What techniques have gotten the most people to enlightenment

[JohnnyBravo]

@Tony 845

Credit Leo to saying this somewhere else.

The idea is this: its never what method, its about what attitude.

Years ago in the martial art community, debates were had which martial art was 'the best.' First it was BJJ, then it wasnt, then it was Muay Thai, then it wasnt. Then it was a mixture. Then it wasnt. Then taekwondo was effective, but also it wasnt. Then wrestling, but also boxing. (Im making this story up in terms of the styles. But the debate was real.)

In the context of fighting sports, many people eventually found out which martial art was the best after so many trials of this style VS that style. Which one was it?

No one.

The intensity of the practitioner, the gel with tbe individual and their chosen discipline, the style and essence of the fighter......this was the Truth.

An old school Karate practitioner who specializes in that will beat any young guy who has only done a year or two of boxing. Worse, if they spent years dibbling and dabbling between arts, they will be especially easy to beat.

The man that has done boxing for 30 years is far more dangerous than the new UFC kid who has just won 2 fights.

The kung fu monk, or Aikido yogi, is superior to the fit dude who has done some serious backyard wrestling with his friends.

Style doesnt matter.

Intent and preference to the Individual matter.

So once you have discovered your favourite go-to-technique for meditation, STOP SEARCHING. Go deep with that thing you have found, and with faith and intensity and practise and God, you will get enlightened in your own way.

For me, its a blend of Wim Hof breathwork or Pranayama with the sit perfectly still method. Feeks Feels good. Easy for me. Works well. 

Mistake is to try other techniques at this stage. I have found my thing.

If searching, sample many dishes.

Once you taste something you enjoy, stay with that single food until satisfied.

Go deep on the method that finds you. After this, ignore most of this forum and do your thing.

[Enlightenment]

@Tony 845 Vipassana(meditating on the mind is very good),  Aware of awarenes, Noting, Actualism

also, Buddha got enlighten not through just SDS, but Samatha/Vipassana meditation, it can be called a mix tho because of how long his sits where

[Forestluv]

7 hours ago, Identity said:

@Serotoninluv What Rupert Spira explains in the video is what confuses me. What is the relationship between seeing the screen and the movie changing? The way he explains it is as if getting enlightened will not have any influence on life. But this is not the full story, right? Because when you do get enlightened you change yourself as well.. and you are part of the movie... 

There is this side of being more loving, moral, at peace and all this is all form, right?

And also it is possible to grasp insights about the absolute in relative form, I mean Rupert has the capacity to explain it in some way..

Isnt this talk about there being nothing to grasp, the absolute, only part of the story?

What is the relationship between absolute and relative?

Ahhh, wonderful questions. The screen metaphor is so so juicy and fun to unpack.

This screen metaphor goes beyond the "observer + object" stage, yet includes both observer and object. As you picked up on, it includes both absolute and relative. I consider it to be a metaphor that seems deceptively simple. Yet it is very deep.

Let's first consider stages and consider the relative and absolute as separate. The first stage is awareness of objects reveals itself. There is detached awareness that does not identify with any object. This awareness does not give meaning to any object or happening. If meaning is assigned to an object or meaning, awareness is aware of that yet is still detached from that meaning assignment. Here, objects include all things such as trees, pencils, sounds, feelings, thoughts etc. If a thought arises, there is awareness of that thought, yet it has no more relevance than a bird chirp. The thoughts might be "My neighboor is so annoying" and the body may feel irritated. Again, there is detached awareness that there are thoughts, meaning and feelings arising - yet as awareness has no more relevance than a bird chirp. One trap at the personal level is to identify as being the "observer". Thoughts and beliefs such as "I am observing my thoughts" is indicative of identification with awareness. In Spira's analogy it would be like identifying as a person in the theater watching the movie. As detached as this observer may be, there is still separation. One way out of this dynamic is when awareness of the observer (person watching the movie) is revealed. Yet then again, a mind can identify as being the observer of the observer. Then there is awareness of the observer of the observer - which is then identified with it. There is a threshold in which there are so many awareness of observer levels that it becomes infinite and collapses into simply awareness.

