Emanyalpsid

I am enlightened; sincere seekers ask me anything in relation to the path

156 posts in this topic

2 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

As much as I've been able to follow, its in line with many of the same understandings I've encountered as well.  But I do admit some of your usages of words/metaphors and analogies you've shared, I have a hard time following sometimes.  Its no fault, I get told the same thing sometimes.  I guess as a soul recognizing a soul searching for and trying to understand this whole thing called "....." I've been trying to highlight a particular nuance to you that maybe is not my place to..  There is only 1 thing and your nonthing and my idea's and all our idea's on this forum and realizations are "It". 

 

Hmm I feel ya. I’m not familiar with traditional texts and stuff so I have a hard time understanding what people write on here. So certain terms I’m not aware of by meaning. 

I feel this has made it easier for me, but at the same time have difficulties talking to people who who have read many books and refer to certain terms and stuff. Anyhow I appreciate your responses dude. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

Maybe you get it, maybe you don't, maybe you want to get it, maybe you don't, either way its fine, theres no "out there requirement" you have to, but as a seeker of truth, I imagine its what your trying to understand, or maybe I've misunderstood.  And maybe its not my place, so I'll leave it at that.

Trying is besides the point anyhow. Truth doesn’t seem to give a rats ass about “my” or “the seekers” effort. xD

Edited by Jack River

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Emanyalpsid said:

Well, this is the same as with insight and liberation. They go hand in hand, in other words; they are mutually dependent. Words create a self and the other way around. The body does not spontaneously create a self identy, this comes from ignorance, wrong-knowing or lack of understanding. I get the feeling you didn't see through the mutual dependent origination of everything yet as you deem understanding as less important. For more information, see chapter 10, 11 and 12 on the website.

 

To elaborate a bit more for the readers to understand. Both explantions underneath are true and both are not-true, however they are not false. 

-How can we have genuine and clear insight with the conditioned self identity filtering our perception? So it seems that attachment doesn't lead to insight but it is liberation, unattached perception, that leads to insight.

-Yes, but liberation comes from insight, whether it is an intuitive understanding or a conceptual understanding doesn't matter, it stretches from feeling to thought. In relation to Buddhism of course.

Liberation leads to insight and insight leads to liberation. So they are both true, but therefore, if one looks for the truth, they both can not be true. However, they are not false either. It is the believe in 'truth,' you have, which prevents you from seeing through this as one must be false and one must be true.

So, if two people discuss enlightenment, but who are not enlightened; 

1. they will try to reason their way to the truth, however in this case there are two truths. So there is a big chance they will differ from opinion what enlightenment is and how to reach it. They will not see that they are both true and will only get mingled up in semantics and the search for the real truth. They will not get closer to enlightenment. 

2. however, because one can only understand this when actually reaching nirvana, one has to hold on to a truth before that, as else one would remain in continiuous doubt. Therefore, buddhism designed the four noble truths. However, because 'truth' has such a central point in western thinking, we become too attached to the truth. In the end you will need to let this go again and if you become too attached to this, it inhibits your enlightenment. Therefore, I dont mention the truth anywhere on the website, but only use empirical evidence out of science. 

Thanks for clearing this up for me. I’ve been confused by the incoherency of the various interpretations of liberation and insight. It’s almost like everyone is trying to validate their understanding, although I know this is not the case 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Emanyalpsid said:

Yes, but liberation comes from insight

In my experience liberation didn't come from insight.

4 hours ago, Emanyalpsid said:

The body does not spontaneously create a self identy, this comes from ignorance, wrong-knowing or lack of understanding. I get the feeling you didn't see through the mutual dependent origination of everything yet as you deem understanding as less important. For more information, see chapter 10, 11 and 12 on the website.

The body creates a sense of self and that is expressed in our psychology as self identity. Don't think it does? Smash your toe really hard and find out if you feel it, I bet it does. That shows the body is creating a sense of self without you having to do it, it's spontaneous. 

Does your mind recognize it as your toe and not the toe of someone else? This is through the mind's psychology attributing it to you and not someone else, it's creating self identity without you having to do it, it's spontaneous. The body spontaneously creates a sense of self identity... it's a naturally occurring phenomena.

