Scholar

This is what's confusing. Enlightenment is beyond thought, yet people who claim to be enlightenment think all sorts of beliefs and assumptions. If they just are, how can they be god, or infinite, or consciousness? All of that is concept, but they cling to it so desperately. None of them can just be, it seems, they all want to be "everything, consciousness, the absolute". But if they just are, they just are. They aren't any of these things because all of them are thoughts. It seems to me like there is this weird trick the mind plays. It's like "This is just being, but oh god, this is god! This is infinite, it's all, bla bla bla!", and they are so absolutely certain of it. But it's still the monkey talking, the monkey being the monkey. How can being be anything but being?

I don't seem to believe that the predictions reflect my reality. There is a position that the predictions are part of reality, or "my" reality, which is reality itself, because literally everything I expirience is all of reality that I have access to, it seems? I know the map is not the territory, but the map seems to be pointing to something. Now I have a decision to make, I can either decide that the map is the territory, that "my" reality is all that exists because everything else is inaccessable in an absolute way (otherwise it would be part of my reality) or I can assume that there is an inaccessable reality that is beyond my reality, that this reality cannot access whatsoever. And that inaccessable reality is something interacting with mine, in a way that I can create a map of it. See, but I just created a map of the map of the territory? And even this is another map, everything is. But some maps just seem to work. If I gauge my eyes out, I am farely certain that I will lose my eyesight. Yet, I cannot know, and I will not know until I try. But what does that mean? The assumption about it exists, and the assumption is never truly what is happening. But, from the assumptions perspective, once taking the actions within that assumption, the assumption will come true. So the map works as a map, and everything I "do" is happening on the map. This is all there is, the map is reality, atleast from my perspective. But as I said, all of this is just another map. But yet, it can explain all of enlightenment and all the assumptions and beliefs that result in it. It's not true because it's just a map, but yet, it works? To even form any of those questions needs a hideous amount of ungrounded assumptions and positions. Is the conclusion that some positions just have to be taken to be able to do anything?

But all of this is conceptualizing. Everything you say is concept, all of it. What else would it be? But you claim it to be true, you really belief that it is true. You are completely certain of it. "Consciousness doesn't make predictions" is itself a prediction. What if it decides to just do it? You are farely certain that it will not, which means you are using the tool of prediction yourself. Yet, you say it's illusiory. But to say it's illusiory, you need to use it yourself! Do you understand what I mean? I am having this problem, because as I said, I can create a model that explains to me what enlightenment is, and why people are so certain of it when they expirience it. I can explain why Dingus is saying this. Why he can be so absolutely certain of it. Yet, I "know" the explanation is not what really is happening, but it seems to create something that is there. How can you not see the irony of what you are doing? You are using the very tool of prediction to predict why prediction is not real...

I don't get it. How can you do anything without having a position? Why is Leo making videos if he has no clear positions. He thinks people are watching the videos, he thinks he is helping people, he has the position that anything outside of him exists. Just as all of you do, and me. Every thought needs positions, otherwise the thought wouldn't even come to be. Why would it? What if some positions are just true, and others are not? That might be the case, and it seems to be the case from my perspective. I can never know, so it's like a lottery. Just right now you assume that I do not understand. That is a position. Maybe you are reading the words of god, right now. You seem to be farely certain that they are not, why is that? Just look at your own actions, at Leo's actions, at my actions. We all hold positions, always, at all times, it seems. Even this is a position. Why would you do anything, if you do not hold the uncertain position that any other moment will exist? If you are not certain that the next moment exists, why would you initiate any actions? It makes no sense to do that without a certainity that "future" will come, on a fundamental level.

