Forestluv

Transcend the desire to objectively analyze different POVs. Objective analysis is stage Orange. Yellow is about integrative, systemic, relativistic modes of being. For example, Yellow can comfortably hold two opposing POVs without grasping. Yellow understands paradox and is fluid. Perhaps read more about what Yellow is like. My favorite book in this are is "How to think like Leonardo Da Vinci". Imo, Da Vinci is a great example of Yellow.

There are ways we can treat the mind and body lovingly to minimize unnecessary suffering along the path. For example, we wouldn't want to traumatize the mind and body by taking a large dose of psychedelics on an airplane. This is not a good setting for a large dose and could needlessly cause trauma and PTSD. . . Yet, there is a certain amount of discomfort inherent in transcending the ego. For me, there have been periods of high anxiety. So, I've tried to be kind to my mind and body and not give it more than it can handle. It's also possible to go through ego backlash, periods of depression and "what's the point? why do anything" spaces. You say that you are motivated to make your life better and more fulfilling. Ime, as I got to the deeper levels more and more was surrendered: including my life and fulfillment. There are a lot of spiritual areas that focus on improving life and fulfillment. Yet there are also areas in which all of that is deconstructed and transcended. I would be mindful of what your desires are. If your desires are life improvement/fulfillment and you enter areas in which your life, improvement and fulfillment get deconstructed and transcended, it could be counter to the desires of the mind and body - causing a lot distress. As Leo quoted in a recent video "It's all fun and games until someone loses and *I*". . . The desire to know Truth regardless of the consequences on life improvement and fulfillment is a different orientation. I'm not saying one is better than the other. Yet I would be mindful about which rabbit holes I go down and how far down I go.

@Pernani Are you asking this out of theoretical curiosity? Or are you asking because you want to continue down a spiritual path and want to minimize the potential suffering you may encounter? These are two very different orientations. For example, I may be curious in theory whether it's possible to learn how to scuba dive without any anxiety. That is very different than if I am actually going to go scuba diving for the first time and since I've had anxiety disorders, I'm worried about going into panic during the dive and I want to minimize the chance of that happening.

@Nahm Nice guide .

Ok. You are saying you have direct experience in which the body and mind are doing their thing and just act without prior thought. To me, you just answered your own question.

@Swagala Personally, I don't find it helpful to compare my insides to other people's outsides.

@arlin There are some nuggets in there about relative truth, yet imo the way you frame it sounds like a resistant ego trying to control the narrative the mind.

Is this something you were told? Or is this something revealed in your direct experience? Imagine spending 40 years of life assuming something was true and then one day suddenly realizing it wasn't true.

@Pernani I think what you are getting at is the actual experience rather than intellectual conceptualization. As Leo quoted in his recent video "It's all fun and games until someone loses an *I*". It can be fun and games discussing it intellectually in cafes and on forums, yet when it's time to face the music, the experience can be uncomfortable at times. I'm imagining climbing Mt. Everest. Thinking about it can be intriguing and exciting. Yet actually doing it and experiencing it is different. I imagine those that actually climb Mt. Everest have undergone some uncomfortable mental and physical conditions. In addition to feeling motivated and adventurous, I'm sure there are times when they feel fearful and anxious. They may face frostbite or hypothermia. They may face a technical challenge they are unsure they can do. At times they may be empowered, other times insecure. There are times when they feel they can't handle it and out. There aren't any guarantee how the journey will unfold. For some it may be relatively smooth, for others it may involve a lot of suffering. Yet I would think those that make it to the top of Mt. Everest place the top as the top. There are times when reaching the top is more important than security and comfort. . . Imagine a hiker considering Mt. Everest saying "I don't want to suffer during this ascent. Is suffering necessary?". . . It's not so much whether suffering is necessary or not. It's that this mentality will likely be a huge block. As soon as this hiker faces discomfort, what will happen? They will turn around. Similarly, when a mindset is asking "Will seeking Truth involve suffering?" or "What is seeking Truth doesn't benefit me?" - there are huge barriers. Along the path, as soon as one faces discomfort or sacrifice, they will bail. Yet this doesn't mean we need to manufacture suffering. Someone climbing Mt. Everest shouldn't do it naked to manufacture suffering. The person can wear warm clothing and bring supplementary CO2. Similarly, we can be kind to the mind and body along the path. For example, we wouldn't take 200ug of LSD and jump into a pitful of snakes. This would traumatize the mind and body and likely cause PTSD issues that the mind and body would need to work through.

That sucks. It goes against the whole spirit of education - learning, growing and expanding.

