What Buddha meant when he said that everyone is enlightened.

[Arthogaan]

I think a lot of that discussion of I vs no-I really stems from the fact that each of us started with different vocabulary and resonated with other words.

We know that words are just pointers and for other people other words make a particular insight click.

What I call "I am a person" can be called "ego" by other.
What I call pure "I AM" can be called "presence" or "beingness" by Ekhart Tolle.
What I call pure "I - I" can be called "no self" or "pure awareness" or whatever.
What I call "Beyond I-I" can be called Infinity or absolute.

But it depends who we did learn from. For someone "I am" may be understood as "aha, he believes he is so he must believe in his ego still!" . But for me "I am" may be understood as a state of no self.

I genuinely believe that some of great users here may be pointing to the same Fact of Reality, just with different words.

[JuliusCaesar]

2 hours ago, Razard86 said:

The finite is infinite....but it has disassociated itself from absolute infinity. Had it not....it would not feel separate.

Of course.

 

2 hours ago, Razard86 said:

That was a waste of a correction.

Not at all, from the absolute perspective, all is literally one so all infinities and finities become the same thing, hence why the illusion of opposites is the genesis of much human confusion as such.

 

 

2 hours ago, Razard86 said:

Your reality is based on your feelings. If you feel separate then you are....regardless of what is true. You have never experienced anything but feeling,

Right.

 

2 hours ago, Razard86 said:

you just translate that with thought.

Well sure, but it would be more acutely accurate to say that thoughts give structure to feelings much as the spacetime continuum illusion gives form to the air in which it dwells(the air and space are one absolutely, and the air arises out of and within space).

 

2 hours ago, Razard86 said:

Now whether that translation is accurate....that's a whole other story.

A hell of a thing isn't it? To imagine that your imagination is actually someway other than the way it actually is, maya is deliciously twisted.

 

[Dazgwny]

4 hours ago, Razard86 said:

You only see experience yourself....any judgment you have is self-judgment. So I just learned a lot from what you just stated. 

You consider yourself immature, and ideological. So you project your feelings of yourself back onto me. This means you believe that your "practices" are dogmatic, and you still see yourself as "immature" in that practice. So my post threatens your world view and you react to it. You were drawn to it, and to reply because it threatens your perception of reality.

You are too attached to structure, you struggle with authentic expression with no limits on how it should be expressed. You love order, you despise chaos and disorganization. You are very attached to traditions and struggle to be receptive and open-minded. 

You think yourself the opposite....but you are only fooling yourself.

Surely by your reckoning this should just go full circle then. You just made judgement on that post with your own reaction to it. Which in turn means you’ve literally just stated how you really see yourself ?

[Razard86]

2 hours ago, Dazgwny said:

Surely by your reckoning this should just go full circle then. You just made judgement on that post with your own reaction to it. Which in turn means you’ve literally just stated how you really see yourself ?

Exactly....so...what does that mean??? Ponder about this...... Are you will to transcend sense making? Or will you stay trapped to that limitation?