know 'self' as hallucination = enlightenment.

[menski]

hypothesis -

a 'me' cannot ever be reasonably proven, or simply found in phenomenological reality to be anything of any substance other than a convenient belief.
ergo, it does not exist, and never has.

if you remove belief in your 'I' as some real entity that has any existence at all other than as a thought, a point of reference, and a life-long habitual hallucination, and then live this (ie, no longer operate with so much mental-energy invested in this chronically overlooked assumption), then you are enlightened. simple as that.

no psychic abilities, development of subtle energetic bodies, or mystical marriage with the source of all existence required. (these things can be developed independently if you're into that sort of thing.)

freedom from the belief in reality of 'self' = freedom from 'self' caused suffering = liberation, or enlightenment.
could it be that simple?

think of the extent of suffering caused by the belief in a special 'me'. imagine how much freedom from destructive neurosis would result if this belief was no longer lived, and we saw that we were just simply activities of reality, not magically separate performers of it.

why bother persisting as if we are some separate special controlling identity?
is anything lost if we drop this, other than false-hood?
was the 'flat earth' destroyed when it was discovered we are on a globe, or was a false belief simply dropped for reality?

what's at stake for those who would deny this model - some special spiritual attainment achieved through effort? sure those spiritual attainments may be real, but aren't they just a different, specialised order of experience? is there actually a 'me' that owns them?

is there any spiritual effort involved in seeing what's real? or just a recognition which comes from honest perception, available to anyone who cares enough to look?

if it's true that self is a hallucination, it's easy enough to know conceptually, but making it real requires a commitment to truth that is not simply intellectual (ie, in a separate compartment from actual reality).
anyone here who is enlightened according to this definition? do you still feel as if there is something you are missing, or are you simply exploring what's left?

thanks.

[Sphere70]

Hi Menski.

I agree that the identification and belief in the abstract idea of a personality or 'self' is the common reason for suffering and delusion, and though not easily discarded because of life-long conditioning I would say that to see through is not all too hard (surely different from each case though) - persistence and willingness required =).

But what is left and what is shimmering beneath these identification(s) and which in my view is the identification-principle itself - is the 'sense' of Self (captial S). That is a sort of very real energy/electric (I don't really know how to best describe them) point within the body, a tangible gravity point of being. In this body it is definitely located in the head, somewhere in-between these eyes, kind of close to the forehead. This is nowadays what I term the "I" - that is the single point which causes a sense of separation and the experience of being a point of presence/life in the idea of time and space. It is though of a impersonal quality when "withdrawn" from the identification with thoughts.
So now I'm personally in the midst of exploring (I would say that a type of focus is the only thing I can really "control) this point (and what I've noticed when focusing here is that identification with thoughts is lessened immensely). Thoughts is of course always close to these points, existing for me as a kind of circulating, fluctuating, structure around the head - so I understand now that identification with thoughts happens quickly and easily and for most parts undetected.
I've also noticed two other strong points within the body which is though two lesser points of separation - one in the middle of my chest, close to the heart, which is where I experience emotions (or sense of emotions) , if they arise, and another point in the furthest end of the stomach where the sexual desire/feeling is present. Through a focus on breathing though I've noticed that these three points easily emerge into one single un-separable sense of Beeing.

These three points is now what "connects" me to the body in the furthest subjective sense - not so much the thought-structures connected to the emotions as a structure of 'self' - this has indeed lessened.

I like this quote by Nisargadatta Maharaj from 'Prior to Consciousness' which I think sums the whole deal up quite great:

You must come to a firm decision. You must forget the thought that you are a body and be only the knowledge "I Am," which has no form, no
name. Just be. When you stabilize in that beingness it will give all the knowledge and all the secrets to you, and when the secrets are given to
you, you transcend the beingness, and you, the Absolute, will know that you are also not the consciousness. Having gained all this knowledge,
having understood what is what, a kind of quietude prevails, a tranquility. Beingness is transcended, but beingness is available.

Needless to say I define the above points I've described as the sense of 'I AM'.

By the way Menski - are you from the Ruthless Truth site?

[Bob Michael]

Anyone here who is enlightened according to this definition? Do you still feel as if there is something you are missing........?

Yes, I miss the joyful, loving, caring, and sharing companionship and comradery of other similarly enlightened 'me'less and 'mind'less brothers and sisters of LIFE'S HOLY SPIRIT.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

freedom from the belief in reality of 'self' = freedom from 'self' caused suffering = liberation, or enlightenment.
could it be that simple?

