Telepresent

@seeking_brilliance Sure - can you drop a link here and I'll have a look in a few hours? Bear in mind I'm an explorer myself, so I expect I won't be able to say "you need to go in this direction", but I can certainly let you know my thoughts & maybe throw some questions your way

Not quite. The (paraphrased) instruction is "write something you know to be true, or believe to be true, and keep reducing it until you reach what is true". So knowing that you don't know for sure that something you know in everyday terms is 'true' (I.e. Earth being round) is very much a part of that reduction process. Now take it further: reduce the various reasons, ways, evidences etc. that we've brought up in this thread and reduce them down to what they truly seem to be. Then take that and reduce it down. By reducing, we recognise and understand what is not absolutely truthful in our understanding; thought-images, conceptual models, emotional beliefs of ourselves and the world - we take all these things and attempt to identify what is untrue about them. When something is identified as untrue, it can be put down. Eventually, maybe we put everything untrue down. So it's not about figuring out what you are, it's putting down what you're not. And I think one of the biggest risks is believing what anybody else says you 'truly' are. Because your head-canon of what they mean becomes a new thing you carry around, a new untruth. Many people seem to be trying to figure out how they can prove to themselves they are infinite consciousness or whatever. Don't. Won't work, can't win. Just find what is untrue in every word, thought, deed, and belief, and put them down

@seeking_brilliance Actually the idea that people thought the Earth was flat until a few hundred years ago is modern day myth: http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20160126-how-we-know-earth-is-round And if you want to prove it yourself, you don't need to go to space. You can repeat Eratothanes' experiment: https://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/eratosthenes.html That experiment led him to calculate the circumference of the Earth almost perfectly, two millenia ago

@starsofclay In case you haven't encountered it:

@Pernani It's changed a lot. To begin with, it was curiosity (sparked by this one deep sense of "yes, of course no-self is true") mixed with a hint of all these great promises of no more fear etc. Then it was an egoic desire for all the things that people spout about (manifestation, special powers, etc.) - wanting to be special. Then it became about my own pain: life became very, very painful - mostly due to actions I had taken - and I didn't want to experience that any more. Then it became about truth vs false beliefs (which is very much linked to pain/suffering) - a deep drive to eliminate false belief from my mind/self/existence. Now, it's about being able to see how much of my life/self is based on illusion, and the need to eliminate all illusion and falseness from my life/self/existence. As regards pushing through, I have quit this work many times. Yet I've always come back. Why? I think that first spark, that "yes, of course this is true," leaves me little choice. It feels like I have to do this. Even if I try to stop, I can't: I keep thinking on it, keep returning to it. Like a drug, an addiction. I don't think I have a choice.

@Gligorije I won't argue here about a physical reality or no. What I will say is: an account of Absolute Reality/Truth has to account for everything that exists. All I know is that my consciousness exists. However, my consciousness is not physical - not in the way a brain is thought to be. Ok, fine. But in that case, where is the conscious experience taking place? In another dimension from the physical brain? Does that mean the brain is creating another dimension? That every conscious being's brain creates a new dimension? How? Where? Or maybe the experiential dimension already exists, and the brain connects to it. Again, how? Did the universe know to have this dimension on standby for when life came around? Do all our brains tap into the one dimension, or is there one for each of us? I'm not going to answer any of these questions, just leave them for you to work on if you want

@Torkys do you see an agent of other in what you've read?

@Torkys eat this eat this eat this

Prove it

@zunnyman I don't want to come off all mystical hippie doo-dah, but I fear I will: look not to answers, but to the questions. Pick a question and ask yourself: what assumptions, beliefs, fears, desires, wants, needs, pains, etc are coming together to form this question? Then look at those assumptions etc and ask if they are really, really true

Male and female are biological tools of reproduction. Nothing more. Many life forms don't even bother, or are hermaphrodites. Also notice that the traits of male and female are not common between species. Look at bees, seahorses, gorilla, lions - none have the same male/female 'truths' as one another. It feels like you're trying to take your current perspective and explain it in divine/universal terms. What happens if you do the opposite - give up your perspective and attempt to see things from a universal perspective?

@KMB4222 I'm going to suggest that this question is a diversion from the quest. If you reach the truth, then presumably you will understand. Probably at this stage you wouldn't understand anyway. Asking "why" right now (as far as I can see) can only be a distraction. It is, reason or no reason. Work with that.

Have you heard of Jed McKenna or spiritual autolysis? Basically his whole method is a form of journalled self-inquiry. He talks about it in his first two books, but if you YouTube 'spiritual autolysis' you'll find the audiobook version of the chapter where he describes it explicitly. It's one of my chosen methods and it's blown many doors off their hinges. In terms of whether you're on track: if you're doing it, you're on track. If you're not, you're not!

@Shakazulu in review, what I mean is that you've given us a lovely impression/idea/objective to seek, and I agree that objectively that may be true. But is that really a belief you live by? For example, how do you define world view?

@Shakazulu give us a specific example. Describe it in detail. Don't worry about defining belief, but tell us about a belief you hold

Good work! Keep going! And don't be put off if each session doesn't reach similar results ☺

This contains so much of what you believe the world is, other people are, and how you fit in. If you really dare to focus on this and handle the emotions it brings, you will profoundly change Willing to expand if you want to discuss but won't lecture here

@Shakazulu Man, there is no step by step for this. You have to identify your beliefs one by one, and check the foundation that they sit on. If you believe in that foundation, you need to check that foundation, and so on, and so on. There is no plan, just brutal honesty. I just tried to write a genetic example and failed, but maybe if you give us a belief we can examine it together

@Shakazulu Got Google maps? Zoom it in to the outside of your house (or street view your house) while you stand outside and look yourself. How inaccurate is the map to what you are seeing yourself? Then think that all of what you are told about truth/consciousness/enlightenment is at least as inaccurate as that map, and often many degrees of magnitude more so. Then think that the true is probably the same about what you were taught about the world growning up. Then think about what you believe, and why. Then think about how it aligns to your experience, standing on that doorstep

@Bernard Also, use your enquiry to eliminate the false, rather than find the true. Kill false and truth must remain

@Bernard I find that enquiry without writing is very limited. And that without listening / reading / attending is also limited. In other words, I find it to be a sort of (but not at all...) input-output process. The output part - for me - is very important; for me that is writing. It helps to get ideas out of my head, and for more abstract points which I'm stuck on proves to me that I'm stuck: if I can't explain / describe it in straightforward language to MYSELF (who has the advantage of first hand experience), then I clearly an stuck on something. Writing helps me to narrow it down and identify it, then work out why I am stuck. It's still not easy, but a bit easier than purely in the head

Does anyone else see spiral dynamics as a significant ego risk? I seem to see people rushing to define and categorise both themselves and others; this seems counter-productive to me (that is, if your goal is to disidentify from ego). Thoughts welcome

Either that or they believe that the scientific method is the best and most accurate method of discovering truth. Do you know they are pretending? Can you read their minds? I would imagine most would not recognise the statement "protecting the idea of science ourself and strengthening its collective ego" as having any meaning it validity. Not to say that that's not happening, but to assert that their motives are a pretense seems a little judgemental

@Ether Adyashanti is one of those teachers I keep returning to, but I don't have a favourite teaching or video or anything. I find that each time I return to him - whether it's a video I've seen before or not - there is something new to help me which I didn't get previously. I'd suggest, though, that asking 'favourite technique' isn't in line with his perspective.

@hundreth I wonder if this is an opportunity to check your goals and examine they are still right for you? I read your list of things that "we all" try to do and think 'nope'