How can one trust the 'insight' that is filtered through self identity as genuine if one has no experience of liberation and is still attached to the self identity? This forum and spiritual communities are filled with people going in circles of insight and understanding without even freeing themselves in liberation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, SOUL said:

How can one trust the 'insight' that is filtered through self identity as genuine if one has no experience of liberation and is still attached to the self identity? This forum and spiritual communities are filled with people going in circles of insight and understanding without even freeing themselves in liberation.

Basically by recognizing the patterns of self and seeing what leads to conflict/suffering. Everyone has some sort of experience of liberation even if they can't exactly identify it. I believe the "going in circles" is due to how hyped up this idea of "enlightenment" is and over-conceptualizing instead of looking at direct experience without any attachments.  

individual,selfish way of living is learned, creates the suffering, and may be prevented with collective thinking/awareness 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, SOUL said:

In my experience liberation didn't come from insight.

The body creates a sense of self and that is expressed in our psychology as self identity. Don't think it does? Smash your toe really hard and find out if you feel it, I bet it does. That shows the body is creating a sense of self without you having to do it, it's spontaneous. 

Does your mind recognize it as your toe and not the toe of someone else? This is through the mind's psychology attributing it to you and not someone else, it's creating self identity without you having to do it, it's spontaneous. The body spontaneously creates a sense of self identity... it's a naturally occurring phenomena.

How can one trust the 'insight' that is filtered through self identity as genuine if one has no experience of liberation and is still attached to the self identity? This forum and spiritual communities are filled with people going in circles of insight and understanding without even freeing themselves in liberation.

 

If the toe I perceive is smashed against something, I just feel pain. I don't identify with it, it is just there. I feel the pain, but I don't suffer from it. I know it had a cause, over which I didn't had any control. There is a difference between feeling something and identifying with it. The body is a difficult object for meditation as it is the vessel through which we perceive. I am everything I perceive, but I only perceive it. I am not the object itself. So I am not the toe I perceive or anything for that matter. See chapter 9 for more information on the body.

You are trying to defend your experience by saying;   

"This forum and spiritual communities are filled with people going in circles of insight and understanding without even freeing themselves in liberation."

If you defend something, you identify  with something. Not saying it is wrong what your saying there, but not that it is true either. It is your interpretation, which stems from your worldview, which stems from your experience, of what is happening. 

Your statement is just your observation. Without really knowing what other people think and experience to its fullest extent. How do you know if they feel liberated or not?

Insight, understanding and liberation is a feeding circle from my experience. With insight comes understanding comes liberation. With liberation comes insight comes understanding. With understanding comes insight comes liberation. That you didn't experienced that liberation comes from insight, doesn't mean that it can't be. Maybe if you look into this you will find some things.

However, someone who believes he is enlightened will not look further as then he is not enlightened anymore. That is why there are probably a lot of people reading this topic but afraid to ask questions as this will put their believes to the test. Only he or she who want to fully know themselves will achieve enlightenment. It is not a question if someone is able to, but it is a question of perseverance and openness of mind. That is why they made Buddhism such a disciplined method.

I was also, for quite some time, in the assumption I was enlightened when I saw through the 'I'. But then I realised I didn't understood some things. And if I don't understand them, I suffer from them. There is some self left which doesn't understand. One can also be enlightened without understanding. If you dont want to understand, you don't suffer. But then you also dont understand.

But I appreciate your posts even if they don't come out of curiosity but from a attempt to defend your believes.

You are one step ahead.

 

Edited by Emanyalpsid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, DrewNows said:

 

Thanks for clearing this up for me. I’ve been confused by the incoherency of the various interpretations of liberation and insight. It’s almost like everyone is trying to validate their understanding, although I know this is not the case 

Well often, if not always, this is the case. On the website I explain this as follows:

"From the interpretation of whether an observation is pleasant or not, the self grows, through which you like to strive for the pleasant and avoid the unpleasant. The self grows because your interpretation of observations develops into a conviction, as a result, this conviction becomes mentally separate from the observation itself, because you define it; ‘something’ is pleasant or unpleasant. The conviction from which you pursue the pleasant and avoid the unpleasant is therefore based upon previous observations, which you have interpreted as pleasant or unpleasant. So you seek, from yourself, continuous confirmation, of earlier interpretations, of observations, from your conviction, which is based on these earlier, own, interpretations, of observations, which form yourself. As a result, a person can seem to be boundlessly convinced of him- or herself, if the person gets enough confirmation, based upon his or her own interpretations, by pursuing his or her own convictions.

