Carl-Richard

Can you describe "this right now" to me?

I see this distinction between the direct consciousness and the communication of it as a massive abyss. Yes, you can have a kind of intuitive flow and traction which resonates viscerally when reading it, and it can be one of the most effective ways of pointing. Energetic delivery in person is even better. But the abyss is still there. It's between the actual experience and the words, concepts, pointers, philosophy characterizing it. And if the communication is through philosophy, a deeply rigorous philisophy can be warranted. And just generally, engaging deeply in philosophy cannot negate any spiritual experience. It's very freeing when you see the ultimateness of spiritual experience that cannot be negated, that whatever you engage with in the world, is the world, the ultimate remains ultimately.

Clapping. Raising a toast and saying "cheers". And this video:

If you move more, you can eat more carbs (in fact, you probably should). 80-90% of insulin-induced glucose control comes from skeletal muscles. But yes, a food pyramid that tends to place hyper processed foods at the bottom, for most people, that's good.

@Nemo28 AI naughty naughty

Brother, is this you? https://www.youtube.com/@RuslanMalyshev

I want AI to make me a meme gif of a person shooting a gun that has "pointing is not it" inscribed on it and who says "shut up" *reloads* "shut up" *reloads* "shut up" *reloads*, just so I can post it in every non-duality thread when the time is ripe. Yes, I did walk into a potlid-locked piece of terrain filled with cooled-down trapped weed smoke in -10 degrees celsius two days ago and I'm still high.

A friend of mine who I celebrated New Years Eve with is aware of Actualized.org, Spiral Dynamics, has meditated for hours at a time, has taken psychedelics, knows about the ramifications of attachment, and like me, he comes off like a normal guy (maybe he won't vouch for me) when you talk to him about normal stuff (which is what happens when you are a spiral wizard).

Vibez. Thinking well about reality means you are able to control reality well. The mix is substantial.

I have to re-frame my past exclamations of "it's so simple, literally spend 10 minutes to learn the distinction between personal and transpersonal", as that is more a wish and a rhetorical quip than reality. It was not the case for me, it was a paradigm shift after years of intentional grasping for something more than my vibez-based solipsism (which I did subscribe to for quite some time). I think it's almost a default to subscribe to solipsism once you get into non-duality. It's seemingly so elegant, simple, but indeed only if you are kind of simple yourself (in the conceptual department, not necessarily spiritually). Yes, to make philosophically sound statements, you have to do a little digging into philosophy, into science, into trying to be logically consistent, into expressing your ideas in a clear and unequivocal way (which does not equal simple). It was a process for me, and unless you're exceptionally gifted in the conceptual department, it will be for you too, if you decide to go down that route. And I do believe it's worth it, because you are always making philosophical statements on the spiritual path. You are doing it right now. You are never exempt from stating things logically and from trying to provide an argument. Even if you're a vibez-based solipsist, you are providing a philosophy. It doesn't matter if it's based in direct experience. I believe my philosophy of idealism is based in direct experience. It's the way you communicate it, the level of consistency, the conceptual rigor, that might be entirely different, that makes it come off as different, but it can be based in entirely the same thing. It's about how well you think, not how well you "are" in terms of spiritual attainment. And if you are all about spiritual attainment, then the pointing business maybe is not for you. There are other ways to spread your insights. You don't have to do it through words. But again, if you choose words, you take on the responsibility of being rigorous, logically consistent and unequivocal, or else you delude yourself and others.

Bernardo Kastrup, contemporary idealist philosopher, and about to blow the shit out of the AI market and spreading idealism on top of billion dollar budgets: "Europe's last hope in the AI race - Europe must gain AI sovereignty; here's how they can do it": https://iai.tv/articles/europes-last-hope-in-the-ai-race-auid-3453?_auid=2020

I was not referring to you specifically but the problem of projecting in general. If you want direct: the fact of the matter is anything can exist, and denying that anything can exist has nothing to do with non-duality. Even more direct: there is no "this" in my direct experience. That's a projection. Show me "this". You can't. Here is a 3-minute "overly conceptualized" deconstruction of solipsism having anything to do with non-duality, if my words (and Ramana lineage student Michael James') are too complicated:

