The true meaning of Omniscience.

[Ibn Sina]

@Serotoninluv You are interpreting and misinterpretating the message that I am trying to convey with the words that I am using. You find many contradictions within the words that I am using. But fundamentally my message is non-dual. You cannot make interpretations or judgements by the words that I am using. 
I am not in disagreement with your version of spirituality, but you are making judgements about what I am saying using the words that I am using, but those meanings which you are making out from my words (which you have written in your answer) is not what I am conveying.

I will give you one example- 
you said - Notice how you have made a distinction between the ant and "enlightenment" and the "cessation of suffering". 

The words I wrote might look like I did that. But I haven't made any distinction, I am just trying to convey a message which can easily be looked like there is duality in there. But really there isn't. If we are to analyze the same way you are analyzing to Buddha's suttas or Leo's vid then even there you will find many duality and distinctions, but his message is non-dual and so is mine.

The reason you are having a problem with what I am writing is because I don't know how to write in a way that indicates non-duality which makes you go "okay, this is nonduality" . But my understanding is not of the  kind which you think I have based on what I have written and your interpretation of it. But what I write is irrevelant. The words I am using and how you are interpreting word by word is irrevelant. What is relevant is the message that I am conveying, which some people may grasp rightly, some wrongly. What is relevant is the experience that I am pointing towards. 

Edited September 17, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[Ibn Sina]

@Serotoninluv I don't think words and the meaning they seem to generate judging by the words alone,  have anything to do with the message that is being conveyed.

I might say , Omniscience means knowing everything that one needs to know.

And you might rephrase this in a way that shows non-duality.

It does not mean the message I am conveying is different from yours. It means I don't know how to phrase it the way you phrase it that shows or seems to show non-duality  more ( for you and people who think like you) than the way I have phrased

 

You say- "Seekers are strongly attracted toward peace/bliss and this will create many spiritual teachers that fill this *need* of seekers. Spiritual retreats generally have the theme of peace and bliss. There is nothing wrong with this, yet it goes deeper. For example, would you agree that suffering is peace? That frustration, insecurity and fear is blissfulness? If not, there are still conditions and greater depths to go. There is an unconditional peace that is eternally present Now under all conditions. Absolute peace during meditation, absolute peace laying on a beach, absolute peace during sex, absolute peace while being stabbed with a knife, absolute peace during a panic attack"

Basically you are  underestimating  me. The line where you say 'deeper' is not deeper for me. It has not pushed my boundaries. I completely agree with what you are saying.  But the words I used made you think something else. 

All I am finding is underestimation and misinterpretation again and again and again.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[Forestluv]

23 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

@Serotoninluv The words I am using and how you are interpreting word by word is irrevelant. What is relevant is the message that I am conveying, which some people may grasp rightly, some wrongly. What is relevant is the experience that I am pointing towards. 

I understand that. I have a lot of experience in nonverbal zones. You seem to think I am analyzing the pointer, which I am not. I know the distinction between dualistic terms used to point and that which is being pointed to. 

There is a difference between nonduality trying to express itself in dualistic terms and duality trying to express what nonduality is like in dualistic terms. It is not your words you use as a pointer, it is more about the realization that you are holding the pointer, rather than omniscience holding the pointer.

This is just my sense: there is an essence about your posts that is conflating - it has aspects of both.

15 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

@Serotoninluv I don't think words and the meaning they seem to generate judging by the words alone,  have anything to do with the message that is being conveyed.

I might say , Omniscience means knowing everything that one needs to know.

And you might rephrase this in a way that shows non-duality.

It does not mean the message I am conveying is different from yours. It means I don't know how to phrase it the way you phrase it that shows or seems to show non-duality  more than the way I have phrased.

I'm not concerned about the words used. I'm concerned with the source of those words and the filter through which those words pass.

For example, you have written a lot about attaining peace/bliss and the cessation of suffering. *Who/what* attains that peace/bliss? To "whom/what" does suffering cease? Who/what decides what is "suffering" and what is "peace"? You seem to have a subtle underlying personal/human framework that I don't think you are aware of.

