softlyblossoming

Member
  • Content count

    541
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by softlyblossoming

  1. @catcat69123 @Vincent S @Carl-Richard Is there a technique (or a psychedelic) to get these on purpose, or do they only happen on accident? Do they really give people an instant stream entry? @BipolarGrowth I'm probably never going to master the 8 jhanas and achieve nirodha samapatti because I can't even get into the first jhana after an hour of meditating as hard as I can. Due to being this unskilled at meditating after an entire 3 years of practicing for 10-20 minutes most days, I've concluded that nirodha is realistically never gonna happen to me without psychedelics . Plus Daniel Ingram even says somewhere else in that book that cessations are still super freakin' rare even on psychedelics!!!!
  2. Thanks, @Leo Gura and @UnbornTao. If you don't mind me asking, is there a clear-cut way to distinguish conceptual and logical conclusions from spiritual insights, and spiritual insights from meditative states like jhana's/samadhi's? Is there a book on your list that discusses this, and would you be open to making an episode about how to distinguish these three?
  3. @Federico del pueblo I'm glad it is appreciated, mate! One day we'll look back at these long days asking and answering questions on the forum and see how little we knew
  4. @Inliytened1 Legend. Good to get some confirmation that I'm finally thinking along the right lines. Cheers.
  5. Thank you for this amazing food for thought, @UDT. Have you considered that you've arrived at the point in which there isn't anything left to deconstruct but deconstruction itself? Hiya, Leo. I recently arrived at an insight via pure intellectual contemplation, and I'd like to know how much of this is God-realization. My insight (each bullet says the same thing with a different phrasing): Whatever I completely believe to be the truth is precisely what the truth is in an exact 1:1 relationship. The real difference between interpreted reality and directly experienced reality is the completeness of my certainty that my interpretation is accurate. Complete/absolute certainty of the existence of a thing is the existence of a thing AKA if I fully believe that something is what is, then it is what is. The real difference between relative and absolute truth: if I completely believe that a truth is true. Relative truth = partial faith in the truth of an interpretation/belief. Absolute truth = complete faith in the truth of an interpretation/belief. Complete faith in the existence of a thing is what separates faith from Reality. Thank you, your work is fantastic. Hi, Yali. Could you explain this difference quite briefly? Is it contemplating from a non-dual state of consciousness? If so, which non-dual state of consciousness counts as post-human, or are any non-dual states allowed? Just to make ultra clear because I feel like I've given that sort of vibe in the past what with how I phrase my questions: I'm not here to debate or argue or give anyone a hard time. Rather, I feel like I really need to grok this piece of the puzzle so I can contemplate correctly. Thank you, my friend, and best wishes on your path.
  6. Understanding and Love are identical Hi, @Inliytened1. Would you please rate the accuracy of my insight? My insight: understanding = knowing = loving = being = not interfering with experience = not interpreting experience = directly-experiencing.
