WaveInTheOcean

@Aware Okay, so you have even seen for yourself that the mast remains as the last thing you see, and STILL you deny the Earth is round? Wow. Can you please give me your explanation on why you see the mast last then? "But its a mirage, an illusion, because I zoom in, and there is no curvature. Its just optical illusion. " Of course you can't DIRECTLY see the freaking curvature when you're close to the ground. Not even with strong cams/scopes. There are several logical reasons for that: - atmospheric noise/particles blocks your view - refraction of light from the atmosphere masking the view - you're super close to the ground To actually see the curvature directly you have to get at least 20 km up in the air. It makes perfect sense. The video you link... I can't take it seriously.. I mean I really can't. The guy who's speaking over the video is either trolling hard or is legit and would fail a grade school physics exam. But of course, physics is a grand scam too, right? Haha, Jesus Christ. Aware, are you aware, as I've said many times, that PHYSICS, YES ACTUAL PHYSICS, is what have made it possible to create the computer you're using right now? It's the same kind of science. I briefly watched the video, and let me just show a few places where it's pure retarded: At 40:05 he says that the "spherical model" has a problem in that it indicates that the moon is much smaller than the sun, and still when we look into the sky they seem about the same size. I mean wow... Yes, BECAUSE THE SUN IS MUCH, MUCH FURTHER AWAY THAN THE MOON. The moon is 300.000 km away from us and the Sun is 150 million km away from us... So naturally the Sun looks small because it's so far away. I mean wow man.. Then he proceeds to argue that it's "improbable" that the Moon rotates around the Earth while spinning around it self in synchronized motion (1 orbit equals 1 rotatin around it self) which perfectly explains why we always see only one side of the moon. Wow - what an argument! He thinks it's improbable... how fucking cute lol! Then he proceeds to say that it's strange that this side has many craters. Well first of all it's not fucking strange. The Earth and Moon was created for 4-5 billion years ago, and it's very like that there were a lot of meteors at that time bombarding both the moon and Earth. The reason we don't see the craters on Earth anymore (not as many at least) but still on the Moon is also perfectly logic. The Earth has wind (erosion) and tectonics and vulcanism --- three processes that recycle the Earth (and thus make the craters disappear)... The Moon has none of that, so it's very old craters (many million years old, even billions) are still seen today because it has no way to get rid of them. MAKES PERFECT SENSE. Also in fact, the far side of the moon (The side we never see, cus it faces away from Earth) has actually many more craters than the near side: https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-54365072e06d5b91256641e723f55411-c And then the moron proceeds to state that it makes no sense (according to the spherical model) that it's possible to see the Full Moon during the day... Wow again... It is naturally possible that during the mornings or late afternoon evenings (when the country you are in is not directly facing the Sun, but still seeing daylight) that the near-side of the moon can be almost fully bathed in Sunlight which you can see... And later in the video he argues that it's strange that we don't percieve on Earth that the Earth and the Sun is moving through space with very high velocities. Again - it's not strange. Because the Earth's gravitiy keeps everything nicely attached to it : the atomsphere and everything in it, so of course we don't feel it... I mean, it makes perfect sense.

haha! I assume that he didn't really turn it into water, but that his presence did something in that situation that made people enjoy the water like they enjoy a good wine.. who knows!

@Aware So you believe that all the pictures the "satellites" have taken of planets, like just the new ones of pluto, eg: are all hoax / Computer-generated-images? How do you see if there is any curvature? By just looking with your cam at a random horizon and expect to see any curvature at sea-level? For real? "However, the apparent curvature is less than that due to refraction of light in the atmosphere and because the horizon is often masked by high cloud layers that reduce the altitude above the visual surface." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#Curvature_of_the_horizon Have you tried getting a good pair of strong binoculars, finding a coast with a lot of ships leaving it and then on a clear blue-sky day just sit and watch the ship leave in the horizon? I admit I haven't tried it myself (yet), but I postulate that the last thing you will see is the top of the ship. That is to say, you will slowly see the bottom of the ship vanish while still seeing the higher points of the ship - eg. the mast. If you have tried what I just desribed exactly and you just saw the whole ship disappear at once, then you got me:) I am curious. And I have checked videos for and against. The against-videos are just silly in my eyes. Where is your open-mindness? The internet is flooding with proof that the Earth is spherically shaped. 10000s of pictures of the curvature of the Earth and 10000s of pictures of other planets in the solar system (and if they are balls, then surely it would be strange if the earth was not)... But I know that you will say that all those pictures are fake. Anyway

@Aware Good enough then. I just want to get the message through that everything isn't as black and white as I seem to interpret some of your writings. I mean the 2 kind of Awareness you talk of ... I'd say it's a constant interplay between the two for all beings. Sure for those more developed on the path they have attined more of the "good" one and less of the "bad" one, but still... And also lastly, my biggest problem with your last big post (the matrix one) was actually your talk about ball earth and how that is the biggest secret/lie that of the sequential-dudes. I call bullshit on this. There is nothing wrong with science, really. Let me quote myself briefly: "The science that gave us internet, computers, cell phones, and lots of other stuff is EXACTLY the same kind of science that came up with the -Earth is a sphere-model." I briefly in that post on page 3 argued why the Earth of course is ball-shaped. May I ask Aware, what makes you so sure that the Earth is not a ball? And also ... I sort of get the vibe from you that according to you, the multi-club should just self-realize and leave the world as it is and not give a damn about it, but just sit still in a hut in the forest and meditate and enjoy the stillness and peace. Have it ever occured to you that it's possible to have achieved self-realization, see through the power games and so on, and yet still wish (without attachment to that wish) to change the world for the "better" ? I guess it has, you're writing a book, so I probably shouldn't make this judgement upon you:) I mean sure, i agree that one should first work on him or herself. As Socrates said, the man who wish to move the world, should move himself first. So yeah sure, leave the society for some time, detach from all of it, and FIND, DISCOVER, REALIZE yourself, KNOW yourself, learn, become aware, etc et, etc... But then when you feel that you have achieved enough "awareness" of how all the games play out, then I think it's very valid and plausible that one "might go back to society/world" (without the attachment) and try to "help"/enforce change where one can and see options. Look at Jesus, according to your model, Jesus was totally governed by the multi-awareness but he didn't leave the "others" be..Instead he spent most of his life trying to enlighten the sequential dudes. So let me repeat myself: It's not all black and white. I still like your posts here Aware, I agree with much of the content, just not fully the way it is presented. And also your thoughts about how the Earth is not ball-shaped I find ridiculous. Let me repeat myself again briefly: I think it's very healthy to be skeptic and question "what seem to be set in stone by culture/science/society", eg. the Earth's shape. But after having done that (with regards to the Earth) I cannot really understand those who still find it plausible that it's flat/not round.

@Aware This is a fat projection of yours onto me, and a pretty obvious one. I disagree strongly with your projection though. Just because I, yes, believe that the Earth is indeed a ball, that doesn't automatically mean that I have faith in big corporations as a general rule. You yourself have a lot of faith towards the belief that the Earth is not a ball :> And as I see it you mostly have that faith because it fits nicely into your worldview that there are these -opposite awareness-guys, the big corporations, who are doing all they can to ensure we don't see the truth. Be careful though. Balance is the keyword. Science in itself is not "bad". It's an attitude towards things that can be 'bad' For what it's worth, I'm well-aware of the world we live in, and that there are interests of big corps and governments in not letting the public see certain things clearly. I'm well aware that propaganda from mass-media is a very real thing today. To everyone interested on the subject, check out the great Noam Chomsky. For example this interview is great: But just because I know that, I don't automatically throw everything out of the window. For example science. And I don't fucking juxtapose Hitler with Darwin or A. Einstein (who you must also see as one of "them", since he has created General Relativity which strongly relies on the fact that the Earth is a 'ball'). Science has its uses, and you're obviously not aware of it, Aware Just like culture, family and society also has its uses. Impressive. My personal advice would be to be careful in not over-doing it, though. Great! If you visit me in Copenhagen, I'll give you a big medal that says "refrained!". :> Thanks for the tip, will try it. You mean gold as a colour? Golden colour? Why that exactly? What about blue? Elaborate please. But I can maybe see why gold is good. Sure. I don't deny that I may have some kind of spiritual ego. In fact I personally believe everyone has that, more or less that is. EDIT: Also last thing regarding the Earth's shape: I think it's very healthy to be skeptic and question "what seem to be set in stone by culture/science/society", eg. the Earth's shape. But after having done that (with regards to the Earth) I cannot really understand those who still find it plausible that it's flat/not round.

@Aware I don't follow any path (like the 8-folded path) blindly and in pure trust. Just to clarify that. In my eyes, if you're wise, you don't follow anything (including gurus and so on) blindly and in pure trust. Not even "holy" traditions like Buddha's teachings or Jesus' teachings. Sure, for some who's really lost, it can be helpful to follow someone/some ideas in pure trust alone, but then at some point they must let go of following blindly and see for themselves. Instead I have pure trust towards life/reality in itself. I have faith in reality as it is, not how I want it to be necessarily. Am I a theist? No. Am am I an atheist? No. I have no faith that there exists any God. I have no faith that there does not exist any God either. I have faith in existence. Faith beyond my own limited perspective on reality. Because I acknowledge that self implies other. ......................................... that black implies white. ......................................... that being alive implies being dead. That is to say I - as a person - only know I exist because I once didn't exist. ......................................... that good implies evil. And I acknowledge that I in no possible way can concieve/grasp/put into words/rationalize why I in this present moment am having this profound mystical experience we all call 'human life'. Any idea of why I exist -- or idea of how it's possible to have this experience I'm currently having -- is an idea created by _me_ (=the 'I* that also asked the question). So precisely therefore one sees that any such idea can't be the truth. What is the truth then? The truth is the profound reply of silence that may come after sincerely and seriously asking yourself for the last time: 'Who am I?' - Such a profund 'reply' only comes when that "I'" (the self that clings) has fully given up and surrendered itself. What is then left is the _actual_ you - the you that can't be put into words. Because I still haven't given up (it's hard), I'm still going to put it somewhat into words. That actual you, that actual 'me' is pure empty infinite awareness. Pure Being. Call it God if you like. But let me stress: It's not the you, you think you are. Just like I actually don't believe I am pure emtpy infinite awareness. I'm not. And knowing I'm not that is not a belief actually. It's just a knowing that I am truly nothing (and thus that implies I am also everything). (Quote: Nisargadatta).

@Aware And I warned for/expected exactly such a post Of course I'm not ready to grasp it. And no, of course spiritual egoism is not felt in you. A spiritual ego is an ego that you are not really aware of (per definition). I'm sure you're happy and blissful, although it seems like you sit on this forum for most of your daily life currently ( I guess you're writing a book of some kind on your computer). I won't judge you. I'm sure you're happy and blissful if you say so. Also when I use terms like "morons" and "retardness" etc in my last post, it's not really because I judge the people. I'm well aware that I'm using offensive words, but it has its reasons. I've never ever claimed you were entangled to such things I'm just pointing out that not being entangled to all these such things alone and in itself doesn't make you much wiser than those who are. We can easily agree on that. I thank you for your presence on this forum as well. Both for the good and "bad" (IMO) contributions of yours. Even the so-called "bad" have given me the option to reflect over some essential things. So thanks. Good luck.

Please everyone, grasp that 'Complete'/'Ultimate'/Finished Enlightenment is an imaginary goal that can never be completely reached. Yet, it's viewed as something you can fully achieve in order for you to start going for it. You can approximate it, sure. Jesus Christ, Buddah, Mohammed - these dudes are viewed as the "highest" you can get to. Truth is, even Jesus were not fully enlightened. This reflects that: Truth is enlightenment is a never-ending-path. Or it ends when you die. But physical death itself has nothing to do with enlightenment. There is always more to enlightenment than just "becoming" enlightened. With that said, it's not unthinkable that many people have had sad lives, then gotten an 'epiphany' that the whole shit including enlightenment is just one big game, and then choosed to commit suicide because they realized it doesn't matter at all. Is that enlightenment? I guess it is sort of, but for me it lacks the part of mastering human life, which I at least enjoy trying to do.

@Aware Wow. The spiritual ego is big on this one. I mean you're obviously lost, Aware. I know I mostly like can't help you, as this spiritual ego of yours has probably developed so big that you can't take it emotionally if you let it burst now. So you won't let it go. I understand. Just remember that as long as you won't let it go, you will be forever stuck on the path towards actual self-realization, actual liberation. It's sad, because you've come a long way, and I have gained some valuable insight from reading your posts here. But you've fallen into a trap now .. the trap of the spiritual ego (I'll discuss it further down below). I mean, I'm lost too. But I acknowledge that I'm lost. The acknowledgment of the fact that I'm lost ( have no clue of why I'm here, what my agenda is, who I am etc) sort of makes me not lost, because you're obviously 1000 times more lost... Because if you are really lost, but believe you're not (i.e. making wrong assumptions of reality, that you hold as ultimately true) then you're obv even more lost by infinity amounts. For the lulz I will make a last post in trying to destroy the bubble of your spiritual ego anyway. I know it most likely won't matter, but at least my post will _hopefully_ help some people not falling into your bullshit. And it is easy to fall into your bullshit -- I'll give you this one -- because you actually write a lot of cool, insightful, relatively true things that are very useful, for example just to mention some things you've discussed, which I like: About law of action leading to according results. About the law of Impermanence. That we are not our bodies. That awareness of pure reality can be slowly attained by stopping attachment to desires (but here you miss something... you also have to stop to cling to ideas like you obv do). That a person who rapes a monk himself is the victim and not the monk ( I liked that ! It's arguably very true!). That the raper does it because of ignorance. Yep. And: "Therefore I stated that the right view is: This situation is a result of previous situations, and this situation will lead to the next. We are the result of our thinking, heirs of our thinking, the accumulation of our thinking."" -- I like this very much, it's very accurate. Also all your talk about Power games and so on.. it's actually a cool, accurate discription. Your analogy of how trees are govnered by sunrays etc.. It's a nice way to look at things.. And yes in a way we are also governed by other things that are not part of what we normally would call ourselves. But you also come out with a lot of bullshit. Let me clearify: What you have sort of done, is that you have seen all the wrong assumptions that society has shoved into their people. You have seen that they are wrong... Just for example that we are a body (but also religion, power, money , conformity etc, all things you discuss nicely). So obviously we are not a body, I see that too. But your grand mistake is that you have started assuming that you're/we're something else then, AND that you've now created such a new assumption (all your talk about stream of Awareness etc) that you now cling to as the Truth.. And you cling to that like a child. So in a sense you're not much different than most. Sorry to burst your bubble ( I know I probably didn't, because you're currently blind (to your own spiritual ego), but I pray that you will in the future see more clearly). In a sense, to use an analogy from Zen Buddhism.., you're currently stuck in the Devil's Cage.. Read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makyo You say that "- I am not an idea of me." ... That's right. But your last post very obviously doesn't reflect that statement at all...You obviously have very well-thought ideas about who you are... all this stuff about Awareness, One Essence, Two opposite awarenesses, one awareness governing many streams... You even go as far as creating a sort of "us vs them"-reality. That we on this forum are part of one type of Awareness going for the self-realization game and that most other people are part of another type of awareness going for the Power Games of society. That's super fucking dangerous to do. And it's a big, fat trap you've fallen right into. So let's just for the fun of it talk a bit about your ego-created perception of reality: We have the "sequential"-dudes and we have the "multi"-dudes. You and I, we are part of the multi club. We are the wise ones. Seeking self-realization. Then we have the sequential-dudes who go for conformity etc.. May I ask, did "God"/Mother of Essence reveal this to you through an epiphany? Or did it ever struck you that your ego created this image of the world because this image fits very, very nicely with how you percieve the world? I bet my money on the latter, mate. I can see why your ego created this image... because it IS pretty accurate.. and I also sort of like it as a model to describe the world we live in.. But to hold as the Truth and start seeing it as "us" vs "them"... I mean, fucking stop it, if you go down that road, you are exactly just like the sequential dudes you just described. ". I am well awakened " Obv you're not, mate. "You are a stream of Awareness" vs ""- I am not an idea of me." " I hope everyone can see how this dude constantly contradicts himself . Anyway, the most hilarious part of your last post was your talk about how the Earth is not a ball, and that this is a grand illusory designed to block us, the multi-ones, from seeking the truth. I don't even know where to start here to be honest, because my own ego can't help see the retardness of it all. There are so many ways to destroy the whole "Earth is flat"-society, but in many ways it's pointless because they won't listen to pure common sense. Now the funny part is that they use the same argument of "common sense"... That because we percieve the Earth as flat in our everyday reality then common sense should tell us that the Earth is ultimately also flat... Hehe, it sure ain't easy... But for me, common sense tells me that the world for the most part is NOT as it looks like at first glance... For example: The world I grew up in wanted to tell me that career, familiy and money were important,, so following that kind of "common-sense"-logic, that would be the Truth... but obv it isn't... So for me common sense tells me; if the Earth seems to flat in everyday life, then most likely it fucking isnt... .. Just as if the most easy thing is to believe that I am body ,, then precisely because it's the most easy thing to believe, then that should tell me that I am probably not a body.. hehe. Anyway. First of all, your arguments for why the sequential ones would like to create such a hoax are extremely thin. I won't even bother arguing why to be honest. Secondly, do you realize that the science that allows you to sit and preach your crap over the internet here is EXACTLY the same kind of science that tells us that the Earth is round? Can your ego grasp that? Probably not. The science that gave us internet, computers, cell phones, and lots of other stuff is EXACTLY the same science that came up with the -Earth is a sphere-model. So if you think the "Ball Earth" is one big hoax, and continue to use techonlogy like this forum, then you are a fucking hypocrite (in a way) The guys who believe the Earth is not a sphere must then also believe that all the 1000s of people who are working with sending sattelites out in space to discover the rest of the solar system, the people who have been space etc (and people who have worked on getting them to space), that all these people KNOW that the Earth is not a sphere, but they then get paid many dollars to tell the public that it is. It just sounds fucking retarded. Obv if this were the case, SOMEONE or SOMEBODY would have revealed the hoax by now. Anyway. I'm a VERY open-minded person, so I have been open to the question if I was wrong and if the Earth is maybe not round. So I have done some research and actually tried to look at the arguments that the flat-Earth people postulate... and 90% of the arguments are fucking retarded. Let's have a look at this moron who believes and argues that the Earth is a flat plane: In the start Dave says: "If a pilot is flying around the curve of the Earth he should be dipping the nose down ... *brain MELTDOWN, HMM every what?,, lets just say 5 for the lulz* every 5 minutes to stay around the curve" No he (the pilot) should not for christ sake. The centripetal force from the Earth (gravity) keeps the airplane always in it's curved bane around the earth. It's like there is an imaginary rope between the Earth and the plane. So what appears always to be always a straight line for the pilot / the airplane is on a larger scale always a curved path around the Earth. To escape the gravity of the Earth the plane would have to have to reach the escape velocity ( 25,020 mph ) .. If the plane had THAT speed or higher, then YES, then the pilot would have to keep dipping the nose to follow the curve of the Earth, but since it has a low speed it doesn't need to! "But HOW can gravity keep the airplane in a curved path when the plane is up in the air violating the pull from gravity towards earth??" .. Wrong question, wrong assumption. Even when the plane is high up in the air it is ALWAYS getting pulled towards the Earth. The reason it doesn't fall to the ground is only because of the presence of air/athmohpshere, where the airplane is designed to manipulate the air around the wings to give it lift above the air. The way the air moves around the wings gives the airplane lift from the ground. Satellites and space stations don't "dip" anything down either when they circulate around the Earth. They are actually falling freely towards the Earth, but because of their velocity (which isn't slowed down because there is no air friction that high up in space) they never hit the ground but instead keep their circular path around the Earth. But in fact they are always getting pulled directly towards the Earth itself (centripetal force/gravity)... which actually ican be seen as NOT a force, but is due to the way spacetime is curved around the Earth ( a massive object ) so basically the sattelites are just following a "straight line" according to the curvature of spacetime. This is how it looks from the ISS: But of course, this is all CGI, right? hehe. Also at around 5 minutes, Dave says that because the Earth is moving fast around the Sun (faster than it's own rotation), so we should see all kinds of movements of the stars around the pole star. Wrong wrong wrong. The stars are SO far away that these kind of movements the Earth and the Sun make in the space matters nothing to how we percieve the stars from the Earth. Not in the short term at least. Therefore it is only the Earths own rotation that influences how we see the stars on the short term. It's perfect logic. Think about it. If you are driving fast in a car on a road and look at things passing by you, for example a building close to the road... then that building is quickly passed and out of vision soon again because it's close to the road. But if there are a mountain long, long away from the road, then you can see the mountain for a long time, it doesn't move a lot in your vision field even if you are driving the car at high speeds. ... IN the same way because the stars are EXTREMELY far away the Earths movement around the Sun doesn't change how you see the stars at all (During a single night) ... It's only the Earths rotation that matters (for fucking obvious reasons). Anyway, my last post here

Sam Harris is pretty spot on to be honest.

@Aware Concepts. Traditions. Religion. Dharma. Supreme. Rebirth vs 'not coming for a rebirth' . Buddha. Buddhisattva. Karmic results playing out. This and that. Ideas. Concepts. It's all good if you use these things to understand reality. But never get caught in it or claim the concepts/ideas themselves to be the Truth. Concepts and ideas can only tell something about the Truth - they can never, ever, ever communicate the Truth itself. In fact to fucking 'attain', 'see', 'become one' with the 'Truth' , 'you' have to drop ALL ideas, concepts, beliefs. Drop it all. You can use them some of the way on your path towards Enlightenment - like to give you HINTS. But at some point it all has to be thrown away. Stop the clinging to ideas and concepts. Because , it's exactly that... It's ALL just ideas ABOUT reality. It is NOT the reality. Just like you say "walking the middle path of Awareness" ... This is an idea in your head that you're doing that. "This belief of being something or nothing is thus an absolute trap" Alright - first of all - you yourself claim to be 'one' who 'attains' 'Awareness'. That you belief to be that is exactly that: a belief. It has nothing to with reality. There are truly none what-so-ever within your body that is attaining anything at all. Secondly you can be both nothing and everything at the same time. In fact by pure logic (as in really pure, seeing very clearly) if you truly realize you are a no-thing (nothingness) then that fact alone implies that you also are everything. Yes, to be nothing is eternalism. And that's exactly right - you are eternal. You were never born and will never die. You are truly eternal and infinite. I'm not talking about you as a person/Aware. No, I'm talking about that which percieves all of your reality - that "no-thing" is eternal and it's exactly the same "no-thing" that percieves "my" reality. And truly you are this no-thing, you are not a person, you are not anyone who is attaining "Awareness". No, no, no. All this is truly just a story you are telling yourself. "However this is tricky because I could end as no longer coming for a rebirth, this I prevent and will prevent consciously, therefor, " You are very obviously contradicting yourself. You say we are all one. Yet you claim that there is something unique about you that makes it possible for you to not have a rebirth while most others will continue getting reborn. I mean, c'mon. You are very, very obviously stuck in an ego-illusion. You think that there is something unique about you that can either get reborn or for-ever-be-free-for-getting-born. Whoever you think you are, Aware, there is nothing about that there can ever be either reborned or 'not-reborned'. Because Truly you are Nothing, and Nothing is never borned nor not-borned. It just is. Happy new year.

@Aware "Every time if one is done with the attachment to desire, they are Me ..." You seem to be ignorant to the wisdom: "I am nothing." I mean it seems like you haven't gotten the full picture. You got one half of the picture (That you are everything and everyone are you) very well, but you seem to miss the other part. I am insignificant. You are insignificant. "I hope you can see, that I in fact, am aware that I speak to myself right now, sending you this. Rooted in self, concentrated on Awareness, I do not see any difference but one: Is one attached, or not." I don't see anything besides your communication to me. Which yes, can be seen as a communication between two parts of the same ultimate Self. But does it matter? I'm not you, of course I know nothing of you. I can't see whether you are what you claim to be or not. To do so I at least need to experience you directly in "real" life. Quote from Alan Watts: also:

And basically. Yes all teachings towards enlightement are geared towards realizing your true nature and also therefore getting you free from attachments. But there are many methods/ways to get to that state. Meditation, psychedelics, contemplation, different kinds of yoga, different teaching techniques: Focus on nothingness, love, attachments, projections, emotions etc etc etc. For example if a teaching tell you to fully rest in yourself in the present moment and accept all of reality as it is and see that you are everything you experience ... if such a teaching clicks with a student and he has never heard the words "get free from attachment", don't you think he still has gained a lower attachment to desires? There are many ways. It's obvious. Yes all the paths lead to the same destination (as you describe that destination), but the paths may very well differ.

