tsuki

@Prabhaker Thank you very much for these resources. I really appreciate your contributions to the forum.

@Zweistein To me, disappointment is a feeling that I associate with fragmentation. Fragmentation being the lack of I=you=we. It has something to do with defying my expectations by the 'other'. I strive to make my understanding as universal as possible and tend to assume it as such. I feel disappointed when I perceive that 'the other' fails to look within himself/herself and connect to what I'm trying to convey. The assumption that my reasoning is universal is of course the root cause of my disappointment, and thus it is not a 'fatherly disappointment' that says: you better act like I expect you to. It is more of an ungrounded feeling that points to that there is a chasm in I=you=we through which either of us is unwilling to jump. Either because the context of the situation does not warrant such leap of faith, or that there is a lack of intelligence (on either part) that fails to recognize the position in which 'the other' finds himself/herself in. Disappointment is a pointer that I=you=we should strive to uphold the context in which it is appropriate to 'let the other person in'. That is sometimes difficult if I recognize the understanding presented by 'the other' as something that I have came out of by contemplation. If that is the case, then I'm usually compelled to guide the person out of their point of view, but that is often met with resistance. Resistance is understandable in the sense that the place where I'm at is mostly filled with the unknown. Unless the other is willing to let that unknown in, there is no explaining that will do my understanding justice. This understanding will be re-contextualized into whatever is perceived by that person and made into knowledge. I hope that it is impossible and ultimately leads to contradiction and paradox. Of course, my willingness to transmit the unknown to the other is equally responsible for disappointment, as his/her willingness to transmit knowledge. My basis for not accepting this knowledge however does not come from rejection, but from exhaustion. I simply see it as uninteresting. To me, it is a tool to arrive at deeper and deeper levels of the unknown.

@isabel What do you mean by 'wanting'? There is no external consciousness you are supposed to arrive at which is different from what you experience now. You are not supposed to become something that you are not right now and arrive at consciousness. You are supposed to understand what exactly are you (as you are yourself here and now) and within that understanding recognize the teachings of various non-dual schools (some of which talk about consciousness). Any desire (wanting) and any suffering (rejecting) is within your experience because you project it upon other human and non-human beings. Even the suffering of animals is what you experience as you talk about butchering them inhumanely, because you understand yourself in a way that relates butchering with suffering. There is only one 'person' in existence, playing various roles by blinding itself to itself. As I write this post to you, I miss the fact that you are my understanding of your post. Therefore I'm answering myself. The more and more universal this 'person' becomes, the less and less qualities it has. The limit being consciousness itself. So, can consciousness have an experience that it doesn't want, or not? Consciousness is inconceivable. Asking and answering questions about it bears no usable knowledge. It is impossible to answer this question in any meaningful way.

To me the only reason I'm considering going meat free is the feeling of disgust when I think about industrial killing of animals. Disgust is what I tend to avoid around food.

@isabel Because the way in which we kill animals disgusting when inspected closely. Not to mention that it's unnecessary.

@George Fil A mirror.

@Zweistein What is your relationship with disappointment?

@NoSelfSelf You are always yourself. At the very least, you authentically don't know who you are. There is no plan for who you are supposed to be, so take whatever you call you and put it to motion to see where it takes you. (It really sounds like a plan, doesn't it?)

@Ayilton That is a difficult question. I think that there is a perspective from which all paths to enlightenment are exactly the same. I wish to arrive at that context to see it clearly. Intuition tells me that contemplation is a way to arrive at that perspective by repeatedly explicating the unknown context we are left with after a mystical experience. Mystical experiences are moments in which our context is made explicit and we see a way to 'punch a hole in it', or so to speak. That movement is done through noticing the apparent duality in experience brought upon by that context and understanding from which perspective the duality comes together to form oneness. Perhaps, this 'coming together' of dualities is what is common to all paths to enlightenment. Their apparent differences come from the background in which they appeared. I'm tempted to say that no - contemplation is not the best way to enlightenment. Not because there are better ways, but because all ways are exactly the same. I do not know why, though.

@Zweistein Oooh, don't do that . I'm kind of disappointed. That's the philosopher's ultimate coup-out. To call something nihilism. Nihilism has a bad reputation. People fear it needlessly.

