Search the Community

The Buddha said to refer everything to the self. Most people consider this to mean conceptual consideration by intellectualism, holding the self mentioned in the Buddha's powerful statement as the self propped up and perpetuated by this same intellectual reasoning which is the seat of karmic bondage. If it were what the Buddha meant, how could that have any power? Any ignoramus refers everything to himself from birth to death. Who has ventured to ponder what the Buddha meant by this revelatory pronouncement into the nature of one's true being in terms of correct study of the self? Taoism states that it is necessary to work with what is the same. Sameness is essence. Essence is the self. Life is other. One already has this immaterial essence. That is why buddhism says to see essence on your own, then see a teacher. Taoism says to use essence to call life back from another's house. Essence is one's own aware nature. Life is real potential, real knowledge. This is why it is necessary to deal effectively with ordinary situations impersonally by activating impersonal nonpsychological essential awareness to see through situations and gather the unrefined potential inherent in situations by unminding, forgetting one's intellectual and emotional consciousness in the midst of ordinary affairs. "To study the Buddha way is to study oneself" means that activating one's own unborn awareness, empty of relative cause, is the basis to conduct oneself in the midst of affairs by subtle observation, subtle concentration that does not use intellectual interpretations to rationalize self and other. This is true study resulting in forgetting oneself. To study oneself is to forget oneself does not refer to an instance of sudden enlightenment. Forgetting oneself is activation of the unborn mind that sees without calling habitual perspectives relative to the personality of the false conditioned karmic identity. True study of the real self is activation of the selfless self. This is the authentic practice of forgetting oneself. The effect of authentic practice in the midst of ordinary affairs is studying the real self without removing the world. This is enlightening activity. When Dogen says, "To forget oneself is to be enlightened by the myriad dharmas.", it means effective practice is carried out by seeing the world as oneself. In one heightened experience during a preliminary 1000 day cycle, I awoke to the awareness being such that the overwhelming perspective was one of "it (the entire worldly situation) is just me". In other words, there was no me to speak of constituting an existence separate from all the elements and timing aggregating to define the evolution of a great cycle. The situational evolution was such that its pressure-cooker reality was just what it was with no reflective perspective on others struggling as others separate from myself. Its inconceivably psychological and emotional brutality was simply the conditions under which I found myself, and each cycle within this cycle resulted in the same open-ended basis of times alternating successively without a break. The myriad dharmas are simply conditional phenomenal unreality, but they are all there is to work with. It is by virtue of the karmic matrix that there is the context for self-refining enlightening activity. One's sense, being real knowledge of true reality, nurtured by essential aware purity of impersonal open sincerity permeates myriad dharmas. Though it is oneself, it is not one's own. This is because the nature of the universal is itself aware nonbeing. The totality of reality is thus. This is how enlightenment by the myriad dharmas is forgetting oneself. In forgetting, the myriad dharmas become oneself. "To be enlightened by the myriad dharmas is to bring about the dropping away of body and mind of both oneself and others", is arrival of cessation, the absolute, seeing one's naturre, seeing one's original face. Upon culmination of the great cycle, experience of nonorigination, the empty kalpa, where no buddha can reach you is attained. Nothing further can be said. This is where the matter of life and death is finally finished, and one has completely thrown away all knowledge: this is the absolute of the homeland of nothing whatsoever. In his last line Dogen states that, "The traces of enlightenment come to an end, and this traceless enlightenment is continued endlessly." In the aftermath of the sudden, one reeks of enlightenment. This must be worn off, washed off, rinsed completely away. This is why I say that the "vertical must be dissolved before one can make use of it". Alchemic manuals say that once one has used the true lead (real knowledge), one must then get rid of it. "Having used lead to refine mercury into the gold pill of immortality, one then gets rid of the lead". Dogen's "Traces of enlightenment" is identification with the experience of the foregoing achievement clinging to essential aware nature in the aftermath of complete perfect enlightenment. Taoist alchemical manuals state that "openness must then be emptied". "One overturns the polar mountain, shatters space, sublimates oneself physically and spiritually and enters the tao in reality, planting lotuses in fire, going through endless transformations". This is the meaning of "and this traceless enlightenment is continued endlessly." Hakuun Yasutani states in his commentary of Dogen's Genjokoan on this section, "…that since one has with great effort become the original buddha [in selfless sudden illumination], from here the work of the buddha begins." Attaining further enlightenment upon enlightenment in terms of endless transformations of subtle operation within Suchness, one becomes a person deluded within delusion: enlightenment being no different than delusion. This is the expression of the activation of one's selfless enlightening being where there is a body outside the body. It is just nonbeing within being. This is the significance of the taoist term, Complete Reality, and also the source of the ancient taoist teaching tradition that has endeavored to keep this knowledge alive.

