How can you trust your mind?

[Jack River]

Just now, Nahm said:

The thought that thought is a movement is yet just another sneaky thought. 

Movement is not actually. 

When you describe thought as “movement”, see that there is no actual movement. It’s just a linguistic descriptive, another thought. 

It is both actual and not actual. Just depends how your are using the word actual. Movement is, until it isn’t. 

I talk about this a lot. 

 

[Jack River]

The response of thought is a movement from “the past”/modified “present”/and projected as “future”. 

 

[ShugendoRa]

@Nahm we heard this a billion times say something original 

[Jack River]

Identification doesn’t take place when there is awareness. Only within the field of time is there any identification. 

[Jack River]

The thinker cannot be original. Time has the thinker by the neck. 

[Nahm]

@ShugendoRa ??

The realization that all thought, knowledge in entirety, is illusionary, is referred to as The Whole or Wholistic Insight. The whole is the self, all there is, is the self. The actuality in realization of the self is, there is nothing to know. In this realization, “no self” was but an illusionary thought, occurring within the self, and in actuality, never occurred at all.

Upon this realization is the cessation of thought, the self is known, and the illusion is known as the self, there is no false self, nor a false no-self catalyst of thinking, and therefore no more attempts to resolve truths about self, reality, thought, nor any other separation based perspectives, etc. 

In this cessation, samadhi, eternal knowing of the actuality of the self, the knower, is revealed; thoughts, trees, & bird chirps ( @Serotoninluv??) are not only illusion, but equal as such. A thing nor a thought was never “mine”, nor “separate”, nor existed.

Watch this.....consider, what is so damn funny? And why are they so happy about it?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CwzQJdvFMeI

The self, awareness, the knower, infinite self, etc, can be known, right now. 

The nature of self is an entirely different stratosphere. 

If that video is not hysterical, just take it as a pointer to more. Accept the pointer and inquire, or don’t. You are the self either way, it is simply nice to know in this illusion. No one gets out alive in any case, All is Well.

[Anton Rogachevski]

3 hours ago, Nahm said:

There are no pieces of awareness, nor pieces of love. 

    These are infinite, these are The Self, these are You.

It appears as if you conclude things but I don't see how you reach the conclusion. 

If there's no awareness or love in direct experience, why do you say they are infinite.

If I can't see something does that make it infinite?

Not-seeing = Infinity ?

Why talk about things that you can't see? (maybe you can, i don't know)

[Nahm]

@Anton Rogachevski 

In your inquiry (post above), in terms of content, there is: seeing, thinking, awareness, love, infinity, appearance (“appears”), conclusion, direct experience, something, not-seeing, equals (“=“), the question “why”, what Nahm can’t see, or what Nahm can see.

Just for fun, “filter” each of those.

Filter one:       In my direct experience.         Or.          Not in my direct experience.

Filter two:       What I know.                             Or.          What I will never really know.        

Filter three:    In my direct experience right now, is there an order these are experienced?  

                         If so, of the “items” which are still remaining, what order do I experience them in?

[Anton Rogachevski]

@Nahm I fear I have now lost you completely, my friend. I think there might be a little de-synchronicity in frequency between us. Perhaps our minds work too differently to actually communicate effectively. 

[Forestluv]

@Nahm ? ? ? 

[Jack River]

7 minutes ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

@Nahm I fear I have now lost you completely, my friend. I think there might be a little de-synchronicity in frequency between us. Perhaps our minds work too differently to actually communicate effectively. 

Same mind different content(knowledge/experience-memory). 

One veil in opposition to another. 

Edited December 27, 2018 by Jack River

[Nahm]

37 minutes ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

@Nahm I fear I have now lost you completely, my friend. I think there might be a little de-synchronicity in frequency between us. Perhaps our minds work too differently to actually communicate effectively. 

That’s how you know you’ve stumbled upon a goldmine - what is initially not understood, what seems foreign. Da Vinci had a saying about walking away from it, so upon returning, a broader clarity is present. Maybe take a look at that post tomorrow.  Also, maybe give the “filtering” a try, share how far you get. One piece at a time. Or not. 

[Anton Rogachevski]

2 hours ago, Nahm said:

@Anton Rogachevski 

In your inquiry (post above), in terms of content, there is: seeing, thinking, awareness, love, infinity, appearance (“appears”), conclusion, direct experience, something, not-seeing, equals (“=“), the question “why”, what Nahm can’t see, or what Nahm can see.

Just for fun, “filter” each of those.

Filter one:       In my direct experience.         Or.          Not in my direct experience.

Filter two:       What I know.                             Or.          What I will never really know.        

Filter three:    In my direct experience right now, is there an order these are experienced?  

                         If so, of the “items” which are still remaining, what order do I experience them in?

 

All failed except thoughts and appearances. Based merely on the first filter (direct experience).

What is there but thoughts and appearances?

Edited December 27, 2018 by Anton Rogachevski

[Roman25]

10 hours ago, Shadowraix said:

A lot of delusion comes from the XY problem: http://xyproblem.info/

Somebody may ask: "How do I make money?"

Thinking it will be a solution to their happiness but in actuality it won't truly make them happy. But they proposed their own solution instead of getting to the root of what they want. They want to  be happy and making money isn't a suitable solution to that.

We are always running away from the roots of our desires and covering it up with bullshit.

Technically money does make you happy. For a short period of time. Anything that causes happiness only causes the happiness for a short time period. If you have a lot of money then it can cause short bursts of happiness over a long period of time because you'll be able to buy the things you need for survival. There is no being "truly happy." That makes no sense. One cannot just be happy in general. 

It's laughable how some people don't think money gives you happiness.

Edited December 28, 2018 by Roman Edouard
Added the last three sentences

[Roman25]

23 hours ago, Nahm said:

@Roman Edouard If you know finite delusions, the only possibility is that you are infinite truth.

I know a finite amount of delusions since I spend a finite amount of time reflecting on the day. A human being isn't designed for "infinite truth." They are designed to survive. It's not a coincidence how everyone has similar desires, thoughts, and habits. It's a script being played out.

[Roman25]

9 hours ago, purerogue said:

If I would have to describe what is awareness, then it would be sense of true self, something that is not your ego, your memory, but your true self. 

But then again it is complicated to explain with words. 

I'd say that your true self is a variety of brain activity. And that your brain produces that extensional stuff around you, such as your emotions. Without ego one would be no different from a rock. They would have not motivation to live or do anything. That's what separates living from non-living (other than physical properties).

[Roman25]

8 hours ago, Nahm said:

Thought can’t identify, nor can thought love, it is love. That it can do anything is actually just another thought. Time is also just thought.

Love is an illusion that generates a positive emotion throughout the body. When you love someone or something you don't love the actual physical or existential them, you love the idea in your head of the person, place, or thing. For instance, someone with a "love for astronomy" can imagine a black hole and feel the emotion of love for it. They haven't seen a black hole before but they can still feel the emotion.

[Nahm]

@Roman Edouard All very devil’s advocate of you. Well done.

[Roman25]

Just now, Nahm said:

@Roman Edouard All very devil’s advocate of you. Well done.

What is a devil's advocate?

[lmfao]

On 27/12/2018 at 0:05 AM, Roman Edouard said:

My question is: how can you be sure that any beliefs you hold are true if there is strong evidence that humans are naturally deluded creatures?

You can't be sure, I agree. 

Edited December 28, 2018 by lmfao