How did spirituality, belief in God and the continuing search for God change you?

[Dontaskme]

Okay, then. Let people who we ignorant fools consider a victim, say that they are not victims. Then I might think of coming into the light from the darkness of my cave. Till then I have to live in the stone age of perceived reality as against your enlightened one of no victims.

There is no stone age, you are timeless beingness here now the only place you can exist.

The victim and the perpetrator are the same one locked in battle, it couldn't have been any other way, think about that.

How can there be a victim without a perpetrator and vice versa...?

This may be too deep for some people to comprehend.

All one has to do is stop hurting other and realise all we are doing is hurting ourself ...no one wins in the battle of self and other.

We don't need to win the battle - we are already winners, we are effortless alive right now, that's more than good enough for this one.

Why do you think people hurt other people?? it is because they feel unloved and feel lack ...never knowing how abundant they are or that they are the love they believe they lack.

[Hobbes' Choice]

No one is enlightened.

Enlightenment means to not exist as a separate entity.

Rubbish. Enlightenment means to be aware. There is no separate entity, nor could their be. Knowing THAT is to be enlightened as to your position in the universe and not be led by the false idols of religion and spirituality.

[Dontaskme]

Spirituality is just another false idol.

I can experience the joy of life and nature without reference to false concepts. And I can do that more authentically.

When my heart leaps with joy at seeing my dog find a scent and start wagging her tail furiously looking back up at me to tell me how clever she is whilst the wind is blowing the scent of the sea across my nose and the sun is glinting off those distant waves, scudding clouds reflected in the surface and casting shadows across the green ocean of wheat clear through to the white cliff of the Seven Sisters - What good to me is the concept of "spirituality" that inward looking, mean, satisfied, limiting abstraction?

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Spirituality is also concept, it does not exist. The reason we look in is to see what's looking duh! find out what's looking before you can claim there is anything to look at.

There is no my this, or my that...except a mentally constructed idea.....there is just what's happening to no one, who is this me having a feeling?
can you separate yourself from the feeling and see it...can you separate yourself from the thought you have about the world and look at it?

[Dontaskme]

No one is enlightened.

Enlightenment means to not exist as a separate entity.

Rubbish. Enlightenment means to be aware. There is no separate entity, nor could their be. Knowing THAT is to be enlightened as to your position in the universe and not be led by the false idols of religion and spirituality.

To be aware and not exist as a separate entity are the same idea. Stop right there before you get tangled up in your own delusions.

Can you separate yourself from that which is aware and the object you are aware of? if so explain how...

[Dontaskme]

Well, I would simply say only a true victim can confirm your beliefs. If victims of atrocities tells me that they are not victims, I might give your theory some consideration. Till then, it seems like a very remote and unlikely hypothesis.

Dear sthitapragya.

Answer me this honestly, can there be a victim without a perpetrator? can there be a perpetrator without a victim?

The point I am trying to make is that both victim and perpetrator would have had to make some kind of mutual agreement with each other, not in the assumed separate self sense, but in the metaphysical unconscious sense in that no atrocious event could ever happen without this unconscious agreement. Do you not see that?

Do you understand what I've said? ....I don't think this can be comprehended intellectually, because the mind claims any knowing as belonging to it.

But knowledge does not belong to any one, it's a fiction appearing real.

Bye the way, Jesus was a Nondual speaker. Jesus was a mythical character and used his character as a conceptual or symbolic representation of his Father in heaven which is the sky which is a symbolic representation of space, which is a symbolic representation of no thing in which everything appears as itself to itself and through itself.

[sthitapragya]

Dear sthitapragya.

Answer me this honestly, can there be a victim without a perpetrator? can there be a perpetrator without a victim?

Oh man, you are really going to make me do this? Very well. First of all, you have no reasonable evidence to support the claim that the victim and perpetrator are not separate other than your claim to the ability to see what others cannot see. The fact is that in real life, if a person shoots me dead, I am dead and he is alive. My family will grieve for my loss, they will feel the after effects of my death when they find out that they have to pay the huge debt I have left behind and the will curse me all their lives after that. Everyone gets affected.