How do I know that though? Maybe everything is exactly what it seems! The problem is, as I said, that I already know, I can already predict, where this questioning will lead me! See, you are still using the system of prediction to explain things. What is even a mechanism? What is identity? What is thought? It all makes no sense because it can be revealed as an illusion, yet you use these tools to create a sense of truth! You still talk, yet it can be revealed that all talk is illusion. All concept a mere fabrication. Not just the concepts that you like and don't like, that seem true and don't seem true, but all of them, without a single exception. Why is that fun? I cannot know any of that, I never will, yet "we" all still do it. It doesn't seem to matter in this discussion at all. This is the very problem I am talking about. I cannot know anything, yet, what I claim to know might be the complete truth! I cannot even know that, so it's circlejerk, that will lead me to just accept everything as it is. I can predict that, and I cannot even know if I predicted it!

I know though, but the problem is, I can explain why no thought is going to explain the relationship between thought and reality. This is the very problem I am talking about! See, you think "No thought is going to explain the relationship between thought and reality", and that is a thought! So, what does it explain? You say "It comes down to mechanism which allows...", which is a thought aswell. You say "it involves.." which is a thought aswell! All illusiory, yet you claim it to be true? Coming down to awareness is a thought aswell. It's a prediction itself!

Nothing, it seems to be that way though, doesn't it? It seems like I can't be sure of anything at all, but even that seems to be not sure. I can take a pencil and say that it will fall once I let it go, and it will.

Yes, but I can explain it all. I can explain why it is infinitely far awy from what I predicted. I can create concepts that explain the entirety of enlightenment in a perfectly predictable and rational way. Why is that? I can explain what non-duality is, and I can explain perfectly why it is happening when taking psychedelics or doing meditation. I can even explain why people who expirience it was so certain of it. Yet, all of the explanation is itself in this illusion! So, the explanations are not real, just as no explanation is real. The words you use are complete and utter nonsense when in the state of non duality. It's not god, it's not anything, because it is beyond thought. And I can perfectly explain why it is beyond thought. But yet, I know that it is creating thought. How is that possible? I know the explanation is illusiory, it must be, because that's part of the explanation. But then, what is the explanation really?

I guess the truth is just stopping to construct truth. It's not even the truth, it's just what it is. The more I do this work, the more I meditate and contemplate, the more it seems like everything is just exactly what it is. The words are just words, the expiriences are just expiriences. There is nothing more to it, not even nothing-more-to-itness. It seems more like we are all playing a game, in the end it's pointless either way. The pointlessness doesn't even need to be accepted, it's just how it is. The game is played no matter what you do. It seems like the mind likes the idea of ultimate truth, or any truth. It's really, really attached to it. I'm at a point where I have a hard time to believe Leo about enlightenment. It all seems like more delusion. It looks like the path leads to ultimate close-mindedness, in a way that is irreversable. When the mind recognizes that the mind is all there is, then there is nothing it can trust but itself. Why is it that when taking a psychedelic that we expirience something beyond the mind? Why is it that doing meditation for decades gives us the absolute truth? Both of them are an alteration of the mind, of the structure. What it really changes is the mind, not the deeper truth. In the end it's just another paradigm. Yes, Leo says it's not. He claims that only with direct expirience you recognize absolute truth. But even that is simply just a believe, created as a result of that expirience. Maybe there is no way around it. Maybe if I had this "expirience" right now I'd believe the same thing. Expirience is all we have after all, so what can we trust if not that? This is a very strange property of the mind. It can predict. It can say "If I take 5-meo-dmt, I will have an expirience of absolute infinity". What if Leo has taken a path that lead him to absolute delusion? To me it seems like there is beyond the mind. It's not something, because anything is the product of the mind. It's beyond words, beyond concept and even beyond expirience. It's so inaccessable that it is truly unknowable. Even saying it's outside of the mind is no fitting. It's so inaccessable that even saying it's inaccessable is wrong. In the end though it's just another belief, like the resulting beliefs after expiriencing true self. I guess absolute skepticism doesn't allow any belief, no matter what expirience was made. Leo might be right, he might be completely wrong and delusional. I can see that now, and I feel silly for having believed in enlightenment. The more I do this, the less I feel like I know, and the more skeptical I become. I don't know, but it seems like there is something to this tool of prediction that I am using. I don't know what it is, and how it is doing what it's doing, but it seems to be the one guide there is. It's not even speaking truth, it's just predicting. It seems like it might be the same tool that creates a paradgim of absolute infinity, or non-duality. The tool that speaks. It's so strange. Why can I give an explanation for whatever people call enlightenment? Why can I predict it with a model of reality that I know cannot be really what is? Using this model it makes complete sense that when taking 5-Meo-DMT there must be an expirience of absolute infinity, of god, because all of the subjects reality will be revealed as a creation of the "true self", the mind that is unknowable, unconscious. Of course it will happen, it's the only thing that can happen. And yes, to the person who does expirience it, it will be literally real. Because that is what real is, what reality is, a complete construction. All the buddha says makes complete sense under this system of belief. True love make sense and is explainable. Now, of course Leo will tell me that he is directly expiriencing god, because he is. But I know what his god is, it's the root of his reality, the creator of his little simulation, which to him seems vastly infinite, because it is truly all there is for him. This makes me just so much more skeptical about whether all these expiriences are just nonsensical, and it just furthers the belief that we cannot expirience anything beyond the mind, beyond reality. We can never know if there is something beyond reality, or what it is. It's a true mystery, that is beyond us, forever. This is what it seems like to me. When using psychedelics, and doing self-inquiry, you are literally changing the structure of the mind, and thus the structure of your reality. Just as the normal human being is absolutely certain that he exists, a human being without the sense of self will be absolutely certain that he is all of reality, or all of the rest. This will be his reality, and unless the structure changes, it will persist, and be truly the reality of that subject. My suspicion is that no reality can come to whatever is beyond it. Thus, enlightenment is nothing but an altered state of reality. It's subjective, but even subjectivism exists in this reality alone.