For example would you agree that "peace is suffering?". Not at an intellectual level, through direct experience. Have you directly experienced pure peace/bliss while experiencing awful suffering? If so, what is the motivation to seek conditional peace/bliss? If peace is suffering, who/what desires to end suffering? And why?

Why seek the footsteps of wise enlightened beings when you have access to the same source as them? Tapping into that source transcends all spiritual literature and sages - because it is the source of all spiritual literature and sages. 

[Ibn Sina]

30 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

There is a difference between nonduality trying to express itself in dualistic terms and duality trying to express what nonduality is like in dualistic terms. It is not your words you use as a pointer, it is more about the realization that you are holding the pointer, rather than omniscience holding the pointer

Okay so you think what I am saying is   duality  saying what non-duality is like, which you are doing through words. I hope we are not disagreeing on this.
But then you say- "You seem to think I am analyzing the pointer, which I am not. " , which I don't think  is authentic, because in this forum there is nothing else but the words I am writing. You have nothing else to analyze but the pointer, however  you are saying there is something else to analyze.

And also you have written the reason why you think I come from a source of duality , you say- 
 

For example, you have written a lot about attaining peace/bliss and the cessation of suffering. *Who/what* attains that peace/bliss? To "whom/what" does suffering cease? You seem to have a subtle underlying personal/human framework that I don't think you are aware of.
 

This is the reason why you think I am duality talking about nonduality. (  I hope we are not disagreeing on this)

I don't need to talk about - who, what, whom what, when I am talking about bliss, to show that I am talking about nonduality.
If I was an enlightened person, it doesn't mean I wouldn't be talking with the words 'you' 'I' etc. Buddha's suttas are full of those words. 

In case you might be wondering, I do not attach my isness with my ego.  There is no one to attain bliss, there is no one to attain peace.

But still, I will talk using 'you' and 'I'. It doesn't directly mean I am talking from duality. I don't know where you learned that using language that way indicates duality.

Also don't say you are not looking at the pointer. There is nothing else but the pointer in this forum.

30 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Have you directly experienced pure peace/bliss while experiencing awful suffering?

I literally have.  Enlightenment is the presence and absence of suffering

30 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Have you directly experienced pure peace/bliss while experiencing awful suffering? What is it's motivation?

Absence of suffering from the perspective of duality, is the motivation.

That's what motivated Leo to start this entire project. If you say this isn't the case, I disagree.

That's what started the Buddha legend.

30 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

If peace is suffering, who/what desires to end suffering? 

I don't think peace is suffering. From nonduality, there is  no one desiring the end to suffering.
From duality, the ego is desiring.

30 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

And why?

Ego finds suffering painful .

30 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

This is just my sense: there is an essence about your posts that is conflating -

The sense  which you have got  by interpreting the words I have written the way  you think the meaning has been conveyed.

 

Edited September 17, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[Truth Addict]

@Ibn Sina

You want to understand Omniscience?

It's as simple as that you don't know until you know. That "Aha!" when an insight is revealed to you, is you moving to the next level.

Right now, you're omniscient. Yet, there's more to know, so there, as you learn, you get to a higher level of omniscience.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Truth Addict

[Ibn Sina]

7 minutes ago, Truth Addict said:

It's as simple as that you don't know until you know. That "Aha!" when an insight is revealed to you, is you moving to the next level.

Right now, you're omniscient. Yet, there's more to know, so there, as you learn, you get to a higher level of omniscience.

Basically you are equating Omniscience with the 'Aha'/ Satori/ Mystical insight (which I have  had many times) however you want to put it

Okay.

I understand what you are saying, you are also not wrong, but from my own way, what I said (Bhikku Bodhi said) is also right. And his definition got my mind blown , that's why I shared it  on this forum. 
I always used to think, what , did Buddha know everything from modern medicine to AI? How's that possible? I got my doubt cleared.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Ibn Sina said:

But then you say- "You seem to think I am analyzing the pointer, which I am not. " , which I don't think  is authentic, because in this forum there is nothing else but the words I am writing. You have nothing else to analyze but the pointer, however  you are saying there is something else to analyze.

There is something beyond the words. In terms of SD, immersion and analysis of words is stage Orange. At green and above, non-intellectual modes arise.

