How Do Synchronicities Work?

[mandyjw]

13 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:

Sure, but relatively to what Maharaj is doing, we can guess how consciouss he was. 

Would you believe that someone it´s enlightened being a crack addict? 

I totally get what Maharaj is saying, but I´d like to know at which point of his path did he said that. If someone is still trapped in the "play of gunas" 10 years after having awoken, then I wouldn´t consider them enlightened. 

Why guess? Is enlightenment a thing that is dependent upon time, or can be owned by a person? A person is not enlightenment and can never be. No one gets to own it or claim it. There's becoming your vision of who you want to be and then there's enlightenment. The problem with wanting to become the version of who you want to be is that, you don't see that you already are that because you don't want what you already are. In not wanting what you are you lay claim to it, and you mistake something false for what you are. 

[molosku]

18 hours ago, WHO IS said:

I did not start an argument. Leo, yourself said this :

"A human is an idea within the Mind of God.

It's not the human Mind which realizes God, it's God's Mind which realizes itself."

So Gods Mind realizes that it was not a human to begin with, and that it is itself-God, and yet you say that after the realization it cannot do things which would be "supernatural" abilities for the limited-form. 

If you realize your full Godhood, there should be no "not-possibles" because full-awakens means the imagined-limitations are seen for what they are, "imagined".

 

Sorry but this is not at all how it works. That is not what awakening entails. 

[WaveInTheOcean]

2 hours ago, Meta-Man said:

Awakening is suicide

My uncle died 2 months ago because of alcohol abuse. Let’s just say it didn’t come from a place of fulfilment.

I get what you mean. Awakening is a suicide of the ego, the feeling of being a self. Yes. But let's differentiate between that -- ego-death -- and then *actual physical biological suicide* which was what I was refering to.

I'm sorry to hear that.

Well, I guess there are two ways you can go when you become seriously awoke to the reality that you're God and that nothing matters.

1. Go back and help people / have fun / live consciously with your knowledge

2. Kill yourself physically, biologically (or perhaps just socially by going into the woods to live alone).

I'm sure many dudes have chosen option 2. And I don't blame them.

Option 1 just seems so much more fun to me. Why hurry up the death process? We all know our bodies are gonna die at some point anyway.

To me, Alan Watts very obviously chose option 1. He had fun. He toured around USA talking. He digged talking like birds like to sing.

Then late in his life, when his body and brain was beginning to naturally rotten, he grew tired of life obviously. He didn't really want to live anymore. And again, I can't blame him. I myself have no real hopes of getting past the 60's (25 atm), and I'll surely do something risky to make sure I'll not reach 80 at least. Watts did the same. Instead of just commiting plain suicide, which his family and friends probably would find awful (he knew that), he just chose to dull himself and slowly kill himself with the bottle. And again, I fully understand him. At some point you have seen enough of life. You're tired of it. Better let new fresh eyes see the world anew again!

[WaveInTheOcean]

39 minutes ago, Meta-Man said:

The trap that people commonly fall into is that they take ego-death more lightly than physical death. 

It seems more fun to the ego, yeah. See, there’s a huge risk involved with awakening. It might go the exact opposite way of what you had envisioned. You have everything from Ramana Maharshi to UG Krishnamurti to Rupert Spira to Osho. You might change in ways you did not see coming. People want their comfy verdion of enlightenment that means they will just keep going like they always did. This is a pipedream. Awakening is a swan dive into the unknown that will radically change everything.

’Why hurry up the death process?’. 

With awakening you realize there’s no time, no death, nothing matters, nothing needs to be done etc. People view enlightenment as some sort of carreer path they can just sign up for. The amount of juvenile ideas surrounding awakening is astonishing. If you want to awaken you have to put all your chips on the table.

I gotta be brutally honest with you here. But your seriousness around this topic very clearly shows me that you have a lot to learn still=D 

Sure, seriousness is necessary if you want to go down the path towards awakening. But once you finally "get there" you should be light as a feather. And you seem a bit heavy to me, bro, even though you act like you're the smartest sage around town.

