WelcometoReality

Yeah, Your definition of desire is not the way buddha defined it and therefore we can only compare the definitions. If you define it as the energy to do something then no, you cant create if you don't have desire. Yeah, you put it really well. You're not grinding against but towards. Perhaps we could call that a "higher" level of desire where you flow with the current rather than swimming against it. Not as exhausting I'd say. What I think is the most interesting with flow states are when we are so deep into it that there isn't a willful act to do anything rather things are happening effortlessly. No i is present but the body does what it does, creates, and when the flow state ends the i wakes up again almost as if it went to sleep. A deep topic indeed. ? It's quite interesting to observe the bodys ability to do without any conscious will. The problem that can occur is that either it's never recognized to be happening without effort because there is no i present or once it's recognized we want to involve in the process. ? I think what you say makes sense. Can't see any conflicting ideas. I like what you said about conflicting desires. Inner conflict will definitely cause suffering. I think Buddha has a point in what he says but his definition of desire is more specific. Meaning a lack in the present and moving towards a future goal. And with that definition I would agree that it's good to see through the illusion of desire. Happiness is right here and now.

That's it. ? Have you ever been in a flow state where things are effortlessly happening, is there any desire then? Also, have you ever burned yourself on a stove and was there a desire to remove your hand or did it happen automatically? I'd say that if life was a constant flow there wouldn't be any desire or i. Just life effortlessly unfolding.

I agree. Thank you for the clarification.

Yes, it is the same thing, only perceived in different ways. Yes, the mirage would be the world with all it's separate "things". It is in fact consciousness.

I see, so these distinctions are purely in the understanding and the error I made was to mix the understanding that @Shambhu was explaining with his actual experience. If so, as a follow up question I'd like to ask is: Is it experienced that form is the formlessness, that both are essentially the same, and not only an "appearance" within it? And I understand that from an advaita vedanta POV this does not make sense but can you intuit what I mean with the question? If not perhaps the better question is, how has this realization manifested in the world?

Have you read what I read to @Shambhu? I explain why that is a subtle form of separation.

I've definitely been guilty of many on the lower list. The top list is extensive and good imo. The ones that I resonated with most is nr 14 and 17. What does nr 26 mean to you?

I'm actually not assuming anything about you. Yeah understanding the top list is good then.

I don't know that. If you're not engaging in some of it then you don't need to let it go.

Not easy for anyone ? but yeah especially if you have trauma. It's not like you have to let go of everything at once. Just that which you're willing to let go of now.

If you let go of all this you'll probably end up in love.

Unless you genuinely want the truth and nothing else go for b otherwise do a but have a meditation practice for the benefits of having a meditation practice... imo

Yeah they do. ? They aren't perceived to be beliefs but reality. Until they are inspected that is. Then we see them for what they are.

Of course, now is all there is and enlightenment is waking up to that. You realize how ridiculous it was to believe that there was a future and past that was real. Waiting for what to happen? That is anticipation for some future event. If you do that you'll wait for a life time. So start seeing through the illusion that you are describing moment by moment. Because it hasn't been realized yet. You are already that which you'll seek. Just sink deeper into that which you truly are.

That which isn't an object but that which is all objects. Or rather there isn't objects. Objects are distinctions made by thought. All there is is consciousness.

I would say that beliefs are identification to thought and feeling patterns. But identification goes much deeper than beliefs, it actually alters the way we see reality.

I just want to add one final thing and that is that all distinctions is separation. If it's truly is ONE then no more distinctions is needed. Nothing more needs to be said. Of course we need to go our direct experience and see if there seem to be duality within it. If there is then more work needs to be done.

@Ampresus A glimpse of your true nature.

It's hard to say which path is most efficient. What I would say is that it's good to contemplate and integrate your realization but most of the work is practice. If I had to start over again I would have both formal and non-formal practices. Test which ones you benefit from mostly. I'd recommend strong determination sitting as formal and non-formal different mindfulness practices. Just being present is a great non-formal practice.

It wasn't a doomed endeavor at all. Perhaps it's those who engage in a discussion with you who learns the most? I for one would gladly continue the discussion because I did gain clarity.

Too bad. I really enjoyed talking to you about this. ??

I would say that there is no true identity since identity is clinging and clinging is ego. That's a logical conclusion that makes sense from your absolute POV and I agree that time is only in thought. There is no time because it's always now. But the now is always changing and this can be directly investigated. Again you are separating consciousness with content of consciousness which is not oneness. If there's only consciousness then the appearance is consciousness too. If it's truly is one we can't separate the two which you do. You can say that the appearance is within consciousness but you are basically saying that they're not equal. Appearances are only appearances and not consciousness. Which is why I don't resonate with what you're saying. If they truly are one and consciousness is all there is then appearances are also consciousness. This is a great point! I can see now why you are reluctant to say that appearances within consciousness are the same as consciousness. But what if nothing actually come and go? Like a tvscreen which is playing a movie, the appearances on the screen are in constant change but nothing ever leaves. What makes it seem to leave is the mind interpreting parts of the appearance as things which are separate from the other things on the screen.

I haven't heard that translation before. How do you interpret the third sentence? Yes, I agree. I would say that consciousness is in constant motion. There is nothing to cling to. Not even the absolute. From the absolute POV you are correct, it is changeless. But that is only half the truth. That is what I mean when I say that it's a subtle form of separation. There is no appearance within consciousness but appearance as consciousness. That is true oneness. This is a good analogy because it can explain the way beliefs create our reality. As long as we have a belief that the stick is a snake we will construct our reality so that it will appear that way. Just as believing to be a separate self. Or an absolute self.

That's a good realization to have, you are not the thought but it comes from your conditioned body and mind. On the level of thought you can question these thoughts. Are they true? Are people not to be trusted? Have there been a time when people used information against you or where does this stem from? On an emotional level what you can do is meet the fear. Despite being afraid you feel the fear fully while doing what scares you. Go easy on yourself and back off if you feel like it's becoming overwhelming. This dissolves the fear and it will start to feel easier and easier with time until it no longer feels like a problem anymore.

I see. Maybe this one, im paraphrasing: The world is illusiory, Brahman alone is real, Brahman is the world. I would say that there is no wave that is depent on the water. Whether the water is still or in motion it's only water. That is the illusiory nature of the world. Just like there is no actual wave, but the water waving, there is no world but Brahman worlding. In other words, Brahman in motion.