Stop saying 'MY experience'

[Breakingthewall]

16 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It's ALL YOUR experience. It's all YOU.

God doesn't just exist. YOU ARE GOD.

3 hours ago, Razard86 said:

 

Yes, but isn't god imaginary? the ultimate reality is unlimited absolute infinity, and that's what I am. God is secondary to infinity, it is creation, but creation of itself. it is will and intelligence that arise from the lack of limitation, but they are somehow the first apparent limitation, which creates all other apparent limitations that are the perceived reality. 

the ultimate reality is prior to any creative will, that is, any will of establish apparent limits.  it is limitless and that's it.

[Water by the River]

26 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Yes, but isn't god imaginary? the ultimate reality is unlimited absolute infinity, and that's what I am. God is secondary to infinity, it is creation, but creation of itself. it is will and intelligence that arise from the lack of limitation, but they are somehow the first apparent limitation, which creates all other apparent limitations that are the perceived reality. 

the ultimate reality is prior to any creative will, that is, any will of establish apparent limits.  it is limitless and that's it.

very nice. Thank you for this posting. If we continue like this, we will reinvent confirm the Madyamaka-Doctrine here in the forum . Or get our concept/pointers to "the" Absolute fully empty, and with that fully infinite, with no more overlays of any quality limiting IT. So that "it" can really be unlimited infinite Ultimate Reality. Or the True Oneself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhyamaka

"

The nature of ultimate reality
Main article: Śūnyatā
According to Paul Williams, Nāgārjuna associates emptiness with the ultimate truth but his conception of emptiness is not some kind of Absolute, but rather it is the very absence of true existence with regards to the conventional reality of things and events in the world.[45] Because the ultimate is itself empty, it is also explained as a "transcendence of deception" and hence is a kind of apophatic truth which experiences the lack of substance.[3]

Because the nature of ultimate reality is said to be empty, empty even of "emptiness" itself, both the concept of "emptiness" and the very framework of the two truths are also mere conventional realities, not part of the ultimate. This is often called "the emptiness of emptiness" and refers to the fact that even though madhyamikas speak of emptiness as the ultimate unconditioned nature of things, this emptiness is itself empty of any real existence.[46]

The two truths themselves are therefore just a practical tool used to teach others, but do not exist within the actual meditative equipoise that realizes the ultimate.[47] As Candrakirti says: "the noble ones who have accomplished what is to be accomplished do not see anything that is delusive or not delusive".[48] From within the experience of the enlightened ones there is only one reality which appears non-conceptually, as Nāgārjuna says in the Sixty stanzas on reasoning: "that nirvana is the sole reality, is what the Victors have declared."[49] Bhāvaviveka's Madhyamakahrdayakārikā describes the ultimate truth through a negation of all four possibilities of the catuskoti:[50]

Its character is neither existent, nor nonexistent, / Nor both existent and nonexistent, nor neither. / Centrists should know true reality / That is free from these four possibilities.

Atisha describes the ultimate as "here, there is no seeing and no seer, no beginning and no end, just peace.... It is nonconceptual and nonreferential ... it is inexpressible, unobservable, unchanging, and unconditioned."[51] Because of the non-conceptual nature of the ultimate, according to Brunnholzl, the two truths are ultimately inexpressible as either "one" or "different".[52]

"

or, in other words, truly Infinite and limitless. 

Selling Water by the River

[WeCome1]

13 minutes ago, Water by the River said:

Madhyamakahrdayakārikā describes the ultimate truth through a negation of all four possibilities of the catuskoti:[50]

Its character is neither existent, nor nonexistent, / Nor both existent and nonexistent, nor neither. / Centrists should know true reality / That is free from these four possibilities.

I'm not very well versed in Buddhist terminology. Are the "4 negations" above the exact equivalent of the Vedantic "neti-neti", or do they imply something extra? Also, the term "Shunya/Emptiness" has always rubbed me the wrong way, too positively loaded for my nihilistic tastes, but now I'm just rambling.

[Water by the River]

41 minutes ago, WeCome1 said:

I'm not very well versed in Buddhist terminology. Are the "4 negations" above the exact equivalent of the Vedantic "neti-neti", or do they imply something extra? 

