Hi folks,
I agree that enlightenment is a journey, somebody wrote it before me. And my experience more I do meditation I more accept myself and others how they are.
Have a nice meditating
Ivana
There can be no definition
I beg to differ; though the term is, indeed, relative in relation to the particular stages of conscious development, the core idea (ie: that which gives it life) is contained amongst all such meanings.
Just because you, personally, ascribe to the common mystagogues habit of conjuring the “fogs of mystery” does not mean that I shall, also; understand: I would rather see clearly - and have others see clearly, as well.
Those words will mean whatever you want them to mean
Yes and no; understand: you are vastly over-simplifing a rather complicated matter (see above).
@SD,
Yogimat, you still have not told us what your credentials are to test for enlightenment
I honestly wonder why would you even bother to speak to me, SD; permit me to laugh a bit here, but aren’t you always claiming that “yogimat” is/was following you around and torrmenting you - yet it is/was you who are egging “yogimat” on, here and now? …Not that I, personally, care - the wild swings of a tantruming tyke hardly hurt.
That said, let me answer your question - you always set yourself up so bad, SD.
You are quite right that I have not revealed my “credentials”, SD - nor will I. You might ask: “why not - is it because you have none”?
…And I’m sure you’ll assume that anyways, but I, personally, do not care what you or anyone else thinks; understand: my sense of self-worth is simply not decided by you nor anyone else. It is most unfortunate that yours is however, given your constant need to remind everyone of your degree; you append nearly every argument with, “did I mention I have a degree” as if that made your position more valid by virtue of fact that you hold a piece of paper. Now, I’m not one to neglect to congratulate a man who has made such an achievement - kudos, SD - but I, personally, am vehemently against using “credentials” to leverage my position; I’d much rather people considered what I was saying and not who/what I am in discriminating the true from the false.
Is that sufficiently clear, SD or do I need to spell it out for you?
Thanks for your time.
I honestly wonder why would you even bother to speak to me, SD; permit me to laugh a bit here, but aren’t you always claiming that “yogimat” is/was following you around and torrmenting you - yet it is/was you who are egging “yogimat” on, here and now? …Not that I, personally, care - the wild swings of a tantruming tyke hardly hurt.
Yogimat who? 
Is that sufficiently clear, SD or do I need to spell it out for you?
You have not made clear what your credentials are that you are able to absolutely test for whether somebody is enlightened here or not. Why would your decision be binding and absolute? Who are you?
@SD,
Yogimat who?
That’s sad, SD.
You have not made clear what your credentials are that you are able to absolutely test for whether somebody is enlightened here or not. Why would your decision be binding and absolute? Who are you?
…And this is equally sad, SD.
- I have never claimed that this was an absolute test; word-for-word from the OP even:
This test shall be able to ascertain the - likeliness or probability - that an individual has attained to B). or higher in the above chart. This isn’t to say that the test is perfect - of course not, but I am assuming that most people here will not know the answer to my question, a priori. Therefore, it is sound enough for our sake here and now
Could you please take a moment to point out - to all of us here - where, exactly, I claim the test is an “ultimate test of enlightenment” (as you called it previously); an absolute test of enlightenment?
- I simply will not reveal my “credentials”, SD - there shall be no debate upon this. Frankly, if you need “credentials” to make decisions then you are the poorer man for it. I know you pride yourself upon your own “credentials”, but I have opted to keep my achievements to myself because I do not think it’s right to convince by virtue of achievements, alone; people are far too easily swayed by such things - basic psychology, SD …something I’m certain you knew about beforehand (ie: you deliberately go around sharing your “credentials”).
…I have more to say, but - alas - life beckons. This should suffice for the moment.
Thanks for your time.