First of all, yes, you are right. People often think ego-death is always a walk in the park. And I agree, often it can feel just a brutal as a near-death-experience where you were resurrected by some doctors. 

However, from what I have gathered, heard, learned and directly experienced myself, the experience of ego-death can differ remarkably. It can differ in how deep it is (there are infinite depths to ego-death). Secondly, it can differ in how it is felt. It can either be easy peasy to go into ego-death-space or it can be brutal as fuck. I believe it depends on how calm and able you are to surrender. If you have a hard time surrendering, cos you're clingy, low-conscious and a "bad" person, and not at peace with yourself: expect a bumpy ride. If you're naturally at peace with yourself and have an easy time surrendering: expect bliss from the get-go. :-) 

Yes, you could say that awakening is something that radically changes everything. However, the opposite is just a true: Nothing is changed. I hope you are also aware of that.

Anyway, you fall into the trap of mixing absolute truths with relatvistic truths. And it always tilts me as fuck when people do that, and shows me they're still big n00bs ;D (I consider my self a noob by the way, lot to learn still).

Of course, absolutely speaking, yes, for instance, time and death are seen to be illusions. But so is everything else. Life/reality is seen to be a dream. An imagination. An illusion. So not only is time and death imganiry, so is your body, your thoughts, feelings,  bodily sensations, the whole external world.

But as I said, it's pointless to "discuss" absolute truths. Totally freaking pointless. Either you get it (because you've directly seen it) or you don't. Simply as that.

Instead, what we can do, is discuss the relativstic truths inside the dream. How does the dream function? Time seems to be an important aspect of the dream. So does death. So does the external world, feelings, thoughts, the body. Right? :-) 

And same goes for the so-called "ego". "Ego" to me is - by the way - 100% synonymous with the word "person" (most of the time, the words can soometimes mean slightly different things when used in special contexts). Anyway, yes, the persons/egoes, you, Meta-Man, me as WaveInTheOcean, they are - absolutely speaking - illusions just like time and death are.

However, relativistically speaking -- in speaking of how the dream works -- they are very real. Just as real as trees in the woods and cars on the subway. To contrast this, let's imagine a dragon flying around belching fire. To believe such a dragon exist on Earth -- relativistaclly speaking -- is to me a false belief. But to believe a tree exist, or that I as a person exist, is perfectly geniune beliefs , relativistically  speaking. 

To believe a dragon really exist - outside books and film - serves no real purpose other than play and fun. To believe I exist as a person, WaveInTheOcean, serves a big purpose, namely it helps me to survive and continue on in the dream, among other things.

Anyway, the point of all my rambling is, in order to function as a human being -- whether within society or in a cave in the mountains -- you have to believe that you exist as a person. My real point is that it is completely utterly retarded to view "real persistent enlightenment" as a permanent stage of "no-ego/no-self/no-person". Completely utterly retarded. And I'm glad @Leo Gurahas finally realized this, lol  

However, in another context, if we talk of "no-ego" in terms of: "very loving", "very conscious", "extreme selflessness", "very light-hearted", then we're talking about an entirely different thing. I view these attributes as very important markers of how enlightened/awake you are.

And obviously, both you and me have a looooong way to go, right pal? If not, let's agree to disagree. Have a wonderful the rest of your Saturday. I think I have made my point here <3

[WaveInTheOcean]

Also a last point: You gotta consider what the fuck the point of life is. I already said it is simply just to live. That may be one way to look at it. A more in-depth way to look at it may be to say that the point of life is to be happy. How can anyone fucking disagree with that statement?

Enjoy life. Do whatever it takes to make yourself happy.

To me -- and I believe for most people, but cannot be sure -- my happiness is often directly proportional to how conscious a person I am.

But hey, maybe some people can have zero clue that they're God and still live a happy life? Seems totally plausible to me. Just as it seems totally plausible to me that you may have a sad life even though you're aware that you're God.

