Latest blog post about child prodigies.

[Carl-Richard]

21 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

It's not a perspective, but you know that, and I'm not.

You know what I mean when I say it's a perspective. When we talk about the Absolute in conversation, it becomes a perspective.

 

21 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

This is basically the reality of interaction: you can work on a tree as it is a grounded reality, physical and "occurring", while "the forest" is entirely a convenient fiction. 

But a tree is also merely a carving out of reality. It can be carved into many other individual constituents (e.g. cells). In reality, all forms in reality are interconnected; cells, trees and forests alike.

 

21 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Because they're singing and dancing. I also suspect there's a fair amount of fantasy going on there. Hence the culty vibes. This is why I dislike using terms such as spiritual. It can mean anything. If you hold it as getting in touch with your body, letting yourself go in social contexts, etc, then sing away. But at that point why call it spiritual and think it special? You could achieve the same result by going for a run or by playing video games. 

This is like doing hatha yoga and thinking you're getting nearer to your higher self or some such, when all you're doing is stretching your body. Just call it what it is. 

But your individual cells are singing and dancing in a fantastical cult of biology, yet you call that spirituality. On a serious note, all spiritual practice boils down to engaging in some kind of behavior, and it can be done either individually or collectively. If you want to provide some strict definition of what counts as spiritual practice, you can do that, but singing and dancing in a context that orients itself towards the sacred (the highest value, e.g. enlightenment) and inspires feelings of devotion towards the sacred, is traditionally considered a spiritual practice.

[UnbornTao]

4 hours ago, emil1234 said:

thank the lord theunborntao came along and cleared up the misunderstanding

My pleasure. Nothing like destroying your fantasies.

Edited June 19 by UnbornTao

[UnbornTao]

On 19/06/2024 at 11:27 AM, Carl-Richard said:

You know what I mean when I say it's a perspective. When we talk about the Absolute in conversation, it becomes a perspective.

It was more about others reading the interchange.

Quote

But a tree is also merely a carving out of reality. It can be carved into many other individual constituents (e.g. cells). In reality, all forms in reality are interconnected; cells, trees and forests alike.

It's an analogy. You can point to a tree but not a forest. Similarly to how you can point to a body but not to "marriage" or "fight." Anyway, this was beside the point. 

Quote

But your individual cells are singing and dancing in a fantastical cult of biology, yet you call that spirituality. On a serious note, all spiritual practice boils down to engaging in some kind of behavior, and it can be done either individually or collectively. If you want to provide some strict definition of what counts as spiritual practice, you can do that, but singing and dancing in a context that orients itself towards the sacred (the highest value, e.g. enlightenment) and inspires feelings of devotion towards the sacred, is traditionally considered a spiritual practice.

Washing the dishes could also be called a spiritual practice. It wouldn't be socially validated as much as fun activities would. Without attaching a spiritual narrative around it, the action, event or activity would be what it is. The action can be disdained, enjoyed or used as a way to contemplate, without placing more conceptual baggage on top or concocting a story about what the act means. But people don't seem to consider that a serious possibility. How come there's no spiritual doctrine based around the transcendence of washing the dishes? I'd say because, among other things, this would be silly to do and easy to recognize as wishful thinking. Besides, it's a mundane activity. It's better to use a "spirituality" pretext in order to justify activities that we already want to engage in so that we can give them a special meaning. 

"Feelings of devotion towards the sacred" is not a phrase I'd ever use.  

You can meditate, focus, question, go through all kinds of experiences and states, face a wall, study, write, dialogue, facilitate, take psychedelics, and do anything you want. It'd be useful to first clarify what we're doing and why, check on our expectations, and call it by its name.

What are pretension and sincerity? What is an ideal?

Edited June 22 by UnbornTao

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

It's an analogy. You can point to a tree but not a forest. Similarly to how you can point to a body but not to "marriage" or "fight." Anyway, this was beside the point. 

Find an analogy or a point that works then 😂

 

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

Washing the dishes could also be called a spiritual practice. It wouldn't be as socially validated as such. Without attaching a spiritual narrative around it, it would be what it is. As it is, it can be disdained or enjoyed or used as a way to contemplate, without placing more conceptual baggage on top or concocting a story about what the act means. But people don't seem to consider that a serious possibility. How come there's no spiritual doctrine based around the transcendence of washing the dishes?

