Flow With Life

Wow, never heard it put this way before. Nice!

powder the dried shrooms, soak in raw lemon juice for 15min, drink it supposedly the lemon helps break down the compound so your stomach doesn't have to do as much google "lemon tek" for details and don't drink or eat anything for 8 hours beforehand

In this post, I explain how the Rationalist and Fundamentalist are similar (despite seeming to be opposites), and why one should stop seeing beliefs as true/false, but rather as just arbitrary ideas one can pick up and drop off as one sees fit ------------------------------------------ Both the Rationalist and Fundamentalist accept or reject a belief on the basis of whether it is true or false. Both assess the truthfulness of a belief by weighing the evidence in support of it against the evidence that contradicts it. The difference lies in the type of evidence that is valued by either. The Rationalist values evidence that appeases their sense of rationality. In principle, the Rationalist prefers evidence in the form of logical reasoning and empirical evidence. However, in practice, the Rationalist is content with evidence in the form of hearsay from sources they deem credible (such as scientists, philosophers, atheists, other rationalists, etc.) under the assumption that said sources: also value the same type of evidence adhere to a method by which their evidence conforms to said type are honest share some degree of consensus The Fundamentalist values evidence that appeases their sense of faith. In principle, the Fundamentalist prefers evidence that reaffirms their faith in whatever ideal they value. However, in practice, the Fundamentalist is content with evidence in the form of hearsay from sources they deem credible (such as holy texts, religious leaders, their religious community, etc.) under the assumption that said sources: also value the same type of evidence are honest draw from some form of divine inspiration However, despite the difference in the type of evidence valued by either, both the Rationalist and the Fundamentalist share something in common: their main criteria for accepting or rejecting beliefs is based on truthfulness. Enter: the Spiritualist. The Spiritualist does not accept or reject a belief on the basis of whether it is true or false. Instead, the Spiritualist accepts or rejects a belief on the basis of whether holding that belief is a benefit or detriment to their well-being. The Spiritualist is not concerned with whether a belief is true or false; there are 4 independent reasons. (1) Firstly, the Spiritualist understands that all evidence is ultimately subjective, never objective. It is always the individual person who decides whether certain evidence appeases their sensibilities or not (whether it be a sense of rationality or a sense of faith). Even in the face of consensus, each individual bears the full burden of accepting the evidence for oneself. One can never delegate the burden of accepting evidence to another person because one is solely responsible for their own mind. (2) Secondly, the Spiritualist sees greater utility to their own well-being in accepting or rejecting beliefs on the basis of whether the belief is a benefit or detriment. The Spiritualist understands that one's beliefs shape their entire perspective on the world, and hence how they interpret experiences. How one interprets an experience affects how one feels about it. How one feels about an experience affects how one will react to it. How one reacts will immediately generate either a sense of relief or stress. How one reacts will also be reinforced in the mind, and hence repeated in the future, since humans are creatures of habit. Then if one generates relief or stress, one will continue to generate the same in the future. Hence, one's beliefs are the cause of the continuous generation of relief or stress. The Spiritualist also understands that one's beliefs are malleable: they can change, and one can deliberately change their own beliefs through effort. Hence, the Spiritualist understands that one should adopt those beliefs which lead to relief, and drop those beliefs which lead to stress. (3) Thirdly, the Spiritualist understands that in order to be able to deliberately change one's own beliefs, one must be willing to adopt and drop beliefs as necessary, with great flexibility "on-the-fly". The Spiritualist understands that if one accepts or rejects beliefs on the basis of whether it is true or false, one will not be willing to adopt or drop beliefs "on-the-fly": One will be unwilling to adopt a belief unless they receive sufficient evidence in support of it that appeases their sensibilities One will be unwilling to drop a belief unless they receive sufficient evidence in contradiction to it that appeases their sensibilities On the other hand, the Spiritualist is unconcerned with such evidence, their priority is their own well-being. They use practices that allow them to observe their own emotions, which indicate either relief or stress. Then they determine the root cause of their relief or stress, which is always a belief. Then they choose which beliefs to keep, which to drop, which to adopt, and which to keep away. This is a continuous iterative process, it never ends, and no belief structure is ever final. (4) Fourthly, the Spiritualist is after a stronger form of truth... Truth with a capital "T". Whatever this Truth is, it cannot be based in evidence which is inherently subjective. Truth must be groundless, it must be unsupported by anything; it must BE the ground itself, there is no deeper one can go. If Truth had to have support, then it would not be the deepest Truth, the support for it would be the deepest Truth. The Spiritualist understands that the only way to reach Truth is to consider every perspective, even contradictory perspectives. (I withhold any logical justification for this statement, it kind of has to be taken on faith--until one sees it, in which case, it is self-evident) The Spiritualist understands that if one accepts or rejects beliefs on the basis of whether they are true or false, one will be unwilling to consider every perspective since they are unwilling to adopt or drop beliefs "on-the-fly". ------------------------------------------ tl;dr Both Rationalist and Fundamentalist care about whether beliefs are true or false based on evidence; the Spiritualist doesn't care about that, they can shift their beliefs around freely to improve their own well-being, they understand that beliefs are never objectively true or false, and that Truth with a capital T has nothing to do with belief or evidence

