Gesundheit2

Evil is not only a necessity, it's also God's creation. God creates evil by fighting it. The whole premise of "being good" hinges upon having the identity and inclination to fight evil wherever it might be. In that sense, "good" people are the source of all evil, and it is precisely because they don't realize that that they keep creating more evil unknowingly and unwillingly. There would literally be no evil without those "good" people imagining it into existence, fighting it off and denying that they are. God is literally the biggest devil. That is one super delicious strange-loop! As well, goodness is something that "evil" people imagine by projecting their selfish agendas onto the world. The lesser Jihad. It's just nice to have clarity.

Then, I would likewise suggest another solution, which is for her to accept him as he is and have sex regardless of his porn consumption.

This is a common narcissistic tactic. It's called the double-bind. Heads I win, tails you lose.

??

@Someone here There are different ways to interpret what I wrote. Arrogant and condescending is one way. Honest and true is another. Choose whichever one you like, you only get what you give, according to the LoA at least.

I have accessed both types (in excess) through various techniques that did not include psychedelics. The latter type is not sustainable in my experience. It plateaued after a while and then stopped completely. I remember that it had a trip component to it, like exactly how a trip is supposed to be temporary and then pass. It's been a long while since I'd experienced such deep ecstasy, but I still do experience a certain level of elation mostly from walking mediation. And the underlying sense of peace and calmness is still there most of the time.

Cuz both of them are the primary go-to places when you are bored, hurt, or single, depending on your gender.

What dictionary are you using that defines the ego as such? Here's what the word "ego" actually means: https://www.britannica.com/topic/ego-philosophy-and-psychology "ego, in psychoanalytic theory, that portion of the human personality which is experienced as the “self” or “I” and is in contact with the external world through perception." There's no "body organism" in that definition, and I challenge you to come up with one dictionary that states otherwise. The word ego is merely a reference to a psychological phenomenon that does not exist in the real world. But feel free to create your own dictionary and talk with yourself. You are deeply wrong. Sorry, but there's no way around it. And the earlier you come to terms with this fact, the better. You are not awake to your true nature, and all you have ever done is philosophy, not spiritual practice. Nobody is policing you. You just don't want to do the practices, e.g. self-inquiry, and you want to continue with your arm-chair philosophy instead. And I'm not against using dualistic language. In fact, I'm all for that. I use any words that I like, if you ever notice. The difference between you and me is that you are not aware of what you are saying. You simply don't know what you're talking about. To think that I was in any way trying to oppose the use of dualistic language is an indicator of where you are coming from and your lack of practice and understanding. Again, how many hours of self-inquiry have you put in so far? I don't need the answer. I'm just trying to show you how greatly you are overestimating yourself and your understanding. The ego is not consciousness. Anyone with any level of understanding realizes this fact. Sure, you might say that the ego is made of consciousness, but it is not and never will be consciousness itself. The part is not the whole. And by the way, this duality is not of my creation. It's in language itself. It only makes sense to use two words to refer to two different things. Otherwise, let's all just use one word for everything and be done with all of language. I think that you're talking about the law of attraction, and you seem to rather have a vague/naïve understanding of how it works. It doesn't matter much to me, as long as it's convincing to you that it is working and giving you results.

“He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche.

Probably legit, but it will also probably cost the US many friendships.

This AI hype is becoming like the space discovery hype. All of it is currently nonsense and very far from actualization. No need to worry about such trivia.

Porn for a guy is like male friends for a girl. If she's asking you to quit porn, ask her to drop all her male friends. If she refuses/argues/etc., break up.

Neo-Advaita is the belief that no practice is required to understand one's true nature. It is exactly what you are doing, and it's leading you off-track. Neo-Advaita is different from Advaita Vedanta in that Vedanta emphasizes on practice and direct recognition more than simple arm-chair philosophy. Oh, but it is so black and white. The ego does not exist. Period. It is an illusion. An appearance on the screen of consciousness. Have you not ever seen that picture of waves in the ocean? Because you don't know what you're talking about. You don't have direct recognition of the truth, only ideas that you've collected from other people. So many confused ideas here, and a lack of linguistic awareness. Examine each word of them on its own, examine them deeply and don't just throw answers mindlessly or brush off the inquiry too early if you don't find an answer. Maybe you're not supposed to find an answer. Maybe you're supposed to find exactly nothing. What is a "we" or an "I"? Who is thinking those thoughts? Who is asking the question? etc. Basically, you need to practice self-inquiry. How many hours of practice have you put in so far? The ego. Thoughts. Confused ideas. It is not consciousness that makes us feel separate. It's the ego. Consciousness is not the ego. Consciousness is the screen on which the ego appears and disappears. Consciousness is our primary identity. Ego is secondary relative to consciousness, and so it's not necessary or true for consciousness. Which is why it is considered illusory. Because it can change and morph and everything, while consciousness remains the same. You can identify with the ego if you want. But who/what is this "You" that can identify? It's consciousness, not ego. And that's the point. What have you been able to manifest so far? Not that I'm curious or anything, cuz I already know the answer will not be coherent, let alone significant.

