Things discussed on this article pulled from a conversation with a friend:
Are There Different Awakenings?
Does the Mind Stop Identifying with Itself?
Is there Awareness & Something Else called the Mind?
Several Questions about Enlightenment & Teachers.
Metaphors of Deep Sleep, Dreaming, Awakening, & Death.
What Does it Mean that Relationships Are Mirrors?
The World of Opposites as One Movement.
The Appearance of Something Else & the Search.
How is Something and Nothing the Same One-Non-Thing?
Is There a Difference Between Reality & Illusion?
Do the Enlightened Have Conflict?
The Mystery Unfolding & Leading Nowhere.
Is there Such a thing as 'Abiding Non-dual Awareness'?
Is no Questions the Goal?
....and more....
___________________________________________________________________
"Everybody is describing what they see."
Yes and what they see is always limited to that perspective. Unless or until it is seen that it is not "your" perspective. There is nobody having a perspective, so all perspectives are perfectly fine.
"I keep finding myself saying "that's a valid perspective", What else can be said?"
Yeah it's all valid. No reason to disagree with nature. It's all naturally occurring.
"When a position is taken, it is seen as being arbitrary."
Positions are taken continuously, there is no way way around it since there is no control. It's never your anyhow. Even taking no position is taking a position to no-position.
"Yeah. I realised that the other day. Taking no position is no different to taking a position as its happening to noone."
Indeed.
"Teachers talking about "awakened values"... what is that about? How does a body/mind behave "enlightened"?"
There are many "traps" the mind can fall in (but there is nothing wrong with that either, that's a natural unfolding too).
"Am I right that "enlightened" people don't behave any different?"
It just depends on which conditions fall and which remain. There is no telling what will happen. It is unpredictable. Conditions change all the time, the rising and falling of conditions happen continuously based on infinite unfoldings. "Enlightenment" is said to be one of those unfoldings.
"I guess if a person knows they're God, they might then start behaving the way they think God should behave. But they were God the whole time they were behaving like a shit."
There is no way to escape what is and the minds search for enlightenment is just another way of trying to escape (which is perfectly fine that it does that since that is what is). There is no person doing it.
"There is still a constant complaining by the mind here but it is seen as being like a tape playing."
Yep it does what it does on its own. There is nobody there. It's just like the heart-beat, it is always going naturally.
"There is a difference between awakening within the dream and awakening from the dream isn't there?"
One dream 'person' tells another dream person that he has awaken from the dream and tells the dream character how she can awaken from the dream too. Is there really any value in that? They are both still in a dream, dreaming a dream. Which one is more real? Which one is more reality? Which one is more natural? Which one is more dream than the other dream?
Perhaps there is dream value of not having anymore nightmares but the nightmares never harmed anybody, it just appeared to. There is compassion here for the ones in a nightmare and waking them up into a more stable dream occurs naturally here but it's not the goal or way it is with all who have seen through the nightmare. It is unpredictable because it's just a dream and the dream does what it wants. There is no control.
The witness that watches the dream unfold is the only thing that is predictable. It is always, always has been, and always will be watching and that's it. There is nobody there to be the witness.
"So there is only ever dreaming going on, unless you're in deep sleep or dead?"
There is no way to escape the witness. The witness is what is, without it, what is couldn't be. There is nobody in deep sleep and therefore nobody dies. What is, is the witness only.
When appearances appear in deep sleep that is called dreaming, but deep sleep in the "foundation" so-to-speak. That is the witness. There is nobody behind it. Nothing is ever really happening at all, expect appearances that are empty. Nothing is everything. Nothing is the only. Death is witnessing without believing that someone is being a that witness.
"The sense "I am" is in the dream."
It's all the dream of what is, since there is nobody there dreaming.
"No need to change the dream then. Nobody here to change it anyway."
Exactly. It is all acceptable even when it's not being accepted.
I don't accept that police abuse the constitution and if I see that happen, then I will likely do something about it. However, that is just the characters view-point about it. The personality can do what it wants, always has anyhow, it just is not in conflict with itself anymore. But that can and does still happen. Whatever can be said about this, the opposite is true too because THIS holds everything. It is everything. It's just simple living
"So the only difference is that the Mind has accepted there is nothing else."
