Water by the River

I had to watch the videos from Roger Thisdell several times to get his style of definitions and explaining. Like with most deep stuff that is really good. It is nice to understand several different systems/approaches/path descriptions, makes a more integral approach. I like to see who explained which stages/topics best, and integrate that. I had to read for example Pointing Out the Great Way (at least the important chapters) I guess over 10 times over a period of 10 years+. Every cycle doing that, with more meditation experience, I understood more. One can not do a deep dive on everything, that is why a certain intuition of what is really good/deep/wise/true can be really helpful. Selling Water by the River

So true. A good path can drop one at the doopstep of the Absolute. But there, all concepts fail, all duality must come to an an end, and the last separate self subjectivity/individuality must be seen moving in oneself/transcended and cut off/dropped/died. Only then will ones True Being reveal itself. That is the essence of Mahamudra Nonmeditation Yoga for example. And one throws the stick into the fire when one is there, not before. So good concepts (the stick one later throws into the fire) get one to the doorstep of the Absolute, and for that one must already by very very empty. Neti Neti. A concept like Solipsism is not at all useful for doing that, despite certain partial truths hold valid ONCE having realized the Absolute. But then one doesn't need to talk about. Because there are no others... And one doesn't want to blow up the separate-self-image/narcicissm of "other" perspective that still have the Illusion-separate-self-ego well and alive appearing in their mindstreams with concepts like Solipsism, which just are not true on the level of a ego/separate self still well and alive. Solipsism is a path that leads nowhere, promises things it can't hold, and leads in circles. While Maya lovingly smiles at oneself, enjoying the show, and tells one how much she loves one and how oh so great one is. Neti Neti delivers, and that is why each and every meditation system and spiritual traditions goes that road. Not one system goes the conceptual Solipsism road. Either all that came before must have been iditos (Remember Ken Wilbers: Nobody is smart enough to be wrong all the time), or there is a deep deep truth to the Neti Neti approach, since Humanity has used it ever since. And if one wants to go a certain part of the Solipsism road on ones path, how about doing it with style: We are that reality. When you understand this, you see that you are nothing, and being nothing, you are everything. That is all. - Kalu Rinpoche Selling Water by the River

Just wanted to see if I can communicate something with just copy&past and rearranging the order a bit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-reflection#:~:text=Self-reflection is the ability,the work of William James. Yours truly Wazer by the River

Just personal preference, no truth anywhere.... No difference between anything. all Ego.

Did you already watch Roger Thisdells Videos 4 and 5? If possible and time permits also video 3. I think you will like them. Speaking with the words of Nisargadatta: You have won the grace of your True Nature. Just follow the grace... "but the experience continues to occur, so there is still "something" and it seems always will be": Sure, the visual field and the character will continue doing their thing. Water by the River

Love your profile pic btw. Water by the River

So, lets go through it. Number of Pictures 1 5 9 2 6 10 3 7 11 4 8 12 1: Identity with THAT (That=anything, any CONCEPT. Body-Mind. Ego. World. Whatever. n+1). Roger Thisdell stage 1: 2: Wiping/Process of Transcending the Identity with any self-concept (Body-Mind. Ego. World. God. Whatever. n+1) 3: I AM (identity with being, but nothing specific anymore. "Opaque" witness, not fully empty) Roger Thisdell Stage 2 4: Wiping/Transcending/Killing the BEING anything at all 5: There is still some Identity: I. But nothing specific at all, pretty empty. A pretty empty "Transparent" Witness. Can be quite nondual (One Mind/the whole visual field. One (but a not empty one), united with the nondual visual field. Many Psychedelic Experiences throw one here. Nondual, but not fully empty, Sense of transparent/pretty empty Self/Witness still well and alive. Roger Thisdell stage 3. 6: Wiping/Transcending/Killing the transparent Witness 7: One is No-Self. Nothing. Buuut: Identity with No-Self/Nothing, the perceiving or understanding of being Nothing. Still one arising/subtle identity/concept too much. A Portal to the Absolute. Awareness OF Emptiness. Awareness OF Being. Any Awarness OF is still not fully nondual. Even if Awareness OF Emptiness/Being/Infinite/whatever n+1 . Psychedelics can bring one here, if "one" gets already quite empty, but Individuality (very subtle/murky here) is still there. Roger Thisdells Stage 4: 8/9/10/11: Understanding and letting go even this last self-referential concept/thought/identity 12: Nothing. Pure Suchness. Infinite Consciousness so empty that there is not even a Watcher/Awarerer/Identity with No-Self. Final Enlightenment. Ultimate Reality itself. Only then, daily life is nondual, infinite, enlightened. And the bliss of ones True Being, NOTHINGNESS, flows freely. Really no separate self/individuality left. Only then one is really the whole Enchilada without any filters/lenses/localization of any separate self/individuality. The character keeps continuing doing its thing in ones True Self, Reality itself. The price of that: Any self-reflective awareness of being anything (separate) at all is transcended, and can be seen happening within oneself. Understood, and no longer believed, mostly just cut off (that Illusion again). And that is not even being the "No-Self Self" of Thisdells stage 4, or picture 7. To be fully everything in daily life (fully nondual) without any separation, one needs to be fully nothing at all. Totally empty. Any separate self, however subtle, fully gone. And the last remnants of Individuality or separate self can be very very subtle. Only that gets the permanent bliss and love flowing that has got its home in the Nondual True Self. "We are that reality. When you understand this, you see that you are nothing, and being nothing, you are everything. That is all. Kalu Rinpoche" Roger Thisdell Stage 5 And by the way, any just conceptual identity with anything (The THAT of I am THAT), That=anything, any CONCEPT. Body-Mind. Ego. World. Whatever. n+1), even with God/Reality/whatever, is picture 1 of the path in daily life. I AM THAT (That=God/Reality/whatever). Because it is normally not a nondual awakened state in daily life, but just some ideas taken away from a trip that got one to Nonduality. A hang-over of the trip, while being currently not at all in an awakened or nondual state. And hopefully it is at least this (a hang-over from a trip), and not just some pure conceptual trip without any change in states towards at least a bit awakening, and not just a pure head-trip. And actually a much worser starting place, because the lovely concept of being God blows up ones sense of self (THAT) tremendously. Neti Neti didn't get easier with making THAT bigger than it was before.... Pour encourager les autres.... Sorry Selling Water by the River