  7. @Federico del pueblo Critical Enlightenment Theory: Differentiating Absolute from Relative Truth Relative truths = truths that depend on other truths to be true (including all scientific facts and conventional knowledge) Delusion = unconsciously mis-recognising relative truths for absolute truths that have been mis-recognised ("taken to be") absolute All scientific facts and conventional knowledge = relative truths (truths that depend on other truths to be true) = (ultimately speaking) delusion The absolute truth = the one ultimate truth that is always true AKA: that which remains true independent of all circumstances and relative truths (it's unchanging and untouchable) AKA: that which remains true independent of anything but itself AKA: is self-validating/directly-experienced AKA: needs no explanation (or other "middle-man") to understand/know itself AKA: that which is true under all circumstances AKA: nothing at all AKA: everything at once "cessation" is just another word for this nothing-everything that is the absolute truth Absolute truth cannot be understood with/known to the thinking mind because the thinking mind only ever understands/knows relative truths. Absolute truth cannot be understood/known by the self/ego, because the self/ego is an illusion comprised/consisting of the relative truths that the thinking mind (unconsciously) holds to be absolutely true when they are in actual fact relative. Basically, the self/ego is made out of all of the truths that are being unconsciously mis-recognised as ("taken to be") absolute, despite having really only been relative this whole time. This mis-recognition occurs because the truths constructing the self are relative truths that seem, at first appearances, to be true all of the time. In order to reveal (see for ourselves) that what we thought was ultimately true all of the time is secretly only relatively true (true because of other things we believe to be true), we can do this by bringing the thinking mind to a state of calm or stillness by meditating on relaxing thoughts. By calming down our anxious thoughts and/or coming to a place of rested stillness, we (as the ego) can see for ourselves first hand that everything we had previously known so conclusively to be true (including the very processes we had once mis-recognised to be ourselves) are in fact changing, and so cannot be ultimately true all of the time. From this place of real rest, we derive insight into: The impermanence [→ and therefore relativity → and therefore ultimate untruth] of the (now seen to be relative) truths we have/had been taking for lasting, real, absolute, independently true truths. The reality that what we had once thought to be ourselves does not need to be who we are. When the thinking mind is calm and still, we can actually disidentify/disentangle our sense of self from the many processes of the thinking mind, including the very ones we had utilised to bring ourselves to that very same calmed/stilled place from which the insight became possible mere minutes ago. The ultimate unsatisfactoriness of our habit of seeking satisfaction in relative truths, and the reality that this can and will never bring about total effortless happiness forever. BUT that by repeatedly recognising supposedly absolute truths for the relative truths they really are, another way may indeed be possible to uncover (aka the discovery of the spiritual path). Recognising the absolute truth = effortless total happiness forever The self/ego cannot recognise the absolute truth, ever Could be true. I'm just unsure about the part, but who knows, maybe he would if you managed to become a tiger yourself. Nahm and your difficulty communicating looks like it stems from the inherent impossibility for descriptions of the absolute truth to 'mesh'/'work' with descriptions of the material world (AKA relative truths AKA conventional facts). The difficulty arises because relative truths can't make sense from the perspective of absolute truth, and vice versa. Because it isn't possible for one perspective to make sense from the other, agreement between them is utterly impossible. Nahm's point (I think) is that him and the tiger are ultimately both just appearing "in cessation" (as nothing) already. This would be him describing the absolute truth. By contrast, your point that you can't chill out together because one's a tasty human and one's a hungry tiger would be an example of a relative truth. Nahm doesn't really care about debating scientific facts (as these are relative truths) because his real motivations are to bring you to recognise the absolute truth (and make you smile in the process). So all he's really up to is using whatever relative truths you share and imply (e.g. ""xyz" is what would really happen") as a way to point you to recognise that none of those will ever be the absolute truth of the matter. The great thing about recognising absolute truth is that doing so instantly solves all of your problems forever. In contrast, we can know as many relative truths as we ever will, but, in being relative to a specific/particular set of circumstances, relative truths can never be enough to solve all problems under all circumstances. Because life continually presents us with new circumstances with new problems in them, it is imperative that we recognise that solutions that come from the mind (which are always relative to the circumstances in which the mind finds itself, has found itself in the past or could find itself in the future) do not and can not solve all problems conclusively, and so embark on the quest for the one true final solution: recognising the absolute truth. On the other hand, because the absolute truth is absolutely true under all circumstances, it solves all problems to the recogniser instantly upon recognition. It's like how when you're happy you don't need to recognise that you're happy because you just are. That's the case for people who've recognised absolute truth. They pretty much get to live in a personal heaven in which problems no longer even appear to exist at all whilst the only thing that does appear to exist to them is the absolute truth (which feels similar to total effortless happiness forever)! Basically, recognising absolute truth is the only game in town and relative truths are really just a means to that ends. Nahm wants you to recognise the absolute truth (of which the realization that all things are already in cessation (are already nothing) could hopefully bring you closer to) because when someone recognises the absolute truth, they instantly realize that life is totally good, and they feel nothing but effortless total happiness forever. I hope this helped, and I apologise to all readers if I got anything wrong or it's unhelpful.
