Osaid

Right, but it is odd for someone to change ideologies so often like it's a new pair of clothes. Never seen it before. An ideological chameleon. It's like they don't even take their own ideas seriously. But at the same time I don't think they are trolling. They're not transcending ideologies, they are just changing it a lot.

Bro adopts a new ideology every other week

I would say there is no difference between my realization and VeganAwake's realization, both are enlightenment, but the way he teaches it is by pointing to no-self a lot. I barely even mention "no-self" when I try to teach other people about it because I feel like most people already have ideas about what "no-self" means which are incorrect. There are many different ways to point people to it though. No-self is one way of describing it. I have no idea about the other two, can't say if they got it or not. Galyna's recent thread seemed to be on point but it was also very poetic which made it hard to interpret. I don't remember anything concrete about Moksha.

For the record, I think it's totally valid to look for objective markers on enlightenment like you're trying to do. It may or may not even be possible to see it on a brain scan. Some people theorize it can be detected in the default mode network in the brain. My claim is that any enlightened person will be able to vouch for the symptoms I mentioned, although they might describe it a bit differently. It actually takes a lot of effort to figure out and verbalize what actually happens to you post-enlightenment, so that is also an extra complication.

Forget oneness. That is just an idea for you. It means nothing. Just figure out what you are. What is your experience of yourself? That seems reasonable for the most part. A lot of unpleasant emotions after enlightenment is literally just me assimilating other people's pain or self-image, because I still don't want to hurt people obviously, and my words and actions can hurt them. But it is also possible to overdo that if you ruminate on their pain incessantly, for example. You can't imagine their pain, but you can help them with it. It does not help them to imagine their pain, what helps them is what actually exists and what you can actually do about it. Focusing on that is the greatest help you can give them.

That is because it is fundamentally subtractive in nature. It is realizing what you aren't, which leaves you at what you actually are. You can't point to it because it is a removal of belief/imagination. It is not a thing, it is like trying to describe negative space. A lack of something can exist in all states, which is why enlightenment is also in all states, and that is also exactly why it is not a state/experience.

It happens at once. It's a single realization. There might be psychological baggage or trauma stored up in your body that releases itself afterwards, but all of that happens only after the initial realization and it naturally calibrates itself. You basically have to learn what life and emotions really are again. I think if it does happen, the best way to verify is just to look at your perception of time, do you still feel that you are afflicted by time? Examining your relationship with boredom/angst is good too: Do you feel that there is something outside of your experience which is "better" than your current experience? There is a lot of insight and experiences that can come before it, which you could call "awakenings" or "kensho" or "enlightenment experiences", which can be helpful and useful. They are like breadcrumbs which give a glimpse of enlightenment. They are part of the process. But it all essentially leads to a single permanent recontextualization or realization.

It would be impossible for them to feel insulted because there is no self-image. They literally cannot think about themselves anymore because they realize it was impossible to do in the first place. There is no social anxiety or anxiety of any kind, all unpleasant emotions are entirely situational, they have nothing to do with a person or object. Energy levels become better as well. Sleep quality increases. Incessant thought-creation takes up a lot of energy. It is impossible to have nightmares, your dreams become very vanilla. You are enlightened in the dream state as well, there is no feeling of anxiety or impending doom as you would have in a nightmare. Your sleep also becomes very deep. Dreams only happen when you are entering into sleep or exiting out of sleep. Your perception of time also completely vanishes. There is no feeling of time, aside from telling yourself a number or word like "9:30 AM" or "Thursday." You also don't feel boredom anymore, not in the conventional sense at least. There is absolutely no experience of "I can't believe im stuck in this experience." That type of boredom does not happen, but there can be a desire to change experience. All emotions essentially get recontextualized to be purely situational. The emotion is a reaction to something you are currently experiencing, which does not include self-image. Experientially, for me, it was like my experience, or mind, became much more "lighter" or clearer or lucid. Kind of like some slight brain fog lifted that I never noticed before. Just for example, when I go in public, it just feels like my experience is so smooth and free, whereas before I was constantly being attacked by other people's perceptions and thoughts (which were actually just my own). I have heard accounts of other enlightened people saying that they felt something in their brain "deactivate." This is accompanied by an immediate experiential recontextualization in experience, which is what you could say enlightenment is. And it is permanent. You don't unlearn it because it is not something you learn, it is the result of unlearning something. It is subtractive in nature. You don't integrate it because it is experiential, in the same way that you don't need to integrate looking at the color red. You just experience red, you don't integrate it. You just experience enlightenment, you don't integrate it.

Good chat

You can see that Leo is delusional, which is miles ahead than most here. I am also very intellectual. Self-inquiry is great for those types.

True. There's a difference between being intellectual and being good at thinking. I meant to say the former, sloppy wording on my part. I really do believe he has run into the limits of thinking and intellect as a whole though. That is what it looks like when you try to get enlightened through philosophy and intellect. Just formulaic tautologies and chasing experiences forever.

