Posts by placidharbor7

Edward Flores4 said:The Riddle of the Sphinx

Honestly, I think only a complete idiot would try to pin down an answer to that—which is pretty much why neither Krishnamurti nor myself ever bothered attempting it in the first place.

Sometimes the question itself is the only answer you're going to get. But lately, I've been getting really into the idea of feedback loops and circles, so I’ll leave it up to you to tackle it:

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Edward Flores4 said:Exactly. Meditation is basically a constant resistance against the hypnosis that most people spend their entire lives stuck in. It’s this hypnotic state—whether they’re inducing it themselves or just falling under the spell of some social group, a religion, a cult, a guru, a politician, an ideology, or even just the mass media.

Meditation is pure perception—stripped of all ambition, stripped of any kind of measurement (you know, that habit of using "metrics" as the foundation for all supposed "spiritual growth" or "progress"), and stripped of that separation between the thinker and the thought. When someone splits themselves into the thought and the thinker, and then that thinker tries to control the thoughts... well, they just end up in a state of total paralysis. That isn't meditation at all.

Edward Flores4 said:Anyone who thinks meditation is going to "smooth out" human emotions—or that it eventually leads to some kind of constant bliss or comfort—clearly hasn't a clue what they're talking about.

Besides... why do you assume only an agitated person can be verbally aggressive? Tolerance isn't a free pass; it’s something you earn. It is perfectly normal, even productive, to withhold tolerance from someone who hasn't earned it. Doing that doesn't require being upset—quite the opposite, actually. It requires calmness, calculation, and resolve. You're completely conflating "political correctness" with "spirituality."

Human stupidity... while it can be fascinating and deeply annoying at the same time, it should only rattle those who aren't expecting to run into it. If you go into the day expecting stupidity, its appearance won't shake you—just like you don't get upset when the sun sets in the evening after having expected it to rise in the morning.

Quincy:

what does meditation mean to you? Because clearly, your definition is a far cry from the standard one.

Krishnamurti describes the problem of meditation perfectly, and it aligns exactly with my own view of the matter.

Meditation is a very complex business. The Word meditation implies both in Sanskrit and in English, not only the brain concentrating on a certain subject, but also it implies a great deal of attention. But primarily meditation means, in Sanskrit, to measure. And also in English etymologically, I believe, it is to measure.
The whole question of becoming is involved in it, which is to measure: I am this, I will be that. I am greedy, but I will gradually become non-greedy, which is a form of measurement, which is form of becoming. Both becoming in the affairs of the world and psychologically becoming. That is the whole question of measurement.
The Greeks were the originators of measurement. Without measurement there would be no technology. And The Asiatics specially in India, said measurement is illusion, measurement means limitation. They didn’t exactly say this, they put it differently. So measurement means comparison, to compare ‘what is’, ‘what should be’, the ideal, the fact, the fact becoming the ideal. All that is implied in meditation.

And also in meditation is implied, the meditator and the meditation. So to enquire into meditation, you have to enquire first not only measurement, but also this constant becoming something, psychologically. Human beings are violent, and the ideal to be in a state of non-violence, which is to become.

So the question is not how to meditate but what is meditation, rather than how. I hope I am making myself clear. And also there is a question involved in that: who is meditating? And most of The Systems of meditation , whether The Japanese , and The hindus, and so on, Tibetan, there is always the controller and the controlled. Right? Are we meeting each other? So there is the controller controlling thought, to quieten the thought, to shape thought according to a purposeful direction. So there is the controller and the controlled. Who is the controller?

Please, all this is implied in meditation, not merely to control one’s thought as is generally understood in meditation, whether it is Zen meditation, or the most complex forms of meditation which take place in India, and elsewhere, there is always the director, the entity that controls thought. SoThey’ve essentially created this psychological split between the one doing the thinking and the thoughts themselves. Because of that, the thinker detaches himself from the actual process of thinking—which leads to this idea that during meditation, there’s some sort of "controller" stepping in to manage and quiet down the thoughts.

