What Am I Still Missing Regarding Spiritual Enlightenment?

[Joseph Maynor]

You guys know me on here now.  Give me the pointers as to what you think I'm still missing regarding spiritual enlightenment.  

[James123]

36 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

You guys know me on here now.  Give me the pointers as to what you think I'm still missing regarding spiritual enlightenment.  

Forget everything you know, including these sentences as before so called birth. What is left?

 

Enlightenment=Not knowing.

[Joseph Maynor]

Today's composition, not bad for a few hours work: (I did the single space after a period for people who like that for a change):
 

This is readily observable to me. Observe the interactions on spirituality forums as a microcosm. But it works like this in all life. Egos are like crocodiles and want to win. See how now you're the crocodile coming to eat me. See how this works? You want to win. This is all ego, the illusion, samsara, It's how it works. It's why samsara is samsara if you (or me) are attached to it. It's the game of ego. It's how it works. The illusion is a set of crocodiles. We'd have to deny the obvious not to see this. Align with what exactly. The emotional scale? Who is doing the aligning? It's an illusion, it's not real, but it's still apparent. Just like a mirage is apparent but not real. The mirage is still real as an appearance. It's noticeable in other words. Some people seem to deny the noticeability of the appearance. Even though dreams are an illusion we can still talk about the dream -- the way the dream appears.

Nobody is saying the dream is True. This is a subtle issue and I'm glad we're discussing it here. Denial of what? You don't always make yourself clear in the first instance. Who is denying? I'm already there lol. Of course all of us are speaking in the illusion. The Self doesn't have eyes, ears, hands, feet. This is like mirage telling another mirage "You're a mirage." This is hilarious. I love this stuff. It is funny. Now I'm starting to get where the humor in all this comes from. I appreciate being pushed with the enlightenment stuff. I get it. It's what we talk about. I know you're as passionate about enlightenment as I am.

 

Tell me something you think I'm missing in enlightenment -- give me the pointer. I could turn this around on you too though. Are you doing this? Are you dropping the knowledge you have, which is you = knowledge = thought? This kind of advice eats itself because if it's true you're doing what you're telling me to avoid doing. When you teach a separate self, you're already taking a plunge into maya. That's what we do. We enter the illusion to teach others who don't exist. That's what our Being's being does, because it's gotta presumably do something as the illusion. There's gonna be some movie playing regardless. Love is where the movie is about awakening others to Truth. That's a True Love Story right there. Good luck with this one: I tried talking about the shadow on here and it was a disaster. Even in a spirituality community, it's still a crocodile tank lol.

Edited May 29 by Joseph Maynor

[Orb]

Imo, you know too much. Let go of all the intellectualizing. Begin feeling more than believing.

[Phil]

It’s not what’s missing it’s what’s added.

[Joseph Maynor]

Advaita Vedanta is the path of Knowledge as path to Awakening or Jnana (the Highest Knowledge).  Jnana can be a pointer to Enlightenment just as devotion (Bhakti) or taking actions (Karma).  I'm more suited to a knowledge path to awakening.  There's different strokes for different folks when it comes to vehicles for Awakening.  @Phil seems to be focused on feeling/Feeling, but if you watch him he's very Knowledge or Jnana-oriented too with this numerous pointers in writing.  Phil is pretty heavy with the theory (pointers in writing).  He and I probably like the theory the most on here.  I can think of one more member here -- but I don't want to name them or label them -- who really has a deep grasp of theoretical pointers (Jnana).  Knowledge or Jnana can be just as awakening as psychedelics.  It's direct like psychedelics too.  But the path of Knowledge doesn't work for everyone.  Some people get trapped up in the theory -- instead of realizing What the theory is pointing to.  That's the danger of the Path of Knowledge or Jnana for spiritual enlightenment: If you're an intellectual type already, you might have a bit too much fun with the theory and actually get caught up in the finger instead of discovering the Moon that the theory is pointing to.  The upside is you have a wealth of crisp pointers to share with others on the Path.

Edited May 29 by Joseph Maynor

[Jane]

Babies, and toddlers, and all non- verbal sentient creatures are spiritually enlightened. They are the unborn ones. (ENLIGHTENMENT)
 

The toddler then develops an identity, it becomes aware of itself and others, it develops a sense of otherness, but only after having been labelled a name by it’s parents. That’s when separation all started. And so whatever labels, names, concepts or words are used to point to the enlightened Self. They are NOT IT

 

Still, this imposter who goes by the label ( me) is unique in that it is almost wholly without doubt or error aware it is an illusion knowing it’s an illusion. 
 

 

 

 

[Phil]

 

On 5/28/2024 at 9:49 PM, Joseph Maynor said:

Advaita Vedanta is the path of Knowledge as path to Awakening or Jnana (the Highest Knowledge).  Jnana can be a pointer to Enlightenment just as devotion (Bhakti) or taking actions (Karma). 

The thought arises and not two is overlooked via believing the thought. There then seems to be a second -knowledge-, and therein a second self, a knower. 

 

On 5/28/2024 at 9:49 PM, Joseph Maynor said:

I'm more suited to a knowledge path to awakening.

Evidenced by the sep self reference. The story of two selves, one which knows about the other. But it’s just a thought appearing which awareness, Oneself, is aware of. 

Overlooking thought attachment, there seems to be a path to awakening, for - the knower - the believedly sep self of thoughts. 

Awakening is what’s already the case before the thought appears, while the thought appears - yet seemingly not once the thought of misidentification is believed (thought attachment). 

 

On 5/28/2024 at 9:49 PM, Joseph Maynor said:

  There's different strokes for different folks when it comes to vehicles for Awakening.

Recall - not, two. 

The rationalization appears on behalf of the knower, the sep self of thoughts, that there are other sep selves. 

The rationalization is a thought awareness is appearing as and aware of. 

There wasn’t the first second self, “it” was a thought believed. 

There aren’t the second separate selves, “they’re” only based on the first belief that you yourself, awareness, are a self of / in thoughts. 

 

On 5/28/2024 at 9:49 PM, Joseph Maynor said:

  @Phil seems to be focused on feeling/Feeling, but if you watch him he's very Knowledge or Jnana-oriented too with this numerous pointers in writing.  Phil is pretty heavy with the theory (pointers in writing).  He and I probably like the theory the most on here. 

Then the belief, which doesn’t resonate and therein can not settle, is projected onto, the very separate selves believed to exist, based on the first sep second self of thoughts believed to exist via the believing of, thoughts. Thought attachment. Misidentification. 

 

On 5/28/2024 at 9:49 PM, Joseph Maynor said:

I can think of one more member here -- but I don't want to name them or label them -- who really has a deep grasp of theoretical pointers (Jnana). 

The thinker is part & parcel of the knower. If thoughts are simply appearing and awareness is being, aware of thoughts, there is no thinker or knower as these are, thoughts. So then the justification on behalf of the knower, thinker, sep self of thoughts arises - that the knower is the good one, which knows it is a sep self, and knows there are other sep selves, and knows which sep selves have a really deep grasp and which sep selves don’t. 

 

The entirety is a thought story based on misidentification / thought attachment. 

 

Meditation. 

 

On 5/28/2024 at 9:49 PM, Joseph Maynor said:

Knowledge or Jnana can be just as awakening as psychedelics.  It's direct like psychedelics too. 

Then of all the narrative it seems there is some thing, something other than yourself, awareness, such as a sep self or selves, which could be awakened via illusion and or appearance of, you, awareness. 

 

On 5/28/2024 at 9:49 PM, Joseph Maynor said:

But the path of Knowledge doesn't work for everyone.  Some people get trapped up in the theory -- instead of realizing What the theory is pointing to.  That's the danger of the Path of Knowledge or Jnana for spiritual enlightenment: If you're an intellectual type already, you might have a bit too much fun with the theory and actually get caught up in the finger instead of discovering the Moon that the theory is pointing to.  The upside is you have a wealth of crisp pointers to share with others on the Path.

And now there is “a danger” for awareness aware only of awareness. Now there are more elaborate sep selves, intellectuals, and the other sep selves might get caught up and not have a wealth of crips pointers like the original sep self which was a thought, believed. Thought attachment. 

[Phil]

 

 

Sanity: Reality without thought attachment.

 

 

[Joseph Maynor]

@Phil What I am to you is not what I Am to Me.  What I am to You is an image.  More like Maya.  I appreciate your feedback on yourself though.  It's a trick question.  I went through this with @James123.  There's a deeper pointer here.

Edited May 30 by Joseph Maynor

[Phil]

9 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

@Phil What I am to you is not what I Am to Me.  What I am to You is an image.  More like Maya.  I appreciate your feedback on yourself though.  It's a trick question.

Wild as it may seem, there isn’t that you. An I for which there is a you would of course be the separate self of thoughts. The self which is not the you of beliefs / thought attachment / same presumption… isn’t a self and is awareness aware of thoughts about selves. 

[Joseph Maynor]

2 minutes ago, Phil said:

Wild as it may seem, there isn’t that you. An I for which there is a you would of course be the separate self of thoughts. The self which is not the you of beliefs / thought attachment. 

 

What I Am is not a thought or attachment.

[Phil]

Just now, Joseph Maynor said:

 

What I Am is not a thought or attachment.

This is again “the knower” which knows “what I am” based on the finitude of the separate self, the knower, because it’s a thought awareness (infinite) is aware, of.

[Phil]

On 5/28/2024 at 2:37 PM, Joseph Maynor said:

You guys know me on here now.  Give me the pointers as to what you think I'm still missing regarding spiritual enlightenment.  

 

[Phil]

“What Am I Still Missing Regarding Spiritual Enlightenment?”

 

 

All on behalf of a presumed sep self which is thoughts awareness is aware of. 

 

It’s not what’s missing it’s what’s added.

[Joseph Maynor]

Just now, Phil said:

What Am I Still Missing Regarding Spiritual Enlightenment?

 

But all you're giving Me are more thoughts.  

[Phil]

Just now, Joseph Maynor said:

 

But all you're giving Me are more thoughts.  

Same presumption. “I am a separate self”, “for which there is another separate self”, “which is giving me thoughts”. 

Insanity. ⬆️ 

[Joseph Maynor]

1 minute ago, Phil said:

Same presumption. “I am a separate self”, “for which there is another separate self”, “which is giving me thoughts”. 

Insanity. ⬆️ 

 

I'm not Joseph Maynor.  You're confusing You for the image of me.  ❤️

Edited May 30 by Joseph Maynor

[Phil]

1 minute ago, Joseph Maynor said:

 

I'm not Joseph Maynor.  You're confusing You for the image of me.

There’s no you. 

[James123]

16 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

@Phil What I am to you is not what I Am to Me.  What I am to You is an image.  More like Maya.  I appreciate your feedback on yourself though.  It's a trick question.  I went through this with @James123.  There's a deeper pointer here.

@Joseph Maynor @Phil you are me or I am you, sure. But what can be more deeper than not knowing?