Gesundheit

Not in the same way you're imagining grace.

Not really. I am saying that there are two contexts that are equally valid and that both of them answer the question fully, and you are rather taking only one context of them while ignoring the other context entirely and saying that you aren't. It seems you aren't seeing the value in answering questions from the other context possibly because you're identified with the original context, which you call "relative" as opposed to the other context (the absolute). So you want answers only from the same context, but not from the other. In other words, you're asking for stage Orange/Achiever answers, and rejecting stage Green/Pluralist answers. And I am giving you a stage Yellow/Context-Aware estimation for what I perceive to be the case in this thread. It may be pointless to try to point that out though, because I'm imagining these distinctions and it doesn't seem that you are. Or maybe you're imagining them as well but there's attachment in your relationship with certain contexts.

Not quite, actually. Distictions are not only imaginary, they're also projections onto the absolute. This "distinction" here is "very important" because it shows how all distinctions are a subjective interpretation of the absolute, which makes all distinctions arbitrary. It's one thing to say that distinctions are imaginary but still maintain an absolutist relationship with them, and it's another thing entirely to say that distinctions are imaginary projections and have a fluid relationship with them. When you say "they exist in form of imagination and you can still use them and pretend as they are real.", it sounds like you actually believe that they are real without pretending (which is completely fine btw, I believe that some distinctions are fine, and others believe other distinctions are fine except mine). But the realness of distinctions is subjective. You can't make me see a distinction that you're imagining unless I want to see it. If I don't see it, it literally doesn't exist for me, and you really can't do anything about it. You can't make a donkey to sing, because singing is a distinction imagined by you, and the donkey simply doesn't share your imagination. When you get answers like: "There is no you, meditation doesnt exist, everything is you etc..", they're actually completely valid regardless of context. The thing with your thread here is that you are asking people to follow the context of the question, but those people are actually telling you that the context is irrelevant in the first place and that you should rise above it. In my view, that is a valid perspective, and it has value, yet still limited because it does not work well for the context you're using. Then again, what if the context itself is unnecessary? What if you don't actually need to work within that context? What if you will benefit more from letting go and rising above the context? What if it's possible to take both contexts (the no-context context, and the context context) as valid?

I'm saying relative = Absolute. What some people call relativity as opposed to Absolute is pure BS. There's no such a distinction.

Whoever told you that was lying to you.

There is no such a thing as relative answers.

Some people have no shame. They kill the innocent and then come to their funeral to make stunts.

You're imagining things, that's all.

Because she's incredibly hot?

This is actually very wrong. The same way you can repel a woman who was initially attracted to you, you can definitely attract a woman who wasn't. That doesn't necessarily work on all women, but it is still possible. The trick is simple, just raise your sexual market value. There are several ways to do so, and self-improvement is one of them.

No one is forcing you or any other man or woman to develop yourselves. If you feel good enough, good. If you don't, join us here and become better.

@Zigzag Idiot Let me correct what I said there. There's no such thing as an unconditional human experience. Human = Conditions.

@Keyhole I don't get it.

@Vlad_ It will probably decrease your overall health if you avoid sex and masturbation entirely. If you want optimal performance, you gotta find the proper balance for you. Repression won't work. I've tried it for years and failed. Sex drive is a fundamental part of the human nature. But sometimes it goes overboard.

Two different chicks everyday. It depends on how we define health.

Cuz they're survival machines.

Mind your own business.

To reduce suffering, basically. It's not a soccer game. It isn't about winning or making extraordinary achievements. I'll answer that when I "become" enlightened.

@Leo Gura Are you confused?

Meditation & Minimalistic lifestyle.

I don't know. It seems pretty useless and purely philosophical.

@Etherial Cat What I mean is that humans are subject to illusion & self-deception. Everyone has certain loopholes in their perception or unconscious mind. For example, men get aroused by physical beauty, and women get aroused by strength. Of course, not all people are the same, but as a general idealized concept for the ease of communication. The whole game with attraction is to show the person I am trying to attract that I have what they subconsciously desire. That is it. No more, no less. If I show the value I can provide to the person I'm trying to attract, they will be attracted to me if the values I'm offering match their interests, and they won't if what I'm offering doesn't match their interests. It's such a simple concept. Do you consider any of that devilry or manipulation?

@Etherial Cat You didn't answer the second question. I can take care of myself, you don't have to worry about me.

If you (human) really aren't "hackable", then why do you feel this urge to correct me? You don't really have any obligations to do so, so you're doing it with your full consent. Doesn't that at least say something about "hackability"?