I am enlightened. Sincere seekers: ask me anything

[Ibn Sina]

18 minutes ago, winterknight said:

. Ignorance is the belief that "I" am separate from my experience

@winterknight

So enlightenment means 'I' AM one with my experience , you mean?

So it means that there IS an experience isn't it?

And you always maintain that enlightenment cannot be destroyed by brain change.

My question is, do you believe that, the feeling that I AM same as my experience, is maintained even after brain stem is damaged?

What I think is that no matter what you experience, whether you feel experience yourself identical to your experience or you feel yourself identical to your body, is rooted in your brain. 

So just a yes or  no will suffice, do you think that experience of you one with your experience, stays or not with brain damage?

If you say yes, then I think that is a non-falsifiable, assertion, and to access that knowledge (if it is true) I will have to do 5-Meo Dmt and all sorts of spiritual practices, I can't access it by concept.

But I hope that you and I both agree that once brain stem is damaged, even if you are enlightened, the body shuts off. 

Edited July 6, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[winterknight]

5 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

@winterknight

So enlightenment means 'I' AM one with my experience , you mean?

No, enlightenment means that the dichotomous choice between "I am one with my experience" and "I am not one with my experience" is itself incorrectly put.

Quote

 

So it means that there IS an experience isn't it?

 

It does not.

Quote

 

My question is, do you believe that, the feeling that I AM same as my experience, is maintained even after brain stem is damaged?

 

Enlightenment isn't a feeling.

Quote

 

If you say yes, then I think that is a non-falsifiable, assertion, and to access that knowledge (if it is true) I will have to do 5-Meo Dmt and all sorts of spiritual practices, I can't access it by concept.

 

True, you cannot access the truth by concept.

Quote

But I hope that you and I both agree that once brain stem is damaged, even if you are enlightened, the body shuts off. 

If we believe there's such a thing as a body, sure.

[Ibn Sina]

@winterknight

Wow, so enlightenment is not an experience. But what is there except experience and perception? I mean everything is experience and perception. 

I mean how can the fact that - destruction of the belief that you are seperate from your experience, not an experience. Please tell me. I can perfectly see that it is an experience, if it wasn't then that event wouldn't even happen.

Then what do you think enlightenment is.

Earlier you said it is destruction of ignorance, and ignorance is a belief, and isn't the destruction of a belief , an experience? 
Like if I used to believe that apple is blue, and someone showed me a red apple, then my belief is destroyed, and isn't that an experience.

Okay then tell me what is enligtenment then.

I bet whatever you categorize enlightenment under, it can be put under the category of experience.

Except when you just say- Enlightenment cannot be grasped by the mind  or categories, at which point I say you win because there is no way to go furthur from there.

Edited July 6, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[winterknight]

2 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

@winterknight

Except when you just say- Enlightenment cannot be grasped by the mind  or categories, at which point I say you win because there is no way to go furthur from there.

Correct, that's exactly so. Enlightenment is looking into something that appears to be there, but isn't. When you look into it, you find that not only is it not there, but even the belief that it was there -- isn't there and was never there.

Therefore enlightenment itself isn't there.

Edited July 6, 2019 by winterknight

[Ibn Sina]

15 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Enlightenment is looking into something that appears to be there, but isn't. When you look into it, you find that not only is it not there, but even the belief that it was there -- isn't there and was never there

@winterknight

You didn't adress my query about the nature of experience.

Whether you are looking at something and finding out that it isn't there (definition of enlightenment as stated above), or whether as previously said, destruction of ignorance (as you said previously)

that is an experience isn't it?

And you say, without giving any reasons that it is NOT an experience.

I don't know why you say that. With that answer you stopped me dead on my tracks.

That's the first problem I encounter.

I asked the question expecting you would say an obvious yes, so that I could ask my next question which would be-

Where do you think is the experience occuring.

And probably you would say, NOT in the brain (of course you are not a materialist)

And I would then ask , why would you think so,

then you will say- you will have to find it yourself with meditation and practices.

Then the discussion would  properly stop.

