Hyperion

@Natasha Tori Maru Gotcha. 😘 @Carl-Richard It is always hilarious to see how caught up people get in their labels, concepts and perspectives... when the solution to the whole conundrum is so incredibly simple. You only need to ask yourself the following question: Does that which I am referring to when I use word (or phrase) X have an opposite? If the answer is yes, then it is relative. If the answer is no, then it is Absolute. Simple as that. 🕉

I'd say that's relative.

I guess that's why I've had such a itchy feeling down there for the past couple of days. @Natasha Tori Maru Arguing about whether there is a self or not is like debating whether spaghetti are pasta or noodles... potentially entertaining, but ultimately pointless.

It's actually much much much much much much simpler than that: That which has an opposite is relative. That which doesn't have an opposite is Absolute. You're welcome.

It's like asking: "Why has there got to be pizza? Why not just slices of pizza?"

That's relatively (un)true.

Beware of rigid belief systems that try to put reality into a neat little box by de-fining (I.e. limiting) it as "only this, but not that". Infinite Reality isn't ever this OR that... it is always this AND that, and also it is neither. Anything that can be expressed with words is a relative perspective, and any relative perspective that you become attached to turns into dogma. And once you mistake your dogmas for absolute truth, you are lost in delusion. ☯️

Your mom, at least according to what she told me last night in private. (Sorry, couldn't resist.) 😘

As a spiritual seeker, you may have heard many teachers say that spiritual awakening is the end of the personal self. While such claims have undeniable relative value/validity and can serve as effective pointers towards the realization of Absolute Truth (aka. spiritual awakening), it is important to keep in mind that all such statements regarding the "true nature of reality" (and the recognition thereof) can by definition only ever be relatively true, but never absolutely true. To appreciate why this is the case, it is necessary to understand what the word "Absolute" refers to: The Absolute is the infinite field of reality which includes and gives rise to all possible qualities; every quality that there is (and could be) is a relative aspect of that which is Absolute, meaning that anything that you can name, think of and experience is it - and also, it's not it. As outlined in my little "theory" above, consciousness must constantly oscillate between contrasting qualitative states, for without such oscillation the experience of reality would not be possible. (An experience = a relative quality or set of qualities that "stands out" from the infinite sum total of all qualities and thereby comes into existence). This is why all polarities such as "self/no-self", "personal/impersonal", "limited/unlimited" etc. essentially represent two (relative) sides of the same (absolute) coin, since they can only exist and be experienced in relation and contrast to each other. Where there is no Yin, there can be no Yang... and vice versa. However, once (your) consciousness enters a high-frequency meta-state where all seeming opposites are recognized as equally valid facets and expressions of the same infinite Reality, there is now a sort of simultaneous meta-experience of self and no-self, personal and impersonal, limited and unlimited and all other complementary opposite aspects of the Absolute. So in one sense, all of these relative aspects/perspectives are still "online" and fully available to you; and in another sense, they simply cease to have any meaningful significance since all conceptual definitions are now seen to be nothing but mere arbitrary labels. When the pendulum of consciousness swings so fast that contrasting qualities are being experienced simultaneously (as it were), they essentially merge together and neutralize each other... and what remains is the ineffable Divine that contains and transcends absolutely everything and is impossible to speak of. So while it is true that upon awakening there is no more solid sense of self, there is also no solid sense of no-self once you have truly passed through the proverbial gateless gate. Seemingly conflicting statements such as "I exist as a person" and "I don't exist as a person" are now just as equally meaningful/meaningless to you as all other verbal utterances (aka. relative perspectives); you may still emphasize one aspect over the other in order to make a spiritual, philosophical or ethical point(er), but there will be no more dogged attachment to either side of the all-encompassing Coin. Depersonalisation on the other hand signifies being (often involuntarily) attached to and stuck in a specific relative perspective; it means that there has been a shift from personhood to non-personhood, and now the latter perspective is being mistaken for absolute truth and thereby made into an (egoic) identity. (If it sounds strange and unbelievable to you that it should be possible to construct an identity that is based on the tenet of "I don't exist", then you really don't know just how enduring, clever and creative the egoic mind is... trust me, it can make an identity out of ANYTHING, lol). To be clear: For some people, temporary depersonalization may in fact be a necessary phase or stage of their awakening journey; it may just be the appropriate antidote that will over time cure them from their attachment to "being someone", so none of this is meant to be an indictment that points out some kind of shortcoming or character flaw on your or someone else's part. All I am saying is that it is beneficial to see things for what they are(n't) and that there is no need to overly indulge in and willfully prolong such transitory phases. After all, the point of awakening is not to trade in one attachment-based identity for another, but rather to transcend all identity and fully thrust yourself into the great unknown which is quite literally beyond description. But then again, in case you prefer to foster your depersonalisation and milk it to the very last drop, then by all means... depersonalize away.

ᚠᛇᚹ✨

Great. Not to (overly) toot my own horn, but I suggest you read my previous three threads over and over and over again until they really land... I am not saying that my grandiloquent ramblings are necessarily the be-all end-all of spiritual wisdom, but perhaps they'll do the trick and disimbue you of the kind of sloppy, deceptive, half-baked, self-contradictory dogmatic nondualistic horseshit that mostly passes for spiritual teaching these days. All of that popular Advaita slop might serve as a valuable pointer in the beginning, but if you don't let go of it and transcend it at some point, you'll probably end up more lost and deluded than the most duality-driven egomaniac out there. Just my two cents, of course. Make of it what you will. 😌

You're kidding, right? Feel free to re-read my "What Are Illusions" thread (as well as my theory of everything while you're at it) where I explain at length why illusions are in fact the only things that exist. Sorry, but I really don't know how to make it any more clear than that.

Good insight, especially the 'belief' part. Solipsism is a valid relative perspective, but so is the opposite point of view. "Enlightenment" is about seeing relative perspectives for what they really are (and recognizing that which is the source/sum/essence of all relative things); living a good life is about discerning between helpful/healthy and unhelpful/unhealthy perspectives. And as far as helpful & healthy perspectives go, solipsism is pretty damn near the very bottom of the list.

A valid counterperspective. 🙏