Imagine observing a painting. There is a nonverbal relationship between observer and painting. A type of essence. There is communication. Now imagine a scientist observing the painting and saying "you are analyzing the ink on canvas". If we try to tell the scientist there is an emergent property beyond they ink and canvas, he won't "get it" because he is contracted within his paradigm. 

It's not about analyzing the pointer. That would be like saying there is nothing else to analyze but the ink and canvas of a painting. There is a nonverbal essence to the painting. It's not really an "anaylsis". It's a different mode of being. 

Imagine the scientist saying "You don't understand. I am pointing to something ineffable. Look here. Look how this part of the painting is 30% blue ink, 40% red ink and 30% green ink. Notice that the artist used a broad brush for this portion of the green ink.". . . It would be clear that the scientist is still contracted within a paradigm. He doesn't quite "get" the emergent property of the painting. Now. . . imagine the artist who created this painting. Imagine the artist try to describe the ineffable essence through words. Compare this to the scientist trying to describe what the ineffable essence of the painting is. These are two very different orientations. Do you think an artist could tell the difference between the creator of the work and the scientist? Of course. 

1 hour ago, Ibn Sina said:

I don't need to talk about - who, what, whom what, when I am talking about bliss, to show that I am talking about nonduality.
If I was an enlightened person, it doesn't mean I wouldn't be talking with the words 'you' 'I' etc. Buddha's suttas are full of those words. 

It's not about the words, it is about how the words are used. There is a conflation between nonduality/duality and absolute/relative going on here. It is not the words, it is the underlying conflation. The realization and knowing of this does not come intellectually. 

1 hour ago, Ibn Sina said:

There is no one to attain bliss, there is no one to attain peace.

You have repeatedly spoke of the attainment of peace/bliss and the cessation of suffering. If there is no one to attain peace/bliss and no one to be free of suffering - *who/what* is it that attains this peace/bliss and becomes free of suffering?

1 hour ago, Ibn Sina said:

I literally have.  Enlightenment is the presence and absence of suffering

If Enlightenment is both the presence and absence of suffering, why seek the cessation of suffering? If peace is suffering, why seek peace through the cessation of suffering. You are already peace while suffering - why seek peace outside of the suffering?

1 hour ago, Ibn Sina said:

Absence of suffering from the perspective of duality, is the motivation.

The motivation is the secondary question. There is a prior to that, which you skipped. . . Have you directly experienced pure peace/bliss while experiencing awful suffering? 

1 hour ago, Ibn Sina said:

I don't think peace is suffering.

This is the most important orientation expressed so far because it is so direct. This is a place of immense consciousness expansion into deep levels. 

If you don't think peace is suffering, then you are within a contraction of conditional peace. This is where the direct experience is so important. There is the knowing of absolute peace of suffering. The absolute peace of pain, anxiety, panic and terror. This is realized at a deep level because it is fully transcendent of the person/human. It's not the words. It is the knowing of the peace. This is not serotoninluv trying to describe what absolute peace is like through words. This is absolute peace trying to express itself through words. There is unconditional eternal peace Now, regardless of what is happening. If one places conditions on this peace, they will not come to know this peace. For example, if a being is suffering they may think "this is suffering, not peace". This will block them from the deeper realization.

1 hour ago, Ibn Sina said:

The sense  which you have got  by interpreting the words I have written the way  you think the meaning has been conveyed.

You keep returning to thoughts and analysis. There are modes beyond thinking and analysis, that you don't seem to be aware of. Here, you are not picking up on the post-intellectual modes being conveyed. 

I am not saying you are wrong. I'm saying there is something that you are missing. . . Imagine a person that speaks Arabic fluently. Do you think this person could recognize a Norwegian tourist that does not speak Arabic? What if this person says "No, no! I'm actually Arabic and speak Arabic. Here are a few Arabic words. . ." Do you think the native Arab would be able to recognize this? Of course. It would be completely obvious because he has the direct experience of being Arabic and is fluent in Arabic. He is not a farmer from rural Canada imaging what Arabic is like. These are very different orientations. 