Sometimes it is acceptable for the constitution to be abused because the view-point here is that there are no victims and nobody is being harmed. It just depends on the moment. Some moments are more flexible than other moments and sense I don't know what is going to be thought, said, or done in any second of time, I have no control over it. And if I do have the illusion of control over it then I use that, if I feel embedded to use it.
It is changing so much and so unpredictable that there is nothing that can be said for certain. Just like looking back on a dream when you awake. The dream seemed so unpredictable and didn't make much sense and even when it seemed to make sense, there was no control over it.
I don't know what happens (if anything can be said to happen at all). I don't know what difference there is or the mind or anything else. In the same way there is no way to know what the dream means (if anything) in the first-place. Any comparison from "enlightenment" to "dream" is just in thought.
No point of reference. Any point of reference in first taken in thought and thoughts are used to explain THIS so it seems that something is being taught. Really there is nothing being taught because there is nothing that can be said about this. It's a mystery.
"Yeah. Any attempt to explain it is just musings of the mind which may or may not "resonate" with "other" minds."
The mind is always explaining, it's the way the stories seem solid.
"Sometimes there is an interest in the stories and sometimes there isn't."
Yes and sometimes it is somewhere in between and sometimes it doesn't know what it is or where it is. It's all there.
"So when teachers say they no longer identify with their thoughts, they're not saying that the mind no longer identifies with itself. They're speaking from the perspective of Awareness which has never identified with anything. In actual fact, they're not describing anything different to what's always been going on."
Awareness doesn't have a perspective about anything, even itself. The mind identifying with itself is just a pointer pointing to how there is nobody there, just thoughts. Nothing is separate from awareness and awareness is the nothing that appears as everything. Awareness/nothing doesn't identify with itself as anything and if it does it is identifying with nothing, even if it is appearing to identify with the appearance of something. Since that is all it is, nothing appearing as something, yet just an appearance of nothing. Appearances are empty, they are nothing.
Whatever is seemingly going on, is not ever going on at all, since there is nothing ever here. What is here has always been here and will always be here as this nothing. They are describing or attempting to describe the nothing. All that is ever being pointed to is nothing/nobody. And how this nothing has no idea about itself because it is nothing and has nothing to compare itself to. "Everything else" is itself. Everything as itself: nothing. Thoughts are nothing. Everything is nothing, noticing that nothing.
The sense "I AM" is all there is. Like a camera witnessing has nothing to say about what it is witnessing, it just witnesses, yet this witness knows that it is witnessing. You know you are. I AM, that is all I can know.
What is being pointed to can't be pointed to. Nothing cant know itself as nothing from an intellectual knowing. It doesn't know itself as anything.
"So there's not a mind and then something else which is aware of mind. There is only mind, or thoughts, being aware of itself. Or is there not even that?"
As soon as a thought arises, it arises as awareness. Every thought is proof-positive of awareness or a witness (whatever label). Nothing can be separated from awareness. Everything needs awareness to be aware of it. Without awareness, there is nothing to be aware of. You cannot separate a thought from awareness, every thought is awareness since without it no thought would be seen as a thought, it wouldn't exist (it's not even known as a thought, thought is the only thing that can know itself as something hence a thought through that label, but it's just an empty label). It is not a thought arising in an awareness. It is awarenessthought (one word/no-word), one movement. And since eveything arises like this one movement, being witnessed without someone witnessing (nobody there to be the witness that is witnessing), then there is nothing else here. You could say it is nothing reflecting nothing. Deep sleep.
Awareness is nothing being aware of itself as nothing. In deep sleep there is an awareness there but it is aware of nothing (itself) therefore it is said to not happen. It can only be said to happen when you awake from deep sleep and reflect back on the deep sleep as nothing.
So only in the appearance of something can nothing be known to itself and the appearance of something is still nothing appearing as something. Something/nothing is awareness equally as it. It might as well be called awaressomethingnothing, one movement.
You can only known something by first knowing nothing because both are not two things, only one. They need each other to be what they are because they are not independent. Nothing is independent from awareness, but everything is awareness. There are no opposites and if there appears to be opposites, it is only in relation to each other: dark/light. Without one the other one fails to exist because they are not independent by nature. There are both the same one thing appearing as separate.