Does anyone know if the original audio recordings still exist?

It doesn't seem to make sense for me that taking a psychedelic will reveal a universal truth about reality. I think, infact, that it might be a huge trap into deep and absolute delusion of the mind. I have no expirience with psychedelics, and I am planning to try them at some point, but for me there are a few aspects about this entire thing that make me far more cautious about what my mind is telling me. I think people do not quite realize, on an intellectual level, what reality is. Our mind has tools to inspect and abstract reality in a certain way. It can take inaccessable informational structures and create simulations that, then, are useful for prediction of the informational structures themselves. This is, infact, what is happening right now as I think about this topic. We have a model of reality, within our reality. So, this model of reality is depicted as dimensional, motional and casual (there is time, space and cause for everything). With this model we were able to create a certain understanding of the mind, an abstraction that allows us to explore certain functions in a very specific language. With that language we have created a map, which we call the brain. The brain is the result of using our tools to inspect inherently inaccessable informational structures in a certain way. We know that, if we manipulate the brain, according to the map we have created of it, there will be certain changes to the reality that is happening within it. We don't really know what the brain is, we only have a map of it, which exists in what the map is created of. But thanks to that map, to those tools, we can aquire a certain sense of the global reality of the mind. We can isolate certain aspects of the simulation and then inspect the entirety of the simulation in an abstracted way. This is why when we take a gun and shoot someone in the head, we know what the simulation of reality within that human being will stop, it will cease to exist, or atleast be altered severely. This process of altering the reality of someone else is a very interesting thing. It begs the question of what exactly reality for the mind is. And here it gets very important for our investigation of the mind. When we start to look at the mind in this particular way, we have to recognize that it is a kind of simulation that can be altered by manipulating informational structures, that we have created a dimensional map of. You can tell yourself that mind is everything, it will not change the fact that I can use my map of the brain to completely wipe out your reality. What is this simulation? What is it really? We can simply start to inspect what is required for your reality to function the way it does. What exists in the mind? Very obvious is the sense of dimensionality. The human mind is capable of generating space, direction, size and motion. It is capable of creating colors, sounds, all feelings, tastes and scents. Beyond that, it is obviously capable of creating a sense of identification, of "me" being a particular part of the simulation. All of reality that you expirience right now is the simulation. Absolutely everything is the simulation, without a single exception. Saying something is "me" or "other" is simply the creation of a sense that distinguishes certain aspects of the mind. We have to be aware of the fact that it is the mind that is creating the sense, and that it could do it otherwise. The sense of I is not inherently limited to one thing within the simulation. Now, let's simply imagine that the simulation would decide to create a sense of identification for absolutely everything within the simulation. And now you might say, "Oh yes, that would mean that I would identify with everything! I'd be the trees, the world, the entire universe!", which would indicate that you have not even remotely a clue of what the simulation is. You would not only identify with certain aspects of the simulation, like the output of specific informational structures (the tree, the body, the world, the universe), but you would identify with the creation of these informational structures themselves. You would identify with the part that is creating dimensionality, and thus you would recognize that it's unlimited. The mind can simulate infinite space, the only reason why it doesn't is because it's useless. The mind can literally create the sense of being an entire universe, why wouldn't it be able to? Beyond that you would of course identify with the creation of motion itself, with the