kbone

Aaah, I misspoke then. I was referring to @Grateful Dead. I haven't watched the vids. So, she was going on and on about seeking skydaddy's love and approval? Yeah, that does tend to happen. Don't mind me; I'm just old and weird, hehe. I had just written to GD and Leo on the topic at hand and was completely ignorant of the video content. Peacely 🤙

I am not much of a political animal, but I had always kinda snorta noticed that Dems were a bit more active in trying to bring immigration legislation to the table; whereas, the GOP tended to not show up. So, I asked AI to give me the lowdown. According to AI in the Sky Here’s a list of notable immigration legislation proposed by Democrats that faced opposition from Republicans, including reasons for opposition and alternative proposals: 1. The DREAM Act (2001, 2007, 2010) Democratic Proposal: Offered a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children. Republican Opposition: Concerns about perceived "amnesty" and fears it would encourage more illegal immigration. Alternative Proposals: Some Republicans suggested stricter enforcement measures or limited versions that did not include a pathway to citizenship. 2. Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) (2007, 2013) Democratic Proposal: A broad approach that included a pathway to citizenship, increased border security, and reforms to the legal immigration system. Republican Opposition: Criticized for potential amnesty and insufficient border security provisions. Alternative Proposals: Republicans often pushed for enforcement-first approaches, focusing on border security before discussing pathways to citizenship. 3. The Immigration Reform and Accountability Act (2013) Democratic Proposal: Included a pathway to citizenship, increased border security, and an overhaul of the visa system. Republican Opposition: Concerns over amnesty and the potential economic impact on jobs. Alternative Proposals: Many Republicans favored piecemeal legislation focusing solely on border security without addressing pathways to citizenship. 4. The American Dream and Promise Act (2019) Democratic Proposal: Aimed to provide a pathway to citizenship for DREAMers and TPS (Temporary Protected Status) recipients. Republican Opposition: Viewed as too lenient and a form of amnesty; concerns over national security. Alternative Proposals: Republicans proposed legislation that prioritized enforcement and border security without pathways to citizenship. 5. The U.S. Citizenship Act (2021) Democratic Proposal: Comprehensive reform that included a pathway to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants and increased border security. Republican Opposition: Criticized for being overly broad and lacking sufficient measures to secure the border. Alternative Proposals: Many Republicans advocated for stricter enforcement and rejected comprehensive reform in favor of targeted legislation. 6. The Farm Workforce Modernization Act (2021) Democratic Proposal: Provided a pathway to legal status for agricultural workers and addressed labor shortages in the agricultural sector. Republican Opposition: Concerns over the long-term implications for immigration policy and labor costs for farmers. Alternative Proposals: Some Republicans suggested increased guest worker programs without pathways to citizenship. 7. The Protecting Immigrant Families Act (2021) Democratic Proposal: Aimed to restore public benefits access for immigrants and their families. Republican Opposition: Viewed as an expansion of welfare and concerns about public charge rules. Alternative Proposals: Republicans proposed limiting benefits for undocumented immigrants and focusing on enforcement. 8. The Citizenship for Essential Workers Act (2021) Democratic Proposal: Sought to provide a pathway to citizenship for essential workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Republican Opposition: Concerns about prioritizing undocumented immigrants over American workers and potential economic impacts. Alternative Proposals: Republicans typically focused on enhancing job opportunities for American citizens rather than pathways for undocumented workers. Summary Throughout the years, various Democratic proposals aimed at reforming immigration policy have been met with resistance from Republicans, primarily revolving around concerns over national security, economic implications, and the concept of amnesty. Republican alternatives often focused on enforcement-first strategies, limiting immigration pathways, and addressing border security without comprehensive reform.

