Here's why is impossible to be "bored" or craving artificial stimulation if you Awake

[Inliytened1]

10 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Probably because i try to be straightforward and my communication style may be repetitive and mechanical. Try to see through the arrogance to listen to the points I'm making.

Point is, you wake up by waking up.  

 I am very like you in that regard.  I would say this.  If you woke up from the matrix, and went back into the matrix and started telling people that there is such a thing as awakening from the matrix- most will tell you you were insane.  But until they wake up from the matrix - that's all you can do to point them in the right direction.   Do you stop doing it just because they think you are spitting a bunch of lies?  Or because you sound to them no different from the preacher down the road who says God is a bearded guy in the clouds?   Should you just stop and not do anything?  I say nay.  I say even if you can point a single person to Absolute Truth - you have done a selfless act.  

Edited August 23, 2023 by Inliytened1

[Water by the River]

17 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Points still apply. Hearsay comes from others even when sources are provided. That's not a communication; you're merely sharing information. This could be done as a way to safeguard oneself or to be validated. That way it doesn't come from your experience but another's. My concern with this behavior is that it tends to leverage on the work of others too much and lends itself up for confusion. Parroting and believing should not be thought of as implying understanding.

You haven't paid much attention. As this work deals with one's experience, that's where it begins and ends. Intellect is nothing compared to experiencing the truth, and it's easy to fall into the former. It is ultimately about experiencing the truth for oneself, so personal responsibility is an essential component of this inquiry, which requires standing on your own two feet.

As a blunt example, no idea or belief at the time of your death will mean anything. You'll be free from the fear of death if you are absolutely conscious, if not you won't. Can you see what I'm pointing at? 

Reinventing the wheel allows for understanding its nature and function from the ground up, and provides the possibility to master it and hence change it. You are stating: Why contemplate for myself if others can give me the answers? Well, answers are not what this work is about.

But believing is much easier and popular, hence why this isn't seriously considered, much less undertaken.

Fine. I guess we can agree that the outcome of any contemplation should be: practice, practice, practice. Or: Finding out for oneself, so that one doesn't need any external authority.

"I can only invite you to try the path I walked, and described in many posts (Mahamudra/Dzogchen, mainly Pointing out the Great Way),  or any other path, and see for yourself. "

Enlightenment is an accident. Practice makes accident-prone.

90% of the enlightened ones I am aware of (both contemporary and historically) had a rather long time of transcendence practice. Sure, around 10% I would estimate wake up without much practice (in this life). But do we know their Karma (part of which is "genetics"), past existences, and so on?

Selling Water by the River

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Inliytened1 said:

I haven't read the entire dialogue between the two of you...but I think where he is coming from is that anything can be turned into a dogma.  Even if you are enlightened and everything you say is absolutely true, you come off as a preacher - so it's better to say nothing at all.  Plus - and this is my own little addition - If you are God then really what is the point anyway?  You are talking to dream characters. 

@Carl-Richard am I onto something here?  

Sort of. My point is that it's possible to speak like a normal person sometimes. It doesn't have to always be "...but direct experience!". It should be possible to say that there are enlightened people, that these enlightened people went through a process of awakening at some point in their lives, and that to say these things isn't necessarily blasphemous or negates the Truth with a capital "T". It's only an observation about relative reality, and if you recognize it for what it is, it's not a big deal.

To demonstrate how absurd this really is: there is no reason why you shouldn't apply this "direct experience" business to any other topic than spirituality. For example, "going to the toilet is not actually a process with a start and an end; it's simply a pure happening of Infinite Consciousness; there is nothing truly happening, there is nothing being done, nothing being achieved, etc." Now, that is a completely valid perspective to take, but it's also completely ludicrous to think that it's the only valid perspective or the only useful way to engage with the topic.

Edited August 23, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Inliytened1]

27 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Sort of. My point is that it's possible to speak like a normal person sometimes.  

What's fun about being normal?

I think Truth lies in the abnormal.   It would be found too easy otherwise.

 

Edited August 23, 2023 by Inliytened1

[Carl-Richard]

41 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

I think Truth lies in the abnormal.   It would be found too easy otherwise.

Nuh-uh, not according to @UnbornTao. There is nothing in the relative domain that has anything to do with enlightenment, supposedly. "Abnormal", "finding", etc., is all conjecture, not direct experience.

Edited August 23, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Inliytened1]

On 8/21/2023 at 1:04 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Let's also do science and make technologies and tools that help people become enlightened.

Those things have nothing to do with enlightenment.   