Why aim at easy targets? Freeing yourself from one delusion, you'll just create another, and yeah you might find it interesting for a while. But the cycle will continue unabated. If you really feel the need to say you've obtained glorious enlightenment, go ahead, nobody will ever be able to stop you from convincing yourself of whatever you want.

The reality, if you are interested in reality and not just your status relative to an overused word, is that unless you deal with the source of all delusions, you will remain far from the boundless liberation that was honoured in the Buddha. Maybe aim at that, instead. If you can't call yourself a Buddha without insincerity, you're not enlightened.

[David Quinn]

Hi Menski.

I agree that the identification and belief in the abstract idea of a personality or 'self' is the common reason for suffering and delusion, and though not easily discarded because of life-long conditioning I would say that to see through is not all too hard (surely different from each case though) - persistence and willingness required =).

But what is left and what is shimmering beneath these identification(s) and which in my view is the identification-principle itself - is the 'sense' of Self (captial S). That is a sort of very real energy/electric (I don't really know how to best describe them) point within the body, a tangible gravity point of being. In this body it is definitely located in the head, somewhere in-between these eyes, kind of close to the forehead. This is nowadays what I term the "I" - that is the single point which causes a sense of separation and the experience of being a point of presence/life in the idea of time and space. It is though of a impersonal quality when "withdrawn" from the identification with thoughts.
So now I'm personally in the midst of exploring (I would say that a type of focus is the only thing I can really "control) this point (and what I've noticed when focusing here is that identification with thoughts is lessened immensely). Thoughts is of course always close to these points, existing for me as a kind of circulating, fluctuating, structure around the head - so I understand now that identification with thoughts happens quickly and easily and for most parts undetected.

Careful now, you may be go cross-eyed!

I've often wondered what would have happened if our species had evolved long tentacles out of where our eye sockets curently are, such that our eye-balls at the end of these tentacles towered above our heads (as in the manner of slugs). Our "sense of self" would no longer be inside the head (behind the eyes), but in an empty space above our heads. What would all the greedy, self-obsessed religious folk have done then, I wonder?

But coming back to your case, Sphere, all you're doing here is replacing an identification with a particular class of thoughts with an identification with something else ("a sense of Self"). Nothing has essentially changed. You're still identifying with a form of some kind. You still seeking spirituality in a limited phenomenon. It has nothing to do with what Nisargadatta Maharaj speaks about, which is the complete abandonment of all forms.

What's more, your "sense of Self" - that "tangible gravity point of being" - is itself something which has been delineated by thought. It is ultimately just as much a thought-construct as anything else is. You are still identifying with thoughts, after all.

But because of the way you have constructed your world view, complete with an arbitrarily-limited view of what constitutes a "thought", you are blind to this.....

-

[Sphere70]

I've often wondered what would have happened if our species had evolved long tentacles out of where our eye sockets curently are, such that our eye-balls at the end of these tentacles towered above our heads (as in the manner of slugs). Our "sense of self" would no longer be inside the head (behind the eyes), but in an empty space above our heads. What would all the greedy, self-obsessed religious folk have done then, I wonder?

Yes, you do like to wonder.

But coming back to your case, Sphere, all you're doing here is replacing an identification with a particular class of thoughts with an identification with something else ("a sense of Self").

You have to go to the base of identification, which is this sense. It is "you", if you will. "You" can't escape it.

Nothing has essentially changed. You're still identifying with a form of some kind. You still seeking spirituality in a limited phenomenon.

Of course, I'm talking from where I'm at right now. See the other post (Douglas Hard.) from before were I explained this.
But when investigating this sense of being, the 'I Am', I personally see that this is the deepest point of identification which is the base of all other identifications (which happens unconsciously when ones focus is drifting) - this is the 'taste of life', the root. I don't believe that you can go fully into the "formless" without first getting to know this I Am in its totality. This is the experience of the formless through form (the body/organism).

It has nothing to do with what Nisargadatta Maharaj speaks about

,-) no?
From the Nisargadatta Gita

The concentration on ‘I am’ is a form of attention. Give your
undivided attention to the most important thing in your life –
yourself. Of your personal universe you are the center – without
knowing the center what else can you know?

