Enlightenment is turning the volume all the way down on experience

[winterknight]

23 minutes ago, robdl said:

There is the de-focusing on objects of attention indeed, but could you say there's another form of focus  --- on the pure subject-feeling?

Well, one believes that one is focusing on that. When one tries to focus on it, eventually that's what leads to seeing that that pure subject-feeling can never be the object of focus.

16 minutes ago, Preetom said:

But instead of doing that thoroughly many people fall in the mire of thought patterns like "contemplate about everything", "everything is god/brahman", "try to see god in everything", "i have to intregate everything" etc all the while the puzzle of self still remains intact.

And as a result of that, the irreversible breakthrough never happens and one fails to live the living "experience" of it. Instead they cant help but settling for nondual beliefs and ideologies and a new set of "enlightened morality"

Agreed, definitely a big problem.

10 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

@winterknight i have discovered with the realization of Oneness that what you are describing is only half the circle.  To completely come full circle is to not only to see non-duality as enlightenment but also to see duality as enlightenment.  To unify both into One.  To have this awareness all the time and see the Oneness that is you in both the form and the formless.

That's a common misconception, unfortunately. It's not there's "oneness vs. duality" -- there is neither. No concept is correct. There are no objects, no things, and no, not even the formless. The formless is another concept.

"Unification" is another process in time, another thought, and the point is to get beyond that entire tangle.

There is no circle of which there is half which may be completed.

5 minutes ago, Natasha said:

Yes, there was complete and permanent disillusionment of the doer. The one that's typing this is but an imaginary form and sensations rising and disappearing in the void. Yet when I cross the street, I still navigate to not be hit by traffic. The language breakdown is quite a hindrance when discussing these things. But what I mean by integration can be described in Preetom's quote... as full circle

But you're still navigating to not be hit by traffic doesn't require integrative work. If it happens at all, it happens all by itself. The mind's belief that it has to "take Truth down into the world" and integrate it is an egoic concept. The mind's only duty is to never to imagine that it is anything other than Silence.

Edited July 18, 2019 by winterknight

[robdl]

13 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Well, one believes that one is focusing on that. When one tries to focus on it, eventually that's what leads to seeing that that pure subject-feeling can never be the object of focus.

 

So essentially thought is (inwardly) focusing until it exhausts itself or collapses in on itself?

Edited July 18, 2019 by robdl

[winterknight]

9 minutes ago, robdl said:

So essentially thought is (inwardly) focusing until it exhausts itself or collapses in on itself?

Yup, basically. Though what will also happen when you focus inward is that the gaps in the thoughts will eventually be noticed, and that will be felt as glimpses of peace, and that provides fuel and motivation for greater and greater concentrative efforts.

The reason that it's "focusing" on the I rather than just focusing in general is because that's the root thought, the base misconception on which the whole house of cards is built.

Edited July 18, 2019 by winterknight

[Natasha]

2 hours ago, winterknight said:

But you're still navigating to not be hit by traffic doesn't require integrative work. If it happens at all, it happens all by itself. The mind's belief that it has to "take Truth down into the world" and integrate it is an egoic concept. The mind's only duty is to never to imagine that it is anything other than Silence.

The language break down makes it look like it's not the case, but we're talking about the same thing. Shifting perspectives is all still within the Absolute. Realizing that I'm both the screen and the pixels at the same time is what integration basically means to me.

[winterknight]

5 minutes ago, Natasha said:

The language break down makes it look like it's not the case, but we're talking about the same thing. Shifting perspectives is all still within the Absolute. The character realizing they are the screen and the pixels at the same time is what integration basically means to me.

But there is no character. That's the truth. So who is it that's realizing that they're both screen and pixels?

See, I feel like what happens is that there's a very seductive pull to "have it both ways" -- understandable, and I've engaged in it myself in the past -- to keep the duality and the Absolute both in the discourse. And that may be useful in certain teaching contexts. 

But in fact, if the Absolute is 'perceived,' no objects can be said to be perceived. Sitting next to the Sun, can a candle be seen? There are no objects/perspectives/anything else in the Absolute. 

Deviating from this understanding is a subtle vasana that draws the mind back to ideas of doership.

Edited July 18, 2019 by winterknight

[kieranperez]

12 minutes ago, Natasha said:

The language break down makes it look like it's not the case, but we're talking about the same thing. Shifting perspectives is all still within the Absolute. The character realizing they are the screen and the pixels at the same time is what integration basically means to me.

I think this video (I know I keep bringing up this same interview series) sums up @winterknight‘s response well (particularly the end):

I think @Preetom put it well actually. 

It takes usually takes more enlightenment experiences (more glimpses) before it really starts to penetrate that all that is, is enlightenment. More glimpses into what self/ego is, what emotions are, what pain is, what mind is, only to become more and more free and conscious of how there’s nothing but The Self or Truth or God or whatever you wanna call it. 

