SOUL

This is such tedious bullshit of mental masturbation. There is a backside, we can be aware of it in fullness even if it's doesn't appear in perception. The rendering of the 'game' as the appearance still has all the1s and 0s so to speak that create it even if they aren't apparent from the perspective we view from, seen and unseen are relative. Reality is 'rendered' and we interact with it in our imagination yet in awareness we can transcend just the appearance of it to be aware of the whole. Why would 'god' create what we don't perceive is not the question, it's why do we limit 'god' to what we perceive at the moment? We can't see our asshole but we can be aware of it, the backside exists even if from our perspective it doesn't appear to us. Releasing the attachment to just our perspective in imagination is the same as releasing the attachment to self and allows us to be aware of the holistic expression of unity, of infinite 'god' if you must. Yet, the yearning to see it is what hides it from view, the mental masturbating about this is trying to seek the 'completion' is not being aware of already being complete. Once one stops trying to see it, to understand it and simply be aware, in presence of being all is revealed in the fulfillment of well being.

@joeyi99 @Beginner Mind Pursuing, achieving, 'mastery' even our inner work can be the mind creating restlessness and a sense of lacking or incompleteness. Resting in awareness, just being, is not 'doing' anything with our peace, fulfillment and well being soothing the restless mind will appear in contrast to it's turmoil. Then whatever we actually 'do' in life is an expression of our well being from resting in awareness, by just being present, not what we 'do' brings us well being so it isn't dependent upon any accomplishment or as gaining something we lack. We are already complete and 'full' even as we are evolving through life.

Are you expecting? Well being, peace, fulfillment are expressions of awareness but awareness itself isn't those, those are an expression in being from resting in awareness. As we rest more consistently in awareness we become more acclimated to the expressions of it in being so it is less noticeable until the turmoil in life comes and then the expressions of resting in awareness reveals itself in our being. I hope that clarifies.

It seems like in nearly everyone of his posts Leo is telling his imaginary self that he is wrong, not awake or false.......he shouldn't be so hard on his imaginary self.

@Gsk This situation is no different than any other religious zealotry, people believe their imaginary beliefs are the 'absolute truth' and anyone who doesn't believe as they do are lost, confused, blind and deficient in some way. Try not to take it personally. Peace.

If you had said when the map, the territory, the destination, the path, the journey and the traveler all collapse into each other it would have been the 'highest teaching'....haha

It's very simple....stop believing what you feel....as well as what you think. By believing it is 'true' it amplifies it in a feedback loop as if it is real. So, stop endorsing, agreeing, attaching and believing it. Don't empower it in any way. When the mind-body creates it...oh and it will, it won't stop just because you stop believing, it may even get more frantic to lure you back into believing it is through it's frenzy of feely-thoughty-omg-believe-me-ness. Just sit in observing awareness of it going on as passive as you can, don't try to end it, don't try to release it, don't try to do anything with it....just let it be. If you must fill that aware space with something fill it with love, peace, joy, healing, contentment and fulfillment. Once you create and healthy inner environment anytime some of that angsty energy rises up it will dissipate quickly all that equanimity. Then all the 'what I should I do in life' questions will resolve itself with an inner life that is conducive to well being.

Hmm

Hehe

I'm roamin'......

The whole no self response to this of 'there is nobody here' often is impractical and empty rhetoric in the way we live our lives. Fear is an instinctual response generated by the biological organism to motivate behavior to protect it's own life in a primal response. The self conscious also generates certain 'fear' impulses to protect us from what it perceives as dangerous situations that may not be an immediate or current threat but could be in the mind's imagination. Then there is the fear that the ego generates to protect it's identity and this is rarely about keeping the body safe and alive but is typically more about preserving the narrative of identity. So some of the who is those different aspects of our physical experience but then another aspect of the who question is 'who' are these being generated for? To motivate 'who'? Our awareness is the 'who' that is observing all of this going on and it can initiate a course of action with all these generated influences serving as the information database to guide...or disregard if one sees fit. Even if we are of the perspective that there is no 'who' in awareness and no 'free will' that initiates any action we still have to behave in a way that allows us to navigate in the world successfully. So how do we guide our behavior if there is no 'free will who' in whoville? The bus is coming at us do we jump? The alley is dark ahead of us do we walk? The boss is jerk to us do we speak? It doesn't matter if we hold the mystical belief there is no self, that's an abstract concept meant to help free our awareness from the lure of attachment to what is generated by the body, self conscious and ego but we can still cease to attach to it without the belief concept. If we do hold the perspective that there is a 'who' in awareness we can still remain in awareness unattached as an observer to the influences generated by the body. So if someone tells you the only way to be unattached is to see it as no self they are attached to the concept of no self. After all this examination and exploration there is one thing that is clear, there is an aware being at the core of all the conscious activity for each one of us and all the mystical conceptualization doesn't erase it from being......an aware being.

I have used the word 'seeking' in a variety of ways but I think it can be useful to describe the distinctions that it can be expressed and it isn't limited to just these I suggest here. There is the 'seeking' as if we are looking for something in the context of not having it or not being it. There is the 'seeking' of exploring in the imagination the potential of consciousness expanding. There is the 'seeking' in the sense of introspection, of self examination. There is the 'seeking' of awareness in observation of what is. When does it end? That depends on which one is being considered. One doesn't need to even begin and another doesn't ever end.

@Prevailer I didn't say or think awareness and consciousness are separate, they are facets of a whole.

The subjectivity is in our experience of our spiritual life, how we perceive it is specifically attuned to our perspective and doesn't necessarily map exactly on anyone elses. The forum can be a place where we can explore our spiritual life with like minded people even if there is a diversity in how we express our path.

Was someone really banned for 'questioning something about Leo while he is away'? Huh. It's unfortunate to see @Lento go, a compassionate contributor should be valued on a forum such as this and not sure the 'infraction' was that egregious if it was only that so I +1 @Keyhole

Consciousness is comprised of multiple facets that combine into a whole that many consider 'consciousness' and if we become aware of them and their influence intimately. One facet is the self conscious and it is not very neutral, it's creating stimuli to motivate behavior to perverse the biological entity, it's acting on behalf of the body living. The ego creates a narrative perspective to motivate behavior to preserve identity. It's an extension of the self conscious in that our identity can provide the motivation to preserve the body but it's not a necessary component because identity can 'die' while the body lives on yet when the body dies the identity dies with it. There is another part of consciousness that we know as awareness which is the present moment facet and though the self conscious and the ego exert influence in the present to stimulate behavior in the present the conditioning of them comes from past events and often seeks to motivate for preservation into an imagined future. Our awareness is the part of consciousness that is by it's nature neutral but this doesn't mean it remains neutral. In fact, if we are unawakened to it's place in consciousness it can very easily be co-opted by the self conscious and ego into doing it's bidding by attaching to the stimuli and identity creates and ceasing to be neutral. If we grow aware of this transpiring we can stay present in awareness as an observer of what passes through the mind without becoming attached to it. In being a 'passive observer' in awareness we can create the inner environment instead of allowing the ego to create it and it can be one that could be referred to as neutral. If we create imaginary conditions our mind needs to exist in to be neutral we are actually ceasing to be neutral in awareness. If we hold the perspective that things are good or bad we are taking a less than neutral position about them. This isn't to say that this is good or bad, just that it's the way it is and we can be aware of it's influence in consciousness.

I wrote selfiness, not selfishness, as in self-iness, a word I was using for a 'self' like appearance, not the selfishness of common usage. There is no one here, the negative energy imagined you feel is from imagined others that aren't really there. Why believe there is someone else who is doing this to you? Transcend that belief. You are leaving a helpful insight with your self...or should I say with no self about the energy you perceive and believe exists is in imagination but not necessarily where it is imagined to be. No you studies your no self. So it's with you, for you and expressed through you...all the no yous. I still don't know who you think you are talking to but it is the imagination in no self to no self and anything you experience is no self perceiving. So the first person to point the finger is no self at no self. Why does no self do that? Hah...

Neurons exist in the brain...put down the hammer already and stop doing that to yourself before it's too late.

I didn't write 'universal truth' is separate from 'what is', reread what I wrote and become aware of what it is. Our truth, universal truth and absolute, all of which is 'what is'. The holistic 'all' of it includes the infinite facets and the whole in unity, As long as you think others are stuck because they have differing perspective your belief is others are stuck because they don't share your perspective but it's only in your imagination they are stuck and not necessarily that they are stuck. I'm completely aware of no-self mindset but you've been exhibiting plenty of selfiness in here. You logged in and keep replying...that's what is. I'm not sure who you think you are talking to but you are still doing it and according to no-self perspective no-self is accusing no-self of judging no-self...why is no-self doing that? Oh the selfiness....do I need to go through the 'if you believe something it's only your belief but not what is' thing again? Yes, distinctions collapse alright yet 'what is' does not conform to our belief, we create our 'reality' because our imagination creates our perception of it. No-self believes no-self is contradicting no-self but remember no-self is just reading a dualistic translation on a screen. No-self should stop trying to believe that. Your belief isn't 'what is', it's what you believe it is.

@TheAvatarState The distinction is acknowledging 'what is', this 'what is' of my experience and perspective creates my truth and the 'what is' of my truth isn't everybody's truth or universal truth, it's just my experience. I didn't create it, it just is 'what is'. Are you suggesting your truth is everyone's truth and universal truth? Or are you playing games with words thinking you are making some mystical point? Explain.

It seems you are conflating personal truth and universal truth. We have our experience, the perception of it that we trust it is what it is and live according to it, this is a personal truth. Although, I cannot say my personal truth is your truth or anyone else's truth because we all have our personal truth. I guess we can say that we try to align our personal truth with the universal truth but... delusion. Also, universal truth isn't absolute because absolute transcends 'truth', universal truth is 'what is' but absolute isn't limited to what is universal truth, it's 'what is' encompasses more than just universal truth.

I don't really see that much benefit in the exercise of explaining the inexplicable because it is why I question how any one person can suggest they are the arbiter and authority on 'absolute truth'. We all have our own experience and expression of it. Although I pulled out this one comment because I can use it to illustrate what I see is the issue with someone trying to arbiter 'truth'. True and false are just part of the mind's imaginary binary around how it tries to frame 'what is'. 'All' is what is, it's not truth, it's what is. What we say about it can be true or false but that is just a representation of what is and a part of the all that is what is but absolute transcends true and false.

Devil, devilry and evil are a construct of the human mind, it's a paradigm of moral dualism that does not really exist in the manifest as the mind believes it does. We assign the positions of the dualism to behaviors and identity and which ones we do assign them is influenced by so many different variables which often are ever changing. The 'ego' has it's usefulness in the way we evolved to survive and isn't broken or dysfunctional. It's just that when we are trying to transcend the appearance of separation to perceive the unity of all things the ego doesn't help us in that endeavor and through it's nature of identity it hinders by being an obstacle in awakening to it. One only sees this as 'evil' or 'devilry' because of assigning a pole in that moral dualism and the other pole in dualism of 'good' to the unity and...'angelic'? I guess would be a word that could be used for it that is the opposite assignment which is given to awareness that can perceive the unity that transcends the apparent separation.

This is a perfect example of what I am pointing to. The absolute isn't objective, you are creating a separation between 'relative' and 'absolute' from a dualism mindset. In my experience and perception of 'absolute' it is neither objective or subjective. Objective and subjective are qualities of the manifest and the absolute actually has qualities of it's own I couldn't even begin to explain to someone who still has a perspective based on separation in dualism without them transcending that in awareness. Absolute and manifest are not separate, they are in holistic unity in a way that one can perceive in awareness if one transcends the perspective of separation. How we perceive and interpret this any and all of this is subjective...even if it were something objective we are perceiving. Should I now say your awakening isn't complete? Am I to say your perception is 'false'? Does your expression need to be censored because it is misleading? Or mine? Since you refused to answer the simple question and instead answer for Leo by suggesting his perspective is law here, it is what is 'absolute truth' and oh by the way, you 'validate' it, too. You can try to claim that 'direct experience', being 'directly conscious' or 'mystical states' are 'objective' to employ an authority to your...and Leo's perspective but it's a self anointed one. You are suggesting that your(and Leo's which you are validating) experience and perspective is the truth for everyone so if they don't agree, theirs is false. There are many perceptions, interpretations, expressions and explanations that happen and everyone of us trust that our experience of them are what is, what is true and therefor they are our 'truth' but that doesn't make them everyone's truth. At least @TheAvatarState says we are all deluded so our perspective isn't in pure clarity to perceive what is as it is. This is accepting the diversity of expression.

That was the best way you could explain? Wow, glad you didnt offer the worst way to explain it. Although, I didn't ask for en explanation, I asked for a simple answer. If someone doesn't experience, perceive and now I will add explain it the same exact way as you do is it 'false' and invalid? It's a pretty straight forward question, no need to explain the unexplainable to answer it.