It creates this fundamental divide between the controller and what is being controlled. Makes sense, right? But here’s the kicker: who actually *is* the controller? Honestly, hardly anyone ever stops to ask that.
Most people are just thrilled to dive into meditation because they’re chasing a specific destination—you know, things like sudden illumination, total enlightenment, a quieted brain, or just some much-needed peace of mind. But very, very few people actually take a moment to inquire: who is this controller I'm trying to use?

------------------

And hey, if there’s anything else that still feels a bit fuzzy... just ask. 🙂

Edward Flores4 said:Just show me who’s got you held captive, and I’ll set you free!

steeleagle13 said:What makes an awakened person convincing is ONLY AND ONLY THE SEEKER !!! If that seeker FEELS what the awakened one is talking about!!!!!
In that moment, the seeker is essentially awakened too. They can feel it intuitively without needing anything to be clear; time passes until it clicks, until that specific "consciousness" crystallizes and they finally understand what the awakened one was getting at...
we could call it synchronicity...
A master's teaching is worth absolutely nothing 😁 in terms of one's own "experience" of emptiness, unless maybe it counts for him 😁—which would make it just as worthless as all the empty religions in the world. Take the Buddha, for example; he claims to have experienced something, and now people have been bowing to him for 2,500 years.😉

Master, don't forget—everything that is said is a LIE.

And Truth at the same time. 😁
If this specific shell (this little universe) weren't the way it is, it could destroy itself (from within itself)—meaning the mind wouldn't be indestructible (the consciousness), and everything mentioned in that book from the Himalayas in the first post of this thread could actually happen. But the "shell" of the "mind" is eternal, whereas "experiences of emptiness" DO NOT last forever, haha. So those are just experiences and lies (and truth) too.😲

steeleagle13 said:Isn't your own stronghold just an "imagined lack of a stronghold"? 😉🙄😁

Mark Twain says:


CHAPTER XI
THE MYSTERIOUS STRANGER

"It is true, that which I have revealed to you; there is no God, no universe, no human race, no earthly life, no heaven, no hell. It is all a dream - a grotesque and foolish dream. Nothing exists but you. And you are but a thought - a vagrant thought, a useless thought, a homeless thought, wandering forlorn among the empty eternities!"

He vanished, and left me appalled; for I knew, and realized, that all he had said was true.😁😁😁

Edward Flores4 said:That kind of assumption is basically the root of every mistake we make. 🙂

steeleagle13 said:The madman just laughs and cheers 😁

But I want to know about Icane and the DESIRE !!!!... you claimed up above that it's destroyed by a "desire"😲 for finality—can you actually explain that? What was the poet trying to get at here? 😁

steeleagle13 said:SO WHY ISN'T THAT POETRY CALLED "CLICK"? hehehe😁

I’m not talking about the rigidity of the "physical body as such," but rather the very nature of the MIND itself (meaning the givenness of everything within the mind), that eternal "contamination" of consciousness...
today's reality, for instance, is just a "rigid physical body"...
usually, it's just the constant sensation of a rigid physical body.

Quincy:

"The shell" isn't eternal—it shatters because of the desire for total finality, along with the consciousness of Being itself.

AFTER realizing the "eternity" of the mind as it is, what possible desire could ever return things to the OLD WAY?
Consciousness doesn't come from BEING (individuality); rather, Being is distinct from consciousness, from the MIND (the universe).

HOW IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE to break and destroy the SHELL and consciousness???
A DEAD being cannot exist!!!! DEATH doesn't exist; death exists only through its own non-existence!!
The MIND exists and ALWAYS EXISTS in the form of a shell!!!!
The UNIVERSE (MIND) exists THROUGH the shell!!!!
THE SHELL is the nature of the mind!!!!!
THE SHELL IS THE MIND (universe) 😁 😲!!!!
The shell is the MIND and the MIND is the shell!!!

steeleagle13 said:but if wailing is an "invention"🙄, then why can't "joy" be one too?

