kbone

Schrödinger's cat is alive after all!

Good stuff. I rez with the expressions you share. There's a noetic quality to it that is indicative of a 'being Here' sanity. Bueno.

This is why I differentiate between 'experience' and 'realization'. The experience of 'god' comes and goes, and is often marked in memory as an event (but yes, there is a memorable aspect or facet), but Realization is deeper, so to speak, and what was Realized is Known to be right Here, right Now, prior to all and inclusive of movements of mind (some more diluted/deluded than others). There's no 'need' per say to go 'get more', but of course, it's always nice to take a walk in nature, meditate, whatever to drop off the mind's content and/or detach from it to put it into fresh perspective, especially after a hard day or an intense psychological/physical period (like a new job, a death in the family, a health issue, etc). It's a bit of a stretch to say that if one 'has an experience of being God', one will automatically have a nice life. That may be a bit wishful, automagical thinking ...." It's important not to have expectations about how truth should be and what it would be like" (Rogachevski, A., 2025). But, the 'pursuit of Enlightenment' will be debunked by the Realization, as it will be SEEN as always having been Present, available, Truth... beyond/prior to the mind's conception of it. It's a bit of a doozy to the mind, hehe. Such a lil' rascal! PS: I like how the Anne Frank pic shows up at the base of a Nietzsche quote. Both a great stories in humanity. I'd like to hear your interpretation of the quote.

Right, the word 'god' brings up all sorts of misconceived notions, often sending the uninformed mind into resistance mode, rabbit holes, and whatever else. Simply put, one needs to be aware of the differing degrees of ignorance and/or awareness at play in the phases of transcendence, (Realization), emanation, and immanence. The Zenny Oxherding pics allude to this. That said, it can be quite hard to intuit where an appearing mind's depth and breadth are coming/emanating from with respect to the contexts one interacts within and the topic(s) at hand here.

Speaking of the mind's delusion <ahem>

Yes. The story, as it is told, is not so much about how it is more-often-than-not expressed and believed. It is a story about how a sellf-identified peep, lost in their delusion, walks away from all of the cultural and familial conditioned baggage (a spin on Jesus' "Lost Years"), has a full on Realization (Self/Truth ----> out of the cave), and then comes back to society (into the lion's lair - the cave) to tell everyone. It is the story of a journey of SELF discovery that anyone can take. The only question is, do they have the willingness to stick it through (i.e., it is demanding) and the self-honesty (i.e., to transcend the egoic and existential boundaries that are indicative of the mind's conditioned structure). This is what the Greeks referred to: Truth (wisdom- path of jnani in Vedanta)) / Beauty/Love (beloved- path of devotion in Vedanta) / ,,,,, the Good. While Christianity may have some deeps roots in Judaism, it's conception and/or structure was also heavily influenced by Hellenic Neoplatonic thought of the times. Even then, most do not know just how chaotic those times were and/or how wily and spiritually incorrect many 'practitioners' were at the time, hehe. The Bibles, as they are in their present states, are the outcomes of 1000s upon 1000s of renditions, transcriptions, and interpretations. As such, in the way I see it, one has to gnosis how to read the dang book to flesh out its subtleties. Or maybe its just this mind's propensity to look for the markings pointing toward Truth. That said, the people of today, are in some ways more 'sophisticated', and that's not necessarily always positive, but at least we're not crucifying, stoning, and banning (at least not literally, hehe). It seems that using words like God, 'reality', realization(s), consciousness/Consciousness, experience/experiencer... and all the rest, like any words, are liable to hit anything. Let's face it, things like identity, self, appearances, reality, etc are all wrapped up in the mind's associations that comprise its world view. Being clear of it and having it all out front is important to then explore such books in all their majesty. The word 'gGod' is especially loaded, and it seems to just add unnecessary confusion and/or resistance. The word 'reality' is similar, but every mind thinks they understand what it refers to. The same could be said for 'infinity', but as long as it is understood to defy the mind's conception, it is more likely to hit the mark. Anton's 'cloud analogy' works well as it expresses the mind's delusion. The confusion is mostly due to the varying degrees to which the mind's 'episteme is informed by actual gnosis' (i.e., the clarity born of the degree to which Realization informs the mind) ---- or lack thereof.

