4201

You could easily prove it then and thus convince everyone that you are right without people having to investigate themselves. If you have such a super natural power, why not show it to the world? Reality is precisely fun because of its limitations. Imagining = creating limitations. Anything is "possible", including the experiences of limitations. It's possible to stop focusing on the limitations and notice they aren't actually there, but it's not possible to disprove the limitations within the limitations, by definition. If anything is possible, then it's possible to have a dream with limited possibility, which is what reality is. You can stop this dream to have another dream, one in which you can intercept emails, but then that's a "different dream". In this dream emails are not interceptable with your mind.

"intercept" implies it being actually "being carried" but there is no emails to intercept. You can imagine emails right now and you can look at emails on your computer screen later. Emails only exist as you create them, when you have the experience of them. They aren't "there" for you to intercept them. Does God have interest in creating an inconsistent reality where the ego can "break the universe" and prove it has god powers? "Look guys, I can intercept any email with my mind powers!! BUZZZZZ" I don't think so. I think it's much more loving to have this consistent reality where the ego learn without the ability to "disprove reality". If reality could be disproven it would lose it's meaning. At the end of the day, I am God. I am creating the experience of reality and this reality excludes the ability to prove your "god powers" by predicting emails, so you'll never actually be able to demonstrate email-prediction ability. You can fool yourself into believing you can, but in this reality, you never will.

Whether they should be censored for the greater good is a whole other debate but as to why they are censored : because it's in the best financial interest of Google and YouTube. Having free misinformation on their websites do not help their public status and thus reduces their value.

From what I've heard it's not actually the activity itself that is bad (reading, gaming or etc.) but to focus on short distances for prolonged periods of time. Your eyes (and body) get good at what it's being used for. If 90% of the time you use them to look at a distance of 30 cm as a child, your eyes will develop to be optimal for that and then you might develop myopia. It is recommended to take breaks when working on a screen for a long time and look at a distance. Look through a window or something but let your eyes focus on something far away for a little while, so they don't get too used to looking short. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5615392/ The risk of myopia is lowered by exposure to daylight and increased by activities performed at short visual distances (close-up work). A person with little exposure to daylight has a fivefold risk of developing myopia, which can rise as high as a 16-fold risk if that person also performs close-up work. I wouldn't personally it's a matter of "sunlight" but rather being outside usually leads to looking farther as well.

Not at all Basically just fearmongering from the right to increase support to the republican party. The danger is imagined, not actual. Wherever media you got your misinfo from, they have high stakes in you staying afraid. If you were to stop being afraid you might act in a way that is best for the majority, which is not good for the minority who wants to keep exploiting people for their benefit.

This is your personal belief, just a point of view. If this was generally true for everyone, everyone would have the same issue as you do and everyone would agree with you. Personally, I don't experience your problems because I don't hold your beliefs and POV. You are trying to take the issues you have in your relationship and turn it into a general argument against women as a distraction from looking in into yourself and see what's actually happening. Your opinion of women is really the opinion of the women you met or dated. Consider the possiblity that you may attract people who corresponds to you and that there are women out there who do not act in the way your girlfriend acts. You created this relationship with someone else and the way it turns out is really a result of your own actions. Trying to blame women in general is really just trying to avoid taking responsabilities for what you built with her. You can play the victim as much as you want, it won't ever feel good or "solve" the problem.

That's not "women", that's your girlfriend. If you keep trying to understand the entirety of "women" as one big entity that thinks in one way you'll never actually understand what your girlfriend feels and thinks. Every individual is a complex thing which cannot be broken down into gender-dependent stereotypes. You complain that women on this forum engage in those stereotypes for men, so you open this post as a "revenge" doing the exact same thing? Unlikely to be very productive lol Why does she has those insecurities? How could I know? But if you pay attention to her, being genuinely interested in how she feels, you might get to understand her better and help her heal the source of her insecurities. But don't act as if she knows what she's doing and she's doing it to piss you off in some sort of machiavellian plan. Her insecurities probably feels as bad to her as it feels to you. She might not even realize she's acting like that. Best thing you can do really is fully understand her, instead of holding the belief that, as a man you cannot understand woman. This is just a bullshit excuse people use to get relationships without actually putting any effort it. Whether you want a deep relationship based on understanding or a transactional one that is based on fear and insecurities is entirely up to you. At the end of the day you won't get any insight into her by asking some guys on this forum.