Neti-Neti (Vedantic) is a technique used to disidentfy any subject in ones mindstream. I am not this, I am not that. Making it from "being it/subject" to "seeing it/making it an object" moving within onself. Any I-thought and I-feeling can be watched as arisings/objects moving within Oneself.

• Differentiate, transcend, integrate.
• Why? Because ones Real Self is TOTALLY empty. Anything one thinks one is has to be made something moving in onself, an object. Or even better: I am not only this.
• Neti-Neti is the basis/core of all meditation, Buddhist and Vedantic alike. Maybe you like the check Daniel Browns Dissertation on the central meditation system of Yoga (Patanjali), Mahamudra (Tibetan Buddhism), and Theravada. They all have the same "deep structure" of the path, but take views from Emptiness (Buddhism) and Infinite Conciousness (Yoga, Vedantic, Hindu-style). These concepts colour the experiences, but Reality and the outcome of Enlightenment has the same deep structures. But better read directly Pointing Out the Great Way, the Mahamudra system is the most efficient and highest developed system of all of them, according to Daniel Brown. Yours truly can confirm its efficiency from own experience.

Madhyamaka ("4 negations" above), the central tenet of Buddhist Philosophy since the Mahayana, basically says: The Absolute is truly Infinite. Or neither existent, nor nonexistent, / Nor both existent and nonexistent, nor neither.

• One can not describe it in any way, since it transcends and contains all limits. Any "positive" description would limit it. So one can not say it exists.
  • Ex-isting literally means "standing out from reality"[as something specific, discernable]. But the Absolute is Infinite Reality itself, so it can't stand out from itself [as Reality] as something specific.
    • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence
      •  from Latin existere, to come forth, be manifest, ex + sistere, to stand.
• One can not say it doesn't exist, because there clearly are at least perceptions perceiving themselves. There is some kind of show.
• One can not say its both existing and not existing at the same time. Because that doesn't make sense.
• And to rule out the last option: one can not say it neither exists nor doesn't exist. That also doesn't make sense.

And  Buddhism does this Madhyamaka-thing pretty much ever since to avoid any funny idea/concept being put on the Absolute, like Consciousness, God, Love, whatever, n+1. Sure, God is so to say the first manifestation, and love is also the essence of it all. But its too easy to project that on the Absolute, and make it not fully empty or infinite. Which then prevents its full realization. To say the essence of everything is God or Love is fully ok, because that refers already to something manifested, something, something no longer infinite.

41 minutes ago, WeCome1 said:

Also, the term "Shunya/Emptiness" has always rubbed me the wrong way, too positively loaded for my nihilistic tastes, but now I'm just rambling.

Emptiness/Shunyata wants to make sure that one doesn't identify anything positive with either ones True Self, nor the Absolute. Empty it out. Or make it fully infinite.

Of course, Emptiness again can be made to something "self-existing". Like a state of void/emptiness, or cessation, or Nirvikalpha Samadhi. Then, it is said one has to empty out emptiness: The void is also just a state, something self-existing. It all appears in the Infinite.

Emptiness as concept or theory has been used in Buddhism "to death", in many different, often incorrect usages.

A good meaning of emptiness/Shunyata is (in the opinion of yours truly, in the meaning of "a good meaning/concept brings one closer to realization, not away from it)

• all is just a construct of mind (emptiness of concepts),
• and the passing nature of everything (of even empty/void states/cessation/Nirvikalpha)
• basically, that everything (apperance, state, self-thought/concept-arising, anything at all) is just an imagined arising in the Absolute. Just an apperance, a process, a verb, not a noun, a self-existing substance or thing. 
• It all happens in True Infinite You, nothing is permanent, all changing and in flux. a verb, not a noun.
• every and each appearance "thing"/arising is finite, temporary, passing. Not the Infinite/Absolute.

 

Now comes the funny part: Since the Absolute is also NOT Emptiness, the Hindus use the term Infinite Consciousness. Which is also correct, once its fully empty and impersonal. One can more easily project unncessary properties on Infinite Consciousness than on Emptiness/Shunyata. But Shunyata sounds like Nihilism, which also isn't IT. 

Basically IT/Absolute

• is Infinite Reality or Infinite Consciousness itself, with potential for sentience if something manifests (perceptions perceiving themselves, that is why it is not Nothing, and has infinite Potential), but
• at the same time it is not something, because if it would be something, it couldn't be everything. It would not be infinite, but finite and limited.

