Hyperion

How do you define"blissful"? That's a bit of an odd question to ask after my purposefully cryptic and elusive sermon, don't you think? Again, what exactly would constitute a "constant background of bliss", according to your human understanding?

Foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head. - Matthew 8:20 - --- Bliss is not a feeling... it is the sum as well as the absence of all feelings. Bliss is not a state... it is the sum as well as the absence of all states Bliss is not even a "thing"... it is the sum as well as the absence of all things. You can be blissful and happy, blissful and sad, blissful and angry, blissful and worried, blissful and rich, blissful and poor, blissful and healthy, blissful and sick, blissful and active, blissful and lazy, blissful and noisy, blissful and silent, blissful and horny, blissful and celibate, blissful and religious, blissful and atheist, blissful and "spiritual", blissful and "not spiritual", blissful and "awake", blissful and "asleep", blissful and "blissful", blissful and "not blissful". Bliss is everything and nothing, it is everywhere and nowhere, it is always and never, it is knowable and unknowable. You cannot define it, and you cannot deny it. You cannot talk about it, and you cannot be quiet about it. You cannot grasp it, and you cannot avoid it. And if now you're feeling frustrated and pissed off because none of what I am saying seems to make any goddamn sense at all... that's also potential Bliss. That's why it is called "the peace that passes all understanding". --- Bliss is always available. You can open yourself up to it at any time... and if you don't, then that's perfectly fine too. It's your choice. And also it isn't.

Lol wut? What on earth made you think that I was in any way offended? Listen... I may be a grump, but I am not that much of a grump. 😂

Right on... just thought I'd give my old favorite record another spin, just to be safe (and because I know how much you love those spinning records, hehehe).

Cool, just checking PS: Don't let anyone tell you that "nonduality cannot be described". Of course it can be described. In fact, the word itself is already the description: Nonduality = that which does not include / is the opposite of duality. So it very obviously is a relative perspective (aka. philosophy), regardless of how much nondualists generally like to profess that it isn't.

Ok, cool. So, how is the following riposit: ...at odds with what I am saying?

And what principle would that be?

The most deceptive religion / philosophy is the one that tries to convince you that it is neither a religion nor a philosophy. I have often said that what we call a spiritual pointer is simply the expression of a relative perspective that is the opposite of whatever perspective the recipient of the pointer is currently stuck in. The moment you confuse that opposite (supposedly more "spiritual") perspective for absolute truth, you have now traded in one delusion for another. "Don't confuse the finger that points at the moon for the moon itself", as they say in Zen.

The correct answer to this question (and all other questions) is yes, no, maybe, all of the above and none of the above.

"Metaconscious" is a relative quality that can only exist in relation and contrast to "not metaconscious". The Absolute (aka. "God" / the totality of reality) has no opposite, because it is all that there is. Therefore, the Absolute must be both metaconscious and not metaconscious, and also it is neither. Hope that helps.

God feels like everything, nothing, all of the stuff in between and none of it. Because, y'know, that's what God actually is. So don't confuse "God" with some fancy-schmancy altered state. That altered state is just one potential expression or aspect of God (aka. reality), not the whole ineffable and undefinable shebang.

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.

If that's not a wonderful example of self-contradiction, then I truly don't know what is.

As long as you don't make "no place to land" another place to (not) land, I am totally cool with that. And also, I am not.

Rebrand it as radical non-nonduality, and I'll gladly sign up.

That is... ...waaaaaaait for it... . ..relatively (un)true.

You only lose your sanity on this path if you get caught up in spiritual delusion. Delusion = confusing a relative perspective for absolute truth. A relative perspective = anything that can be expressed with words. Absolute truth transcends sanity and insanity (and all other opposites). It is neither grounded nor groundless... it just IS.

I still maintain that spaghetti are noodles.