[Inliytened1]

43 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

 supposedly. "Abnormal", "finding", etc., is all conjecture, not direct experience.

There is nothing in the relative domain that has anything to do with enlightenment - Truth is found in not knowing.    He is right.   It doesn't mean that knowing isn't Truth - or that the relative domain isnt Truth as well - it just means to realize it might just require not knowing.

Edited August 24, 2023 by Inliytened1

[integral]

8 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Those things have nothing to do with enlightenment.   

?

[Inliytened1]

3 minutes ago, integral said:

?

I said enlightenment- not Truth. 

[UnbornTao]

@Carl-Richard Nothing that can be done within a dream is waking up.

[Carl-Richard]

10 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

There is nothing in the relative domain that has anything to do with enlightenment - Truth is found in not knowing.    He is right.   It doesn't mean that knowing isn't Truth - or that the relative domain isnt Truth as well - it just means to realize it might just require not knowing.

Yet "I think Truth lies in the abnormal" is a statement about the relative domain and how it pertains to enlightenment. So you see, you can talk about enlightenment in both the relative domain and the absolute domain. For instance, the relative domain is where "enlightened people" live ("people" are relative things), as well as processes, practices, brain states, etc. Meanwhile, the fundamental nature of enlightenment is of course in the absolute domain.

Edited August 24, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[UnbornTao]

@integral Consciousness is prior to the brain, I've heard.  

Edited August 25, 2023 by UnbornTao

[integral]

@UnbornTao @Inliytened1 omg poeple.. its a joke... also carl wanted technology... ?

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

Yet "I think Truth lies in the abnormal" is a statement about the relative domain and how it pertains to enlightenment. So you see, you can talk about enlightenment in both the relative domain and the absolute domain. For instance, the relative domain is where "enlightened people" live ("people" are relative things). Meanwhile, the fundamental nature of enlightenment is of course in the absolute domain.

What I meant with that statement is that it's going to sound weird to a normie when we talk about not knowing or direct experience.   And that's OK.  Yes - in a sense though, the relative domain must always pertain to enlightenment because it is all of your relative experiences that may one day lead you to take yourself out of the relative domain.  So yes, paradoxically oneness does prevail.  But I think you stray from the point he was making.

[Bobby_2021]

There is some Truth to this. But its not true that you will never be addicted to anything ever again. You gain a lot more control over your own existence because you learn a lot more about your existence. Even a dog barking has enough stimulation as much as watching a move. You learn to find so many things in simple things, that watch stimulation overloaded entertainment becomes overwhelming. 

In spite of all this, you can still get addicted to videos and chocolate. But your baseline awareness will be higher even when you get addicted so that the intensity of your attachment to the addiction is lower and it gives you a lot of control if you want to break out of it.

At the end of the day, even addictions is life. There is nothing fundamentally wrong even with addiction, existentially speaking.

[Guest Bazooka Jesus]

10 hours ago, Water by the River said:

Wilber, "One Taste". And maybe start at the entries for march.

And then "The Simple Feeling of Being"

Selling Water by the River

Thx, will check it out.

Edited August 24, 2023 by Bazooka Jesus

[Carl-Richard]

16 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

But I think you stray from the point he was making.

His point is that the only valid language game is the Absolute language game. I disagree. I'm saying that you can talk about the relative sides of enlightenment without negating the absolute side of it. The disagreement might lay in the fact that he doesn't think it's just a language game. But that is all we're doing here. To think that what we're doing right now is more than just conceptual talk is certainly not very non-dual.

Edited August 24, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

10 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Consciousness is prior to the brain.

There are relative manifestations of consciousness, and thus also enlightenment.

[Javfly33]

8 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

 

In spite of all this, you can still get addicted to videos and chocolate. But your baseline awareness will be higher even when you get addicted so that the intensity of your attachment to the addiction is lower and it gives you a lot of control if you want to break out of it.

 

You will get addicted to videos and chocolate if you are in a compulsive state of consciousness, not in a conscious state.

Quote

But your baseline awareness will be higher even when you get addicted so that the intensity of your attachment to the addiction is lower and it gives you a lot of control if you want to break out of it.

This is great, but is obviously not being AWAKE.

If you are eating constantly chocolate, you are not in a enough high awareness state.

 

[UnbornTao]

On 8/22/2023 at 5:02 PM, Javfly33 said:

It would be great, but I usually have a hard time believing people off the internet. 

But if is true he would not care that we don't believe him I guess.

He could be some of that genetic freaks Leo talks about ?

Belief does nothing for you, that's one of my points!

Be open and contemplate.

Edited August 25, 2023 by UnbornTao