If you are so inclined to read a long post of yours truly, Nothingness is in my humble opinion the best pointer (a term coined by Andrew Halaw):

Sounds complicated and paradoxical, but after having passed certain awakening states, only these views makes sense (in that they are able to translate ones new awakening experiences in ways that make sense, or facilitate further growth/transcendence).

Then, its no more paradoxical at all. So, if you are so inclined get some nondual experiences, sobre or not, get pretty empty yourself, and see for yourself what you truly really are....

Selling Water by the River

Edited May 21, 2023 by Water by the River

[blankisomeone]

4 hours ago, Javfly33 said:

So you don't think your human avatar will die?

You don't think that you will abandon the current body you use now?

To use your line of thinking, who is the “you” that is abandoning the body? Hehe Who is the you that is using the body? these neoadvaita stuff is starting to sound like materialism with makeup ? 

My body isn’t an avatar. My body is God. I’m starting to think my body itself is a state of consciousness that won’t die. My body itself has an eternal personal journey through life. I’m not sure, but I’m getting very suspicious of this and it’s kinda cool but also kinda scary at the same time  The truth of me at the moment is I mostly just wanted to die and just be over but hey I don’t think that’s happening unfortunately

Edited May 21, 2023 by blankisomeone

[Javfly33]

1 hour ago, blankisomeone said:

To use your line of thinking, who is the “you” that is abandoning the body? Hehe Who is the you that is using the body? these neoadvaita stuff is starting to sound like materialism with makeup ? 

My body isn’t an avatar. My body is God. I’m starting to think my body itself is a state of consciousness that won’t die. My body itself has an eternal personal journey through life. I’m not sure, but I’m getting very suspicious of this and it’s kinda cool but also kinda scary at the same time  The truth of me at the moment is I mostly just wanted to die and just be over but hey I don’t think that’s happening unfortunately

You guys just don't want to do any work. If you prefer an ideology. Fine. Go ahead. If it makes you happy...

[Inliytened1]

On 5/20/2023 at 4:57 AM, Javfly33 said:

Stop saying my experience -- Instead say; Experience happens

Stop saying my pov -- Instead say; A pov appears

Stop saying my perception -- Instead say: perception happens

Stop saying my body -- Instead say: A body exists

Stop saying my thoughts -- Instead say: Thoughts appear

Stop saying my life -- instead say; Life is happening

 

Stop saying I am God

Start saying God appears. God Is. God exists.

 

 

This would be nice but it is not complete - this is because it makes it seem like God is not You.  Like what appears and you are two separate things.   They are not.  If you understand that, then yes it is OK to say this is all experience and not my experience.   But for one that hasn't collapsed the duality of self and other - we say my as in the Self or royal Self in Buddhism.  To me the Self with a capital S is much more accurate then just raw experience- because it is much more than just experience..  There is a personal aspect to it but not in the sense of the small self.  The One who feels is not the ego.  But he feels it through the ego.  It is through the ego that God can make it personal.

Edited May 21, 2023 by Inliytened1

[Javfly33]

1 hour ago, Inliytened1 said:

This would be nice but it is not complete - this is because it makes it seem like God is not You.  Like what appears and you are two separate things.   They are not.  If you understand that, then yes it is OK to say this is all experience and not my experience.   But for one that hasn't collapsed the duality of self and other - we say my as in the Self or royal Self in Buddhism.  To me the Self with a capital S is much more accurate then just raw experience- because it is much more than just experience..  There is a personal aspect to it but not in the sense of the small self.  The One who feels is not the ego.  But he feels it through the ego.  It is through the ego that God can make it personal.

Can you point to "yourself"?

You say you are God? What in practical terms its God? The floor? The chair? The body? Other bodies? All of that?

If suddenly the chair disappears or the body collapses then God can not be that.

Whatever it's your idea of God anyways, which I don't know what is it.

I prefer to call it "Me". And if you guys were honest you would accept that that "Me" can not be found anywhere in particular.

 

The moment you guys obsses about saying you are God, then you have to "point" to something, even if it is the current experience. Thus why people falling into Solipsism btw.

Edited May 21, 2023 by Javfly33

[Inliytened1]

16 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:

The floor? The chair? The body? Other bodies? All of that?

