spiritual dreams
-
Posts
472 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by spiritual dreams
-
-
2 minutes ago, Someone here said:
Yes you didnt tell him/her that they have a problem but that's the person's implication from this thread as It's clear from the title.
He keeps telling you that your replies are not helpful yet you stubbornly insist on rehashing the nondual narrative.
Something I noticed about you is you don't like to be wrong. You will keep fighting tooth and nail until you convince people of your perspective. Which is bad because it's from your limited perspective.
A newbie to this work can't appreciate how deep the rabbit hole goes..and isn't mature enough to handle the mind fuckery that could happen. Your are basically performing surgery on your own body to remove parasites in your body. Appreciate how difficult and transformative it can get.
So watch your overly complicated nondual technical language that no one seems to understand but you.
(Said with love and respect 🙏. Hope it's not offensive In any way ).
honestly I kind of agree with this. A lot of the nondual stuff really wasn't helping me and made me feel way worse. Literally a simple answer that answered my questions would have made me feel better instead of constanly asking me confusing stuff that my mind is not ready for.
-
8 minutes ago, Phil said:
Thanks. I don’t agree or disagree with any of ‘it’ honestly. I’m appearing as ‘it’, so there isn’t actually an ‘it’.
If the thoughts arise, ‘consciousness is fundamental’, and or, ‘consciousness is not fundamental’… consciousness is conscious of, and appearing as, these thoughts.
Same for the thought, ‘conscious experience’. That’s an oxymoron. ‘Conscious experience’ is on behalf of a separate self, a “knower” of consciousness and experience.
Same for ‘states of consciousness’. This is a belief, on behalf of the “knower”, separate of, and therein “knowing” of or about - consciousness,
The separate self, or knower… is suffering, is what suffering is, and is illusory, and beliefs about feel accordingly ‘off’.
ok this is probably the best im going to get. Thanks.
-
22 minutes ago, Phil said:
I’m happy to elaborate, but not sure how as to what aspect specifically. Any questions come to mind?
what aspects of the quotes or full article to you agree or disagree with? The bit about consciousness not being fundamental and any conscious experience bringing about it suffering. and that nirhoda samapatti is the most preferable state.
30 minutes ago, Phil said:‘Nonduality stuff’ is a dualistic condition. That’d be ‘a second’ (‘stuff’). Terminology wise nonduality is nearly unconditional, with the slight difference being unconditional points to the nature of truth, whereas nonduality only “implies” what isn’t, or, that none of the conditions are actually true. This is also evidenced more directly & intimately by how the conditions feel, or, emotions.
again please without this stuff. The problem is that even if i get a glimpse of that you are saying it does not last long and I go back to despair.
-
20 minutes ago, Phil said:
There already isn’t a me, asking me, questions. That answer may be deemed unsatisfactory, yet there is no ‘deeper’ which stands to be redeemed. The redemption sought is sought on behalf of an already nonexistent, illusory self.
please no more of this nonduality stuff. There is a time and place and now is not the time. maybe in the future when the kundalini symptoms settle. (and yes i know theres know I, no time, no future not kundalini, etc. etc. ...)
23 minutes ago, Phil said:Imo, were I to click on the link provided with the first quote, intuitively, there will be first & foremost, a product offered. Also intuitively, this would not be the case with the second quote.
ok, can you elaborate? To be honest the first quote is more what i wanted answers about.
-
@Phil I disagree. There was never any disappointment. What lies were you even referring to?
I asked my original question because I was scared and confused. I've noticed something interesting, Sometimes I feel better and I'm not even thinking about it. I just go back to this conversation thinking there will be closure and then I still get more questions instead fo answers. I'm aware that there is a pessimistic lens. Honestly that lense isn't really there any more. Just a desire for the question to be answered for closures sake.
I'm just wanted an answerto the following question and I'd really appreciate it if you could answer it in a way that doesn't involve me asking me more questions, making me more confused so that I can move on with my life. If you really don't want to then thats fine.
