I was happier as a kid

[Sugarcoat]

On 2024-03-20 at 8:27 PM, Salvijus said:

Yes I know what you mean. These days there are many spiritual teachers and all of them are saying different things lol. There's like new teachings about enlightenment every day now haha. Everyone is just pushing their opinion left and right. 

With that sayed, I'm not coming with the intention to prove I'm right. I'm coming with the intention to explore. The perspective I'm giving is in alignment with my own experience. Very much so. But more importantly than that. It is fully fully logical. And that's where I thought was potential for interesting discussions to happen. 

And for the record, what I'm saying, references of it can be found in many ancient traditions like bhuddism, ancient yoga, even acim. These are very high quality material. It's only in the new age YouTube culture that you can find such simplistic enlightenment definitions. 

i see

[Sugarcoat]

On 2024-03-19 at 8:46 PM, Osaid said:

If the dream contains the dreamer, wouldn't the dreamer be part of the dream itself? Which part of the dream is the dreamer going to be made of?

If the dreamer isn't made out of the dream, where is it? Outside of the dream?

if I try to remember how it is when I dream id say Im not aware of myself as the dreamer, there's only the dream but I can dream of myself from different pov . So my sense of self being in the dream although yea it's all one substance. 

 

Quote

On 2024-03-19 at 8:46 PM, Osaid said:

Here is an angle to look at:

There is a rock. The rock is made of stone, which has a certain appearance. If you did not have eyes to see that rock, there would be no such thing as the "appearance of a rock." The rock depends on your eyes to perceive it and your eyes depend on the rock for it to exist as something which can be perceived by your eyes. Thus, the rock and your eyes both mutually depend on each other to be perceived. Where is the space for a "self" to take ownership over the "seeing" or "perceiving" of the rock? Isn't it the case that the perception of the rock and the existence of the rock are the exact same physical occurrence?

 

you mean nothing exists outside perception? i don't see how this leaves no room for a sense of self behind those eyes. but that is fine

Quote

On 2024-03-19 at 8:46 PM, Osaid said:

It is always ultimately the same occurrence, which is just a complete and total loss of self. Their ability to explain and comprehend what happened to them might differ, but they are all explaining and experiencing the same fundamental phenomenon. The route that they take to reach there probably has unlimited variety though.

 

mm that is how I interpret it too. not a bunch of stages. 

 

Quote

On 2024-03-19 at 8:46 PM, Osaid said:

There is certainly no more imagined suffering about physical pain. There is no such thing as longing for a state where the physical pain does not exist, for example.

However, the physical pain itself can still be an object of desire. For example, if you cause physical pain to someone, there can be a desire to alleviate that. If you cause physical pain to yourself, there can be a desire to alleviate that. But there is no imagined resistance about how it will affect you in past or future.

If someone is saying that they don't care about physical pain at all anymore, I would be suspicious of that, because that is not what practically happens after enlightenment. There are many people who are resistant to pain, or even have genetics which do not allow them to feel physical pain at all, and they are not necessarily closer or further to enlightenment. Many of them are only able to resist pain because of purely egoic reasons. This should clue you in to the fact that the sense of self is not really about physical pain, but perhaps something more than that.

 

makes sense

Quote

On 2024-03-19 at 8:46 PM, Osaid said:

That seems accurate. The less you imagine yourself the more quickly redundant emotions will dissolve.

There are incremental improvements in regards to thoughts about yourself that can happen prior to enlightenment. Kind of like how therapy can incrementally improve how you think of yourself.

 

i imagine myself all the time equally as much as before, but when the self is attached to your mind, this mental self, it seems to be able to keep things blocked or something idk

 

Quote

On 2024-03-19 at 8:46 PM, Osaid said:

Never looked much into Jim Newman. Physical sensations are not ego but they can be the symptom of one, which may or may not be what he is referring to.

Any physical sensation is not mediated by how you imagine it and therefore it is unrelated to ego. In the same way that hearing sound is unrelated to ego or seeing color is unrelated to ego. There is nothing existential outside of your imagination which can be ego. It is imagination which has to create the distinction afterwards and say "this is me, and this is not me." No point in your experience can claim that separation aside from your mind or imagination.

 

He has these non dual meetings. I looked yesterday and happened to hear him say "first appears a contraction then the self arises out of that" . What exactly that contraction would be idk , im guessing it's not physical in the sense of physical sensation you talk about.

He is also the type that says it's a completely hopeless situation for the self there's nothing one can do to get rid of that illusion. Not that I know but from all ive heard which isn't that much the way he describes makes most sense to me...

Quote

On 2024-03-19 at 8:46 PM, Osaid said:

For example, there can be a genuine physical sensation in the skull, but the belief that "you" are "located" there has to be ego or imagination. Because you are creating a division in your experience by claiming that, and experience has no feature where it can divide itself, it can only imagine that.

 

yea it might be just imagined I don't know but its hard to pin point or see that, doesn't seem like it

Quote

On 2024-03-19 at 8:46 PM, Osaid said:

No I didn't do any type of meditation like that. My mind is way too intellectual for that. It took a lot of self-inquiry and incessant questioning of my experience of what I am.

