Water by the River

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    1,041

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Water by the River

  1. Posted · Edited by Water by the River

    1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

    @Water by the River 

    but listening to the explanations of the Buddhists it seems that they say something nonsense. It does not seem that they refer to the lack of form, but to the lack of everything. they say that the ultimate reality is void. if so, the relative reality would also be void

    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.

    1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

    in my experience, first you become aware of the void, but then the void opens up and reveals that the appearance of nothingness was the ultimate frontier of the absolute. It cannot be the void or cessation, it is not a possibility, it is imaginary, a form. the true non-form is the absolute, which is unimaginable, and is total, everything. It's not just an experience that could be imaginary, because when you see that, it's completely obvious. 

    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

  2. Posted · Edited by Water by the River

    33 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

    Id say that emptiness is imaginary. we call absolute what has no limits, and imaginary what is limited. imaginary because really, the limits are impossible. they are only apparent, and they create a form that is only apparent. then nothing must necessarily be imaginary, because in the absence of limits, it would be full of elephants, bicycles, galaxies, kitchens... it would contain the infinite potential, which inevitably arises from the fact that there are no limits. basically,  the nothing would have to be, and be include everything. you, ultimately, will always be, because you are now. We are absolute, so we are one. It's really strange for the mind, isn't it? Existence is, really, without anything or anyone having created it, without being secondary to another superior existence. but it is obvious the moment you realize the lack of limits. existence is. totally. And if existence is, what could be but you?

     

    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 O.o. 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 

  3. Posted · Edited by Water by the River

    1 hour ago, Inliytened1 said:

    And yet, in your descriptions you speak of Pure Awareness - awareness minus the self.  This is so true- but these words, much like Buddhism, miss the Love/Bliss.  For Lovd/Bliss IS Being.  It is Pure, inpersonal awareness.   Failure to mention Love/Bliss and Fullness is a failure to accurately describe the Transcence or the falling away of the self

    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.

    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.

    1 hour ago, Inliytened1 said:

    But Solipsism must fall to Being, as all things do.  As the realization of Infinity and Nothingness do.   Moreover, Omniscience and Being are bound together, for without Understanding nothing exists.   You are Pure Understanding and Love.  That is the same as Empty Awarenes

    Very true. Who knows the spring does not drink from the jar. (Hope that works in English :))

    Water by the River 

     

     

  4. Posted

    39 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

    What I fear for you is the sandtrap of becoming overly immersed in concept.  All of this is nice- but it is merely a map and not the territory.  You must become God - not try to capture God with theory.  And what you are doing here lately is getting lost in theory to the point where it has become an obsession.   You have the theory down - indeed you do.  And your intuition has guided you properly to the place where you need to be.  But now, linger not.  Now only becoming a mystic awaits.   Mysticism is where you must go now.

    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

  6. Posted · Edited by Water by the River

    41 minutes ago, WeCome1 said:

    I'm not very well versed in Buddhist terminology. Are the "4 negations" above the exact equivalent of the Vedantic "neti-neti", or do they imply something extra? 

    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.
    • 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.

    41 minutes ago, WeCome1 said:

    Also, the term "Shunya/Emptiness" has always rubbed me the wrong way, too positively loaded for my nihilistic tastes, but now I'm just rambling.

    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

  7. Posted

    26 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

    Yes, but isn't god imaginary? the ultimate reality is unlimited absolute infinity, and that's what I am. God is secondary to infinity, it is creation, but creation of itself. it is will and intelligence that arise from the lack of limitation, but they are somehow the first apparent limitation, which creates all other apparent limitations that are the perceived reality. 

    the ultimate reality is prior to any creative will, that is, any will of establish apparent limits.  it is limitless and that's it.

    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

  8. Posted · Edited by Water by the River

    53 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

    I'd say that nothing is imaginary. the ultimate reality is the absence of limits, and nothingness is limitation, since it excludes something. non-limitation is the infinite absolute, and I am that. 

    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

  10. Posted · Edited by Water by the River

    25 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:

    To all of those that say that consciousness or their feeling of awareness or 'iamness' exists behind their eyes...I´m just asking you...observe.