If I'm hungry and I seek food, isn't that seeking energy? Isn't "healthy vs unhealthy" of the body? If you seek something that exists (banana, nuts, my glasses, keys) it's quite healthy.

You might want to ponder why you want that. You can learn to act more selflessly in order to be perceived more favorably by other people, so that your selfish objectives can be fullfilled. But learning a behavior pattern labelled as selflessness for a selfish cause is different than actually surrendering all of your desires. How do people do it? Jesus did not wake up one day deciding "I want to be loved by everyone". He just started actually loving everyone and everything instead. I can't give you a "how". Enlightenment / true selflessness cannot be written down and acquired as some sort of lesson. You already are truly selfless, it is your natural state. Yet through conditioning you have learned to care about this body more than the rest. It's a matter of unlearning that, not learning something new on top of that.

I struggle with very similar issues so my POV may still be immature on this, so be cautious of my bias This way of saying "I won't believe in myself until I accomplish X" is really similar to saying "I won't be happy until X happens". Yet if I would be to point to you every achievements you had in your life, you'd probably be dismissive of them, saying it's not enough, you need X to fully believe in yourself / be happy. This is quite clearly a trap though, because once X happens, will you really be happy or will you just again be dismissive of X and turn to Y? (Y being the next achievement to fullfill) You might say, well, all of this business is good because I want to achieve X, Y and Z! But this mentality of not believing in oneself or being doubtful about oneself is not helping achieving X, Y or Z. You'd probably achieve X, Y and Z more effectively if you didn't doubt yourself and had nothing to prove. Furthermore it's unnecessary suffering, you might as well do without it. Not believing in oneself is quite absurd in a sense yet it's something I often fall for as well. I'm really not immune to it. Not believing in oneself is quite clearly a thought though. If you clear the mind there no longer is any doubt about oneself. It's just a matter of not identifying with the thought that says "I need to prove something" or the more meta "I'm stuck believing I need to prove something". At least in my experience none of those doubts are actual. Nice topic honestly. I might just be projecting my issues onto you but in the worse case it was useful for me to think about that hahaha

You might find value in pondering on why that is. Would you have this tendency if you were the last human on earth? Does it matter more what they say than how you feel though? Personally, I'm a big fan of chasing greatness. Do what feels fucking great! I'm using a synonym here but greatness or "the next level" are really the same thing. But then fear about you being judged by others may turn your love for "the next level" things into an obsession, if you imagine that this greatness is necessary to be accepted by others. "Ha I need to meet others expectations of me, otherwise I'll be a loser!" The truth is, it's quite rare for others to have such high expectations of you and most of the time, you are the one imagining the expectations that others might have of you. This is the business of preserving a self identity which has been attached to the idea of "greatness" or "the next level". At first it felt great but soon enough it turns into a job. Now I have to do what's needed to stay great in the eyes of others. You don't even need a strategy, if you follow feeling, you'll be as great as you can be. But when fear and insecurity comes into play, we are reluctant to feel (by fear of not being as expected). You don't need to make a "decision" and either identify with "being a relaxed person" or "being a accomplishing person". No identity about it, is the greatest of all, that's the "next level". A level in which you can be both highly accomplishing and highly relaxed at the same time. Those are my thoughts.

