Osaid

You are assuming the properties that you refer to. This is correct, which is why I personally never say that phrase since it wouldn't convey much. But also, it is possible for there to be a word which has no meaning in its context, in the sense that it points to nothing existentially. The word "non-existence" for example. It literally means "doesn't exist." It could very well happen that you are trying to form an existential conclusion using words that point to nothing existentially. I didn't say that everything is conscious, and that would actually be different from saying that everything is consciousness. The former views consciousness as an emergent property. I am simply trying to say that the distinction of "me" and "other" happens within consciousness, as with all distinctions.

When you have a dream, is there is a dreamer which is inside the dream? Is it possible for there to be attention without an object or experience to pay attention to? Why does it seem that attention and the object of attention are always enmeshed? Maybe there is no difference between the object and observer? If there is no difference between the object and observer, then is there any space left over for a "self", or even a sense of it? To a degree. I did a lot of self-inquiry which incrementally changed my perception of things. It ultimately led up to a singular "drop." There is a psychosomatic relationship created using your imagination. You are using your imagination to create desires within yourself which you then act out. The problem is that the desire is based on an imaginary self. As an example, if you imagine yourself in an undesirable future scenario, you genuinely believe you are experiencing that future scenario from that present moment, and so it creates a desire to avoid the literal imagination of that future scenario, which creates real physical biological symptoms in the present moment such as a racing heartbeat, high cortisol, etc. In other words, it creates the emotions which would transpire if that imagination really happened to you. You now have a desire to change your physical environment so that you can stop imagining the scenario which you imagine yourself inside of. For example, if you were stressed about going to work, calling in sick would cause you to stop imagining yourself at work and thus it would alleviate the stress and anxiety caused by that imagination. This psychosomatic connection can be severed by realizing that there is no entity called "you" which can be at risk of that future scenario in the first place. There is obviously the qualia and different phenomenon happening in your experience, that much is true, and perhaps that is what you mean by "seeming to be here." The imagined part is the entity which you imagine to observe that phenomenon/experience. There is no middleman which has to observe experience, because which part of experience would that entity be made out of? To be as accurate as possible, you believe that your imagination is representing real objects of experience, which is to say, you believe your imagination represents something beyond your imagination. You have turned yourself into an "object" inside of your imagination which you believe actually represents you. You use your ability to imagine yourself in order to place yourself inside of various forms of imagination about the past and future, so you have turned yourself into an entity/object which exists inside of those imagined scenarios which you must protect and look after. Similar to how when you look at the ingredient label of a food product, you have to imagine that those ingredients exist inside of the product. You are using your imagination to symbolize the existence of the ingredients inside of the food product, that is how you know the ingredients that the food is made of. So, the imagination serves to represent something in your experience, which would be the ingredients inside the food. You are doing this exact same thing to your "self", you are imagining yourself as if you are a real object of experience, but that imagination actually symbolizes and represents absolutely nothing in your experience. There is no part of experience which that imagination of yourself represents, it is purely self-serving. Once you stop imagining, then the self stops appearing too, the imagination is self-contained, and thus it does not actually represent anything outside of itself.

Glad you benefitted.

Peace

You're trying to turn it into a willpower thing when it really isn't. It is purely a psychological absolution of the perception of time. The length of time I sit somewhere doesn't make time more real, that is just a physically strenuous activity like exercise. There are much bigger motivations than restlessness and impatience though, those are the mental imaginations of yourself. There is the physical pain for example.

If I had to go through that I would not experience restlessness or impatience, yes. Probably just physical pain. I would never do that though lol.

You can frame it that way, but logically you can very easily understand that past and future must be imagined, because there is only what is happening right now. Sitting in the same spot for 50 years would be physically taxing, but irrelevant to time. Physical sensations do not indicate time because they are always experienced presently. If you say that you experience past and future (time), I can very simply say: How can something which experiences both past and future be experienced? It is impossible for past and future to occur at the same time. There must be a fundamental error in how you perceive yourself somewhere.

They might think it, but they will certainly feel otherwise. The feeling is like a dashboard indicator which continues to pop up until they alleviate the cognitive dissonance.

Right, it seems that way. Believe it or not, all those layers are perpetuated by a singular misperception: That you can imagine yourself. It is like the butterfly effect. If you spend a lifetime imagining yourself you will create all sorts of elaborate miseries and boundaries about yourself. Your imagination of yourself is equivalent to the perception of time. What would your experience be like if you weren't afflicted by time anymore? Really think about it, though. It must be simple and intuitive, if worms or babies or animals are free of mental suffering.

I dislike that there is "weight" because it is such a simple misperception which causes so much suffering. It should be seen as simple and easy and mandatory. That is part of why I try to communicate it so bluntly and simply. That seems to be a common sentiment at this point. Skepticism is fine as long as it doesn't diminish your inquiry or you don't turn it into some standard which you project onto your inquiries.