[Aakash]

@Serotoninluv yet none the less, the exact same language is being spoken. 

lol from what i think anyway as a stage orange materialist 

Edited September 17, 2019 by Aakash

[Ibn Sina]

31 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

You have repeatedly spoke of the attainment of peace/bliss and the cessation of suffering. If there is no one to attain peace/bliss and no one to be free of suffering - *who/what* is it that attains this peace/bliss and becomes free of suffering?

Yes, I did spoke about attaining bliss and  suffering. And Yes, I did say there is no one to attain suffering. This is my answer. And this problem can't be resolved by words. But still what I have written holds true.

 

31 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

This is the most important orientation expressed so far because it is so direct. If you don't think peace is suffering, then you are within a contraction of conditional peace. This is where the direct experience is so important. There is the knowing of absolute peace of suffering. The absolute peace of pain, anxiety, panic and terror. This is realized at a deep level because it is fully transcendent of the person/human. It's not the words. It is the knowing of the peace. This is not serotoninluv trying to describe what absolute peace is like through words. This is absolute peace trying to express itself through words. There is unconditional eternal peace Now, regardless of what is happening. If one places conditions on this peace, they will not come to know this peace. For example, if a being is suffering they may think "this is suffering, not peace". This will block them from the deeper realization.

1 hour ago, Ibn Sina said:

 

At the end, it's all peace, enlightenment, nibanna whatever. That is what Buddha's goal was. No matter how you try to say it, peace is suffering, peace is peace, peace is blissfulness, at the end it's all peace, Nibanna, enlightenment, and that's what I am talking about. And it's not suffering. Even if it  it contains suffering peace, terror, absolute peace, everything that you have written,  the cherry at the top is peace, bliss. What you and I are saying is basically one and the same. You are just adding more nuance to it, but I already know the depth of the word, I don't have to add.

31 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

You keep returning to thoughts and analysis. There are modes beyond thinking and analysis, that you don't seem to be aware of.

You are suggesting that you are operating from a mode beyond thinking and analysis. I am aware that there are such modes, but there is nothing that supports your claim that you are operating  from. Also here 'thinking' is irrelevant. I don't care whether you are 'thinking, or metathinking or beyond thinking,
what you wrote about what you think (again, this is irrelevant, you can replace it with whatever you want, meta thinking, beyond thinking, supernatural thinking it doesn't matter)I am saying , is not what I am saying.

 

31 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

If Enlightenment is both the presence and absence of suffering, why seek the cessation of suffering?

Because Enlightenement is both the presence and absence of suffering (look at the meaning not the words), in the sense that there is suffering, but still there is the realization and complete acceptance.

and enlightenment is to be sought because it is the cessation of suffering (look at the meaning not the  words) 
The words here are conflating, but if you comprehend the meaning, it's different.

31 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Imagine observing a painting. There is a nonverbal relationship between observer and painting. A type of essence. There is communication. Now imagine a scientist observing the painting and saying "you are analyzing the ink on canvas". If we try to tell the scientist there is an emergent property beyond they ink and canvas, he won't "get it" because he is contracted within his paradigm.

All I can say is that the - 'essence' that your mind'/ whatever has got/grasped/whatever, which you have written and think is the message I am conveying, is not what I am saying. 

 

What I have seen is that you give a huge meaning to every single word I say. I wrote 'analysis' and now you have are saying it's scientific , it's stage orange materialistic. My words do not have that much weight that you are putting. What is worse is you put a HUGE weight to single words, like I say 'analysis' and you have made  a big judgement from there, the weight is in my message. You should stop this  habit of constantly making judgement from single words.  I write words like 'you', 'need', 'analysis' and that puts a huge influence on what you understand. They have nothing to do with what I am saying. Don't look at words. Look at the message.

 

All I can say is don't try to modify, or change the message that I am trying to convey. I am conveying one thing, but you are pushing the idea that  I am saying something different.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[Ibn Sina]

In Dhammapad , 90th quote Buddha says-

90. There is no suffering for him who has finished his journey, and abandoned grief, who has freed himself on all sides, and thrown off all fetters.

Now if I am going to analyze (or whatever the word you wish) this simple and beautiful statement the way you are analyzing, then again there will be many many problems, and it may look like Buddha is not non-dual but very dual and materialistic.

I can say, there is emphasis on 'him', which is wrong, there is no him. Who is there to have grief? Who is there to have a journey? If there is no one , then who is even seeking?

