Looking for someone to work with me / intense Spiritual Awakening symptons

[dryad]

Originally Posted by DreamKey

As far as this idea of controlling reality, what exactly do you mean? Are you implying that you can personally gain control of universal unfolding?

Well yes. As an aspect of universal consciousness it is possible to affect the way reality unfolds.... on a small localised scale of course. And influence is a better term than control. To use your example ....If you know you are dreaming you can influence the dream.

[DreamKey]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

Emptiness is not a thing.

If you are experiencing something it is not emptiness.

The Tao that cannot be described...

It can't be described with words or in reference to an experience because those are all things.

Hope that helps.

Well it doesn't help Jonesy, unless you're going for more confusion. You could say emptiness has the experience of being a human being. What is aware of things is not a thing, and we can describe that awareness even if the awareness isn't the description.

What is aware of experience can be described in reference to the experience. If something was not changing, it would literally be impossible to register change. You seem to mix ideas of being a changing idea and the changeless awareness which is aware of ideas (completely without discrimination which is utterly astounding), and this is why I say you seem confused. You want to talk about your great journey, and talk about being emptiness without a journey. It's a big mess, and you're the one making it up.

[DreamKey]

Originally Posted by dryad

Well yes. As an aspect of universal consciousness it is possible to affect the way reality unfolds.... on a small localised scale of course. And influence is a better term than control. To use your example ....If you know you are dreaming you can influence the dream.

Well you can influence creation without being conscious you are nothing you are conscious of.

You seem to imply that the more conscious you are, the more control you have, but in many ways (not all) it's just the opposite. Maybe we could say, the more you are aligned with the absence of control (or the realization you don't have control), the less you desire it in the first place (which can equate with less suffering).

This isn't to imply the less conscious have more control. The point is no one is in control, and you aren't a person, and realizing that is the absence of suffering.

[DreamKey]

Originally Posted by DreamKey

Well you can influence creation without being conscious you are nothing you are conscious of.

You seem to imply that the more conscious you are, the more control you have, but in many ways (not all) it's just the opposite. Maybe we could say, the more you are aligned with you absence of control (or the realization you don't have control), the less you desire it in the first place (which can equate with less suffering).

This isn't to imply the less conscious have more control. The point is no one is in control, and aren't a person, and realizing that is the absence of suffering.

At the same time, on the ultimate level, cause and effect is an illusion. The person that appears doesn't cause things to happen in the world that appears.

Meaning, the person can't influence creation, because there is no person.

[dryad]

Originally Posted by DreamKey

....and you aren't a person, and realizing that is the absence of suffering.

I dont disagree with anything you have said but are you confusing realization with liberation? I would think liberation (ascension) is the absence of suffering.

You can get very stuck on the idea that your not a person but I don't deny what I Am just beause i am aware of what I Am Not. We exist on multiple levels at the same time (and outside of time).... and ultimately it is the person that achieves liberation.

[DreamKey]

Originally Posted by dryad

I dont disagree with anything you have said but are you confusing realization with liberation? I would think liberation (ascension) is the absence of suffering.

You can get very stuck on the idea that your not a person but I don't deny what I Am just beause i am aware of what I Am Not. We exist on multiple levels at the same time (and outside of time).... and ultimately it is the person that achieves liberation.

If you realize you aren't separate that's liberation from the idea that you're separate. What's there to possibly confuse?

You mention existing on multiple levels outside of time. Do you mean to imply you can exist on multiple levels outside of space also? That doesn't make sense.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by dryad

Isnt that oneness?

The zen concept I referred to (although the book I was reading draws on tao and hindu sources as well) is the stages of awakening as duality (ego and seperation) .....then pre-awakening (no ego) unity of opposites (what i would call oneness)....then awakening (kensho and satori or buddhanature) unity awareness of both duality and oneness.

that's my understanding of what the book presented I have paraphrased it.
The bit about destruction and creation is based on my personal experience of the way void energy works. Zen is all about direct experience of the void and equates void with emptiness.

No not really and one has to understand that each of those traditions have different beliefs and end points.

