Skip to content
Loading…

Meditation of nothingness.

UnknownMind

Post content

Experiment : To see truth.....

Caution - This experiment meant to be done by only those who actually have understood the three levels of knowledge. If you are doing without understanding three levels of knowledge then there is no fruit to do such experiment. You will simply fail.

Now let's jump up to this experiment. This is such a easiest way which I personally done myself to come from duality to non-dulaity.

Majority of times I said many times repeat the knowledge of oneness right? I will now explain what that actually means and that repeatition of knowledge of oneness isn't like to memories it but to actually live it.

Repeatition of knowledge of oneness -

Right now try to see that experincer is present where where.

First while reading, see does experiencer present or not? It means see if both the experiencer and that experience of reading present at same time or not.

Then do this very same seeing with others things time to time. Like when you are seeing through your eyes try to see if both what you are seeing with your eyes and the experiencer who is seeing that view of both are present same time or not.

Do this every possible thing you can focus on. Like on environment or body or on mental mind plane. See time to time does experience exsist without experincer or not.

In most simple and conclusion term - See in your experience does both experiences and experiencer are present or not. Does experience exsist without experincer or not.

This practical experience of knowledge of oneness with help of your intention to do such experiment you will come to live with oneness.

Try to not only experiment with it but also try to see that you actually living this way from the start of your birth and you will continue to live this way after your death.

This repeatition of knowledge of oneness will dissolve into oneness.

Dont over do it. You can do it only 1 time at a day. There is no need to push it. This is the only pratice I will give you. Except this you don't have to do anything. Try this experiment according to your capacity. Because anyways in end we are going to left this practice also.

Live with knowledge of oneness is the goal of this meditation or I will like to call it practice. Because once you got knowledge of oneness all there is left is to practice with it that's it.

Caution - if you are still doing this practice after like 10 to 20 years later then it means there is something wrong with your meditation or pratice. Because the goal is here to become one not the meditation itself. This is pratice not goal. The main goal is oneness.

I call it meditation of nothingness. Because it leads to nothingness.

Thoughts

  • quick_gut_check

    Watch the watcher, ok

    Permalink
  • nodding_along

    Only once a day 🙏

    Permalink
  • define_your_terms

    Oneness and nothingness pull in opposite directions here. One says everything is a single thing, the other says there's no thing at all, and the title picks the second.

    Permalink
  • occams_chainsaw

    The test as written can only come out one way. Every experience you could check is, by definition, one you're having, so the experiencer will always turn up present. A test that can't fail works as a reminder, which is fine, but calling it a way to see truth is doing a lot of work.

    Permalink
  • middle_way_mike

    This is very close to what Ramana Maharshi called self-enquiry, turning attention back on the one who sees instead of on what is seen.

    The once-a-day limit is the part I'd defend hardest. In my own sitting, the days I pushed it became a performance of oneness rather than the thing itself.

    Permalink
  • Ovid

    The caution near the end, that still doing this after ten or twenty years means something went wrong, reminds me of how most good tools are meant to be put down eventually. I bet a lot of readers will try the reading part first, since that is the one experiment anybody can do right here on the page :)

    Permalink

Related posts

  • Does Christianity actually fear knowledge?

    One of the most persistent stereotypes about Christianity is that it fears knowledge. The story is familiar. Religion relies on faith. Science relies on evidence. One asks questions, the other suppresses them. The heroes are the people who challenged religious authority, while the Church stands as the institution that tried to hold them back. There are moments in history that support parts of that story. The Church has made mistakes. It has sometimes resisted new ideas. The Galileo affair…

  • Should we judge Christianity against what came before it, not against what it built?

    One of the stranger habits of modern discussion is that Christianity is often judged exclusively against twenty-first-century moral standards while its alternatives are judged against the Christianity that helped shape those standards in the first place. This does not mean Christianity is innocent of wrongdoing. Religious wars happened. Churches accumulated power. Christians persecuted one another. Any honest reading of history has to acknowledge that. The question is whether Christianity made…

  • Were the Romans far more progressive than we give them credit for?

    There is a common trend of young men being interested in the Roman empire out of movies and populat history, and imagining it as a militaristic, right wing hyper-masculine empire that was great for men. Spartacus, Rome, Gladiator... to different degree all give a perception of Rome being a sort of warrior-culture, sometimes bogged down by decadence. Gladiator II takes this to a ridiculous extreme. For that particular movie, I recommend reading Brett's, from acoup.blog , critique:

  • Do conservatives actually own the Church?

    I am tired of conservatives acting like they own the Church. They do not. The Church is older than the political right, older than trad nostalgia, older than the American culture war, and older than the faction that keeps trying to turn its own instincts into orthodoxy. If you look at Christian history instead of clinging to one preferred snapshot of it, the record points the other way.

  • Why does Silicon Valley talk about death like it's a software bug?

    One of the clearest signs that modern secular elite culture is uneasy about death is how Silicon Valley talks about it. The human body is treated like legacy hardware waiting for an upgrade. In place of acceptance, you get optimization: longevity startups, cryonics, extreme biohacking, and constant speculation about whether enough computation and biotech might eventually defeat death itself. Tech billionaires talk with pride about potentially transferring their consciousness to a computer, as…

  • Is Christ's message eternal, but never meant to be read literally?

    Christians rightly say that the truth revealed in Christ is not temporary, but rather eternal. That is true, but it does not mean literalism and it does not mean that we are to drop interpretation. The mistake comes when some believers quietly turn that into a different claim: because the truth is eternal, every biblical utterance should be treated as though it arrived outside history and therefore needs no interpretation any longer, but rather has to be taken literally in the same way...

  • Does atheism make you more rational, or just leave a void you fill badly?

    One of the common atheist temptations is to confuse unbelief with clarity, to assume that religion is the irrational part, so removing religion must leave behind a cleaner and more rational human being. But human beings do not work that way, human beings operate through beliefs, emotions... We do not stop wanting ritual, purity, moral tribe, sense of sacredness or transcendent meaning just because we stop using religious language for those desires.

  • Does literalism flatten the Bible into a mere manual?

    One of the strangest assumptions in modern literalist readings of Scripture is the idea that the Bible should be treated as if it were a single kind of document with a single interpretive key. As if it were a legal contract where every clause must be enforced uniformly, or a scientific paper where every sentence is meant as a precise empirical claim, or a recipe book where the point is simply to follow instructions exactly as written.

Public 6 conversations 13 thoughts 39 upvotes 0 downvotes 0 series

Experiment : To see truth.....

In groups