choosing happiness by making up your own truths

[tatsumaru]

3 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

Very wise, however don't get lost in "your beliefs" of what others intentions are, or lost in the ideas and labels of your own.  Like I said, its all the same in the end and even now.  What you perceive as wrong framing and idea's in others, while believing your correct framing is actually just a mental game, they are all idea's in the end, and even now.

When you see this, you will have a great laugh.

At least be willing to entertain the notion that there's a difference between truth and idea.

[Mu_]

@tatsumaru  Oh ya I have, but why not also try entertaining the idea that there's not, no joke, try it.

[tatsumaru]

2 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

@tatsumaru  Oh ya I have, but why not also try entertaining the idea that there's not, no joke, try it.

Because I am not interested in assuming what is as much as letting go of what it is not. The only reason I suggested that you entertain another notion is to possibly serve as a counter-weight to that notion that idea is all. The 'idea is all' notion is still grounded in eliminating judgement of sensory phenomena which isn't the same as surrendering the actual senses. Sure, realizing that conceptualizations are an illusion is a step in the right direction but why not go all the way and surrender completely, not just the conceptualization? It is one thing to realize the concept of 'eyes' are just an idea to be surrendered and a whole different to actually surrender eyes. Would someone who surrendered their senses be saying stuff like "I am the universe"?

[Mu_]

6 minutes ago, tatsumaru said:

Because I am not interested in assuming what is as much as letting go of what it is not. The only reason I suggested that you entertain another notion is to possibly serve as a counter-weight to that notion that idea is all. The 'idea is all' notion is still grounded in eliminating judgement of sensory phenomena which isn't the same as surrendering the actual senses. Sure, realizing that conceptualizations are an illusion is a step in the right direction but why not go all the way and surrender completely, not just the conceptualization? It is one thing to realize the concept of 'eyes' are just an idea to be surrendered and a whole different to actually surrender eyes. Would someone who surrendered their senses be saying stuff like "I am the universe"?

I feel like the pot is calling the kettle black here.

"Because I am not interested in assuming what is as much as letting go of what it is not." 

So you think wholeness already, is full of stuff called "what is not".

 

[tatsumaru]

11 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

I feel like the pot is calling the kettle black here.

"Because I am not interested in assuming what is as much as letting go of what it is not." 

So you think wholeness already, is full of stuff called "what is not".

 

No I think wholeness is devoid of what it is not and I am simply including all of the phenomenal world in that which it is not including the so called oneness that is arrived at by suspending conceptual judgement. This so called oneness is simply psychological opium. You claim that I am simply doing semantics but there are actually various texts in the Buddhist traditions warning against being stuck in the trap of Oneness/Brahman. Whether you believe the Buddhas who wrote them were real or not is irrelevant, simply consider why they might be warning against identifying with the universe?

Here's an excerpt that might be able to provide a better pointer as to what I am warning against:

"To better understand the difference between the Alaya Consciousness of Buddhism (which is actually beyond consciousness) and the Brahman Consciousness of Advaita (which implies “not two”), the following humorous story was said to be told in the Kevatta (Kevaddha) Sutta, as translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

Where do the four elements cease without remainder?”

Through meditation the monk reached the Heaven of the Four Great Kings, who did not know the answer. Next he went to the thirty three gods in a higher Desire Realm heaven, but none of these rulers knew either. He then asked King Sakka (Indra), the king of these gods, but Sakka did not know the answer. Up and up he went asking all sorts of gods at each and every higher level. Finally he came to Great Brahma, the Creator, Uncreated, Knower of All.

When the monk finally achieved an audience with Great Brahma, Brahma appeared in all his majesty and glory announcing, “I am Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Ruler, Appointer and Orderer, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be.” The monk then humbly and respectfully asked his question, but all Great Brahma did was repeat, “I am Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Ruler, Appointer and Orderer, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be.”

The monk eventually got frustrated and said, “I know you are “Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Ruler, Appointer and Orderer, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be,” but I asked you a question about where the four elements cease without remainder. The Great Brahma replied, “Listen little monk, don’t embarrass me. All these other gods are listening and think I know everything. If you want to know the answer to a question like that, don’t ask me. I don’t know the answer. For a question like that, you have to go ask the Buddha.

