I am enlightened. Sincere seekers: ask me anything

[Jack River]

5 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Emanyalpsid The term “consciousness” is being used in a different context. Kind of like God can be used in different context. It’s not the words, it’s what the words are piunting to. Flow with it. . . 

The word is never the thing described. Have to make it clear though what is being talked about. 

Edited November 10, 2018 by Jack River

[winterknight]

2 hours ago, Lynnel said:

@winterknight  How does the law of attraction work ?

Don't know anything about LoA, sorry.

2 hours ago, Sockrattes said:

How can i make sure, that i will make my surrendering unconditional?

I've been there a hundred times. And then i start thinking "please don't make this or please don't be like that" and then i'm stuck here again and the whole story begins anew.

Does that make sense, what i'm trying to say?

Yes. This means you must pursue Ramana Maharshi's self-inquiry method. Full surrender will come later. Follow the path.

2 hours ago, Sev said:

What advice you can give to someone who goes psychodynamic therapy? What does make therapy efficient? Any principles and insights you can share according your experience about going therapy?

Try to be honest about what you feel: whatever it is, even -- especially -- if you are ashamed of it, or think it is negative, evil, etc. Therapy is about the exploration of your feelings.

2 hours ago, Ero said:

@winterknight

Thanks a lot for your answer. 

Another thing pops up in mind. How do you understand creativity?If I think of it as the spark of "creation" (for there to be something created, it takes form from the formless-as a painting emerges from the white sheet of paper), but that kinda is in a seeming "conflict" with my observation below. 

I mean I've seen that in its entirety, the system of life that is, is returning to the source. What I mean is that the story of Ero, per say, will flow its flow, where all actions, thoughts, perceptions, etc. (maya) will stem from the previous "image". Ero is a form, separated only in perception from the rest. Because the actions, which he takes, are dualistic, they create a "conflict" with what is perceived as external to Ero. (for ex. the challenge of the identity provokes aggressive impulses, which hurt the "outside". In a nutshell my toxicity) That in itself affects Ero. At first I thought of its as a cause-effect chain, which will in the end reach him. Yet the suffering from taking such actions is not coming from this materialistic conception of holism, but from the attitude, with which the action was taken. Ero suffers, because he attacks Himself. So when this suffering becomes unbearable, the Ero we knew "dies". So the system evolves. This self correcting process is kinda what we see with humanity throughout the centuries. Having said that, how does the "impulse of creation " fit into that? Aren't they somehow in "opposite directions"?

Thanks again. Made my day

Actually, nothing is created or destroyed. That idea is a misconception which can be seen through.

2 hours ago, Psyche_92 said:

What is free will?

Find the Self and you will know the answer. Free will is a paradox. It doesn't really exist, and yet you are forced to act as if it does, at least as long as you are a seeker.

2 hours ago, Ero said:

@winterknight

I hope it's not a problem my questions keep coming. It's just I'm interested in your experiences. To cut to the chase my question is the following:

Have you had any spiritual ego whilst on the path?

You and Leo mentioned, what he called, the Jed Mckenna type. I myself went through such a stage. I have the observation, that when one has a great deal of understanding, the so called spiritual ego emerges. (of course because "great" is a comparative measure , it's judged when comparing to surrounding people and most likely one feels a lot more "evolved') That understanding comes from the glimpses of truth and awareness of the more subtle effects in life. In my case, until I resolved my self-image complexes, that served as a justification of my "worth". Until of course I "liberated" empathy and was humiliated on several occasions. Now that I come to think of it, Is this the reason that the process of purification takes decades?Because the actual embodiment of those insights is the lengthy process? I found myself sometimes dogmatic in the values I discovered, because i took them as principles and rules, guiding life.

Of course, spiritual ego did arise on the path, if we say there was a path and an ego... yes, purification can take a long time, but it needn't. The very thought that it requires a long time itself lengthens that amount of time, actually. Best to believe that what you are looking for is right here, right now, and that it is yours for the taking immediately. Because that's the truth.