Spira is going one step further into nonduality. In the above video he is trying to pull the women a half-step. Yet she isn't ready for even a half-step - it is actually a big step. . . So here we venture into nonduality, but it is important to note we are not rejecting duality. Integrating the two is a further step which we will address in a bit. . . Imagine the movie playing on the screen. If we step back, we can see objects like cars and people moving around. We can see joy, happiness etc. This is a valid perspective, yet let's let go of that and zoom into the screen. If we look real close, we can see the screen and pixels dancing around. From this close-up view there is only pixels moving around - we can no longer make sense of it and give it meaning. There are no more cars and people moving around. There is no way to assign meaning. How could one say the dancing pixels are "love"? We may see some pixels and say "that is love", yet when we step back we see those pixels are organized in such a way that a person is murdering another person. Ooops!! That aint love from this perspective!!

So from the pixel perspective, we simply have dancing pixels moving around. There is no way for us to make any distinctions. Now, take a closer look. We first saw separate pixels interacting with each other. Yet if we look even closer, we see that it is actually one giant pixel that is modulating. The giant pixels swirls around. Here is a key. . . to assign any distinction or value to the one giant pixel, what needs to happen? For example, to say "it is love", what needs to happen? Within the giant pixel there is nothing. To assign a something there must be separation. There must be some separate entity observing the giant pixel and assigning love. This is the big step into nonduality that is very challenging. The sense of separation dissolves and there is just the dancing pixel. There is no longer a separate you. It is only the swirling pixel. Any statement about that pixel requires separation. Awareness itself is a duality. For there to be awareness, there must be a separate thing to be aware of. In this analogy, awareness and object collapse into one (the one giant swirling pixel).

To take it one step further, look around you. The human mind is conditioned to have a "far-out" view and see all the objects. Yet can you see all the pixels? Everything around you are the pixels on an invisible screen. Notice how some pixels around you are moving and some pixels are still. The tree branch pixels are moving. The parked car pixels are still. Now look deeper. See the one giant pixel of everything around you. It is one giant pixel swirling around. A big step further. . . see that YOU are also pixels within the one giant swirling pixel. . . What needs to happen to make any statement about the one swirling pixel? Just like above, there needs to be separation from the one giant pixel. To say "it is love" is separation. How can the one giant pixel be love? That would mean it isn't hate. Yet the one giant pixels is Everything. This is why one word is too many. Everything is within the One giant swirling pixel. It is infinite. That is nonduality. That is the absolute. 

At this point we are still making a distinction between nonduality (absolute) and duality (relative). The human mind is so conditioned into duality (relative) that I think it's important to spend consider effort toward nonduality and gaining considerable grounding in nonduality before the next step that integrates nonduality and duality. The trap here is embracing nonduality and rejecting duality. This will cause all sorts of struggles and inner turmoil because they are both actually the same. Going back to the movie example. From that one giant swirling pixel, any "thing" can arise. Now, any thing that arises is relative. Don't reject the relative, just understand it. From the One swirling pixel, can a tree arise? Of course, take a step back and see a tree. Yet notice that tree is relative. Does the One giant pixel see a tree? Does a rock see a tree? An ant? No. So is the tree there? Yes and No. It's relative. This is where humans get stuck on an objective external reality. Essentially, the human mind is obsessed with proving to itself and others that the tree is objectively real. It is and it isn't. It's just relative. The movie is both one giant swirling pixel AND lots of objects - cars people, love, hate etc. The absolute and relative are integrated as one. However, the perception of the absolute flows through the filter of a human mind-body. In the relative, my mind-body will not transform into a bird or fly, nor will it start speaking Russian today. 

