(snip) Woo certainly can be fun. I just do not think it is real. The reason I think enlightenment is real is it is the realisation that there is nothing more to life than what one has already experienced all one's life. The search for something beyond does not discover something beyond (though at times it seems as if there is), it rather exhausts all the ideas one has that there is something beyond, and then one is left with what has always been. Nothing new under the Sun. So as M said, 'nothing ever happened'. So in the end, you achieved nothing, got nothing. There is a certain peace of mind in having gotten rid of a lot of speculation you thought was real because you are no longer seeking something more. Like waking up from a dream, you have not accomplished anything because an hallucination naturally stopped.
This, to me, is a tragedy for you. Hopefully, before you die, you will wake up from this terrible hallucination. Life is so much more than this. It is also not possible that life would be structured in this way. For there to be nothing more is not possible. You came from "nothing" but here you are. You claim there is nothing after, nothing, in fact, at all. Maybe I am missing your definition of "nothing" here but to me nothing means zero, emptiness, no consciousness, no being. And to find oneself "seeking nothing more" is not where I ever want my life to land me. You might as well be "nothing" at that point. You have not escaped your illusions, you have floundered dead into the center of one. I hope life will find itself willing and able to lift you out of it because it is not a place of the final truth of things. If something seems really strange and mysterious and incomprehensible, is it always necessary to formulate an explanation or an hypothesis or theory about it? Being in a place where you just do not know is not a bad place. I like to speculate, but nothing I say is really true, it's a picture, an incomplete snapshot of a mental model in my mind. It may or may not have utility, for me or for anyone else. To argue endlessly about what cannot be seen, heard, touched, felt, and smelt is a fool's errand. You say nothing you say is really true. Does this mean that is so for that statement? This kind of thing can go around in an endless loop. Same as someone saying "I don't have beliefs". That, of course is a belief. And to speculate or "argue endlessly" about what can not be seen or heard..." is such a limited/limiting statement. If you have not seen or heard or touched or felt something does not mean you won't or can't - eventually - or that others have not. You just require proof other than their word that they have and so depending upon your definition or the degree or the form of the proof that you require beyond the person's testimony about such things you may or may not believe them or the fact that these 'unknowns' exist. Sometimes discussing and probing these things produces useful experience and it surely means that one is open to finding out, not closed and certain of the reality that they simply don't exist or we can never come to know them. "I was gratified to be able to answer promptly. I said I don't know." -- Mark Twain