As an intercultural language fella, I found that such statements using stereotypes and personal pronouns tends to introduce judgment into and 'personalize' the context of a discussion that might otherwise expand the view to a more objective, impersonal look at what the mind is doing. Imo, the previous writer was showing an authentic gratitude for a positive aspect of a teaching in their life, and was even willing to take a risk in doing so. How might the crux of these statements be made using the passive voice and/or without such stereotypes, assuming you are are native speaker of English? I assume you are speaking from your own experience and/or with at least a few Christians in mind, and that's fine. I getcha.

That’s a thoughtful post. Here’s a take on the points you’ve presented. 1- With respect to existential questions and the search for their answers, there are two interesting schools of life: the School of Necessity and the School of Futility. People will not seek to find an answer without the necessitated question at hand, which emerges within the mind and grabs the attention. Due to any number of biases, mostly cognitive and/or socio-cultural, one’s individuated consciousness is attenuated to projected likely ‘answers’, desired outcomes, or probabilities. 2- Inconsideration of the above, yes, most peeps’ world views are formed by the ‘outward’ environment, the appearing world. The cognitive and the socio-cultural biases inform one another until a certain stimulus necessitates the search for a ‘new answer’ and/or revision of a previous one. Therefore, if one has grown up in a culture (family, media, social circles, school. etc) that is dominated by say, the scientific-materialist paradigm, many or most of the so called acceptable ‘answers’ are going to appeal to that world view. All good….. Until it’s not. Rinse and repeat ad nauseum. 3- In culturo-linguistic fields, this is called immersion. And yes, the more one is immersed in a new paradigm, the more one is likely to get a sense for, adapt to, and accept the validity of said paradigm. That said, this all with respect to cognition, language, and social settings. This message board is an example of one such paradigm. Note: Some of what Leo is on and on about is learnable, so he considers himself a teacher of it. The material is all researchable on the web and subjectively valid and/or experienced, subject to prioritization, re-organizable, revisable, etc. As with all knowledge, it is impermanent, subject to entropy, and changes. When it comes to Truth, which he claims to have apprehended, one must understand that it is NOT teachable, as it is not learnable or cognizable. It is not a thing. It cannot be researched, revised, or restructured. IT must be Realized. Many will exhaust their mind’s faculties in the effort of seeking to learn more about it, and die, perhaps with some degree of knowledge of the metaphysical, high end physics or ‘spirituality’, and the like, but will never apprehend IT. With any luck, they will fall to their knees, and in that moment of surrender, get a glimpse of, or perhaps a full on apprehension of Truth will emerge, but no one knows when/if. This often takes the form of inquiry into the nature of reality and/or the nature of the self. Many others will go the other route of seeking to subdue or subvert the mind via meditation and other practices, or take drugs (some of them purddy wild, to be sure), and woo woo experiences abound. All of this is done in efforts to create different mind states in which one might get glimpses or experience transcendental states, which come and go. As with any practice or effort, there's always the potential for failure, and with Truth, it is actually quite high, because the mind is that quick and sneaky. After the oceanic feeling, mind-blowing experience, woo woo, or otherworldly event has subsided, the mind kicks in with all sorts of ‘new’ theories and/or expressions meant to clarify what was seen, experienced, or understood. Typically what happens is that the essence of any potential depth of ‘experience’ gets, shall we say, corrupted by the momentum of the dominant paradigm of one’s mind/thinking. As with all trial and error phases in life, many give up and/or find their own comfy spot. That's fine; it's just hasn't found what it was looking for. One rarely notices or fully realizes the Absence giving rise to the sense of presence, or the Nothingness giving rise to Everything, the Absolute that gives rise to the relative, etc. Lots of ways to express the journey and/or the clarity. As one immerses the attention in Truth, it continues to inform the mind of its limited capacity for which it is mostly a tool to be used in the world. But that’s the catch; states (which come and go) are always about mind, which changes. What comes and goes is NOT abiding non-dual Awareness of/as Truth: Peace, Freedom, Love, Beauty, the Good....right HERE, right NOW. And IT's ALL GOOD.

