Grateful Dead

I think Sadhguru is one of the most positive forces in this world. What fascinates me about him is that he has attained spiritual mastery and also is extremely extroverted and active in the world. Some of his statements are questionable, but then again, it is inherently very difficult to communicate such metaphysical, spiritual insights. A quote that I apply to all spiritual teachers walking the earth is: "Even the Buddha is only halfway there." In my view, Sadhguru is enlightened, and his perception is exceptionally clear. Also, beyond enlightenment, he possesses extraordinary spiritual attainments on an energetic level. Nevertheless, he too could potentially be self-deceived, and he does not have the perfectly correct answer to every question, even if he makes it appear as though he does.

I can certainly relate to what you mean. That is the price one pays for profound psychedelic experiences; by contrast, everyday life can seem colorless and flat. It’s unrealistic to expect to feel "amazing" all the time, though it is possible to feel completely content consistently. If you use psychedelics regularly, you have to come to terms with this contrast and accept that you will only feel "amazing" on occasion. Personally, I find that difficult to sustain in the long run. My current approach is to either pack a number of psychedelic experiences into a period of one to three months and then do a long break, or to use them very sparingly like only once or twice a year.

Without a doubt, the most transformative book I've read. The teachings turned my spiritual practice, awakenings, and insights into a moment-by-moment lived experience.

This is where our frameworks differ fundamentally. You argue that because the formless cannot be perceived, it does not exist on it's own. It is true that the formless cannot be perceived as an object, because it can only be known by being it. In that timeless moment, perception ceases completely, leaving only boundless reality aware of it's own existence. Yeah that's right imo. From my perspective, time, space, and form are not manifestations of Being, but constructs of perception. The fact that formless Being cannot be perceived just means that it completely transcends perception.

Yeah. Exactly. Thats exactly what I mean. You are either Enlightened/Awake or not, there is no inbetween. I agree that this is extremely rare, there are only very few individuals I would truly attribute that to, Eckhart Tolle being one of them. You do have a point. Spiritual awakening fits well, since it implies an ongoing process of awakening. Because you used the term permanent spiritual awakening, I automatically equated it with being fully awakened or enlightened. A permanent spiritual awakening is more like lucid dreaming, whereas enlightenment or being awake is the end of the dream. I see it differently: the formless and form are mutually exclusive. If the Absolute is truly limitless, then boundaries and therefore forms only exist from a limited, perceptual viewpoint. When you say from the absolute level of being there are no differences, then form as an actual reality does not exist, it is nothing. You cannot have form without boundaries.

Okay, yes, I understand. In the sense that most people, including here in the forum, use the word awakening, you are right. They mean a glimpse into observer consciousness, and stabilizing that would be considered permanent awakening from that perspective. For me, however, as the word suggests, awakening means the end of the dream: either a brief glimpse into absolute reality or, in the case of permanent awakening, the complete withdrawal into formless Being. From my perspective, no mind that is still communicating as a human body is permanently awakened/enlightened.

Regarding my own experience: a glimpse into the boundless freedom and eternal peace of formless reality altered my perception of the world, and this triggered a gradual process of surrender. What about your own experience? What is your take on it? What you describe as permanent awakening, I view as stable observer consciousness, a state in which a subtle form of separation still exists as a center. For me, permanent awakening means a complete awakening from the dream of separation.

Yeah, the spiritual ego is incredibly sneaky. But what exactly do you mean by underrated? I mean, Eckhart Tolle is literally one of the most famous and respected spiritual teachers of our time. Imo permanent spiritual awakening and enlightenment are the same thing.

Watch this documentary called Kumaré. It’s about an American/Indian man who posed as a guru and built up a following. His followers reported experiencing truly profound spiritual transformations through his transmissions even though he had made it all up and hadn't actually done anything.

When fear comes, just let yourself be completely overwhelmed by it. Nothing bad will happen. You won’t disappear, only the fear will be gone.

To put it simply, he says that if you are suffering, you should contemplate who is suffering to enter a state of openness (not-knowing), which enables a direct experience that dissolves the suffering.

Sorry, but there is no satisfactory answer to that. The mind cannot grasp the formless. I think the best analogy in the world of forms is the perception of silence. A perfect silence permeates everything here; it is formless, intangible, and the only thing that never changes. Yet, that is not what I mean by ultimate reality. Yes, as long as we perceive ourselves as a body, we have to work with that; it would be a mistake to deny it. I think I would phrase it differently, but fundamentally it is the same thing I am doing. Moments of complete openness slowly transform and stabilize the self, making open, non-judgmental perception natural.

I agree with you there. Separation is an illusion. And what we need to do is transform our perception so that we can clearly perceive this. I understand what you mean by that. When you make that shift, the world you perceive seems real, because that perception is no longer based on fear, but on openness. However, this perception is still based on the existence of your body. The surface is projected by your physical body, and the deeper levels by the energetic body. But when all levels of the body disappear, then the relative world also disappears, as if it had never existed, and what remains is reality. That's how I see it.

It is a reality of being human because human existence is based on separation from the Absolute. The only benefit I see in it is that when it arises, it reminds me that I am trapped in the world. It's not that I'm violently dissolving the form or fighting against the world, but rather that I'm ceasing to believe in the form as my reality; that's a very gentle process. My primary motivation isn't to escape suffering; it never really was. I prefer the absolute because it's the only reality that exists. I've had glimpses into some past lives and recognized connections that influence my present existence. As a child, I knew I had died and was now back. Nevertheless, I don't really take any of it seriously; it no longer holds any meaning for me.

