Split from The face of a guru - kindness versus emptiness

[Karl]

You make jokes, but now I don't even believe that you know what one-pointed concentration is nor realize the implications of your declaration.

 

If you could make your mind one-pointed for as long as you wanted, you would have accomplished all the jhanas, realized all the siddhis. If you could focus on awareness being aware of awareness (meditation without an object) for as long as you want, you would have accomplished what most people can only dream of accomplishing.

 

There is something terribly wrong with what you say.

 

Well I don't intend to do it for very long so maybe that makes it easier to accept that I wouldn't have all these jhanas and siddhis (but then I don't need or want any ) :-)

 

Awareness cant be aware of itself.

 

Meditation without an object. Well just to approach meditation you must already be an object able to perform the action of meditation.

[Tibetan_Ice]

Well I don't intend to do it for very long so maybe that makes it easier to accept that I wouldn't have all these jhanas and siddhis (but then I don't need or want any ) :-)

 

Awareness cant be aware of itself.

 

Meditation without an object. Well just to approach meditation you must already be an object able to perform the action of meditation.

Absurd and incorrect. Aren't you aware that you are aware? It is the easiest thing.

 

That awareness can be aware of itself is the whole basis for the highest Buddhist teaching of Dzogchen.

Wiki:

Descriptions of rigpa:

Klein and Wangyal: "the essence and base of self-arisen wisdom is the allbase, that primordial open awareness is the base, and that recognition of this base is not separate from the primordial wisdom itself [...] that open awareness is itself authentic and its authenticity is a function of it being aware of, or recognizing itself as, the base [...] The reflexively self-aware primordial wisdom is itself open awareness (rigpa), inalienably one with unbounded wholeness."Template:Klein

 

From The Yeshe Lama:

Realizing pure awareness, the true nature of the mind, and using it as the p a t h o f t r a i n i n g is t h e G r e a t P e r f e c t i o n . R i g d z i n J i g m e d L i n g p a w r i t e s :

 

[Realization of] the pure awareness that transcends the mind Is the specialty ofthe Great Perfection.'

The Third Dodrupchen (186s-•92.6) explains:

[Meditators] use pure awareness as the path[of meditation].They meditate on pure awareness after distinguishing it from mind.

Then they focus and remain focused only on pure awareness. They do not employ any concepts, since concepts are mind.

 

 

Not recognizing awareness is called marigpa and that keeps you in samsara. It is "ignorance"

 

From the Nang Jang:

He bestowed the following reply: "Ah, great spiritual one, you must confront the hidden flaw of benefit and harm. As for what is called obscuration, the terms 'obscuration' (drib- pa) and 'nonrecognition of awareness' (ma-rig-pa) both refer to a lack of awareness of the ground of being as the essence of emptiness, and the term 'habitual pattern' (bag-chhag) refers to the entrenchment of that nonrecognition. These cannot be refined away by ordinary efforts such as striving through physical and verbal spiritual practices. Rather, these obscurations are purified as a matter of course when, through discerning sublime knowing, you come to a definitive conclusion concerning the true nature of phenomena.

 

...

The two states-that of a buddha and that of an ordinary being-come about depending on whether there is recognition of awareness or not.

 

 

You are traveling in the wrong direction, trying to solidify and grasp at thought, logic and reason. The path to realization lies in the abandonment of concepts, non grasping, discovering what lies beyond. It is not an endeavor of solidifying the veils making them even more opaque as you have been attempting to do in this forum.

 

Edited September 29, 2015 by Tibetan_Ice

[Stosh]

This an interesting sub topic, May I just pose a question ? If I look at the sky, then you ask me, if I am aware of it I would say yes. So then I might assume I was aware ,I was aware. But am I not aware of remembering, how it was to be aware of the sky, rather than actually being aware ,of being aware? So how would one know the difference? .... This would make awareness of awareness actually a memory function. And if any ! person reported they had been aware of being aware ,without a sky as subject, they would still have to be reliant on the memory,, to be describing the situation with a cognitive review, again ,, a memory.

On the other hand if one meditated, then they should still be able to have memory , which they could review later,,that supplies, object and reviewer,,just not at the same time. ,but how would one know that they werent cognitive, at the time of the meditation? Moreover ,To assert they werent cognizant at the time , they would have to be aware of NOT being cognitive ,And how the heck could anyone be cognitive of a state of non cognition!

