I am enlightened. Sincere seekers: ask me anything

[Preetom]

@Serotoninluv

38 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Is it fair to say there is awareness of existence? Or is it closer to the truth to say nothing exists to be aware of?

The only 'true' statement(if there is such a thing) is I AM.

Anything more is redundant and can be traced as being another belief..

[Forestluv]

15 minutes ago, ajasatya said:

both are equally distant from Truth

Yes, as are all words and concepts. The terms “closer” and “distant” are concessions to the dualism inherent in language.

I’m more interested in which might be a better relative pointer than the words themselves as being true.

 

13 minutes ago, Preetom said:

@Serotoninluv

The only 'true' statement(if there is such a thing) is I AM.

Anything more is redundant and can be traced as being another belief..

In the absolute, are not all statements both true and false (or neither true nor false)? 

In the relative, do not all statements have partial truth?

[ajasatya]

Just now, Serotoninluv said:

I’m more interested in which might be a better relative pointer than the words themselves as being true.

it always depends on the current struggle of the seeker. both A and ¬A can be valid teachings.

[Preetom]

34 minutes ago, ajasatya said:

it always depends on the current struggle of the seeker. both A and ¬A can be valid teachings.

Couldn't agree more!

The best teachers never had a fixed set of instructions presented as the absolute law. They almost always took the teaching in the opposite direction of the seeker's beliefs in an attempt to bring him out from his nesting place..

[Tistepiste]

@winterknight what if you only want to fulfill the desire and aren't fulfilled unless it gets fulfilled?

It also doesn't have to depend on other people I think? Only when it comes down to romantic desires.

[winterknight]

50 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Is it fair to say there is awareness of existence? Or is it closer to the truth to say nothing exists to be aware of?

Neither are correct, of course. Since I saw in a later post you're interested in pointer-value, there is no single answer to this question. It depends on the seeker -- what will get them to intuit the obvious.

Or perhaps: "Awareness of" is itself the wrong way to think about Truth. Awareness "without an of" is better. And that then becomes a koan...

10 minutes ago, Tistepiste said:

@winterknight what if you only want to fulfill the desire and aren't fulfilled unless it gets fulfilled?

It also doesn't have to depend on other people I think? Only when it comes down to romantic desires.

So pursue the desire as best as you can.

[Tistepiste]

@winterknight but I feel like then your state of happiness is unconditional and depending on your desires. Isn't that what you want to get rid of

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, ajasatya said:

it always depends on the current struggle of the seeker. both A and ¬A can be valid teachings.

That’s a good point. 

Yet is not this statement itself relative? Can A and -A always be valid teachings depending on the seeker? That would suggest all teachings have relative validity. Such that the teaching: a triflet of pogard is shoglin to mestan - has validity (as does it’s opposite) depending on the seeker. 

I think most would consider that teaching to be nonsense. Yet, I suppose if one person considered it valid, then it becomes valid.

[Preetom]

1 hour ago, Tistepiste said:

@winterknight

It also doesn't have to depend on other people I think? Only when it comes down to romantic desires.

It goes much deeper if you think about it. The very concept of desire assumes otherness aka a separate self.

If you desire food, there has to be people making it. If you desire and love entertainment(let's say TV show), there are people making it. Even if you desire 'nature', that assumes something other than you and needs to be a certain way. Literally anything you desire needs to fulfill an infinite number of parameters to be fulfilled itself. No wonder no desire is ever truly fulfilled!

The ultimate solution is not a state where your desires are completely fulfilled but to clearly see this broken system and thus transcend it naturally.

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, winterknight said:

Yes, in the end there is no ignorance and no dispelling of it. 

Or perhaps: "Awareness of" is itself the wrong way to think about Truth. Awareness "without an of" is better. 

Is there not awareness that there is no ignorance and no dispelling of it?

[winterknight]

44 minutes ago, Tistepiste said:

@winterknight but I feel like then your state of happiness is unconditional and depending on your desires. Isn't that what you want to get rid of

Read through these links to understand my whole philosophy.

As I said in response to your earlier post, you need to be honest about your true desires -- your true feelings -- in order to quiet your mind enough to pursue spiritual inquiry.

[winterknight]

1 minute ago, Serotoninluv said:

Is there not awareness that there is no ignorance and no dispelling of it?

No, not in truth. Even those statements are not quite correct.

[Tistepiste]

@winterknight Ok I see. Hmm.. what do you do if you love a person but the person is 1000s of miles away and it is practically impossible to practice the love? Is that a pursuit? A desire? Ideally it would be to move on and forget the person. Don't know if it's relevant to this though

[Forestluv]

9 minutes ago, winterknight said:

No, not in truth. Even those statements are not quite correct.

Would it be “more correct” to say that the statement “there is no ignorance or dispeling of it” simply appeared?

[Preetom]

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

Would it be “more correct” to say that the statement “there is no ignorance or dispeling of it” simply appeared?

This line of questioning reminds me of how the attempt to get political correctness with mind which can't be grasped in the first place, leads to more and more confusion and conflict and never towards the lived realization.

Just like how the Hindus and Buddhists bust each other's nuts over the true self and no self arguments lol

[winterknight]

35 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Would it be “more correct” to say that the statement “there is no ignorance or dispeling of it” simply appeared?

It would be more correct to say that there can neither be said to be appearance or no-appearance or both.

[Forestluv]

4 minutes ago, winterknight said:

It would be more correct to say that there can neither be said to be appearance or no-appearance or both.

Hmmm, does this go back to the hunter story in which the enlightened being did not “see” the running deer appear and disappear?

[winterknight]

3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Hmmm, does this go back to the hunter story in which the enlightened being did not “see” the running deer appear and disappear?

Well sort of... that story had many meanings. But it's all facets of the same Inexpressible. Basically all statements are wrong, because all categories are egoic, so the closest statements would be statements to that effect -- negating dualities: it's neither X nor not X.

Edited December 31, 2018 by winterknight

[Aakash]

@Serotoninluv , @Preetom I propose reversing the all duality paradox's all together 

AT current i feel like 

1 and 2 become 1 then that 1 becomes 2 (by natural phenomena) and that becomes 1 then becomes 2 again, the strange loop never ends. YOu are left with paradoxs with no answer at all. 

Given you reverse all paradox's you create new terminological meaning and then you can rearrange with your true ego this time. Its basically what i feel leo is doing. You can't read into a situation properly unless your enlightened to some degree thats one issue

The second issue is that if your enlightened and you end up being content with absolute nothingness or what ever position you are at then thats completely fine as we all know. But it , itself , to me that is. Does not signify it's the end but only grounds for a new landmark to take place. Since i believe something is changing. even if something is nothing. nothing is changing to or non are changing and this is where you end up with @winterknight negating dualities. 

I think here all thats left after this is imagination. Not the imagination of the false ego you create out of unconsciousness but the true ego you create out of consciousness and then you split back into 2 and then go to 1 ,2,1,2,1 and it's a never ending cycle for the whole of infinity. 

[Aakash]

this very post i posted has no logical sense to me... its almost like it contains no meaning from my point of view.. although i'm trying to put it in an coordinated manner ... still the meanings are infinite because you leave it to the imagination of the individual of the infinite on your sides of the screen. Its like a magnificant social-complex as @ivankiss once said to me.. 

I just think if i was to forecast future that lets say everyone was enlightened then what ? the world would stop in absolute nothingness lol there would be nobdoy to enlighten. At this point enlightened ego's would develop ?? they would be from the truth which is absolute nothingness and so you could call them true egos or ! true-trues!