    Observe the sounds that are happening. It might be a car down the street, the neighbour speaking to somebody, furniture being moved, a bird chirping...whatever.

    ACTUALLY LOOK WHAT IS THAT. See what is a sound. A sound is...consciousness! 

    Notice that sounds ( consciousness ) are NOT happening within your 'body' but rather is happening in the whole "surrounding" field....

    Try to see it. Try to see that sounds/consciousness are happening 'all over the place'. And notice that the sound/consciousness it's literally happening in that 'place', not inside your brain. 

    You are not having an experience of sounds, Experience is having you (including your body).

    You are NOT your body having an experience! You are Experience holding the body, somewhere in the field.

    And you are holding all bodies too, you solipsistic asshole. ?

    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

     

  11. Posted · Edited by Water by the River

    1 hour ago, Razard86 said:

    "To sleep= Denial of Truth

    To awaken= Acceptance of Truth

    If you have not fully awakened its because you refuse to accept what you are."

    "Only a few can accept the truth and I really cannot even understand why"

     

    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

  13. Posted

    1 hour ago, SeaMonster said:

    So there simply are going to be quite a few trainwrecks on that path.

    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

  14. Posted · Edited by Water by the River

    1 hour ago, SeaMonster said:

    You can only "accept" solipsism if you have strong narcissistic tendencies in the first place.  

    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

  15. Posted

    1 minute ago, SeaMonster said:

    But that's not even right.  The fool doesn't understand himself, doesn't know himself.  One's insights can be independent of self-knowledge.  You can be the smartest, wisest person in the world on an abstract level and not having it mean anything personally.  And an idiot can know himself well, be a holy fool type.

    Sure, agree.

    But I tried to stay close to Leos fool-analogy. And everbody, even the non-wise, think they act&think the most wisest&smartest way possible. Else, by definition, they would think differently.

    Water by the River

  16. Posted

    1 minute ago, Yimpa said:

    Definitely a feature; not a bug.

    Yes, definitely a feature. To get the show going, one needs the separate-self, the seductress Maya fooling most mindstreams into her illusion-game, using mainly narcissm/self-importance as a motivation-carrot. Maslow stage 4.

    But then, one also need a pull towards transcendence, evolution, growing complexity of the Kosmos. Like in atoms->molecules->bateria->plants->animals->humans-> awakened beings.

    And that pull is both suffering, but also especially wisdom&inspiration to grow.

    And as Leo eloquently said: The fool doesn't know or understand its foolishness. The fool thinks of his insights as wisdom, and all others and even wise ones as fools. Couldn't be different.

    Take away any feature of the game, and there wouldn't have been a functioning game/Lila/Evolution/Survival.

    Selling Water by the River

  17. Posted

    3 minutes ago, BlessedLion said:

    It seems only those who trip come to this solipsism thing. Never heard of it like this way from any great masters 

    Solipsism and Infinity of Gods is what you end with when you have understood a lot about the manifestated side of Reality/Consciousness  (infinite mere appearance hovering nondual in Nothingness), which you can (more or less easily) access via psychedelics. But one oneself is not normally fully Empty/Impersonal Consciousness then. Not full Impersonal Nothingness. Of course one then has to project the remnants of the Inviduality/feelings of being OF something on reality (I am God, sovereign, all of it, all of this God/Buddhafield/Universe/Dimension). Because, as per my last post, the separate self can't fully imagine not being there anymore. If it could, it would be gone right away/enlightened/wake up.

    Traditional Great Masters had to "generate" this Nonduality/Unity states (infinite mere appearance hovering nondual in Nothingness) via getting empty/impersonal/transcending the separate self. Believe me, that takes a looong time of getting pretty empty/transcending the separate self arisings as an optional show within oneself. So they understand the impersonal empty aspect of Nothingness/Consciousness BEFORE they understand the manifested side (nondual, infinite, mere appearance hovering in Nothingness) of Infinite Consciousness, because these states they only get when being fully empty and impersonal themselves. Pure Consciousness/Reality, nothing specific, no separate self left.

