• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by winterknight

  1. I am an expert on the nondual path of spirituality in the Hindu advaita tradition, heavily influenced by Ramana Maharshi (but with my own twists). I'm making myself available here for sincere seekers who want help or clarification on their own path. I'm not really interested in: a) proving my bona fides (you'll have to get that from my answers) b) giving an autobiographical description of my path, my realizations, etc. I probably won't respond to requests for these. Other than that, anything's game if you're bothered by it. This is a playful experiment... let's see how it goes.
  2. It's not like lucid dreaming, though. It is the understanding not that you are lucid dreaming, but that there is no such thing as the dream.
  3. Either there is a dream and there is enlightenment, or there is no dream and no enlightenment. Can't have it both ways. There are no two buts about it. It feels like something I enjoy doing, that I am qualified to do, and that I consider a sacred contribution.
  4. I read half of his first book. It was ok... didn't love it, but nothing obviously terrible about it. Who is the one who is presented with that choice? Are you the one who is wondering whether to "keep a deaf ear to these thoughts"? Who is the one to whom that thought occurs?
  5. Yes, but who is the one whose conflicts come out and then recede when he gets his bearings straight again? Is that you?
  6. Who is the one who is trying to accept things? Is that you? Who is the one who is conflicted in this way, who deals with this resistance, who wants to develop a rock solid conviction but seems to be dragged back?
  7. Self-inquiry will eventually dispel it by showing that all concepts are mental -- and depend for their organization on the root concept of 'I.' If that concept falls, the rest do too. It's actually not so much that "there are no other people" <-- this would be a concept too... but that the concepts of "there are other people" or "there are no other people" are both simply superseded by the holy silence that shows that the whole perspective in which these two conflict with each other is merely apparent. Actually language itself has no meaning in truth. Well, I usually consider it a several-fold process. One needs an intellectual framework (not a perfect one, but a good enough one) and to be honest about one's desires, whatever they are. That latter is simple but not easy, and may require extensive psychoanalysis, artistic expression, and trial-and-error to get clear. That itself quiets the mind a great deal. Then there is of course self-inquiry, the very process of which helps quiet the mind, along with its counterpart, surrender. And when the truth is recognized, the disruption of identity "unplugs the machine" and sets off a long process of further quieting the mind over time, quieter and quieter and quieter.
  8. Not that hackneyed Jeff Foster video again! Anything but that I disagree that enlightenment is still being trapped in the dream but realizing it's a dream. That is most certainly not the consequence of self-realization. True self-realization is nothing to be pitied. Quite the opposite. As far as why I teach, there is no why. I mean I could tell a story of why, but it wouldn't be true. This body/mind is compelled to do so by whatever force controls the universe.
  9. Follow this set of links and heed their advice.
  10. Neither. When you’re not paying attention to something, what happens? It might as well not exist. Similarly, when the mind pays attention only to knowledge, nothing can be said to exist.
  11. Activity is not the measure of a sense of doership, though. Whether one is sitting in one place or traveling around the world, one can either feel oneself to be a doer, or not. And this is of course not a choice. Either the fruits of inquiry have wiped away that sense or not. And as I showed earlier with Gandhi, one can be very active in the world, yet be so without thinking. To the mind turned firmly inward, thought and world disappear. But this does not mean that, from the standpoint of outsiders, that enlightened one sits and does nothing.
  12. Well, great then. It's just that in my experience & in at least Hindu scriptures, enlightenment is associated with total loss of the sense of doership. There is possibly a surreptitious "I" that is staying in the picture and associating itself with the one whose wishes the universe fulfills, etc. But that's just my opinion. You have to follow your own internal compass, obviously. It's not about rejecting the world, but about rejecting the mind. And I'm suggesting that it happens automatically, over time... while it is true that the Self can never be left, the surface of the mind can be more or less blissful. When there is no "I" there is an automatic dropping of the mind and its thoughts over time, as these are basically motivated by desire, and desire is based on the self-conception of oneself as doer & enjoyer.
