Telepresent

Can you define for us what you mean by suffering?

Hello @Anna1! A pleasure to get in touch with you. So you're new to Actualized: what brought you here? What are you hoping for, what do you expect? What do you think would challenge you? I'd be very pleased to hear about your first awakening - or subsequents - and of very course I'd be interested in hearing about your perspectives on your self. Of course, I'm also happy to answer any questions you may have in reply (which are hard to mention in the first post) - but I'm up for a chat if you is

Because our assumptions must be wrong. Thank you for posting this. I've been smacking my head against a brick wall for ages, and this... this has broken me, in the best way. I'm profoundly disturbed, frightened, and excited. Broken through something - I'm not sure I'm ever going to see the world the same way again

You know what? I'm not going to try to explain the amazingness that kept me live I don't want to pretend like it's unique it's what we as a socity go Keep working!

You have to start by worrying about what "you" are, before you worry about what will happen to "you" in the future. I don't want to sound blunt, but until you're dead you are alive, so it might do you better to condier your predicament of being alive, rather than worrying about post-death. However, if you really want to talk about it: a) what are you imagining, b) what makes them true, c) what makes them bad, d) what makes you think things could be another way? Bonus, e) do you consider yourself separate from the observed? Are you able to answer any of the above without being personally involved? And are you able to answor those questions honestly without feeling offended or bothered?

Ok, so let's not forget about this. You know why? Becuase memory is going to make it a different thing that it was. So any thought you have about it or remembered sensation about it or remember idea about it will have swung and shifted. But a little while ago this seemed incredibly important to you. As little ago as a few hours ago. As a burning brand from someone who isn't there... you can't feel relation with that nothingness. Such is paradox

We have to make assumptions all the time - I find the trick is to keep going back to re-evaluate them... I suppose an important question here is what you mean by 'real', when you refer to denying what is being observed as real. I cannot deny that there is a sensation. Does it definitely mean that this means there is a physical object out in a 'real world', which is a separate plane of reality from my experienced consciousness, and the sensation seen is created by electro-chemical signals in a brain, which has been stimulated by photons hitting the retinas in the back of my eye, which have come from a light source and rebounded some but not all of their visible wavelength... It's not so much denying real, it's questioning what is real, and checking how much is assumed/believed/taken for granted. In the case of seeing, I will NEVER in my life encounter that 'real' world. But it's so deeply ingrained in me that the 'real' world exists, that I don't even think about it - in fact any suggestion that things are otherwise is received as preposterous. But why? My experience is the sensation, not the 'real' world which I 'know' (read: believe) is out there... Just denying things isn't really of any use. But really recognising the foundations upon which my understanding/knowledge/belief is based, and then testing those foundations... that's an interesting game. "Duality is nonduality in a way". Interesting phrase. It ties in with something that I've been butting against recently: I keep trying to imagine some other place, plane, or experience as the ending point of the search. But of course that's not the case. It's this, here, now, so in many ways duality is nonduality. It's the same thing, the exact same thing, just seen in a critically different manner. Gateless gate

@aryberry I'm finding it helpful at the moment to reverse the phrase "God created man in his image", giving us "Man created God in his image". This is not so much about how we draw God as a big bearded human in the sky, but to do with the idea of perception and perceived (or awareness and appearance). We work from an assumed position that awareness/appearance requires both subject and object. This assumption needs to be checked. What it means, though, in relation to your post, is that you are imagining an observer observing nothing. Which is not nothing, because the observer exists. So from that paradigm, awareness has to demonstrate duality, because there is subject and object. The questions become; does awareness definitely imply/require separation of subject and object? How can there be nothing if there is subject and object? Are my assumptions about perception and awareness 100% irrefutably correct? Could they be wrong, and if so, how?

Speaking as someone who doesn't trust Leo, I find this an interesting question. When I say I don't trust him, I mean that I won't take anything he says on faith, or as gospel. I recognise that he's done a huge amount of research - much more than I have - and that I can use that as a shortcut into discovering about areas and ideas that I think are worth exploring, but I won't take what he says as true, or right, and neither should anyone else. At best we should take them as hypotheses to be investigated. But I think the answer to your question is (kind of) hidden within what you wrote: Sort of, but not in the way you think. It goes back to the idea of projection: the Leo you 'know and love' has almost nothing to do with Leo, or Leo's ego. It's your ego. The ego takes another person, and it projects its own wants, desires, and needs upon them. It translates what they are doing on its own terms. This is how two people can see the same action, and one person reads it as aggressive and another as merely assertive. The action is the same, but the interpretation of it changes. So I think what happens in these sorts of arena is that people subconsciously project all sorts of things onto Leo (or equivalent), and confuse what they want him to be with what he is. So people who take up arms in the name of Gura are doing so because of their need to believe that he is always right and true, and not really because of anything to do with Leo at all. He's a red herring. Of course, all of this is deeply subconscious and emotional, and will be hidden underneath layers of justification, so I'm sure most people don't think that's what they're doing, and that they have rational arguments as to why. But for those who are deeply emotionally invested in Leo and Actualized.org, I suspect this is at least a large part of why.