So all things relative are also absolute. The human mind creates that separation. When that separation dissolves, magnificence emerges. I find it very challenging to enter this space with other humans because other humans are totally immersed within the relative. I find it much much easier to enter these spaces in nature. Go hiking in nature and let that separation dissolve. Including subconscious orientations such as "I am human. That is a tree". Let that dissolve and BE the one giant swirling pixel. Not a human observing the One giant swirling pixel. Actually BEing it. Then zoom out for the far out perspective. Going back and forth between absolute is a trip. Communication and connectedness with trees, insects, animals is truly amazing.

 

[Preetom]

The technique of masturbating one's metaphysical cock/pussy

(pls don't ask where to find that  no wonder you still aren't enlightened )

[Deepconcepts]

4 hours ago, Nahm said:

Then what do “you” “do” “next”? 

What do YOU think insane is?

Try reading up on paradoxical intention. I'm almost positive he's implying this, to stop spinning your gears if you aren't getting where you want to be.

I also think you're implying that none of these exist which is fine too. 

Edited March 14, 2019 by Deepconcepts

[Nahm]

@Deepconcepts Ok, but keep typing on a forum and you’ll go insane. 

 

[Deepconcepts]

@Nahm i believe you.

[Joseph Maynor]

Probably Zen.  But I don't want to make this sound like Zen is the be-all-end-all.  It's just a really great tool for transcending the Mind.

https://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/Suzuki-DT-Introduction-Zen-Buddhism.pdf

Edited March 14, 2019 by Joseph Maynor

[robdl]

6 hours ago, JohnnyBravo said:

@Tony 845

Credit Leo to saying this somewhere else.

The idea is this: its never what method, its about what attitude.

Years ago in the martial art community, debates were had which martial art was 'the best.' First it was BJJ, then it wasnt, then it was Muay Thai, then it wasnt. Then it was a mixture. Then it wasnt. Then taekwondo was effective, but also it wasnt. Then wrestling, but also boxing. (Im making this story up in terms of the styles. But the debate was real.)

In the context of fighting sports, many people eventually found out which martial art was the best after so many trials of this style VS that style. Which one was it?

No one.

The intensity of the practitioner, the gel with tbe individual and their chosen discipline, the style and essence of the fighter......this was the Truth.

An old school Karate practitioner who specializes in that will beat any young guy who has only done a year or two of boxing. Worse, if they spent years dibbling and dabbling between arts, they will be especially easy to beat.

The man that has done boxing for 30 years is far more dangerous than the new UFC kid who has just won 2 fights.

The kung fu monk, or Aikido yogi, is superior to the fit dude who has done some serious backyard wrestling with his friends.

Style doesnt matter.

Intent and preference to the Individual matter.

 

^ this is a romantic notion, but in hard reality, a man who's done boxing for 30 years but has no grappling or ground game would likely get taken down by a half-decent wrestler and pounded/submitted.  The boxer is gonna have zero takedown defense and will be helpless on the ground.  I believe 7 of the 8 men's ufc division champs come from a wrestling background -- Usman, Jon Jones, Khabib, Cormier, Whittaker, Cejudo, and Dillashaw.  There's a reason for that.  If a guy can take you to the ground and control you at will, you're relying on a puncher's chance of ending the fight before that happens --- except if you're a boxer, you're not used to throwing punches at a wrestler who's coming at you waist high for a single/double leg shoot; orthodox boxing technique will have limited application.  Daniel Cormier would tackle a prime Mike Tyson to the ground and beat him to a pulp or choke him out.

Edited March 14, 2019 by robdl

[Nahm]

2 hours ago, Deepconcepts said:

@Nahm i believe you.

Touché!

[Identity]

@Serotoninluv Thank you very much!!  

[Tony 845]

@robdl I’m a purple belt in BJJ, a 30 year boxer would get mauled by a MMA pro with 2-0 record, unless he is mike Tyson, just cause of raw power. But let’s not argue, that would be my ego. 

Edited March 15, 2019 by Tony 845

[Forestluv]

10 hours ago, JohnnyBravo said:

 

The man that has done boxing for 30 years is far more dangerous than the new UFC kid who has just won 2 fights.