hi kieranperez~ Saints, sages, saviors, buddhas, wizards, immortals, current and prior illuminates, enlightening beings all, are no different than any human being who has ever lived. Self-refinement is endless due to our inconceivable nature. Current illuminates are no different than the ancients. Cetus56 said: I say spontaneously adapting potential to conditions is accepting and carrying out one's enlightening function. How is that different from Cetus56's quote? The venerable poet in the video says that emptiness, in terms of the illusion of a self-nature exclusive of the cosmos, is empty (i.e., a false premise). But he won't go further than that on account of the people he's babysitting. True emptiness not relative to being, yet comprising it, is already the embodiment of true emptiness, i.e., not empty— so what is the point of a sage?. Even in terms of the absolute constituting the void prior to the dichotomization of the primal elements, potential is its substance, hence the standard of enlightenment holds that true voidness isn't void. But these are just words… People who see reality, respond to reality. It's natural. People who see illusion, respond to illusion. Actually, Cetus56's quote is sticking to forms already. What proves sagehood is the application of reality in real terms beyond any philosophy. What's that? Acceptance and fulfillment of one's inherent enlightening function is the standard of enlightenment. If you know but cannot act on knowledge, it's the same as not knowing. Sudden enlightenment does not confer buddhahood on the spot. Gautama was no different. The gradual path of self refinement before and after the sudden realization of one's essential nature is a single continuum. Even getting to hear the words of the Dharma is karmic. Even inanimate objects express the single point of illumination. Delusion is the incipience of enlightening being. Your own mind has never moved. Try not to identify too pointedly with the illuminates of historical accounts. Very few illuminates actually have the predilection to teach, and of those who do, even fewer still are known to anyone outside of a handful of perceptives. Enlightenment itself cannot be viewed as a categorically significant criteria— not only because enlightenment constitutes your mind already, but because there is an infinite range of potentials even amongst those who have seen their nature. In the aftermath of sudden illumination, advanced practice must be recognized and developed. The big hurdle after enlightenment is getting over it. Many people who have experienced sudden illumination find the experience debilitating. It is paramount to get to work to refine the foregoing achievement. Otherwise, clinging to the absolute, both (conceptually) before the sudden and afterwards, is no different than clinging to delusional selfhood in the first place. Buddhahood isn't buddhist; the Tao isn't taoist. No one invented enlightenment even 100,000 years ago. No one can give anything of the sort to anyone else. One must recognize reality oneself and refine away the human mentality oneself. One's own teacher is not beyond one's own heart of hearts. Reverence for prior illuminates is a wonderful thing, but always seek the wonder of profundity: what is it? What is it? It's not religion. What it is? It's not ordinary or holy. What is it? It is not thinking or reached by thinking. It's not practice. It's not good or bad, right or wrong, high or low, before of after. On the tip of your nose, beyond the fact that there is no thing; the intimate impersonal knowledge of the absence of nothingness is true realization. It is actually possible to know absence of voidness. It's REAL. Just this is boundless nonoriginated whole perfect illumination blazing without a shard of your future skull. What is it? ed note: add two quotes + paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5; add a zero to the biG number; add the penultimate line

Mu made a point about speculating about why reality is the way it is— without a doubt, no one knows. There is nothing to know in that regard. It's just the way it is, but there are authentic wisdom teachings being kept alive that are aimed at helping people to become partners with creation; by developing an impersonal relationship with creation based on the potential inherent in each unique created karmic situation. It's not magic, it's science. In terms of taoism, it is called the dual cultivation of the science of life and the science of essence which enables one to take over creation and appropriate its potential for the purpose of natural, automatic and "passively derived" spiritual (nonpsychological) evolution. It isn't "done" per se. It's a matter of awareness potential, developed over a long time of self-refinment. It simply involves seeing. Buddhism calls this "operation" selfless spiritual adaption within Suchness as is. Names don't matter. What matters is that it is possible for one to see reality as is, and without relying on one's own power through observation of virtuous non-resistance, partake of the essential nature of creation itself as oneself presently and impersonally without dealing directly with the created karmic energy of situational process. Instead, one deals with essence directly without intermediary by virtue of the essential nature of the created inherent in each created cyclically evolving situation. The reason this is possible is because created karmic energy and the absolute nature of reality's essential potential not being different is also not different than our own selfless awareness stripped of its conditioned overlay of learned and inherited personality patterns of conditioned identities. That might sound fancy and high-falutin', but it's just a matter of recognizing (seeing) this real potential in the midst of situations in order to adapt one's own impersonal enlightening potential to everyday ordinary (delusional) conditions selflessly, which is how one transcends karmic evolution within the creative without being subject to the laws of creation. It's what being a partner of creation means. There is no reason why. It's just the way it is. It's an open secret in the midst of delusionally created evolutionary cyclical process. Since the nature of karmic process is cyclical, there are universally recognized critical junctures that can be exploited by spiritually (nonpsychologically) developed people. It may very well sound utterly inconceivable~ which is exactly what it is. That's where non-resistance comes in handy, because one does not "do" it. It's spiritual; that is to say, nonpsychological. Therefore one moves without doing anything (in the context of the situation), by virtue of psychological clarity, or "stillness". "Stillness" is used as a technical term because psychological clarity is free of patterned content, or "momentum". The mind-ground itself is neither stillness nor movement. It's just the awake quality of nonoriginated selfless awareness. The truth is, there is no way to see true reality without complete acceptance of the conditional sphere without employing a personalistic (selfish) perspective because ultimately, they are the same, that is, impersonal and selfless. Individuals are not separate from their situational environment. Taoism says that the world is the sage, which means that a sage is so due to being able to see and adapt to the world as an organic totality without entertaining arbitrary conclusions relative to oneself and one another. This gets back to the OP in terms of the "decider" or experiencer of attraction, rejection and null interpretations of phenomena. This is due to believing the illusory knower, thinker and liver of life is one's absolute identity (separate from the totality of karmic being) outside of real absolute selfless nature. One's true nature is enlightenment right now. No one is otherwise. There are no two minds. The human mentality stripped of its conditioning is itself the seat of enlightenment on the spot. Of course, it is not arbitrarily arrived at for the liver of life to come to the conclusion of what ultimately feels good or not, in terms of situational evolution, but actually exploring the thresholds and extreme limits of such stimulus is not for the faint of heart. Meeeeooowwww!! As for making arbitrary distinctions relative to the being that is going to die based on the karmically conditioned psychological apparatus, pleasure and pain, and their long-explored relativity (sexually "deviant" relativism comes to mind), there is no limit~ as for "How far can too far go?", to quote The Cramps, certain boundaries become faint and fuzzy. ed note: typo 5th; typo, 7th; add without employing a personalistic (selfish) perspective because ultimately, they are the same, that is, impersonal and selfless to 10th;

Maybe that's the problem, I call consciousness the universal consciousness and the personal consciousness. Nis makes a distinction, he calls consciousness the personal one, and awareness the impersonal or transcendental/universal consciousness. The OP thinks that there's not such a thing as universal consciousness, so matter is something outside of consciousness in a world "out there".