Just keep in mind the feeling ‘I am’, merge in it, till your
mind and feeling become one. By repeated attempts you will
stumble on the right balance of attention and your
mind will be firmly established in the thought-feeling ‘I am’.
Whatever you think, say or do, this sense of immutable and
affectionate being remains as the ever-present background of the
mind.


But of course - and again, I've discussed this with you before so it's a little tiring to tell you again - ultimately he says going beyond is inevitable, but not before introspective knowledge about the deepest subjective point is acquired:

The I Am State has great potency, and from this the manifestation of
the universe has taken place. After the 'I am' merges in the Pure Awareness,
the entire universe vanishes as though it had never existed. The first step is to go
to this 'I am' state, remain there and then merge and go beyond. Try to sustain this 'I
am' state, stay unconcerned by thoughts of both good and bad.


But again, I'm talking from where I'm at so the 'beyond' is abstraction for me at this point.

What's more, your "sense of Self" - that "tangible gravity point of being" - is itself something which has been delineated by thought. It is ultimately just as much a thought-construct as anything else is. You are still identifying with thoughts, after all.

Yes, I use thought for its purpose - to delineate for communication. So there is a difference here: identifying with thoughts (again - using the stamp of language wisely for communication) or identified with thoughts (taking this language for the thing and consequently being whipped and affected by it)
But the sense of Being is the precursor of thought; it is what attracts thoughts and emotions and which makes them potent.

Though I'm still temporarily identified with certain thought-structures, but much less so now.

But because of the way you have constructed your world view, complete with an arbitrarily-limited view of what constitutes a "thought", you are blind to this

ayayay ,-)

Once again, I've described how I define thoughts in earlier posts and this is what I'm referring to. Please - tell me how you define thoughts?

Oh yeah, I forgot: as your lazer-beam...

[menski]

freedom from the belief in reality of 'self' = freedom from 'self' caused suffering = liberation, or enlightenment.
could it be that simple?

Why aim at easy targets? Freeing yourself from one delusion, you'll just create another, and yeah you might find it interesting for a while. But the cycle will continue unabated. If you really feel the need to say you've obtained glorious enlightenment, go ahead, nobody will ever be able to stop you from convincing yourself of whatever you want.

The reality, if you are interested in reality and not just your status relative to an overused word, is that unless you deal with the source of all delusions, you will remain far from the boundless liberation that was honoured in the Buddha. Maybe aim at that, instead. If you can't call yourself a Buddha without insincerity, you're not enlightened.

hi. i was wondering what exactly you mean by this.
what is the easy target you see? self? are you saying it's a relatively mundane hallucination to see through, and there are other, more fundamental ones which will result in enlightenment. please, what do you think they are?
i think the buddhist 3 characteristics of clearly percieved reality (unsatisfactory, changing, not-self) are really the one and same thing - ie, if you see one you see them all at the same time because they all include each other.
are any of those the more fundamental delusions you mean?
surely the self IS the source of all delusions?
and what subsequent delusion would i create in seeing the false-ity (not a real word probably) of self? the delusion of no-self, or the delusion of enlightenment?
i think the evidence for enlightenment being the loss of the delusion of self is more in favour than not. what else is there to it? and reality IS the easiest target of all, why should it be complex?


by the way, i am not actually enlightened according to my own definition - at this stage it is something i intuitively believe to be the fundmental key in enlightenement, after slowly negating what i see as irrelevant or incidental to it. i am trying to actualise my own exhoratation to make it real rather than conceptual, and if anyone has any advice on how this is triggered, or was triggered for them, i would be grateful.
at this point i try to stare at the sense of self as much as i can, holding my current understanding of its illusory nature in mind at all times and trying to square that with reality, ie, how is it manifesting and giving the impression of continuing to manifest, as opposed to what is really happening? am i just not concentrating enough, or is my looking being hindered by a continuing plastering over reality which allows the sense of self to exist, and does this plastering over of reality come from the self itself as a kind of parasitic activity in order to ensure it's own existance, OR, as the self does not and cannot actually exist at all, does this 'plastering over of reality' have another source/cause?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

what is the easy target you see? self? are you saying it's a relatively mundane hallucination to see through, and there are other, more fundamental ones which will result in enlightenment. please, what do you think they are?

First, I'd like to point out that I don't care one whit about "enlightenment". So many inferior minds lay claim to it that more often than not, the word merely causes confusion.

In your case, you see the self as a delusion, but you've replaced the importance of self with the importance of "enlightenment". If it's not one thing, it's another.