The I that is God is not an avatar. That's the problem with projecting your own idea of the word. That's why I elaborate with what the "I" is. The entire linguistic enterprise is dualistic for God's sake. And I'm saying God is in everything. What is dualistic about that? "Sounds weird" means you're coming at this from a "feels" perspective not a logically consistent and conceptually informed perspective. And that's the problem. Something that is logically consistent sounds weird. We're barely logical creatures. The pointing game is ridiculously limited. The best way is sometimes to shut up. But people keep asking so we keep pointing. God and avatars are one, God and perceptions are one. God and feelings, sounds, colors are one. But you saying "only these sounds and colors exist, not these other sounds and colors", that's fantasy, that's illusion. Because show me "these sounds and colors". Point them out to me. If you can do that, you will see that is in fact dualistic. You see, solipsism in the way you seem to conceive it can ever only be dualistic. Ramana's solipsism, is radically non-dualistic. It's going inwards towards yourself, not outwards towards the world, things, feelings, perceptions, experiences, sensations — inwards towards the One, not outwards towards the many. The One and the many are united in the journey inwards, united in an infinite way, not in a "here is the border of my limited avatar-based experience, anything outside is not real" kind of way.

Why does an omniscient God care where your grandmother is specifically?

Why is @Inliytened1 asking where your grandmother is?

Me and other are illusions, God is real. "Where is other?" is illusion. "Only me" is illusion. God knows everything, God is everything, God is in me, God is in you, God is in avatars, God is outside avatars. The problem with being simple is that you project your own idea of "me" and "other" onto those words (and it tends to lead to equivocation). That's why I have to start talking about perceptions, sounds, colors, Freud, Jung. Grasping the difference between "personal" and "transpersonal" should not be that hard if you just try for more than 10 minutes.

I love how everything just loops back into "but can we describe anything at all 🤪"? when things become only slightly difficult. Yes, any description is a concoction, "dreamer" is a word. Same with solipsism, same with anything. This is philosophy 101. Welcome. Do we get this now and can we move on?

I linked this video earlier, and it resonates with what I have said, time and time again, in this thread and elsewhere. It resonates with what Rupert Spira has said about solipsism, what Bernardo Kastrup has said about it (I can also name-drop people). The distinction is about the dreamer and the dream characters. The dreamer is one, is omniscient, knows itself and everything because it is everything. The dream character, the videogame character, the avatar in the MMO role-playing game, is a projection, happening inside the dreamer's unbounded consciousness. The dreamer is one, because it is everything, it exists everywhere, in everything, at the same time, in "everyone". The avatars are irrelevant, they are illusory, projections. The dreamer is one. The dreamer is one. The dreamer is one. The moment you engage in "where is your grandmother?", you're engaging in illusion. You are not talking about an omniscient dreamer. You are engaging in a very select and limited section of the projections of the dreamer, dreamed by the dreamer, and the dreamer is not an avatar, it is not confined to an avatar, it is not confined to anything. Avatars are concerned with what you can see, smell, touch, hear, feel. The dreamer is concerned with what "is", what is everything, beyond what you can smell, see, feel, beyond anything you as an avatar can imagine with your limited imagination. And what "is" is pure knowing, pure being, pure "is". You were given the opportunity to read the above text with undue charity, strategically leaving this at the end so you might be more open. Now, let me re-iterate: there is something wildly juvenile about writing a thread where you open with "you know who agrees with me? The most respected guy in the business" and then you're completely wrong, and you even admit you're wrong. And now you also make it my burden to prove you wrong. That is also wrong. Nevermind, I should've placed it at the beginning. If you think knowing the difference between "minds" as in the common psychologist perception of it (the type Freud, Jung, etc., talk about) — the minds of perception, feeling, sensation — vs the mind of God, the pure consciousness permeating all of reality, is to be "engrossed in being complex", then ok, being complex is necessary.

You don't have to be a saint even though your parents expected you to be. It's OK.

But the light shines on everything does it not? Now this is just messing around.

Where does frustration rank on the pole of consciousness?

Wrong. It's that solipsism doesn't describe the world, only the dreamer. You're very sloppy in your scholarship of those you decide to name-drop for bolstering your personal beliefs. I suggest stopping that. Nevertheless, I'm just making it clear for anyone here who cares about what Ramana thinks about solipsism: this is not a thread about Ramana Maharshi. It's a thread about a guy's obsession about using a term to describe relationships in the world.

I read like a few post in this thread and two of them had circular definitions. Something to be conscious of.

Anybody care to explain what the interpreter of Ramana means by "not solipsism turned out on the world but solipsism turned in on yourself"?

Sort of. The Default Mode Network instinctively throws out long-term memories about oneself (self-referential processing). When you're more conscious, thinking about yourself drops.