You say:
This test shall be able to ascertain the - likeliness or probability - that an individual has attained to B). or higher in the above chart. This isn’t to say that the test is perfect - of course not, but I am assuming that most people here will not know the answer to my question, a priori. Therefore, it is sound enough for our sake here and now
But then later say:
I might also say that, in the case fo failure, perhaps it would only be fair to publically revoke ones certain claims to enlightenment.
If your test is not certain and only gives a probability of whether you have reached enlightenment or a stage in between, then why should somebody revoke their claim to enlightenment based on failing it?
I simply will not reveal my “credentials”, SD - there shall be no debate upon this.
Then what is the point of this thread? I think it easily can compete for the most pointless thread on the forum so far - although making a point was never your strong point Mat
You say you will ask a question and if you are at stage B for example you will know the answer. This means either you have experience of stage B yourself or you have testimony from others what stage B is like.
Now if it is testimony you are arguing from then we already have it from consciousness researchers like Patanjali and modern day researchers like Robert Monroe. A very basic test to see if you at even the most basic stage of Yoga is whether you can control your prana and turn your senses onn an off at will. Entering the pratyhara stage is unmistakable, it feels like being under water.
[QUOTE=AmirMourad;58378]“Buddhahood” and “enlightenment” are not synonymous."
Those words will mean whatever you want them to mean.[/QUOTE]
I’m sorry you feel that way.
Thats half true.
Three cheers for that. Hip, hip, hooray!
[QUOTE=occidentalyogi;58373]If all you (as in all of you) want to do is speculate about the definition, semantics and/or linguistic particulars of the term “enlightment”, I would ask that you please take your speculations to the - most - appropriate thread (ie: “What is enlightenment”).
Understand: this simply is not the place to discuss the definition, as it is defined in terms of a test - it is not a matter of debate, therefore. If you want me to make clarifications, then just ask for them instead of arguing amongst each other about assumed meanings.
Surely, this is reasonable?
Thanks for your time.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I was just looking at the title at face value, and had completely forgotten about your test. Looking back at the original post, I see that you [I]did[/I] provide a definition for enlightenment. you used some nebulous terms, like, the world of causes and the world of unity, but it’s still a pretty good definition. So by my test, [I]you[/I] are the enlightened one. Therefore I bow to the master.
As for your question, Whatsoever does it mean to be crucified, I think I’m going to stay away from that one. If you had asked “What does it mean …”, I might have taken a stab at it, but “Whatsoever” kind of throws a monkey wrench into the works.
You are correctamundo sir, no credentials needed (bows again to the master).
hahahah
Enlightenment…when everything you perceive to be true, dissppears.
@SD,
You say:
Quote:
This test shall be able to ascertain the - likeliness or probability - that an individual has attained to B). or higher in the above chart. This isn’t to say that the test is perfect - of course not, but I am assuming that most people here will not know the answer to my question, a priori. Therefore, it is sound enough for our sake here and nowBut then later say:
Quote:
I might also say that, in the case fo failure, perhaps it would only be fair to publically revoke ones certain claims to enlightenment.If your test is not certain and only gives a probability of whether you have reached enlightenment or a stage in between, then why should somebody revoke their claim to enlightenment based on failing it?
Let me explain it in the same way I explained it to Amir when I re-instated the ultimatum, privately:
I’m quite aware that it is an imperfect test, Amir (aren’t all tests imperfect to some degree), however - as imperfect as it is - it is designed well enough to provide reasonable probabilities. In the case that you succeed, there is reasonable probability to conclude that you are enlightened to some degree (anywhere from B. to E. on the chart I presented earlier), but reasonable probability - only - because it is not too difficult to imagine other ways in which the answer could be discovered however unlikely these other ways are. In the case that you fail, there is reasonable probability to conclude that you are not enlightened (at least in terms of C. to E. on the chart I presented earlier) – B. could still be possible, given that B. represents temporary bouts of high attainment of which I’m not so inclined to call truly enlightened, anyways. However, in the case that you fail, it will be certain (100%) that you are not a Buddha (D. or E. on the chart I presented earlier) given that even a causal self, which is less than a Buddha, could discern the answer to my question
Thus, let us wonder: if they are not even – probably – enlightened then perhaps they shouldn’t go about a public forum claiming to be enlightened or what would you say to that, SD; are you seriously going to defend these sorts of individuals – and that after all this crying about Amir’s claims? You know, when I first posted this thread I thought you, personally, would have been all for it given your claims of being “scientifically minded” and all. Alas, the truth comes out doesn’t it – you’re only “scientifically minded” when you want to be; when it supports you.
Then what is the point of this thread?
Well, it’s not about my “credentials” that’s for sure.
I think it easily can compete for the most pointless thread on the forum so far
That’s only because you, personally, don’t get the thread.
…although making a point was never your strong point Mat
…Again with the “yogimat” thing - now, how about putting your money where your mouth is SD? Prove your certainty to all of the people here by accepting my 1000 dollar US bet. Come on, big boy - if you’re right, you’ll be 1000 dollars US richer at my expense …but if you’re wrong, you’ll owe me 1000 dollars US for my troubles.
You say you will ask a question and if you are at stage B for example you will know the answer. This means either you have experience of stage B yourself or you have testimony from others what stage B is like
Alas, I do not cast pearls.
Now if it is testimony you are arguing from then we already have it from consciousness researchers like Patanjali and modern day researchers like Robert Monroe
So those are your sources, huh?
A very basic test to see if you at even the most basic stage of Yoga is whether you can control your prana and turn your senses onn an off at will. Entering the pratyhara stage is unmistakable, it feels like being under water
Speaking about fail-tests…
Thanks for your time.
“Just because you, personally, ascribe to the common mystagogues habit of conjuring the “fogs of mystery” does not mean that I shall, also; understand: I would rather see clearly - and have others see clearly, as well.”
It has nothing whatsoever to do with “fogs of mystery”, it is simply the very nature of the impossibility of expressing the inexpressible. That has been the insight of all the Buddhas that have ever come to know of their own true nature - all have agreed without exception as to the impossibility of describing the experience. And any of our words and descriptions are at the most just means to indicate towards the space. It does not matter how brilliant ones expression may be - it is always a far cry away from the reality itself. Fundamentally, Truth is something to be experience, not thought about, believed, or philosophized. Once you come to the direct experience, then there will simply be a silence which surpasses all understanding. In that silence - there comes a clarity which is as clear as day-light. Not requiring words, in this very moment the whole cosmos is revealed in just a single ripple on the lake.
Lao Tzu has said a statement of enormous significance. He has said that the Tao that can be named is not the Eternal Tao. The problem with your desire to give what is called “enlightenment” a definition is that you may start clinging to any definition as though it were the reality itself. And that is inevitable as long as you have not come to the experience - then you cannot even have a glimmer of what it is, it is just like a blind man thinking about the light.
Once, three blind men came to see a sage to inquire of Truth. The sage took them to see an elephant.
One blind man touched the tail and said, “It’s a rope”.
Anther touched the leg and said, “It’s a pillar”.
Another touched the belly and said, “It’s a wall”.
Then suddenly the three blind men started arguing and quarreling with one another over the nature of the elephant. This delighted the sage tremendously. He laughed and said, “Each one of you has stated aspects of the Truth, yet each one of you have missed it as you are each clinging to your knowledge as though it were the reality”.
“I would rather see clearly - and have others see clearly, as well”
Before even considering assisting another’s being, settle your own condition - through and through. Otherwise, out of the desire to assist another - if you yourself are carrying a sickness you will only transmit the sickness.
kareng,
“Enlightenment…when everything you perceive to be true, dissppears”
Empty this.
occidental,
“where, exactly, I claim the test is an “ultimate test of enlightenment” (as you called it previously); an absolute test of enlightenment?”
Enlightenment is not something that can be tested, except by a master who may ask you particular kinds of questions which will indicate the depth and intensity of one’s realization. In the first place- when in the presence of the master, just through a mere glance one will be able to detect whether one is still asleep, whether one is on the boundary line, or whether one has already come to the space. And just as a way to confirm the master’s asssesment, certain questions will be asked which have been designed in a particular way to reveal the disciple’s understanding. But such questions are not formalized, nor are they in any fixed form. They are a spontaneous encounter between a master and disciple.
Otherwise, all “tests” for enlightenment, are simply irrelevant. Enlightenment, as it is a subjective experience, is not something that can be tested through any means, scientific or otherwise, simply because the content of enlightenment is not something that can be contained. To test for enlightenment is like trying to test for consciousness itself, and consciousness is as vast space, you cannot grasp it. Even if you try and create a test and somebody passes the requirements of the test - that does not mean that he is awakened, it simply means that he has passed the requirements of the test according to the standards which you have set. That may be useful in as far as other fields of knowledge is concerned. If you want a profession as a scientist, then you will have to pass the qualifications and examinations that are needed for a scientist. If you want to to become a martial artist, then you will have to demonstrate physically your capabilities. But as far as enlightenment is concerned, none of your standards of measurement apply here. And any standard of measurement is just going to be your own relative standards as to what you think “enlightenment” is. Unless you yourself have come to your awakening, then one cannot even a glimpse into the nature of this dharma-jewel. Rather than speaking about it and playing all kinds of games - one should seal one’s mouth and do the work that is needed to come to one’s awakening.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with “fogs of mystery”, it is simply the very nature of the impossibility of expressing the inexpressible
On the contrary, it has everything to do with “fogs of mystery” in that enlightenment is - not - inexpressible.
As I had already mentioned previously, enlightenment - as a term - means “to illuminate” or “to light” as in a candle, lamp, spark or flame. Candles, lamps, sparks and flames - as sources of light - dispell shadows or illusions and fictions. Thus, light has always been a most suitable symbolic representation of truth, knowledge, gnosis, reason, and/or common-sense amongst a whole host of other associated ideas. To become enlightened, then, means to “become lit” therefore; to be as a light - “the Seer sees by his own Light”, understand.
However (and this is important), enlightenment must not be considered a one-time thing - it is relative to ones own position in time, in terms of conscious development. Thus, to become enlightened or “become lit” means to have attained to a higher or subtler state of consciousness (what we call super-consciousness) - temporarily or otherwise - then one was previously at, which will always appear as “darkness” to that “light” which is above; a higher or subtler state of consciousness (super-consciousness) is always more revealing in direct relation to the ignorance of the one preceeding it. The process of identification and liberation with sucessively finer forms is the process whereby the Self comes to know itself - each successive liberation is an enlightenment; is as the fanning of the flame. I could go on and on, but - alas - what’s the point, unless you grasp some of what I am saying?
That has been the insight of all the Buddhas that have ever come to know of their own true nature - all have agreed without exception as to the impossibility of describing the experience
Buddha’s (evolutionary monads set within the second triad essential atom [46:1]) would never claim to know their “true nature” because even that is well beyond Buddhahood, Amir - something they would know full well.
The difficulty of which they are speaking has less to do with their “true nature” as it does with the difference in points-of-view on certain issues, given that they are in the second triad (of consciousness) of the triad chain of a solar system whereas we are in the first triad (of matter). In short: it’s a little more complicated then you had supposed, Amir.
And any of our words and descriptions are at the most just means to indicate towards the space. It does not matter how brilliant ones expression may be - it is always a far cry away from the reality itself
See above - all of this is a perfect example of what I was talking about. You say it’s about their “true nature” and I say it’s about their experiences - or differences thereof - in the second triad of the solar system which makes things nearly inexpressible to us in a lower triad. It has been said that the differences, in terms of consciousness, between the two triads is akin to the differences between the consciousness of a grain of sand and a human being. The greatest problem of all is that they don’t properly “think” anymore, given that “thinking” is a form-making principle (47:1-7) in the worlds of man (49-47:1-7) or the first triad of the solar system.
Fundamentally, Truth is something to be experience, not thought about, believed, or philosophized
Indeed - no argument there.
Once you come to the direct experience, then there will simply be a silence which surpasses all understanding. In that silence - there comes a clarity which is as clear as day-light. Not requiring words, in this very moment the whole cosmos is revealed in just a single ripple on the lake
…All mystical locutions, Amir - care to speak in plain Enligsh (ie: clear concepts)? Understand: I don’t accept poetry as an explanation - never have, never will.
Lao Tzu has said a statement of enormous significance. He has said that the Tao that can be named is not the Eternal Tao. The problem with your desire to give what is called “enlightenment” a definition is that you may start clinging to any definition as though it were the reality itself
…And here’s the real kicker, Amir: “I’m” not the one clinging to some one definition. Think on that.
And that is inevitable as long as you have not come to the experience - then you cannot even have a glimmer of what it is, it is just like a blind man thinking about the light.
Once, three blind men came to see a sage to inquire of Truth. The sage took them to see an elephant.
One blind man touched the tail and said, “It’s a rope”.
Anther touched the leg and said, “It’s a pillar”.
Another touched the belly and said, “It’s a wall”.
Then suddenly the three blind men started arguing and quarreling with one another over the nature of the elephant. This delighted the sage tremendously. He laughed and said, “Each one of you has stated aspects of the Truth, yet each one of you have missed it as you are each clinging to your knowledge as though it were the reality”.
Do not patronize me, Amir - I will have none of it.
Before even considering assisting another’s being, settle your own condition - through and through. Otherwise, out of the desire to assist another - if you yourself are carrying a sickness you will only transmit the sickness.
…This coming from a man who publically claims to be enlightened; who bears witness to his own greatness, who simply will not submit to verification and who is actively gathering disciples. Think on that.
Life beckons.
Thanks for your time.
To the O.P who is now O.Y.
Are you enlightened?
Also I’m curious. From what source did you gather the criterion for the 'levels?"
Right a few points very briefly:
- Ignore the babbling of Amir. Amir hides behind the “fogs of mystery” as Mat said so well. He says vague stuff, cites paradoxical koans and Zen anecdotes, constantly chants the mantra, “truth is inexpressible” because he wants to justify why he should and cannot be tested. It is no different to charlatans who refuse to get tested by skeptics citing crap like, “You are not spiritually enlightened enough, to understand the deeper mysteries” In science we call this unfalsfiable" and all faith comes under this. So amir’s “enlightemnent” is his faith only. It’s his own little deluded world so simply leave him to his own devices.
Now coming to real enlightenment
- Mat, I am sorry but just as Amir cannot pass here without being tested, nor can you. You claim to have a test which can prove with “high probability” whether somebody is enlightened. So accurate is this test, that if one fails it, they should post here and revoke their claim to enlightenment. That is quite a claim, and you know the scientific drill - the claimant carries a burden of proof. First prove to us your test actually works, then somebody might think of taking it.
I already know of tests and I know they work. My knowledge is based on Vedic testimony, consciousness research by experts and pure logic.
-
If you have mastered the physical, you will be able to control all your bodily processes - heart beat, temperature of the body, hormone function etc. Beginner yogis with about 10 years of practice can do this.
-
If you have mastered the prana level, you will be able to control your prana functions in your body - thrist and hunger drives, metabolism, nervous system, sensory systems and receive and transmit prana from various sources. The 5 senses will be fully under your control and you can withdraw prana flowing to them like turning a switch onn and off. It is unmistakable when you them off, you will cease receiving any sensory input. Intermediate yogis with about 30 years of practice can do this. Swami Yogananda is a good example.
