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

[UnbornTao]

14 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

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 may 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 something more than just conceptual talk is certainly not very non-dual.

How we talk and the language we use shows how we hold things. It isn't just a game.

There's no way to grasp this through mind, perception or language.

Chatting and speculating are already the norm. No need to add to that, imo. Having a bunch of concepts about enlightenment does more harm than good. 

Let's personally settle the matter by having several enlightenment experiences right away.

Edited August 25, 2023 by UnbornTao

[UnbornTao]

On 8/24/2023 at 11:46 AM, Javfly33 said:

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

This is great, but is obviously not being AWAKE.

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

What if they are two different matters?

You may be conflating the way life is lived with consciousness. These are not the same. In fact, as only a few examples, teachers such as Nissargadatta, Chogyam Trungpa and Alan Watts had addictions. What's more, Jesus presumably had an anger management problem. How come? Weren't enlightened people supposed to always act in a loving, sensible manner?

It is possible to be awake and do stupid things. After all, teachers have different personalities and dispositions. Do you think there hasn't been ruthless teachers that contradict your ideals about gurus being loving and soft-spoken (or whatever fantasy you hold)? Besides, what can be done prior to awakening can be done after it, including emotions.

Edited August 25, 2023 by UnbornTao

[Princess Arabia]

Just now, UnbornTao said:

What if you're talking about two different matters?

Examples: Nissargadatta, Chogyam and Alan Watts had addictions. Jesus presumably had an anger management problem haha. Maybe the Buddha was addicted to meditation.  

We might be conflating here consciousness with the way life is lived. 

It might be possible to know your nature -- be enlightened -- and do stupid things. After all, teachers have different personalities and dispositions.

True. I think we have distorted the term Enlightenment. 

[Water by the River]

12 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

My point is not about language. There's little to talk about enlightenment, there's no way to grasp it through mind, perception or language. Sure, we can chat and speculate but this is already the norm, it seems to me. I'm saying the matter is not what we think of it.

The way we talk and the language we use represents how we hold things to be. It might be a game, albeit an impactful one. Having a bunch of concepts about enlightenment does more harm than good. 

Basically, let's have several enlightenment experiences right away, that might settle the matter for oneself.

 

You are right that Full Enlightenment can't be transmitted by words. Nor fully described. But it can be very well pointed to.

The stages/states up until that can be described quite well, since duality has not broken down yet fully, and language can work with duality quite fine. Of course, if the referents of certain meditation experiences are not there yet, they have to be created/trained first. But they can be described in such a way that they can be recognized then.

Maybe you find that perspective of Dr. Daniel Brown interesting. Quote from Pointing out the Great Way:

"PUTTING MEDITATIVE EXPERIENCE INTO WORDS
A good deal of Western scholarship on religion assumes that mystical experience is ineffable. Mystical states are said to be so profound that they are indescribable. This view is wrong. Rechungpa, a contemporary of the great Tibetan saint Milarepa, wrote an extremely detailed work on all the changes that occur in the body and mind at the moment of enlightenment. The most striking feature of his Clear Wisdom Mandmudra is the extreme technical precision used to describe internal states. As a tradition, Tibetan Buddhism is perhaps unique in the level of technical precision used to describe meditation experience; there is nothing comparable in Western mystical literature. Western mysticism largely has been restricted to individual practitioners, small groups, or time-limited movements, wherein the mystics either didn't express their spiritual attainments in much detail, or expressed these attainments in idiosyncratic ways according to their unique realizations and cultural context.

Tibetan Buddhism, in contrast, is a highly organized lineage tradition that has been around since the seventh century, with Indian roots that go back much further. The early oral tradition spawned a loose but extensive network of itinerate practitioners who shared or traded teachings and specific spiritual exercises. The monastic tradition beginning in the eleventh century was characterized by tightly organized, stable communities of large groups of meditators who engaged in continuous dialogues about meditative attainments. They developed an elaborate inner science of spiritual development. During this period the technical language for spiritual development became more consensual, technically sophisticated, and refined as standards for discussing attainments developed. This body of technical knowledge was transmitted from generation to generation until the present day.

The central problem then for the Western reader in understanding spiritual development in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition is not its alleged ineffability but the opposite: namely, understanding the vast and sophisticated technical language of internal meditative experience. This book is designed to give the reader a precise map of internal meditative states."