@Nivsch Because the human ego wants to control the narrative. Of course the human ego will place itself as the most sacred, the most important and the most developed. For example, humans grant themselves a “right to life” and deny all other life forms a “right to life”. Humans like to define “development” as things like the ability to use tools, reason, self awareness. Yet dismiss other forms of development / abilities like collective consciousness in wolf packs and starling murmurs. Or consider human constructs of “enlightenment”. Isn’t it interesting how enlightenment constructs are relative to humans? These constructs are created and exclusive to humans. Non-human entities are excluded. I see many humans flock to “enlightened” humans to learn about human constructs of enlightenment. So much talk about which humans are most enlightened. . . Yet much rarer do I see a human allow a tree to be their teacher of enlightenment. This would require trans-human consciousness. It’s like taking a group of kids to an ice cream parlor and asking “OK, who wants to have ice cream first?”. Of course they will all scream “ME!!”.

It’s not that human life is secondary. What you are doing is placing human life as primary. This is a very human-centric biased view. You are arguing for humans. Why aren’t you arguing for for the sacredness of dung beetle life? Why aren’t you arguing that butterfly life is not secondary compared to humans or anything else? . . . Humans are not secondary to anything else, yet they are not primary to anything else. Human extinction is a concern to humans. Yet from a trans-human perspective, human extinction is no more worrisome than extinction of ants. Who cares if humans go extinct. Most of Earth’s history had no humans and in many ways, Earth would be better off without humans. . .

@Javfly33 A few thoughts: 1. Low/moderate doses of psychedelics can be great for dissolving the sense of self and revealing one-ness without going into some bizarro reality. Yet keep in mind, that when the conditioned mind returns, it will want to contextualize the experience and make sense of it. The mind may create all sorts of thought stories. These can have practical value for the person/human, yet these thought stories aren't actual - they are contextualizations. The human mind has attachments/identification to a thought story of "me". At a deeper level, there is attachment/identification to experience and feelings. Awareness of all this is a major expansion. Yet the awareness doesn't mean the underlying attachment/identification to that self dissolves. There is recognition and there is embodiment. 2. Recognizing the illusory nature of self does not mean conditioned impulses in the mind-body will suddenly stop. A nondual realization will not cure someone's broken leg and will not stop pain impulses in the mind and body. It is the relationship to those impulses that changes. There is an energetic shift. Mentally, it may be a "game-changer" and relieve a lot of personal anxiety and neuroses. Yet conditioned neurotic impulses may still appear in the mind. 3. The human mind is conditioned to perceive duality it's entire life. The first glimpses of nonduality will seem radical and cause a sense of instability and groundlessness. The mind might start thinking "Who am I?", "Do I even exist?", "What is the point of doing anything in life?". This can cause discomfort in the mind and body. . . I am a big proponent of following one's true desires. If the mind and body reacts with strong resistance/anxiety and says "Whoa, this is too much - we need to slow down and get our life together" - I would honor that. We don't want to traumatize the mind and body. If you were climbing Mt. Everest and the body started hyper-ventilating and went into hypothermia, we would pause and allow the body to recover. 4. Follow your true desires. All there is, is this moment you are having right now. This moment is Home. The deepest human desire is to return Home to this moment.

Glimpses of nonduality are often contextualized as solipsism by the personal self. Solipsism is a cognitive construct - there is a prior to that construct. Solipsism is still dualistic. It sees others as unreal and it's self as real. Therefore thoughts like "i am all alone" arise. That is only a half-truth. If others are not real, that means that i am not real as well. This is the next step: to realize "i am not real". You keep using the terms "i" and "me" in a personal context. How can "i" be all alone if there is no "i"? There is no "i" to be all alone. Nonduality is much more radical. In nonduality ALL selves are nonexistent. Other selfs and my self do not exist. Cloaking a personal "me" as a transcendent "Me" is a sneaky trick of the ego. Remove the cloak and realize there is no "me". There is no point to all your questions because they all assume there is a thing called "me". Consider the following questions: How much money do I need to invest in feeding my unicorn? Where is the best place to train my baby unicorn to fly? How can I keep my unicorn in my yard? Won't it fly away? Do I need to get a licence to own a unicorn? I have two dogs that are very territorial - how can I protect my baby unicorn from my dogs? . . . We could go on and on and on. . . All of these questions are a waste of time because they all assume that a unicorn is real. . . The questions are a distraction - it is much more important to realize there is no unicorn. When one realizes there is no unicorn, all the unicorn questions dissolve. . . Similarly, these questions about "me" assume there is a "me". This is a distraction from realizing there is no me. Once this is realized, all the "me" questions dissolve.

