SOUL

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.

@Inliytened1 @TheAvatarState So both of you validate your own experience, of course you do otherwise you wouldn't view it as valid. You trust your experience is true, that it is what it is, you believe it because that's what the word means. Although, are you suggesting it is 'valid' for everyone? That if they don't experience and perceive as you do it's invalid? That it's 'false'?

Actually, no two people experience, perceive, interpret and believe identically so each one of differs in expression. It's as varied as dna is, in fact, it's even more varied than dna because identical twins share the same exact dna but they won't share experience, perception, interpretation, belief or expression. Very many including Leo teach about about the infinite potential but when it comes to expression it's quite limited? I'm now going to have to ask what do you mean by 'quite limited' and what is your definition of limited because ours must differ quite a bit. Wait, don't tell me because the answer itself will prove my assertion, it's all varied. I'm of of the few here who does speak about the psychological priming that goes on in people's minds with regard to spirituality and mystical experience. How all of this expression is influenced in our imagination through the books we read, the people who listen to and everything we are exposed to that corrals us into the similar ideas. Even with all that priming there is no two exact expressions, people would have to try really hard to mold their understanding to mimic another's and it's virtually impossible to accomplish such a thing. It's too complex to even be fully aware of own understanding let along transform our understanding to be identical to another's. So if any interpretation is delusion and it's all bullshit then how can anyone say to another 'this is false', call something misleading, that someone has 'incomplete; understanding or awakening and then *lock* thus silencing their expression? How can one teach truth let alone 'absolute truth' if it's all delusion and bullshit? Wouldn't this also be the blind leading the blind? Can we dilute the delusion with more delusion? Does the bullshit become less bullshit because it is anointed acceptable bullshit and the other become even more bullshittier if it is not? How do we teach or even speak any interpretation and expression in the context of it's all delusion and bullshit? If the mods want to intervene in obvious trolling and abusiveness then that makes sense. If they want to contribute in threads that have obvious traps and pitfalls which can lead to people experiencing real harm so they fill in the gaps stuff that fills out the teaching in hopes it doesn't lead people that way then this also makes sense. Although, if this forum becomes a place where only sanctioned by the authority delusion and bullshit is allowed to be taught calling it 'truth' and 'god' with everything and everybody else being silenced as 'false' and 'devils' it will become more and more like what it's critics have suggested it is....you know the word, I don't want to justify it by using it. I have encountered very many communities that have fallen into this behavior through my decades of exploration and it is one of the reasons why I choose to be compassionate about differences in discussion. I also emphasize a key benefit of any teaching is in it's leading to the cessation of self suffering, to liberation and not as much it's 'truthiness'. I don't know what the purpose of the forum is but in that context I hope whatever 'purpose' it serves in the minds of those who create and contribute to the discourse it also leads to the cessation of self suffering. Otherwise it's just deluded bullshit.....so you say.

Awakening imhe(in my holistic experience! haha) is becoming aware of something we previously weren't aware of. Complete awareness is being omniscient and to make that claim is hubris no matter what type of powerful awakening experience one has. I am god! I'm omniscient! *knock knock* Who's at the door? There is certainly a significant amount of psychological priming that goes on that people are ironically unaware of that shapes the way they perceive 'what is' when having awakening experiences. This can form dogmatic types of interpretations.

Spirituality, 'enlightenment', awakening and consciousness are very subjective experiences so how they are perceived and interpreted can be quite varied and diverse. It would be an unfortunate circumstance if this forum became a place where the infinite variety of expressions were stifled so that they were limited to select interpretations. I understand this forum is the property of nobody...wait I mean the no self called Leo and he has a vision for it. There is a difference between people who are coming here to purposefully disrupt or mislead for whatever reason they may have and people who may have a differing experience of awakening so share another perception and interpretation. Let's hope this place doesn't become one where only the interpretations and teachings that are 'authorized' by the 'supreme leader' as 'truth' are allowed to be spoken and every one that doesn't fit in are called 'false' with the people who are espousing them 'devils' are shut down and silenced. That would be joyless and unloving situation.

Humanity is very abusive to the point it is blind to it, it's even normalized, not very humane. Online it's so much worse, abuse is celebrated, even more than it is in real life. On this forum it isn't all that abusive but it still is and as a place that I would think is about healing and improving it seems like it harms more because people are coming in vulnerable. It's like going to a therapist and having them hurt the patient. Maybe I'm asking too much but it's just a hope, not necessarily an expectation. So be it.

@VeganAwake Precisely, there was never really a suffer to have suffered. Only if we agree with it, believe in it, attach our identity to it and fill our being with it does it manifest as suffering in us. It's not just undesired thoughts...even desired thoughts. It may start out as releasing from what we don't want but even attaching to what we do want can be a source of suffering. The thoughts of wanting truth, enlightenment, awakening, freedom from suffering, bliss, love is conceptually perceiving a lack of it as if we don't already have all we seek, that we are incomplete. The 'desire' is a yearning as if we don't already have it like hunger is from an empty belly but that yearning is the desire in our consciousness that can fill our being with a sense of emptiness. In liberation there is a sense of fulfillment that quenches the yearning, a peace that transcends conditions, joy that emanates through everything we experience. What's ironic is that when I first did experience liberation I was pretty ignorant of so many things but I didn't even have any desire to understand, I was content in the freedom from self suffering. Yet my lack of desire for knowledge turned out to be the very key to the vault of insight like being served endless meals with already having a full belly and no hunger. So, yes, seeking 'truth' can put some on the treadmill chasing after something they perceive they don't have to feed the desire. It's a yearning that won't ever be quenched because the mind's craving for new knowledge and deeper understanding acts like a belly that needs to be fed 3 times a day to fill it...but only temporarily. The ego will use the search for truth and any perceived truth it gets to justify it's identity but that ego's desire is so difficult to satisfy, the ego won't let it.

Liberation is self unsuffering from whatever means it comes to be. If is happens through unknowing, unlearning, unbelieving, unattaching, unselfing, untruthing as long as the the quest for un-ning doesn't become a source of self suffering because we think need more or are lacking enough 'un-ness'.

Then say Hm I will continue to do introspection to see if these things you say are accurate, thank you.

Do you have any lowest teaching? I'm not smart enough for the highest stuff...hehe

@ivankiss When one brings light of awareness to life things that reflect that same light glow like a gem but fallacies tend to burn up under the magnifying glass of it...it seems you keep spinning tales that go up in flames in that light. But you can keep projecting onto me if it makes you feel better, I am at peace with it.

Should we also list the detriments? Just asking...hehe

@ivankiss It wasn't me who was weaving a story from empty points but I did expose the false narrative being woven and if there is a fire it is the straw man burning. Good luck with that epic story you are writing and living I just hope it's more genuine than the one you were creating here with our discussion. Peace.

Hopefully not as the last chance to save a dying civilization....

Yea, because there aren't the ages worth including this current one filled with 'masters' talking to seekers and even cashing in on people listening to them talk. So they scamming?

@ivankiss You have put to me about 'honesty' a couple times in our exchange so far but I'd like to point out something that requires your honesty. I clearly explained what I consider useful about stories in relation to self suffering and yet you ignored it to try to make an empty point about we all get to decide what is useful. Gosh, I never thought of that. You might have used that as an opportunity to explain what you find useful but, no, just say an obvious thing about subjectivity. Hmmmm, honesty, huh? Then I comment about two different types of math, the materialist one where the 'sum' is the number of individuals and another one, what I called the holistic one where the 'sum' also includes the individuals as a whole in it. Obviously, the latter is more metaphysical where it has subjectivity in it and is not an objectivity in physics like the former. Then you attempt to chide me with it about what would a neighbor think of me? Should I ask you what a neighbor would think about your story you have been sharing here? I suspect we'd both be taking up residence in lalaland lost in airy fairly tales according to the neighborhood. Hmmmm something something about honesty, right? I'm pleased that the seeking of stories isn't a source of self suffering for you, though behaviors can be an indicator of it and there are very many who aren't as fortunate. The stories of self identity and chasing 'truths' or explanations of 'what is' often serve as a source of self suffering. Can we honestly deny that isn't a common occurrence, hm? I can appreciate you losing interest if there isn't honesty in a discussion because I'm losing interest in this one. Honesty is also being genuine in communicating with others especially in presenting differing visions because we can learn from each other if we are open. @VeganAwake Powerful questions. Suffering is the instance of pain, discomfort or distress. When we are in presently occurring physical suffering it is different than when that suffering is from the self conscious. We stub our toe it hurts the toe, that's physical suffering but when we experience self conscious anguish over stubbing our toe it's self suffering. Stub the toe and we put ice on it. Now the self conscious in the mind might chatter on with 'Clumsy fool why do I always do that AARRGGG!' How do we ice the mind? There is also the self conscious focusing on the past or the future. The toe doesn't hurt anymore a week later but the mind might still be scolding us for it. The self conscious will create all sorts of mental and emotional pain, discomfort and distress from events in the past we currently aren't experiencing and potential future experiences that we imagine may happen. This type of self suffering is only in our imagination and yes it is rooted in attaching to the self as an identity. There is also self suffering that the ego presents as currently happening to us but is just in the imagination. Maybe someone innocently or not says something and it triggers the self conscious to think it's being hurt by it, 'How dare they say that!' It creates mental and emotional distress but if we in awareness agree with this perception we self suffer and may behave in reaction to the imagined pain. Since I spoke about it in this thread I will address how the self conscious will create distress from the pursuit of 'truth', meaning, knowledge, happiness, 'enlightenment' and even freedom from suffering. Essentially the self conscious perceives us as incomplete and this can be the source of self suffering. Our agreement with this perception is attaching to the identity of lacking or absence. When we agree and attach to them even if they were only slight or minimal in effect initially the agreement attention given will create a feedback loop that intensifies and empowers them as 'real' for us and our identity to it. This is also the situation with past and future imaginings we can empower with agreement attention. Accepting is more passive but there can also be some empowering endorsement in that so be aware of this. 'Telling it to stop' in effect is also empowering that identity attachment to continue instigating in our mind sensations of thoughts, emotions and perceptions even if we are resisting or fighting them so that can be the source of self suffering. A more effective way is to remain in awareness observing them in equanimity and clarity. Be as such that there is no place for the mind's antics to stick to. Wow.... this post is maybe the longest I ever wrote here. I'm done. hah

@ivankiss I don't think in terms of enlightenment or of more or less of it. I didn't come in here quibbling about the details of the story, I was making a distinction...you know distinction, you spoke about it in your first post, I was pointing to the distinction between the story telling and liberation. The story telling can be useful if it serves the cessation of self suffering but quite often it is a distraction from liberation and the pursuit of or disagreement about the 'absolute truth' story can be a source of self suffering. This discussion can be another example of a distraction. Except, I won't let it be for my own experience, I didn't initially speak about the conceptual dualism in your story and it wasn't a ruse to display any self-righteousness, it's was an opportunity to speak about the experience of ....self-sufferless. Even when I did bring up details of the story it was prompted by your assertion and it was to explain how I did understand it. Though, it's not about the story or the story telling, that's the point, the story telling of identity and attachment to the story is the source of self suffering. I do 'create'...a being in liberation every moment. From that being in liberation every expression I 'create' is empowered with transcendent peace, joy and fulfillment in every work of art, music and, yes, story. Though, I don't hold up my story as an 'absolute truth', it's just a story in my imagination. So we could continue in the distraction of attachment to the story and telling it or we could transcend that and instead cease self suffering. If we do continue in the distraction then let's marvel at how the materialist math of 1+1=2 differs from the holistic math of 1+1=3, it's amazing, huh. The story can also be told of the absolutes...wait...absoluteS? Yes, infinity, eternity and nonentity and they are in unity, the transcendent absolute. So consciousness is really the baby of a threesome.....I bet you didn't know existence was so kinky, hah We sure do love our stories...haha But yea....I find the cessation of self suffering a more worthwhile endeavor than story telling but that's just my story.