snowleopard

@John Iverson I could mail you a few boxes of such books that I won't read again, but it would cost hundreds of dollars. Lately, I've been reading Bernardo Kastrup's books, who covers many of the subjects you mentioned. Here's his website, which has a link to his available books ... http://www.bernardokastrup.com/p/about.htmln

@Brandon Nankivell There is of course some very ancient vedic science behind the chakra model, which has now been co-opted by the new age scene, and bastardized into a lot of nonsense. So if there's some interest in it, then maybe best to stay with the original teachings. However, I'd suggest that while it may be somewhat useful as a model or map that can be used as a pointer or tool towards some deeper understanding of phenomenal reality, like all such models or maps, they shouldn't be confused with the actual territory. And the only way to deeply explore that territory is through self-exploration, and once the territory is truly known, then the map can be dispensed with. So I wouldn't take any model or map as the literal truth.

@Samurai Y There's no doubt that giving birth is a profound spiritual and heart-opening experience. Then there's the real test: can that quality of consciousness be extended to relationships in general, not just toward and around one's children? But parenting I suppose could be thought of as a kind of spiritual practice. Having raised two kids, I know for sure there will be tests. Life has a way of doing that.

@AleksM And I thought I spent too much time on the internet Now I feel so much better about having a sedentary lifestyle ... if a hyper-spatial torus can be sedentary !

@Deep Excellent ... Pretty much covers the entire spiritual lexicon. Somewhat surprised I've never heard of Paul Chek, and constantly amazed at how such Speakers keep appearing, as if out of nowhere ... Thanks for sharing.

Yes, and therein lies the dilemma ... the one standing on the unenlightened side of the strange loop wanting so bad to join the ones on the enlightened side, when actually they're all on the only side there really is. That is what is realized! The 'one' that realizes it never changed. There's just no longer any two-sided dilemma.

@EyeOfTheStorm Again, I suggest that you don't get too hung up about how one can make this happen, or expectations about how it is going to unfold, or how "if I do such and such, then I can expect something special to happen." The fact is that there is no way of knowing how it is going to happen, no matter what one may try. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying don't bother trying different practices, or psychedelics, or following someone's prescribed techniques, if that is what resonates with you. And any of that might possibly work, But just keep an open mind that it could happen in some way that one can't predict, or even currently imagine. There are actually countless examples of 'awakenings' that happen, without any self-inquiry, or practices, or psychedelics, or even any prior interest whatsoever in spirituality and metaphysics, when out-of-the-blue, while going about one's daily routine, absent any kind of warning, an indelible revelation of Reality will blow the mind wide open, bring the body to its knees, and the world as it was known is changed forever. I know this for certain, because that is what I went through, while having no clue about spiritual ideas, and is actually what started this journey to discover some explanation for what the fuck had just happened apparently for no reason at all. Who can really say? So just saying this could happen in any number of ways, and no-one can cause it to happen in any given way, as it could actually be determined by circumstances that there is no control over, or so it seems ... The strange loop of the Ineffable Infinite Creation works in mysterious ways

Wonderful story, and so eloquently written ... Thanks for sharing. This deeply resonates with some rare non-psychedelic experiences I've had, but are almost impossible to put into words. I am constantly amazed that the mainstream scientific paradigm dismisses such profound experience -- or even ordinary waking experience -- as just the epiphenomenon of brain activity, an explanation that somehow seems woefully inadequate. But perhaps that paradigm is finally beginning to be seriously questioned, and other valid experiments and explanations are now being explored, that may finally help lift the taboo against such experiences, and their benefits, beyond just entertainment value -- thanks to all you serious psychonauts. Apologies if this is not apropos here, but I posted this link to a Scientific American article by Bernardo Kastrup, about the neural correlates of transcendent states, in another thread that somehow got lost, and it's a topic that may have already been previously discussed here, but it may provide some useful insight into the notion that all experience -- consensus waking reality, dreams, psychedelic, hallucinatory, NDEs, transcendent states, whatever -- are all just an epiphenomenon of brain activity. if, as the article suggests, that is not the case, then what is the source of that experience? I have little experience with psychedelics, except for some mescaline many years ago, so I don't claim any expertise on that specific kind of experience. Note: I do not condone or condemn any activities mentioned in the article, and expect that you're all adults that would use appropriate discernment and precaution before trying anything potentially damaging.

I wondered what happened to that thread. For the record, I felt it was a valid discussion, and worth exploring further. Too bad one takes the time to comment and provide what may be a useful information and links, only to see it all go for naught. Out of curiosity, if a post is hidden, is there something that indicates that is the case?

Here is an article that may be of interest and relevance here, on the neural correlates of transcendent states ... https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/transcending-the-brain/

@EyeOfTheStorm Ah well, perhaps half the process is realizing that there is such a realization. But maybe best not to have some fixated expectation of how that has to happen, or appear. Keep the faith ... Hopefully the good news is that there isn't really a right or wrong direction on a strange loop. Either way, one gets back to the future Btw, love the choice of name the 'eye of the storm' which also makes for a great metaphor. If one imagines the storm to be a strange loop, then it seems that the stillness at the center may be the best perspective from which to grok that the two sides are not-two.

