I am enlightened. Sincere seekers: ask me anything

[Forestluv]

45 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Certainly a freedom arises, but siddhis are somewhat different. Vedanta at least is quite firm that enlightenment has no necessary connection with siddhis. 

Siddhis are really just like any other power in the world. Learning is a siddhi. Wealth is a siddhi. And so on. They're all acquired by effort in a certain direction. Where they happen, it's because the effort has been put in -- if not in this life, then in a past one.

So it would be like asking -- couldn't enlightenment make me better as an entrepreneur, a better doctor, a more creative writer, etc.? Well, yes, potentially the quieter mind could be channeled that way, but there's certainly no guarantee.

It really depends on the channels carved "pre"-enlightenment by one's prior effort.

The water will flow down those channels even as they are slowly dissolved, as the tendencies and karma accumulated is burned away (if we are talking of karma... of course really there is no such thing).

Ok, so siddhis are just new learnings, power, skills. To a conditioned mind, some siddhis may just appear to be “supernatural”.

For example, when self-referential thinking and self-seeking dissolve new things may arise in the empty stillness. One may discover they now have the clarity and openess to learn foreign languages or intuit the blockages of others and become a healer. Since there is now the realization of Oneness, new higher forms of nonverbal communication may arise. Whatever arises, arises. Yet, there is no seeking, grasping, avoidance or identification.

[FoxFoxFox]

@winterknight Lastly, have you any interest in pursuing bliss/Kundalini/chakra work? There is also speak of things such god-consciousness, unity-consciousness etc among legitimate contemporary sages. Have you any experience in that regard?

[winterknight]

3 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Ok, so siddhis are just new learnings, power, skills. To a conditioned mind, some siddhis may just appear to be “supernatural”.

For example, when self-referential thinking and self-seeking dissolve new things may arise in the empty stillness. One may discover they know have the clarity and openess to learn foreign languages, intuit the blockages of others and become a healer. Since there is now the realization of Oneness, new higher forms of nonverbal communication may arise. Whatever arises, arises. Yet, there is no seeking, grasping, avoidance or identification.

Yup, sounds about right...

2 minutes ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@winterknight Lastly, have you any interest in pursuing bliss/Kundalini/chakra work? There is also speak of things such god-consciousness, unity-consciousness etc among legitimate contemporary sages. Have you any experience in that regard?

The end of all bliss/kundalini/chakra work is liberation. That's the whole point of liberation: it's the whole pot of honey at the end of the rainbow. God consciousness, unity consciousness -- nothing but pointers to liberation (which of course is already so much what is already the case that it cannot even be said to exist...).

[graded24]

@winterknight  How much background do you have in the physical sciences? What do you make of the fact that as per the scientific worldview what we experience has little to do with the 'actual physical reality' out there, which is much vaster and infinitely more complex .. but most importantly, extremely consistent, stable and predictable.. as opposed to subjective experience which is unstable, not very consistent and unpredictable?  Like, right now, me sitting in the room.. all i see is some colors and hear some sounds. But according to physics, there are many many electromagnetic waves right in front of my eyes that do not appear in my experience.

Lets take a concrete example: when i press the button of the TV remote, the TV turns on. That's all i experience. But according to physics, a radio wave originated at the remote and went to the TV that did not appear in my experience. I can see indirect evidences of such a wave existing, like reflection from a mirror to turn on the TV etc.  The question is, does that radio wave 'exist'? Or is it that only what i experienced exists and the rest is just a 'model' , a mental tool, including the  the radio wave, to predict what will happen if i did different things with the remote?

[FoxFoxFox]

@winterknight

Quote

The end of all bliss/kundalini/chakra work is liberation. That's the whole point of liberation: it's the whole pot of honey at the end of the rainbow. God consciousness, unity consciousness -- nothing but pointers to liberation (which of course is already so much what is already the case that it cannot even be said to exist...).

The idea to these stages (god, unity consciousness) is that even when you are self-realized, there is still more attachments to be shed. These no longer involve attachment to the ego or the false I, but to subtler domains of existence. I am not claiming to have personal knowledge in the matter. Simply sharing what i've read/heard from other enlightened beings. The person I am mostly inferring from is Jan Esman. He quiet clearly states that God and unity consciousness are deeper stages of enlightenment for lack of a better turn of phrase. He even has a counter argument against neo-advaitan people who tell him that these stages are dual. Again, this is just interesting stuff I wanted to share. 

[Forestluv]

14 minutes ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@winterknight

The idea to these stages (god, unity consciousness) is that even when you are self-realized, there is still more attachments to be shed. These no longer involve attachment to the ego or the false I, but to subtler domains of existence. 

