OneHandClap

There isn't one. Experiences are "knowing" themselves. The reason there is no experiencer/self is because it requires separation from the objects being perceived. I.e. a witnessing self would have to be distinct from phenomena. But as anybody can find out, it is one seamless whole. There is no duality in being. Btw, if you are interested in this, you can look into cessation. Hot topic around here, but essentially, once the self and dualistic perception fades, lights out. Collapse the witness, and you collapse the whole show.

Correct. Particles are "observing" (interacting) constantly, everywhere. Reality, or God (or whatever term you like) is observing itself from within. There is no need for us to posit that sentience has anything to do with it. Nothing, everything, here, there... there's nobody involved in any of it. It's just happening.

I would advise you to invest in a proper understanding of QM... It is not easy, but it is also not something that can be crunched down into a witty guru quote to support their metaphysical view. Saying "consciousness causes wave functions to collapse" is both a misreading of the data and very easy to ridicule from a scientific POV. Spiritual work is not a PhD in physics, and vice versa. I don't ask scientists to explain the fundamental layers of reality, but I also don't think it's the place of seekers to give half-baked interpretations of things that people have dedicated their entire lives to studying and cataloguing. OP's insight is a metaphysical one, not scientific.

I won't go into the details, but this is a very Deepak Chopra take on quantum mechanics that isn't actually what the research is trying to convey. An "observer," in QM terms, is anything that interacts with the particle such that it collapses the wave function. Even an electron can constitute an "observer," if we're using scientific terms. I'm not a hardcore materialist, but let's not jumble up science terms with metaphysical woo-woo stuff. It creates an easy target for materialists.

The one who believes they have free will is the ego. If you can release the need to have duality between programming and free will, you will know true freedom. No one to choose, no one to suffer. Nobody to do anything

The way to break free is to realize it's a Chinese finger trap. The ego is the very thing that believes it can "escape" from itself. Rather than trying to smash or break away from the ego, we're trying to live with a functional ego that understands its own limitations. The answer, then, is to relax. Surrender. The more we struggle against anything, including ego consciousness, the stronger it will become. In fact, the egoic structure thrives on the notion that it can overcome anything, especially itself (the grand joke being that egoic thinking can never outwit... drum roll... egoic thinking). Since the egoic structure is nourished by opposition and clinging, it really is as simple as ceasing the process of trying to struggle against anything. The ego is not some malicious force, but rather a selfless process, much like a computer program. When conditions are right for the ego to drop away, it will. And when it does, you will see firsthand that the ego was never really there. It's an overlay on reality, but not an actual "thing."

"Who am I?" is sort of a funny contemplation. It's akin to telling somebody that if they dig a thousand holes in a field, they'll find the secret to existence. At some point, the questioner will realize that there is no good answer to "Who am I?" They'll see that their entire mental construct of who they are is a conditioned, selfless process with no beginning or end, and that the very idea of being "Jim Smith, age 35, etc" is a complete fabrication that happened to collect along the way like a snowball rolling down a hill. So, in that sense, "Who am I?" is almost like a koan. It's a completely ridiculous question that holds a mirror up to the mind and makes it realize that the answer is a non-answer. Mu.

Science is probably our best shot at helping to create a world we would like to live in. It allows us to study and address huge issues that we face in the relative world. If, right now, we were asked whether we'd like to return to a state prior to dental care and the engineering knowledge needed to build working bridges, I think most of us would say "no." Progress and the evolution of ideas are not something that can be put back in the toothpaste tube. So as long as sentient creatures exist, technology and science will march along. They are absolutely wonderful tools for building a world with minimal unnecessary pain. And furthermore, without science, we would be unable to record and pass down knowledge related to things such as awakening. Forums like this one are expediting the process of mental development for the species. That being said, the key word is "tools." As another poster said, science cannot (and should not be asked to) grasp the Absolute. This is a personal matter, not a collective one.

I disagree with your assertion that women being excluded from monastic circles has not been a significant factor in why women are not "leaders" of spiritual circles. This is tantamount to saying racism is not a factor in society anymore because overtly racist laws have been repealed. If you look at the modern "leaders" of spirituality, most of them received training directly from other males in established lineages (Adyashanti, Shinzen Young, etc). They were trained by male spiritual teachers who hailed from male-dominated spiritual lineages. In another hundred years, we will see how the leadership composition looks. Right now, however, it is important to look at it from a holistic point of view. Monastic circles do not hold dominance over awakening, no, but they have produced the largest number of accomplished seekers from a historical POV. Psychedelics have evened that out a bit, but still, monastic traditions provided the line of knowledge that most leaders today used. As far as the "serving behind the scenes angle"? Well, that is an interesting viewpoint to take. I suppose there could be truth to it.