  8. @Nahm The tiger just does his/her/their thang and doesn't overthink it. Spontaneous action and reaction without the middle-man of interpreting interpretations. I think I get what you meant now. Monkey is as monkey does, tiger is as tiger does, softly is as softly does, and so on.
  9. Cheers again, @Nahm. My personal translation of this cryptic (or at least, seemingly cryptic on my end) pointer: Everything is a prod to elicit an acknowledgement of the true nature of thoughts (all as untrue) and common fear (all as unnecessary). Yes, the real tiger (illusory content) would attack the body, but the monkey mind projecting a fake tiger (what's actual in the present moment) can't do that, so actually the tiger isn't a problem, it's just a monkey with an overactive imagination. "Be the tiger" means to notice the truth that thoughts are only thoughts (to see them literally = to become them = to be the actual tiger).
  10. Excellent. I'm going to try this for 15-30 minutes for two weeks. In the morning hours that follow, my spiritual practice will be to focus on bringing whatever divine feeling was inspired with me throughout the next activities.
  11. @Federico del pueblo I think that would be an example of a dangerous future scenario being used as an excuse to create suffering in the present moment. So instead of worrying about preparing for the tiger attack, the idea with enlightenment work would be to just prepare for it without worrying, and to retrain our minds to operate like this. @Nahm Have I got this puzzle piece in the right spot, new pal?
  12. @Nahm Thanks. Superb video. Does this mean that deconstructing our reality without a better feeling replacement construction is, for the most part, a dead end (dare I say incomplete method of spiritual practice)?
  13. Great video; excellent food for thought as usual. I've been using this reframe on and off inadvertently for years, but now it's been made explicit it'll become on of my main tools to feel however I want to feel. Gonna chuck video link in Dhammarato's Sangha because we love nifty tricks like this. Might also transcribe a few segments for a shared document some of us use to make these sorts of top tips more accessible when life gets overwhelming. I feel like deconstruction is a bit of a dead end, and in many ways an incomplete method of spiritual practice. Here's how practicing spirituality feels to me right now: Step One: deconstruct the lie (the unpleasant state of consciousness) to realize it is a lie (it's not as necessary for survival as we'd been thinking). Step Two: replace the lie with a lie that feels better. Step Three: ignore deconstruction/step one by just using the knowledge that if it hurts, it's a lie as all the information we need to enact step two. Step Four: sustain the better-feeling lie (the more pleasant state of consciousness) by giving it our attention and ignoring thoughts detrimental to it. Step Five: as a byproduct of the sustained effort to maintain the new state, lies that are detrimental to its upkeep (thoughts and emotions conducive to a less pleasant state of consciousness) are deconstructed, whilst pleasant lies (thoughts and emotions conducive to a pleasant state of consciousness) are allowed to continue, and this leads to the pleasant state becoming increasingly pronounced (i.e. more pleasant) and increasingly effortless (i.e. requiring less participation) to maintain. Please see the attached images, depicting an exponential growth curve (or 'snow ball' effect) which illustrate step five. In essence, by replacing the painful lies, or as a byproduct of trying to replace them, they seem to get deconstructed and my skill at replacing them seems to improve. Now, instead of continually trying to deconstruct my reactions yet not getting anywhere knowably better, I am constructing something knowably better, and something knowably better is precisely what I've been getting. However, this has left me wondering as to the purpose, and indeed nature, of the deconstructing I started with. My questions are... What's the difference between deconstructing and constructing? Why wouldn't any deconstruction be a replacement construction? Does focusing energy on constructing a better dream deconstruct the dream? If everything is a lie, why am I deliberately seeking the truth instead of developing the skill of choosing lies that feel good? What's the value of continuing to deconstruct a dream beyond the point at which one has the ability to stop suffering (now/anytime) by believing they have the ability to stop suffering (now/anytime)? After this point has been reached, why shouldn't we switch to constructing a better dream? ← In this case, an example of constructing (or what I've been thinking of as constructing) would be selecting my emotions, or what thoughts I allow myself to believe, more carefully/consciously than before to cultivate a nicer state of consciousness to live in/from. Thank you for sharing your content to the forum so we can all discuss these ideas so conveniently.