Selling Water by the River

... and if one skipps flunks No-Self Awakening, and directly thinks one has become/realized God/Awareness/whatever, every reader can choose for himself if the outcome is a) something like a minor or major https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_complex or b) Realized & enlightened & pretty happy, full of compassion and patience, and bissfully ever after SHARING DA LOVE!!!! . Sorry. But giving a clear example of that is also beneficial. Not for the victim of that little pre-trans-Fallacy (in Ken Wilbers definition, https://integrallife.com/pre-trans-fallacy/), but for the viewers... Anyways, and as always: Bon Voyage on our lovely little trips back home (either of the more or less winded categories), to a home we never really left. Enjoy the ride! Water the River

Yes. But how many Buddhists are enlightened? Its easy to turn emptiness (small e, or nothing) or void into dogma. And Ultimate Reality is void, in the meaning of Nothingness. Which includes Infinite Potential also. Let's use the system of Ken Wilber: The states you mentioned would be classified as Causal States, I assume 5 MeO induced. The one with the void is quite empty, the other one some kind of Whiteout/Infinite Potential, I assume from your description. Obviously IT. So far, so good. How much separate-self elements were still active ("You become aware OF the void", so YOU + OF active, and "because when YOU see THAT"), and how fully nondual that was, I can't tell from the post/text. The thing is, to get it into daily life, the separate self arisings need to be transcended (the YOU/transparent Witness aware OF something). And these are really really subtle at the end. But the Total Emptiness/Nothingness of ones primordial Being has to potential to kill them in the end (or to transcend them, spot them, know them, cut them off). With enough time in the right states. My path was mainly Mahamudra/Dzogchen based. I can not tell you if and how (and with how much time) you can transcend these subtle separate self layers in these states you mention. What I can tell you, that I am not aware of a single case where that worked fully (until the end of the road) only or mainly with Psychedelics. Can be there are, I am not aware of them. My first assumption on the psychedelic path is: Not enough time in these states, and the very/quite empty/subtle"perceiver" OF that obvious Infinity/Whiteout was still there. With OF written in capital letters. And the subtle perceiver can't easily/normally see itself. My second assumption on the psychedelic path is: That the psychedelic-only path doesn't suffice is wanted by the Universe, the construction of Reality. Because to get fully empty sobre, you have to transcend your ego/separate self. It is necessary for mainting/practicing certain states that are necessary for final Realization to become a more compassionate being. Because you need an open and accepting/loving state/heart for these states. If one is not compassionate, one won't get there. Ken Wilber clearly states that also. All traditions have training systems of compassion/love/boddhichitta. And Psychedelics deliver a large part of understanding (Infinity/Whiteout/nondual) reality without change in character necessary. But not the full thing, stable in daily life. And I assume that is not a bug, but a feature. The world doesn't need enlightened "not so loving" people, doing things "not so loving" people do, powered by Enlightenment-states of no more psychological suffering and the like. To get Realization stable in everyday life, that subtle perceiver/Awarer needs to go/transcended, and specifically the OF sth. needs to go. Nondual. In Ken Wilbers System: "Beyond that Infinity, there is an Abyss. Of Nothingness/Emptiness/Shunyata" (Hardcore Concentrative Meditation State, something similiar to Cessation/Nirvikalpa, or maybe also corresponding state accessible via Psychedelics, Of which I don't know, never heard of it. Normallly it stops at the Whiteout/Infinity. From what I assume it is hard to get via this Abyss (if it exists) the separate self killed/transcended via Psychedelics). And even going the hardcore-states-path (psychedelics or hardcore concentrative meditation), that Abyss-Shunyata-Causal-(Cessation)-State dissolves the separate self only after a long time in it, or better said going in and out quite often. Like after Cessations coming out of that Abyss when the separate self "reassembles" again and one can watch how that works. But as you can read in Ingrams Book and Frank Yangs writings, that doesn't work directly to understand the structure of the separate self (but only helps doing so), and is only the beginning of that path, not the end. And also, both (Ingram and Yang) state it is not necessary to got that Cessation-Path. I know cases of the hardcore concentrative systems that have achieved that, but also they started with Hardcore Concentrative Meditations, aiming for Cessations, and later on included elements of the Mahamudra/Dzogchen-Path (BEFORE Enlightenment), see Daniel Ingram and Frank Yang. Both switched to including more Mahamudra/Dzogchen elements/style, or at least integrated elements of it, because the classic Theravada Path Map didn't reflect their experiences, at least not from Path 2 to 4 Theravada Map onwards. see Ingrams Book and Frank Yangs writings. Same with Ken Wilber, who changed after 15 years Zen to Mahamudra/Dzogchen, doing that 15 years. But, as I said, that wasn't my path (Theravada-Path). From my experiences, I would dissolve the separate self systematically and directly (Stage 3 and 4 Mahamudra+Dzogchen), using large parts of daily life for doing that with the right methods, From all I have seen/read/know, that is much more direct, pleasant and efficient. It is very direct, no detours. Can be practices and used efficiently in daily life, and not only/mainly facing the wall on the pillow, Its the method developed&chosen by the Tibetan, who have (arguably) doing that for the longest uninterrupted time with most practitioners and most success. It is also their highest teaching system/method. Hope that helps a bit.... Selling Water by the River