Edited July 18, 2019 by kieranperez

[Preetom]

45 minutes ago, Natasha said:

Yes, there was complete and permanent disillusionment of the doer. The one that's typing this is but an imaginary form and sensations rising and disappearing in the void. Yet when I cross the street, I still navigate to not be hit by traffic. The language breakdown is quite a hindrance when discussing these things. But what I mean by integration can be described in Preetom's and Inlytened1's quotes below... as full circle

 

As winterknight said, trying to bring Truth down in the world is another project of the spiritual ego.

There is a notion of 'intregation' in advaita vedanta. But its NOT how that word gets often thrown around. 

It's not a non-existent 'Natasha' that now has to intregate various aspects of Truth and by doing all that, 'Natasha' will grow more enlightened, more functional, more holy, see more oneness/harmony etc over time. Thats a caricature of 'intregation'.

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. 

This idea is also heavily propounded in Adi Shankara's Vivekchudamani. Sell-realization is not a mere project one can somehow get over and move onto the next project. Shankara says after self-realization, any idea other than constant abidance and attachment to Self is delusion and needs to be rooted out. That is intregation. But unfortunately, this message can easily be misunderstood and then label nonduality as anti-human. Thats why it requires tremendous maturity and self-groundedness to stomach this stuff.

 

Edited July 18, 2019 by Preetom

[winterknight]

4 minutes ago, Preetom said:

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

This idea is also heavily propounded in Adi Shankara's Vivekchudamani. Sell-realization is not a mere project one can somehow get over and move onto the next project. Shankara says after self-realization, any idea other than constant abidance and attachment to Self is delusion and needs to be rooted out. That is intregation. But unfortunately, this message can easily be misunderstood and then label nonduality as anti-human. Thats why it requires tremendous maturity and self-groundedness to stomach this stuff.

Bingo.

[winterknight]

14 minutes ago, kieranperez said:

I think this video (I know I keep bringing up this same interview series) sums up @winterknight‘s response well (particularly the end):

 

Hrm... I only listened to a few minutes of it, but it seems like this video puts forth again Truth as a kind of series of realizations. Really, thought, there is only a single real realization (and ultimately not even that!). 

[Synchronicity]

24 minutes ago, winterknight said:

But there is no character. That's the truth. 

That can be the Truth. Truth can be any and/or all of the following ways:

1. The self is not real

2. It is real

3. It is both real and not real

4. It is neither

5. It is both and neither etc.

This can continue on infinitely...

So @winterknight you’re correct in saying that there is no character. But, depending on the perspective, it can be just as correct to say otherwise. 

Your perspective doesn’t hold a monopoly over Truth nor does what I’ve said here

Edited July 18, 2019 by Synchronicity

[kieranperez]

7 minutes ago, Preetom said:

But unfortunately, this message can easily be misunderstood and then label nonduality as anti-human. Thats why it requires tremendous maturity and self-groundedness to stomach this stuff.

I’ll speak as far as my experience goes on this: 

I 100% agree. I think @winterknight put it well with trying to have the duality and nonduality. But of course, in truth, and for me, still in theory, thats false. For me it’s been a big thing that’s going to take more emotional work to really unglue myself from those needs and desires. 

Even if you’re doing spiritual work, it’s the ideas of wanting to be some superhuman god-like person that has siddhis, a powerful life purpose, emotional mastery, interpersonal mastery, and enlightenment and what it really is is treating this endeavor as a commodity or a deeper unconscious desire for wanting to be special, or both.

I do think going beyond the human brings up natural concerns. Like what about my life purpose? What about what impact I want to have? Will enlightenment devalue and undercut a helpful service I have on a world that still doesn’t exist? Do I work in the world a lot first and then get enlightened so I have something to offer after my enlightenment? For me these are valid concerns and questions that I think we’re just not honest with ourselves and others who are into this stuff. Also of course we’re afraid of the possible Truth to those questions.

[Natasha]

4 minutes ago, winterknight said:

But there is no character. That's the truth. So who is it that's realizing that they're both screen and pixels?

 

2 minutes ago, Preetom said:

Its not 'Natasha' integrating Truth but rather it is Truth which erases ''Natasha-ness" and the patterns associated with it over time. 

Yes I realize all that and I stomached the Truth. You guys are just better with words than I am

 

 

[winterknight]

Just now, Synchronicity said:

That can be the Truth. Truth can be any and/or all of the following ways:

1. The self is not real

2. It is real

3. It is both real and not real

4. It is neither

5. It is both and neither etc.

This can continue on infinitely...

So @winterknight you’re correct in saying that there is no character. But, depending on the perspective, it can be just as correct to say otherwise. 

You’re perspective doesn’t hold a monopoly over Truth nor does what I’ve said here

By the same taken your perspective that "it can be just as correct to say otherwise" also may not be true.

