SOUL

@Shin My apologies

Bahaha! So hilariously revealing..... yes.... "what is really wrong". Haha

You have made many accusations of me and are offended if I question you about your views. If you question me about my views I will respond to clarify if I can but I don't get offended or disturbed by it. Although, you don't often ask about my perspective or experience, you want to argue about what you accuse me of. When people say 'don't teach' to others or are saying enlightenment 'is' this and 'not' that leaves no room for any other view or suggest what they say is 'absolute truth' or suggesting that anything that differs from theirs is false they are speaking from authority. I'm not saying you did all these things, I'm just pointing out how someone is speaking from a mindset of authority. I sometimes question people who speak that way to maybe understand their perspective and why they have this 'authoritative' perspective if I can understand it at all but I don't do it to argue or disagree. Some people are disturbed by it and get offended, some just have a discussion with me and we can learn about each other's perspective by it. Sometimes all I can do is laugh, I find humor in lots of things and have nothing to say other than to laugh. If you feel laughed at it's your own sense of self that feels it and if we both are laughing we are laughing with each other. So if you find humor in my words then laugh and I will laugh with you....even if I ask what did you find funny.

I know why why are falsely portraying me as "fault finding". You "intentionally attribute certain qualities to the truth" and now you expect me to answer to your attributed "qualities" which isn't the truth but what you add and in this circumstance are a false narrative. You post smiley and laughing faces but you are "fault finding" with me laughing? I know why and find it hilarious but I will reply to what you have started with me. "I already told you once; the bottom line is, end of seeking... If your seeking has really ended, then any disagreement that can arise between us can only be semantics or you are not carefully paying attention. That is why I mentioned about 'selective attention'... Because, I have already addressed a lot of things that you disagreed with." So, that's your "bottom line"... but why do you place that on me? Why do you measure me or anyone else according to your standard... your "bottom line"? If your seeking has ended why do you seek to measure others by your own "bottom line"? Are you really done seeking? I don't disagree with you and have said this to you before, maybe you could be paying attention to what others say to you instead of concern yourself with whether they are paying careful attention to you. Who has authority in the absolute? "It looks like you are just reacting to the words based on the connotation. The word here is 'lie'. Are you when familiar with some teaching methods that have been used from time immemorial? For example, in Vedanta" You "intentionally attribute" what you think others' perspective is in false ways, why do you do that? It doesn't matter what the Vendetta says. Who has authority in the absolute? "If that is what you prefer, go ahead and do it. But why should I follow your preference? What I prefer to do is not only based on my experience, but also based on the year long research I did. You need to understand that it is you who first come up with some kind of disagreement." Yes, that is my point when I do ask if differing perspectives, even if contrasting ones, matter in whether someone will drawn a line between if someone says there 'is' and there is 'not'. It's preference and perspective. I don't draw that line even though I do recognize some things will lead to a perspective of unity and others lead to one of separation but in reality there is no line, it's only a perception of a line that our mind may see. Differing perspectives doesn't equate to disagreement unless someone sees it that way in their perception, I see unity even if it is many paths that lead to it though I may ask questions for clarity. "I have been discussing with couple of other established teachers. No one ever said 'you are teaching duality'. In fact, it was you who made this assumption in another thread" It does appear to be teaching from duality if someone is teaching a binary "is" and "is not" perspective. I wasn't the only one who questioned you about it in that thread you started with that binary theme and wasn't even the first but am I the only one you follow around to remind? "You are the one who is sounding like an authority here without even doing a research in some of the teaching methods that were used from time immemorial. And you are the one who is trying to push your preference of 'how to teach'..." I never told you don't teach it , I just ask why do you teach it? You are the one who has warned me against teaching in this thread and at other times. I speak from my experience and I do question others, I ask lots of questions of people to understand their experience if I can. Others start threads with themes about what 'is' and 'is not' enlightenment but I don't, I ask questions, even the thread I ever started was a question. Yet, you seem to find fault with my questioning so why are you disturbed by it? You are finding disagreement by me having a differing perspective and asking about yours? Immemorial? That's the past, right? Even distant past? Really? The past? Not the present... but the past? "Are you looking for a perfect flawless world or what? I am doing what the best that I can do based on my experience and based on the guidance I got...That is all I know." I coexist with what is as it is even if I ask what is it?. I am being in experience as it is even if I don't 'know' anything at all so my peace, joy and well being isn't conditional on knowing or circumstance. I don't guide others based on the guidance of others. Who has authority in the absolute?....Anyone and everyone has access in awareness so be at peace with it. I didn't respond to you for a reason, I don't care about your arguing stuff but it's clear you are disturbed by my questioning. If you really were asking me to clarify my perspective I would answer more readily but this isn't what you are asking, you are wanting to argue over stuff. I enjoy a discussion to cease self caused suffering through bringing to awareness in us the source of that suffering so there is healing and resolution in us. I don't know if this is that. Has my response satisfied what you are seeking from me, yet?

It seems like you are still seeking but I don't really care about all this stuff..... I don't know anything. I am at peace.

Well, the body naturally creates the sense of self identity although we can expand our awareness to be conscious of the unity in all things. Since mind subconsciously creates the sense of self identity the effects of this is evident in creating paradigms of separation but if someone is authentically awakened to unity it will differ drastically... at least in my own experience of it.

Does it matter if I disagree? It shouldn't and that is why I ask what if someone has a differing experience perspective, it shouldn't matter. Although, there are people who express that their experience perspective is the absolute truth by using absolute terms in how they speak about it. I don't tell people they are already enlightened and that they don't have to do anything, that's you lying again since you already admit you lie but I am aware enough to recognize you building a false narrative straw man even without your admission. I say what I said to who I was speaking to, not to everyone I ever talk to so what I say to someone who has no understanding isn't what I say to the person who I made that post to. You are again building a false narrative straw man because you yourself say you change what you say for who you are speaking to, why can't I? You can't deceive me! It doesn't matter to be considered "enlightened" and isn't why I ask people if they exclude others based on experience perspective. I ask because if they genuinely are seeking unity they would recognize creating separation but if they want to be acknowledged as "enlightened" they will speak in exclusionary terms so expose their own intentions in answering. If someone authentically has an experience perspective of unity they will recognize it in others and won't deny it others. Isn't that essentially what Namaste means? So, I prefer to focus on the already existing unity we share and seek to help others be aware of self created separation that may remain so awareness of our unity is increasing in clarity. I don't understand why people will seek to limit experience perspective by telling others that the absolute is limited by using absolute terms. It's a paradox that absolute is relative in how each of us perceives it so using absolute terms actually attempts to limit the infinite so it fits our own perspective but doesn't actually limit the infinite in any way, obviously. We don't have to illuminate the sense of separation in others, they perceive it in themselves already as the sense of self creates it subconsciously. So adding additional separation perspectives only creates more stumbling blocks to being aware of the unity that exists. Even recognizing that the sense of separation is part of the whole absolute weakens that sense's empowering hold on someone perspective. Acknowledging the absolute is in unity on both sides of the sense of separation and even is the sense of it shatters the illusion once realized so why lie about it as a teaching tool, be genuine about it from the start. My way of speaking about my experience may differ from others but I don't tell them they are wrong or flawed in their experience. Although, if they are speaking about separation from the perspective of separation it's going to be different than speaking about separation from the perspective of unity, I speak from unity. Does this reply satisfy what you sought from me? Or will you ask me again since you seem to think I'm somehow not responding to your queries to your satisfaction?

You actually speaking from a perception of unity is you "mistook" it? That's even funnier! BAHAHAHAHAAAAAA Oh this is just priceless...

Too funny.....haha

BAHAHA! It's hilarious that you say things like this, just so funny.

@dorg It appears you are the only one who appreciates my sharing and I thank you for the kind words.

I get it, you are just another who creates and teaches from the perception of separation and you want me to stop creating and speaking from unity as it apparently disturbs you. I'm not sure if I told you before but I will say it this time, I will speak as I see fit and if you don't like it then put me on ignore. You have no authority to silence me and I am not insulting or offending anyone by speaking my own peace. Thank you and be at peace with it.

If I want answers that are viewed from someone who creates the separation and duality in perception and teaches others from that duality perception of separation I will ask you. Until then I am at peace with a perspective that is in unity but thank you for the offer. Is that short enough for you?

If one has no control then how does one awaken, liberate, detach, observe and/or be aware at all?

You added "which you actually dont know about" to what you think belief means. It doesn't matter whether someone 'knows' it or not, if one accepts that it is true/exists, that is belief. You accept as true that "No belief is true when it comes to Absolute" "Dont you know the difference between Absolute and Relative truth?" All 'truth' is relative since truth is the quality of being true, it depends on being true to something for it to be 'truth'. The "Absolute" isn't separate from the ever changing experience of life that people call maya, illusion or the dream so the "Absolute" is actually changing, too. People who are 'enlightening' their consciousness are attuning their awareness to the aspect of the "Absolute" they believe is the unchanging, the 'universal constant' so to speak, whether it really is the 'unchanging' or not. All of existence is one and there is no separation except what someone would perceive so the "Absolute" is comprised of all of it, even "maya". That is what is enlightenment, right? Our awareness of that unity of the whole and that includes all of it, including "maya". There is no separation between the changing or unchanging, it's whole in unity so if one transcends in awareness to the "Absolute" this is evident. Now you want to know why are we discussing this? Limiting belief.... it's not just all or any belief, it's the limiting belief. All ways lead to the "Absolute" and all effects are from our interacting with "Absolute" even the effect that is the sense of separation which some call the self since it's all one. When we "accept as true/exists" in limiting ways by saying 'enlightenment is only this and is not that' we are creating separation in our perception of the "Absolute" that is not really the genuine nature of it because, it's unlimited, it's infinite, it's whole. This is using the sense of separation that creates self identity which exists within the "Absolute" to define the "Absolute" within the limitations of what is accepted instead of transcending the limiting sense of separation in awareness to recognize that even the sense of separation is "Absolute". It's that sense of separation that has people limit enlightenment as only this or it's not that, that some are and others aren't. They limit the "Absolute" to only what they perceive it to be as an esoteric understanding that they have and another doesn't. You want the "Absolute truth"? Anywhere someone draws a line to separate 'enlightened' from 'darkened'.....the absolute exists on both sides of that line and is that line even if one isn't aware of it.... so I suggest awaken to it

Side stepping using semantics doesn't change the fact they are beliefs derived from subjective experience even if you want to call them "effects of enlightenment" they are purported to be from the enlightenment of "absolute truth" in someone. A belief is accepting that something is true or exists, whether it's an effect or an experience or enlightenment or even "absolute truth" itself. Another semantic side step of saying, 'Well, I don't believe it, I know it' is just belief that one accepts their own 'knowing' is true or exists. Anything we accept/trust as true and/or exists is a belief even if it is our awareness of the now just accepting as it is, being present in the moment. Any of every type of experience that is accepted as it is we are believing it is as it is even if we are call it an illusion or maya or false.

Buddha developed a self help program... an eight step one.... and a religion was built around it.

This whole list is beliefs on "absolute truth" from subjective experience perspective. "be·lief an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something."

@brovakhiin Thank you.

@TheEnlightenedWon People will have awakenings and their experiences will bring a personal perspective of what they assume is 'truth' about the 'absolute'. They often then will measure it against what others express of their perspective and usually will consider their own as more accurate in comparison. This thread is a clear example of an assumption in believing one's own perspective of the 'absolute' is 'truth' and an intolerance of another's perspective.

Mmhmm.... honestly....haha

BAHA!

Or what... hehe

Yes, it is. This is why I question when some speak in absolute terms, there is a paradox in that the 'absolute' is relative in how each one of us experiences it.

Well, philosophical truth is a kind of truth unto itself since it depends on how one defines their own philosophy. Some people's philosophy is to be factually accurate but some only seek to be consistent with their own philosophy even if it's not to be factual. Spiritual 'truth' would be closer to the latter of those two but may not necessarily be as 'true' in logical terms so for philosopher's who seek rational consistency that type of spiritual truth may fall short of their criteria. People undoubtedly develop a certain bias in life and often another's bias appears unfit for them so may not accept another's 'truth' and may not view it as 'credible' depending on their own bias. The 'credibility' that is accepted on this forum is different than that on a scientific forum and different than on one for philosophy even if those latter two are more similar. Then if we go to a religious forum what they deem credible would be vastly different than any other forum with even from different religions. Philosophical 'truth' would seek at least to be self consistent of being true to it's own standard. That's how I view it, it may not be acceptable to everyone's perspective, though.