Nak Khid

when you put certain chemicals into your bloodstream it alters the chemistry of the brain that controls the senses and perception

a formless quality is a formless quality not love If I imagined loving something, loving something is a feeling. Therefore doing so would not lead to the idea that it is not a feeling. Also if I loved something I would not always allow it to be exactly as it is. If it was going to harm itself or others I might try to stop it . Love is not accepting everything. That is apathy pretending to be love Again you are talking about a behavior "accepting" and what you are saying here about accepting rape and murder is very wrong. Accepting raping and murder is not loving. This is the danger I am talking about that occurs when nonduality is divorced from it's traditional and then when further confusion is added by attempting altering to change the meaning of the word love. Love is a simple thing available to us all in it's higher and lower forms. It is not an obscure intellectual concept only available to a few in some kind of rare solitary altered state that only certain people can understand .

I would not call visualizing love upon everything thoughtless. That is concentration mediation the trap is perfectionism.

or is this another grandiose fairy tale leading to narcissistic delusion ?

This is an interesting essay and I recommend everybody read it at the above link because it brings up many points of view. Traditional oneness traditions (nondualism) or monism do not say love is all that exists. It seems the thinking is this, there is no separation all is one and since this is the case we get to choose what we want it to be so we choose "love". And then we see in the essay once this is done other thinkers come in and may then start redefining love as they want it do be and the Course in Miracles version is described in another essay on love: https://circleofa.org/library/what-is-the-meaning-of-love/ The Course in Miracles does not use the term nondualism but some say it has an aspect, a Christianized one, resembling nondualist concept. ___________________________________________________________________________ "love" is not the oneness described in Advaita Vedanta or Buddhist nonduality THE NOBLE EIGHTFOLD PATH (Buddhism) 1. Right understanding (Samma ditthi) 2. Right thought (Samma sankappa) 3. Right speech (Samma vaca) 4. Right action (Samma kammanta) 5. Right livelihood (Samma ajiva) 6. Right effort (Samma vayama) 7. Right mindfulness (Samma sati) 8. Right concentration (Samma samadhi) Although Buddhists advocate right action which is moral, honorable, and peaceful conduct, they prefer not to advocate love and instead compassion because love can include love of power, food, money, sex, etc, attachments and desires they believe lead to suffering (although some might not deny or advocate certain forms of love) However they don't say that this feeling compassion is all that exists. Bhakti yoga is more focused on love. Bhakti yoga is focused on loving devotion towards a personal god. The Sanskrit word bhakti is derived from the root bhaj, which means "divide, share, partake, participate, to belong to". The word also means "attachment, devotion to, fondness for, homage, faith or love, worship, piety to something as a spiritual, religious principle or means of salvation". According to Samrat Kumar, bhakti yoga is an Indian tradition of "divine love mysticism", a spiritual path "synonymous for an intimate understanding of oneness and harmony of the eternal individual with the Divine (the universal Being) and all creatures, a constant delight" Neither the Course in Miracles with it's LOVE IS A LAW WITHOUT AN OPPOSITE not Bhakti yoga teach that rape and murder are love. from the essay at top People who say everything is love often will say rape and murder are love, everything is included. some will articulate this a neutrality. I think rape and murder are not love. Love is a feeling. You can love to murder people but that doesn't mean love is murder. Love is an affection, preference or devotion to something. It is not the object itself. And if you claim to love everything, you love eating shit, you love torturing animals. That still does not mean love are those things. And there is a word for neutrality, it's neutrality. Neutrality is not love, love is not everything and love comes and goes it is not infinite. You can maintain a belief in oneness of all things (and I prefer this to nonduality which is a negative term) but that does not mean the oneness is love. What you have done is decided the oneness have a particular character love. So what's wrong with advocating love? Why knock that? Isn't it a wonderful thing? No, it can be hideous if love evil things. And it's worse if the word stripped of it's natural meaning by saying everything is love, evil is love, hate is love, police brutality is love, racks are love, puke is love etc. That to me is spiritual violence. It takes a word which in it's highest form is caring and helping each other and living things and then say it includes everything including evil and harming people and then tries to hide behind being pro-love in saying everything is love. It is not being pro-love. It is a false empty love, a facade The traditions that nondualism comes from have ethical codes and these ethical codes are part of how their version of nondualism is realized. If you take that away it can potentially become very dangerous, where everything is accepted and some things should not be accepted.

