Sri Niagaradasti Enlightenment Story

[Wilhelm44]

1 minute ago, Joseph Maynor said:

It is simple.  You can.  

I'm still trying to figure out what exactly it is that you are telling me that I can do, lol ?

[Breakingthewall]

4 hours ago, Wilhelm44 said:

For the moment I'm going to need to agree to disagree with you on the reality of the sense of separate self.

But think about it, if most of the spiritual teachers, including Adyashanti, Newman, Ralston, Leo etc, are wrong about pretty much most things, and lets say you are actually the one who is correct, who is the special one then ?

The difference between me and them is that I make money in a business that is not the spirituality.

So you think that the separate self is illusory. Why do you think that? 

[Joseph Maynor]

2 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

I'm still trying to figure out what exactly it is that you are telling me that I can do, lol ?

Exactly.  

[Wilhelm44]

Just now, Joseph Maynor said:

Exactly.  

Well you've bamboozled me 

[Wilhelm44]

15 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

The difference between me and them is that I make money in a business that is not the spirituality.

So you think that the separate self is illusory. Why do you think that? 

That doesn't mean that they not genuine. Would you rather they starve.

(Because I am currently experiencing a rapid unravelling of the sense of separate self, memories don't have a sense of me anymore, and the sense of realness of others is also fading. I hear what you saying about ego being a real evolutionary structure, but simultaneously I can't deny my direct experience at the moment.)

Edited 18 hours ago by Wilhelm44

[Breakingthewall]

22 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

That doesn't mean that they not genuine. Would you rather they starve.

What i mean is that they tell people what they buy into: the self is an illusion, there is no suffering. You suffer because you want to; you (who are an illusion) are the one who decides whether to suffer or not, so you (who don't exist) can stop suffering with your (nonexistent) will. People want that, to be islands with an off switch. The problem is that they aren't 

22 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Because I am currently experiencing a rapid unravelling of the sense of separate self, memories don't have a sense of me anymore, and the sense of realness of others is also fading. I hear what you saying about ego being a real evolutionary structure, but simultaneously I can't deny my direct experience at the moment.)

That could be a kind of process of depersonalization maybe necessary to transcend the level of form, but that doesn't mean the separation isn't real. You are a human walking on a planet and have a brain.

On an ontological level, you and the planet are the same: reality. But currently, a duality has been created that generates the consciousness of being human, etc.

This consciousness can open to the absolute level, the fact of being conscious of being. This doesn't imply that the human is an illusion, since "illusion" is an idea that occurs in the human brain, not an absolute category.

Edited 17 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Wilhelm44]

3 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

What i mean is that they tell people what they buy into: the self is an illusion, there is no suffering. You suffer because you want to; you (who are an illusion) are the one who decides whether to suffer or not, so you (who don't exist) can stop suffering with your (nonexistent) will. People want that, to be islands with an off switch. The problem is that they aren't 

You don't think some of them actually have some integrity, and are speaking from direct experience ?

[Joseph Maynor]

31 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Well you've bamboozled me 

Don't knock me for trying .

[Wilhelm44]

6 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Don't knock me for trying .

Not knocking you at all, I love being bamboozled.

[Breakingthewall]

3 hours ago, Mellowmarsh said:

don’t think you are personally grasping what is actually being pointed to. No one is denying the sense of a separate self who is identified with knowledge. Again, all that’s being pointed to is that knowledge is the apparent illusory separation that doesn’t actually exist in reality. The pointing is only pointing to that illusory nature of knowledge, not reality itself which is without an illusory story about it.

I understand perfectly. They say that only the absolute is real and that the relative is unreal. They say this from the perspective of relative knowledge, therefore they themselves define their definitions as illusory.

The problem is that it's also false, since relativity and separation are real because they are something that occurs. They conflate two levels that cannot be mixed because they are two aspects of the same reality: substance and form.