Hinduism doesn't believe in emptiness it beliefs in a soul that resides in some place.. The end goal of Yoga being cessation.

Taoism believes in emptiness the Tao, but not in the same way as Buddhism. Taoism is mostly a mental state of emptiness.

Zen does believe in emptiness of self and of ultimate reality but it also is of the mind only school. It believes that all things, arise from the mind. Are creations of the mind.

You can think of traditions having spiritual progression over time.

Yoga only went to the light. The yogis got lost in the bliss and only wanted to return to it and end suffering.

Taoism found there is more beyond the light and that is emptiness of self but does not believe in emptiness of ultimate reality.

The Buddha came around and said there is more beyond the light, more beyond emptiness of self, that there is emptiness of ultimate reality which is what makes one a Buddha.

Most people confuse oneness with the energy aspect of things. One can go to far and confuse it with oneness.

On the other side people will experience the void, silence, quiet mind and mistake that for emptiness.

Emptiness is when has realized that the energy and void are one and the same.

Zen does not believe in universal oneness.

Also with my previous description I was talking about ones thoughts and emotions.. not oneness.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by DreamKey

Well it doesn't help Jonesy, unless you're going for more confusion. You could say emptiness has the experience of being a human being. What is aware of things is not a thing, and we can describe that awareness even if the awareness isn't the description.

What is aware of experience can be described in reference to the experience. If something was not changing, it would literally be impossible to register change. You seem to mix ideas of being a changing idea and the changeless awareness which is aware of ideas (completely without discrimination which is utterly astounding), and this is why I say you seem confused. You want to talk about your great journey, and talk about being emptiness without a journey. It's a big mess, and you're the one making it up.

I am far from confused.

More so, I am willing to demonstrate everything I have said I could do.

All the best.

[Jyotir]

Hi DreamKey,

Originally Posted by DreamKey

Well the funny bit is that nobody actually wants to wake up, or we could say becoming conscious happens in the absence of the willingness to stay asleep.

As far as the distinction between me sharing thoughts and beliefs. There is a framework within which the mind functions. There is a context in which you are a separate person. There is also a context in which you are not that person. If you can recognize that both thoughts can be relatively true but neither represents some ultimate truth, to say you believe in either would miss the mark as I am using the word.

Beliefs held unconsciously are the obstacle to spiritual progression. Most folks are conscious of what they believe, but unconscious of how they identify with those very beliefs and why. I don't think anyone's belief in gravity will prove to be an obstacle to waking up, and I didn't mean to imply that (thanks for giving me the chance to clear that up). But there is an obvious belief in being a separate person that can wake up from the dream of separation unconsciously held in high frequency on this forum.

Addressing that belief with logical cohesion can lead to an immediate noticing of the absurdity of the belief. Or it can lead to a need to defend the belief, which is what we've seen a bunch of here. The reason for that defense is the belief is only a surface level manifestation of a deeper conflict, and that conflict is grounded within the idea of the separate person. The unwillingness to allow conscious resolution of emotional conflict causes the mind to defend what it believes without use of logic or ration, and it is those beliefs you see me addressing on this forum.

Thanks for clearing that up.
I’m good with most or all of it, although qualifying an exception for the implication which could also be addressed, leading to the frequent (noting that you didn't say this, but common nonetheless) - the categorical pronouncement of ‘no person‘, which appears to be (amazingly) the unconsciously assumed exclusive inverse of ‘separate person‘….as a belief in its own right.. like you say,

Beliefs held unconsciously are the obstacle to spiritual progression. Most folks are conscious of what they believe, but unconscious of how they identify with those very beliefs and why.

Further parsing relative contexts and orientations vis-a-vis beliefs:

There is a context in which you are a separate person.

Yes, and for instance, in that context as a matter of practical utility, I prefer to use the term ‘differentiated’ vs. ‘separate’, so as to not promote the obviously incorrect notion of ‘separate’ being (yes, absurd), which often leads to its (unconsciously?) assumed inverse, the required negation by the (imo) subsequent subtle possible confusion (or utility according to one’s orientation!) of 'no person’, which appears to be a premise (or conceit when exclusive) of neo-Advaita sects.