Yes, nothing matters at all, absolutely speaking.

But love man. Love. <3

<3 

To pursue enlightenment with the goal of becoming a depressed monk living completely alone in a cave in the mountains for the rest of your life seems beyond retarded to me. Beyond, man. 

If "final" enlightenment in the end makes someone depressed and sad, I'm sorry that they chose to pursue it. They should not have done it then, in my humble, humble view.

Be happy. The end. Love.

[Javfly33]

5 hours ago, mandyjw said:

Why guess? Is enlightenment a thing that is dependent upon time, or can be owned by a person? A person is not enlightenment and can never be. No one gets to own it or claim it. There's becoming your vision of who you want to be and then there's enlightenment. The problem with wanting to become the version of who you want to be is that, you don't see that you already are that because you don't want what you already are. In not wanting what you are you lay claim to it, and you mistake something false for what you are. 

We clarily have different versions of what enlightenment really is. For me enlightenment is not realizing Truth (even if this truth shows that Truth can't be owned by a person) but embodiment. By that logic anyone who has a breakthrough in the assumedly super-potent 5-Meo-DMT should realize that enlightenment is not owned by the person therefore stop the seeking right there.

Yet that is not the reality as you can easily see.

Call me idealistic, but if you going to have the same survival agenda and attachments like a human being that doesn't know anything about conscioussness and haven't meditated a single minute in his life, then going around saying you are enlightened is nothing that self-deception.

Isn't all this work about the person? The Absolute is already fine. Is the person that needs to be integrated.

[WaveInTheOcean]

@Meta-Man

The serious brutal eality of death you say. Well, isn't death an illusion? What's really dying during a peak mystical experiance? Nothing. The curtains are just being lifted, right?

"Hehe. See, the driver of awakening is suffering." I agree. At least in the beginning - or perhaps later. But you can get past then and experience blissfull ego deaths later on.

"What really matters is the Light of Consciousness. Life, while it is entertaining, is like a distraction. " I can sympathize with that, sure.

"Funny how Ralston cut down Leo’s assertion that ‘permanent satori/kensho’ is not possible, except for short flashes. " Did Ralston do that? Link?

It depends on what you mean by satori/kensho. If you define it as being able to 24/7 see the dream for what it is: dream/God's play, then I surely say that's possible. If you define it as "having no ego", then how come you will still respond to someone calling out your name? See my point is merely, that being a human being entails that you keep your ego/persona. However, sure, you can be loving, conscious, selfless, light permanently. Let's define that as permanent satori/kensho/enlightenment, shall we? 

Then doing peak mystical experiences you can actually experience brief complete ego-death experiences. That's another thing. But if you want to keep that 24/7 then you're not alive, but death. And I mean physical biological brain-death, not able to respond to any stimulus.

"To me my happiness is directly proportional to how little of a person/somebody I am. The less I am, the more I AM." 

Haha. Well I can sympathize with that, too. However, be wary of the spiritual ego. If you define yourself as having little to no ego, then you simultaneously in another way also define yourself as having a big spiritual ego=D 

"With a little wisdom you would know that’s not reality" Well, look at healthy children (4-5 year olds for instance). They have zero clue that they're God. Yet they seem happy. However, while writing this, I also realize that in some ways small kids also - unconsciously - know/live as though they were Gods, so yeah...:D 

"What I can say is that awakening is what we all seek, knowingly or unknowingly. We long for what we fear the most, paradoxically. That’s the human dilemma."  I fully agree with this statement, actually. But we should also consider that some people may reach some kinds of awakening in subtle ways that are not clear for the outside perceiver. Hell, maybe some people can't even put it into words like you and I do.

Nice weekend to you too <3  Feels like we have had a somewhat fruitful discussion so far. Rare.

[Leo Gura]

Appreciate that people have different levels of ambitiousness.

For some people, living in a cabin in the wood is the right path.

