I am enlightened. Sincere seekers: ask me anything

[winterknight]

2 hours ago, cetus56 said:

@winterknight Your answers excede the question asked. That's a rare gift.

Thank you.

3 minutes ago, GabeN said:

how does your physical body feel now? some people call it "Having a natural high..." is that true?  

I don't identify myself with the body... and that is the natural high. But it's not really physical. The body can feel good, it can feel bad. It depends...

[GabeN]

 

2 minutes ago, winterknight said:

I don't identify myself with the body... and that is the natural high. But it's not really physical. The body can feel good, it can feel bad. It depends...

@winterknight

Makes sense! Thanks.

were you seeking to be enlightened? and if so, are you still seeking anything?

[sgn]

@winterknight Do you have "friends"? If so why?

[winterknight]

19 minutes ago, GabeN said:

 

@winterknight

Makes sense! Thanks.

were you seeking to be enlightened? and if so, are you still seeking anything?

Only that which identifies with the body and mind can seek enlightenment. But enlightenment is the revelation that one is not the body and mind, and that the seeker doesn't exist. That's the (seeming) paradox. Only the body and mind seek anything now... and sure, they seek normal things: food, shelter, companionship. But they do not believe these things will grant happiness (though they may grant pleasure, which is different). They only seek them out of past habit.

True happiness is already ensured at all times. And the body and mind do not really exist.

5 minutes ago, sgn said:

@winterknight Do you have "friends"? If so why?

Sure I do -- if for the sake of discussion I say I have a body and mind. It might appear that I have friends.

But in reality there's no body and mind, neither mine nor anyone else's, and thus no "I" to have friends, and no others to be friends with.

Edited November 22, 2018 by winterknight

[sgn]

@winterknight I understand. Thanks. And what do you feel are the benefits of this? What do you get out of it?
I ask because I can see my need for friendships is very egoic. For example wanting to feel belonging, love, appreciation and so on.
What are the benefits of friendships when the neediness is gone?

[winterknight]

1 hour ago, sgn said:

@winterknight I understand. Thanks. And what do you feel are the benefits of this? What do you get out of it?
I ask because I can see my need for friendships is very egoic. For example wanting to feel belonging, love, appreciation and so on.
What are the benefits of friendships when the neediness is gone?

it's basically done because of prior karma. It's about prior psychological habits. It may have certain benefits that come with it, but that's not the reason why it's done.

Trying to understand the enlightened mind is really not a great use of time. From the seeker's standpoint, it is full of paradoxes. Best to inquire and get there yourself...

[graded24]

@winterknight 1-Rupert Spira says being aware of being aware is what we call "I" .  Is this true (relatively or absolutely) ? 

2-So he goes on to suggest using 'am I aware?' as a replacement for 'who am i' for the direct path of self inquiry. The purpose is to be aware of being aware. This proposition is attractive because being aware of being aware feels much clearer an instruction than following the I-thought which often is not clear what it is in current experience. Do you think this is viable alternative to 'who am I?' ?

[Emanyalpsid]

11 hours ago, WindInTheLeaf said:

The right questions as in the questions that leads to the end of questions. All answers lie within, do they not? So anything resembling an answer without is clouded by the appearance of separation. You provide some answer on a computer screen but how can this ever be anything but the cause of confusion? No matter how well put your answers may be, they, as part of 'illusion', keeps the wheel spinning. And what if you suddenly reached a peak beyond the peak, beyond any notion of a mountain, and saw that you didnt really know what you thought you knew? And that you, both the part of you that were preaching and the part of you that were seeking went in circles at the edge of the cave listening to echoes of your own voice?

Yep you are right, but nobody really cares, cause here is someone who says he is enlightened. And he has answers to questions, so they will just believe him. It is a pity, but the desire to reach enlightenment and ask someone who says he is, is greater then a focus on self-inquiry. That is why they will never reach it, but they are in the illusion they are coming closer to the truth.

He is a non-dualist, not enlightened as a Buddhist like Thich Nhat Hanh or any other buddhist.

But on this forum they are all looking for non-duality, it is what Leo preaches.

So they don't really read our posts, our want to listen to what we say. My advice, put your energy in self-inquiry and let the gullible ask questions to the priest. If they believe hard enough they are there, they will feel enlightened.

Can't really prevent such a movement, nor should you want too. Gullible people will always listen to people who are a bit more knowledgeable. If you want the world to be different then it is, you are going to suffer.

