The0Self

^^ Ridiculously helpful stuff, OP. What he said. All of it.

Fair enough. But “me” refers to the one who knows any objective truth at all, and there aren’t any objective truths, so what is the me? It is in fact an illusion, but as you indicated, it IS an illusion — that IS is its only substance. But since it is an illusion, and illusion means having no reality, there ultimately is no illusion. Only perhaps the false claims that there is some thing/one separate, or that something is needed, or that what is happening could be different from what is happening. Believing that something is going to happen, when there’s only what’s happening. Listening to nonduality is a waste of time in most cases. The dream goes on until it comes to an end, all choicelessly done but not by any one/thing separate, and then it’s recognized there was no dream. The most misleading statement would be to say there’s nothing to do — that’s only the case since there is no one. So if there seems to be someone, there will be the appearance of doing things. So the seeker might as well be honest about that and not fall into the trap of giving up seeking. The search does not end, the seeker does. Thinking about what has happened is what is happening after what has happened — but there is no “after what has happened,” nor has something happened. There’s no before or after separate from now. There is no separation from what is happening. The whole message boils down to this: what is happening never becomes something other than what is happening

This is what love means: At the ultimate level, love is that which loves itself, and happens to do so for no reason (i.e. without needing to). It’s tautologous, just like truth. Love = no need. (If the definition of love is that which loves itself, then of course it is empty... when it is defined! The closest one can get to the ground is love, but there is no ground. In that sense, while James12345 is correct that love is but a last-step of duality (or relativity), love can be meant as the absolute. The absolute is of course empty as well. And the relative is the absolute.) The feeling of love is well-being. The circumstance or “thing” of love is need. In other words, what is meant by “love=truth” is simply: there are no things or circumstances. That’s it. ? ❤️

Well... Sure, but it's not exactly like that. The "me" referred to is the reality of the one who is separate from what happens. It is admitted that there is in fact potentially a claim that there is someone separate from what happens, but the me has absolutely no substance of any kind -- all there is to the me is the false claim that it is real, which as you can see is not the same as the reality of the one who is separate. (Me = real one who is separate). The false claim that the me is real... is an appearance, not an illusion; it's not separate from what apparently happens, but the truth of the me actually being real is an illusion and not something that IS... at all. And in that sense, "it never was."

You're not exactly wrong, but this indicates to me that you haven't read everything Cutler wrote on forums; onibasu. You should do the rounds as long as you can stand, within reason. 72 hours is the absolute bare minimum. Children can maybe get away with as little as 60-64, but 72++ is far more effective and has less risk of actually causing net-damage over net-healing. It's simple: The longer the rounds, the less times/events you have to let blood levels fall, relative to the total duration spent on-cycle. Every time you let blood levels fall, you redistribute mercury throughout tissues -- an unavoidable but damaging process... You want to minimize the number of repetitions you do of this (cessation; falling blood levels), relative to the total duration of time spent with steadily elevated blood levels of the chelator(s). For exactly this reason, 2 week rounds were often recommended by Cutler, though he did indicate that many can only handle shorter 3-10 day rounds, especially young children. Regardless, time-off should equal time-on as a matter of safety, though it isn't a hard and fast rule by any means, given what Cutler has stated on forums. There are some rather "maverick" ways to do it as well, but that's not what I'm referring to here.

Just looked the guy up... ? ?

^^ So hard that you made up psychedelics in the first place as an excuse to somehow believe you aren't tripping balls when you don't take them.

By love I basically just mean "no need," not something special -- and truth does not need anything (that's an attempt to describe truth). So unconditional love = uncaused lack of need (that's another attempt to describe truth). Etc... Truth has no need to be described; Love has no need to be described.

You're speaking of being more or less conscious. Becoming more conscious means having progressive mystical experiences that allow the ego to transcend limitations. When all those limitations are transcended, there's no ego left. And no mystical experiences. "Ego" of the sort that dies with ego death is merely ignorance of the truth of no-separation.