Along these lines, there are egoic attachments as well as assumptions / attachments that aren’t strictly ego-based (in the traditional sense).

For example, when transcending the self, there may be realizations that one’s “story” of their self is an illusory construct. And when transcending human-ness, there may be realizations that humankind’s “story” of humans is an illusory construct. Yes?

[Anton Rogachevski]

On 11/14/2018 at 6:22 PM, Serotoninluv said:

Even the spiritual traditions, statues, bowing etc.

And yet, even knowing this a monk bows. Don't underestimate the power of tradition.

[Forestluv]

13 minutes ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

And yet, even knowing this a monk bows. Don't underestimate the power of tradition.

Thats an old quote from a somewhat different context.

Tradition has power. It can serve to help liberate, yet it can also restrict and contract.

[Anton Rogachevski]

39 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Thats an old quote from a somewhat different context.

Tradition has power. It can serve to help liberate, yet it can also restrict and contract.

The statue is a reminder for the monk who lost touch with the true nature of reality and missed it's sacredness. If he thinks the statue is sacred but the broom next to it isn't, he knows he's discriminating. Bowing also help develop and practice humilty and graditude.

"Tradition has power. It can serve to help liberate, yet it can also restrict and contract."

One could say that about many things that are useful, if somepne falls into a trap he was supposed to fall. It's not an excuse to stop using cars if they could hurt people.

Edited December 11, 2018 by Anton Rogachevski

[Forestluv]

8 minutes ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

The statue is a reminder for the monk who lost touch with the true nature of reality and missed it's sacredness. If he thinks the statue is sacred but the broom next to it isn't, he knows he's discriminating.

Statues as symbols can have many different meanings. It's relative and context-dependent. That same statue can also be a symbol of an external god to which one is praying to.

8 minutes ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

One could say that about many things that are useful, if somepne falls into a trap he was supposed to fall. It's not an excuse to stop using cars if they could hurt people.

Of course. It is relative to context.

Let's not sidetrack this thread. Feel free to ask winterknight something in this area. It's his thread.

[Anton Rogachevski]

@Serotoninluv I'm afraid you missed the point I was trying to get across. If one believes that the staute is an external god he must persist in this folly to become wise.

I will try not to sidetrack.

Edited December 11, 2018 by Anton Rogachevski

[Forestluv]

2 minutes ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

@Serotoninluv I'm afraid you missed the point I was trying to get across. If one believes that the staute is an external god he must persist in this folly to become wise.

I understand your point. You are seeing things as an objective external reality. That is: the statue means this. . . , folly means this. . . , becoming wise means this. . .  Those are concepts that have relative meaning to you, based upon the conditioning your mind has undergone. 

There is no objective external reality. What you say has some truth, yet it is a partial truth.

[winterknight]

4 hours ago, graded24 said:

@winterknight  How much background do you have in the physical sciences? What do you make of the fact that as per the scientific worldview what we experience has little to do with the 'actual physical reality' out there, which is much vaster and infinitely more complex .. but most importantly, extremely consistent, stable and predictable.. as opposed to subjective experience which is unstable, not very consistent and unpredictable?  Like, right now, me sitting in the room.. all i see is some colors and hear some sounds. But according to physics, there are many many electromagnetic waves right in front of my eyes that do not appear in my experience.

Lets take a concrete example: when i press the button of the TV remote, the TV turns on. That's all i experience. But according to physics, a radio wave originated at the remote and went to the TV that did not appear in my experience. I can see indirect evidences of such a wave existing, like reflection from a mirror to turn on the TV etc.  The question is, does that radio wave 'exist'? Or is it that only what i experienced exists and the rest is just a 'model' , a mental tool, including the  the radio wave, to predict what will happen if i did different things with the remote?

Well it's not quite either. Certainly the idea of a radio wave is just a model, but that doesn't mean that only what you experienced exists.

Actually a) technically even what you experienced cannot be said to exist if you go by strict nonduality. So if that doesn't exist then neither is there any question of what underlies it.

But b) if you do want to say that the experience of the TV turning on does exist, then certainly there is something underlying that experience and which causes it -- that is, the set of universal laws, or else you can call it God's will (my preference). At best we can only make models of this.

4 hours ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@winterknight

The idea to these stages (god, unity consciousness) is that even when you are self-realized, there is still more attachments to be shed. These no longer involve attachment to the ego or the false I, but to subtler domains of existence. I am not claiming to have personal knowledge in the matter. Simply sharing what i've read/heard from other enlightened beings. The person I am mostly inferring from is Jan Esman. He quiet clearly states that God and unity consciousness are deeper stages of enlightenment for lack of a better turn of phrase. He even has a counter argument against neo-advaitan people who tell him that these stages are dual. Again, this is just interesting stuff I wanted to share. 