  13. Well, all I can say is just be careful that this is not self-deception. When something really "bad" comes your way will you feel that you've intended it? Self-inquiry is not about just attaining a quiet mind, though. It's literally called inquiry, after all. It's trying to see clearly what is. It's not really a "danger." The truth of Self is unaffected either way, but it's simply that the mind may be more or less turbulent, more or less blissful. As Ramana Maharshi says, "The bliss of peace is too good to be disturbed. A man fast asleep hates to be awakened and ordered to mind his business. The bliss of sleep is too enthralling to be sacrificed to the work born of thoughts. The thought-free state is one’s primal state and full of bliss. Is it not miserable to leave such a state for the thought-ridden and unhappy one?"
  14. Well, there's a few issues in phrasing it this way. First, I've never loved self-referential as the designating term. It's both too broad and not broad enough. It's not thinking the word "I" that is problematic, it is the underlying interlaced structure of egoic thought. One could think "I" without it playing much into that structure, or one could think something seemingly not related to the I at all that nevertheless is deeply influenced by that underlying mental structure. How to tell which is which? Well, one can probably only tell after the fact -- by the way in which the mind has been drawn out and it causes un-peace. Second, once one has seen one's true nature firmly, there is really no question of 'allowing' or 'not allowing.' Those very ways of looking at things play into ignorance. So one must "not allow" that way of thinking to spring up . It's more like this happens automatically as a result of knowledge. Third, thoughts can't really cause ignorance. It's not really about whether they cause ignorance or not but simply what the state of the mind is -- more or less peaceful, that is. Finally, at the extreme end, it may well be the case (I don't have a firm position on this, but i lean this way) that literally all thought somehow or the other plays into the egoic structure. So that in the end, thought itself disappears, or very close to it, because not motivated by desire.
  15. Thoughts are not antithetical to self-realization, but self-realization is not the same as a mind in perfect calmness. The latter requires the former, however. The latter suggests thoughts occur but very rarely if at all. By thoughts I mean any mental arising related to the idea of "what should I do and how should I do it."
  16. I didn't speak merely of exposure but of the deeply quiet, fear- and desire-free mind. That is the key. There are plenty who have been exposed but whose minds are still noisy and unstable.
  17. Actually, only they are really beneficial to a society that operates on the egoic level -- the ones who operate on a non-egoic level, who operate without pre-meditation, neither out of fear nor desire -- the ones who see no world, and whose minds are as if asleep even while waking. Take it from Gandhi, quoted by Ramana Maharshi: "How mysterious are the ways of God! This journey to Rajkot is a wonder even to me. Why am I going, whither am I going? What for? I have thought nothing about these things. And if God guides me, what should I think, why should I think? Even thought may be an obstacle in the way of His guidance. The fact is, it takes no effort to stop thinking. The thoughts do not come. Indeed there is no vacuum - but I mean to say that there is no thought about the mission.” He wrote that at the height of his activism. The movement that happens spontaneously when the mind is in silent peace is the movement that is correct.
  18. I think the real answer is that to the pure, silent mind, the world effectively ceases to exist. The mind and body of such a one -- if they are hypothesized to exist -- then work in a completely different way, totally creatively and mysteriously. And in so doing they help the world in a way that cannot be conceptualized. I mean, people might try to interpret the actions of such a one, but such an interpretation -- with goals, ideas, values, etc. -- is not what actually drives that mind/body.
  19. The 'problem' is not at its core in any new steps or values we could come up with (though those can be interesting). The problem at its core is in the psyche. And how to change that? If it can be changed, it can happen only by the light of the Self. Spiritual freedom must spread. And it can only be spread by those whose minds are immersed in deep and total silence.
  20. There must be more to this story. Debtor imprisonment is not a thing anymore outside specialized circumstances (usually poor people with court-related fines that they can't pay). Bankruptcy releases you from debt. (at least if we're talking about the US)
  21. I don't really much answer questions about the enlightened experience because the answers are always misleading... best to get there and find out yourself. Why do you ask?
  22. Search on Google: all pages with lsd lsd if you want the threads with lsd in the title -- intitle:lsd