Search the Community

This is my take, Awareness is just a word for WHAT IS. The problem is that awareness implies that there must be something to be aware. And that's not the case, because we know awareness doesn't need anything. I know that Awareness is prior to everything, because I had an experience of nothingness. I lost reference of everything, it was completely black but there was no sensations, no perceptions, it was just me without any memory. When I began to wake up, the ego got crazy, and the character (what I think I am) was in shock. Couldn't think well, etc... but I was aware of everything. And that's awareness. I was aware too that there was no experiences at that moment.

@Leo Gura is it possible to have an experience (in this case, sight) of nothingness just by contemplating what it is?

If we are not individuals but nothingness with no free-will, and if the perceiver of all phenomena is nothingness/Existence itself, why are so few human-beings conscious/working to raise their quality of consciousness? Could this simply be a matter of Existence evolving a greater capacity for self-observation? Or am I falling prey to an egoic assumption that experience has some kind of significance beyond itself?

Dark? Hehehe... You misread him. He describes an utter perfection. You can feel nondual love oozing from his work. You have to take into account the maddening humility of Nothingness. He wants it to take your breath away.

True being is realizing true nothingness, only when you know you are nothing do you realize the significance of your BEing. The fact that you exist, the fact that you are. The fact that you have a body and brain, it's all incredible. How is that you exist altough you did nothing and still do nothing to exist? A human being is pure intelligence and an amazing creation, only a fool can miss or deny that. Introspection is key.

Hey guys! As the title already reveals, it feels like I am stuck when doing self-inquiry. I usually meditate, and during the session I ask questions like "What are my, really? What/who is this "I"? What is the nature of reality/existence?" and so on. So then while asking what I am, thought arises. There isn't really a mental image of an "I", but it usually says "Well, you're the body/brain. If you're not the body, then you're consciousness." So then I keep the awareness on that, only to always realize that this is just thought arising, and the feelings coming with it are also just... feelings. They all occur within awareness. Then I look deeper, only to find nothing, just emptiness. Here the mind thinks of the concept of nothingness, saying "Dude, maybe this is the nothingness, maybe this is you - consciousness, maybe everything just arises out from that." But I then realize too, that this is just a feeling and thought. Then, I still tend to still look for a perceiver, some "thing" that perceives the one meditating. Yet, this here is an ego trap as far as I know, thinking that there is someone who perceives. But, I just keep the awareness on that. "What is being aware? What is aware of being aware?" - here the mind comes to conclusions yet again, it's saying, "Well, since you are awareness, it can only be awareness that is being aware of human awareness." Apparently you can't find yourself, since there is no you. So the mind also comes up with "Why bother trying to find a perceiver, when you can't find one and when you "know" that you're awareness. Stop seeking enlightenment, because where does this seeking come from? Who/what seeks and wants to "become" enlightened? There is nothing to "achieve", to figure out, you already are what you seek." I always remind myself, that the truth is not hidden, it's quite simple and seekers often tend to tackle this whole thing in a more complicated way than necessary. Now, even when softening the focus, all that I am left with is bodily sensations, thought, feelings, emptiness etc. So, then I also think to myself "Everything that arises, is not you. Everything that you perceive, is not you. Even the awareness of the human being, is just an object occurring within nothingness. So... how the fu** are you/human awareness (or rather focus), even supposed to realize anything when everything that awareness catches isn't you? Even if you feel that you've got it, it's just a feeling occuring within your perception, feelings come and go. It's ironic that I put "feeling stuck in the title", isn't it? - It's just a feeling. The feeling of being incomplete, seperated and this ego-self is also just a feeling occuring within awareness. "I" am dancing in circles here... and it's pretty darn frustrating, really. I am not sure how to break out of this cycle. Any thoughts & tips on how to progress?

@iTommy I'd say you're getting too lost in concepts. Focus on what is actually occurring in your direct experience at this very moment. Keep grounding yourself in direct experience. What is true in your experience right now? There's lots of talk about 'nothingness', 'emptiness' and 'awareness' etc, but these are just concepts you've heard from Leo or read somewhere. You don't actually know what you are. Anything you've heard from someone else is not true. Nor do you really know what any of those concepts (emptiness, nothingness etc) actually point to. I'm not saying you don't understand them intellectually or conceptually, but for the purposes of self-inquiry they don't mean anything and you should discard them.

