Reciprocality

Begging the question, why do you conform to a forum, and why do a forum want to prove reality as imaginary?

So lets cut right to the chase, how afraid are you of actually dying? How fast would your heart pump if i stood in front of you with a gun right now? Would you be 'ready' for it? We have each our own beliefs of what happens thereafter, Gura and all of us can not but BELIEVE when we are in our normal states *conceptualizing beyond sensation, so i ask you: if your belief is that everything you know will diminish, how do you feel about that? That everything will diminish and your new state of being has no sensation to it, nothing to contrast you privious life against, 'eternaly'? Presumably your heart starts raising BECAUSE that is the belief? Is is but a bodily insitinct on premordial premises, thus seperate to a higher self? If so you conclude; then may i ask, is it not YOU who made distinctions, and separated yourself from other enteties? In the spirit of dualism? *conceptualizing beyond sensation as in imagining within and not actualy SEEING with your eyes, TO THE DEGREE you can know they are different. I know my heart would skyrocket due to existential fear.

Hatred and resent do not match, there is no winning denying the resentment one feels for leaders whose actions devestate ones neighbours and country.

If you do not know those details how can you be sure "the bigger picture" is naught but fantasy? Like literally impossible to aquire, just like a million dollar from thin air. Or rather, for simplicity's sake, how detailed must a "bigger picture" be before it can beforehand be know to represent the actual? The other version of the same question would be: how diffuse will the 'bigger picture' be before it no longer represent what it claims to, beforehand?

Well, existence is the one never agreed upon word so to even use it is to beg the question as to how one defines it. If phenomenology is the ground upon which all which exist may do so, and phenomena is to be defined as the known sensation, then by neccesity there were no existence before you had your first one, and as your memory may be flawed you can cut of many, many years. But if phenonmenology is assumed secondary, then maybe. (not even here you can say yes, because you would then reference phenomena as a first principle to try negating phenomena as a first principle. The above is a deduction for how CERTAINTY of independent materialism is absurd, and can be done by you long before a non-dual experience, it does not however say anything at all about what IS real, and thus distinguishing itself from metaphysics as epistemological theory. (if you would find interest in how that distinction works)

Taxes ought be a communal good, in many countries that is its standard perception. In the US taxation is considered theft, maybe to some extent understandable seeing what it funds. But who will pay for alternatives to oil and gas in the coming years so it is NOT the bottom who needs to do it? The government, which neccesitates a plan, a plan for proportionate taxation. This is an inevitable ideology called social democracy, and Americans are next in line. Healthcare, complete education, a green new deal, a judiciary, Police departments.. the list goes on, and workers have already made themselves worthy of it, there will come a day when these are your American rights, to adequate degrees. edit: As Forestluv alludes to, these numbers of 62% or the likes are by themselves uninteligable.

If gold were the absolute, it would not need the relation to a non-existent neckless, neither the forms to which it could be melted for a proven point. It could be of no difference to a neckless neither, which were your point of the second quoted statement.

Selfishness could be assigned as a cause for meat eating, then again so can the avoidance. Is a cat selfish for eating a rat? Well sure, but the meaning of the word selfish certaintly do not fit the bullseye of utility within the conversation regarding the cat's survival, nor does it a man's survival. For it is categoricaly different to hunt a deer in hunger, and another time for profit in a place where food is all but scarce. Aswell is it not the same to hunt a deer with a knife, as it is shooting it from a thousand jards. To shoot a wild cow for gambling money from afar is disasterous, but would you say the same for a man killing his well fed and well seen to housecow so to feed his starving child? That would be a claim, and naught but a claim.

Great and hillarious! Could do with some acting lessons though but all fine, haha. : )

The United States of America.

Maybe its lazyness which needs beating you,for that, seeing the nature of indolence, may take a while.