I would be cautious of creating a standard of success to be a permanent nirvana-like state in which I have zero "bad" desires and 100% "good" desires in which I am happily motivated to be productive all the time and spend 100% of my time being productive and engaging in self improvement and spiritual practices. That standard is just so unreasonable and it sets the person up for failure. . . It would be like me wanting to get back into good physical shape - yet my standard for being in good physical shape is: never missing a single day of working out under any circumstances, never eating any snacks or candy, having 5% body fat, bench pressing 150% of my body weight and winning an olympic gold medal in both weightlifting and the marathon. I would just be setting myself up for failure. With this standard of success, as soon as I fall short I will think "see, I knew I would fail. I might as well go back to playing video games all day and eating potato chips". For personal transformation, I think it's much better to develop healthy habits incrementally and have attainable goals - both short-term goals and long term goals - yet not be so demanding and rigid that I sabotage myself and set myself up for failure. For example, a goal of running at least 5 miles everyday is too rigid. What if I am sick one day and it would be unhealthy to run? What if I get a minor injury and running on it would seriously injure myself? A better goal might be "I am committed to 45min. of exercise five days a week". This provides structure, yet also flexibility. Regarding freedom of addiction, it depends. . . I still have desires that would be considered "spiritually incorrect". That is part of the human experience. I wouldn't want to live without some of those desires. Yet I also wouldn't want my life to be constantly driven by those desires. . . Regarding specific addictions, yes some can be completely overcome. The strongest addiction in my life was chewing tobacco. I was mentally and physically addicted hardcore. I tried to quit for many years and kept failing. . . Quitting that habit was one of the hardest thing I've ever done. My mind and body was obsessed and I thought I would never be free of the physical and mental addiction. Yet with time it got less and less intense. I would say it took about two years to become completely free. I have not had a single desire or craving to chew tobacco for over 15 years. I don't even think about it. Even the thought of it doesn't arise. It's a non-issue in my life. So yes, it is possible to become 100% free from an addiction.

I like traveling as healthy entertainment. It is fun, engaging and intriguing. A lot can be learned through direct experience of travels and it’s mind expanding.

At the age of 70, as cancer ravaged his body, Ramana’s devotees begged him to cure himself. He lovingly replied, “Why are you so attached to this body? Let it go,” he said. “Where can I go? I am here.” “That in which all these worlds seem to exist steadily, that of which all these worlds are a possession, that from which all these worlds arise, that for which all these exist, that by which all these worlds come into existence and that which is indeed all these — that alone is the existing reality. Let us cherish that Self, which is the Reality, in the Heart.” — Sri Ramana Maharshi

It sounds like there is contrast appearing between the story of self and storyless no-self of being. It can feel like two different realities. . . I can totally relate to entering space of just being, with no "me" controlling the narrative. It sooo beautiful. And yes, there can be a deep sense of sadness when that "me" voice returns in the head. . . Yet it is a gift that this awareness is revealed. Most people live their entire life without ever becoming aware of this.

Conflating objective, relative and absolute is a recipe for inner turmoil.

She did not vote "no", she voted "present". There is a difference, yet most people don't consider nuances and interpreted her vote as "no". This is why she is trying so hard to explain that she didn't vote "no". This is one reason why I consider her vote as a political error. She was not politically savy enough to know that her "present" vote would be interpreted as a "no" vote by most people.

One exercise I like. . . Look at your right hand. Look at at all the details. Wiggle your fingers. Watch and feel. Touch your right hand with your left hand. . . Now put your hands behind your back and imagine your hands. . . Do you *get* the difference. It's not just an intellectual thing. The substance of actually looking and feeling your hand is very very different than imagining your hand. . . Now feel the shirt on your shoulder's. Listen to the sounds occurring now. Look at something now. . . Now imagine your birth. Imagine your parents. Imagine China. . . Observe those images arises now. All there is is Now. Stop Now from happening Now. It can't be done. All there is is Now. You know this to be true. There is nothing closer to truth than Now. You don't need any evidence to prove to you that Now is happening. The Truth of Now is prior to all evidence and you Know Now. Once there is realization that there is only Now, there is no past and future. These are just constructs occurring Now. Since there is only Now, there is no actual past and future. Thus there isn't even Now. How can there be Now without past and future? The term now assumes a past and future. So, we can simply say ISness. Yet of course, constructs of past, present and future and useful to navigate life.

Yes. . . The deeper we go, the sneakier the squirrel gets. . .

