God and Enlightenment -- Why it isn't true to say God exists, or God does not exist.

[The0Self]

God is imagining what it would be like to exist.

To be God is to know nothing of God.

God is ineffable (beyond understanding) and perfect -- thus, any understanding of God is not God's understanding.

[Explorer_42]

“If you think that you understand the Brahman, you do not understand - and have yet to be instructed further. If you know that you do not understand, then you truly understand - For the Brahman is unknown to those who know ‘it’, and known to those who know ‘it’ not.” -Alan Watts 

The further I go the more accurate this description is in my experience.

[WokeBloke]

You can't imagine your own existence without existing.

I agree that self is mysterious to itself. 

[VictorB02]

50 minutes ago, Explorer_42 said:

“If you think that you understand the Brahman, you do not understand - and have yet to be instructed further. If you know that you do not understand, then you truly understand - For the Brahman is unknown to those who know ‘it’, and known to those who know ‘it’ not.” -Alan Watts 

The further I go the more accurate this description is in my experience.

That's an awesome quote.

[The0Self]

1 hour ago, WokeBloke said:

You can't imagine your own existence without existing.

Yes. You just described existence — imaginary. As a story, they (existence and imagination/intelligence) arise from each other freely and without cause, and without preconditions of any kind, including actually existing.

The absolute unmoving unconstrained (to limits of any kind including sense/logic) happening which doesn’t really happen — is all there is (and isn’t).

This is absolutely nothing happening. Nothing moves.

There is no one left to care about or enjoy the state of enlightenment. But there already isn’t anyone separate anywhere.

 

1 hour ago, Explorer_42 said:

“If you think that you understand the Brahman, you do not understand - and have yet to be instructed further. If you know that you do not understand, then you truly understand - For the Brahman is unknown to those who know ‘it’, and known to those who know ‘it’ not.” -Alan Watts 

The further I go the more accurate this description is in my experience.

 ❤️ ? 

 

Nothing that isn’t can ever be what is.

^ Both meanings are valid, in a sense — kind of like “no one is perfect.”

Edited February 23, 2022 by The0Self

[Godishere]

Isn't this basically what Nahm was pointing to the whole time and then got banned? Demoted***

Edited February 23, 2022 by Godishere

[The0Self]

Just now, Godishere said:

Isn't this basically what Nahm was pointing to the whole time and then got banned?

The issue with that seems to be that Nahm’s incessant directness was, with respect to the context and goals of this forum specifically, becoming less like icing on the cake and more like a visible (at least to Leo) detriment to Leo’s endeavor of teaching — particularly God realization. Perfectly valid on both Leo’s and Nahm’s side.

[Godishere]

@The0Self I do feel like he had a good point. Hypothetically if there is no-self, how can you ever trust any idea, concept or belief about God Realization? If there is no you and nobody is actually in control, then every thought about it, is just a thought and not IT. So letting go of these beliefs and ideas counterintuitively actually brings you closer to the Truth? Plus the solipsism beliefs and concepts don't really help anyone awaken either?..

Edited February 23, 2022 by Godishere

[WokeBloke]

@The0Self existence or you doesn't arise. You don't come or go. Your bring your creations (such as your posts) into existence. Whatever you create is what happens.

[Leo Gura]

13 hours ago, The0Self said:

God is imagining what it would be like to exist.

To be God is to know nothing of God.

God is ineffable (beyond understanding) and perfect -- thus, any understanding of God is not God's understanding.

False

[Leo Gura]

9 hours ago, Godishere said:

I do feel like he had a good point. Hypothetically if there is no-self,

His point is wrong.

You are the Self, you are God.

Drop this no-self talk. It is the wrong emphasis and direction. Higher awakening is all about You as Self.

You are God. You exist absolutely.

[Inliytened1]

13 hours ago, The0Self said:

God is imagining what it would be like to exist.

To be God is to know nothing of God.

God is ineffable (beyond understanding) and perfect -- thus, any understanding of God is not God's understanding.

This is a trap.  Be careful about that.  This is one of the neo adveita traps.