Hi actualized.org members, So I’ve been a “lurker” for a while now, but finally decided I’d reach out and engage with the community directly :). There are a lot of interesting and unique perspectives here and low-key I should have joined up sooner. The deeper I’ve gone into this work, the more obvious its significance becomes, but equally, the more obvious its scarcity within society becomes as well. Like, I’m one of the only one in my life I see asking these existential questions that are commonplace around these parts so... It would be cool to finally get involved with like-minded “individuals.” I was hoping you all could give me thoughts or insights you’ve had on the topic of Love with a capital L. What is it? Why would it be present? Does it have anything to do with enlightenment? Often times enlightenment is described as pure “being,” which is achieved by resting in a state of pure “awareness.” So essentially, when we’ve achieved this pure being-ness with our present experience, dropping all beliefs and concepts, we become aware of the nature of our reality, self, etc. By only being our-selves, we are enlightened to the true nature of our selves and reality. Intellectually, however, none of this seems to include or require something like Love to be included into the mix. I can imagine pure awareness being utterly cold, detached, impersonal and observatory without there being any sort of internal feeling of connectedness with the present experience. And in this sense, you are that which is aware, nothing “more” (such as Love) and nothing “less” (such as Hate). How could LOVE be a part of this? If Love were to be found within *being,* it would still be observed via awareness right? (e.g. not YOU because YOU are that which is AWARE) It’s just a strange concept overall, and yet enlightened masters have continually emphasized the point of Love within this spiritual journey. So yeh… If any of you all have thoughts it would be extremely cool to read them Thanks!

Truth realisation is not subjective. Truth is impersonal. Absolute truth is not bound by personality structure. I agree that some shadow issues will still remain, as personality structure is transcended not removed. Enlightenment can reduce your shadow issues, but it won't increase them. Enlightenment doesn't come in many shape or forms, again, to say that would be to say there are more than one absolute truths; that is ridiculous. It is personality structure which varies from person to person. This is just my personal opinion, but I don't think tier 1 people can achieve proper enlightenment. Personality structure has to be mature enough to see it's falseness.

it cannot be the I because in that state, the I is "seen" to be an idea which is dissolved at that point whatever it is, which remains, during awakening (i guess the "impersonal awareness" ), whatever the "experience" which is occurring during awakening is also then watched. whatever the insights which come about during awakening are also watched/known/observed since the " I " is dead / gone / non-existent during awakening... then whatever, which remains after the death of " I ", that watches (is aware of) the awakening, is THAT not itself watched by a higher self? so the personal ego I is replaced by something else which is associated with... but that in turn is watched also... is a further awakening or going-meta to this state required to be present from the place where watching is taking place but not in turn being watched by anything?

Yes, I mean dead, as in being absorbed in the now. Not knowing your past. Well, you do know your past if you think about it, but you never do, you are so alive in the present moment that it's fair to say you are dead in regards to being an ego or a person. But you are highly alive of course, but it's an aliveness that is impersonal, you see? Ah, I understand, I was hoping you meant being dead as in being nothing. Like Osho describe in this video, you see what I mean?

@Scholar Those are some good questions. My mind wants to simplify the issue. Yet, it's very nuanced and complex as you are finding. You wrote: "But then when I look at the suffering there is something about it that I cannot explain in words that makes it seem like it is bad. I just can't articulate it, but then there is also something that makes it seem like just another experience, that I cannot articulate either." I go through this a lot. Perhaps it's a paradox. For example, sometimes "spirituality" seems so impersonal. There is no "I". The true "me" is one with everything. There is nothing to do than to be in the present moment. It's so amazingly simple. Yet, it also seems so personal. The spiritual journey feels deeply personal. My direct experience feels personal. There is a desire to grow and evolve. What if we stepped away from the term "bad"? And thought of suffering as energy. There are many forms of energy. Suffering seems like a seeking energy. An energetic yearning for a different present moment. Perhaps the seeking energy can be mild or it can be very strong. When I see an animal experiencing pain, they don't seem to have the same type of seeking energy as humans. They seem to be experiencing the pain in the present moment and may avoid the source of the pain. Yet, they don't seem to have the same type of yearning and struggling as humans. The sense of powerless and loss of control. The thinking about how things could be better if only such-and-such happens. Have you listened to awakened spiritual teachers on suffering? That might shed some insight. I've never done a solo retreat. Yet, boredom over extended periods and not being able to leave would likely lead to a degree of suffering for me. Yet, it probably wouldn't cause any permanent harm.

@Jack River when the movement of anxiety is seen to be an impersonal movement? Is that what you're saying? Also, is what you are saying here a different face of truth vs coming to the realization that there is no "I" ? This means ego death? End of seeking? Or a level much below yet still very profound step up?