What was the approach, and what was found? I'm glad the belief helped in the context. In hindsight, did you first give credit to Jesus himself, or was it the gratitude for the teaching presented via the protagonist known as Jesus? That is, was it the belief in Jesus, or the insights into the self, its wants/'needs', its impulses, its nonsense, etc that you knew you had to let go of?

Yes, keep continuing to question beliefs, the mind, and all the shadows on the wall. Eventually, the cave will no longer be tolerable, giving rise to the impetus to get off your ass and not seek Truth, but find IT.

I enjoyed the read and appreciate the honesty with which you preceded each section, especially in light of this. While in Japan, peeling back the layers of the mind with the insights provided by the Zennies and Taoists, spending longer periods of time and presence in nature, and the growing angst of my time in the city and amongst the temples (though lovely), an insight emerged that said to walk away, much like the hermits and yogis of yore. The drive to prepare and do so was immense, almost rabid. The drive and subsequent experiences, never fulfilling, led me deep into the mountains, into simplicity, into solitude.... letting go, disassociating, simplifying, contemplating, filleting the mind of all its nonsense, observing nature, and letting IT 'teach'. Nowhere to go. Nothing to do. Nothing to know....<poof> Touching the earth Gazing at a flower The Suchness of things

This clarifies the intent of your previous messages better, at least for me. I agree with what you've shared here. All I was doing was trying to find some common ground with and offer a potential interpretation of @Jodistrict 's shared Vivekananda quote with respect to beliefs/faith as part of one's Truth-seeking. The obstacle to Truth is always the mind. Barn's burnt down, now I can see the moon ~Mizuta Masahide

The Sufis, as a whole, are an alright bunch. Mostly quite cool people to hang out with and wax philo-poetically.

Thank you. Honesty and discernment help things flow more smoothly.

A purifying devotion is basically an intention, a willingness to seek. The mind is a weird place to do it and the last frontier to get the memo. Any devotee of the Golden Rat must make a pilgrimage to the Karni Mata Temple in Rajastahn. It was a fascinating look at human nature when I visited.

I would say that their method involves specific beliefs, but whatevs. Yes, to get along with others in the belief system, they have to adhere to those beliefs. I'd say that they think their belief is true, but they are not interested in finding Truth. The line of questioning appeared garbled, as they did not really specify acting in the world or seeking Truth. I could not tell of the intent of the 7 questions as a whole. In the world, action is taken because there's a belief in a certain cause and effect; whereas, in the search for Truth, seeking happens in the world and some beliefs may provide some degree of value in the context of the seeker's mind. But then later, when the beliefs value has been depleted and/or seen through as false, it is dropped, forgotten, or morphed into something different (often unconsciously). Does that make sense?

It's more like various degrees of unconscious ignorance based on a misconceived story. Most peeps are not willing to die, physically or psychologically. That's why they call themselves 'Believers' and then spend trillions on houses of worship in which to spread the 'good news'. Evil is just live backwards. Without the realization, or at least the sense of Source, it's hard to know which direction to flow with, so peeps go more unconscious and/or get confused, and then do all sorts of nonsensical stuff. Perfectly so.

1- I don't. No belief is true/Truth. 2- Belief is not a method. Beliefs and assumptions are only mind-based probabilities about the appearing world and the actions taken. 3- There are only mind-based beliefs about what the mind assumes is, will, has happened in the appearing/experienced world. 4- You don't have to accumulate beliefs if you don't have to. Simples. 5- No one ever said to not question. Why is the assumption anyone has? 6- If you're talking about acting in the world as opposed to seeking Truth, it's a fair question. The contexts presented in the garbled questions are either unclear or jumbled a lot, so either the mixing of contexts is unconsciously being done or there's an agenda. 7. No.

Excellent. That is a simplicity that is priceless. Good on ya.

It seems these questions may indicate we are talking past one another and/or not understanding each other's intent. I'll let it go.

