Dodo

Yes, if there is such a thing in the first place. Maybe it proves the use of conscious nothingness.

I somehow connect the sound of the breath to a frequency that is like the default melody of the human being. Maybe it's something I read or it's just intuitive, I don't know.

Here I am thinking we don't believe in brains here... This is truly most interesting to me. This is not the circlejerk I used to know and love. But seriously tho... Do you believe in brain? Why does this have so many reps? Isn't this video just monkey-mind in science religion cloak?

I agree. However I want to open at least the possibility of ultimate truth existing. Perhaps the ultimate trully does not exist for us as humans, but aren't we here on this forum exactly because we want to dive deeper and see who we trully are behind the human facade and see what is true from fully being who we trully are? My uneducated guess is that this would be what people call Enlightenment. For some diving deep and bashing their heads at impossible tasks can be considered fun! :-D

Dodo is extinct! The joke aside, here is an insight I got from this conversation to anyone that is interested. I think it was very constructive and the insight is pretty obvious and easy to follow. If the truth is relative, that means there are "Who's". So truth is relative only if we are talking Egos. If the true self is no self, then truth cannot possibly be relative, because there is nothing to relate to, so it becomes ultimate. But then there's no-one who can come on Actualised.org forum and write a forum post about it ? This means that no point of view (relative truth) is the ultimate truth. It also means that no "Who" knows or can know the ultimate truth, because then this truth will be relative to them. Maybe I'm talking crap? To me it sounds true, however it's only relative, so obviously not the ultimate :-D I think it can be a pointer to the ultimate tho :).

Yeah we can say both are right, we can also say both are wrong, right? That's why Dodoster thinks this is so tricky, because people like to stop at "Include everything" as a mental concept, whereas that means to be rejecting the opposite of "include everything". No-one can be all inclusive and accepting of viewpoints, but the no-one itself. Dodoster doesn't know. It just feels like a no brainer - pun intended Maybe that's why the stress is always on Practise and not theory, because theory can go on forever and nobody is ultimately wrong or right (maybe I'm wrong or right) . But @Principium Nexus strikes Dodoster as more evolved than him, so Dodoster assumes that @Principium Nexus knows this and therefore Dodoster is confused as to why he is still writing this.

Dodoster's guess is that Dodoster is probably a figment of nothingness' imagination.

Incorrect assumptions about what Dodoster is expressing with all this. It's ok. Shanmugam is taking a piece out of a whole conversation, taking it out of context. Dodoster has no time for explanations. Yes, it is a circle of hypocrisy. Dodoster is only worried that Loreena is not seeing it in herself while you she is pointing it out in others. It's ok if Loreena does see it in herself. Now she can grow. That's why Dodoster thinks silence is the only solution to the circle of hypocrisy. PS: To clarify, Loreena's posts are trashing Dodoster's perspective, because Dodoster's posts are trashing Loreena's perspectives. Loreena should read her posts as if they are directed towards herself and she will see that they are self-defeating. @Loreena

@Loreena All I want to point out is that those people you are pointing out as dogmatic operate under the same standard as you do. Every person is dogmatic. Only no-person can be free of dogma. I'm not attacking you, i don't get why you're pointing out the things you're pointing out about my statements. Every person thinks their truth is the true truth, that's why they defend what they think they know. Have you experienced that there are only relative truths or do you believe that? Your defensive energy streaming through your posts shows me that you have not.

It can be called correct and I showed you how it can also be called incorrect, because saying everything is relative is an absolute statement. This is far beside the point I was raising however. I was pointing out clear as daylight that someone who claims to not have problem with accepting other perspectives, does not accept the perspective which is trashing without error their perceived unshakable truth. In this case it's @Loreena but im sure Ive done this as well. These are just examples of why the person needs to go.

Beliefs are lies and should be removed. Ofcourse I will be sceptical of them. I'm on the search for truths, not beliefs. "I know nothing" "I know something" "I know everything" All those are beliefs if there is no I in the first place. But these statements sneakily imply that there is an I, as if it is true. So while we are thinking about what we know or not know, we rarely look at the one who is supposed to know or not know. I highly hope it's not the case here on this forum ofcourse, that's what self enquiry is for. @Principium Nexus

I was not claiming earlier in this post to be accepting of all perspectives just to prove I was lying when put to the test. Either that or you were just giving advice/wisdom which you do not follow. This incident is only one example which shows how the person is inconsistent.

Can you not see the problem with what you're saying? You are claiming that you know for a fact that there are only relative truths. Is that not your claim that you know an ultimate truth that there are only relative truths? What happens when another disagrees? You defend your truth as if it is not relative itself... You must see this. If you preach this you're no less dogmatic than the dogmatic people you are pointing out. Just on another level.

