tatsumaru

This is a very narrow reasoning. Go check out Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Do you really think that people who live in third world countries and don't even have access to water suddenly become profoundly happy when someone gives them a glass of water? Certainly there's some relief, but survival isn't enough for people. They might be grateful for a while that they have running water when they install the new plumbing but living without purpose is hell regardless of your level of comfort and JUST BECAUSE you can increase that hell further by even subtracting the most basic needs doesn't change that fact.

I appreciate your help and efforts sincerely, but you've heard 0% of my message. I know that you think that it is I who doesn't understand that you understand me and therefore I falsely believe that you didn't understand me when in fact you did understand me. However I think that you might have become too complacent with pointing out minor ignorance where there is minor ignorance and as a result have become blind to your own limiting beliefs. It is not my intention to argue or prove a point though. I will say this however - a being who's Done with a capital D doesn't say stuff like 'I don't know'. Are you Done or simply satisfied with a minor awakening? If the answer happens to be 'No' then are you 100% certain that I am deluded or is that simply a belief that allows you to not let go even more?

Play/love/joy are allowed by dispelling ignorance in my opinion. Taking care of others and guiding them towards play/love/joy arises out of love itself and should not be ignored. However if we are talking about taking becoming rich and famous seriously than that's just BS these are just lame-ass simulacra of meaning. Paradoxes only arise between truth and falsehood. There are no real contradictions.

Yeah that's why I've been contemplating that it's particularly important for people of higher consciousness to work hard to disentangle these old structures of oppression, purposelessness and slavery. It's like you are caring for your children - they are completely helpless without you, but you guide them into happiness. We can't say that it's okay to let your children figure it out on their own. Individuality is relative, not absolute. Still though, seeing these people resorting to alcoholism, kicking their dogs, beating their wives and being in silent and sometimes even in loud despair their whole life, it breaks my heart. Sometimes I just cry that people don't even know that there is such a thing as self-actualization or that there's at least some potential for improvement. I have to do something about it. This needless suffering has to go. Sometimes we are projecting, but IMO more often it is actual suffering. When you have a broken leg and you can't heal it or it gets infected that's suffering it's not projection IMO. When you are depressed and you want to kill yourself that's suffering. People have different authentic personalities but they have the same needs, so this idea that someone who is an alcoholic and hates their life is actually not suffering but I am only imagining it is just self-delusion IMO. There is one way to live right, it doesn't mean that everyone needs to do the same jobs or eat the same foods or like the same music, but the needs are the same for everyone and not meeting those needs has the same consequences for everyone. Depends what you mean by 'as they are', if you mean 'as they are deluded' then I don't agree. If you mean 'as they really are' then I agree. Tony Parsons suggested that “The only compassion is that which destroys the illusion of separation”. HH Dalai Lama said, “If I have any understanding of compassion, it all comes from studying the Bodhicharyavatara;” a bodhisattva text written by Shantideva. One may then inquire, what does the Bodhicharyavatara say? It says, “The whole of the Bodhicharyvatara is geared toward prajna, the direct realization of emptiness, absolute bodhichitta, without which the true practice of compassion is impossible.” "Buddhist teachings on compassion are grounded in the direct realization of Emptiness; without which, compassion is impossible”- Robert Thurman In other words compassion grounded in anything but truth aka beliefs is fake compassion no matter how well-intended it is. According to these beings compassion is about dispelling ignorance, not about being indifferent towards it. I seem to resonate with this notion. Whether that advice is Buddhist or not is irrelevant, this isn't about believing in Buddhist dogma, but rather to provoke an inquiry into the question if one can be truly compassionate if they don't know directly what's true. Is one compassionate by giving euthanasia to terminally ill patients when a cure unknown to that person exists?

