I am enlightened; sincere seekers ask me anything in relation to the path

[Emanyalpsid]

To say; "I am enlightened," is a contradictio in terminis, however, I used it here as a reference to my state of consciousness.

Enlightenment, as dubbed by Buddhism, means something totally different as enlightenment used by most people in the west. Your meaning of the word depends upon your interpretation, or experience, what it is. So, if you're not enlightened you can not make the judgement if someone is enlightened or not as you don't really know what to judge. How do you know if you are enlightened? Well that depends upon your interpretation.

The common interpretation in the west of the concept enlightenment is non-self. The realization that you are not separate from your environment as you are only consciousness of reality and not something separate from this.

The concept of enlightenment in Buddhism goes further though and means insight into the nature of reality as a whole and not only the self.  Enlightenment in buddhism means; to dissolve. A short explanation of what this means; this is the realization that reality does not exist upon itself, but that it is of dependent origination. Therefore, its essence is empty. A flower is dependent upon space, time, matter, gravity, etc., therefore, the flower does not exist upon itself.

Your consciousness is also from dependent origin as you need eyes and hands to see and feel the flower. Without consciousness there would be no reality, they came mutually dependent into existence. Therefore, it is not really perceived as what is perceived is being perceived through it. Therefore ,it doesn't need to know itself, as it knows, that itself came into existence through itself. Itself will dissolve. Itself is the ego of it, or the believe, out of ignorance that reality exists upon itself. Itself is what you are left with if the self dissolves. If you see through this you reached Nirvana. 

Now, you will probably not understand this at first, but lets hope you will.

So what am I enlightened from, you might ask? fear, the desire for meaning, the chain of thoughts, desire to have a grip, dissatisfaction, egocentric emotions, frustrations due to a worldview that does not correspond with reality. Do I not experience them at all? No, but If they arise I do not suffer from them. To make this clear I will use a famous buddhist text; 

A monk sees his mentor crying besides a grave.

The monk is thunderstruck and walks up to his mentor and asks; "Why are you crying?! I thought you learned us to not experience emotions?!" 

The mentor replies; "I am crying because I feel sad. "

You see, it is not about denying emotions or thought, it is about understanding them. And with understanding them I mean a transcedental understanding as a direct insight into the nature of reality.  If one realizes the emotions and thoughts have a cause and you realize this cause, you dont really suffer from them as you know how they came to be. You are then also able to take the cause away.

How did it came to the point that I made this topic? I see in the other topic there is a great demand of teachers. Am I a teacher? You be the judge. Through questioning me you can question yourself. I will not give you a simple answer as you should think for yourself; you have to find the exit in the maze that is your mind.

I had a lot of trouble understanding the texts about buddhism and that was mainly because they are not written in a way  that my western logical thinking mind could understand them. All the books I read about it were mainly just copied texts from other books or texts. So after gaining the insight into it all I decided to expand my notes into a text someone else could understand. To share this knowledge and to help people understand buddhism and themselves better. That is why I opened the website: http://www.foundationsofhumanlife.com It should serve as a guide for your mind to understand it all. So, you might want to read it first as most of your questions are probably answered there. But don't just believe what is written. Reflect upon it from your own experience. I am also interested to hear what is unclear or could be improved. As from my environment I have not had any real useful feedback.

Important note; if you start reading in chapter 13 instead of chapter 1, don't expect to understand what you read there. You can not understand a book or Buddhism if you skip to the last chapter and only read that. I understand your impatience though and I understand your assumption you can skip chapter 1 till 12 and still get it all. I was the same.

I can not answer questions like if I can unlock cities, etc. I am only consciousness, I can't do anything. So, therefore, to prevent a horseload of irrelevant questions in relation to the path, I ask you to not post them here. For the path they are irrelevant. English is not my mother language, so please forgive my mistakes.

Lets see where this goes..

Edited November 13, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[Shin]

Why Don't we just answer seeker questions on the topic they create themselves ?

I mean, at some point there will be more and more people which will awaken, so if everyone create their own topic about it I don't see the point of having a forum anymore.

[Jack River]

 

54 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

You see, it is not about denying emotions or thought, it is about understanding them. And with understanding them, I mean a transcedental understanding as a direct insight into the nature of reality.

Nice? This insight as in a coherent perception of the generative order. 

[non_nothing]

What has enlightenment added into your human experience /improved?

How did you know that you're enlightened?

What was your method/ practice if any? If none, what would you say as responsible for your trigger?

Describe you as before 6 months from you being enlightened?

What's the reason of human experience?

What would you say about human if you consider human as an invention?

 

[Jack River]

@Emanyalpsid I responded back to you yesterday and you haven’t yet responded back. I was wondering if that was similar to as you see it. 

 

   21 hours ago,  Emanyalpsid said: 

Not quite right, knowledge can also be obtained through direct sensory perception. 'How' is just looking for a method ,or cause, and is the right question to ask yourself. By asking yourself how did my thoughts came to be, you will end up by the root cause of your ego.  

