It's time to wake up!

a reply to: Andy1144

I'm not saying that it is.

ETA: Although one experience might be enough for some.

a reply to: daskakik

Although one experience might be enough for some.

I'm saying that's not true, because you can have the experience and not see the mechanism clearly and consciously. There is a big difference between these two. So if I drop '___' or do something to make my sense of self fall away, it won't mean anything major unless I see and know what was happening in this moment. That's why people who have these self transcending experiences don't awaken but remain asleep. They don't know consciously, what was happening to them and thus discounted the experience as either a hallucination, or tie it to religious ideologies.
EDIT: But if one conscious enough, he could see that it was really the sense of identity he thought himself to be an illusion. This experience cannot be recreated through memory that's why it is discounted so easily. It needs to stick and be fresh in every moment.

originally posted by: Andy1144
I'm saying that's not true, because you can have the experience and not see the mechanism clearly and consciously.

Nothing more than your opinion. You have no idea how anyone else may or may not be affected by a single experience.

a reply to: daskakik

Nothing more than your opinion. You have no idea how anyone else may or may not be affected by a single experience.

I can't know how one will be effected. I can know the main thing to know, which is if you see the self illusion clearly; seeing truly and genuinely it was an illusion, it would mean death in a sense. Your whole sense of identity is tied around that sense of self, it's only normal to know it has major emotional implications. That's why it's important to distinguish between the two.

Ask anyone who really had an awakening if it did have major implications. All would say yes, because the sense of self is the root of which our whole self identify is tied around. Believing we were a discreet person with control and suddenly realizing it's an illusion has to have major implications. It did for me, itisnow, and anyone who really experiences it.

So while I can't know specifically what other people will experience I can know the main picture. I know if that a child grows attached to his parents, and his parents suddenly die, then he will feel sad. I have no idea specifically how sad. Or if he'll be suicidal, or whatever. But I can know he will be sad because his sense of identity was tied around his parents.
With the self, it's the same thing. All of our identities are tied around it. Seeing it's an illusion is like seeing ourselves die, the idea of our ourselves. It can't not have major implications.

originally posted by: Andy1144
Ask anyone who really had an awakening if it did have major implications. All would say yes

I could ask a bunch of christians a similar question and get a similar a answer.

That is an example of communal reinforcement.

a reply to: daskakik

You're just catching a fragment of what I said, took it completely out of context, and ignored all my points of why the true falling of self has major implications. So basically, you've ignored everything I said because it sounds like something a christian would say.

originally posted by: Andy1144
You're just catching a fragment of what I said, took it completely out of context, and ignored all my points of why the true falling of self has major implications. So basically, you've ignored everything I said because it sounds like something a christian would say.

No I didn't, I have seen it through the entire thread.

Everything else is important because "the exclusive group" that you belong to agrees with you.

It isn't just christians that also act this way. I mention them because I know it gets under your skin and you kneejerk.

a reply to: daskakik

Everything else is important because "the exclusive group" that you belong to agrees with you.

If you asked anyone who was genuinely attached to their parents, and saw them die, I garentee all of them would say they would be sad. Because that's what emotional attachment is. Holding on to something and being said when it's no longer there. That's how I know. I just don't obviously know specifically how their experience would be.

It isn't just christians that also act this way. I mention them because I know it gets under your skin and you kneejerk.

I've referred the same to you many times. Based on what choice of words you have, I'm guessing you're in your middle ages. A toolbox of vocabulary, but no ability to extrapolate what my points are.

originally posted by: Andy1144
If you asked anyone who was genuinely attached to their parents, and saw them die, I garentee all of them would say they would be sad. Because that's what emotional attachment is. Holding on to something and being said when it's no longer there. That's how I know.

What I see is someone who found something to help them control their overreactions. That made a big difference in your life. I didn't have that problem so the realization and the seeing the "mechanism clearly and consciously" changed nothing in my life. Now what?

I've referred the same to you many times. Based on what choice of words you have, I'm guessing you're in your middle ages. A toolbox of vocabulary, but no ability to extrapolate what my points are.

Thiis is where you are wrong. I understand you perfectly. So well that I see where you are fooling yourself. Been there. That's how I know.

a reply to: daskakik

What I see is someone who found something to help them control their overreactions.

