UnbornTao

What do you mean? The truth only cares about itself, so to speak. So what are you asking? Re-construct what?

We could even say that this system is itself a belief structure: a set of thoughts strung together that is assumed or taken to be true once adopted (believed). Hmm, maybe. Perhaps it'd be more accurate to say that they are different from, or independent of, the truth itself - whatever that turns out to be.

A thought that is held as true. Or a thought about the truth of something. "Thought" that can appear as if it were "the way things are". But it is still a thought, an activity (of the mind), and therefore distinct in nature from whatever is the case for itself. It is thinking taken as true in itself. May need to rephrase this one.

You can keep believing, if you want.

I'd like to emphasize the second part of the quote in relation to this discussion: than to convince them they have been fooled.

Getting tattoos.

I love you.

It is far easier to fool someone, than to convince them they have been fooled.

Nice. The book's quite pricey, though

You probably already make it to some degree. Inquiry is an open investigation aimed at uncovering whatever is true, independent of one's preferences, desires, biases, and so on. Fantasizing, by contrast, can be understood as coming up with imaginary scenarios in one's mind - usually based on wants, biases, and subjectivity - often aimed at outcomes like feeling better, more powerful, or reassured. Whatever serves one's agenda. A scientific experiment versus belief in God might serve as a succinct way of contrasting these two activities. Not the best examples, but hopefully the point comes across.

Oh, yeah. Not fantasizing.

Something to get for oneself. It is also the case that people delude themselves by choosing that as a question to "contemplate" in the first place, in that their goal is feeling good and improving their experience, and not uncovering whatever turns out to be really true. Very rarely, if ever, are people concerned with asking what pain or manipulation are. I wonder why. It is asked with the preconception that it is absolute in mind, is it not? It is not really a genuine question based on wonder, but an attempt to validate a fantasy. The power of the mind is such that any preconception can be made to be perceived as "reality." But hey, people benefit from believing in God - in emotional, psychological, and social ways. Maybe that's the case here too. But that ain't the same as going after what's true. I suggest the principle of compassion is not the images one has of it. How it manifests is secondary to the principle itself.

🤩 Who doesn't love love?

Haha, yeah. People's problems are their own. What's true? That's the goal here, at least to me. Not whether we like something or not.

Is it? For example, is seeing a tree the same as liking it? Do those exist in the same domain?

"Disturbed" is a strong word. You might even say passionate. In any case, don't you think Leo may at some point have gone "you jerk, shut up already" behind the keyboard? Or you? Come on. Haha. Or something along those lines, directed at whoever, at any point in time. "Images" and ideals of what it means to be "high-conscious" are just that - images. And this is an online forum. I mentioned pretension in the context of being willing to show one's experience as it is, rather than covering or suppressing it under a spiritual façade in order to appear a certain way. Impressions are a big topic, it seems, but that's for another time. Anyhow, people's reactivity is their own problem. Now - what's true?

Appreciate it.

Sure, but that's not my priority with these posts. Setting all that side, what's true?

Wise indeed.

Not only have I listened to Leo - I've had my fair share of psychedelic breakthrough experiences in the past and fell into all that nonsense too. But I grew out of that phase once I recognized my delusions. But it doesn't matter how many times it's stated, you will keep insisting on that, as if you guys were discovering something new. Oh, it has a foundation, it's just difficult to pinpoint. Perhaps it's like assessing the ability of two actors - one world-class, the other mediocre at best. The problem is that in spiritual circles, a charlatan can be made to appear as if they know what they're talking about. Put an Indian guy with a guru name and long beard on a pedestal, wearing a robe and talking about God, Awakening, Samadhi and so on, and most of you will just buy it, not knowing the difference. Look at @Davino and his reading of someone like Brendan, versus some of the Indian guys whose videos he's shared, which are essentially selling spiritual fantasies. It goes over one's head how much there is to developing one's listening capacity. Of course. It's like telling people in a church that God doesn't exist. What kind of relationship are the members going to adopt toward that? Embrace it? You confuse my direct tone with not listening. Let's say I'm a recovering member. Pretty much. Again, I don't know how to teach listening, which is why my only instruction is basically to pay attention. But how well can people do that? And yeah - Adi Da, for example, was leagues ahead of Leo. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. And it's not a put-down of Leo; it's just the case.

Thanks, I appreciate that. I don't bother pretending I'm not hurt, though, or disappointed, perhaps. Beyond the reactivity, there are deeper points being conveyed. And notice - we probably could have said something similar about Leo. It's okay too. But again, this is beside the point, in my view.

The who is pretty much irrelevant, at least on paper. What can I say? Pay attention. What's actually going on? What's being accomplished? Is it just an idea you like and therefore adopt? In practice, a good idea is to listen to someone like Adi Da first. Or Ramana. These are masters. But it's tricky, because what can really be said to be the foundation of that assessment? Again, I'm stopped short. Pay attention. Consider that people in a cult often don't realize they're in one. Why is that? What are they ignorant of? What aren't they paying attention to? Beyond their impressions, reactions, and how they feel about the whole endeavor, what are they actually up to? What people essentially do is get caught up in their impressions of things and remain stuck in that superficial layer. I'm not saying all cults are bad, to be clear. That said, it's easy to conflate open-mindedness with gullibility, or to be 'open' merely in the abstract, as a self-indulgent exercise. For example, it doesn't matter how many times it's said that the drugs don't really do it - this point just won't land. In that resource I shared, I bet you went through the motions, watching the Adi Da video and hearing the words, but did you really make an attempt to hear it?

It was to be expected that something like this would be said at some point. It is clear when someone is talking from a certain belief system. Seriously, it is appalling. Episodes on true listening and belief would be great.

Sure thing. You've picked some of the more trivial points, but obviously yours is made up too.