Do you want your self to learn to be selfless or do you want to actually let go of the self? Selflessness cannot be learned and there is nothing about it you need to know. Perhaps you could study people who has historically been considered selfless (Jesus, Buddha or any other) and try to mimick their behavior but that wouldn't be actual selfessness. Actual selflessness is letting go of the self and we refer to this as enlightenment. In reality, you are already selfless and it's just a matter of stopping the thoughts who say "I am this" or "I am that". This is made clear through meditation and alternatively, psychedelics can be a shortcut to get there early for the most impatient ones. Still a good book can facilitate this deconstruction by pointing to you the flaws in your reasoning that lead you to believe you have a self. There are tons of books about it and all with their own flavors. Personally I really reasonate with Peter Ralston's Book of Not Knowing, in which he really extensively deconstruct the self and what it means to be you. The book works through your mind by pointing out the things you assume to be true that in reality you don't know. Once those basic assumptions taken away, your self can be understood for what it is leaving you to directly see your true nature. I would highly recommend this book.

There are no levels of consciousness. You are infinite consciousness stuck in thought about itself being finite or being at a certain level of consciousness. Psychedelics will definitely help throw all of this thinking out of the window. But it will throw away with it this whole idea of a you who has trauma to heal in the first place. Without proper preparation to such a revelation, your ego is free to misinterpret it any way it wants to suit its needs. It's very easy for the ego to panic during a trip and then start acting like it's been traumatized from the trip, as a way to distract itself from the truth. Imo the best way to prevent those issues and trip responsably is to start fixing your problems yourself first. Do the practices, sit in meditation and then, only if you really need it, use a psychedelic. Psychedelics will boost your ability to meditate effectively for a couple of hours. If you've never meditated there's little say as to if what happen during those hours will be beneficial or not. If you think psychedelics will let you avoid your problems you are wrong. They will take your problems and put them directly in your face for you to deal with them. Daily meditation is the best way to be ready for it. At the end of the day psychedelic usage should be in harmony to your regular life and practices, not in opposition to it. If you are doing psychedelics instead of doing other things, it's unlikely to work out. As to which to choose, I would say argue shrooms are probably safer than LSD (although less cool). If the point is only to deal with your own traumas, I would recommend them. Anything like 5-MeO-DMT or DMT would probably be way to direct and fast for you to get the time to deal with your trauma. I wouldn't recommend MDMA (nor Ketamine) as it's brain damaging and not a psychedelic but it's also not a substance I'm experienced with.

If you have a natural ability to heal, then why take a foreign substance? This idea that infinite intelligence is only accessible with some sort of key that unlocks it is not infinite intelligence. By definition, if it was possible to bound or limit that infinite intelligence, it wouldn't be infinite anymore.

That's an idea. The only sensations are right now, the idea that I looked at a screen is a story that I believe. After I no longer look at the screen, there is nothing left of it but the thought of me having looked at it. Now we are on the same page. The idea of "a me having looked at a screen" is experienced right now as "what happened" and this is a sensation, right now. There is no beginning nor end, only a present moment and ideas about the past which is experienced right now. I'm sorry but no this paragraph only complicates it hahaha Dualities are being created in order to be able to talk about specific sensations. If my finger hurt I'm creating a duality (an "invidivual" sensation) about my finger being separate from the rest of my body (which does not hurt as my finger does). But I'm also creating it "in time" that is I'm comparing the sensation of my finger hurting to perhaps a past (or future) in which it did not hurt, thus creating another duality. Those dualities of HERE vs THERE or NOW vs NOT NOW seems to me to be the most basic dualities one create when trying to express a sensation. It's true that NOT NOW is can be both past or future as long as it's not now. If this is what you are trying to say with beginning = end (past ~= future = not now) then fine but this whole chronological way of defining sensations as events with beginnings and ends is quite absurd to me. The only concern I had with my initial reply was to the idea of "The past did not happen!!" when in fact there is a past that feels correct and pasts that feel like lies. This perhaps is my personal problem with the deconstruction of time and doesn't seem to have to do with what you were saying in the first place.

