gettoefl

You are right that all outer conflict is the result of inner conflict. To see greater amounts of conflict all around compared to someone else by this logic is good since it tells you your inner state is fractured and that you need a lot of work. Ultimately whether it is more conflict or less conflict is academic, it is conflict and needs inner resolution. Note well that when you change the world still is the same. Where before you perceive destructive conflict, now is reflected unshakeable peace. Peace was always what was there. You chose to cover it with your internal turmoil whereby you were mad at God.

Excellent, it seems we’re basically in sync here. Let me add one careful distinction to wrap it up cleanly. Enlightenment is for sure post-paradigm, and for sure no paradigm is the Truth. But paradigms are not all equal in function. Some obscure while some loosen their own grip. When you state that “there are no real or unreal paradigms” this is true at the endpoint, but on the way there it can flatten one important difference: some frameworks reinforce false assumptions, while others exist precisely to expose and undo them. So when I say “real” versus “unreal,” I’m not suggesting a final metaphysical system. I’m pointing to a diagnostic distinction rather than an ultimate one. This posits a way of noticing whether a paradigm is being used to explain reality or to release the need for explanation altogether. Sanity, as I’m using it, isn’t allegiance to one paradigm. It’s the moment false assumptions are no longer taken as unquestioned. After that, even the tools used to get there are dropped. And so in that sense, I say that enlightenment is post-paradigm. But it’s reached not by denying all distinctions upfront, but by letting the distinctions do their work and then drop away. So I think we agree: sanity isn’t adopting a better model of reality. It’s no longer mistaking any perceived model for reality at all. In point of fact, perception cannot reveal truth since it is a headset designed to distort truth. Seeing is not knowing. To taste sanity means to switch off and go within.

And demean themselves into the very objectification they claim to hate. The words girl and boy for adults is becoming highly problematic and needs cancelling.

I agree that clarity and sanity are inseparable but that’s exactly the point where right now we’re diverging. The disagreement isn’t about whether clarity matters. It’s about what clarity is clarity of. There is certainly a kind of clarity that operates within the relative framework: sharper concepts, fewer contradictions, better self-regulation, longer access to certain states, more coherence of experience. That kind of clarity absolutely admits degrees, development, and process and both of us agree that it’s valuable. Psychology, philosophy, and contemplative practice all work effectively. But that is not the same thing as clarity about the framework itself. You can be abundantly clear, coherent, and refined while still taking a false premise as an assumption. In that case, clarity comes across as real, but it’s clarity in service of error. That’s what I mean when I say clarity within insanity. The mind is functioning well, but it’s functioning inside an assumption that’s never been held up to scrutiny. When I say sanity is binary, I do not mean that people “randomly stumble into it by mistake,” nor that there’s not a process. The process is very real but what that process does is remove interference, not gradually construct sanity. Sanity isn’t built up; it’s unveiled. And unveiling something is far different from refining something. Think of it this way: You can progressively clean a window, right? That’s a process with degrees. But the moment you see through it rather than at the dirt, that shift itself isn’t gradual right? What is gradual is how consistently you stop smudging it again. So yes: 1. There is a process. 2. There are degrees of stability, integration, and embodiment. 3. There are many partial clarities along the way. But the core correction - seeing that the starting idea was wrong - is not a matter of degree. You either continue to assume it, or you don’t. That’s the binary that I’m pointing to. So I’m by no means moving goalposts; I’m distinguishing refinement within a model from recognition that the model itself was was based on a house of cards. The first scales while the second doesn't. That’s not a miracle in the sense of randomness. It's simply what happens when the idea of a separated universe is no longer defended.

