I am enlightened. you are deluded!

[The Void]

Seriously what does enlightenment even mean?
Let me enlighten you.
what does that mean?
enlightenment is bodhi, wisdom, it is about TRUTH.

Simply truth and nothing more.

but humans don't want truth, they want infinite bliss , infinite freedom,
infinite poop, some idiotic state or whatever....

Yes yes, run in circles seekers!
Chase behind your tails.

Meidtate meditate, run run, gain psychic powers, play with it,

all childish games and drama.

But seriously what is truth?

Here is what some selfproclaimed enlightened says

1) By becoming enlightened you know you don't know...

Seriously? wtf? Becoming enlightened just to loose question and knowledge?
Who needs enlightenment to know that they don't know? That place can be arrived by plane logic....

2) By becoming enlightened you know who you are not.....you are not the body
you are not the mind, and after eliminating everything whatever that remains is you.
3) By becoming enlightened you gain non-dual awareness, you are everything.

....seriously you kidding me?

Ok here is the real thing it is trying to say.........

I am -> truth -> Awareness....

Primarily I am awareness, after awareness everything come.

Without awareness there will be no self.

Ego is object of awarness....I am bored.....just read some Sartre....to see what I mean...

http://www.mwelzel.de/sartrebeing/#seinundnichts

Now here is again another thing... Enlightened mastahs act like non-self\non-ego
can be understood only through experience, and logic can do shit,

yet philosophers and even modern psychology and neuroscience, and explain
a lot of things about this ego stuff construction and stuff, and with evolution of science in the field of consciousness, more understanding may grow about it.

Again another contradiction, they say they know nothing yet blabs about no-self
and stuff.

No special experience is needed, only a little day to day analysis can bring forth the inconsistensy of thoughts and stuff.

Also they (EM =>enlightened mastahs) say that you understand you are awareness.

Seriously you kidding me? Who needs enlightenment to know that I am awareness? It is common sense.

During enlightenment you lose ego.
Without ego you really can't have consciousness in the usual sense.

Ego is a reflector, it creates the consciousness of consciousness....
without the ego, the world will disappear, and only the void remains,
but since void is void, no one can retain memory of it and claim "I am enlightened"!

So at the least the ego merely goes in subtle form, or it goes even bigger (too big to feel) or something....who carez?

Experience is just an experience.
It doesn't lasts, afterwards it just becomes memory which gets fader by the day.
Whats the use?

Point 1: enlightenment fights.

Humans get some mystical experience of some altered states of consciousness and
instantly the ego starts to associate it with some big and stuff like awakening,
enlightenment blah blah....

A feeling of awakening makes no meaning, I get feeling of awakening while waking up from a dream in another dream but so what? then what? where is the truth?

Now some enlightened mastahs say that enlightenment is deconstruction of layers of ego and all that to find no-self\nothing....

and then they criticize against other people who claim that they have gained enlightenment just be feeling one with all....

because true enlightenment is about torture, death, bla bla blah...
and you become alone (All one) (when truly you feel like one, you can't say I am one with it, there remains no distinction between i and it, you become the one, and nothing remains, just aloneness but not loneliness) (Thats what they say)

and they criticize other forms of mystical mumbo jumbo experience gained by Assended masters....

but doesn't that same criticism applies to the criticizers...

They think they had gained something cool, but may be it just some other state of mind, no big deal,

When the people ask: What if you are deluded?
Enlightened mastah: There is no one to be deluded...

Great, just great, what a troll....

If there is no one to be deluded, they is no one to be enlightened, there is no one to do anything, but still the ego becomes different, it blabs about stuff,

and awareness just remains aware, no big deal....

probably only the centre of focus get detached from the ego...

no big deal...I am already detached enough from myself, I had no mystique experience (perhaps I had when I was just a kid:

How did it all begin?
Time? How long it has been.
Infinite years?
Infinite past.
If God created all these, who created God?
How long there had been.
I tried to contemplate infinite time, beginningless.
I looked at the leaf in the tree. I was overwhelmed by the wonder of life,
of existence, of the divine mystery,

(everything is magical and mysterious, we are just too used to all these and take things for granted, based on some predujice and stuff....)