Edited September 30, 2015 by Stosh

[Karl]

This an interesting sub topic, May I just pose a question ? If I look at the sky, then you ask me, if I am aware of it I would say yes. So then I might assume I was aware ,I was aware. But am I not aware of remembering, how it was to be aware of the sky, rather than actually being aware ,of being aware? So how would one know the difference? .... This would make awareness of awareness actually a memory function. And if any ! person reported they had been aware of being aware ,without a sky as subject, they would still have to be reliant on the memory,, to be describing the situation with a cognitive review, again ,, a memory.

On the other hand if one meditated, then they should still be able to have memory , which they could review later,,that supplies, object and reviewer,,just not at the same time. ,but how would one know that they werent cognitive, at the time of the meditation? Moreover ,To assert they werent cognizant at the time , they would have to be aware of NOT being cognitive ,And how the heck could anyone be cognitive of a state of non cognition!

 

That is precisely it. Awareness has to be aware of something, just as consciousness must be conscious of something.

 

Your post reminded of me of an exercise in mindfulness that I haven't yet been able to grasp the cognitive significance. In some respects it was an Isaac Newton moment, but I haven't derived any answer. It was watching rain fall. Initially it looks like a long streak cutting through the air and splashing to the ground. Yet, move awareness in time with the falling drop and it becomes visible as a droplet. It got me thinking if I was seeing the droplets and holding them in a kind of time aligned buffer in order to create the streak, or do I see the streak as a whole streak along with the others ? Then it got me thinking did I actually see the droplet, or had i made an inductive leap to imply a droplet that wasn't really visible.

 

I know that during times of intense stress it appears we can alter our perception speed. We can push ( I describe it as frame rate capture) to higher rates and appear to slow how we normally see time. So, an accident-at least in memory-appears to be slowed down. Also, when I'm waiting for something then time seems to crawl, but when I'm busy it appears to advance at a faster rate. This function is entirely automatic. Yet it appears to be possible to move awareness by volition and capture something moving at a faster rate than normal - like the falling raindrop.

[Karl]

Absurd and incorrect. Aren't you aware that you are aware? It is the easiest thing.

That awareness can be aware of itself is the whole basis for the highest Buddhist teaching of Dzogchen.

Wiki:From The Yeshe Lama:Not recognizing awareness is called marigpa and that keeps you in samsara. It is "ignorance"

From the Nang Jang:You are traveling in the wrong direction, trying to solidify and grasp at thought, logic and reason. The path to realization lies in the abandonment of concepts, non grasping, discovering what lies beyond. It is not an endeavor of solidifying the veils making them even more opaque as you have been attempting to do in this forum.

Well let's consider, because I see more than one thing at work. Many people on the spiritual path are looking to get rid of suffering, some are looking for a greater truth-their reason for being. I didn't start out with those intentions. All I knew was that it appeared I wasn't fitting in where I was supposed to fit -I titled my book 'square peg in a round hole' for that reasonthen-I realised I was unhappy, indeed I was alternatively ecstatic and miserable, on which I imposed a kind of average weighting system to make it all acceptable.

 

So, I wasn't thinking to get rid of suffering, or to find the greater truth. I had pushed off from the shore of day to day living in search of something, but without a clue what it was, or the direction I should head. I just had to do what, to some extent I suspect most of us do, and wing it. This felt as if it were a dual life. One life was in a hobby world of spiritual discovery and the other was just everyday life. Over time the appeal of the spiritual life became more important than its counterpart. I even quit my job to concentrate more fully on it.

 

Anyway, roll forward several years and I discovered that there was never any duality. There wasn't an everyday life and a spiritual life, there was just one life and it was mine. The duality had lay in the way I percieved a seperate 'me' as the doer of each kind of life in a way that created segregated identities. I was 'me' the spiritual explorer and 'me' the everyday working husband. Then I noted multiple 'me' identities which would arise in different settings. By creating the space for inner perception I could watch these individual 'me' identities wax and wane around a fixed point. Yet, there in lay the ultimate duality. How could I be percieved and perceiver ?

 

It is the duality of the percieved and the perceiver that has to be resolved, it's a paradox. I cannot tell if you have resolved it, but I can tell you that I resolved it. I can tell you I did so by taking a course in basic logic. Everything simplified like an difficult equation resolving itself. Then I knew what I had always known, but now it is all arranged differently. It's like I had a massive amount of information piled up in one big heap that was clogging up understanding. Logic cross correlated everything. I didn't have to go looking at each individual piece of information, my new organised brain did it at lightning speed...."oh you want it all tidied up" said my brain "about bloody time, this place is a absolute mess, I don't know how I get anything done".