Someone whose life is actually full... someone who feels joy or grief... they don't have the "time" to sit around wailing about their "eternity"🙄

Wouldn't that wailing be a lot softer if we didn't have these rigid, heavy physical bodies stuck in time and space? Heh..
Has anyone EVER been bored in a dream (when there's no body and no limits)???!!!

John, wouldn't the realization that the "shell is eternal"... and the realization of that wailing... be the TRIGGER for that flash of enlightenment YOU experienced???

steeleagle13 said:Okay, so I expanded the text above... I have this habit where I'll write a post and then edit the damn thing 250 times whenever I remember something else. 😁

The whole UNIVERSE is just one big mess—why even bother trying to tell them apart?😁

steeleagle13 said:But I still don't get why it works that way?🙄
Heh, isn't the universe being a little cruel to me? 😁

If I look at this whole thread and everything said here... the only thing that makes sense is what "Ramana" claimed—that even "his cow is enlightened." Basically, isn't that just what those Eastern texts call the "state of a cow"? Isn't it better to have the fate of a "being" that actually lives a FULL LIFE? For a cow, that's a field of grass; for a human, it's obviously way more than that. It's about someone who just lives through life, fully immersed in it, without constantly questioning everything...

That's just how the nature of the "universe" is—it just *is*, without asking questions. Besides, the whole act of "searching for truth" only happens because of some stimulus and "not knowing your own perfection." Once a being realizes they are eternal and indestructible—whether through logic or deep experience—that's when the real SHITSHOW begins. The only way out is that original state, where you lived your life and DIDN'T ASK A SINGLE QUESTION about God or whatever else.

Is there any other way out of this "life equation"? Other than suffering or "forgetfulness" (just being lost in the moment, like you seem to be)

steeleagle13 said:Eternal life = eternal suffering. 😲😁

Look, it doesn't even last eighteen hours—you just sleep every single day. It’s basically nothingness outside of time and space... if you don't count dreams, obviously. Just pure dreamless sleep.

Imagine if you could never fall asleep... you'd lose your mind in a heartbeat. This isn't just some logical conclusion—it’s a fundamental truth.

Christians and anyone else who thinks they believe in eternal life have absolutely no clue what kind of HELL we’re actually talking about!!!!!

😁

driftingraven122 said:Enlightened Teddy Bear 😁

There aren't any voids regarding existence, non-existence, or nothingness—I guess. It’s just that, momentarily, the diversity gets lost along with the entity observing the "infinite contents." And that's really the only ultimate way to grasp those "infinite contents"—it isn't an either-or situation, maybe.

mistybison said:It doesn't matter. As Jason Johnson4 points out, the book is intended for the living just as much as it is for the deceased, serving as a sort of manual for achieving "liberation." 🙂 The book itself isn't nearly as vital as the actual state of "liberation." It simply served as the inspiration for me to finally open this discussion I've been contemplating for some time.

That sounds like someone who is truly losing their grip on reality. kaže:
It is absurd to try and process this through pure intellect, because the issue isn't actually about intelligence. There is no entity involved—or rather, any entity perceived is merely an intellectual construct, which means it cannot truly be called an "experience of an entity." It isn't just a matter of memory, either; essentially, it is simply a mirror being turned within the mind. Forever. Once you find the right path, the search for individual "liberation" simply ceases to exist, leaving behind a permanent consequence. From there, you see how those "infinite contents" arise; they aren't actually in contradiction with that state. They aren't a problem.Maybe Master John knows more about this. I am still quite inexperienced. 😬

It is likely that we are all quite inexperienced on this topic. 😁

In my experience, it is quite simple to view "reality"—the distinction between "self" and "non-self"—as a single, unified whole that simply "unfolds." From this perspective, one can experience a true mental tranquility, characterized by a release from the constant cycle of questions and answers and a genuine lightness of being. 🙂 However, I don't view that as the kind of "liberation" you’re describing, nor is it what the Tibetan Book of the Dead refers to. Honestly, I can't quite wrap my head around what this version of "liberation" actually entails—who exactly is being liberated, or what specific shifts are occurring within the mind. I suspect that discussing or overanalyzing this topic might not lead us anywhere productive, but we can certainly give it a try. 🙂

Do you have any approximate experiences regarding this matter?

