Jump to content

Recommended Posts

@Devin Another sign that's very telling is when pointing someone towards inquiring into the self or "I" and they actively avoid it, repeating the same solipsistic thoughts.

"Mediocrity is gone. Mind is clear of limitation. I seek no state of enlightenment. Neither do I remain where no enlightenment exists. Since I linger in neither condition, eyes cannot see me. If hundreds of birds strew my path with flowers, such praise would be meaningless."

A Comment on the 8th Ox Herding Picture

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Phil said:

The knowing veil is like… why don’t I feel like a kid on Christmas morning anymore? And the aversion & seeking for that to be resolved by knowing what someone knows (what’s true / the truth) carries on. But a belief is dispelled, not replaced by a new or higher knowing or understanding. There’s no ‘new spell’, just ‘an emperor’s new cloths’.


I don’t think this got the attention it deserves. Sit with this until you literally get nothing out of it. 😂


🎄💝
 

Ten thousand tears,

One Belly Laugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alexander said:

Check direct experience.Are you center of it or not?All of experience passes away but you stay as an unmoving Presence or God.

Okay, then "stay there", focus on that sense. 

 

That's the "I Am" sense. It's illusory, it actually passes away too.

"Mediocrity is gone. Mind is clear of limitation. I seek no state of enlightenment. Neither do I remain where no enlightenment exists. Since I linger in neither condition, eyes cannot see me. If hundreds of birds strew my path with flowers, such praise would be meaningless."

A Comment on the 8th Ox Herding Picture

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Solipsism bridges the human and the Divine but by so doing it ruins both.   It’s kind of a trap on the path for that reason.  The human must put the Divine in the shadow to some extent and the Divine must put the human in the shadow to some extent — otherwise they wouldn’t be distinct places.  Direct experience is another attempt to bridge the human and the Divine but it also ruins both.  It can also be a trap on the path for that reason.  People get stuck in these for a long time too.  Some things just don't mush well together and are better appreciated as they are as distinct places with their own strengths and weaknesses as they are too.  You can relate the human and the Divine but it's not a mushing, it's more like letting each be and being able to link them as ok to be here -- I call this the Marriage between the human and the Divine as a zone of Integration work.  Most people are not at this point on the path though.  It requires a paradigm shift.

Edited by Joseph Maynor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Phil said:

Direct experience could seem to be conceptualized, yet, a concept (thought) is directly experienced. 

 

There appears to be two ways of using "direct experience".  Sometimes the Self/Witness is described as the perceiver which "directly experiences", but this too has some trappings to it.  By "direct experience" I'm referring to taking the senses as being a source of Truth.  Thus the Self/Witness is not the senses nor the perceiver of the senses.  The senses can be taken as unreal.  Direct experience doesn't form a necessary epistemological ground for knowing the Self either, because the Self can be known directly (within) and via Jnana (knowledge of the Self).  Anyway, this is going to sound like nonsense to most people but I'm trying to explain why direct experience and relying on that can be a trap to Enlightenment or Moksha which requires only Jnana (knowledge of the Self).  So, here's a few points to consider (or not): The ‘senses’ are not the Self, and the Self is not attaching or detaching, right knowledge of the Self (Jnana) conduces to absolute cessation of suffering (Moksha).  So you only need knowledge of the Self, anything in the senses is not gonna tell you anything about the Self because what appears in the senses is not True.  It would be like trying to discern some theory from the illusions inside Plato's cave as a substitute for getting out of Plato's cave as a solution to Moksha.  Nothing in the senses will teach you about the Self v. Not-Self basically, it requires Transcendental not empirical knowledge (Jnana [knowledge of the Self] and direct realization of the Self).  I'm studying Advaita Vedanta right now, so I'm incorporating a lot of those ideas here.

Edited by Joseph Maynor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By clicking, I agree to the terms of use, rules, guidelines & to hold Actuality of Being LLC, admin, moderators & all forum members harmless.