Such analysis (or whatever the word you wish) has  no value at all. It doesn't lead to anything. Buddha's statement is straightforward,  and useful as such. It has value, but it shouldn't be brought down by such analysis (or whatever you want to say) and interpreted as not non-dual.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[Forestluv]

4 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

At the end, it's all peace, enlightenment, nibanna whatever. That is what Buddha's goal was. 

This is great stuff. . . I am not saying this is wrong. I am saying that there is a transcendence of all this. At the deeper level, you are nibanna - you are Buddha. You are the source of Buddha. Why interpret the words of Buddha's teachings? You are Buddha! You wrote those words!

9 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

No matter how you try to say it, peace is suffering, peace is peace, peace is blissfulness, at the end it's all peace, Nibanna, enlightenment, and that's what I am talking about. And it's not suffering.

If it is all peace, how can peace not be suffering? 

12 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

You are suggesting that you are operating from a mode beyond thinking and analysis. I am aware that there are such modes, but there is nothing that supports your claim that you are operating  from. 

A being that has not embodied it, will not be able to recognize it. Once it is embodied, it is very obvious. This is related to Wilber's "pre/trans" fallacy.

14 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

I don't care whether you are 'thinking, or metathinking or beyond thinking,

This is a block. To expand beyond a contracted thinking mode, one would need to care about expanding. They would also need to be open and willing. 

16 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

Because Enlightenement is both the presence and absence of suffering (look at the meaning not the words), in the sense that there is suffering, but still there is the realization and complete acceptance.

I understand what you are saying. I am telling you there is a deeper level. You have created a construct you call "Enlightenment" in which there is suffering and the realization and complete acceptance of that suffering. This is a fairly deep "level", yet it goes deeper. 

Enlightenment and peace IS suffering. Not the presence of suffering. Enlightenment and peace IS suffering. At the human level, this will be very hard to realize - especially if one has been conditioned through literature and teachings to believe the highest level of Enlightenment and peace is not suffering. This is deeper than Buddha. It is deeper than Buddha's teachings. Your construct and the Buddhist teachings you cite are creating a distinction between "suffering" and "non-suffering". That is fine, yet there is a deeper level. You would need to let that go to realize a deeper level through direct experience. 

11 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

Such analysis (or whatever the word you wish) has  no value at all. It doesn't lead to anything. 

EXACTLY. That is a door to transcendence that you don't currently don't recognize. This isn't about analysis. This is about what that which is prior to the analysis. 

14 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

In Dhammapad , 90th quote Buddha says-

90. There is no suffering for him who has finished his journey, and abandoned grief, who has freed himself on all sides, and thrown off all fetters.

Buddha's statement is straightforward,  and useful as such. It has value, but it shouldn't be brought done by such analysis (or whatever you want to say) and interpreted as not non-dual.

"If you meet Buddha on the road, kill him!"

I'm not analyzing the words. I know what they mean because. . . I wrote them!!!

That quote is true. Consider it a ladder. Using a ladder to climb to a new level is great. That quote can help a person expand. Yet there is more. That quote is both true and not true - you are only seeing the straightforward useful truth in it. You are not seeing the falsity in it. Don't surrender your authority to a being like Buddha that you have created. You are Buddha! 

You already recognize and understand the truth in the statement. Now let's consider the falsity. When we consider non-truth, that does NOT mean that it is false. The human mind is conditioned to think in opposites. For example, if a coin is tails then it is not heads. Yet a coin is both tails and heads. When I point to heads, this does not mean that tails is false. Here, when we point at the non-truth of the statement, it does not falsify the truth of the statement. 

"There is no suffering for him who has finished his journey, and abandoned grief, who has freed himself on all sides"

This is true. It is also not true. For example if the journey is the destination, how can one finish the journey? 