-
If you have mastered the mental level you will be able to control your mental-body also known as your subtle body. You will be able to enter and leave your body at will and navgitate the mental planes, interact with other subtle bodies in their dreams, access the akashaic web to receive any information and communicate telepathically. Advanced yogis with about 60 years of practice can do this. Well known examples include Swami Yuketsar guru. The Vedic risis could leave their body at will and enter the higher planes.
If you have mastered the intellectual level(buddhic) you will be able to control matter by controlling on the causal level. You will be able to do telekinesis, levitate, teleport, control the atoms, control sombodies prana, manifest anything. This is close to avatar level, and examples of such yogis include Mahavatar Babaji. About 120 years of practice could get you to this level, but the chances are it will take another lifetime.
- If you have mastered the final level of the spiritual you will become an avatar, a fully enlightened being. At this point you will become a god-like(to humans at least) and cease incarnating on the earthly plane. You will have an etheric body and become an angelic being.
Now what happens after the final level only a angel or god-like being can tell you. I can only tell you what happens as far as human
My bad, the timings should be from stage 1 to 5: 10, 20, 40, 80 and lets say 160 for the final stage. I am making an assumption here that each stage is roughly the double the former. My assumption is based on examples of gurus who were at those stages and roughly how look it took them to get there.
This is assuming a minimum of 5-6 hours of spiritual training a day. The process can be catalysed if one has spiritual training of 10-12 hours a day. Then one could reach stage 1 to 5, in 5, 10, 20, 40 and 80 years respectively.
Your rate of progress depends on how much training you put in a day.
occidental,
“As I had already mentioned previously, enlightenment - as a term - means “to illuminate” or “to light” as in a candle, lamp, spark or flame. Candles, lamps, sparks and flames - as sources of light - dispell shadows or illusions and fictions. Thus, light has always been a most suitable symbolic representation of truth, knowledge, gnosis, reason, and/or common-sense amongst a whole host of other associated ideas. To become enlightened, then, means to “become lit” therefore; to be as a light - “the Seer sees by his own Light”, understand”
If you are at all interested in your own liberation, set your borrowed knowledge aside.
“Buddha’s (evolutionary monads set within the second triad essential atom [46:1]) would never claim to know their “true nature” because even that is well beyond Buddhahood, Amir - something they would know full well.”
The snake continues pretending to be a dragon.
“The difficulty of which they are speaking has less to do with their “true nature” as it does with the difference in points-of-view on certain issues”
If you had not created the mess in your mind in the first place, then who would bother about difficulty ?
“All mystical locutions, Amir - care to speak in plain Enligsh (ie: clear concepts)”
Then understand this - go deeper into your practice and stop speaking of something which has yet to enter into your experience.
“And here’s the real kicker, Amir: “I’m” not the one clinging to some one definition”
You are certainly clinging, whichever way you look at it.
“This coming from a man who publically claims to be enlightened”
I do not wish to speak of myself, for your own sake. But if a man has really come to his awakening, then there is no problem in declaring it. And if he declares something which is in tune with things as they are, the whole existence will be in his support. Understand this, for an Awakened One, there are no formalities.
“who bears witness to his own greatness”
There is no greatness to bear, ashes are reduced to ashes, and dust is reduced to dust. Surrender leaves no room for greatness.
“who simply will not submit to verification”
I do not see that your interest in awakening is sincere, as you are speaking of the matter without any direct experience, nor are you willing to do the work that is necessary for the expansion of consciousness. You have some other motive which you only silently know. So, I am not interested in your verification.
“who is actively gathering disciples”
Certainly. The Way should be made available to those who have the potential to realize it.