Yes, that's my point! The word "love" is just a label, not something real that has qualities lol. So yes referring to Truth or true nature as "love" can be misleading, but not more misleading than anything else -- for instance, "unconditional love" / "love" / "everything" / "nothing" / "real unreal" / "dazzling dark" / "empty fullness" / "this" / "God" / "nothing happening" / "still movement" arguably points less wrongly than something like "ecstasy" or... "table." Unconditional freedom/love/beauty/peace/etc... Whatever. It means nothing anyway. Sometimes I like to say this is the big bang being the big crunch, not as something real, but only as a pointer to the truth that there is no time or separation or birth or death.

Sure, describing truth is impossible, but words like beauty, love, and intelligence can arise (yes dependent on the finite mind) but the word is not actually referring to anything that exists. You think love is a description. It is... but then the description is obviously not the truth. When I say love I mean nothing -- and not even that. Happiness is love (nothing), suffering is love (nothing).

There is no separation of any kind at all. All there is, is all there is. There's only full acceptance (not as some thing). Even not-accepting is accepted fully.

You can't. That's the point. It's undefined, just like truth. Love just means no separation / nothing mattering.

Yes the "infinite love experience" is an experience. But what I refer to as love is not what you're referring to. You're referring to a love that accepts everything to an extremely high degree. When love accepts fully (which is already the case), there's no one experiencing that love -- cessation. Impersonal love is not an experience.

These could be conceived of as valuable: The body is liberated from the tyranny of the me. The me is liberated from the need to defend what doesn't belong to it -- the body always seeks safety, but it's not your (someone's) body. Existential questions no longer perturb the innate peace of being. But pointing out there's no me is an inefficient method for awakening, and indeed not intended as a method. It has its place, but from the perspective of the message of no me, listening to the message is equally as useless as anything else. If you are seeking peace and happiness, you might as well enjoy it; meditate, etc. The only reason to listen to the nonduality message would be entertainment and fun. And when it's just constantly pointed out when people aren't even asking for it, it's probably a useless activity -- for the benefit of the one delivering the message.

When there is no thing or circumstance that should or shouldn’t happen, then there is no place and no time where you should or shouldn’t be. ❤️

Something would need to exist outside of everything for there to be a limitation on it, which is by definition not possible. The map is not the territory anyway though. There’s no ultimate limit and in fact it is inconceivable that there is one unless you just ignore the word ultimate.

1. Okay, so... Love is the only thing that accepts everything (itself) fully. 2. Truth is the only thing that accepts everything (itself) fully. Both true? If yes, then love = truth. Not personal love — impersonal, unconditioned love.

Probably. Personal love. Didn't watch it but I'd imagine that's what he meant.

Still can’t get over how true the Drake and Josh theme song is ?

Desires like “wanting to eat this” still appear in liberation. But it’s then just a desire, not a need. Maybe we mean the same thing overall but mean different things by the word desire — in the way I think of desire, all desires coming to an end would basically imply that getting chased by a tiger would not be followed by running-away ? — that would still happen. Desires and aversions of the body are no longer holding happiness ransom, that’s all. Nothing is personal.

@taotemu Yes, but it’s the hope/desire for something better/greater which ends (simply because it’s not needed) — desires still happen, as they too are an essential part of the aforementioned perfection.

Wise; ^^ that is true in a sense — but get this, it is for that reason that the real power comes with the ability to produce as much joy (or bliss; peace; etc) as you want at any time. You don’t need to maintain anything! Also, there’s wholesome joy that has no cost in the way you describe — in fact it invigorates you further. And the following may be a bit harder to accept: even the lows can be appreciated and even enjoyed, in a way, for what they are, basically every bit as much as the highs.

? Yeah a while back I went like a whole year of basically never even listening to music while driving alone — I’d just listen to one of those 2 channels, a meditation audiobook, or dharmaseed, etc. Utterly engulfed in spirituality ? And I did a whole lot of driving too!

? I also like to view the mazes as all fitting together perfectly — and the apparent divide between every instance of any two of them is nothing more than the exact same singular “intention” (Goodness). So there’s no separation at all.