Savanna scatters and the seabird sings So why should we fear what travel brings? What were we hoping to get out of this? Some kind of momentary bliss? I waited for Something, and Something died So I waited for Nothing, and Nothing arrived It's our dearest ally, it's our closest friend It's our darkest blackout, it's our final end My dear sweet Nothing, let's start a new From here all in is just me and you I waited for Something and Something died So I waited for Nothing, and Nothing arrived Well I guess it's over, I guess it's begun It's a losers' table, but we've already won It's a funny battle, it's a constant game I guess I was busy when Nothing came I guess I was busy (when Nothing arrived) I guess I was busy (when Nothing arrived) I guess I was busy (when Nothing arrived) I guess I was busy (when Nothing arrived) I guess I was busy (when Nothing arrived) I waited for Something and Something died So I waited for Nothing, and Nothing arrived I waited for Something and Something died So I waited for Nothing, and Nothing arrived Category - Enlightenment & Meditation I picture the "nothing" in this song, as nothingness. It just inspires me since it really drives some deep points home if you actually view nothing in here, as nothingness, the no-"thing" that you are. Basically, he waits for some thing, and always chases after things. But then there is this nothingness, which is always there, yet he was always busy chasing after things while totally overlooking what already was there, nothing(ness).

Leo in his new video talks about appearences taking place into nothingness. But then the question arises why do these appearances exist at all? Shouldn't there be only pure nothingness - aka no appearence at all? Why did first appearence took the place at all? the ultimate question here is why? And your answer is because. But it does not explain anything at all.

Your mind is so attached to appearances (experiences) that it struggles to see that overlaid right on top of the appearance, is the disappearance. So you look at a chair, you see the colors of the chair, but you ignore the fact that in the exact same place of those colors, is nothingness. The colors literally ARE nothingness. But your mind isn't grasping that because it's overly focused on the colors. The mind is biased towards appearances. If you focus your awareness on the chair long enough, eventually you will start to get the sense that the chair -- although it appears right there -- isn't actually there! It is technically-speaking a hallucination, a mirage.

Over history, do you think a scientist has ever figured out a new clever way to actually test what was then untestable? Would this be an example? : A few hundred years ago illnesses were thought to have "supernatural" causes. The current scientific paradigm and lack of methodology prevented scientists from testing alternative hypotheses. Then, a scientist figured out how to create a microscope which led to the discovery of microbes such as bacteria and viruses. Hmmm, this is a different perspective of "intelligence". It is like the cube illusion you posted. For a while, all I could see was a small cube in a box. Then, a large cube with a corner missing. Here, "intelligence" is generally viewed as a product of the ego/self. "I" am intelligent. "He" is more intelligent than "Her". Yet, if we acknowledge the self is illusionary, there is no self to be intelligent. Most scientists would still take a 3rd person perspective that "intelligence" can be reduced to physical synapses. Yet, if one opens their mind to a "mysterious" source of the intelligence (nothingness, infinite consciousness etc) it is a game-changer. . . I would say the physical brain is necessary for the cleverness I use, yet perhaps it is insufficient. . . Are you familiar with the Two Slit and Eraser experiments in quantuum physics? The results were "shocking" to scientists since it refuted a scientific paradigm. There is just now way for me to reconcile the results with a traditional scientific framework. I'd be one of those people who needs to hear it. Could you recommend a reading / video that may provide me some more insight regarding epistemic and metaphysical errors of most scientists.? I think I would be more receptive to someone who has an understanding of science and became awakened with a new perspective. Btw, I will be teaching a neuroscience course for the first time next semester. It could be quite interesting. . .

@Serotoninluv The issue of what one can test, and what is the case, are two independent variables. The whole point of your job as a scientist is figuring out new clever ways of testing the untestable. Hint: the cleverness you're using to be intelligent, is the very intelligence you're testing for Just how is it that you think you are being intelligent? Randomly? Lol. That's not very intelligent of you to think. Empty space has more intelligence than every human being who's ever lived combined. After all, it did spawn you It's even generating all your scientific skepticism right this very second. Bam! Bam! Bam! Thought after intelligent thought spontaneously arising out of nothingness. One of the beauties of ditching the materialist paradigm is that intelligence is no longer confined to the brain.