creation of time, of past, present and future. You would literally identify with the process that is simulating the past within the mind, aswell as the process that is creating the future, and that is evaluating the present moment. You would get a sense of unlimited presentness, past and future because you would recognize that the mind is capable of creating it. Beyond that, you would even identify with the root simulation of every feeling possible, you would be the creation of feeling, of absolute, infinite love. The intensity of love is only limited for practical reason, there is really no limit to it. Beyond that, of course, you would identify with the most basic sense of reality itself. You would identify with the creation of reality, the simulation of absolutely everything that is happening in the mind. And beyond that, you will most likely identify with even more, the pre "calculations" of reality. You might identify with a sense of one dimensionality, because it might be a necessary part to construct further dimensionality. Basicly, there will be an idenfitication with the tools that create the entirety of your reality. You will feel like god, because literally everything, everything you can possibly expirience, will be revealed to you as you. Basicly, what one is expiriencing, is the uconscious mind, the mind that is creating all of the mind. It's so fundamental, so abstract and unimaginable, that it is beyond every normal conscious expirience of the mind. You will love everyone and everything because you will recognize that it is a creation of yourself. What else can you call this, but god? This is why it is so incredibly dangerous for truth seekers. The entire simulation of your reality is not necessarily all of reality. If you identify with the creation of your reality, it will seem like god. It will seem like absolute infinity, because it is capable of creating any reality. Every single one of us is underestimating the capablities of the mind. The mind is creating everything, absolutely everything. All senses, all ideas, all expiriences, even those that are beyond our consciousness. I suspect that taking 5-meo-dmt makes one remotely aware of it, makes on identify with the creation of reality itself, which is nothing but a simulative act. The creation is so abstract that the conscious mind is uncapable of grasping it. It is beyond imagination, because imagination is a product of these processes. The delusion happens when there is a certainty that the expirienced reality is all of reality. It doesn't get us closer to what it is that all of it is happening in. It doesn't seem spiritual at all. It's a change, a play of the mind. A game that doesn't bring anyone closer to the truth. Yes, it will fill you with love, it will show you god, the creator of all. But this god is not everything there is, he is simply everything there is for you. The trap is to believe there is nothing beyond the mind, or that one can truly access all of reality. It's quite strange because this god is creating everything in reality, because all of reality is your simulation. It will give you the feeling of absolute certainty, because you are right. All of reality is created by this one thing. You will never concieve anything beyond it. The recognition of that, of being uncapable of knowing, of seeing anything beyond it, must be the most difficult thing to accept. That we truly know nothing about reality, and we never will. That we are, forever, stuck in this bubble. That expirience is all there is for us. I guess most people just give up and claim that expirience is all, that the mind is all there is. That god is the creator of reality. From their perspective it's absolute truth, it's literally true, in their reality, which is why they are so certain of it. They have a direct expirience that all of reality is created by themselves, by god, and that this force is capable of creating everything it pleases. That this god, is so powerful and infinite, that it can create anything possible, even the impossible. I'm not sure if one who has taken this particular path can recognize this, because for them, even this very thought is a creation of that god. They have the direct expirience of this, what I am thinking right now, is a creation of this god. It is absolutely true for them. There is nothing beyond it, it's all there is. But maybe it's not. This is the trap of direct expirience, direct expirience is limited to direct expirience. It will give you absolute certainty, but it will equally give you absolute delusion.