    Its some kind of "build-in-quality-control" of the classical meditation paths (Neti Neti): You only get to see the Infinite/mere appearance/nondual Nothingness-aspect of the manifestations of the visual field (any kind of field) when being fully empty/Nothingness.

    So what should one get to see in theory (and apparently in practice also) if one ends up after "seeing" the infinite manifestation of Infinite Consciousness/God while not fully being nothing/Nothingness/God-proper?

    • Solipsism (1) (or the separate self remnants realizing its identity with THIS universe/Buddha-Field/all of it). And that is "true" in so far that there are psychedelic experiences that very much feel like that. But a partial truth, there is more to go, higher truths... Full Enlightenment/Deep Identity Change to full empty Nothingness.
    • and pushing even further, see Video "Infinity of Gods (2)", OTHER Gods/Buddhafields. Or Infinity of Gods. Thats the utmost peak of that cul-de-sac, because: Oh no, there are OTHERS like "oneself". And an Infinity of them. An Infinity of Gods. Problem: Very Nondual and infinite and Oneness and being Ultimate Reality/Absolute indeed....
      • So, a (2) continuation of another partial truth (1). Not the end of the story, but something that can happen, depending on the path up the mountain. A direct experience, that needs to be unpacked and interpreted.
        • And the final truth is: Full Enlightenment/Deep Identity Change to full empty Nothingness. No other. One without a second. And: Nothing further. The understanding that one fooled oneself in ingenious ways (like, the whole show, a rabbit hole infinitely deep...) , and the complexity how one fools oneself, comes included with Enlightenment (by definition). Its all appearance within oneself, all illusion. 

    What would be necessary now,at (1) or (2), would be to fully die/transcend ones separate self-arisings, becoming fully impersonal and nothing/empty, realizing ones Deep Identity with Nothingness/Absolute Reality. And then one throws out (better: transcends, or spots fast enough while it arises in oneself and just cuts it off, automated-style) each and every subtle concept/feeling of oneself and of the Absolute/Reality, for the Absolute CONTAINS them all, but is NONE of them. The Absolute/Nothingness can only be described in negative language, of what it is not. In-finite. Not finite. Not measurable, not defineable. Reality itself. But for that, one needs normally a lot of time in these empty and impersonal states (if ones name is not Ramana, one probably does).

    So how much 5 MeO can a human take, and how empty of any form of separate self are these states really? The tried and true technique is and ever has been meditation, or transcending/dying of each and every arising of the separate-self (transcending, or spotting fast enough while it arises in oneself and just cuts it off, automated-style), delivering as much time in these empty impersonal states, the Portals of the Absolute, see one of my last posts, as necessary.

    By the way, I am in no way against psychedelics. Psychedelics plus meditation. So psychedelics alone remains a dangerous path with potential for ego/separate self-inflation, instead of full ego/separate-self transcedence/death, until spiritual culture fully gets to grips with these quite new phenomena of highly efficient psychedelics like 5 MeO and so on.

    But the psychedelic path is here, and it won't go away. We will see its challenges, disfunctions and trainwrecks, its sweetness for the ego to hijack it for narcicissm/solipsism/hybris and ego inflation, being explored first time in scale in broad daylight here in this forum. Probably until the end of our days. But also the vast potential of this path. Let's see if the dark side or the light side of the force prevails. I don't know, let's see. Probably a mix of both.

    In the longterm, the light side of the force prevails as always, simply because the Kosmos wants to grow in evolution/complexity/awakening to itself, but until then if history shows anything any misuse and f***up possible will be fully expored and savored by humanity. Until it finally gets it right. So: Show must go on. ;) 

    And I am waiting and looking forward very much for the first ever fully empty/impersonal/fully enlightened Alienmind walking here on earth on two legs, thinking and understanding the Kosmos/Reality in non-linear ways like never seen before in simple non-psychedelic-boosted human mind-streams. :)

    The content and aspects of that post is more elaborated in my previous posts.

    Selling Water by the River

  18. Posted · Edited by Water by the River

    15 minutes ago, Razard86 said:

    You is a concept, are is a concept, Being is a concept. All language is conceptualization. So no..YOU stop that. You literally cannot communicate without concepts. Concepts= Meaning. 