For other people (highly ambitious people) that is not the right path. They need a more active lifestyle.

Stop arguing about which path is best for everyone but instead find which path is right for YOU.

You can be enlightened and ambitious, or enlightened and unambitious. Depends on your personality.

Personally, I'm very ambitious. Which makes enlightenment harder. Its a lot easier to get enlightened when you have no ambitions.

[LfcCharlie4]

@Javfly33 No offence bro go read “I Am That” it’s regarded as the best Non-Duality book of the 20th century, Nisargatta is as awake as they come, he still smoke cigarettes after awakening, remember culture & society was very very different back then 

[LfcCharlie4]

@Leo Gura ???????? 
 

Never agreed with something you’ve written more! 

[Ananta]

1 hour ago, remember said:

just had a look and i don’t like it... i guess its still a matter of taste. he does not say anything wrong but certainly does not get everything right. maybe he was lucky he got published? or maybe he hit the nerve of his time. gropius is also known as a great architect.

? You read, "I AM that" in an hour?

It's 464 pages long, so I doubt it. Also, it's the teachings/talks of Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj translated into English and compiled into a book, it's not a book that was written by him.

Anyways, the book is excellent for others who want to give it a go.  I highly recommend it ? 

[Ananta]

I think this (long) quote about ego by Ramana Maharshi applies in this thread:

"Presupposing the existence of a non-existent thing and then wanting to get salvation for that imaginary 'I', you have to start and try to do so through the above-said four paths of yoga. When your sadhanas themselves become a means of giving life to the non-existent ego, how can they destroy it? To do any sadhana except Self-enquiry (atmavichara), the existence of the mind (jiva) is indispensable.
For, how to perform those sadhanas without the mind? To try to destroy the ego by sadhanas other than Self-enquiry is to be just like a thief turning himself into a policeman to catch the thief who is none but himself. Only Self-enquiry can reveal the truth that the ego (mind or jiva) has no existence whatsoever!

So do not accept this ego, the truth of which you have not yet found out by scrutiny; deny it by giving no importance to its existence, root it out and burn it to extinction by attending to how or from what (whence) it rises! Instead of doing so, if you accept it as a real entity even before enquiring and finding out what it is (i.e. before finding out 'Who am I?'), it itself will be a fetter to you and will create many non-existent obstacles (such as lust, anger, etc.) for you, and will then involve you in the aforesaid unnecessary efforts to overcome them' ? thus says Sri Bhagavan." 

 

[LfcCharlie4]

@remember I think it's just a matter of taste and it's up to you if you resonate with him  

Personally, I don't smoke and never will, but around that time smoking was socially acceptable, so I guess context is always important. 

Also, I do feel we have an ideal of these Gurus that they must maintain to be awake, which I personally don't agree with. I understand your points of Integration and it is essential in living the teachings, and why would someone want to continue harming their body, however, I'm not sure it takes away for their realizations, they are human after all. His teachings and message are very radical, and was very helpful to me, along with Ramana. 

For example, I don't eat animal products out of wanting to minimize harm, but that doesn't mean I would say you have to be vegetarian to be 'fully awake' many are - Ramana, Rupert Spira, Francis Lucille, I think from love the wanting to kill an animal for your pleasure diminishes, but then is that an awakening issue or an integration issue? 

[WaveInTheOcean]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Appreciate that people have different levels of ambitiousness.

For some people, living in a cabin in the wood is the right path.

For other people (highly ambitious people) that is not the right path. They need a more active lifestyle.

Stop arguing about which path is best for everyone but instead find which path is right for YOU.

You can be enlightened and ambitious, or enlightened and unambitious. Depends on your personality.

Personally, I'm very ambitious. Which makes enlightenment harder. Its a lot easier to get enlightened when you have no ambitions.

A dude living in a cabin in the woods would still have some ambitions. Such as an ambition for surviving: getting water and food.

Absolute zero ambitions is where you commit biological suicide.