What I'm picking up on here are assumptions. When we say "This is a teaching". There is an underlying assumption of a concrete objective reality. The thought "how I see it" can have an underlying assumption of "this is how it is". . . These assumptions are often subconscious and can be limiting. My mind does this a lot and I can see this occur in my own mind. If we change the sentence to "This is a sandcastle" it breaks the attachment/identification since nobody is attached/identified to a sandcastle because we know it is not concrete objectivity and will soon dissolve back to beach. All teachings are like sandcastles. They can be fun to construct and can have practical value, yet the substance of sandcastles is not sandcastle. The substance is sand. This construct/hypothesis contains lots of nuances. We could spend an entire human lifetime exploring the nuances in the above statement. And many humans have. . . I think the construct you have created is a super cool sandcastle. Saying a being is an "enlightened being" can elevate the authority of that being. Saying a being is like buddha and definitely knew reality further strengthens the authority of that being. It creates a scenario in which the being is an authority of truth and is unquestioned. If Ramana Maharshi is like buddha and definitely knows reality, everything Ramana says is true without question. . . This is turning one's authority over to another being. Humans do this a lot and it can have practical value. Yet we are not always aware that we are turning our authority over. You have access to the same truth as Ramana maharshi and buddha. You don't need to create a scenario in which they are the authority. This will limit expansion. You can cut out the middle-man and access it directly. . . As well, all teachings are partial truths. When we turn our authority over to another being, we often lose sight that these teachings are relative, partial truths. In doing so, we interpret the teachings as complete truths. Regarding the question. . . from my POV, there is conflation and an assumption of good and bad. There is conflation between a transcendent "You" and a personal "you". From the perspective of a personal "you", cancer is "bad" and it is something the human doesn't want. Yet from a transcendent "You", there is no longer any person to take ownership of the cancer. There is no "you" that has cancer. There is no difference between the cancer in "my" body or the cancer in a lizard's body in Tasmania. There is no difference between "my" cancer cells and "my" non-cancer cells. There is no difference between cancer cells and a blooming flower. From this transcendent perspective, cancer is Love. Those cancer cells are trying to divide, replicate themselves and survive. Why would we want to stop them? Why wouldn't we want to promote their growth? . . . Imagine a volcano destroyed a forest and we discovered a small patch of plants that survived, yet are injured badly. We love those plants and nurse them back to health so a beautiful forest can regrow. We wouldn't dump chemicals on the plants to kill them. Similarly, why wouldn't we nurse cancer cells sot that they can grow into a beautiful tumor? . . . Perhaps You had so much love that You allowed those cancer cells to grow and flourish. To kill those cancer cells with chemicals would be heartless and barbaric.

@Joker_Theory I've found labeling and returning to be helpful. We can all relate to meditating and then getting lost in thought. "Crap, I forget to text my friend that I can't make it to the gym tomorrow. He's going to be really upset. This is the third time I canceled this month. He probably won't want to work out with me anymore. Why am I so forgetful? Maybe I have ADHD. I should probably schedule a docter's appointment tomorrow. . . " And on and on and on. . . While we are immersed in the thought story, we become the thought story. There is no witness observing the thought story. . . Then we may snap out of it and realize "Whoa, I just went off into la-la land. I'm supposed to be meditating. I lost all awareness of here and now." Then we can return to here and now. I great way is to bring attention to the breath or feelings. Thoughts can mesmerize the mind into past and future. Yet feelings are always Now. So bodily feelings are a great way to get grounded and return to Now. This labeling and returning can help re-condition the mind. The challenge is to let go and be the witness because the mind is attached/identified to the thought story. Imagine observing a movie of yourself. The mind is not conditioned to be a detached observer of itself. The mind wants immersion into self. Recognition, labeling and returning can help de-condition this tendency - yet it can be a long process of de-conditioning. We are talking about de-conditioning decades of conditioning. Thought stories are occurring Now (even if the thought stories are about past and future). Yet imo it is super hard to detach from thought stories and observe as a witness. I think it's more effective to label and let go of thought stories and re-direct attention to Now. If mediation is too tough, something like walking alone in nature may be effective practice. Often when I walk in nature, all sorts of thoughts stories arise about work, relationships etc. I may recognize "Thinking of work" and return to listen to bird chirps. Really listen to the birdsong. If I start thinking about how birds communicate, at least the thought story is related to something occurring Now. . . Or I may recognize "Thinking about a travel plans for Christmas" and then return to observe a bee pollinating a flower. . . The mind will often resist doing this, yet with time it becomes second nature. As one gets better, thought can be background noise. For example, while I am hiking there may be some background traffic noise in the distance - yet I'm not engaged with it and it doesn't bother me. Similarly, as I hike there may be some background thought noise "in the distance" - yet the observer doesn't engage with it and isn't bothered by it.