To me it seems that you’re contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you say suffering is a real manifestation of the Absolute. But on the other, you say that in absolute terms, everything is the same, so suffering doesn't matter. Then, later on, you say the relative perspective is relevant and the relative is real. But surely, from that relative perspective, the suffering must be real to you, too? How, then, can real suffering still be positive for you? You say there are local differences and they are real, but that there are no differences in the absolute sense, I don't think those two things add up. Ultimately, there are either differences or there aren't. So, you want to merge the absolute with the relative. I do not believe that to be possible. The relative can be used as a gateway to the Absolute but when this has happend totally then the relative is no more. I view form as the manifestation of the very thing that prevents us from surrendering completely to the absolute; the manifestation of form arose from the thought that you are separate from the absolute. Therefore, it is necessary to completely dissolve the perception of form in order to return to reality. I, too, view Being as an eternal, infinitely expanding process of creation; however, for me, that does not mean that Being must manifest in material form. Being manifests spiritually, specifically, as what you are -- spirit/mind. I simply use the form differently. I use it to free the mind. That may be your preference. For me, the perfect move is to liberate the mind so completely that the perception of form dissolves entirely. Then there is no continuity after death, no rebirth as a form, no repeating cycle. Then there is only Being, expanding eternally in its perfect holiness. By the way, what I’m writing about is the ideal I strive for. It’s not as if I’ve mastered putting it into practice; I’m still learning and often fail, too.

In my view, regarding form as a dimension of reality entails several problems. What I call reality is limitless, positive without an opposite and immutable. Form, by contrast, is limited, impermanent, and more cruel than positive. How, then, could I label it as reality? To me, it is simply nothing, an illusion devoid of substance; my sole aim is to see through it completely in order to recognize what is. Yes, we are conscious minds, but from my perspective, evolution has nothing to do with opening up to this formless reality. What is required is to strip the world of forms of all significance and then dive through the void into the light.

The end of illusion is not the end of existence; I believe this is a misconception held by people like Jim Newman. The void has been clearly recognized. Space is empty, but the void is not dead. The void is the gateway to fullness, and whoever passes through it recognizes the truth of their existence, the miraculous, eternal glory of being -- you.

Good point. I think you are right. When it comes to absolute Reality/God, it is indeed true that "drive" is a more precise description of the directional, boundless inevitability of being. Will is more of a term for the relative realm in which we can align our will with the drive of reality.

Right and what you call "drive," I call "will." Or do you make a distinction there?

For me, God’s will is grace. Therefore, ultimate reality is incredibly positive. It is not simply empty, as we have already established but filled with the grace of God.

Yeah that's what I thought too. True I forgot about Kynes… I really missed that too. And why do they make Kynes female when he's actually Chani's father lol..

These are my all-time favorite books; I’ve read them many times. Overall, I’m happy with the movies, there’s plenty that could be better or closer to the books, but they’ve been a treat so far. What bothered me the most: spoiler alert, was that Alia didn't kill the Baron at the end like she did in the book; in the movie, she isn't even born yet. Also, the way Chani and Stilgar are portrayed. I think they wanted to inject some humor into the film through Stilgar and depict Chani as a strong, independent woman.

It’s kind of ironic that Leo low key believes in the dogmatic Christian view that God punishes you for your sins.

Yes, from my perspective, everything in the realm of form is determined. Life unfolds freely and independently of changes in form. To me, form is what prevents us from clearly perceiving this aliveness, it is a distraction. Reality is complete; it does not change, it only expands. I distinguish between change and extension. Yes correct. I’m also enamored with it, how could I not be? Once you have tasted it, the world is dry, a desert. What do you mean by a flat dimension? To me, that is precisely where the infinite depth of being lies. I believe that is a misconception on your part. The difference is that I do not perceive living reality outside of myself in the world, but deep within, at the core of being. I haven't studied Ramana deeply enough; when I have time, I'll delve deeper into it. For me, true openness means letting go of what is limited, and then only the one reality remains. I don't deny the beauty which is the creative power of reality. You are creation. The greatest gift, pure love, absolute perfection. Creation unfolds within my mind in such unfathomable glory that I simply forget the world. By contrast, the world then seems like a fleeting dream.

That's basically what I mean by God. From my perspective, form cannot truly exist, since form is always limited; it has a beginning and an end. True reality is infinitely unlimited, and therefore everything that truly exists can only be of the same nature, and thus also indefinable and boundless Yes, that's exactly how I see it too. In my view, your thought system is extremely important for opening the mind. And that's why I don't care what kind of structure you have, as long as it's based on your own experience and works for you. That's why I'm so convinced by my system, because when I found a way to mentally structure what I experienced and learned how to work with it, it unlocked my mind in a way that even psychedelics couldn't. I’m curious, what exactly is it about the fact that I view the world as an illusion that you perceive as an hindrance? I’ve already told you what I perceive as an obstacle in your perspective, namely, the danger, so to speak, of seeking the unlimited within the limited, and thereby only getting stuck even deeper in that very limitation.