Richard Feynman on the problem with asking “why?”

[Truth Addict]

@Aakash

Have you considered that telling me that is also devilry? 

There's no escaping devilry like there's no escaping God. ?

My devil includes yours, does yours include mine? That's the question. ?

[Leo Gura]

32 minutes ago, Truth Addict said:

Physical immortality. Like preventing the cells from ageing.

That is not possible. All forms are impermanent.

The only thing that can be immortal is formlessness.

So long as you are identified with any form whatsoever, you are mortal.

Only a devil would claim that God is a selfish devil. So nice try, but no, don't confuse your devilry with that of God. If I let you, you would make a devil out God! See what a devil you are?! Hehe....

Quote

If that's true, then God as a whole is also a selfish devil, since animals operate on the default mode, which is pure God mode.

No, you just misunderstand animals.

As I have repeatedly said, animals are not in God-mode. They are God in animal-mode. This is a big and significant difference.

Quote

I think the term selfishness is a bit abstract here. Do you refer to it as in materialist selfishness and wanting to survive?

It is the survival of any limited identity. Any identity attached to any kind of form. Any identity less than the entirely of reality.

So, a kangaroo is committed to surviving as a kangaroo. This makes it selfish. You are commited to surviving as a human. This makes you selfish.

If you weren't bothered by living or dying, you'd be selfless and immortal.

The entry fee for immortality is death.

[Angelite]

24 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That is not possible. All forms are impermanent.

The only thing that can be immortal is formlessness.

So long as you are identified with any form whatsoever, you are mortal.

Only a devil would claim that God is a selfish devil. So nice try, but no, don't confuse your devilry with that of God. If I let you, you would make a devil out God! See what a devil you are?! Hehe....

No, you just misunderstand animals.

As I have repeatedly said, animals are not in God-mode. They are God in animal-mode. This is a big and significant difference.

It is the survival of any limited identity. Any identity attached to any kind of form. Any identity less than the entirely of reality.

So, a kangaroo is committed to surviving as a kangaroo. This makes it selfish. You are commited to surviving as a human. This makes you selfish.

If you weren't bothered by living or dying, you'd be selfless and immortal.

The entry fee for immortality is death.

Why do you wanna be immortal?

[Aakash]

@Truth Addict ? I never proclaimed to be god. I’m more like the prince of hell ?. The devil calling himself an angel. ??‍♂️. 

? it’s like I said, I wonder if you think about it. What is there to reject when bones sediment and compress into fossil fuels. Do I really need proof other than that that were all one ?. 

It’s more like a dead man walking ??‍♂️instead of a hollow man walking. 

Authenticity ? No grounding in groundless-ness and therefore no decision making process from being paradigm-less . No redemption for dead men to infinity ⭕️. 

So yes, ? it includes you. This devil may only hate a handful of gods doing instead of a truckload of things. 

? yes, it’s hard when you don’t accept your true self and care what others may think. But if it stops you selling love drugs. ? time to get on that train leaving platform 9 3/4 for a dose. 

Edit: plus I always wonder if it’s god loving itself unconditionally and others conditionally of that unconditional standards. That’s the epitome of devilry. But what happens when the standards are absolutely relative themselves? 

Edited August 1, 2019 by Aakash

[Dan502]

I suppose most people who ask "why is reality the way it is?" have a fairly limited experience of reality and so one answer might be something like... if you become more conscious of reality, then the answer might become more apparent.

[How to be wise]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

The entry fee for immortality is death.

The irony!

[Aakash]

@Dan502 no people who don’t do spiritual practices have a limited view of reality and those who do spiritual practices and no contemplation have a limited view of reality. 

Theory is actuality when deemed actuality and actuality is deemed theory when it’s not actuality. See ? 

[Truthority]

why questions are an endless mindfuck into infinity

that is one option sure but most likely it will drive you bonkers

you are always left with another why... reason behind a reason... the god of gods... 

remember, consciousness is infinite so there is not end to it at least that's how it seems to be

what/who will ground you into the seat of the soul so it is important to establish that first

then you can fly off into space and into the stars

at that point it might be a good idea to plug some dmt and breathe in that sweet ass prana

[Aakash]

@Truthority the answer to the paradigm is to accept what ever happens 

sound familiar ? 

No fear of having a problem of fearing? 