Edited November 22, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[Preetom]

@winterknight

1) In order for intense, unbroken self-inquiry to happen; is some sort of disillusionment towards the tantalizing external world necessary? I mean one can't necessarily chase the subject and some object at the same time... what are your thoughts on this?

2) This is related to the 1st question in a sense. Your 2 most recommended approaches for Enlightenment is Psychoanalysis/dynamics and Self-inquiry/Surrender. But aren't these 2 things contradictory? Psychoanalysis is the study of the categories of the mind, while self-inquiry is bypassing all categories and seeking/resting as the source of mind. So do you recommend psychoanalysis to size down the neurosis of the mind so that intense self-inquiry can begin later? I can't see how the two can go on simultaneously...

[Annoynymous]

@winterknight if you feel someone has done evil to you which caused you great suffering and you see that person without caring much about it, will you react to him/her and yell at her? Beacuse it is causing you suffering. Or will you do something alternative to end your suffering? And what would that alternative be?

[cetus]

 

11 hours ago, WindInTheLeaf said:

If an arrow exceeds its target what is there to say about the aim? With great power comes great responsibility. 

@WindInTheLeaf His aim is both true and powerful as his answers deeply penetrate the bulls eye of the question.

*I'm going to ask you to please refrain from challenging the OP's way of teaching whether you agree with it or not. It is a distraction for those who are willing to learn from him. Thanks

[Flammable]

How can you transcend the 'I am' ? Is it just by staying with it for long enough? As there is still an 'I' in that form...

[i am meaning that place of quiet after you have asked 'to whom did this thought arise' and there is no logical answer for the mind to grasp]

Edited November 22, 2018 by Flammable

[seeking_brilliance]

3 hours ago, Emanyalpsid said:

Yep you are right, but nobody really cares, cause here is someone who says he is enlightened. And he has answers to questions, so they will just believe him. It is a pity, but the desire to reach enlightenment and ask someone who says he is, is greater then a focus on self-inquiry. That is why they will never reach it, but they are in the illusion they are coming closer to the truth.

He is a non-dualist, not enlightened as a Buddhist like Thich Nhat Hanh or any other buddhist.

But on this forum they are all looking for non-duality, it is what Leo preaches.

So they don't really read our posts, our want to listen to what we say. My advice, put your energy in self-inquiry and let the gullible ask questions to the priest. If they believe hard enough they are there, they will feel enlightened.

Can't really prevent such a movement, nor should you want too. Gullible people will always listen to people who are a bit more knowledgeable. If you want the world to be different then it is, you are going to suffer.

Who's listening to who? Isn't this just a story being played out with no one behind the wheels? Who gives a crap if people want to listen to what he says. Literally who? Everything will play out exactly as it should, including your objections to this thread. 

[Preetom]

47 minutes ago, Flammable said:

How can you transcend the 'I am' ? Is it just by staying with it for long enough? 

Yes that's the idea. You don't let the 'I AM' to become 'I am this or that'.

When you continuously separate the subject from the objects and don't let the subject cling with any further objects, that fictitious ego 'I' vanishes. Because this ego 'I' has no independent existence of it's own. It can only claim it's validity by sticking itself with an object (thoughts, sensations, attachments). 

Then in it's place, the True Self shines

[ajasatya]

1,446 replies
27,189 views

i am impressed!

[Hsinav]

This is one of the most interesting and helpful threads ever, thanks @winterknight

[winterknight]

9 hours ago, Etherial Cat said:

Thank you for you answer,

Another question arised as I was reading your answer. Are you suggesting psychoanalysis as a way to make the ego manageable until the True-Self is permanently realized? 

I do both self-image work (with the attempt to ameliorate its functionality or health) and Self-inquiry. 

I have mixed-feeling towards this as the two approaches are antagonistic. It comes from the fact that working on the fiction seems to only feed it, I reckon.  Also, why work on something imperfect when I am already perfect under all those layers of conditioning?

I am a bit lost on that point too...

It's not exactly about making the ego manageable until the True Self is permanently realized, as if these were two completely different things -- making it manageable, or in other words, calming the mind, is the very core of Self-realization.

Now self-image work is a little different than psychoanalysis -- the goal of psychoanalysis is primarily not to ameliorate functionality or health, though that hopefully happens, but to help the person see and understand their emotional patterns, and thus bring into consciousness things they may have been keeping out of it. The result is a more integrated mind, and thus one that is calmer, one that is more in touch with its desire, whatever it is. 

