raphaelbaumann

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    48

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by raphaelbaumann

  1. Posted

    This exercise is about how meaning is generated and I am sure that many of you already have done it.

     

    Become right now conscious of this word:

     

    GOAT

     

    Where is the meaning of the word "GOAT"  located? Is it in the Word? Or where is it? Try to become conscious that in actuality there is no meaning in the word Goat.

     

    GOAT

     

    Now look at the word below, which also means goat in belarusian. Notice that it actually means nothing. 

     

    казёл 

     

    Notice that as you read this sentence that there is meaning. Where is the meaning of these words? Is it in the words? Notice that these two words are actually literally the same being:

     

    GOAT - казёл  

     

    Where is the meaning? 

     

     

     

     

     

     

  5. Posted

    @Inliytened1

    Alright alright thanks^^. Mahasamadhi however is a different matter then? As if Nothingness stopped imagined infinity there would literally be Nothing left. (other than formlessness)

    In contrast to Mahasamadhi however, we would still be left if anyone goes into mahasamadhi, so it would be false to say that Infinity ends at the point of mahasamadhi. Thanks for being so patient :D 

  6. Posted

    17 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

    It appears not to make any sense that you can be a projection of my mind, i can be projection of your mind, and yet we can still meet in the middle, and share the same reality.

    Why it's not making any sense to me is that I would not say that there is My mind or your mind but just Nothingness aka Self which is imagening all things. (Which is as you said our shared reality)

    And if everything truly would end there wouldn't be anything left at all other than this Nothingess which stopped imagening infinty/everything, or not?

     

  7. Posted

    28 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

    You mean that your limited form ends and only the formless remains?  Because infinity can't end :)

    By Infinity I mean all the infinite number of forms that Nothingness is imagening. (Formed side of Nothingess = Infinity , in my understanding)  :)

    What I was asking was whether you think that infinite imagination will end when you merge into Nothingness/Mahasamadhi.  

    As I see what many people is confusing here on the forum, me aswell, is how there can be anything left after the first person going into mahasamadhi, as Leo says "Everything ends" . So I don't get why there are any forms left when truly everything would end ? Hope that makes sense

     

     

     

  8. Posted

    13 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

    Its not like that.  From their POV we all went poof.  If it happens to you we will all go poof from your POV.  Because we are all held within your consciousness from your POV.

     

     

    Do you say that infinty ends and only the formlessness remains after Mahasamadhi?

    Or do you say that only one of the infinite bubbles (POV's) withing the formless bursts and becomes the formless? 

  12. Posted · Edited by raphaelbaumann

    22 hours ago, WaveInTheOcean said:

    There are no persons. Or ofc "there is" if you are imagining persons to exist, but still, try to ask yourself this: What is a person? Like really, what is it?

     Person= appearance in consciousness , as everything else that appears to be.

     

    But how do we still remain here when everything really ends when somebody goes into mahasamadhi? The Imagination kinda remains ? 

  13. Posted · Edited by raphaelbaumann

    On 5.9.2020 at 10:25 PM, Leo Gura said:

    then you can become the Godhead itself, which is just formless infinite consciousness which increases in intensity forever without end. But at this point your human life will be gone, as will the entire material universe.

    If the universe really ends then, shouldn't then the first person doing it be the last one aswell? I mean how otherwise? I'm actually really interested in understanding why you often make this point @Leo Gura

  14. Posted

    I've done further research on the topic how yogis for example can have direct consciousness how it is to be an orchid, an atom etc. 

    One could make this distinction between experiencing what we call "the visual appearance of an orchid" and  “being the orchid itself" although that

    doesn't make one more direct than another. 

    Read the book "Samadhi - by Santata Gamana" if you are interested in how yogis can experience what it's like to be an orchid etc.

    However, not sure if Peter means this when he says "as itself" in his teachings. 