Edited July 6, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[winterknight]

20 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

@winterknight

You didn't adress my query about the nature of experience.

Whether you are looking at something and finding out that it isn't there (definition of enlightenment as stated above), or whether as previously said, destruction of ignorance (as you said previously)that is an experience isn't it?

It might appear to be, but it isn't. That's what's impossible to explain about it. You are not looking at something and finding it isn't there. The finding is the realization of the non-existence of "you."

[winterknight]

58 minutes ago, Nahm said:

@winterknight Very nice. ??

Thanks 

[Ibn Sina]

7 minutes ago, winterknight said:

The finding is the realization of the non-existence of "you."

And isn't that an experience?

I can't see how it is not an experience.

The problem stays the same.

Edited July 6, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[winterknight]

1 minute ago, Ibn Sina said:

And isn't that an experience?

I can't see how it is not an experience.

It is not. It is the realization that the category called "experience" is itself incoherent as a concept. It is the realization that the category called "realization" is incoherent as a concept. It is the realization of the non-existence and incoherence of all categories, and the meaninglessness of all language.

See where I'm going with this?

Edited July 6, 2019 by winterknight

[Guru Fat Bastard]

1 minute ago, Ibn Sina said:

And isn't that an experience?

I can't see how it is not an experience.

The problem stays the same.

8 minutes ago, winterknight said:

That's what's impossible to explain about it.

[Ibn Sina]

But for me it seems everything is experience, whether  it is as you say-It is the realization that the category called "realization" is incoherent as a concept (experience),  . It is the realization of the non-existence and incoherence of all categories (experience), and the meaninglessness of all language (experience). Everything absolutely everything. Language or languagelessness IS experience. All realization of incoherence is experience, meaninglessness of language is experience. At least that is how I see it. Every concievable thing , even presumably inconceivable , IS experience.   

Realization that the concept of experience itself is incoherent (experience)

From the hustle and bustle of Las Vegas to absolute pure divine silence of God, it is , for me, experience.

And you disagree.

All right, I have reached the conceptual dead end I guess, beyond which is just spirituality. Thanks for your interaction @winterknight

Edited July 6, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[Aakash]

@winterknight what is science? 

[winterknight]

6 hours ago, Ibn Sina said:

From the hustle and bustle of Las Vegas to absolute pure divine silence of God, it is , for me, experience.

And you disagree.

All right, I have reached the conceptual dead end I guess, beyond which is just spirituality. Thanks for your interaction @winterknight

I do disagree. Though frankly, regardless, there's no question that the brain cannot account for consciousness either way. Though it's such a boring debate to have, I've had it so many times.

4 minutes ago, Aakash said:

@winterknight what is science? 

That depends on the context in which that term is used. This kind of question is way too broad. You might consider reading more books on philosophy if you're seriously interested in the answer. But basically science is any systematically testable means of acquiring information about the world.

[Aakash]

@winterknight here's a definition i found online, what do you think of it... do you think its more accurate than any definition you can think of? 

Science is self-discovery and self-verification. Anytime you discovered Truth directly, you were doing science. Your personal experience provided you with the proof. 

[winterknight]

3 minutes ago, Aakash said:

@winterknight here's a definition i found online, what do you think of it... do you think its more accurate than any definition you can think of? 

Science is self-discovery and self-verification. Anytime you discovered Truth directly, you were doing science. Your personal experience provided you with the proof. 

Sure, that's one definition.

My point is that whole libraries of philosophers have written on this topic. If you really are interested, time to start reading...

[Aakash]

@winterknight but what if this was literally the absolute definition itself, with all other ways of looking at it, simply being distinctions by delusion, 

what would you say to this? 

[winterknight]

22 minutes ago, Aakash said:

@winterknight but what if this was literally the absolute definition itself, with all other ways of looking at it, simply being distinctions by delusion, 

what would you say to this? 

There are no absolute definitions of relative concepts.

