Telepresent

Some people recommend writing. I find this a highly useful way of working because it keeps your attention focused on what you are doing, and you are forced to try to communicate it in clear terms

Because it's not about just asking the same question over and over again. It's about interrogating the answers that come. When an answer comes, "I am this, I am that, I am here...", whatever it is, you need to examine that answer. Find the truth in it - or the lack of truth in it. It's no use going 'no I'm not that because someone else said I'm nothingness'; you have to strip away the layers of 'you' that 'you' think 'you' are. And most of these are invisible to you. To be honest, it seems to me that an awful lot of people misunderstand self-inquiry. It's an ongoing, difficult, oftentimes frustrating process, and in the end you're not actually looking for an answer. No answer is going to come. You're looking to remove the assumptions/beliefs (both created by you and inherited from society/parents/school/peers/etc.) which sit in your mind and pose as answers. And most of them you aren't even aware of at the moment. So, yeah, I suppose it is but that's going to take years of ongoing, daily inquiry. Still, it comes away piece by piece; sort of a series of little disillusionments. I'm not 'there' yet, but my perspective and understanding of everything have significantly changed through a simple application of critical thinking to the situation I find myself in. Which is really cool. Just remember to not let your mind cheat you by stating answers from other people (such as "I am nothing"). If it helps, you can reframe the question slightly: "What is I?" "What is true?" etc.

I find I need to do both. I need the concentrated sessions in order to really hammer the work at 'get somewhere'. I also fuel it and help to assimilate new understandings by keeping my mind tuned to a self-inquiring frequency as much as possible in my day-to-day

@Socrates I find that I feel stuck almost all the time, but then 'out of the blue' suddenly I recognise something false and stop believing it, then and there. And it feels like 'Aha! I understand now! I'm so close!' And then I assimilate my new perspective, and in almost no time I feel stuck again. Of course, what's happening in all that time that I'm feeling stuck is that I'm sniffing around the edges of my new perspective, and finding what's wrong with it; this seems to be a process I have little direct or conscious control over, but become aware of the moments that I find the falseness in a flash. Over and again and again and again...

@Annetta In a nutshell it's about 1) understanding how our thoughts, behaviours, and feelings all interact and influence one another (often in automatic / subconscious ways), so that we can 2) learn how to challenge, interrupt, and alter them. It's very practical: simply understanding the theory doesn't work, you have to apply it in practice, but it's very useful for identifying what your negative thinking patterns are, and directly challenging them

I hit a basic issue when it came to quantum physics, which is that it led me to believe I knew what was going on! I built a model around several different strands of quantom, string, and multi-dimensionality thinking (as could be understood and filtered through my brain, which I am sure squished a lot of it to mush)... and I suddenly thought I knew everything that was going on. Oh clever clever me! So just watch out for that. Maybe you're smarter so don't need to worry about it, but beware

@Moreira Hello! There have been a lot of replies here and I'll be honest: I can't be bothered to read through all of them. So you may find counter-arguments and refutations of what I am saying within those. Please treat them with the deserve they need. But I'll also tread your query with the raw power it asks for. Great. Fine. You know, a lot of people never, ever, ever, find comfort or joy. So don't consider this to be a 'bad' or 'inferior' thing, just because of the circumstances by which you find it. Firstly, every single person is unique in their experience of the world, so it doesn't matter a fucking shit what anyone else thinks, because they're not thinking/feeling/experiencing what you are. I'll also say, no, it's not a trap. If it's what you really, really, really want, if you'd genuinely be ok with sitting on this hillside forever and never, ever, ever talking to someone again, fine. The tricky thing is that meditation can make it seem that way, but in reality it's not true. I like to imagine that I'd like a world without any other people in it. Then I think about it, and realise that within three days I'd be bored out of my mind. It's all perspective Ok, so how do you feel about this? Like, if we were to stop talking about avoiding fears, how do you feel about this?

Am I allowed to post my own "self-one-liner" on here? They change once or twice a week, and I'm on the journey so I can't call them wisdom, but I also suspect they might help people... anyway, I'm going to post one: Self-verified or bust. Open-mindedness' ugly cousin. False until proven true. Yes, that inclues YOU.

