Jacobsrw

It would be a good stage to move through regarding purifying the mind, since most of us are deluded by it. However, it’s important to remember that Buddhism is limited and only provides part of the Absolute. The rest lies far beyond it. One would have to eventually abandon Buddhism and allow reality to inform them of the entire picture.

Good work man! I would suggest one reason being, that the levels in which big picture meta thinking occur are only around stage yellow. And since the world is dominated by blue and orange, very few develop beyond, it’s too threatening otherwise. Unless one has the ability to exercise aspects of yellow they are likely remain at lower levels. Most levels below yellow are inherently attached to the means of serving an ideology. Ideology begins to crumble at yellow. This is what’s required to move up the spiral.

You are still assuming a mind prior to the awareness that created it. Fundamentally, there is no mind. To solemnly belief there is, is to grant the solipsistic paradigm, which is just pure illusion equivalent to each precipitating thought. Go to your direct experience and ask these questions. Continuing to interrogate this inquiry through conceptualising is of little good. It’s just using thinking to validate more thinking.

Hahaha you’re aren’t very good at taking your own advice One attempts to hint an important pointer you then attack them while naively assuming you know already what they have pointed to, interesting display of hypocrisy there. Consider adopting more humbleness. Clearly you have much to improvement in regards to producing in productive discussion. You are yet to realise the one you are have been critiquing the the entire time is in fact yourself (full circle). I recommend you integrate the work, it is clear you are stuck in conceptualsation from what has been displayed in your rhetoric here. I wish you well moving forward.

@The observer I understand they are pointers, you continue to ignore my responses regarding that. The crux is this, consider avoiding blanket statements that overlook what I am in fact pointing to. Simply naming pointers is not the same as realising those that exist already existing in front you.

@nistake In essence, I agree with this. Ones state of being should stem from this understanding but equally reflect in action so as to create powerful change in presence. Problems do not exist. All there is are simply matters of survival. Whether something either impinges upon it or supports it, that’s the only criterion. And even this is but pure bias and subjectivity. The only trap one must be careful of, is to not rationalise the primacy of Now as a justification to behave mindlessly. The Now has a crucial responsibility to it. Far greater than most spiritual circles give it credit. The Now is not a happy place of escape nor a sad place of demise. It is the fundamental place from which all places are hallucinated.

Agreed. That still doesn't explain away ones actions as an ego. How? The statements you make assume that those who disagree with you are inferior, but really that’s just an approximated assumption you’ve come to. True. But if you are one who understands this work, you will also understand that antagonising ego’s imparts devilry. One is best to respond suited to those who they are speaking to not their own bias. Anywho, I can’t inform you otherwise. It’s up to you to asses the implications in your communication. Ps. Props to you if English is not your first language, you’ve done well.

@The observer haha that statement is absurd. Also, I don’t feel that you are aware of it. Your statements if anything, appear suggestive of an elitism ideal. I could be wrong though. My question is, why engage in personal criticism when this discussion is about something that beyond it? Then again little of what I have said in our conversations has been properly represented or interpreted so I’ll leave it there haha.

You seem make a lot of fallacious assumptions. And I feel that you seriously misunderstand what an ideology is. I feel your need to reconsider the points you continue to contribute. They appear to generate more fallacies than those you accuse others of making. Please take the time to read each comment you contribute. You blatantly accuse others of the very thing you are demonstrating. Before blindly attacking me as you previously have, seriously read them.

Find something you have passion for. Find a new way to approach it, put your unique spin on it and inspire the world. Working hard is cliche. Don’t frame it as working hard. Frame it as fulfilling an immense opportunity to which no one else has done before you. Be experimental and have fun. Commitment and effort is key but don’t fixate on work ethic, fixate on purpose. Work ethic becomes a culminating result of this.

Solipsism cannot be disproven because it was never real to begin with. Explore this deeper and you see the illusion of your entire reality.

@Someone here go and discover the answer for yourself. The only way you will derive an answer is you genuinely seek it yourself. You won’t find the answer on here. This forum is only a conceptual framework.