The historical issue is one of continuing consequence. On a broad level, women were excluded from monastic circles in most areas of the world for thousands of years. It's not a stretch to believe that culturally, globally, humans may have assumed men to have a more prevalent place in "spiritual seeking." It takes time to "mend the gaps" in areas like this. Already, we are seeing more and more female spiritual leaders emerging, as you said. But since the entire lineage of most religious orders has been male (and in many religions, still is), the teachings are often passed down by men, through men.

Such a great comment! I totally agree. The biggest boost I got from medication was the realization that change is possible. It is so easy to feel trapped and stuck in a rut when down "in the trenches" of spiritual work or general living. Sometimes all it takes is that shift in perspective to get us out of a rut and develop our own coping strategies.

I totally get you. I would say, seeing as you've clearly done a lot to help yourself, do a quick consultation (telemedicine is good if it's available for you) and see what the opinion is. Whether you decide to take medication or not is totally up to you, but if you do decide to go ahead with it, have faith, have courage, and remember that it is a short-term fix that has the potential to open up long-term freedom in how you approach your symptoms. Best of luck, and PM me anytime!

Sounds like incel logic to me. You are just baselessly declaring women as inherently selfish and then providing no proof of your own claim. If it is so "well studied," you should be able to link some sources here instead of just constantly bashing women as having larger egos than men.

There is a really good talk on depression by Robert Sapolsky that you might find interesting. I believe he teaches at Stanford. In summary, clinical depression has extremely well-researched neurochemical bases. We do not know how to effectively treat it yet, but it's more than just bad mental habits. Chicken and the egg.

There's no conspiracy here; I'm merely pointing out that there's a whole cultural history you need to examine before asking a question like this. It's a bit like asking why there aren't as many female scientists. When you have entire institutions that have been built for hundreds/thousands of years to exclude an entire gender/sex, it makes sense that the leading experts in that field would be the gender/sex that hasn't been barred from participation.

It certainly can. This kind of male vs female logic is, historically, part of the justification used by many different religions and sects to keep women out of monasteries and temples. Then there's the whole temptation angle, the uncleanliness one, etc... We really don't need more reasons for humans to divide themselves along ideological lines. Awakening belongs to every being equally.

Correlation isn't causation. You can also find tons of "smart" dudes who are extremely materialist and shun any ideas of spiritual work. @OBEler There is zerooooo proof that women are more "solipsistic" by nature. If you think men don't struggle with egos and aggressive displays of self-cherishing, you're putting on blinders. This sounds like your bias more than any actual reality.

IQ has literally nothing to do with awakening. There may be cultural factors at play, but IQ? Nah.

@Matt23 I tried just about everything, and have tripped probably 40-50 times total in my life between all psychs. The anxiety still remained. As mentioned before, my parents are both quite neurotic and anxious as it is, so I believe there may be something biological at root. I've also tried various supplements (L-theanine, magnesium, nootropics) - all are temporarily useful, but maybe not a long-term solution for all. Studies have shown that medication is sometimes useful, as is talking-based therapy, but the greatest results come from combining the two. So if you do suffer from BPD, it might be useful to speak with a doctor and find out if they can start you off with standard therapy. Medication is truly a last-resort thing, IMO. I am also sympathetic to @Michael569's views on the need for holistic treatment. Always begin with lifestyle, diet, and habits, then see if you can/should integrate further help.

I do understand your position, and it's pretty interesting as a general trend. That being said, the fact that it didn't come true for the last president (and seemingly not for Biden) makes me wonder about how effective such magick would actually be, if we assume it exists.

I'll wait a few more decades before passing judgment. Seeing as many of the presidents "afflicted" by the curse died of natural causes in a time when medicine wasn't up to modern standards, it's hard to say. So, if pressed right now, I'd go with inconclusive/coincidental.

Aw, you are beyond welcome! It was a note I jotted down during a dark period of searching. When the questions vanish, so too does the fear. And fear/thinking is really just a nutritionally devoid diet we keep feeding ourselves, hoping to be sated. Love and wonder is an endless buffet

This is so, so true. I think most of us, if not all, went through at least one phase of existential dread about the realizations in spiritual work. Some may call it a dark night, others may not. What matters is that it is transient. It is the period of hollowing out all the expectations we came to hold about life as finite human beings with a nice collection of "stuff"—goals, identities, histories. There is an ocean of love on the other side of rumination. Thought cannot nourish you; only love.

In Absolute reality, there is no goal. Goals belong to the world of the relative. For one who is not yet awake to their own nature, the goal will be to "wake up." But once woken up, it's revealed that the goal only existed in the context of one who believed they were a separate entity with a personality, history, and, yes, goals. Pertinent to your questions, however, there are some things that cannot be known no matter how awakened a being is. And that includes what comes after physical death for an organism. Anybody trying to give you clear-cut answers on what follows the death of the body is just speculating.

Bingo. I think a lot of these channels set up some difficult, if not impossible standards for young men in the real world. No wonder it comes with so much frustration...