As long as there is a person, there will be something to defend. That's why the person needs to go... This is the reason I am here. There will always be differences of opinion, that's why I look for undeniable truth and no longer looking for conceptual truth. What you perceive as true and what I perceive as true conceptually are different because of our different conceptual points of view. Feel free to disagree with what I'm saying, it is my point of view.

Pointing that out is resistance to the perspective of those that don't want to allow other perspectives - it's still a valid perspective to hold on to your own perspective and statements such as these are paradoxical and frankly hypocritical. It's like saying there is no ultimate truth you can have. (In other words: here's the truth: there is no truth). Paradoxical and hypocritical. Best is to keep silent I have found about truth and points of view. Obviously you telling me your point of view will not make me see your point of view, but an interpretation of it that I create, so even now I am talking with and against my interpretations. I better use my time for much needed healing rather than scoundrelling the forums tho

Leo speaks poetry. You don't enjoy two hour long poetry sessions? It's your problem! You are taking the perception that "others are taking life way too seriously" way too seriously.

Currently I am in the trenches of life and I am forced to give effort in things I am not good at in order to learn and evolve. Who is suffering that? You would, and I would say no-one, but the reality of the situation is that I am here getting punched left and right, required to make decisions and choices between accepting and escaping my reality if I have to be honest. I'm talking about the human being that is typing those words, not awareness. Turns out I am not really awareness! It has been a sham. I am actually a human being that has to deal with issues, but I'm so far the rabbit hole that I can't, so the only thing on the horizon is death. There is no way out. I better be awareness, because suicide looks like a better option day by day. It's a struggle, this life requires endless struggle and effort, unless you have the faculties needed to survive ( good DNA). There's nothing else. A damned lottery. Who is required to give an effort? The answer of that question leads nowhere. I accept my inability to give effort, furthermore my inability to find the one that is supposed to give effort. However at the same time as I accept effort can't be made at this time, at the same time I can see that this is just an attempt to escape from responsibility and effort. Why is escaping from a prison that tortures you worse than accepting a prison that tortures you in your opinion? This post may look like a bunch of ramblings, but that's because of my current state of consciousness, which is probably what Leo describes as severe Ego backlash.

This is my favourite and I've watched it way more than 10 times. Yeah! It's good.

I am having a continuous spiritual experience after practising Mooji's clear seeing technique. Everything that is, will always be surrounded and grounded in Nothingness. It's a simple fact. You can always zoom out. Nobody has seen the nothingness, because it is outside of existence, it contains existence. Existence is a bubble in Nothingness. I am grounded in Nothingness and shine within nothingness as nothingness. Everything that is will always be ungrounded. It's not form that is holding this together. It's absolute nothingness and it's who I am, that's why I speak with such conviction! Actually there is a self, it's just no self. But truth is that the self is! Always, no matter what!

Well if everything is nothing, then something is nothing too. I don't know if everything is nothing, I know nothing, John Snow.

Nothing, because there is no death. I am here, now, always.

Let me rephrase the question : Is my nothingness the same as your nothingness? Sounds silly!

All due respect, dear Gurdjieff, but dead forever means nothing, since who is there to experience "dead forever". Why should one fear being "dead forever" - I have never gotten that. It's obviously not going to be a restful sleep or anything of that kind, because there is simply no you there to experience that. However, probability and maths are on the side of Dodoster here. Why? Because it happened once that Dodoster would exist (now). This means that the chance of Dodoster's existence is bigger than 0%. Dodoster has infinite amount of time to be "dead", however, if the chance of Dodoster's existence is proven to be more than 0% because of the current happenings, this means that Dodoster will be born again and again in infinity. So everyone will have infinite amount of tries to get enlightened anyway. But yeah, better get it on this iteration, you're already far enough in. If creating soul means finding the true nature... "And I would like to tell you that Gurdjieff was just using a device. It is not true. Everybody is born with a soul. But what to do with people who have been using truths as consolations? A great master sometimes has to lie – and only a great master has the right to lie – just to pull you out of your sleep." I like this addition by Osho. But still I don't think it's a good tactic to bring fear into the equation by Gurdjieff.

I'm good now, but now I am not forced to go into mind by my environment. When I am at work, that's when the problems start, because I am forced to think past and future and I am supposed to think, like a lot. I almost hate referring to past and future nowadays, because I know that repetition reinforces the wrong beliefs. So it's better not to speak about things that are not real, because we are building our prison ourselves. Maybe should stop saying I as well. Refer to myself in third person. Because what's the point of saying "I" if it's a lie? If practical purposes require the use of false beliefs and concepts, then isn't it a false existence? False practicality to be removed. Example: I am writing this post. This is a lie, is it not? At the same time it is true based on our practical beliefs. It's more correct to say some clusterfuck is happening and I am aware of all that I am aware of. Lol.