Tim R

@WokeBloke How could there be any distinction?

Please maintain civility...

I highly doubt it. "The EU" mainly consists of Germany and France and Germany's army is lacking already, so whatever army "the EU" would come up with, it would be nonsense... An army against who, anyway? The EU has enough problems to deal with within its own boundaries. Against Russia? Sure..

@Leo Gura Will you make a video on Solipsism or are you worried that people might further misunderstand it and twist it?

Best friend becomes ex best friend. Not over night, but slowly, steadily. It happens, people develop in different directions. And then, all they share in common is a set of memories (and perhaps some of the old traits). I wouldn't intentionally reduce interaction (I didn't with my ex best friend), let it develop naturally. Stay in touch to the degree you want.

Jk, why does there have to be any "symbolism"?

This doesn't work. Because "repetition" already assumes and implies "distinction". Both are concepts.

@RMQualtrough Yes, you're right of course. Individual free will is illusory. But so is everything else that we talk about. Now what? See the problem? Should we stop talking altogether?

Should I stop using the word "I"? Or "you"?

Tolerance is always built based on the taken dose, so if you've taken say 0,5g you have tolerance for 0,5g (whatever amount of psilocybin that would be for your mushrooms), etc. I would wait for a few more days if you want to trip.

Sounds good??

Why are you so concerned with Leo?

@Gregory1 Kinda weird that God would get triggered ofver these things, no? If someone says once that you're not God or that enlightenment is bs, so be it. If they keep doing it and spread some dogmatic bullshit ideology, then we'll see. But come on bro, as God you should really be above such trivialities d'accord? And Leo may do as he pleaseth.

@Gregory1 Dude, stop reporting stuff you simply don't like or agree with. The report function is not something to be used carelessly.

Self-Inquiry is one of the most important tools on the spiritual path and unfortunately, there are many misconceptions about it. People tend to think that it means something like asking oneself, perhaps during meditation, "who am I?", over and over again, hoping for a sudden insight that will clarify this question. But Self-Inquiry is not any form of questioning. Rather, it is a feeling into existence and a feeling into one's own nature. You can feel existence, can't you? in other words, when I say "existence", this word is pointing a feeling, isn't it? And when I say "you", or better still, when you say "I" - you can feel your being, can't you? Feel into it. Draw your attention to the feeling of existing, to the feeling of being "me", being "I". "I am". "Existing". Don't you see that these are pointing at the exact same feeling? It's not that you feel existence and yourself. What you feel when you feel existence and what you feel when you feel "I am" are the exact same feeling. Look for yourself and try to feel the difference between those two feelings. Try to see if you can find anything there. Try then to feel the boundaries of existence. Where does existence, where does "I am", stop? Who are you?

@Sine My heartfelt condolences for your loss? may his soul rest in peace??

@Terell Kirby That's the whole point of self-inquiry I can't become what I already am, and this doesn't have anything to to with whether I am aware of it or not. In my book, "becoming aware of" and "becoming" are not the same word and are not pointing at the same. But that might just be quibbling over words, unless your understanding of "becoming" and "becoming aware of" radically differs from my and common understanding and use of those words? By "feeling into existence" (together with "feeling into the sense of I-am-ness") I meant "becoming aware of the unity", i.e. becoming aware of yourself as existence, by trying to feel the alledged difference. Because people constantly say that they feel themselves to be not the same as the entirity of existence, so I say to them "feel into it, deeply". Feeling into existence really is no prelude to any becoming. Because the discovery of who you are will be much rather something felt instead of something "known", or "experienced". And it certainly will not be a "becoming". And I'm using the word "feeling" because it's the strongest word I have, even though I know that it comes with potential for misinterpretation.

There is no "becoming existence". You already are existence, the entirity of it. That's what you're supposed to feel into.

Please don't reopen such old threads.

Oh wow that was so beautiful @BipolarGrowth Thanks for sharing, that made my day even better??? https://charleseisenstein.org/essays/a-gathering-of-the-tribe/ Here's the website from the author of that story, he writes a lot of essays

Lol what a perfect description??

@Someone here Seriousness means regarding life in a context of a constantly looming, possible disaster. What is this "disaster"? See most people don't even really know an answer to that when you start pushing them a bit. "What's the worst thing that can happen?", you ask them. Well, in some way or other, the answer will always be "death". Not necessarily only physical death, but the death of some part with which we're identified (ego). Wether it's our health, our business, our money, our status, our sanity, whatever. So long as we really cling to these things, we're serious. Because we are constantly afraid of the possibility of losing these things, losing ourselves. We can even be serious about spirituality, which... is really not such a good idea, you know. Because being serious about spirituality instead of sincere means that we have created a spiritual ego. Some people will tell you that for example enlightenment is a serious matter. And in a way that's true, because you will lose yourself, so in that sense, so long as there's a "you" to lose something (including itself), you are being serious. But once you realize that there is nothing and nobody to be lost! Well. See if you're still going to be "serious". Which is why enlightenment is ultimately not serious at all. And don't you let people fool you into believing otherwise

@softlyblossoming You should be glad! I'm not a native English speaker (I'm German) and I recently found one of Alans books (it was of course translated into German) in a small book store in my town. In the introduction, they translated his idea of "living sincerely instead of seriously" as "das Leben ehrlich führen, statt ernst", which loses the meaning of "sincerely". "Ehrlich" means "honest/-ly", but a better translation would be "aufrichtig". Alan Watts was an absolute genius with words, a true poet of mysticism.

I like Alan Watts' take on this very much; life shouldn't be treated seriously, but sincerely.

Do you think some ICU patient's lungs care about "ethical"? I doubt it. Even though you will, especially in America, where libertarianism is probably more popular than in any other country on earth, find countless people dying in proud ignorance. Why is it not "ethical" to force someone to get vaccinated? Have you considered that there might be no such thing as "ethical", and that it's completely made up, and that everybody consideres different things to be "ethical" depending on what surves their selfish agenda the most? What makes you so sure that your so called "individual freedom" is more important than the collective well-being? What do you suppose would happen if society stopped forcing people to adhere to rules and laws? Do you think that's not ethical either? If people act irresponsibly and thereby endanger other members of society, why should it be "unethical" to force them to behave if that is the only solution to protect society? Wouldn't that actually be the more ethical thing to do? For example, people are forced by law not to drive under the influence of alcohol & drugs, and if they do anyway, they are punished by law and society, either with a fine or they could even go to jail. "Freedom"... There is no freedom without restrictions.