I am enlightened. Sincere seekers: ask me anything

[cetus]

Love allows all.

[Forestluv]

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

But Love is yet distinct from Perfection.

You seem to put more effort/emphasis in communicating/teaching True Love than something like True Perfection. If this is so, why? 

[Natasha]

42 minutes ago, cetus56 said:

Love allows all.

The Absolute allows all. Why still call it 'Love'?

[Leo Gura]

41 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

You seem to put more effort/emphasis in communicating/teaching True Love than something like True Perfection. If this is so, why? 

Well of course what one chooses to emphasize when teaching is rather subjective and arbitrary.

I am interested in teaching all aspects of the Absolute. But this makes the teaching far more complex. And it requires time to roll the teaching out.

Keep in mind that what you see of my teaching is a very early version, a work in progress that isn't even 10% complete. So when the full teaching is complete 10-20 years from now, then you can nitpick what I left out. But when you finally see the full teaching, you'll be more than satisfied.

Love & Perfection as so closely related that it's not a big deal. When speaking you're gonna have to choose one framing vs another. All speech is limited and cannot fully capture what needs to be said.

More practically, Love is something ordinary people can resonate with and learn to practice in their daily lives. Videos on that coming soon.

Contrary to Love being some philosophical abstraction, Love is the fastest way to get people onto the spiritual path. People have a deep intuitive feel for love. Love cuts through the rational mind. If you've ever deeply loved another being, you'll understand how much God loves you and how powerful Love is. There is no power higher than your capacity to love. Love overcomes every single obstacle.

[xbcc]

Please let this be a topic where WinterKnight answers questions, as he meant this thread to be. Not a discussion topic where everyone can say some shit.

Edited August 21, 2019 by xbcc

[Brenzo2]

32 minutes ago, Keyhole said:

Don't assume you'll live that long.
Life is funny like that.

You may one day find yourself in a life you thought you'd be dead for. Assume you're infinite, whats the worst that can happen? 

[Forestluv]

@Leo Gura That gives me greater clarity. Thanks. 

[Natasha]

37 minutes ago, Mikael89 said:

Well good that you wouldn't use the word 'Love'.

Even after full circle you know that the objects are part of you, but you also know that You are unaffected by them. They come and go while You remain unchanged.

For example: clay is the substance/reality of clay pots. There are many different kinds of clay pots, big, small, etc. but clay remains clay all the time. Even if all pots are broken, clay remains. You are clay.

Yes, I know. I use metaphors too - wave and ocean/water, sand and sand castle, etc. But thanks for the clay and clay pots one, was a good one 

 

[Truth Addict]

6 hours ago, tsuki said:

Don't give me that, you know a lot about me, I've been around for a while.

Here's a list for the things I know about you:

• You're male.
• You're married.
• You're Polish.
• You have multiple journals on this forum.
• You took LSD last month or so, and realised some things.

Assuming that I know more than that requires me giving you a lot of attention. It's kind of narcissistic to think so, don't you think? You're obviously not the most important person in my life.

6 hours ago, tsuki said:

Why don't you give me your best shot at describing truth for a change?

It's easier to hide behind smoke screens and deny the stories of others. I know from experience.

Because if I want to be completely honest, I can't. It's not possible.

I'm simply using the neti-neti with you. Not denying your stories, and not hiding behind smoke screens. No sir.

6 hours ago, tsuki said:

Any hierarchy that is built based on difference in consciousness. For example: you teaching your dog to navigate the human world safely.

While it is certainly true that it may be necessary to resort to force in extreme situations, the force is a mean of communication and not the basis of hierarchy. The dog could easily kill you, but it isn't conscious of this possibility if it has been raised in captivity.
You on the other hand teach the dog out of concern for its safety despite its misbehavior.
You serve, it obeys and yet - you are equals despite being different and both of you preserve your dignity.