@EyeOfTheStorm If you haven't checked it out already, I recommend Leo's wonderful video about strange loops, as such strange loops are a perfect example and symbol of the paradox of awakening, in that they seem to have two separate sides of an apparent duality, which in actuality are the same side, and exist in unity. So if one imagines being on one side, let's call it the unawakened state, it seems as if the other side is the opposite of that, and somehow difficult to attain, and one wonders how to get to the other side, that there must be some magic trick to it. And so one diligently traverses the 'unawakened' side, ever hopeful of finding the secret of getting to the 'awakened' side, not realizing that there are never actually two sides. That it was the same side all along. There is only the state of being what you never actually were not, except insofar as it is strangely imagined to be otherwise. And then one may have a good laugh about it! This is what Ramana Maharshi meant when he said: "There is no greater mystery than this: always being Reality, we seek to attain Reality. We think that there is something hiding Reality and rather it must be overcome before the Reality is gained. It is ridiculous. A day will dawn when you will laugh at all your past efforts. That which will be the day you laugh is also here and now." Meanwhile, it's hard to go wrong with some consistent self-inquiry in quiet contemplation, and practicing compassion ... and just keep on traversing the strange loop that only apparently has two sides.

@Cameron Just because there is a loss of fear of death, doesn't mean that there is a loss of appreciation for life. In any true examples of the awakened state, there seems to be an awakening of the heart that compels one toward a life of compassion, to be a clear example of what is possible. So in that sense, there is perhaps more reason to live and love than ever. And whenever the death of the body-form comes, as it inevitably will, then it can be accepted with equanimity and grace, knowing that it was a life lived well fulfilled. I'm not seeing how some pointless death would serve that cause.

@Edvard Perhaps there's something to be said in favour of the buddhist idea of emptiness, rather than nothingness , which can have a nihilistic connotation ... Even emptifullness might better express the paradox of it.

@blazed Yup ... if there is 'someone' who is 'self'-identifying as being enlightened, then there would seem to be some dispelling yet to happen

Isn't the 'you' that is dispelled just the exclusive identification trap ... I am such and such, vs all those things I am not? Seems that even 'I am enlightened' is also such a trap. Apparently that too is imaginable.

It's true that what 'one' (for lack of a better name for the nameless), is in essence is no thing, has no identity, and is empty of selfness. Suffering is all about things and identities and selfness. The mystery is why that which 'one' is in essence seems compelled to imagine it to be so. And then imagines to dispel that. Seems one can only imagine that it has some telos. If not, why bother? Could it only be for the sheer thrill of it, like some suspension of disbelief while watching a movie? 'Who' knows? ... Carry on.

@Stephyk8 If you aren't already aware, perhaps the most prolific interviewer of what he calls 'awakening' individuals is Rick Archer of batgap.com -- wherein one can find over 400 discussions. I'm not sure of what proportion are women, but it must certainly be in the hundreds. Whether or not one appreciates his interviewing style, it would surely be at least a good introduction to become familiar with some of the many female perspectives available. There is an alphabetical list of interviewees to peruse, from which the women should be easy to find, going by their names. From there, you'll also find countless links to other sources to follow up ... https://batgap.com/past-interviews/alphabetical-index-guests/

@John Iverson That which 'you' are in essence does not depend upon what appears as a body-form interacting with what appears to be a tree-form -- or any other form. However, as a conscious agent within the context of this spacetime construct, any kind of sensual interaction or communication does depend upon the appearance of forms, for the sake of having this kind of relational experience. In the same way, any communication or interaction within the limited context of this forum depends upon the appearance of word-forms. If not active in this forum, these word-forms have no relevance to you, as they are just electrical data inside an information processor. Analogously, if 'you' are not focused in this spacetime construct, then its forms have no relevance. What all such forms are in essence could then be likened to potential information inside a cosmic mind at large, which is only relevant when you, as a conscious agent, are focused on that. In the dreamtime context, that focus is much more relaxed, and a lot of shape shifting and dimensional shifting can happen -- as in an NDE or OBE or other altered states, which are not limited to the rule-set of this spacetime construct. So that could be some example of what it's like when 'you' leave it after the body-form is no longer relevant.

The ancient spiritual traditions take quite different approaches to this question of Awareness. Vedanta's name for the Absolute is Brahman, which is considered inseparable from the triune of satchitananda, meaning: Being/Consciousness/Bliss. Buddhism, meanwhile, seems to make little mention of consciousness or awareness. I've always resonated with Taoism's approach to defining such terms ... From the Tao Te Ching: "The tao that can be told is not the eternal tao ... The name that can be named is not the eternal name". Even the choice of the word Tao seems quite deliberately nondescript, perhaps to avoid any definitive conceptualization. In any case, somehow it seems best to not get too attached to definitions and names, because what is truly essential is a profound realization of that which is being referred to, and ultimately defies all names and definitions -- which, given the inherent limitations of language, are always going to have to settle for 'true enough under the circumstances'. As such, even the name 'The Absolute' can be problematic, if it is seen in prioritized opposition to 'the relative', and there is then some exclusive identification as I am That, as opposed to other-than-that, thus falling back into the dualism trap, when in nondual terms, however paradoxical it may seem, the absolute is not other than the relative, and vice versa. This is also what Buddhism's Heart Sutra is getting at when it states that "emptiness is not other than form, and form is not other than emptiness" -- albeit, that statement doesn't seem to be in contradiction to 'Awareness.' So perhaps it's as good a name as any other -- keeping in mind, as Leo rightly points out, that it's not to be confused with some dichotomous subject/object awareness, in the conventional way that perception it is understood.