 

thats great

[Salvijus]

On 2024-03-21 at 5:57 PM, Princess Arabia said:

fear is love... 

... All is love

Illusions are not the truth 

Frustration is not peace 

Judgement is not acceptance

Condemnation is not forgiveness

Belittling is not appreciatelion

Contraction is not openness. 

Greed is not sharing

Control is not faith 

Manipulation is not trust

And so fear is not love, for all these are synonymous

All these are but a lack of love 

Edited March 24 by Salvijus

[Princess Arabia]

1 hour ago, Salvijus said:

Illusions are not the truth 

Frustration is not peace 

Judgement is not acceptance

Condemnation is not forgiveness

Belittling is not appreciatelion

Contraction is not openness. 

Greed is not sharing

Control is not faith 

Manipulation is not trust

And so fear is not love, for all these are synonymous

All these are but a lack of love 

There's no lack of anything because THIS is all there is. No less no more. All THIS is, is unconditonal love. All you mentioned are just energies apparently appearing as.....

Edited March 24 by Princess Arabia

[Salvijus]

1 hour ago, Princess Arabia said:

There's no lack of anything because THIS is all there is. No less no more. All THIS is, is unconditonal love. All you mentioned are just energies apparently appearing as.....

Wherever you see any of those energies at play, there love is Forgotten and veiled by illusions. And these illusions are being accepted as reality.

A mirage is not the reality. 

Fear is never the truth. 

Only love is truth. 

Ignorance and illusions and fear are the forgetting of love/of reality. 

Edited March 24 by Salvijus

[Princess Arabia]

1 minute ago, Salvijus said:

Wherever you see any of those energies at play, there love is Forgotten and veiled by illusions. And these illusions are being accepted as reality.

A mirage is not the reality. 

Fear is never the truth. 

And so fear is never the love. 

I was countering your lack statement. You are basically saying the same thing here as in my statement. There is only love. The rest are illusions.

[Salvijus]

17 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

I was countering your lack statement. You are basically saying the same thing here as in my statement. There is only love. The rest are illusions.

I replaced the word lack with forgetting. 

Almost the same thing as you. Only love is real, yes. But I don't call mirages as reality too. That's what calling fear love amounts to basically. 

Edited March 24 by Salvijus

[Osaid]

On 22/03/2024 at 7:38 AM, Sugarcoat said:

So my sense of self being in the dream although yea it's all one substance. 

If it is one substance, where is the space for a sense of self?

On 22/03/2024 at 7:38 AM, Sugarcoat said:

i don't see how this leaves no room for a sense of self behind those eyes. but that is fine

If there is one simultaneous physical occurrence (looking = eyes + rock), where is the space for a sense of self?

On 22/03/2024 at 7:38 AM, Sugarcoat said:

i imagine myself all the time equally as much as before, but when the self is attached to your mind, this mental self, it seems to be able to keep things blocked or something idk

Certain identities have different limitations than others which feel different. The persistent "block" you feel is probably a result of being stuck in that medium of imagination; the medium of imagining yourself in various different ways, and the constant desire to imagine a better and more accurate version of yourself.

On 22/03/2024 at 7:38 AM, Sugarcoat said:

What exactly that contraction would be idk

Don't know either. If you can't find it in your experience, then the idea of it doesn't really matter much.

On 22/03/2024 at 7:38 AM, Sugarcoat said:

completely hopeless situation for the self there's nothing one can do to get rid of that illusion.

What really matters is what this means to you and how that makes you feel. What does it make you imagine about yourself and how does that make you feel? And is it accurate to imagine yourself that way?

Hope is a desire to alleviate a current feeling of sadness through a future situation of love. This statement implies to me that an illusion is present which prevents love. This cannot be the case if it is truly illusion, because how can something unreal like illusion prevent something real like love? It simply must be a misperception, and that misperception cannot have power beyond being a misperception. Similar to saying "Santa Claus makes me hopeless or prevents love." The fear you feel towards the imagined self is actually equivalent to the love you feel towards yourself, it is all the same simultaneous occurrence. It is a desire to protect yourself from the imagination of yourself which creates fear. That desire is motivated by the love you have towards yourself, and the love that you already are.

On 22/03/2024 at 7:38 AM, Sugarcoat said:

thats great

It is great to realize what you are, or aren't.

In essence, you are a thing that is constantly trying to feel great or be great. Imagining yourself feels bad because it isn't you. It contradicts what you are, and so it threatens you. The great part is that it isn't you and it can't be you.

For example, if it feels bad to see things as hopeless, that is you retaliating against the imagination of yourself as "hopeless", in the same way you would retaliate against a bear which threatens you. 

Edited March 24 by Osaid

[Princess Arabia]

14 hours ago, Salvijus said:

I replaced the word lack with forgetting. 

Almost the same thing as you. Only love is real, yes. But I don't call mirages as reality too. That's what calling fear love amounts to basically. 

There's no forgetting of anything. Whose forgetting. Fear arises, it's also Reality and not simultaneously. When I call fear love it's because everything is love. Fear is happening to no one. Forgetting is happening to no one. Love is happening to no one. It's all Love. Unconditional.