Our monk gets up from his meditation and finds the Buddha nearby, asking him where the four elements cease without remainder.  The Buddha tells him that he’s thinking of the question incorrectly, and should ask where do the four elements have no foothold…”

The last sentence is critical for us being able to understand each other.

[Mu_]

4 minutes ago, tatsumaru said:

No I think wholeness is devoid of what it is not and I am simply including all of the phenomenal world in that which it is not including the so called oneness that is arrived at by suspending conceptual judgement. This so called oneness is simply psychological opium. You claim that I am simply doing semantics but there are actually various texts in the Buddhist traditions warning against being stuck in the trap of Oneness/Brahman. Whether you believe the Buddhas who wrote them were real or not is irrelevant, simply consider why they might be warning against identifying with the universe?

Here's an excerpt that might be able to provide a better pointer as to what I am warning against:

"To better understand the difference between the Alaya Consciousness of Buddhism (which is actually beyond consciousness) and the Brahman Consciousness of Advaita (which implies “not two”), the following humorous story was said to be told in the Kevatta (Kevaddha) Sutta, as translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

Where do the four elements cease without remainder?”

Through meditation the monk reached the Heaven of the Four Great Kings, who did not know the answer. Next he went to the thirty three gods in a higher Desire Realm heaven, but none of these rulers knew either. He then asked King Sakka (Indra), the king of these gods, but Sakka did not know the answer. Up and up he went asking all sorts of gods at each and every higher level. Finally he came to Great Brahma, the Creator, Uncreated, Knower of All.

When the monk finally achieved an audience with Great Brahma, Brahma appeared in all his majesty and glory announcing, “I am Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Ruler, Appointer and Orderer, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be.” The monk then humbly and respectfully asked his question, but all Great Brahma did was repeat, “I am Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Ruler, Appointer and Orderer, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be.”

The monk eventually got frustrated and said, “I know you are “Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Ruler, Appointer and Orderer, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be,” but I asked you a question about where the four elements cease without remainder. The Great Brahma replied, “Listen little monk, don’t embarrass me. All these other gods are listening and think I know everything. If you want to know the answer to a question like that, don’t ask me. I don’t know the answer. For a question like that, you have to go ask the Buddha.

Our monk gets up from his meditation and finds the Buddha nearby, asking him where the four elements cease without remainder.  The Buddha tells him that he’s thinking of the question incorrectly, and should ask where do the four elements have no foothold…”

The last sentence is critical for us being able to understand each other.

Sounds like your in the wrong forum then.  This is all a lineage thing and it sounds like to me your very much in it.  As such it just may be your path at this time and it would be best to seek out someone who you considered awake in such matters and to follow their guidance.

Correct me if I'm wrong in such thinking, but do you think you are learning much here or just telling others they are not seeing it "your lineages" way.

[tatsumaru]

13 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

Sounds like your in the wrong forum then.  This is all a lineage thing and it sounds like to me your very much in it.  As such it just may be your path at this time and it would be best to seek out someone who you considered awake in such matters and to follow their guidance.

Correct me if I'm wrong in such thinking, but do you think you are learning much here or just telling others they are not seeing it "your lineages" way.

I don't care about lineages one bit. However there are certain stories from different sources which are communicating what I am trying to inquire about more eloquently than I can myself. That's the only reason I am relying on them. When I say Yin/Yang that's not because I want to prove Taoism, but because I've already directly experienced Yin/Yang and I think that those are useful concepts. So I am inquiring about other higher concepts that I haven't experienced directly yet such as the transcending of 6 senses. If you have no clue if that's a thing that's fine. No need to debate about whether I am doing mental masturbation or not.

Think of what I am doing as asking you 'why is what I am suggesting not the truth', rather than 'this is the truth that I want everyone to believe'. The difficulty arises out of me not feeling that I've been able to communicate to you what I am asking about and therefore I feel that I am not receiving an answer about my inquiry but about some other inquiry that I didn't make.

Edited June 9, 2021 by tatsumaru

[Mu_]

@tatsumaru You don't see it, but what you are looking for is the same as that which Leo and I (and probably others on this forum) are trying to point you towards.  It just seems like your interpretations of your lineages pointers and language is seeing our words in a way that means one thing to your lineage and is meaning another to us and as such you think and interpret random things.  Thats why it just may be best to seek out someone you regard as more awake on these matters then yourself, who speaks the same lingo, it just may be easier for what you seek.

