Thanatos13

It’s more like the illusion of choice. But you never really had it to begin with. Free will is a myth after all.

LSD doesn’t yield any sort of insight, merely a drug (to use the technical term for it) that results in altered perception. It’s humans who assign any sort of value to that perception and make it more than what it is. The same goes for you claim to “destroying the self”, even though it’s hard to prove such a statement for if the self doesn’t exist then there isn’t anything to destroy, even then how do you know when there isn’t one? Can one be certain? Who decided what no self is and can they be sure that it’s still isn’t just the self? To me the sense of self is similar to the sense of no self. Both are merely a perception that people assign meaning to. You assign meaning to it as some kind of truth, the same that others assign it meaning as something that exists. A cursory glance at life suggests that nonduality and noself isn’t the truth of existence. But people will believe what they want either way. I think Pyrrho had the right idea (though I hate to admit it) about suspending judgment on nonevident matters, and this is about as nonevident as it gets. But you are wrong about the ego, I think. It doesn’t like “not self”, it dislikes uncertainty and hates doubt. No self just sounds like the truth and so people pursue it. There is a reason mystics secluded themselves and so do monks, but it has little to do with truth to me. It’s so they can construct a view away from others. We merely give their words more power than they deserve, because we are human. We make meaning. If we didn’t then everything said here and anywhere else is but dust in the wind. Perhaps it’s best not to take their words for granted. Ultimately we are trapped in our own perceptions, the difference between folks is that some are ok with the unknown and some aren’t.

There is no absolute. That’s similar to many airy ideas people make to feel better about uncertainty. I’m afraid that is just not correct. Every effect has a cause, things aren’t just “is”. That’s when people run out of justification for what they believe. Once again you prove that the teaching don’t prove anything, they just elicit a certain state. That’s all. You aren’t really exposing the self rather than destroying it and gaining a different viewpoint. Even dissolution doesn’t prove anything only that dissolving the self leads to a different point of view. Yet the view has no truth. Thoughts have a cause, they aren’t “is”. You don’t want to debate because then you would have to realize what a sandcastle your worldview is. That’s not truth either, there are some who say the dissolution of self is worse than having it. But they choose it anyway for who knows why. There aren’t highs and lows, there is nothing and therefor no action.

Sorry to say that most if not all of that is wrong. We don’t have memories of life before earth. This is but a delusion. Life isn’t about anything. That’s why people can do whatever they wish with it. People aren’t afraid to live their lives either. I don’t think you fully understand what has been said.

Everything we speak of is a concept, even if we can’t always put it into words. The experience they like to preach is cognitive whether they want to admit it or not. But they assign some arbitrary line as to what is mind or not. To me there isn’t really a difference between a sociopath who claims to be it, a cult leader who says so, or a monk. The end result seems the same, and none of them can really prove it. When asked you get a bunch of vagueness that tells you nothing. They claim speaking in paradoxes and metaphors is how they explain it, but that just sounds like a smokescreen more for them and less for others. Humans don’t like uncertainty, so they make spirituality.

1. I would not trust Leo’s word on anything, or most things.

Again, I don’t believe enlightened beings (which don’t exist) are privy to anything special about existence itself. To me it seems like they are running from it, or they live in a bubble they create for themselves. In the end, their state doesn’t prove anything beyond that certain actions lead to it. It’s just a point of view, like any other, except unlike others it claims answers it doesn’t have. By problems you mean perceived problems. What some consider a fault others consider a feature. Even the notion of a solution can be debated, especially when one doesn’t see a problem. Like psychopathy, the term is ironic because it means “self suffering” (loosely) yet the people who have it aren’t suffering at all. They don’t see a problem, yet some tend to have a negative impact on others.

1. I would not trust Leo’s word on anything, or most things. The happiest people in the world are psychopaths or really anyone trapped in one way of thinking. Even then an argument can be made that life isn’t about being happy, or that the monks are just content in their own bubble of teachings. People in cults can also be the happiest in the world. There are countless examples and counterpoints to that statement. 2. Yes it is.