@Silver Hello! I was talking to someone today about the concept of 'everlasting life'. In terms of, what would it actually mean if it happened here, now, in the midst of what we know? Just to me. And I thought. And I figured I'd probably drop out for a short time, because my immediate goals (food, shelter, everything that is about survival) would be met by the simple caveat that I can't die. And then I thought in that dropping out, I'd have fun. Because what would be the point in engaging in the career ladder? I could sit at home and play games etc. And then I realised I'd get bored. So, ok, let's go explore. Eventually, I'd have been everywhere on Earth. Ok, great, let's go to Mars! And it slowly grew in me that the 'more, next, grow' idea is both unstoppable, but also simply within me. Like a balloon. The gas wants to expand, but the limits of the balloon stop it. I've also noticed that people scream for definition. They want to make every single experience make perfect sense. And particularly when they are a young adult, they want to find a magical way that all the shit they're dealing with is some perfect build up to them being special. (as someone who is still dealing with not being special... learning to live with it sooner helps) And going back to re-read your post, and what I've written here, I can't see that I've written anything that will directly help your question. But I'm a fan of serendipity so I'm going to post it anyway. Fare well!

Fair do's. Good man! That's what happens when you declare "facts" you remember from a couple of years ago! Thanks for the correction

@ChimpBrain Aaaaand this is the point. Every stone every clue every chance. I remember watching a video of his where he said that his first presentation on why atheists need spirituality was the first where he went onstage to cheers, and came offstage to boos. Imagine how they'd take Mooji. We need all sorts

Well, given my avatar, I can't avoid responding to this, can I? I love the book, and I think it's an invaluable tool for helping more skeptical people onto this path. I also think it states limits that Harris is unwilling to speculate beyond, because he himself has not gone beyond them. He suggests you can glimpse non-dual consciousness for a second or two, but is unwilling to claim it can last for longer than that, because he hasn't experienced it so can't prove it to himself. I respect that. I also wonder if his requirement for physical empirical evidence is a hinderance. And at this point things become tricky because... well because then we're in the realms of personal experience and consciousness and so on, and it's very easy for people to make an argument that that counts for nothing (from a purely physical-sciences perspective, which is where Harris comes from). @Socrates asks about this in this thread, and I'm afraid I can't provide an answer, but I want to share something that helped me to further join the dots this week: In particular it was the way this man spoke of the "world of being" and the "world of becoming/unbecoming" made stuff make sense to me, but in a way I'm not ready to articulate yet. And that's part of the problem, I think: we want to pull people with us as we travel. But how?

@Annetta Have you ever encountered CBT? Cognitive Behavioural Therapy? I've found it to be an immensely useful, evidence-based approach to challenging my automatic thoughts, interpretations, beliefs, and their resultant emotions. I don't know where in the world you live, but in the UK I know there are many free services which offer short courses, and I expect this is true in many other areas of the world. Even if it costs, I'd argue that it's worth it (so long as you engage with it)

One of the reasons I like Jed McKenna's writing is that he says that, so far as he is concerned, enlightenment means Truth (and he suggests that the impression many people have when they say 'enlightenment' is, in fact, not Truth). So, if we come from the assumption that enlightenment = Truth, then we must always be in & of Truth, because Truth cannot cease - cannot ever not be. That's one of the things about the absolute Truth - it's absolute by definition. Which, of course, isn't quite the same thing as saying "you're already enlightened". If enlightenment is awareness of Truth, then no, I don't think we are already enlightened. If enlightenment is simply being True, then we must be, even unknowingly

@Joseph Maynor Ok, good. I still want to say the following, which is probably more about me than you, but I feel like I need to say it, so please allow the self-indulgence: I get the feeling I've massively misunderstood you, like a sitcom character who doesn't like the new neighbour. I'll freely admit I've judged you without right and I'm not even sure why - probably because I read one post in a particular tone and determined that I KNEW what you meant. I hope I can recant for that as I learn more

@Joseph Maynor GOOD! I was trying to get my laptop just now to re-edit my statement because I was concerned that I was encouraging you to leave, which is the opposite of what I want (it's so easy to say "oh, I'm so sorry, you don't fit in here...") Man, you've provided me the most stark confrontation of me. I can't argue with that. Thank you Good, but I'll happily keep giving you jabs as and when I think you might want them

@Joseph Maynor I like the principle of your statement. If you feel this isn't the right place for you, fair enough and I will be sad to see you go. I have appreciated the challenge you have brought to the boarf, though I can appreciate it might seem very one-sided and even as an assault from your point of view