Even you are. You are asking me to answer your question. why are you asking me? You and I are one. It is you who is saying that the victim and the perpetrator are separate and it is you who is saying that the victim and the perpetrator are the same. I am you and you are me, so why are you addressing sthitapragya? you could just ask dontaskme. ( I never imagined I would ever write that out.)

The point I am trying to make is that both victim and perpetrator would have had to make some kind of mutual agreement with each other, not in the assumed separate self sense, but in the metaphysical unconscious sense in that no atrocious event could ever happen without this unconscious agreement. Do you not see that?

If the separate self is only assumed, why does it have to make any agreement with themselves? And if all is one, why are there any events at all? Of any kind? Since everything is one, there would be no transfer of anything from one to the other since it is all one. There would be no time and no space. And nothing would exist.

But more than that, if you understand whatever you are saying, you would never argue or enter into a debate with anyone because YOU definitely know that you would be arguing or debating with yourself.

Do you understand what I've said? ....I don't think this can be comprehended intellectually, because the mind claims any knowing as belonging to it.

Why would you ask me that? I am you so obviously I understand that. And you are me so obviously you don't understand yourself.

Again, if the mind claims something not true, then the mind is separate from that which is true. Otherwise it would not think it is not true.

But knowledge does not belong to any one, it's a fiction appearing real.

If knowledge is fiction appearing to be real, then maybe what you think is real is fiction and your knowledge of everything being one is fiction and in reality everything is separate. Isn't that also possible?

Bye the way, Jesus was a Nondual speaker. Jesus was a mythical character and used his character as a conceptual or symbolic representation of his Father in heaven which is the sky which is a symbolic representation of space, which is a symbolic representation of no thing in which everything appears as itself to itself and through itself.

I have no comment to make on Jesus because I have no idea about him.

To summarize: You have a theory. You are trying to explain it to others. But your theory says there are no others. Everything is one.I am you and you are me. So there is actually no one who does not know your theory. So you are trying to actually explain your theory to yourself because you are convinced that you do not understand your own theory.

Let me put it in another way. You and I are one. You have created an illusion of me. That illusion believes that we are separate. But you already know that I am an illusion so why do you need to explain to an illusion created by you that you and I are one? You already know that you and I are one and I am just an illusion. So who are you explaining this to?

[ken]

The only thing that still remained was the question, what was BEFORE the big bang. My last hope. Obvious Leo explained that one away.

May I ask what was explained away?

And what do you now see?

[Walker]

To summarize: You have a theory. You are trying to explain it to others. But your theory says there are no others. Everything is one.I am you and you are me. So there is actually no one who does not know your theory. So you are trying to actually explain your theory to yourself because you are convinced that you do not understand your own theory.

Let me put it in another way. You and I are one. You have created an illusion of me. That illusion believes that we are separate. But you already know that I am an illusion so why do you need to explain to an illusion created by you that you and I are one? You already know that you and I are one and I am just an illusion. So who are you explaining this to?

He is probably just getting started.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMz7JBRbmNo

The monkey mind is a loyal and obedient servant of awareness, not to be feared and thus hated, but to be harnessed and controlled with patience, to be summoned for the entertainment of guests such as The Possibilities from down the road who drop by once in awhile. Knowledge of taming the monkey mind by knowing its ways reveals its worldly play as an entity of many forms, all of them transitory and shaped by circumstances.

[sthitapragya]

The only thing that still remained was the question, what was BEFORE the big bang. My last hope. Obvious Leo explained that one away.

May I ask what was explained away?

And what do you now see?

