Angelo D

This can certainly be a legitimate life purpose

Cool stuff, Thanks all.

Is causation a law or just a tendency? I have been assuming it is more of a tendency and a choice thing.

I recently took a Vipassana 10 day course (S.N. Goenka's) and now I have made vipassana my daily meditation. It is much harder to focus while practicing at home, and I even find it hard to pass my attention through every part of my body more than once in the full hour. I am wondering if it is worth keeping Vipassana as my main meditation or switching to another. What is best for the one hour daily in your experience, and what benefits might I expect? I love the idea that vipassana makes you equanimous, I'm just wondering this question because it is quite difficult outside of the dhamma hall. Thanks!

mmh. I'm planning on trying psychedelics soon if my intuition permits. On one level it sounds too good to be true, too easy, that one might have an equally life-changing awakening on psychedelics as off. This is why I ask. It seems like from what I hear, there is no difference. Thoughts?

Let's say a young Peter-Ralston goes on an enlightenment intensive and has an awakening. His life is never the same afterward as his ego seems much more vastly diminished. If he had not done the inquiry sober but popped a psychedelic and had an awakening, would the long-term results be the same?

If so, why do you think this is?

When will you be interviewed by Joe Rogan?

It seems like a lot changed for you upon beginning psychedelics, What was the biggest change for you on this journey upon stepping into that world?

How do you integrate deep insights from things such as psychedelics or awakenings?

How did you know which books to read if you read mostly the right books?

So maybe it is that there is an intrinsic beauty in all things, but to say that one thing is more beautiful than another is something like a judgment and therefor false. So a pretty woman is not more beautiful, in truth, than a paperclip. Tell me if I understand.

Okay, I found this quote from another source which seems to clear up the confusion for me: "In Buddhism, beauty is an intrinsic quality of all things, not a subjective attribute restricted to a few. Seeing beauty subjectively values some beings or things over others, judging some to be more beautiful. Beauty, the Buddha taught, should not become the basis for individual likes or dislikes, as this leads to attachment—rather, we find joy in the beauty around us without attaching external value to it. Buddhism recognizes that all beings are part of a whole, and the whole is beautiful. Beauty is without any specific form, and in effect could be called formless, yet it also serves as a unifying force. Because all beings are interconnected, all beings have intrinsic beauty." Source: http://what-when-how.com/love-in-world-religions/beauty-in-buddhism/#:~:text=Buddhism recognizes that all beings,all beings have intrinsic beauty.

It seems the buddhist perspective is that the perception of beauty is a defilement based on delusion. Certainly this is not a commonly held opinion amongst most non-buddhist truth-seekers, who tend to see the perception of beauty as a high-consciousness thing. What it the proper conception of beauty? Is it fair to say appreciation is of higher-consciousness than the perception of beauty?

Ah. Some places have sell resins made of containing Ayahuasca ingredients. Any thoughts on this? because it looks simple