FoxFoxFox

@ground Well consciousness itself has no shape or form. It knows itself through (A) being aware of its own existence, and (B) being aware of forms through the lenses or instrument of other forms. Words really fail at communicating the point here, perhaps, but, in some sense, when you look at a square that is green, that is in fact, consciousness appearing as a green square.

@ground I'm not sure what you mean by your sentence. Perhaps you can rephrase the point

@TheAvatarState One particular thing that i had always heard but didn't realize what that it's not correct to say that all these forms are within consciousness. At first one might be tempted to say such a thing. As time passed though, I realized that within and without are concepts. In truth, all these apparent "forms" are themselves consciousness. I think this recognition is the foundation for divine love.

@winterknight Agreed.

@winterknight Today I think I finally realized what is meant by love and the emphasis on it in all the lineages. I was looking at people and I realized that all they are is consciousness. Not even that there is consciousness and that all forms are within it, but rather the forms that seemingly appear are in fact consciousness itself. It didn't matter what the form was. The feeling of unity and one-ness of everything was truly palpable. Is this in fact what "divine love" is? The recognition of one's own nature to be universal?

Spira is great because he often addresses questions that a 21st century 'scientific' mind would have regarding the Self. Really valuable video right here.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but the point is to then fall asleep and dream about the forest?

What causes psychosis is ignorant fools taking copious amounts of psychedelics in pursuit of whatever they fantasize enlightenment to be. As for Kundalini, do you actually experience it? If so, then seek out a qualified master. If no, there's no point worrying about it.

Well, you know, turns out that the one that conceptualizes is not separate from the Self. The Self is never obscured. Also, it's quite impossible to conceptualize something which you have not experienced.

@TheAvatarState The analogy of the screen with actors playing on it is a very common one and mostly rooted in Hindu teachings. Ramana Maharshi too often talked about the Self being like a cinema screen upon which various movies are shown, or, like a theater light that illuminates everything and is never turned off. Of course, in the absolute sense, none of these things are true, but as far as analogies go, they are pretty good ones.

This is mostly depression. The dark night of the soul is something else entirely.

@Leo Gura This thread has been incredibly valuable to me.

@winterknight Well effortlessness is directly observed at various levels depending on one's understanding. Everybody breathes effortlessly. Everybody sees, hearse, touches, tastes, smells effortlessly, the thoughts arise by themselves effortlessly, and in contact with the body create emotions - again effortlessly. At no point does anybody go and say "I need to taste better, better put more in effort in my taste buds!" And peace is always there - though i think stillness is a better word. It's the same stillness in deep sleep. i could erroneously say that it is 'my' nature that is peaceful. but why would i do that? Of course it's my nature, whose nature could it be? Actually, to emphasize so much on the "I" aspect is the cause for all this confusion. And since the separations are all illusion, all this extends to the world, which turns out to not be an illusion at the deepest level. Maya is Nirvana, i feel.

This 'grace' is not something otherworldly. It exists right now. It types these words. But if I say, here "I-am" writing out this sentence, that doesn't mean the grace is not there, it just means there is a layer of the mind on top of the truth. Is this not the case? @Preetom Oh yes, now this all starts to make sense.

@winterknight No hold on. There is no effort. I'm not saying "I surrender" this I is just a function of language. This "I-am" is an illusion. The feeling of existence, of being, is not attached to it. The being precedes "I am". To put it another way, if there is a feeling of effort in surrender, that is only because of identification with this "I". In truth there is no such thing as surrender.

I need to clarify something that has occurred to me. This 'I-am' that we are focusing on in self-inquiry, that we are to trying to localize... Doesn't it itself need to surrender? I mean, doesn't the constant search for it, and the constant revelation that it cannot be found tell us that it simply doesn't exist? At every turn it shows itself to be insubstantial. Is there really a need for it? Existence doesn't necessitate there being an "I". Why not just be? The 'knowing' of existing doesn't require the I or the I-am. It just is.

@Preetom Thanks it does to some extent, but None of these have been realized yet which in itself causes a lot of anxiety and spiritual desperation in the body. Also i don't subscribe to neo-advaitan beliefs. I know in my bones that what they call enlightenment is not it. Can't explain how i know, i just know.

@winterknight Well you say that but I have been holding on to this sense of I for a while. This clarity hasn't come yet. Whatever "enlightened" experiences I've had had not come from self-inquiry or any other spiritual practices. They've come of themselves. I am not at peace either. The mind is frantic, and although i don't suffer for it, there is a deep sense of existential loss. Not loss felt for ego, but that I cannot seem to step over to the other side or what have you. That I can't 'get' it. I believe this experience is called 'the dark night of the mind'. If only it was just a night.

Is there really such a rule? I should not think so. Are you perhaps suggesting that for an enlightened person such as yourself, the world is unmanifest at all times? I do not think you mean this. I do not confuse the world with the names i associate with them. So, why then would you say that the world cannot be perceived without there being a perceiver? There is perception. The perceiver and the perception are arbitrary.

@winterknight I am constant. I don't think I am the body, or the mind, or the sense of the body and its feeling. But I can't find myself either. I just know that I am. Self-inquiry at this point does not reveal something new to me. Perhaps because I don't do it correctly, or because I'm missing the point entirely. What I can say is this: that the entire continuum of "experience", that is not me. That comes and goes, I am the only thing that remains.

If I say, I am aware of my own self-awareness, that is not saying that I identify with self-awareness. I believe this: is synonymous with saying In absence of conception - a mind that grasps at things and labels - this is the experience one has. But how is this liberation? How is this peace? How is this bliss? Additionally, The question, what is the nature of this "I" who is aware is so far left unanswered. It is as if we are inquiring into something that is forever ethereal. Then how can we define its nature? There is no conceptual framework that i know of that can produce satisfying answers. Moreover, i never strive to find an answer in terms of words. The confusion could perhaps be stated like this: What is the authority behind this rule of self-inquiry? Why can't what is perceived be simultaneously the source of awareness?

There is no one outside of "I" that is aware. In other words, I am self-aware. I know myself.

@winterknight Very well i will not look for an objective in advance. I know that I am, agreed. To call this a feeling is not acceptable so much, since a feeling is associated with the body, and this knowing of existence does not emanate from the body. I do not understand this question. What is the purpose? Nature in what sense?

That I is me. What answer could one give to this question? This is a vicious circle, no?

I am.