Peace

To get you up to speed, he doesn't even believe in non-duality or enlightenment anymore. 🤭 He's very good at thinking. That's why he is in his current position, lost in intellect.

Oh I see, you're saying philosophy is important for enlightenment. Had to read between the lines a bit there. Philosophy isn't all bad, but the way you're using it is all intellectual and it is a red herring. I told you to knock yourself out. See where it takes you. I am enlightened.

He may have said what Osho was talking about, but he certainly does not understand it. I have said this before, but Leo is still a philosopher first and foremost. He is philosophizing about experience, he is not examining experience. What I mean is that he is creating intellectual conclusions about experience. Philosophy pushes you to question experience, yes, that part is fine. But the intellectual conclusions you make are also considered philosophy, and they are a red herring. Self-inquiry is what I would consider to be "using philosophy/intellect properly", but I don't even know if that is considered philosophy or not. I think it could be considered epistemology.

That's basically what I was trying to say. There is nothing that can resemble Truth because Truth is entirely unique to itself. If you use the word "spirituality" as some sort of category or resemblance then that would be incorrect. But, you can use more neutral words like "enlightenment" or "truth" to point to it. Depends on how you define it. People define stuff differently. I'm going to be honest, the definition for "spirituality" on google seems entirely nebulous and useless, and practically speaking I doubt anyone is using it "correctly." Everyone probably has their own definition for it. I am just trying to highlight that if the term you are using creates ideas about the thing, then that is incorrect. If the word you use defines itself in a way where it is neutral and creates no ideas, then it is serving its purpose as a pointer in language.

You could trace anyones enlightenment back to any number of events. But that event or process is completely unrelated to what causes it. What causes it is entirely experiential, it is not thought-based. Self-inquiry is a process for finding enlightenment, but it is not enlightenment and it is not directly related. This is exactly why someone can become enlightened without self-inquiring or philosophizing. Philosophy in particular is a complete red herring if you think it is bringing you to some existential conclusion about reality. Leo does not make the same point. Leo is criticizing the quality of philosophy. Osho is telling you to throw it away completely. To this day, Leo is still completely lost in intellect and philosophy.

If you have any kind of ideas about spirituality, then yes it is unrelated. "Truth" is just unique to itself.

By the way, no idea if he was, I've only seen him talk about non-dual stuff. So can't confirm or deny. I just find it irrelevant.

That is unrelated to his point. I can be a painter, but I am not gonna tell you that painting leads you to Truth or non-duality.

Speak for yourself. Truth is unrelated to philosophy. Philosophy is still ultimately intellect, although perhaps a more subtle form of it. When used to understand reality, all philosophy leads to is solipsism and other forms of intellectual stagnation. I've already spent enough time running around philosophizing and I have realized its limits. Knock yourself out though.

Both statements make an equal amount of sense. They are not applicable here. I love language and I use it all the time. You are using it in a way where it points to nothing. It is just intellectual stagnation. It only exists in intellect. That is what I am trying to point out. In the same way that the word "incorrect" points to something that doesn't exist, the idea of "incorrect" only exists as an intellectual idea, it is not experienced as something aside from an idea. That is what I am trying to point out. It is intellectual in nature. You are trying to apply intellect to something that isn't intellect, like someone who tries to measure temperature with a ruler instead of a thermometer. You are using a duality, "thought", to point to everything/existence. It is impossible and means nothing. Thought is the word for thought. You are saying "thought = everything" and I am saying that is not what "thought" points to, that actually defeats its definition.

Thought is a subset of experience. It is not experience. It is an abstraction of experience. You are mistaking the map for the territory. The word "thought" points to a duality, but you use it to point to everything. Again, this is how you are mistaking the map for the territory. I am not saying experience is not one thing. You are just trying to create non-duality through intellect, that won't work. Your idea of non-duality is not how it actually works. You are making a tautology through your intellect where you say "thought = everything." This is meaningless. I could also say "banana = everything" and that could be just as true.

No. It is purely intellectual and does not exist. Your entire life is based on direct experience. Now think back to all the times you've deluded yourself. Be careful!

It absolutely isn't. You guys are defining thought/mind in some weird way where it includes your entire experience or something. Just another intellectual tautology you guys are creating. No-self is not the origin of anything. No-self tells you that there is nothing sourcing or originating your experience. This does not mean that your experience is hollow or without interpretation, that itself is a backstory/interpretation which still exists in thought and intellect. When I say nothing is sourcing your experience, I am talking about actual nothing, not non-existence. There is a difference between nothing and non-existence. Non-existence is still intellectual. The visual image of a face is a visual image, and the sound of a voice is a sound, and they will always be experientially different than a thought. It does not matter where they come from, that is irrelevant to your experience of them.