If you're serious about Enlightenment

[Carl-Richard]

If there was ever only one technique that could be described as "the key" to Enlightenment, it's the letting go technique he describes at 4:47:

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Monster Energy]

This guy is amazing 

[Breakingthewall]

That's the typical Buddhist paradigm. They consider attachment and desire an illusion, therefore they work hundreds or thousands of hours erasing attachment and desire. In this way, they achieve a tranquil state. And they call that enlightenment.

Well, it isn't. Enlightenment is opening to the living source, not the quiet peace of a 78-year-old retiree. Quiet peace is better than having OCD, but it's not enlightenment. Consider desire and attachment an illusion is just a human idea, like consider sex impure or poverty a shit. Enlightenment is not about those preferences.

You could say that a quiet mind can be a previous condition for enlightenment, but not that a quiet mind is enlightenment . Also it's possible a mind with desire and attachment that is open in some moments and circumstances to the absolute. And very possible a quiet mind that never can be open to the source 

Edited 1 hour ago by Breakingthewall

[No1Here2c]

Enlightenment is mere surface level grasp on consciousnesss. You can understand consciousness without the need for peace & tranquility. And you can have peace & tranquility without true understanding of consciousness.

[Carl-Richard]

7 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

That's the typical Buddhist paradigm. They consider attachment and desire an illusion, therefore they work hundreds or thousands of hours erasing attachment and desire. In this way, they achieve a tranquil state. And they call that enlightenment.

Well, it isn't. Enlightenment is opening to the living source, not the quiet peace of a 78-year-old retiree. Quiet peace is better than having OCD, but it's not related to enlightenment. Consider desire and attachment an illusion is just a human idea, like consider sex impure or poverty a shit. Enlightenment is not about those preferences.

You could say that a quiet mind can be a previous condition for enlightenment, but not that a quiet mind is enlightenment . Also it's possible a mind with desire and attachment that is open in some moments and circumstances to the absolute. And very possible a quiet mind that never can be open to the source 

The key point is identification drops. When identification drops, identification is with whatever that is. There is a complete openness in that. Then the body or mind may act out in different ways, and then a purification might happen over time where the openness is more embodied in the body and mind. But the identification with source is allegedly constant throughout.

Edited 2 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Breakingthewall]

23 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

The key point is identification drops. When identification drops, identification is with whatever that is. There is a complete openness in that. Then the body or mind may act out in different ways, and then a purification might happen over time where the openness is more embodied in the body and mind. But the identification with source is allegedly constant throughout.

That's true, the door that closes is the self, with all its emotional density focused on self-image and trauma. Clearing this density is essential to having a life that is something other than constant suffering.

Regarding the matter of total openness to what is, I suppose there are degrees. I don't know to what extent it's possible; I'd like to find out.