Is your last letter of your myers briggs type 'P' by any chance? That sort of behavior is called Prospecting and it's quite usual for xNTP/xNFPs. Remember your purpose isn't some field or some set of tools. Biology, math, chemistry, these were just sets of tools created by some people in order to help them achieve their vision. Biology in itself isn't the purpose, engineering human life is. Fields come and go, there was trapanation, now there's neuroscience, none of these are the actual purposes, your purpose is basically answering the question "what would you like to create" then you just pick up the necessary tools to achieve it. I would say that you aren't dabbling, but prospecting because you are looking for a deeper understanding of life rather than some field to study. And since these fields are almost always bound by the same paradigms you tend to lose interest fast when you see it isn't going anywhere. However at the same time you are also picking what's good from each one and making your own theories and tools on the way up. Fields are just a bunch of biases nothing more. It's very likely that your purpose will be a vision for a certain kind of transformation in society which you think is critical for making the world a better place. Transformational/Transmutational mindset is the new paradigm of society that's coming to replace the old static shit that doesn't work (e.g. medicating people as if they are a static sculpture not a living system) so it's very likely that you are starting to wake up to this truth and you want to participate in the distribution of this new paradigm in society in some way shape or form. Maybe you feel that non-actualized people are why society is so fucked up and ape-like and you will want to become an actualization coach. Maybe you feel that the old medicinal paradigm is why so many people are sick so you want to become a holistic functional medicine practitioner and guide them towards the new paradigm that restores health rather than suppresses symptoms. The key to your answer lies in understanding Maslow's hierarchy of needs and how the current society relates to it as well as in contemplating transformation/transmutation rather than trying to pick some field as if the field can tell you want you want to create.

Absolute literally means 'not in solution with'. All you are doing with inclusiveness is making a bigger solution/soup of relative things. It's like you are blowing more air into a balloon and saying now it's complete. Pop the balloon. The absolute isn't within the reach of the relative, relative is just an illusion. Both One and Many are relative because they are in solution with each other. Whole (beyond empty and form) isn't in solution with One/Many.

It's not just about me though. I get depressed by their suffering and stuckness in the same suffering for their whole life. I feel like they are stuck in some nightmare and no one can help them. Just depresses the shit out of me.

It feels like I live in a world with nobody in it. I was never good at just accepting things.

Do you feel that female submissiveness (i.e. "punish me master") is related to self-worth trauma or is just a personal kink/preference. I had a girlfriend who was really into bdsm, but was also cutting herself and hated herself and so I am wondering if both go together, because I kind of enjoy it, but wouldn't enjoy it that much if I knew it was actually an expression of trauma.

I spent last two days reading threads and debating on this forum. As a result I forgot to eat all day because I was EXCITED. When I work on my business I forget to eat because I was EXCITED. When my ex-boss started his business he was so involved with it he lost 8 kg in 2 months because he forgot to eat most of the time. When you dedicate your time to your purpose and you are building an interesting life it's easy to undereat. When your life is a meaningless Epicurean bore, it's easy to overeat. Yes, of course all that other nutrition/fitness stuff matters, but make sure that your life is actually aligned with your purpose too. This helps so much it's not even funny. Only vision can sustain effort.

I will show you one day that there's more

I would like to avoid speculation as much as possible so whatever I am about to say is likely to be complete BS as I have no direct experience of the SOURCE of creation. However my intuition is not that it's a separate observer as much as it is the only actual thing. It would be foolish of me to contemplate what the experience of my lack of experience is like. I am not interested in word games or concentrating on objects or equalizing opposites or identifying with universe or including all of universe. I just want to make sure I've surrendered all there is to surrender that's all. Whatever remains, I will call that home.

The closest analogy I found to what I mean can be represented by this picture: I feel like everyone is saying - no we aren't individual photons (things), we are the whole light globe, it's all one (universe/Oneness). I am saying that I feel that we've been so mesmerized by this universe that we forgot that we are neither the photons nor the universe we are this thing who's staring in the globe and forgot they are staring. We are not OF the globe at all. And the I feel like everyone is telling me - yeah bro exactly we are ALL Of the globe, no parts of that globe are real, it's all one. Do you know what I mean? I don't have a belief in infinity so I am not searching for any finity or infinity. I am surprised that a person who's criticizing me for excessive mental masturbation is offering me a proof arrived at through some silly linguistics. I throw both finity and infinity in the thrash along with space and time. Not interested in this dimension at all. This is exactly the advaita nonsense that I am talking about that everyone's infatuated with. I am not looking for something OUTSIDE of myself, I am looking to surrender my sentient self into my total self. No one is offering guidance regarding this so far. All I am hearing is include all of what you sense in your total infinite identity. I am not looking for THIS to go THERE, I am looking to allow for THERE to come to THIS. To allow as in the guest coming, not to seek as in the host finding. I feel like this isn't going anywhere though and all I am going to get is more advaita stuff...