I wouldn't agree with myself honestly, I feel quite contradicted hahaha I thought you were referring to the idea that all past is imagined right now, using the big bang as one example of a past event which is only experienced right now as an idea. But my bad, let me take what you said more directly then. I really struggle to see what you mean there and the analogy with the big bang and big crunch. Right now if I feel into my body, I have sensations but there's no beginning or end to those. The idea of beginning and end doesn't come. I could use a clock to write down when I start sensing something and stop sensing something but it would be quite funny to do so. What are the beginnings and ends of sensations, and why are they equal? If I were to try and define beginnings and ends to sensation, it would be entirely through memory. I could define a story in which I started feeling at some point and stopped feeling at some other point. But that wouldn't be feeling, more like ideas about past feelings.

Yet there is a past that always feels more correct than other pasts. If I yell something loud and then try to convince you I haven't yelled it wouldn't work out so well. If you experienced something directly in the last 5 seconds it's quite "true". Maybe it's not Absolutely true but it's really close to true. Even if you construct reality and construct the past right now, there is a past that aligns with source and pasts that we could say are dishonest (the imagined past in which I did not yell). This idea that space time was more dense in the past seems to be a past that aligns with source, it is in accordance with the evidence we have. It differs from lies I could create right now. What is this distinction? Past created by God vs past created by Ego? It sure puzzles me and holding a past as true can be risky since it can be defined to be whatever. But without a past you can't really do much. How could you understand this message if you don't remember the last sentence you just read? How could you understand this message if you don't remember the last sentence you just read? How could you understand this message if you don't remember the last sentence you just read? How could you understand this message if you don't remember the last sentence you just read? How...

Yeah I really took issue with the word "proof" and what it means for something to be a proof. If I understand you correctly, what you are essentially saying is when you let go of all assumptions there is either A. an infinite amount of assumptions to let go B. a point in which there is no assumption (Absolute/Source) But A only makes sense if someone would assume it's infinite in the first place. If you believe life is finite then A cannot be true. A finite mind cannot hold an infinite amount of assumptions. To be honest I never really considered A. To imagine that right now, I am assuming an infinite amount of things and thus I will never reach a state of no assumption because of that is in itself a very weird assumption. A is so weird because believing A is believing you have an infinite mind yet believing it cannot be free due to it's infinity. Taking A aside though all we really have said here with B is that "if you stop assuming there is no assumption". Fair enough, but I wouldn't qualify this as a proof of anything. It's more a tautology which makes sense because all proofs are in the domain of some assumptions. That being said it's not a bad reasoning. I really did not fully understand what you were trying to say in the first place, so my bad.

Right now, do you feel? If your answer is no, then notice you are expecting to feel something that you aren't currently feeling right now. This "imagined feeling" or this expectation, is not feeling, it is thought. You are imagining yourself having more colorful emotions and you are making a problem out of the fact that right now you can't find them. Those imagined feelings do not exist right now and focusing on the idea that "they are missing" is not going to make them appear. But of course even right now you are still feeling, even though it might not be what you would expect or want to feel. You may feel numbness or other feelings that are less vibrant and emotional as what you are expecting. But notice what you are feeling is the direct result of those expectations. Your feelings are a direct indication of the quality of what you are thinking right now. Thinking you are blocked from feeling feels numb. This story about you who suppresses his feelings and who did that since childhood IS the suppression. This thought story is the distraction from feeling and it feels bad. If you actually allow yourself to feel those negative feelings, the thought that are causing them disappear. It's not possible to both think you cannot feel and feel at the same time and so the thought that was causing the bad feeling goes away, leaving you to feel whatever else you wanted to feel. More practically speaking though, right now you can feel your breathing if you focus on it. If you sit down, close your eyes and focus entirely on the feeling your breath you will feel everything you want to feel. The monkey-mind may say that it's not able to because of any reason but it will always be a lie.

