mochafrap

If you happen to be interpreting my post as me saying I should defy sleep - and that is where the adverserial tone comes in - that's not what I'm saying. I've simply noticed a difference between the feeling of falling asleep and the feeling of meditating and am curious about it. Otherwise, would you mind explaining what you mean by adverserial? As far as a story, I see what I'm exploring here just as story-like as saying that ego doesn't exist in the absolute. Words pointing to the real. ??‍♀️ Maybe I'm missing something though.

Hi all I am newer to mediation in terms of actually doing it, and I'm sure I'm not the only person who has felt herself accidentally falling asleep during sessions ? I recently put my finger on a distinguishment between the feeling of falling asleep verus that of meditation. Getting sleepy feels like a pull toward a certain point, while meditation (open awareness) does not. Meditation feels like spreading out (but NOT *being* spread, more like the spread is just happening). The reason I find this interesting is because, to me, it lends credit to the idea that sleep is an egoic thing and an activity. We just don't notice that it is an activity and instead write it off as somethint different. Analogy: The falling asleep is akin to drawing out a sketch, and being asleep is akin to the finished drawing. Falling asleep is a process that leads to an end result (sleep), and then sleep itself would not be a total release or a total stop. The idea would be that sleep pulls the ego into a certain state. I think an enlightenment experience, then, would be said to be the release of all states. Idk if this is important or what, and I have further thoughts on it. I'm just curious to see what others may say. ? I'm very tired, speaking of, but did my best to explain all this!

Why is there an expectation of going into the world to do X Y Z, and why is there is a judgement made if one does not do X Y Z? Just like I asked Leo, why not live in your mom's basement and eat Cheetos? Conversely, why not go into the world? As far as I understand it, enlightenment (one strain of apparently many interpretations) recognizes all as concepts except for the consciousness itself, which is a concept when discussed but not a concept when purely experienced. Choices outside of this pure experience are equivalent "why nots". Why would enlightenment suggest any one direction or self (egoic)-imposed concepts, such as that of doing X Y Z in the world, versus doing whatever flows most intuitively, even if that means being lazy af? I am mostly playing devil's advocate in order to learn. I'm not sure of my own answers to these questions.

Can you provide a brief summary of your essay?

Why not?

Ah. I think I am struggling with a fear of depersonalization, which is why I asked the original question. Your answer kind of makes sense to me because I see how this fear of mine involves separation, but I'll have to work to actually grasp it. Any input you have on this idea of depersonalized sensations would be appreciated or any further input on the lack of separation in enlightenment. Thank you.

I'm from a city wherein drugs are a pretty big problem, and I'm sure many have heard about the dangers of even tiny, tiny amounts of fentanyl, so cross-contamination is often in the back of my mind when it comes to psychadelic exploration. I bet there are some people on the forum who don't think about this, so hopefully they will see this post. Is there a pretty doable / feasible-for-average-person way to tell whether something (e.g. 5meo or even mushrooms) is laced or cut with something else undesired?

How do you view day-to-day life now? Do you feel disconnected, as if playing a video game with intense graphics and experiences, and so on?

Does nondualism necessarily leads to idealism? When answering, please define how you're using these terms if your definitions aren't what I list below - that way we'll be on the same page Nondualism - all experience is one, and no experience can escape the large oneness of experience Idealism- "the group of metaphysical philosophies that assert that reality, or reality as humans can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial" (taken from wikipedia) PS: "Epistemologically, idealism manifests as a skepticism about the possibility of knowing any mind-independent thing." might or might not be important

Actually may have just answered my own question right after posting this, but still wanna read input.

A lot of activity from me tonight, but I may have just hit on something. I see validity in what I'm saying and also ways it could be a misunderstanding, so bear with me. Looking forward to replies. Attachment is, as I have seen it, generally viewed as this big bad boy in experience. Desires, they should come and go, they hurt or they don't. No matter, we have an internal river of tranquility that stems from Being and Self. We should remain detached. Attachment to something else only exists if there is some separate thing to be attached to. "Ourselves" in nonduality is all. I am all. My true self is all. My ego is an instantiation of a deeper Self. All is an experience of the Self that I am living. Many things are arbitrary (my ego just went "ugh dude wtf that hurts" lol), but ultimately it is all Self that is experience. There is nothing but Self, me / you / my homework is all Self in the nondual sense of the word. This is how I understand it all currently. How, then, is there anything to be attached to? And from where does the command come to detach one's Self? If I am "attached" to another experience or ego, would I not just be attached to part of Self, and therefore drawing on Self for happiness, as is the goal? Of course, I may be attached to an experience in a way that is acutely unhealthy for this biology (e.g. fighting all the time with a friend, struggling with addiction, etc) or toxic to my ego... but basically, why do some people demonize attachement when it seems to be a part of experiencing the Self? I could see possible explanations being that the goal is to detach ego from pure, unconceptualized experience rather than what I just said, or maybe that detachment is about having absolutely no need for any other parts of Self other than your own instantiation of it (which I still wouldn't understand at that point).

Ah, I think I'm on this same page. Just confused as to why anyone claims to know anything, then, even with respect to enlightenment? Just a note: She does seem largely dualistic and parts of Atlas Shrugged make it clear she didn't really understand philosophies like Advaita Vedanta and erroneously assumed that they are 100% illogical and baseless. You may have read some of her nonfiction - so have I. However, I am not as quick to completely debase her, especially in terms of how to create an economy and behaivoral expectations of individuals (or distinct experiences of the one Self, in terms of nonduality). Basically, her systems thinking is interesting to me. I should note that I am not supporting the unhinged capitalism so many people (incorrectly) think Rand raves about. It would be interesting to talk to you and others who so strongly rebuke her about the actual plots of her novels and their implications, bad and good. Also, Rand died of heart failure. Not suicide. So.... weird that Osho claimed suicide.

@Leo Gura Definitely something I'll have to contemplate upon to understand, and maybe I should check out that video. Thank you.

https://o-meditation.com/2012/05/18/for-ayn-rand-there-was-no-mystery-osho/ Came across a tidbit of Osho's views on rationality. Part of it happens to include his saying that "you are more than you can ever know, because your intrinsic reality remains mysterious, always remains unknown, unknowable." Just wondering if anyone has thoughts on this - is our intrinsic reality, and similarly / kinda the same our true nature, knowable? How would one know once one claims to know? Please correct me if this is not actually from Osho, but I did try and fact-check that it is.

Anyone have suggestions for contemplative meditation questions? Things that are both in support of nonduality and things that seem threatening to it (the latter of which I don't expect any answers to haha). Thinking stuff along the lines of "What is a thought?" "What is your self?" Thanks in advance