and yeah I understand it in theory, that there is only the 'knowing' of something, which could suggest that the thing in and of itself doesn't exist outside of this knowing. But for me right now this is only a theory. The opposite, which is that there is a tree and on top of that there is a 'knowing' of the tree, could just as easily be true, indeed it seems more likely to be true. I'm guessing that deep self enquiry, meditation and psychedelics will help me get closer to the truth you speak of though. 

Rigorously question those beliefs. Look at your own experience and actively try to separate a tree from the knowing of it. See if you can do it or not.

Ask yourself why do you believe in these groundless assumptions? Who fed you this 'common sense' which is just flat out wrong and fantasy? Can you even exhibit one sample out of million where you have your tree outside your knowing?

The only thing ignorance cannot stand is clear observation. Anytime you spot an ignorance, persistently observe on that ignorance and it disappears. Self-inquiry works is built upon this same mechanism. There is no such thing as ego but we feel ourselves as the doer. So when we persistently try to hunt down that entity, it is found as non-existent.

Edited January 1, 2019 by Preetom

[Wisebaxter]

2 minutes ago, Preetom said:

Rigorously question those beliefs. Look at your own experience and actively try to separate a tree from the knowing of it. See if you can do it or not.

Ask yourself why do you believe in these groundless assumptions? Who fed you this 'common sense' which is just flat out wrong and fantasy? Can you even exhibit one sample out of million where you have your tree outside your knowing?

There is only thing ignorance cannot stand is clear observation. Anytime you spot an ignorance, persistently observe on that ignorance and it disappears. Self-inquiry works in this same mechanism. There is no such thing as ego but we feel ourselves as the doer. So when we persistently try to hunt down that entity, it is found as non-existent.

My skeptical, materialistic side is still quite strong I think, probably because I haven't done nearly enough self enquiry. I'm not saying I believe it to be true, but the illusion is just so solid, if it's an illusion. My skeptical side keeps saying 'sure, I have no proof that a tree exists outside of my knowing, but neither do I have any proof that it doesn't.' So why would I run with one assumption at this stage over another, especially when there's more to point at the tree existing as a separate entity, namely my senses and the actual 'experience' of it. How can an experience be an illusion? Or is the experience real but it's just my context for it that's wrong? 

I will rigorously question all of these beliefs though, thank you. 

[Preetom]

2 minutes ago, Wisebaxter said:

My skeptical, materialistic side is still quite strong I think, probably because I haven't done nearly enough self enquiry. I'm not saying I believe it to be true, but the illusion is just so solid, if it's an illusion. My skeptical side keeps saying 'sure, I have no proof that a tree exists outside of my knowing, but neither do I have any proof that it doesn't.' So why would I run with one assumption at this stage over another, especially when there's more to point at the tree existing as a separate entity, namely my senses and the actual 'experience' of it. How can an experience be an illusion? Or is the experience real but it's just my context for it that's wrong? 

I will rigorously question all of these beliefs though, thank you. 

Your 'actual experience' is really saying that the tree is nothing but the knowing. But it's the network of unquestioned beliefs, that is mistakenly translating that into a groundless story.

'sure, I have no proof that a tree exists outside of my knowing, but neither do I have any proof that it doesn't.'

The very idea of a 'tree' came from your own intimate experience aka knowing. So without knowing, you wouldn't even register a thing called 'tree', let alone being confused about that tree being inside or outside your perception.

It's like you saw a magical pond in dreams, and now you are really confused about whether that magic pond exists outside your dream into the waking world. It doesn't! All of that pond was in your dream. All there was to the pond was your dream. Yet you are still projecting that the pond might have an objective existence in the physical world. Hope you got what I tried to mean by this metaphor 

 

[Wisebaxter]

5 minutes ago, Preetom said:

Your 'actual experience' is really saying that the tree is nothing but the knowing. But it's the network of unquestioned beliefs, that is mistakenly translating that into a groundless story.

'sure, I have no proof that a tree exists outside of my knowing, but neither do I have any proof that it doesn't.'

The very idea of a 'tree' came from your own intimate experience aka knowing. So without knowing, you wouldn't even register a thing called 'tree', let alone being confused about that tree being inside or outside your perception.

It's like you saw a magical pond in dreams, and now you are really confused about whether that magic pond exists outside your dream into the waking world. It doesn't! All of that pond was in your dream. All there was to the pond was your dream. Yet you are still projecting that the pond might have an objective existence in the physical world. Hope you got what I tried to mean by this metaphor 

Ok this is making more sense to me now. Thank you for taking the time to explain. Indeed, in my experience there is nothing but the knowing of the tree, so why would I make up some alternative version to assume otherwise? The dream example is also very helpful. I need to set up a really vigorous contemplation practice too. Right now I'm just lost in theory land. I really struggle with setting up new habits though, plus I'm just so addicted to theory, books, mental masturbation. It's safe, y'know? I don't have to really shake things up too much with that. 

[Preetom]

2 minutes ago, Wisebaxter said:

Ok this is making more sense to me now. Thank you for taking the time to explain. Indeed, in my experience there is nothing but the knowing of the tree, so why would I make up some alternative version to assume otherwise? The dream example is also very helpful. I need to set up a really vigorous contemplation practice too. Right now I'm just lost in theory land. I really struggle with setting up new habits though, plus I'm just so addicted to theory, books, mental masturbation. It's safe, y'know? I don't have to really shake things up too much with that. 

It's alright. Take your time and keep an open, curious mind.

All that theory will crumble on itself and you wouldn't know what hit ya hehe 

[winterknight]

On 1/1/2019 at 9:39 AM, Wisebaxter said:

My skeptical, materialistic side is still quite strong I think, probably because I haven't done nearly enough self enquiry. I'm not saying I believe it to be true, but the illusion is just so solid, if it's an illusion. My skeptical side keeps saying 'sure, I have no proof that a tree exists outside of my knowing, but neither do I have any proof that it doesn't.' So why would I run with one assumption at this stage over another, especially when there's more to point at the tree existing as a separate entity, namely my senses and the actual 'experience' of it. How can an experience be an illusion? Or is the experience real but it's just my context for it that's wrong? 

I will rigorously question all of these beliefs though, thank you. 

It really matters in the end not at all whether you believe the tree is real or not real, so long as you're interested enough to engage in intense self-inquiry. The game is not about intellectual beliefs, except inasmuch as you need to address them so that your mind is interested enough and focused enough to investigate itself. 

[Bobby]

@winterknight prior to awakening I found more scientific descriptions of the Absolute, such as Consciousness or Awareness to be the most compelling. Nondescript pointers such as “Buddha Nature” or “Tao” drove me absolutely bonkers.

now post awakening, I find the nondescript pointers much more adequate, and find this word “consciousnes” pretty unsatisfying for describing my experience.

in fact, right now I’m giggling thinking if the koan: “does the dog have Buddha-nature?” 

just wondering if that happened to you, it’s not a big deal or anything just trivia

Edited January 3, 2019 by Bobby

[Buba]

I dont care Truth. Because when I cared it at age of 13, I experienced horrible existential crisis, which turned my world upside down. 1.5 year ago I started this path after reading Tolle's "The Power of Now" to bring joy to my life, as a result same thing from my age of 13 happened.  Now I suffer more. I dont want Truth. I want happiness, bliss. 

Let's ask a question.

How not to shit pant in this path?