You would get more bliss from a morning run in the park than from meditating for two hours straight. Best is to combine both and practice walking meditation.

@Someone here I might or might not go over what you said and reply to it in detail once I have more time to spare. For now, just know that you are deluded and at the opposite end of enlightenment and clarity.

No. Meh.

Non-duality is a very useful philosophy. It makes life play. The Buddha said life is suffering. He did not realize that suffering is only half of the duality. There's happiness on the other half. And the best thing is that the halfs are not fixed. You can literally expand one and shrink the other if you want. In fact, most people do that unconsciously. They expand on their suffering and shrink their happiness. Sounds stupid, right? Well, humans are stupid. The truth is that you do have a choice, but first you need to achieve a certain level of transcendence/selflessness before you may access that much control over the dualities of life. The more transcendent/selfless you become, the easier this gets. Imagine going to work and feeling like you're playing instead of working. That's literally the kind of thing you can do with non-duality. You can dissolve the duality between work and play if you want, and then you can re-create it in the way that you want. It's all in your mind. Psychology.

What is preventing you is that you don't even exist to begin with but think that you do by mistaking the thoughts for reality. And so you are inquiring based on a faulty assumption that is creating a circular/self-referential question/problem. The ego/thoughts/false identity does not have a reality, nor a will of its own. Free will is an illusion, remember? This is like basic enlightenment stuff. It's kind of funny that almost nobody here, including you, seems to understand this (I haven't read all the replies, though). No, that doesn't necessarily prove a material reality. But yes, it does disprove an ideal one where you are God. It is precisely because you can't manifest something out of nothing through your egoic will that make you not God.

"Desire is a mosquito that will never quit or let you live peacefully until you smash it." -- The legendary Ges.

@LSD-Rumi I think you fundamentally misunderstand God and non-duality, and somehow confuse them and think that they're the same thing when they're not. God and non-duality are two different parameters. You could realize God without understanding non-duality, and you could understand non-duality without realizing God. Non-duality is a philosophy, or a way of thinking and looking at reality. It might talk about God, but it is not God. God, on the other hand, as people typically use the word, is the absolute truth that is prior to everything else, including philosophy. In that sense, it's hard to know whether Muhammad even realized God, cuz it's hard to distinguish dogma from genuine awakening, especially within the context of psychosis. As for non-duality, I am pretty sure that Muhammad had no clue about it at all, cuz Arabia was not a very sophisticated/advanced culture (still is not till this day).

@LSD-Rumi You can believe anything you want. Doesn't make it true.

That's very speculative at the very least. There's no evidence in Arabic literature, as far as I know, that anyone back then had any understanding of non-duality. Only later, after Arabia expanded and merged with other cultures such as Persia and India, the Sufis came up, learned about Buddhism and Hinduism, and started smoking Hashish. Only then that non-duality emerged in Arabic culture. So, no I don't think that Muhammad ever thought he was one with Allah. He always thought that he was a prophet. Not only that, but he almost never spoke with Allah directly. Most of Allah's communications/revelations were mediated by the angel Gabriel. There's not one story that I've heard of that says Muhammad was Allah or something like that. In fact, It is evident that the opposite is true, because the Quran denies the possibility that Jesus might have been the son of God. The Quran states clearly that Jesus was just a human being, and so was Muhammad. https://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=41&verse=6 https://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=4&verse=171 Leo Gura worships himself, cuz he is a narcissist, so he thinks he's God, solipsism, etc. This whole narrative of "I am God" is made by narcissists, and appeals only to narcissists. I have developed some degree of narcissism, so I tend to experience "God" thoughts, too. And from my experience, I can tell that Muhammad was not a narcissist. He was just a person who lived under tough conditions with severe childhood traumas who became psychotic later on and experienced God delusions cuz he was also a religious nut who studied Christianity in secret. Simple as that. https://www.aljazeera.net/midan/intellect/sociology/2017/11/10/احتكار-الحقيقة-لماذا-كل-من-حولك-مجانين