gettoefl

Sick or healthy hasn't anything to do with me. Let body do what a body does. It will die in a matter of time. I will be okay however. Find and stay with the changeless within.

Children and truth are incompatible. Have to choose one or the other. Them having the best of everything is all that matters. You sacrifice yourself. You will claim that it is possible to have both. Good luck.

Prefer a gent-girl personally

Waking up begins very modestly: with seeing that there is actually a choice here. A choice to continue enacting the same patterns of fear, self-protection, and harm. Or to step out of them for good. Whatever we decide reality ultimately is, suffering is not mandatory, whether inflicted on myself or on others. You of course can say to me, “I’m fine living this life, thanks,” and that’s a valid choice after which I leave you in peace. For me, remembering what I am, all the while without negating the human structure, opens a lighter way of living, one with less compulsion and less damage. My choice is for that.

The mind isn’t a mistake of reality; it’s limitlessness laboring under the belief that it is limited. From that mistaken belief, suffering arises - both for itself and for others. What’s needed isn’t to turn the mind off, but for it to wake up from the confusion it’s in. Spiritual work exists precisely to facilitate that awakening. For me, the work unfolds as gradually choosing awareness over illusion, extending forgiveness instead of judgment, and learning to see everything through the eyes of love rather than fear, such that apparent conflict becomes again what it always was, unvarnished wholeness.

Yes good idea. You can even sweeten it with honey or peanut butter but I kind of like bland food.

If success comes your way, it's hard to care about truth. Money is your truth - how to make it keep it spend it. What more is there to life, you understandably reason. I have made it. Everyone wants to be me. I am God here. And if I'm not, nobody cares. This is perfectly good enough. There is no way life could be better than this incarnation I am having. I am living the dream. I am loving the dream. And if you tell me otherwise you can dream on. To not fail is the worst curse.

I make it the night before (less than 10 minutes to make) and let it set and combine in fridge overnight. Could definitely do a batch lot and can freeze to save more time. The size given lasts 4 days about 300 calories a serving. I eat as a dessert for lunch. Can adjust the ingredients in any way. I started to add a little marmite/yeast extract for more flavor since it is zero sugar so it needs some flavor.

Yes it is better but I am lazy and can't wait.

I think the key point of divergence is this: you treat appearance as sufficient evidence of being the ultimate source or ground of reality. I agree that the self appears as a center, but appearance alone does not establish causality. Something can be fully real as an experience while still not being the source of reality itself. My concern is not to deny the reality of the self, but to avoid silently upgrading what merely appears into what ultimately causes everything. The distinction is not between illusion and reality, but between manifestation and source. In other words, what shows up need not explain why anything shows up at all. Because, in my understanding, appearances can be fully experienced and deeply meaningful without being the ultimate cause of themselves or anything else. It may therefore be profitable to consider that appearances are nothing more than effects rather than the source of reality.

What I’m communicating here is that this position still upholds a separate self, only now in a more sophisticated, so-called totalized form. To say the self is “the whole manifested as self” may deny hierarchy, but it plainly keeps self as the operative site whence reality is affirmed, experienced, and spoken. For me this is but a refinement of the self, not an undoing. A realized perspective doesn't mean an enlightened or expanded self that fluently articulates totality; it’s the recognition that what seemed to be a self was never the focal point of reality at all. In that sense, nothing about the self becomes ultimate. What’s realized is precisely that there is no one there to occupy the center, refined or otherwise. And this opens the door to a new improved more intelligent kind of seeing, where experience is no longer organized around a ‘someone’ who has it.

What is helpful is to box beliefs into two categories: first is small, fixed and unwavering and second is open to change and are basically unimportant so if others have a different view you don't mind.

I think this is where the disagreement becomes unavoidable, and I’ll state it starkly. Your central point is implacable insistence that “the self as total reality in self-mode” is merely a neutral description. I’m saying this isn’t the case. It is overtly an ontological move that installs the self as the locus through which totality is affirmed. You go one to say that the self doesn’t “revolve around the idea,” but the structure of the statement gives the self a vaunted position: reality is hereby articulated as self. That is not innocent. It is exactly how centrality survives without explicit belief. You continue to reframe the issue as if the presented alternative were “eliminating the self” or treating it as a mistake. That’s a false dichotomy. No one here is denying the self, its preferences, its biological drives, or its narrative functions. What is being questioned is the necessity of the self remaining the reference point of meaning, even in an open, frictionless, luminous state. Do you not see that saying “the self is enlightened” still assigns awakening to a subject. The issue is not repression versus expression; it’s whether experience still orbits a fixed center that affirms, implicitly, here is what I am. Concerning death and threat: you propose the self will always be oriented toward preservation and avoidance. At the biological level, of course. But you’re conflating organismic response with existential organization. The point is not that fear responses vanish; it’s that they no longer define what is at stake. As long as openness is framed as what frees the self from threat, anxiety, or imprisonment, the self remains at the axis. You’re right that monastics often got muddled here. but replacing repression with integration fails to resolve the deeper issue if the self is still what experience is assumed to be about. Finally, when you say “it is the self that is enlightened, not other,” you’re pinpointing the exact limit I’m pointing to. That framing cannot see beyond itself because it assumes enlightenment must belong to someone. What I’m pointing to isn’t mystical ecstasy, holiness, or preference-erasure. It’s the collapse of the need for ownership of openness itself. Preferences can remain. Narratives can remain. Action can remain. What quietly falls away is the requirement that any of this confirm or instantiate a self as totality. So yes of course, you are right that the self is an expression, not the foundation. But you are stopping short of letting that fact actually land. You allow the self to be not ultimate, yet still indispensable as the place where reality recognizes itself. Therein is the nagging split. And until that goes, the self did not dissolve into openness at all; it merely learned to speak the language of totality fluently.

Your sense of self is so fragile that some passer-by can trample on it and change who you think you are?

I agree that openness is a decisive shift, and that a closed self is a form of quiet madness that most people normalize. Where I still differ is in treating interpretation as irrelevant once openness occurs. Interpretation does not cease simply because the system is open; what changes is what purpose interpretation is serving. An open self can still implicitly interpret reality as “what I now am”, namely as something that confirms its identity as totality. That move is extremely subtle, but it keeps a center in place, even if that center is expansive, fluid, and luminous. Saying “the self is total reality in the form of the self” is precisely where I think a residual split hides. It sounds non-dual, but it still installs the self as the reference point through which totality is known, owned, or instantiated. Openness, in the deeper sense that I’m pointing to, is not the self recognizing itself as totality. Rather it is the quiet loss of the need to recognize anything at all. Totality does not need to be occupied by a self, even in an open form. I also observe that death and threat are still doing important work in your framing. The self opens so it will no longer be under threat, no longer anxious, no longer imprisoned. That motivation assumes a center that must be safeguarded, even if now through openness rather than defense. What I’m pointing to is a shift where openness is no longer needed for the self, not to save it, complete it, or dissolve its fear, but happens seamlessly because the self is no longer the axis around which experience is organized. So yes, articulation does matter. This isn't primarily to dismantle belief systems about gods, purposes, or metaphysics. It matters because certain articulations quietly reinforce a center that says, “I am what this life is about now, just without any friction.” The difference I’m teasing out isn’t between closed and open, or ignorant and enlightened; it’s between an open self that accomplishes merging with reality, and the end of the very need for any self to stand in that position at all.