People come to Truth realization when they are ready for it, when they really want it. To get to that position of true desire, other issues must be worked through. Each person is a kind of puzzle that they must solve themselves. They must work their way step-by-step wherever they are on the basis of emotional honesty: being true to what they really feel about where they want to go.

And even when the Truth has been touched or glimpsed, prior tendencies pull the mind back. It helps to synthesize these prior tendencies to understand and get in touch with them. 

Psychoanalysis helps with these processes. Not everyone needs it, but I do feel like almost everyone could benefit from it. 

Observe how, in the past, spirituality grew up in the guru-disciple tradition, where the guru was trusted completely with the content of one's thoughts. That's a precursor to psychoanalysis... that kind of relationship can really help move the spiritual process along. 

8 hours ago, graded24 said:

@winterknight 1-Rupert Spira says being aware of being aware is what we call "I" .  Is this true (relatively or absolutely) ? 

2-So he goes on to suggest using 'am I aware?' as a replacement for 'who am i' for the direct path of self inquiry. The purpose is to be aware of being aware. This proposition is attractive because being aware of being aware feels much clearer an instruction than following the I-thought which often is not clear what it is in current experience. Do you think this is viable alternative to 'who am I?' ?

It is, but I don't like it as much. I'll tell you why. Yes, awareness is easier to grasp at first, but that has a downside.

See, that which is "aware of being aware" is still the witnessing ego, not quite the Self.

Awareness as you normally think of it is "awareness of" something. That's the kind of awareness we're normally familiar with. If you focus on that, you'll tend to lock yourself into that "subject-object" notion of awareness.

There's a deeper awareness, that is awareness not of something, but is awareness "awaring" itself, so to say. That's the Self. That's very hard to get to if you keep thinking the idea "awareness," I think. But that Self is very connected to the "I." If you follow it, "I" goes straight to that. 

Of course the "I" is not clear in current experience. The true I cannot be seen. You simply are it. The point of inquiry is to clear away all the things you think of as I out of your experience. What remains, that which cannot be named or observed? That is you!

All that said -- do what you feel drawn to. You will learn either way.

3 hours ago, Preetom said:

@winterknight

1) In order for intense, unbroken self-inquiry to happen; is some sort of disillusionment towards the tantalizing external world necessary? I mean one can't necessarily chase the subject and some object at the same time... what are your thoughts on this?

2) This is related to the 1st question in a sense. Your 2 most recommended approaches for Enlightenment is Psychoanalysis/dynamics and Self-inquiry/Surrender. But aren't these 2 things contradictory? Psychoanalysis is the study of the categories of the mind, while self-inquiry is bypassing all categories and seeking/resting as the source of mind. So do you recommend psychoanalysis to size down the neurosis of the mind so that intense self-inquiry can begin later? I can't see how the two can go on simultaneously...

1. yes, some disenchantment with the outside world is necessary, correct. not total disenchantment necessarily, but enough to put you on the path. the more you turn away from the temptations of the external world, the better.

2. they certainly can go on simultaneously, and it is useful that they do -- see my answer earlier in this reply.

2 hours ago, Annoynymous said:

@winterknight if you feel someone has done evil to you which caused you great suffering and you see that person without caring much about it, will you react to him/her and yell at her? Beacuse it is causing you suffering. Or will you do something alternative to end your suffering? And what would that alternative be?

You can yell at people if you want, but that will not end your suffering. Suffering can only be ended by calming the mind through self-inquiry, therapy, expressive writing/art -- by looking inward.

1 hour ago, Flammable said:

How can you transcend the 'I am' ? Is it just by staying with it for long enough? As there is still an 'I' in that form...

[i am meaning that place of quiet after you have asked 'to whom did this thought arise' and there is no logical answer for the mind to grasp]

You can either simply stay with that quiet, relaxing, or you can ask yourself intently: to whom is this quiet occurring?

Edited November 22, 2018 by winterknight

[winterknight]

24 minutes ago, ajasatya said:

1,446 replies
27,189 views

i am impressed!

12 minutes ago, Hsinav said:

This is one of the most interesting and helpful threads ever, thanks @winterknight

You're welcome.

[Strikr]

would you recommand some books ?

[Victor Mgazi]

@winterknight

What would it mean to you if a master, perhaps your favorite teacher, told you that you've not truly experienced enlightenment? 

PS: Not looking for a nondual type of answer, but a genuine one.