Are You Enlightened? An Honest Self Exam

[Dancer]

I am the most enlightened being on the planet.

2. comes Sam Harris
3. Closely followed up by @Leo Gura porn-collection.
4. Then comes Leo Gura himself, just outside of getting a medal.

But we are nice. We love him. So we give him a participation medal.

The list keeps going forever. I can't seem to find you on it?

Where are you?

That was one tough game. Well played all.

You are all worth a celebration just because you are.

Lets eat and drink!

[Snader]

@Valwyndir I agree with you that there are people on this forum who point to non-duality without truly understanding it. When you observe some users you can quite easily see how they lack the understanding.

I see that because I see the same pattern in myself. I erase more text than I post, because I'm about to talk something I don't walk. Something I haven't REALLY learned through my own direct experience. Ego is sneaky and is trying to run the show all the time.

Anyway, I'm skeptical. How do you make people who are deceived aware of their deception through language?

''This post is designed to shatter any paradigm of "enlightenment" or "God" that you have.''

That's quite an ambitious goal in my opinion. I think that kind of raw and harsh ''intellectual lecturing'' just makes it worse and move people further away from actually experiencing it themselves.

[zeroISinfinity]

@The Buddha Wow man. To you I want to sign up. 

[Moksha]

8 hours ago, BipolarGrowth said:

@Moksha look closer into the translation of that verse. Many suggest it is not saying the Kingdom is within

Eckhart Tolle is a linguist, and quotes it frequently. More importantly, the truth of it is directly realized.

[allislove]

0. Are you compassion, joyful, light-hearted?

[Nahm]

Are You Enlightened? An Honest Self Exam.

Enlightened you’s is the vantage of the sleeper. There is no second or separate source of truth, such that there could be an ‘honest exam’ of truth, nor any examiner. Profundity = monkey mind. Monkey mind = profundity. There is no escaping, no one to escape. ? Keep up the great videos! Really loving it. Sharing it with the family. My kids dig it too, and ‘get you’. Maybe a video about the slippery slope of judgement? ?? 

[blackchair]

i dont care what "i am" as long as i serve humanity, im good.

[Manusia]

@Valwyndir Thanks for sharing! It help me unblock some unconsious meta belief in my head. Love!

[xxxx]

19 hours ago, Valwyndir said:

1. Do you ever seek to invalidate someone else's perspective?

2. Do you see certain perspectives as more "correct" than other perspectives.

3. Do you believe gaining another perspective means letting go of an old one?

4. Do you believe that to abide in non-dual awareness you must erase all dualities in your mind?

5. Do you believe that from the absolute perspective, reality is infinite?

6. Do you believe that from the absolute perspective, you are God?

The issue that you have been highlighting throughout this post is with judgement. Whereas, I, personally, think that the over-arching theme should be that of empathy. 

The non-clinging, complete acceptance of everything comes with empathy. That, you have blended with this immense vastness, and hence, are empathetic towards it all. However, in this finite context that this non-dual infinite is living through us, has its own limitations; and these finitudes in their very nature demand our judgement - so there is a room for some clinging. You have painted an intricate picture of the complexity of all this, but one must also understand that the more intricate a thing, the more there's room for ambivalence.

What you call 'love' is also a judgement you are making, right? Say, if you want to 'spread' love by making people happy --- that's a judgement on your part - some sort of clinging to the feeling of happiness, and the subsequent provision of it, through whatever means.

A serial killer who has seen the lows of life may resort to killing, in order to spread love, by ridding people off their lives, therefore, helping them unite with the One. 

Now, you'd say that you'd empathize with the killer, of course. 

I'll add a slight twist to this --- say, this killer comes to you, with an awful lot of 'pain' that has been inflicted upon him, and tells you that he feels complete love when he kills people, and if you would join with him to do the same? According to you, now that you subscribe to non-clinging of any perspective, would you do the same? Is his perspective as valid as yours?

.

There's a huge difference in theory and action. Action requires some sort of clinging, and the ability to place things on a scale, therefore, subscribing to certain values on the basis of what seems most appropriate or conducive. 

.

So, where do you fall into in your questionnaire here - I'd like to know? Would you invalidate the killer's perspective? Would you call his approach 'correct' or 'incorrect'? Would you be okay gaining his new perspective by living his life, while keeping your old perspective intact? 

Therefore, coming to my first point --- so, while your post is great in the theoretical sense, there's a slight glitch when it comes to the 'action' part of it --- and it is for this reason that I find your questionnaire a little questionable.

And it is for that reason, again, that if one were to answer only yes in the questionnaire, doesn't mean that they are to be placed on a 'ground'.

 

Edited February 8, 2021 by xxxx

[Valwyndir]

9 hours ago, Surfingthewave said:

@Valwyndir

I think it's important to offer a perspective yes,  and what you're offering is exactly how attached we get to certain perspectives. 

The perspective is still not real. 

It is still a story. 

If it helps you to arrive at the recognition of what is, then great.