    Razard, your writing/post above is also only concepts.

    You disagree with the concepts of others, using concepts yourself. Your logic (or any kind of logic) is also based on your concepts.

    You are doing something called Performative Contradiction all the time:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_contradiction

    But you attack only concepts you don't like, not your own. And you do that because you apparently LIKE doing that. Because it boosts your worldview (aka Ego), mainly selling the concept of Solipsism. And why do you like that concept of Solipsism? Because you can run a huge show with it. A leave it to the readers to decide what kind of show that is....

    All concepts are only relative, none of them are Absolute Truth. Mine and yours! They all only arise in Absolute Truth/Reality.

    The quality of concepts as pointers/path is determined only by where they lead (their relative truth): To realizing the Absolute beyond concepts, or Enlightement or ones True Self, or not. Or more into the claws of the separate self-contraction and its narcicissm and grandiosity, which only leads to more suffering. 

    And since this True Self if fully empty and impersonal, you can not pass the Gateless Gate when you are not fully empty. And Solipsism and the concepts you propagate do not empty oneself, Neti Neti. They rather tend to boost ones separate self with narcicissm and self-grandiosity.

    Your path of killing any concept you don't like "with its all concept" is contradictory, leading to you yourself being contradictoy. Which is just another word for suffering.

    All the best

    Selling Water by the River

  19. Posted

    What I would find really cool for this place is a communication style that is

    • values each other
    • is nice
    • is respectful
    • just how one would envision how nice, grown up and well-meaning communications would look like.
    • expresses that the "other" is and can not be different from oneself (or Namaste).
    • acknowledges the True Core of every sentient being, its Buddha-Nature. Impersonal Divinity itself.

    Or in one word: cool.

    "The word that I want to offer to you in your search for integrity is simply “Uncool.” “Is this cool or uncool?” - Diane Musho Hamilton

    Diane Musho Hamilton has written the article included below, concerning Genpo Roshi and concerning of his less than ethical behaviour running his Sangha. Of course concerning issues of sexual misconduct, a topic of orders of magnitude more serious than just communication style in an Internet Forum.

    But the concept “Is this cool or uncool?” can and should be used in the opinion of yours truly in spiritual circles, and pretty much everywhere else also, concerning pretty much every way of expression.

    Why? Clean Up, Wake Up, Grow Up, Show Up. - Ken Wilber

    Or: “Is this cool or uncool?”

    Instant-Karma: Post something negative, attack someone, feel annoyed by an opinion/perspective, be sarcastic, ironic, criticize someone because ones ego/concepts have been hit in an emotionally negative way, or just communicate sloppy: Ones mindstream instantly becomes less than loving and open. At least the mindstream of yours truly does, that is why yours truly tries to avoid that.

    Water by the River

     

    "Diane Musho Hamilton - Simply Uncool

    . . . . The heated complaints elicit an outcry of responses calling for the development of standards, guidelines, sound and consistent ethical policies which can provide oversight and accountability to the teachers in the Zen world. This is so that teachers and students everywhere are held accountable to the impacts that their decisions and behavior have on the communities in which they practice.

    * * * * *

    These guidelines, written policies, and legal contracts provide the basis for durable structures that can outlast the unruly behaviors and destructive tendencies of the humans who inevitably pass through them. And who among us hasn’t contributed to some mayhem among our friends?

    Formulating these policies is natural, necessary, and even admirable, when you realize that we are capable of holding each other to higher standards of conduct.

    * * * * *

    In the meantime, however, while we are learning and while these policies are developed and implemented, I would like to introduce a handy word that may help guide you in your decisions until the ground rules are put on paper. The word that I want to offer to you in your search for integrity is simply “Uncool.”

    “Is this cool or uncool?”

    * * * * *

    Sleeping around. Students bring a tremendous amount of vulnerability to the spiritual search, it gets very confusing and harmful when the student’s spiritual aspiration and their un-clarified sexual desire is mixed with the erotic impulses of the person in power. If you are a teacher and want a relationship with a student, change the agreement, acknowledge your position, and cultivate one with some consciousness and integrity. It doesn’t even have to be long-term. But habitually sleeping around with the people who are studying with you? Uncool."