yes fill in the blank with anything __________________________is infinite love that's cute but there are words for that. "part of everything" . Calling it "infinite love" sounds like something a 13 year old girl would come up with in her fantasy journal. Fill in the blank, shit is infinite love, hate is infinite love, a dirty sock is infinite love, Donald Trump is infinite love, a puppy is infinite love, a person dying with COVID-19 is infinite love, picking one's nose is infinite love Could a concept be more useless? You came up with a new word for "everything" or "oneness" . There is nothing new there just repackaging I hope you grow out of this. Maybe in 2 years it will be so worn out you'll switch to something else. I don't want love to be everything. There comes a point when a bloated surplus of love makes you puke I don't want to be loved 30 days a month. Throw in one neglect day, one pissed off day. The nature of reality is constant change not a fifty ton slab of love. I suppose the whole saying "love" every 5 minutes is a good tool for being annoying. That I will credit. It's a tool, a hand buzzer

source, page 2 >

I am not advocating this or saying this is the wrong thing to do but are you using medications for bipolar and psychotherapy (don't answer if too personal).

Hate, anger, love, boredom, joy... all of these feelings exist regardless of what your beliefs are. You feel angry sometimes, love sometimes, boredom sometimes You have arbitrarily selected a particular type of feeling and because you like that on in particular saying only that feeling exists. In my opinion What I meant is that people have feelings of hate, anger, love, boredom and joy . They exist in the world. And regardless of if you think you have no beliefs and are only capable of love, love is informed by beliefs as well. And if one were stripped of all their feelings there would be no love. and what would remain would be nihilist or psychopath guided entirely by instinct and urge.

Hate, anger, love, boredom, joy... all of these feelings exist regardless of what your beliefs are. You feel angry sometimes, love sometimes, boredom sometimes You have arbitrarily selected a particular type of feeling and because you like that on in particular saying only that feeling exists. In my opinion

Are animals made of infinite love? Are rocks made out of "infinite love" ? It sounds cool but it's child-like and makes no sense. Saying things are made of love, joy, or fear is an abstract intellectual idea or could be construed as a religious concept especially if you also say you are not referring to a feeling. That renders the word meaningless if not a synonym for "everything". If the intent is to say "everything" or "part of everything" there is no sense in using the word love which has other connotations, all referring to a type feeling, a type of affection or preference or reverence for Love is a feeling. Feelings are temporal not infinite. It is a simple thing we all experience. There is no need to intellectualize it or make it arcane. "Infinity" is also an abstract concept not a thing or feeling. Such words words are often used to attempt to be extreme and grandiose about something Saying humans are "made of infinite love" is equivalent to saying "everything is made of everything" There is no point in using the word "love" if that is what's intended. Hitler hated some people and perhaps loved others But he was not made of hate or love or anger. To talk about something being made of a feeling makes no sense. And then to say it means a different type of love that is not a feeling is to obliterate the meaning of love further. Saying love is synonym of "everything" or substance" or "life" or "the universe" is an attempt to be mystical but it undermines what love really is. And if someone says "love is absolute acceptance of everything " that is not the definition of love either. For something to be love it does not have to be acceptance of everything and even to raise the idea that love is acceptance , acceptance is back to a human behavior not anything like a substance. If one says " accept everything" that is a clear thought not a confusing corruption of a word if not it would make mores sense to esteem the word "acceptance" but is the universe made up of "acceptance" ? No, like love, acceptance is not a substance and that would not make sense either. Somebody trying to promote love as caring I'm all for it. But to tamper with it's meaning I think causes an unproductive confusion in people. This is the pattern "_______________is love" , just fill in the blank. So you can put "evil" in there "friendship" , "suffering" , "joy" just fill it in with anything you're thinking of at the moment. What that is really saying is "love is whatever". What that does is destroys the meaning of love and pretending to advocate it at the same time but using the word all the time (over-using it) I don't agree with someone who might say love is a useless feeling but at least they are being clear and direct not constantly switching around and superstitiously subverting it's meaning, even if unwittingly. How can we express love in it's highest form? That would have to be in doing not just in saying. Have we all been loved by someone? Some more than others. Some may have been neglected or had been treated with love and abuse at the same time which can tear us in two directions at once Some have even been hated. Everything is not love. Everything is everything.

In my opinion to say love is a substance is a child-like made up magical idea. There is already a word for substance it's substance and a word for everything, everything. The love that human beings can have for each and other living things or of a god is feeling considered a strong feeling, like liking but more intense and devoted. It is something considered highly valuable. However saying love is a substance and higher forms of it are beyond humanity degrades this human feeling It borrows the word's connotation, a warm feeling that one associates with the feeling of loving or being loved and then tries to apply it to the substance of everything to legitimize it. And then it's used as an excuse to disregard evil and hate which are not less real than hate but to pretend only love exists. The effect of that is to dilute and undermine what love is, to switch it's meaning back and forth and sever it from human feeling, trying to turn it into an intellectual concept and clubhouse hand sign. That in my opinion is grandiose and it confuses people into thinking love is an abstraction, that there is some kind of "higher" form of love, not a feeling but a substance or a rare experience, it's "higher" form only available to a select few. It is an attempt to usurp a word's human connotation and turn it into a religious concept that only a priest or "master" teacher has access to and describe properly. That is actually selfishness and narcissism masquerading as love. It's using the word "love" as an ideology. Love is an action. It's not saying "love" all the time. It's doing