The above shows how difficult it is to see through the self. It is like trying to explain someone that what he or she believes in, only exists so because he or she believes in it him- or herself, and that this self consists of his or her own interpretations. This goes against your belief, but seeing through the self is about the opposite of what you belief; non-belief. A person consists completely out of his or her convictions in what he or she believes, and pursues this belief throughout his or her whole life, and will continually strive for confirmation of him- or herself on the basis of his or her own convictions.

A person will always have a tendency to avoid the unpleasant and to pursue the pleasant. He or she will want to condition him- or herself in a state where he or she only experiences pleasant things and no unpleasant things. This makes the person inflexible to deal with situations that are unpleasant, or which gets him or her out of their conditioned state. The person is therefore stressed more quickly if unpleasant situations occur, and will have more trouble dealing with them. In life, unpleasant things will always happen, so it is more convenient to accept this and learn how to deal with them, than to try to create a conditioned state where you do not hope to experience them by avoiding them. A contradiction in, or doubt of, his or her conviction will be experienced as something unpleasant and will be avoided. This ensures that seeing through the self is made even more difficult by itself. The self is the conviction of itself. Letting go of this conviction ensures that the self dissolves itself."

You can find it in chapter 13. The process of growth from the self can be found in chapter 10.

Edited by Emanyalpsid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Jack River said:

It seems attention to innatention/attachment starts with the understanding/observation of innatention/attachment

Once that understanding/observation is seen as a whole as one unit in movement of self, as the cycle of innatention/resistance/attachment/identification, then seems to arise this “state” of attention. A seeing without the veil of self. This seems to be a very violent and fast process. Almost seems to be simultaneous. As I have suggested before, understanding/observation is action. One undivided action. 

Where dualistic verbal/intellectual understanding as the self, seems to be an understanding that is a two step process. The understanding comes first via (projection of self), then an action is carried out by that understanding. Self/thought seems to at that point be influencing the understanding and then action. Or observing through the conditioned veil of self then acting which seems to get caught up in that same action/reaction cycle of resistance/attachment/innatention(emotion/thought reaction loop). 

Your experiences seem to unfold as such dudes? 

Never have looked at the process this way. Which I mean literally. But I cant say that I attach to something if I dont pay attention to something. So inatention and attachment are not the same for me. I used attention to meditate on objects, trying to figure out what I was perceiving. Now I see that if I pay attention to something I attach to something.

But it is one of the last attributes I left behind, you can only leave focus behind if you see through the mutual dependent nature of everything  and its non-existence. And with non-existence I dont mean no existence, cause things exist. They dont exist upon themselves though. Everything is a seamless stream of nature constantly in motion. To use the flower example I have used often. A flower is not only a flower because it exists out of matter. It is dependent upon gravity, space, time, etc. It needs everything from its surrounding to be a flower. Without its surroundings there wont be a flower. So the flower does not exist upon itself. To see through this, you will have to focus on the flower to figure out what really constitutes the flower.

If you leave focus behind earlier on, or not develop it, I guess you will not be able to see through the objects for what they really are. 

So I would say that focus or attention is a virtue or attribute to develop, but only as a method and to be left behind in the end. The leaving behind goes almost automatically when one sees the nature of reality. Now I am only left with equanimity and dont really use a mental focus as it only costs energy. If I focus on something, I am attaching me to something, and now I realized that this serves no use. As every object is nothing more then a part of the whole. I would however not say that i am unfocused, as I am very aware of what is happening around me. I just dont really pay attention to it, I let it be, I dont let it disturb my state of consciousness.:) However, if I feel pain or discomfort my mind tends to focus on it, then it serves a use I guess. The body is miraculous invention, it is only by our will and convictions that we ignore the present.

Edit; I however get your notion that attention leads to seeing without the veil of a self. If one deeply focuses on a object, the self as interpretator will dissolve. That is the utility of focus.