Substance is the fact of being, form the fact of appearing. Substance is absolute, form is relative in its appearance but absolute in the sense that there is always form.

They say that the absolute cannot be known, and that's a lie. The absolute knows itself through the process of division that creates consciousness and that later collapses, leaving only absolute being, which perceives itself from the perspective of the dual human being.

Total openness to the absolute is total knowledge of the absolute. Total omniscience. Seriously, omniscience. Which is very simple: being is. But opening oneself to it implies everything, absolutely everything. There is nothing more; it is total. That's enlightenment, I assure you 100%. But anyway, if you don't see the mistake in the non dualistics, you won't believe me and you will see that I'm trapped in duality because I don't see that it's illusion 

[Breakingthewall]

41 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

You don't think some of them actually have some integrity, and are speaking from direct experience ?

Sure, most of them do it, but they're wrong because they don't realize their fundamental error (or they don't want to realize).

Look at Tolle, for example, who tells you that one morning he woke up and there was no more suffering or neurosis, and then he spent two years in a park doing nothing, being very happy. Then he realized that you create suffering and you can stop doing it.

That's a complete mistake. What is this "you" that creates suffering? The default mode network, the limbic system, and the entire structure that creates identity, established since the first group mammals, and whose function is to hold the group together.

Tolle had a short circuit in that system as self-protection against destructive suffering, and the network disconnected, and he was happy in the park without needing to be in society (which fed him).

But then he claims that you are creating that suffering due to an operational error, and that if you realize your error, you can stop doing it. "You" are not a director who directs your mind; you are the mind,the entire process.

The mind isn't a toy, and you're not its owner, deciding what's wrong or incorrect. Don't you see the obvious? They're creating absolute separation and calling it non-duality. "Deciding not to suffer" is the mind itself.  The mind is a process that happens, not an illusion. Suffering is that process happening. The process can understand itself but it's connected with everything, it's not isolated. 

Edited 17 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Wilhelm44]

18 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Sure, most of them do it, but they're wrong because they don't realize their fundamental error (or they don't want to realize).

Look at Tolle, for example, who tells you that one morning he woke up and there was no more suffering or neurosis, and then he spent two years in a park doing nothing, being very happy. Then he realized that you create suffering and you can stop doing it.

That's a complete mistake. What is this "you" that creates suffering? The default mode network, the limbic system, and the entire structure that creates identity, established since the first group mammals, and whose function is to hold the group together.

Tolle had a short circuit in that system as self-protection against destructive suffering, and the network disconnected, and he was happy in the park without needing to be in society (which fed him).

But then he claims that you are creating that suffering due to an operational error, and that if you realize your error, you can stop doing it. "You" are not a director who directs your mind; you are the mind,the entire process.

The mind isn't a toy, and you're not its owner, deciding what's wrong or incorrect. Don't you see the obvious? They're creating absolute separation and calling it non-duality. "Deciding not to suffer" is the mind itself. 

So if most spiritual teachers are wrong, what is your advice for all the seekers out there ?

[Breakingthewall]

19 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

So if most spiritual teachers are wrong, what is your advice for all the seekers out there ?

Don't confuse the relative with the absolute. It's tempting to believe you  are absolute and nothing can touch you if you so choose, that you can hack the game.

Whoever believes that is the relative mind placing itself in an absolute position. The relative is real; it is interconnected with the totality of form and can only be aligned with, not dismissed as false. If you dismiss form as false, you create a total closure and place yourself in a dead, anesthetic void called non-duality.

The absolute is alive, full and total, and it's one with the relative. In the relative there is no mercy, you have to fight, there is no guarantee, if you fail, you will be closed and isolated until death. 

Edited 16 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Wilhelm44]

9 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Don't confuse the relative with the absolute. It's tempting to believe you  are absolute and nothing can touch you if you so choose, that you can hack the game.

