Tim R

@Judy2 or Can you see that these two strategies, recognizing a thought as a thought & stopping to believe in it, are actually not that different from each other? Because a thought is only a thought so long as we think it is! So long as we believe in its reality. When we recognize a thought as a thought, it immediately loses (some of) its power. The key is not to have no activity of mind ("thoughts") at all, but to stop being fooled by thoughts. And that, in a sense, is the death of thought. Or rather, the realization that thought was never alive in the first place. That is the collapsing of mind and no-mind. But since I proposed to stop talking/thinking, which I meant quite literally, I'd still advocate for that I find it easier than searching for thoughts and trying to actively dispell them, but that's just personal preference. It can be difficult to stop talking though, especially when one works with people or lives together with people. I did it because I could it, because I lived completely on my own and alone.

What helps it to stop talking entirely. Stop talking to yourself, stop talking to others. The reason we feel ourselves and the world to be separated and made of things is because we believe our thoughts about it. Every time we say "I" or "you" or "this" or "that", that belief gets reinforced a little more. And vice versa, when we don't say it, it loses strenght.

"Your ego has about as much control over what goes on as a child sitting next to his father in a car with a plastic steering wheel." Alan Watts What happens, simply happens. It's not you who's doing it, but it's also not happening to you. You are the entire process. "Doing" and "happening" are one and the same process. It seems that this process is divided into what you are doing and what is happening to you, but this division is not real. But you must understand that whether you realize this or not makes no difference to what's going on. Go ahead, loose weight, approach women on the street, do whatever you woud like to do. Because whether you do that or whether you sit at home and rot away on reddit or whatever - both are the cosmic process, both are happening and doing simultaneously, and neither. You see?

It seems to be free will. There's no problem with that. Keep lifting up your hand. And when understanding comes, keep lifting up your hand.

Nice analogy!

I've seen a couple of threads now where people ask about using alcohol for personal development. Before diving any deeper into that question, it needs to be said that whatever benefits one feels to obtain from consuming even small quantities of alcohol, one must be terribly, terribly careful not to seek a justification for drinking. Because in the end, that's exactly what such a question might lead to, a justification for drinking. And once one begins to justify alcohol consumption - and it doesn't matter what exactly the justification is - there opens up the possiblity of entering into rather dangerous territory. Alcohol doesn't raise awareness, first of all. It can feel like it does, but that is just an illusion - what actually happens is that alcohol dampens our awareness, slows down our thinking, acts as a primary anxiolytic (like barbiturates or benzodiazepines) and produces euphoria. Do you suffer from anxiety or do you tend to overthink and worry a lot? That's where it might've helped you to see where you're mentally stuck, because when in a neurotic and or anxious state of mind, we're often incapable of seeing our mental processes from an objective point of view (we feel stuck in our thoughts and beliefs). Yes, it relieves stress, but only temporarily. In the long run and with regular consumption, alcohol increases your overall stress, both for your body and for your mind ( (its waste products are very toxic & withdrawal kicks in very quickly). That warm love you feel is the dopamie rush.

@Preety_India What do you mean by "flu"? Influenza? They're not even the same virus family, they only share the same kingom which is waaay up there in the phylogenetic tree, they're not that closely related. In terms of symptoms (for mostly young people), you're right, they are similar.

It's not "just a flu". The lethality of Covid is I think 21 or 22 time higher than of the regular flu...

Ahh I want to read it but it's late and my eyes are dry?... I'll give it a shot in the morning and let you know what I think. I can't be the only biologist on the forum

That's pretty cool, have you considered to write these things down? Maybe put a piece of paper and a pen besides your bed. I once saw an old farmer in a dream, he just suddenly stood there with me on a field. And he turned around to me and asked "do we return home now and be satisfied?" and I woke up, and I was at peace and satisfied. I think in our dreams our minds are somehow more connected to our intuition and less in the habits of our waking consicousness mind.

I am most grateful for Love, I still sometimes can't quite believe that... it's Love.

Faith = Letting go = Trust = Love = Selflessness

There is no computer and there is no banana. Those are thoughts. Neither sameness nor difference. Saying "the computer and the banana are the same" and saying "the computer and the banana are different" are both founded on the belief in the computer and the banana.

@Thought Art I think if you want to merge science and spirituality, that is definitely doable, however, only on a very small scale and you will probably build a community like this one if you want to get people on board with you. Getting the spiritual side into one's life is one thing, what about the scientific part? Do you have scientific training of some sort?

@Carl-Richard Yes, I just said that in order to change anything, one first has to become like these guys. Gotta bait people?

I should clarify that I never stated I was going to change science @Thought Art Sorry, that sentence sounded to me like you wanted to. That'd be great, and if my posts could help you pursue tht goal, I'll gladly make them. Will take some time tho? I even thought about making a video, that would be faster

True, definitely. But what this guy pulls off is not a great major shift, it's grandiose and narcicistic in my opinion. There have been countless examples of communities trying to create some sort of special, spiritual group, but all they did is create yet another identity/religion. If his teachings work for you - go ahead! I'm just saying that an enlightenment centric country doesn't work, it'll get corrupted real quick.

To actually change science in the (grandiose) way presented in this post, you have to become an extremely prestigious or popular scientist or philosopher, like Neil deGrasse Tyson or Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris, those type of people. Chances are that you will never become like them, because an academic career is unbelievably tough (at least in the natural sciences, I don't know how it's in other fields). Even with your fancy PhD you will most likely not get anywhere, because PhD students and Post Docs are really struggling. Guess I'll make that post in the future. People have a completely naive and romanticised view on science, and I don't exclude my fellow forum members from that. @undeather Exactly. It's really tough shit. But props to you, man!

I've always advised people to be very careful with their "understanding of science". Too often I see people trying to be meta-scientific when actually, they're mostly just being un-scientific. Leo's understanding of science, as presented in that 3 part series, is extremely, extremely philosophical and abstract and has, quite frankly, not very much to do with actual science as it is practiced in universitites and research facilities around the world, and it paints a very skewed picture for those who haven't had at least some experience at university and in research. I've even thought about making a very extensive post, perhaps multiple posts, about the limits of and misconceptions in that series. Because I was worried that it might create an image of science in people's minds that has nothing to do with actual science, thus misrepresenting it and making a strawman (which it certainly did for some people). Well, that really depends. If you're not part of academia, then realistically, all that you have to worry about is people getting offended by your criticism of materialism or rationalism, that's it. @Thought Art Or what do you suppose would be that load of risks that would come along with your meta-scientific understanding? in what context would those risks manifest?

Anyone who puts on a big, pompous show like that is a fraud, beware of "gurus" like him... Even Oshos's crazy plan to build a community failed, a "enlightenmnet-centric country" is ridiculous?

Ahh... being a bit of a devil now and then is fine ? guess who dares to pretend otherwise?

What are you talking about my man??

@Roy Lol, why that? Germany today and Germany 80 years ago are nothing like each other.

"Content of awareness" is a doubling of words, basically. Just like your example, it would be like saying "seeing sight" or "hearing sounds". Consciousness (I like that word better than awareness for what we're talking about here, dunno why) simply is. Without a subject, without an object. Consciousness, and nobody being conscious of anything.

There is no "subject" "aware of" "object". What you call "content of awareness" is just awareness.