Carl Gustav Jung - Videos, Books, Ruminations

**snoop** · 03-26-2018 08:23 PM

I feel it fits own experiences in life too. Not necessarily just God, but any archetype and any of society's more generalized, yet major roles that we are expected to embody in our daily lives if we are to behave in the socially acceptable manner. Things like what it means to be an adult, or what it means to be a man or a woman. While there are universal similarities across cultures for more generalized roles like these three, this is where they start to differ enough depending on your ethnicity and society that they diverge perhaps a little too much to be considered archetypes themselves rather than more broad, all-encompassing personas.

The again, I could see a real argument being made for roles/personas like these three actually still being archetypes when you remove any extraneous or add back in any missing details specific to a given culture about what they mean and what is expected of somebody who is supposed to be one. Take the roles of being a man and a woman. In Western society, what would be considered the natural roles of both are beginning to change rapidly, leading to a lot of contradictions, ambiguity, and confusion. Trying to work outside of nature and what's natural seems to cause certain aspects of life to lose the meaning and value they once had because this confusion. Women trying to fill more traditionally male roles and fulfill the expectations and responsibilities with that, and vice versa, doesn't really appear to be as liberating as current progressive movements claim they should be and surely hope that they would be.

Well, I suppose that's true anyway as long as the more fundamental purpose behind that liberation is greater happiness and a greater capacity to enjoy one's life and lifestyle. Which, let's face it, if that isn't the case, exactly what good is the liberation it's supposed to bring? Regardless of how much more fair or equal it is supposed to make things for the sexes, if the denial of the roles ingrained in our psyche for thousands of years is causing mental anguish, what good is trying to change things this way doing? Hence, as I said a bit earlier, I could see the argument being made (and valid, at that) that despite recent changes to our cultural norms, the old, traditional archetypes of what being a man or being a woman entails still exist within the collective unconscious, and the revisions we currently have are merely conscious attempts to repress this aspect of our psyche--much like we do with the shadow.

**snoop** · 03-26-2018 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by DawnEye11

I know I’m jumping in again but I’d like to know why you call it “Christ consciousness”. Perhaps it is because some believe the Holy Spirit, jesus and God are one person? Hence the Omni presence part. I don’t get why you guys see yourself as Omni present either.:3 If it’s okay could you explain your perspective to me slash.

Well, all Christians are at least supposed to believe that God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit are a single entity, one and the same, but simply manifest in different ways. I'm pretty confused over your question about any of us believing we are omni present though. From my point of view, no one in the thread as of yet has expressed that sentiment. Could you provide an example or two of statements any of us have made that made you think that's what we were saying? Just trying to track down where any misunderstandings might be coming from.

**DawnEye11** · 03-26-2018 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by slash112

Good post, Vader.

I just wanted to comment on this bit:

Indeed when we say "becoming God", we are still just a small piece of God.

But with enlightenment, one can come to realize the full scale of what I call "the mother" or "the eye of God". AND realize it to be their "true self". The eye of God is before everything. And it is infinite. And it is part of all of us.
As I type this, I'm pulling myself back into that infinite space. Right now I am literally connected to everything in existence.
Of course, we are always connected to everything in existence in this way, as that infinite space is always with us and it is always where we are looking from. The difference is, I am aware of it and I can feel it.

In a way, this makes me omni-present.
I suppose it's still better to say "like God". But I think it's still completely fair to talk in terms of ascending to Godliness.

EDIT: Note that "infinite space" kinda gives the wrong impression. A better word would be "undefined space". Because there is actually no distance involved in that space whatsoever. But it is an omni-present space.

Snoop, not all christians believe that they are one entity. They aren't "supposed" to believe in it either for them to be Christians. Certain parts in the bible can be interpreted in different ways but the major characteristics of a christian seem to revolve around following Jesus' teachings and believing because of him we can be saved. So some Christi believe that Almighty God and Jesus are seperate entities while Holy Spirit is like God's power. Also, Slash mentioned it earliar, and i thought you conformed with that view because i don't recall any disagreement. However...to my questions

Here are a few questions I could come up with after reading your previous explanation Slash.

1)Are we really connected to everything that exists? Even if the undefined space allows us to connect, if we can’t cause a reaction to another...let’s say object, are we connected just by existing on the same reality?
2)Also, when you say “Eye of god” do you mean because of what we see, God gains information from it?
3) You might need to clarify how this means ascending to godliness as well. To me it seems like just a change of perspective.

**snoop** · 03-26-2018 09:35 PM

Hmm, well, I can't really speak for slash, but it seems more like he's talking about a state of mind and sensations associated with it than being omni-present in a literal sense... at least to me, anyway.

1) I would say that we are, even if the laws of causality now prevent any kind of future interaction with the energy beyond our cosmic and particle horizons. The reason being is that, if we are to assume the evidence we've collected about the Big Bang and all of existence being contained in an infinitesimally small point, then all that exists does so as part of a system of vibrating quantum fields that interact and transfer energy to rise and drop in energy state all as a homeostatic function to reach thermal equilibrium.

