Nothing will make you happy

[zurew]

28 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Hehe, well, technically, I'm dropping it every time I'm posting 😉

Fuck, I got ackhsuallyd .

11 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I assert we can only assert what we think it is, using whatever frame we prefer. It's not a matter of absolute knowledge.

But you probably don't think that all frames are equally correct, no? (by correct I mean corresponding to reality)

[UnbornTao]

21 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I assert we can only assert what we think it is, using whatever frame we prefer. It's not a matter of absolute knowledge.

We haven't accessed insight into what happiness is.

Edited April 22 by UnbornTao

[Someone here]

7 hours ago, TheCloud said:

@Someone here Does one who obtains happiness directly then stop eating, drinking, smoking, gambling, etc.?  Or, are they satisfied by anything, regardless of quality or content?

As long as you are a human rat you will keep running hunting the carrot..you will chase pleasure and escape from pain..this does not ever change. Even enlightened folks need to eat ,shit ,and fuck..But the difference is that they are deep down aware that its all for nothing at the end .

To be in a state of 24/7 bliss and ecstasy is something that does not seem realistic to me . Even Jesus suffered on the cross . This is spiritual nonsense to say the ego will be in bliss.  However..the ego is inside bliss . Bliss is the substratum of existence. Its the background of the ego. The ego appears inside this bliss in the background . But the ego will never be blissful eternally .unless you disidentify with the ego completely and identify as bliss ...but that's called death. 

[Princess Arabia]

8 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

@Princess Arabia if you do feel like a self , like I do too, then what’s the point of speaking in such ways what makes it seem true to you?

Because those are just words "feel like a self". There's no me that feels like a self. There's not a single person on this planet that doesn't feel like a self. What i'm saying is there's no self and I recognize that. The no self is not a feeling. That feeling is not my doing. There's no me that does anything. The word self is probably where the confusion with the communication lies, so don't take that word literally. When I say there's no me or no self, it's obvious that there's no one in here, obvious that I'm not doing anything and obvious that it's all empty. There's a fullness that seems to be the case but I don't go around thinking all day, there's no me there's no me because who will be saying that. For communication purposes it is what's being said to convey a thought. If one really felt a no me they wouldn't and could even communicate that because saying there's no me is someone saying there's no me. There's no other way to relay the message other than words and thoughts. Those words are just words. 

I don't need to meditate my way into no me, I don't need to psychedelic my way into a no me. That would be a me thinking I would need to do something to get rid of this me. I came to the recognition that THERE WAS NEVER A ME. If I was to go do some process to try to get rid of something that isn't there, that is still you believing you're a me. Nothing wrong with doing any of those things the same way nothing wrong with not doing them. Nothing wrong with ANYTHING. It's all whole and completeness so nothing is incomplete. The dream is the "I" thought doing its way to a no self. That is utter madness. Ok too. But it just is. How can anything become. There's no time, no space, so what are you becoming. 

 

[Princess Arabia]

9 hours ago, TheCloud said:

@Princess Arabia To me, it sounds as if you've had an epiphany.  If so, and if you don't mind saying, what specifically happened?  Also, does it and how does it relate to unconditional love?

Anything I tell you will be a story, so keep that in mind. Nothing made sense, it would, then it wouldn't, it would then came along something to contradict. When I say made sense not on the surface, but on a deeper level. If there's no actual time and space how could that be, if we didn't choose to come here, why do we have to go through things to make it right, if someone has no access to these teachings are they doomed, if you say they'll reincarnate until they get it right, made no sense either. If it's all one then who is conscious of what and aware of what, that's not one. Why does everybody suffer, why does it take suffering to come to realizations. How can you use an illusion to recognize non-illusion, If I can't make my heart beat how can I make any other decision, why doesn't anybody make it out alive, why are there so many different pov's about the same thing, why is the sky up there and the ground down there and its never any different but everything changes...i mean all this shit. 

I listened to a lot of spiritual stuff, no particular type just whatever happened to come my way. I wasn't subscribed to any particular type, guru or anything for around 5yrs, including non-duality. Never took any of it really seriously because of an open mind and didn't want to get locked into anything. Then I got really confused and started to really think it was all bullshit. Not the general stuff but certain specifics, controversial stuff. Then I started to really listen to the nondual stuff again, not by purpose it just happened. The same stuff I've heard before started to register in a whole new way. It all started to make sense of what I wasn't making sense of not (neo advaita), just normal stuff. Then everything started making sense. The no self, the present moment, imagination, the I am, consciousness awareness, I mean EVERYTHING. 

Life is alive. It's unfolding as we speak. This is it. There's nothing else. It's always been and always will be. There's no way to know anything because it is not known. It is this happening right now. It is my hands, my feet, my tongue, my cat, my house, the road, the trees, this computer, the sky, everything and also nothing. Nothing makes sense, precisely because there's nothing really happening. Only appearing to happen. All these talks and such is just that, talking happening but no one actually talking. There are dumb people, yes, why is that, there are blind people yes, its because Absolutely everything is the Absolute appearing as those dumb people. People who can't speak is no different than those who can, it only appears that way. 