I disagree with that. Mostly because I don’t believe enlightenment exists as how they portray it. Sure it can be strongly argued that we each live in our “world” or personal experience. But all that I can say for enlightenment is that it’s a state brought on by certain teaching and practices. Not that is the truth. But even calling duality a problem raises issues. Especially when you say that enlightenment “solves” anything. It doesn’t. There are even some spiritual types who say that enlightenment doesn’t solve anything. The trouble with claiming any spiritual “truth” is not only how vague spirituality is, but so is the vetting process for the information. Not even counting the fact that “insight” is a cognitive aspect so their claim about mind is invalid. Too much is based on a priori statements. It’s a bit hypocritical how spiritual types say to question everything but don’t do it for themselves. I think there was a reason Pyrrho suspended judgment on nonevident matters. All that can be said is that meditation yielded that result for you, in others it had quite the opposite effect (for unknown reasons). Your second statement shows that you aren’t actual nondual.

Enlightenment doesn’t exist, even if it did it would just be another concept. It’s how I keep myself honest. One must remove the power that “personal experience” and “spirituality” hold over them

The sex with animals bit is for pleasure (the point). Not that I agree with that but that is the point. 2. You clearly know nothing about early man, you share the misconceptions of much of the population. They had a more developed understanding of existence than modern humans or “mystics”. Second, “direct experience” is meaningless in its importance. All experience is mediated through cognitive and intellectual activity. To say otherwise would be deluding yourself. Love is merely a word we assign to a particular bodily sensation and it is rooted in duality. To see the world through nonduality would be to kill such concepts of “twoness” like friends. Then again that would not be truth but just a way of looking at the world. I know enough about human perception and experience to see that nonduality isn’t actually “seeing” as you so put it but rather just trading one point of view for another and calling it the truth. It’s still a concept like duality, if it were not you wouldn’t be able to understand it let alone know what it is. Its jaring and hard to accept in the same vein as someone taking on a view different from their own.

Another subjective opinion. There is clearly a point to it otherwise one would not do so. If there was no point to it then there would not be a website dedicated to it. 2. That’s not really accurate since love and friendship and those concepts do in fact exist, even if we made them. Social constructs are not figments of the imagination (a common mistake). That’s like saying plants didn’t exist to begin with or life, but it developed later on. Also there isn’t anything that proves nonduality as truth, rather it is merely the teachings and practice that result in such a state. Nonduality doesn’t show anything, rather it’s a state reached through certain beliefs and actions. The only way to know what “is” would be to ask early humans, but that is lost to us.

The most basic answer is that if you don’t want friends then you aren’t obligated to have or keep them. Anything beyond that is just personal opinion and not a reflection on the state of having or not having friends.

Perhaps they have been around the block long enough to know that what you are talking about is really just BS.

Your answers are wrong. The first us more of an opinion rather than fact. It isn’t the best thing there is (mostly because it doesn’t exist). The second is flat out wrong

There are a number of things wrong with this but I think it’s for the best. You are way too conceited for friends.

I use the term in quotes since the sense of self is merely a construct to understand the world around us, it doesn’t actually exist and never did (hence why “you” never actually “died”). But assuming that is the case then why bother doing anything at all? Is that not the “ego” when it comes to self actualization (which I’m still skeptical about)? What makes one keep living if there is nothing doing the living?

Assuming there is any dream at all, or Maya. If you want to debate philosophy go to a philosophy forum. If you want to confirm your beliefs then come here. I personally treat any claims of the “spiritual”nature with a huge grain of salt. Especially with anything like the “absolute”. I also don’t find the contrarian position lazy, what’s lazy is glorifying what Leo says as truth. Every forum needs a contrarian (provides they are good ones and not just “no you’re not”).