@Zweistein Is there any difference between an answer and a speculation though? The only difference seems to be a feeling of certainty that is indistinguishable from unrecognized ambiguity. What does it even mean to ask 'why'? Are we really interested in 'answering' this question with the incidental content of our lives? It seems like it comes from outside of the relative domain, but we can only answer from within it. This is why all answers to this question always seem unsatisfactory and temporal. Is the only winning move not to play?

@Zweistein Why why?

@Zweistein It is really encouraging to see people engaged in my explanations, but frankly - I'm stuck here and you did not interrupt me at all. For now, I'm hunkering down and waiting for things to come to me. Thank you for your kind words. Lately, I've been interested in Ken Wilber and I saw that there may be a connection between his AQAL and my diagrams. Without any deep inspection, it seems like his intersubjective and interobjective categories are what the world from my understanding is split into. It suggests that this tripartite structure of the bodyminworld is arbitrary and this whole exploration is simply an exercise in enlightenment. This is why I'm not as invested in this subject as much any longer. It sometimes seems to me like I'm thinking new things faster than I can explore them, or note them down. There is always this meta-movement of trying to see how they fit into greater scheme of things that captures their essence as incidental (and therefore uninteresting). What I ultimately want to arrive at, is the essence of this meta-movement that generalizes concrete examples into categories. I want to see it clearly. This is why I'm exploring things at this level. I simply chased my own tail so much, that I became a helicopter.

@Pamela Zamora Don't blame the ego. Ego is innocent. Ego simply fights for whatever you feel is important. It is a watchdog. It is doing its job. It is the best watchdog there is, because it will even protect whatever is important to you from you. It does that because you make the ego your enemy, and in doing so you make yourself its enemy. That is because you are your ego. To transcend the ego does not mean to permanently kill it. You can kill it to see a glimpse, but you are supposed to understand it by seeing how it's like when it's gone. The ego always comes back, because it is the most loyal watchdog there is. Make friends with it and form a team. That is what transcendence is. 1+1=3.

@Pamela Zamora Because we're driving infinitely fast and the guy behind the steering wheel is blind.

@Emerald You are right, of course. Thank you @cirkussmile .

@Emerald Is there a difference between our understanding of yin and yang? You seem to be saying that people have both energies, and I'm saying that there is one energy that can be seen as yin or yang. A perception of this energy (as a perspective) is what constitutes a person/identity. Wouldn't it be a form of ignorance to mistakenly take this universal energy as fragmented into two? (I'm not using the word ignorance in a condemning way)

@Arkandeus No, you're not. Let me explain. As it is present in the icon, the yin contains the yang and yang contains the yin. You are showing this connection in your post. A popular belief is that yin and yang cause, or complement one another. That one cannot exist without the other because there would be no point of reference to distinguish something. That yang is yang because there is yin. That is true, but there is another, deeper level that you have expressed in terms of male and female energy. There is a way in which yang can be seen as yin and vice versa. That is because yang contains yin and yin contains yang. They are identical to each other. It is symbolized by the contrasting dots in the symbol. It is often said that a man has the initiative in a relationship. That he is supposed to lead and decide and a woman is supposed to listen. That a man is a man because he can express himself with a woman as a material. That a man can mold the woman into whatever is necessary for the relationship. That is only partially correct, because it is disrespectful to the woman. Yin is submission, but submission is a strength equally great to dominance. To dominate another is to submit to yourself. To submit to another is to dominate yourself. A woman has the strength of rejection, or selective submission. If a man is the seed, a woman is the earth. The earth has to be hospitable in order for seed to grow. It is by far the most visible in the act of courtship. Nothing is more humiliating to a fully yang man than rejection by a woman. Relationship is like a dance. Someone needs to lead in order for dance to occur. But leading has to be wise. The leader may only place his foot, where his partner is absent. The leader may only lead in the direction that will let his partner keep her balance. A painter needs a canvas in order to paint. A painter may see himself as yang, and see the canvas as yin. Any good painter knows that he does not know exactly how the painting will turn out once he's finished. In the process of painting, he uses the randomness of his technique to give the character to the painting. In doing so, he learns about himself - by observing his mistakes and imperfections of his own style. In this sense, the roles of the canvas and the painter are reversed. From the point of view of the canvas, the painter is the material in which it creates the technique. In this sense, the canvas is yang, and the painter is yin. Yin and yang are identical and whole. One may say that yin has power over yang, but that would be a mistake in the same way in which one can say that yang has power over yin. Yin and yang coexist, because they are identical through the shift in perspective.