Your last long story about the monk is a story pointing out obstacles that may arise along the path of finding "Truth".  I disagree with none of it.  But that doesn't mean it means something useful for everyone looking for the Truth.  It may be a story with pointers that are just causing you confusion and as such, the story and pointers are a barrier, a mental story to get lost in, to forever be on the path with.  I don't know honestly. 

[tatsumaru]

27 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

@tatsumaru You don't see it, but what you are looking for is the same as that which Leo and I (and probably others on this forum) are trying to point you towards.  It just seems like your interpretations of your lineages pointers and language is seeing our words in a way that means one thing to your lineage and is meaning another to us and as such you think and interpret random things.  Thats why it just may be best to seek out someone you regard as more awake on these matters then yourself, who speaks the same lingo, it just may be easier for what you seek.

Your last long story about the monk is a story pointing out obstacles that may arise along the path of finding "Truth".  I disagree with none of it.  But that doesn't mean it means something useful for everyone looking for the Truth.  It may be a story with pointers that are just causing you confusion and as such, the story and pointers are a barrier, a mental story to get lost in, to forever be on the path with.  I don't know honestly. 

My interpretation of that story is that Oneness which is also known as Brahman in the Hindu lineage can't tell you what's true. Additionally Buddha's suggestion at the end points toward a possible realization that you can't trace phenomenon back to their origins/you can't trace effects back to their cause (i.e. there's no truth in the universe), rather if you want to uncover Cause you should ask where is it that there effects/phenomena have no foothold. Where is it that's neither empty nor form. Since oneness is still about effects I am inquiring about - where is it that effects have no foothold, that's all. Since Leo talks about inclusiveness and relying on the universe to wake up I am not convinced at all that we are all talking about the same thing. Inclusiveness is just about adding more to your identity. What would you include if there wasn't a universe? Do you see how inclusiveness is directly contradictory to surrendering the universe altogether?

Edited June 9, 2021 by tatsumaru

[Mu_]

18 minutes ago, tatsumaru said:

My interpretation of that story is that Oneness which is also known as Brahman in the Hindu lineage can't tell you what's true. Additionally Buddha's suggestion at the end points toward a possible realization that you can't trace phenomenon back to their origins/you can't trace effects back to their cause, rather you should ask where is it that there effects/phenomena have no foothold. Where is it that's neither empty nor form. That's all I am inquiring about - where is it that effects have no foothold.

You really think a typed response will give you that? 

That aside, its been said that there's always been a back and forth, perhaps one up man-ship between Hindu and Buddhism, with debates going back and forth for hundreds of years.  Humans love this stuff, even if Hindu's meant the same thing with the Great Brahnma as Buddha meant with a place of no foothold.  Buddha's text and Hindu texts are unknown to be a direct source of what the original awakeners have said, but a mishmash of human individuals over time adding and subtracting and reediting and reevaluating the intent of each word, saying and implication. 

Again, maybe your to emeshed in the jargon, which is not a bad thing, but it may take more effort to unravel then just seeking out someone who you regard as more awake then you and perhaps to the degree you think these pointers mean, and listen to their advice without hesitation.

See the fundamental difference that "i think" you are getting hooked up is a notion that there is wholeness devoid of stuff its not.  Like some sort of non-ness that is surrounded by "other stuff", perhaps "false stuff".  And perhaps in this non-ness/wholeness, it will be the Truth of what is, and from this location, whats not will be seen and perhaps could be felt is Above this other "false stuff". 

You see what Leo and I have been pointing to is that the neither empty nor form (or could equally be said, form is emptiness and emptiness is form) is The Case Right Now.  Now.  Now.  Now.  All the stuff you call, or called senses, have never been senses.  All the "other" people and locations, were never the inherent case to begin with, Its always been neither empty nor form.  You, hahaha, never was form or empty.  Full stop.

[Shin]

Jesus the patience you have ?

[tatsumaru]

The closest analogy I found to what I mean can be represented by this picture:

I feel like everyone is saying - no  we aren't individual photons (things), we are the whole light globe, it's all one (universe/Oneness).
I am saying that I feel that we've been so mesmerized by this universe that we forgot that we are neither the photons nor the universe we are this thing who's staring in the globe and forgot they are staring. We are not OF the globe at all.
And the I feel like everyone is telling me - yeah bro exactly we are ALL Of the globe, no parts of that globe are real, it's all one.