Thanks. Yeah, I know some people like this model, but not me. There is a single liberation (and not even that!). The mind may "change" after that, but those are not "deeper stages of enlightenment." Those are just the various bindings and tendencies of the mind altering over time.

And really, enlightenment is the recognition that the mind itself simply cannot be said to exist.

[Strikr]

do you know that you don't know ?

[Forestluv]

9 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Actually a) technically even what you experienced cannot be said to exist if you go by strict nonduality. 

By strict nonduality standards, would you say that nothing exists?

[winterknight]

4 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

By strict nonduality standards, would you say that nothing exists?

By the strictest nonduality standards, nothing can be said at all, really, not even this sentence (so this is already one step down from that strictest standard). And thus nothing can be said of anything, either -- neither existence nor non-existence can be attributed, and no objects can be named. Not even the idea of "object" can be admitted.

Edited December 11, 2018 by winterknight

[Preetom]

10 minutes ago, winterknight said:

By the strictest nonduality standards, nothing can be said at all, really, not even this sentence (so this is already one step down from that strictest standard). And thus nothing can be said of anything, either -- neither existence nor non-existence can be attributed, and no objects can be named. Not even the idea of "object" can be admitted.

This answer reminds me one of Ramana's himself.

Q: What is wisdom-insight?

A: Remaining quiet is what is called wisdom-insight

[Preetom]

13 minutes ago, winterknight said:

By the strictest nonduality standards, nothing can be said at all, really, not even this sentence (so this is already one step down from that strictest standard). And thus nothing can be said of anything, either -- neither existence nor non-existence can be attributed, and no objects can be named. Not even the idea of "object" can be admitted.

The mind hears this and formulates an idea how it will go dumb and mute zombie after enlightenment for the rest of it's life.

Who needs april fool when you got a companion like this right? 

[Forestluv]

32 minutes ago, winterknight said:

By the strictest nonduality standards, nothing can be said at all, really, not even this sentence (so this is already one step down from that strictest standard). And thus nothing can be said of anything, either -- neither existence nor non-existence can be attributed, and no objects can be named.

When a phrase is beyond description, sometimes you give a couple statements: One that is closer to the Truth and one that is next closest to the Truth.

A phrase like "the brain does not exist" seems like it can have different meanings / level of understandings. 

1) The brain does not exist, because by strict nondual standards, nothing can be said at all. Merely saying "brain" is a step too far. Thus, the brain (or anything) neither has existence or non-existence.

2) The brain does not exist, because by non-strict nondual standards, there is One Everything. If there is One Everything, then there is No Thing - then Everything = No Thing = Nothing. The brain (or any thing) cannot exist separate from One Everything.

3) Since nothing can exist separate from One Everything/Nothing, both nonduality and duality collapse into One. The Absolute and the Relative are One. From the perspective of the Absolute, there is no brain that exists separate from the Absolute. From the perspective of the Relative, the brain does exist if one accepts relative terms. Thus, the brain is neither existence or non-existence and is simultaneously existence and non-existence.

4) All of reality is a like a dream. Literally, none of it exists. It's all an illusion.

5) The "brain" is just a concept that does not physically exist. If we examine a brain very closely with highly technical equipment  - beyond atoms and quarks - we find empty space.

I've come across all of these explanations and I can "get" each one if I assume different contexts and word usages. Would you say that one or more of the statements are "closer" to the Truth? Are one or more further from the Truth? Do they overlap with each other and kinda say the same thing in different ways?

I think this can be an area of confusion for seekers and something I'd like to clarify within my "brain".

 

 

[Preetom]

21 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Would you say that one or more of the statements are "closer" to the Truth? Are one or more further from the Truth? Do they overlap with each other and kinda say the same thing in different ways?

I think that's a great question. As Truth itself is incommunicable, we have different levels of understanding in the realm of communication.

Just like you can explain the theory of sex one way to a child and another way to a virgin adult. The adult version would definitely be more 'evolved' and seemingly 'closer' to the actual thing. But the irony is, both the child and the virgin adult haven't experienced it, so it still is just a concept.

That's why intellectual questions are answered based on the level of question. No Truth is ever communicated anyway. The purpose becomes helping the questioner at his own level and satisfying his urge to know stuff.

You can still play around with all the concepts, as long as it is not turned into a dogma. As Leo mentioned in the last video that he loves nitpicking models and concepts. He wouldn't know what else to do other than this. It certainly provides a sense of intellectual security, a kind of refined Eudaimonic pleasure; undoubtedly far greater than some other gross hedonic pleasures and search for a false security.  

Edited December 11, 2018 by Preetom