Edited August 1, 2019 by Aakash

[Truth Addict]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

That is not possible. All forms are impermanent.

I'm not sure. I mean theoritcally, cells can keep reproducing forever, but right now they're programmed to age with time. Maybe in the future, the form of a human being can get modified instead of dying?

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

The only thing that can be immortal is formlessness.

So long as you are identified with any form whatsoever, you are mortal.

Maybe the ultimate goal of everything is to make form immortal as well? I believe that to be a possibility.

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

animals are not in God-mode. They are God in animal-mode. This is a big and significant difference.

If that's true, then God-mode must be impossible to access from within a limited form without physically dying. So, how is it possible to access God with ego-death while still being a human? I understand that a human is God, but it's still a limited form of it? So, how does the limited becomes unlimited while still actually being limited? It's very twisted!

Also, isn't it a duality to think that God in animal-mode is different from an animal in God-mode? We create all distinctions, but in actuality, God is everything, so there's no difference. Right? That solves the previous problem.

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

If you weren't bothered by living or dying, you'd be selfless and immortal.

That's how animals are! They aren't attached to their identities. They aren't bothered by living or dying. They're just being who they are no matter what. Only human beings show signs of suffering and are attached to their identities.

Attachment creates suffering. And suffering is the devil.

Or, that's how I perceive it to be.

Edited August 1, 2019 by Truth Addict

[archi]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

That is not possible. All forms are impermanent.

The only thing that can be immortal is formlessness.

The entry fee for immortality is death.

This video got me thinking about the fee for being "immortal" might not be death itself and not that far away. It can be still just prolongation of "life" but few bn years compared to 100 is not bad?  

 

[Angelite]

19 minutes ago, Truthority said:

why questions are an endless mindfuck into infinity

that is one option sure but most likely it will drive you bonkers

you are always left with another why... reason behind a reason... the god of gods... 

remember, consciousness is infinite so there is not end to it at least that's how it seems to be

what/who will ground you into the seat of the soul so it is important to establish that first

then you can fly off into space and into the stars

at that point it might be a good idea to plug some dmt and breathe in that sweet ass prana

Are you Leo Gura?

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Truth Addict said:

That's how animals are! They aren't attached to their identities. They aren't bothered by living or dying. They're just being who they are no matter what. 

That seems like a narrow definition of “bothered”. I saw a squirrel in a trap recently and it certainly was bothered whether it lived or died. A being doesn’t need to have an intellectual story of personal identity to be bothered when in a situation it perceives as life threatening. Animals have a sense of self and survival and are bothered when that sense of self-survival is threatened.

[Truth Addict]

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

That seems like a narrow definition of “bothered”. I saw a squirrel in a trap recently and it certainly was bothered whether it lived or died. A being doesn’t need to have an intellectual story of personal identity to be bothered when in a situation it perceives as life threatening. Animals have a sense of self and survival and are bothered when that sense of self-survival is threatened.

I don't want to get into semantics here. I think my idea was clear, even though I wasn't able to articulate it perfectly.

Suffering is the key word here.

Edited August 1, 2019 by Truth Addict

[Forestluv]

53 minutes ago, Truth Addict said:

I don't want to get into semantics here. I think my idea was clear, even though I wasn't able to articulate it perfectly.

Suffering is the key word here.

I’m not disagreeing with what you are saying, yet a clear distinction can be made here.  We can add on a component to survival called suffering in which there is a psychological self that becomes distressed in thought stories regarding perceived threats to it’s own survival. Humans would have this feature and non-humans would not have this feature. Within this context, we can say humans suffer and non-humans don’t suffer. Yet this feature is not necessary for a sense of survival and being bothered by perceived threats to one’s survival. A sense of self vs not-self and a desire for self survival is not dependent on intellectual thoughts. Animals do not have a psychological self that includes thought stories, yet they clearly have a sense of self. They know a difference between self and non-self. In this regard, animals are not selfless and are bothered by perceived threats to their self survival.

[Truth Addict]

@Serotoninluv

Maybe the idea of selflessness that you have is not quite accurate. Maybe mine is flawed. Maybe we could work it out together.

Being selfless equals being authentic. There isn't a separate thing that we can point to as a 'self'. All self is God-self and it's selfless. Those distinctions are thought-created and ultimately groundless.

To be selfish is to want something else than what reality is. That's what creates suffering.

