jjer94

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

Yes, practicing death-awareness, i.e. Memento Mori, is probably the simplest, most effective method for becoming disillusioned. That doesn't mean kill yourself; it just means exposing yourself regularly to the notion of death. You can do that by hanging out in cemeteries, looking down from steep cliffs, convening with pictures of dead people, thinking about how you will end up dying, and countless other ways. "We've homogenized our lives by hiding the parts we're afraid of, and in so doing, we've removed all sense of urgency from life. We have taken death out of life and that allows us to live unconsciously. Death never left, of course, we've just turned away from it, pretended it wasn't there. If we wish to awaken - and that's a mighty big if - then we must welcome death back into our lives. Death is our personal Zen Master, our source of power, our path to lucidity, but we have to stop running from it in a blind panic. We need only stop and turn around and there it is, inches away, staring at us with unblinking gaze, finger poised, every second of our lives. That finger is the one true thing in the dream state, and it will, for a fact, come down. Maybe all this sounds morbid or depressing to you. Maybe you think death is the opposite of life, or that all this death-awareness stuff translates into the end of happiness and good times, but this is not the case. Death isn't morbid, fear is morbid. Death doesn't oppose life, fear opposes life. To close your eyes to death is to close them to life; what could be more morbid than that? From your perspective, death and suicide are horrific and unthinkable. From my perspective, they are empowering and life-affirming, and I would look at any person that doesn't have an open honest relationship with these subjects as themselves nine parts dead." --Jed McKenna

I think what you may be confused about are the negative connotations that come along with nihilism. Critics of nihilism often say, "Well, everything is meaningless, doesn't that mean I should kill myself?" When that is an interpretive overlay to nihilism. Yes, life is meaningless, but the fact that life is meaningless has no meaning. Life just is. Nihilism and enlightenment are more closely related than you think. Basic nihilism is just the belief that life is meaningless, and part of enlightenment is the experiential realization of this. Nihilism is a perspective. Enlightenment is not a perspective, but rather, the removal of all perspectives so that Truth remains.

What Pinocchio said. Intuition comes from a place of not-knowing. It becomes a primary method of navigation when you release the illusion of control, when you let the body and mind do their thing without a doer. When that happens, you will naturally start to sense currents of rightness and flow with them. You can still learn to use intuition even if you haven't seen through the ego. The next time you have to make a decision on anything, whether it be deciding what to eat for dinner, what to do during free time, or even planning the year, listen to whatever comes prior to thought. It usually comes in the form of a language-less feeling-state, a magnetic pull. Follow that and see where it leads!

Hi Chaitali, I find it kind of contradictory that in your first point you say don't use logic, but everything you said up to that point are logical perspectives. My opinion: I suggest following your first point and your first point only. While you're at it, see if you can prove to yourself why all of your other statements are not true. Cheers, JJ

Here's something for you to contemplate on your own: "Anytime you’re practicing renunciation, you’re deluded. How about that! You’re deluded. What are you renouncing? Anytime you renounce something, you are tied forever to the thing you renounce... The only way to get out of this is to see through it. Don’t renounce it, see through it. Understand its true value and you won’t need to renounce it; it will just drop from your hands." -Tony de Mello Cheers!

You may find it hard to talk about this kind of stuff with others without them lashing out at you. That's what I meant when I said that it may difficult to relate to others. It's best to keep all of this enlightenment stuff to yourself unless people ask genuinely about it. Like a vampire who doesn't pass the threshold until he is invited inside. Also, on a fundamental level, you will be in a totally different "paradigm" where relatedness doesn't really apply anymore. In the average egoic conversation, relating to each other consists of reflecting back each others beliefs, reinforcing their own delusions. Enlightenment removes all of those beliefs, so having a conversation feels more like a fun little dance of words rather than an I-have-to-say-the-right-things ordeal. Your communication will be more honest, unhindered by egoic filters, and you will take it less seriously. Oddly enough, by removing these filters, you naturally encourage the other person to remove theirs as well, and you may connect even better. Connection in this case is not relatedness; I would describe it more as synergy. Sorry to say this, but love as you currently believe it to be is no more than your attachment to the prejudiced ideas you have about a person. You may not really feel that sort of love anymore after enlightenment. In my opinion, when all the spiritual teachers talk about love, what they're really talking about is radical unconditional acceptance of everything as it is. It's a sense of complete openness and vulnerability. In summary, your relationship with others will inevitably change after enlightenment. You may lose some relationships because you used them to fuel your ego, and you may even lose what you call "love" for others. However, relationship will become more open and authentic, and in my opinion, that's a much better place to be than the egoic perspective.

Ask yourself why you feel so inclined to play in the first place, and go deeper and deeper with it. Set a timer at certain increments while you're playing. When it goes off, stop and observe yourself. I'll use my situation as an example, but don't try to relate it with your experience. You have to contemplate on your own because you have your own personal reasons for doing what you do. Be as honest as you possibly can. Why do I play? -> Because it's fun -> Because it's fun to progress in levels and get new loot -> Is it really? What's the point of getting new loot? -> So I can be the best in the game -> So actually you're playing for an ideal in the future and not for the actual game. -> Yes. Video gaming has actually start to become a chore, now that I think about it. -> Childhood: addicted to video games. Why? -> My parents didn't let me play on weekdays, making me have a strong desire to play as much as I could on weekends -> Why did I want to play so much? -> I had feelings of unworthiness in childhood due to other kids calling me names -> Video games allowed me to be someone else and become more powerful than I ever could be in real life -> Parents forced me to make friends and call them up -> socializing became an obligation rather than a natural want -> Stronger desire to play video games -> Family shunned me for playing so much -> I felt even more unworthy -> Stronger desire to feel worth by playing more video games... And so on. By understanding the origins of your addiction and why you value video games so much, you will naturally begin to become less neurotic about them.

What do you think is easier: being fast asleep in a nice, warm bed or having to strip the bedsheets and get out of bed? It's easier to stay asleep because it's familiar, it's warm, it's cozy, and in your dreams there is still hope for a better tomorrow. Even if you already wet the bed and smell like crap, that's not nearly as painful as getting out of bed altogether and having to face the light of day.

My eyes glazed over after the first five sentences. You're theorizing about enlightenment when there's nothing to theorize about. Why this reality? Why anything? Because. All of this is mind-stuff. You've had your fun theorizing, but now it's time to throw it all away; that is, of course, if you're seeking Truth.

In my opinion, the way you know you're in H/A is if you've had a grounded experience that you are not the ego. You may have also found the "I AM," which is that sentient emptiness that pervades sense perceptions. Here's Jed's benchmark: "If you are free to do or not do anything you feel like, then you have reached H/A. Which you are anyways, but keep lying to yourself that you are not." It's interesting you mention death, because I've noticed a general trend with seekers: the most serious ones have been in the closest contact with death.