UnbornTao

@Judy2 Those are normal and can be thought of as human needs to some degree. Everyone values a certain level of safety, validation, comfort. But yeah, you might be overthinking - let it unfold organically. Perhaps use feeling as your guide, with thinking as a complement. "What do I love? What do I find meaningful?" These are some of the core questions to focus on.

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.

That kind of openness is rather airy-fairy 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.

You're a problem even to yourself, let alone to others.

Mike Wazowski!

@zurew My point is that your so-called open-mindedness seems to be mostly an intellectual affectation. It's basically "everything is possible." At the risk of oversimplifying, you seem to want to be open to the possibility that Santa Claus might be real - because, after all, who knows? Maybe he is. I think all this hoopla is just an emotional reaction to confident claims to the contrary. Being grounded is crucial when investigating anything. If I'm tracking, Mahasamadhi is the main topic here, right? Again, the guy's dead. The rest is fantasy believed by others, based on rumors from people who already believe them. You get swept away by the cosmology and the cultural trappings, like children inventing entire worlds to inhabit. We could start with the fact that we don't even know what life is- and notice that this doesn't need to be believed. It is directly and profoundly felt, though overlooked for the most part. From there, notions of the "afterlife" appear as wishful thinking and a waste of time. This is why philosophy and spirituality are ripe for con men and snake-oil salesmen: people turn openness into a virtue by itself, without being rooted in anything real or substantial. It's about being lightweight. I like the hardware analogy. Hardware is hardware. Objective reality works a certain way. There are certain principles and "rules" of life that no one can fuck with. This isn't just random, or a coincidence. Notice again how I say something like going without water for years is nonsense, and some of you may respond with all kinds of abstract arguments as reaction to it. What's underlying that?

Priorities.

Okey dokey.

Carol Es Turca.

https://youtube.com/@thingsicantfindotherwise