Right, perhaps faith is qualitatively distinct from simple belief. Faith is an aspect of the willingness to look; whereas, self-honesty is an aspect of the willingness to let go of beliefs when they are seen as unnecessary. For the sake of clarity, I always found it a good idea to distinguish between 'experience' and 'realization'. Experience is something requiring an experiencer, which is basically the assumed separate volitional person (SVP) that is doing the searching for and/or the merging with the Atman (call it what you will). Interestingly, it is the belief in that SVP that is at question if one takes up the seeking admonished by traditional Advaita, so there's that. So, the Self-Realization expressed in Advaita Vedanta could be expressed as the Hindu version of the merging of Jivatman with Atman, Buddhism's no Absolute self, Jesus's realization that "I and the Father are One", Pure Awareness, and perhaps Taoisms alignment with the Tao itself (that they express 'the Tao that can be spoken of is not the Tao' is the clue). So seeking is experienced, but the Realization of Atman/God/Awareness/Self/___ is distinct, as it levels all such previous beliefs and notions about reality in a radically different perspective that defies even language itself. It is my suggestion that such a Realization is not born of the mind, but is transcendent of it and/or prior to it (i.e., once ___ is realized and stabilized in/as). Furthermore, at least in how I sometimes try to express it, the Realization was more like an Awareness of/as an absence of thingness, a vastness that was never left,,, but it was the mind's ignorance that clouded its oneness with ever-Present Truth. There was never any other to seek, just the removal of the ignorance of Truth. That ignorance is born of the mind, the very tool used to negotiate and navigate the wondrous world as it appears. But, it also houses all sorts of distorted beliefs about the nature of existence that leave the mind wanting, because deep down somewhere in its chaos, it knows that it is ignoring its oneness with Source. It may even be what the Garden of Eden story is actually all about. It does take a deep willingness/devotion (Bakhti) to cut through the mind's shenanigans and potentially get a glimpse of what Hindu's refer to as Supreme Knowledge/Gnosis (Jnana), but what is Realized is not some'thing' you can learn, and it is unexplainable. But all such seeking and existential questioning can come to an end, as one is quite aware of/as the vastness and purity of Awareness at the very core of one's being and in which all of Existence arises (the words are failing, but that's OK). Once seen, it cannot be unseen. The bell cannot be unrung. The certainty is oddly unassailable. I cannot say whether one needs such disciplines, but I would say that they are likely more like potential precursors or tools used to prepare the mind, perhaps make it prone to Realization itself. That's why I asked the question about grace in my original question to @Nemra. Gotta go. Will check back later.

1- I don't throw the word Truth around as such, but I am also not sure what you mean here. 2- I didn't say they were. But yes, the menu is not the meal. 3- I agree that beliefs are assumptions, perhaps questioned to some extent, perhaps not. They are usually about cause and effect, which is why I asked the original question. 4- This last question is more to the point I was attempting to get to originally. To be clear, I only use capital 'T' Truth with respect to existential questions that at least somewhat involve a search for God/Allah/Source/Awareness, so in a way I am mostly agreeing with you here. But, what I mention in my other post to @Jodistrict is that yes, perhaps there's likely a belief in mind present to even begin the search for the believed outcome, but what is Realized is incomprehensible by the mind, so much so that it defies the consensual trance cause-and-effect paradigm. As the mind struggles to come to terms with it (and often think it has 'lost' it once the bliss bunny stuff has played out), it continues to burn through previously held notions of 'reality', whatever those were. But it's not really until after the Realization that the whole burning up of beliefs is understood for what it is. As such, even the principles of cause and effect reasoning are relegated to worldly events, not transcendental ones... especially Truth/Self Realization. That is a whole other dealio.