If suddenly the chair disappears or the body collapses then God can not be that.

 

 

 

God is all that appears and vanishes, simultaneously.   It is the chair and it is the dog.  But these are God masquerading as a chair and a dog.  And like any good shapeshifter it must have no shape as its source.   You are correct that it cannot be pointed to.  But one must be careful here.  For in saying this is God there is a subtle duality between self and other being generated.   If this is God, then who is it declaring such? If it is just what is- yes - but then be careful not to take the Beingness from God.  For it is you that is Being it.  There cannot be any separation.   Language is limited so when we say You we don't mean the ego.  If you choose to leave out the you, that's fine as long as there doesn't exist that duality in your mind, hiding in the backround.

Edited May 21, 2023 by Inliytened1

[Breakingthewall]

8 hours ago, Water by the River said:

Because the nature of ultimate reality is said to be empty, empty even of "emptiness" itself, both the concept of "emptiness" and the very framework of the two truths are also mere conventional realities, not part of the ultimate. This is often called "the emptiness of emptiness"

Id say that emptiness is imaginary. we call absolute what has no limits, and imaginary what is limited. imaginary because really, the limits are impossible. they are only apparent, and they create a form that is only apparent. then nothing must necessarily be imaginary, because in the absence of limits, it would be full of everything ... it would contain the infinite potential, which inevitably arises from the fact that there are no limits. basically,  the nothing would have to be, and be include everything. you, ultimately, will always be, because you are now. We are absolute, so we are one. It's really strange for the mind, isn't it? Existence is, really, without anything or anyone having created it, without being secondary to another superior existence. but it is obvious the moment you realize the lack of limits. existence is. totally. And if existence is, what could be but you? But the unlimited you that we have to realize in the now. 

 

Edited May 21, 2023 by Breakingthewall

[Water by the River]

33 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Id say that emptiness is imaginary. we call absolute what has no limits, and imaginary what is limited. imaginary because really, the limits are impossible. they are only apparent, and they create a form that is only apparent. then nothing must necessarily be imaginary, because in the absence of limits, it would be full of elephants, bicycles, galaxies, kitchens... it would contain the infinite potential, which inevitably arises from the fact that there are no limits. basically,  the nothing would have to be, and be include everything. you, ultimately, will always be, because you are now. We are absolute, so we are one. It's really strange for the mind, isn't it? Existence is, really, without anything or anyone having created it, without being secondary to another superior existence. but it is obvious the moment you realize the lack of limits. existence is. totally. And if existence is, what could be but you?

 

Yup, agree with that. emptiness [small e] in the meaning of nothing, as in opposite of something, is imaginary so to say.

At least for me, the usage of Emptiness/Shunyata is more something along these lines, as per my last post:

"A good meaning of Emptiness/Shunyata [big E] is (in the opinion of yours truly, in the meaning of "a good meaning/concept brings one closer to realization, not away from it)

• all is just a construct of mind (emptiness of concepts),
• and the passing nature of everything (of even empty/void states/cessation/Nirvikalpha)
• basically, that everything (apperance, state, self-thought/concept-arising, anything at all) is just an imagined arising in the Absolute. Just an apperance, a process, a verb, not a noun, a self-existing substance or thing. 
• It all happens in True Infinite You, nothing is permanent, all changing and in flux. a verb, not a noun.
• every and each appearance "thing"/arising is finite, temporary, passing. Not the Infinite/Absolute."

So the Buddhist usage of Emptiness/Shunyata normally aims not to emptiness in the sense of nothing there or nothing, but more on the transient character of all manifestation/phenomena/arisings (which then could be called imaginary, or temporarily arising IN Reality made OF Reality/Nothingness). And so it also emphasizes the unlimited potential, or infinite potential of the Absolute, or Nothingness.

So in that sense it means more Infinite Reality. Although considering THE Emptiness as a thing is then the so called eternalist error, making it a thing. Considering it as non-existent would be the Nihilist error. Its nothing specific, yet it is not nothing. Emptiness/Shunyata is Infinite Reality itself. The Buddhists take the Emptiness perspective, Vedanta takes the Infinite Consciousness perspective. Both are methods to point to Absolute Reality where both Dualities (Something, Nothing) collapse: The Opening of Reality itself, nothing specific that appears (in it), but also not nothing (like in nothing at all).

