UnbornTao

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.

You're a problem even to yourself, let alone to others.

Mike Wazowski!

@zurew My point is that your so-called open-mindedness seems to be mostly an intellectual affectation. It's basically "everything is possible." At the risk of oversimplifying, you seem to want to be open to the possibility that Santa Claus might be real - because, after all, who knows? Maybe he is. I think all this hoopla is just an emotional reaction to confident claims to the contrary. Being grounded is crucial when investigating anything. If I'm tracking, Mahasamadhi is the main topic here, right? Again, the guy's dead. The rest is fantasy believed by others, based on rumors from people who already believe them. You get swept away by the cosmology and the cultural trappings, like children inventing entire worlds to inhabit. We could start with the fact that we don't even know what life is- and notice that this doesn't need to be believed. It is directly and profoundly felt, though overlooked for the most part. From there, notions of the "afterlife" appear as wishful thinking and a waste of time. This is why philosophy and spirituality are ripe for con men and snake-oil salesmen: people turn openness into a virtue by itself, without being rooted in anything real or substantial. It's about being lightweight. I like the hardware analogy. Hardware is hardware. Objective reality works a certain way. There are certain principles and "rules" of life that no one can fuck with. This isn't just random, or a coincidence. Notice again how I say something like going without water for years is nonsense, and some of you may respond with all kinds of abstract arguments as reaction to it. What's underlying that?

Priorities.

Okey dokey.

Carol Es Turca.

https://youtube.com/@thingsicantfindotherwise

I won't be able to articulate it very well right now, but to me it isn't really about her character or her story - those are rather secondary. The gist of it, from what I hear in her videos, is a subtext that essentially says: "believe me, admire me." This is the main problem in my view. The purpose of her videos seems more directed toward serving her own agenda than toward actually communicating an experience, opening up possibilities, or facilitating others. She's creating followers and believers of her way of seeing the world. There's no real questioning or openness - just a stream of "closed-loop" assertions you're supposed to take on faith. Something along those lines. I suspect most people won't hear those "communications" that way and will instead get caught up in the content, delivery, or their own reaction to it. It's basically: "trust me, believe me. This is how reality is - because I say so." I could elaborate, but one could ask oneself: What is she up to? Beyond the entertainment, validation, and how it makes me feel, what is the communication directed at? What is its purpose? What is it really accomplishing?

@Xonas Pitfall ?

Tell them what - and why?

🤔

- No water. - But reality!