 

https://www.drdanielpbrown.com/buddhist-meditation-teacher

 

In his dissertation, he translated single-handedly the main texts of Theravada-Buddhism, the Yoga-Sutras of Patanjali, and Mahamudra from their original languages, and looked for the deep structures "behind" all these systems.

Excerpts from the summary of his dissertation in "Transformations of consciousness, chapter 8"

"In this chapter, Daniel Brown addresses the second question by presenting an in-depth cartography of meditative stages drawn from three different traditions—the Tibetan Mahamudra, the Hindu Yogasutras, and the Theravada Vipassana (this cartogra-phy was subsequently cross-checked with other contemplative texts, Christian, Chinese, etc.).

The results strongly suggest that the stages of meditation are in fact of cross-cultural and universal applicability at a deep, not surface, analysis)."

 

Selling Water by the River

Edited August 25, 2023 by Water by the River

[Javfly33]

2 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

What if you're talking about two different matters?

Examples: Nissargadatta, Chogyam and Alan Watts had addictions. Jesus presumably had an anger management problem haha. Maybe the Buddha was addicted to meditation.  

We might be conflating here consciousness with the way life is lived. 

It might be possible to know your nature -- be enlightened -- and do stupid things. After all, teachers have different personalities and dmpositions.

Maybe there is no such a thing as a nisardagatta, chogyam or an Alan Watts self that is "enlightened".

Maybe Enlightment is not an achievement.

Reality: Now. Are you conscious Now? No? Then you are not AWAKE.

"But I was conscious 2 months ago when I had this experience and yada yada!!". No! Fuck your bullshit. Stop the games. This Life is About Now. How Awake and Activated you as Consciousness are, Now.

Not what your intellect tells you what is enlightenment or that you are enlightened. That's bullshit.

[Javfly33]

2 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

What if you're talking about two different matters?

Examples: Nissargadatta, Chogyam and Alan Watts had addictions. Jesus presumably had an anger management problem haha. Maybe the Buddha was addicted to meditation.  

We might be conflating here consciousness with the way life is lived. 

It might be possible to know your nature -- be enlightened -- and do stupid things. After all, teachers have different personalities and dispositions.

There is no such a thing as "knowing" your true nature. 

There is only You being You.

BEING is different than knowing. Direct activation or Awakening of yourself is direct, it can not be put into a box by labeling it, so later you can use that label as that would be the same as the ACTUAL Awakening. 

I think is the classic trap of confusing the map with the territory. 

You being Awake is a phenomena. The phenomenona of Life becoming very intense and conscious of itself. This can not be saved as a trophy and put it in your drawer, so you can say "In 2007 I got enlightened". Nope. This Game is Always Now.

Now. Now. Now.

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

My point is not about language. There's little to talk about enlightenment, there's no way to grasp it through mind, perception or language. Sure, we can chat and speculate but this is already the norm, it seems to me. I'm saying the matter is not what we think of it.

The way we talk and the language we use represents how we hold things to be. It might be a game, albeit an impactful one. Having a bunch of concepts about enlightenment does more harm than good. 

Basically, let's have several enlightenment experiences right away, that might settle the matter for oneself.

Ok, so language is bad, yet here you are talking very much. This has essentially been a long-winded version of "The Advaita Trap":

 

I say instead of skirting around these performative contradictions, just embrace language to your full capacity.

Quote

[...] Yes, for me, that’s part of the freedom. The freedom to say ordinary things in an ordinary way! The freedom to use words like ‘I’ and ‘me’ and ‘tree’, the freedom to talk about time and space, although in an ultimate sense they are only concepts. Still, there cannot be anything wrong with saying those words, can there? There cannot be anything wrong with anything, can there? Yes, I get it, I really do, there is nobody here, there’s no tree and no beauty, in an absolute sense, I GET IT, but still, IT’S A BEAUTIFUL TREE! [...]

https://www.lifewithoutacentre.com/writings/the-advaita-trap-a-one-act-play/

Edited August 24, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Guest Bazooka Jesus]

3 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:

Now. Now. Now.

