Natasha Tori Maru

All statements or positions regarding truth can be a frame. 'the self' is a frame This is why it is bias. And why no self is a thing.

I think you are trying to bring nuance to seeking, but I cannot see anything new being added to the biased nature of humanity. I almost feel like I want to link all the videos on bias and how they expound on this point, but I understand this would be a disservice because you have implied you are touching on something new. The problem is - I view all human seeking having inherent bias. Which is also something Leo talks about so much I sometimes want to punch him lol So this is a form of agreement over and over. I think some of the AI additions have confused the matter, only because AI likes to rotate around to different points that don't always string together in rhythm. More just random shotgun fire of points.

The truth itself (whatever that is) or the path to it?

If you mean to point to 'all seeking carries a frame', well, yes. That is a given

All good then, as the Truth relies on no frame or interpretation I think you make comment on accessing truth. Which I think has been expounded upon. But I cannot remark on the rest of the reply as I am stuck at the prior inquiry regarding terms. I think I return to 'the truth cannot be spoken'. Or perhaps, Truth is not contained in words. Won't stop people trying Mistaking the pointer for the thing itself etc

Explain what you mean by 'orientation toward truth', and 'conceptual frame' ? These are going to mean different things to users. Be sure these two things can be equivocated - to me they are not the same. To me; a frame adds structure to what is seen as a content-full lens, like a set of assumptions/filters that interpret experience. But 'orientation to truth' or 'I want truth' doesn't appear as a structure to reality. I see it as a constraint on inquiry. It could also be viewed as an orientation to falsehood in an effort to reveal and deconstruct. I do understand and agree with the OP. We hunt for feathers, we will find feathers. More feathers than anyone not looking. But I will need to see a really good breakdown of the above 2 terms. Orientation to truth appears to answer questions about evaluation, no? Making this a frame seems like a stretch, as frames answer questions about reality. And therein lies the confusion - a simple difference in understanding of terms might be the issue.

I am very much struggling to get through the verbiage with this one. It did not clarify much for me.

I think regarding 2. I should have said 'feeling' in lieu of emotion, in retrospect. I occasionally become quite silly with feeling/emotion and switching them. To add more nuance I think I should have said 'My judgements are what generate my negative feelings'. Key word being 'judgement' and not simply 'discernment'. I failed to express this with enough accuracy, and this resulted in too much reductionism in the statement. Overall the topic of feeling and emotion in this work has had the most insight for me. I have found it is easier to address, allow and feel through emotions during my process to reach truth. Far easier than any sort of controlling of the mind or thoughts, strangely. This might not be the case with others. Thank you for your feedback, agreements & disagreements

The effect of 'certainty hardening' could possibly be a reflection of the balancing swing of open/closed systems. We see this in politics also. A symbiotic swing back and forth, tracing balance through time and progression. I suppose due diligence from ourselves is captured in ensuring one polarity does not move too far into extremism. It might be worth it note, a function of maturity can also be becoming more concrete and certain in our views and way of life; as we grow we learn what works to accomplish, what works for our integrity. It can be confronting to be faced with this calcification of a person. This is not always the case by any means. But it is ones tested mode of operation that have worked for them to a point. Very important to remain open to other methods, modes of being, ways of seeing etc. It is incredibly pressing to realise we are not responsible for how others feel, or their actions. Of course there is some nuance here, as some things are completely offensive or taboo to all. But I would never condone self-censure. Honest, integral & compassionate expression is precisely how we can touch our own sense of the internal sublime. My personal views on the topic - if you were interested? I do not put any labels on people. They just are. I suppose a label can act to describe something, but all too often users, people, bring their loaded and burdened ideas to the word. And the label means something different to everyone - as illustrated well in this thread. I can discern something is 'not for me', but I simply abhor casting judgement

@Adrian colby I am not surprised by Leo's response. To my opinion awakening does not transcend incentive structures or biology/genetics. I see this across the board with teachers. But this is just my observation 😃 In addition, thank you for your earnest and candid report of your experiences. No shame needed. I see nothing wrong with anything, let alone yourself, to carry any sense of internal 'wrongness'. I enjoy your expression. Huge courage and grace - respect

This is similar to how I feel regarding trying to describe some experience or realisation. The moment I put any words or descriptions to it, that is not it. I still try to point and communicate, despite this. Especially to contrast some realisation with someone else for the friction of sharing 🙂

Anyone else experiencing the site just go down completely? Not even a glitch. Legit down

I dont know for sure, but it sounds to me similar to a couple of experiences I have/had where the centre of experience is dissolved. I simply can't claim experience to be my own. It just happens. Experience of clouds, experience of dog. Experience of smell of roasting potatoes. In those moments I am the potatoes, the dog, the cloud. Non-local. No claim. The centre has vanished only to be left with feeling. Breath. My description is shit really. Because as soon as I describe it, it is not it. But I remain in this non-centre for large swaiths of experience... Remarkable and quite lovely!

How are you differentiating inherent neuro divergent behaviours (nature) from external incentive / conditioning structures (nurture)? A lot of this can be looked at as social conditioning from the rise of technology and modern living. From one lens, at least. Not discounting natural tendancies of course. But it seems we have no way to know what is causing what.

You have a unique view. If I understand what you point to - the divine is the reaching out to the sublime? Sublime according to its proper definition. In service to something greater than ourselves? Maybe yes and more, is more accurate If I understand your divine component being an addition and not detracting from survival patterns. This might harken back to that pendulum swing analogy from another thread around here. Different domains overlapping.

Perhaps this is pointing towards the human minds proclivity toward certainty, arising from the survival domain.

Yeah, I think this was the mix-up - it wasn't totally clear who @Carl-Richard was referring to for me until I read the thread / watched the entire thing. Snap judgements and lack of diligence will get ya

I walked right into that. NGL I can't stop laughing

Man the more I develop my spiritual practice the more my body wants to move, wiggle. Flow. There is no resistance. Body moves. Stillness and movement are just one thing now. Nothing is everything. Both. And neither.

I think if awareness could say just one thing, and it be unquestionably true, it would be: 'I am' Was this an idea of 'I-amness' or did this phrase spring from some sort of cessation state of pure being-ness? It seems to me you touch on the awareness that is aware of. Thoughts, emotions, perceptions. The awareness that is now become aware of itself. Awareness with no attributes. Awareness that knows itself simply by being. 'I am' being its most irreducible recognition. Thank you for sharing

Sure, but not everyone adheres to Kinsey's definitions. Unique worldviews and all that.

The finer details of the argument surrounding what constitutes homosexual/heterosexual/bisexual etc are going to come down to if you define homosexuality/bisexuality/heterosexuality etc by sexual dimorphism or gender expression/identity. Or some combination of the above.

I do not see any mods admiring Vitaly, can you quote? From my perusal, he was being trashed by almost everyone.

Still not inherent! It relies on interpretation on both ends, rules and context prior to any clear meaning being found. Inferences mostly. Compressed reality.

Thank you. I appreciate this. More and more my spiritual practice is a physical transformation.