Someone here

Agreed. Ok lol. I understood what you said btw. Just not sure how it's linked to the post you quoted.

Let me ask you this.. Is it 'you' who is no one outside of him or 'me'? (relative me vs you :Leo vs Akshay) Because you are saying it works like a dream where there is only ONE Dreamer dreaming the WHOLE THING....So you are not open that simply there can be two dreamers or 7 billion separate dreams?

@mandyjw don't go full 'Nahm-mode' on me and explain yourself lol...

Well I've tried a lot of stuff (material stuff) and as expected I end up craving for more. Because the nature of those things is transitory. It's like chasing a mirage. So I'm convinced that chasing experience or external conditions Will not result in deep satisfaction (and this goes against what 99% of people are busy doing). Will result in a temporary satisfaction before the longing resurfacing again. I haven't found a resolve to this issue yet. Except maybe complete monk-mode and abstaining.. Fasting etc... Which doesn't work either. Some people are just not born to be monks.

Death is a belief. Nothing factual about it. The universe might disappear In a blink of an eye for no good reason and you might not have to experience death. (hope this ain't too radical lol).

I think I agree with this conception. Although I won't boil it down to just that. A question tho.. How do you go about eliminating that ego.. In the teaching it's illusory in the first place..? For example if you work on thoughts (what's known as monkey mind).. There is no thinker..it's just an explosion of mental imagery spontaneously foaming out of the 'mind'.. (as one example). Yes exactly. Furthermore.. I can't picture how are you supposed to hang out permanently ego-less..? As Alan watts puts it.. "you wouldn't know who's shoe to put on in the morning" lol.

No matter what you do.. There is always a sense of lack.. Incompleteness.. Disappointment.. Not good enough.. Etc... Why is this the case?? Do you have answer to this question?

@Valwyndir just curious.. Are you Connor Murphy?

Inspired by @The Lucid Dreamer. With the suggestion that Beauty is an absolute. And omnipresent quality inherent in existence itself. What makes something beautiful and something ugly? What makes something beautiful beautiful? What is beauty? Is it an objective universal value? How can it be objective when people have really different orientations and tastes when it comes to beauty and art? Is the picture attached at the bottom equally beautiful as a pile of dog shit? And who's to decide which is ugly and which is beautiful? What is beautiful about a beautiful face? Some argue that the more symmetrical your face is.. the more beautiful it is ..But why? Why is symmetry beautiful and asymmetrical faces ugly? I guess I'm asking a question similar to why is sugar sweet or why sweet is sweet.?.. . At some point we just hit rock bottom and well.. It's just the way it is. A biological evolutionary explanation is that it's a survival mechanism. The brain colors your perception of the world and show you beautiful the stuff that is necessary for survival. You see a super model beautiful because that's helpful for urging you to mate with her and breed. Your dog doesn't find beautiful people to be beautiful because it's unnecessary for his survival. While he does see beauty In dogs more easily. and you don't. What this perceptive fails to explain is art. What good is art to survival? Though there is no generally agreed definition of what constitutes art.. and ideas have changed over time.. general descriptions typically include an idea of imaginative or technical skill stemming from human agency.. and creation. Share some ideas from outside the box about the nature of beauty and art.

I don't know how to answer this question. They are surely linked together (I think this is obvious enough). Yet they are not mutually exclusive either.

I don't know if by "reason" you mean a pre-planned purpose or intelligent design. It seems like there is no such thing. But there is certainly "cause" to everything (apparently). So there is cause and effect.

@martins name Perhaps the most familiar basic issue in the theory of beauty is whether beauty is subjective.. Located ‘in the eye of the beholder’.. or whether it is an objective feature of beautiful things.which is the primary question I'm asking here. A pure version of either of these positions seems implausible.. for many reasons. and many attempts have been made to split the difference or incorporate insights of both subjectivist and objectivist accounts. Ancient and medieval accounts for the most part located beauty outside of anyone's particular experiences. Nevertheless.. that beauty is subjective was also a commonplace from the time of the sophists. My take is that Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them.. and each mind perceives a different beauty. One person may even perceive deformity.. where another is sensible of beauty etc. The judgment of taste is therefore not a judgment of cognition.. and is consequently not logical but aesthetical.. by which we understand that whose determining ground can be no other than subjective. Every reference of representations.. even that of sensations.. may be objective (and then it signifies the real elementof an empirical representation).. save only the reference to the feeling of pleasure and pain.. by which nothing in the object is signified.. but through which there is a feeling in the subject as it is affected by the representation

Title.. Becoming God - insights from 20 awakening experiences Leo becoming absolutely infinite

Interesting. Still the essence of what makes a beautiful object beautiful missing. What gives it the capacity to dissolve the duality between the witness and the witnessed. Philosophers who have given influential objectivist accounts include Plato. and in particular his Theory of the Forms... Where he believes that there is Abstraction realm of perfection and beauty and our world contains unperfect copies of these perfect images.

@zeroISinfinity ❤️

@Gesundheit you had to like cut few millimeters so that you don't get banned right ?

Yeah I guess Aesthetic relativism is part of the relativity of every objective concept. This comes from casting doubt on the possibility of direct epistemic access to the "external world".. and which therefore rejects the positive claim that statements made about the external world can be known to be objectively true. Beauty falls into the same category imo. Meaning it's relative and mind-assigned.

@Javfly33 sure about what?

@Javfly33 yes It is!

All the Money in the world will not make you healthy. And how is that done? To survive there sure must be ego. These things happen automatically. What about it? I get you. But then again I guess you can't have zero self-bias and continue to exist. As self to survive you need to have certain aversions against some stuff in order to survive (death and sickness for example).

Not discrediting whataver insights you might have.. But they just can't be objective due to the simple fact that two people can easily disagree about the level of beauty that a certain object have. Nope. I don't have any paradigms. Because all paradigms are limited and therefore only partially true. Not sure I understand what you mean.

"Desire is the root of suffering". -gautama siddhartha

What is 'unconditional pleasure'? Pleasure is a condition. Pleasure is not pain. And pain is not boredom. And boredom is not grief etc. Well perhaps if you followed my recent threads.. I discovered that there is no transcendental aspects of reality. So called material world is all there is. All that we are certain of at least. This gets tricky. I have to ask what do you mean by God? And what does 'true' mean? Is there a false nature? The true nature is already the case (since true) which is what you are directly experiencing all that time.

Well that can work up to a certain point and then you can't do it right? You just have to eat or otherwise you will starve and suffer until death. So My point you actually NEED stuff to be happy. And as soon as it lacks you will suffer.(namely food in this case). That goes against the idea of unconditional happiness. It seems happiness IS dependent upon certain things. Certain conditions. There is no way you will be happy while starving. You will feel like shit.

The point is that pain is inevitable. It's an intrinsic part of life. However.. Obviously if you could minimize your pain you would do it. It's not a realistic expectation to expect that you will never again in your life going to have a bad day... The hedonist works on minimizing pain not completely eliminating as that is not possible (there is no pleasure without some sort of pain or price).