The thing is, what you're doing here is assuming that your 'recognition' is de facto true. You see, 'judgement' has a negative connotation in our language, so we automatically take it to mean 'negative judgement' - i.e. "that person is a bastard", "this person is ugly", "that person is stupid", etc. But 'recognition', as you term it here, is also a judgement. Everything you use to understand the world is. EVERYTHING. So... yeah, in practical everyday dealings in life, you have to judge, because it's the way that the human organism relates to the 'rest of the world'. Negative judgement is just a more amplified, emotional, personalised version of that recognition. Very emotional. It tends to be tied in with your beliefs, your model of the world, your 'should' perspective. The only reason "that person is a bastard" is that you have a set of rules that say they shouldn't behave like that. So judgements are loud, emotional, overt versions of this process of 'recognition', which is actually definition (i.e. your mind looking at something and deciding what it is and is not), which is all model-building. It's a very deep, very automatic process that we generally don't notice happening. We take it to be truth, or reality. So right now I can look at my table, and there's a cup, and a book, and some hand cream on the table. But if I honestly look at what I'm seeing, it's a collection of shapes and colours, and I'm mentally compartmentalising 'that one is one object, called cup; and that one is another object, called book', etc. I'm drawing the boundaries between them with my mind. I'm defining where one ends and another begins in my mind. This is just how the mind works, and you cannot stop it. It's like trying to stop thinking: the harder you try, the worse you do. Having an intention to stop judging - in my experience - will just frustrate you. Instead, the solution is awareness. Not just in terms of 'meditate more and it will go away', but of being aware of what and how you think about, shape, and define the world you encounter. Pay attention to the judgements, recognitions, and definitions you make throught the day. And then notice the judgements you make about the judgements you've made! Just see it. The rest takes care of itself over time.

@Samuel Garcia I'm not enlightened, I'm not an authority on what is 'true' or not, but your question prompted a little thought experiment in my head which provides a metaphorical answer to your question. Let's start by removing ourselves from humanity, so we don't get too personal about this. Let's say humanity flat out doesn't exist. Never did, never will. Instead, there is an advanced alien species. Let's call them the Krull. The Krull have a life span of 200 years. They have figured out suspended animation, which allows them to put their bodies into hibernation for long periods of time. They have also figured out how to directly implant a virtual reality into the brain - so films and other kinds of entertainment can be experienced from a first person perspective: You experience the film AS the main character with all the senses engaged, not just sight and sound. The Krull are interested in interstellar travel, but they can't travel faster than light. This means some pioneering Krull have volunteered to go on a one-way mission to the nearest star - a journey which will take 75 years. The spaceship is tiny to save on fuel and resources - no bigger than the space shuttle. A 75 year voyage on that would drive anyone mad! So to save our heroes' sanity (& minimise food), they are to go into suspended animation. But to keep their brains from deteriorating from non-use for such a long time, they need to be plugged into a VR system. The difference is, though, that they have to believe the life they are living, otherwise their brains will still wither (for whatever reason). So instead of watching a film, a computer sequentially generates a 75 year experience for them. For whatever reason, it's safer not to have them live a Krull life (in case they remember who they are and 'wake up'), so the VR programmers construct an imaginary species, called humans. The Krull will live a human life, with complete belief that they are human, that their sensory experiences are 100% true, for a 75 year life span, despite the fact that humans do not and never have existed. For the Krull/Humans, though, none of this is known. They remember nothing before their birth. They absolutely believe in the world their senses are telling them is out there. This is reinforced by the appearance of the billions of humans they can see, who all tell them that OF COURSE Earth and humanity are real. OF COURSE what the Krull/Human is seeing, hearing, feeling is really what is out there. And OF COURSE all other humans are feeling things too. OF COURSE they feel hunger. But do they? Remember the other humans are really just VR data. Image and sound and texture - not a living being. Does a collection of image and sound and texture feel hunger? No matter how compelling it looks and sounds, does it actually FEEL hunger? Now prove that you are not a Krull on that spaceship.