One of the most widely misunderstood terms in all of spirituality is the Buddhist notion of "shunyata", which is commonly translated as or at least closely associated with words like emptiness, voidness, groundlessness, nothingness and no-self (which is also known as "anatta"). It is often (mis)interpreted as a kind of nihilistic denial of any inherent substance or meaning of reality; but once you become directly conscious of what it actually points to, you realize that it simply means the following: There is no particular way that reality is. Shunyata points to the fact that there is no such thing as a specific definable ultimate truth that can be fully cognized, conceptualized and communicated through language; it therefore implies that all definitions (aka. conceptual limitations) of reality are nothing but relative perspectives which are partially true at best and downright delusional at worst. Simply put: Whatever you say about reality isn't it - and also it is, but so is the opposite of whatever you are saying. (Of course, the irony here is that the statement "all perspectives are relative" is itself a relative perspective; this is why Nagarjuna, the famous founder of the Madhyamaka school of Buddhist philosophy, pointed out that "even emptiness itself is empty" and therefore cannot be absolutized.) So while shunyata should not be mistaken for an affirmation of existential nihilism (which erroneously tries to attach absolute meaning and validity to the relative concept of meaninglessness), it certainly refutes the notion of a concrete ground or essence of reality that you somehow safely "land on" upon enlightenment. Assuming the existence of such a specific definable essence is in fact a rather clear-cut logical fallacy, since it assumes the existence of something which is both absolute and definable. The simple fact of the matter is that the absolute (= undefinable) essence or nature of reality cannot be different from (all of) reality itself, as should be obvious to anyone who is capable of and genuinely open to coherent (meta)logical reasoning. (Note: When you say that Being is the essence of reality, then that is NOT a definition. Being does not and cannot have an opposite since it is all that there is, meaning that it must include and transcend all possible opposites such as form/formlessness, time/timelessness, oneness/multiplicity, nothing/everything etc. Being is therefore synonymous with the totality of reality. Again, this is not so much an arbitrary opinion as it is a patently self-evident and tautological assessment based on very simple and obvious logic, and I would sincerely invite anyone who somehow feels compelled to argue against it to question their own underlying motives for doing so.) Of course, the inherently attachment-based ego mind doesn't like to hear any of this. It craves and demands ideological safety, reliability and stability, or in other words: a solid, unshakeable ground that it can build a strong and rigid identity on and thereby keep itself stuck in the treacherous comfort of delusion. And so it will compulsively attack, deflect, distort and/or deny anything that threatens to pull out the rug from under its feet and try at all cost to maintain its dogmatic conviction that "reality is XYZ" and definitely not "not XYZ". You will almost certainly see this play itself out in the replies to this post; there will be plenty of people trying to convince me as well as themselves that I am (absolutely) wrong and they are (absolutely) right and argue until they are blue in the face for the validity of relative positions such as "I am a person", "I am not a person", "I am God", "I am not God", "I exist", "I don't exist", "there is a doer", "there is no doer", "all is one", "all is not one", "there are other minds", "there are no other minds", "reality is physical", "reality is a dream", "reality is logical", "reality is not logical" or whatever other perspectives/beliefs they have built their identity on. Now, am I saying that I myself am totally free of this kind of argumentative pigheadedness? No, of course not. I assure you that I can be just as gleefully opinionated as the next guy; denying any such tendencies on my part would be just another dogmatic assertion and expression of deep egoic delusion. Besides, as long as reality is being observed and experienced from a certain first-person perspective, there is never going to be a 100% complete absence of attachment to that perspective, however faint and imperceptible it may be. But once this perspective is clearly "seen through" and recognized for what it actually is, there is now an opening where the gradual transcendence of all rigid ego identity becomes possible; where all relative perspectives are perceived as different sides of the same all-encompassing coin; where energetic contractions begin to soften, expand and dissolve, and where you start to taste the indescribable boundless bliss and freedom of tapping into and merging with the ineffable Divine, which is All That Is. But of course, that's just my perspective. 😘

There you go... that would be one possible way of formulating an opposite perspective. But regardless of how you formulate them, any verbal statement you make is an expression of a specific perspective that has an opposite and therefore is relativey (un)true. Including of course what I just said.

Again, what would be the opposite of this statement/perspective?

What would be the opposite of this statement/perspective?