UnbornTao

What if we apply this principle to everything that is conceived and perceived?

Let's keep the proselytizing going:

😁 Why won't you let me proselytize to you already? 😡

Charles Wazowski. Bukowski. You generate the anger.

See an object, then close your eyes. Visualize it in your mind. Is your experience of that thing the same as before? In the experience that you shared, there would be no encounter with "grass" to not think about if you had your eyes closed. Just pointing out some basic mechanisms of perception, if you will. Good, no need for artificial fireworks. Thanks. Even prior to or independent of thinking and labeling, you likely still differentiated between one thing and another. The relationship with this or that particular thing would've mostly stayed the same. You might not have 'thought of' grass but in the background you knew that it wasn't a cat, or a cloud, or cancer. Trying to ground this a bit. I guess one of the goals here is recognizing that we don't know what anything is for real. Lots of "distractions" that make it seem as though we do but deep down we likely remain apprehensive that these are adopted and artificial in a deep sense.

Pick a simple activity - say, doing jumping jacks or washing the dishes. Now, stop calling it that. Stop thinking of the activity in those terms. Come up with a fancier, more beautiful name that evokes religious connotations. Pick one that you love and that makes you feel good - like a 'knower' in an uncertain world. Assign the new term - and its mental associations - a philosophy. Perhaps something Hindu-based, with a particular way of looking at the world. Make it sound spiritual, and make sure it is specific. You might take an existing one as a template for this. Now generate new goals and a purpose for the practice. Design the practice in your mind such that the purported goals and purpose are something other than cleaning kitchen appliances or whatever. Pretend this purpose and goals are real and are what the practice is directed at. Define the intensity, duration, frequency, and any other relevant details. Create stages of progress within the practice. --- Now, what do you have? What does that leave you with? What did you come up with?

It's about how they're presented, the disparity between what actually goes on and the world that's sold along with what is, in the end, commonly a set of simple conceptual-emotional and physical activities, and the tendency of people to fantasize. Do you think that playing football can enlighten you? Why not? What about stretching your body? How does your perception of the matter change when, instead of stretching the body and following a breathing routine, it's presented as an ancient Hindu system for achieving enlightenment called Yoga, for example?

Genetic mutation, duh.

A couple of examples of AI getting it wrong: https://www.reddit.com/r/DelusionsOfAdequacy/comments/1tr4k70/i_guess_ive_been_fluent_in_spanish_this_whole/ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BBJa32lCaaY

what the fuck are you talking about Jesse?

Pretend like you didn't do or hear the above, and work forward from the following description.

Don't overlook the depth of this. Look at the endless amount of fantasy you already operate from without knowing it. The entire field of spirituality is a clear example. Consider: Do you think that breathing a certain way will, say, 'awaken' you? Or meditating? Or having a certain experience or state change? Or stretching the body, following a certain diet, taking a chemical, or being convinced of a doctrine? Another example: You might assume that soccer doesn't make you enlightened, but "Kriya Yoga" does. Why? Remove the wishful thinking and all you're left with is a set of simple physical actions that's thought to produce this mysterious result- one lacking any clear sense of what the end result is going to be. If you did the exercise it may have given you a hint of what fantasy land is in this context.

Is it possible that all of us do the same when it comes to perceiving any given object? In other words, do we assume our perception is reality or the same as what exists? (Not as a philosophy but as a factual happening?) How can we even recognize this as such, if it is true? Based on this assumption, it's virtually impossible to see a contrast for us to estimate what reality is other than our perception of it - except as an intellectual possibility that doesn't touch or alter what's experienced, or assumed.

1. Get enlightened 2. Profit!

Feel free to think that.

Ahhhh

Welcome to the Actualized.org forum. It can get tricky because the performance and the impressions made by the person can be deceptive, too. People lie to themselves even about this awakening business, presuming that a state change is the same as a direct consciousness. You can certainly pay attention and recognize in some way when someone has some sort of awakening, something authentic. At the very least you can smell it if you learn to be sensitive - beyond the terminology and experience being presented. This is the same with someone like Ramana, or Buddha.

Your position is obviously influenced by Leo or is downright coming from him, whether implicitly or explicitly, judging by your reaction. Take a look at this. If I shared some of Leo's videos, you wouldn't call me a Leo witness, would you? Especially since they'd likely confirm this view of yours that you seem to hold. Adi Da was one of the few who knew what he was talking about - it just saves time to share the video. I've shared my personal experience enough times, but it doesn't matter how many times it's said here. C'est la vie.

I was out of tokens anyway

I know how many r's are in Strawberry: five.

And honestly...

The real teachers weren't into psychedelic drugs either, and there's a reason for that. Unfortunately, it's easy to hear similar terminology from different individuals and assume they're talking about the same thing.

Here we go again. At some point this will get through to some of your followers, if they're willing to listen: