Actual "enlightenment" image

[RMQualtrough]

Goes exactly like this... Check this slick metaphorical blanket, the blanket is some stand in representation for the fact of being.

See "non-enlightened" subject and object perception: idea of the current happening consisting of two distinct shapes of existence, a separate consciousness bubble/entity (the "I" idea), and then the object of perception.

This is what "enlightenment" is:

See: no two little bumps with a consciousness bubble "I" subject viewing an object.

AKA there is just appearing. That's it. No person seeing the happening, no spatial relation to the happenings.

..

Legit that basic. Srs. That is actual ego death illustrated. That is also the same as literal death, as there is no self to die there is only the fact of existence which has, btw, always been like that.

Obviously I'm shit with words so there. That's obvious right.

[RMQualtrough]

This is exactly what actual ego death is like.

DMT breakthrough trips are often accompanied by the continued sense of a self character, which is then seemingly "one" with the happening, the ego character being mentally added to the happening as a singular whole rather than the mind categorizing each element as different. That is not ego death.

That character seems permanent and unchanging, and therefore necessary, because the idea of it has followed every moment of most people's life... That is how a random sober person always feels, that there is some sort of entity which is them, watching what is happening. That is "maya".

The proof that the self character is also an apparition and not necessary, and wasn't ever an actual entity there watching everything (but part of the apparent happening), is the moment of legit enlightenment and the same as being dead. And also the same moment as there being nobody to enlighten, btw.

[axiom]

Yes. The red even looks pretty excited to be there.

Sometimes - quite often, in fact - people will defend the use of the pronoun 'I' to describe a state of 'God consciousness' or enlightenment, unironically clarifying that this 'Self" (note the bolded 'S') is really nothing to do with the illusory, egoic human "small self". 

But the semantics seem to go largely unexamined. Why use 'I' at all if it has so much baggage? Why not use 'pizza', 'iPhone', 'toaster', or 'fried chicken' ? Admittedly these words have some baggage of their own, but at least they can't so readily be confused with a personal character or ego. In fact I'd argue that to describe enlightenment as 'fried chicken' would be somewhat more accurate.

The reason people use 'I' in the context of enlightenment is because they have simply transposed the small self to a new heirarchical position. It is still a staking claim to the appearance. It is still ego, and it is still duality.

Enlightenment is not personal. If there is still an 'I' there, even an 'I' which isn't really-but-still-sorta-is an 'I', then there's still more dissolution to go. That ain't it.

None of this matters of course. But for the sake of entertainment and contemplation, there it is.

[RMQualtrough]

@axiom People wouldn't and couldn't do it if actual complete ego death happened. This is mentioned sometimes only in 5-MeO-DMT trip reports (the actual serious release dose trips where you need a sitter).

If I browsed Erowid I could find one like it.

The sudden unreality of that entity is "enlightenment". Feeling "one with" something is not enlightenment or ego death, "merging with infinity" is not enlightenment or ego death. Those sensations are often caused by DMT, the ego is still present but the boundaries of it are dissolved. That is the cause of the feeling of "being infinite" because the outer spatial boundaries usually overlayed onto happenings (usually feeling to end at our skin's edge) are no longer there.

[Arthogaan]

The use of "I" is wise, because this is what I literally am. Using this fun blanket analogy which I think is great my true Self is the Blanketness Itself. I am the Blanket. Blanket is the "I", pure consciousness.

And withing the blanket, within the "I" there can appear the illusion of ego, or the illusion of red square.

Edited October 4, 2022 by Arthogaan

[RMQualtrough]

1 hour ago, Arthogaan said:

The use of "I" is wise, because this is what I literally am. Using this fun blanket analogy which I think is great my true Self is the Blanketness Itself. I am the Blanket. Blanket is the "I", pure consciousness.

And withing the blanket, within the "I" there can appear the illusion of ego, or the illusion of red square.

I think the Buddha had a good reason for advising against that in particular.

Consider similar questions, but on one hand do so with the idea of this "Self" thing. And then without...