Just be careful of over complicating and over theorising. 

Walk away from all perspectives and see what happens.

I don't personally have a paradigm of what Enlightenment or God is. I gave all that up years ago. That's the golden key. I had the key, but there is no door. 

I just relish in the what is. 

The what is, is, experiencing. 

No concepts, no stories. 

It's the most beautiful thing. 

 

Haha this is just another perspective ?

Even the perspective of no perspective is still a perspective. 

Offering perspectives is all we can do with language. 

[Valwyndir]

3 hours ago, Snader said:

Anyway, I'm skeptical. How do you make people who are deceived aware of their deception through language?

''This post is designed to shatter any paradigm of "enlightenment" or "God" that you have.''

I cannot make people who are deceived aware of their deception directly through language. 

This post is designed to (indirectly) shatter any paradigm of "enlightenment" or "God" that you have. 

Only you can shatter your own paradigm by becoming directly aware of what my words point to. 

[Valwyndir]

7 hours ago, The Buddha said:

However I well understand your point but you are also clinging to the no-attachment of reality, see? That is why it is not that easy. It's the game of the mind, the prison of the mind, wanting reality to be one way not another. So by saying don't get attached to anything you are getting attached to that perspective of the world. 

@The Buddha 

I really appreciate the deep insights.

We could go on in circles forever though haha. 

I could say you're attached to not clinging to the non-attachment of reality if I base my opinion purely off your language. 

People can project attachment onto any perspective until they become directly aware of what non-attachment points to. 

If we keep going down this route, it turns into an argument for not teaching linguistically at all. 

But I think we can agree that language has it's purpose, or we wouldn't be posting on this forum haha.

[Valwyndir]

2 hours ago, Nahm said:

Are You Enlightened? An Honest Self Exam.

Enlightened you’s is the vantage of the sleeper. There is no second or separate source of truth, such that there could be an ‘honest exam’ of truth, nor any examiner. Profundity = monkey mind. Monkey mind = profundity. There is no escaping, no one to escape. ? Keep up the great videos! Really loving it. Sharing it with the family. My kids dig it too, and ‘get you’. Maybe a video about the slippery slope of judgement? ?? 

Exactly 

Thank you, I definitely will! 

[Valwyndir]

1 hour ago, xxxx said:

So, where do you fall into in your questionnaire here - I'd like to know? Would you invalidate the killer's perspective? Would you call his approach 'correct' or 'incorrect'? Would you be okay gaining his new perspective by living his life, while keeping your old perspective intact? 

Of course I wouldn't seek to invalidate the killer's perspective. 

The chance that someone becomes a killer is just part of the human psychology.  

This is the same human psychology allowed for the evolution of humans and therefore my biological existence.

To invalidate any part of reality would be to invalidate myself. 

Of course it would be ok to gain his new perspective by living his life. That's exactly what I'm doing hahaha. 

Who else could possibly be living the killer's life but me, consciousness itself?

[xxxx]

54 minutes ago, Valwyndir said:

Of course I wouldn't seek to invalidate the killer's perspective. 

The chance that someone becomes a killer is just part of the human psychology.  

This is the same human psychology allowed for the evolution of humans and therefore my biological existence.

To invalidate any part of reality would be to invalidate myself. 

Of course it would be ok to gain his new perspective by living his life. That's exactly what I'm doing hahaha. 

Who else could possibly be living the killer's life but me, consciousness itself?

You went meta, haha --- yes, I know that it is Consciousness / God that is living the killer's life. If everything is you, you wouldn't be making this post in the first place. There is something that you seek to put forward - otherwise, others clinging or not clinging  to perspectives wouldn't make a difference to you, no? The answer to all is meta, but we exist within finitude, and hence, need to be considerate of this specific aspect of the kaleidoscope, too.

If you are so totally aware that everyone is you, why be bothered with uncovering their deception at all? Well, you'd say that uncovering it would make them truly happy - but then again, that resides in your very practical-headed humanness, where you hold the perspective of making the others 'aware' and 'happy' dear - somewhat of a human goal. 

.

I'm quoting you here to give it some context- 

"Understand that from certain perspectives reality is finite and you are simply a human. 

So many people get caught up in being God that they forget to enjoy their humanness. 

You are both human and God. You are not one more than you are the other."

.

Now simply, as a human, would you take part in the action of killing? Of course, as God / Consciousness you are it, but as Valwyndir, would you? I do not think you will - because again, of the same 'human psychology' that you are talking about. The same psychology that fears being put into prison for your entire human life, where you will no longer be able to 'uncover the deceptions' of others; the broken-heartedness of seeing other parts of you sad in their human form; the very human psychology makes you deliberately cling to certain fixed values and beliefs, right? As you put it, you are simply human, and yes - this humanness wouldn't allow you to do something of that sort. In this human form, actions do have consequences, and sometimes, they can take a physical and psychological toll on you, for that is the very limited nature of your dual being. 

.