And yes, the dog teaches you how to teach it, but it is not the point of the teaching.
You could do pretty damn well without this knowledge, but the dog wouldn't.

?

That's a funny example. You already mentioned one way of how power is used in that hierarchy. But I will tell you exactly how power is the basis of that dynamic:

First of all, like you said, a dog isn't conscious that it can kill me because it has been raised in captivity. But what is raising dogs in captivity but forcing power? That's the core of the dynamic, and it's completely based on power.

Second, no. I don't teach the dog out of concern for his safety. That's just a story that people like to tell themselves and others, a nice cover they put on a 'zombies' magazine, to remain asleep. Thus, tricking the dog, themselves, and other people. But not me, haha ? I can easily see through their bullshit. The real motives behind having a dog and teaching him, etc... basically converge at preserving a 'status quo' among other people (stage Orange), or at living in the story of being a caring and a loving person (Blue or Green). Both of which, boil down to gaining more power in order to climb up the hierarchy. That's how the ego works, and that's how sneaky it is. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. There's also the ego at stage Yellow and beyond, but it's more tricky and slippery.

6 hours ago, tsuki said:

If it is the main paradigm from which the ego operates, it can easily become pathological.

Believe it or not. You don't need to worry about what paradigm you operate from, as long as you are aware of it.

6 hours ago, tsuki said:

Even if your animal instincts kick in when you are in immediate threat and won't get yourself killed, it has the potential to create a lot of psychological distress and decline the quality of your life. It is true that disidentification from negative emotions is a great skill, but it is even better if one can prevent them by solving problems for the benefit of everybody involved. That requires active effort.

What I'm talking about goes beyond disidentification from negative emotions, way way beyond. It transcends the duality of passive vs. active effort.

Edited August 22, 2019 by Truth Addict

[tsuki]

3 hours ago, Truth Addict said:

Assuming that I know more than that requires me giving you a lot of attention. It's kind of narcissistic to think so, don't you think? You're obviously not the most important person in my life.

Equating attention with narcissism? I am very sorry for your ego, man .

3 hours ago, Truth Addict said:

The real motives behind having a dog and teaching him, etc... basically converge at preserving a 'status quo' among other people (stage Orange), or at living in the story of being a caring and a loving person (Blue or Green). Both of which, boil down to gaining more power in order to climb up the hierarchy. That's how the ego works, and that's how sneaky it is. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. There's also the ego at stage Yellow and beyond, but it's more tricky and slippery.

You are an ego. The story you live out is important, and you are important too.
The meta-narrative you're providing is no more valid than living out the story of being a loving person from the point of view of the absolute.

Your aunt that is dying of cancer gave you the dog you've been playing with as a child.
That dog has been severely mistreated and can't function properly among humans.
You don't need that dog for anything because it so happens that you are a functioning, but lonely individual.

Don't talk about other people. It's your dog.

3 hours ago, Truth Addict said:

What I'm talking about goes beyond disidentification from negative emotions, way way beyond. It transcends the duality of passive vs. active effort.

You are not talking about anything. You are playing neti-neti with me. Talk, for once.

Woof!

Edited August 22, 2019 by tsuki

[Truth Addict]

3 hours ago, tsuki said:

Equating attention with narcissism? I am very sorry for your ego, man .

You don't need to agree with me. No problem.

3 hours ago, tsuki said:

You are an ego. The story you live out is important, and you are important too.

The meta-narrative you're providing is no more valid than living out the story of being a loving person from the point of view of the absolute.

I didn't claim otherwise. What makes you think so?

3 hours ago, tsuki said:

Your aunt that is dying of cancer gave you the dog you've been playing with as a child.

That dog has been severely mistreated and can't function properly among humans.
You don't need that dog for anything because it so happens that you are a functioning, but lonely individual.

That's a better example, but it still falls under the same category, a power based relationship.

