jjer94

Yep. When I had my awakening to the I AM, I couldn't stop laughing. I laughed to the point of crying, and then I just flat out cried of joy. It's so silly. There was no 'me' this whole time! What a joke! It depends on what you mean by awareness. I'm guessing you're equating awareness with Truth, that which is eternal. The I AM is ephemeral, which you can prove to yourself by simply going to sleep. The Truth of you is always there no matter what. The I AM is a stepping stone, a gateway, to Truth. "When the state of [I AM] is totally swallowed, whatever remains is that eternal 'I'." --Nisargadatta Maharaj

Others, as in, other people, other bodies. What are they really? Listen to any sounds. Where are they coming from? Where are they going? In order to really get what I'm saying, you may need to re-examine your ideas of an external world. Currently, you believe that your consciousness is a subset of the universe, a little ant among vast space and matter. What if it were the other way around? What if the universe was a subset of your consciousness? Contemplate that. Use this as a resource. Make that small little adjustment, and seeing through ego to find the "I AM" will be automatic.

There is no "Mom" for you to kill. Surely there's an animated body that is labelled as "Mom," but "Mom" herself doesn't exist. Just as I can say that there are fingers typing these words right now, but nobody's typing them. All there is in "my" experience are sense perceptions and sentience. Any "I" entity comes from thought, but that's just a sense perception, so in reality there is no "I" entity. There's only a puppet without a puppeteer. I won't even bother saying that you can confirm that in your direct experience...

What/where are you among these sense perceptions? What is the backdrop of all of these sense perceptions? What permeates them? Is there also an external world full of space and matter, or are there only sense perceptions? What are "others"?

@TruthSeeker I'm not sure you understand the definition of illusion. An illusion is something that appears to exist, but actually doesn't. There is no "reality of an illusion." Self and free will are illusions, meaning they don't actually exist in reality. Like Santa Clause. They don't exist, no matter how much they appear to exist. You can confirm this in your direct experience.

If there is only will, then every action done by will would be totally random, since there's no entity that can choose one thing over another. Doesn't sound like the free will you're talking about...

1. There exists no ego to create the illusion of free will. An illusion is something that appears to be there but doesn't actually exist. The ego and free will are both illusions. 2. I'm not sure what you mean here. Belief can be powerful sometimes. You can consider the illusion of free will to be one world-wide placebo effect!

@TruthSeeker What were you before you were born? Did you make yourself? Just curious...

I think what you may have found is the "I AM," which is one layer beyond ego. It's that sentient, empty aliveness, right? It's an intrinsic part of sense perceptions, which is everything, really. Pretty amazing when you first see it. ...But that's not enlightenment. Jed McKenna calls that stage Human Adulthood, or waking up in the dream. "Even the sense ‘I am’ is not continuous, though it is a useful pointer; it shows where to seek, but not what to seek. Just have a good look at it. Once you are convinced that you cannot say truthfully about your self anything except ‘I am’, and that nothing that can be pointed at, can be your self, the need for the ‘I am’ is over — you are no longer intent on verbalizing what you are." --Nisargadatta Maharaj

@jip He sure as heck makes it seem like it. But in truth, there is no such thing as value. In my opinion, I agree with Leo that enlightenment is the one thing most worth pursuing in this life. "But that's just, like, your opinion, man." You want an example of someone that will give you a different perspective on values and enlightenment? This guy. Not as much uncomfortable as it is eerie. Imagine going to a Halloween costume party where everyone believes they are their costume. But just like anything else, you get used to it. It probably even becomes fun after a while.

The problem that a lot of people get into with self-enquiry is that they become mechanical with asking "What am I?" As if by asking it enough the mind will give them an answer and there will be a flash of light and boom, they're enlightened. Or, they actually expect an answer to the question. Reminds me of a kid begging for candy over and over to their parents until the parents give in. Sorry, it doesn't really work that way. Insights don't come as an explosive event. They're very ordinary. All of the insights for enlightenment are available in your experience right now. It's just a matter of removing all of the hidden beliefs in your head that tell you you're something. In my opinion, the main purpose of "What am I?" is to expose and remove all of these beliefs so that what remains is pure not-knowing. And in the realm of pure not-knowing, you will know you are Truth by simply being it. The answer to "What am I" does not come from mind, nor is it in the form of words. If your mind goes silent, I figure that's a good thing. It's run out of things to tell you what you are. Stay in that realm of silence and you'll see what's been staring you in the face this whole time...