What you’re describing is clarity within a unreal framework, not sanity itself. Seeing more clearly through illusion is still seeing illusion. Staying longer in a non-dual state within experience is still a state, and states come and go. You’re describing refinement of perception inside a hallucination, not the end of mistaking it for reality. Sanity can't be a continuum within insanity. That will be like saying there are degrees of sobriety while still drunk. You can be less confused, more functional, more insightful etc. but as long as perception is still structured around presumed separation, vulnerability, and time, the underlying premise hasn’t changed. What does admit degrees is stability in clarity, but not clarity itself. The recognition of truth is wholly binary: either the false premise is operating or it isn’t. What varies is how consistently that recognition is not interfered with afterward. So yes, there can be many experiences, insights, and refinements, but sanity itself is nothing to do with progressive accumulation. It’s the absence of an underlying mistake. Don’t approach it asymptotically; you either stop making the same error, or you don’t. Sanity within insanity is still insanity, just better lit.

I think you’re pointing at something important, but I frame it a bit differently. What we usually call “sanity” is already defined inside a massively distorted framework. By that measure, most people agree with one another and function, but that doesn’t mean they’re close to seeing reality clearly. In that sense, what passes for normal is already deeply muddled. Indeed, the world we collectively navigate is unstable, contradictory, and oriented around threat, competition, and death; and we take all this as given rather than questionable. Sanity, as you suggest, really is about seeing reality accurately. But I'd say it doesn't come in degrees the way intelligence or emotional regulation does. It’s not a matter of being more or less sane than the average. It’s a radical shift in orientation: either perception is filtered through fear, defense, and assumption, or it isn’t. Mixing clarity and distortion cannot produce partial truth; it just produces similar distortion that feels a bit convincing. That’s why I don’t think sanity is something that can be meaningfully quantified or measured on a continuum. Any measurement system is itself being built from the same assumptions it’s trying to evaluate! The problem isn’t lack of data; the issue is the lens through which data is interpreted. What is required then is willingness, which means a readiness to question one’s own interpretations rather than reinforce them, and to allow a different way of seeing to replace the familiar one. That shift doesn’t add information; it removes interference. And when that happens, clarity will not be incremental; rather it is immediate! So I agree that sanity is central to metaphysics, but I’d say it’s less about ranking minds and more about whether the mind is defending its story or willing to let it all go.

I am God, is ego. We are God, is truth. Should we say it? The statement communicates two truths - equality and identity. Teach it rather than speak it. This is what it means to be religious. If the other is irreligious and/or atheistic, they are antagonistic and damaged. They don't want to be taught and healed. If they are willing, teach the above. Everyone is called. Few have a desire to listen. In all cases, be a good religious role model. To teach is to demonstrate what God means every waking moment. God is the only meaning there is.

Memo to Deepak et al: Change the word girl to women in all past and future correspondence.to save one from any and all witch-hunts. People are being cancelled based on one word. The word girl for a woman is last century usage.

The only prerequisite is willingness. I am willing to give it my all by setting to one side all of me.

Yes JK is explaining the whole of spirituality in one quote, the pause is the entire practice, Our problem is we walk around thinking, i know. No I don't. I have to suspend the thought, I know, in order to have reality revealed. The only way to know reality right now is to first drop the thought I already know. ACIM calls it the holy instant; I forgive myself right now for thinking I know what this means. I repeat that it's the whole of spirituality. It is how truth is allowed to enter; I simply stop blocking it with all the crap in my head. Note that I say allow. I do nothing. I make no effort. Truth is all there is. Me is what impedes.

Best baker's dozen s-words for God: Source, Self, Sustenance, Silence , Space, Strength, Stillness, Sameness, Safety, Stability. Support, Spirit, Supreme Source: me

One things is needed: trust. What is trust? Letting go of what you think you are. So the real can enter. Few can conceive of undertaking such madness. It can only be done now not tomorrow. Tomorrow this tweet is forgotten and I am enjoying life again.

You dream for one reason. To wake up refreshed with all junk processed to live exuberantly. When you dream you suffer. Do you notice? And you make your reflections suffer too. Dreaming is but a glorified suffering asylum for yourselves. Why subject yourselves for a moment longer then absolutely necessary. The only morality is opening your eyes.

This is what every ego says. I am not good enough. I can't do this. I am feeble and slow. No. I am God playing a game of imagining that I am limited. All that I lack is making the choice to see things differently. I can change my mind right this moment and see the world anew.