winterknight

I'd engage in self-inquiry and look to who it is that thinks they're stuck. Awareness is not really wholly immersed in the unconscious. It's that the idea of being conscious of things is a misconception. Individuation is not a mistake, it really simply cannot be said to exist. It doesn't exist for anyone at any time, actually. It only appears to. Actually, not even that.

Stuck in the middle of what?

No, it's not like that. Nor is it like having desires or motivations. What it is can't be described.

By the same taken your perspective that "it can be just as correct to say otherwise" also may not be true. While truth is beyond words, it is also true that trying to make all concepts equally valid is a bad idea.

Hrm... I only listened to a few minutes of it, but it seems like this video puts forth again Truth as a kind of series of realizations. Really, thought, there is only a single real realization (and ultimately not even that!).

Bingo.

But there is no character. That's the truth. So who is it that's realizing that they're both screen and pixels? See, I feel like what happens is that there's a very seductive pull to "have it both ways" -- understandable, and I've engaged in it myself in the past -- to keep the duality and the Absolute both in the discourse. And that may be useful in certain teaching contexts. But in fact, if the Absolute is 'perceived,' no objects can be said to be perceived. Sitting next to the Sun, can a candle be seen? There are no objects/perspectives/anything else in the Absolute. Deviating from this understanding is a subtle vasana that draws the mind back to ideas of doership.

Yup, basically. Though what will also happen when you focus inward is that the gaps in the thoughts will eventually be noticed, and that will be felt as glimpses of peace, and that provides fuel and motivation for greater and greater concentrative efforts. The reason that it's "focusing" on the I rather than just focusing in general is because that's the root thought, the base misconception on which the whole house of cards is built.

Well, one believes that one is focusing on that. When one tries to focus on it, eventually that's what leads to seeing that that pure subject-feeling can never be the object of focus. Agreed, definitely a big problem. That's a common misconception, unfortunately. It's not there's "oneness vs. duality" -- there is neither. No concept is correct. There are no objects, no things, and no, not even the formless. The formless is another concept. "Unification" is another process in time, another thought, and the point is to get beyond that entire tangle. There is no circle of which there is half which may be completed. But you're still navigating to not be hit by traffic doesn't require integrative work. If it happens at all, it happens all by itself. The mind's belief that it has to "take Truth down into the world" and integrate it is an egoic concept. The mind's only duty is to never to imagine that it is anything other than Silence.

Sure. Withdrawal of attention is not a focusing, it’s the precise absence of focusing. Like when you’re zoned out or absent-minded.

Realization is the complete annihilation of the idea of there being a doer or an enjoyer, someone who has to deal with and experience the events of life. The mind knowing that Truth clearly, what can there be to integrate and who to integrate it? Who is there who needs — or even CAN — function in the relative, and who even says there is such a thing as the relative? The only relevant integration is the “realized” mind, when confronted with the problems of the relative, abandoning those wrong notions, automatically, effortlessly, and again and again returning to Silence.

Heh. You’ve very cleverly cited one of my favorite scriptures . It’s going to be hard for me to disagree. Though what constitutes the ignorant and the half-taught? Therein lies the problem. The idea of intensive qualifications before one can learn the secrets of Brahman from a forest master is untenable today. But moreover, I actually prefer not to say that all is Brahman. That’s a provisional truth at most, and it’s not my preferred way of putting things. And I’m against the fashionable idea of integration. The old Vedantic saw goes: “Brahma satyam jagat mithya jivo brahmaiva naparam.” Self is Truth; world is untruth; the soul is nothing other than that Brahman. The very idea of the world existing at all is itself a myth. So “all” cannot be Brahman, finally—all is itself a category of language, of the mind, which is false. Only that is which is when the mind doesn’t think. And in fact the mind never thinks...

In a way it’s almost remaining UNaware, that’s the funny thing. UNaware of objects of experience = aware of Self

Yes, if there is a strong desire for it.

Yes, I could say. No, I could say. Depends on your point of view, I could say. Worrying about what enlightenment is like is a complete waste of time for seekers and 100% misleading. I don't really answer questions about 'my state' for this reason.

Yes, there is something good about being enlightened. It's freedom from suffering, freedom from ignorance. It is perfection. After enlightenment you don't identify yourself with the mind so there is no question of motivation or no-motivation. But if you want guarantees in advance that it's going to lead you to be more productive or whatever, that's not what enlightenment is about.

You can think of it that way if you want, but the reality is that it doesn't matter what you're surrendering to. Surrender means letting the mind go absolutely relaxed, not worrying about changing anything, going anywhere, intending anything, thinking anything. Not even worrying about watching. Resisting neither action nor inaction. Just -- going utterly slack mentally.

That depends on what you mean by "I" and "feel" and "good" and "anything." The truth is that the truth about the experience of enlightenment can never be expressed in words, which is why I try not to answer questions about this point.

Yup

Foreign governments aren't allowed to contribute to campaigns, and Norway's did no such thing. You might be thinking of her charitable foundation.

Who is it that is noticing that there is a stalling? At every point when you find yourself stuck or unable to go further or dig deeper, or whatever -- aren't you aware of this fact? You are. So try to point your attention to this "I" that is aware of it. You have to try and try and try. And do it in the context of the larger path -- read up and get an intellectual framework and also grow more honest about what you want. Without that, self-inquiry will be far more difficult than it needs to be.

The idea that there is separation or ignorance isn't true, yet it certainly seems true to seekers. The fact that it seems that way but isn't is the illusion. Wait, didn't you decide you were not going to be posting on the forum for two months?

Enlightenment means that you realize that there is no "you." There's no one to be reincarnated. There was no one who was incarnated in the first place. It's only important for one who believes themselves to be a seeker, who wants the truth. For them self-inquiry is recommended; and the end of self-inquiry will be to know that one was already That, even without self-inquiry.

Neti neti is just a concept. Self-inquiry properly done is a focus on something which seems to be literally in your experience every second -- the sense that "I am." No method is effective unless it gets you to look closely at this "I am"... all the other rivers just lead to that in the end. It's not really comprehensible until your ignorance (which doesn't exist) is gone. Basically ignorance is a concept... all concepts are false. That's what enlightenment reveals.