Literally Buddhism.

 

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

I'd say because, among other things, this would be silly to do and easy to recognize as wishful thinking. Plus, it's a mundane activity. It's better to use this spiritual excuse as a pretext to fun activities that we already want to do.

I'm still waiting for that definition.

 

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

You can meditate, focus, question, go through all kinds of experiences and states, face a wall, study, write, dialogue, facilitate, take psychedelics, and do anything you want. It'd be useful to first clarify what we're doing and why, check on our expectations, and call it by its name.

I think you can ask the people at the Mooji satsang why they're singing and dancing and they will give you a straight answer, which might only be partially true, but still true.

Edited June 19 by Carl-Richard

[UnbornTao]

On 19/06/2024 at 4:45 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Find an analogy or a point that works then 😂

That one. I was referring to how we consider the distinction of "social" as a reality that is occurring, but is not. A body as an object exists, but there is no such thing as "marriage." A social setting is a good way for the individual to hide behind that act and offload responsibility on that presumed reality. We could begin to think that that means something or is special when referring to enlightenment, and that it is a "collective" effort.

Quote

Literally Buddhism.

Not literally. Is stretching your body a different action before becoming a Yogi than after? What changes? You can do anything free from the wishful thinking attached to any set of belief. Why do you need a system to validate it or give it meaning or a narrative? It just wouldn't lend itself to fantasizing.

If you can do something without added pretension, then no need for it. The problem is getting stuck into these fictions and not recognizing them as such. You can see how many Buddhists relate to activities from within a "Buddhist" worldview, with particular expectations that filter their interpretations. And most just believe in it. And this is the trap I'm pointing out. 

You already subscribe to a few good-sounding cosmologies. Others could be made that are as convincing.

Quote

I'm still waiting for that definition.

I don't often talk in those abstract terms. I used it as an umbrella term to make a point. As I alluded to throughout the interchange, spiritual can mean almost anything, like reciting ancient scriptures, performing rituals, attending a concert.

It depends on your goals. My focus is on real experiential confrontation and becoming conscious. This demands honest observation. 

Quote

I think you can ask the people at the Mooji satsang why they're singing and dancing and they will give you a straight answer, which might only be partially true, but still true.

As any cult member would attempt to justify. When looked closely, besides having a good time, releasing tension, moving their bodies, etc., they're operating from within a certain kind of BS, thinking that something else is occurring that isn't. Again, nothing against dancing and having fun.

Thinking that dancing itself will increase your consciousness is wanting something to be true that isn't. This pretension is what "spiritual" pursuits usually end up degrading into.

The work itself is already challenging enough without having to fabricate more nonsense.

Contemplate why the need to fantasize. 

Edited June 22 by UnbornTao

[What Am I]

7 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

For me, other roa like snorted or plugged don't work even in very high doses, because my mind adapts at full speed to the gradual rise and never breaks down. What I'm looking for with 5meo is a total breakup. It has to be instantaneous, in 3 or 4 seconds the mind is an empty black space, and then it explodes.

The insight or revelations that may take place are not relevant ( they are in low doses) the only thing sought is the rupture itself and the expansion to infinity. It is something physical, not mental, a radical change in frequency, the disappearance of the structures of the mind and the opening to total emptiness. As you have said, it is not so much a psychedelic as a meditative tool. 

That makes a lot of sense. If quick and total annihilation is the goal, vaping is pretty much the best.

[Leo Gura]

59 minutes ago, What Am I said:

If quick and total annihilation is the goal

That is not the goal. The goal is consciousness.

[What Am I]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

That is not the goal. The goal is consciousness.

Good clarification. That's what I essentially meant. My experience is similar to yours where more 5meo equals cranking up consciousness to ridiculous levels. By annihilation, I'd be referring to the part of yourself that struggles against that expansion.

[Breakingthewall]

Different goals. For me it is obvious that the levels of consciousness are a trap, since they never end, so there is no difference between a lot or a little. The difference is between limited and infinite. Infinity is total, there are no levels of infinity because it is not something, it is the absence of something: of limits