Will, sorry, I also have to ask: is this your language or someone else's? Has someone else taught you to talk about 'pure consiousness' like this? I ask because it doesn't seem like a very natural way of expressing yourself

I haven't read through the other replies. I just wanted to say: return to "I". Contemplate "I". What is the difference between "I" asleep (the subject of the dream) and "I" awake (the rememberer of the dream)?

Try it. It's not just write what you think is true: it's deconstruct what you think is true. That's very, very hard work, and it takes firm determination. And you'll find, if you stick with it, that the rabbit hole of what you think you know is much much deeper than you ever dared to imagine. Of course it is. Anything you choose to do is ok. The idea that it isn't is one of those ideas that you believe to be true. 'Ok' doesn't exist - it's a relative concept that we both individually and consensually maintain to codify behaviour, rules, etc. There's no harm in just stopping for a while. If you want to come back, you will. In terms of Spiritual Autolysis? Start anywhere - anywhere - and don't take any answer the mind comes up with as correct. No idea, concept, or word. Question all of the foundations. And delete everything as you go on. Every time you do it it's a new discourse. That's up to you. I think, if your goal is Truth, that if you only meditate without any form of self-inquiry you're in for a very long and frustrating ride. McKenna is very scathing about meditation because of this, but remember that he's writing from a particular perspective and trying to cut through a lot of New-Age crap which gets people nowhere. Personally, my main practice is Autolysis, but I have meditated in the past and still dip in and out of it, but don't have a regular routine now. And I can see some pitfalls because of that: I often catch myself thinking without realising that I'm thinking and I'll bet if I had a better meditation practice I'd be much better at catching that!

@Pramit Recognise that every description is false. Then, whenever you find yourself relying on a description to think about this (which you have to, because that's how thinking works - even a single word or visualised image is a description, not the Truth), deconstruct that description and check what's underneath it - what it depends upon. That'll lead to another description you wind up using for a while until you realise that you're using a description, and deconstruct it again...

Great, good - so long as you know why you're making the choices you make. Beyond that, I'm not your mum I started writing a reply which I'll keep in below, but I'm curious from your response: can you give a primary goal that you'd like to achieve, that you think your anxiety is in the way of? Ok, so you slowly drew yourself into smoking as much as you do. Are you willing to slowly draw yourself out of it? As in, if you wrote down a timetable of cutting down how much you smoked, would you stick by it (even if it meant losing some of your friends? Even if it meant the pains of withdrawal)? Be honest here: it's you who has to do this.

@GTITurbolover I guess that's the point, isn't it? That it's very rare that there are facts. Even those things we think of as fact or true are open to multiple routes of communication. And if on this kind of board I already flare into argument... ...shit. How the fuck are we, as an internation community, going to start communicating with each other? Answers on a postcard...

Not to say you criticised me - which you didn't - but to say that this kind of discussion is a fantastic opportunity for ego to flare up and scream "WE'RE UNDER ATTACK!!!"

@GTITurboloverNo, this is important: I took my opinion as fact, because I disagreed with you, and I'm going to give my opinion that little bit of leeway. Which is bull. And you know what, it's actually incredibly hard for me to have a civil discussion about this - not because of the political aspects, but because I get incredibly personally defensive about being judged or criticised. It's a MASSIVE ego trigger for me. So I'm hugely appreciative to have this discussion, and particularly one where you challenge me. It's a lot of good. It's a good lesson though, isn't it? How much we like to think we have facts, and other people don't, despite seeing the transparency of other people's "facts" but not our own?

@GTITurbolover Nope, sorry - I think I made an edit to my post at the same time you were writing this, much to the same point