"Which is why something is actually the same as nothing."
Yes. People question: "Why is there something rather than nothing (why is life existing at all? how did something come from nothing)?" However, both (something/nothing) are one because there are not two things there. They exist together as one thing (non-thing).
Some would say this reality is an illusion, but what part are they comparing it to? This is real/illusion as one thing because it holds everything as it. It is the only thing existing/nonexisting... there is nothing to compare it to because it is everything/nothing.
Life can only exist as something if there is something else to compare life to. This is why some say "drop all beliefs and truth is seen". For example, if you believe in the idea of Heaven, then life becomes something else as comparable to Heaven. There is now a reference-point to know life as something since there is now something else called Heaven. Hence, life is illusion, if Heaven is real.
Some people derive this same reference-point by comparing dreams to waking life and therefore life must be real in comparison.
"Yes, "illusion" suggests that there is something else that is "real"."
Correct, every word suggest something else as an opposite because language is dualistic by nature. Hence thoughts/labels/names/words.... are always the main focus of this topic. Separation only appears to happen there because words are taken as describing a thing, but words only work in relation to other words. In the same way the word "dark"only makes sense in words when it is compared in relation to "light" (for example) and everything in-between, like shades of gray, can only make sense in relation to the ideas of dark and light.
'Best to shut up then. LOL."
Yeah that is why many don't even attempt to point.
"Everyone is pointing at the same thing anyhoo. The 'problem' comes from thinking that any description is actually "it"."
Yes and since it holds everything as it, nothing is it AND everything is it, together as one movement.
"There is nowhere to stand outside of it."
Or inside of it. Nowhere to stand.... period. Since it stands as everything and nowhere particular.
"There is just being all of it and none of it."
Yes.
"And this discussion has taken us nowhere. LOL."
Everything does. lol
"There is nowhere to go. Because we're already everywhere and nowhere."
Exactly. Since there is no we, just whatever this is as it is.
"May as well just be what we already are then."
Perfectly expressed.
"Thank you. Scott Kiloby talks about "the relationship is a mirror". I can see how that works when you're looking for someone to validate what you say but how does it work when they are disagreeing with you? Is it that you're disagreeing with them so they're disagreeing with you?"
It's a mirror of opposites. Claiming yourself as something and denying the appearance of the opposite (since both arise together as one thing, if something is being claimed an opposite will seem to appear). The opposite always appears as other ("I am spiritual" appears as "others are not"). What Scott suggests is that 'you' can ease the conflict in 'yourself' and with 'others' by noticing the position claimed is creating its mirrored opposite.
Relationships only mirror the appearance of separation. A relationship is a connection, things can only connect if they are first seen as separate. Scott's pointer helps seeing that there is no other and hence no you.
For example, if you claim that you are enlightened, the relationship mirror of that is "there are others who are not enlightened". In order to be enlightened you need "unenlightened people" in order to compare. When there is no idea of enlightenment, there is no idea unenlightenment. Other is created by 'your' thoughts about 'them' in opposite to whatever is being claimed. If you are "enlightened" you need the idea of others and think others as not enlightened.
The process is predictable; Whatever is claimed, the opposite is denied. I claim This, other is That. I am not That, other is That. I am This, other is not This. And everything in-between can be conjured up as long as there is self and other, like groups for example. Us and them. Me versus them.
The conflict ends when you see that thoughts only work in relation to the idea of another. No other does not exists. Other can only exist when there is first a self, or vice-versa. No opposite actually exists as an independent source. Conflict can only happen in the illusion of opposites.
"So "enlightened" people like Scott don't have conflict?"
There are no enlightened people. So, of course, conflict can still arise and based on the story that is being played out for that character. Like this character here will likely cause conflict with police who abuse power based on personality, but also may not depending on the moment it unfolds and what position is being taken. Rather than no-position or position based on the unfolding of that moment. But the conflict is not based on anything solid and even if it is then it doesn't matter because there is nobody doing that. Scott's practice or guide is to see past stories by using the story of conflict. It's still pointing to nothing though, perhaps in a more practical way.