Nothing makes sense still, that hasn't changed, but what changed is the recognition that there's nothing to make sense, it can't make sense because sense depends on time and someone to make it make sense. Without getting into it, too much, I don't sit around thinking there's no me, there's no self. There's no one to know that. A me knowing is separation and there's no separation. All I do is whatever is happening. There's a response mechanism and no one making a choice. It's just response. If I was saying there's no self, that would be what is happening if I say there is a self same difference. Its only apparent and nothing makes a difference. All of what is being seen an observed is the Absolute. Everything is nothing and nothing is everything. There's an emptiness and a fullness appearing. Nothing is appearing from something else, it's appearing as everything. It's a mystery and no one knows because knowing implies someone to know and since it is everything the knower and the thing known is also it. 

Unconditional love just means nothing is excluded. There are no reasons or conditions for it to become anything than it already is. It also includes conditional love. It's not one way because of another way. It doesn't need to be one way over the next because it is everything already.

Edited April 22 by Princess Arabia

[Carl-Richard]

7 hours ago, zurew said:

Fuck, I got ackhsuallyd .

🤓

 

7 hours ago, zurew said:

But you probably don't think that all frames are equally correct, no? (by correct I mean corresponding to reality)

Fundamentally, I believe the correctness of a frame depends on your goal (pragmatism); frames can be more or less correct (useful) relative to that goal. But it becomes a bit more complicated when you enter meta-theoretic territory. For example, could realism and skepticism be useful for different things?

Does using a criteria like convergence (how often something pops up in different places) for ranking the "trustworthiness" of something, make you a realist, or are you still a pragmatist if you say it's merely useful to do so? Does showing skepticism towards most knowledge claims make you a skeptic, or are you still a pragmatist if you say it's merely useful to do so? What if these realist and skeptic tendencies co-exist, then what are you? A meta-theorist? (😉) The thread "The Four Epistemic Naiveties/Pitfalls" touches on this:

 

 

Edited April 22 by Carl-Richard

[Salvijus]

Everything neo advaita says crumbles like house of cards once you introduce the concept of a witness awareness. Their entire logic and teaching is deeply deeply flawed. For some reason people get really stuck in there. Kinda sad. 

Edited April 22 by Salvijus

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Fundamentally, I believe the correctness of a frame depends on your goal (pragmatism). Frames can be more or less correct relative to that goal.

Okay noted. 

This is good, because this gives a lot of clarity for how to make sense of your statements about truth .

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Does using a criteria like convergence (how often something pops up in different places) for ranking the "trustworthiness" of something

Speaking of convergence - this is random and not related to this thread, but Im going through again some of the meaning crisis videos and convergence and multi-aptness or elegance (when a theory transfers to many different domains) came up and Im wondering if you know any good literature that talks about either how to create theories that are trustworthy and elegant at the same time or literature that specifically focuses on either trustworthiness or elegance.

Edited April 22 by zurew

[Princess Arabia]

40 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

Everything neo advaita says crumbles like house of cards once you introduce the concept of a witness awareness. Their entire logic and teaching is deeply deeply flawed. For some reason people get really stuck in there. Kinda sad. 

yes it is flawed so stop saying I'm neo adwhatever. I don't ascribe to any teachings. All are flawed as they are all there for someone to learn something and there's no one to learn anything. Flawed only in the sense that there's nothing there to be learnt.

[Javfly33]

13 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

There's nothing to have. There's already no self. There's nothing to gain or lose because the Absolute is all there is. I'm not sitting here saying I feel no self. Of course, there's a person here; all I'm saying is there's REALLY no person here. Believing I'm a self or no self will make no difference because that's just the absolute appearing as a self or no self. There's no escaping the Absolute because it's all there is. So all that be careful stuff is just empty words appearing. There's no need to be a no self because that will be a self needing to be a no self. There's already no one so nothing needs to change. Any change is also the Absolute changing. There's no way out., because there's no where to go. ITS ALL ABSOLUTELY ABSOLUTE.

Rip princess Arabia 🤣🤣 she fell into the neo advaita trap deep

She is no longer No One 

[CARDOZZO]

Anyone here on the forum lives 24/7 with no suffering at all? (genuine question)

[Yimpa]

5 minutes ago, CARDOZZO said:

Anyone here on the forum lives 24/7 with no suffering at all? (genuine question)

The end of suffering shouldn’t be the goal. Realizing that suffering and time, life and death, etc. etc. - it is imaginary!

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, zurew said:

Speaking of convergence - this is random and not related to this thread, but Im going through again some of the meaning crisis videos and convergence and multi-aptness or elegance (when a theory transfers to many different domains) came up and Im wondering if you know any good literature that talks about either how to create theories that are trustworthy and elegant at the same time or literature that specifically focuses on either trustworthiness or elegance.