2 hours ago, Sockrattes said:

@winterknight Does evil exist?

Only as an illusion. And not even that, really.

2 hours ago, moon777light said:

i dont want to reveal it here  

i heard the REM therapy is for people to help with trauma and anxiety, they have here also regualr therapy session (thats literally how its said online) i'd have to ask them what particler type it is. WHats difference with psychodynamic and analytic? Isnt both the type that heavily Freud based? Im not sure why but i dont really like Freud

Well google "psychoanalytic institute <your city>" and contact them and ask for a referral. EMDR is a little iffy.  Psychodynamic or psychoanalytic therapy performed by a trained psychoanalyst is best. Those therapies were started by Freud but they have progressed a lot since then. Up to you though.

 

[i am I AM]

Is it possible there is triality present in an enlightened? The duality interacting with a some "One"? (Regardless of whether one or more of these is illusion).

What is illusion, and what relation does it/them have with nothingness?

Thank you

[Emanyalpsid]

14 minutes ago, Jack River said:

This is the problem with interpreting what has been recycled through time by thought. We can never fully be sure of what was meant/being communicated. 

Indeed, therefor the buddhist teachings are very unclear, or vague, for the western, logical thinking, mind. That is why I wrote the website http://www.foundationsofhumanlife.com to make the buddhist path easier to understand for us western thinkers. The core of his teachings is well preserved though, it is about seeing the dependent nature of reality and oneself.

Although almost no one has the courage to read the website though as it is very confronting. People want the easy road, the road without confrontation and doubt, as they think that is the way because it feels good. Wrong! The path without confrontation is never the right path. Getting to enlightenment is confronting yourself over and over again. 

And the people who do start to read it, skip to page 12 or 13 instead of reading everything. Cause that would take too much time. Then they dont understand what is written on page 12 and 13 or reject it because it does not comply with there believes. And off they go, back into the sea.

Edited November 10, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[Jack River]

All these questions though are seen realized when that silence/nothingness becomes actual. In regards to what I said about experiencing without knowledge/experience. A continuous dying. By answering these questions for people could we be imposing knowledge onto others and thereby they will project this information as an experience.

Isn’t that an imitation of nothingness/or the unawareness I was speaking about ? 

[winterknight]

2 hours ago, Emanyalpsid said:

I have a question; does it, and with it I mean that what we perceive, exist upon itself? If so, how come? If not, how come?

Are you asking if what we perceive exists independent of observers?

12 minutes ago, lmfao said:

@winterknight Why/how does there arise the distinction between something that is "pleasurable" and something that is "uncomfortable"?Why do some things cause "suffering" whilst other things cause "happiness"? For example, why is eating tasty food pleasurable whilst getting stabbed with a knife extremely painful? A scientist will tell me that things which are beneficial for my biological survival will give pleasure and things which are not advantageous will cause me pain. But that's just a shallow thought story imo, I've been wondering if there is anything deeper to it. Why are some sensations pleasurable and other not pleasurable? Can whether a thing is pleasurable or not pleasurable be reduced to thoughts? Or is there a complex relationship between thoughts and this extremely intangible thing we call awareness which causes sensations to be perceived a certain way? 

Interesting questions. Basically if you follow the trail you will find it ends up in the mystery of maya. Maya is finally quite inexplicable, unfortunately.

Edited November 10, 2018 by winterknight

[Jack River]

4 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

Indeed, therefor the buddhist teachings are very unclear, or vague, for the western, logical thinking, mind. That is why I wrote the website http://www.foundationsofhumanlife.com to make the buddhist path easier to understand for us western thinkers. The core of his teachings is well preserved though, it is about seeing the dependent nature of reality and oneself.

Although almost no one has the courage to read the website though as it is very confronting. People want the easy road, the road without confrontation and doubt, as they think that is the way because it feels good. Wrong! The path that feels good is never the right path. Getting to enlightenment is confronting yourself over and over again. 

