winterknight

No, breath can stop, and so can the heartbeat. I am not pointing to an ordinary experience. But being knows itself continuously and nondually.

It sounds like you were able to affect your mental states through some process of concentration. It doesn't have much spiritual significance, unfortunately, sorry. As you correctly put it, the psychological self wasn't being affected. But if it's cool -- enjoy it! Nothing wrong with that. Going back to an earlier question of yours about how to know whether your realization is real or not... another question to ask is: does it come and go? Any experience that has a beginning and an end, that comes and goes -- isn't It. So any kind of mental transformation or change in your perceptions or thoughts or feelings, however spectacular... if it comes and goes, it is not the ultimate truth.

No, it's not a phenomenon arising in consciousness. It is the radiance that is the very nature of consciousness, knowing itself by itself, beyond time and space. This radiance is usually hidden by the movement of the mind. So when that movement stops through a process of discernment, the radiance-seeing-itself is no longer seemingly hidden.

It can't really be explained, unfortunately. You could say the mind just sees its own boundaries and therefore understands its own illusory nature and implodes. As it does so -- the true I, which is usually hidden in plain sight by the mind, becomes obvious. It's not a perfect way of putting it but there it is.

You are always being the true I. You are it right now. Just stop thinking. That silence that seems like nothing is you. As soon as you ask "what silence?" "what nothing?" -- it's hidden again. So you are it always, the question is only whether your mind has recognized it or not. If there is any doubt about it, you haven't. Recognition of it is beyond doubt.

Yes, it's an entirely correct sense of existential absurdity. It's often how the spiritual quest begins

Yes, so both of these are glimpses, but the morning one is closer ("not even clear what happened in retrospect" -- yes). The true I cannot be described or known as an object. You are that I even right this very second, and being that I is itself a very special kind of knowing. It seems like you don't know it because you are looking through the lens of the mind, and the true I to the mind seems like literally nothing, but nothing is actually not nothing. This being the true I is not the kind of knowing that can be remembered, talked about, or described accurately, as you've already experienced.

I liked undefinable

No, I can't buy into that because those are all mental descriptions that believe that spiritual change is real. The actual truth is that I -- and you -- have never not been free, have never not known the truth. But as a seeker, you will have to discover this, paradoxically, through effort. It is true that changing your mind through meditation, yoga will prepare you to grasp the truth, but those changes are not themselves the enlightenment. How about if you're driving? Ever zone out then and suddenly find yourself nearer your destination, but not really having remembered the last few minutes? Or what about in the morning, have you ever woken up and had a second just before you remembered who you were or where you were or anything about anything or anyone, but were just sort of totally blank?

It is what it is when you stare at a beautiful landscape and then you blank out for a moment and then "come back." Where were you in that moment when you blanked out?

It is exactly that which cannot be put into words.

Because an appearance is still a category in mind. All the mental categories are false. And how right you are about time I mean, for seekers the appearance/reality distinction can be useful, though... so go with that if it helps.

Yes. But, but, but then... where is my body typing these words? Is it not in a room? No. Does my body not exist? No, it doesn't. So what are all these appearances? You cannot even call them appearances. All you can say in the end is: the Unnameable Silence Is.

Well, that's what it appears to be from the viewpoint of those who are still dreaming. But that may not be the case from the viewpoint of the enlightened ones.

It goes a little further. Because here it is not just any idea that was nonsensical and meaningless. It's the idea of a mind itself. So I can't say that the mind is still there but just not as meaningful -- it is only someone who believed in the mind who would say that. But the mind is precisely what is gibberish.

That's the problem with the mirage analogy. It only goes so far. In the spiritual context, even the idea that there is a mirage at all is part of the mirage.

The problem is you're asking about my experience. If you ask about my experience, that's the kind of answer you will have to get, because what I see is literally incomprehensible to someone who is not seeing the same. I could lie and tell you, "yes, the body-mind is within my awareness." But why not ask about your experience? No, it's more like you had an idea for an invention in a dream that you thought was amazing. When you woke up, it literally did not make any sense. Put two teacups together and they form an airplane? What? The analogy between me and the mind is like between you and that idea.

Another of these questions, I see . The problem is I can't answer them honestly because I don't accept that I am the person who experiences time. It's like asking about the details of a mirage. The mind experiences time, and I am not the mind. Time is in the realm of illusion, just like all other objects. It is certainly one of the mysterious aspects of illusion. From the seeker's viewpoint, though, the stiller the mind, the slower time will seem to go, and when the mind is completely quiet, time will appear to stop. The still mind lives in eternity.

All of the above. But especially the last.

You got it!

Heh, very little. I know lots of people have tried to draw connections between the Copenhagen interpretation and spirituality, but I'm not very familiar with those debates... but you're right, there is definitely a similarity in the language.

Correct, "it" cannot be said to be "within" "my" "awareness", because "within," "my," "it," "awareness" -- all these are concepts... concepts are mental only. If you realize the beyond-mental is the true Self, then how can any of those be said to be the case? It's like asking whether the hero of a novel is still thinking after you've shut the book.

It's not that you don't exist or I don't exist, but that we are not what we think we are.

Yes, that's because they are still seekers, and that's a zen tactic to get them out of intellectualizing things.

True, but a seeker has to grasp on to anything they can! For example, it is ultimately true that "there is nothing to be done. You are already the Truth." But for a seeker there very much is something to be done. Effort must be exerted. Even not to exert any effort at all -- surrender -- requires effort for the seeker. So to know that enlightenment is worthwhile -- even if it cannot be explained exactly how -- can be motivating...and that can be helpful for a seeker. So for a seeker, there is an ultimate truth (say, effortlessness), and an apparent truth (effort). Or the ultimate truth is that nothing can be said about it, but the apparent truth is that it's the best possible thing in life to obtain. Seekers need to keep both these truths in mind, until the apparent truth resolves into the ultimate.