Whoever believes that is the relative mind placing itself in an absolute position. The relative is real; it is interconnected with the totality of form and can only be aligned with, not dismissed as false. If you dismiss form as false, you create a total closure and place yourself in a dead, anesthetic void called non-duality.

The absolute is alive, full and total, and it's one with the relative. In the relative there is no mercy, you have to fight, there is no guarantee, if you fail, you will be closed and isolated until death. 

Thank you, I agree, respect the relative.

[Mellowmarsh]

2 hours ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Not knocking you at all, I love being bamboozled.

What appears to can, never canned.

That doesn’t negate the can, it’s simply seen as illusory. No one knows this. 😎

[Wilhelm44]

9 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

What appears to can, never canned.

That doesn’t negate the can, it’s simply seen as illusory. No one knows this. 😎

Thank you 

[Mellowmarsh]

2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

I understand perfectly. They say that only the absolute is real and that the relative is unreal. They say this from the perspective of relative knowledge, therefore they themselves define their definitions as illusory.

The problem is that it's also false, since relativity and separation are real because they are something that occurs. They conflate two levels that cannot be mixed because they are two aspects of the same reality: substance and form.

Substance is the fact of being, form the fact of appearing. Substance is absolute, form is relative in its appearance but absolute in the sense that there is always form.

They say that the absolute cannot be known, and that's a lie. The absolute knows itself through the process of division that creates consciousness and that later collapses, leaving only absolute being, which perceives itself from the perspective of the dual human being.

Total openness to the absolute is total knowledge of the absolute. Total omniscience. Seriously, omniscience. Which is very simple: being is. But opening oneself to it implies everything, absolutely everything. There is nothing more; it is total. That's enlightenment, I assure you 100%. But anyway, if you don't see the mistake in the non dualistics, you won't believe me and you will see that I'm trapped in duality because I don't see that it's illusion 

The absolute is all there is. The absolute knowing that cannot be known. You cannot know the absolute because you are the absolute.
 

When you say “ they” say the absolute cannot be known, and that’s a lie. It’s not a lie, it’s actually true because the relative is a temporal appearance.  The appearance of a character can never really know what lies beyond the veil of the known character as much as game characters in a video game can’t see the console on which they are being played. 
 

 

[Mellowmarsh]

11 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Thank you 

The mind that can stake a claim to know, can flip the knowledge over to its opposite and can stake a claim to not-know. These claims are artificial constructs within the dream of separation only , and do not exist beyond the language known.

 

Whatever thoughts model reality to be, will not be it, because the known is simply a synthetically created representation, not what actually is. What actually is is unknowable. Knowledge is an artificial construct, a useful tool nonetheless for the character construct appearing within the dream of separation to navigate and make sense of the dreamscape known to it via its constructive conception.  Albeit illusory.

Infinity cannot be conceived of, it only appears to be conceived of via the mind, which is relative, yet even the mind is an illusion, because relative knowledge of the absolute is bordering on absurdity.

 

 

[Inliytened1]

33 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Infinity cannot be conceived of, it only appears to be conceived of via the mind, which is relative, yet even the mind is an illusion, because relative knowledge of the absolute is bordering on absurdity.

 

 

 

And yet you can capture Infinity via its own nature. Because you are that.  The trick is not to use a finite tool- but to be the thing itself.   One cannot point at a thing and properly demonstrate the thing. No. One must dive in and morph, if you will, into the thing, full throttle.  And then - looking out through its eyes - then it can understand. 

[Mellowmarsh]

11 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

 

And yet you can capture Infinity via its own nature. Because you are that.  The trick is not to use a finite tool- but to be the thing itself.   One cannot point at a thing and properly demonstrate the thing. No. One must dive in and morph, if you will, into the thing, full throttle.  And then - looking out through its eyes - then it can understand. 

Yes, that why I said you are the knowing that cannot be known. You are infinity in-finite, captured one freeze frame at a time infinitely unfolding eternally.