@Aware I'm not your parent, I won't show you. It's quite easy to see. Look around! Figure it out for yourselves. Try mushrooms for example; that's just one example of a different way of gaining a deeper understanding of reality. Note: doesn't work 100% of the time for everyone..., Many people take psychedelics only for casual use and don't gain anything valuable from their experiences besides the "fun"... Actually it is the "bad trips" that you gain the most insight from in regards to psychedelics. First of all, do you really believe that you -- yourself -- are not the slightest attached to anything/any desire in your life? :> I'm not gonna be the judge, I don't know you. Yet, I assume - from my own egoic limited perspective -- that one who has attained enlightenment, i.e is not attached to any desire, won't bother posting on a random internet forum. But I might be wrong! Second of all, I don't agree that that is the only difference. I think there are various degrees to how attached one is. I actually think that is quite obvious. It partly depends on how much inner happiness/peace you have. Actually all it depends on is if you have fully realized who you are or not. What I'm trying to say I guess is that if a person knows rationally/conceptually that he is not a seperated self and also knows that he shouldn't be attached to anything, and for the most of the time isn't... such a person isn't free from attachment. Yet he is arguably more free than the average dude on the street. And yet again, he is far from a true enlightened master, who has achived absolute True Self-Realization. Are you a true enlightened master that has achived True Self-Realization? Or do you just pretend to be one? Just teaching concepts like you do here is not enough. Direct experience is needed.

"How can we destroy ignorance first? " That is the right and first question - indeed - one must ask to get rid of suffering and live in peace with oneself (or achieve that for another human being). I postulate that there are many ways to destroy ignorance. Following your teachings is surely one way -- not the only though :-)

@Aware Okay. You are right. If someone, let's say a raper, has the view that he is a seperated self, a seperated do'er that (for example) can decide to rape another self, then yes, that view is logically wrong. Simply because: 1. there is no seperated self 2. which leads to the realization that he as a person has no free will (and 2. also leads to 1. following logic). However the fact that the raper has this view is not wrong nor right. It just is. What I'm saying is: The view in itself is wrong, yes. The fact that he has the view is neither wrong or right, it just is. He has the view, therefore he has it. The raper did not decide to have this wrong view ... because there is no raper, ultimately. "Why does the raper has this wrong view"? ... "Because of ignorance" ... Yes sure, I agree... "Why is he ignorant?" ... Can't answer that question fully. He didn't chose to be at least. Just like you and I didn't chose to see clearly. Can he become not-ignorant and see clearly? Yes, he can. Will he? Only time will tell. "Therefore I stated that the right view is: This situation is a result of previous situations, and this situation will lead to the next. We are the result of our thinking, heirs of our thinking, the accumulation of our thinking." True.

@Egoisego @kurt and others.

"The view is therefor in itself not wrong, its wrong by its results that are either in or not in accordance with the law of impermanence, that proof the view being right or wrong)" You say that raping is not in accordance with the law of impermanence. You say partying and drinking is not in accordance with the law of impermanence. This is your own egoic intrepetation. It's not a universal intrepetation. "I say: There is a right view, and a wrong view, based on the fact that All views, no matter which view one has, ultimately can be said about them: They still suffer" I agree from my own egoic perspective that suffering = bad, and thus all views that lead to suffering = wrong. However, from God's perspective suffering is natural -- nothing wrong bout that. I have nothing against your way of teaching enlightenment. It seems full of wisdom and I agree with lots of it. Yet, your way of teaching enlightenment is not _the only way_. There are many ways. And I can assure you that detachment from things will happen in any case. For example, you are against psychedelics for self-development/enlightenment. I'm not. Yet, I don't claim you can't become enlightened without psychedelics. Just in the same way, I hope you don't claim that psychedelics cannot be of any benefit at all for someone. But something tells me you might claim that.

The sense of being a seperated self is not an illusion. The ego itself is not an illusion, just as a thought is not an illusion, a sound of a drum is not an illusion, seeing a car drive by is not an illusion etc etc. What is illusion then? The illusion happens when you, beyond the sense of feeling like a seperated individual, also begins to think about this feeling, and actually starts to think: "Hey, this is me, I am this body or this ego. I am an artists, I am a teacher, I am student" etc etc etc. Nothing you percieve is an illusion. Everything you think about what you percieve = illusion. ... The thoughts themselves though (The sense of them) is are real enough..it's what the thoughts contain of meaning to your true self that is an illusion. For example thoughts telling you that your name is XXX and that you are business owner ... that's an illusion... Cos you are not that. You are nothing (and thus everything). A cat only percieves. A cat doesn't think about what it percieves. Humans have gained a gift: Complex language and thus complex thinking. Our ability to think and reflect over what we percieve is both a gift and a burden.