My interpretation of that story is that Oneness which is also known as Brahman in the Hindu lineage can't tell you what's true. Additionally Buddha's suggestion at the end points toward a possible realization that you can't trace phenomenon back to their origins/you can't trace effects back to their cause (i.e. there's no truth in the universe), rather if you want to uncover Cause you should ask where is it that there effects/phenomena have no foothold. Where is it that's neither empty nor form. Since oneness is still about effects I am inquiring about - where is it that effects have no foothold, that's all. Since Leo talks about inclusiveness and relying on the universe to wake up I am not convinced at all that we are all talking about the same thing. Inclusiveness is just about adding more to your identity. What would you include if there wasn't a universe? Do you see how inclusiveness is directly contradictory to surrendering the universe altogether?

I don't care about lineages one bit. However there are certain stories from different sources which are communicating what I am trying to inquire about more eloquently than I can myself. That's the only reason I am relying on them. When I say Yin/Yang that's not because I want to prove Taoism, but because I've already directly experienced Yin/Yang and I think that those are useful concepts. So I am inquiring about other higher concepts that I haven't experienced directly yet such as the transcending of 6 senses. If you have no clue if that's a thing that's fine. No need to debate about whether I am doing mental masturbation or not. Think of what I am doing as asking you 'why is what I am suggesting not the truth', rather than 'this is the truth that I want everyone to believe'. The difficulty arises out of me not feeling that I've been able to communicate to you what I am asking about and therefore I feel that I am not receiving an answer about my inquiry but about some other inquiry that I didn't make.

No I think wholeness is devoid of what it is not and I am simply including all of the phenomenal world in that which it is not including the so called oneness that is arrived at by suspending conceptual judgement. This so called oneness is simply psychological opium. You claim that I am simply doing semantics but there are actually various texts in the Buddhist traditions warning against being stuck in the trap of Oneness/Brahman. Whether you believe the Buddhas who wrote them were real or not is irrelevant, simply consider why they might be warning against identifying with the universe? Here's an excerpt that might be able to provide a better pointer as to what I am warning against: "To better understand the difference between the Alaya Consciousness of Buddhism (which is actually beyond consciousness) and the Brahman Consciousness of Advaita (which implies “not two”), the following humorous story was said to be told in the Kevatta (Kevaddha) Sutta, as translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Where do the four elements cease without remainder?” Through meditation the monk reached the Heaven of the Four Great Kings, who did not know the answer. Next he went to the thirty three gods in a higher Desire Realm heaven, but none of these rulers knew either. He then asked King Sakka (Indra), the king of these gods, but Sakka did not know the answer. Up and up he went asking all sorts of gods at each and every higher level. Finally he came to Great Brahma, the Creator, Uncreated, Knower of All. When the monk finally achieved an audience with Great Brahma, Brahma appeared in all his majesty and glory announcing, “I am Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Ruler, Appointer and Orderer, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be.” The monk then humbly and respectfully asked his question, but all Great Brahma did was repeat, “I am Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Ruler, Appointer and Orderer, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be.” The monk eventually got frustrated and said, “I know you are “Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Ruler, Appointer and Orderer, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be,” but I asked you a question about where the four elements cease without remainder. The Great Brahma replied, “Listen little monk, don’t embarrass me. All these other gods are listening and think I know everything. If you want to know the answer to a question like that, don’t ask me. I don’t know the answer. For a question like that, you have to go ask the Buddha. Our monk gets up from his meditation and finds the Buddha nearby, asking him where the four elements cease without remainder. The Buddha tells him that he’s thinking of the question incorrectly, and should ask where do the four elements have no foothold…” The last sentence is critical for us being able to understand each other.

While it is possible to not realize that you were doing your purpose your whole life, especially if you are doing it as a hobby or on the side I would like to warn you about a similar sounding paradigm which in my opinion is super toxic. This is the message of a book called ' So good they can't ignore you '. Basically it says there's no life purpose and you are going to become passionate about anything that you become a master at. So basically to pick anything at random and grind at it and suffer through boredom on the off-chance that this thing that you currently hate will suddenly become the love of your life when you reach some imaginary tipping point in the future. How many people do you know which did the same thing their whole lives and still hate it? I completely DISAGREE with most in this book. That's like saying it's okay to start a relationship with anyone whether you are attracted to them or not, whether you like them or not because if you keep trying to fall in love with them eventually it will work. It's pure madness. And it's inhumane, asking you to ignore your own feelings etc. One main reason why people overlook their purposes is because they have limiting beliefs about what is possible and what isn't. If everything was possible which movie would you want your life to be like? This might hold a clue to whether you are currently on the most exciting track or not.