Yup, agree with that. emptiness [small e] in the meaning of nothing, as in opposite of something, is imaginary so to say. At least for me, the usage of Emptiness/Shunyata is more something along these lines, as per my last post: "A good meaning of Emptiness/Shunyata [big E] is (in the opinion of yours truly, in the meaning of "a good meaning/concept brings one closer to realization, not away from it) all is just a construct of mind (emptiness of concepts), and the passing nature of everything (of even empty/void states/cessation/Nirvikalpha) basically, that everything (apperance, state, self-thought/concept-arising, anything at all) is just an imagined arising in the Absolute. Just an apperance, a process, a verb, not a noun, a self-existing substance or thing. It all happens in True Infinite You, nothing is permanent, all changing and in flux. a verb, not a noun. every and each appearance "thing"/arising is finite, temporary, passing. Not the Infinite/Absolute." So the Buddhist usage of Emptiness/Shunyata normally aims not to emptiness in the sense of nothing there or nothing, but more on the transient character of all manifestation/phenomena/arisings (which then could be called imaginary, or temporarily arising IN Reality made OF Reality/Nothingness). And so it also emphasizes the unlimited potential, or infinite potential of the Absolute, or Nothingness. So in that sense it means more Infinite Reality. Although considering THE Emptiness as a thing is then the so called eternalist error, making it a thing. Considering it as non-existent would be the Nihilist error. Its nothing specific, yet it is not nothing. Emptiness/Shunyata is Infinite Reality itself. The Buddhists take the Emptiness perspective, Vedanta takes the Infinite Consciousness perspective. Both are methods to point to Absolute Reality where both Dualities (Something, Nothing) collapse: The Opening of Reality itself, nothing specific that appears (in it), but also not nothing (like in nothing at all). But yeah, I agree with your posts. It is always a question of what one understands under these terms, like emptiness/nothing, or Empitness/Shunyata/ Nothingness/Absolute. There is a lot of "gray area usage" in many articles, and sooo much potential for mutual misunderstanding because of varying use of terms. The Buddhist Emptiness/Shunyata normally is not equated with nothing, but more with the list of items above. But that is just a question how one defines and uses these terms.... Saying the Absolute or True You needs to be fully empty on the other side means exactly that: It/One needs to be nothing at all, Neti Neti gone to the end of full infinite nondual No-Self, else one confuses it with an object/arising. Only when fully empty, it/one can conforms with Nothingness/Absolute, the essence of reality. And that then (when fully empty) can contain everything. Okay, I admit, that post was for the hardcore-aficionados-fraction . Bassui finished his letters always with something like this (to not get anybody get caught up in unnecessary concepts): After reading, throw it into the fire. Same with this post of yours truly... What I want to say is: if one continues with Neti Neti in meditation and practice, one is doing fine, and doesn't associate the Absolute/Nothingness with anything that can be described, pointed to, talked about, has properties, and so on, but PURE indescribably, or being totally infinite (which is the same as totally empty/Empty), then one is also doing fine. One only gets problems when ones Absolute is not fully empty/Emptiness/Nothingness. For example if it changes or has certain properties attributed to it, like the manifested side of Infinite Consciousness/Absolute can have (like God, Gods, Intelligence, Love, whatever n+1). Or even "better", pretty empty remnants of the separate self (empty nondual witness, Awareness "of" sth., and so on). And the Absolute can be fine without any show appearing in it. Empty, Infinite. Cessation/Nirvikalpha/Deep Sleep. Water by the River

Yes, you are right. In most postings I make already have very long musings mainly coming from the Nothingness/Emptiness/Wisdom/Absolute side of the street. That is why I spare the fellow forum members in most cases from even longer posts including the love/compassion/boddhichitta aspect. But these aspects are at least as important, and often more important. Sat-Chit-Ananda. The bliss and love these higher Awakening States contain. The separate self contraction drowning in the flow of love/bliss of the nondual states. Here are two of my favourite poems from Meister Eckhart on Waking Up & God & Love .which I have posted several times, because of the utmost importance of love on the path. Please, take a few minutes and watch them. They are really beautiful. the videos see for example linked in the post below: And below are some further musings on the utmost importance of Compassion &Love&Boddhichitta on the path & beyond. ... That is why in all Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhist training systems compassion has a nearly (or fully) equal status to the training of wisdom, transcendence and Awakening. It is considered as an equal companion, laying the foundation, of wisdom/ transcendence/ Awakening/ Enlightenment. Strange, is it, if the same systems consider all the be an Illusion, a magic show? So why do they do that?.... [More in the link below]. So,I believe our perspectives align quite well. And I believe because there are some deep structures in the process of waking up to ones True Being, like the flow of Sat-Chit-Ananda and Boddhichitta/Love/Compassion that both comes as side-effect of higher states, but also allows keeping these awake states in daily life more easily if the love/compassion-aspect is actively cultivated. There is a lot of practice of love and compassion in Buddhism, like in Tonglen or Metta. At least in Mahayana-systems like Tibetan Buddhism. In Therevada there is also, but with a bit lower importance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonglen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maitrī By the way, yours truly is no way married to Buddhism. I am happy to use anything from any tradition that works & makes sense. Lovely book on the topic is for example "Hixon, L: Coming Home: The Experience of Enlightenment in Sacred Traditions", with Enlightenment Examples ranging from Buddhism, Hinduism, Sufi, Kaballa, Plotinus, I-Ching, Christian Mystics to Vedanta/Advaita like Ramana or Ramakrishna. Its always love and emptiness. Very true. Who knows the spring does not drink from the jar. (Hope that works in English ) Water by the River