Imagine a mathematical representation, albeit a very simple one, where we have a circle with a horizontal line going through the center--its diameter. Also, it's plotted on a graph whose center is the center of the circle, so that the circle is divided evenly onto the 4 quadrants. Now imagine we change the left half of the line to have a sinus curve, with the end points of the radius making up the left sinus curve still plotted on the same points as before. To achieve balance, the right side needs a sinus curve facing the opposite direction, treating the vertical diameter of the circle as a line of symmetry. Any degree you change the curves along those radii on one side, the other side responds symmetrically with an equal and opposite reaction where its radius is just the inverse function of the curve of its opposing side.

Maybe an easier example to visualize of the same thing is what the yin-yang symbol looks like. In any case, the fact my existence stems from the same single point as the existence of everything else, even if it's no longer causally linked and able to interact, and the fact the entire universe functions fundamentally in an effort to reach thermal equilibrium, I am connected with the whole of existence.

A more down to earth interpretation that's technically less accurate when claiming to be connected to all of existence is that all I can perceive or am capable of perceiving makes up the whole of my existence and reality. This means I'm connected at a fundamental level to everything that "exists". The problems you run into here though is that we're capable of understanding that there exists more than the light that's been traveling from all the stars and objects out there, but we aren't capable of perceiving or interacting with it in any way. On top of that, is it possible to say that any phenomena we perceive and experience is even real since they are flawed and limited representations of ephemeral states of being they appear to be in at a given moment? Or even on the converse of that, since we are only ever capable of experiencing our perceptions of reality, is it not the only reality that functionally exists? Can we treat the existence in its truest form as actually being real if our perceptions are all that is real?

It's a difficult and confusing topic to broach and come up with any answers about, really, lol.

2) Again, can't speak for slash, but I'm pretty sure by the "eye of God" he's talking about what's represented by symbols like the Eye of Horus, the "All Seeing" floating eye in a triangle above the Great Pyramid on the back of the US dollar, and similar symbolic depictions of Eyes that are placed at the very top of a hierarchy that silently observe and judge what takes place below. It is a representation of the individual and collective unconsciouses whose function is pretty much to do exactly as I just described.

3) Ascension/Transcendence to godliness or to exhibit God's character is simply meant to convey the idea that acting in ways that are prescribed by the unconscious' symbolic representation, beliefs, and understanding of the concept of "God" leads to a state of being that literally is capable of producing the sensation of having transcended mundane, mortal suffering and allows one to overcome the kinds of sinful behaviors (the one's that hurt other human beings and on different levels ourselves) inherent to mankind. If one can overcome qualities inherent to being a human being, it is as though one has ascended above the level of one's humanity, and according to our concepts about humanity and God, that means that successfully doing so means becoming like God.

In no way does somebody actually acquire any kind of meta-physical divinity or whatever, it's simply a state of mind and state of being. In other words, your understanding of it being a change of perspective isn't entirely wrong, but it isn't quite completely accurate either.

**slash112** · 03-26-2018 10:27 PM

Let me first say that I completely agree with snoop. These are some things that are very rarely talked about, especially in such a logical manner.

But let me just explain what I meant when I mentioned omni-presence.
This is something I really really try to avoid talking directly about, because there is a truth that you have to see for yourself before you can even consider it a possibility.
But, since it's being questioned, I will explain what I (and many others) have discovered in investigation of truth.

The "pure awareness" that I point to, it has no qualities. Literally no qualities. It is completely void of any quality.
No location.
No shape.
No size.
No time.
No form at all.
etc.

Now, the important thing to remember here is that the "pure awareness" is also known as the "true self", or the "I Am". Upon meditation, it is easy to see the truth of this.
So what does that reveal? It reveals that I AM not the person, sitting in 3D space relative to everything else. It means I AM the formlessness which connects to everything in existence, including the person. It's actually closer than close with every single thing in existence.

There is no distance between my I AM and your I AM. They are literally the same thing. This isn't just an imagination trick, either. It is very true.
But indeed this is simply a perspective-shift. It's actually a very subtle perspective shift.

The truth is, we are all connected to this omni-present I AM. The omni-present I AM already is your true self. The difference is, with the perspective shift, one becomes aware of it.

I hope this makes my "eye of God" thing self-explanatory.

As for "Christ consciousness", I can't give the full historical reasons for such a name, but basically Christ represents the truth. To step back into the eye of truth, is to step into Christ consciousness.
And let's not get confused with "Jesus Christ" and "Christ". Jesus (Yeshua, actually) was named Christ because of what he represented. He represented truth. He represented God. The God in all of us, not just the God in him.

**DawnEye11** · 03-26-2018 10:33 PM

Originally Posted by snoop

Hmm, well, I can't really speak for slash, but it seems more like he's talking about a state of mind and sensations associated with it than being omni-present in a literal sense... at least to me, anyway.