Doesn't sound like this was completely thought through. If solution is absolute inclusiveness then the easiest solution is to not do anything about it as a form of including their behavior. You seem like you are split between compassion and nihilism. You can't seek to eliminate suffering and include it too. You have to make your own mind if you are going to trust your feelings or keep digging with your knife in your foot and saying 'ah it's all oneness'. We only lock them up because we don't know what the cause is and how to help them. Killing them is a tragedy of ignorance not inclusiveness. Did the Buddha lock or kill Angulimala the serial killer? (No, I am not claiming I was there to see what happened, I am simply using this as a metaphor that could inspire some original thought.) Yes, in our ignorant state the best we can do is to try and minimize the suffering they cause, but that has nothing to do with truth. It's simply a desperate utilitarian/mathematical approach to handling people. What if you just killed the killer who was going to transcend their ignorance and become the next Buddha? A lot of good you did to society...

Because I am not interested in assuming what is as much as letting go of what it is not. The only reason I suggested that you entertain another notion is to possibly serve as a counter-weight to that notion that idea is all. The 'idea is all' notion is still grounded in eliminating judgement of sensory phenomena which isn't the same as surrendering the actual senses. Sure, realizing that conceptualizations are an illusion is a step in the right direction but why not go all the way and surrender completely, not just the conceptualization? It is one thing to realize the concept of 'eyes' are just an idea to be surrendered and a whole different to actually surrender eyes. Would someone who surrendered their senses be saying stuff like "I am the universe"?

At least be willing to entertain the notion that there's a difference between truth and idea.

When I asked Leo a week or so ago how do I surrender my center he suggested that I do concentration practice. Does that sound like an idea rooted in transcending the 6 senses to you? What would I concentrate on without my eyes? It is clear to me that instead of letting go of duality people are imposing non-dual characteristics on duality and calling it transcendence. How is basing your idea of reality on your senses a transcendence of senses? Yes you are not calling them things anymore but you are still implying that wholeness is the unification of multiplication. As such the wholeness I am referring to has nothing to do with removing borders of perceived things, unifying opposites, balancing out good and evil and whatever. This so called surrendering of self that most have accomplished here seems to be a shift of body identity towards universe identity. An ego delusion nonetheless.

I am not debating, I am simply inquiring as to why you are holding on to the oneness identity. From your comments it doesn't seem more than obvious. It seems like you are in fact supporting this belief in merging of opposites or balancing of opposites into some sort of union. Feel free to correct me if that's not what you are supporting.

If you are not willing to go further than the 6 senses that's your choice. Do not project your stuckness in heavenly delusions onto my honest inquiries. Your oneness identity is hijacking your logic to the point where you are incapable of communicating anything other than indifference. It has become stagnant not clear. It is so infatuated with equalizing phenomena that is now unable to differentiate between the wisdom and indifference and as a result has prisoned itself within phenomena. Did Lao Tzu thought that it was mental masturbation to write the Tao Te Ching or did the Buddha thought it was mental masturbation to share the Heart Sutra? You are in the prison of Brahman. A Buddha said, "identifying with anything, even the universe at large, is an ego illusion." How is your Oneness not just a universe identity? You identify with everything everything your 6 senses can perceive therefore there isn't anything bad for you are everything. That's not going further than your senses which also belong to the dream.

There might not be higher Oneness than the one you speak, but Oneness is still not Wholeness. There can neither be Oneness or Many in wholeness for One requires many and what requires many perpetuates the illusion of separation. Absolute wholeness is beyond the sum of opposites therefore no indifference can penetrate absolute truth human or otherwise. “The Long Path is concerned with relative matters, but the Short one is concerned with the Absolute alone…Confucius’ injunction to acquire specific virtues is Long Path, whereas Lao-zu’s counsel to let the mind become empty so that Tao may enter it is the Short Path.”- Paul Brunton. How is seeking to equate opposites an emptying of the mind? This is still clinging to sensory input but seeking to transmute it into some sort of heaven through indifference or attributing balanced qualities to each phenomenon. There's no truth in maya regardless of our attitudes. A movie is a movie whether you think of it as a story or just as moving pixels.

During my studies of spiritual traditions I've come across the mention of something called full body orgasm several times. In males specifically it's supposed to be a simultaneous ejaculation of all human glands, not just the penile gland. Possibly it's the same for women too. Does anybody know what that is and if it's legit or not? If it is, how does one achieve it? Thanks.