winterknight

Not that long, particularly. That takes a particular practice which I haven’t engaged in. And you’re welcome. If you’re at peace under all circumstances, yes, that’s enlightenment. Otherwise it is still just on the path.

Sounds great. Is there a question? I don't really answer questions in the abstract like this. It doesn't really help. What is your search and where on it are you finding obstacles? Yes, the mental and the physical worlds are one -- the mental world makes the physical world through the act of interpretation. Or you could say, as is traditionally said, that the mental world is the subtler "seed" of the physical one. It's not really true that the mental world is reversible. Every thought and feeling has an effect. Just because the effects are not as visible and obvious as in the physical world does not mean they do not exist. The bigger question is why this matters vis-à-vis the Self. It is, but even 'significance' is a concept that must be abandoned. Experiences and realizations are wonderful, but are not the end point. What is? The constant peace that is and always was and always will be...

Well it certainly sounds like the right thought process in large part. Though it seems to me like you're trying to "get yourself" to do stuff by deeming it all God's will. Are you the one who chooses to either a) "resist" the expression of actions or b) "not resist"? Supposing everything is scripted by God, where is the role for the one who considers questions like the ones you've posed above?

Well, I've just said that the realization is that "enlightenment is the realization that there is no waking state and no one to become lucid in it" Which means that realization is the realization that there is no realization -- because realization is an event, and what is, simply is. So who is there to see or know what cannot be said to happen? Again -- at a certain point the intellect runs out. It cannot describe enlightenment. It cannot. It tries and tries and tries, like you are trying, but it will fail. Through re-reading and re-reading Ramana Maharshi and long, hard personal experimentation Yes, sounds basically fine. Not sure that I agree that non-duality has a lot of explanatory power, however. It's not a concept, ultimately, so it cannot be imported into explanations. The only real answer is beyond words...

There's no need to locate and disidentify from it specifically. Just focus on the "I." "I dont know exactly how..." -- you wrote. Focus on that I -- you know you are. Stop worrying about 'disidentifying' from all that you are not and get to the root of how you know you are. Feel out where the "I" feeling is coming from, or how you know you are.

Because while it's simple, it really requires a great deal of prior work to have been done to appeal to someone. It is extremely simple and for that reason hard to explain, and will appear absurd or inane to someone unprepared for it. To them, it will simply sound like paradoxical gibberish.

Like all questions about the experience of the enlightened one, it cannot be answered. Yes and no, in other words, or rather neither yes nor no. Well, it's some sort of a glimpse. But the real thing is not that which can come and go. Any experience which comes -- like yours did -- and then leaves -- is not the final thing. Indeed, enlightenment is not an experience at all, of voidness or nothingness or otherwise. I was always a vegetarian. For the other three, no. Felt no need. No need to avoid these things, but for certain people it can be helpful. The question is whether it increases mental peace to abstain or not. That must be determined on a case-by-case basis. It's fair to say that enlightenment is the realization that there is no waking state and no one to become lucid in it.

This is your mind playing distraction games with you. Is the problem aware of itself? No. Who is aware of the problem? That's who we're talking about. So long as there is a problem, there is someone it is a problem for. You need to investigate that. And if and when it's truly seen that there is no one there, there will be no one there to say that there's a problem.

If no one is irritated, then what's the problem?

Metaphorically, yes. Yes, you should maintain some portion of your attention on inquiry at all times if you can. If you forget, don’t beat yourself up, though. Just return to it. Then you must inquire to whom that irritation arises.

Well, there’s a few different ways. One is by really feeling that fear and expressing it — articulating it — in writing or drawing or other art, as specifically and originally as possible, till you have feel like have really captured what it’s like. In the process, you might discover other things related to this fear, perhaps things from the past, traumas you haven’t dealt with, desires you haven’t admitted, negative emotions you haven’t let yourself experience. Psychoanakytic therapy is very helpful for this. It is fully hearing the nuanced message your emotions have for you that allows them to relax The other alternative is not to enter stillness and contemplate the fear — fear cannot really exist where there is true stillness — but simply to enter and stay in stillness, period, and more specifically to do that by inquiring into who it is feels that fear. Who’s the “I” that feels the fear? It’s always about investigating the I. I don’t know, sorry.