1) I would say that we are, even if the laws of causality now prevent any kind of future interaction with the energy beyond our cosmic and particle horizons. The reason being is that, if we are to assume the evidence we've collected about the Big Bang and all of existence being contained in an infinitesimally small point, then all that exists does so as part of a system of vibrating quantum fields that interact and transfer energy to rise and drop in energy state all as a homeostatic function to reach thermal equilibrium.

Imagine a mathematical representation, albeit a very simple one, where we have a circle with a horizontal line going through the center--its diameter. Also, it's plotted on a graph whose center is the center of the circle, so that the circle is divided evenly onto the 4 quadrants. Now imagine we change the left half of the line to have a sinus curve, with the end points of the radius making up the left sinus curve still plotted on the same points as before. To achieve balance, the right side needs a sinus curve facing the opposite direction, treating the vertical diameter of the circle as a line of symmetry. Any degree you change the curves along those radii on one side, the other side responds symmetrically with an equal and opposite reaction where its radius is just the inverse function of the curve of its opposing side.

Maybe an easier example to visualize of the same thing is what the yin-yang symbol looks like. In any case, the fact my existence stems from the same single point as the existence of everything else, even if it's no longer causally linked and able to interact, and the fact the entire universe functions fundamentally in an effort to reach thermal equilibrium, I am connected with the whole of existence.

A more down to earth interpretation that's technically less accurate when claiming to be connected to all of existence is that all I can perceive or am capable of perceiving makes up the whole of my existence and reality. This means I'm connected at a fundamental level to everything that "exists". The problems you run into here though is that we're capable of understanding that there exists more than the light that's been traveling from all the stars and objects out there, but we aren't capable of perceiving or interacting with it in any way. On top of that, is it possible to say that any phenomena we perceive and experience is even real since they are flawed and limited representations of ephemeral states of being they appear to be in at a given moment? Or even on the converse of that, since we are only ever capable of experiencing our perceptions of reality, is it not the only reality that functionally exists? Can we treat the existence in its truest form as actually being real if our perceptions are all that is real?

It's a difficult and confusing topic to broach and come up with any answers about, really, lol.

2) Again, can't speak for slash, but I'm pretty sure by the "eye of God" he's talking about what's represented by symbols like the Eye of Horus, the "All Seeing" floating eye in a triangle above the Great Pyramid on the back of the US dollar, and similar symbolic depictions of Eyes that are placed at the very top of a hierarchy that silently observe and judge what takes place below. It is a representation of the individual and collective unconsciouses whose function is pretty much to do exactly as I just described.

3) Ascension/Transcendence to godliness or to exhibit God's character is simply meant to convey the idea that acting in ways that are prescribed by the unconscious' symbolic representation, beliefs, and understanding of the concept of "God" leads to a state of being that literally is capable of producing the sensation of having transcended mundane, mortal suffering and allows one to overcome the kinds of sinful behaviors (the one's that hurt other human beings and on different levels ourselves) inherent to mankind. If one can overcome qualities inherent to being a human being, it is as though one has ascended above the level of one's humanity, and according to our concepts about humanity and God, that means that successfully doing so means becoming like God.

In no way does somebody actually acquire any kind of meta-physical divinity or whatever, it's simply a state of mind and state of being. In other words, your understanding of it being a change of perspective isn't entirely wrong, but it isn't quite completely accurate either.

Okay, so what I'm getting from your explanation is that were connected because of one point and how this universe was formed in a manner for us to exist in a balanced state...Seems similar to the "undefined space" except instead I'm imagining it from a different point. Is your example not just another more in depth way of saying we are connected because we are on the same plane of reality so to speak?

Okay, so Eye of god isn't pure awareness? Pure awareness is without judgement. Judging also seems to be what clouds the true self. If your thoughts or judgements dont make up who you truly are than is the Eye of Horus really a good example?

I get the part of becoming "like" God but ascending "to"godliness paints a picture of actually becoming the god. Which i know he was trying to avoid but i think when you have the word "to" and "ascending" it makes it seem more literal. I see why you said "perspective" wasn't accurate as well, this isn't just a change of perspective but a change in lifestyle.

**slash112** · 03-26-2018 10:43 PM

Oh I never spotted that. If the eye of God is considered anything judgemental, then it's not what I'm talking about.
I would actually say that if any judgement happens, it happens IN FRONT of the eye of God.

But now I'm getting into religious terminology that I don't fully understand yet.

**DawnEye11** · 03-26-2018 10:53 PM

Originally Posted by slash112

Let me first say that I completely agree with snoop. These are some things that are very rarely talked about, especially in such a logical manner.

But let me just explain what I meant when I mentioned omni-presence.
This is something I really really try to avoid talking directly about, because there is a truth that you have to see for yourself before you can even consider it a possibility.
But, since it's being questioned, I will explain what I (and many others) have discovered in investigation of truth.

The "pure awareness" that I point to, it has no qualities. Literally no qualities. It is completely void of any quality.
No location.
No shape.
No size.
No time.
No form at all.
etc.