@jip Yes, it's a bit of a stretch, but let's flip it around: Why not? I mean, sure, you see through your ego. But you're at a costume party where everyone else is dressed up. You've gotta dress up as something. Why not have a little fun with it? Why do you ride a carnival ride? For the ride, not for the teddy bear you get at the end. Why buy a ferrari? So you can ride around in it. The enlightened don't have any particular agenda with it besides having fun with it. They don't need it to be happy. Maybe it just intuitively felt right to buy one. This is a trap you may want to watch out for. There's no need to remove any emotion. To try to remove an emotion would be to resist your present situation. The only thing you can do is become conscious of your emotions and what they're trying to accomplish. That's what Ralston talks about in his books. No need to remove excitement; just understand why you chase it. If it's for neurotic reasons, you'll know right away.

Great questions! There are no 'neurons' or 'other cells' in my experience, so I have no knowledge of that. This is an excellent question with a somewhat confusing answer if you're new to the enlightenment scene. How do I know the knowledge is not fake? It's not knowledge. Awakenings come about through not-knowing. Think about it. When we talk about enlightenment, we're talking about a Truth that transcends time, space, your birth and your death. It's infinite. How can an infinite Truth arise from finite knowledge? It can't. That's why the Truth can't be communicated through words either. What consciousness work is at its core is deconstruction. It's not trying to look for what's true, it's trying to remove what's false so that Truth remains. Thus, the Truth is not an elaborate construct of the mind; it's what remains when the mind is deconstructed. It is beyond all knowledge, all belief, all stories, all hearsay. Paradoxically, Truth is always there, meaning technically you're enlightened right now. What makes you un-enlightened is all of the constructs in your mind that tell you you're not, that tell you you're a body or an ego, a brother or a son, that you believe this belief or that belief. Consciousness work is the deliberate process of seeing through all of your mind's "knowledge." "To live in the known is bondage. To live in the unknown is liberation." - Nisargadatta "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick

You may want to try consciousness work before you make claims against it What is objective? Think about that for a sec. What do we deem as objective? Ultimately, objectivity is just a concept. It's an abstraction of an abstraction (of an abstraction, and so on) of something from subjective experience. Objectivity doesn't actually exist outside of mind. (Nor does subjectivity either, but that's a different story...) Thankfully, you don't have to believe me on this one. I urge you not to believe me. You can do your own contemplation. Trace any objective concept back to it's core, and you come back to subjective experience. Here's an example: Variable "x" -> a number such as 1 -> pick an object from subjective experience and give it the label "1". I mean, what's so objective about seeing, hearing, thoughts, touching, tasting, and smelling?

Self inquiry is not stopping thought. It's examining yourself and your experience by asking deep questions such as, "What is the purpose of this emotion," or "What am I?" or "What is aware of all of this?" or "What is Truth?" and many, many more. There is no best method; it really depends on your personality type. Although any method ought to involve some first person experience, because that's where the awakenings happen. I'm an analytical/philosophical type of person, so writing down all of my questions and dissecting them one by one was my main method. For more info on that, check out this post: Cheers!

A solid book for getting introduced into the topic of enlightenment. However, his techniques often imply that you have to stop thinking. Like, literally try to stop your thinking. That's what I did for a while after reading his book, trying to be present all the time. Just as a warning, that's going to get you nowhere if you're a serious seeker. It actually requires a lot of unnecessary effort too.

Because. "Why" is a question invented by language. It doesn't actually exist in reality.

@TruthSeeker You say your mind is the entity that has will. What or where is the mind in your direct experience? Don't tell me that the mind is your collection of thoughts or your brain or any of that crap. Actually look in your experience. What's actually there? Let me repeat this as a hint: Look in your experience. Do you see anything other than thinking, seeing, feeling, touching, tasting? This is my last post on the matter, because you're going to try to counter what I say with an argument. I'm not here to argue. I'm just urging you to verify free will in your direct experience. But if you refuse to look closely and instead want to continue believing in it, go ahead.

Think about its requirements. What does free will require? It requires some entity in which to have free will. Look in your experience. Do you see anything other than thinking, seeing, feeling, touching, tasting? Where's the entity that has free will? Try to predict your next thought. You say you have free will, so tell me what your next thought is going to be. You must have control over your thoughts if you have free will, right? Try to stop thinking for thirty seconds. If you're not convinced, just think about the concept of free will itself and how little sense it makes. If I have the freedom to choose one thing over another, where did my choice to choose come from? And where did my choice to choose to choose come from? The environment must have played some role in my freedom of choice, otherwise my choices would be completely random. If the environment played a role, my free will is no longer free. But on the flip-side, if my choices have been random this whole time...is that really free will? Do you remember choosing anything as a baby? Do you choose to fall asleep? Do you choose to stand up after sitting down for too long? Now, set your monkey mind aside for a second and just examine your experience. "The dream-marks are all present; you should have recognized them earlier." Mark Twain