Anyway, I should mention that absolutely everything is a manifestation of self. You will never experience anything other than yourself, so your belief that there is no self is clearly mistaken. To use the language of your hypothesis, phenomenological reality is the experience of self. It's the first-person point of view that you cannot escape.

Besides which, if do not have first-hand, first-person, experience of enlightenment, your beliefs about enlightenment are always going to be in error. Why not just stick with the self, and toss out the enlightenment? Trying to keep tabs on unfamiliar vocabulary has caused you to hold beliefs that a little thought reveals to be false.

are any of those the more fundamental delusions you mean?

A belief in the reality of any thing is a delusion.

surely the self IS the source of all delusions?

The self is also the source of all truth, so it's not a very precise target. Are you willing to let truth be collateral damage? Big targets are nice and visible, and thus easy. But this one might be a little too big.

and reality IS the easiest target of all, why should it be complex?

Understanding reality requires a strong grasp of logic, which is not something that comes naturally to anyone. Reality is an impossible target for someone who relies on their intuition, or the authority of others.

[Sphere70]

Good explanation of "Enlightenment" by Schopenhauer from 'The World as Will and Idea'

If, raised by the power of the mind, a man relinquishes the common way of looking at things,
gives up tracing, under the guidance of the forms of the principle of sufficient reason, their
relations to each other, the final goal of which is always a relation to his own will; if he thus
ceases to consider the where, the when, the why, and the whither of things, and looks simply
and solely at the what; if, further, he does not allow abstract thought, the concepts of the reason,
to take possession of his consciousness, but, instead of all this, gives the whole power of his
mind to perception, sinks himself entirely in this, and lets his whole consciousness be filled
with the quiet contemplation of the natural object actually present, whether a landscape, a tree,
a mountain, a building, or whatever it may be; inasmuch as he loses himself in this object
(to use a pregnant German idiom), i.e., forgets even his individuality, his will, and only continues
to exist as the pure subject, the clear mirror of the object, so that it is as if the object alone were
there, without any one to perceive it, and he can no longer separate the perceiver from the perception,
but both have become one, because the whole consciousness is filled and occupied with one single
sensuous picture; if thus the object has to such an extent passed out of all relation to something outside
it, and the subject out of all relation to the will, then that which is so known is no longer the particular
thing as such; but it is the Idea, the eternal form, the immediate objectivity of the will at this grade; and,
therefore, he who is sunk in this perception is no longer individual, for in such perception the individual
has lost himself; but he is pure, will-less, painless, timeless subject of knowledge.

[menski]

In your case, you see the self as a delusion, but you've replaced the importance of self with the importance of "enlightenment". If it's not one thing, it's another.

so it's not possible to be enlightened - know truth before my delusion alters it? - because....

Anyway, I should mention that absolutely everything is a manifestation of self. You will never experience anything other than yourself, so your belief that there is no self is clearly mistaken. To use the language of your hypothesis, phenomenological reality is the experience of self. It's the first-person point of view that you cannot escape.

?

what about the zen idea of mistaken perception due to wearing another head ontop of the head we already have? THAT delusion.
"The usual state of consciousness is "me degrading into a thought of me." being free of that self-conscious loop. that would be enlightenment. reality as it is.

if you don't think enlightenment is possible, what is?
what if we know the action of the filters that our consiousness is projecting? we might still project them, but if we understand their nature we would have a closer understanding of the reality they obscured, if not the falling away of them completely.

Besides which, if do not have first-hand, first-person, experience of enlightenment, your beliefs about enlightenment are always going to be in error.

this is true. my concepts need to be destroyed as they replace previous ones, until i finally learn to stop having concepts as opposed to experience. tricky but.

Trying to keep tabs on unfamiliar vocabulary has caused you to hold beliefs that a little thought reveals to be false.

well i do try to exercise a 'little' thought, but i must still be lacking. i'll keep trying then.

A belief in the reality of any thing is a delusion.

yes a belief in it is, but the reality of it isnt.
how about the reality of constant flux, or the non-existence of 'things'? not a belief in it it, but the actual?

The self is also the source of all truth, so it's not a very precise target.

perhaps a more thorough (grammar?) definition of self is required. self for me here is the belief in the actor, which seems on examination to be a false and unnecessary assumption.
does 'self' for you mean simply experience as it is gathered from your perceptions, or perhaps the experience of experience, ie, thoughts/feelings about it?