No way. The boxer is one-dimensional. Even an average UFC fighter would defeat the best boxers 90% of the time. The UFC fighter can focus his training on improving his striking defense against his upper body. A skill he already has. 

The boxer needs to develop a dozen NEW skills that take years to develop. His only chance is a big knockout punch, yet the UFC fighter can devote his entire defense against that punch. Once they are grappling or on the mat, the boxer is toast. And the boxer has no takedown defense. 

The only boxer with a decent shot would be Mike Tyson in his prime. The guy was an animal with no fear and came right at you swinging with tons of power. The UFC fighter would likely avoid grappling Tyson because of his devastating upper-cut. If Tyson could defend against one or two take-downs he’d have a good shot. But a guy like Floyd Mayweather? Please. Even a low- level UFC fighter would kick his ass. 

And a boxer with 30 years of experience would be in his 40s, waaay past his prime.

[Tony 845]

@Serotoninluv a blue belt in BJJ that did a couple amature boxing fights would take Floyd’s arm home. 

 

Edited March 15, 2019 by Tony 845

[FoxFoxFox]

Quote

What techniques have gotten the most people to enlightenment?

There is only surrender that leads there. All the techniques are attempts at surrender which is paradoxical. It is so because surrender means to give up all actions to the Self or God. Therefore it should be clear how techniques, which are in the realm of "doing" run contrary to the point. What techniques do is silence the mind and stir your energies to a sufficient level where you are overcome by such force that you can't help but to surrender. But you have be the one who ultimately walks over the edge. You do so by surrendering the technique one enough mental clarity has been attained. 

 

[robdl]

15 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

No way. The boxer is one-dimensional. Even an average UFC fighter would defeat the best boxers 90% of the time. The UFC fighter can focus his training on improving his striking defense against his upper body. A skill he already has. 

The boxer needs to develop a dozen NEW skills that take years to develop. His only chance is a big knockout punch, yet the UFC fighter can devote his entire defense against that punch. Once they are grappling or on the mat, the boxer is toast. And the boxer has no takedown defense. 

The only boxer with a decent shot would be Mike Tyson in his prime. The guy was an animal with no fear and came right at you swinging with tons of power. The UFC fighter would likely avoid grappling Tyson because of his devastating upper-cut. If Tyson could defend against one or two take-downs he’d have a good shot. But a guy like Floyd Mayweather? Please. Even a low- level UFC fighter would kick his ass. 

And a boxer with 30 years of experience would be in his 40s, waaay past his prime.

All true -- even then, Mike Tyson could have some serious issues trying to work a punch in against an MMA guy going for an ankle pick, let's say.  To go from uppercutting a guy standing up to uppercutting a guy who's coming in for an ankle pick would be unusual for Tyson to counter.

[molosku]

On 14/03/2019 at 8:33 AM, Tony 845 said:

@Serotoninluv it’s a 3 & a 1/2 hour q & a setting with him, I’ll be asking many questions lol

@Tony 845 will this be a group setting? If yes, I would stongly recommend sitting down and really contemplating what you know and dont know, and formulate just one solid question. Why are you seeking? Why are you suffering? Why do you feel you need to know something?

This is because you will be much more likely ask low quality questions, that wont benefit you. Read ruperts books and watch his videos and really think: what answers of his are already available to you? What is his teachings essence? What is left unsaid? What is it REALLY about yourself that you dont understand. 

If its a group setting, there will be other souls that are suffering and wish to be liberatated, just like you. Let other people have their time to ask things. 

I have attended one 3 day seminar with rupert, and I asked one question only. At the time, the question was really close to home and honest for me, something that I was struggling with. The answer that I got really stuck with me, and Im glad I didnt ask any secondary questions. Other peoples questions and answers will also resonate with you, so you dont even have to ask. 

Those who asked multiple questions durinf the 3 day sessions also asked the most low quality ones, and judging from the sighs and looks of other people, well... Lets say there was a presence of compassionate frustration. Those who asked only one question, were often the most honest and vulnerable, and the answers that they got were also beneficial to everyone.