That’s ok for those who subscribe to that belief (and it most certainly is one) - but it is not exclusive by (m)any means. Using the term ‘differentiated’ allows for the possibility of a useful construct of ‘instrumental being’ (vs. separate being)...in relation to Essential Being.

This may have practical utility for many (including and especially those awakened) in the physical, according to an integral orientation (vs. strictly non-dual), because it accounts for obvious variations of temperament, will, capacity, receptivity, or any number of ‘personal’ (there’s that relative context again) qualities or characteristics which must be consciously identified, utilized, modified, facilitated, mitigated, eliminated, or surrendered in some yoga approaches or practices which are also not exclusive, although available, in which those same identifications that are liabilities in one system may become meaningful and effective expedients in another. Interesting, no?

That’s why I’m hoping this explanation represents a logical cohesion leading to the relinquishing of unconscious belief, vs. constituting the surface level manifestation of a deeper conflict which must be defended.

In any case, you’ll see me addressing those beliefs on this forum as well.

- - - - - -

As to this:

I don't think anyone's belief in gravity will prove to be an obstacle to waking up,

As long as gravity isn't seen as a physical plane symbol of the ultimate inertia of inconscience!

- - - - - -


And while we're at it, prefacing with this:

Addressing that belief with logical cohesion can lead to an immediate noticing of the absurdity of the belief. Or it can lead to a need to defend the belief, which is what we've seen a bunch of here. The reason for that defense is the belief is only a surface level manifestation of a deeper conflict, and that conflict is grounded within the idea of the separate person. The unwillingness to allow conscious resolution of emotional conflict causes the mind to defend what it believes without use of logic or ration

...how about the belief,

unconsciously held in high frequency on this forum

...that citing the example of worst-case, false or distorted approximations of 'spirituality' justifies the negation and invalidation of best-case or genuinely viable possibilities. That's a very popular one. Fact is, the latter always evolves out of the former, but interestingly enough the opportunity to do so individually is restricted by that very self-limitation of prior invalidation. Talk about self-conflict - what many here vehemently fight for, or with, within themselves...with the assistance of others, of course.



~ J

[dryad]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

No not really and one has to understand that each of those traditions have different beliefs and end points.

Hinduism doesn't believe in emptiness it beliefs in a soul that resides in some place.. The end goal of Yoga being cessation.

Taoism believes in emptiness the Tao, but not in the same way as Buddhism. Taoism is mostly a mental state of emptiness.

Zen does believe in emptiness of self and of ultimate reality but it also is of the mind only school. It believes that all things, arise from the mind. Are creations of the mind.

You can think of traditions having spiritual progression over time.

Yoga only went to the light. The yogis got lost in the bliss and only wanted to return to it and end suffering.

Taoism found there is more beyond the light and that is emptiness of self but does not believe in emptiness of ultimate reality.

The Buddha came around and said there is more beyond the light, more beyond emptiness of self, that there is emptiness of ultimate reality which is what makes one a Buddha.

Most people confuse oneness with the energy aspect of things. One can go to far and confuse it with oneness.

On the other side people will experience the void, silence, quiet mind and mistake that for emptiness.

Emptiness is when has realized that the energy and void are one and the same.

Zen does not believe in universal oneness.

Also with my previous description I was talking about ones thoughts and emotions.. not oneness.

Thanks Jones. That is really helpful and rather a bit confusing as well. Clearly I was reading more into your previous statement than what you meant. I don't really equate thoughts and emotions with the self since they are transient and when you talked about clouds I just jumped to merging with the actual clouds and extended that to the rest of reality as well. That's more or less what I mean by oneness. Is that the same or do you have a different idea of oneness?

Void = energy seems obvious.... why is that emptiness?
Can you explain what you mean by emptiness? I understood it as lack of independent existence but that means the void cannot be empty because it exists outside of time..... see why I'm getting confused..... The Tao cannot be empty....As in lack of existence.... but it is undefined so seems empty to our perception.