Understanding reality requires a strong grasp of logic, which is not something that comes naturally to anyone. Reality is an impossible target for someone who relies on their intuition, or the authority of others.

true. i think (isnt logic only applicable to man-made structures? and therefore, is reality a man-made structure, or only knowable as such?).
attempting to practice this (where it's required). but i reserve the right to take clues from those who claim to to know, until i know it myself, or can dismiss it.
i guess it may be debatable if logic is applicable here though. there is no logical effort required in SEEING reality (as opposed to grappling to understand it) and i believe this 'self' is not actually there in the simple seeing or experiencing of reality, just assumed to be. the experience of a self can be related to the brain just integrating experience into a coherent whole, so the organism can identify and orient itself in its environment.
perhaps.

[menski]

Good explanation of "Enlightenment" by Schopenhauer from 'The World as Will and Idea'

awesome.
next on my books-to-get list is bryan magee's overview of schopenhauer's life. well, unless i find the man himself's prose not overly dense for my picky mind. i understood that alright though :)

[Sphere70]

Good explanation of "Enlightenment" by Schopenhauer from 'The World as Will and Idea'

awesome.
next on my books-to-get list is bryan magee's overview of schopenhauer's life. well, unless i find the man himself's prose not overly dense for my picky mind. i understood that alright though :)

I think his prose is really good, he often stays clear of academic tediousness.

Bryan Magee is cool, I like his glasses: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGwSe0ZptV0

Check this essay out, you might like it:

Essay by Arthur Schopenhauer - Short Dialogue on the Indestructibility of Our True Being by Death : http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopen ... pter7.html

[Blair]

i am trying to actualise my own exhoratation to make it real rather than conceptual, and if anyone has any advice on how this is triggered

Capitalize your eyes.

[menski]

Capitalize your eyes.

sorry.

I mean;
Sorry.
Shift in unison with a letter is a complicated procedure, dammit!

Oh, hang on, ACTUALLY; the non-capitilisation of 'i' represents my superb transcendance of the ego-based prejudice that lesser mortals are trapped in.

However, capitalising my eyes as a possible trigger, will be attempted, once I work out what that means.
Something Douglas Harding-esque, I presume?
Or just a good pun.

[Blair]

Look through the scar.

[David Quinn]

Good explanation of "Enlightenment" by Schopenhauer from 'The World as Will and Idea'

If, raised by the power of the mind, a man relinquishes the common way of looking at things,
gives up tracing, under the guidance of the forms of the principle of sufficient reason, their
relations to each other, the final goal of which is always a relation to his own will; if he thus
ceases to consider the where, the when, the why, and the whither of things, and looks simply
and solely at the what; if, further, he does not allow abstract thought, the concepts of the reason,
to take possession of his consciousness, but, instead of all this, gives the whole power of his
mind to perception, sinks himself entirely in this, and lets his whole consciousness be filled
with the quiet contemplation of the natural object actually present, whether a landscape, a tree,
a mountain, a building, or whatever it may be; inasmuch as he loses himself in this object
(to use a pregnant German idiom), i.e., forgets even his individuality, his will, and only continues
to exist as the pure subject, the clear mirror of the object, so that it is as if the object alone were
there, without any one to perceive it, and he can no longer separate the perceiver from the perception,
but both have become one, because the whole consciousness is filled and occupied with one single
sensuous picture; if thus the object has to such an extent passed out of all relation to something outside
it, and the subject out of all relation to the will, then that which is so known is no longer the particular
thing as such; but it is the Idea, the eternal form, the immediate objectivity of the will at this grade; and,
therefore, he who is sunk in this perception is no longer individual, for in such perception the individual
has lost himself; but he is pure, will-less, painless, timeless subject of knowledge.

Even if you could practice this continuously for the next million years, you would still not be any closer to enlightenment. It is completely the wrong way to go about it.

I don't mind Schopenhauer as he was somewhat human, which is a rarity, but when it came to these sorts of matters he was very naive.

-

[menski]

Look through the scar.

ow.

[menski]

Even if you could practice this continuously for the next million years, you would still not be any closer to enlightenment. It is completely the wrong way to go about it.

I don't mind Schopenhauer as he was somewhat human, which is a rarity, but when it came to these sorts of matters he was very naive.

-

aww. really? no schopenhauer-like enlightenment?
damn.
what is it then?

[menski]

Hi Menski.