Isn't identification an expirience itself? If the mind identifies with anything, it's delusional, so why wouldn't it be delusional if it identified with awareness? Isn't the complete absence of identification the coming of "truth"? It doesn't seem like any claim is truthful, no matter how true it feels. It's still an expirience. To me it seems more like the mind is desperately trying to identify with anything, to uphold it's structure, even if it means that it's something that is beyond the mind. It's still the mind identifying though, because awareness does not identify. Awareness just is. There is no "me" who is being the awareness. Or am I just confused about something? Identification is happening in awareness, it seems completely delusional either way. No one is identifying, identifcation is simply happening. He cannot identify with anything, identification can simply happen. The feeling of I can be there or it can't, it will not change that there is no I, no you, or anything, really. Identification stands for itself. The monkey can claim that he is more than he is, but he is not. He is still just a monkey. The words and concepts are simply words and concepts, no matter how much you shuffle them. An expirience is always simply an expirience, so anything being expirienced is not awareness. So how can enlightenment even be expirienced? How can one be aware of awareness? If something is beyond expirience, then how can anyone claim to have expirienced it? How can they be aware of having had something beyond expirience, if anything being in awareness is an expirience, even the expirience of beyond any expirience? In other words, why do people have a clear memory of enlightenment if it's the true recognition of the "self", which is beyond expirience and thus memory? You Leo, can clearly remember that you had an expirience of infinity when you took 5-meo-dmt. Something has changed, a "shift of awareness". But, that shift is being expirienced, isn't it? So isn't it just another expirience? The monkey is saying wow, but what is it saying wow about if the wowness is still being expirienced, by something beyond the monkey, the wowness and the expirience of absolute truth? Why is there this assumption that awareness exists? What if the expiriences just exist as themselves, they are just there? Why is there the need for an expiriencer? Why is there the thought of everything happening in awareness? What if it's not, what if it's not happening anywhere, what if it's simply happening. What if it's just all exactly what it is, not happening at all? Why is there even the need for the thought of anything happening? What is happening? This is happening there, this is doing that, but the fact of the matter is that even these concepts are just there. Even the being thereness is just another aspect. It doesn't even seem like anything is happening at all. Why are we trying so desperately to put it all into words?

There is a fundamental difference between intellectual knowledge and conscious awareness. Having an idea about what is right and wrong does not mean that the mind will obey to that. It's funny how he is the perfect example for why morality is such an ineffective tool. It couldn't be more ironic.

If you think about it, wouldn't it be wise to precisely do it the way Leo does? If he truly wants to help people, he needs to find a way to catch their attention. If someone is unconscious, maybe you have to use that to your advantage so he listens to you. Another style might have let to noone really caring about Leo's videos, in other words, without the play of confidence and certainity, people would not trust him. If you understand how the mind works it's not very wise to play against it's mechanisms simply to feel like you are doing the right thing. People with low self-esteem do need help, so attracting them by any means necessary is in my opinion a completely valid strategy. You have to see it like this: A deer has a wounded leg and is straying through the forest. If it just sees you, it'll run away. So what do you do to help the deer? You have to catch it somehow, even if it means that you set up a trap. Once you catch the deer, you can help it. For the deer, the trap is utter hell. It's the tricking the deer that in the end leads to it's salvation. From our perspective, the confidence is tricking us into believing and having faith in Leo's words. If we didn't have faith in them, why would we even consider listening to them? Why would I meditate every single day if I am not convinced that it will help me? We need to be convinced, to be tricked, so that we can see for ourselves that it will help us.