 

 

[Inliytened1]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Ok, so language is bad, yet here you are talking very much. This has essentially been a long-winded version of "The Advaita Trap":

 

I say instead of skirting around these performative contradictions, just embrace language to your full capacity.

https://www.lifewithoutacentre.com/writings/the-advaita-trap-a-one-act-play/

I don't get that sense.  I don't get the sense that he is saying there is no self or no people.  If you want someone that was like that - go back and read the posts by @VeganAwake.     

Edited August 24, 2023 by Inliytened1

[Javfly33]

 

@Carl-Richard Thank God someone said it! I thought I was alone here.

 

[Inliytened1]

3 hours ago, Javfly33 said:

There is no such a thing as "knowing" your true nature. 

There is only You being You.

BEING is different than knowing. Direct activation or Awakening of yourself is direct, it can not be put into a box by labeling it, so later you can use that label as that would be the same as the ACTUAL Awakening. 

I think is the classic trap of confusing the map with the territoryummumm. 

You being Awake is a phenomena. The phenomenona of Life becoming very intense and conscious of itself. This can not be saved as a trophy and put it in your drawer, so you can say "In 2007 I got enlightened". Nope. This Game is Always Now.

Now. Now. Now.

Umm no.   You say this because you aren't enlightened.   And you're not.  So don't pretend that you are.  And Being is not so different from knowing - after all the Absolute and the relative are indeed one.  Isn't that your whole point,?  So be careful about tripping on your own words.

Edited August 24, 2023 by Inliytened1

[Carl-Richard]

30 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

I don't get that sense.  I don't get the sense that he is saying there is no self or no people.  If you want someone that was like that - go back and read the posts by @VeganAwake.     

It's the same general dynamic: person 1 says something relative, person 2 says "but the Absolute though"; repeat ad nauseam.

[Javfly33]

24 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Umm no.   You say this because your aren't enlightened.   And you're not.  So don't pretend that you are.  And Being is not so different from knowing - after all the Absolute and the relative are indeed one.  Isn't that your whole point,?  So be careful about tripping on your own words.

I´m not sure that was my point. I don't know what you mean with the absolute and relative. In my experience, there is only one reality-life. But this reality-life can be lived in a such a tremendous difference, depending your internal state of consciousness. 

My point was that spiritual work does change your life experience. I found shocking that people are saying they are so Awake, they got it all figured out, meanwhile they justify that being more Awake than Buddha doesn't necessarily mean you won't have a chocolate Milka addiction. I mean c'mon, wtf guys? 

Doing mental gymnastics and accumulating conclusions about reality, doesn't necessarily make a change in your life experience.

Saying you are God and so fucking Awake while being depressed or bored (not talking about you, just generally) is fucking hilarious. I mean at what point of self-deception and short-sightedness one must come to tell themselves that and believe it just like that.

You are right though, I am not enlightened. I never said I was. 

  

Edited August 24, 2023 by Javfly33

[Inliytened1]

12 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

It's the same general dynamic: person 1 says something relative, person 2 says "but the Absolute though"; repeat ad nauseam.

And I say don't completely throw that away...maybe to realize the Absolute you must leave the relative.   And then, you can come back and say "hey wow - the relative was always the Truth right there in front of me - I just never knew it".  So the non-dual talk that you think is not so non-dual, well - perhaps it is.

Edited August 24, 2023 by Inliytened1

[Inliytened1]

15 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:

I´m not sure that was my point. I don't know what you mean with the absolute and relative. In my experience, there is only one reality-life. But this reality-life can be lived in a such a tremendous difference, depending your internal state of consciousness, awareness, etc...whatever you want to call it. 

My point was that spiritual work does change your life experience. I found shocking that people are saying they are so Awake, they got it all figured out, meanwhile they justify that being more Awake than Buddha doesn't necessarily mean you won't have a chocolate Milka addiction. Is just preposterous. Hilarious. I had to make a topic about it. 

Doing mental gymnastics and accumulating conclusions about reality, doesn't necessarily make a change in your life experience.

Because life is a constant present phenomena, the success of your spiritual work is determined by the nature of your actual experience. So saying you are God and so fucking Awake while being depressed or bored, is fucking hilarious the bullshit one must have to tell themselves that story. 

And no, I´m definetely not enlightened, and I´ll never be. 