I think in my post above I describe the same thing you mean by the two step process. I however use the word interpretation there.

I must say; Your explanations are often not very clear to me as you seem to describe less detail in your logic. This has the effect that it costs me a lot of energy to interpret your logic. Maybe it is the best you can do, but I see you posting a lot on this forum, which is nice, but if you leave details open out of convenience, be aware that someone else has to fill them in. So please explain with as much detail in your logic as you can. This also has the benefit of understanding your own logic.

Edited by Emanyalpsid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting notion for the readers is; if you dont like my style of teaching or any others style of teaching for that matter, and therefore avoid me or them, it comes from your ego's desire to not experience them. By avoiding me or them you are actually comforting your ego. So comfortable teachers are the most ineffective in the long run, in contrast to what most people say or believe. Feels good doesnt it? :) There are no free rides here.

The only question for you remains; which teacher is really enlightened and who just think they are? Therefore, always reflect upon your own experience. And with experience I mean, not what you think but what you perceive without thought.

I'm confrontational by choice, you need to be confronted with yourself to see through yourself. You can also do this yourself, but then you wouldn't be here.

So I greet you, I am destiny.

Edited by Emanyalpsid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Emanyalpsid said:

But I cant say that I attach to something if I dont pay attention to something. So inatention and attachment are not the same for me. I used attention to meditate on objects, trying to figure out what I was perceiving. Now I see that if I pay attention to something I attach to something.

I think people will make what I say a lot more difficult than it is actually is. I did this about three or more months ago too.

We seem to give the word attention different meanings and use it differently. When I say attention that means to the whole of something not a part of the whole. To me that is an unconditioned observation. Observation that doesn’t exclude parts, or that doesn’t move in a particular direction as will/desire/choice. So when I use the words concentration/focus that to me implies observation directed on a point/part of the whole. To me that activity of focus/concentration is seeing through the veil of thought/self. It is a movement that arises out of thought and its reaction according to conten/the thinker. 

So to concentrate on something or to focus on a thing is to see it through the veil of i, or that very action of concentration/focus arises from desire/will/choice as the chooser. To me attention on this process/movement/content as a whole is itself is not to exclude an observation by any means. Attention is whole and is not of control, as concentration/focus imply the controller with its directional pursuit, and the seeing that is conditioned by its own content. To see through the controller is to see through the veil of concentration/identification with the controllers content(thought) or its response of knowledge/experience or memory. So, to simply not pay attention to something is a movement of concentration/focus as we are excluding from experience according to the what the choosers wishes to direct its focus on. You see thought will exclude/choose not look at certain parts of experience and will choose to focus on others. In that there is will/choice/desire. That movement of desire/self is influenced by its content(thought). Whoch is why looking through the veil of self is always limited to “the controller” or the veil of thought, which is always a movement to exclude parts. As when we look thought that veil of thought/the thinker we are limited to seeing/observing through its concepts/verbal interpretation, though is bias/prejudice, as “the chooser” who is always influencing observation/seeing according to its likes/dislikes. 

So attention is none of that. It’s unconditioned. It doesn’t exclude, not of control, will/desire/choice. And is not observing through the bias/prejudice nature of thought/as the thinker(a seeing/observation uneffected by the process of identification with what is familiar). 

Just to clear up what I meant by what is not attention with regards to what I posted. :)

Edited by Jack River

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Emanyalpsid I do intent to read through more of what you wrote, but I might want to make clear as well that I don’t think I can help anyone. What I write shouldn’t be looked at as a teaching. I can not teach this stuff, and to me it cannot be necessarily taught. 

Anyway give me some more time to go through more of your post:)

Edited by Jack River

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Emanyalpsid said:

But it is one of the last attributes I left behind, you can only leave focus behind if you see through the mutual dependent nature of everything  and its non-existence.

You see the i will leave will shed attributes in order to direct its energy on another thing. 

Yes to see that thought/the thinker is a conformed too process/movement of subject/object. But as that is correct so is the fact that the action of leaving behind/excluding. I’m not sure if that is what you were implying though. :)

4 hours ago, Emanyalpsid said:

So I would say that focus or attention is a virtue or attribute to develop, but only as a method and to be left behind in the end.

Again, what I am referring to as concentration/focus can be cultivated/developed. It is a form of learning but is seems to be inevitably limited to the veil of content as “the cultivator”. So any learning/observation starts on certain assumptions/predispositions of that cultivator/self. And that cultivator will leave behind/exclude various activities to pursue its goal/end. This still falls under concentration/focused intent as the self. The veil of its content/thought being inherently bias still influences observation/learning/action, and is a divided(conditioned)action. 

The attention I speak of cannot be cultivated. It isn’t a conditioned movement of thought/self/time. 

I hope this is making it clearer in what I mean by attention. Or what is not attention with regards to my original post. :)

 

Edited by Jack River

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Jack River said:

@Emanyalpsid I do intent to read through more of what you wrote, but I might want to make clear as well that I don’t think I can help anyone. What I write shouldn’t be looked at as a teaching. I can not teach this stuff, and to me it cannot be necessarily taught. 

Anyway give me some more time to go through more of your post:)

If someone learns from what you are saying or showing, you are teaching, but only then. Everyone can say they are a teacher ;)

Edited by Emanyalpsid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

If someone learns from what you are saying, you are teaching, but only then. Everyone can say they are a teacher ;)

?

but what ever I say will not bring about a holistic understanding which is undivided action. All that is done with self understanding/reflection. We can point at things of the self but ultimately self seeing/observing must be directed inward which we find out is the outwrd.

To me that seems to be 99% of the game. 

Without having the “ability” to attend, which is total and unconditioned it seems we can never learn without our past influencing learning itself. Which makes that learning limited and somewhat corrupt. Again attention sees the whole of this and ends it. That’s is the insight/action connection as we were talking about before. 

Edited by Jack River

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, DrewNows said:

I believe the "going in circles" is due to how hyped up this idea of "enlightenment" is and over-conceptualizing instead of looking at direct experience without any attachments.  

"I am enlightened.......ask me anything"

Haha!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to what the topic starter says about enlightenment, they themselves aren't enlightened.

Circle complete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah “enlightenment” to me is pretty narrow. I don’t like to talk about it. Just seems to corrupt communication.  

The whole teacher/enlightenment fad, kinda kills it all for mexD

The way I see it is, to say I am this or that is to place ourselves in a fixed state. To say I am this implies I have conformed to what has been/memory.  

The point to me of it all is “knowing” is to make a thing fixed/static. To identify with such is to still be attached/identified. 

To meet each moment without knowing/identification with a “thing” which is fixed, is to live each moment free and actively. To embrace change without clinging to static content (thought) of what has been or what the self projects in time. 

Then there is just what is, from moment to moment, which is really not moment to moment, but is now. :)

Edited by Jack River

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Emanyalpsid said:

I just dont really pay attention to it, I let it be, I dont let it disturb my state of consciousness.:)

I understand, this can easily be thought excluding though. That is for attention to observe. This attention i refer to is what sees the whole of that. That unconditioned observation acts to bring total attention and put an end to inattention. The self does not seem to like to attend. That attending seems to be a direct threat to the self. As concentration/focus seems to sustain the continuity of the self loop veil with its conditioned seeing/learning. Pretty gnarly when it’s observed in its totality. 

Edited by Jack River

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for trying, but I don't follow your logic yet. Also, I dont really know where you want to go with all of this?

"When I say attention that means to the whole of something not a part of the whole. To me that is an unconditioned observation. Observation that doesn’t exclude parts, or that doesn’t move in a particular direction as will/desire/choice. So when I use the words concentration/focus that to me implies observation directed on a point/part of the whole. To me that activity of focus/concentration is seeing through the veil of thought/self. It is a movement that arises out of thought and its reaction according to conten/the thinker. "

In that sense, attention is the opposite of focus. You mean awareness of what is without focussing and without interpretating? That is what I mean with equanimity.

"So attention is none of that. It’s unconditioned. It doesn’t exclude, not of control, will/desire/choice. And is not observing through the bias/prejudice nature of thought/as the thinker(a seeing/observation uneffected by the process of identification with what is familiar)."

How can something be unconditioned?

Edited by Emanyalpsid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now