UnbornTao

I don't think Leo has made it yet.

How dare you! Yeah. Also, culture as a whole, it seems - which has its positive aspects, too.

How you live your life is independent of what's true, it seems to me (occasional humility disclaimer). Notice that, in the first place, you never really needed to use spirituality as a pretext for pursuing wealth, because you've always been concerned with yourself and meeting your needs. It's still survival, perhaps with a different flavor. And this is not the same as the truth. Nothing wrong with that - just saying.

Such openness is rather abstract in this case because, beyond someone's death, everything else is entirely made up - by others. It's like entertaining the idea that Santa Claus exists simply because it sounds plausible and enough people believe in him. Again, a useful metric - and a good starting point for being rooted in presently occurring perceptions - is distinguishing an experience from what's merely believed, wished for, heard, preferred, or imagined, whatever the source. Consider the origin of such notion. If you recognize that it is essentially a shared story or fairy tale, then that's a useful recognition, too.

Okay, sounds good.

Anytime.

Sure, the main method is to get clear for yourself. What do you value? Not what you'd like to value in an imagined scenario, but what values already underlie your choices and actions. You can make a list - beauty, health, connection, fun, learning, and so on. What do you deliberately spend your time on? What are your interests? Which activities do you enjoy? What moves you in life? What would you like to create or learn or contribute to the world? I'd say, focus on that.

It's like the Survivor reality show. Put a group of people together in the same place for long enough without any distractions, and their shit will eventually start to become apparent, no matter what self-image they hold. It's the same with you - especially if you think you're too spiritual and advanced for such things.

Where is "two" found in the first place? What underlies the seemingly obvious recognition of "two distinct things" in reality - something made, perceived, or interpreted by us? Just some questions.

I was starting to get worried - I hadn't heard you say "phallic" in a while.

I'd challenge the notion that enlightenment is a state or depends on one. A state is a state, and you move through countless states all the time. While we're at it, annihilate or discard any notion you hold about this matter. By necessity, any notion always misses the mark. It's BS, even if the definition is conceptually valid or accurate to a degree.

How come? Prior to any activity, existence is. By definition, it is the basis or condition for anything to exist. We can imagine that it isn's subject to any particular process; rather, it is what gives rise to the very possibility of things unfolding. What is an experience of "existence" with no language? What is language - without taking it for granted or considering it as a secondary or trivial thing? Can "message", "information", or "communication" exist without language?

Where does the message exist without any activity or set of activities being undertaken by someone or something?

Seeing conformity as negative or undesirable is conformity, as is wearing clothes 🧐

People. To be clear, I should expand on that at some point, but for now I'm not going to.