  

Alright look.  I'm going to wave the white flag here.  You are correct.  Awakening does one thing - it makes you so much more conscious.   But that consciousness was already building through your life experiences.   You gain consciousness every day.  Every hour.  Awakening just explodes you into a complete state of Godhood - and being completely omniscient.  But that omniscience could care less about egoic desires, addictions. Or the overcoming of them.  It cares only about a complete understanding of itself as God.  All of that other stuff doesn't even exist.   The stuff of addiction - the stuff of boredom - this is the stuff of the ego.   Where I raise the flag is that the ego is also God, so the ego brings something back.  It brings awareness back.  The challenge then, as it was for Alan Watts, is if you WANT to entertain a Godlike existence as the ego.  You may WANT to fall into the selfishness of the ego - or allow yourself to do so.  That is your choice as God. Death is no longer a fear to you - not really.

Edited August 24, 2023 by Inliytened1

[Carl-Richard]

14 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

And I say don't completely throw that away...maybe to realize the Absolute you must leave the relative.   And then, you can come back and say "hey wow - the relative was always the Truth right there in front of me - I just never knew it".  So the non-dual talk that you think is not so non-dual, well - perhaps it is.

which is why I say it's a valid perspective, but it's not the only one, and I won't pretend that it is. Maybe it's someone's path to pretend that it is and that is how they'll awaken, and sure, you can awaken in many different ways, even by hurting yourself physically. I just personally don't like hurting myself (in this case intellectually). Generally, hurting yourself (your relative self) is not something I'll promote. I think it's very possible to awaken while having a good head on your shoulders, and that you'll be generally better off that way. There are certain trade-offs that I might consider, but trading off your intellect would be too much (or like Frank Zappa would say: "treating dandruff by decapitation").

Edited August 25, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Inliytened1]

23 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

which is why I say it's a valid perspective, but it's not the only one, and I won't pretend that it is. Maybe it's someone's path to pretend that it is and that is how they'll awaken, and sure, you can awaken in many different ways, even by hurting yourself physically. I just personally don't like hurting myself (in this case intellectually). Generally, hurting yourself (your relative self) is not something I'll promote. I think it's very possible to awaken while having a good head on your shoulders, and that you'll be generally better off that way. There are certain trade-offs that I might consider, but trading off your intellect would be to overdo (or like Frank Zappa said: "treating dandruff by decapitation").

Here's where it goes full circle into what you are saying.   You need a method of teaching.   If you awoke a certain way, you will teach that way.   And that's OK.  We can't just say you will awaken every which way.  There has to be the relative or a particular way in terms of the teaching.   We could say that it is every which way i guess - but then there would be no need for teaching at all.   Which is where the relative domain exists.  

Edited August 25, 2023 by Inliytened1

[UnbornTao]

18 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

It's the same general dynamic: person 1 says something relative, person 2 says "but the Absolute though"; repeat ad nauseam.

Everything is relative. Nothing can be said that is absolute. No problem with that.

Holding enlightenment as a relative thing can be problematic, which you insist on doing. This is a trap. You still assume it is something that can be correlated with brain functions, an attainment to aspire to, a process, a goal facilitated by tools and practices, etc. This is false, enlightenment is another matter. With this I'm basically saying that it is up for grabs. Nothing short of direct consciousness into the matter will make a real difference. And yet, we can still chat about it. But this should be acknowledged as fun speculation that will lead nowhere, except entertainment.

This issue goes deeper than language, though. The way one talks represents how we hold things to be.

Edited August 25, 2023 by UnbornTao

[Inliytened1]

3 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Everything is relative. Neither you nor me can say anything that is absolute. No problem with that.

Holding enlightenment as a relative thing is, which you insist on doing. This is a trap. You still hold it as something that can be found in the brain .

In his defense he does not think this.  I know him long enough to know that.  He is simply saying that Truth exists in both the relative and the Absolute domains.  But where I side with you is that while this is true, you won't become God realized in the relative domain.  

 

Edited August 25, 2023 by Inliytened1

[Javfly33]

5 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

In his defense he does not think this.  I know him long enough to know that.  He is simply saying that Truth exists in both the relative and the Absolute domains.  But where I side with you is that while this is true, you won't become God realized in the relative domain.  

 

what is this 'relative' and 'absolute' domain? 

Can see only One Reality.