Yeah, but I've already said that I promote neutrality of the law, not of empathy. Don't make me repeat a third time. I'm just concerned with delivering the truth on a formal level. Because at the end of the day we need police, judges and formal help. Feelings won't arrest anybody. But again I repeat that I would naturally suggest the person to report and to seek help. I think this is also a cultural problem, because north america is very cold and impersonal. It scares me a lot. I don't want Italy to become like america, it's such a disgusting place for personal relationships. Coming from my culture I can attest that siding with the relative/friend is NORMAL and the baseline here. But I get it that in america people are fucked in the head. You north americans have such a cold attitude towards family and friends. Here we have a very morbid attachment to family and friendship, to the point of being ideological LOL. This again proves that evolving our human interaction is the solution. Not asking for more government. By the way, I also believe that all this "death penalty culture" and "prison violence" that you have in america is one of the most fucked up things in the western world. To be honest I also believe that prisons are outdated and humankind needs to find a both empathetic and rational cure to criminals, and reintegrate them in society and making them feel accepted. Criminals tend to develop an ego around the punishment that they get, and this intensifies their suffering, which brings even more suffering to the innocent. And also to themselves. For example I feel a lot of pity and sadness towards school shooters. Makes me cry to just think what they must have endured to become crazy and insane... But the world is not ready to discover these "empathetic superpowers" that can heal damaged criminals to turn them into actualized beings. I strongly believe that a happy society holds no punishments for its citizens. I'd like to hear your thoughts because you have more experience than me in the field of systemic understanding.

@Feel Good I didn't said I'm apart from the uncouncious. If you read the reply carefully, I said that we're all idiots, in the end, the point of view being all that matters. You're trying to be right and outsmart me, while creating a totally impersonal perspective on life, as that's gonna resolve all of the problems. Now you'd say what problems, everything is fine, perfect, but it wouldn't be if you were living in Syria being bombed occasionally, right? Some people need to be more grounded, really. Impersonalizing the whole existence isn't the only purpose of being human. Have fun and stop spiritual bypassing. You couldn't function without your ego.

Growing up I had a big ego, but I started to work on that early on. I love humbleness, compassion and altruism. These are all good concepts to contemplate and practice in order to shrink your ego. I've come a long way towards the transcending of my ego. Frankly I don't care if I live or die(although I love to live). I don't bother with success or other peoples approvals. I don't care about power or money, and I don't compare myself to others or judging anyone. Hence, I'm doing rather good so far on my quest for enlightenment. So, why am I not enlightened already? This is why.. every time I come close to transcending my ego to full extent and get a little taste of that wonderful impersonal godly consciousness, my ego jumps into the picture and judge that experience as EGO! lol You see how fucking sneaky my ego is? Ego doesn't judge me as an ego when I identify with it, but as soon as I come close to that egoless experience of God, the ego tend to label that experience as ego. How fucking ironic! You see the paradox here? Below is how the logic of my ego works.. Being ego = no ego Being free of ego aka enlightenment(infinite awareness) = BIG EGO Even though I understand the sneakiness of my ego, I can't guard myself from the attack that ego makes on me when I come closer to being God. Yeah, my ego judge God as Ego in a last attempt to survive. A last defence mechanism so to speak. Lol, it's almost cute how infinite pathetic my ego is. It turns truth inside out, like an inverse version of truth according this formula.. EGO = NO EGO GOD(aka no ego) = EGO It's so infinitely sneaky, my ego knows how much I hate the notion of ego, and of course it use that as a strategy to survive, hence it judge God's presence as ego in order for me to stay away from enlightenment and align myself with that toxic bastard! How to solve this puzzle? My ego doesn't even seem to be embarrassed by this pathetic attempt to survive even though I have exposed it fully. Ego is a sneaky parasite, I tell you, at least my ego is! Do you understand what I say here? If you do, please elaborate. Namaste.

@Pernani Simply put, motivation is what motivates a search for enlightenment... .. If one keep inquiring to see what motivates him to do anything in this life, that inquiry may actually lead to enlightenment... Enlightenment is a peak where everything that is considered as 'personal' converges; this separate 'personal' self is completely lost.. So, it is an end of a life that is all about a person and his history... Discovering the peak of one's potential which gives a person a tremendous freedom from self-concept or anything that is related to a personal story is enlightenment... Once a person truly realizes his nature, then his life is no longer about a story of a person. It becomes completely impersonal. It is the peak of life... After that, learning, growth and improvement may still continue but there is no craving for learning, growth or improvement. You don't rely on anything to give you a meaning for life or the fulfillment of the story of your personal life. So, the 'personal life' is completely removed from the equation. You may be able to relate with my story: http://qr.ae/TUIUX1 . Here I have explained many things, including what motivated the search for enlightenment.

@now is forever Sorry, I didn't get you the first time. I read some of your journal and should have made the connection with the high heels. To me, there are no concrete dualities. The point from which I discuss these issues is impersonal. What I'm trying to explicate is the mechanism through which ego/personality/identity perpetuates itself. It is the mechanism in terms of which the distinction between men and women can be made and upheld. In this sense: no, I'm not talking to a woman. Neither do I talk to a man. The I=you=we, as I discuss it has no traits whatsoever. Nothing positively descriptive can be said about it. I do understand however that the issue of mirror-like nature of yin is important to you and I'm not dismissing that. I am simply clarifying my previous posts. So, coming back to your question (taken seriously this time): The only answer I can give is from that impersonal perspective. The moment that you make the distinction between a man and a woman and identify as a woman - there is nothing else to do. Just keep polishing that mirror and if it makes you suffer, then you will have to overcome this duality by 'punching hole through it'. To do that, you have to understand how men and women are exactly the same. I went into the equality of yin and yang in this post: Does this make any sense to you?