First of all, me or my aunt owning the dog?! Regardless of how silly that concept of ownership is, isn't it a power based dynamic? If dogs were more powerful/smarter than us humans, they would probably end up owning us. You can't say I own something without first having power over it. Feeling lonely is not a noble reason, the dog does not care about fulfilling my desire for connection. I am literally using him for that purpose because I am stronger than him.

Second, the 'severe mistreatment' was an act of forcing power. It doesn't have to be intended. Power does not necessarily have to be applied with intent. In fact, in most cases, it's applied unconsciously.

3 hours ago, tsuki said:

It's your dog.

Again, if it wasn't for my power/his weakness, I might have end up being his human.

3 hours ago, tsuki said:

You are not talking about anything. You are playing neti-neti with me.

Precisely because there's nothing to talk about. All pointers are just games for the ego.

3 hours ago, tsuki said:

Talk, for once.

Why?

Edited August 22, 2019 by Truth Addict

[tsuki]

19 minutes ago, Truth Addict said:

First of all, me or my aunt owning the dog?! Regardless of how silly that concept of ownership is, isn't it a power based dynamic?

No.

24 minutes ago, Truth Addict said:

If dogs were more powerful/smarter than us humans, they would probably end up owning us.

The world is what it is. What it could possibly be is irrelevant.
Dogs aren't more powerful/smarter (or rather, more conscious) than humans and that is the fact your absolutely relative ego has trouble coping with. You may claim that hierarchies of consciousness (not power) are hierarchies of dominance, but that simply means that you are alienated from life.

You, as a factually more evolved ego, that has greater capability than dogs, can take upon yourself a responsibility towards them.
Yes, dogs can take care of themselves and they wouldn't need your help if there were no humans, BUT THERE ARE HUMANS AND THAT IS A FACT YOU'VE BEEN BORN INTO! By taking this responsibility, you are taking the mantle of a servant towards something that is lower than you. Power, even if it is used, IS NOT THE BASIS FOR THIS RELATIONSHIP. Your choice is. You can be the shepherd of this world simply because you are more conscious than other beings and this possibility becomes a necessity at a certain point in development of the ego.

41 minutes ago, Truth Addict said:

You can't say I own something without first having power over it.

You need a more evolved understanding of ownership you brute .

42 minutes ago, Truth Addict said:

Feeling lonely is not a noble reason, the dog does not care about fulfilling my desire for connection. I am literally using him for that purpose because I am stronger than him.

The dog does not care about your desire for connection, but you do. Your ego is just another being among other beings that needs to be cared for.
The dog also has needs that even it itself is not conscious of. That does not mean that it does not suffer because of those needs and it does not mean that you should not care about them. Turning away from your aunt's request hurts your aunt, hurts the dog and hurts you. It is an act aimed to preserve your passive attitude towards life and rejects your human spirit, which is bound to your ego (its fragility).

46 minutes ago, Truth Addict said:

Second, the 'severe mistreatment' was an act of forcing power. It doesn't have to be intended. Power does not necessarily have to be applied with intent. In fact, in most cases, it's applied unconsciously.

It is not your power and it is not the basis of your relationship.

48 minutes ago, Truth Addict said:

Precisely because there's nothing to talk about. All pointers are just games for the ego.

The ego the thing that gets you to truth.

49 minutes ago, Truth Addict said:

Why?

Woof! Woof!

[Nivsch]

So maybe no technique meditation will never help if we don't incorporate love with in?

[Truth Addict]

43 minutes ago, tsuki said:

No.

Just because you can't see it yet doesn't invalidate it.

43 minutes ago, tsuki said:

The world is what it is.

Saying that the world is what it is does not remove power as the core dynamic of the design.

You can't have it both ways. Either say the world is what it is and stop talking about hierarchies. Or, if you want to talk about hierarchies, then you have to accept the validity of other related terms, such as power.