[Aakash]

@winterknight  deleted

Edited July 7, 2019 by Aakash

[Ibn Sina]

@winterknight Look, your idea that there is no experience doesn't even make sense.  ( I am not talking about the brain, the discussion is already over, I know you don't believe in the brain, don't bring that up again)

It's not like I am a complete materialist, for a long time I have read and followed and loved ( and still do) Buddha, Osho, Leo Gura, and their teachings make sense, that is why they have huge followers not you.

None of them have ever said that 'That is not experience'.

Even Leo Gura the founder of this site that you are using to increase your followers, believes that there is nothing but direct experience.

https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/36099-direct-experience-relativity/#comment-446252

"There is nothing but direct experience, so you have no other other but to trust it.

Name one thing which isn't in your direct experience? You cannot." - Leo

And here you are disagreeing again and again without any reason.

When you say, that is not experience, it's like saying a triangle is round, a square has 5 sides,the color red is blue.

This only means that you have lost a follower, who is actually a follower and  lover of people like Osho, Sadhguru, Leo , Buddha.

If you want to gain followers then you can't put out nonsensical (hence false) stuff and expect you will have a mass following. Yes, there will be those who will follow you, doesn't mean everyone will, because people do sense truth, and when they sense truth they flock there. Where there is truth, there is a following. 

Your philosophy base itself is not properly made, so it's difficult to believe you have moved up spiritually.

Even if you get followers , it will be because you focused on other stuffs, but just try putting 'there is no experience' as your central teaching and go on emphasizing it again and again, I bet there won't be many following you.

Instead of giving short  quip answers like that of Deepak Chopra that sound intelligent , try to properly convince people that 'that is not experience, realization of xyz (meaningless of language, inchorehence of realization as concept, your definition of enlightenment) is not experience, try doing that. And that would be impressive.

You constantly play the word game- realization of destruction of incoherence of language.

Reminding me of Deepak Chopra. And guess what, he plays that game even better, and he has millions of followers. 

And the common consensus about him whether you look at his youtube video comments, or google search or his facebook page comments, is that he is a charlatan.

While people like Buddha, Osho, Sadhguru, Leo are revered.

Because everybody loves those who spread the light of truth. (over time atleast. Like Jesus was crucified, Bruno was burned, but they are saints now).

While those who spread of lies, are not. (Joseph Smith, Mormonism, Scientology)

You don't have to put in it in highly complex terms like you and Deepak Chopra do. Truth is pure and simple. Just saying " Okay, I can't convince you , you yourself should walk the path" ignoring me would make me feel(though notfull convince) that you are enlightened, but using highly complex words to redefine, correct my statements over and over again, 

I don't see Buddha or Osho doing that.

They would just ignore me and rest in their bliss. 

Which also shows sign of egolessness, but your posts shows the opposite.

I don't see any bodhisattva like compassion radiating from you and I am talking about each of your post, not this one.  Just continuosly correcting and redefining terms according to your ideology. This is __. This is not___ but ____.All your post are of that kind.

It shouldn't be very difficulto for a lay person to identify when he sees a truly enlightened person, atleast not as difficult as doing a sherlock holmes investigation. Even animals recognize an enlightened being.  Even plants do. 

And here not only do I not immediately feel like you are enlightened (which I should if you truly were) but allyour behavioural evidence,the demonstration of your ego, your obvious desire to get followers your youtube vids, point toward opposite.

You are indoctrinated. That's all.

Edited July 7, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[Jkris]

@Ibn Sina https://o-meditation.com/2011/03/17/enlightenment-is-not-an-experience-osho/

Read it carefully what osho says 

Winterknight is straight doesnt talk juicy artistic poetic like osho or many others which will just make the seekers caught in the spiritual labyrinth.

Doesnt verbalize or conceptualize that which cannot be said.

He is not talking about mystical experiences and is not even bothered to talk about them.That is Self Enquiry.

All he is saying do self enquiry and realize it for yourself.Have psychoanalysis that is helpful as well for purification.

He doesnt add to confusion by sharing his personal experiences etc.

But winterknights no nonsense approach is not convincing you - you are free to choose like whom ever you prefer.