UnbornTao

Dealt with a toxic exchange. Keep the discussion on track and be respectful to each other.

It isn't about the author or belief system but about the communication, which stands on its own. That said, I don't know Leo's motivations.

Yes.

It's worth it to contemplate what worry is. Seems to be related to fear and the future, but I don't know.

@Razard86 Close is too far when talking about enlightenment. One might be open and contemplative, and that seems to help, but ultimately it is a matter of being conscious or not, and this is direct. I don't think there's a requisite or a process involved, in other words the only requirement is direct experience into your nature which is already the case.

Yes. In addition to that, regardless of knowledge, there's the possibility of direct consciousness of reality.

Better yet, like Venom.

Create a new thought you've never had before, out of nothing. That's thinking.

There might be a deeper lesson, or not. Those zen guys... The joy of rediscovering something you thought lost.

I know, my point is that for you and everyone else they are ideas to be believed and adopted, not insights. You'd need to grasp the validity of the communication for real through contemplation, at which point the invention isn't needed. That's why I said we're comparing belief systems. Sufism and Zen, perhaps.

A Call of Duty chatroom of 13 years olds but with government officials.

Okay, thank you.

Guy's looking for advice

Maybe a new video would come out.

@Princess Arabia Agree. I'm pointing out an annoyance of mine, in the end. Hey, become a genius yourself, then you can tell us what that's like.

Please do, that'd be interesting.

Stupidity is unconscious. It is lying and ignoring, not being intelligent. I was hinting at the genius of existence and creation, and then mentioned a superficial idea about it.

Is love being me? Is love being? Is being love? Is love being?

Everyone is a potential genius. But possibility isn't probability. Someone is a genius precisely because it is so rare. If everyone was one, we'd take it for granted. Every human does a damn good job at surviving, your mind is incredibly effective and seamless. The way your experience is created: perception, emotion, the distinction and worlds of self and other, language, context, mind, thinking, internal dialogue. There's a very deep fundamental genius to being a human. Of course, on the other hand, we can see people who aren't very bright, who lie, withdraw and ignore, aren't very self-aware, and are committed and attached to their ignorance.

Sorry, I meant neither has changed. Hopefully it's clearer now that I edited it. It is fascinating, although how realistic is it in the end? Would it be feasible in a century or so? Cultural transformation requires individual transformation. This requires personal responsibility, even if assisted by others. Who decides which direction to move towards? People may not want to follow the same path and goals as everyone else. For example, why hasn't any culture throughout history been based on honesty and truth?

Pursue both, if you want! Not mutually-exclusive.

Everyone is a potential genius, and at the same time it has to be developed. The probability of becoming a genius is slim, though.

"Sorry I wrote such a long letter, I didn't have the time to write a short one." Generally speaking, I get the sense that you write too much when it could've been expressed succinctly. I'm biased towards concise communication. Anyway, keep contributing to the forum, I appreciate the variety you bring to it.

Not necessarily. You seem to ramble on about every little detail you can think of. See if you can get it across in fewer words. Read my first post to you. Being concise forces you to become increasingly clear on what you want to get across. See if you can communicate without intellectualizing. I'm not saying communicate less. You can DM me, let's keep the thread on track.

Even if an expression comes from direct experience, it is received as hearsay by others. Not to say genuine insights haven't come from "religious" individuals, however they are independent from religion; they've contemplated some matter for themselves. Discovery comes from direct experience, not beliefs. Comparing belief systems is looking in the wrong place. It's like comparing how insights manifest. Is the communication sourced by genuine experience? Grasp the experience being communicated. Besides, you can have insights on your own, an invention isn't ultimately needed.