1- When someone is open enough and 'ready', who knows what will emerge. Life is a trip, indeed. You do NOT sound like the everyday type of follower of Jesus Christ... coming across as a little blasphemous at times, if I do say so myself, hehe. I've worked within a missionary organizations, and what you've shared might cause quite a stir, or at least a 'proper steering' you back into the fold. 2- Do you actually forget the illusions, or do you just see through their falsity, wich informs the mind to just let them go? I tend express the journey 'toward' Truth as via negativa in which beliefs and conditioned 'truths' are transcended, leading to a higher order clarity. After all, just like in any True/False test, the statement is either entirely true, or it's false. 3- Thank you for sharing. Have you looked into the phenomena of channeling? Even schools of psychology often refer to it as a tapping into a higher order of thinking and/or sense of self. It's been a while, so don't quote me on that.... check on it yourself if interested. Start clarifying the questions you want to ask and in order of the depth you want to pursue. See what happens. 4- Doubts are ALWAYS an aspect of mind's understanding. That's the nature of duality; not good, not bad.... just an aspect of its functioning. 5- What did you find interesting, doubtful, or in alignment with your own takes (thus far) in @puporing 's take? 6- So Jesus was no different than any other 'person'? I am always interested in trying to intuit the non-dual aspects of different systems, and then juxtapose what is seen as potentially at odds with the consensus trance of its 'believers' versus those that might actually 'know' something.... like you're alluding to here. 7- Please square this with #3, as you never mentioned Jesus/Christ in that paragraph. 8- Great to hear you've found peace, GD. Sounds like it may have been hard earned. 9- I used to pick out and play a rendition of 'Friend of the Devil' that sent an audience of 2 wild (Disclsimer: One of them liked how I used her name instead of 'Anne Marie', hehe). A majority of the songs I play have at least something related to or alludes to the journey, appreciation of awakening, transcendence, and/or non-dual awareness. For example, I contemplated the power of forgiveness in 'Friend of the Devil', as in how I see it, the hardest forgiveness come by is the forgiveness of oneself. The deepest and most authentic forgiveness doesn't seem to be able to come from the mind... doubt always rears its head as part of that endeavor. That's why 'conversions' must also be authentic, or it's just more like a new coat of paint. What you've expressed is more authentic and honest. Thanks for sharing, man. Peacely.....

I suspect there's a lot of confusion as most people will try to explain Realization away. I'm in no way saying that @gettoefl is doing that, as I neither have read enough of him nor know him. The problem is that words are dualistic and only understood between interlocutors if there is (frame of) reference for the words/concepts being used by each peep involved in the convo or discussion. Furthermore, as I've noticed on this website, many folks throw words like god, truth, realization, etc around pretty freely and without hardly any consideration for what they may be referring to in the first place. Sometimes there's a clarity in the messaging being expounded (which is nice), while at others, there's a degree of intuitive understanding presented, but perhaps the mind has not quite yet been informed enough and/or worked out the ramifications of what it means to their world view/philosophy. Further down the line, sometimes remarks sound disingenuous, flippant, and/or like sandcastle building, at yet others it sounds like repetitions that they are attempting to justify in their own minds and/or fit in with the 'dominant philosophy and its adherents' of the message board. The line of questioning you are using in your discussions with various folks is important (and I applaud doing so), as it is the very process by which you penetrate the ideas/concepts' meanings with respect to the mind's present state and/or depth of awareness, which can then be used in the deeper contemplation/meditation that you seem to practice (could be wrong, not sure). The very little that I know you, I sense you have really done well to isolate the parameters in which mind moves and/or its limitations. But then, I am not sure how you define 'mind', so maybe share that in order to share insight on how your study treats it, or the depths to which you've explored it in contemplation/meditation. Since you seem interested in the limitations of philosophy/science, the mind, and meditation, there are some concepts that might be of interest, but I do not want to just start throwing a bunch of them out if you are not interested. As you've stated, you seem to be at a nice plateau after having gone through a rather challenging period of finding a very workable sanity. That may be enough (at least for now), as it is conducive to being an actual adult (not just in age, but in authentic self awareness), which is no longer pulled in to the conditioned disorder based childhood traumas, mama-pappa issues, and the like. Until then, perhaps the following blurbs can help provide a perspective. Philosophers are peeps who know less and less about more and more, until they know nothing about everything. ---- and who the what knows, maybe Self/Truth Realization emerges in the mind's complete and utter surrender. Scientists are peeps who know more and more about less and less, until they know everything about nothing. ---- and who the what knows, maybe Self/Truth Realization emerges in the mind's complete and utter surrender. NOTHING is unexplainable. EVERYTHING is a mystery. Peacely...

Exactamente.

Yes, the honesty must be an aspect of the inquiry. Simplifying was also a big part of the journey. It's possible to now look back on the adventure with a bit of nostalgia while giggling at the insanity of it all, but there's a deep awareness of what precipitated the 'need'. All good.