It’s totally impersonal. You are speaking your truth, based on your genetics and life conditioning. But it’s not The Truth. It’s just appearances and a desire to express oneself. And all these thoughts in my mind are also appearances with no more relevance than a dog bark.

All of the above really, Absolute truth is omnipresent, so everything has to be One. Infinity is more like a negation finity in finity terms. Ill just post an excerpt from my book Non Duality Explained Non dual literally means ‘not two’ or that no two truths can exist. It is based on two assumptions:- Objective knowledge isn’t possible as reality that we experience is constantly changing Reality as we know it is One not two Thus, There is Only One Truth and that Truth is All Non Duality Derived We can’t say that truth does not exist, as it would amount to a logical contradiction. To say that truth does not exist is a self nullifying statement. So we conclude that TRUTH exists. Lets classify Truth with a capital ’T’ as something of which we can be absolutely certain. So Truth is something that is: Not subject to change Makes one absolutely certain of it Thus, Qualities of something Absolutely True must be not be subjected to any duality It must be : Timeless Omnipresent Impersonal Constant and Unchanging Not subjected to any limitations i.e Infinite False never existed, Only Truth exists so it contains everything There can’t be two absolute truths so Absolute Truth is not subjected to any duality Now we have to say that something exists for sure, lets call it Consciousness If absolute truth is everything, And Consciousness exists Consciousness is everything What is Self There are two types of self: Self with a capital “S” and self with a lower “s” ’S'elf is your true self whereas ’s'elf is your conceptual self. The conceptual self includes: Your memories Beliefs Assumptions Associations The True Self includes: Everything that is left when the conceptual self is removed or we can say simply Being Thus if Consciousness is everything You experience that consciousness through your true self Thus comes the saying Tat Tvam Asi ( You are it )

The first thing to do is to let go of your identification as a good person. This identification will hide many things away from yourself that you don't want to see. The internal landscape is vast and complex. It isn't all just sunshine and rainbows in there. If you look with brutal honesty, you will find a wide range of things that you'd never associate with yourself. You can even find sadistic and violent parts of yourself that you didn't know were there. The internal landscape is "well-peopled", so to speak. When I had my second experience of ego transcendence, I zoomed out from my ego identifications and noticed that I had two warring drives. I had my compassionate drive and I had my "evil" drive. And they were clashing against one another. And that evil drive was sadistic and violent and produced images in my mind of me delightedly shoving my thumbs into someone's eyes. Not because I didn't like that person. In fact, it was pretty much my favorite person in the world. It was just because my evil drive enjoyed the suffering that it brought to them in the fantasy. Now, I was even further identified with goodness at the time than you probably are now. I would get absolutely neurotic about being perceived as good and honest, to the point of obsession. So, had I been identified with my "good" ego, I would have never seen that drive in me. But in seeing it, I was able to transcend both the "good" and the "evil" drive and simply see them as the impersonal fodder of my internal landscape. Neither of them had anything to do with me. I was just the awareness taking them in. And in my distance from those two drives, I could hear a quieter more subtle voice of Divine Wisdom. And I knew that I already knew everything that I needed to know to live this life. I always had and I always would. And I simply wasn't able to perceive of the evil drive or the voice of Divine Wisdom because I was stuck in the pile of "good" thoughts, that really cared about people and assured me of my own goodness. And this is a problem because when a person is unconscious to the evil drive, it doesn't go away. It sneaks its way in, in subtle ways by disguising itself as goodness. So, in order to see your issues with your Anima clearly, you will have to see beyond your identification with goodness first. And what you find might not be pleasant or paint you in a good light. It may be like turning over a rotting log and seeing lost of nastiness that you never knew was there. But I would start by looking at your fears of how women will objectify you and what it will mean about your worth. Then (without trying to look away or see yourself as good) consider maybe you are unconsciously objectifying and viewing women's worth the same way. This can cause the Anima to project the same onto women as a whole group, so that you get a taste of what you may be doing to it. Remember, the Anima is literal a part of you, and it is literally female. So, if you judge women's worth based on objectified standards, the Anima (as a woman) will feel rejected and objectified and will exact revenge on you. And she will do this by projecting the same objectification/rejection/devaluation pattern onto women, which will make them appear to hold your worth in their hands. And she will make you feel powerless and worthless, because you've made her feel powerless and worthless. So, that's what I'd look for first. But you won't be able to see it if you can't question your own goodness. You have to be able to see yourself in unflattering lights. The identification with goodness will cause you to have a blindspot and to protect that blindspot so that you won't be able to see what's behind it. Basically you need to turn over the rotting log.

I have thought about this subject for a while. I have talked in length about personal development and spirituality with my friends who are mostly orange-green type of persons, and they even have personal developement habbits in their life and they resonate with the ideas but... it never really sticks. I feel like the ONLY real reason for that is the fact that they wont recognize the ever so subtle pain of experiencing the world as an ego. I cant just tell them "Hey! I know for a FACT that you are not happy, and it's not personal, it's in fact impersonal and I have it too". Thats something everyone has to admit themselves first. My friends have so much going for them and they mostly live a passionate life, so it is super easy to ignore that sadness and longing for unity. The few friends that have really noticed that sadness, know about non-duality. Not a surprise. Most folk have the reasonable philosophy of "life is like a rollercoaster: ups and downs" and its true even! But only on the surface. Thats where most peoples sticking point is. They accept the sadness (without understanding the reason for it) and the happiness ("Im happy because of these favourable conditions") as "thats how life is". "Dont fix it if it's not broken" is the reason personal development does not stick.

