UnbornTao

Being closed. Assuming you already know. Taking easy or basic stuff for granted as if you already knew its full implications. Confusing knowing the theory with actual practice. Being too abstract and conceptual, not being grounded.

What is listening? Doesn't it look like you don't actually listen? You hear another's words and understand them but that's not the whole story, although as a society that is in fact assumed to be the only possibility. I've been paying attention to this dynamic as of late. I receive a communication from another but it is as if there's a wall between us. In such cases, no deep listening takes place. Listening goes beyond all of the above. So, what is it? In short, it's grasping another's experience as it is for itself. Have you ever felt truly heard? Not only intellectually but emotionally and as an actuality -- two living events sharing each other's intimate experiences. These moments are rare, and treasured. Addendum: However, when looking into it, there are almost always deeper points to grasp experientially which I previously wasn't considering. The thing is, people don't seem to make that leap. For many, this act is limited to intellectual understanding. True listening is grasping another's experience just as it is for her, not filtered through our self, concerns and agenda. It is often an exhilarating, profound and intimate experience, depending on the level of what's being communicated. Listening comes from a place free of assumptions. Intent must also be present for it to take place. Fundamentally, listening is about another's experience, not yours. This point bears reiterating. "Am I interacting with my own interpretation, beliefs, desires and opinions relative to what another has said, or am I truly listening?"

So basically Trump 2.0?

Often, individuals who would be the best leaders don't even want to become one. Leaders create a clear vision and purpose for themselves. Taking full ownership of both is key. The greatest leaders put themselves in the driver's seat. As a result, that attitude might inspire other people. Being a leader may be a side effect of boldly pursuing your goals, not something that is sought for itself. Although there may be missing elements or factors in this definition. What is leadership? Does it depend on personality, or can anyone who works on it become a leader? What does it require? Is it charisma, skill, authenticity, or a combination of those and/or other elements?

Purpose and fulfillment are independent of whether one is a leader or not. For some, being a leader helps. For others, it's irrelevant. That's not usually what they're after. What brings happiness and purpose is you.

Fear isn't what prevents you from doing dangerous things; knowing you would hurt yourself or die is. Without fear, do you think you would jump in front of a marching train? No! You're not oblivious all of a sudden, you simply stopped creating the activity of fear. Contrary to popular opinion, fear isn't needed. Knowing the potential consequences (dying, getting arrested, etc) of your actions is what prevents you from doing reckless things. Fear is just an unnecessary add-on to that process.

You!

Taking full ownership of yourself and your life.

Perception is indirect. Is that what the title is referring to? Senses themselves are inventions -- biological ones. Science can't discover what reality is because it is a human invention and its function is investigating and testing objective facts (relative domain). The only way is through direct consciousness. A dogmatic scientist, being unwilling to deconstruct science, won't discover what's true because truth isn't confined to any human activity, the way science is.

Blueberries!

It wouldn't be being emotional but a matter of honesty. If the context and situation are appropriate, you can express your hurt, for example, by what somebody did to you. "I felt hurt when you said such thing about me." You can pretend the hurt, in this case, isn't there like many do. In intimate relationships, I see this communication as essential for its long-term health. Besides, being overly emotional isn't needed. You can admit with confidence a certain feeling was there, depending on the situation. Isn't this being a coward masked as masculinity? We're afraid to admit and communicate certain feelings. I'm not suggesting that we have to be "emotional", just plain honest depending on the context and relationship.

Did he think and grow rich?

Haven't watched them all but two of my favorites are: The open-mindedness series How to do research (and develop big picture understanding). Big picture episodes. At first I didn't recognize the value of the latter, perhaps because I saw it as too abstract to be useful. Over time, however, it dawned on me how significant that theme is.

I didn't give much thought to my response and glanced over your post without much consideration either. Sorry 'bout that. You could delete the disclaimers about your worry to be coherent and work on clarifying your concern if possible.