But yeah, I agree with your posts. It is always a question of what one understands under these terms, like emptiness/nothing, or Empitness/Shunyata/ Nothingness/Absolute. There is a lot of "gray area usage" in many articles, and sooo much potential for mutual misunderstanding because of varying use of terms. The Buddhist Emptiness/Shunyata normally is not equated with nothing, but more with the list of items above. But that is just a question how one defines and uses these terms....

Saying the Absolute or True You needs to be fully empty on the other side means exactly that: It/One needs to be nothing at all, Neti Neti gone to the end of full infinite nondual No-Self, else one confuses it with an object/arising. Only when fully empty, it/one can conforms with Nothingness/Absolute, the essence of reality. And that then (when fully empty) can contain everything.

Okay, I admit, that post was for the hardcore-aficionados-fraction . Bassui finished his letters always with something like this (to not get anybody get caught up in unnecessary concepts): After reading, throw it into the fire. Same with this post of yours truly... 

What I want to say is: 

• if one continues with Neti Neti in meditation and practice, one is doing fine,
• and doesn't associate the Absolute/Nothingness with anything that can be described, pointed to, talked about, has properties, and so on, but PURE indescribably, or being totally infinite (which is the same as totally empty/Empty), then one is also doing fine.
• One only gets problems when ones Absolute is not fully empty/Emptiness/Nothingness.
  • For example if it changes or has certain properties attributed to it, like the manifested side of Infinite Consciousness/Absolute can have (like God, Gods, Intelligence, Love, whatever n+1). Or even "better", pretty empty remnants of the separate self (empty nondual witness, Awareness "of" sth., and so on).
  • And the Absolute can be fine without any show appearing in it. Empty, Infinite. Cessation/Nirvikalpha/Deep Sleep.

Water by the River 

Edited May 21, 2023 by Water by the River

[Carl-Richard]

Stop saying  

[Breakingthewall]

@Water by the River 

but listening to the explanations of the Buddhists it seems that they say something nonsense. It does not seem that they refer to the lack of form, but to the lack of everything. they say that the ultimate reality is void. if so, the relative reality would also be void

in my experience, first you become aware of the void, but then the void opens up and reveals that the appearance of nothingness was the ultimate frontier of the absolute. It cannot be the void or cessation, it is not a possibility, it is imaginary, a form. the true non-form is the absolute, which is unimaginable, and is total, everything. It's not just an experience that could be imaginary, because when you see that, it's completely obvious. It englobe everything, if something is excluded, it's a limitation, imaginary

Edited May 21, 2023 by Breakingthewall

[Water by the River]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

@Water by the River 

but listening to the explanations of the Buddhists it seems that they say something nonsense. It does not seem that they refer to the lack of form, but to the lack of everything. they say that the ultimate reality is void. if so, the relative reality would also be void

Yes. But how many Buddhists are enlightened? Its easy to turn emptiness (small e, or nothing) or void into dogma. And Ultimate Reality is void, in the meaning of Nothingness. Which includes Infinite Potential also.

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

in my experience, first you become aware of the void, but then the void opens up and reveals that the appearance of nothingness was the ultimate frontier of the absolute. It cannot be the void or cessation, it is not a possibility, it is imaginary, a form. the true non-form is the absolute, which is unimaginable, and is total, everything. It's not just an experience that could be imaginary, because when you see that, it's completely obvious. 

Let's use the system of Ken Wilber:

• The states you mentioned would be classified as Causal States, I assume 5 MeO induced.
• The one with the void is quite empty, the other one some kind of Whiteout/Infinite Potential, I assume from your description. Obviously IT.
• So far, so good. How much separate-self elements were still active ("You become aware OF the void", so YOU + OF active, and "because when YOU see THAT"), and how fully nondual that was, I can't tell from the post/text.

The thing is, to get it into daily life, the separate self arisings need to be transcended (the YOU/transparent Witness aware OF something). And these are really really subtle at the end. But the Total Emptiness/Nothingness of ones primordial Being has to potential to kill them in the end (or to transcend them, spot them, know them, cut them off). With enough time in the right states.

My path was mainly Mahamudra/Dzogchen based.

