Enlightenment is turning the volume all the way down on experience

[Preetom]

5 minutes ago, kieranperez said:

What if what pursuing truth meant you have no siddhis, the eradication of life purpose, the contentedness of doing nothing special with your life, and you even ended continue working in a job you tend to not even be passionate about... at all?

 

Thats another psychological and emotional chasm or insecurity one will have to inevitably work through along the path..

[Angelite]

@winterknight what if i'm stuck in the middle?

I think that's where knowledge and wisdom comes in. 

When knowledge becomes useful and wisdom becomes applicable. 

Edited July 18, 2019 by Angelite

[winterknight]

22 minutes ago, Angelite said:

@winterknight what if i'm stuck in the middle?

I think that's where knowledge and wisdom comes in. 

When knowledge becomes useful and wisdom becomes applicable. 

Stuck in the middle of what?

[Nahm]

@winterknight Great thread. Thank you! 

[Angelite]

14 hours ago, winterknight said:

Stuck in the middle of what?

@winterknight

Middle of everything. When you've come to a point where everything becomes equal...

Negative = positive

pros = cons

 

But i'm stuck in the middle. I stand on the equal, the ' = ' 

 

What would you do? 

For me I become silence.

(When it's way too balanced)

 

......

 

**in the middle of telling and not telling**

 

I think i'll just stay in this mode till I no longer feel like it. 

Edited July 19, 2019 by Angelite

[FoxFoxFox]

Considering that perception, the unconscious and consciousness are all qualities of the Self, what makes one (in the case of your video, awareness being wholly immersed in the unconscious) more truthful than the rest? Is individuation, in your opinion, an evolutionary or divine mistake? 

[DrewNows]

19 hours ago, Preetom said:

The nonduality teacher Fred Davis explains it well. Its not 'Natasha' integrating Truth but rather it is Truth which erases ''Natasha-ness" and the patterns associated with it over time. 

Ahahaha

Love this. 

"Enlightenment is like turning the volume all the way down on experience"

[winterknight]

5 hours ago, Angelite said:

@winterknight

But i'm stuck in the middle. I stand on the equal, the ' = ' 

What would you do? 

For me I become silence.

I'd engage in self-inquiry and look to who it is that thinks they're stuck.

5 hours ago, FoxFoxFox said:

Considering that perception, the unconscious and consciousness are all qualities of the Self, what makes one (in the case of your video, awareness being wholly immersed in the unconscious) more truthful than the rest? Is individuation, in your opinion, an evolutionary or divine mistake? 

Awareness is not really wholly immersed in the unconscious. It's that the idea of being conscious of things is a misconception. Individuation is not a mistake, it really simply cannot be said to exist. It doesn't exist for anyone at any time, actually. It only appears to. Actually, not even that. 

[FoxFoxFox]

@winterknight

Quote

Awareness is not really wholly immersed in the unconscious.

Well, yes, because that is for the most impossible, unless you suffer from some sort of mania.

Quote

It's that the idea of being conscious of things is a misconception. 

Okay. Then what's the reason for believing that Self awareness and conscious awareness of "things" are two separate modes of being? Isn't this an arbitrary distinction? Considering that experience itself/awareness is never absent, and that only contents of experience change, why do you believe that attention to the content should be diminished. Why is that more "truthful"? This only comes off as a complete repression of conscious awareness. Are you saying that by paying attention to the content, one loses sight of the real Self? If that is the case, who is the one who loses this sight? 

Quote

Individuation is not a mistake, it really simply cannot be said to exist... It only appears to. Actually, not even that. 

And why is that? Why are you not able to properly reconcile this paradox?

This problem, in my opinion, is entirely self-inflicted. Concepts do not accurately portray perception, but then people can easily be taught to not mistake concepts for the real thing. Individuation will cease to make sense, if thoughts and concepts and other psychic influences are completely put to rest. An empty mind will result in such an experience of life as you mention in your video. But this is, in my opinion, still one step removed from real liberation, which is the recognition that all these self-imposed restrictions on experience are arbitrary. The proof for that, in my opinion, is that individuation - that is a return to conscious life (being directly involved with the contents of experience) occurs naturally and automatically - and that no "samadhi" is permanent. 

[winterknight]

6 hours ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@winterknight

Okay. Then what's the reason for believing that Self awareness and conscious awareness of "things" are two separate modes of being? Isn't this an arbitrary distinction? Considering that experience itself/awareness is never absent, and that only contents of experience change, why do you believe that attention to the content should be diminished. Why is that more "truthful"? This only comes off as a complete repression of conscious awareness. Are you saying that by paying attention to the content, one loses sight of the real Self? If that is the case, who is the one who loses this sight? 