While truth is beyond words, it is also true that trying to make all concepts equally valid is a bad idea.

[Synchronicity]

@winterknight Unless good and bad are relative ? Lol 

It can be a bad idea. But it can also be a good idea

[kieranperez]

3 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Hrm... I only listened to a few minutes of it, but it seems like this video puts forth again Truth as a kind of series of realizations. Really, thought, there is only a single real realization (and ultimately not even that!). 

Near the end Ralston finishes up laughing saying after he got What existence is and an other and so on he goes “it was like ‘bingo. Duh” and then continues laughing explaining how it’s funny because over time we start to realize everything is the same. 

[Preetom]

12 minutes ago, Natasha said:

Yes I realize all that and I stomached the Truth. You guys are just better with words than I am

???

[SunnyNewDay]

Do you still feel a sense of desire or motivation or a calling to exercise yourself as an individual on the world? Do you still have creative experiences or callings to do things, like things like ice cream, movies or certain experiences? 

The way it's described here it sounds peaceful but also so indifferent and empty and like all the gas from the gas tank has been emptied. 

[winterknight]

21 minutes ago, Natasha said:

Yes I realize all that and I stomached the Truth. You guys are just better with words than I am

3 minutes ago, SunnyNewDay said:

Do you still feel a sense of desire or motivation or a calling to exercise yourself as an individual on the world? Do you still have creative experiences or callings to do things, like things like ice cream, movies or certain experiences? 

The way it's described here it sounds peaceful but also so indifferent and empty and like all the gas from the gas tank has been emptied. 

No, it's not like that. Nor is it like having desires or motivations. What it is can't be described. 

[Preetom]

41 minutes ago, kieranperez said:

 

I do think going beyond the human brings up natural concerns. Like what about my life purpose? What about what impact I want to have? Will enlightenment devalue and undercut a helpful service I have on a world that still doesn’t exist? Do I work in the world a lot first and then get enlightened so I have something to offer after my enlightenment? For me these are valid concerns and questions that I think we’re just not honest with ourselves and others who are into this stuff. Also of course we’re afraid of the possible Truth to those questions.

This right here strikes to the heart of the matter. The corresponding spiritual dissonance, discomfort and confusion that results due to the absence of integrity between what we think we want(or should want) and we really want(where our lives are actually heading).

"According to the prarabdha (i.e. destiny] of each one, He, its Ordainer, being in every place [i.e. in every soul] will make it play its role. That which is not to happen will never happen, however hard one tries. That which is to happen will not stop, in spite of any amount of obstruction. This is certain! Hence, to remain silent is the best."

-RM to his mother

Only this level of honesty and faith can pull this off. Thats why our small little minds get tortured and explode when it tries to think ''big thoughts"

Edited July 18, 2019 by Preetom

[kieranperez]

22 minutes ago, Preetom said:

This right here strikes to the heart of the matter. The corresponding spiritual dissonance, discomfort and confusion that results due to the absence of integrity between what we think we want(or should want) and we really want(where our lives are actually heading).

"According to the prarabdha (i.e. destiny] of each one, He, its Ordainer, being in every place [i.e. in every soul] will make it play its role. That which is not to happen will never happen, however hard one tries. That which is to happen will not stop, in spite of any amount of obstruction. This is certain! Hence, to remain silent is the best."

-RM to his mother

Only this level of honesty and faith can pull this off. Thats why our small little minds get tortured and explode when it tries to think ''big thoughts"

Yeah and I think it takes real emotional and psychological work and understanding to really get to that point. This is why I appreciate @winterknight being honest on that matter with approaches like psychoanalysis because that kind of emotional maturity just simply isn’t the case for most people. For me I have a lot of deep psychological attachments from deep trauma in my life and from my family life, vows I made, my entire person I created, etc. 

MEDITATION & SPIRITUAL WORK DOES NOT DEAL WITH THAT. Much less as effectively as some route through psychological and emotional work. Personally I’m very skeptical towards clinical psychologists and what not as I had years wasted through ineffective therapy and put on so many drugs that I myself had to get off. 

Nonetheless, THE MOMENT I have a quiet mind is the moment after I let out all my emotional baggage in my mind, my body, etc. and then I have almost immediate tastes and glimpses into the truth because at the moment there is no psychological obstructions in the way. Happens EVERY time. 

So to have the emotional and psychological contentedness to genuinely take on a self honest investigation into what’s really true takes purification (or whatever we want to call it). 

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?

Ramana was a perfect example of this before he left the temples. He had his enlightenment and just sat in a temple totally free and had no concern with whether he lived or died. Now normally we tend to attach a sort of heroic perspective like ‘he was so brave he didn’t live or die’ but in truth he didn’t care. Which is to say no ‘caring’ nor ‘not caring’ ever arised. 

Edited July 18, 2019 by kieranperez