     

    PS: And while we are at it, Solipsism and the behaviour and emotional "radiation" of its aficionados: “Is this cool or uncool?”. And "do you want to become like that a few years following down that road"?

  20. Posted

    3 minutes ago, Yimpa said:

    Nah, you sound confused, but God wouldn’t have it any other way. 

    :)

    Dear Yimpa,

    how about Logical Reasoning when asked for why you made certain claims/statements or smileys?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_reasoning

    I think its cooler and nicer if somebody asks you what you mean with a smiley-reply to answer in an understandable way. And more respectful of that person, JellyDogShoe_1Mil in this case.

    But I know, " God wouldn’t have it any other way. " ;)

    Selling Water by the River

  21. Posted

    40 minutes ago, JellyDogShoe_1Mil said:

    All this talk on solipsism is mental masturbation, c'mon. 

    Whether it is valid or not does not change a thing. The show goes on. 

    Really, solipsism is just another concept. 

    You are. Being is. Stop there. You cannot possibly deny your own existence. Apparent "others" are that too. It does not change shit. Your apparent body still interacts with apparent others, pays apparent bills and still eats apparent food. Give it up. 

    Exactly. Solipsism is another concept, like any(!) other. Including the more useful pointers, that actually lead to their referent. Like Neti Neti for example...

    In what arises that concept of Solipsism?  That is the Koan that, if followed to its very end can solve all this confusion that the concept of Solisism brings with it.

    But Solipsism as a pointer, as an injunction, an actual practice, doesn't lead to the Absolute. It leads to Narcicissm if done from the level of the separate self well & alive. Just to more mental conceptual fantasies. Neti Neti and meditation does lead to the transcendence of the separate-self-illusion, finally revealing that in which all concepts arise, Absolute Reality, or Infinite Impersonal Consciousness/Nothingness.

    Selling Water by the River

  22. Posted

    8 minutes ago, nhoktinvt said:

    jesus christ

    too many letters at once? ;) Love the formatting? O.o I know....

    Please feel invited to eat/read as much as one likes at a buffet. And ignore the rest. Not that there is an "intellectual throw-up" or something of the like. Today, many many letters for the Aficionados...

    Selling Water by the River

  23. Posted

    Further Quotes Stephen Wolinski, The End of the Game - Deconstructing the Portals to the Absolute., 

    "As an Aside: When asked at many workshops, “How do you know if you are in an Identity?” I always answered, “If you feel special or different from another you are in an Identity.”

    And that is why Narcicissm prevents Enlightenment. 

    • Narcicissm = feeling special or grandiose.
    • And Solipsism tends to boost Narcicissm.
      • "hey, its all me. How awesome"
        • but stated not from the True Empty Impersonal Infinite True Self (that doesn't state anything, because its 100% empty impersonal Nothingness, but contains all arising statements, so such a statement is pretty pointless), but
        • from the false Illusion separate self.

    Selling Water by the River

  24. Posted

    Some Quotes from Stephen Wolinski, The End of the Game - Deconstructing the Portals to the Absolute.

    Below are some quite poetic pointers on how the last separate-self-identities or arisings (very subtle ones at that stage, which is very close before crossing over to Enlightenment) appear and get transcended. They are already very empty and quite impersonal (of personal stuff/Ego), and can and normally are already nondual, or unitive states.

    Wolinski calls them Portals to the Absolute,

    • because it is in these Portals/states/last separate self identities where the "ripening" of Awakened Awareness (= technical Mahamudra term, standing for totally Empty Impersonal Nondual Boundless Timeless Consciousness) happens,
    • which still has some layers/arisings at that ripening stage of some very subtle "Individuality" preventing full Enlightenment, or crossing over, 
    • until finally transcending even these last illusion layers, and then sudden crossing over to waking up /Enlightenment happens.