Quote: Grace Bennett4

It is comforting, as it allows you to grant yourself the conviction of eternal life. 🙂A person is at their happiest when they believe in something eternal, regardless of the form it takes. 😉

Thank you for these insightful posts. 🙂 I am glad this topic prompted you to return to 'Spirituality.'🙂

steeleagle13 said:BUT AN END ISN'T EVEN POSSIBLE 🙄😉

Isn't the whole point of an "enlightened being" to scream FOREVER!?!?

The end of the physical and mental stuff—that void where thoughts and memories vanish—is just the "potential" for the enlightened being itself... the universe can't just delete its own existence...

Susan Kim18 said:If you imagine someone crying out inside a gloomy astral fog, you could look at it this way:

- That cry suggests they want something else, rather than accepting what actually is.
- The gloominess implies they are assigning qualities to their surroundings, essentially labeling what is already there.
- Taken together, it all points to one thing: RESISTANCE to reality.

Pure consciousness doesn't resist, doesn't label, doesn't feel pain, and certainly doesn't cry out; it simply IS, regardless of how thick or dark the fog happens to be.

Edward Flores4 said:Honestly, I’m sitting here in a bit of a state of shock, but I have to admit—it looks like we finally landed on the same page regarding something.

Any teachings or religions that push the idea of "ecstasy," "liberation," or "eternity" are just plain childish.

Exactly.

When you strip everything away, death is the only actual liberation. Compared to the raw vitality found in dying, the energy involved in being born feels almost trivial. Think of it this way—dying is like that very last stroke of a brush on a canvas. It’s the completion, the wholeness, the final realization of the work.

mistybison said:Regarding the Tibetan Book of the Dead, Jung isn't actually discussing a divide between Eastern and Western minds, but rather different methods of exploring the psyche. The mind is fundamentally the same for everyone—it is layered. People in the East simply don't place as much emphasis on the things Americans focus on, such as the subconscious or the collective unconscious, because they view all of that as Maya, just as much as our material existence and individual ego. Jung is merely pointing out that, according to the Tibetan Book of the Dead, the process works in reverse at the moment of death: the mind encounters "pure consciousness" or "non-consciousness." If one fails to let go at that moment, they begin to sink back into Maya—first confronting the deepest layers of the human psyche before slowly ascending toward rebirth, physical existence, and individual consciousness. The Tibetan Book of the Dead essentially provides a highly detailed map of the human psyche, moving from the deepest depths to the surface. 🙂

However, it is important to remember that this book explains what happens spontaneously after death. I believe Jung is simply emphasizing that attempting to consciously trigger this reverse process can be extremely dangerous. In an attempt to dive into the deeper layers of the mind hoping to reach the "source," a person might become trapped in mental states they cannot handle, potentially leading to psychosis or schizophrenia. Eastern traditions don't dig through the contents of the mind in that manner; instead, they discard the mind as Maya and focus immediately on the highest state—pure spirit, pure consciousness, emptiness, or non-existence. This is precisely what the Tibetan Book of the Dead advises throughout: turning attention toward non-existence, practicing meditation, or praying to a supreme Deity—regardless of whatever sensations, sights, or sounds are being experienced in that moment.

And so we arrive back at what I mentioned in my opening post: either existence with all its infinite contents, or the total annihilation of everything. Why should the latter be considered the ultimate spiritual goal?