First off, you seem to want to manipulate another's behavior. Nothing wrong with that, but look into the motivation behind it. Is it moral? Well, in terms of morality, it is a human invention. An individual's preferences determine, in this case, her diet. Sounds like she doesn't really have the intention to adopt a new diet. No matter how convincing an argument may be, even if he's intellectually on board and loves animals, if the intention isn't there, the behavior will stay the same. Make sure she's honest about her intention, or just arguing for its own sake. All in all, transforming your relationship and therefore disposition towards such matters is the effective route to take, but only if the other actually intents to do it. Superficially adopting a new belief system won't cut it. Emotion plays a bigger role in diet than cold reason and logic. It sounds like she simply wants and enjoys meat, so no matter what she's told, she will keep eating it. That's why there are still many sensitive and compassionate people who love certain animals but still eat meat.

I didn't say that. Contemplation is what I recommended, not psychedelics. Good luck!

@Blackhawk OK, then. Focus on your own contemplation, you don't need to study other's contributions, really. Get who and what you are and then you can tell us.

My point is that, shy of direct consciousness, what others tell you won't make much of a difference. The only way to know for sure is to become directly conscious of the truth. Enlightenment is self-validating, since you are there. It is you.

Haven't you heard his story? He was a guy with no interest nor knowledge in spirituality. In one moment he spontaneously got deeply and permanently enlightened. Don't get stuck in irrelevant details. Worshippers or not, Indian or X, doesn't matter. He seems convincing, haha. You choose what examples to study. In any case, I'm not sure you really want to listen. Maybe you're just trolling. Open up: contemplate who and what you are. That's the direct approach.

@Blackhawk Sure. All beliefs are concepts. You seem to be looking for intellectual conviction. Don't try to climb an imaginary mountain. Unfortunately, no matter what others tell you, self-verification through direct experience is essential here. Don't expect to be "sold" to nonduality through a logical and mental validation process. If it isn't possible, then what is all this fuss about? Seemingly sincere individuals throughout history have pointed out the possibility of grasping your true nature beyond belief and doubt. To be fair, most charlatans do indeed hold nonduality as just a cute or revolutionary idea, but there have been a few who have actually "awakened", see Gotama Buddha. Consider it an invitation for personal exploration, not for believing stuff -- which is antithetical to the real work. Lastly, I'm afraid you might be looking for things to justify a negative cosmology (worldview) that you're holding. Drop that. That could cause unnecessary suffering. A positive relationship to life is far more enlivening, intelligent and healthier. What do you wanna know? Contemplate that deeply until you become directly conscious of its nature. Check out Ramana Maharshi's self-inquiry and, perhaps, study his example.

Dig it. It only appears to be that way. It's a thought, a concept.

It sounds like you superficially adopted an internet guy's communication as a belief and confused that with actual direct consciousness of the matter. You can fall into beliefs as if they are true. This seems to be the case here. You're confusing intellect with direct consciousness, since you wouldn't need to make any mental gymnastics explaining your supposed realization and log in on an internet forum in order to find validation. Enlightenment is always freeing and reveals happiness, not fear and misery. A negative cosmology or worldview is disempowering, ineffective and unnecessary.

@AuroraDream @Wilhelm44 think of it as the possibility evolution of VR headsets. A computer in your brain. Neuralink. Could start by healing neurological disorders at first, like spine related accidents, autism, etc. In the future it would be able to accomplish much more. Of course this technology is highly delicate and would probably be disastrous if, for example, it had a software bug. In Windows, the computer can be restarted. What would you do with your brain in this case if this fucks something up? Update to Windows 11?

The self's principle is survival. Death is not-self, so it is therefore inconsistent with the self's agenda and existence. Hence, self is terrified of no-self. No-self is the end of self. We confuse what we actually are with a self. We think that we are a persona we've mostly crafted throughout our upbringing. We also take for granted the existence of other. But what's actually true in the matter? We might say that common sense proves it. There's an objective reality and others exist within this world. It's obvious and perceived to be the case by our senses. Once again, dig in. That conclusion might as well be false, something of which you're not directly conscious of but rather inferred from perceptions, which are inherently indirect.