Surya,
“1. Ignore the babbling of Amir. Amir hides behind the “fogs of mystery” as Mat said so well. He says vague stuff, cites paradoxical koans and Zen anecdotes, constantly chants the mantra, “truth is inexpressible” because he wants to justify why he should and cannot be tested. It is no different to charlatans who refuse to get tested by skeptics citing crap like, “You are not spiritually enlightened enough, to understand the deeper mysteries” In science we call this unfalsfiable” and all faith comes under this. So amir’s “enlightemnent” is his faith only. It’s his own little deluded world so simply leave him to his own devices."
Surya,
What I have said has been very straightforward and direct. It may be liked or disliked, but there is nothing mysterious, mystical, or complicated about it. If you have experienced the space- then speak. If you have not, then shut up.
If you are at all interested in your own liberation, set your borrowed knowledge aside
If you knew anything about liberation, you’d realize that all reality ideas are borrowed knowledge in the worlds of man - precisely - because their source is in the world of causes, which is part-and-parcel of the second triad.
Beyond that, I find your telling me what I should/should not think is quite offensive (repulsive, actually) - the true guru shining through.
The snake continues pretending to be a dragon
Indeed he does.
If you had not created the mess in your mind in the first place, then who would bother about difficulty?
A mess in my mind, huh?
Then understand this - go deeper into your practice and stop speaking of something which has yet to enter into your experience
Oh Amir, how do you know I haven’t done such things?
You are certainly clinging, whichever way you look at it
Ok - then what is my definition of enlightenment?
I do not wish to speak of myself, for your own sake
I’m not asking you to speak for me - and you damn well know that, Amir. No, I started in on you for the very reasons I gave in the start of this thread - shall I remind everyone?
Why the test; what does it matter whether or not an individual claims they are enlightened?
This is a good question and certainly has to be taken into consideration in proposing such a public test. Indeed, what does it matter? For the individual who claims it, certainly, it matters not - enlightened/not-enlightened - who else should care? However, one also has to take into account that individuals do not exist in vacuums - the truth or falsity of a claim can and does affect the behaviour of other individuals; it is a matter of influence or power. Therefore, it is a most grave matter in fact - one with very serious karmic repercussions; to teach delusions (to delude) is a most grave mistake, even if it is done unconsciously. Thus I question out of concern, both for the individuals making the claim and those being affected by the claim
But if a man has really come to his awakening, then there is no problem in declaring it
Ugh - same ol’ song and dance. Look, Amir: (truly) enlightened individuals do not go around declaring their enlightenment because they know how easily people are influenced by such claims. Thus, it is quite the contrary: there - is - a problem in declaring it. You fail, Amir - horribly.
And if he declares something which is in tune with things as they are, the whole existence will be in his support
Indeed - no argument there. That said: is the whole of existence in support of you? I’m not…
Understand this, for an Awakened One, there are no formalities
There are laws and rules abound, Amir. It is most unfortunate that you think this way for law is life; life is law.
There is no greatness to bear, ashes are reduced to ashes, and dust is reduced to dust. Surrender leaves no room for greatness
Keep telling yourself that, buddy.
I do not see that your interest in awakening is sincere
Oh really?
as you are speaking of the matter without any direct experience
Once again: how do you know I haven’t done such things?
nor are you willing to do the work that is necessary for the expansion of consciousness
You have no idea, do you?
You have some other motive which you only silently know
On the contrary: I wear my motives on my sleeve, Amir - re-read the OP and this time with an eye to understanding as opposed to hasty judgement. Everyone here knows my motive.
So, I am not interested in your verification
No, let’s be perfectly honest with ourselves here Amir: you’re not interested in verification because you know you’ve failed the test, plain and simple; you’ve already tried it inside and you - know - you’ve bombed it. The test scares you because it means you might actually have to face up to fact of your own ignorance; it scares you because it has the potential to shatter that delusion of grandeur and superiority your smothering yourself in.
I calls it as I sees it.
Certainly. The Way should be made available to those who have the potential to realize it
Ugh - teaching is not so simple a task, Amir. Nor is it to be taken lightly, as you seem to think.
Thanks for your time.