@Leo Gura @egoless @Shin But quantum potential still exists therefore it is not nothingness, it's somethingness! You guys tell that "something" is "by definition" but your "defintions" are wrong. If something is couched into nothingness - it is not nothingness! Nothingness does not equate "No thing", semantic of the word is not the sum of semantics of it's parts you guys!!! Nothingness should stand for mathematical nothingness only meaning (stupidly rough) "less than 1 / (absolute infinity)". "An appearance is that which doesn't exist, by definition." - Wrong definition. When you tell that something does not exist it should mean that it is nothingness as in 1/a.inf. But even with non duality, appearances, illusions should consume/are contained in some portion of existence, even as some potential, they are obviously not "nothing at all"! I am very very thankful to Leo because his latest video finally gave me conclusive evidence as to why brain and neurons are not iron clad - because all the theory and evidence about them are based on a bunch of subjective impermanent observations while the consciousness/being is the only fact. @Joseph Maynor When we talk about existance and non existance, we do not really divide the reality with them - so it is not a duality. We use them as perfect categories. Obviously there is a part of reality which constitute appearances. But this part is not really dual, it is still a part of endless gooey all-encopassing existence.

@Serotoninluv Grab a sample of nothingness and give it an IQ test.

My "pet theory" is that, when we see how absurd materialism is, then we explain ansthesia as being an experience of literal nothingness, where it's subjectively identical to the "obliteration" of consciousness materialism proposes (so therefore it has equal explanatory value), but I'd like to hear other opinions.

Appearances are a sort of metaphor of the self. Like: "I can be this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, ad infinitum". Nothingness, or the self, being pure potentiality, experiencing love with it's potential actualized. But really, what I just said is bullshit. The only correct answer would be "why not?". That's why they call it the divine play of lila. It's just a play, entertainment, total mystery. It is very very strange that anything happens. The thinking process wants to avoid this grotesque strangeness of "wtf? why??!" because that would destroy all it's games of pretending control and knowing something. You will never be able to cover up the strangeness with a story that makes sense

If you realize that everything is nondual, that means nothingness will incarnate through every manifestation possible, instantly. Which means it will experinece reality from every vantage point possible. Which means reality is perfectly fair. One moment you will experience being shot. The next moment you will experience yourself pulling the trigger. You will experience every horror ever perpetrated, both as victim and victimizer. You will be Hitler and you will be the Jews. You will be the 9/11 attackers, and you will the be World Trade Center families. You will be the lion and the antelope. You will be the human enjoying a fine steak dinner, and the cow getting slaughtered for that steak. Brace yourself for some serious, serious karma! What a rush!

@Pierre Of course God isn't a bearded man in the sky. God is Nothingness.

@Nadosa All of these @Shin @Serotoninluv @ADD @Alexo45 have given a refraction of the reflections in awareness that passes through the mind in the moment like the rainbow is the refraction of white light that reflects off the water it passes through. Trying to "disbelieve" something empowers the belief through the assumption that it is believed to begin with. It's peering into the past and trying to unring a bell when in the present moment it is to just be, leave the sound to vibrate itself into silence and not believe that sound into nothingness. The idea of disbelieving is another belief the mind uses as a "truth", every "aha" is yet another "truth" the mind thinks it's sees and is one of the many ideas and concepts it constructs the paradigm of it's personal religion that it bows to in the church of it's own dogma. Our self conscious, the ego, refracts our experience to believe Our awareness, the will, reflects our experience to be live. Oh yes, it's getting deeper and deeper, too deep, yet in fact it is shallow, very shallow. So shallow that it really is only a mirage of water that the mind thinks it sees in sands and after expending all that energy to seek it out to realize it is the illusion that refracts the light and is merely the reflection in the mind....so drink it up, the water of life flowing by in the sands of time.