But yes, I agree.

I think ambitions is "good" though:-)

[mandyjw]

15 hours ago, Javfly33 said:

We clarily have different versions of what enlightenment really is. For me enlightenment is not realizing Truth (even if this truth shows that Truth can't be owned by a person) but embodiment. By that logic anyone who has a breakthrough in the assumedly super-potent 5-Meo-DMT should realize that enlightenment is not owned by the person therefore stop the seeking right there.

Yet that is not the reality as you can easily see.

Call me idealistic, but if you going to have the same survival agenda and attachments like a human being that doesn't know anything about conscioussness and haven't meditated a single minute in his life, then going around saying you are enlightened is nothing that self-deception.

Isn't all this work about the person? The Absolute is already fine. Is the person that needs to be integrated.

Yes, I didn't mean to refer to the event of awakening.

If I spend my entire life trying to NOT be an asshole, incredibly concerned with being a good person and other people seeing me as kind and good, always forever resisting my inner devil, my own survival drives, then that actually, trickily is what I will identify with and fear. Fear and aversion is attachment. I will, ironically be the devil because that's exactly what I resist so much. 

No person exists. Seeing this is the goal. The person is not there of their own separate accord. 

Enlightenment is a seeing, not a gaining. You can't add to perfection, but you can stop having illusory complaints about it. That doesn't mean we don't evolve, but evolution is a function of survival. If enlightenment is seen as an evolution of itself, it is itself a survival goal. Oops. 

Edited May 17, 2020 by mandyjw

[mandyjw]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Appreciate that people have different levels of ambitiousness.

For some people, living in a cabin in the wood is the right path.

For other people (highly ambitious people) that is not the right path. They need a more active lifestyle.

Stop arguing about which path is best for everyone but instead find which path is right for YOU.

You can be enlightened and ambitious, or enlightened and unambitious. Depends on your personality.

Personally, I'm very ambitious. Which makes enlightenment harder. Its a lot easier to get enlightened when you have no ambitions.

A CEO, Donald Trump, a monk living in a cabin in the woods, and an ambitious enlightened person all have one thing in common. 

No one is doing any of it. If you're ambitious it's because it's your own path of "least" resistance. 

[mandyjw]

18 minutes ago, remember said:

that’s a pretty nice one mandy. although doing not doing in that position, that’s only possible if you have integrated authority completely, which also means disintegrating it at a point.

The flip side of giving authority is disregarding. Neither are conscious decisions. 

 

[Ananta]

@remember Gotcha,  he's not your cup of tea. No biggie. I have a fondness for him. He's the one teacher that if he was alive I would go see.❤

Not sure though why you mention quoting so much though in your post, is it because of me quoting Ramana in this thread? I don't consider that quoting often or too much.

I think ppl usually post their quotes in the enlightenment quotes thread. I really can't think of a member that over does them like you see on some other forums. 

And as far as the smoking (smoking wasn't considered an issue back then) and meat eating-

"Questioner: You smoke?
Maharaj (Nisargadatta): My body kept a few habits which may as well continue till it dies. There is no harm in them.
Q: You eat meat?
M: I was born among meat-eating people and my children are eating meat. I eat very little – and make no fuss.
Q: Meat-eating implies killing.
M: Obviously. I make no claims of consistency. You think absolute consistency is possible; prove it by example. Don’t preach what you do not practise."

[mandyjw]

@Anna1 Funny this thread is about synchronicity, because I'm reading I Am That and have been quoting it a lot. I suggested it to remember, because the section in I Am That about remembering and forgetting reminded me of her. 

 

 

[Ananta]

1 minute ago, mandyjw said:

@Anna1 Funny this thread is about synchronicity, because I'm reading I Am That and have been quoting it a lot. I suggested it to remember, because the section in I Am That about remembering and forgetting reminded me of her. 

 

 

Ohhhh, lol ???

Thanks for sharing that, because I was lost?‍♀️