Your issue is that you are taking this advice (follow your own path) meant for a conventional worldview out of context. I'll explain: If humans take input (from the environment), and then react in a deterministic way (thoughts and actions), then a human is like a machine. From this perspective, there is no free will in the human, it's just a puppet, whose strings are held by the world. Let's call this worldview 1. However, to the Ego, it feels like it can choose which path it wants to take, and that it is not deterministic. The Ego can forge its own path. Let's call this worldview 2. Both worldviews are valid, just at different levels of analysis. As far as the advice "follow your own path" is concerned, it only makes sense in worldview 2, but you might be trying to understand it in worldview 1, hence your confusion. But this points to a deeper source of confusion, which is how it is possible for two seemingly contradictory worldviews to both be true at the same time, this is the essence of spirituality.

As you have pointed out in your post, it is impossible to act of your own independent will. Every thought, intention, or action you do is just a deterministic reaction (based on your psychology) to sensory input (from the environment). However, the advice of "follow your own way" just means don't blindly believe what you have thus far been led to believe; question it, and ask if it is serving you. If so, keep it, else discard it and look for something better.

I would imagine Virtual Reality games would be very helpful in getting you to question Reality, and also to appreciate the amazing graphics of real life in comparison.

Must God be infinite? Why is it not the case that God is finite? Is there any sense in improving the world or helping other beings? If infinity must express itself in every possible way, then that means all forms of suffering must be explored, it is inevitable. Then why help others?

Listen to Pink Floyd - Dark Side of the Moon

Having had a taste of oneness, I can confirm, it is absolutely depressing. It was while I was tripping with some friends. Ego death for near 10+ hours. When my friends would have a conversation, it was as if I was all of these people talking to "myself". Frighteningly lonely. However, I think the feeling of loneliness was because there was still traces of the ego there.

Depends what you mean by "punished". Prisons exist for a variety of reasons: (1) Deterrence: discourage non-offenders from offending (2) Rehabilitation: transform offenders into people who can re-integrate into society (3) Safety: protect the non-offending public from potential harm from those who are offenders (4) Retribution: punish via suffering or death the offending individual because they "deserve it" (5) Vengeance: those victims of the offender can feel "good" about the offender suffering The above are the logical reasons for having prisons. This does not include motives of the government using prisons as tools to eliminate those who threaten their ideology (and hence, their authority); or prisoners of war, etc. Different prisons and prison-systems will emphasize different values. For instance, some prisons could care less about rehabilitation, and are all about inflicting suffering upon the offenders. Others stress the importance of transforming offending individuals back into "good" members of society. There is no right or wrong answer (who decides? and why?). However, from the perspective of "oneness", there is no separation between individuals. We are all connected as one human-society, or to extend it to all life, the Earth and all life on it is one big organism, and going further, the universe itself. From such a perspective, there is no room for hatred of others, only compassion. From a compassionate perspective, we see that offenders are victims of their own psychology. Then the motivations (4) and (5) fall away as being irrelevant. However, motivations (1), (2), and (3) are still compatible with compassion.

Hustle & Zen: Hustle: - NEVER settle for complacency or security - Take action to manifest the reality that I want for myself, and NEVER compromise on this - Never blame others or the world; there is only one person to blame, and that is myself - Stare fear straight in the face and take the plunge Zen: - Realize that life is an ebb and flow of happenings, everything good will eventually wash away and so will everything bad - Connect with the "deep down whatever there is" which never changes despite how much life changes

I'm no monk but I have considered the idea. I think isolation from the world has certain advantages but also disadvantages. The obvious advantages are freedom from distractions which makes it easy to access high levels of concentration. However, the disadvantage might be you don't see what you are detaching from. One who has suffered depression will know true happiness when he sees it, more than one who has had a comfortable life. The poor starving man will appreciate a banquet feast far more than a rich man who eats this way all the time. A man who has struggled and chased after future happiness will see what detachment means and be able to let go, while the monk who has not done so will not understand what he is detaching from.