Do you know what I mean?

17 minutes ago, Shin said:

Jesus the patience you have ?

I don't have a belief in infinity so I am not searching for any finity or infinity. I am surprised that a person who's criticizing me for excessive mental masturbation is offering me a proof arrived at through some silly linguistics. I throw both finity and infinity in the thrash along with space and time. Not interested in this dimension at all. This is exactly the advaita nonsense that I am talking about that everyone's infatuated with.
I am not looking for something OUTSIDE of myself, I am looking to surrender my sentient self into my total self. No one is offering guidance regarding this so far. All I am hearing is include all of what you sense in your total infinite identity. I am not looking for THIS to go THERE, I am looking to allow for THERE to come to THIS. To allow as in the guest coming, not to seek as in the host finding.

I feel like this isn't going anywhere though and all I am going to get is more advaita stuff...

 

Edited June 9, 2021 by tatsumaru

[Mu_]

2 minutes ago, tatsumaru said:

The closest analogy I found to what I mean can be represented by this picture:

I feel like everyone is saying - no  we aren't individual photons (things), we are the whole light globe, it's all one (universe/Oneness).
I am saying that I feel that we've been so mesmerized by this universe that we forgot that we are neither the photons nor the universe we are this thing who's staring in the globe and forgot they are staring. We are not OF the globe at all.
And the I feel like everyone is telling me - yeah bro exactly we are ALL Of the globe, no parts of that globe are real, it's all one.

Do you know what I mean?

Ya, but there are lots including Leo and I who are saying what your saying.  There is no globe, or photons, theres just the one looking you could say, but when this is understood, globe, photons are very interesting as a experience.  Whats this looker, looking at?  Other stuff not it?  NO!  An experience of what, of YOU of course.  Photons have never been photons, globe has never been globe.   You see at this point even to say no globe, or photons, is a rejection of "You".   The looker is the globe, the looker is the photons, the photons are the looker (because photos are the looker), the globe is the looker (because the looker is the globe).  Its, Now, Is, All, you, You, i, I.

Do you really think there is a separate looker watching a separate movie reel, this sounds like duality no?

[tatsumaru]

18 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

Do you really think there is a separate looker watching a separate movie reel, this sounds like duality no?

I would like to avoid speculation as much as possible so whatever I am about to say is likely to be complete BS as I have no direct experience of the SOURCE of creation. However my intuition is not that it's a separate observer as much as it is the only actual thing.

It would be foolish of me to contemplate what the experience of my lack of experience is like. I am not interested in word games or concentrating on objects or equalizing opposites or identifying with universe or including all of universe. I just want to make sure I've surrendered all there is to surrender that's all. Whatever remains, I will call that home.

Edited June 9, 2021 by tatsumaru

[devoid]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Because once you realize there is no difference between anything, then you discover Heaven. You are then literally floating in Heaven because you are 100% conscious that nothing bad can happen. Bad is the illusion that one thing is worse than another. But if there is no difference between anything, bad literally becomes impossible. And what remains is a profound bliss. You literally become immortal and untouchable.

That's realizing the Oneness of God.

 

logically speaking, this doesn't make sense to me because wouldn't happiness/joy/bliss also just be an illusion then? why couldn't it be that bad is the only thing that exists, and happiness is the illusion?

 

speaking from the very little experience i have on this, it makes sense. often when i take walks alone i just walk around and observe the world. and when i do that, it's like the observable present is the only thing that exists and everything is just so goddamn beautiful that i shiver over and over again, and nothing is of more or less value, everything is just so outstandingly perfect and amazing. like, i could see an old dirty shoe on the side of the road and literally cry because it's so beautiful.

i realize now that people who see me on those walks probably think i'm totally insane lol

this is the closest i have come to experiencing something similar to what you said, if i'm understanding you correctly. and based in that little experience, it makes total sense.

 

that said, i think (based on your videos) most of your insights are way over my head, and i would like to ask you if it's really wise to pursue this kind of truth-happiness-oneness-god thing directly? i know that people easily misunderstand things that are not yet possible for them to grasp. depending of how developed people are, it seems like their self-development goals should be different. so is this a goal everyone can work towards, or are there other ways of looking at happines/truth that i would benefit from working on first?