However, asking yourself 'why' will force you into reasoning or the meaning of something, this will strenghten the ego as it will create more thoughts and spin a web of thoughts, which is the ego.

 

My reply was. 

What I am saying is when looking for a way out of suffering by searching for answers In ideas/concepts or thought we are no matter the case implicitly strengthening self. This action seems to imply that we as self are different from that process of thought and “we” can control by applying thought content to solve a problem that’s exsit separate from “us”. It’s from the start trying to escape the illusion as if the problem is different from the one who wants to escape “it”. So as long as we see that looking for an answer out of a problem strengthens “me” then we will not try. So that is to escape what is the case. Understanding what is really means to embrace the relationship with the problem of what is, as it is, or not looking for an answer but willing to observe the the fact as it is. 

About the direct perception I agree. But this is a seeing that is not limited to that lens of self. Its actually what faceless and robdl would talk about a lot. A seeing all supposedly different and distinct thoughts/actions/reactions as actually one movement in motion. Through this direct perception that is at its essence not of the response of thought there is an ability to see the whole of thought/self. As where usually thought only can see a small part of thought and chops away at those parts. This for example is limited to seeing through the concept. 

Make sense? 

 

This seems to be similar to what you said above. It’s directly realted to this insight/understanding/seeing that is beyond the limit of intellectual/conceptual understanding. It’s a holistic understanding. 

What do you think, is there a similarity here?

 

Edited November 12, 2018 by Jack River

[Salvijus]

Are you also self-enquiry practicioner?

Somehow I noticed that only advaita people go on talking they're enlightened

[Preetom]

1 minute ago, Salvijus said:

Somehow I noticed that only advaita people go on talking they're enlightened

More like contemporary advaita people. Swamis almost never take the burden of being 'Enlightened'.

But you're right I guess. Many ancient advaitic texts are nothing but declarations of the respective author/sage's own Enlightenment  

[Jack River]

7 minutes ago, non_nothing said:

What was your method/ practice if any? If none, what would you say as responsible for your trigger?

As I can see by the above post it was holistic understanding and therefore not a method/practice. For me there was no method. I’m curious to see the response too. 

Edited November 12, 2018 by Jack River

[Jack River]

@Preetom @Emanyalpsid so one teaching is Buddhist and one is advaita? 

Both are teachings according to text. 

But are they both starting with knowledge to end knowledge or is the Buddhist way more similar to how I went about it? 

I didn’t ever go into any traditional text. Is that similar to this Buddhist way? 

It's like some people go into a certain train of thought like Buddhism or advaita to understand, but I went into the nature of thought itself. So I didn’t explore a certain type of thinking but understood thinking itself. Is my observation correct here or? 

Edited November 12, 2018 by Jack River

[FoxFoxFox]

The word consciousnesses is thrown around so wily nilly, that it's very hard to understand what its meant in each context. Regardless I have one question though: Sat Cit Ananda? 

[Preetom]

@Jack River

You don't really need any scripture or teacher for Self-Realization aka Clear seeing. All texts are just instructing you get to this holistic clear seeing.

Theoretically, it is possible to just sit and work through every single assumptions and blindspots that is preventing Clear seeing in order to reach there. But it usually is very overwhelming and thus comes all the texts and traditions with a helping hand. 

But that helping hand can easily turn into a hand of delusion if it not understood properly and abused, which has been happening for thousands of years  

[i am I AM]

@Jack River What's the last thing you were doing before being? Assuming time has the order you believe it has, or time exists?

Also, why answer a question?

[Emanyalpsid]

31 minutes ago, non_nothing said:

What has enlightenment added into your human experience /improved?

How did you know that you're enlightened?

What was your method/ practice if any? If none, what would you say as responsible for your trigger?

Describe you as before 6 months from you being enlightened?

What's the reason of human experience?

What would you say about human if you consider human as an invention?

 

1. It made me feel connected to reality more as I dont make a distinction between me and reality anymore and I dont hold onto it as something definite. I now flow better in it..

2. When I realized the dependent existence of it all, every desire to know it fell away as I realized there is nothing to be found or seen. Chapter 12. reality will help you here.

3. meditation, psychedelics (LSD, shrooms, but only in moderate quantities), reading, hearing, seeing, just observing in general. Although I must say my memory is very bad, I suffered from a cerebral hemorrhage from an accident when I was nine. So my brain probably grew more on the other parts of my brain. I am very sensitive.

4. I already had the feeling I was there as I already had dissolved the self. However there were some things I did not understood...so I kept searching.

5. The reason you give it.

6. irrelevant

Edited November 12, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[i am I AM]

Just now, FoxFoxFox said:

The word consciousnesses is thrown around so wily nilly, that it's very hard to understand what its meant in each context. Regardless I have one question though: Sat Cit Ananda? 

above is related to what I was saying(if you agree)

Edited November 12, 2018 by i am I AM

[Jack River]

Just now, Preetom said:

@Jack River

You don't really need any scripture or teacher for Self-Realization aka Clear seeing. All texts are just instructing you get to this holistic clear seeing.

