Mellowmarsh

❤️

You cannot even claim an absolute position on any opinion, because absolute implies relative which like you said is a dual perspective. So even relative ideas about the absolute is absurdism.

@James123 👍 Nice.

I think that once our own personal opinions about understanding the nature of self is fully recognised and understood, then they usually cannot be changed by another, once their mind is made up so to speak. Ultimately it’s the individual that changes it’s own mind, and not another person changing it. I personally have no interest in convincing anyone else about what I understand, and that it is what they should understand too. I never would dream of saying to someone else that their personal understanding shouldn’t be like that. That’s just arrogance. What I do believe is that we’re each and everyone of us capable of arriving at the pure understanding of what self-actualisation is. I also believe that no one has to be convinced by another, nor try to be the convincer to another. As the truth is in all of us, whether we choose to know it or not, it doesn’t actually matter or change the truth.. I can’t be bothered listening to people who tell others they are on the wrong track, or that they ought not to listen to so and so, or that they are still suffering, as if they could possibly know the true mind of what another is able to understand.

Yes I agree. It’s all about listening and then fully understanding what’s being heard. It’s never about the messenger, it’s always about the message, which can appear to be incoherent or it can appear as the most astonishing coherent clarity. Ultimately, it’s about “understanding”, and being able to make up your own mind according to the individual’s acceptance of what is being understood, by means of how it feels for them personally. We have no access to other people’s understandings, so it’s pointless to even dismiss other people’s understandings. We can only know ourself. My belief is that every single one of us is capable of being in absolute perfect alignment with the real truth of how “only being” is able to be recognised by each and every one of us.

I agree.

Those words are still recursive mental activity. In other words (Occupied Emptiness )

If the I (thinker) can imagine itself to be the centre, surely then, it can imagine itself to be the centreless (only being) ? Is this just the absurdity of nonconceptually conceptualising ? If this cannot be spoken about, why bother trying to teach it to others, if it’s already silently known to (only being)? This means every individuated being is not a fool, it’s just a perfect expression of the one and (only being) I mean, how can one thing exist? It would have to be able to reflect itself as twoness? The reflected other would just be a mirage, how can a mirage be taken to be a fool?

Is simply being, fundamentally comparable with silence, or nothingness, or not-knowingness? Like the true being before it’s artificially distorted by a thought, or an idea, or a concept?

While I agree with you in principle. Could “ only being “ just be another way of saying there’s only solipsism? Or only one mind pretending to be many minds?

@James123 Is this solipsistic seeing?

The I that suffers will always knowingly suffer. There’s no escape from suffering, regardless of what James says to the contrary. It’s really okay to suffer, and doesn’t make you any less enlightened. When suffering is recognised to be impersonal, that’s liberation from the false idea it’s personal, that’s all. The knower of suffering is also the known suffering in the exact same instance of knowing. One with the knowing. As knower and known is one thing. Just as there’s no smoke without fire, the smoke is not the fire, so the smoke can only be known to be what it is because the source of the smoke (fire) is known too.

“ You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity. “ - Leo Gura “You are Enlightenment” - Mellowmarsh. 🤷‍♀️

I say it only as I know it to be truth for me. I only know myself, not others. I have zero access to another’s synthetic thought processing system. For me, I imagine I’m doing the work that needs to be done, only to realise and recognise there is no separate me doing the work, and that actions are only what’s happening, for no one. For me, this recognition is the paradoxical nature of human self-actualisation. It’s all still what’s happening as and through an imagined dream character, appearing as me here.

I agree that to get milk from the fridge requires one to do that action. That’s just what’s unconditionally happening. Including the clever game of doership claiming.