They will say that everything which is real is construction. Then they will say that everything which is construction is inadequately real, that “its just a construction”, meaning by definition: not real enough to their idealization of real, lesser than. Now THEY have made a duality of what once were not, they have said real is both real and unreal as well as inadequate. Because what would be the alternative to what they now consider “mere construction”? Necessary an ideal. If they did not call it inadequately real they would just be, but then PERHAPS, the lie of the ideal would evaporate and PERHAPS disillusion even the enlightened one. And of course.. so it does, and again, and again. But that is all reason, and already made dual and extinct from mere sensation in the dual “non-dual” sage. How come though, that the experience of non-duality is that which causes the biggest duality of all? The construction and the ideal. Now you may think this were an “attack” on spirituality, god, enlightenment or the likes, but read closely and it’ll be apparent it is not. You learn about it, try UNLEARN all about it, the former is your why.

Whether the universe exists on the one hand of materialism and realism or on the other of subjectivism or non-dualism, even solipsism and idealism the creation of the material world is a necessary phenomenological process. Now why is it that the materialist AND the enlightened guru will conclude the one or the other as THE TRUTH when to the degree we can understand anything is to the degree we understand both isomorphic to each other? (you can ofcourse disagree on the last inference but that would itself be a proof contrary to the disagreement). The brain as well as the universe is ones construction, necessarily true and here I agree. But the construction is also the only thing there is (only thing which can be know to exist), that does not mean what is constructed is less real, that materialism is less real. Nor does the potential of metaphysical deconstruction follow *‘deducably’, but I assume this is already granted by most mystics as logic is them accidental. Or do you find me wrong, i'd like to be challanged on it. *deducably as in deduction, I don't think it is a word but it sure should be.

Ever heard the idea "get outside your head"? Among all the tips one can get on the topic this one stands out for me, and that it does because socializing is a primordial act, a game of sensation more so than intelect. How long have our prefrontal cortex wandered these lands of our planet? 100 000 in the current form, 300 000? 1 000 000? It pales in comparison to that of socialization which probably occured in our ancestery a billion year prior. If you peoplewatched in your younger years you probably noticed a lot of dumb shit were said, but only ever taken issue with if said by the some outgroup as opposed to ingroup. The ingroup do not have high intelectual standard by which they infer deserving members, but rather they FEEL and connect EMOTIONALY with the fascial and bodily expressions of their peers, their physical conduct if you will, their lightheartedness rather. Which is the very dichotomy to how an analytical being such as you and me spontaneously functions (by no cause of any inteligable will). The good news is that the brain can be turned down to 20% with practise. So to enjoy those natural signals other as well as our selves sends by default. The process can by proxy or implicitly be found in some of Leo's videos, altough i can not name one on the go.

Biden wins. 2026 is the year, relatively small enviremantal changes (for the better) has occured partialy due to the U.S relatively moderate green 'reforms'. Halfway trough Bidens reelected term he became to bold for Office and Kamela is now in charge of the enlightened world. Despite the mended bond USA and Europe inbetween the more conscious counterpart have grown inpatient to the slow pace by which American policy is progressing. 2 more years and despite sanctions posed by FN and NATO on the US no real change is yet to occur. A new reelection cycle is around the corner, only to be met by a well organized Europe and their incentive to take political power over a sctrict plutocratic America. Seeing how the Biden office were forced to decrease a long overdue military budget already in 2022 they were no match for a unified Europe with allies resulting in a timid Harris kissing her powerhunger goodbye, only to take job as a prisonguard. (how unironic) It seems a prisonguard needs their prison to guard and a wall were thereby buildt, only now around a ridiculed and bewildred prison-sentenced orangutang.

The mapping is gender theory, of which non is experts. And the territory is one individual finding its place by means of that map (implying diffusely it may be construction all the way down), this forum may not be a great representation of the map but neither is therapists. I believe that to be adequatly guided trough this process will draw on reflections in quantities of people and not a few with "authority" seeing how fluid and uneasily defined lgbtq+ identities are.

Male/Female as you allude to is NOT the same as Man/Woman. But if the latter two's relative construction is the identitarian's essence, how come you assign identity to those of the former when those are the very strict and materealistic, dogmatic and conservative views one (presumably) wants to fight down?