Ah, it is peculiar how scientific materialism defeats itself, no? This is what the scientific materialist assumes: - The eye takes in light from the external, and the brain converts it into "seeing" for the internal. - The ears take in vibrations from the external, and the brain converts it into "hearing" in the internal. - The nose, tongue, body take in scents, chemicals, and physical elements from the external, and the brain converts it into "smelling", "tasting", and "feeling" in the internal. - These organs act as intermediaries between our internal world and the external world. But then it follows that everything that has ever been seen, ever been heard,... smelled,... tasted,... felt, was created by the brain. But then further notice that the idea of having eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and body are created by the brain. You have never seen a physical eye, because "seeing" is a thing that occurs in the internal. But the eye MUST be an intermediary, as assumed above, and yet we have NEVER seen a physical eye. The organs we know and study are not physical organs--intermediaries between external and internal--they are entirely internal phenomena. Go one step further: we have also never seen physical brains. The brains we have seen are only internal phenomena. Then there is no proof that the organs we have seen--which are entirely internal phenomena--actually operate as physical organs (i.e. intermediaries between the external and the internal). Without such intermediaries, from whence does the idea of anything external come?

Just for fun, let's create words that would make communication of non-dual concepts in English much easier. I'll start: Wa (adverb): "as from the perspective of duality or convention" Va (adverb): "as from the perspective of ultimate truth" Example usage: "Pleasure feels good and pain feels bad wa, but there is no difference between them va." Ri (pronoun): "the expression of the infinite which assumes the appearance of what is conventionally known as a human being, and which gives the impression that it is the originator of these very words being spoken" Example usage: "I am the same as the waitress va, yet Ri still has to tip her wa" Dangling Concept (noun): "a concept which, when described in words to someone who has not experienced THAT which the concept is attempting to describe, is utterly meaningless or is lost upon said person" Example usage: "To the average person, the Tao is a dangling concept." Two-Sided Coin (noun): "two ideas which appear to contradict one another, but are actually compatible by placing them both in their proper context" Example usage: "Self-acceptance and self-actualization are a two-sided coin!" Hia (adverb): "as known by hearsay or intellectualizing" Xia (adverb): "as known by direct experience" Example usage: "The beer is great xia. The food might be good too hia!"

Materialism: the belief that there is an objective world existing independent of my awareness of it Idealism: the belief that there is no objective world existing independent of my awareness of it --------------------------------------------- When you say goodbye to a friend, and they leave your house, where do they go? Do they go home and live out their own private life independently from you? Do they cease to exist altogether until the next time you meet? What about things? Is your desk actually there in front of you, or is it only sight and tactile sensations with nothing behind it, giving off an illusion of something solid? The truth is, you don't know. YOU DON'T KNOW. You don't know what you don't know. Here's what you DO know: that there is an experience happening right now. The light of consciousness reveals your friend and your table, but where does your friend go after they leave your light, and is the table really there or is it just an image and a sensation of touch? What is outside of the light? The Darkness--it is what you don't know. And what is it that you don't know? You don't know what you don't know. So... what you don't know must be INFINITE. The Darkness is the Unknown; a vast and infinite sea of possibilities; an infinity of latent potentiality; every possible universe imaginable, and not imaginable. When your friend leaves, they could have went home, or to work, or to school, or to the dentist. All of those possibilities and more are all true at once, because you don't know. It is only when you meet again that the infinite potentiality that is the Darkness re-manifests itself as the human expression that is your friend, and they will be able to tell you a consistent single account of where they have been since you last met. --------------------------------------------- Embedded in the belief of Materialism is the sense of a concrete or solid objective world, that takes on a PARTICULAR form, even when one is not looking. But the Darkness has no form, it is EVERY form, and no form at all. So your friend does not follow a PARTICULAR path, nor does the table exist as a solid thing somewhere. But they both exist, your friend and your table, they just exist as part of the infinite ocean of everything and nothing. They manifest themselves to you in the form of sight, sound, touch, and thoughts through the light of consciousness. It is only when they manifest that they assume a particular form. This is why Materialism and Idealism are both True, and both False.

I can elaborate, but words can only go so far; one first has to have tasted spiciness to understand a word-description of the taste of Indian Curry. My main goal was to open up new philosophical paths--to not settle on an "answer". But here it goes: Imagine a 3-D object that has no particular shape. It is every shape. It could be a pyramid, or a cube, or a donut, or a flat plane stretching into infinity, or nothing at all, or an infinite space encompassing everything, or perhaps some "impossible" MC Escher shape. It is all possible configurations at once. What form does it have? One can say it has every form because it includes, within itself, all possible forms. One can also say it has no form at all, because it does not take on a specific form, it is formless and cannot be defined. For your second question, if you admit that you don't know what is in the Darkness, then that means you've thrown away any assumptions about it. From the perspective of your mind, having no access to that which is outside of itself (i.e. the Darkness), the Darkness literally has no definite form. It is possible to become directly aware of this... a deep sense of "not knowing". Yet from the perspective of the Darkness itself (actually it is impossible to take such a perspective, but hypothetically speaking...), it could be the case that Materialism is true (the world really is just one way whether you are looking or not), or Idealism is true (there is nothing there at all), or any other configuration including an Infinity like the 3-D shape above (they are all true). I wouldn't get too hung up on trying to figure out the definite shape of the Darkness, because you logically can't (How can you know anything about that which you don't know?). And yet, it is only by questioning its form that you can come to see it directly. That is the real answer, and no words of mine can compare.