For example you can look at someone like Rupert Spira. Start off with how he discusses simple things like dying, time, etc. Because of the invented "I" character, see how he has to make up tonnes of complex logical tales to make it work... E.g. he has one idea where each person is like a CCTV character being watched by one security guard... See the questions this causes: If I'm the security guard why am I not seeing from your eyes etc. The security guard idea exists because of the choice to hold onto "I".

Do you see how, IMMEDIATELY, there is the idea of an actual entity, that is exactly why the mind runs down that avenue. Of "mys" and "I"s.

Then watch the simplicity of the fact of appearance itself, where this type of thinking doesn't happen.

Rupert's type of idea, the ROOT cause being "true Self", "God", "I", leads to identification with a second hump in an appearance, and concerns and questions about where that hump goes. It will always cause that I think. And that is an insurmountable issue, overcome easily with a simple change of wording choices etc.

Also the humanization upwards: Could God, does God, if I'm dreaming X can I Y?

See how it is so easily avoided, all by removing the idea of an entity outside of and standing opposite from appearance.

[Hojo]

@RMQualtrough How are you going to teach people like that

[RMQualtrough]

14 minutes ago, Hojo said:

@RMQualtrough How are you going to teach people like that

Oh, uh, I thought those images and the text would be sufficient. Like that would be the total A to Z package done deal. Lol... I wasn't prepared to say more.

Before undergoing ego death people believe in the self entity (also God, I, "Self"). Fear of dying is based on the belief that this entity is what you are. Identification with things causes fear because things change. E.g. if you were staring at a red screen since birth, and were utterly CONVINCED you literally WERE this red screen, the idea of the red screen being turned off would absolutely petrify you. You might think "so red goes back to infinity right?!", nervous. Hoping out of fear, because you think when red ends you will be plunged into an eternal dark... If you believe in a you entity, the end of one's life causes a severe terror which is completely identical to that.

Because the person has never undergone ego death, which is like the turning off of that red screen when you believe you are red, they have the same ideas about being plunged into an eternal nothing when their life ends, since they are falsely identifying with something which is in actual fact not essential. If you keep trying to find what you are, you will always find things to grab onto as being you and continue to feel terror as these things end. Or have to run around in circles with bizarre security guard and CCTV screen ideas and "why can't I see what you see?!" questions.

This is actual NOT bullshit regurgitated from a video.

I'm not good with words obviously so please just enjoy the blanket. Actual enlightenment, no BS, is total ego death like that. Being one with things etc, is not ego death at all. That is an existent ego which has lost perceived boundaries, usually due to tripping out on DMT. In ego death you are actually dead. There aren't two humps anymore of a subject and an object, there is just the appearance. There is then no self entity to die, or to be enlightened. The reality you are scared will continue in your absence (your belief that your life ends, and the "I" entity takes you with it) is seen to be standalone, without self, everpresent, and the only thing there is. As long as reality continues ""you"" continue (in the way your mind currently understands loaded terms like you and consciousness) because that is what is.

Like that. I'm describing legit ego death not bookshelf shite.

[RMQualtrough]

@Hojo Consider if I said, you don't exist. Right now you don't exist. Reality is what exists... We are taught wrong since birth, to believe in a self seeing a world with eyes etc. And not taught the truth that the very seen world is the exact thing which is.

This is the IMPOSSIBLE truth. That the world is not painted with two humps of a subject conscious of an object. But painted with the very appearance themselves. That the seen images are not renderings in a private domain but the very literal things which exist in the way a materialist believes atoms exist.

Something like that.

But the diagram. I think that is pretty sikk. That's better than my shitty wordings.

[RMQualtrough]

There is genuinely nothing further to say except to refine wording and image diagrams. Anything else is superfluous. 4chan /x/ board shit about space aliens and manifestation, "can infinity ___", it's shit. Worthless. Alex Jones ramblings.

There's legit nothing else to be communicated if the same idea/revelation can be triggered. That's it. People trying to "reach level 19482 of consciousness so I can reincarnate as a seagull" or w.e., belongs on /x/, discussing other shit like cryptids and demons too. It's all stories from the X Files or Are You Afraid of the Dark (remember that from Nickelodeon?).