Just because that's what you see doesn't mean it's true. The sense of self is the center where all attachement arises. All subconscious held emotions, atachement, fears. All of that roots in that sense of self. Seeing clearly and consciously that "you" don't exist has major implications. It has to. Although it's possible they won't immediately be positive, you could be suicidal after having this experience. Major doesn't necessarily mean positive. But it's only on the short term so it's worth it.

the realization and the seeing the "mechanism clearly and consciously" changed nothing in my life. Now what?

I don't know if you've actually experienced that, so you'll need to open up more. The only way this could make sense is if we discuss why seeing through the illusion would have major implications.

If you were attached to something/someone, and told me you weren't sad when you lost it, that would be a lie.

All negatively rooted thoughts arise from a thought that says "this is bad, not enough" ect ect. If this source was seen to be an illusion, then it would be liberating. Like having a fear of ghosts and suddenly discovering they aren't real. That is was just a thought.

originally posted by: Andy1144
Just because that's what you see doesn't mean it's true.

It's what your posts show.

Crying (or almost) because your family didn't understand you, how else is that to be taken?

I don't know if you've actually experienced that, so you'll need to open up more.

And you will never know. I could just lie and tell you what you want to hear. Instead I'm being honest but it seems that you only want an echo chamber.

The only way this could make sense is if we discuss why seeing through the illusion would have major implications.

That is a requirement that you have added. You don't call the shots on what reality is and isn't. All you have done is experienced and you feel that you have done so objectively but then, so does everyone else.

If you were attached to something/someone, and told me you weren't sad when you lost it, that would be a lie.

It would be but that would be a perfectly normal reaction.

a reply to: Andy1144

Never had that problem either.

a reply to: daskakik

Crying (or almost) because your family didn't understand you, how else is that to be taken?

What?

And you will never know. I could just lie and tell you what you want to hear. Instead I'm being honest but it seems that you only want an echo chamber.

I just asked you to describe your experience in more detail so we can discuss it.

That is a requirement that you have added. You don't call the shots on what reality is and isn't. All you have done is experienced and you feel that you have done so objectively but then, so does everyone else.

DE is the same for everyone. It is related equally to everyone. Every single person experiences DE in the same way. Without assumptions, only raw experience.
It's not an assumption about experience.

It would be but that would be a perfectly normal reaction.

I think sadness is pretty much a garentee even to those who awaken, but what I mean is attachement. That feeling that something or someone "belonged" to you. This is simply a thought, and cannot point to truth. In this moment, is there really something missing? It's the same for everyone.

originally posted by: Andy1144
What?

I recall you saying something like that way back in the thread. It was just an example. Either way if it made a big difference it was because that change was there to make. Sorry, I didn't have that.

I just asked you to describe your experience in more detail so we can discuss it.

There is nothing to discuss. The channge that I experienced, which is the same that you describe, was not that big of a deal.

DE is the same for everyone. It is related equally to everyone. Every single person experiences DE in the same way. Without assumptions, only raw experience.
It's not an assumption about experience.

You make it sound like a lot more than it actually is. You even said in a previous post that you are not always 100% and that it is a process. Obviously there is some variable in personal experiences.

I think sadness is pretty much a garentee even to those who awaken, but what I mean is attachement. That feeling that something or someone "belonged" to you. This is simply a thought, and cannot point to truth. In this moment, is there really something missing? It's the same for everyone.

You said it way, way, way back in the thread. Everything is still felt but you don't hold on to it. I know what you are talking about which, actually, made me think that your are grasping at straws with this example.

a reply to: daskakik

I recall you saying something like that way back in the thread. It was just an example. Either way if it made a big difference it was because that change was there to make. Sorry, I didn't have that.

I don''t remember saying anything like that, but nevermind.

There is nothing to discuss. The channge that I experienced, which is the same that you describe, was not that big of a deal.

We're going in circles again. I don't know what you've experienced and I can't know if you mean the same thing that I mean. I don't know why you don't just explain it in more detail.

You make it sound like a lot more than it actually is. You even said in a previous post that you are not always 100% and that it is a process. Obviously there is some variable in personal experiences.

