LastThursday

I don't think there's anything wrong with either short or long responses, except at the extremes. Single word or three word sentences are probably useless and 20 paragraph responses are probably not going to be read in depth. But hey, that's just my judgement.

@fridjonk what? Not use the forum? Now that's something I definitely need to go off and contemplate deeply.

Sounds like a useful technique, something like the Neti Neti method.

No matter how fast you drive, someone will always be able to drive faster. You can only know what you know I guess. I'd say I don't understand about 50% of what's said or being pointed to: I'm just not there yet or been bothered to do the practices.

You are 100% right. Although, if I'm going to use the forum at all, then the forum beast needs feeding. If I'm only doing half a job (by only posting comments), then what am I really doing on the forum? Dunno, feels like it's a flaw, but maybe not?

Not a flaw lol I think it comes from my belief that the onus is on the person doing the explaining to make themselves understood, not the other way around. But I try and keep in mind that it's easy to be misunderstood, especially in writing. Still drives me nuts though - that's the flaw.

Man, I've worked against impulsiveness my whole life - and it's got me in trouble many times. Definitely up there for me.

What you are reality pointing to is entirely different paradigms for knowing the world. Each has its problems, some of which you've pointed out. It seems like materialism is the default view for most of us. The number one problem it has, is that there is no space in it for the raw experience of consciousness. In other words, it has a lot of trouble explaining non-material experiences. The other paradigm which is Subjective Idealism (SI - the default view on the forum), has it's own issues. The main one being if consciousness and subjectivity is all encompassing, then what is the purpose of form (material objects)? And what happens to stuff outside of consciousness? If there is nothing outside of consciousness, then where does stuff disappear to and reappear from? Also once you go into SI deep enough, there is this notion that really the experience of it is no different from a dreaming state. Unfortunately, this has two unsavoury connotations: anything is possible and without rules, and everything is an illusion or false in some sense. You can see how mismatched to your everyday (common) sense these two ideas are. You could look for a middle way in the hope that two shonky paradigms make a good one. Start by looking for commonalities. The main one that jumps out at me is persistence. Persistence of form (objects) seems to underpin materialism. You know, conservation of mass and momentum. In materialism stuff doesn't just disappear, at least it takes time for objects to change, normally under the abstract force of increasing entropy. Persistence is also present in SI. Yes, stuff is discontinuous in actuality - you stop directly experiencing the beer left at the bar - but it can come back again. So materialism has a kind of smooth persistence, and SI a staccatto persistence. The other commonality is time. Or in the very least the notion of change. Under materialism stuff is subject to change, sometimes spontaneous (radioactive decay), but mostly due to one thing impinging on another (Newton's laws of motion, Navier-Stokes fluid flow) - this is just good old cause and effect. But SI also has a notion of change. It's very clear that the conscious experience is under constant flux, some of it smooth and some of it discontinuous. In fact this seems to be one of its primary facets, nothing is ever really static. TLDR: I don't have an answer, but I suspect there is a way out of the conundrum.

@Megan Alecia it's normal to doubt ourselves and abilities, it's a flaw a lot of us have. But at least honesty and authenticity are not flaws.

@VeganAwake the mind manipulating the mind? Yes, why not. Although dare I say that spirituality is not just about austerity and puritanism?

Great observation. Monkey mind doesn't necessarily talk.

I would take a long walk in the countryside, talk briefly with friends and family in person if I could, and really enjoy that last meal. And if a had a wife or girlfriend I would want her to do all those things with me.

I enjoyed your authenticity and energy. You have an interesting story and for the seekers out there there is hope and a reason to continue on the spiritual path.

@Leo Gura agreed. After all, how can she talk about something she doesn't have (although we're all guilty of that)? She should be like a blind person talking about seeing. Instead she's a seeing person thinking she is blind; to milk the analogy.

One thing I do find fascinating is watching the eyes of the woman in the video: And comparing this to what NLP says: https://dailynlp.com/eye-accessing-cues/ These eye accessing cues are totally subconscious. If you watch her eyes, and match it to the words she uses, you'll see they gel well together. So the observation is this: whenever she talks about internal monologue and "describing" her eyes go right to the place indicating internal monologue. I'm not saying she's lying, just that she uses something subconsciously that takes the place of internal monologue.

Well yeah. In a sense; this chair in front of me is a thought, too. Not just the conceptual layer I project over it, but the actual thing. However; that's not what I was trying to point at in this thread. Rather just simply the inner voice, the constant narrative, that most of us have. I was answering this statement. You're clearly equating thought with internal monologue; so this seems to be your underlying point. And, I was simply saying that thought isn't just restricted to internal monologue - which is I suspect news and even mind blowing to some. I'm not expanding the definition of "thought" to "perception" itself though, although I wouldn't object to that. So thought is all the non-physical stuff in your experience, the inner world, although that definition is quite woolly - I wouldn't want to class dreaming as thought per se. I do believe that some people find it impossible to picture stuff in their mind's eye, I find that mindblowing. But hey.

Truth is that which persists. Is there anything in direct experience which persists? How about direct experience itself?

You don't have to die to end your suffering, you just have to realize that you are more than your conditioned body and mind. You are a soul, on a journey, and your ultimate destination is reunion. Ultimately, there is only Consciousness. Relatively, there is you and me. Both are entangled in reality. The secret is to love the story, while remembering that it is only a story. I meant "die" in a very general sense, although this would include physical death. If suffering is caused by a strong attachment to something, then when that attachment dies (i.e. stops), so does the suffering. Ultimately, being alive itself is one big attachment to maintaining life, it's an active process. The only way to stop the attachment of being alive is to physically die. So the only way (conventionally) to stop all attachment, and hence suffering, is to die. But, enlightenment would offer a way out of (all) suffering without physically dying. So in that sense, enlightenment is a type of death or release from all attachments. But because you're not physically dead, paradoxically there is still attachment to being alive. However being enlightened you are not attached to this attachment of being alive! It doesn't matter if you're dead or alive, it makes no difference. In fact, the duality of alive/dead is collapsed. Enlightenment in this way is very radical. It let's you have your cake and eat it.

@ivankiss I've noticed a general confusion about thoughts and thinking. There are some who believe that the internal monologue is thinking. So, it's obvious from that viewpoint that if you stop it, or don't have it, then you're not thinking. And stopping thinking seems to be one of those milestones on the way to being enlightened. But it's just not like that at all. Thought is much broader than a voice in your head. It's images, sensations, feelings, sounds, memories. In fact having a hallucinatory voice following you around is as weird as having an imaginary best friend. After all, people who supposedly "hear voices" are possibly mentally ill (they are wrong however!). Thinking I would say is part of any enlightenment. You only want to quiet the mind in the initial stages so that you can "get out of your own way". After that think away!

@levani I'm not enlightened, but my intuition tells me you don't become enlightened, you discover it or uncover it. So you have to lay the groundwork to increase your luck. That's what Leo's all about.

You have to sit down and work out what motivates you to do stuff. Everyone's different though, so I can't give you a specific answer. But here are some pointers: 1. Money. 2. Recognition and status. 3. Doing stuff now, to make things easier in the future. 4. Staying alive: eating, bathing etc. 5. Reward of any sort (after doing it) / making people happy 6. Relief - from worrying about not doing it. 7. Threat or stigma from other people for not doing it. 8. Deadlines. 9. Structure and timetables. Any sort of framework for working. 10. Actually starting a task. 11. Interaction with other people or sharing a task or being on a team. Here are some things that are non-motivating: 1. Being unhappy or depressed. 2. Physical illness (or being unfit, eating junk food, brain fog etc). 3. Having too many things to do. 4. Having too many options. 5. Reward without working for it. 6. Too little time (deadlines!) 7. Too much distraction, either thoughts or environment. 8. Underdeveloped executive function and/or attention span 9. Previous negative experience in doing the task 10. Too much effort for too little reward 11. Working in a negative environment. The point is to work out what does motivate you and put those things in place; and work out what doesn't motivate you and fix or remove those things. It's a mental game you have to play with yourself.

In the old days you would occasionally be taken over by the need to rummage in old drawers and garages, just to see what you could find and be nostalgically surprised by the past. Nowadays, it's the electronic paraphernalia of the past. In a cascade of internet dominoes where one thing leads to another, I was reminded that I'd recorded a version of me playing Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata many moons ago. If remember rightly, at the time I was going to make a series of these videos as and when I learnt the pieces. But it ended up being a passing fad. Anyway, here it is: It's not bad. It's a bit fast and too legato, but it has a certain momentum to it. I wish I'd recorded the second movement. The third? Forget it, beyond my skills. The point of this post, other than showing off and exposing my identity to the world? Well, it's that it's often good to go over the things you did in the past, even just to remind yourself where you used to be and where you are now in relation to it. And also it can be quite surprising how good you were at things, and how much you've learnt since. It's an uplifting experience. And that, can only be a good thing.

@Preety_India yeah that's the joy of this place, it's like an international bazaar of ideas and viewpoints - exciting. Of course even in ancient times there were great philosophers outside of Greece. It's an odd thought, that some of us may even be talked about in 2000 years' time. You never know eh?

The idea of free will is really one without an answer. There is one activity we all do that sits on the boundary of free will: breathing. Is breathing under control of our free will or not? It's good to contemplate this deeply. If you ascribe to a consciousness-is-everything-time-doesn't-exist paradigm, then the question of free will is actually meaningless. Free will implies causation: you made the thing happen. But in terms of the paradigm, consciousness unfolds itself moment to moment, no cause and no effect.

I used to think my memories were mine. But one day I realised that nearly everything I could remember as a small kid, there was a corresponding photo for in one of my mum's albums. The past happened, inasmuch as there is an imprint of it in the present moment.