    One can not "push" through them with willforce, or artificial activity. Because that would generate more subtle separate-self arisings (will/trying to do/pushing something IS a separate-self arising, is artifical activity). But with something like Nonmeditation-Yoga of the Mahamudrasystem, one just rests in Pure Empty Impersonal Boundless Nondual Consciousness (or nondual unitive state Reality at that point in time), and lets these last veils evaporate. 

    What is very helpful (at least for me) is the understanding (or a map) what these very subtle last separate self identities/veils are and how they work, because they are very hard to spot.

    No-Self is not automatically True No-Self, or Nothingness.

    And if one confuses

    • the final Impersonal Empty No-Self of Enlightenment
    • with some No-Self/Portal still loaded with subtle separate-self-identies,

    one does not cross over to Enlightenment, or finding the Real Empty Impersonal Infinite No-Self of Absolute Consciousness/Nothingness, the essence of all appearance. Ones True Deep Identity of the Universal Mind, the One without a second , Impersonal Infinite Consciousness, or: Nothingness.

     

    And now Stephen Wolinski (The formating is like this, because it is like this in the book, and increases its readability):

    "THE NO-SELF SELF I-DENTITY
    The appearance of
    the perceiver,
    aware-er,
    knower
    observer,
    witness
    no-self self,
    the position-less position
    the no-point point of view
    the non-being being etc.

    These subtle Identities often times remain unnoticed because they appear in such a pleasant form such as:
    Silence, a peaceful space
    The space between two thoughts
    The gap without thoughts memory emotions associations etc."

     

    and

     

    "Often times, the Appearance of a Portal
    which is a State
    requiring a Knower
    is a Phenomenological Appearance.
    Any Portal can mistakenly be confused as being the Absolute.
    All portals and spiritual paths are appearances
    and
    are experiences requiring an experience-er…
    Portals are appearances that are labels which carry with them an associational
    network of thoughts, memories, emotions, associations etc.
    Portals Appear to Appear in the Dream-Illusion. [that is, they appear in Infinite Reality as arising/appearance, temporarily. Portals/states like the appearance of the perceiver, aware-er, knower, observer, witness, no-self self,]
    Eventually, the appearance of Portals
    as well as the appearance on which the portal appears
    which could be called or named
    the No-self-self Identity,
    the No-Position Position,
    The No Point-Point of View,
    the Vortex appearing on the Ocean of Existence
    The Witness
    The Being(ness)
    All Evaporates…
    Prior to all appearances
    Prior to the Absolute…
    Prior to I Am THAT
    The Nameless Absolute…that which is prior to and without consciousness,
    awareness, knowingness, being-ness, form or emptiness"

    "Please note that the stillness etc. is a
    by-product of the no-self self Identity
    and that a no self-self Identity,
    aka a position-less position
    aka or a no-point point of view
    are all part of the appearance.
    In this way the appearance and the perceiver, knower/aware-er, witness,
    observer or a no-self self identity position-less position or a no-point point of
    view
    etc. is part of the appearance.
    In other words, they arise and subside together.
    Moreover the perceiver, knower/aware-er, witness, observer or no-self self
    identity etc. is part of and fixated and fascinated on the something-nothing or
    appearance disappearance game     (to be discussed later).

    ...

    Realizing this leads to the appreciation you can deconstruct appearances ad
    nauseum and still end up continuing to deconstruct appearances. In other
    words there is no way out of the loop, without the evaporation of the
    perceiver, know-er, aware-er aka no-self-self identity etc. which is
    experienced as stillness, peacefulness, presence or I am etc.

    ...

    Finally, feeling like a separate self or feeling a “non-dual” self or feeling are
    both states. There is the dual identity and a non-dual identity. the dual
    identity and a non-dual identity are states and are perceiver, knower awarer
    dependent, and are appearances     ... [appearing in Reality/Absolute]

    "

    "It is the appearance that appears to appear as a witness or a know-er or an
    aware-er etc. which is part of the illusion.
    All of the appearances of the witness, knower, aware-er, perceive-er observer
    etc.) are appearances, temporary illusory-mirage like appearances which
    contains the illusion of stability, solid(ness) and permanency.
    This illusion functions to stabilize the illusory dream of existence, isness,
    and/or beingness."

     

    Selling Water by the River