And the people who do start to read it, skip to page 12 or 13 instead of reading everything. Cause that would take too much time. Then they dont understand what is written on page 12 and 13 or reject it because it does not comply with there believes. And off they go, back into the sea.

This is why I think it’s important to understand how intention/will/desire or psychological time causes the a lot problems like illusion. The self seeks truth but the self wants to tag along for the ride. The self seeks security first and foremost and that sustains it. So truth gets puts unconsciously in second place. 

Edited November 10, 2018 by Jack River

[Forestluv]

2 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Are you asking if what we perceive exists independent of observers?

How would you answer that one?

[winterknight]

3 minutes ago, i am I AM said:

Is it possible there is triality present in an enlightened? The duality interacting with a some "One"? (Regardless of whether one or more of these is illusion).

What is illusion, and what relation does it/them have with nothingness?

Thank you

Illusion is that which, when you look for it, it disappears.

There's no trinity or duality, though you can use that as a provisional framework if you find it helpful. There's not even a oneness in the way we usually use that word. Nor is there nothingness. Just what there is cannot be expressed in words; you'll have to see for yourself.

4 minutes ago, Jack River said:

All these questions though are seen realized when that silence/nothingness becomes actual. In regards to what I said about experiencing without knowledge/experience. A continuous dying. By answering these questions for people could we be imposing knowledge onto others and thereby they will project this information as an experience.

Isn’t that an imitation of nothingness/or the unawareness I was speaking about ? 

If you see nothingness, then there are no questions being asked and no answers being given.

[winterknight]

2 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

How would you answer that one?

Yes, no, maybe. As with all these sorts of questions, it all depends on context and audience. But the truest answer is: there is nothing that we perceive in the first place.

[Jack River]

7 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Illusion is that which, when you look for it, it disappears.

There's no trinity or duality, though you can use that as a provisional framework if you find it helpful. There's not even a oneness in the way we usually use that word. Nor is there nothingness. Just what there is cannot be expressed in words; you'll have to see for yourself.

If you see nothingness, then there are no questions being asked and no answers being given.

I dont think you are understanding me quite. 

Edited November 10, 2018 by Jack River

[Emanyalpsid]

14 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Are you asking if what we perceive exists independent of observers?

Interesting questions. Basically if you follow the trail you will find it ends up in the mystery of maya. Maya is finally quite inexplicable, unfortunately.

Well yes and no. Lets break them down into two question.

Does that what we perceive exist independent of consciousness?

Does that what we perceive exist upon itself? Meaning; is it there to be perceived?

[winterknight]

4 minutes ago, Jack River said:

I dont think you are understanding me quite. 

Probably not... care to clarify?

[Jack River]

Nothingness is as a result of no registration/recollection and therefore projection of self/thought.

If we accumulate content about “nothingness” as an abstraction that seems to get transferred over as an experience as the experiencer. 

So what I mean is, doesn’t True nothingness come as a result of a mind that doesn’t react/respond with its conditioned movement/process? 

Edited November 10, 2018 by Jack River

[Emanyalpsid]

15 minutes ago, Jack River said:

This is why I think it’s important to understand how intention/will/desire or psychological time causes the a lot problems like illusion. The self seeks truth but the self wants to tag along for the ride. The self seeks security first and foremost and that sustains it. So truth gets puts unconsciously in second place. 

Indeed.

[winterknight]

4 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

Well yes and no. Lets break them down into two question.

Does that what we perceive exist independent of consciousness?

Does that what we perceive exist upon itself? Meaning; is it there to be perceived?

1. No.

2. No.

3 minutes ago, Jack River said:

Nothingness is as a result of no registration/recollection and therefore projection of self/thought.

If we accumulate content about “nothingness” as an abstraction that seems to get transferred over as an experience as the experiencer. 

So what I mean is, doesn’t True nothingness come as a result of a mind that doesn’t react/respond with its conditioned movement/process? 

The nothingness that is contrasted to the experiencer/experiencing/registration/recollection is not the true nothingness. The nothingness that has to worry about "not being abstract" is not the true nothingness. It may be a reflection of the true nothingness, but it is not it. The true nothingness encompasses the duality of nothing-something and experiencer/no-experiencer.