(would estimate that i'm at spiral dynamics green/yellow and i relate heavliy to the first postconventional stage in cook-greuters ego development paper (not done reading the paper yet though), if this might help answer my question)

[Shin]

1 hour ago, tatsumaru said:

The closest analogy I found to what I mean can be represented by this picture:

I feel like everyone is saying - no  we aren't individual photons (things), we are the whole light globe, it's all one (universe/Oneness).
I am saying that I feel that we've been so mesmerized by this universe that we forgot that we are neither the photons nor the universe we are this thing who's staring in the globe and forgot they are staring. We are not OF the globe at all.
And the I feel like everyone is telling me - yeah bro exactly we are ALL Of the globe, no parts of that globe are real, it's all one.

Do you know what I mean?

I don't have a belief in infinity so I am not searching for any finity or infinity. I am surprised that a person who's criticizing me for excessive mental masturbation is offering me a proof arrived at through some silly linguistics. I throw both finity and infinity in the thrash along with space and time. Not interested in this dimension at all. This is exactly the advaita nonsense that I am talking about that everyone's infatuated with.
I am not looking for something OUTSIDE of myself, I am looking to surrender my sentient self into my total self. No one is offering guidance regarding this so far. All I am hearing is include all of what you sense in your total infinite identity. I am not looking for THIS to go THERE, I am looking to allow for THERE to come to THIS. To allow as in the guest coming, not to seek as in the host finding.

I feel like this isn't going anywhere though and all I am going to get is more advaita stuff...

 

That's exactly what Leo and Mu talk about.

Your problem is that you're lost in concepts, and to you, it looks like they are contradicting themselves.

This stuff is too much of a mindfuck, and it's deeply paradoxical, so unless you directly experience it, you will fucking fight over fucking words and terminologies that all pretty much point to the same thing.

When you will drop that pointless fight of concepts then you will just stop debating and actually do what needs to be done.

Until then, it's just a sneaky way to distract yourself by convincing yourself you're not lol

[tatsumaru]

33 minutes ago, Shin said:

That's exactly what Leo and Mu talk about.

Your problem is that you're lost in concepts, and to you, it looks like they are contradicting themselves.

This stuff is too much of a mindfuck, and it's deeply paradoxical, so unless you directly experience it, you will fucking fight over fucking words and terminologies that all pretty much point to the same thing.

When you will drop that pointless fight of concepts then you will just stop debating and actually do what needs to be done.

Until then, it's just a sneaky way to distract yourself by convincing yourself you're not lol

I will show you one day that there's more

[Mu_]

1 hour ago, tatsumaru said:

I would like to avoid speculation as much as possible so whatever I am about to say is likely to be complete BS as I have no direct experience of the SOURCE of creation. However my intuition is not that it's a separate observer as much as it is the only actual thing.

It would be foolish of me to contemplate what the experience of my lack of experience is like. I am not interested in word games or concentrating on objects or equalizing opposites or identifying with universe or including all of universe. I just want to make sure I've surrendered all there is to surrender that's all. Whatever remains, I will call that home.

Guess what, your fucking right.  And you know what that means.  Your home.  Tada... This is the only actual thing.  Not as a form not as a emptiness.  There was never duality to begin with, solid was never solid to begin with to assume and work out solid not being real so that source could be found.  Same with emptiness.  Its just always been, its only ever been the actual thing, an experience which seemed to be solid, seemed to be empty, seemed to have a god, or a source, or a none, source.

Im about to release a video tomorrow which talks about this, in which maybe it will help.  You see, no matter what the actual case is, even if you havent seen it, no matter what it is, it has to be what seems to be going on?  right now, right?  Cause if it IS, this couldn't be anything other then what the unknown thing is.   yes you don't know it, but simply what ever IS, has to be ISing now, what ever that is, its so stupidly funny.

 

 

[Shin]

2 hours ago, tatsumaru said:

I will show you one day that there's more

Maybe there is more, but you will never prove me anything or anyone else

[Leo Gura]

8 hours ago, tatsumaru said:

There might not be higher Oneness than the one you speak, but Oneness is still not Wholeness.

Pure nonsense.

Oneness = Wholeness.

One is Absolute, which means it includes manyness.

The difference between one vs many is imaginary.