You don't know. That is the point. Because you don't know, it is equivalent to your friend vanishing into the Infinite; which has no form. Only when your friend re-emerges from the Infinite, does he take on a single form; and then he can tell you the events that took place in his (singular) life. But the next time you meet your friend, perhaps it will be the version of him who visited Spain, or perhaps it will be a version of him that got married, or some other version. You have no idea which version of him will emerge.

During the trip, I saw "it", but I didn't know what I was looking at. After the trip, thinking back, I now know. Upon knowing, I laugh at how absurd it is, and yet it is true. What did I see? First some context: ----------------------------------------------------- One salient feature of the trip was that beliefs and conventions that you take for granted now seemed completely arbitrary. Me and my friend could now hug one another without it feeling awkward. Why should a hug between two male friends feel awkward? There is no true reason, only a convention that says it's awkward, and we now saw how it was arbitrary. Now, apply that to the idea that people exist. I stare into my friend's eyes. How is it that you exist? Sober-Me would merely look at my friend and just assume he is a human being with his own experience of the world, and then think nothing more about it. But that "assumption" was now on trial. Going into the trip, I believed in the idea of Idealism (nothing exists outside my own consciousness), though I never truly experienced anything that would deny Materialism. But how can my friend not exist? He spoke words, he could move, all of these things he could do independently of my will. Where are his words coming from? Where is the source of this "mind" that is separate from mine? As far as I knew, the human I was seeing before me was nothing more than a visual image, and the words he spoke, just auditory sensations. What was behind that? It seemed like nothing. But that didn't make sense. (I should mention that Ego Death is occurring as well, so I have no sense of identification with the human organism that used to be me). ----------------------------------------------------- Looking back now, I know what I only briefly glimpsed. And I cry just thinking of it. The abyss; the unknown; a blank slate--nothing, but holding the infinite potential to be anything--hence, it is also everything; it has no particular form; it is a vast infinite ocean of every possibility; an infinite source of potentiality expressing itself as the human that was my friend. And this abyss was hiding behind everything. It was in the trees, it was behind me, it was on the other side of the wall where I could not see, it was inside my body, it was my friend, it was me. The abyss was everything outside of the field of awareness. With this knowledge, I realized that there are only two things that exist... at all: The light of consciousness (everything within the field of awareness--sights, sounds, sensations, thoughts), and the darkness of the abyss (everything outside of one's own awareness). This whole world is a dance between light and dark.

I would sometimes ponder "What would it be like if the universe didn't exist?". Intuitively, this should be within the realm of possibility. These sometimes triggered a sense of "nothingness" in my mind that scared the shit out of me. It was impossible to imagine nothingness... to imagine anything at all was "something"! As I grew older, I stopped being able to tap into that sense, or perhaps I forgot. But now as I journey into spirituality and self-actualization, I am hoping to rediscover that sense of nothingness.

Puppet Gods As Ocean flows, Wave follows. As Wave flows, Ocean follows. Simply, they are one flowing. As World changes, you react. As you react, World changes. Simply, they are one flowing. As World changes, you react. No choice is independent, all choices are conditioned. You are mere puppet of World. As puppet of World, you wield no freedom. Understanding this, one gives up control. Giving up control, one just flows with World. Not upstream, but down. Just flowing with World, one finds true freedom. Others, too: puppets. As puppets of World, they wield no freedom. Understanding this, one sees them blameless. Seeing them blameless, one dwells not in hate, but in compassion. As you react, World changes. No event is secluded; all events are connected. You are the source of all change. As source of all change, all is your doing. Understanding this, one accepts duty. Accepting duty, one takes swift action, planting seeds of change. Taking swift action, one finds true courage. Others, too, are Gods, though they may not know. Understanding this, one does not lay blame, but accepts duty. Accepting duty, one teaches others of their potential. Wave and Ocean, Self and World, simply, they are one flowing. The whole conditions the part; the part conditions the whole. If you can understand this, you are both puppet and God. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This poem is my attempt at reconciling two worldviews that resonated with me, but seemed contradictory: (a) I have no free will, and (b) I must accept total responsibility for my life (i.e. "Thou Art God"). By accepting that one is a mere puppet of the World, one stops resisting the flow of life, always trying to control everything. By accepting total responsibility for one's life, one stops playing the victim, always feeling that life is unfair while doing nothing to change it. Once one realizes that everything is interconnected, the two views are two sides of one coin!