 

Once the paradox is resolved there is peace. I wasn't looking for peace, it came along as a by product. I hadn't known I didn't have peace, until I stopped having war. Then I saw how I was connected to the universe in ways I had veiled or misunderstood. None of this is in any books. All books contain recipes, but they don't tell you how to be a chef.

 

It was John Taylor Gatto who has given the best parallel. "The meaning of education is to teach you how to educate yourself". In other words you must become both master and student. I had been stuck in student waiting for a master without understanding that I must be master. It's an awesome responsibility, but as my fate is entirely in my own hands, then there is only me. There was only ever me, I just thought there wasn't.

 

That's the step that ends suffering. How each of us do it might be entirely different. For me, I wish to understand one last thing and that was how some arbitrary study of logic had done this. It seemed too incredible somehow, like turning the last page in an entire library of books and trying to figure out in which book I had read the answer and why I had to continue to the end before realising it. Maybe it was the very first letter of the very first book, perhaps it was walking into the library. Where was it that I discovered what I had always known ?

 

How can you find what was never lost when you don't know what the thing you thought you had lost looks like ? :-)

 

I think Buddah got it. "Question everything" because that's all that you can do. That's the best you can do. Ask what, where, when and who before starting to ask why or how. Be like Sherlock Holmes and crack the case by questioning the details before drawing a conclusion. The conclusion draws itself when the facts are revealed. It's no good trying to get rid of suffering because there never was any suffering, so indulging in why and how doesn't work.

 

We are all just bumping along the best we can. You cannot be my master and I cannot be yours. This is where peace arises. I neither wish to command or be commanded. If I can help then it is by happenstance and not design. I'm simply another featureless book on somebody's reading list. I'm not an active participant, only a passive operator.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Karl

[Stosh]

Im thinking Karl, that we always Imply a raindrop. From the data in the preconscious.. and cant ever actually see the raindrop itself. If I am photographing birds in flight, I am ready to see them, and take note of ID marks. But if its not your hobby, and one is not prepared, all one assembles is a confused blur. Some folks are just amazing at this. Whether it equates to a snapshot.. that someone could examine later for new info ,that.. I dont know. But I figure some folks could do it, I cant. Just as I am limited when trying to parse memory of past experience, from experience happening in the present. I am not sure its discernable, since a memory is a little slice of reliving an event which has probably been filtered.... but I suppose some folks might be able to hold the data in raw form.

[Karl]

Im thinking Karl, that we always Imply a raindrop. From the data in the preconscious.. and cant ever actually see the raindrop itself. If I am photographing birds in flight, I am ready to see them, and take note of ID marks. But if its not your hobby, and one is not prepared, all one assembles is a confused blur. Some folks are just amazing at this. Whether it equates to a snapshot.. that someone could examine later for new info ,that.. I dont know. But I figure some folks could do it, I cant. Just as I am limited when trying to parse memory of past experience, from experience happening in the present. I am not sure its discernable, since a memory is a little slice of reliving an event which has probably been filtered.... but I suppose some folks might be able to hold the data in raw form.

 

It's a great mental exercise, better than falling apples because it implies a continuous flow in the manner of a wave and not a particle :-)

[Jetsun]

That is precisely it. Awareness has to be aware of something, just as consciousness must be conscious of something. 

 

Except this contradicts pretty much all the highest teachings of Buddhism like Dzogchen and Mahamudra and many Hindu schools like Vedanta.

 

Consciousness has to be conscious of something yes, but the paradox is that only awareness can recognise awareness. It is possible to be aware during the gaps in thoughts, during the deepest stages of sleep and during stages of meditation when there is no object, this has been verified by many people the world over and can be verified by yourself. In those places there is nothing to be aware of, so no consciousness, yet there is still awake objectless awareness. The reason why we don't go there or deny it because the ego based subject-object separation consciousness can't go there, so you as a separate individual "I" don't exist there.

 

Usually conscious awareness flows out to an object, but what happens if you turn that conscious awareness around to look at what is looking? this can be done right now, it is just doing a u-turn which is the same thing as the enquiry "who am I?" you are just "turning the light around" as they say in the Taoist text the Secret of the Golden Flower. All it takes is turning your awareness around 180 degrees. 

