Carl-Richard

First recognize that the so-called external world is actually inside your own head. This establishes the fact that everything is consciousness. Now, you're asking whether something can exist outside of consciousness, and that requires that we unpack the idea of non-duality. Imagine the universe and see if you can imagine there being an edge to the universe, a limit that keeps it from extending for forever. If the universe has an edge, is the edge a part of the universe? More importantly, if the universe is supposedly limited, it has to be limited by something else than itself, and that is what the edge is for. But then think about this very carefully: for something to be limited, there must be something else that limits it. The edge limits the universe, and therefore the universe is limited. But what limits the edge? Surely, something else must also limit the edge, or else that edge is just limitless. Hmm... isn't this a problem? Well, can't we just add another edge outside that edge? Well, not really, because that edge must also have another edge limiting it and so on etc.. Now we've run into the problem of infinite regression, and that is actually not a "problem" but instead an inherent quality of the universe. The universe is actually unlimited, infinite, and necessarily so, because if the universe is everything that can exist, then what can limit it other than itself? Now if consciousness is everything that exists, what can limit consciousness other than itself? And what can consciousness be other than unlimited, infinite, absolute, primary, prior to anything and everything? That is the truth of nonduality. Every limit, every distinction, every "two" is necessarily "one". Now, if everything is made out of consciousness, what is that edge of the universe made out of? The edge is an imaginary limit: Tada!

Recognize that "depersonalization" is a term that stems from the paradigm of western psychology that tries to fit everything into a description of pathology. If we were to give that description any merit, some people who awaken tend to react were negatively to it and want to repress it, and this impedes the natural blissful unfoldment that is otherwise characteristic of an awakening. In that case, when the otherwise natural state feels alien, intrusive and threatening, you could call it a pathology along the lines of depersonalization. However, many people also argue that they're two diametrically opposed phenomenas that should not be conflated with eachother.

All limits are imagined by consciousness.

I recommend focusing mostly on the gut area and looking for emotional tensions there. Release it anyway you feel like: cry if you have to. Relaxation is impossible if you have repressed emotions in your body.

How do you decide what is common sense?

But you're deciding which authority decides that, aren't you? Or else why are you telling me this? I don't need somebody to tell me that I can't fly. I already know I can't. If you knew you could fly, you would just find another authority to cling to that fits your experience. At the end of the day, you're actually the one who chooses the authority, and that means the authority only comes from yourself. This is more relevant to your frustration than you think. You're looking for outside validation for something you can only decide for yourself, and that decision is to accept the reality of what you're experiencing and drop the need for an imaginary authority telling you what to do. The outside authority is only secondary to your inside authority. You're the one deciding it. You're your own authority. Own it. Stay true to your experience.

We all sometimes go a bit overboard when arguing about something we're passionate about on this forum, and we tend to forget the bigger picture and get caught up in our own emotional attachments and logical justifications (I surely have). Lately I have been laying down some harsh critiques against people attacking my beloved model of Spiral Dynamics, and therefore in the spirit of repentance, I wish I would've acted more in alignment with the values I'm so concerned about defending. If you feel the same way about anything lately, feel free to share it here with us

I was thinking oranges, but now I'm thinking lemons When life gives you oranges, make a strong consistent argument

Yes. Yes and no. It isn't. The title is a joking gesture. Because I want to survive. To answer both questions: I assume I do. Maybe? My mind.

Let's keep it orange and simple here guys Jking

Never seen Larratt so pissed off before haha

Who decides that? You?

I didn't compare him to Trump lol. The "oh wait" was supposed to indicate that "grab-em-by-the-pussy" is already taken (by Trump). I really dislike explaining my jokes like this, but oh well.

This is your main problem. You're holding on to others' authority to construct your reality and it's conflicting with your own, creating friction, suffering and despair. Reclaim your mind and really investigate what it is.

What didnt you get about it?

Joe "grab-em-by-the-pussy" Biden ... oh wait Nope, this isn't going to affect his electability.

IMO, school is 90% about learning how to socialize with other people your age. Actually becoming educated is more in the hands of the child (and the parents).

Leo's shtick is so much more than just "that's cool, but have you tried 5-MeO-DMT?". Joe will never ever concede on the fact that he is God, that he is creating everything in existence, that he is the only being that exists, that people don't exist, that matter, time and space doesn't exist, that reality is imaginary, that MMA is low consciousness, that he imagined his own birth etc.. If you mention just one of those things, you will get laughed at and not be taken seriously for the rest of the conversation. Then again, he has people like Alex Jones on his show who talks about interdimensional aliens and other brain-meltingly obscure conspiracies, so who knows. Maybe it would be cool if he focused on trying to teach him Spiral Dynamics, but they would or later have to talk about his main ideas, and that would either require a stoned Joe or an unserious Joe. Either way, the audience will not be happy.

Would be way too controversial and way above Joe's poor head.

"Everything" is a thing, and all things are dual. However, The Absolute, the "totality" of every "thing" (the whole), is non-dual. A duality is infact simultaneously non-dual: each part is only defined relative to the other, and therefore they're necessarily a whole; one, not two; non-dual. In an attempt to avoid confusion, we tend to distinguish between these seemingly contradictory perspectives by referring to them as "relative" and "absolute". From the relative perspective, all dualities are two, but from the absolute perspective, all dualities are one. A thought is a duality. Thoughts only exist relative to non-thoughts. Therefore, from a relative perspective, "non-dual thinking" is an oxymoron. From an absolute perspective, everything is non-dual, including thoughts, but it doesn't help very much speaking about it that way, because all forms of intellectual inquiry happen in the relative domain.

Notice how my comment contains two perspectives: forest fires are bad for individual trees, but forest fires give space for new trees. I initially didn't press on either one, but is it really worth the risk of losing the entire forest? I think not. The forest will get to this stage regardless of how many times we burn it down.

The forest might benefit more from more forest fires.