Salvijus

It's chi, ki, prana, mana, kundalini, life force etc. It should begin to open your mind to the esoteric and woo woo stuff now. This energy can be cultivated, refined and increased in many ways. Meditation itself would accomplish that aswell. One of the things you can do with that energy is this?. Also healing, also it's good for your spiritual growth. The more intense the energy gets, the more awareness expands somehow. If the energy was to become very intense, organized and channled in a particular way it can even rise your hair and you'd become like a super sayan. (No joke) that is one of the reasons enlightened beings have a powerful aura around them.

"Nobody is superior then anyone else, nobody is inferior then anyone else, everything just is as it is. All life has the same inherent value, the value of god itself."

If I interpreted it right you're saying, "unless I'm physically attractive, I won't be loved in this society" perhaps there's some truth. Men are pretty shallow indeed. But the good news are you can always love yourself! ? Yea on the more serious note i would say this suffering is just ignorance and shallowness in the end. People can definitely be loved regardless of their appearance, iq, eq, or whatever else you have. At least in theory. I understand it's pretty rare in the current world. Also i would add something cringy that the love and appreciation you long to extract from others will never be the real thing. Only the love that comes from within you will fill the hole of lack inside you. And for that you need do nothing but allow it to fill you. It's corny but it's true imo.

I know this is going to raise some eyebrows but im gonna say it anyways... Women are not to be used, women or all life for that matter is to be appreciated. To be of service and value is not a duty or a burden, it is a joyous priviledge to extend the Light of God. If this doesn't resonate just ignore.

This here is a proof that lier's paradox doesn't exist. Lier's paradox can only happens when there's either a fundamental flaw from the very beginning. Or an impossible circumstances would have come together. Which automatically implies it will never ever going to happen. Hence lier's paradox got debunked, dismantaled, kicked in the balls, and thrown into a garbage bin ?

Of course i'm right, you don't have to tell me that.

@Kuba Powiertowski If you say so As far as im concerned, i successfully showed how there's no paradox here. Just some fundamental flaws in the system that make it seem so.

Here's another one. "If a device that always gives inaccurate information says: i always give inaccurate information" is it true or false . Then either the first part is false Or Such an outcome is impossible. If a device truly is capable of giving only inaccurate information. Then saying the truth is not an option for it. In other words a device that TRULY always gives only an inaccurate information would NEVER EVER say that it is a device that always gives an inaccurate information.

What if I rephrased it like: "A person who always gives inaccurate information says: everyone is a lier. Is it true or false?" Very easy it would be to confirm this one if it's true or not imo. Another one "A person who always gives inaccurate information says: this information is false. Is it true or false?" The answer is "it is not false" because if a person who always gives inaccurate evaluation says, something is wrong, that means it's not wrong.

"This statement is false" is not a statement, it's an evaluation. So a more accurate way to say it would be: "This evaluation is false" . Then the quation would follow, evaluation of what? It's impossible to determine whether the evaluation is accurate or not because we don't know what it was trying to evaluate to begin with.

You have to make a statement first. "This is false" is all the information we have right now. How are we supposed to know what "This" is pointing to?

This should be fun

You know frank yang is coming to my mind here. If my memory is correct he says, he experienced total infinity and glory on 5meo many times and then went deeper and experienced total cessation lol

@Breakingthewall

Okey that sounds genuine. I would struggle to fit what you've sayed into any logic for now. But i'll take your word for it that it's true. So what's beyond the cessation then?

Mmm. The explanation given in buddhism is quite different actually. They say, what we experience is just our mind, our mind creates all experience. They say when awareness becomes absolutely sharp and is able to see how the mind is creating entire experience down to its subtles levels, awareness begins to dissolve the things that cause experience to arise (sankharas) and that leads to cessation. In other words, cessation is not a state where you block yourself from all experience by putting blinders on a donkey. It's a state of awareness that can see through the mechanics of how experience is created by the mind and relinguishes it. It implies total trancendence of the mind.

Okey, even if we go by your model that we create pictures in infinity. Still. What would be left if you stopped creating pictures if not an empty timeless bottomless nothingness? And my argument that Nothingness cannot be imagined or draw in pictrues or painted is still valid imo. So it's fair to call it a total opposite of imagination as far as I'm concerned.

There's another way of looking that i would propose. "For something not to be, you just have to stop creating it, because everything is your imagination anyways" and if one stops imagining all reality, the void/nothingness is the only option left imo.

@Moksha The way i interpreted what breakingthewall sayed is that the unmanifest is imaginary. And i would propose that that the unmanifest cannot be imaginary. Only the manifest can be imaginary. I don't see any flaw in this logic. And the end of all imagination would naturally result in void/nothingness/cessation/nirodha samapatti. Still don't see any flaw in logic.

Bye

Also i would lile to say that realizing "everything is my imagination" is not the highest realization. The highest awareness is when you can see that you're imagining the entire universe, aanndd you can go beyond all imagination by relinquishing it because the awareness has trancendenced all of The Mind. That's nirodha samapatti in brief. Bam. Addios amigos, I'm out.

Noooo... ? This hurts. Why would the absence of all imagination, aka, the void, be imaginary.... it literally means the opposite of imagination... gosh.... Here's a queation, how would one describe the state where all imagination/creation/dreaming is over? The answer i would propose: nirodha samapatti, or void in english.

@Water by the River It should have a special meaning tho as far as i understand. Because achieving nirodha samapatti is an indication that one's awareness has trancendenced all mind. Being able to sense nothingness among all things like in Dzogchen is not necessarily an indicator that he achieved total trancendence yet. But by keeping his attention on the emptiness during all activities and refining his discernment further he is bound to achieve total trancendence, nirodha samapatti some day. So nirodha should have a special meaning here. It indicates the level of growth and trancendence one has attained imo. And i also think one who attains to nirodha is automatically able to see nothingness in all things like Dzogchen. But i could be wrong idk.

@Water by the River If i got it right, you're basicly saying that manifestaion is not different than nothingness. I get it. You don't need to keep explaining it ? I still think it is not related to my original post tho. I heard a good argument once on this topic why total cessation has extra importance. It's because suppose there was water mixed with milk, if one wanted to experience what water tastes like, he first would need to evaporate all the milk out of it. Then that one has truly tasted the absolute without any milk in it. Until one experiences a clear dip in total cessation he doesn't know what water tastes likes, he knows a mixture of water and milk only. I thought it's a good thought provoking argument.

Okey i think i see where that train of thought came from now. But i never heard anyone calling nirodha a temporary, passing thing. Calling it the absolute, unborn, uncreated, eternal, boundless makes much more sense imo. And the original point i was trying to make was triggered by Leo saying that nirodha and nothingness is just an act of god's imagination and how it doesn't make much sense to me. Because nothingness in my view is the only thing that cannot be imagined or created or dreamed up. Rather i think it would be more accurate to say nirodha is the total opposite of that. It's the end of all imagination, end of all creation, end of all dreams etc.