Question 41: If consciousness is aware of itself, is this enlightenment?
Oliver: Yes, if a teacher teaches in a dualistic way he would probably define it that way. Non-dualistic spoken this definition doesn't make sense. That's why I prefer the definition that enlightenment happens if there isn't any one left (no person) who could experience enlightenment or could identify with the "state" enlightenment. By the way that's the reason no master would confirm a student to be enlightened. Enlightenment doesn't need any confirmation because there isn't anybody left who could ask himself/herself if he/she is now enlightened or not.
Question 42: Is there really nobody left? Isn't it so that, after the disappearance of the me-thought, it's the I AM that remains? Pure presence, the space in which human being and world appear?
Oliver: The "I AM" or "Presence" or "Oneness" is completely impersonal. "Nobody here anymore" means that no actual person is left. That means nobody who identifies with whatsoever (neither for example with presence or oneness). So I can't say: "I am pure presence" (or oneness, light, emptiness, fullness or however you would like to call it). But I can say, if you like, "there is just pure presence".
Question 43: What do you tell people who ignore the "me-thought" (ego*) and say that it never will disappear and anyway everything is Being?
Oliver: If "concepts of oneness" (or concepts in general) meet the human mind, principally two things can happen:
1.) Either mind occupies itself with these concept or
2.) mind doesn't care about (I warmly recommend this version :-)
In the first case mind will try to explain oneness by using constructs of ideas in order to keep, preserve and institutionalise oneness. In the course of time mind will inevitably (ab-)use the concept of oneness for all possible purpose and try to legitimate everything with it. That's the origin of religions.
In the second case it can happen that the identification with a personal "me" and with it the concept of oneness disappear. What remains is still oneness which of course was also there in the first case. Both cases are characteristics of life or better characteristics of oneness apparently playing the game of life. Both are waves on the ocean of oneness which is YOU.
A short anecdote in the end: When I and so my mind read years ago that time doesn't exist I tried to get used to the timeless state by putting down my watch, which I always wore, for many years (even I liked watches very much...). After the disappearance of time and space together with the identification with a personal "me" one of my first acts was to put on my watch again because it is very practical in daily life and even looks good.
*) Note: For the definition of the term "ego" please consult --> question 36
Question 44: Oliver, how would you describe accurately the state of the "sudden awareness of just being" with your words? The term ENLIGHTENMENT is often very misleading for a newcomer in seeking. It's the same with the term "awakening".
Oliver: You are a newcomer!?! That's good :-) I can tell you that also for an "advanced seeker" the term "enlightenment" can be pretty misleading...
Lest you don't become an advanced seeker have confidence in me and take the following words to heart:
There is no state. Forget about that word. NOTHING has to be changed because everything is complete NOW. So please stop seeking and go to the cinema if you like.
Listen, what you are looking for is NOW here and it can't be found because the seeker and what he/she is looking for are the same. What you are looking for I would call "existence". Being alive. A kind of impersonal feeling of existence which contains (because it's impersonal) EVERYTHING. The joke is that this feeling of existence is NOW with you. Always. You just don't want to believe it and your mind tries to find and to explain it. That's completely UNNECESSARY! You don't have to do anything. Just carry (if you are desperate to do something) always a feeling in you how it would be if you had already found what you were looking for.
Question 45: Oliver, what is it that communicates through you? Does anything happen when we visit your satsang? The "newcomers" first always use their minds because they want to understand. Do they first have to let go of what they have read in order to find IT? It seems not to be enough if you tell us that we aren't blind. Do we have to be aware of the fact that SEEING is always?
Oliver: If you go to a teacher you assimilate everything with your mind and with all senses, conscious or unconscious. If the chemistry is good between you and your teacher, you believe what he says. That's faith. It can't be forced.
People coming to me are amazed how normal I am. I'm the fellow one can drink a coffee or a beer or can go to the cinema with. They don't see an unreachable indian guru but somebody who is and speaks like them. That calms them very much and allow them to let go of everything and to finish the seek.
By the way: You don't have to be aware of the fact that SEEING is always here. If your mind understands my picture of the glasses this way, then unfortunately the picture is wrong for you. It's tricky with these pictures and allegories... You don't have to do anything. Just live like life lives you. Every moment is perfect. The moments of seek and despair too. Relax and just do something you would do anyway without being forced and don't think about all this stuff. That's IT.