Theoretically, it is possible to just sit and work through every single assumptions and blindspots that is preventing Clear seeing in order to reach there. But it usually is very overwhelming and thus comes all the texts and traditions with a helping hand. 

But that helping hand can easily turn into a hand of delusion if it not understood properly and abused, which has been happening for thousands of years  

Thanks. That’s what faceless said. He did it all by looking at what is. His way of looking at what is is what got through to me. 

I was wandering because he seemed to say similar things as you guys but he never mentioned traditional texts and stuff. Thanks for your response @Preetom?

[Emanyalpsid]

21 minutes ago, Jack River said:

@Emanyalpsid I responded back to you yesterday and you haven’t yet responded back. I was wondering if that was similar to as you see it. 

 

   21 hours ago,  Emanyalpsid said: 

Not quite right, knowledge can also be obtained through direct sensory perception. 'How' is just looking for a method ,or cause, and is the right question to ask yourself. By asking yourself how did my thoughts came to be, you will end up by the root cause of your ego.  

However, asking yourself 'why' will force you into reasoning or the meaning of something, this will strenghten the ego as it will create more thoughts and spin a web of thoughts, which is the ego.

 

My reply was. 

What I am saying is when looking for a way out of suffering by searching for answers In ideas/concepts or thought we are no matter the case implicitly strengthening self. This action seems to imply that we as self are different from that process of thought and “we” can control by applying thought content to solve a problem that’s exsit separate from “us”. It’s from the start trying to escape the illusion as if the problem is different from the one who wants to escape “it”. So as long as we see that looking for an answer out of a problem strengthens “me” then we will not try. So that is to escape what is the case. Understanding what is really means to embrace the relationship with the problem of what is, as it is, or not looking for an answer but willing to observe the the fact as it is. 

About the direct perception I agree. But this is a seeingthat is not limited to that lens of self. Its actually what faceless and robdl would talk about a lot. A seeing all supposedly different and distinct thoughts/actions/reactions as actually one movement in motion. Through this direct perception that is at its essence not of the response of thought there is an ability to see the whole of thought/self. As where usually thought only can see a small part of thought and chops away at those parts. This for example is limited to seeing through the concept. 

Make sense? 

 

This seems to be similar to what you said above. It’s directly realted to this insight/understanding/seeing that is beyond the limit of intellectual/conceptual understanding. It’s a holistic understanding. 

What do you think, is there a similarity here?

 

Sorry mate, didnt see that. Yeah that is indeed similar to what I said. By asking 'why' you are looking for a reason and therefor you look into ideas/concepts, but that is the structure of the ego. See for more info chapter 5 conceptual thinking and chapter 10 the self.

[Emanyalpsid]

1 hour ago, Salvijus said:

Are you also self-enquiry practicioner?

Somehow I noticed that only advaita people go on talking they're enlightened

I read this word before, but never really cared to look for its meaning or to give it a meaning. But if it in common use means figuring out the self. What else is there to do?

Edit; In relation to the path of course. There are tons of other things to do besides that. 

Edited November 12, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[Jack River]

4 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

Sorry mate, didnt see that. Yeah that is indeed similar to what I said. By asking 'why' you are looking for a reason and therefor you look into ideas/concepts, but that is the structure of the ego. See for more info chapter 5 conceptual thinking and chapter 10 the self.

Thanks for the response

by the way your ability to speak/write in a second language rocks?

your second language is better than my first language  

Edited November 12, 2018 by Jack River

[Emanyalpsid]

19 minutes ago, Jack River said:

@Preetom @Emanyalpsid so one teaching is Buddhist and one is advaita? 

Both are teachings according to text. 

But are they both starting with knowledge to end knowledge or is the Buddhist way more similar to how I went about it? 

I didn’t ever go into any traditional text. Is that similar to this Buddhist way? 

It's like some people go into a certain train of thought like Buddhism or advaita to understand, but I went into the nature of thought itself. So I didn’t explore a certain type of thinking but understood thinking itself. Is my observation correct here or? 

Well I didnt really took the normal buddhist way and I didnt go into the traditional text either  but Buddhism teaches that ignorance, or false-knoing is the root cause of the ego. If you come close to Nirvana, you will realize that less mental activity is a more pure experience. But the mind is not at rest before you realize non-self.

Well buddhism is also about understanding thinking itself, cause that is what the self is. 

[Emanyalpsid]

31 minutes ago, FoxFoxFox said:

The word consciousnesses is thrown around so wily nilly, that it's very hard to understand what its meant in each context. Regardless I have one question though: Sat Cit Ananda? 

Dont know the words but according to wikipedia it comes from hinduism. According to the text there; In monist traditions, sacchidananda is considered directly inseparable from nirguna (attributeless) Brahman or the "universal wholeness of existence", wherein the Brahman is identical with Atman, the true individual self.

Atman is the opposite of anatman. Atman means self and anatman non-self.

Edited November 12, 2018 by Emanyalpsid