Now, the important thing to remember here is that the "pure awareness" is also known as the "true self", or the "I Am". Upon meditation, it is easy to see the truth of this.
So what does that reveal? It reveals that I AM not the person, sitting in 3D space relative to everything else. It means I AM the formlessness which connects to everything in existence, including the person. It's actually closer than close with every single thing in existence.

There is no distance between my I AM and your I AM. They are literally the same thing. This isn't just an imagination trick, either. It is very true.
But indeed this is simply a perspective-shift. It's actually a very subtle perspective shift.

The truth is, we are all connected to this omni-present I AM. The omni-present I AM already is your true self. The difference is, with the perspective shift, one becomes aware of it.

I hope this makes my "eye of God" thing self-explanatory.

As for "Christ consciousness", I can't give the full historical reasons for such a name, but basically Christ represents the truth. To step back into the eye of truth, is to step into Christ consciousness.
And let's not get confused with "Jesus Christ" and "Christ". Jesus (Yeshua, actually) was named Christ because of what he represented. He represented truth. He represented God. The God in all of us, not just the God in him.

Thanks for explaining. I get most of how you see it now. The only thing i can't quite get is how you are really "omni present" in this way. Perhaps my question can help clarify what your saying for me.

If your true self "becomes" non existent are you still omni present?

**slash112** · 03-26-2018 11:06 PM

Ah but it's not non-existent. It's very existent. Without it, nothing else would appear to exist. It has no qualities, but it does exist. The nothingness of existence. The awareness of existence.

But the reason it makes you omni-present, is because you literally are that omni-present awareness.

Like, for discussion's sake, I'm pulling myself back into it right now. For all intents and purposes, I am not Stephen right now. I am now that omni-present awareness. My sense of self right now is residing in that nothingness which connects to everything.
Sure, Stephen can't see everything else in existence, but he doesn't need to. For I am omni-present nonetheless.

Stephen isn't the omni-present one. He's just a human in relative space. But I Am absolute.

I am that I Am.

**slash112** · 03-26-2018 11:30 PM

But I just want to reiterate, I really don't like telling people that directly. When I first saw it, I tried telling people and basically I learned the hard way that you've gotta see it first.

Instead, I guide people to the place where they can see it. Just recently I had my most successful student, after about 3 days of practice, he saw it. I didn't tell him any of these direct observations of mine, I just told him where to look, and told him to keep going with it and everything will make sense. And make sense it did.

I mean, you can take these observations and still find your way there. It's a genuine way to enlightenment. But you may be left wondering if it's all just a made-up idea that's been implanted in you. It could take months or even years just to confirm your findings, after you find it. Whereas, when you see it yourself, it's very easy to confirm. Simply being told by another enlightened being that you are correct, is confirmation enough.

The only reason I've explained my observations directly is because I sensed a lot of confusion. I felt it was beneficial to put that to ease.

**DawnEye11** · 03-27-2018 12:30 AM

Originally Posted by slash112

Ah but it's not non-existent. It's very existent. Without it, nothing else would appear to exist. It has no qualities, but it does exist. The nothingness of existence. The awareness of existence.

But the reason it makes you omni-present, is because you literally are that omni-present awareness.

Like, for discussion's sake, I'm pulling myself back into it right now. For all intents and purposes, I am not Stephen right now. I am now that omni-present awareness. My sense of self right now is residing in that nothingness which connects to everything.
Sure, Stephen can't see everything else in existence, but he doesn't need to. For I am omni-present nonetheless.

Stephen isn't the omni-present one. He's just a human in relative space. But I Am absolute.

I am that I Am.

So your true self can't not exist?

Does the existance of other things rely on your true self existing? Maybe its cause your looking at it as your true self being existent.

The nothingness of existence is something but on the otherhand I don't think thats enough to say your true self is present or exists.

In other words how can the "I'am" you speak of not be ripped away from you when you die?

**DawnEye11** · 03-27-2018 01:20 AM

Originally Posted by slash112

But I just want to reiterate, I really don't like telling people that directly. When I first saw it, I tried telling people and basically I learned the hard way that you've gotta see it first.

Instead, I guide people to the place where they can see it. Just recently I had my most successful student, after about 3 days of practice, he saw it. I didn't tell him any of these direct observations of mine, I just told him where to look, and told him to keep going with it and everything will make sense. And make sense it did.

I mean, you can take these observations and still find your way there. It's a genuine way to enlightenment. But you may be left wondering if it's all just a made-up idea that's been implanted in you. It could take months or even years just to confirm your findings, after you find it. Whereas, when you see it yourself, it's very easy to confirm. Simply being told by another enlightened being that you are correct, is confirmation enough.

The only reason I've explained my observations directly is because I sensed a lot of confusion. I felt it was beneficial to put that to ease.