When I first encountered mushrooms, I was absolutely fascinated with it, and I wanted to experiment with dosage, in an attempt to sort of map things out. Started with 5 grams, went to 6, then 7, then 9, and finally 14g. For me, it just gets more confusing and the information gets more unusable and impersonal at the higher doses. Like raw data bundles being hurled at you in clumps, and you don't know how to use it, so all you can do is duck and try not to be hit by it. It was like Cosmic dodgeball. I have since learned that for me, the most benefits seem to be in the smaller doses, like say 3g - 6g.

@Neptune2020 As long as we imagine ourselves to be separate personalities one quite apart from another, we cannot grasp reality which is essentially impersonal. First we must know ourselves as witnesses only. Dimensionless and timeless centers of observation and than realize that immense ocean of pure awareness which is both mind and matter and beyond both. Your being a person is due to the illusion of space and time. You imagine yourself to be at a certain point occupying a certain volume. Your personality is due to your self identification with the body. Your thoughts and feelings exist in succession. They have their span in time and make you imagine yourself because of memory having duration. In reality time and space exit in you, you do not exist in them. -Nisargadatta

The idea that all perspectives are a fragment of a larger perspective is a stepping stone to realizing that there are perspectives that are completely disjoint. When you exhaust your top-level perspective, you will be able to make those discontinuous jumps. It will get a lot more confusing up until then, but you will settle in neutrality eventually. Neutrality in the sense of divine indifference. Of an objective, impersonal, perspective of equivalence of all perspectives. Lots of weird things start to happen here, but it is the most wonderful place of all (counter-intuitively). You are becoming more conscious, don't worry. Try to get comfortable in the Unknown, but without rejecting the Known. The Known needs to be exhausted, not rejected. It needs to naturally become uninteresting to you.

Enlightenment is not a state. Life is pain and pleasure, ups and downs. The “me” who decides whether pain or pleasure is good or not will fade away when enlightenment happens and completely disappear as it deepens. What’s left when there is no one judging life as it is? Pain is not a problem, it only becomes a problem if someone holds on to it. This someone disappears with enlightenment. Enlightenment is the end of personal suffering. When suffering does happen it is seen as completely impersonal and therefore it allows it to be without resisting it. Acceptance is not suffering. In a way, enlightenment is an attitude to life. Enlightenment is when beliefs about who you are falls away. You can’t do anything for enlightenment to happen just like you can’t do anything about the sun going up tomorrow morning. Enlightenment feels absolutely normal.

Many find, in the first glimpse or initial awakening to truth, the difficulty of meaninglessness. That this existence has no meaning. What has happened, is all their meaning was applied to what is untrue. What is true had been veiled from them their entire life, so there was really no choice in the matter but to take what was given as being the truth. The beliefs, concepts, ideas, opinions, imparted to them from birth by trusted "authorities". Those same authorities are in the same boat, and just passing on what was imparted to them. As one's perception deepens on the path of truth, what was found meaningless becomes a blessing. It clears all that was untrue to allow what is true to be revealed. It is distressing at first to many, but with continued perseverance on the path, as more clarity gives rise to clearer perception and "deeper" seeing into the truth, an unfathomable, unexplainable meaning begins to arise. It is not explainable, or very difficult to explain because it is a meaning that is impersonal, and not derived from what has been gathered and believed from what has been taught by society and "authority" figures, who themselves are ignorant of what is true. One should surrender any sadness, anger, or negativity surrounding what they had mistakenly thought was true. Ignorance in self or others is not a sin and no one is to be blamed. If one happens to eventually perceive and/or "see/experience" what is true, it is truly a blessing. With devotion and love for truth,god,ishta,etc., will come ever new clarity and deeper insight. And with that, an ever deepening,unspeakable divine meaning will be experienced/perceived.