This universe is time and space with matter and energy. If we go back towards what is called the singularity at some point time and space did not exist. Since time did not exist there was no before. Whatever or whenever this universe was created was created out of existence which was in some other state altogether and which we cannot intuit. So it would be safe to call it existence. This is what I understood and it makes sense to me. I am not very good at science so my explanations might be unsatisfactory but Obvious Leo has given detailed explanations in some thread which I cannot find.

When I say explained away, I do not mean that it convinced me that the above is exactly what happened. But it did create a possibility that was far more likely than a universe created by God.

[Dontaskme]

If the separate self is only assumed, why does it have to make any agreement with themselves? And if all is one, why are there any events at all? Of any kind? Since everything is one, there would be no transfer of anything from one to the other since it is all one. There would be no time and no space. And nothing would exist.

But more than that, if you understand whatever you are saying, you would never argue or enter into a debate with anyone because YOU definitely know that you would be arguing or debating with yourself.

Your missing the point. And yes, it does seem like I am only arguing with myself, and that's basically true, everyone is talking to themselves in reality, any sound heard can only ever be an echo of their own voice. Direct hearing is 'embodied awareness', no conceptual explanation needed to realise 'this' only simply listening.

Now back to the debate with myself ....how can there be any adventure in life without an action figure to play the role.

It is when the action figure (me) believes it is the one doing the action, and believes it exists, it will then start to believe there are others also doing same as in doing their own actions, seeing and being separate from (me) and so will get offended if others over there do anything to hurt this one over here (me) the action figure.

In the nondual reality, the one beating the action figure's (me) heart and breathing it's breath and digesting it's food, etc etc all quite effortlessly may I add....well it's that same one who is doing those actions , is also the one who is being the action figure (me)....the action figure was just a fictional character in the adventure...what is real is that the action figure is embodied awareness having the experience of the action figure, no figure, nothing to be aware of...no adventure...see how there is two at play here (subject/object duality)....that's the illusion, this is only ever one projecting itself....being two.

Dear sthitapragya ...I cannot explain this to you properly on a forum, it takes far too long. Besides, I can't make you the action figure see this clearly, no matter how well I try to explain it to you, that has to come from you.... only direct seeing of embodied awareness will see this. You'll either see this or you won't, but it doesn't matter at all... really!

Have you read any nonduality books? these books explain it all so well. But, the thing is, this kind of knowledge is not for the faint of heart.

[Dontaskme]

sthitapragya:
If knowledge is fiction appearing to be real, then maybe what you think is real is fiction and your knowledge of everything being one is fiction and in reality everything is separate. Isn't that also possible?

No, separation is an idea,imagined... separation is impossible. There is only seeing, seeing everywhere. Where would the divide be?
Awareness can be aware, but what it is aware of can never be aware. Awareness (unknown) can know consciousness(known), but consciousness(known) can never know awareness(unknown) because they are the same awareness being two. One is conscious one is unconscious. It's a Zero and One game.

Can the thing seen be separate from the seer? can you see the seer?

So then you might say...if I close my eyes the object is still there...well yes it is, but only because you know it is. But can you know the knower? can a thing known be separate from the knower? But can you know the knower?

Does that make sense?

[Dontaskme]

Have you read any nonduality books? these books explain it all so well. But, the thing is, this kind of knowledge is not for the faint of heart.

Bye the bye...some people can read this stuff over and over again till they die and still never get it, or understand what's being pointed to.

And is usually why most people don't even give this knowledge a second glance.

It's just too simple for the mind to comprehend, the mind mostly seeks the complex in disbelief that the truth of reality can be so very simple.

[sthitapragya]

Your missing the point. And yes, it does seem like I am only arguing with myself, and that's basically true, everyone is talking to themselves in reality, any sound heard can only ever be an echo of their own voice. Direct hearing is 'embodied awareness', no conceptual explanation needed to realise 'this' only simply listening.

Not really. Does it seem like you are arguing with yourself or are you in reality arguing with yourself? If it seems like you are arguing with yourself, then that means that the reality is that you are arguing with me. In that case, oneness is an illusion and the fact that we are separate is real.

