I am enlightened. Sincere seekers: ask me anything

[winterknight]

11 hours ago, Karas said:

@winterknightWhat is absolute infinity

I don't know, I don't use that term.

11 hours ago, Outer said:

Who are you?

That which cannot be spoken about accurately

10 hours ago, Karas said:

@winterknightI know that "nothing" is impossible and something must exist. Is that consiousness knowing itself ?

If you have to ask, it's not consciousness knowing itself. Consciousness knowing itself does not result in knowledge you can put in philosophical sentences like that. That's the mind. Still, it might be a little glimpse -- the mind's way of translating That.

9 hours ago, Pure Imagination said:

How do you stop the monkey-mind long term? I have had enlightenment experiences in the past, but my mind has only sped up if anything. What would you recommend to quiet the mind? Does becoming enlightened slow the mind down?

I have my guidelines here. Biggest guideline is to discover and be honest about and pursue what you really want. Discovery happens through a combination of introspection, expression of your emotions in writing/drawing/etc., psychoanalytic/psychodynamic therapy, and action. 

Enlightenment experiences may or may not slow your mind down, depending on what other conditioning it has. That's why it's important to deal with other aspects of quieting your mind (e.g. psychological).

9 hours ago, Nahm said:

That a human is, or a computer could be - conscious - is illusory. In actuality there is only consciousness, appearing to be some thing which is conscious; not things or objects which could be conscious, or produce ‘conscious’. “Conscious” is not a result of finite. For a computer to actually be conscious there would need to be an objective reality, no? 

I might be wrong, but it makes me wonder, @winterknight, would you say awareness & consciousness are the same / synonymous?

Sure, it's true that the idea of something/someone being conscious is illusory. I use awareness & consciousness as the same thing, but some people use them to mean different things.

8 hours ago, FoxFoxFox said:

@winterknight Many sage talk about awareness in deep sleep (not lucid dreaming). Do you experience this? If so, what can you tell us about it?

For example, Jan Esman describes it as "waking up in his sleep to bliss out for thirty minutes or so." 

What does this awareness entail? Is there any content to this awareness and if so are they sense-products?

Additionally, you mentioned that in deep sleep, the Self is experiencing unconsciousness. I always preferred the term "unmanifest", as in the Self is experiencing the unmanifest in deep sleep. In your view, are the two terms interchangeable? 

I don't relate to what Esman says, but perhaps that's some kind of siddhi. What the sages mean by being aware in deep sleep and asleep in waking is that they no longer identify with the individual mind and its different states, but with the Consciousness that transcends those states.

Yes, the unmanifest is fine, and in fact probably better than saying that it experiences unconsciousness. In deep sleep, Consciousness can be said to perceive or reflect the causal body (as opposed to the subtle or gross bodies), or pure ignorance, or any number of other theoretical/philosophical terms.

Best not to take it too seriously, because actually there can't be said to be a deep sleep state, or really any state, in the final analysis. These are all illusory terms, said only for the sake of discussion.

7 hours ago, FoxFoxFox said:

More question: 

Sages say that "bliss" or "happiness" or "peace" is our true nature. 

Sat, Cit, Ananda are said to be the three main "qualities", if one can use those terms.

Sat and Cit are reconcilable, but why Ananda? 

Is this a feeling or a sensation felt by the body?

Is it simple "knowledge" of the absolute - meaning awareness of it?

Ananda is simply the sense of total completeness. We know it in our daily experience as the happiness we get from fulfilling desires -- these are glimpses of the bliss of the Self contrasted with pain on either side of the experience.

The actual bliss of the Self is not a contrasting experience like that kind of happiness. It is beyond dualities and thus beyond description. It is the subtlest experience -- akin to being absent.

It is not a feeling or sensation in the body. It can and cannot be said to be "awareness of" the Absolute; the Absolute cannot be an object of knowledge. Still, yes, we say the Absolute knows itself by itself because there's no other way to talk. And yes, that bliss is part of that. 

2 hours ago, pluto8 said:

So, is your day to day consciousness different than a normal persons.....like, have you permanently changed or enhanced your consciousness? Or in other words, is your perception different? Things along those lines.....    Do you even want to answer this question lol?

I don't think it'd be helpful to answer this sort of question. Do you have a question that relates to your own search?

Edited December 5, 2018 by winterknight

[Forestluv]

12 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Sure, it's true that the idea of something/someone being conscious is illusory. I use awareness & consciousness as the same thing, but some people use them to mean different things.