No one truly can lose sight of the real Self. Yet seekers are instructed to withdraw attention from objects. That's the seeker's paradox: to seek, knowing that what is sought is already the case.

Quote

And why is that? Why are you not able to properly reconcile this paradox?

This problem, in my opinion, is entirely self-inflicted. Concepts do not accurately portray perception, but then people can easily be taught to not mistake concepts for the real thing. Individuation will cease to make sense, if thoughts and concepts and other psychic influences are completely put to rest. An empty mind will result in such an experience of life as you mention in your video. But this is, in my opinion, still one step removed from real liberation, which is the recognition that all these self-imposed restrictions on experience are arbitrary. The proof for that, in my opinion, is that individuation - that is a return to conscious life (being directly involved with the contents of experience) occurs naturally and automatically - and that no "samadhi" is permanent. 

What I'm talking about is not a samadhi. What I'm talking about is simply the case at all times. This focus on a 'return to conscious life' and 'individuation' shows an incomplete understanding and/or the pull of old mental tendencies (it comes to the same thing). There was never a conscious life to begin with, nor an individual.

This is the deepest secret of nonduality, and you will find this truth in certain enigmatic statements at the heart of nondual texts.

"What all beings consider as day is the night of ignorance for the wise, and what all creatures see as night is the day for the introspective sage."

-Gita 2:69

“ 'Since the experiences of seeing [hearing, tasting and so on] are, when experienced, the same for the liberated [as for others], and since they [the liberated] are thus experiencing the many differences which appear as a result of seeing [hearing and so on], they are experiencing non-difference [even while seeing those differences]' – to say so is wrong.

The liberated one is seen as if He is also seeing the many [different] forms only in the deluded outlook of onlookers who see the many differences; but [in fact] He is not the seer [or anything at all]." -Ramana Maharshi, Guru Vachaka Kovai

Edited July 20, 2019 by winterknight

[FoxFoxFox]

Quote

“ 'Since the experiences of seeing [hearing, tasting and so on] are, when experienced, the same for the liberated [as for others], and since they [the liberated] are thus experiencing the many differences which appear as a result of seeing [hearing and so on], they are experiencing non-difference [even while seeing those differences]' – to say so is wrong.

Wrong to say so because the "liberated one" does not perceive himself as a separate entity within space and time? Instead he is one with experience rather than lording over it or being subject to it. Instead he IS it. Correct? 

[winterknight]

16 minutes ago, FoxFoxFox said:

Wrong to say so because the "liberated one" does not perceive himself as a separate entity within space and time? Instead he is one with experience rather than lording over it or being subject to it. Instead he IS it. Correct? 

Wrong to say because the very categories of language and thought are dependent on the illusion of separation. When those are stripped away, there is no one to say "there is experience" at all, or an experiencer, or experiencing, etc. Or, of course, a 'liberated one.'

[Inliytened1]

@winterknight not seeing that duality is non-duality is creating duality 

Edited July 20, 2019 by Inliytened1

[Inliytened1]

@winterknight And i grasp what you are saying..that duality doesn't exist but that is a paradox because it both does and doesn't.

Edited July 20, 2019 by Inliytened1

[winterknight]

28 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

@winterknight not seeing that duality is non-duality is creating duality 

The categories of dual and non-dual are the problems. There are no such categories.

16 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

@winterknight And i grasp what you are saying..that duality doesn't exist but that is a paradox because it both does and doesn't.

It's not that it does and it doesn't, but that language itself is meaningless.

[Inliytened1]

4 minutes ago, winterknight said:

 

It's not that it does and it doesn't, but that language itself is meaningless.

Yet you are using it 

[winterknight]

1 minute ago, Inliytened1 said:

Yet you are using it 

Am I? Are you?

[tedens]

It's looping, man. So it is and isn't.

[Inliytened1]

@tedens it's One and None ...where is @zeroISinfinity now lol

[Aakash]

34 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Wrong to say because the very categories of language and thought are dependent on the illusion of separation. When those are stripped away, there is no one to say "there is experience" at all, or an experiencer, or experiencing, etc. Or, of course, a 'liberated one.'

Interesting, the truth of the matter is experience will always remain, 

however, if you eventually got to a point where this is possible, you would just strip all language and contextualisation of the "present moment" as you've said. 

i agree, i have a feeling you are yourself.. talking about beyond non-duality and duality 

its just you haven't given any reference to anything in duality 

You've simply just by passed it, by saying it is not it. 

Which is what should be done eventually, you should also note: you by pass a holistic merger In my opinion. 

To which i would say that, you are what? 

the most accurate way to put it, 

non-existence-existence?