There is no difference between the emotion and the situation itself. If you say the emotion is a response to the situation, then that emotion cannot exist without the situation. They both depend on each other and thus they are literally the same. The subject-object duality collapses.

I imagine that once people start doing a better job of teaching it, it will increase quite a bit. I really feel like people just don't explain it well enough. That is one big factor, and also it seems that no one really cares about observing their experience. Otherwise it really is a simple shift which can definitely happen through self-inquiry. If you have a desire to observe and examine your experience, you are already a big outlier. It is not a matter of fighting or pushing away fear, it is realizing that the object of fear does not exist in the first place. Impatience is imagined time. Insecurity is an imagined self which is contrasted with your current experience.

That is correct. The only emotion worth desiring is love. It is the most intelligent thing to do. Your imperative essentially becomes to change your environment in order to facilitate that emotion, in whichever way you want to manifest it. It is very interesting how it works. The baseline emotion becomes "peace" or "content" which are forms of love, because there is no desire at the baseline. If you have no desires, then that fulfills your desires, which creates a positive emotion. It's like a double-negative type of thing; the desire to have no desire fulfills itself, creating a baseline emotion of being content.

Yes, none of that. Impatience is the same as boredom created through a perception of time. You perceive it by imagining yourself in a desired future scenario. There is zero perception of time so that cannot occur anymore.

I can say that all anxiety vanishes, because that is all future imagination. Yes, there is no ego-generated misery. There is simply just immediate fear, which I define as "an object in the environment which you want to avoid." Once the situation ends so does the fear, the fear is equivalent to the situation. The reason I'm being so specific about describing the emotions is because it is very important to understand how they work after enlightenment, and how they fundamentally work in general. They don't completely vanish, they just serve your immediate experience instead of your imaginary experience. The emotions purely become situational instead of something you carry.

Makes enough sense to me.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "misery." All I can say is that all emotions are seen as something that is entirely perpetuated by you. If you desire to change where you are, that is something you want to do. There is no ruminating about past and future, the entire focus is just what you can do right now. When you say "doubt", I don't necessarily see that as an emotion but it could be something which drives an emotion. Doubt is an assessment about the validity of something, as I would define it. Fear is the desire to avoid something and it can manifest in many ways. There is no imagined or psychological fear, which means you don't avoid or fear past or future because you cannot perceive past or future anymore. If there is an unexpected loud sound then that creates adrenaline because it is recognized as something potentially dangerous in the environment, which is fear. If there is a bear running at me and I have the desire to protect my body, that creates adrenaline because of the desire to avoid it, which is fear. Anger is a desire to protect yourself or someone else. I don't get angry at people or objects, but rather the situation itself is what causes the anger. Once the desire to protect is fulfilled or stopped then there is no anger. However, there are certain types of emotions which completely vanish. These are the emotions which are only perpetuated by comparing yourself to something else, these emotions strictly occur only by imagining yourself. For example, greed never occurs again. Jealousy never occurs again. Etc.

Yes exactly. There is a profound enmeshment which can be observed with emotion and desire. They are literally the exact same thing, there is no difference between the two. This is not semantics. The object of desire creates the emotion, and so it is the exact same thing as the emotion itself. If you love the taste of vanilla, then the taste of vanilla becomes equivalent to love, because you can't love something without experiencing it. A desire as I would define it can be perceived as having two dichotomies: The intention to be with something, which means you exist in its proximity (love) The intention to be away from something, which means you don't exist in its proximity (fear) Either you want to be with something, or you don't. And then from that you get love, joy, excitement, jealousy, anger, hate, etc. All the negative/undesirable emotions are just aversion (fear), and all the positive/desirable emotions are just assimilation (love). The emotions come in different "flavors" because they describe different situations in which they can manifest, but it is essentially the same desire of aversion (fear) and assimilation (love). All desires simultaneously create the opposite desire of aversion or assimilation. If you desire to be with a person, then you must also simultaneously desire to avoid losing that person. Both are the same desire. If you desire to have 100 dollars, then you must also simultaneously desire to avoid losing 100 dollars. Both are the same desire. The ego takes advantage of this two-pronged dynamic by imagining itself inside of the scenario that you want to avoid, which creates a fear of that imagination, and so it turns the imagination into an object of fear which seeks to threaten the initial desire. No. You can't serve something that doesn't exist. Yes, when the imagined self vanishes so do all the dualisms you relate it to. That is the non-dual state.

