Carl-Richard

I was being sarcastic. Unless you're living in the jungle alone, your existence will require either your own or someone else's work or money. And to spread your high consciousness message to as many people as possible requires a lot of work and a lot of money. If you only view money as a means to a materialistic-hedonic end, yes, money will probably not be compatible with high consciousness, but that's a low consciousness view of money.

Can you form a single cogent thought?

Locked for low quality.

"Tomorrow it will rain". Where is the fear?

Answer based on the first thing that pops into your mind.

If you're endlessly mind-wandering about future scenarios and how something might affect you or might not affect you, that's ego. Focusing on the future as in doing things in the now that has consequences for the future, that's not intrinsically egoic. Focusing on the future as in thinking about how to manifest changes in the future is not intrinsically egoic either. Egoic identification is ego. With egoic identification comes a certain habitual, cyclical, persistent, repetitive form of thinking about oneself, whether it's in the future or past or relative present. Egoless thinking is much more action-oriented (ironically), much more purposeful and focused, less "what if" and more "this now". On the contrary, I think people who are more "focused on the future" spend less time in egoic states overall than those who aren't. Because egoic thinking inhibits productivity. You don't have time to be thinking about yourself if you have 15 deadlines and you're advising 4 students and your kids are sick and you are sick and your wife is sick and you're constantly abroad for meetings and conferences (ask my thesis advisor). In fact, my thesis advisor despite his "future focus" is one of the most psychologically light, grounded and alive people I've met. When you have a lot to do, you think about what needs to be done. And if you're good at doing lots of things, you'll likely primarily think about those things and not much else.

It's really just realism vs constructivism. If you can get the lessons of both without having to necessarily create a firm "either it's A or it's B" dichotomy, you'll be better off in my opinion. There is a sense where the world seems to exist independent of any conceptions of it, and there is another sense where it is dependent on one's conception of it. Try to discover what each of those senses are, and then maybe you'll see the question a bit differently. Every language uses symbols and every symbol has a signifier and a signified. Perhaps what is invented is the signifier, what is discovered is the signified.

"Don't be vegan" when you mean "don't be identified" is more confusing in my opinion.

Spiritual ego is the cleverest deception the Devil ever invented.

You sure are lazy, I'll give you that.

You didn't contribute anything.

Describe your experience of non-doership to me in a paragraph of at least 12 sentences (your current experience and/or transition into it).

No you must barely be able to afford food and work low-wage jobs and not charge for spritual services because that makes you a con artist.

Every time I read "it's not x, it's y", my AI astma spray calls me. Here's a tip: if you want to use AI to write for you without disclosing it (which is against the forum guidelines by the way), tell it to avoid cliché AI phrases.

He was AI before it was cool.

Do you have complete non-doership?

Which question? Why that question?

Forcing yourself to sit down and think on a subject when that is not what you feel like you want to do or what is required in a given situation, just seems masochistic to me. I'm all for contemplation when it's something you want to do. Going for walks and letting your mind free, that I will highly recommend. Whether it's silent or it speaks, doesn't matter. Go for at least one 10-minute walk a day (after a meal is great for glucose control). It's good for mental health, not just getting lost in abstractions.

It does matter if they steal your stuff or sell drugs to your kids or cause a lot of noise.

What even is contemplation?

My family has a hut 600 meters above sea level in the mountains next to a smaller ex-microglacial river. When we used to fill a water tank by pumping water straight from the river, I loved the taste of the water in our tap, like you could taste the mossy flavor. It was very sweet and maybe even a bit sour. Now we use water from a spring which is different tasting, probably more carbonate-tasting, but it's probably also good water.

1 hour meditation every single day.

The whole wrongness of identification & attachment in veganism is identification & attachment, not veganism. It's the same "pre-trans" fallacy that is applied to religion. If people think "religious person", they think dogmatic, incapable of logic, narrow-minded, lack of openness. Yet they are religious themselves.

Studying breatharianism is one of those few things that the people who are able to pull it off are very rare, and those people are likely to not care about showing it to others or doing it "for the science", and the kind of controlled experiment required is so long-scale and resource-extensive and practically and technically difficult, including having to distinguish the thing itself from simply fasting which can also be done for long periods of time, it makes it an obscure subject that is essentially only for people with personal knowledge or those happy to confine themselves to hypotheses and convincing second-hand stories.

It's that it's simple and easy to identify (oil made of seeds) It's a food item that people don't have a strong preference for or against (it has a relatively neutral taste and is used as a means to an end, as a cooking accessory, more than a food you want to eat) It's not seen as strictly necessary (you can get fats from many other sources) It's tied to "you fear what you don't understand" with respect to the processing steps for making the oil (involving sometimes spooky-sounding chemicals and modern industrial processes) It's tied to "big money" capitalist conspiracies ("big food companies just want to earn money") and conspiracies of narrative control (big food companies lobbying in government, science) It's tied to the naturalistic frame or fallacy ("the processes for making the oil are not natural", "natural is better"), simple in- and out-group dynamic It's a food item that people don't know much about so they can easily adopt a new narrative and usually one that plays on weaknesses and that sticks Now, I haven't made an empirical case for or against its health effects. But notice how many things are not good for you but how some things are amplified more than others. Feel free to add more things or find a similar boogeyman.