UnbornTao

Eye see. Sorry, just issued us two warning points for the joke.

Goool!

That may be.

Yeah. Like the kernel of an operating system.

You might want to look into Vipassana programs.

This would require a much more involved effort on our part. Some food for thought: Okay. And what's that? Notice it's mostly taken for granted. You seem to think that language is just a "commentary" or side note layered on top of your personal experience of reality - as if they were distinctly and unequivocally separate. Try to remove the invention of language from your experience. Imagine what life was like prior to its invention. This is a significant meditation. For example, would your experience of thinking and taking to yourself be the same? Could you even think without language? Then again, how could communication exist without having language as a possibility or context? What makes a symbol possible? How can something like a sound come to represent something that is not itself that sound? Can you unpack what you mean by energy and "language is energy"? If your claim is that language is universal and not invented, I'll have to disagree with that.

And yet, the profundity of this principle continues to elude us.

Based on that, your claim should be more like: life is occurring, rather than "existence is." We could say that existence comes prior to life, this being a process enabled by the former. You seem to want to claim that the canvas shares the quality of invention of the painting - as if the canvas were also a result of the painting or of the act of painting.

God bless America!

People love being told what to believe (despite vehemently denying it at the same time); that's partly why cults are so emotionally appealing. Add to this the fact that, collectively, we don't really know how to listen or what to pay attention to, and you have a recipe for these dynamics. It does make getting popular a lot easier, though.

@Judy2 Those are normal and can be thought of as human needs to some degree. Everyone values or desires 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.

Just some questions to add to your post: Where is "two" found in the first place? What underlies the seemingly obvious and evident recognition of "two distinct things" in reality - something made, perceived, or interpreted by us?

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.