I wonder what the context was in which Vivekananda said this. In many schools of Hindu thought, the general goal is to merge the Jivatman (individual soul/embodied self) with the Atman (Supreme Soul/Self). As such, if one doesn't at least believe in the potential for such transformation, they likely would not even begin the search. The mind is quite aware of what it feels like to live as an embodied self, though it is not really sure what that means or how to think otherwise. The mind knows nothing about what they are seeking or what the Supreme Self even refers to, so it is something akin to a wild goose chase with a certain degree of faith (maybe that's a better word for the quote, as it's strongerish than 'belief'). What they often don't talk about is the amazing transformative power of futility, which involves the seeing through and letting go of beliefs. The big one often attributed to Realization is usually quite a doozy, and it levels a lot of preconceived notions of 'knowledge' itself, which is why in many langauges there is a distinction between two types of knoweldge (e.g., episteme versus gnosis in Greek, or saber versus conocer in Spanish). However, if the Realization of Self does occur, what typically happens is that the story of how/what happened is more often than not ascribed to the culturally defined notions of cause and effect, such as the Jivatman merging with the Atman, which many in India are openly willing to accept if there's sufficient 'evidence'. That's not as easy in cultures based on a monotheistic order in which such a proclamation might be met with pitchforks, stonings, crucifixions, burnings at the steak, bannings, or institutionalization, hehe.

Would you say that Truth/Self-Realization is acausal and/or requires something like grace (for want of a better word)? I agree with the idea that there isn't recognition of Truth in beliefs, though even a word, or a sound, or any out-of-the-blue kind of dealio can be present as a memory of 'the event'. But I would not say such a word/sound/dealio caused the Realization.

What country do you live in, if you don't mind my asking? No problem if you prefer not to divulge. Just curious about the kinds of risks you are alluding to. No one 'needs' to drink alcohol, though I'm hardly one to say one should/shouldn't try. You're a big boy. Scientifically, 1-2 drinks has been shown to lower one's affective filter, but if one relies on it for such measures and/or thinks more is merrier, it will likely cause more problems than it's worth. Know when to say when, but most alcoholics don't when that is, hehe. Plus, I wonder about the alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) along with aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) that are sometimes lacking in the DNA in certain areas of Asia, which affect the body's ability to metabolize alcohol.

In the exact same context, or in different ones? But yes, you've expressed the distinction of two types of honesty well. In your opinion, which is likely more important in the context of existential questioning or self-inquiry?

1- Yeah, going back and taking a look to see what stands up to Truth (or what survived the blast) is likely and healthy. What's realized doesn't make sense to the previous, consensus trance paradigm. Agree completely about the suffering. That's why I sometimes bang on about mind a lot of the time, hehe; people have heard and/or get it conceptually, but often express stuff that is direct conflict with what they say they understand, hehe. The expression you share seems more authentic as there's a consistency to it, which is what drew my curiosity. 2- Right, all language is dualistic and typically refers to the relative world, but that's all we got for communication on a forum! So, words like 'within', consciousness, levels, freedom or even truth can never express or point to it directly. Thus the poetic license was asked for. All appearances are 'out front', and almost all seeking of Truth tends to involve mind, which immediately steps in the 'wrong' direction. Yes, it's all lila, all play, and all of the same ____, but until the concepts used in communication are actually penetrated and realized, there's likely some more unconscious hide-n-seeking at play. Happy you're made it through and are clear of the mindfield! Enough carrying on and on. Enjoy your day.

I appreciate you taking the time to type out your essay. I plan to return to it once I have the time to properly mesh into it. Infinity, properly apprehended, would transcend any boundaries of beginning or end (two conceptual polar ends of a continuum). I dig your honesty and clarity. Until then, I wonder if you've explored the Buddhist concept of dependent origination along with the more well known ones of impermanence and no self? Twelve Links of Dependent Origination: This concept describes a chain of interconnected events that explain the cycle of suffering and rebirth, including ignorance, volitional formations, consciousness, name and form, sense bases, contact, feeling, craving, clinging, becoming, birth, and aging and death. Might be worth a contemplation as the structure of suffering that could then be meshed in with the essay's intent. Peacely, brotha.