The sense of mystery collapsed my mind, all barriers broke down all of a sudden....
All that I could sense was void.
It was nothingness and allness at the same time.
A sense Boundlessness, infinite.
'I' where was the 'I'?

I couldn't sense I, but who was unable to sense the I then?

What paradox.

Confused out of the bizzareness yet void of all emotions, I went near the mirror
and looked into myself to find the I.

All I was , just a silent witness, pure awareness, and I was no more I,

And then the void, disappeared, I came back. All became normal.

It was just another experience. It makes no sense, and it don't need to.

At that time I had no idea about these enlightenment fairy tails and shits, and I didn't associate it with anything.

)

They say enlightenment is going back to original states.
States who carez about states? I want the truth?
But what makes truth, truth anyway?

Just games of semantics.

In the next post I will explain delusions of duality, non-duality and non-enlightenment.

 

[The Void]

we are all living in subjective worlds (if you all exists at all outside of my subjective world if not then it will be better to use I am living rather than we are living, but whatever, I am taking a silly premise that you people exist outside my subjective world for no reason...)

Our whole subjective world is defined by our consciousness.
And there is no way to go beyond it without becoming unconscious.

Separation is abstract.
Isolation there is none.
But if separation is abstract, oneness is also abstract.

When I touch fire, I feel burning sensation.
When I touch ice, I feel freezing sensation.

I get different feelings.

I can differentiate, categorize anyhow I like, fak you!
Again i can say all these are different aspects of the One, one whole process.

The thing is both of these lines, are games of semantics.
confusions and illusions of knowledge appearing due to twisting of language.

So I argue against both separation and oneness,

thesis + antithesis => synthesis

I don't care to define what it is.

I separate when I like for functioning in the world,
I unite when I like....

It is all about calculation, and different ways of communication.

In our own subjective worlds we are actually alone (all one).

All that we percieved is defined by our own consciousness.

Ego is the mirror of consciousness.

It is an object created by the consciousness may be becoz of what sartre says consciousness i so limitlessly free and spontaneous, it tries to limit itself in the form of a ego, with an illusion
of a fixed being behind the appearance when there is none.

enlightenment then may be called as going beyond the appearance to find nothing behind it.
But so what? No one needs much experience for it, just day to day life, and a little analysis is enough to discover that.

Consciousness is impersonal. It has no point of focus. And All that we percieve is just consciousness. withouth consciousness there will be only void.

Persona limits the impersonal consciousness. When the persona fades, the impersonal consciousness remains, without any point of focus.

with the persona gone, there remains no barrier between subject and the object.

All that remains is the experience, the appearance.

And thus lies the sense of absolute, sense of non-duality.

BUT! That means absolutely nothing!

It is just because with the fading of consciousness, there remains no point of focus, and only impersonal consciousness, that is why it appaears that way.

But that doesnt me everything around me is me.

It is me in my subjective world, because all that I percieve is made of consciousness, but all that I percieve still may be just projection of real things that exists on its own independant of my consciousness.

Also,

Consciousness is always consciousness of something.
Without any trace of ego there will be no reflection and no meta consciousness,
and in a sense, it will be like dreamless sleep.

So pretty much every night, I dwell in non-dual ego less enlighetened awareness in sleep.
So every night I gain enlightenment. You jelly, enlightened masters?

Enlightenment is my daily routine.

But in conventional cases, the ego just gets more, subtle, and the distinction between subject and object appears to be nill, but ego still remains there, and that is why they retain their memory.

As I was saying consciousness is always consciousness of something.
So without anything to be aware of there is no awareness,
Without object there can be no subject.
That is Experiencer and experience is highly intertwined.
There is no experiencer without experience and vice versa.

without the persona, there is no one aware of being aware of awareness,
i.e no one aware of the experiencer (persona acts as a reflector, no reflection no awarness of awareness) and so the experiencer disappears and only the experience remains,
yet all these time there remains consciousness(silent impersonal experiencer) experiencing all
these non dual, experiencerless-ness..... and some subtle ego too.....

Thus duality still remains, just no one to comprehend it.

I get to non-dual awarness time to time...just lost in the moment (just not in drastic level)....no big deal...everyone expeirences it time to time....

Like doing something interesting...making some piece of art, losing yourself in it....

no big deal.