A nice post from Frank Yang on Bernadette Roberts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernadette_Roberts ). https://www.instagram.com/p/CsJMKS6uNZf/ True No-Self is not the No-Self of no Ego, or No-Person, not even the No-Self of the Unitive States, or "being" a Nondual/Unitive Infinite (mere appearance) Field (that still contains an awareness (a separate self with individuality is having, subject) of an infinite empty nondual field ("object"), for example induced temporarily by psychedelics). True No-Self is the final death (or transcendece) of any form of the separate self, crossing over to Infinite Fully Empty Impersonal Nothingness/Consciousness, or Full Enlightenment. "There is a reality. We are that reality. When you understand this, you see that you are nothing, and being nothing, you are everything. That is all". - Kalu Rinpoche True No-Self can not be understood before fully waking up, before Great or Final Enlightenment, where any reamaining separate self fully dies/gets transcended, Infinite Impersonal Consciousness unseparable of its appearances arising within in. That last deep identity change is not gradual, but sudden. Unexpected. And has nothing beyond it. The dropping of the separate self can not (by definition) be imagined or understood before it finally happening, see the yellow markings above. Because who would do the imagining? A separate self (in whatever version). Which has to be gone to fully wake up. So the separate self can't do the imagining how it "would be like" to be gone. It is the "thing" doing/being the imagining. "Incapable of conceiving its own non existence", see text above. When one walks down the unitive states road to the end, boosted by Psychedelics, one can end up with forms of solipsism, and even further with an Infinity of Gods. A confusion of that with the Absolute, or Fully Empty Impersonal Infinite Consciousness, certain separate self aspects still left untranscended. Which then kill the unitive and nondual state of this separate self/unity-state-identity/God within an Infinity of Gods/Alien/n+1 when coming out of the trip. Necessary for that confusion (some form of pre-trans confusion to use the wording of Ken Wilber) is, among other confusions, to misidentitfy True No-Self: not True No-Self (the death/transcendence of any and all separate self/Individuality arisings, resulting in fully empty IMPERSONAL Consciousness/Nothingness/Absolute) but with some lower forms of "No-Self", like No-Ego, No-Person, No-separate-body-mind (but nondual), No-Self of Unitive States up to a very subtle and empty transparent Witness (already nondual, being the nondual infinite field), but with some Individuality still left. The last dropping/transcending/-seeing as objects arising in ones True Self- of identity, center, localization, any forms of individuality-arisings, very very subtle feelings or awareness OF Emptiness, OF an infinite universe being seen, awareness OF being, awareness of anything is what finally brings this sudden crossing over to ones Real Identity. Waking up, Enlightenment, fully empty and impersonal Consciousness/Reality. And that is where there is nowhere further to go (no n+1, no new Awakenings), final peace and liberation are to be found. In ones True Identity. And that is why stopping short, and declaring that stopping short (New Awakening n+1) as higher as that crossing over to ones Real Identity (Nothingness), is a dangerous pre-trans-confusion, which doesn't lead to ones True Being and final liberation and the end of suffering, but a continued grasping and suffering for ever higher and newer "Awakenings" not into emptiness/Nothingness, but form/manifestation, and how the manifestation/imagining process is structured. And for those not even walking this (psychedelic-) path, but basking in proliferating mere (retold) concepts or stories about this path, ending in Solipsism and Infinity of Gods, it doesn't even deliver the transcendence and beauty that these unitive and infinite psychedelic states bring. But something on a spectrum ranging from suffering to madness. The spiritual path is the transcendence of the separate self, its death or letting go, once and for all. Neti Neti, until fully being everything, because one has become the real Nothing/ness. Not the blowing up of the separate-self to infinite God-like-solipsistic dimension. That would be the other direction, leading not to freedom and love, but to suffering and closing down. Directly into the cycle of merciless suffering and dissatisfaction, being caught in the prison of the claws of the separate self/ego/self-contraction. That is what makes this pre/trans-confusion (at least in the perspective of yours truly) very very dangerous. And now, for those disagreeing, the Bear-and-Empty-Mirror thing (signature link) please Selling Water by the River PS: And to end a bit "lighter": A Samsara/Lila consisting of separate selves necessarily needs continuing Illusion/Ignorance concerning ones True Identity. So for the fraction that will for sure not change its mind just because there is Water being sold at the River (posting above), and still prefers to continue with a certain solipsistic-messiah complex, yours truly would recommend considering doing it with style: Something like the very charming and apparently very attractive for the ladies - style of Russell Brand: Then, at least, its very charming . Less capital letters, less exclamation-marks, less angry criticism, blaming and calling names, but truck-loads of charm, (especially) with the opposite sex!

