Emerald

Try the "48 Laws of Power" but don't swallow it whole lest you become a total sociopath. But using some of these rules can help you stop undercutting your own power and gain more power within society. Going all the way though, will make you a criminal. A must-read for people-pleasers even though it's uncomfortable. Also, try "Thick Face, Black Heart" which is also quite good for this.

Donald Trump uses so-called "radical honesty" and a lack of regard for "political correctness" to tap into voting power the hordes of angry uneducated Americans who use other groups of people as scapegoats for their own issues. The way that Donald Trump does this is by saying something so outrageous that the uneducated masses will think "He really tells it like it is." and "He really isn't swayed by politics" because his blatantly zenophobic and racist statements match those of living room racists around the country. So, you need to pick a demographic to exploit (the less educated the better, of course). Tell them what they want to hear under the guise that you don't care what anyone thinks. Then, they will think that everything that comes out of your mouth is golden because you see it their way and tell it like it is. Using the appearance of radical honesty to gain trust and power over others. Also, make a spectacle and a cult-like following for yourself. Act like royalty and surf the waves of cultural trends. Be what the people want, but disguise your intentions to be what people want by taking some unexpected turns which translate to an "idgaf what people think" attitude. Also, you must build a reputation for yourself, by disallowing yourself from being soiled by your own mistakes. Deny, deny, deny. Accept all the credit, even if others helped you. etc. Donald Trump is a master of power moves... but not much else.

Well, get present to the fact that the only sensations that you experience are sight, sound, touch, smell, taste, and thought. So, if you experience a thought, don't get caught up in the content just acknowledge it as a thought and place your attention on the other sensations. If more thoughts arise (and they will) don't get wrapped up in them just acknowledge them and put your awareness back to the other sensations. After a while, you'll get used to noticing how your thoughts aren't you.

The Law of Attraction is a lot like @Pinocchio mentioned. It's meant to move you to deeper levels of growth and fulfillment and to help you meet your destiny. The Secret tends to put it as, "You can manifest all the material wealth you want." This is a very distorted and limited viewpoint on Law of Attraction. What you really desire is the emotion behind manifesting those things. You will manifest whatever the higher self thinks will be of the greatest benefit to your expansion. If that means breaking the cycle of valuing your significance based on external circumstances, the law of attraction may manifest a job loss. It's always going to be positive, even if it seems very negative.

This video is about strong determination sitting and has a lot of great information about how to deal with physical discomfort and mental urges without going completely insane.

The thing that helps me get through strong determination sits is to occasionally give myself internal affirmations like "This moment is the only moment I have to deal with." I'll even lie to myself and internally say "It's okay. I just sat down one second ago." if I'm closer to the end of my sit. The thing that makes strong determination sitting so hellish is that your physical sensations and your thoughts multiply together to make hell. But if you can be aware enough to separate thoughts and sensations, it will be exponentially more manageable.

I think that too. Perfect for deconstruction.

It's all good. I have been eavesdropping though.

Thanks. You too. We're the spider and the fly at the exact same time. We weave a web of our own thought stories for our own benefit in life, but we're also the ones that get tangled in the web.

I'm definitely getting a lot out of it. It's very helpful to see people working out and deconstructing assumptions.

Thank you. I was thinking about the notion of "in" earlier in this thread, where I was considering if something could really be in something else in my perceptions. I was little confused at the idea of a tactual sensation being inside of another. There seems to be depth to my sensations but I'm not sure, so I think space would be a good concept to use for inquiry.

Thank you. This is very encouraging. I am too but it's a secret... j/k it's totally not a secret.

Thank you. My interactions on here have really given me fresh eyes through which to view things. Before I was just stuck in traps that I didn't even know I was stuck in. But I'm sure there are still plenty of traps that I'm stuck in that I'm still unconscious of. But you definitely don't sound like an arrogant dick.

Good one.

I will do that. Thank you.

Enlightenment could be achieved by someone who has killed before. There is a popular Buddhist story about a mass murderer who became enlightened. But he had renounced murder directly prior to beginning on the path. But enlightenment is seemingly synonymous with unconditional love. So, an enlightened person would likely not be inclined to murder because they don't want to be murdered. That said, enlightenment doesn't make a person perfect or even a moral person. But even thought there are no clear standards of good and evil in and of themselves, there are proper and improper ways to do things. For example, if you want to lose weight, there are particular steps that have to be taken to do that. So, in that context, eating a lot of high calorie foods is bad. But if you want to gain weight, eating high calorie foods is good. So, if your goal is to achieve an end, particular means have to come into play. So, for a person to become enlightened there are particular practices for increasing the chances of having a breakthrough i.e. meditation, self-inquirty, contemplation, etc.