The quote is only one side of the coin - that is that there is a journey toward a destination. Once finishing the journey and arriving at the destination, one has "abandoned grief, who has freed himself on all sides, and thrown off all fetters.". This is one side of the coin. I am not saying this side is wrong. I am trying to show you that there is another side of the coin. This isn't something to be found in spiritual literature or spiritual teachers. It is to be directly experienced. Contraction into one side will prevent realization of the other side. For example, in Buddha's quote, there is a journey and a destination in which grief, fetters and suffering is abandoned. Can you see how this truth is limiting? This is extremely difficult to do, yet also extremely simple and obvious because it is right NOW. There is no journey. You are focusing on a journey with a destination - and imagining the destination should look a certain way. That is fine. Yet the journey itself is also the destination. This is the other side of the coin. The destination is also Now. The destination of Now includes holding on to grief, fetters and suffering. Peace is the grief, fetters and suffering Now. Enlightenment is the grief, fetters and suffering of Now. Buddha's quote expressed the other side of this coin (which is also true). The deeper level is to see both sides and the entire coin. 

26 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

What I have seen is that you give a huge meaning to every single word I say. I wrote 'analysis' and now you have are saying it's scientific , it's stage orange materialistic. My words do not have that much weight that you are putting. What is worse is you put a HUGE weight to single words, like I say 'analysis' and you have made  a big judgement from there, the weight is in my message. You should stop this  habit of constantly making judgement from single words.  I write words like 'you', 'need', 'analysis' and that puts a huge influence on what you understand. They have nothing to do with what I am saying. Don't look at words. Look at the message.

No. I am not saying your words are scientific - I just used the scientist as an example. I would consider your expressions within a transition zone. 

Again, it is not the words you are using, it is how  you are using the words. It is the relationship with the words, not the words themselves. All words have relative meaning. I cannot place objective meaning onto any words you use. 

I can see that this is being perceived as judgement - and from one perspective it is. The reason I am firmly trying to convey is because you seem really really close to a big breakthrough into an expanded consciousness that few humans realize or that may take decades to realize. I also think there are many seekers on the forum at this transition. This breakthrough is not limited to constructs of enlightenment, peace and bliss. It is much deeper and broader. How could I not desire that for my fellow humans?. . . Yet I also understand that if I try to force, it can be counter-productive. There is a time to back off. 

[Aakash]

3 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

A being that has not embodied it, will not be able to recognize it. Once it is embodied, it is very obvious. This is related to Wilber's "pre/trans" fallacy.

thanks this is gold lol 

[Aakash]

Wow now i'm not arguing in my mind about the absolute truth and just accepting the general flow. There is much wisdom in your words. 

To the point where its very eloquently written beautifully. 

[Ibn Sina]

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

how can peace not be suffering?

I associate that with falling back to the egoic suffering that we normal stage orange have, those who are not into non-duality, have.

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

EXACTLY. That is a door to transcendence that you don't currently don't recognize. This isn't about analysis. This is about what that which is prior to the analysis.

I was referring to your analysis (or whatever, prior analysis, you put it). I was talking about you.

First you write your description in extensive detail ( or analysis, the word is irrelevant), and  I say such verbose words has no value, then you say exactly, it has no value. So basically, your extensive descriptions are valueless ,baseless, hollow words you have written for no reason at all?

Also, I have already gone through the door to the transcendence of the valuelessness of words. And I did that  years ago. Another  duality judgement about what I am saying.

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

Enlightenment and peace IS suffering

Not in the  egoic, dual sense.

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

"There is no suffering for him who has finished his journey, and abandoned grief, who has freed himself on all sides"

This is true. It is also not true. For example if the journey is the destination, how can one finish the journey? 

The quote is only one side of the coin - that is that there is a journey toward a destination. Once finishing the journey and arriving at the destination, one has "abandoned grief, who has freed himself on all sides, and thrown off all fetters.". This is one side of the coin. I am not saying this side is wrong. I am trying to show you that there is another side of the coin. This isn't something to be found in spiritual literature or spiritual teachers. It is to be directly experienced. Contraction into one side will prevent realization of the other side. For example, in Buddha's quote, there is a journey and a destination in which grief, fetters and suffering is abandoned. Can you see how this truth is limiting? This is extremely difficult to do, yet also extremely simple and obvious because it is right NOW. There is no journey. You are focusing on a journey with a destination - and imagining the destination should look a certain way. That is fine. Yet the journey itself is also the destination. This is the other side of the coin. The destination is also Now. The destination of Now includes holding on to grief, fetters and suffering. Peace is the grief, fetters and suffering Now. Enlightenment is the grief, fetters and suffering of Now. Buddha's quote expressed the other side of this coin (which is also true). The deeper level is to see both sides and the entire coin. 