  14. @Nahm Good evening, friend. Do we just change our thoughts and das it?
  15. Do you ask "What am I?", "Who am I?", "What is observing?", "Who is observing?", "What is aware of ___?", "Who is aware of ___?" or something else? Why? I'm very excited to see what others use and why. Thanks everyone
  16. @Javfly33 First of all, respect to that badass mindset, and I totally feel you. Does it feel like a separate entity, a kind of spiritual demon who is tormenting you, like in these images? Is it pure evil?
  17. @VictorB02 I totally get what you mean (I think ). It's like the longer I use a particular question, the vaster the gap between the feeling/vibe it gives me as compared to the other questions. To give an example, it's been like the longer I inquire into 'awareness', the more differentiated it becomes from inquiring into 'observer'. Have you had this experience too? Another huge thing I've uncovered recently is the difference between openly wondering about (for example) the nature of awareness, and trying to (for lack of a better term) feel the thing itself that the word "awareness" points to. I came up with a little schema for the different ways we can inquire: Feeling the thing 'x' points to Wondering about 'x' concept Trying to understand 'x' with logical reasoning Some, usually intuitive (if not straight up accidental), combination of the above What would you change to my pet model? I won't be offended, Victor!
  18. Now this is interesting, @Guru Fat Bastard. I've used the term so much, but never really wondered about what it precisely means. I've bookmarked this post because it feels like a really key piece of info, but totally the kinda thing I'd forget . Shortly after reading this, I realised (what I'm assuming is 'directly') that not much, if anything, can ultimately be said about my direct experience. If you've the time, could you just share your thoughts on trying to 'feel' experience (feeling based inquiry), as opposed to wondering about experience (thinking/mind-based inquiry)? I'd love to know more about the pros/cons and differing results of each approach, or any other observations you've made between the two? Cheers for replying to my thread, mate! Thanks, @VictorB02. If you don't mind, I'd love to hear all about your experiences with various forms of self inquiry. How did you practice it, what novel angles did you come at the inquiry from, and what the heck happened to ya as a result? Much love, my friend. Btw, I'm not sure if you take requests, but if you could do a video on this I might just love you forever, hehe
  19. @Leo Gura If I have and insight (such as no self) on psychedelics, and during my every day life I fully take on the belief that my insight is true, would I be able to re-experience my insight? I'm having trouble differentiating beliefs from insights and their subsequent states of being. Your insight here would be so ridiculously appreciated.
  20. @Gianna Thanks ahah, it's a great thread.
  21. I love your and Jim's teachings style. It's refreshing, and I find an effective reminder to theorise less and meditate more (especially for peeps like me who need that reminder quite often ).
  22. Brilliant. Thank you, @Leo Gura, this cleared up my initial befuddlement. Thoughts identified with are normie thoughts, and non-identified thoughts are godly thoughts. That makes sense. Is it the degree of identification with thought that determines most of the quality of our thinking? Thanks for sharing your perspective, I actually find it really beautiful and elegant, but I've never heard such a thing said of vipassana and jhana... What makes you think this, and can you back the claim with references to the suttas? That's sounds pretty (read: very) cool.
  23. But Leoooo!!!! How do I contemplate and have a silent mind at the same time!? Let me guess, I "do the work" ? But, peanuts!!!! That's boring as hell and takes all day, can't you just tell me a magical pointer that'll shortcut the entire process? More importantly, would you be open to the proposition, perhaps challenge, to attempt to describe the difference between normie thoughts and godly thoughts, so that I have some clues as to what I'm going for (is it the attitude you bring to the thinking)? And (sorry I know you're busy lol) can you please try to answer my above question to Leo as well? Sorry for asking so many questions ahahah
  24. @peanutspathtotruth That's such a cool explanation and it totally aligns with what I've learned from self inquiry so far, which is that I'm not located anywhere particular (existentially, at least, because I still feel like "just me") and how my attitude I bring to the practice is of real importance. And thanks for the book recommendation.