• I can not tell you if and how (and with how much time) you can transcend these subtle separate self layers in these states you mention.
• What I can tell you, that I am not aware of a single case where that worked fully (until the end of the road) only or mainly with Psychedelics. Can be there are, I am not aware of them.

My first assumption on the psychedelic path is: Not enough time in these states, and the very/quite empty/subtle"perceiver" OF that obvious Infinity/Whiteout was still there. With OF written in capital letters. And the subtle perceiver can't easily/normally see itself.

My second assumption on the psychedelic path is: That the psychedelic-only path doesn't suffice is wanted by the Universe, the construction of Reality.

• Because to get fully empty sobre, you have to transcend your ego/separate self.
• It is necessary for mainting/practicing certain states that are necessary for final Realization to become a more compassionate being. Because you need an open and accepting/loving state/heart for these states. If one is not compassionate, one won't get there. Ken Wilber clearly states that also. All traditions have training systems of compassion/love/boddhichitta.
• And Psychedelics deliver a large part of understanding (Infinity/Whiteout/nondual) reality without change in character necessary. But not the full thing, stable in daily life. And I assume that is not a bug, but a feature. The world doesn't need enlightened "not so loving" people, doing things "not so loving" people do, powered by Enlightenment-states of no more psychological suffering and the like.

To get Realization stable in everyday life, that subtle perceiver/Awarer needs to go/transcended, and specifically the OF sth. needs to go. Nondual.  

In Ken Wilbers System: "Beyond that Infinity, there is an Abyss. Of Nothingness/Emptiness/Shunyata" (Hardcore Concentrative Meditation State, something similiar to Cessation/Nirvikalpa, or maybe also corresponding state accessible via Psychedelics, Of which I don't know, never heard of it. Normallly it stops at the Whiteout/Infinity. From what I assume it is hard to get via this Abyss (if it exists)  the separate self killed/transcended via Psychedelics).

• And even going the hardcore-states-path (psychedelics or hardcore concentrative meditation), that Abyss-Shunyata-Causal-(Cessation)-State dissolves the separate self only after a long time in it, or better said going in and out quite often.
  • Like after Cessations coming out of that Abyss when the separate self "reassembles" again and one can watch how that works. But as you can read in Ingrams Book and Frank Yangs writings, that doesn't work directly to understand the structure of the separate self (but only helps doing so), and is only the beginning of that path, not the end. And also, both (Ingram and Yang) state it is not necessary to got that Cessation-Path.
• I know cases of the hardcore concentrative systems that have achieved that, but also they started with Hardcore Concentrative Meditations, aiming for Cessations, and later on included elements of the Mahamudra/Dzogchen-Path (BEFORE Enlightenment), see Daniel Ingram and Frank Yang. Both switched to including more Mahamudra/Dzogchen elements/style, or at least integrated elements of it, because the classic Theravada Path Map didn't reflect their experiences, at  least not from Path 2 to 4 Theravada Map onwards. see Ingrams Book and Frank Yangs writings. Same with Ken Wilber, who changed after 15 years Zen to Mahamudra/Dzogchen, doing that 15 years.
  • But, as I said, that wasn't my path (Theravada-Path). From my experiences, I would dissolve the separate self systematically and directly (Stage 3 and 4 Mahamudra+Dzogchen), using large parts of daily life for doing that with the right methods,
    • From all I have seen/read/know, that is much more direct, pleasant and efficient.
    • It is very direct, no detours. Can be practices and used efficiently in daily life, and not only/mainly facing the wall on the pillow,
    • Its the method developed&chosen by the Tibetan, who have (arguably) doing that for the longest uninterrupted time with most practitioners and most success. It is also their highest teaching system/method.

Hope that helps a bit....

Selling Water by the River

Edited May 21, 2023 by Water by the River

[Razard86]

7 hours ago, Javfly33 said:

Can you point to "yourself"?

You say you are God? What in practical terms its God? The floor? The chair? The body? Other bodies? All of that?

If suddenly the chair disappears or the body collapses then God can not be that.

Whatever it's your idea of God anyways, which I don't know what is it.

I prefer to call it "Me". And if you guys were honest you would accept that that "Me" can not be found anywhere in particular.

 

The moment you guys obsses about saying you are God, then you have to "point" to something, even if it is the current experience. Thus why people falling into Solipsism btw.