@Joseph Maynor Yes, you can. You may physically be determined to die as a human being, but you could live a life believing yourself an aardvark

@Joseph Maynor I can see where Leo is coming from, but I also think there's a vaid reason for it: you're interested in this, and it's damn different from your current mental framework. The difficulty is that this perspective can be tricky to phrase in direct language, or by the rules of the standard paradigm. And, you know what, you've no reason to doubt the standard paradigm. I freely admit that. Why the fuck should you give a shit what I have to say, or what anyone else has to say on this forum? Aside from (for me) nobody has ever explained to me how my particular unique set of electro-chemical neurological firings has created an entirely unique universe which is only ever ever ever experienced by me but we'll just ignore that and call it a side-effect of the brain. Aside from that what you might not doubt the standard paradigm. Fine. I'm not interested in convincing you to see the world as I do. I assume, as someone who posts here, you are interested in playing with ideas and/or experience. I apologise that I misrepresented you in my last post: you're right, I read your posts in a particular way which favoured my self-perspective that I was all clever and experienced and shit. I apologise for that. I back up my comments, though: if you are finding that you are reaching absolutes, search for their opposite. If solid, look for soft. If black, look for white.

@Joseph Maynor PS apologies for the phishing accusation (I didn't even use the correct term) but you are correct I was projecting my insecurities onto your post. Please accept my apologies

@Joseph Maynor Good! I hope my response is of help. I'd suggest (it took me a LONG time to figure this one out) that every positive has a negative, every negative has a positive and every up has a down. So every time you say non-, or un-, look for the opposite PS. I just want to say, I like having you on the forum! It's lovely to have someone challenging this shit! I don't know if, from your point of view, it might feel like we're all against you or something, but please believe me when I say I'm happy to meet you, speak with you, share ideas with you, and be challenged to the end of my knowledge by you

@Joseph Maynor Hi Joseph, If you'll excuse my skepticism, given the history of your posts I can't help but think it is a bit of a phish: apologies if it isn't, but I'm going to respond to it as if it is. No doubt I'll contribute something either way. The only way you can do this is if you can ditch non-negative thinking totally. They're the same thing. Just the positive and negative of the scale. The difference is that we want to experience non-negative thinking, and we want to avoid non-positive thinking (i.e. thinking good things). At least in the typical living paradigm If your epiphany means thatyou have no self, and no fears, then it doesn't follow that you can 'choose' to ditch non-positive thinking. After all, what 'you' chooses to ditch non-positive thinking if there is no 'you (self)'?

@electroBeam Oooooooooooohhhh fuck you you troublemaker you (you'd better bloody appreciate I waited 117 seconds to post this reply. Which I'm sure you will. So all you other people reading this: wonder why I waited for 117 seconds to post this reply, given if you read my post history you'll see me pass over chance and chance to earn points)

So long as you can stay alert. As far as I am concerned it's more about alertness than your position. I've meditated sitting, lying, standing, in quiet places, in crowded and loud places, and it's all fine, because it's about focus. If you can stay focussed while you're on your bed, fine. I'd also suggest starting on vipassina or another meditation that is based on focussing on an object, rather than the 'do nothing' which is implied by your description. Find a point of focus and keep all of your attention on it. In vipassina this is the breath, but it might be a sound (if it is constant/regular), or a feeling in the body, or so on. The breath is good because you are guaranteed it keeps going regularly. You can sit, stand, lie down, whatever, in order to do this. When you say I think this means you're trying 'do nothing'? This is a valid meditation, but if you're not experienced, I'd suggest you spend some time with vipassina first. The reason is that vipassina helps you to learn to 'see' thoughts. If you're only ever engaged in 'do nothing', it's possible you'll spend all your time thinking and call it meditation

Good - I like the skepticism here One counter I'd suggest for the first point is that enlightened people just might not be interested in coming back. Certainly my interest in this forum ebbs and flows, and it normally flows if I recognise that I'm feeling a little stuck and need some inspirational prodding. I can't see why I'd come back here if I were to become enlightened (as I understand it). The point, though, isn't whether it helps other people: it's whether it helps you. If it does, stay. If it doesn't, leave. Fuck the rest of us and what we say - your journey is about you, and as much as I can scream 'do this! do that!', I've not lived a day in your shoes. I can advise, not tell, and that's the same for anyone here