@GTITurbolover I honestly don't know. But the relationship between Europe and Britain is clearly far more complex than Farage has made out and more than I can throw out in a quick sentence or paragraph (how you measure this depends on metrics, but for the most part Britain appears to be down financially, as well as in the realm of Human Rights, just by revoking its participation in the ECHR), and as nobody knows quite how Brexit is going to actually play out. If someone can offer evidence that the EU is tyrannical over the UK, then ok, but the general Brexit argument has never been one of evidence-based 'tyranny', more one of ideological drawing of law-making boundaries in Brussels rather than London, which given the UK's influence over the European Council, and the general anti-EU arguments being fallacious at best and false at worst. Given that most of Farage's campaign promises have at this point either been revoked, or played as if they never happened (see the £350million NHS campaign bus), I wouldn't cite Farage as a bastion of fact. As goes Trump, again, I don't know, as I've never looked at his books. But I've encountered an excessive amount from media sources of all wings and persuasions over the last 9 months to make me doubt that he is a business genuis, given how many of his ventures have failed, how much money he appears to have lost compared to how much he appears to have begun with, and how unethical he is as a businessman. Instead, I think he is an very good salesman (which I acknowledged in my previous post). Now, maybe I'm wrong on that. Like I say, not an expert and never looked at the books. But I'm trying to go from what I have, and the suggestion that he is a business genius is dubious, so far as I can see But, then, I suppose none of these are ever facts, are they? Only seen through various lenses. Apologies for being antagonistic - I'm really not here to make enemies, and I appreciate being made to challenge my assertions

@GTITurbolover I think Trump is an extremely skilled manipulator of people. And I think that is what's led to his success today. I don't have any particular arguments against that idea, and I don't have any particular ideological support of the Clinton / Democrat camp (I'm not from the US, if that helps), but I notice a couple of statements in your post which are not fact-based, such as being a big business genius, or of the EU being a Tyranny on the UK (debateable at best). I think you're right: Trump is an incredibly skillful manipulator of reality. Whether that makes him remotely conscious, or content, is another matter. I can't picture someone who is content going out of his way to win a twitter-war over how big his hands really are

@Whatev3r Actually, you know what? HELLO! I've read through the whole thread. Ain't I a trooper? First off, don't take any medical advice from a stranger on a forum. If your doctor has prescribed SSRIs, and you choose not to take them, please ensure that choice is through your own research, not through whoever the fuck chooses to post on here. Remember you don't know us from Adam: we can give suggestions, nothing more. As it sounds you've picked up another anti-depressent, which is good: please make sure you know what they symptoms and side-effects are not only of taking that medication, but also of cutting it off unexpectedly (as you were advised by another user here) - that sort of shit can be dangerous. Anyway, you're struggling to go out. And as it's getting into the winter, this can become a self-enforcing cycle: you stay in and write about being online, and then you wait for replies, and then you reply, and you wait for replies... (I know this because I've done it, a lot...) So I'd like to offer you a challenge: go out and talk to a stranger tonight. I don't care who that stranger is, I don't care what the context is: it could be someone in a bar, it could be someone working in a shop, it could be someone on the street, it could be a police officer, I don't care - go up to someone and say ONE SENTENCE. Even "hello, I have to say something to someone. Goodbye" is enough. Then come here and tell me about it.

@Whatev3r Hello! I haven't read the previous replies to this post because... I guess I'm lazy Anyway, all I would suggest is that there are various web-based organisations such as Meetup or CitySocializing which allow people to organise their social lives around interests, availability, and how many people they want to deal with. Local clubs also offer similar benefits. I'm not sure how much times have changed since I was 20, but I know the impression can be 'party or bust'. But I also know - from my own hindsight and talking to others - that a lot of us would have values a more quiet, contemplative space. Don't be afraid to make that space, even if it's just you

@SamEuphoria93Hello Sam! I wasn't entirely paying attention to the forum in which I posted this reply: I realise nothing I say has to do with dating, sex, or sexuality. However, I still feel the broad strokes may still apply if you're feeling disconnected, so fuck it, I'm not going to delete it! Hope it's of some use... *** Hi Sam, I'm going to suggest something that' not REMOTELY based in my own experience, or in anything I've read. Instead, it's based in the 1-2-3 step process you describe. Really, you've already chosen step 1, which is compassion towards yourself and others. For step 2, I would suggest anything that has a ready turnover of people who depend on you, but who you don't depend on (i.e. who you need to give support to, but you don't offer you support). The reason for that is that if you want to practice compassion towards yourself, I wonder if it's actually necessary to bear some of the brunt of that. So, from those, something like volunteering at a shelter, or for the Sarmaritans, or sometime which directly services others might give you some insight. BUT only go for a biggie (like the Samaritans) if you're willing to play the long game: if you'd rather test the waters, local soup-kitchens and other voluntary organisations always need help, and don't need to divert resources to train you. 3. That's down to you, the technique, and how it works in your own life! Please allow me to say thank you and congratulations for wanting to offer more to the world: it's always welcomed. Let me also remind you to take care of yourself first: so long as you are ok, you can carry the world. But the moment you're not, let the world know, and it'll take it's turn