(observe attempts to capitilise eyes below)

Hi, thanks for sharing.
As to Ruthless Truth, I have been following them, but as I am not 'a graduate of their system' as of yet, I cannot claim to be 'from' them. Even if I WERE liberated according to their definition, I would debate being 'of' them at all. But no, I'm not.
I do, at this point in my research, believe them to be onto something very fundamental, possibly paradigm-changing. Not new. But newly emphasized and simplified as never before, and quite possibly criminally-lacking in the accepted enlightenment literature/movements.
(Why such obfuscation? It's maddening.)

Hmm, I can't really have an opinion on your experience, or debate David's debation (?) of it as being just merely a shifting of delusion to another point. Clearly defined terms of reference are essential lifeholds in this blind cave dive, or we are lost and slinging accusations of delusion at each other. I suspect there is no real controversy here, but I emotionallly respond to David's criticisms for some reason. Sorry.
I support your right to have your experience though.
My only request, push through, try to find the commonality between the screaming voices if you can. For the future.
(Yeah, right on!)
(Okay, I'm drunk now. Does that suffice as an excuse?)
(No.)

[Blair]

It's your life and it's ending one second at a time ~TD

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I don't understand what Schopenhauer is getting at here:

...because the whole consciousness is filled and occupied with one single sensuous picture; if thus the object has to such an extent passed out of all relation to something outside it

How can a picture "be there", filling the space, while "passed out of all relation to something outside"? How could such picture still be "sensuous" or identifying anything at all? The reverse might actually happen: all innumerable but undeniable relations to any "outside" revealing inherent emptiness of each and every picture and experience.

[Sphere70]

Good explanation of "Enlightenment" by Schopenhauer from 'The World as Will and Idea'

If, raised by the power of the mind, a man relinquishes the common way of looking at things,
gives up tracing, under the guidance of the forms of the principle of sufficient reason, their
relations to each other, the final goal of which is always a relation to his own will; if he thus
ceases to consider the where, the when, the why, and the whither of things, and looks simply
and solely at the what; if, further, he does not allow abstract thought, the concepts of the reason,
to take possession of his consciousness, but, instead of all this, gives the whole power of his
mind to perception, sinks himself entirely in this, and lets his whole consciousness be filled
with the quiet contemplation of the natural object actually present, whether a landscape, a tree,
a mountain, a building, or whatever it may be; inasmuch as he loses himself in this object
(to use a pregnant German idiom), i.e., forgets even his individuality, his will, and only continues
to exist as the pure subject, the clear mirror of the object, so that it is as if the object alone were
there, without any one to perceive it, and he can no longer separate the perceiver from the perception,
but both have become one, because the whole consciousness is filled and occupied with one single
sensuous picture; if thus the object has to such an extent passed out of all relation to something outside
it, and the subject out of all relation to the will, then that which is so known is no longer the particular
thing as such; but it is the Idea, the eternal form, the immediate objectivity of the will at this grade; and,
therefore, he who is sunk in this perception is no longer individual, for in such perception the individual
has lost himself; but he is pure, will-less, painless, timeless subject of knowledge.

Even if you could practice this continuously for the next million years, you would still not be any closer to enlightenment. It is completely the wrong way to go about it.

I don't mind Schopenhauer as he was somewhat human, which is a rarity, but when it came to these sorts of matters he was very naive.

-

It's not meant as a practice, more of an explanation of the way the body operates after the "shift" (which I believe he might never had happened to himself to a complete degree, but what he might have derived from by studying the words of the sages - which I've read he did a lot).

It is a similar explanation as this one:

Interview with Ug Krishnamurti:

Question: You say that you don't have images in your mind.

U.G.: No.

Question: Now, do you have thoughts or concepts?

U.G.: No.

Question: That is to say, do you think of what you are going to do next month: buying a plane ticket, getting a visa?

U.G.: Only for practical purposes. If I can't get a seat on the plane, then I have to tell somebody that I'm arriving on another date, but I'm never disappointed or anything.

Question: So when you don't have those projects in mind for practical planning, you have nothing in your head?

U.G.: No, nothing. My way of functioning is that I am always occupied with what is happening at that moment and there is no room for any preoccupation. You are preoccupied with the things that are not happening there. You see, this seems to be the only difference, if there is any difference. People imagine that I live in a void where nothing is happening. How can there be anybody in that state? But it is full with whatever is happening at this moment. You know, so there is no way you can put anything more in that, or move away from that. So I am totally occupied with whatever is happening and I can sit in front of the hotel, go out and stand there for twenty four hours watching how people are walking. So, I'm occupied with that, you see. So, my attention is totally occupied, it's so filled with what is happening.