Thanks for your message, and don't worry. Every being has its own style. I am just writing what I wished I had earlier. We will see if and for whom that will be beneficial. There is no other way than to communicate in concepts, words and duality here in this forum. Which is what I try to do as good as possible. I am very well aware of the limits of concepts and theory, and the limits of any kind of practice (see below, section/link Nonmeditation Yoga). And don't worry for me confusing the map with the territory. Else I wouldn't write about Nothingness (to kill every concept) or Madhyamaka or, in the final stage, kicking out all doing/meditating/anything at all: Nonmeditation-Yoga: So I appreciate your post, since I myself would have probably considered writing some kind of similiar warning to somebody like yours truly spamming the forum with theory loaded with concepts. Especially if I would have never seen/intuited the internal state of the theory-concept-factory in real life. If we would meet person to person, we would not need to speak a word to understand each other. Water by the River

You also Yimpa Water by the River

Neti-Neti (Vedantic) is a technique used to disidentfy any subject in ones mindstream. I am not this, I am not that. Making it from "being it/subject" to "seeing it/making it an object" moving within onself. Any I-thought and I-feeling can be watched as arisings/objects moving within Oneself. Differentiate, transcend, integrate. Why? Because ones Real Self is TOTALLY empty. Anything one thinks one is has to be made something moving in onself, an object. Or even better: I am not only this. Neti-Neti is the basis/core of all meditation, Buddhist and Vedantic alike. Maybe you like the check Daniel Browns Dissertation on the central meditation system of Yoga (Patanjali), Mahamudra (Tibetan Buddhism), and Theravada. They all have the same "deep structure" of the path, but take views from Emptiness (Buddhism) and Infinite Conciousness (Yoga, Vedantic, Hindu-style). These concepts colour the experiences, but Reality and the outcome of Enlightenment has the same deep structures. But better read directly Pointing Out the Great Way, the Mahamudra system is the most efficient and highest developed system of all of them, according to Daniel Brown. Yours truly can confirm its efficiency from own experience. Madhyamaka ("4 negations" above), the central tenet of Buddhist Philosophy since the Mahayana, basically says: The Absolute is truly Infinite. Or neither existent, nor nonexistent, / Nor both existent and nonexistent, nor neither. One can not describe it in any way, since it transcends and contains all limits. Any "positive" description would limit it. So one can not say it exists. Ex-isting literally means "standing out from reality"[as something specific, discernable]. But the Absolute is Infinite Reality itself, so it can't stand out from itself [as Reality] as something specific. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence from Latin existere, to come forth, be manifest, ex + sistere, to stand. One can not say it doesn't exist, because there clearly are at least perceptions perceiving themselves. There is some kind of show. One can not say its both existing and not existing at the same time. Because that doesn't make sense. And to rule out the last option: one can not say it neither exists nor doesn't exist. That also doesn't make sense. And Buddhism does this Madhyamaka-thing pretty much ever since to avoid any funny idea/concept being put on the Absolute, like Consciousness, God, Love, whatever, n+1. Sure, God is so to say the first manifestation, and love is also the essence of it all. But its too easy to project that on the Absolute, and make it not fully empty or infinite. Which then prevents its full realization. To say the essence of everything is God or Love is fully ok, because that refers already to something manifested, something, something no longer infinite. Emptiness/Shunyata wants to make sure that one doesn't identify anything positive with either ones True Self, nor the Absolute. Empty it out. Or make it fully infinite. Of course, Emptiness again can be made to something "self-existing". Like a state of void/emptiness, or cessation, or Nirvikalpha Samadhi. Then, it is said one has to empty out emptiness: The void is also just a state, something self-existing. It all appears in the Infinite. Emptiness as concept or theory has been used in Buddhism "to death", in many different, often incorrect usages. A good meaning of emptiness/Shunyata is (in the opinion of yours truly, in the meaning of "a good meaning/concept brings one closer to realization, not away from it) all is just a construct of mind (emptiness of concepts), and the passing nature of everything (of even empty/void states/cessation/Nirvikalpha) basically, that everything (apperance, state, self-thought/concept-arising, anything at all) is just an imagined arising in the Absolute. Just an apperance, a process, a verb, not a noun, a self-existing substance or thing. It all happens in True Infinite You, nothing is permanent, all changing and in flux. a verb, not a noun. every and each appearance "thing"/arising is finite, temporary, passing. Not the Infinite/Absolute. Now comes the funny part: Since the Absolute is also NOT Emptiness, the Hindus use the term Infinite Consciousness. Which is also correct, once its fully empty and impersonal. One can more easily project unncessary properties on Infinite Consciousness than on Emptiness/Shunyata. But Shunyata sounds like Nihilism, which also isn't IT. Basically IT/Absolute is Infinite Reality or Infinite Consciousness itself, with potential for sentience if something manifests (perceptions perceiving themselves, that is why it is not Nothing, and has infinite Potential), but at the same time it is not something, because if it would be something, it couldn't be everything. It would not be infinite, but finite and limited. If you are so inclined to read a long post of yours truly, Nothingness is in my humble opinion the best pointer (a term coined by Andrew Halaw): Sounds complicated and paradoxical, but after having passed certain awakening states, only these views makes sense (in that they are able to translate ones new awakening experiences in ways that make sense, or facilitate further growth/transcendence). Then, its no more paradoxical at all. So, if you are so inclined get some nondual experiences, sobre or not, get pretty empty yourself, and see for yourself what you truly really are.... Selling Water by the River