"Yep, I get that. Sometimes my husband does something I don't like but there is the thought "who cares" and I do nothing about it. Other times it is different and the "who cares" comes in later after there's been a "scuffle". Who knows which way it will go. There are thoughts "you shouldn't be getting upset about this" and sometimes they stop the upset and sometimes they don't."
Indeed, there is no way to predict what will happen, since there is nobody doing it (I say I know the personality here, but I don't, there is no way to know how I will respond in any given second). The pattern of Scott's pointer about "the relationship is a mirror" may play out in a predictable way, but there is no prediction as to how things unfold since there is nobody unfolding it that way. There is no control or controller. It unfolds the way it does without you.
"It really is quite random."
Everything is random and spontaneous.
"Although memory would suggest that the "scuffles" are getting less and less frequent. Because the "who cares" thought is becoming more and more prevalent."
And that is random too. Even if it begins to seem predictable based on frequency, it is still random and natural, everything is and therefore there is no knowing if it will last, how long it will last, or anything there of.
"So "Everyday I'm getting better and stronger" is just a bullshit story we tell ourselves."
We don't tell ourselves anything since there is nobody there, just thoughts. It's all bullshit stories, even everything discussed here.
"The need to "improve" this person and this life has all but gone."
It sometimes seems to happen that way.
"Did it happen to you?"
It is difficult to say.
"I guess needing to improve and not needing to improve come and go too. The moment you think you've "arrived", you find something else happening."
That tends to take place.
"When people say they're "done" what does that mean?"
Perhaps the seeing that there is no who to be done. Done in that moment, I suppose.
"Must do, since you can't speak about any other moment."
And the eternal moment is always changing.
"So there is no such thing as"abiding non-dual awareness" as a special thing that only some people have."
Not at all.
"The mind can't hold onto anything that is abiding. LOL."
Well said.
"Nothing going on here is abiding. Except the underlying nothingness."
Indeed and nobody HAS an abiding. Nothingness is underlying everything because there is no underlying to nothingness.
"There are lots of teachers who seem to be saying something different to that. Or is that just my lack of understanding?"
Many things are being said about it, but it is difficult to say what is being said based on an intellectual "knowing" of it or what is being said based on an knowing that is known without a knower. Yet only thoughts would try to recognize the difference. Does it really matter? Not here it doesn't.
"No it doesn't matter. Just testing the thought here that the understanding isn't clear."
It's okay. I understand.
"I just keep coming back to "This is it!" It's always been this way and all that's happened is that you've spent years searching for something else. Once you figure out there is nothing else, you stop searching. Then you see someone saying "there is something else over here" and you go over and check it out only to find that it is not something else at all. They're describing what has always been here too but just in a novel way so that it sounded like something else."
Yes nothing new is ever being said. This is it. Exactly.
"Nobody is doing better than anyone else."
Correct.
"Because there is noone here but also in the relative sense - there is no "better"."
There is no relative sense, there is only nothing and ideas about that.
"There is a tendency towards nihilism here but with a character who is sometimes animated. It seems incongruous somehow. By "animated" I mean enthusiastic and into it."
There is no way to get this right or wrong. Everybody is equal, everybody is this as one thing. It doesn't matter either way, even when it seems to appear as if it does matter. All is all well. All is this.
"Yep. That is realised here and then there are stirrings and questions (like a rumbling volcano) and then things quieten down again. But it is all happening in the dream with no dreamer."
And nothing wrong with questions, at all. That is this too. You may ask questions the rest of your life in moments. Doesn't change anything. Having questions or not is no difference. There is no goal.
"There is no goal to have no questions left?"
Not at all. Since the thing that is asking the questions, is always asking questions and making bold statements, that is what it does. Nobody is doing it.
"So the fact that questions arise and are acted upon (ie searching starts again) doesn't mean anything?"
Nope. If the goal is to rid of the ego, the ego would be the only one that would try to stop itself by not asking questions. You see, any change to 'something else' is a change in ego only. Which is really no change at all. There is no goal to do anything even if the goal is to rid of the ego because nobody is doing that. It is all happening based on conditioning and conditioning changes (like everything else).
"No need to change the ego. It is not possible to get rid of it and no ego is "better" than another."
Indeed.