Are these people correct or mistaken about the nature of experience? If they are mistaken, how so? I'd also like your opinion on the articles in general if you want to read them.
Thanks
-
@Phil ok I don't think i'm going to get a clear answer and engaging with this conversation seems to make me feel worse and more confused. Thanks anyways 🙏
-
@Phil about the nature of experience, enlightenment and suffering.
anyhow I know you're trying to point me to something profound but my mind isn't in the right state to play with these word games and pointers. I still dont feel like my question was answered. But if you don't want to, it's fine.
-
24 minutes ago, Phil said:
suppose it kind of depends on whether depression and anxiety, conceptualizations of emotion, is considered practical in comparison to otherwise naturally occurring inspiration. Aside from practicality though, that people, things or objects are separate and conscious simply isn’t true. So it feels very off. But it doesn’t have to be conceptualized.
I see, thanks.
24 minutes ago, Phil said:I already did. Maybe there’s specific questions?
how exactly are they wrong? if they are wrong?
-
37 minutes ago, Phil said:
If pessimism is felt, whether acknowledged or not, all is ‘seen through that color’. It’ll seem like there’s pessimistic people.
I understand that I am seeing reality through a pessimistic lens but still, saying that pessimistic people don't exist isn't very practical.
How would you respond to the quotes I linked?
-
6 hours ago, Phil said:
When you, so to speak, find youSelf - You are not thinking; you’re appearing as thoughts, by being a lens.
This makes sense. My lenses are not in a good state.
6 hours ago, Phil said:Bypassing is bypassing. Pessimism is an emotion.
what do you mean?
6 hours ago, Phil said:Acknowledge emotions rather than suppressing with self referential concepts.
Fair enough. This is pretty difficult to do at the moment though.
6 hours ago, Phil said:Denial of emotions felt, is projection of emotions.
Wearing green tinted glasses while expecting other than green is silly.
I don't understand. can you elaborate on this?
-
9 minutes ago, Phil said:
Where is the one that is scared or separate of experience?
I guess another way to say it is there is a contraction of energy and an extremely intense aversion to experience.
-
8 minutes ago, Phil said:
How advanced meditators can be so pessimistic is like how advanced leprechauns can be so jealous. Without the jealous leprechauns, there’s pretty much just the jealousy. Statistically only 2 - 6.25% of the population meditates. Approximately 97% of the earth’s population prefer to listen to leprechauns, or, here-say over eating chocolate cake.
I don't really understand
-
1 hour ago, Phil said:
Given what ‘these people’ are talking about is awareness… aware of the very thoughts (which they are expressing or sharing)… are any of the thoughts ‘these people’ are expressing… about awareness… true?
maybe, that's what I'm scared of. There is a lot of suffering in my experience.
1 hour ago, Phil said:Analogously… 100 people will describe chocolate cake similarly & differently. Would you seek to find out which is right, or eat some chocolate cake?
yeah I agree but its like someone has detected the taste of poison in the chocolate cake I guess. How is it that advanced meditators can be so pessimistic? Whether I take it as true or not it sows the seeds of doubt in my mind.
-
@Phil yes, What are you trying to get at? (sry I'm impatient)
-
-
-
26 minutes ago, Mandy said:
That would all revolve around a seperate self. Negation of something false is not negativity.
what do you mean?
-
1 minute ago, Phil said:
It’s not meant to be a trick question.
Awareness is aware of thoughts, and consciousness is conscious of thoughts - are just two ways of saying the exact same? Yes?
yep. although I don't think pointing me to this really helps. I use the awareness is aware of thoughts pointer and it does work sometimes but theres always the belief that it could be delusional.
what does this have to do with the question?
-
2 minutes ago, Phil said:
this feels like a trick question... But awareness
-
6 minutes ago, Phil said:
"What if these people are right and existence and consciousness is fundamentally negative and is suffering."
"What if all my understanding is wrong and this person is right."