2 hours ago, Ibn Sina said:

No need for such depth. It is straight forward. And I also know about the direct experience and all. I am aware of the sides. Don't think I am not aware. Don't underestimate.

 

 

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

Again, it is not the words you are using, it is how  you are using the words. It is the relationship with the words, not the words themselves

Yet you put the words I say 'analysis', 'needs'  etc under quotation marks and make judgements about them. You are not looking at the meaning of the words (I don't care about relationship of the word). Bascially, I am saying one thing, you think (or whatever you want to say)  I am saying something else.

You and I agree, but for me it's about simplicity and directness. I like simple language like the great masters that is direct and profound. 

This is the first time I have ever read that suggest that being non-dual and the language used have a connection. They have 0 connection. I might be writing about Stock Markets and Buisness, but still it's possible that I am as enlightened as the Buddha.

You are going through extensive analysis, thinking, words on and on and on. I don't find any value in such things. For  me it's just formulas and awareness. Your words have no value to me. None. Also never have I have read anywhere that reading such things that you write  is helpful for enlightenment. This is something that I have seen in this forum only. Not anywhere else.
 

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

You are focusing on a journey with a destination - and imagining the destination should look a certain way

I am not. Why do you say such things?  My understanding is much more non-dual. Again you are pushing the idea that I am being dual.

 

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

The destination is also Now. The destination of Now

I didn't say it is not.

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

Buddha's quote expressed the other side of this coin

The problem is you always understand things partially. You understand what I say partially. You understand what Buddha says partially. That's the problem. It's not partially. In every sentence Buddha says, there is the entire nondual.

 

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

This breakthrough is not limited to constructs of enlightenment, peace and bliss.

I am not making any constructs. You are saying that I am making.

Good lord, by now you have made about 50-60 judgements about what I am saying. All of them are false.

All I can say is I am not saying what you think you think I am saying based on what I am writing.

No matter how many judgements , misinterpretations you make about what I am saying, all I can do is say that is not what I am saying. 
 

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

A being that has not embodied it, will not be able to recognize it. Once it is embodied, it is very obvious. This is related to Wilber's "pre/trans" fallacy

I am also doing 'Beyond thinking'/prior thinking/metathinking, not just you. You can't see how I am doing it, but I have embodied it. This is Wilber's "pre/trans" fallacy. Do you see the problem?

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

I can see that this is being perceived as judgement -

'Judgemnet' or whatever word you want to give to the  activity that you are doing, which is - misinterpreting, misrepresenting, saying what I say is  something else. Give whatever word you want to give.

 

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

This is true. It is also not true. For example if the journey is the destination, how can one finish the journey?

 

And that is exactly how I said you will be misinterpreting and bring down Buddha's statement. What you don't realize is , it is within the statement itself. It's like you are closing one of your eye and looking at it partially. Open both your eyes.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[Ibn Sina]

'Duality judging'-  Continuosly judging a non-dual statement as dual although it is perfectly non-dual. Not finding the  non-dual in a statement.  

Every single statement that Buddha  says is saturated with non-duality. And yet you say , buddha is only saying half the  coin. You are seeing the half coin. It  is the entire coin he is throwing, just be receptive.

[Forestluv]

2 hours ago, Ibn Sina said:

First you write your description in extensive detail ( or analysis, the word is irrelevant), and  I say such verbose words has no value, then you say exactly, it has no value. So basically, your extensive descriptions are valueless ,baseless, hollow words you have written for no reason at all?

In a relative sense the words have value. Yet the words also have no more relevance than bird chirps.

2 hours ago, Ibn Sina said:

No need for such depth. It is straight forward.

There are multiple straight forward approaches. A straight forward approach to Paris will differ than a straight forward approach to scuba diving. As well, there is depth within straight-forwardness. In terms of SD, the entrance is Yellow.

2 hours ago, Ibn Sina said:

I didn't say it is not.

The Buddhist quote you posted infers it. 

