Shadowraix

@Strikr A lot of your replies I am seeing seem to be very emotionally charged. Angry at the universe because you are dissatisfied with who you are and how any God can intend for this or that or make you one way or another.

One can also look and find beauty in destruction.

@Strikr You can't see infinite moves ahead unlike the all mind can. You are how you are intentionally. Everything we do and how we act are entirely as planned. "I am God" isn't entirely accurate. There is absolute truth and relative truth. Beware of half truths! Is the leg of a chair the chair? No it is a component of the chair. You being a mental creation of God (or rather mind) makes you a part of God but not God as a whole. You are a subset of God of sorts. A quote from the kyballion: "To take a modern example, let us say that Othello, Iago, Hamlet, Lear, Richard III, existed merely in the mind of Shakespeare, at the time of their conception or creation. And yet, Shakespeare also existed within each of these characters, giving them their vitality, spirit, and action. Whose is the “spirit” of the characters that we know as Micawber, Oliver Twist Uriah Heep–is it Dickens, or have each of -these characters a personal spirit, independent of their creator? Have the Venus of Medici, the Sistine Madonna, the Appollo Belvidere, spirits and reality of their own, or do they represent the spiritual and mental power of their creators? The Law of Paradox explains that both propositions are true, viewed from the proper viewpoints. Micawber is both Micawber, and yet Dickens. And, again, while Micawber may be said to be Dickens, yet Dickens is not identical with Micawber. Man, like Micawber, may exclaim: “The Spirit of my Creator is inherent within me–and yet I am not HE!” How different this from the shocking half-truth so vociferously announced by certain of the half-wise, who fill the air with their raucous cries of: “I Am God!” Imagine poor Micawber, or the sneaky Uriah Heep, crying: “I Am Dickens”; or some of the lowly clods in one of Shakespeare's plays, grandiloquently announcing that: “I Am Shakespeare!” THE ALL is in the earth-worm, and yet the earth-worm is far from being THE ALL."

If everything is mind, everything is an illusion or dream-like state. But this is only evident to the all mind. This is what we'd call absolute truth. Relative truth is what is real to us. It not a dream at all to us. And if we act like it is, the laws of the universe will cause us to hurt ourselves. Keep your mind on the stars, but your eyes on your feet. A point or purpose of life is a very tricky thing because in what perspective do we look at it from? From the reason why we are manifested from mind? How we should live our life in a optimal way? What way is defined as optimal? Happiness and unhappiness is a very yin yang thing. I think both are pretty vital for growth and too much of one or the other is bad. Although I will say in our happy loving state we are at our highest. The point of life is to exist. Existence is knowledge. We are just one of the infinite possibilities being played out. And ultimately how the existence is spent in the human body is all dependent on you or rather mind decides to spend it.

Wouldn't being conscious during sleep just be lucid dreaming?

I came across this idea probably within the past few months. That culture is very cult-like and often arbitrary. For example, tradition. We do things and grow up being taught and accepting these things as being true and if you even dare oppose the way others live, it becomes offensive. Or take cultural appropriation for example. People feel some sort of entitlement to living/looking a certain way because they did it first. You aren't a part of their "culture" or "cult" and so you don't get to do it! And people celebrate and embrace culture. As if these ways of life are something special and not something they were born into. All of which is very arbitrary. After pondering on this I had wondered if anybody else came to this conclusion and I found this article: https://www.hgi.org.uk/resources/delve-our-extensive-library/society-and-culture/exploring-cult-culture Which it cites 4 main qualities to cults. (I'll shorten the explanations, but you can read the article for in depth examples. compliance with the group: This is the sheep idea. We are conditioned to act a certain way and join in in group behavior. This is of course a basic survival pattern though, but this can be manipulated VERY easily. Dependence on a leader: We look up to people to lead our way of life. This can be anything from parents to political figures. They demand loyalty and suppress criticism. Avoiding dissent: This is keeping people committed. This can be cherry picking evidence, distracting them from the real issues, essentially indoctrination. Even things like friendship can pin you down in keeping you from avoiding leaving it. devaluation of outsiders: Those in their own culture see their way of life as correct and devalue other cultures as being weird or wrong. Anybody outside of it is evil or wrong. And they often get upset for those outside of their culture taking aspects from theirs. Much of the cruelty and intolerance comes from building and indoctrinating a group that they are the best and anybody outside of it must be eliminated. Putting this into perspective, I had come to the realization that a lot of the things I held as just a true aspect of the way of life, I didn't decide or even think about. I thought of many topics from dress codes to customs on how to value the dead to how to show respect. People want me to abide by their way of living and if I question it I get attacked or shunned. This also sounds a lot like ideology which I believe correlates heavily with cult-like mentalities. You could say cults form from a group of very ideological people. What do you think? Is there some truth to culture being cult-like? I imagine the more aware you become, the more you start to defy these norms and break free from the programming.

imo synthetic food is the true solution to the suffering problem anyway. We have synthetic meat, just not very cost efficient or tasty.

I've tried explaining this a few times, the few people I told seem receptive to it, but it takes a bit for them to wrap their mind around it. Although I always started by saying everything in its most fundamental form is mind. This is because it doesn't really force them to think too differently, you know the world still is what it is, but it just recontextualizes everything. Like how you can have a sand castle but its still sand despite its shape. Its just another step forward from everything being energy. The core point of nonduality of everything being one, I think one good way is to get them to look at you and ask "What separates you from me?" The shape of our atoms? The way they move? The distance of how far apart they are? These are all very arbitrary rules. There is really no definitive factor that separates anything. We can say there are multiple chairs in a room yet we have a singular universe which can highlight how our mind likes to group things up and is an illusion. So the conclusion is there is no separation, it is all one. Don't present it as an absolute truth or else they will get defensive and feel challenged. Propose it as some sort of theory. I like to pull many quotes from modern day phrases and religion to show them that nonduality is an ancient idea and exists in many areas. Especially the word universe deriving from a latin word meaning "all is one"

Since I was a kid I have been able to use thought to increase pain tolerance. Its hard to explain personally but I sort of just to acknowledge the pain as a sensation that is occurring and not something bad that should be prevented. The worse the pain, the harder it is for me to do this, but it was a nice trick as a kid when people loved to test each others pain threshold.

Good point on the time thing. So this bruteforce method is simulating everything at the exact same time all in the exact same instant. So by "Truth" are we talking the culmination of every possibility? Being able to answer any "what if?" question? @Patang I think its good to define what we mean when we talk about truth. Yes we are what you described but OP is merely describing the intent on why consciousness is manifesting itself into simulating every possibility. Which I would also consider part of the truth. Relative truth is described as the highest man knows, absolute truth is described as the highest that God knows.

Love is blind because it is universal and everywhere, and is without exception. It takes a lot of development to love everything. Even those who do what we deem as bad in the world. Love in the context of modern day relationships is a bit of a tricky thing to deal with, but I think the love in the context of this thread is about ultimate care and wish for the happiness and well being for everything. To embrace and uplift one another. When I see people who cause suffering to others, I don't wish them to suffer or die, I wish for them to find a point where they can love, coexist, and find inner peace within themselves. But at the same time those that cause suffering don't exist unintentionally. It is all intentional for one purpose or another. We can't see infinite moves ahead. Love is one of the emotions that feels limitless and infinite which truly helps build our connection to infinity.

This is roughly the answer given by hermetic philosophy. Everything is a mental creation of the "all mind" and that all mind is what is referred to as God. Although if this all mind is both infinite and infinitely intelligent then it should be intelligent enough to know the truth and/or make a truth, no? If even infinite intelligence can't figure it out, then likely this would go on forever, no?