I appreciate you taking the time to explain to me. There was confusion but in the end I don't think I need to jump into it full on in order to see what your saying. Our view is similar in certain ways so I'm capable but in order to truly understand I'm taking note of how you get there and why you chose that way. I'm also thinking about how you are enlightened and if you are really enlightened in that manner. If it is necessary to be enlightened. What about this is good to keep in mind?

I have a feeling I'm going to learn something that was already present to me like before. However, i would be more aware of it. It does improve me a bit but than that makes enlightment feel like small stable improvements to me. And yet when you say i won't be able to get it, it'll take years, months i don't think that is necessary for this. It'll probably only take that long if you choose to not speak to me again cause I haven't finished dissecting this topic. ^^ The information could improve and become more understandable as time passes but a good explanation/ visual example could work as well.

**slash112** · 03-27-2018 01:26 AM

Originally Posted by DawnEye11

So your true self can't not exist?

Indeed.

Does the existance of other things rely on your true self existing? Maybe its cause your looking at it as your true self being existent.

The nothingness of existence is something but on the otherhand I don't think thats enough to say your true self is present or exists.

In other words how can the "I'am" you speak of not be ripped away from you when you die?

Okay first off, I said "Without it, nothing else would appear to exist." I didn't say nothing else would exist. To be honest I do think things would cease to exist (because all things arise INSIDE the I Am), but I didn't say that because it is impossible to prove what happens to things outside of perception.
But think about it, if awareness did not exist, how would you see your experience?

An analogy I love to use is a TV screen. The glass of the screen is the I Am. The light that hits the screen is the experience.
Take the glass away and the light doesn't get projected onto anything. ~ Take the I Am away and experience has nothing to project itself onto.

And the I Am is unborn and undying. When the person dies, it's not that the I Am gets ripped away, it's just that the brain shuts down so there is no longer any experience for the I Am to see, relating to that person. Just like in deep sleep. Just silence and darkness and timelessness. The I Am is still there. It's literally everywhere, always. It's a universal constant.
Even a rock has I Am presence. The difference is, a rock doesn't have a brain or any sensory input, so there's no experience for the I Am to see. The I Am can only see a rock by looking through the brain of a sentient being with eyes. Which is the gift of life. The universe gets to look at itself.

Again, you gotta see it for yourself to believe it. It sounds fuggin ridiculous otherwise. I traced my own sense of "I Am" to a point where I saw these things directly and knew for absolute 100% certainty that these things are correct.

**slash112** · 03-27-2018 01:41 AM

Originally Posted by DawnEye11

I appreciate you taking the time to explain to me. There was confusion but in the end I don't think I need to jump into it full on in order to see what your saying. Our view is similar in certain ways so I'm capable but in order to truly understand I'm taking note of how you get there and why you chose that way. I'm also thinking about how you are enlightened and if you are really enlightened in that manner. If it is necessary to be enlightened. What about this is good to keep in mind?

I have a feeling I'm going to learn something that was already present to me like before. However, i would be more aware of it. It does improve me a bit but than that makes enlightment feel like small stable improvements to me. And yet when you say i won't be able to get it, it'll take years, months i don't think that is necessary for this. It'll probably only take that long if you choose to not speak to me again cause I haven't finished dissecting this topic. ^^ The information could improve and become more understandable as time passes but a good explanation/ visual example could work as well.

Fantastic! I think you're doing really well with this stuff actually.

And yeah, I'm technically enlightened. The meaning of the word "enlightened" is impossible to properly define though. It's actually better to just say "walking a path of enlightenment", which you seem to be doing too.

Hmmm things to keep in mind.
Well my favourite thing about enlightenment is that you come to see that we are all one, in a very special way. And you see that we are all the same, in a very special way.
This is where it links back to things snoop was talking about. Basically it changes your perspective on life and your attitude towards others. Selfishness disappears and is replaced with compassion for all. This is related to the dissolving or transformation of ego.
But just imagine a planet Earth where every single person was enlightened. Just imagine. That dream is my driving force in life.

Another great thing about enlightenment is, especially with Advaita Vedanta, you have what I call "the insta chill pill".
Here is an excerpt from my latest book, "The Purest Perceiver":

Spoiler for Book excerpt:

And yeah, dissect this thing as much as you want! I'll do my best for you, I love talking about it. Darkmatters is also taking the route of full-on dissection btw, and he's doing really really well at it, so keep in mind that his words will be valuable to you.
Y'see, I experienced it before intellectually understanding it. Others understand it first, THEN experience it. Others kinda do both at the same time, slowly. All these ways are equally valuable. There are soooo many routes to enlightenment. I love the saying, "All rivers lead to the ocean". (river = lifepath, ocean = oneness). Some rivers wind and bend and take a long time to reach the ocean. Others are far more direct. But they are all equally valuable.

**DawnEye11** · 03-27-2018 02:38 AM

Originally Posted by slash112

Indeed.