Yeah, the confusion that many of the sand dealers have created has left things in quite a mess. It doesn't help that the journey itself is quite destabilizing and confusing already. Sometimes the intentions of the nonsense seems meant to push the mind over/through a threshold, or just to throw the mind enough that it drops and gets an insight. At others, it's apparent they have no grasp of what they're selling. It's almost like a mento-physical three-card monte routine, so it's rife with deception, much like the mind's little 'separate volitional person' game.

Um, OK. But once Truth has been apprehended, and the mind has been relegated to its role as the cool tool for navigating the world, there's also freedom to interact within contexts of a discussion... maybe even share jokes, insights, and stories. Throwing out ND lingo and reasoning and/or reducing every discussion to bare bones Truth-talk at every turn is not necessary. However, if one is still in the process of burning through the mind's nonsense in a post-apocalypse mode, I do understand. Some call it cleaning house, and it can get rabid and feverish. All good. The mind can be enjoyed whilst not necessarily always trusting it; it has its flaws, to be sure. No biggie. It's kinda snorta like an existential relationship with 'someone' you know all too intimately, love them nonetheless, bu take the time to help them stay conscious.

Sand does not quench, so no need to guzzle. And don't trust water dealers out next to the mirages, hehe.

So you see, the analogy rings 'true', perhaps to a higher order of mind, releasing a degree of tension. Where and when those insights will arise is unknown, but can be like clues to a direction to take. Always beginner's mind.... not knowing, but brave enough to flow. Sure, it can be characterized as a seeing through (clarity), a letting go (contentment/calmness), a deconstruction/dissolution (samadhi), etc. Words won't do it justice, simply because words engage the mind and are liable to hit anything. I have always been curious about such neurochemical aspects, but don't know much about the veracity of such claims with respect to cause-and-effect. Maybe you can share what you know. But yes, there is a cautionary aspect to such an undertaking. It is quite challenging to the mind to more-or-less turn itself inside out in an attempt to 'understand' what's pointed to and question one's beliefs (inquiry/contemplation), and/or attempt to subvert it entirely (meditation). Massive amounts of solitude in nature, making music, reading literature, and contemplation helped to work through this mind's vagaries. But yeah, it was dodgy there for quite a bit, hehe.

From what is read in your posts, yes, you use the mind in a very sane way. It's very good to have stabilized in such a balanced way. Respect. Yes, to live in the world, the mind is engaged in its functional capacity to play with, manipulate, or rationalize what's apparent. Existentially, the mind itself is soooomewhat one of those appearances. Phenomenology engages the mind to think about the nature of being. So, the question is, is the mind itself a phenomenon? What's pointed to in the discussion with @James123 is the trans-rational nature of realization, or one might define it as pre-rational.... it is not of the mind. As was said, sometimes it takes 2-3 days of meditation to get back to the 'magic of experience'. See how that works? So, the question is, is mind beyond/prior to BEING? Can phenomenology, physics, ontology ever just BE, or do they arise in the mind? I understand what you mean by 'differentiate', but would it be clearer that it 'distinguishes' objects/things in awareness? What is an illusion when it is seen for what it is? Does it still trick the mind, or is the mind just informed of its illusive quality(-ies)? But yes, most discussions approach the search using the rational faculties of the mind. It's much like being thirsty, and going out to the mirage in the desert seeking water, only to find sand. The mind doth protest, is often quite thirsty to function in its capacity, so it keeps doing it... over and over and over. Many so called teachers, claiming they have found water, will be out there amongst the mirages.... selling sand, but telling you it's water. What informs the mind of the illusive nature of the mirage, how it won't quench one's thirst, or whether the purveyor of Truth is selling water or sand?

Simplicity as the suchness

Yes, the reacting to thoughts typically involves thinking and storytelling, and speerchuality typically involves thinking about/personalized storytelling/analyzing them, etc, potentially creating a bigger mess. Happens a lot. Refraining from 'adding' a concept here, as there doesn't seem to be any need. So, in essence, what's realized is that there never really is separation between 'experienced and experiencer', thus negating the illusion of any duality. There is actually never really any becoming, per se, just the realization of what always IS, without the layer of thought. That is, duality is all just a trick of the mind, its ignorance of what is already whole, not two, no other.