very nice. Thank you for this posting. If we continue like this, we will reinvent confirm the Madyamaka-Doctrine here in the forum . Or get our concept/pointers to "the" Absolute fully empty, and with that fully infinite, with no more overlays of any quality limiting IT. So that "it" can really be unlimited infinite Ultimate Reality. Or the True Oneself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhyamaka " The nature of ultimate reality Main article: Śūnyatā According to Paul Williams, Nāgārjuna associates emptiness with the ultimate truth but his conception of emptiness is not some kind of Absolute, but rather it is the very absence of true existence with regards to the conventional reality of things and events in the world.[45] Because the ultimate is itself empty, it is also explained as a "transcendence of deception" and hence is a kind of apophatic truth which experiences the lack of substance.[3] Because the nature of ultimate reality is said to be empty, empty even of "emptiness" itself, both the concept of "emptiness" and the very framework of the two truths are also mere conventional realities, not part of the ultimate. This is often called "the emptiness of emptiness" and refers to the fact that even though madhyamikas speak of emptiness as the ultimate unconditioned nature of things, this emptiness is itself empty of any real existence.[46] The two truths themselves are therefore just a practical tool used to teach others, but do not exist within the actual meditative equipoise that realizes the ultimate.[47] As Candrakirti says: "the noble ones who have accomplished what is to be accomplished do not see anything that is delusive or not delusive".[48] From within the experience of the enlightened ones there is only one reality which appears non-conceptually, as Nāgārjuna says in the Sixty stanzas on reasoning: "that nirvana is the sole reality, is what the Victors have declared."[49] Bhāvaviveka's Madhyamakahrdayakārikā describes the ultimate truth through a negation of all four possibilities of the catuskoti:[50] Its character is neither existent, nor nonexistent, / Nor both existent and nonexistent, nor neither. / Centrists should know true reality / That is free from these four possibilities. Atisha describes the ultimate as "here, there is no seeing and no seer, no beginning and no end, just peace.... It is nonconceptual and nonreferential ... it is inexpressible, unobservable, unchanging, and unconditioned."[51] Because of the non-conceptual nature of the ultimate, according to Brunnholzl, the two truths are ultimately inexpressible as either "one" or "different".[52] " or, in other words, truly Infinite and limitless. Selling Water by the River