[RMQualtrough]

Be careful, I can already see the Actualized version of Himmler circling this thread waiting to lock it to appease his power fetish.

No-self is the classical Buddhist teaching. No essence of self that is unchanging. IME, I've been more in touch with Vedanta. I found a self it's just that that self was actual literal total nothingness. All the somethingness was constantly transforming. The nothingness was static and stood in opposition to what was changing.

But I can see how another person could experience total no-self. Maybe they are correct.

[Inliytened1]

@RMQualtrough if its an actual awakening to no self, the Self will be what remains and you will be conscious of Self and that you are Self.  It is a shift in identity from the illusion to your true nature.

[RMQualtrough]

@Inliytened1 No self was when I was laughing saying "who the fuck is RMQualtrough?" as there was no person present at all. Anything that was, was just changing appearance. That appearance was constantly annihilated as thoughts and feelings and anything else would disappear and then re-emerge.

The thing that was me and unchanging was not me anymore, but as said literally nothing in the true sense of the word.

There are other trip types which intermingle you with everything taking place, so there's no separation between you and what is appearing to you.

If I recognized the self to be nothing AND experienced the self intermingled with everything at the same time, I can see that I might not perceive any self but just appearance alone appearing to itself and nobody. I see how both could be valid, though my personal experiences have largely been Vedantic as fuck (even the hallucinations were Hindu, which is strange because that was before I knew about Vedanta even).

[Inliytened1]

@RMQualtrough I guess you can have a no self awakening but not realize Self.  For me it was one awakening and i became Self.  But for others perhaps it is two separate awakenings.  

[RMQualtrough]

@Inliytened1 The Self was that absolute total nothingness. Literally nothing, and that is what I became. And "I", even the I thought, became something appearing to the nothing.

But that specific experience was relatively dual as I became nothing as opposed to experiencing the oneness with the appearances.

If the same nature of Self was realized, which is nothingness, with that oneness with appearance simultaneously (another type of psychedelic experience), I think the Buddhist doctrine would be realized.

What Leo and many others discuss from first hand experience is very much Vedic instead. My own experiences have all been Vedanta heavy and thus there was some essence of me (not the ego but awareness). Me as everything or me as nothing.

I don't doubt people could experience first hand the vanishing of that Self viewpoint, leaving just "appearing" by itself.

[Inliytened1]

5 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

@Inliytened1 The Self was that absolute total nothingness. Literally nothing, and that is what I became. And "I", even the I thought, became something appearing to the nothing.

But that specific experience was l

I too have had the realization that I was nothingness..that actually was almost has hard as realizing I was alone and was hard to stomach.  God is nothingness. Formless and empty.  But this northingness that you ARE is a pregnant nothingness holding everything within it..  It is Infinity.  And you can become directly conscious of yourself as Infinity.  

[The0Self]

18 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

@RMQualtrough I guess you can have a no self awakening but not realize Self.  For me it was one awakening and i became Self.  But for others perhaps it is two separate awakenings.  

If by Self you mean unconditional love or needlessness then yeah that seems to be what can happen in the second of two separate awakenings, the first being of no self. Maybe both can happen at the same time.

The more one sees what it is, the less one wants it — this already, it’s all there is, and it’s inconceivably perfect. NOT this what’s happening here and now as opposed to some other time and place, but the singularity, which as a story one can fall asleep into, and no one wakes up — it’s just the undoing of the illusory setup that identifies-with and relates-to.

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

His point is wrong.

You are the Self, you are God.

Drop this no-self talk. It is the wrong emphasis and direction. Higher awakening is all about You as Self.

You are God. You exist absolutely.

By imagining what it would be like to exist, I mean imagining it exists as a separate being. It is of course existence itself, or whatever you want to call absolutely nothing existing eternally as everything.

Edited February 23, 2022 by The0Self

[kray]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

His point is wrong.

You are the Self, you are God.

Drop this no-self talk. It is the wrong emphasis and direction. Higher awakening is all about You as Self.

You are God. You exist absolutely.

But don't some philosophies such as Buddhism preach that ultimate truth is no-self? I know that Advaitha Vendantha preaches true self.