[Karl]

Except this contradicts pretty much all the highest teachings of Buddhism like Dzogchen and Mahamudra and many Hindu schools like Vedanta.

 

Consciousness has to be conscious of something yes, but the paradox is that only awareness can recognise awareness. It is possible to be aware during the gaps in thoughts, during the deepest stages of sleep and during stages of meditation when there is no object, this has been verified by many people the world over and can be verified by yourself. In those places there is nothing to be aware of, so no consciousness, yet there is still awake objectless awareness. The reason why we don't go there or deny it because the ego based subject-object separation consciousness can't go there, so you as a separate individual "I" don't exist there.

 

Usually conscious awareness flows out to an object, but what happens if you turn that conscious awareness around to look at what is looking? this can be done right now, it is just doing a u-turn which is the same thing as the enquiry "who am I?" you are just "turning the light around" as they say in the Taoist text the Secret of the Golden Flower. All it takes is turning your awareness around 180 degrees. 

 

You cannot be objective about a subjective experience. You are aware of the space between thoughts, but this is a thought in itself. You cannot remember nothing, so you must have remembered something.

 

When I was using AYP meditation this was one of the first revelations. The instruction is to place attention on the mantra and anytime you are off the mantra to gently place attention back on the Mantra. The questions were always around his simple instruction. People were always asking about internal distractions preventing them staying on the mantra. Yet it took time to realise the internal distractions WERE being off the mantra and as soon as this was realised to put the attention back on the mantra. This meant a gradual refinement of the thoughts and moods percolating in the mind.

 

This can seem like awareness being aware of awareness. It confirms that it is thoughts that are masquerading as false image. In fact this isn't true, it's yet another illusion, but now at least the paradox becomes a concrete reality.

 

It should be understood that this is, or should be a natural process of age. When young we are indiscriminate consumers of experience. We pack ourselves with all sorts of conflicting ideas, but, at first it doesn't register as an issue because our reasoning capacity is so immature there is no conflict. We can happily sit opposing ideas together because we haven't yet needed to begin to integrate concepts. It's like we need to build a house at some point, but have no idea what a house is composed of and so we indiscriminately collect all sorts of things that don't work together such as dynamite and bricks, or a wrecking ball and a builders plan.

 

At some point we have to develop reasoning as we once developed our ability to collect experiences and store them by repetition.

 

I believe that Buddhists have never factored in the process of maturation. It's a combination of natural changes occurring in the body and conscious application of these changes in our environment. We became so used to our early repetitive gathering practices that we didn't get that the rules had changed and that this no longer worked. We seem always mentally behind these bodily changes which makes things confusing and results in mental anguish as we attempt to make sense of those changes. The old saying is that you cannot teach an old dog new tricks probably has some veracity. Old dogs become wise dogs. They are no longer puppies that bite, run, fight and learn in a scattergun way.

 

 

 

 

[Jetsun]

You cannot be objective about a subjective experience. You are aware of the space between thoughts, but this is a thought in itself. You cannot remember nothing, so you must have remembered something. 

 

How can the space between thoughts be a thought? it is impossible. Thoughts arise within something, they don't define what they arise within by definition, thoughts arise within awareness. What awareness really is nobody can really say, but all sorts of things happen when you rest in or wake up as as awareness, including the break down of your limited personality which only exists in the realm of thought and imagination.

 

What you describe as nothing is an experience, Buddhists have written volumous texts trying to describe it, space, emptiness, but as they say anything written about it can only point to it, it isn't the thing itself. As soon as you try to talk about it you are in the past trying to conceptualise a non conceptual experience. Therefore teachers have resorted to trying to point it out through Koans and Parables rather than try in vein to adequately conceptualise the impossible.

 

I'm sure the Buddhists have considered maturation, they have been studying depth psychology for thousands of years.

[Karl]

How can the space between thoughts be a thought? it is impossible. Thoughts arise within something, they don't define what they arise within by definition, thoughts arise within awareness. What awareness really is nobody can really say, but all sorts of things happen when you rest in or wake up as as awareness, including the break down of your limited personality which only exists in the realm of thought and imagination.

 

What you describe as nothing is an experience, Buddhists have written volumous texts trying to describe it, space, emptiness, but as they say anything written about it can only point to it, it isn't the thing itself. As soon as you try to talk about it you are in the past trying to conceptualise a non conceptual experience. Therefore teachers have resorted to trying to point it out through Koans and Parables rather than try in vein to adequately conceptualise the impossible.