Why does all of this matter? Why do you feel so inclined to make a scientific study of enlightened beings? For certainty? For hope for the future? For knowledge? If you're on the path, you may want to learn to abandon all sense of certainty, hope, and especially knowledge. Enlightenment just is. Whatever happens after that is completely up in the air. The body and mind do whatever they feel moved to do. "Neo, sooner or later you're going to realize just as I did that there's a difference between knowing the path and walking the path." -Morpheus, The Matrix

It seems that way from his books, but after personally communicating with him I found that not to be the case. I understand where you're coming from though. He does come at enlightenment from a somewhat conceptual realm. Realize that all of the positive and negative attributes revolving around enlightenment are just interpretations, or side-effects, of the actual realization. Enlightenment just is. What happens after that is up in the air. Most of the time, you will exhibit the side-effects you described. Adyashanti thinks the realization is amazing and will improve your life tenfold. Same with Leo. However, people like Steven Norquist and Jed think the realization is life-negative, because you're basically dying without dropping the body. That's also probably because in their situations, they lost a lot of friends, family, and hobbies on the pathless path. There are many different ways the fingers describe the moon. Also, because your experiences were from drugs, they may not jibe perfectly with sober experience. In fact, you're experiencing non-dual awareness in your experience right now. You just don't see it for what it is. Look around for that sense of empty aliveness, the I AM, and you'll find it couched in every sense perception without boundaries.

@Pinocchio Thank you for this! I'll use the "yes and no" method tonight.

You can never actually tell who is enlightened. You can only assume they are by the way they speak about it, their behaviors, outlooks, etc. For all you know, enlightenment could be some made-up thing and everyone's playing a joke on you! But in my opinion, if thousands and thousands claim to be it and all the teachings are pointing to something, I think it's worth checking out. The enlightened usually don't like to divulge that they're enlightened. And quite frankly, does it matter whether someone's enlightened as long as their teachings are successfully pointing students in the right direction? Somebody came up to me with a question. What do you think the question was? He asked me, “Are you enlightened?” What do you think my answer was? What does it matter! You want a better answer? My answer would be: “How would I know? How would you know? What does it matter?” You know something? If you want anything too badly, you’re in big trouble. You know something else? If I were enlightened and you listened to me because I was enlightened, then you’re in big trouble. Are you ready to be brainwashed by someone who’s enlightened? You can be brainwashed by anybody, you know. What does it matter whether someone’s enlightened or not? But see, we want to lean on someone, don’t we? We want to lean on anybody we think has arrived. We love to hear that people have arrived. It gives us hope, doesn’t it? What do you want to hope for? Isn’t that another form of desire? -- Tony de Mello Socrates may have been enlightened. Tony Robbins? Probably not. Common qualities of the enlightened include but are not limited to: humility, authenticity, ordinariness, wisdom (knowing that they know nothing), and compassion. There can still be basic needs and wants for your body even without a self. Body and self are two different entities. You can confirm that in your direct experience. I hate to break it to you, but everything is pointless. Don't take my word for it though; you can also confirm that in your direct experience. If you're interested in taking the plunge into enlightenment work, I suggest checking out Leo's book list. He has tons of books that can clear up your confusion about all of this. Cheers!

Check out Leo's video on free will. The most fundamental basis is that free will requires an agent of will, and when you look in our experience, you can't find one. Here's another article explaining the problems with free will better than I can ever explain it: http://www.uncoveringlife.com/free-will/

Hi Carlos! No. Enlightenment explains the "Who", the "What", and the "When" of life. It does not explain the "How" or the "Why." Ultimately, nobody can explain the "Why" of life without the explanation being false. "Why" are questions invented by language, and they don't apply when it comes to enlightenment. No. They can only describe everything. See the difference? The main issue with science is that they completely leave out first person experience. If we really want to, sure! We shouldn't expect to find any rock solid answers, though. Sorry to say this, Carlos, but you're never going to find rock solid answers to the origins of the universe. I wanted to be a researcher for very similar reasons: I wanted to answer life's big questions through science. It was only halfway through my studies that I realized that was impossible, and by then it was too late to switch majors. Now I'm stuck with a biology degree with little interest in science! At the same time, I wouldn't worry too much right now about what you want to be. You're still young, and you will be surprised how much your interests may change in the next few years. Cheers! JJ