Okay first off, I said "Without it, nothing else would appear to exist." I didn't say nothing else would exist. To be honest I do think things would cease to exist (because all things arise INSIDE the I Am), but I didn't say that because it is impossible to prove what happens to things outside of perception.
But think about it, if awareness did not exist, how would you see your experience?

An analogy I love to use is a TV screen. The glass of the screen is the I Am. The light that hits the screen is the experience.
Take the glass away and the light doesn't get projected onto anything. ~ Take the I Am away and experience has nothing to project itself onto.

And the I Am is unborn and undying. When the person dies, it's not that the I Am gets ripped away, it's just that the brain shuts down so there is no longer any experience for the I Am to see, relating to that person. Just like in deep sleep. Just silence and darkness and timelessness. The I Am is still there. It's literally everywhere, always. It's a universal constant.
Even a rock has I Am presence. The difference is, a rock doesn't have a brain or any sensory input, so there's no experience for the I Am to see. The I Am can only see a rock by looking through the brain of a sentient being with eyes. Which is the gift of life. The universe gets to look at itself.

Again, you gotta see it for yourself to believe it. It sounds fuggin ridiculous otherwise. I traced my own sense of "I Am" to a point where I saw these things directly and knew for absolute 100% certainty that these things are correct.

Yeah, I know you said "appear" but i wanted to make sure cause i was also thinking you probably meant something else
Hm...it still feels like the I'AM is non existent but not totally if it can be restored? Like the way to recreate it is there but the parts haven't been formed again.
So is it there if its no where in a literal sense? For the sake of my mind I'm gonna have to say that it depends how your looking at it.^^ Neither way seems wrong to me.

**slash112** · 03-27-2018 03:01 AM

Okay you have a good point.

"So is it there if its nowhere in a literal sense?"

I love these kind of questions, because it's kinda unanswerable.
The thing itself is beyond words. It's a concept beyond conceptuality. Because all concepts arise within it. It is before concepts.

But if we create a concept as a means to grasp it, indeed it depends how you look at it. Like, I suppose you could say it's non-existent. It's fair to look at it that way. I denied it earlier just so I could get my own grasp of the concept across to you. But now that I've done that, you're free to consider it non-existent. The non-existence which sees existence. Same as how I say "nothingness aware of somethingness".

But the whole thing about it being "restored" doesn't really fit anything, because it is eternal. Or actually, it has no time. Time happens within it.
But I might simply be missing your meaning there. Same with the "Like the way to recreate it is there but the parts haven't been formed again", I don't know what you mean there.

**DawnEye11** · 03-27-2018 04:06 AM

Originally Posted by slash112

Fantastic! I think you're doing really well with this stuff actually.

And yeah, I'm technically enlightened. The meaning of the word "enlightened" is impossible to properly define though. It's actually better to just say "walking a path of enlightenment", which you seem to be doing too.

Hmmm things to keep in mind.
Well my favourite thing about enlightenment is that you come to see that we are all one, in a very special way. And you see that we are all the same, in a very special way.
This is where it links back to things snoop was talking about. Basically it changes your perspective on life and your attitude towards others. Selfishness disappears and is replaced with compassion for all. This is related to the dissolving or transformation of ego.
But just imagine a planet Earth where every single person was enlightened. Just imagine. That dream is my driving force in life.

Another great thing about enlightenment is, especially with Advaita Vedanta, you have what I call "the insta chill pill".
Here is an excerpt from my latest book, "The Purest Perceiver":

Spoiler for Book excerpt:

And yeah, dissect this thing as much as you want! I'll do my best for you, I love talking about it. Darkmatters is also taking the route of full-on dissection btw, and he's doing really really well at it, so keep in mind that his words will be valuable to you.
Y'see, I experienced it before intellectually understanding it. Others understand it first, THEN experience it. Others kinda do both at the same time, slowly. All these ways are equally valuable. There are soooo many routes to enlightenment. I love the saying, "All rivers lead to the ocean". (river = lifepath, ocean = oneness). Some rivers wind and bend and take a long time to reach the ocean. Others are far more direct. But they are all equally valuable.

Okay. I kind of don't want to disect this further anymore now.To be honest I feel like I had to push myself back to the pure perciever in this discussion. I know your just telling me what you like about enlightment and what snoop said but it feels like I'm being shoved what i already knew/experienced before i came to this thread. Kind of feels like your preaching enlightment to me too which is putting me off.

That use to be my dream but i can't imagine a planet Earth where everyone is enlightened now. But if that's what you want just keep doing your best and hoping for it. No matter if the outcome can turn out different.

You probably didnt mean any offense but i don't want my path to be compared to a long river path. It feels like your putting yourself above me and determining where i'am in life and where i go. I dont want my ocean to be oneness either.

Again, i mean no offense. Just being honest and i hope you can understand. : | if not it's okay. I'm pretty accepting of it being an unpopular view.

**DawnEye11** · 03-27-2018 04:13 AM

Originally Posted by slash112

Okay you have a good point.

"So is it there if its nowhere in a literal sense?"