I'd like to get clearer on the context of these terms. Would you say that there is one awareness / consciousness of everything / nothing? That a mind, rock, tree etc. are in a sense all within that one awareness / consciousness? Or is there a distinction between the awareness / consciousness of a rock and that of a human?

[Karas]

What do you think of this quote

[winterknight]

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

I'd like to get clearer on the context of these terms. Would you say that there is one awareness / consciousness of everything / nothing? That a mind, rock, tree etc. are in a sense all within that one awareness / consciousness? Or is there a distinction between the awareness / consciousness of a rock and that of a human?

All the categories -- mind, rock, tree, awareness, consciousness -- are illusory. In reality there are no categories and no one to talk about them and figure them out.

45 minutes ago, Karas said:

What do you think of this quote

It's true from a certain perspective. I'd rather only answer questions that relate to your search, though. Does this relate to your search, and if so, how?

[Forestluv]

17 minutes ago, winterknight said:

All the categories -- mind, rock, tree, awareness, consciousness -- are illusory. In reality there are no categories and no one to talk about them and figure them out.

When you say “categories” are illusory, do you mean the conceptual categorization of things is illusory or that all things are illusory?

[winterknight]

3 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

When you say “categories” are illusory, do you mean the conceptual categorization of things is illusory or that all things are illusory?

Well, the second follows from the first, really, "things" being a category.

[Forestluv]

22 minutes ago, winterknight said:

Well, the second follows from the first, really, "things" being a category.

I’m just trying to understand the context of how you are using the terms consciousness / awareness so I can follow this thread. Wether it’s real or not. . . 

[winterknight]

Just now, Serotoninluv said:

Ok. When the illusory you says the illusory consciousness / awareness words in this illusory thread is the illusory you referring to an illusory One which includes all illusory things? Or, is there an illusory distinction such that an illusory rock has an illusory different type of illusory consciousness than an illusory human?

I’m just trying to understand the context of how you are using the terms so I can follow this thread. Wether it’s real or not. . . 

When I say a "human is conscious" I mean subject-object consciousness. If I use a capitalized word like Consciousness, I mean something which is beyond subject-object consciousness.

[Forestluv]

1 minute ago, winterknight said:

When I say a "human is conscious" I mean subject-object consciousness. If I use a capitalized word like Consciousness, I mean something which is beyond subject-object consciousness.

Thank you. I understand better now ? 

[Leo Gura]

"Illusion", "reality", "existence", "God" are themselves categories.

It all collapses into Absolute Oneness. Within this Oneness nothing can be distinguished. It is pure undifferentiation. It contains all things. Like how white light contains all possible colors of light.

[Karas]

@winterknightI am curious why truth realization is so rare

[Sahil Pandit]

@Leo Gura @winterknight Please do a dual commentary on a topic 

[winterknight]

12 minutes ago, Karas said:

@winterknightI am curious why truth realization is so rare

When you realize truth yourself, you will see it is the commonest thing, that indeed there is no one who is not truth realized .

Edited December 5, 2018 by winterknight

[Forestluv]

16 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

"Illusorion", "reality", "existence", "God" are themselves categories.

It all collapses into Absolute Oneness. Within this Oneness nothing can be distinguished. It is pure undifferentiation. It contains all things. Like how white light contains all possible colors of light.

I keep ending up at this One Everything Nothing Infinity. And there are always lots of Ox tracks around the area. . . 

[Karas]

@winterknightAre we all ignoring and pretending to not know the truth

[winterknight]

Just now, Karas said:

@winterknightAre we all ignoring and pretending to not know the truth

Have you asked yourself who is asking these questions?

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

I keep ending up at this One Everything Nothing Infinity. And there are always lots of Ox tracks around the area. . . 

Lol, that is the ox. And you are it.

[Preetom]

@winterknight

What is the distinction between impossibility and potentiality?

Like, the notion of a 'square circle'. Is it potential in the Unmanifested Absolute, or is it just flat out impossible?

or is it just contradiction of arbitrary terms? 

[winterknight]

25 minutes ago, Preetom said:

@winterknight

What is the distinction between impossibility and potentiality?

Like, the notion of a 'square circle'. Is it potential in the Unmanifested Absolute, or is it just flat out impossible?

or is it just contradiction of arbitrary terms? 

It's a contradiction of arbitrary terms.

[Preetom]

3 minutes ago, winterknight said:

It's a contradiction of arbitrary terms.

So this contradiction and limitation belongs to language; not to the Absolute Reality, right?