The0Self

Member
  • Content count

    3,587
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About The0Self

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Location
    USA
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

4,388 profile views
  1. Enlightenment would be the apparent end of the illusory dualistic subject object reality in which a real someone explores a world out there. There isn't anyone looking at your screen, there's just this singular appearance, but it's only an appearance, it's not limited by circumstance, and isn't true. But no one ever becomes conscious of that, because there is no separation. Enlightenment is just the truth, it has nothing to do with happiness and mindfulness, but it will be associated with no beliefs being taken as real, but it's not that there's someone left experiencing their beliefs as not real, there's just no context to the limitless appearance.
  2. He's doing great work, but the truth is simpler and more mind-blowing. It's still only a pointer and a story, but... You are infinity, or absolutely nothing, longing for its own absence -- i.e. something. So you imagine something (else). But where you now seem to be, in that apparent duality, is still just nothing, but there is the apparent claim that there is someone where that nothing is. And out of that apparent someone is the longing for its own absence as well, which is futile because it's already the case -- that someone is nowhere to be found, already.
  3. He's rather intelligent is all. Not anti-spiritual, just ignorant of what enlightenment is. Only seems to be materialistic due to him not having transcended his own skepticism. He's stated many times that the fact that something seems to be, is the one thing that can't be an illusion -- this means he's at least not completely ideologically attached to materialism as an ultimate ground. You can get a good picture of his take on spirituality by listening to his Jim Newman and Rupert Spira conversations. In the Spira conversation it's clear he's confused about the non-assuming nature of the nondual-consciousness-only model. And in the Newman conversation it's clear that he confuses enlightenment with samadhi, concentration, detachment, mindfulness, and higher states of consciousness. He's fairly pragmatic (as opposed to truth-seeking) with spirituality, and isn't quite aware of how enlightenment works. I always liked him a lot -- really eloquent with his speech; fun to listen to -- even though he sometimes drops the ball on politics (e.g. the Charles Murray stuff, depending on who you ask)... but even so, he seems to be a very honest and intelligent actor. He deals with practical spirituality and while I think he does good work, he does imply that he is sometimes talking about enlightenment, but in reality he has absolutely no clue what enlightenment is. Basically he primarily seems to be into becoming more mindful and wieldy with the mind.
  4. This comes out of the experience of separation. You are attacking a straw man. It is perfectly logical, what you’re saying...if only it related to what we’re talking about here. Nonduality does not mean only my mind exists, nonduality points to there being no mind, and no self... and no other; no separation; no context; no reality; no knowing; no one separate from this; no this; no need; no condition; no limit; no thing. Only truth... which cannot be actually objectively or certainly known, but is apparently directly and doubtlessly known. If nonduality is apparently seen, all that’s left is what is happening — not what is happening apparently in an exclusive here and now, but rather what is happening anywhere/everywhere and whenever/eternally/timelessly, but obviously nobody is aware of that. Solipsism as you recognize it is a caricature form of solipsism which is unrelated to the solipsism that merely points to truth.
  5. No one is affected by what appears. But, and in a sense more importantly, there’s no one who isn’t affected by what appears. There’s no separation between the appearance and consciousness — as in, those aren’t even two things.
  6. The research is a mere shadow of what can be gleamed from it in direct experience through daily meditation. Especially using a proven system like TMI or TWIM to start out with before you start going your own way with it.
  7. There's no my this and your this, there's only this, and no you or me, only God. All there is to the wave (appearance) is the water (consciousness), the wave isn't actually something there that could even be separate from or not separate from water. There are no separate things -- it's an illusion.
  8. Nothing wrong with seeking out positive experiences -- even after enlightenment this can happen. But as you alluded to it wouldn't be seen as a gain for what you are, since there is only wholeness. It can sort of involve a trading of the suffering/happiness cycle for the joy/peace cycle. Maybe ask the reactive imaginary ego (who may pretend to be you) "and then what?" to the "and then I'll truly be happy" trap, if it arises.
  9. If there were no self left there might not even be a holding back of these feelings and even their expression. You're afraid of what it would mean for you to act out in these ways emotionally, creating a non-flow-state -- coming from a perspective wherein some things are better than other things, which is the character suit and it's natural in that even it isn't a real problem. This isn't prescriptive just descriptive.
  10. But everything in the dream state is ultimately bullshit anyway so as long as one realizes that they're at least not too far off lol. And yeah if one thinks they're enlightened, especially if one thinks they might be enlightened, that's obscuring that the Self is already realized. It has always just been this -- so there's no enlightenment... That's enlightenment. It's tricky though because generally this is not seen, and that is the imaginary bondage.
  11. (never seen entities on psychedelic) ^^ While many may consider this very strange, I actually only really encountered entities on psych's in my early 20's and late teens. Later on there were no entities ever -- just a huge boost in consciousness, mystical union, and God-realization -- in a sense, taking full responsibility for the appearance of everything; non-abiding no-other-ness.
  12. Yeah I was just throwing it out there. It’s not that kind of fantasy, at least not one that I identify with. I don’t actually long for it, I’ve just witnessed just this seemingly almost starting to appear in my life but it was far off and definitely wouldn’t have happened (and names are obviously changed). Just expressing it to explore the topic of primary and secondary partners if anyone here has experienced something like that. I haven’t really either. And I don’t even know if anyone has (successfully) — just curious to find out. 😊 What it is though, is a vision of how things could have turned out with a whole bunch of synchronicities taking place incidentally. I don’t regret not having the experience, it’s just vivid and it got me curious if anyone else has experienced something similar — not that anything is necessarily to be gained. i.e. not a personal thing for my benefit in any way. Just distributing a bit of discussion potential. Not for any serious purpose and especially not my purpose.
  13. I have primary partner, Elen, who herself has secondary partner John. And I have secondary partner Trina, who has primary partner John. All four partners have both a primary and secondary partner of the opposite sex (all are essentially heterosexual but Elen is slightly bi and Trina is slightly bicurious but currently hasn’t come to terms with that, and both the guys are quite straight but not homophobic). And the two women are both secondary (perhaps tertiary) partners, and the guys are as well but not sexually. Wonder how this would play out 😂 Just to be clear this is only a fantasy. But I do wonder how the dynamics would play out. Surely it’s been done at least once by some quartet at some point 😂
  14. It’s so sneaky and twisted, that it’s actually insurmountable. If it is apparently surmounted, inquiries aren’t even answered — the framework in which they actually made sense is nowhere to be found.
  15. Nice! It is entirely already directly seen that movement is completely still. Since that is always the case, it isn’t noticed. Like a fish forgetting what water is.