    @Leo Gura  @Dodo

  15. Posted

    19 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

    What he means is, everything will stay the same, but you will realize that perception is actually Being by collapsing the subject of perception into the raw data of perception. Perception will get radically recontextualized, but all the raw data, so to speak, will stay exactly the same. If you saw red before, you will keep seeing red during awakening. But now red will be recognized as RED! -- an absolute, rather than a function of some biological human brain process.

    Beautifully explained, thanks!

  16. Posted

    45 minutes ago, Dodo said:

    Is it not Ralston's direct experience that he is aware? If we ask him: "Are you aware?" and if he was perfectly honest, he would have to say "Yes, I am aware". This means it is his direct experience that he is aware. What's all this non-direct nonsense he is on about? Maybe he is saying that you are aware not of objects, but of the knowing or awareness of the objects. But there are no objects there, there is only the awareness, so his other point about consciousness in that case is mute. You can't be conscious of a cup. You can be conscious of your knowing of the combinations of sensations and perceptions that we call cup. 

    I really don't know dude what Peter is about here..

  17. Posted

    1 hour ago, WaveInTheOcean said:

    There is no I, self or w/e that attaches itself to perceiving it. You have stopped creating the illusory self.

    Ok I realized the most basic Non-Dual truth aka Noself and I get that there is no "I" experiencing anything. I get also that Awareness never encounters anything but is Beingness itself (nothing more to experience than Awareness)

    But after realizing Beingness my experience didn't change. It was more like a recontextualization. So I was wondering like why he's saying "indirect" when it has always been direct from the beginning. @WaveInTheOcean

     

    59 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    The word experience is used for lack of a better word. Technically experience is dualiatic because it implies an experiencer. When the expeirence and expeirencer merge into one, what remains is Being, which is Absolute Truth. But it looks just like experience.

    Yes that's what I would say aswell. It 's just like I don't get why he emphasizes alot that perception isn't direct and is more like radar of what's there and not actually what's there. As after the realization that consciousness is also all form the seight of an apple is exactly the same as before the realization. Not anymore direct than before.  Rather a recontextualization? @Leo Gura

     

     

     

     

     

     

  19. Posted · Edited by raphaelbaumann

    When studying the teachings of Peter Ralston, he often describes this:

    Our perception / experience of reality is never direct and that perception cannot provide your true nature or the true nature of anything.

    The average Non-Dual teacher, like Rupert Spira, Mooji and Eckhart Tolle, points out to recognize our true nature as Awareness which is by their definition, that which is aware of our experience. 

    However Peter points out that becoming directly conscious of what something is, is not to be confused by being aware of something.

    Being conscious: Directly grasping what something IS (direct)
    Being aware: being aware of experience / perception (non-direct)

    What's your understanding of that? If anyone has directly grasped what something is , for example a cup , how did it differ from being aware of it? ^_^

  22. Posted

    21 hours ago, raphaelbaumann said:

    Mahasamadhi is the end of one of the multiple POV of the One. That's what is ment by ending the universe. Even Leo in the same video says that there will remain the imagination of the suffering of his relatives if he dies.

     

    Absolutely that's also what I would imagine it to be and thanks for clearing it up. The other two possibilities seems absurd. 

    Yet still at 1:50:00 it really sounds like that everything would end but of course the probability that I misinterpret what he said is high.

    1 hour ago, Fran11 said:

    And also you have to understand for yourself insted of taking everything literally or too seriously.

    I totally agree but as for my conceptual understanding of enlightenment this was just a too huge contradiction that I needed to inquire into. But as we discovered, it was probably my fault so sorry for that! 

     

     

  24. Posted · Edited by raphaelbaumann

    3 hours ago, Fran11 said:

    Mahasamadhi is the end of one of the multiple POV of the One. That's what is ment by ending the universe. Even Leo in the same video says that there will remain the imagination of the suffering of his relatives if he dies.

    That's what I would say aswell. But when did Leo say that there will remain the imagination of the suffering of his relatives if he dies/mahasamadhi?