2 hours ago, Ibn Sina said:

The problem is you always understand things partially. You understand what I say partially. You understand what Buddha says partially. That's the problem. It's not partially. In every sentence Buddha says, there is the entire nondual.

You bring up a very important point here. In SD, this is one of the keys to transitioning into yellow. It is not about understanding partially. It is about fully understanding the partial-ness. 

2 hours ago, Ibn Sina said:

I am not making any constructs. You are saying that I am making.

These are all constructs. We are all constructing.  You, me, Buddha, Jesus and all the sages. Everyone. The entire relative world is a process of construction and deconstruction.  

2 hours ago, Ibn Sina said:

I am also doing 'Beyond thinking'/prior thinking/metathinking, not just you. You can't see how I am doing it, but I have embodied it. This is Wilber's "pre/trans" fallacy. Do you see the problem?

You are doing awesome. I encourage you to continue your development, growth and maturity.

2 hours ago, Ibn Sina said:

'Judgemnet' or whatever word you want to give to the  activity that you are doing, which is - misinterpreting, misrepresenting, saying what I say is  something else.

I'm pointing to something you are not yet aware of. But you are really close. 

2 hours ago, Ibn Sina said:

And that is exactly how I said you will be misinterpreting and bring down Buddha's statement. What you don't realize is , it is within the statement itself. It's like you are closing one of your eye and looking at it partially. Open both your eyes.

If one can only view the quote through a single lens - all other lenses will appear to be misinterpretations. It is not either / or. I can see the beauty in the Buddha's quote. I wrote it for goodness sakes!!! 

This is not a criticism of Buddha or the quote. No expression is totality. Every expression is a component of totality. It's not about partially understanding the quote. It's about fully understanding the partial nature of the quote in a larger context. 

2 hours ago, Ibn Sina said:

'Duality judging'-  Continuosly judging a non-dual statement as dual although it is perfectly non-dual. Not finding the  non-dual in a statement.  

That would assume that a nondual statement can exist independently. It cannot. It is a component of an infinite whole. This is why the term pointer is used.

Another way of looking at it. How can one describe "Nowhere"? As soon as a statement is made, it is a "somewhere". The best we can do is to be somewhere and point to Nowhere, because we have to be somewhere to point to Nowhere. One cannot point to Nowhere from Nowhere.

 

2 hours ago, Ibn Sina said:

Also never have I have read anywhere that reading such things that you write  is helpful for enlightenment. This is something that I have seen in this forum only. Not anywhere else.

This is another important point. At the higher levels of consciousness, there is a transcendence of spiritual literature, spiritual teachings and spiritual beings. You transcend all of it. You are all of it. You have access to the source of all that you are reading. You are that source. Why read Buddha's writings if you are Buddha? Why follow the footsteps of a sage when you are all sages? Once you realize this True Nature, the gloves are off. You will no longer be limited to following any teacher or literature because you realize you are the source of all teachers. Then the gloves come off. . . a whole new infinite expansiveness to explore is revealed. 

This is holistic Omniscience. I think there will come a day when you realize this. . . 

[Nahm]

12 hours ago, Ibn Sina said:

@Nahm That's a good exercise for developing non-dual muscle, thanx for  sharing.

The hand exercise is about “omniscient”, you might have missed the implication (and hilarity) of the all there is to know. 

[Ibn Sina]

@Serotoninluv 

I could be responding to each of your answers and show how inauthentic and false they are just like I did with all my other reply, but I am not going to post any further. 
I don't think you are  a credible source to learn spirituality from. I don't want to waste my time.
I have no idea where or how you learned spirituality, all I can say is there is nothing for me to learn from you, the thngs you say are unoriginal, has nothing new or profound, although your ego might find it hard to accept that , and what you write are designed to show that you have a better understanding of non-duality, better than mine, better than Buddha, and I am very certain that you don't possess any such wisdom, because you fail to recognize wisdom when it is present, non-duality when it present.
I want to improve  my life by spirituality, that's the bottom line. I am studying other sources like Leo, Bhikku Bodhi, Peter Ralston, Osho etc , I won't be wasting time on you.

I learn from sources like this one- 

 

Edited September 18, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[Forestluv]

@Ibn Sina I wish you the best along your journey ? ❤️