jse

These two words may help you out: Critical. Thinking.

Nothing wrong with the scientific way of inquiring about the nature of the universe, except when pre-assumptions are taken for granted (e.g., speed of light being a constant). Now, to get help you over the belief of materialism based on our powerful conditioning, try the following simple exercise: 1) Stand up; 2) Fall flat on your face; 3) Rinse and repeat until all illusion of materialism transcends.

Preposterous idea. Look around you, people alive everywhere:

Leo is such a bully...

That definition certainly takes my dog out of the intelligence equation. Heck, she doesn't even comprehend Facebook. How about another "intelligence" definition: the ability to adapt to (and coexist with) the environment. This definition would put a thermostat at the top of the intelligence list, and humans way at the bottom. Only the mind cares about "intelligence".

Who would've thunk it...

Is there really a difference between Artificial vs Organic Intelligence?

@Lauritz , that's one great vid! C'mon, I don't think like that anymore - I've been quoted out of context. My non-dualistic reputation is now in tatters...

Ok, I thought about it some more, and this may be somewhat clearer: "You are not the one that is, but the one that is not."

Panpsychism is the belief that consciousness arises from all matter, and not just from complex entities such as human beings. Einstein came around to this way of thinking in his latter years. As @Girzo already pointed out, this is still materialism - as opposed to the non-dual understanding that all matter arises from consciousness.

I can vouch for that.

To process emotions, you'll need an emotions factory:

Something like this?

There are many: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, WhatsApp, Tumblr...

The mind cannot understand emotions, anymore than the heart could ever comprehend calculus.

Could someone here please help me get this BIG HAIRY PURPLE ELEPHANT outta my mind!

I'm afraid that was a one-off quote from me, @Shin . I'll never come up with something as mind-torturing again, so I'd probably make a lousy guru.

This is today's gen already, can't imagine tomorrow's...

Just thinking about an analogy to the Copenhagen interpretation, i.e. the collapse of infinite probabilities into what we perceive as a single final definite material reality. For this thought experiment you'd need the following: a TV transmitter, a TV set, an avid TV fan. We tend to think that images "travel" as TV/radio waves from a TV transmitter through space indefinitely, until they are intercepted by a TV receiver/screen. If so, how does the image "travel" from TV transmitter to screen? What is its path in time/space? Does the "image" exist at all between TV transmitter and screen? If so, where is it located in time/space? Where is the TV image generated, at the transmitter, screen, or our eyes? What happens to the TV image if its not intercepted by a TV set, does it still exist in the universe? And do these questions (where we are trying to pin a physical locality on non-physical information) make any sense? (Where is the Internet's physical location?) Analogously, the source of our "reality" is just information which doesn't manifest itself until its wave function is "intercepted" by our measurements - the screen of our perception. We are that screen in which all reality manifests. But trying to pin this down in terms of time and locality (source/path/destination) obfuscates reality. There is no source, no path, no destination, not two.

"You are not the one that is the one, but the one that is not. Don't think about this." Oh, wait...

Ask any river: "Do you age as you flow to the ocean?"

Bertha Jaylnn Jo, just moments away from her glorious enlightenment:

Paul Hedderman tells it like it is, in a brutal fashion, without the kind loving gazes. Clearest and most direct message out there. Perhaps one needs to have suffered enough to be ready for Paul's message. He is not suitable for everyone.

Any idea about non-duality, no matter how plausible or how well it may be wrapped in good intentions, will lead to confusion at best. The mind intercepts the message and hijacks it as it's own, in an attempt to support and strengthen it's dualistic grip. ... says the mind. C'mon, let's not.