(When positive emotions arise) "What if these emotions are actually negative and I am just deluded?" (The emotions thenactually become negative which makes it worse)
-
I'm still going though my so called kundalini/deconditioning process and I find myself drawn to and compulsively thinking about extremely pessimistic spiritual philosophies. In some ways, it almost feels like I'm attracting these into my life even though I'm actively trying to avoid sprituality.
The main thing I have been thinking about is the idea that a lot of buddhists and pessimists have that existence is suffering. In particular 2 articles I read by the same guy on medium which I may have talked about before:
https://medium.com/@rogerthis/what-is-suffering-phenomenologically-6afab90a5b4a
This guy is a seemingly acomplished meditator, psychonaut and philosophy student and yet he says things like:
"Starting with the thesis: I contend that those who have attained nirodha samapatti (NS) have a crucially informative insight into the nature of suffering, and a rarefied perspective worthy of serious consideration when it comes to the conversation of consciousness. In the opposite way that someone who has never fallen in love has an important piece missing in their view of what emotions are, someone who has attained to nirodha samapatti may have a piece filled in, where most don’t, about consciousness and the spectrum of valence. That piece being that consciousness (phenomenological subjectivity) is not in fact primary to existence and that any iota of conscious experience brings with it negative valance/suffering."
"*To my knowledge, the sense of self (no matter how quaint) always brings some suffering and there is no state more preferable to ego death. Out of all the states of mind I have experienced, there are none which I would want to have forever, except for ego death; and this is not for how pleasurable it is, but because it is the only state that brings 100% freedom from suffering. I cannot subvert this assessment of mine that there is an asymmetry between pleasure and suffering. suffering > pleasure"
There is also UG Krishamurthi who says shit like this:
"People call me an 'enlightened man' — I detest that term — they can't find any other word to describe the way I am functioning. At the same time, I point out that there is no such thing as enlightenment at all. I say that because all my life I've searched and wanted to be an enlightened man, and I discovered that there is no such thing as enlightenment at all, and so the question whether a particular person is enlightened or not doesn't arise. I don't give a hoot for a sixth-century-BC Buddha, let alone all the other claimants we have in our midst. They are a bunch of exploiters, thriving on the gullibility of the people. There is no power outside of man. Man has created God out of fear. So the problem is fear and not God."
"All kinds of things happened to me — I went through that, you see. The physical pain was unbearable — that is why I say you really don't want this. I wish I could give you a glimpse of it, a touch of it — then you wouldn't want to touch this at all. What you are pursuing doesn't exist; it is a myth. You wouldn't want anything to do with this."
Normally these things didn't really bother me but during the kundalini process, I can't stop thinking about these pessimistic things. The problem is that I can't just dismiss these people as wrong or deluded. They seem to be far more advanced than I am. They say a lot of things that I think are true and many people on the spiritual path seem to agree with them.
I don't want to say they are wrong just because I don't like what they are saying, that feels like a cope. In fact, the entire religion of buddism seems to agree with this pessimism as the noble truths say that life is suffering.
Thinking about this shit makes me incredibly depressed and anxious. The more I try to debate and disprove what they are saying, the more true and real it seems. I can't just not think about it because that also feels like avoiding it. What they are saying is very different to my own insights about consciousness from my own experiences but they seem to have significantly more meditation experience, attainments and insight into the nature of experience than me.
How can advanced meditators and people considered enlightened be so pessimistic? Are they right?
-
@Phil I see now. That makes way more sense. Thanks!
-
1 hour ago, Phil said:
As in the other-than all this consciousness work stuff. The fun is back on. 🙂
huh?
-
@Phil Sometimes a break from the adventure is needed 😅
Dealing with Existential Pessimism
in Nonduality, Consciousness, Awakening, Enlightenment, Self-Recognition
Posted
can we just interact like normal people for once. Not every moment is the time for nondual pointers. This communication style can be really unhelpful, especially when someone isn't in a good state.