The world is what it is, means that there's nothing more to understand. Yet, you keep trying to understand the world, but only how you like it to be. I'm not sure why you dislike the term power. It's as accurate of a description as it can get. Maybe try to stop seeing power as a bad thing and consider the possibility that it's a necessity. Power is just another facet of the absolute.

43 minutes ago, tsuki said:

You, as a factually more evolved ego, that has greater capability than dogs, can take upon yourself a responsibility towards them.

Yes, dogs can take care of themselves and they wouldn't need your help if there were no humans, BUT THERE ARE HUMANS AND THAT IS A FACT YOU'VE BEEN BORN INTO! By taking this responsibility, you are taking the mantle of a servant towards something that is lower than you. Power, even if it is used, IS NOT THE BASIS FOR THIS RELATIONSHIP. Your choice is. You can be the shepherd of this world simply because you are more conscious than other beings and this possibility becomes a necessity at a certain point in development of the ego.

Sugar-coat it however you want. There cannot be a shepherd without power.

43 minutes ago, tsuki said:

It is an act aimed to preserve your passive attitude towards life and rejects your human spirit, which is bound to your ego (its fragility).

Consider the opposite possibility of preserving your active attitude towards life and emphasising your human spirit, which is bound to your ego (its fragility).

I told you that I've transcended that duality. You're free to not believe me.

Maybe you should focus more on your own ego instead of mine?

43 minutes ago, tsuki said:

You need a more evolved understanding of ownership you brute .

I don't. And I'm not a brute. Maybe you're just afraid of facing that brutal truth.

43 minutes ago, tsuki said:

The ego the thing that gets you to truth.

I don't agree. But okay, because as you may see, that's just a pointer.

Edited August 22, 2019 by Truth Addict

[tsuki]

1 hour ago, Truth Addict said:

Sugar-coat it however you want. There cannot be a shepherd without power.

The posts are getting long and I've grown tired of this conversation, so I'm going to make this as short as possible.
I am not denying the existence of power and its place in the relative world.
What I am saying is that freedom is what underlies power and you can relate to freedom directly to establish hierarchies.

This very conversation is based on power only indirectly.
We may argue, but the underlying incentive is to open up (free) the limited mind of the other person.

1 hour ago, Truth Addict said:

The world is what it is, means that there's nothing more to understand.

No. Saying that world is what it is, means that the relative world is in a certain way.
You may shift perspectives all you want, but you won't shift out of the need to feed your body if you intend to live.
You may also convince yourself that you are less conscious than your dog, but that only proves your genius.

Hierarchies exist within the relative world and they do not originate in the person's mind.
The world is only absolutely relative for a solipsist.

Edited August 22, 2019 by tsuki

[Truth Addict]

58 minutes ago, tsuki said:

The posts are getting long and I've grown tired of this conversation, so I'm going to make this as short as possible.

I'm having fun. Please don't.

58 minutes ago, tsuki said:

I am not denying the existence of power and its place in the relative world.
What I am saying is that freedom is what underlies power.

Good. Because you didn't say that earlier. You kept on denying power until now. See:

17 hours ago, tsuki said:

You only think that because you think that all hierarchies are established through power and dominance. They are not.

Freedom is Power. Just like God is Love. They're all one and the same. Again, power is just one facet of God.

58 minutes ago, tsuki said:

This very conversation is based on power only indirectly.

I was going to use this example in my earlier posts. But I thought it wouldn't be appropriate. I thought it might trigger you.

58 minutes ago, tsuki said:

We may argue, but the underlying incentive is to open up (free) the limited mind of the other person.

Not necessarily. The freedom you're referring to here is relative, unlike the one you referred to earlier.

The underlying incentive is to find a common ground from which we can work together towards the same goals, whether that happens through brainwashing or through civilian conversations. Arguing is a form of using power to create more power. Whether it's conscious or not.

58 minutes ago, tsuki said:

No. Saying that world is what it is, means that the relative world is in a certain way.