Everyone's DE experience is different because they are experiencing different things. The only thing that all DE experiencers have in common is that there is no assumption about what is true, only the raw experience happening. And in this state, no one can have any attachment, if we consider attachment arises from thought about experience.

I know what you are talking about which, actually, made me think that your are grasping at straws with this example.

Why think that? I'm just clarifying what I meant.

originally posted by: Andy1144
We're going in circles again. I don't know what you've experienced and I can't know if you mean the same thing that I mean. I don't know why you don't just explain it in more detail.

You don't need to know for me to know that it is exactly what you have described and it also fits with everything else I have read on the subject so, I don't need you to verify it.

You either take it or leave it, at least show me the same courtesy that I am showing you.

Everyone's DE experience is different because they are experiencing different things. The only thing that all DE experiencers have in common is that there is no assumption about what is true, only the raw experience happening. And in this state, no one can have any attachment, if we consider attachment arises from thought about experience.

So if I didn't have much attachment to begin with wouldn't the experience have been only a subtle change?

Isn't that exactly what I have been saying for pages? Also if it is a process, can someone get so close to it that when the change happens it is almost nothing? I see lots of variables.

Why think that?

Because it actually went against what you said earlier and then had to come back and try to save it by adding to it. Try to cover up the contradiction in the original post.

a reply to: daskakik

You don't need to know for me to know that it is exactly what you have described and it also is fits with everything else I have read on the subject so I don't need you to verify it.
You either take it or leave it, at least show me the same courtesy that I am showing you.

You aren't showing me much courtesy because I beg you to tell me what you think it is. It can mean more then one thing. Plus, you told me many times you knew what I meant by DE but you clearly didn't, so that's what I wan't to clarify. If you can, be more detailed.

So if I didn't have much attachment to begin with wouldn't the experience have been only a subtle change?

Isn't that exactly what I have been saying for pages? Also if it is a process, can someone get so close to it that when the change happens it is almost nothing? I see lots of variables.

Good questions. Attachments is a general term but in reality it's much more subtle then that. When it comes to subconscious fears, deeply buried negative beliefs ect. On the surface, your life could seem generally okay, but we still have attachement and a sense of "I could have done otherwise" when that is an illusion and can be dropped.

But to answer your first question. The change is subtle. It's not like your in bliss all of a sudden. But the way you start reacting to things, it's totally different, and is a major implication. It might not feel that way, but it can take time to receive it's full pangs.

Your second question. When you see it for the first time, it's different for everyone. But it's simple. There are no fireworks, no sudden ecstasy. Just, "oh it was this". The shift is subtle when you live life with this new insight, you see how everything changes. People commonly describe it as, "it's like nothings changed, but everything has changed."
EDIT: So it's a quite shift, nothing extreme, but the implications are seen to be big when you live life.

But as far as getting close to this experience to not make it seem like a big deal, I don't think is very possible. You have people meditating for decades, sharpen their focus and feel detached, but when they experience the falling of the illusion, it's like "damn, all those years spend just to realize this simple truth". But the shift still has major implications because it is very different then the way they saw life before.

Because it actually went against what you said earlier and then had to come back and try to save it by adding to it. Try to cover up the contradiction in the original post.

Which contradiction?

originally posted by: Andy1144
You aren't showing me much courtesy because I beg you to tell me what you think it is.

I accept that your experience is what you say it is.

Good questions.

I wasn't asking you to answer them. I posted them to show that your conclusion might not be accurate.

Which contradiction?

The one pointed out right there in that very same post.

"Everything is still felt but you don't hold on to it.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Itisnowagain

The interpretation of the experience happens very fast.

Direct experience is happening and interpretation happens as a words and concepts. 'Frustration' or 'fluffy fur' is a description of direct experience (a concept) - direct experience is wordless, non conceptual.
Very young children have no words arising when seeing or hearing or feeling is happening.

"And said, Verily I say unto you, Except you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Mathew 18:3

To be seeing, hearing, tasting and touching is to be directly experiencing. As soon as words arise (as soon as the first concept arises) there is deception. The first concept to arise is put prior to the actual - the actual is' there is seeing', 'there is hearing' but the misconception (the original sin/missing of the mark) is 'I am' seeing, 'I am' hearing.