Be careful listenting to what Prab says here. It's all symbolism. I like to speak of these matters more directly. While "more directly" may be more conrecte than the symbolic wording that Prab uses, it is still all symbolism though.. It's all concepts... Words can never replace a direct experience. Enlightenment of the mind can only happen if there is a very high degree of awareness present within the mind the moment the no-mind-non-experience (ego death) happens. In fact no-mind-non-experience happens for everyone daily: going to sleep and waking up. The thing is just that the brain is wired to minimize the awareness of the mind to zero just before sleep happens. This idea naturally explain why none can remember the experience of falling asleep. When mind death happens when high awareness is present there is a mind seeing the kill (just before the no-mind-non-experience) and there is a mind seeing the rebirth (just after the no-mind-non-experience). The mind naturally gains a dramatic shift in perspective after having witnessed its own death and rebirth. The mind can thus directly see that it comes out of nothing. When a mind has fully realized (= seen) that it comes out of nothing, a mind naturally becomes enlightened... A mind thus sees for itself that it itself is just a temporary gateway between consciousness and happenings (experience). That consciousness and happenings will never cease to exist because it has always been and will never not be. A mind thus sees its own true nature as a gateway, and thus it also sees that such a gateway can be shut down anytime ... -- eventually one will be permanently shut down (physical death happens for everyone) -- just as one can be opened at anytime (new creatures with complex nervous systems are being born every second -- if not on this little insignificant sphere of dirt and water we call Earth then on some other planet of the 500+ trillions of stars in the observable universe (500,000,000,000,000+). This conclusion can one rationally come to just by using pure logic (combined with radical open-mindedness). Of course logic + direct experience -> direct experience alone -> logic alone. So is God/consciousness blind to itself? The answer is both yes and no. If you think about it long enough, you'll see that it can in no possible way be either "yes" or "no" alone. Yes, pure empty consciousness needs a pretty developed mind (=a highly developed organism, we currently only know one= humans) to see its own nature. The world/reality you find yourself in is fundamentally dualistic. If anyone says it's non-dualistic they have no deep understanding of reality. Non-dualism is simply the pure (clear vision) study of reality (= dualism) from an imaginary "outside" perspective of reality. To fully understand yourself, you have to first fully lose yourself. To become fully sane, you have to first become fully insane. To fully understand the dualistic nature of the world, you need to have experienced seeing yourself leave the world and come back again ... You leave the world and come back again everyday (sleeping and waking up)... Problem is : No awareness present... Combine awareness and departure and you will get it.

"Are You Controlling Your Consciousness" You are a no-thing that is conscious. Consciousness can't be controlled and it cannot be not controlled either. "Are You Controlling Your Mind" Both yes and no. Depends on perspective. From your perspective in daily life I hope you feel like you control a lot of what is going on. I also hope that you are sometimes able, for example when sitting for yourself and contemplating about the nature of reality, to shift your perspective above your daily life and see that 'you' don't control a damn thing of what's going on. EDIT: If you go even deeper, you may also be able to see things from a perspective where you realize that You (with a capital Y) actually control absolutely everything.

@key"Better yet ask yourself who you are without intellectualising an answer" I ask myself that question quite often. And even after hours of thinking, I can never come up with an answer that I confidently can label as true. Still, whoever I am, I surely seem to enjoy discussing my perspective on it anyway. :-) My best answer, which I don't cling to as a truth, is that I am a no-thing that experience all experience.

I agree largely with Motus' perspective on things presented in this thread. I chose to participate in this thread anyway, because I see a somewhat dogmatic presentation around the perspective presented. I just wanted to point out the following: Ultimately no perspective presented in the universe -- by anyone -- is better/more right/truer than any other perspective. Litterally any. The only True perspective is the just-above perspective. That is to say, the only True perspective is that no perspective is more right than any other perspective. I guess it takes a lot of open-mindeness to fully realize this. I could argue for hours over why it is so, but I won't even bother. Figure it out for yourselves. I may contradict myself several times... There's a simply explanation for that: The ability to see things from different perspectives and not hold any perspective to be ultimately true :-)