Other than literature on systems theory (e.g. F. Capra,  G. Bateson), I don't, I'm sorry. Systems theory is essentially a hyper-generalized version of what were talking about. Other than that, most of these things I've gleaned from people like Vervaeke, Peterson, Kastrup, Wilber.

Edited April 22 by Carl-Richard

[UnbornTao]

To ground our contemplation:

• Is happiness getting what you want?
• Is it the rush of pleasure at accomplishing something?
• Is it the temporary relief of a successful self-survival -- or "winning"?
• Is it avoiding what you don't want?
• Is it being free from some threat, pain or fear?

Our relationship with happiness may be similar to a hamster running on a wheel, chasing a cheese that it will never reach. We think of happiness as the cheese, but perhaps it isn't.

Are we in actuality able to be happy regardless of circumstances, whether our wants and needs are met or not?

What does this say about happiness and our confusion?

Edited April 23 by UnbornTao

[Sugarcoat]

4 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

Because those are just words "feel like a self". There's no me that feels like a self. There's not a single person on this planet that doesn't feel like a self. What i'm saying is there's no self and I recognize that. The no self is not a feeling. That feeling is not my doing. There's no me that does anything. The word self is probably where the confusion with the communication lies, so don't take that word literally. When I say there's no me or no self, it's obvious that there's no one in here, obvious that I'm not doing anything and obvious that it's all empty. There's a fullness that seems to be the case but I don't go around thinking all day, there's no me there's no me because who will be saying that. For communication purposes it is what's being said to convey a thought. If one really felt a no me they wouldn't and could even communicate that because saying there's no me is someone saying there's no me. There's no other way to relay the message other than words and thoughts. Those words are just words. 

I don't need to meditate my way into no me, I don't need to psychedelic my way into a no me. That would be a me thinking I would need to do something to get rid of this me. I came to the recognition that THERE WAS NEVER A ME. If I was to go do some process to try to get rid of something that isn't there, that is still you believing you're a me. Nothing wrong with doing any of those things the same way nothing wrong with not doing them. Nothing wrong with ANYTHING. It's all whole and completeness so nothing is incomplete. The dream is the "I" thought doing its way to a no self. That is utter madness. Ok too. But it just is. How can anything become. There's no time, no space, so what are you becoming. 

 

Ok I see

[Javfly33]

4 minutes ago, Yimpa said:

The end of suffering shouldn’t be the goal. Realizing that suffering and time, life and death, etc. etc. - it is imaginary!

is not that suffering is the goal or not.

Is that mastering suffering is the first step for the new dimensions of Life.

You guys need to start setting the bar a little bit higuer. 

[Sugarcoat]

2 hours ago, Salvijus said:

Everything neo advaita says crumbles like house of cards once you introduce the concept of a witness awareness. Their entire logic and teaching is deeply deeply flawed. For some reason people get really stuck in there. Kinda sad. 

What is this witness awareness even. For me I don’t know this but it seems either there is a sense of self or not and then this self can be different in quality so some egos are denser than others , some attached to their mind some not

is this witness awareness completely undisturbed and unable to suffer or what . Sounds nice to “abide as it” as some say 

[Salvijus]

23 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

What is this witness awareness even. For me I don’t know this but it seems either there is a sense of self or not 

That aspect of you that knows, "now there is a sense of self", "now there is no sense of self" that is awareness. That's your true self so to speak. 

23 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

Then this self can be different in quality so some egos are denser than others 

This is true. And yet every shape or density of ego is seen. The awareness itself is beyond all shapes and all qualities. 

Edited April 22 by Salvijus

[Sugarcoat]

27 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

That aspect of you that knows, "now there is a sense of self", "now there is no sense of self" that is awareness. That's your true self so to speak. 

43 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

I’ve never been without a sense of self except for maybe a brief moment one time I don’t remember the exactly tho

but who is being that sense of self? You are. Isn’t it so. But you’re saying as if you are awareness (nothing) recognizing the self as if that self isn’t what you experience yourself as somehow, entangled with it

“This is true. And yet every shape or density of ego is seen. The awareness itself is beyond all shapes and all qualities. ”

I see this as detachment within the self, not awareness seeing the self. So the one who is aware of a dense ego is also the self it’s just a split within the self. The self can be attached to the mind in my experience, so you can observe and detach from this mind, but it’s still a self left that is doing  that. 
 

 

 

 

Edited April 22 by Sugarcoat

[CARDOZZO]

1 hour ago, Yimpa said:

The end of suffering shouldn’t be the goal. Realizing that suffering and time, life and death, etc. etc. - it is imaginary!

I didn't imply that it is the goal. I'm trying to find one person here on the forum who can speak from experience and live 24/7 on the experience of no suffering at all.