It's not that the formless God is the only selfless being. To think that would be to actually create a duality. God is always selfless, and that's how it is.

This, right now, is Absolute selflessness. It cannot be any other way, and it can be every other way.

Think about it. If a squirrel did not want to care about its survival while its authentic self still cares, then it wanted to rather sacrifice itself for something else, then that would be a selfish move, because it is opposed to how reality is.

See, thought creates inauthenticity/attachment. Inauthenticity/attachment creates resistance. And resistance creates suffering.

So, assuming that animals don't have thoughts is to say that they don't suffer because they are completely authentic and selfless.

Although after all, all of human delusions are eventually selfless, but most people don't know that yet.

What do you think?

EDIT: There's more that I wanted to say but wasn't/still am not able to articulate.

Edited August 1, 2019 by Truth Addict

[Forestluv]

56 minutes ago, Truth Addict said:

@Serotoninluv

Being authentic to oneself equals being selfless. There isn't a separate thing that we can point to as a 'self'. All self is God-self and it's selfless. Those distinctions are thought-created and ultimately groundless.

To be selfish is to want something else than what reality is. That is what creates suffering.

It's not that the formless God is the only selfless being. To think that would be to actually create a duality. God is always selfless, and that's how it is.

This, right now, is Absolute selflessness. It cannot be any other way, and it can be every other way.

Think about it. If a squirrel did not want to care about its survival while its authentic self still cares, then it wanted to rather sacrifice itself for something else, then that would be a selfish move, because it is opposed to how reality is.

See, thought creates inauthenticity/attachment. Inauthenticity/attachment creates resistance. And resistance creates suffering.

So, assuming that animals don't have thoughts is to say that they don't suffer because they are completely authentic and selfless.

Although after all, all of human delusions are eventually selfless, but most people don't know that yet.

The assertions within this construct are consistent with how terms (and assertions themselves) have been defined. 

A is A, therefore A is A

A gramlet is a hoplit and a gramlet is a blinop, therefore a hoplit is a blinop

The assertions are consistent with the relative definition of terms and the assertions themselves. Such definitions can be useful in building a construct, yet they can also cause rigidity, limitation and contraction.

[Aakash]

@Serotoninluv ??‍♂️ Infinity can only be infinite ahaha looks like you understood ?

@Truth Addict I didn’t mean to get in the way of your EPIC debate! I’m not saying I agree or disagree with seratonin just admiring his creativity 

Edited August 1, 2019 by Aakash

[Truth Addict]

31 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

The assertions within this construct are consistent with how terms (and assertions themselves) have been defined. 

A is A, therefore A is A

A gramlet is a hoplit and a gramlet is a blinop, therefore a hoplit is a blinop

The assertions are consistent with the relative definition of terms and the assertions themselves.

I'm sorry. I'm wrecking my mind around trying to understand what you mean and I still don't. Could you please use less abstract words?

[Forestluv]

8 minutes ago, Truth Addict said:

I'm sorry. I'm wrecking my mind around trying to understand what you mean and I still don't. Could you please use less abstract words?

Some structure is useful in conversation. If I say “A gibnot is a thing, yet it can be anything” , now let’s discuss the practical value of gibnot in society. It’s too poorly structured to have a conversation. There is too much flexibility. 

Yet I could go to the other extreme - if there is too much structure it can become too rigid and contracted. If I say “This is how it is. And this is what this is. There is no fluidity or space to expand. In such a structured state, the only option for the other person is to say “No, that is not how it is.”, “That is not what is is”.

If I’m in a mindset of this is how it is, I miss out on a lot. A recent example with “enlightenment”. My mind can see enlightenment as “trans-personal” and a person does get or become enlightened, since the person is illusory there is no person to get enlightened? Who would get enlightened? This is a deep realization and can be very useful in certain contexts. . . Yesterday, I noticed Leo writing about qualities of enlightened persons. At first, my mind may think “A person is not enlightened, maybe he doesn’t get it”. Yet I realized this is a different context and I asked about enlightened persons in this context. I learned about qualities of enlightened people and my mind deepened and expanded. Then I watched a Lisa Cairns video about how the “enlightenment story” is a major distraction because it becomes contracted into a personal story within a timeline that doesn’t exist. Within this context, I also learned a lot and depended/expanded my understanding. . . .Personally, I like a balance between structure and flexibility.