The drastic mystique type non-dual awareness may be just this experience turning even more drastic, and paradoxical, there is no I, yet someone even more aware.....

BUT THE THING IS: just because experiencer and experience is dependant on each other,
does not imply experience = experiencer.

Just because an object is not getting experienced, doesn't mean the object don't exist.
Just because of sunlight moon disappears, doesn't mean moon is not there....

The object may exist independant of any experiencer and its experience.

Senses can be fooled. Perceptions can be decieving.
Enlightenment is a story.

They say there is nothing to achieve yet they provide endless banters to guide to some form of experience....

There is just consciousness.
thats the only certainty.
While expressing it in language errors will occur.
what is consciousness.
What is what?
who cares?
You are being it.
No need to use language.
No use to attempt to describe the undescribable.
There is no possible way to truly define anything.

In the end concepts are just fingers pointing towards the moon, not the moon not the moon itself.

we mistake the moon for the fingers.

Who ever is aware, is aware, and is in enlightened state.

There is no way out of enlightenment.

All is a drama.

Choose your own role. Who carez.

everything is permitted.

 

[The Void]

Okay I was just kidding, the truth is, you are all stuck in karmic cycle, an eternal loop of suffering,
under the bondage of the devil and there is no way out of it.

 

[The Void]

Both duality and non-duality are false.
Just games of semantics.
Trying to explain something that haz no explanation.

 

[The Void]

Both are false yet both are true.
Both half truths completing each other.
Both different ways of looking.
None is truly truer.
Who carez.

 

[Budthestud]

TLDR I assume this guy got banned just now because of this thread though?

 

[The Void]

TLDR I assume this guy got banned just now because of this thread though?

You have no idea about my powers.

 

[The Void]

Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after another. He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.Desiring to show his attainment, he said: "The mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness. There is no realization, no delusion, no sage, no mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received."
Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.
"If nothing exists," inquired Dokuon, "where did this anger come from?"

PS: For TLDR people, the title was more of a sarcasm, the content in the thread is polar opposite of the title.

 

[Rook]

Hmmm.

 

[The Void]

Hmmm.

Wut is the problem?

 

[Rook]

These storks...
All these storks...
They cause disturbances.
Such a pity.
What can I do?
Naught but wait.
Wait and see.

 

[Black Rose]

you seem like a divided person
the ego reflect one percent what is in the subconscious
to bring the subconscious into consciousness is the goal
ego death is full access to the subconscious
being unconscious is the grip of the ego

void is without I but self remains

 

[The Void]

you seem like a divided person
the ego reflect one percent what is in the subconscious
to bring the subconscious into consciousness is the goal
ego death is full access to the subconscious
being unconscious is the grip of the ego

void is without I but self remains

Yes every night my ego dies, subconscious mind runs amock.
thoughts from nowhere, images, videos, overwhekm the mind, but no ego to overwhelm, no ego to store memory,
all mix into one and I fall asleep.
By falling asleep I awaken everyday.
Just now I awakened from slumber. Going back again.

 

[The Void]

Animekitty,
Sorry I misread, I typed wrong unrelated things.
As I said I just woke up. Still sleepy.
will ponder about what you said later....

 

[Ribald]

Is this thread also sarcastic?

 

[The Void]

Well, The entire basics about these stuff is that there is 'no self' behind the 'sense of the self ("I")'
So there was no 'I' then there was no 'I', and self was never here.

Again language is limited so whatever, they also talked about another self, realizing the self
that is just pure awareness....

In dreams subconsciousness do comes out in consciousness..... and no normal type of ego
is there.

But many self proclaimed enlightened mastahs said enlightened was never about playing with subconsciousness and consciousness, spiritual mumbo jumbos, astral stuff, going to higher reality.....

it is just coming out of the whole drama, higher reality, lower reality, all becomes the same,

they don't talk about psychic powers, or higher realities, just simple awareness, and also says how they just act spontaneously,

their ego becomes detached, working on its own, and the centre of focus shifts to some other state, some again just becomes normal.

ego is not an entity, but a sense that their is an entity behind all these states, but there is none,
just consciousness.

May be self proclaimed enlightened people moves to pre-reflective state.