You confuse a lot of people, the way you switch a conventional meaning for "love" and your alternative meanings for love. Love is and English word It's a human feeling ranging in: caring for , preference for, reverence for, acceptance for and some animals have this feeling as well. It is no less a feeling than hate, joy, boredom or fear. The idea that the universe is love is a nice idea but it doesn't really mean anything. It is just semantics. There are feelings in the universe but the universe is not comprised of feelings. Some of your alternative meanings for love are: "love is absolute acceptance of everything " "love is the only thing that exists" "love is the actual building blocks of reality" "Love is the substance of everything that is. , like atoms, Was Hitler made out of atoms any less due to killing people? See? Atoms just don't care if you kill people or not." "Love is too big to ever be understood by any human." "The highest motivation is Love." This all means the same thing right? Of course not, it's all over the place. One meaning is acceptance, another a motivation another the building blocks of reality" As if scientists describing atomic physics should switch to love particles. As if love has nothing to do with human emotion. If human emotion is assumed to be something lower , then why use one of the primary words describing a particular emotion, love ? If you want it to mean "everything" or "existence" or "consciousness" it only breeds confusion not to use those words and replace them with "love". Or you want to say you love everything, or love all beings that would be a clear thought but what you do is use try to change the meaning of the word, dehumanizing it and then re-humanizing it very inconsistently and you are constantly switching it up in conversation and confusing people. At one moment it's "acceptance of everything" another it's an atom or the substance of everything. You destroy love if you call it everything and start pointing out Hitler and police brutality are comprised of love. If the intent for love to mean "everything" or "part of everything" why bother using the word love that is by definition a feeling and then at other times use the same word describing the feeling love "I love you" or reverence for God etc? That particular choice of word it raises sentiment or connotes affection in people and then you constantly pull the rug out, bringing up Hitler, rape, police brutality etc to try to say you are talking about a love higher than human understanding. That is violent. You commit a lot of violence with words. You open someone's heart and then stick a cold dagger in it You do the same thing with the word "God" . You use it in reverent ways but then switch and remind people Hitler and rape is all part of it, as if you as so powerful, that you created the universe you are above reproach, as if cruelty or torture goes on in what you created who is someone you created to question it? The "highest" form of love is indeed a human feeling. It's caring for other living beings. That is a precious thing and you undermine that and try to remove the humanity from it. What you are doing is actually destroying love by doing that so becomes an empty shell of a word. Police brutality is part of life and unfortunate one, something that has the whole nation in distress. A man has been suffocated Police brutality is not love and never will be. Please stop these mindfucks, not now It's spiritual violence

Again, you assume someone is proposing 2 right from the start, that it's a wrong idea and the first thing to do is to say it's not that There are other words "oneness" "wholeness" "unity" "singularism" that are not negative "nons" and "nos" or even a custom word could be used with no previous meaning

Non-duality has no cornerstone Non-duality does not exist It does not exist anymore than a non-apple exits , be positive not a "non" or a "no" The only thing that non-duality has is a non-cornerstone. It's a negative philosophy built on assuming that most believe in something wrong and then identifying oneself as "not that" There has got to be a term that has the spirit of it that is not negative, not correctional

https://www.vox.com/2020/5/29/21274462/george-floyd-protests-minnesota-national-guard excerpt: Here’s what the National Guard can and can’t do during the George Floyd uprising Minnesota’s governor activated the state’s National Guard to “help provide security and restore safety.” By Alex Ward What the Minnesota National Guard isn’t doing, at least not yet You might have heard of “posse comitatus,” a longstanding law that bars the US military from being used to enforce domestic law in the country in most cases. That law doesn’t apply to the National Guard when it’s operating under state authority, or if the president calls on it under federal authority to do things like quelling an unlawful domestic insurrection. Which means that National Guard troops can actually carry out domestic law enforcement operations, including arresting people. But, experts note, that’s not likely to happen unless there’s a massive breakdown in societal order. “It’s politically not desirable, so governors don’t want to do that kind of thing,” Lindsay Cohn, a Naval War College expert on the National Guard, told me in March about the Guard’s general guidelines. And Walz didn’t explicitly authorize the Guard to arrest citizens in this case. Which is why Hawks, the Minnesota National Guard spokesperson, told me that, as of now, members have “no arrest authority.” However, the 500 activated members are working under the direct supervision of the Minnesota State Patrol. It’s therefore possible that a State Patrol commander could ask a Guard member to arrest somebody down the line if authorized by the governor. Even if National Guard members were assisting with arrests, it’d be a far cry from the institution of martial law. “Martial law is when civilian authority is incapacitated and cannot function,” Cohn told me in March, and a military officer is in control of the three functions of government (legislative, executive, and judicial). Minnesota sending the National Guard into the Twin Cities, then, is a sign that the situation has gotten a little out of hand for local law enforcement. It doesn’t mean the US military is swooping in to subjugate the people. The question now will be if the Guard can do its job professionally and safely while respecting the protesters’ rights. That, more than anything, may be the hardest part of the whole deployment.