 

I'm sure the Buddhists have considered maturation, they have been studying depth psychology for thousands of years.

 

Because you have the thought 'there is space between the thought'. How would you have noticed the space if you were not aware there was a space ? It would just seem like a continuation of thought.

 

I agree it's an experience, but it isn't a non-experience, if it were then there would be nothing to reason with. Reason has to have something on which to reason. Awareness must be aware of something. Consciousness must be conscious of something. You are aware of a space between thoughts. Awareness is functioning and noticing that no thoughts are present and registering the lack of thought into memory.

 

To describe emptiness is to describe something and not nothing. What is the concept of emptiness. Define it. An empty bucket is still a bucket but lacking water. We don't go through life expecting all buckets to remain permanently full, and we must have an empty bucket in order to register the lack of water.

 

In music there are numerous apparent silences, yet they are entirely necessary in order for music to be music. Just because there is a silence does not mean there is no music being played. It does not suggest all music is emptiness. The spaces are integral to the creation.

 

By all means refine your thoughts and notice the spaces, but know that something is still aware in order to register the spaces. There is no absence unless there is a total abscence of awareness or consciousness as it would be in death.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Karl

[bax44]

Brain hurts.

[Karl]

Brain hurts.

 

Not for long though :-)

[Tibetan_Ice]

Well let's consider, because I see more than one thing at work. Many people on the spiritual path are looking to get rid of suffering, some are looking for a greater truth-their reason for being. I didn't start out with those intentions. All I knew was that it appeared I wasn't fitting in where I was supposed to fit -I titled my book 'square peg in a round hole' for that reasonthen-I realised I was unhappy, indeed I was alternatively ecstatic and miserable, on which I imposed a kind of average weighting system to make it all acceptable.

 

So, I wasn't thinking to get rid of suffering, or to find the greater truth. I had pushed off from the shore of day to day living in search of something, but without a clue what it was, or the direction I should head. I just had to do what, to some extent I suspect most of us do, and wing it. This felt as if it were a dual life. One life was in a hobby world of spiritual discovery and the other was just everyday life. Over time the appeal of the spiritual life became more important than its counterpart. I even quit my job to concentrate more fully on it.

 

Anyway, roll forward several years and I discovered that there was never any duality. There wasn't an everyday life and a spiritual life, there was just one life and it was mine. The duality had lay in the way I percieved a seperate 'me' as the doer of each kind of life in a way that created segregated identities. I was 'me' the spiritual explorer and 'me' the everyday working husband. Then I noted multiple 'me' identities which would arise in different settings. By creating the space for inner perception I could watch these individual 'me' identities wax and wane around a fixed point. Yet, there in lay the ultimate duality. How could I be percieved and perceiver ?

 

It is the duality of the percieved and the perceiver that has to be resolved, it's a paradox. I cannot tell if you have resolved it, but I can tell you that I resolved it. I can tell you I did so by taking a course in basic logic. Everything simplified like an difficult equation resolving itself. Then I knew what I had always known, but now it is all arranged differently. It's like I had a massive amount of information piled up in one big heap that was clogging up understanding. Logic cross correlated everything. I didn't have to go looking at each individual piece of information, my new organised brain did it at lightning speed...."oh you want it all tidied up" said my brain "about bloody time, this place is a absolute mess, I don't know how I get anything done".

 

Once the paradox is resolved there is peace. I wasn't looking for peace, it came along as a by product. I hadn't known I didn't have peace, until I stopped having war. Then I saw how I was connected to the universe in ways I had veiled or misunderstood. None of this is in any books. All books contain recipes, but they don't tell you how to be a chef.

 

It was John Taylor Gatto who has given the best parallel. "The meaning of education is to teach you how to educate yourself". In other words you must become both master and student. I had been stuck in student waiting for a master without understanding that I must be master. It's an awesome responsibility, but as my fate is entirely in my own hands, then there is only me. There was only ever me, I just thought there wasn't.

 

That's the step that ends suffering. How each of us do it might be entirely different. For me, I wish to understand one last thing and that was how some arbitrary study of logic had done this. It seemed too incredible somehow, like turning the last page in an entire library of books and trying to figure out in which book I had read the answer and why I had to continue to the end before realising it. Maybe it was the very first letter of the very first book, perhaps it was walking into the library. Where was it that I discovered what I had always known ?