@John Iverson I don't intend to offend you - I think that your curiosity is priceless. What I intend to say though is that you are probably asking a question that is way out of your league for now. I'm having trouble grasping what exactly is intelligence, not to mention infinite intelligence. The only answer one could say is: try and see for yourself.

@TheSomeBody Each of the paths you mentioned point to the exact same enlightenment. The essence, or the methods, of these traditions are equivalent because they share the same effect. Contradiction you point out may occur only within their dogmas, but these have nothing to do with enlightenment. Logic that explicates the contradiction is precisely what needs to be transcended in this work.

@AstralProjection If sex is interesting to you, then by all means go ahead and engage in it. There is no jumping stages. You cannot become fully green unless you become fully orange. The process of growth is dialectic. You need to experience the excess in order to see the unhealthiness. It may actually be beneficial for later stages to engage in excesses to free the suppressed urges and desires. I'm not saying that lap dances are bad though. If you're okay with them, then why don't you try something more extreme? Prostitution can be seen as exploitation, but there are kinds of 'prostitutes' that will engage in a more therapeutic sex with you. Sex is nice, but it is not anything better (or worse) than any other part of life. Like any other part of life - it can become unhealthy as well. It is fundamentally up to you whether what you're doing is healthy or not. In order to decide on that - you need to test the waters first and burn yourself first-hand to know where are your limits.

@MarkusSweden The idea that life has to be either serious or playful is a false duality. Living a serious life, trying to accomplish things is the greatest folly. That is because ultimately you will die, and everything you accomplish will turn to ashes. Living a playful life, trying to have fun is the most serious matter. The best games are the ones in which you play with fire and the stake is your precious life. It doesn't matter whether you are serious, or playful, as long as you understand that one is the other side of the other. The key to this realization is totality. Being playful about seriousness and being serious about playfulness.

@MarkusSweden If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Hint: It's a question and it is related to your thread.

@tentacion The error comes from assuming that reasoning about everything is subjugated to causes. If everything has a cause, then does the fact that everything have a cause also have a cause? The paradigm in which there is universal causality requires that this very causality is causeless. To say that reality is causal is to say that causality is something more general than reality. Reality is something, which (by definition) is everything, so it is the top-most generality which includes all other. Causality has to be born within reality, and governs at most a subset of it. Under close examination, the notion of reality is a paradox, so reasoning about is illogical. Paradoxically, it is precisely what allows reality to be itself because, by necessity, it has to include everything. Once you assume a paradox, you can prove anything (which you did in the original post).

@Michael569 Frequent compassionate contemplation. When you're angry at somebody, try to reverse the roles and contemplate why would doing such a thing make sense. By making sense, I don't mean simply providing any justification with accordance to common sense. The rule is: if the reason for doing the thing makes the other person seem stupid/wrong/ignorant/etc, then the reason is invalid and you should think of another one. You will know that you have arrived at true compassion when it would make sense for you to do such a thing if you were the other person without feeling disgust for yourself. For example: There are two aesthetically and qualitatively comparable shirts and one is sold for $50 and the other is sold for $200. The $200 shirt is made by a well-known brand. One explanation is that the $200 company tries to charge you for the feeling of self-worth coming from the fact that you earn more money than other people. The brand is then a symbol of status that is backed up by money you earn, usually by exploiting less qualified people that did not have your opportunities. The company simply wants to make as much money as possible without caring for its employees or environment. Another explanation is that the $200 company has invested a lot of money into consistently making good quality clothes over a long period of time and their brand became renown for that. Distinguishing quality and aesthetics of clothes is a skill that you do not profit from, but you have other more marketable skills that allow you to afford the $200 shirt. You do not want to risk buying $50 shirt because you don't know whether it will last, but you have trust for the $200 shirt because of the brand. The $200 company is simply targeting a different customer, and rightly so, as they generally tend to make less problems for the front-end employees in the stores. These two explanations make sense, but one of them makes you judge the people that buy the $200 shirts as posers and the company as exploitative. To me, not only the other explanation makes more sense, but it is also respectful for all parties involved.