The true nothingness is not a "result," really, but the realization of what you already are and always have been, permanently and unchangeably.

[Emanyalpsid]

32 minutes ago, Jack River said:

All these questions though are seen realized when that silence/nothingness becomes actual. In regards to what I said about experiencing without knowledge/experience. A continuous dying. By answering these questions for people could we be imposing knowledge onto others and thereby they will project this information as an experience.

Isn’t that an imitation of nothingness/or the unawareness I was speaking about ? 

Yes that is what could possibly happen. An illusion in the mind, created by a numbness of thoughts without having real, experienced ,insight. This is what I suppose 99% of the people have; the illusion of enlightenment created by a numbness in the mind by resting in the answers of someone else. Of course, without thought, someone has an enlightenment experience, but without the insight into the nature of it, you are not even having half the experience one would have with the insight. I can tell you from experience. And so the word `enlightenment` gets thrown around and loses its original meaning as dubbed by buddhism.

Edited November 10, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[Jack River]

12 minutes ago, winterknight said:

The nothingness that is contrasted to the experiencer/experiencing/registration/recollection is not the true nothingness.

Fosho. But thought will imitate nothingness as explained with knowledge. So when we learn about nothingness as an idea/abstraction thought inherently tends to conform too and project that content in place of “now”. 

 

12 minutes ago, winterknight said:

The nothingness that has to worry about "not being abstract" is not the true nothingness

That’s not quite my point my man. Awareness sees the whole of this movement towards abstraction and doesn’t continue in that direction. By not going in that direction of positive or negative action that movement/process disolves which brings about that silence then nothingness. To me nothingness seems to be more of a stoppage of thought/time and its registration/recollection/projection. 

So what I mean is by offering such knowledge about what may be beyond thought, when a person is not aware of how thought opperates thought will tend to accumulate and project all that knowledge as an experience. 

Edited November 10, 2018 by Jack River

[Jack River]

2 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

Yes that is what could possibly happen. An illusion in the mind, created by a numbness of thoughts without having real, experienced ,insight. This is what I suppose 99% of the people have; the illusion of enlightenment created by a numbness in the mind by resting in the answers of someone else. Of course, without thought, someone has an enlightenment experience, but without the insight into the nature of it, you are not even having half the experience one would have with the insight. I can tell you from experience. And so the word `enlightenment` gets thrown around and loses its original meaning as dubbed by buddhism.

Right. I think it’s important to atleast be aware of thoughts nature and how it relates to psychological becoming. After all that’s where the illusion seems to arise. The psychological momentum of divison as the “me” seems activate the content thought and project that forward as an experience. 

[winterknight]

1 minute ago, Jack River said:

Fosho. But thought will imitate nothingness as explained with knowledge. So when we learn about nothingness as an idea/abstraction thought inherently tends to conform too and project that content in place of “now”. 

That’s not quite my point my man. Awareness sees the whole of this movement towards abstraction and doesn’t continue in that direction. By not going in that direction of positive or negative action that movement/process disolves which brings about that silence then nothingness. To me nothingness seems to be more of a stoppage of thought/time and its registration/recollection/projection. 

So what I mean is by offering such knowledge about what beyond thought, when a person is not aware of how thought opperates will accumulate and project all that knowledge as an experience. 

It really depends. For the very mature and ripe aspirant, merely sitting in silence will be enough to realize their nature. But for everyone else, you need thought to kill thought. The idea of self-inquiry, for example, is a thought. Strictly speaking there is no need for any effort to be what you already are. But people need something to grasp onto. This is the best tool.

For most people, simply sitting in silence and "not thinking" isn't enough. They will not be able to use that to discern what is going on. It will seem like nothing is happening. So abstractions are critically important for almost everyone.

But different traditions have different viewpoints on this. Advaita Vedanta, my tradition, has a lot of abstraction. Zen Buddhism, relatively little.