You pretty much derived your own answer. Yes that’s right. Fundamentally, you don’t know that I exist beyond the thought that I do. There’s is no me. I am literally a thought in your mind. See this right now in your experience. Eradicate the thought and I no longer exist. For an “other” to exist, you must maintain a mental image and the idea of them. This is the ineffable power of awareness. You can’t escape awareness and you require it for everything you know. All you perceive is a product of awareness. Nothing but a mere derivance from it. @The observer direct experience is not a paradigm it’s a pointer. How one interprets something is what qualifies an ideology (anything can potentially be one). Your contention is like saying “awareness” is an ideology. Ideology is the clinging to concept rather than knowing the space that precipitated it, ie. awareness. “Direct experience” is a word to describe the presence of awareness. You’re are trying to ideologise words here by playing elitist, and creating confusion for the person who initially asked a genuine question.

@Member Exactly! But don’t merely believe this, go to your experience and see if it is true. Seriously. It’s powerful to do this. It will radically recontextualise how you interpret.

@Member I’ve already stated this. Direct experience. After observing my direct experience extensively, it is clear that “I” is secondary. “I” is fundamentally predicated on a thought. Thought then identifies with the body. No thought = no “I”. Awareness is prior to thoughts. Your existence is awareness. This isn’t philosophy, it’s direct experience. @Someone here your misunderstanding awareness. Awareness is everyone and everyone is awareness. Awareness is a single field of existence which creates the illusion of self and other. Solipsism is a mental concept. No more significant than your thought about yesterday. It’s reliant on awareness to even exist.

@Member why make fallacious assumptions? Awareness is known via direct experience. In fact, you may find this hard to believe but from a very young age I intuited an impenetrable, imperturbable, ever-present essence central to my existence. It wasn’t until later on in life I could contextualise it from more deeply contemplating it. Facts and people are figments of imagination. If you cannot see this you are stuck in duality. One can verify the primacy of awareness in the direct experience as of now.

@Member You misunderstand. Awareness imparts all that is perceived. As such, awareness is both what is seen and the seer which sees it - one. Read my earlier comment. Awareness is all there is just like the screen. Refer to the metaphor above.

You can’t disprove solipsism because it was never real to begin with. Go to your direct experience. Observe it and you will see that the field of awareness is prior to the “I” that knows it. Solipsism presupposes an “I” prior to awareness and all that it sees. This is impossible as one does not know them self before awareness, they first require awareness to know them self. Thus, solipsism is an illusory secondary idea created by the “I” not the awareness prior to it. Pure awareness has no one ownership. It is unownable yet knowable to all that realise it.

@Someone here you just answered your own question. Pure potential most be nothing and everything at the same time. To be one thing limits it from being another so to be pure infinitude the screen must impart all possibilities without preference to either one. That is why the screen is an efficient metaphor. Awareness must be all as all relies upon it but it must also be none as none fully represent it.

@Someone here Think about your question. If the movie requires a screen from which to be displayed, what do you think is more fundamental? The movie is nothing but a product of the screen. In fact, the movie is completely made up of the screen. Without the screen the movie could not exist. Just as is for us with consciousness. Without conscious we could not exist, the screen of our experience is but completely made up of consciousness.

@Someone here the screen is the transparency of awareness through which your experience is known. You can’t see the screen because it is transparent you. Yet you require it to know anything at all.

This was beautifully put. However, I would say that the prison is only maintained by ego. Awareness is free. It has no boundaries. It is at all places at the same time.

@Godhead In my opinion Peter Ralston takes the cake along with the likes of Rupert Spira. They speak about mind and ego more eloquently than any other modern day writers. I urge you to use your own insights as well. To write through powerful acts of truth one must have first hand realisations. Start doing deep inner contemplation and self inquiry. This will maximise the quality and depth of your writing. I for one have a book in the works regarding the inner dynamics of mind and human experience. Self realised insights have been the fundamental key for me. No truth is deeper than the direct truth itself. Also big tip: use elaborate imaginative analogies and metaphors, this helps with poeticness.

“To move beyond a problem we must first move beyond our unceasing need to entertain them” @Preety_India you must do the very thing that you fear, develop your social skills. Its truly powerful when you begin doing the very thing you feel to be insufficient. Because usually the feeling of lack is simply limited by an overarching belief. This disintegrates once you begin transcending it. Since almost all career aspects rely upon some level of social skills, I would see it imperative to work at it. You could of course be more of an online service consultant but then you really lose the true rawness of connectivity. Besides, getting out to develop your social proficiency will not only assist you with others but it will maximise your self understanding and self love. I for one have found indispensable growth by developing my social skills. I’ve gone from being one of extreme conservativeness, to one who can easily swing between outgoingness and conservativeness whenever required. I now love them both. Allow yourself the opportunity to as well.