Yes, understand & agree. " the absence of limitation is absolute life, absolute freedom, absolute love, because it includes everything . whoever realizes the absolute is the only one that exists, but his infinity excludes any solitude. there is no other, but as in a game of mirrors, there are infinite perspectives. you cannot understand it in a linear or superficial way". That is beautiful. And the "one" who realizes the Absolute is gone... replaced by the Infinite Totality that was always already the case. The previous separate self is seen through/transcended/emptied out/dead. A functional character remaining, but the separate self gone. Because how could IT be the Infinite Totality when "anything" separate or individual/individuality still arise&moves in it.... That is why some say no one realizes the Absolute, and that there can not be an enlightened person. I use Nothingness in the definition of Andrew Halaw, to contrast it with Nothing. Nothing has a opposite: Something. Nothingness is neither existence nor non-existence. Madhyamaka-style. Neither existing nor non-existing, nor both, nor neither. Infinite. Infinite Consciousness, or the One without a second. But that already says too much "positive" about "It". Andrew Halaw in "God is Nothingness": "This book is about Nothingness, the great Void of the holy sages, not to be confused with the nothing of the ordinary person. Silence. A blank page or space in a book. A shout. Slapping the table or thumping the floor. These are all expressions of the ineffable truth that is theuniversal nature of reality. Since there is no way to directly capture the highest truth with language, all we can do is point to it. And “Nothingness” is the best verbal pointer that I have found." In the beginning, there was only Nothing. Now there is only Nothing. In the end, there will be only Nothing. There always was, is, and only ever will be Nothing. God is Nothingness Christ is Nothingness Buddha is Nothingness The Tao is Nothingness Brahman is Nothingness The Absolute is Nothingness Nothingness is neither something nor the common nothing; it is the Great Nothing, the eternal, magnificent, all-encompassing Nothingness that transcends being, yet is the ground from which existence itself arises. In truth, there is only Nothingness, for nothing else ever was. Beings suffer because they do not understand Nothing. Intoxicated by their senses and minds, they chase mirages, construct temples, conduct empty rituals, pursue wealth and status, believing that there is something —meaning, purpose, salvation— to attain. Fools are slaves to their senses and thoughts, caught in the snare of form and desire, unaware that all things arise from Nothingness, abide as Nothingness, and return to Nothingness. For nothing has ever happened. Existence and appearance are flashes of Nothingness superimposed upon Nothingness. There are no beings, no worlds, no minds, no consciousness, no souls, no events, no time, no space, no Buddha, no Christ, no Self, no God. There is only the not-‘that’ That— the Great, Magnificent Void, the womb of all existence. NOTHINGNESS. Bound by neither space nor time, Nothingness is dimension-less, time-less, and form-less. The Void is unborn, unoriginated, unconditioned, and deathless, neither coming nor going, ‘creating’ nor destroying, rewarding nor punishing. It has never set anything in motion nor caused anything to happen. Ultimately, there is only Nothing, which is the final and only truth. Nothingness cannot be seen with eyes, nor heard with ears, tasted with the tongue, smelt with the nose, felt by the body, or known by the mind. Do not look for it with your senses or mind, for the Void is beyond color, sound, smell, taste, touch, form, and thought. Transcend them and realize that you are truly Nothing, that in reality there is only Nothing. Then you are free to dance and play on the waves of Nothingness. " and " Nothingness is not sheer blankness, yet neither is it being-ness the way that we ordinarily understand existence; it is the source and true nature of all beings. This is the “vast emptiness, nothing holy” of Bodhidharma, the legendary founder of Ch’an, Sǒn, and Zen Buddhism. Consciousness is neither present nor absent in Nothingness, for Nothingness is actually the root of consciousness. In truth, there is no such thing as consciousness; there is only Nothingness. Consciousness is instantiated Nothingness, as is all of existence. Frightened dullards, clinging to notions of existence, call Nothingness “nihilism,” unaware that Nothing is the exact opposite of deathly sterility; Non-being is the great womb from which everything arises, abides, and eventually returns. From a Buddhist perspective, “Emptiness is not a negative idea, nor does it mean mere privation, but as it is not in the realm of names and forms, it is called emptiness, or nothingness, or the Void” (Suzuki 60). Sunyata, as Nothingness can be called in Buddhism, or Tao in Taoism, sustains everything, including consciousness. It is the vast, empty void of Non-existence that the Buddha calls Nirvana, meaning “extinction” of all ‘being.’ It is what Nisargadatta Maharaj points to when he speaks of ‘Universal Consciousness’ or what Huang Po calls ‘Mind.’ Nothingness is prior to consciousness, as it is is with all phenomena. This is why Huang Po says, “Mind in itself is not mind” (Blofeld 34), meaning that the mind is truly understood only when its own emptiness is realized. For mind is Nothingness occurring as consciousness. When this is properly realized, mind become Mind with a capital “M,” not in the sense that some latent quality has been discovered that it is somehow beyond all conditioning, like some eternal super Consciousness or Witness at the base of our mind; but in the sense that when we realize our own universality as Nothingness, we awaken to our own unlimited nature. This is what sages mean when they talk about “primordial consciousness”; it is the realization that our minds transcend beingness alone, by extending into the core nor Non-being, into Nothingness itself. The mind, in effect, is simultaneously limitless (transcendent) and viscerally present (immanent). Hence, Nisargadatta calls it “Universal Consciousness” to express the insight into the universal Nothingness of our minds. Nothingness creates, supports, animates, and eventually recalls everything, yet is not bound to any single thing. It is the stars, but not limited to them. It is the earth and all of its inhabitants, but is not confined to them. Nothingness is the true nature of all existence. The Buddha, the Awakened One, is also called Tathata, meaning, “One who has arrived at suchness,” suchness being another term for the ineffable, mysterious reality of Nonbeing, sunyata, or Nothingness. We have risen from Nothingness, and to Nothingness we shall return. Therefore, ultimately there is no movement or nothing that ever happens, for everything is in fact Nothingness. “That which is before you is it, in all its fullness, utterly complete” (37). And yet the world continues to change and transform; the seasons come and go; people are born, grow old and die. Nothing changes and yet everything happens. Divinity expresses itself as an acorn, a mustard seed, a lump of coal. Humans, including their toils and vices, are all manifestations of the wondrous Nothingness. “Nothing[ness] is the inexhaustible, suprasensible power underlying all finite beings,” “the emptiness from which all beings are forged” (Chen 90, 92). Nothingness sings as birds, sighs as the wind, breathes as humans, and knows as mind. Once this is realized, there is nothing to worry about, for everything is an expression of Nothing. As the seminal Buddhist scripture, the Heart Sutra, says, “Form is Emptiness; Emptiness is Form.” Your truest nature is Nothingness. Mind and consciousness are in fact Nothingness. This is why Ch’an Master Linji called the Enlightened being a “person of no rank,” someone who can come and go freely. “No rank” means no fixed limitation, free and vast as the sky, bound by neither ‘being’ nor even Non-being. This is the infinite Nothingness of the sages. " and, maybe most important, Appendex I: Nothingness (Infinite Consciousness) has the potential for sentience/awareness, to have awareness arise if an "object"-arising happens. Or perceptions perceiving themselves, with our without separate-self arisings. So it is not Nothing, like in nothing at all. But infinite potential + potential for sentience of "that". See also Benthinos Water-Pistol emerging/manifested in an infinite empty vastness. " Appendix I Some readers may be wondering why I say that awareness is not the Absolute, despite the fact that so many ancient scriptures and eminent teachers say that they are identical. For instance, Nisargadatta taught that consciousness is rooted in (and therefore limited to) the physical human form, while awareness transcended the individual body and was actually the Absolute—that everything is Universal Consciousness. This is more of an instructive approach than a philosophical commitment. If pressed as to whether the Absolute is awareness or not, I would say, like Huang Po did, that, “Mind is not mind, yet neither is it no-mind.” In Nothingness, there is some degree of awareness present—it is not how most people imagine brain death—albeit unconditioned, object- and subjectless. The Consciousness (for lack of a better word) of Non-being is so subtle that the moment we try to reflect upon it to check if we are conscious, we are jarred back into ‘being’ and into our ordinary dualistic consciousness. I hesitate even to call this experience “pure subjectivity,” for that invites a metaphysical position that I am not willing to support. In the end, to paraphrase Socrates, all that I know is Nothing. This Consciousness has shed all of the characteristics that people normally identify with awareness, such as perspective, spatial and temporal contexts, objects, ownership, etc. Yet, if there were no awareness, then it would be impossible to differentiate the numinous Nothingness from how people conventionally conceive of blankness or being comatose. Personally, I think that differentiating between Nothingness and consciousness is helpful, and that is my ultimate goal—to help people realize Non-being or Absolute Consciousness. At that point, I can care less whether people call it Nothingness, God, Brahman, Buddha Nature, One Mind, Universal Consciousness, or a kangaroo. Names at that point, after the Absolute has been realized, are insignificant. " Since this is the first thread I started myself, I allow myself the liberty to blow it up with a waaaay to long ramling like the one above. Hope nobody minds... Selling Water by the River

thank you

Very good. Please excuse the addition of my further musings below... Perceptions perceiving themselves. And no "You" or Consciousness or Consciousness "of" anything/anyone anywhere to be found... "You are Experience holding the body, somewhere in the field." And the next step can be to see that there is no "You" in "You" are Experience". Just experience arising in Nothingness, made out of Nothingness as its essence. Impersonal. Empty. A brooding silent Abyss of pure Nothingness/Consciousness. Infinite Silence, never to be seen as object. Yet, always here. Not No-thing, but never anything perceiveable. Yet all appearances arising in "it". Not existing, nor non-existing. Experiencing itself, as itself, being itself, infinite. One without a second. Nondual. "Time,Past and future" and "outside of IT" being just ideas/concepts arising in it. (the idea/concept of Solipsism by the way also). The only Infinite Reality (One without a second) in which any arising/concept can appear at all... "You are Experience holding the body, somewhere in the field." is already a "you" too much. But that is probably what you meant anyway, and "I" am adding redundant musings... > And you are holding all bodies too, you solipsistic asshole. ? . And your body-mind is being held in the perspectives of "others" when these perspectives are perceiving your bodymind, and in their perspective are only the illusions arisings of "their" separate-selfes (I-thoughts, I-feelings) arising. In Infinite Nothingness. All appearance being held in Indras Net of Infinite Perspectives. Nothingness perceiving its own arisings. Arisings with the same essence of Nothingness. And there can be nothing besides "this" Infinite Nothingness, Impersonal Empty Infinite Consciousness/Nothingness. Because anything "else" would appear in it, any boundary (which would be necessary for "anything" else) would appear within it. Selling Water by the River

To awaken is definitely not just the "acceptance of Truth" (a concept), as you literally write in the quote above. Awakening is a change in state, for example the visual field getting nondual and infinite, and the "externalness" and "solidity" is replaced with unity and mere appearance. Along with this unmistakenable state-change there is a change in brainwaves, for example more gamma-activity. And its a change in self-identity, towards the "subject" becoming more empty/nothing/transcending. If one changes these states (for example nondual) often and long enough, these states tend to get permanent (transformation), supported by a more empty self-identity, until at one point one is both Nothing/Nothingness, and everything, the infinite nondual field. But what Awakening definitely not is: Just a change in the way of thinking, just a change in the way which concepts are used, and promoting these concepts (for example Solipsism) in an agressive way, and declaring awakening is just believing/accepting these concepts/ an "acceptance" of truth. That is what you are doing, and selling/promoting. Or where is your call to actually do the work, practice and meditate, and really transcend the separate self? Not just a call for different thinking and concepts (Solipsism,...), but an actual practice to induce these awakened states? Most of what I see you doing is promoting certain conceptual concepts/ideas/worldviews (mainly circling solipsictic concepts/worldviews), and harshly attacking anybody who has different concepts/worldviews. How is that different from what all other "nonspiritual" people are doing anyways? Defending their conceptual world-views, and attacking anybody who thinks differently in more or less open or subtle way, because its a threat to their own ego? A change in thinking/concepts is easy, everybody can do it. But if one doesn't have the corresponding awakened nondual states on which these changes of identity are based on, one is just doing wishful conceptual thinking. Replacing one ego/worldview with another, a horizontal move, not a vertical transformation of transcending the separate self. And that transcending is way harder than to just change ones thinking/separate-self/ego-concept. It means to sit down and practice for a long time (in whatever way, for example meditation) to actually induce these states of awakening. And these states then transform ones identity on a deep level. Selling Water by the River

Of course Peter Ralston is enlightened. It is clear as daylight when you read his books. Water by the River

Yes. As with most stuff, a significant part humanity tends to learn only with suffering, not with insight. But lets try to minimize the trainwrecks... some will understand and avoid dangers in any case (mixture of intuition, intelligence and Karma/tendencies). some will never get it (future trainwrecks). and a large area in between. These are open for influence from outside, in both ways... Water by the River

Agree to your post. But on the quote I am not sure. The path to Enlightenment (by definition) is full of traps and cul-de-sacs/dead ends. Else, everybody starting it would end up enlightened. The whole Lila is structured to keep the show going, and the separate self illusion well and alive. That is not because God is evil, but to get a good show going with characters, the characters better have to believe the show is real... So, on the potential "fast-lane" psychedelic path, what to build in as hard to spot cul-de-sac? Of course a seductive kiss from Maya, when she whispers in ones ear how awesome, unique and infinite and God-like "one" is. It is just a trap, but a veeeery seductive one, especially in certain states. But no better Karma than having as little Narcicissm as possible. Yet, I hypothesize that for certain tasks/paths/innovations, pioneers that tend more towards the narcissistic end of the spectrum are plain and simple necessary. Because its always way easier to stay in the pack, than to be a pioneer... Takes a lot of self-confidence and being convinced of oneself to go where not many have been before. There is a very inspiring section in Kapleaus Three Pillars of Zen that stayed in my memory: Written by Harada-Roshi on the Enlightenment Yaeko, wo got Full Enlightenment a few days before dying from sickness. She went very fast through the initial symptoms of her Great/Full Enlightenment, getting very fast over her astonishment and "Enlightenment-High", because of being "one as gentle as she". Harada said that his own "Enlightenment-sickness" lasted almost 10 years. "An ancient Zen saying has it that to become attached to one’s own enlightenment is as much a sickness as to exhibit a maddeningly active ego. Indeed, the profounder the enlightenment, the worse the illness. In her case I think it would have taken two or three months for the most obvious symptoms to disappear, two or three years for the less obvious, and seven or eight for the most insidious. Such symptoms are less pronounced in one as gentle as she, but in some they are positively nauseating. Those who practice Zen must guard against them. My own sickness lasted almost ten years. Ha!" And the same of course also holds true before Enlightenment. Self-Importance is seen like a spiritual disease in Tibetan Buddhism, only holding one back, glued to suffering and Samsara. Because self-importance is just not correct, its an illusion. If ones True Being is the whole infinite thing, how could one separate thing/separate self be more important, more "anything", than another part? Selling Water by the River