 

How can you find what was never lost when you don't know what the thing you thought you had lost looks like ? :-)

 

I think Buddah got it. "Question everything" because that's all that you can do. That's the best you can do. Ask what, where, when and who before starting to ask why or how. Be like Sherlock Holmes and crack the case by questioning the details before drawing a conclusion. The conclusion draws itself when the facts are revealed. It's no good trying to get rid of suffering because there never was any suffering, so indulging in why and how doesn't work.

 

We are all just bumping along the best we can. You cannot be my master and I cannot be yours. This is where peace arises. I neither wish to command or be commanded. If I can help then it is by happenstance and not design. I'm simply another featureless book on somebody's reading list. I'm not an active participant, only a passive operator.

So you took a course on logic and concluded that you were both the perceiver and the perceived.

Well that is fine except there is something that is beyond both the perceived and the perceiver that is not personal.

The perceiver and the perceived can be fused together (subject and object) into a state of samadhi and then you will realize that there is something beyond subject and object that was there all along, that is timeless, that is unborn, pure bliss, empty clarity,... Call it what you will....

 

Oh, and mantra repetition is not "awareness of awareness" as the mind is never still.

AYP is the land of the deceived lost souls.

[Karl]

So you took a course on logic and concluded that you were both the perceiver and the perceived.

Well that is fine except there is something that is beyond both the perceived and the perceiver that is not personal.

The perceiver and the perceived can be fused together (subject and object) into a state of samadhi and then you will realize that there is something beyond subject and object that was there all along, that is timeless, that is unborn, pure bliss, empty clarity,... Call it what you will....

Oh, and mantra repetition is not "awareness of awareness" as the mind is never still.

AYP is the land of the deceived lost souls.

Nope. I was perceived and perceiver prior to the logic course. It resolved to unity after the first month of doing that work. In your words-as far as I can conclude the experience you are alluding to-I remain permanently seated in unity/bliss/samadhi.

 

I don't believe this is anything particularly amazing, just natural. It's our current society and education that is preventing this happening on a much wider scale, it has created 'Peter pan's'-adults with childlike frontal brain development. This partially explains the constant need for entertainment and emotional highs-iPhone texts, games, toys etc amongst supposedly mature adults. These things are the equivalent of pacifiers. It is the state and its corporations that have taken the place as parents-which explains the culture of expectation and socialistic thinking. It shows in people's dress, art and general behaviour.

 

It might also explain the egotists that have taken control of governments and the general lack of political statesmen from 1900 onward. Things seems to coincide with the education system that was reformed in the second half of the 19th century. We only need go back a bare couple of centuries from that point in time where people barely lived beyond 40 years of age and who's entire life was spent in hard labour.

 

It's only theory, but it closely correlates with the state of our modern world. We live longer, but many are not reaching full maturity. The worst of them are strong intellectuals and egotists that have fought and schemed there way into every top position. The result has been a constant stream of wars, materialism, financial fraud on an unprecedented scale. We should be top heavy with the old and wise, but it is ever more the foolish and younger that are dominating the governing classes.

Edited October 2, 2015 by Karl

[Tibetan_Ice]

Nope. I was perceived and perceiver prior to the logic course. It resolved to unity after the first month of doing that work. In your words-as far as I can conclude the experience you are alluding to-I remain permanently seated in unity/bliss/samadhi.

 

...

 

Well now I don't believe you anymore. First your write that you have no kundalini, experiences or bliss, on this forum and also on AYP. Then you post all your posts on this forum about trivium and reason/logic and demonstrate a fierce grasping to rational materialism. And now you tell me that you are permanently in a state of unity/bliss/samadhi?

 

What am I supposed to believe? Did you take too many mushrooms? Do you make it up as you go?

[Karl]

Well now I don't believe you anymore. First your write that you have no kundalini, experiences or bliss, on this forum and also on AYP. Then you post all your posts on this forum about trivium and reason/logic and demonstrate a fierce grasping to rational materialism. And now you tell me that you are permanently in a state of unity/bliss/samadhi?

What am I supposed to believe? Did you take too many mushrooms? Do you make it up as you go?

 

I'm acting in your play. You don't want to reason, you won't provide definitions so I can have any of these things on my own subjective terms. Reason/logic is in contradiction to rational materialism.