Moving From Red to Blue The Delta/3 stage is included here because it shows the cognitive differentiation that occurs from Self-protective thinking to Conformist dependence and provides a logical link for mental growth. It is not included in our measurement tool, the MAP, because it is statistically rare as mentioned in endnote #7. At this stage people vacillate between two points of view. They can take one or the other view, but not both at once. Sometimes they wonder “how do you look to me?” but newly also “how do I look to you?” They now recognize external differences regarding self-presentation and behaviors. Often children entering school are exploring this developmental stage. The Rule-oriented stage describes adults who are discovering the second person perspective and who begin to make simple, external comparisons based on concrete mental operations. They become preoccupied with finding out the social conventions and rules based on the beginning need to fit in and to be liked. One wants to look “right,” and acceptable, therefore the emphasis is on external attractiveness and appearance. People at this stage show more trust in the world since acceptance and protection can be gained by following the rules. The world is experienced as less hostile than for Self-protective folks. Persons want to be “re-spected” which means, “seen” by others. Respect can now be gained by adhering to group norms, not just by might. One also gives respect to others in the form of noticing them and how they act and look. “People notice me when I am here. I listen to them, they listen to me.” With the second perspective, one discovers the possibility for simple feedback. One can find out what others think about one. “I can ask my friends what they think; they will tell; and the world doesn’t collapse! I can trust them.” The ability to take a second person perspective is a milestone in the development of social interaction. THE CONVENTIONAL STAGES The Conformist, Self-conscious and Conscientious stages, stages 3, 3/4, and 4 respectively, cover the ego stages of most people after about the age of 12. We have found that roughly 80% of adults populate these three stages with most people in the adult working world moving from the Expert to the Achiever stage. In Piagetian terms, stage 3 represents functioning at the concrete operational level, stage 3/4 uses abstract operations and stage 4 individuals rely on formal operations for their meaning making. According to Piaget and the cognitive schools of constructive development, Conscientious stage 4 people have a linear view of reality: they define objects (variables) as being separate and having closed boundaries; they see causality as linear and variables are treated as independent. The expanded 3rd person perspective with its formal operational capacities is widely considered the adult stage in much of Western culture; and society and institutions support and reward its achievement. It is also the stage that is described as “high” ego development in research projects that use Loevinger’s theory only (Manners and Durkin, 2004). A citizenry capable of rational deliberation and choice based on pertinent criteria (not external features, sameness or tradition) would seem to be a necessary precondition for democracy to work. Only such a perspective and rational assessment of choices can safeguard the whole and at the same time allow changes to be reflected in the laws. The Conformist Stage 3 (Diplomat) This is a stage of integration into a new social container. At the Diplomat or Conformist stage, people make sense of the world in a new way. They now have developed enough skills to get around in the world, accomplish the daily tasks of life and, in general, manage ordinary, concrete things and situations. They now actively want to play by the rules. It is the first stage that can be considered as socialized, that is, to know about basic interpersonal skills such as sharing, and protecting one another. Most importantly, people at this stage see others as important people in their own right. They want to be like those in their environment whom they admire. We might say that they discovered the beginning of the “we-space.” They sing the choir of the crowd, yet without a separate voice. One can now trade magical, egocentric thinking for group-centric thinking and the security of being a member of the group. Being a part of a group gives people a new way to deal with the fact that “it’s hard to be an adult and get along.” The Conformist stage 3 describes persons with a frame of mind naturally developed in latency and early adolescence. Their self-identity is defined by their relationship to a group. This leads to confused boundaries between oneself and the group (whether family, sports team, or nation). Being part of this larger entity allows one to be protected and share in its power. The price for inclusion is an unexamined demand for loyalty and obedience. This holds for both leaders and followers at this stage. In cultures, where ostracism is a form of severe punishment, being “shunned” is meant as a death sentence. “You no longer exist for us.” Conformist adults actually relish the dependency that group membership bestows. It provides safety in numbers and a new sense of power. The self is defined by and generated by the expectations and values of those others to whom one “belongs.” Conformists tend to accept norms without inspection or questioning. Their cognitive world is divided into simple categories, and types of people, mostly based on external distinctions. Having a holiday table just like the one seen in a famous “best home” magazine, or owning a car just like one’s boss’s might really make a Conformist happy. The boundaries between self and others, however, are confused, literally fused and blurred. On the one hand, there is total acceptance of the family and in-group (such as peer groups in adolescence), on the other hand, we see blind rejection of deviance and out-groups. It’s “them” against “us” now instead of the Self-protective person’s lonely stance of “me” against “them,” which included everybody else (even family members). For the Conformist, you are either ally and friend and approve of us and what we do, or you are the enemy. The more status the group has, the more Diplomats feel worthy as one of its members. If it took some effort to fulfill the required demonstration of obedience and submission, they feel honored to be admitted and wearing the insignia that tell others so. Having a shared truth gives people a ready-made way to make sense of the world. Sometimes this goes beyond feeling valued as a member of the group. Some groups believe that their truth is the only truth. This fosters a sense of superiority. Members are told that they are the “chosen few” that shall be saved. All those who do not belong are doomed, considered heathen or barbarians, or whatever label makes them lesser or non-human. This kind of mindset is particularly common in various fundamentalist religious groups. They can judge harshly those who do not belong. It is difficult for someone whose self- sense is based on belonging to such a group to even realize that there may be others of different faiths who believe equally fervently that they have the only truth. In general, Stage 3 people try to uphold tradition and to avoid rocking the boat. They are accommodating, sometimes overly nice and non-confrontational. They don’t like to be singled out and get feedback. Feedback is experienced as critique and as having done something wrong and displeasing. Diplomats expect guidance from above or from those who lead them. They are not yet ready to take a stand to express themselves. They don’t have their own opinions to assert although they may be good at expounding the values and beliefs of their group. Nor can they take initiative for themselves. They might do so for the benefit of their group when told to do so by an accepted authority. Uncertainty and conflicting feelings cannot yet be registered as they threaten the very being of a Conformist. The description of this stage in terms of “not yet” exposes a common Western bias. Stage 3 persons have to keep up with the neighbors. They make sure they are seen in the right places (for instance, in church on Sunday) and with the right group. They are often eager to contribute to the group by volunteering (PTA, church social, men’s club) and taking on preset roles in their respective clubs. Acquiring material assets and status