There is nothing to suggest that. As for the “physical nature” most people in any entry level philosophy course know that. All we have are the senses, anything beyond that is up for guess. All one can do is believe. Not a satisfying answer, but it never was. The way I see it, physical means interaction through touching. Even a dream can do that. The “reality is a subjective illusion” is old news and in most neurology textbooks. I covered that already. But that doesn’t make it “not real”. Since there is no way to confirm or deny the “realness” of reality or the physical nature of it then we must suspend judgment. You’re like the people with the proof of god. No proof on either direction means we can’t say anything about it. Physics is not a belief but the study of the interaction of forces in the world (or any world). Try breaking on ice and see how much of a belief it is. Science is also not a belief (no matter how much you or Leo want it to be). Modernity is a testament to that. It also shows a poor understanding of what Science IS. What is a belief is that you are infinite, that everything is one, the physics and science are beliefs, that you are already “dead”. That last once showcases major death anxiety. QM (or quantum physics) is poorly understood even by those who spend their life on it. Not to mention it’s the most misinterpreted and quoted by woo folks (like you). Any claim to this being a dream (apart from the sensory sense of the word) is something I would have to deny. Unless there is compelling evidence of a “waking world” (and no psychelics don’t count) I’m sticking with what has worked so far. Spirituality is unsatisfactory as a method of truth due to the large amount of misses it tends to have, the tendency to hide behind “ego” and “mind” when it comes under criticism, and the huge amount of belief required for it. It seems to me more like trying to convince yourself of a certain mode of thinking and believing but not giving evidence for it. It’s pretty well known that “religious experience” (as the term they use) while having several things in common (egolessness, oneness) are colored by prior beliefs and really are only a result of those beliefs, they don’t prove anything or give insight (not in the way we think). Meditation might lead to enlightenment (the state of “balance”) but all it proves is that meditation can result in it, not that enlightenment says anything about reality, existence, or life. It makes me think that it’s just a lens people choose to see the world through, yet it garners much social currency in today’s world (heaven knows why). That way of viewing the world is just that, a way. But we are foolish humans. We create explanations for things we don’t understand to sate the fear of “not knowing”. We want something to place our bets on, and personal experience is powerful enough to sway us. But that itself clouds our judgment. Just because you experience and “enlightened moment” doesn’t prove much of anything no matter how much we want it to. Yet we do much desire it to be so that we believe it does.

Actually you aren't inside a dream, and unless you can actually give some solid evidence to suggest otherwise I'm sticking with the physical universe. All lucid dreaming shows is that we can influence our dreams if we are aware of them. Then again we "close our eyes" and what we can do in each reality is markedly different, not to mention the stability and stubborness of this reality leads me to think of it as "default". You don't KNOW it's a dream, despite that many spiritualities think so. Spiritual experience isn't proof of teachings but a RESULT of them, important difference. They end up confirming preconceived notions, so there is a cognitive element to them. It's only a "dream" insofar as our brains construct reality on a "best guess" through our senses. We are actively "hallucinating" reality. It's impossible to be "non-conceptual" for if you were then nothing would make sense, you would not have "insight" or "divine knowledge". It would be indecipherable chaos. The "no evidence reality is physical" is nonsense, it's literally all around you. If it's physical you can interact with it, touch it, feel it, experience it through senses. Even in your dreams things are physical. The exception is a few sensory illusions. While you could argue that the mind makes distinctions between physical and nonphysical, I can argue it makes the same illusion of oneness. Oneness, nonduality, these are concepts. Simply believing in them allows my body to experience such a state, but when I stop believing in them then the distinctions return. It makes me doubt the truth of oneness and nonduality, seeing them as merely just another lens to see the world. Also, just because "awareness" and "consciousness" are mysterious and poorly understood doesn't mean we can make judgments on them. As for the free will not being real, you're late to the party on that. Though the answer to the question is rather foggy.

Life feels like an empty void to me and I’m just counting the days until the enternal sleep in the end. I have nothing that I desire to do, mostly just habits that carry themselves out. There is no deep desire that I long for like being a musician, an artist, or a dancer, nothing that was a dream I had that got sidelined. It seems that no matter what I do or attempt it all just feels empty in the end, the crushing weight of nothingness around me. I don’t have dreams to follow like other people, I feel like a cold machine just moving around. I feel disconnected from the people around me who have things to live for and achieve. Some days I long for a mechanical body to fit what my soul is like.

I was being snarky but also making a point.

Rather banal and meaningless comment. It’s arrogant and presumptuous to say that about the world.

Not fear, no. But it’s a spiritual experience, it can’t be explained. You just “know”.

Once the terror is over there is this sort of swimming sense. But during that time I realized that it wasn’t truth but just a view from changing the lens. I’d like it to how stripping paint from a canvas Doesn’t yield truth