I didn't listen to alot of it, but from what I heard he simply hears what he wants to hear and is not really listening to what Leo is conveying. But he said it himself, he simply searched for a random youtuber so he could rant about communism and the left. He's someone who claims communism is the greatest evil in the world. It's a fanatic, people like him usually create the most suffering, and suffer themselves the most aswell.

Seems like alot of mixing up of paradigms in here. Socrates seems to be discussing morality. My_Name_Is_Mud is taking it from a rational and analytical perspective, and Emerald is taking on the more of personal developement angle. Blue, orange, green/yellow, by that order (spiral dynamics). That's what it seems like to me, atleast in this particular realm of discussion. You guys seem to be talking past each other, and I don't think this will change with more conversing about this matter. The only one I spotted that made attempts of integration was Emerald. Asking oneself these questions before writing the next post might help: How do I feel right now? Am I writing this post with a desire to show that I am right, and to prove the others wrong? How did I read the others posts, in what way did I interprete them? Was I maybe looking for flaws instead of truly grasping what the other wants to convey? Was I comparing every statement to my own satements about reality? Am I trying to understand the other, and helping him to understand my perspective, or am I just fighting with him, arguing to make him see that I am right? Most importantly: If I already am convinced that I am right, why am I participating in this discussion?

I guess I'm not that far. Right now is seems like I am becoming aware of a "vacuum" from which everything is percieved. I'm saying vacuum because it really isn't anything. I have no idea if I just have to stay with that vacuum to breach through it? Because it seems like you cannot become aware of it, simply because it is awareness itself. It's not content, it's before content, before anything coming into consciousness. It's not even that thought because all of that is just an idea, and it's aware of the ideas, and all perceptions. Meaning that, no perception can ever describe it. The coming into being of perception seems to be literally a movie playing within it, and all of percievable reality is that movie. I don't know, it seems like this is the unconsciousness, the processes which create the percieving, atleast talking from a psychological standpoint. Processes within the unconsciousness create the conscious mind, so everything conscious is happening as an output of that.

Preach it, brother.