Leo's blog entry got me thinking. Imagine the following dialogue at the doctors office: Doctor: "I'm sorry to tell you this, but we found this advanced tumor in your brain. It's growing in a dangerously fast rate. You might not have that long to live anymore...." Patient: "Cool story bro, you should definitely write that down! Doctor: "I understand this must be shocking for you, but we will do everything we can..." Patient: "No, you don't understand. You are literally just hallucinating a story inside of this infinite hallucination machine. It has no grounding in reality whatsoever." I understand that no story is true. Because it consists of just noises made out of thin air. The noise "cancer" is not the actual unknown unspeakable phenomenon. The noise "Cancer" is supposed to be a symbol for the phenomenon. As Korzybski said "Whatever we may say will not be the objective level, which remains fundamentally un-speakable. Thus, we can sit on the object called 'a chair', but we cannot sit on the noise we made or the name we applied to that object." Now, with "objects" like a tumor, chair, pencil, etc. it is relatively easy. It's really just colour/light (But of course, not "colour"/"light" ) and it is not isolated. There are no isolated "objects". The isolated object is just created with language. "This colour-form combination is a tree!" "Really dude? Isn't it just also colour-form like, well, everything?" But what about stories like "Outside of my experience" or "death" or "soul" or "planet earth"? Do they symbolize anything? The noise "soul" might be just a noise, and not even a symbol, because what is there in actual experience that this noise is supposed to symbolize? The same goes for God. Or Nothingness. Or time. the languages cannot succeed at building a model of "reality" faster than experience occurs. What we think we observe is limited to what we can translate to each other via the slower than "reality" tool of our languages. What about "outside of my current experience" or "Objective Universe"? Might those terms symbolize something that might be a "reality"? At my current stage of contemplation I think it is forever unknown. There might be "outside of my current experience" There might be "Objective Universe". Those terms could be abstractions of something unknowable. There might be nothing seperate from consciousness, but there might aswell be. It's an open question, even if it sounds like nonduality has "figured it out" and is the final answer to consciousness. It can seem like "nonduality teachers" really know something and are the final consciousness authorities.. you gotta be fucking kidding me, lol. atleast I was believing this nonsense... It's just a desparate attempt to escape the obvious reality of slowly aging to death, paradoxically through story-telling of stopping the story-telling. So what value do stories offer us? It is neither good to ignore nor to believe in any story. But they seem to give us a valuable map for the territory (Even if you think about it, there is no map, but only territory, the map is also territory.. you know what I mean) I'm especially interested in what you guys think about concepts like "outside of my experience" "other minds" "Physical universe". Are they abstractions/symbols for something that is in one form or another a reality? Like the word "Cancer"? Or are they just noises, not words/symbols standing for nothing at all?

@Shiva Yes but exploring Enlightenment requires you immense amount of abstaining from everyday life and becoming disciplined practitioner. What if instead it is wiser to continue experiencing life as it was gifted and intended initially. To explore it as your separate self, with perspective on it rather then completely dissolving yourself in nothingness.

Er... first post. Sorry for the length. It's not a light topic; I tried to keep it concise, but it's philosophy. Also, this is the philosophy of enlightenment. I get the difference between thinking about the concept of truth vs direct awareness of the self. This is a mental circle-jerk, but it's fun and interesting, so here it is anyway. I’ve heard a lot of people say “you don’t attain enlightenment; there’s nobody to be enlightened.” Many instructors really harp on this point. I get the gist of this as a helpful pointer for the grasping ego, but I don’t know that I entirely agree with it as a true statement. That's what this post is all about. First, enlightenment. I like Leo’s analogy of it being like The Matrix. The truth is not that you’re an ego trapped within the matrix, but that you are The Matrix. The matrix (your true self) isn’t a giant machine, but is the infinite nothingness in which all exists. I’m seeing the world from one person’s perspective, and mistakenly imagining that this person is all that I am, but the truth is the little me is just me experiencing myself through a story. The trick with that is becoming aware of the matrix as the matrix. I’ve heard this same analogy as a TV screen, but again, you are the screen. There’s nothing really conceptual that captures that last part of nothingness observing nothingness, which I think is what makes the journey so hard. Second, the brain/body is (in)deterministic. There’s no comprehensible concept of “choice” or “will” in a purely material universe, not to mention there’s no way for our brain to act independently of all outside influences. I’m a programmer, so it’s easy for me to think about determinism in a technical context. A light switch doesn’t have choice; a calculator is a fancy series of light switches; a chess playing computer is really just an extension of the same concept. QM and relativity are a bit more mind bending, but are also entirely logical and (in)deterministic. Given a set of inputs, you get a known output (or probability in the case of QM). The only differences with our brain is that it’s a very advanced, purposeful computer, and it has a heck of a lot inputs; so many inputs that it appears to act independently of its surroundings. So, basically, our brain/body is a sort of natural automaton. Some combo of my DNA, childhood, friends, family, pressures, failures, successes, books I’ve read, things I’ve watched, and an unimaginable myriad of other factors brought me to where I am today, practicing mindfulness and self-inquiry, going on and on about philosophy, and posting to this forum. Enlightenment is non-duel, all one, monism. I don't know that I'm entirely convinced of this yet; philosophically, it seems possible to me (at the moment) that consciousness and matter could have separate objective existence, and consciousness could somehow influence matter (dualism). But, either way, materialism doesn't lead to "choice," and the ego only mistakenly believes its in control. So, given these, what is enlightenment really? Who is there to become enlightened? I see two ways of looking at it, which both seem true. 1) My true self. Awareness that I am the nothingness in which all things are. “God.” This can only be direct awareness; the infinite observing the infinite. Any kind of conceptualization of this is a blinder. This is the typical guidance on the topic, and I can see how this is necessarily so. 2) This little automaton. Just like Google stores facts, analyzes, and “learns,” so does my mind. The experience of self-awareness itself escapes the mind, but the idea/thought/concept of awareness doesn’t entirely escape the mind. If it did, none of us would be able to think about this stuff enough to talk about it. I imagine it’s somewhat like waking from and remembering a dream, where your waking consciousness gets enough hints and ideas of the dream to know that it happened. Whether that's an accurate analogy or not, I don't know, but it necessarily seems like something in the finite has to shift for anybody to ever be aware that reality is infinite. So, “there’s nobody to become enlightened?” I don’t know about that. No true self, no consciousness, but something in the brain necessarily shifts. I (ego) may never directly know truth, but I would have to know the idea of truth. That's not even mentioning the tangible little-self changes. Agree? Disagree? Thoughts?