There's a lot to be observed and taken in in any new culture: stereotypes, nuances, reasoning, contextual clues, and all the rest. To get through the culture shock and adapt/accept requires a conscious learning and a strong degree of self awareness. But yes, the Japanese are a very interesting bunch. I learned a lot during the expansive and implosive years surrounding and including my time there. Curious, how did you decide on a junk boat as your avatar pic? I used to enjoy watching those in Hong Kong. Didn't see many last time I was there.

I might say mind is illusive in that it can only deal in probabilities, as interpretations of what in blazes is actually going on. That we use mind to think about thoughts alludes to 'mind cannot rise above itself' as mentioned to @Anton Rogachevski. Things often begin to go awry, especially when the patterns of thoughts/reason evolved unconsciously throughout life as coping mechanisms, denial strategies, numbing escapes, and the like. 'Tis the problem with self, which is, existentially speaking, an illusion... always changing, never actually an object, but more of a contextual amalgamation based on memory and assumption. But it's impossible to explain that away.... gotta be SEEN for what it is. That's Ramana's Nan Yar.... gotta SEE it oneself. But the thoughts/thinking do continue to arise, at least for most. So being conscious of when mind is engaged and remaining aware of its patterns is waking up to its construct: strengths, weaknesses, shenanigans, and all.... is putting it in its place (secondary in the flow of consciousness). Thoughts/words are not the actuality, just at least once removed. That's why hearsay is (at least relatively) more unreliable, as are our conditioned beliefs (lots of hearsay). And when you throw in time/memory, the potential for more delusion and unreliability only increases. That's one of the problems with conflating states of mind (which come and go) with realization or Truth, at least in how I express it. But yes, existentially speaking, whoever said, "There is no time like the present" was right!

As in the Course in Miracles, yes? I must say, I was a little interested to see a Deadhead speaking of Jesus on this website. Times are interesting. Great, unlearning is a big factor, to be sure. It's more or less a 'becoming conscious of and letting go process', yes? If comfortable with doing so, please share what you mean by "Jesus then began to reveal himself quite quickly, as a kind of inner guide or higher self. But it took me a long time to accept him and begin to understand what he is really about." What would you say about differentiating between say, Jesus the man versus the realization as the Christ? According to the Bible, Jesus is claimed to have said, "I and the Father are One".......“Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods” (John 10:30-38). What do you think was meant by that? It is self honesty that helps deepen the understanding of how the mind works. It sounds like you've gotten over 'the hump', so to speak, and are appreciating some peace from a previous storm. Take your time---- lots of cool Dead songs about the journey.

The mind is a tool, not the master sort of dealio. Living in the world, conscious of the mind and its propensities. Would you say that the voice you're referring to is more akin to the bicameral mind ish, or would you attribute it to some of the mother-father conditioning stuff (i.e., inner critic, self-concept, attachment, trauma)? Or perhaps how the latter shaped the former?

All good. You do you! I'm old and just have a variety of pre-Internet skills that still work. I even used a typewriter for undergrad work . Luckily, during my early professional life, they developed the Internet before I returned to school and did my dissertation. Your predicament just sounded so much like my students', who always tried to tackle the blob. Granted they were just writing extended essays, not theses. I'm sure you'll be fine. G'luck!

A brief history via a map for those not aware or may have just been absent that day in 3rd grade (and give a 💩) .

Perspective by AI in the Sky Crime rates and immigration in the U.S. over the last 20 years. Key Findings and Data Points: Overall Trends: Multiple studies and analyses indicate that immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, generally have lower crime rates than native-born Americans. Some research even suggests that increased immigration may be associated with decreased crime rates. Historical Data (1980-2022): A comparison of crime and demographic data from 1980 to 2022 showed that as the immigrant share of the population more than doubled (from 6.2% to 13.9%), the total crime rate dropped by 60.4%. Incarceration Rates: Immigrants have had lower incarceration rates than the native-born population since at least 1870. [1][3] In 2020, immigrants were reportedly 60% less likely to be incarcerated than U.S.-born individuals. Texas Data: Texas, the only state that tracks criminal arrests and convictions by immigration status, has found that immigrants of all legal statuses were arrested at less than half the rate of U.S.-born citizens for violent and drug crimes. Recent Data (2017-2022): From 2017 to 2022, the immigrant share of the U.S. population rose, while the national total crime rate dropped by 15.3%. Incarceration Rates (2023): In 2023, the incarceration rate for native-born Americans was 1,221 per 100,000, while for illegal immigrants it was 613 per 100,000, and for legal immigrants, it was 319 per 100,000. Second Generation: Crime rates tend to rise among second-generation immigrants compared to first-generation immigrants, often approaching the rates of native-born Americans.