So, that is why the people who are thinking all the time are practically blind, in the sense that they have never looked at anything in their life. For example, that fellow has never looked at her, or she at him [pointing to a couple in the room], because the only way he looks at her, or her at him, is with the knowledge she has about him and you project that knowledge on that person, but actually there is no way the physical eye can look at anything. You have to have knowledge about that. We project that knowledge on what we are looking at. So, in exactly the same way, the Reality they are talking about is something which cannot be experienced at all, or known at all unless you use the knowledge you have about the Reality of things, whether it is a scientist or a religious man talking about Reality, or pure perception.

--

Of course, neither of these talk about practice, but more of the functioning of the body after the shift.

[Sphere70]

Hi Menski.

(observe attempts to capitilise eyes below)

Hi, thanks for sharing.
As to Ruthless Truth, I have been following them, but as I am not 'a graduate of their system' as of yet, I cannot claim to be 'from' them. Even if I WERE liberated according to their definition, I would debate being 'of' them at all. But no, I'm not.
I do, at this point in my research, believe them to be onto something very fundamental, possibly paradigm-changing. Not new. But newly emphasized and simplified as never before, and quite possibly criminally-lacking in the accepted enlightenment literature/movements.
(Why such obfuscation? It's maddening.)

Hmm, I can't really have an opinion on your experience, or debate David's debation (?) of it as being just merely a shifting of delusion to another point. Clearly defined terms of reference are essential lifeholds in this blind cave dive, or we are lost and slinging accusations of delusion at each other. I suspect there is no real controversy here, but I emotionallly respond to David's criticisms for some reason. Sorry.
I support your right to have your experience though.
My only request, push through, try to find the commonality between the screaming voices if you can. For the future.
(Yeah, right on!)
(Okay, I'm drunk now. Does that suffice as an excuse?)
(No.)

=) No problem!

Yes, There is also a personal conceptual understanding of this '1st person Sense' as a delusion (being that there is a witness of it and that it disappear during sleep, but its the first "thing" arrives when waking. Well maybe after the witness that witness it arriving ,-), that being not Real , but as for now I'm avoiding labeling things as unreal unless I've had the personal "experience" or realization about its nature - and for now this innermost sense of being is almost the only thing I sense as real, so an attempt to look/abide in this without to much judgments and pre-conceptions is what I'm attempting. Though this is hard (impossible?) because of the conceptual knowledge I've acquired through reading the so-called "spiritual literature" and philosophy-books which of course colors the view of it when I'm trying to work it out in language and thought.
But yes, there is not a wish to stay in contentment, but as you say to push through. Though now I'm just trying to be honest with what seems "real" at the very moment of personal inquiry, I always like to read when people write, specially at forums, where they're at in their inquiry and their experience of the world and self/Self (No-Self?) =)

[Sphere70]

I don't understand what Schopenhauer is getting at here:

...because the whole consciousness is filled and occupied with one single sensuous picture; if thus the object has to such an extent passed out of all relation to something outside it

How can a picture "be there", filling the space, while "passed out of all relation to something outside"? How could such picture still be "sensuous" or identifying anything at all? The reverse might actually happen: all innumerable but undeniable relations to any "outside" revealing inherent emptiness of each and every picture and experience.

Maybe he uses the word 'sensuous' as defined in the first paragraph of the dictionary instead of the other definition which it lists (which implies a pleasurable experience)?:

The first definition being:
'relating to and affecting the senses rather than the intellect'

[Diebert van Rhijn]

How can a picture "be there", filling the space, while "passed out of all relation to something outside"? How could such picture still be "sensuous" or identifying anything at all? The reverse might actually happen: all innumerable but undeniable relations to any "outside" revealing inherent emptiness of each and every picture and experience.

Maybe he uses the word 'sensuous' as defined in the first paragraph of the dictionary instead of the other definition which it lists (which implies a pleasurable experience)?:

The first definition being:
'relating to and affecting the senses rather than the intellect'

Of course although I personally find the distinction not to be there. Eitherway it implies "something outside" affecting the senses as well as the side of the senses themselves and their internal structures and relations with each other. It seems almost as if Schopenhauer is trying to get to a sense of the causeless and timeless without facing the truth it would be just another sense in the end: meaningless without being able to connect it to something.