You may shift perspectives all you want, but you won't shift out of the need to feed your body if you intend to live.
You may also convince yourself that you are less conscious than your dog, but that only proves your genius.

There is no relative world. The relative is the absolute.

There's something deeper that you're still missing, which is that you don't need a paradigm in order for you to be convinced of feeding yourself. All paradigms are just maps. But when you have the territory, all maps become optional.

You don't really need thought in order to survive. Thought might often be required to get you to survival, but you (God/devil) are the one who is doing the survival.

58 minutes ago, tsuki said:

Hierarchies exist within the relative world and they do not originate in the person's mind.

The world is only absolutely relative for a solipsist.

Whatever you say.

Edited August 22, 2019 by Truth Addict

[tsuki]

16 minutes ago, Truth Addict said:

Good. Because you didn't say that earlier. You kept on denying power until now. See: [...]
Freedom is Power. Just like God is Love. They're all one and the same. Again, power is just one facet of God.

I'm going to say it until it clicks with you, alright?
Freedom is at the bottom of power. Freedom underlies power. Power is grounded in freedom. Without freedom, power would be impossible.
The opposite is not true.

There is a hierarchy between power and freedom and this hierarchy is not based on human perception.

16 minutes ago, Truth Addict said:

Not necessarily. The freedom you're referring to here is relative, unlike the one you referred to earlier.

The underlying incentive is to find a common ground from which we can work together towards the same goals, whether that happens through brainwashing or through civilian conversations. Arguing is a form of using power to create more power. Whether it's conscious or not.

Repeating myself again, Woof!

All power is grounded in freedom. Without freedom there would be no power. Without absolute freedom, there would be no relative freedom.

16 minutes ago, Truth Addict said:

There is no relative world. The relative is the absolute.

Yet another solipsistic perception.

16 minutes ago, Truth Addict said:

There's something deeper that you're still missing, which is that you don't need a paradigm in order for you to be convinced of feeding yourself. All paradigms are just maps. But when you have the territory, all maps become optional.

I was stuck conflating the relative with the absolute for a very long time.
The fact that the relative and the absolute are one does not invalidate the relative.
The relative world exists.

16 minutes ago, Truth Addict said:

You don't really need thought in order to survive. Thought might often be required to get you to survival, but you (God/devil) is the one who is doing the survival.

And yet, God/devil has created the ego that deludes itself in its finitude. This ego is important.
It is important what you think and what kind of person you are. If you claim otherwise, this is a form of spiritual bypassing.

Being an ego that is doing its best to be a good ego is better than being an ego that is indifferent towards itself.
Egoic suffering and the release of it is a genuine form of spiritual practice. The ego is what allows you to experience God and have a personal as well as transpersonal relationship with it.

Edited August 22, 2019 by tsuki

[mandyjw]

Love transcends hierarchy, roles and power dynamics. For example I can parent my children by using power and control or I can connect with love and a deeper wisdom that does what the moment and situation requires out of love. I am from one perspective the child's parent, I'm bigger, smarter and wiser. And yet taking on the role of a parent, if I accept the challenge fully will change me to the core of my being. While I'm the parent, the trick of the universe is that that little child will become a tyrant who demands the love I show it be pure. It knows what real love is. I as the parent am the one who forgot in my growing up and attainment of my strength and knowledge. There's a a moment when you hold your child's hand and see the magic of the world and the connection together and you are both roles simultaneously. That's love, that's what we're here for.

 

 

[Phoenixx]

1 hour ago, Truth Addict said:

There is no relative world. The relative is the absolute.

The relative is only absolute for the individual. It's "in relation to". That's why it is called relative.

Solipsism sounds cool but is not the absolute reality.

Edited August 22, 2019 by Phoenixx

[Phoenixx]

20 minutes ago, mandyjw said:

That's love, that's what we're here for.

I don't call the ultimate truth "love". Truth has no specific tag attached to it. It could be a multitude of things but not "love".

Human concepts are just too fucking narrow.