The issue is not really those emotions, but rather the desires that they are trying to perpetuate. The emotions are an intelligent reaction to what you desire. What needs to be seen is that the thing you are desiring is based on a false premise of "self", once that is realized then the desires and emotions automatically correct themselves to serve what is not imaginary. If you desire to perpetuate an imagined version of yourself, then you will feel the emotional response which helps to serve that desire. Your emotions only become maladaptive when they are created to serve an imaginary self, otherwise they serve exactly what you want. As an example, if you are scared of the future because you imagine yourself in it, then you will desire to physically change your environment in order to stop imagining that future scenario, and this creates the emotion of fear through imagination. The desire to change your environment is literally equivalent to fear in that scenario. As another example, If you desire to protect the belief that you are intelligent, this will create anger/jealousy/fear towards anything that might change that belief. The emotion serves what you want, but the error is not being able to see that there is no "you" in the future, and there is no "you" which can believe that it is intelligent. The fundamental object of desire in both scenarios is incorrect, it does not exist outside of imagination. I elaborate more on how emotions work here:

What is the entity that gets absorbed into thoughts? What sense perception is that entity made of? Touch? Sound? Sight? Smell? Is it really there? Check if you can find it. You also say that attention gets absorbed into thoughts. What is attention actually made of? Can attention exist without an object to pay attention to? What is the difference between the object of attention and attention itself? Perhaps they are both the same thing? Yes. I can remember things, that is memory, but the memory is not something that happened to "me." I can think about the future, but the future doesn't happen to "me" either. In both scenarios, there is no object or entity called "me" which can be in the past or future. The past or future cannot exist at the same time, therefore there can never be an entity which experiences both past and future, that is experientially impossible. No, it is not secondary. All separation is strictly just imagination. The belief essentially boils down to "I am affected by past and future." It is equivalent to your sense of time. You create this sense of time only through imagination. It also does not help that language is inherently dualistic. I am not sure what exactly causes the creation of self-image or ego in the first place, whether it is parents, language, society, etc. But those are probably valid speculations. The people around us pass their pathologies onto us. As an example, in current experience, the identity "I am a human" is actually not experienced. "A human" is an abstraction of current experience. Thinking that you are a human is different from being a human. The experience of a human perfectly contains everything inside of it, including smell, sight, sound, touch, etc. It is not an isolated experience of a singular human. You can only abstract yourself as "a human" through imagination. There are sensations in experience, that much is true. But, is there an entity observing those sensations? Is there an entity which observes the body? Is there an entity which imagines a voice? What sensation is the entity which observes those sensations going to be made out of? It is possible. It can happen in an instant, very simply. Just takes a bit of inquiry. The frequency of thoughts is in direct proportion to how important you believe it is to think. If you believe you exist inside of thoughts, then you will think incessantly because you think that your survival depends on it. Fear is a strong emotion and desire, and if your thoughts can create that emotion and desire then you wont be able to stop thinking until you look directly at it and figure out what it is actually driving that emotion and desire. Yes. That's good. I remember a bit about your situation.

I didn't say it was random. I am saying you don't choose what it is. You didn't choose the flavor of an apple, and you didn't choose to love that flavor, you are simply someone who loves apples. And then if I ask "why do you like apples?" you say "because they are sweet", not "because I decided they are sweet and then I decided that I like sweet things." The reasoning "because they are sweet" is what I would call your "intelligent reaction." It's not that you don't have free will, it's just that free will doesn't exist at all even conceptually because it depends on a self which chooses between imagined scenarios. It is like dividing by zero, it just doesn't apply to reality. It's more like reality just gives you a bunch of things and then you have to maneuver yourself through those things with your given intelligence. Like how when you play a video game you are given a certain set of controls to conduct yourself with. This is decently accurate as far as it might go religiously/philosophically. What you call "impulse" is what I would simply just call "desire" (and I think you mean the same). These desires are actually existentially equivalent to emotions, there is no difference between emotions and desire. Once you realize that you cannot imagine yourself, this permanently removes the "self", and thus your desires become "tuned" with "love" or "God's will" as you say. There is also a difference between seemingly "negative" emotions generated through an imagined self and emotions generated through a non-imagined experience. Fearing a bear or a loud unexpected sound has nothing to do with self, for example, but fearing a scenario in the future does. The desire to avoid a bear that is in front of you is equivalent to fear, but it is not necessarily ego because it does not require you to imagine a self.

You are assuming that it is true by making existential assumptions about the properties of consciousness. I am saying those assumptions are ill-founded. In philosophy, Google defines "solipsism" as: the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist. It does not say anything beyond that about consciousness or whatever else. It directly addresses your own existential assertion that if something "exists consciously besides now" then solipsism will be true.

I'm sorry but I have no idea what you mean

You are essentially saying "if something exists outside of existence then solipsism is false" which I disagree with. You are trying to turn existence/consciousness into an object which is separate from itself, which just wont work because it betrays its nature. Rather than assuming this "if", it is much better to just get to the root of it and ask: Can a thing be conscious? That should be the focus. Otherwise you will entertain all these imagined scenarios ad infinitum without even knowing if it fundamentally makes sense to begin with. Your mind can certainly create distinctions that are imaginary. But there is existence which is not imaginary or distinguished. If you observe what causes separation in the first place, then you also see what is not separate, and thus you also see what is not imaginary. From there you can realize what the duality of "you" and "other" is actually made of.

Solipsism can't be "actual" because it requires you to assume that consciousness is generated by a thing/person/entity. It's like a perversion of the mind-body problem. What possibility are you hoping for? What does it actually look like?