axiom

I like popcorn just as much as I like Buddhism, although buttering either seems like a bad idea.

Buddhism is fine. I like it.

Watch the thoughts. Realise they are not yours and never were. Realise that “you” were only ever an idea. Job done.

No. Words - even those comprising apparent questions - are only the punctuation of infinity. It could be said that all words, all questions, are absolute truth.

That’s all this is. It could be said that there is only magic. Everything that seems to be real is also completely impossible.

Exactly this. And the self either partially or completely surrenders to it. Yes! Although strictly speaking it is already happening. The 'me' just veils it. The source is the source. It always was and it had been forgotten. The extent to which any 'I' is there at all - even the recontextualised big 'I' - is a clue that there is a still greater surrender.

Fair enough. Maybe!

The words 'self', or 'I', or "you' are almost invariably used in the dualistic subject / object sense. I see no reason to use it when speaking of infinity unless you are subtly or tacitly referring to subject / object, or to experiencing, or to ownership, or to the sense that you exist. Using 'I' is an exaltation, an elevation of a ghost to the throne. The 'I' deserves no such thing - it isn't there.

They are not experiences. They are appearance. "Experience" is what the self / Self likes to think is happening, because it gives it a purpose, a function, an existence. It is the seeking, hoping, grasping energy whether it is self or Self. Experience is always separate and dualistic. Experience is the low resolution, desaturated version of infinity.

The idea that forms are consciousness, and that the substrate is infinite mind - tends to be understood before no self is eventually realised. These ideas are not being ignored or passed by. They have often been awoken to, abided in, examined from every angle, sometimes for years - and ultimately discarded. Recognition of the appearance / God / infinity is not an attachment to forms. It is the radical recontextualisation of experience and awareness as being without an owner - precisely because any "owner" is simply another loosely constructed, cobbled-together fragmentary form. Not actually there at all. Pure impermanence. No self is complete, irrevocable ego death. A rebirth (of noone) into infinity. Ego death can be frightening, so this can sometimes motivate a self to recontextualise as Self. It would rather keep playing this game for a few more lifetimes yet - especially when the only other option is being wiped out completely. But that which thinks itself to be aware has always just been infinity. It is singular. It is perfection. It was never aware, and it is not a self or a Self. This cannot be understood.

Frank is pretty easy to understand I think, although his enjoyably OTT delivery can feel muddy and disjointed. The older he gets, the calmer he gets.

@Arthogaan I once thought so too. But actually, there is an apparent difference. When Leo refers to 'I' he means infinite ego, the ownership (self-ownership) of infinity. When I refer to 'I', I refer to the illusion of selfhood, the seeking energy. I would say that infinity cannot be circumscribed by an 'I'. Doing so is like trying to fit a a turbocharged, two-stroke reciprocating diesel engine (designed to power large container ships) inside the chassis of a bubble car. Leo would say that infinity is the 'I'.

@Godishere Leo's position is that there is only 'I'.

No one gets it. All are dream characters. You are pointing to the words "I am the only one who is awake". But this apparent I is not an I. The self being dissolved, all that is left is infinity / God. Where an I remains, it is a misapprehension. A hangover of an apparent life once lived. 'I' is not God. It is that which attempts to circumscribe God. 'I' is not the substrate. It is a remnant of the self still engaged with the game of ownership. Give it up and be free.

This is obvious. A self proclaiming that it is awake is exactly like any dream character proclaiming itself to be awake.

I know exactly what you mean. But to get to the heart of the matter, this style of "teaching" (not really a teaching) actually works to limit the likelihood of the self getting hooked. It nips it in the bud. It's great if there's a readiness for it. Most, if not all, spiritual teachings take the form: "Hello illusion! Check out this new esoteric path. With crazy amounts of work, effort and contemplation, you too could achieve understanding / happiness / enlightenment!" A self may awaken after apparently absorbing this stuff, but in truth - in absolute terms - that would be in spite of it, not because of it. In the meantime of course, the self loves a good story about how it miraculously arrived here.

The self actually seems to reduce all of the beauty, the wonder, and the zest of life by veiling it with neurosis and abstraction.

Exactly this. Humans (uniquely?) have a strong sense of purpose, of free will, of story. Awakening dissolves these things entirely. Spirituality sounds so tantalising - the idea that there is some amazing secret realisation that can be had or found - that it fills all those cups to overflowing. The typical spiritual seeker doesn’t realise that they are making their “problem” deeper, stickier, with many more esoteric tendrils. If you’ve already meditated a lot, you have probably reached the point of abiding in infinite awareness. Infinite self. You could try re-contextualising awareness as appearance, and meditate on that. That’s what ultimately seemed to cause the penny to drop here. But all is seen to be a story in the end.

@Gidiot No one gets anywhere. I also spent decades meditating and years experimenting with psychedelics. This is good to the extent the self realises - in frustration - that it has made no satisfactory progress, it still feels separate, and is still not enlightened. Teachers are fine for entertainment value, just don’t take their teachings as a thing to strive for or achieve. Ultimately all teachers and teachings are seen as pointless. All an impediment insofar as they are followed in the hope of arriving at some place. They are all just excuses for the self to hang its hat on. The truth is, there is only enlightenment already. This.

Don’t believe the hype

I also used to wonder why some teachers were so uncompromising and seemed not to care. Now I realise the point is to present the self with dead end after dead end, mirror after mirror, so that it is ultimately exposed as illusory and exhausts itself. If the self thinks it is getting even the tiniest something - it will clutch at straws. The self has to lose all hope, all its seeking energy must be depleted to dissolve. It will usually hide itself in the belief that it can do something to get somewhere. That’s the problem with offering it hope. That’s the problem with spirituality in general. That’s the problem with the teacher / student paradigm. There is nothing anyone can do to change what is. This kind of messaging won’t work for every apparent person of course. But for those who are ripe for it, it’s pretty cool.

@Someone here Life is already life, with or without you. No one needs to awaken. Awakening can seem to happen, and it can seem to eliminate suffering. But whether it happens or not is not important. Real awakening is totally ordinary. Ironically, having started this thread, everything you say about the feeling of lack has only one answer - the absence of self.

@BipolarGrowth There is no consciousness in the 8th Jhana. Whatever was formerly considered to be consciousness is so extremely magnified that it dissolves back into the ocean of the absolute - simply appearance. At this point all appearance is seen as being on a completely equal footing. Tree, ocean, sky, awareness. All appearances, all God, all infinity - which belongs to no one. My first business 25 years ago was actually called J8. No particular reason behind it - I just thought it looked cool. I knew nothing of Buddhism or Hinduism or jhanas back then.

Fair enough, a thorn to remove a thorn. Read between the lines though and you may notice that it's anti-concept. P.S. Language!