I apologize if I came off as rude but what you are suggesting is not healthy and very misleading. @Michael569 went much deeper than me in his explanation on why sugar is bad for you and I'd recommend you at least consider his arguments. Following a single youtuber's opinion over an established body of research is not a good decision even if it "sounds good" on the surface. Flat earth theory "sounds good" to the people believing in it too. You lean toward "simple logic" probably because you like the simplicity of it but the truth is much more nuanced than "I need energy thus I take the most energy dense food". There is no one diet that rules them all, the best is to fully understand every nutrient or food source individually and make informed choices about them. You do not seem to understand the health risks about processed sugar or why fruits are much better than processed sugar nor the way in which fats do not make you fat but sugar does. I'm in no way against fruits which contain a lot of nutrients and fiber your body need, but the massive amount of processed sugar everywhere without fiber or anti oxidants IS the main problem with the standard american diet right now. Not to mention this stuff is highly addictive. It's not easy cutting sugar out of your life even if you really try.

I mean we already know what happens when someone doesn't eat vitamin C for a couple of months. Now that for every nutrient your body needs and 10 years? You'd prob go to the ER after 2 months lol

The problems of excess sugar is not a "belief of western society" it's one of the main problem of current western society. With half of the american population obese, there's an overwhelming amount of research on it you can access online for free. Maybe you are an "I don't belive in academia" type of guy and you really want to "try it out yourself". Then how do you know lead is poison? If you think it's poison because you've been told it's poison it's just a "belief of western society". According to your logic you won't ever know if something is poison before dying from it. If you want to base your nutrition entirely on bro-science, you'll just worsen your health and make your sugar addiction more intense.

What this logic fails to see is that sugar is basically everywhere and everyone takes way too much of it, causing massive cases of obesity, diabetes, etc. What does your body do when it has too much energy? It stores it obviously and thus you get fat. Eating more sugar might be good for extreme athlete but if you are an average person doing an average amount of physical exercise, it's likely you consume way too much sugar for what you need already and your lack of energy in life is not related to a lack of ATP in your system but probably a lack of other vitamin you would only get eating a rich and varied diet.

If you sacrifice yourself to someone because give more importance to that person than to yourself, it's not unconditional love it's just acting like a servant because you believe you can't be loved otherwise. If I love someone unconditionnally, that means I act in a way that is best for that person and what is best for that person is not to be their obedient slave or letting myself be abused by them. Doing this won't actually help them it will just reinforce whatever toxic mindset the abuser has. I think if you truly love someone who abuses unconditionally, you should walk away so that they get the occasion to realize what they are doing and learn from their mistakes. Continuing to get abused is not love. I agree with everything you said honestly you shouldn't let yourself be walked over. But being walked over is not unconditional love. You can call it "blind love" but it's really just neediness disguised as love.

Being on the other side of the dating landscape, I feel your struggle. I think it helps to try and enjoy the process rather than focusing on the person you want to get (the end result). If you consider dating some temporary activity you have to do in order to get what you want then of course it's not fun, it's stressful and you want it to end asap. If on the other end you go in with the mindset of getting to know people just for the sake of it it's much more peaceful and there's no problem if it doesn't end up working with a guy. There's no one "out of your league" that's an idea you tell yourself because you evaluate your self with your judgements. (The same way you evaluate your dates). If you believe this idea about yourself, people likely perceives it as insecurity and it makes you probably less attractive to them. (Even though it doesn't have anything to do with you, it's just a belief). I think you kinda have to ask yourself what type of relationship you want to build. If you base your relationship on the idea of a "me that wants someone" would that make you fully happy? Even if you found your perfect man and he treats you perfectly and he is yours, would this "new possession" ever satisfy you? Is this true love or is this love with the condition that your lover acts and is a certain way? What I'm describing is pure survival, obtaining someone for your own interest rather than experiencing life with someone for the sake of experience. From my man POV it even goes as far as obtaining someone to impress people around me (look at me I'm dating this beautiful women, dad is going to be so proud!). It's not bad in itself but I think it's important to keep in head what you really want. If you get in a relationship to fullfill a need rather than create something unique and special then the other person may be doing the same in which case the relationship becomes transactional and without love. You probably already know all of this since you are labelling it a "rabbit hole" but I'm just trying to make explicit what those fantasies are really about (a self imagined to have a need).