1. Javfly33 does not live from a baseline Non-dual awakening thus everything above is just sophistry.

2. God CAN be pointed to, all that God is AWARE OF, IS GOD. 

3. ONLY GOD can verify it exists, it verifies it exists THROUGH creating an experience.

4. If God does not imagine the APPEARANCE of SOMETHING God will NOT BE AWARE IT EXISTS.

Only someone who has broken through and lives from the Non-Dual Awareness soberly will know this.

Close your eyes...see that black screen? That is GOD. Here a sound? That is God. All perception that is created is just awareness verifying it exists through SELF-RECOGNITION, which is SELF-KNOWLEDGE. 

Use direct experience to verify everything I am stating here. Talking on the forums is a waste of time. Get the basics, and then do the work.

Just remember....Javfly33 is NOT AWAKE. His posts will only confuse you. To put it in perspective the NO SELF awakening is primary school stuff borne from the ego's attachment to its body as itself. Because it cannot let go of that framework it gets stuck on trying to frame things from a self-denial aspect. The Self-Denial aspect was to get you to lose attachment to your human identity and everything that goes with it.

To put this in perspective....I SKIPPED the NO SELF awakening...because I was NEVER attached to any notions that I was human. You don't need a NO-SELF awakening, the only awakening you need is to realize you are ONE with everything. You are awareness, awareness is NOTHING, it just APPEARS to be SOMETHING and it is really convincing but all it is....is just an APPEARANCE. 

If you want some exercises I can give some as I have found even more direct pointers than what is traditionally been used. Human spirituality traditionally actually overcomplicates things with poetry when the TRUTH is literally IN PLAIN SIGHT. It's so obvious its actually TOO OBVIOUS.

[SourceCodo]

By all means @Javfly33, I’ll jump on the train and conform to your subjective standards of communication. You can’t yet make sense out of words that represent metaphysical concepts, so ill stop using them to help you not be confused.
 

It’s almost as though these words are just more of the same “Oneness” though… BUT! They can’t be if they allude to dualistic states of identity awareness, can they? Hello? Anyone? ??

 

I’ll also be sure to throw out the rest of that useless language that doesn’t mean anything anyways! Let’s go team. 

 

*2 billions years of silence pass*

 

Well I got bored and I’m back. Guess I must not be God realized enough to make sense of removing simple communication tools from my lexicon in order to conform to a random person on the internets religious doctrine. And hey, while I was away, I learned I Am not I beyond boredom, either. 
 

Thanks for thinking to enforce this standard of replacing words representing illusory insight with more words representing illusory insight. It seems very in line with the depth of your message. 
 

And I am really glad we had this talk. 

Edited May 22, 2023 by SourceCodo

[Leo Gura]

On 5/20/2023 at 3:49 PM, Javfly33 said:

I´m God, but the 'I' is not the body / @Javfly33 so what is the point of the human avatar calling himself God??? Its delusional. The human avatar will die. 

I know I´m God, but the one who says 'I´m God' its not really God. It's an imagination of the actual God  

You are the MIND. Everything is your MIND, including your body.

[StarStruck]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

You are the MIND. Everything is your MIND, including your body.

So what is the point of saying it? I know I have a big toe, it doesn’t mean I go around telling it. 

[Carl-Richard]

10 hours ago, Razard86 said:

To put this in perspective....I SKIPPED the NO SELF awakening...because I was NEVER attached to any notions that I was human.

How many times have you tripped? How many hours have you meditated?

[Water by the River]

16 hours ago, Razard86 said:

To put this in perspective....I SKIPPED the NO SELF awakening..

... and if one skipps flunks No-Self Awakening, and directly thinks one has become/realized God/Awareness/whatever, every reader can choose for himself if the outcome is

a) something like a minor or major https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_complex

or 

b) Realized & enlightened & pretty happy, full of compassion and patience, and bissfully ever after SHARING DA LOVE!!!!  . Sorry. 

But giving a clear example of that is also beneficial. Not for the victim of that little pre-trans-Fallacy (in Ken Wilbers definition, https://integrallife.com/pre-trans-fallacy/), but for the viewers...

Anyways, and as always: Bon Voyage on our lovely little trips back home (either of the more or less winded categories), to a home we never really left. Enjoy the ride! 

Water the River

 

 

Edited May 22, 2023 by Water by the River