Thank you. These are great questions.

I just recently had an insight about perceptions as not being perceived, but morseo as things themselves. So, there is not necessarily some mechanism or organ doing the sensing of a perception. But maybe the thing that I think of as a sound, isn't being received by an ear, but it exists as a thing inside of awareness itself. It's just a sound floating around inside of awareness. But I will definitely deconstruct my idea of what "exists" means. That one is probably full of preconceived notions.

The reason why I do it is to empty my cup of preconceived notions and assumptions that I may not be aware of yet. I'm trying to make myself receptive and open for a potential breakthrough of enlightenment.

That makes sense. This is where I'm not quite open enough to see things clearly. I have recently started thinking in terms of 'if it doesn't happen in the present moment, it's only the content of a thought.' In a sense, this opens me up to my present experience and I can sense the content of my perceptions very clearly now. But I'm starting to make it a rule, and I don't think that's going to be fruitful. So, what was true before I was born? Based on my "rule," nothing of course. But how can I experience the truth if I have to look for it in the content of my thoughts? Do you have any other leading questions? Or do you recommend I use it sort of like a Zen Koan and just sit on it until an insight comes?

That makes sense. I only took one philosophy class, when I was in college but most of our reading material was based on these types of existential questions. I would say that this process is the diametric opposite though. Instead of trying to find what's true and create a framework of knowledge like philosophy does, you're trying to find what isn't true and trying to deconstruct your existing framework.

I hear his books are great, but can be a bit discouraging because of his nihilistic take on enlightenment. It doesn't sound good to the rational mind. I didn't know of his work until I started talking with people here on the forum. So, I haven't read anything from him yet. I learned about Spiritual Autolysis by looking up the process online the other day and I already had a huge breakthrough about what a perception is and is not. I also, now follow his forum, where he allows people to create a thread to ask him questions regarding their progress toward enlightenment. Make sure to read the rules first though, if you should decide to join the forum. Here is the link: http://jedmckenna.createaforum.com/index.php Thanks

Spiritual Autolysis is a method of inquiry created by Jed McKenna, who is enlightened and wrote about this process in his books. It is writing down a sentence you think is true and deconstructing every aspect of it until it is actually true. So, it's like the meditative self-inquiry practice only it's more intellect-driven and on paper. So, if I were going to deconstruct your sentence... "All the existant colors are held within the spectrum of colors" Here are the questions I would ask: Q: Do colors exist? A: They appear to. There are various shades and hues. Q: What are colors? A: They appear as hues and shades that fill in flat shapes within the field of visual awareness. They are two dimensional even though I think of them as three dimensional. Q: Is there a spectrum of colors for them to be "in"? A: Maybe not. I see no spectrum of colors. This could be a framework. The only colors that I know are "real" are the ones that appear in my field of awareness right now in the present moment. So, there is no spectrum of colors to be seen. So, the spectrum of colors is another thought story. Q: What is "in"? A: Can a color be in something? No. colors appear as they are. Q: Can anything be "in" something? A: Not sure. Let's check. Q: Can a sight be in a sight? A: No. Sight is a single flat plane of shapes imbued with colors. Q: Can a sound be in a sound? A: No. All sounds combine together to make one sound. Q: Can a feeling be in a feeling? A: I don't know. I sense depth... so maybe. So, after this deconstruction I can write the sentence again, omitting the false parts. "All existent colors are." Since "are" implies existence, we can omit the word "existent." So... "All colors are." Then I look to see if I can deconstruct it further. i.e. What does "are" mean? What is existence? etc. So, this is the basic process, and you keep deconstructing the sentence until you've explored all possible assumptions and beliefs that are being unconsciously held and communicated.

I think I've gotten to a point where I have what's true boiled down to what I'm actually experiencing in the present. I'm aware that all else is a belief. But if you have a regular world one, I can work with that too. Once I get them, I will deconstruct them until they are true.

Thanks.