Sartre developes a notion of levels of consciousness, which will become very important in "Being and Nothingness": At first he states, that every consciousness is not simply consciousness of something, but always simultaneously consciousness of itself, consciousness of consciousness. But there are two possibilities for a consciousness to be consciousness of consciousness: Consciousness might be its own object. In this case we talk about "reflection". But I am aware of my own consciousness not only if I am in a reflectional mode, but always. Even if I am totally absorbed by some perception (e. g. I gaze at the girl that suddenly has stepped out of the elevator), I'm aware of the fact, that I perceive something - even if the only object of consciousness is the perceived thing and not consciousness itself. Accordingly, there are two kinds of self-consciousness: reflective self-consciousness and not reflective consciousness of consciousness (Sartre calls it "pre-reflective"). - This distinction is of prime importance for Sartre's philosophy and it recurs often in "Being and Nothingness".

Sartre calls the non reflective level "First-level-consciousness". On this level, consciousness is consciousness of an object and consciousness of itself, but "itself" cannot be understood as another object of consciousness. The two kinds of consciousness belong to different categories: The consciousness of consciousness in the non reflective state is "not positioning" (this phrase refers to the positioning of objects). - Consciousness of consciousness becomes positioning, when consciousness itself becomes an object, which happens on the reflective level (Second-level-consciousness). - Well, on which level do we experience an ego? Surely on the reflective level, what has been shown by Descartes. But what about the pre-reflective level? Sartre denies, that there is an ego on this level, and he argues on the base of a principled reason. To understand this reason, we have to introduce some new term.

The title of this book, as well as its first pages, leave no doubt that in
approaching the conscious mind, I privilege the self. I believe conscious minds
arise when a self process is added onto a basic mind process. When selves do
not occur within minds, those minds are not conscious in the proper sense. This
is a predicament faced by humans whose self process is suspended by dreamless
sleep, anesthesia, or brain disease.
Defining the self process that I regard as so indispensable for consciousness,
however, is easier said than done. That is why William James is so helpful to
this preamble. James wrote eloquently about the importance of the self, and yet
he also noted that, on many occasions, the presence of the self is so subtle that
the contents of the mind dominate consciousness as they stream along. We need
to confront this elusiveness and decide on its consequences before we go any
further. Is there a self, or is there not? If there is a self, is it present whenever we
are conscious, or is it not?
The answers are unequivocal. There is indeed a self, but it is a process, not a
thing, and the process is present at all times when we are presumed to be
conscious. We can consider the self process from two vantage points. One is the
vantage point of an observer appreciating a dynamic object—the dynamic object
constituted by certain workings of minds, certain traits of behavior, and a certain
history of life. The other vantage point is that of the self as knower, the process
that gives a focus to our experiences and eventually lets us reflect on those
experiences. Combining the two vantage points produces the dual notion of self
used throughout the book. As we shall see, the two notions correspond to two
stages of evolutionary development of the self, the self-as-knower having had its
origin in the self-as-object. In everyday life each notion corresponds to a level of
operation of the conscious mind, the self-as-object being simpler in scope than
the self-as-knower.

Self is in a sense not a no self.
The self can be seen as a process.

A culmination of states, combined with some linking with past present and future,
connecting to the memory and expectations, with some edit, removing all the existing inconsistencies, creates the image of the 'I', an image of fixed consistent entity, behind,

but there is no consistensy, the nature of 'I' can change to radical degrees.


Self is a process.

The primary thing is consciousness, it is the base or movie screen that allows all to be experienced...

then all these process and stuff occurs.

When subconscious comes to conscious.... it is still a part of the self process.

even in unconsciousness, there is something aware of the unconsciousness, it is pure void,
dreamless dream, and no sense of self, or time, and so very vague memory is stored about it...

A form of awareness is always there even in dreamless slumber.


even when the ego appears to disappear and the consciousness goes to pre-reflective state,
there still must remain some trace of ego, to be able to remember it or experience it,
Only it goes in subtle form.

The sense of self provides a distinction between the observed and observer,
Sense of self is a lag restricting the present moment to extra-prossesing and relating to past-future events....to maintain the story.

 

[The Void]

Is this thread also sarcastic?

The title is sarcastic.
The content is a mix of seriousness and sarcasm.