I love these kind of questions, because it's kinda unanswerable.
The thing itself is beyond words. It's a concept beyond conceptuality. Because all concepts arise within it. It is before concepts.

But if we create a concept as a means to grasp it, indeed it depends how you look at it. Like, I suppose you could say it's non-existent. It's fair to look at it that way. I denied it earlier just so I could get my own grasp of the concept across to you. But now that I've done that, you're free to consider it non-existent. The non-existence which sees existence. Same as how I say "nothingness aware of somethingness".

But the whole thing about it being "restored" doesn't really fit anything, because it is eternal. Or actually, it has no time. Time happens within it.
But I might simply be missing your meaning there. Same with the "Like the way to recreate it is there but the parts haven't been formed again", I don't know what you mean there.

Sorry. Forget about what i mentioned for now. Its good to know that i was able to grasp what you meant though. I spent 2 hours here, thinking and writing back. I gotta go but i appreciate the time you took to respond thoughtfully. Thanks and goodnight~ ^^

**slash112** · 03-27-2018 05:18 AM

Hahah I get that reaction quite a lot when I talk so directly about it. Don't worry, I'm not offended. I completely understand. And to be honest, you're handling it better than most would.
Ego is easily hurt when this kind of stuff is talked about. Even myself when I first got into it, the kind of things I would hear, it would just really grind my gears. Kinda made me wanna slap the person saying it. It's different now tho, when I hear the same things, all I hear is messages of peace.
(Funny note: I've been slapped for talking like this irl before. I don't care about getting slapped, but what really hurts, is how easily misunderstood I am. Which is another reason I don't go round talking like this anymore. I guess I just wanted to give it another whirl. I don't know how many times I'll learn the same lesson; don't do it.

)

I just wanna say, I don't view myself above any other being. I get why it can come off like that, but it's really not like that. I did try to make it clear, but every single person is of equal value in my eyes. Enlightened, not enlightened, who cares? Not me.

To me, enlightenment is a tool. Nothing more. It's a tool for liberation/freedom. It's a tool for peace. It's a tool for love. I've always wanted to help the world, so as soon as I discovered enlightenment, I knew it would be the most powerful tool I could ever imagine to wield. It's like, one simple thing that can change everything. It's just a lot easier than the way I used to try to help the world; one problem at a time. I saw that enlightenment could potentially fix every problem simultaneously. Because it fixed every single one of my own problems, simultaneously. The hell I lived in, turned into heaven, in the blink of an eye. Which happened when I unclutched from my ego.

Although I don't think it's necessary for every single person to become enlightened. It's a nice thought, but nah, if 50% of the world became at least partially enlightened, I would probably consider my mission complete (Which probably won't happen in my lifetime, but I can set things in motion which accelerate the process and helps the others with the same mission. We're all helping each other, tbh).
Besides, there are fantastic ways to live, without enlightenment. In fact, I deliberately fell back from full-on enlightenment and built myself a new ego, just so I could "stay with the sufferers", and to be honest, I enjoy life like this, even though it can be painful. Suffering and peace is a duality. One cannot exist without the other, like good and bad, light and dark. I enjoy remaining in duality. In fact, come to think of it, I prefer to teach dualistic enlightenment. But I teach full-on, non-dualistic enlightenment so that people can see the value in it and then make their own decision.

Also, about the rivers thing, I did say the length of the river matters not. All rivers are equal value.
Not everyone wants to reach oneness so quickly. It's a form of death, after all. Just look at me, preaching all this, yet I spend most of my time in duality instead of oneness, by choice.
But the original idea behind the river quote is actually that every single soul will reach oneness eventually. Some people take reincarnation into account, in which case they see that every soul will eventually settle all karmic debt, fulfill their purpose, and merge with oneness, stopping the cycle of reincarnation (which often takes thousands of lifetimes).
Without the idea of reincarnation, then the quote can refer to when the physical body dies, the I Am remains in pure oneness. So it simply means that even if you don't reach oneness in life, you will when you die.
But all I meant by it, in the context I used it in, is mostly in terms of path of enlightenment, and it just means that there are a bunch of different paths leading to the same goal.

A full-on enlightened being would not have answered like this, lol. My ego wants to tie up the loose ends of this conversation or else he'll freak out. I'm aware it's not a pretty sight. xD
Just goes to show that even an enlightened ego can be ugly at times. (ugliness vs beauty, another duality I am happy to live in)
If I had remained in the egoless state (full-on enlightenment, total non-duality) I would have compassion but I simply wouldn't care. I'd probably have answered with a one-liner instead. And it probably would have helped massively. Instead, I remain as a suffering being, spreading more suffering while trying to stop the world from suffering. Where's the sense in that? It's literally madness. I'm deliberately insane.

But insanity vs sanity is just another duality which I am happy to remain in. Because the rest of the world lives in it. I don't want to free myself from it when so many are still affected by it. And I want to prove that a person can live a happy and full life, whether enlightened or not.