However, if it does not seem like but is actually a fact that you are arguing with yourself, then there is oneness and you are, in fact, arguing with yourself.

Now we come to the next problem. You say, "everyone is talking to themselves in reality." Who is everyone? And if reality has everyone in it, then oneness is an illusion again. So which is it?

Now you say, "any sound heard can only be an echo of their own voice." If reality is oneness, how can there be an echo, since there is nothing for the sound to reflect from?

Then comes the other problem. You agree that you are, in fact, arguing with yourself. About what? You are oneness. You see it as such. So know that we don't really exist but are just a creation of your own mind. But wait a minute. You don't even have a mind to create us. So how did we come into illusory existence?

Now back to the debate with myself ....how can there be any adventure in life without an action figure to play the role.

Why does oneness need adventure? Indeed, why does oneness need anything? The way you describe it, it is eternal bliss. So why does it NEED? If oneness needs, it is dissatisfied. In which case, there is something missing. Which means it is not perfect and bored. Why is oneness bored?

If oneness is complete in itself, it would not need to create illusions. In which case, no separateness would exist.

If however oneness did create illusions out of itself, it would make damn sure that the illusions never found out that they were illusions. Otherwise the whole purpose of creating the illusions would be lost. In which case an illusion could NEVER find out about the oneness. But if you still found out about the illusions, that means oneness left made a mistake and you broke through it. Could oneness make that mistake? Is oneness fallible? If not, how did you ever figure out that there is only oneness and everything else is an illusion?

So we go to the next possibility that oneness did intend the illusion to find out that it was oneness itself and not separate from oneness. In such a case, one of the illusions just became an observer and got out of the game. So maybe that is the game. To see how long it would take for everyone to figure out it was just a game.

And it gives me a warm feeling to know that we are on this earth as illusions because some guy had nothing better to do, got bored and thought of creating a game with me in it. I exist because oneness is bored. yay! I know the meaning of life.

Of course we still have to deal with the part where you have not given any proof of this theory, just made a proclamation which we are supposed to take for the eternal truth just because it came from you.

[sthitapragya]

sthitapragya:
If knowledge is fiction appearing to be real, then maybe what you think is real is fiction and your knowledge of everything being one is fiction and in reality everything is separate. Isn't that also possible?

No, separation is an idea,imagined... separation is impossible. There is only seeing, seeing everywhere. Where would the divide be?
Awareness can be aware, but what it is aware of can never be aware. Awareness (unknown) can know consciousness(known), but consciousness(known) can never know awareness(unknown) because they are the same awareness being two. One is conscious one is unconscious. It's a Zero and One game.

Can the thing seen be separate from the seer? can you see the seer?

So then you might say...if I close my eyes the object is still there...well yes it is, but only because you know it is. But can you know the knower? can a thing known be separate from the knower? But can you know the knower?

Does that make sense?

Well, my problem is how can you know it is true? What if oneness is an illusion created by separateness which in turn created an illusion of separateness?

[sthitapragya]

Have you read any nonduality books? these books explain it all so well. But, the thing is, this kind of knowledge is not for the faint of heart.

Bye the bye...some people can read this stuff over and over again till they die and still never get it, or understand what's being pointed to.

And is usually why most people don't even give this knowledge a second glance.

It's just too simple for the mind to comprehend, the mind mostly seeks the complex in disbelief that the truth of reality can be so very simple.

I have read Shankaracharya's advaitism extensively. And I can understand why people don't get it. However, the people who do, usually become hermits and lose all interest in materialistic life. They renounce everything and go live in the mountains with nature and eat the simplest of foods. When you do that, when you lose interest in everything material, and just leave for the jungles to eat what you can and live off the land, that is when you can claim to know what it means. Its a putting your money where your mouth is kind of a deal. SO I promise you. You don't get it either. You are sitting in the comfort of your home having this discussion with me. You don't get it.