If you think you are the person who chooses between caring and not caring, you still consider the one who decides, and therefore consider yourself a person... if you still consider yourself a person, then compassion matters. Why? Because, among other things, it helps quiet the mind -- and that furthers spiritual inquiry. If you've really recognized that you are not a person, then this question will not arise at all. Like all the questions about "what enlightenment is like," it's unfortunately impossible to answer accurately. When the mind resides in stillness, it is beyond either acceptance or non-acceptance.

Hard to say what it was. Glimpses are associated with peace. It doesn't sound to me like this was associated with peace. This is what I mean by creating all kinds of burdensome expectations. Drop all these ideas of heaven and hell and "sides" of complicated "absolute no meaning" experiences and inquire instead into who has them. Who is reading these words right now? Focus on the sense "I am" -- which is extremely simple -- and search for what it is, for how it is that you know that you are. Your mind is generating 1001 distracting thoughts and fantasies to keep you away from this very simple focus.

If you are identifying with the "real I," who is it that has the fear?

Why wouldn't you do it that hard? What is your doubt?

Because it is what is understood when you follow the sense "I am." It is the connection with the I. That answer wasn't to someone with no requisite knowledge.

There are many. Off the top of my head, one of the biggest is simply being caught up in images and expectations of "what it is like." All that must be dropped. Another is that the process is going to take X number of years or whatever and getting attached to various practices as a path to that faraway goal. The desire of the ardent seeker should be to know the Self now. The stronger that desire, the better.

Yes. The Bhagavad Gita, Yoga Vasistha, Ribhu Gita, and Ashtavakra Gita are excellent books. Any other ancient scriptures from any non dual tradition are worth reading - the Zhuangzi and Tao te Ching, the work of Bodhidharma, etc. Sure, if you want to put it that way. But the Truth is really beyond words.

1. As a seeker, the ego is just the sense of "I am" that needs to be investigated. What is it and where does it come from? That's the view a seeker needs to have of it. 2. You either settle conflicting desires by listening to all the conflicts very carefully, metaphorizing them, imagining new situations & trying new actions that attempt to synthesize all these different voices, seeing how you feel about these new actions, revising your sense of what you want, and continuing to go in this cycle... or: self-inquire into who has this desire to be authentic.

To that which cannot be spoken or thought. Wonderful Thank you.

Yes, something like that. The thing is, laws in real life have to be interpreted by an intelligent person. They don't execute themselves. And in every interpretation there is creativity that is itself not spelled out in the laws. That is infinitely more so for "laws" of karma, which would presumably operate in a predetermined world. So that creativity is what's actually running the show... that infinite intelligence, if we're going to use words, can best be termed God's will if we must have a term. Yes, one could say they feel familiar, but these discussions of "what it's like" are counterproductive... they can never get at the Truth. The truth is not an object to be described like that. All the Zen sayings are merely pointers, trying to help seekers recognize That themselves, not an actual description of That. So pleased. No pressure, but if you have any inclination to leave an Amazon review, it might be helpful for other readers, and I would appreciate it

I could say peaceful, but really no answer is accurate as to what enlightenment "feels like." 1. I prefer "god's will" to predetermination. For the seeker, the productive view is that in truth it's all god's will but that so long as one views oneself as a seeker, one must act as if one has free will anyway -- or else the question should be written off as unanswerable from the perspective of the mind 2. before: I took the view above. after: both free will and god's will are technically incorrect, though the latter is very close to correct. Glad you enjoyed it.

Yes. That or relentless surrender -- letting go of all effort and trying and desire. Anyway those are two sides of the same coin.

Because of long-established mental habits. In fact there is no "staying" at the place of relaxation. It is of course the thought that there is such a place, that one must try to get back there, that it is hard to do so -- these are all the egoic thoughts.

Yes, I think that means that you have to take things slower. Gently does it. There's clearly still unfinished business the ego has -- and that must be listened to and respected. So go into what that is. That's why my approach is oriented around being honest about what you desire, even if it is not "spiritual." Enlightenment reveals that one is not the one who lives life, whether it be happy or not, or who faces tragedy. 1. No. 2. Do your research, think, listen to your feelings, and experiment. If you want methods, I recommend my own. Existence and permanence are both mental categories; Truth is neither. One does not in reality 'become' enlightened. Enlightenment simply is the case. So there's no question of 'missing' something -- only the 'ignorant character' would have that feeling, not the true Self. Truth is neither better nor worse than illusion. Or, really, illusion simply isn't, so there's no question of a comparison.