Many utilitarian philosophies in this thread, all but contingent on one thing, the incentive itself, the intuition from which action may ensue. If there can be no such change (presumably it could, although 7 years can surely be 7 more) there will be NO utility in those means presented in the thread either. Even worse is the indulgent idea of nondual experience as the mode for your ultimate goal, in that it may take you a lifetime for integration. Why should the path before you be laid down on the assumption that your desire for this man is less than that of an alternative one, ought the inclination not be to PURSUE the desire to its conclusion? Emotions are not to be undermined, furthermore it WILL not be undermined and remains thus shrouded only so long.

Yes, if you define right wing as corruption and coorporatism, socialized economy for the wealthy. But that begs the question of capitalistic ideology as it is the actual standard for ‘right’ wing theory. By the latter standard Scandinavian countries are both more capitalistic than the U.S aswell as they are more socialdemocratic. Point being that saying the mainstream leans right (under the premise i assumed you did) is like saying nothing at all to the actual meaning of an innteligable Left-Right spectrum, especially though *accidentaly seeing how the same ‘socialism for the few’ policy of the nominal left wing Democratic Party is the other side of the spectrum. *accidental as in non-neccesary, and without which prior points do no loose all meaning.

Hello, i were looking at the guidelines for a little while only to come across this one "*No denial of enlightenment, awakening, spirituality, Love, God, or Consciousness. If you feel these things are not real, then this forum is just not for you." I assume it have been questioned and answered before but i hope to contribute with a new angle. 'Denial' just as 'lies' is categoricaly only possbile to the extent one is aware of the actuality of the matter at hand. You can henceforth not be denying the brightness of the sun if you were born blind even if you say its impossible there could ever be such a thing as brightness. Most people are not aware of enligtenment non less experienced it for themselves, there is thereby (regarding those subjects and those only) nothing to deny, therefore i presume by the statement it is meant that if a moderator justifies the deletion of comments sceptical of the ontology behind god they can only to the extent they assumes deception in the individual as a premise? I for one would find that fair. In any case i love theories and sensations streching my and others ability to reason, but that love will have a crippled leg if it can not fourish in an envirement in which also the sceptic can partake, now as the reader hopefully assumed this post is meant only to have an open minded discussion on the topic and with some luck a few responses from the moderators or the likes.

Gender identity is likely the most primal of all, and by extention the most innocent. Innocent in that ones will is it completely numb, so one better accept it and so does anyone else with any reason. I have heard about people being comfortable with their body not extending their identity, and will recomend searching into it on utube for a closer look. If that is not the route then changing the body have also shown to be benefiscial for some, and for others not so much. In either case i hope it works out for you. : )

I would claim nobody can understand that they are alive at all, non less how and why, neccesitated by the nature of understanding as opposed to being. To have a claim, to undestand, to aim, to recognize is all neccesitated by ego both in the lowest of stages and the highest. Only the higher ones fear not loosing it as much and as often. Essence as opposed to Existence is yet another way to conceptualize "I" and "self", and thereby do not exist, or only does so by extention of those essentials turned inwards by means of meditations or pshycadelics. The only thing which exist is what all experience have in common, which is the only alternative to experiences *positive value. *Positive as in quantitative/qualitative, i can add modality altough that will beg some confusion.

JBP with the orange core of egoic responsebility, be ego a self, familial and culture-serving identity.

If the universe is in experience, then the planet>country>house>body>brain>experience is in experience, which means that in experience there is infinite regression of experience (as far as human apprehension of logic is concerned), can science as of 2020 prove this elsewise mathematical neccesary concept? Can an ideal science prove it? Ought one even strive for its proof or do we rather disregard proof as the cornerstone for relative quantification? Alternatively do you disregard the premise of the universe inside experience or the conclusion of infinite regression? If there is no brain then conclusively there is no body/universe either, can science as a neccesary *connexion between brain and universe be done if there is nothing of either? (relevant question only if one claims there is no brain) Is ideal enacted logic itself bottlenecking human knowledge or is human bottlenecking the ideal logic (and not only the one which it usually performes). *by connexion it is meant accidental and supplementary yet neccesary with regards to a totality.

Trump is a lovely man with great humour and a strong sence of leadership, he is the spiritual guru the world needs in times as this and will go down in history second only to Jesus.