For example - let us take the water torture method - where drop after drop, on a specific part of the skull would drive a person insane - and you'll see them descend into madness, and hence, die - a very torturous death - so, if your killer friend would ask you to participate in this 'show' - would you, as a specific, limited, human Valwyndir do it?

.

You are both human and God - and the human has a lot of limitations, both physical and emotional - and limitations require some aspects of attachment and overlaps - for a lot of you is human, and therefore, a large part of it is shared - and this aspect is very crucial to your very human existence / survival. Shared systems require shared acceptance that further requires shared sense of actions. 

So tell me, would you enjoy your humanness, in your very human form, by participating with the killer in his 'benevolent' endeavor, in the real sense? Or, would you just cling to your other beliefs strongly?

 

Edited February 8, 2021 by xxxx

[Valwyndir]

33 minutes ago, xxxx said:

So tell me, would you enjoy your humanness, in your very human form, by participating with the killer in his 'benevolent' endeavor, in the real sense? Or, would you just cling to your other beliefs strongly?

It's definitely a good thought experiment. I appreciate the insight. 

There's a subtle differences between attachment and preferences.

Preferences can never cease. Preferences keep reality in motion.

If preferences completely ceased, nobody would even move because they would be just as content to sit still and let their human body deteriorate.

Liberation comes from seeing the arbitrariness in your own preferences. 

Attachment comes from believing your preferences are "correct" compared to other preferences. 

Even liberation isn't a "correct" preference, but it sure as hell is a popular preference haha. 

I cannot control my preferences any more than I can control the weather. 

There is no separate self that has free will. Everything is simply happening. 

[Applegarden]

This forum:

One guy makes a challenging post asking: "Are you enlightened?"

Forum users: "I think you are projecting, dude."

The author of the post: "Nah man, you are projecting."

Forum users: "Saying no u in a lot of words"

And may the projection olympics begin...

Edited February 9, 2021 by Applegarden

[This]

19 minutes ago, Applegarden said:

One guy makes a challenging post asking: "Are yoy enlightened?"

There is no yoy!

[xxxx]

1 hour ago, Valwyndir said:

There's a subtle differences between attachment and preferences.

Interesting classification. 

1 hour ago, Valwyndir said:

Preferences can never cease. Preferences keep reality in motion.

(Bio) Logically speaking, haha - ( human ) preferences arise out of attachment. There's method to the madness, after all. It's not so arbitrary. Of course, from the meta perspective, it makes no sense - but the limited nature of ours, spread over such real (imaginary) 'time', has given us some context to play along with. 

Something like -

I prefer (am attached) to this human existence. Food is imperative to my very existence. Therefore, I prefer food, too. 

With this analogy - I have no other choice than to prefer food, if I prefer existence. The dependence is real. It may seem like an arbitrary, independent preference, but this difference is so subtle that it escapes our attention. 

.

Therefore, if you are attached to a bigger concept, you will endeavor to fulfill your preferences in that regard. 

Makes me think - are preferences any different from attachment, at all? There can be one large (collection of) preference (attachment; which is, after all, not infinitely arbitrary, with regards to the human context), and the other ones that follow for the sake of fulfilling it. 

1 hour ago, Valwyndir said:

I cannot control my preferences any more than I can control the weather.

I am not so sure about this. 

Preferences are not something you are wholly subjected to, without any room for change. 

Preferences are something that you cultivate, over time - 'choosing' amongst the vast array of things.

Preference equals choice - and there's a lot of it - and all of choice, for us, is limited. Hence, we have limited aspects of choice that we can choose from, which means that it can be controlled to an extent. 

While you may not have 'complete' control over it, there is a point to which one can regulate it - considering what you are actually attached to, haha. 

Edited February 8, 2021 by xxxx

[Valwyndir]

1 hour ago, xxxx said:

Makes me think - are preferences any different from attachment, at all? There can be one large (collection of) preference (attachment; which is, after all, not infinitely arbitrary, with regards to the human context), and the other ones that follow for the sake of fulfilling it. 

Completely depends on how you define the two words. 

The bottom line is that no matter how enlightened you get, you'll still have what I call "preferences."

"Preference" is simply the lack of total indifference. 

Total indifference would destroy any meaning in life leading to a bland, zombielike existence.  

Love cannot exist simultaneously with total indifference. 

In fact, total indifference is the closest you can get to the opposite of love. 

(The opposite of love is not hate. The hate of one thing is born from the love of another.)

Also indifference is also vastly different from equanimity. 

1 hour ago, xxxx said:

I am not so sure about this. 

Preferences are not something you are wholly subjected to, without any room for change. 

Preferences are something that you cultivate, over time - 'choosing' amongst the vast array of things.

Preference equals choice - and there's a lot of it - and all of choice, for us, is limited. Hence, we have limited aspects of choice that we can choose from, which means that it can be controlled to an extent. 

While you may not have 'complete' control over it, there is a point to which one can regulate it - considering what you are actually attached to, haha. 

All choice is an illusion. This video explains it well: