Forestluv

By focusing on my somewhere, you cannot see your somewhere. I have to be somewhere to show you this. The key is to not focus on my somewhere. Everytime someone grounds and points, they are a somewhere. It doesn’t matter what it is. We could be talking about sports or Nonduality. As soon as one makes a point, they are a somewhere. Even me right now trying to point to nowhere is a somewhere. There is nothing wrong with being a somewhere. The problem arises when one loses awareness of their somewhere. Throughout this thread you are somewhere evertime you make a point, as am I. Yet you keep saying you are nowhere when you are somewhere. You are pointing at someone’s somewhere not recognizing your somewhere while doing so.

You keep saying “X is Y” and unaware that “X is X”. You are in relative dimension that you don’t recognize because it appears different from your previous relative dimension that you evolved out of. You are somewhere, yet think you are nowhere.

I was referring to the effect qualitatively, not quantitatively.

@Paul92 To me, it seems like you are going from one opposite to the other. For exampe: “If duality isn’t true, then nonduality must be true” ”If ‘me’ isn’t true, then ‘not me’ must be true” Sometimes a mind becomes so attached to one side that it’s helpful to knock it off that side by showing the other side. If the mind becomes aware of the other side, the mind often becomes attached to the other side. Imagine someone thinks a coin is heads their whole life. What’s the best way to show them the coin isn’t heads? Show them the tails side. But then the person can get attached to the tails side and say “Heads is false! Tails is true!”. But then Heads apoears. So heads must be true and tails false. But then Tails appears again. . , Every time one side appears, the other side disappears. This can cause a lot of confusion and turmoil if a person is not aware they are both the same coin. When heads appears, tails still exists and vice-versa. Similarly, when “me” appears “no me” still exists and vice-versa. “Me” can love and experience life, while “no me” also exists and is present.

You asked in an earlier thread for me to give you another pointer, yet again you don’t seem open to receiving it.

This is my earlier point. From the null void, you are doing the same thing she is. You are pointing yourself to it.

I’ve dine all three. For me, the dosages would be a bit different

Sometimes when I contemplate meaning opposites arise and then become integrated. For me, love and sorrow are two sides of the same coin. At the deepest levels I’ve gone, love and sorrow become one and I can no longer tell the difference. It’s so beautiful.

Thank you. I've been reflecting on what I wrote and considering all the feedback I have received. I think having my own experience with the video may have limited my vision. Today in one of my classes, we discussed traits of a good psychologist / counselor. The type of connection I had with my niece was really helpful to her. Yet that connection is only one piece of the puzzle. Will that connection we had help her with the practical aspect of getting through school, interacting with friends and her psychological issues? Perhaps a bit. Yet she also needs the trained psychologists, her parents and her service dog. Similarly, regarding the video - I think I was too critical of Abraham. She is offering a piece of the puzzle as well - one that I am not skilled with. My sense has changed more toward us all being on the same team. That we are all contributing our own gifts.

I think it depends on your definition of "awakening". For me, psychedelics opened a whole new expansive arena and the concept of "awakening" expanded as well. I imagine being in a cave my whole life without contact to the outside world. I'm surviving on cave fish. Then way day I find an opening and walk out to the outside world. The cave life is just never the same. Would you call this an awakening I keep with me everyday? Or would you call it an insight I don't keep with me everyday? It's kind of an odd question to me. I would lean toward saying it was an awakening I keep with me everyday because once I was exposed to the outside world, there is never going back. I could never go back into the cave and return to the old mindset. I can't unsee the Truth.

There is a form of identification. It's really hard to see within the identification. Outside of it, it becomes obvious. I tried to point to it verbally and was rebuked. I then tried to go through an intuitive line and was rebuked. What I am saying is going through a filter and getting distorted. That is why I am saying I've become counter-productive. I have good intentions, yet the chance of me causing a negative impact at this point is higher than having a positive impact. Thus, I should stop.

I was pointing to something else. It's a very narrow window to get through. I pulled out a Turquoise wand, yet the dynamics aren't quite right - so I need to put it away now.

I thought there was an opening. Yet, I still get the sense I am counter-productive if I keep pressing. I appreciate your thoughts. Thanks.

A part of you is asking, so perhaps you are able to receive. . . Are you as comfortable with the above statements as you were your original statements? Again, if you don't want to look at this, I will stop. I backed away and I think you asked for more, so you might be ready for this realization. Yet I will gladly stop. It's a really hard realization and I would be very resistant if someone was doing it to me.

Attachments gets much more subtle. And there are less people around that are able to reveal those advanced subtle attachments. I've only just begun. . .

I sense that it will be counter-productive if I push harder. I appreciate your thoughts. Thank you.

Ooohhh. I've never heard of that one. I'm going to check it out. Thanks!

Yes. That is the danger. . . It is an advanced trap that can be difficult to free oneself. It's a different game in Turquoise.

I disagree. I don't think there is such thing as experience. (I am poking at subtle clinging. I think you may be able to recognize it. You may find it helpful. If not just tell me to stop and I will).

Do you agree with the above statements?

To me, it sounds like you believe that. Is the opposite of what you just wrote also true? I am knocking on a door and someone is home. There is clinging. There is something. What appears before me flows from somewhere. The answers do not take the shape I want them to. Are you as comfortable with these statements as you were with the original?

Wise words indeed. Can you apply this to your own current one? Can you let go of your current beliefs such that everything you have written in this thread has no more relevance than what anyone else has written? To me, the way you write suggests you believe what you write. Are you equally comfortable adopting the position of others that you currently disagree with? It's extremely hard to do. I have difficulty doing it myself.

Be mindful that that is simply one map. There are many maps that are useful. I love using various maps. Yet I need to be careful not to fall into the trap of believing that my favorite map is THE map. As well, from another perceptive any map as no more significance than bird chirps.

I understand that interpretation. And yes, under that interpretation it would be correct to say it is the ego talking. That is within the egoic dynamic and it is true within the dynamic. Yet if you step outside of the dynamic and take a different perspective the words have different context and meaning. Imagine looking at a map of Los Angeles. Then a map of California. Then a map of the United States. Each map gives a different perspective. We could say that there are three levels of maps: high resolution, medium resolution and low resolution. Each map has value. We wouldn't say that one map is "better" than the other or one "level" is better than the other. We are simply using those words to describe the different perspectives. The problem arises when someone gets locked into to only one map and refuses to see another map. They accuse people that talk about the California map as being "egoic". Yet doing so, limits this person's growth. Imagine driving through California with only a map of Los Angeles.

Yes, that it what I said. . . trans ego is lower than trans human. I also agree that these are just models. In this case, it would be trans ego model, yet not a trans human model (since the model is contextualized for humans and not an elephant). Yes, I would say they are all inter-related. I just use "levels" as a map that is useful at the human level, so it is relative to humans. At the trans-human level this map would is not useful. It doesn't apply to frogs, rocks, pencils, clouds or mice. Even the term "trans-human" is limited since it assumes humanness. Perhaps "trans-Isness" might be better. I think we could also look at it like muscial instruments in a jazz band. There are not really "Levels" of instruments. I think the model is useful for humans because most humans are immersed in the egoic level. Perhaps 95% of their life egoic, 4.9% trans egoic and 0.1% trans human. So it seems to make sense to place most of our attention into the egoic dynamics. With growth, perhaps the ratio becomes 80% egoic, 15% trans egoic and 5% trans human. We cycle through these dynamics throughout our day. My awareness flows through each of these. I think it's helpful to call them these levels since people generally need to spend most of their time working through egoic dynamics. Then they start spending more time trans-ego and trans-human. But it's not like a linear pathway. It's more like three different pixels colors dancing around the screen. At first they are mostly red, a little purple and a tiny bit of orange. Then, more and more purple and orange start to appear over time. This is also assuming a timeline. Someone could be 100% trans egoic for 10min. then flip back to 100% egoic for five hours. We could draw in further distinctions and nuances as well.