I experienced thoughtless awareness and some physical sensations which are slightly different than the norm. I could have gotten a bit of a glimpse of "nothingness" through Leo's neti neti video. What you describe seems quite beyond my experiences.

Thought has its place. But nothingness is freedom. A mind with “no thing” as its content is free. Maybe Afonso means thought in the context that we attempt to capture a sense of security in the relationship and reaction to fear. Thought in its very nature is to anylize certain stimuli through subjective awareness or perception to establish a sanctuary for the body or mind. That is what I got from that comment. He might imply that thinking in this sense is the reaction to fear and the desire to self sustain. This seems reasonable, rational to me...I could be wrong though.

Let me be honest - I love my boyfriend. He is an amazing person. However: I feel like the more I look into Leo's videos, and meditate, the more I realise that my true source of happiness is realising the Truth. My boyfriend does meditate but he doesn't take it very seriously. When I see him I have made an effort to make sure we meditate, but the issue is that maybe 5-10 minutes of meditating together, he starts to be suggestive and we just end up having sex. Whilst it is nice to have sex - It's just not fulfilling because I know that deep down, what would have made me happier is if we meditated for half an hour like we planned. I have told him that this is bothering me but I don't think he gets it. I don't want to be annoying and continue repeating myself because he is smart enough to comprehend me. this issue has been going on for months. I don't feel like he is making enough effort to meditate on his own. its just bothering me because I don't see us lasting if we aren't progressing at the same rate. Reasons why I feel like I shouldn't break up with him: 1. Instead of meditating, he is better at practicing mindfulness in daily life than me. I often find that I am so caught up in progressing with meditation etc that I neglect important things such as planning for a future, and succeeding in a career. I find it hard to work on my career/studies because I would just rather meditate. As a result - I am struggling to pay for things and always am stressed about money because I don't put much effort into improving my career. Being with him has taught me that it is important to have a career because it will take away a lot of stress within this physical life, as being an adult unfortunately involves having to pay rent/groceries/bills. Instead of having this idea that "i should be meditating" instead of studying, he reminds me through setting an example, that happiness is found with engaging in the present moment. 2. He is extroverted and better at engaging in this physical human existence. I have existential crises VERY OFTEN as a result of meditation and self inquiry. Because he doesn't meditate as much, he doesn't really get caught up in the emotions that come with ego death and is able to just BE in the moment. 3. He practices unconditional love for me. Here I am, complaining that he is not good enough, but despite my faults, he does love me. He finds it easier to experience 'oneness' with others, whilst I find it easier to sit in 'nothingness'. He teaches me that connection is one part of spiritual growth, whereas the path that I often go down is that everything is nothing and nothing is everything etc. Reasons why I should break up with him: 1. He doesn't watch any of Leo's video's that I send him because they are 'too long'. This bothers me so much because its like whats the point being together if we can't even talk about deep content. 2. He doesn't take meditation seriously and just wants to live in the moment. He doesn't do self-inquiry, just mindfulness meditation. 3. He wants us to have a future living together, have a family together etc one day. I am just not sure that that is my path. I just want to pursue spirituality deeper and that having a family to raise is just a waste of time. I feel like if I continue being with him, it might disappoint him one day because I can't give him the future he wants and he won't be happy with a future that I want (which is basically just to pursue truth all day every day but Im not sure how I can make this a full time lifestyle but its what I would want one day) I have expressed my opinions about the possibility of us breaking up. Because in reality, we don't NEED each other. We are complete on our own without needing another person. He has always convinced me that we are helping each other grow/develop and that no one is perfect.. Im just not sure. I want to be certain before I bring it up again. Any thoughts would be appreciated.