symbols is important as these symbolize status and prove one’s worth. Moreover, the visible assets are important because the provide real personal satisfaction and they indicate one’s success. Nametags on the door, being listed as the employee of the month show that one is noticed. Trying to keep up with fashion, neighbors and material gain can, of course, also become a burden and a source of unhappiness and stress. Morality: Conformists adhere to a simple rule: “everything goes into two piles. The good, or correct, and the bad, or incorrect.” Knowing the distinction makes it easier to make sense of the world. Every decision, every idea, every person, every action, fits in one pile or the other. There are few, if any, shades of gray, no irony, and no intangibles. Actions are carried out with conviction. This is how it is done around here. “Either you are with us and agree or you are against us.” Unlike at the Rule-oriented stage where simple rules are inconsistently adhered too, here rules are beginning to be internalized and followed without question. Shame is a common response to transgressions and for undesired consequences of one’s actions. Because of their strongly held and unquestioned values, Conformists are apt to feel responsible in situations in which they are not to blame. Repeatedly saying “I am sorry” is meant to soften any repercussions. One should have done the right thing all along. Conformists are identified with and bound to those with the same tastes, attributes, beliefs and expectations, and confused or threatened by differing demands, perspectives, diversity, and complexity. The values of one’s own group get introjected as strong “shoulds,” while the values of those who are different are denigrated and likely rejected as “evil.” Thus, life is governed by rules of what can be and cannot be done. Others with differing views are morally condemned. Sexual and aggressive feelings are likely denied or suppressed out of fear of rejection and abandonment. For the same reason, commandments from various religious are taken in as the Truth and not examined. The “holy books” contain the literal truth. Any questioning of their commandments guaranteeing salvation is seen as a form of treason or a sign of having fallen from grace. Social: To be liked one has to have an attractive social personality. It is important to be nice, pleasant, and accommodating. People are judged by the way they dress and talk and by the proper manners. Great care is taken on neatness, outward appearance, cleanliness of one’s domicile or office. There are those whom by temperament, are more contrary. At the Diplomat stage, it is possible to find some sense of OK-ness as a non-conformist. Rebels, have-nots and other misfits often need, find or create their own cliques. One can either be a loner or create or join an alternative group and display the markers that identify one as a member of that clique. This can happen because the individuals don’t fit the prevailing norms or do not have the tokens that would help them to belong to the high status group. 17 Multiple cliques, such as fraternities and sororities on campus, often attract various kind of students with a conformist mindset . Each has its own traditions with different acceptance rituals and admittance oaths. Feelings: Blind conformism, fundamentalism and prejudice can be expressions of this early conventional frame of mind. Potential aggression against self (putting oneself down) and negative affect or disappointment are often countered by demonstrations of overly positive feelings and enthusiasm. One’s negative feelings “I hate you” are split off and projected outside and then experienced as “they hate me.” Anger and other disagreeable feelings are suppressed as they threaten the status quo. They rarely reach awareness. Conformists’ main coping moves are projection and introjection. They imagine that others think, want, feel what they themselves think, want or feel (projection) and then try to fill those imagined needs. They also swallow others’ definitions, norms, values and opinions without questioning (introjection). If my mother, the church, or the boss says so, it must be true. To summarize, the Conformist- Diplomat does not yet have a self in the sense of a separate adult identity. Instead, he or she is defined by others. The self-other boundaries are blurry and not differentiated. Thus, relationships often have a dependent, “sticky, I-need-you” quality. Interpersonal style: Because Conformists so desperately want to belong, they will conform to the rules and norms of whatever desired group, gang, political party they belong to. In companies they are the ones that smooth discontent or incipient conflict among coworkers and make sure that the place has a pleasant atmosphere. They value being nice and helpful. They see relationships in terms of expected behaviors (loyalty, being friendly) rather than in terms of deep feelings and motives. Cognitive style: Conformists are interested in the concrete, visible aspects of experience and tend to use superlatives and conventional clichés to describe it. These clichés, however, are taken seriously and not experienced as clichés. References to inner feelings are stereotyped and predictable and aligned with cultural expectations. Conscious preoccupation: Conformists put great value on appearance, status symbols, material possessions, reputation and prestige. They are concerned with social acceptance and attempt to adjust to group norms. They deeply care about other’s opinions and evaluations although they are not likely to ask for feedback. “What do others think about this or that, or about me?” Internal dimension: Conformist individuals worry about what others think and feel at any given moment as their sense of self-worth depends on others’ approval. In protocols they express simple “acceptable” feeling states: sad, happy, nervous, upset, but do not differentiate feelings into subtler graduations. The sense of “shoulds” and “oughts” and sense of shame and embarrassment if those shoulds are not fulfilled can be crushing. Main anxiety: not to belong and to be cast out. Most threatening to a Conformist is being disapproved by or deserted by significant others, rejected by one’s group. Their anxiety is thus a fear of being non-existing and the loss of a sense of self as a loss of “me-as-accepted-by-others.” Problem solving: Generally, emerging problems are denied, or relabeled and white-washed. “Never mind that. If you look at the bright side, it’s not really so bad.” Asking a superior for what to do is the most natural way of dealing with difficulties. Conflict is not yet registered or if experience, it is avoided as too threatening. It can become great challenge to a Diplomat if he or she belongs to different groups with conflicting value sets. With today’s mobility and complex arrangements, this is becoming challenge for Diplomats is becoming more common. Organizational type: Conformists seek acceptance and protection by a larger entity. They are most apt to be drawn into organizations with a clearly defined identity and hierarchical structures. Clear instructions, advice and guidance are preferred over freedom to show initiative. Thus, command and control enterprises such as the military are attractive. Coaching-Counseling style: Conformists like to give lots of advice telling others what to do or not to do. They also tend to compare and evaluate others according to their own preferences where the way I manage or we do it here is the right way while other ways are simply wrong and need to be corrected. Sample characters: Edith Bunker in All in the Family takes all kinds of abuse by others, particularly her spouse Archie, but she stays with him. She is fluttering and fussing around him, always trying to be positive, to see the best in everybody and in everything. Edith finds pleasure in taking good care of her loved ones. However, the character Edith also displays an open-mindedness which is not typical of this stage. Language signs: The language is often impersonal, nice and positive and may be full of clichés. Short, stereotypical phrases, exaggerated positive affect are common on the MAP. Everybody and everything is fun, important, wonderful. When describing situations; concrete aspects and factual information is given. Conformists describe their and others’ behavior in terms of I “always”, we “never.” The vocabulary for feeling states is simple, undifferentiated. Source: cook-greuter.com