winterknight

Gotcha. Yes, in one sense these could be read as an instruction to "see the world this way." But in a deeper and more important sense, they are part of a series of pointers to What Cannot Be Directly Described meant to stop the mind, and the result being -- that the mind has these qualities. So they weren't necessarily meant to be directly imitated so much as they were part of a picture they were trying to get you to grasp. They were trying to make you go "Oh!" and have a little satori. Either way can work -- you can stay with whatever state of peace you get (the "clear, dis-identified state") and return the mind to it over and over any time any disturbing thought occurs to it. And such thoughts are liable to occur, because any state where the question even can arise "should I still..." is still a subtly identified state. So at that point you have two choices. As I said, stay in that state and return to it every time a thought occurs -- this would be a sort of surrender practice. Or ask to whom the question could occur "what to do next?" (stay in the clear, dis-identified state or "still pursue the 'I'")? Because the truth is not mere disidentification with all thoughts and feelings but a wordless beyond-a-doubt knowledge of what you actually are.

Can you show me the quotes you're talking about? This kind of practice is a nice overarching "get you into the mood" instruction, and it might be true in some big picture, but this is not really the process that gets you to realization. This is because you're simply identifying with a new story -- the "one who can't relate to the previous memories." Now instead of the old thought/feeling you have a new one, centered around the idea of "nothing feels personal and gripping." You can't recognize the illusory nature of the "I" by imagining something about it -- that it is, that it isn't, that it's someone else's. That's a thought. The real process is intense mental concentration either by attempting to grasp the I and/or an attempt at total surrender -- with the aim of abolishing thought, not going into one psychological state or another.

that's because it was never about logic, except for beginners. your "foundations of knowledge" were wrong, that's why they are fading away. let them die off and go back to self-inquiry

Well, the fact that Tolle has pulled many people into interest in nonduality is definitely a plus for him. Glad you enjoyed the critique

It's a normal spiritual thing. Unless it's causing you pain/problems or you have family history of some related disease, I wouldn't worry about it.

That too is a thought...

But the ball is merely the thought that there is a ball. Drop the thought and there is no ball. There's not even that thought...

There’s no difference except in thought. To the seeker it may feel like they’ve had glimpses of truth but that they’re not “established” in it. This is of course an illusion caused by thinking. In truth, we are always enlightened.

That's ultimately true, but from the seeker's standpoint it is not. Well, both and neither. I am enlightened, but enlightenment is all there is. It is a credential, but it is no less true for that. An impossible and misleading question to answer, unfortunately. I could say a year, I could say 20 years. But the reality is that "full self-realization" is not something to be achieved in some future time. That very thought is an obstacle.

Yup Free will or won't cannot be explained intellectually; engage in self-inquiry and you'll find out who or what is free/determined Distraction You need to follow the path -- the trap that keeps you in duality is your not doing that Psychedelic experiences might be helpful for some people but are not necessary and cannot get you all the way there No

There was no question. If you have one, feel free to post it. There's no way to know whether someone is at the 'brink' of enlightenment, but some signs may be intense, single-minded effort towards that goal, and increasing amounts of peace and clarity. I don't really answer questions about 'my' state -- the answers are always misleading. Don't know enough about Leo's teachings to comment.

Well I didn't really mean it as any grand piece of philosophy -- it's just that everything in the world has ways in which it is "good" and ways in which it is "bad" (and good and bad are also relative to different people, situations, and interpretations). The world is literally made up of strands of imperfection & partial utility. That's what even makes an object possible -- its limited nature, so that it can be 'seen' by a limited observer. And this is certainly true of words, which when saying one thing, always omit other things, unintentionally imply yet others, and so on.

Glad you found it useful Anything in this world -- that is seen as of this world -- is less than perfect. That is because it is singled out, and thus incomplete. And so too Tolle's teaching would be imperfect. And I pointed out those imperfections. And my pointing out is also imperfect. Or if everything is perfect, then so is my criticism. This idea that enlightenment is all positivity is nonsense -- there are two poles in this world, and creation encompasses them both. It is non-identification with either of these poles that marks the enlightened outlook, but to one who still sees the world as divided -- there will appear to be action, and that means both positivity and negativity. There are sages who are angry, proud, depressed, judgmental, critical, yes, all those things... or so it appears to the outside. It may not be their inner experience, because they do not identify with the experiencer. Relentless positivity has problems all its own.

So go back again and again and again... however many times you fall out, that many times go back.

But how can "pure awareness" or "just silence" be "pretty lost" or decide to relax in the bath, etc.? Who is it that feels or decides those things? Ah... try calling the Indian Psychoanalytical Society and/or the PRTC and asking if they know someone they could recommend. If that doesn't work private message me and I'll see if I can help you find any other options.

Who is the "I" in the "I cannot locate"? Someone is aware of typing those words.

So self-inquire into who it is that is trying to create that imaginary ledge. Relentlessly locate the "I" feeling. Do it over and over and over for however long it takes until you are at peace. And if you seem to "fall out" of peace, do it again. Or else: realize that there is no imaginary ledge and that all you have to do is relax. Give up all your ideas of enlightenment. Forget ideas of mastery, embodying it, etc. These are all misleading.

3 - yes that sounds right 6 - yes 7 - unconditional love is another name for identifying with that other. I think animals do love in their own way. Whether consciousness loves depends on how you define love. It loves in a divine way, not a human way. yes, that's fine, you cannot know it or think it.

1. I don't usually answer questions about my state 2. no 3. I don't understand your question I guess 4 and 5 you answered. 6. because it seems that way to the unawakened 7. no, I wouldn't say that 8. I don't know what you mean Maybe it would be better to explain to me about where you are on your path, and where you're having difficulties?

Nice. Mooji is excellent. They are reborn. You're welcome to believe what you like. If you have any questions about the path, I'm happy to respond.

Yes you can just be -- that is the path of surrender. Let go of desire and thought as much as possible and -- just be. No, this is a misunderstanding of enlightenment. Even fear is non-fear to an enlightened person. There's an old story about a sage telling his disciple how the world is an illusion. Then a mad elephant comes rushing towards them and both student and teacher run for their lives. Afterwards, the student asks, "If the world is an illusion, then so was the elephant -- so why did you run?" The sage replies, "If the world is an illusion, so was my running." And so too was any fear in his "emotional system."

The "state" of an enlightened person cannot be described accurately, so I've found answering these kinds of questions basically unhelpful. But if you have questions about your own path, I'm happy to answer those. That is precisely what you and only you can find out for yourself. As far as the second question, you will see that that question dissolves when you find out the answer to the first question.

Well that unfortunately is outside my area of expertise. Doesn't have anything to do with enlightenment per se. Yes and no. If by that you mean is it possible never to feel bodily and mental fatigue, then the answer is no. If you mean can the true self remain pure even while fatigue appears in the body and mind, then yes.

A thought. 1. Seeing through the illusion of the mind. 2. The I sense will be revealed to be a misconception but even at the core of the misconception there is a kernel of truth. Find the source by following the path.

Can be, yes. They can be motivating for some, for a while. Not necessary. Can be helpful for some people to improve concentration & quietness of mind. There are no levels. Unhelpful to think in that way. You had a glimpse. Focus on the "I" that remembers that glimpse and find out where that "I" feeling comes from.