**slash112** · 03-27-2018 05:48 AM

But thank you so much, Dawn. You've actually helped me a lot more than I helped you, today.
I'm just looking back on it now, and it's actually crazy how many lessons I can take away from this conversation. Super super useful lessons for my mission.

Thank you thank you thank you.

**slash112** · 03-28-2018 08:17 PM

I'm really sorry Dawn, by the way. Sometimes I don't know when to shut up. :L

Since saying all that, I've been meditating. Now when I look back on it, it feels like I was dreaming. It was like an ego-trip. Thus I've shown the dangers of an enlightened ego (An ego that thinks it is the omni-present I Am... dangerous... ego is supposed to disappear to reveal the I Am, not take over the I Am).
I'm thinking more and more that my decision to cling onto ego is a really bad idea.

Also sorry Darkmatters for hijacking the thread... All this stuff is kinda on-topic, but it's not been discussed in Jungian terms, so, my bad!

**LighrkVader** · 03-28-2018 10:06 PM

It's a tricky business you chose for yourself man. Lots and lots of pitfalls. But most things that really feel meaningful to us are like that. You of course know this... but nobody ever gets anything difficult right in the beginning. It's always a zigzag to approximate yourself to a level of proficiency. Probably why most people who are good at what you want to do have more than a little grey hair

The ones who are able to engage a wider audience posess an extraordinary capacity for language, but also a very wide and nuanced world view in general, and in a world like ours, that takes a lot of time to build.

You might remember what I wrote in my previous post in this thread. I mentioned the ego-trap I suspect you think you got stuck in. What I didn't mention was another way to avoid it. It is dificult to explain, I might look for a video on it if you want but I can't remember the name of it... in short it boils down to the realization that the guru has nothing to teach. The best guru's know this. And some are motivated to act as gurus simply because they know that if they sent the seekers away they would only go somewhere else, they are after all seekers, but what if they stumbled into a cult or into a spiritual leader with ill intent...
No person is an archetype. But often that is what we see. The Wise Old Man... But we don't see the trickster no matter how many times we are played. The student graduates when he realizes that his master is as much a fool as he is. From what I remember the guru will then challenge the student and there will be a showdown.

**slash112** · 03-28-2018 10:54 PM

Well said, Vader. Thanks for that. I'd be interesting in seeing the video if you could find it.

Indeed it's a lot of zig-zagging. Practicing on one's own is zig-zagging enough. Then teaching is even bigger zig-zags.
I actually found myself a really nice middle-ground before I started teaching. But when I started teaching, I realized that everyone's middle-ground is different.
If I considered the full non-dual truth to be the only middle-ground, then teaching would be relatively easy. But I'm trying to teach duality and non-duality at the same time, which is making things pretty difficult for myself. I'm mixing two different tricksy things to create one big tricksy thing. But I'll get there. The more I guide people, the more I'll see what works and what doesn't.

And indeed the guru has nothing to teach.

I can't remember what guru it was, but basically a student asked him, "what is the highest teaching?" and the guru said nothing. The student asked again, "I really want to know the highest teaching". The guru said, "I just told you, but you weren't listening".
It went something like that, but you get the idea.

Like I said before though, I'm no guru. You can trust a guru, but you can't trust me.
Sure, the guru is a fool like the rest of us. But the difference is, a guru has a proven record of improving people's lives. Hence they are trustable.

**DawnEye11** · 03-28-2018 10:58 PM

I don't know what lessons you will take from this but in the end you still care because you hope the world can be filled with as many enlightened people in the future. Nothing wrong with that. You can still see people as equally and care somewhat even if you dont have it in mind all the time. I know what you meant about the river example but my point was that my ocean is not totally oneness. Even if i can't avoid oneness when I die there will be other important things that will be left in place. So instead of naming my ocean "oneness" and saying which "life path" i have, you should take into consideration that oneness doesn't have to be the end point. The beauty is in the eye of the beholder so instead of seeing the I'am or just oneness, why not take note of the other things you can't see as well. That doesn't mean that oneness isn't important but if there is truly equal value than it is a part of a whole bigger thing. Do you understand my perspective? I might confuse you but i slowly explained till i got to my point. You still might not get it but i tried.

Also, all this talk of being in a state can get pretty maddening. For the sake of this disscusion i dont think an enlightened person would use a one liner either. Not that it doesn't help me understand why you say the things you do. In the end, I feel you dont have to look at yourself as clinging to your ego. Ego is a part of you. Accept it when it comes up. You know how to gain control and let it pass so in the end it's like a passing thought. Harder in certain circumstances but possible. So you dont have to pretend itll never come. ^^

Hmm...i want to say again that i accept your views, you are enlightened and so is everyone, even if in different ways or amounts but could you try to understand my view as well?

**slash112** · 03-28-2018 11:04 PM

Well said Dawn. I love everything you just said there. And again, you've just helped me some more. ^.^
I'm going to let all this sink in. Super important lessons for me.

Thank you so much, guys. Dunno what I'd do without ya!