UnbornTao

GNU/Linux is the option with the most potential. Just learning how to use it is a fun and multifaceted didactic experience. There are three main base distros (distributions) to choose from: Debian, Fedora and Arch. Most other distros are based on one of those. Debian is the most prevalent and stable, Arch the most cutting-edge, and Fedora a good middle-ground. All desktop environments can be used with any of these base distros, that is, they can be made to look the same. Some Linux downsides: fragmentation, lack of standardization, technical knowledge and at least some tinkering needed, not as beginner-friendly as Windows and macOS. One key factor to consider is whether you'd be willing to learn a new system or want it ready out of the box. Some distros and desktop environments to test out: Fedora + KDE Vanilla Debian + KDE, Gnome, Gnome with Material Shell Arch + KDE and Gnome Linux Mint and Pop!_OS (great for beginners and gamers) Kubuntu

This debates are fun but I can't see how they can be useful if one is not directly conscious oneself. We're restricted to exchanging beliefs and speculations.

Idolizing a teacher. Not expanding your information intake's sources. Being too quick to believe someone you admire Not following any teacher's advice, being too individualistic, overrating your skills as a beginner Feeling a need to fill your plate full with activities and knowledge. Avoiding silence and stillness. Thinking that "more is more" Instantly dismissing counterintuitive answers and solutions Being a liar. The more you progress, the more you realize you're full of shit Assuming consciousness work happens "elsewhere", instead of in your life and experience as it is now Taking hard-won knowledge for granted (it can also be minor, subtle or abstract) Not recognizing the healing power of simple awareness (like becoming aware of the root of an emotion or behavior) Holding pragmatism and gross achievement and things as the greatest values

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 experiential listening? How often do you feel truly heard--as in, having someone actually get your experience? How well do you truly listen to others? It doesn't always have to be a profound or life-altering exchange. Still, it's rare, isn't it? I've been paying close attention to this dynamic lately. Someone tells me something, but it's as if there's a wall between us. You hear their words and understand them but that's not the whole story, is it? Listening requires grasping another's experience as it is, without filtering it through your own agenda. It's about their experience, not yours. This point bears repeating. Moreover, this act prioritizes the experience being conveyed rather than the persona behind the expression. So ask yourself: Am I interacting with my own interpretations, beliefs, desires, and opinions in response to what someone said, or am I truly listening to them?

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.

Without fear, do you think you'd jump in front of a moving train? Of course not. You haven’t suddenly become oblivious--you’ve simply stopped generating the activity of fear. The emotion isn’t what keeps you from doing dangerous things; it’s the understanding that you’d hurt yourself that does. Fear isn’t actually necessary for taking sensible action. Knowing the potential consequences of a given action is enough to stop you from doing it. Fear is just an unnecessary add-on to that process. Then again, we tend not to be very sensitive to what we do, so the fear might be useful in those cases. Also, you could contemplate: What would it take for me to enjoy the fear?

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?

Two of my favorites are: The open-mindedness series How to do research (and develop big picture understanding)

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.