@Martin123 @electroBeam It's interesting to note that you don't know whether you are right or not. The concept of non-existence is just as illusiory as the concept of existence. Talking to yourself is just as delusional as talking to someone. Both are not what is, are they? When you think that I do not exist, it's just as much a thought as when you think that I do exist. Do any of the statements hold any truth? There seems to be a process of abstraction, conceptualization, that imposes onto what is. That process is what creates claims about reality. The claims do not realize that they are part of reality, not reality themselves. Infact, when a claim about this very fact manifests itself, the claim seems to reach the limits of concept, and see the entire absurdity of any claim, it's so absurd, that it's not even absurd anymore. It seems as though nothing seems to be true and nothing seems to be false, the seeming of seeming to be true itself becomes just seeming. The concepts seem to fall apart, so that no concept can hold, even the concept of this very concept I am just conceptualizing. It's so strange. In a weird sense, the not making sense of anything makes complete sense. It almost seems like any claim of reality is completely and utterly valid and true. But, the sense of truth and validity itself is simply what it is, a sense of truth. Truth is not more than simply what it seems to be. So, the perception of someone, and the non-perception of someone, are both exactly what they are. Both are true and valid, but none of them are more than what they are. Truth is like a game. It's words, not empty of meaning. Instead, meaning itself is empty. But it's not really empty because it's meaning, yet meaning is no more than meaning. It simply is what it is, just meaning. The process of abstraction so, does not impose onto what is, it simply is. The abstraction is simply reality. Validity is part of abstraction. So, everything is real in an absolute sense, but not really. Because this concept of everything being real is just a concept, it is simply what it is. It's even stranger because it seems like everything is just coming into being. The though about coming into being is simply the thought about coming into being coming into being. It's not more than that, but even the concept of it not being more than that is not more than the concept of it being more than that. Seems like the mind cannot compute this? But even this is just a claim. When there is a sense of a process of abstraction imposing onto what is, it's nothing more than a sense of a process of abstraction imposing onto what is. And even that sense of a sense of abstraction is simply an abstraction. This is how it unfolds, it keeps going and going, and there is one claim after the other, simply appearing and disappearing, even the appearing and disappearing is just the sense of appearing and disappearing appearing and diseppearing. There is no stop to it, the thoughts just keep going and going, the appearing keeps appearing, and then they vanish like nothing, but already something else took the place, creating a sense of the disappearing. So, the disappearing of perception itself is just the appearing of another sense, and even that sense is the appearing of another sense. The disappearing is never truly witnessed, because the witnessing of disappearing itself is another appearing. When the absolute sense of truth appears, it's simply the absolute sense of truth. It's not more than that. The knowing of something is the knowing appearing. Knowing is not more than knowing. This is the reason why the mind can impossibly grasp this. The coming into appearing is already the content. Every content is simply content, none of it is more than itself. Even the sense of it coming from somewhere, is nothing more than a sense of it coming from somewhere. The noticing of being peaceful is simply the noticing of being peaceful. It's not peacefulness itself. Peace cannot be noticed, but even the sense of it cannot being noticed is simply a sense of it not being able to be noticed. It's not more than that. Even the sense of it not being more than that is not more than the sense of it not being more than that. Every sense simply is a sense, but yet, even the sense of everything simply being a sense is nothing more than a sense. This seems to be a loop, but even the seeming of it being a loop is just a sense of it seeming to be a loop. The being a loop is simply being a loop. The words are just words. The claim that words are just words is simply the claim that words are just words. Reality is simply being reality. All is illusion, and all is completely real, just as it is. This is a sense though, a sense of reality being this way, but even the sense of reality being this way is just a sense of reality being this way. Reality is what it is, not more than that. The words cannot describe this because description itself is simply what it is, a description. It is somehow beyond the process of coming into being, it is beyond the what isness of what isness. Yes, even the sense of this what isness, the being beyond, is nothing more but this very sense. There are no thoughts to describe this, because it is before the creation of thoughts. It is ungraspable, because grasping itself comes from it. The awareness of it, is coming directly from it. It's not equal, ever. The awarenss of it is simply the awareness of it. It's like looking in a mirror, into a reflection. But that reflection simply is a reflection, it will never be the source. The source simply is. No, it's not even being. It's completely beyond, even beyond the sensation of beyondness. This very sensation, this very concept that is appearing, is simply an output. Even the thought of this very same thought is simply a thought. It's not it, but yet, the content seems to be aware. It's like the content contains the source itself, but even that is just a sense coming from the source. The awareness of it is just the awareness of it, not more. It's completely beyond coming into being, but I can repeat these words as many times as I want, it will not bring me closer. Because the very thoughts are the coming into being. It's endless. Even the sense of me thinking this is a sense coming into being. The sense of me coming into being is another sense. It's like the mind is recognizing that it cannot recognize the source. The very recognition of not being able to recognizing the source is proof for the source. The sense, the noticing, of coming into being. It comes from nothing at all, it's nothing because it's completely ungraspable. It's so beyond that even the sense of beyondness is not even close to it. It's the absence of coming into being, but even the sense of absence of coming into being is not it. It simply is the very absence of coming into being, not the sense of it. The source of this sense, and the source of all senses. All the sense are the coming into being, so no sense, ever, will capture what is making it coming into be. It is beyond the senses. It's right there, all the time, but even the sense of it being right there all the time is not it. It's so beyond everything that it is even beyond the sense of beyoind being everything. It's not anything at all, not even the sense of it not being anything at all. It has no location because location comes from it. It has no form because form comes from it. It has no sensation because sensation comes from it. It has no concept because concept comes from it. It has no coming from, because coming from comes from it. It's not anything, because everything comes from it. It's not it, because itness is coming from it.

Even more interesting, why do you assume that in my expirience you do not exist as a conscious entity?

Of course. The very fact that I think I am writing with someone is an assumption in itself. I do not know what you are seeking Martin. We cannot know what is going on in that human beings mind. All we can do is create an oppurtunity to learn, doing the wise thing instead of letting the ego play it's immature game of who is right and who is not. It does not matter whatsoever if this person is enlightened. It is unknowable. Again, the assumption in this case serves the purpose of growth, it serves the broadening of perspective. It seems like you are more interested in who is right about him and who is not. Just as I am questioning the desire to tell you this right now, it would be advisable for you to do the same.

Of course we don't know the full picture. He might be a complete fraud and not have been enlightened whatsoever and still act the way he does. You cannot know that, just as you can't know if he did indeed have an awakened expirience. I would disagree that he is teaching by example. Someone who teaches by examples, does not go around and say "You are so negative, think positive!", but would simply be positive and let that sparkle curiousity in others. I guess this roots in the lack of wisdom, and lack of understanding the human mind. He does not understand himself, the workings of his psyche, which for me is an essential part on the path of enlightenment. The ego, as we know, can take any expirience that is non-permanent and use it for it's own purpose. If you expirience ego-death, once the ego reappears, it might think of itself that it is enlightened. This will give the ego a sense of superiority, that it will of course not utter in thoughts, but rather in subtle deeds and behaviour. The ego is not enlightened, it can never be. It's very dangerous for the ego to identify with this concept, especially after having had a direct expirience of it. It's difficult to tell, but it does seem like he is conditioned by various sources that claim to know the truth. He believes in concepts that he has no direct expirience of, infact he is absolutely certain of them. He is certain that mere positive thinking can change the world around him, but he had no direct expirience of that. The certainity is what indicates immaturity of the mind to me. If you look at people who have taken this path and seem to be successful with it, you will notice a certain humbleness. The ego can claim an expirience to be his, even if it was true. It can always self-decept, and the reason why this is so dangerous is because the ego now claims it knows absolute truth. Even though the truth is the absence of knowing, the ego is trapped in a belief system that it cannot escape. Before, the ego was investigating, questioning and it was skeptical. Now it claims to know the truth, and there might be no turning back from that. It seems to me like it's essential to have a proper understanding of the ego before having an enlightenment expirience. The ego is so well at deception that it will do anything to survive. It will even pretend to be selfless, loving and all knowing, just to avoid true death. You said it yourself, awakening can cause a massive paradigm shift. In this case it seems like this massive paradigm shift created a paradigm-lock, far firmer than the paradigm that was held before. It's not full surrender, it's the pretending of full surrender. It's not true love, it's the pretending of true love. He claims to know the unknowable truth. It's the ego grasping and holding onto awakening to avoid it's own parishing.

Consciousness came into existence out of nothing (and as far as enlightened people tell us, literally nothing) and goes into nothingness each time you are in deep sleep. If consciousness can come into existence once, it can do it as many times as it wants, can't it? In other words, if you were born once, there is no reason for you not to be born twice, or infinitely. I think the belief of eternal death is more of coming from the egoic possessing. "My consciousness! If I am dead, consciousness is dead!" From what it seems to me it's more like consciousness is the TV, and the life that is happening within it simply runs on it. Once it's over, another movie will take the place. Why wouldn't it? Ask yourself. Why are you you, why is "your" consciousness living that specific life, and not one of the trillions of others that exist or have existed? Would it make sense for consciousness to let one life appear within it, and then never again? How then, does it decide which life to choose? It's quite ironic if you think about. People who are alive seem to be convinced that if they die, consciousness dies. But then, people who are dead (ego-death) seem to be absolutely certain that consciousness is eternal. Maybe it requires death to see that.

Do you mean that the mind is awareness? The witnessing is what is being the mind?