Not necessarily overreaction but the reaction is too chaotic and has created conditions for looting and burning which is very counter productive

@GreenWoods what have you been able to do with lucid dreaming so far? Also you might want to try the below and perhaps report results in this thread:

or is it devilry ?

Yes, that is what the people in the video I posted said

April 19, 2020 Sweden, population 10,343,403 Total deaths, COVID-19, 4,468 reported 6/1/2020 The health agency believed that 5–10% of the population in Stockholm County were carrying the virus on 9 April. In mid-April, it was reported that out of the approximately 1,300 people who had died after having caught the virus, one third had been living at nursing homes. The figure differed between the regions. In Stockholm, the city most affected by the pandemic, half of the deaths had been residents in one of its many nursing homes. In April, many of the organisations running the public transport systems for the Swedish counties had reported a 50% drop in public transport usage, including Kalmar Länstrafik in Kalmar County, Skånetrafiken in Skåne County, Stockholm Public Transit in Stockholm County, and Västtrafik in Västra Götaland County.[92][93][86][94] In Stockholm, the streets grew increasingly emptier, with a 30% drop in the number of cars,[95] and 70% fewer pedestrians Overall, travel from the Stockholm region had decreased by 80–90%, and the number of citizens of Stockholm travelling to popular holiday destinations like Gotland and the ski resorts in Åre had fallen with more than 90%.

On a per capita basis, Sweden's Covid-19 deaths are 3 to 5.5 times the other Nordic countries. Sweden has just over 3 times the death rate of Denmark. But note Denmark's population density disadvantage of 138:25. Success or Failure? Success is in the eyes of the beholder. A death rate 5.5x is acceptable to some but not others. But Sweden has a ton of pressure to under-report Covid deaths. I would be shocked if they didn't. Regardless, one can easily look at this data, ignore the undercounts (perhaps even factor some in), and conclude Sweden did the right thing. But how does that translate to the US? Population Density of NYC For comparison purposes, the Population Density of New York City is 26,403 people per square mile (10,194/km²), makes it the densest of any American municipality with a population above 100,000. Manhattan's population density is 66,940 people per square mile (25,846/km²), highest of any county in the United States. (Stockholm 13,000 per square mile - added Nak Khid) Sweden Not a Good Model Even if one is happy with Sweden's results, it is not a representative model for large US cities. R0 - Infection Transmission Nate Silver has an Interesting Twitter Thread on R0, the the number of people someone will infect on average, if they catch it. The positive test rate, which I believe is a better metric than the raw number of + tests, continues to show slow, incremental improvement. But I do mean *slow*. It's consistent with a nationwide R of around 0.9, where R>1 means the epidemic is growing & R<1 means it's shrinking. That is a national average, however. There are places like NY where there's a reasonably steep decline (R of perhaps 0.7-0.8). In turn, there are likely to be other places where infections are still growing (R of perhaps 1.1 to 1.3) and it isn't just an artifact of more testing. Overall, there isn't a lot of room for error. A few states have had clear, sustained improvement and may have room in their R "budget" to relax restrictions. But for many others, even slight changes could bring R >1. Or R may be >1 already. That's not to say it's necessarily up to policymakers. I don't care about the state capitol protests, which are an overplayed story. But it's clear from e.g. mobility data that people are moving around more and abiding less strictly by social distancing. I wish we knew more about what this activity consisted of. Taking a nice, long drive to a non-crowded state park should be pretty safe, for instance. But pressure points seem to be outdoor activity in more crowded spaces, and small-to-medium-sized social gatherings. Reopening Too Early At an R0 that's well below 1, the disease will die out (but perhaps return later in the Autumn or Winter). Ar R0 of 1, the current results can go on for a long time. An end to the lockdowns too early could easily send R0 back well above 0. The latter is what everyone want to avoid.

carry spray deterrent https://www.dogtrainingnation.com/dog-training-clients/stray-dog-protection-tips/