RendHeaven

@ivankiss Your posts tend to do this curious thing where you carve distinctions in the most subtle and seemingly unfalsifiable ways. You acknowledge non-duality briefly, state that there are greater depths to plumb, and then proceed with your "distinction." And I have to put "distinction" in quotes here, since I've seen you state things such as, "difference is not the same as separation" as if to say, "I make this demarcation without distinction!" (which really just sounds like more distinctions! At least from a certain perspective. And from other perspectives it is not a distinction. Or maybe it is and is not a distinction simultaneously, or maybe all of this is an infinitely nonsensical comedy) I notice that when people judge you for these "distinctions," you retort with a, "you've yet to experience this~" which usually ends in a non-duality dick-measuring contest. (a subtle one, of course. Because in a true non-duality dick-measuring contest, you have to act as if you are sooo detached that it doesn't even occur to you that you are measuring dicks ) Now, I know it sounds like this is a critique already because I'm clearly raising some eyebrows at these trends (the way distinctions are danced around, the way that all retorts are "you've gotta experience it bro, you're just not as advanced as me~") but really I do trust your insights, and I understand that you understand more than anyone how deeply personal your insights are and perhaps that is exactly why you are so inspired to share. So yes, this is a critique, but not of your insights. Rather, this is a critique of your communication. I wonder if your communication would be better received if you acknowledged upfront that your insights are deeply personal, deeply inspired, and deeply moving FOR YOU. For example, in this thread it sounds like you put down the classical non-dual interpretation of time as illusory. And it sounds like you offer your interpretation as somehow better, though of course that is never stated. This makes it sound like you are making a distinction (the cardinal SIN of this forum!!!) of there being two conclusions with varying degrees of Truthfulness (i.e. that time as illusory, the first conclusion, is semi-truthful. MY conclusion, time as a shining side-effect of consciousness, IS [Truth]) This dynamic, combined with your response from up-top on the pedestal of woke-ness, (i.e. "I've experienced it, you haven't~") it's clear to me why your insights only land on some of our most conscious members such as @Nahm. I mean, at the end of the day I wonder if there really is any difference between your beautiful write-up and the word "illusory." They are both pointers, are they not? I see that these pointers aim for the Same, albeit from different angles. All this to say that some of our forum members really need these disclaimers of relativity. It might seem redundant or obvious sometimes, but it's critical for communication because it's so easy for the ego to judge if there's even a hint in your words that "My perspective is THE perspective!" Bless.

@Malken Hmm, but what about the example of "Donald Trump is an unconscious person" Is what's being described - unconsciousness - a mentality? Is that a state? Yes, No, Maybe so... (It really depends on the one judging) Let's grant for now that "Unconsciousness" really is a "mentality" or a "state." Let's imagine that conversation: Me: Donald Trump is an unconscious person. Blue/Orange: What do you mean by "unconscious person?" Me: Unconsciousness is a state of mind. Blue/Orange: So you're saying that Donald Trump has a state of mind of unconsciousness? Me: Yes! Blue/Orange: Maybe at night when he's asleep! But he's awake during the day and fully conscious, just like the rest of us. Me: That's not what I meant! Not literally whether or not he is awake or sleeping - but rather _____________ Try to fill in the blank

@Lento lmao alright buddy

@Serotoninluv Interesting! Sounds like you are proposing that we (as egos) are all on a spectrum of unity and fragmentation? Though, I wonder how the amnesia plays a role. Literally forgetting your memories seems to be the crux of this "disorder." Maybe forgetting is the very thing elucidating that "oh, it isn't just me in control of this body!" That's not something that "normal" people deal with. (I use the terms "disorder" and "normal" for the sake of communication. Personally not a fan of this dichotomy)

Extremely informative and eye-opening video. It seems that when shifting through identities, these people have a sort of amnesia that "resets" their memories. I wonder what spirituality work would be like for these people? Is it possible to awaken? Does it even matter if you get "reset" the next day? It's so interesting that when asked "how many identities do you have?" they all give a concrete number such as "16" or "9." Would ego death eradicate all of them into pure awareness at once? Would they all understand oneness? Or would it be that "ID#1 awakes" while "ID#2 sleeps?" Of course I speak of these people as though they were separate from me. I also speak of various states as though they were different things. I don't feel particularly awake right now, so entertain the relativity of my question for now please

wow, the irony... 0_o

There's your bias. Stage yellows don't argue or debate. And really, in true discourse there is no "winning" or "losing." That fantasy is just so silly. The mystic would have to stoop SO low to "debate" Sam. So of course he will not do that! Regarding your question, Sam certainly has a massive bias toward rationality and survival that he is not willing to admit. Notice, I am NOT calling him unintelligent, nor am I saying that he is not persuasive. Of course he is highly intelligent and very persuasive! But intelligence and persuasiveness are NOT what the categories of the spiral are based on. The categories of the spiral are based on perspective. The "higher" you climb, the wider your perspective is. For Sam to reach yellow, he must widen his perspective.

St Augustine I think is one of the few ancient Christian theologians who stumbled across genuine non-duality (whereas others like Aquinas get caught up in Aristotelian dualities as though they are absolute). He details his journey in the Confessions. Highly recommend this read since it reminds us that the roots of Christianity come from stage turquoise+ oneness!

Excellent set up exploring the ambiguity of race (and questioning its relative and arbitrary nature) but it's a shame that his conclusions were at a content-level instead of a structure-level. If he had fully parsed out this exploration, he would have seen that all racial categories are projections of the mind with no objective grounding, including non-white races. It seemed to me that he destroyed "whiteness" while allowing for the validity of "non-whiteness." Structurally, these categories are no different. It's ALL a sham.

I'm not a youtuber myself (yet... hehe) so my imput is not an informed one, but I honestly believe that "quantity over quality in the beginning" as you've illustrated is a myth. Now, don't spend an year on your first video just to get 5 views because it makes no sense to do that, but certainly don't make bad quality content on purpose for the sake of pumping out more stuff. I see this all the time, small channels with a hundred uploads and all the videos are frankly "throwaway" videos. The vid that was shot a year ago is lost in the nether because not only did the audience not care... neither did the creator. Make something you will be proud of keeping up on your channel in 1 year's time.

Best suggestion yet

You got this Happy new year.

@Anna1 Most people are wedded to their worldview. It's amazing to see, but really not so shocking

...that made no sense lol. As to OP's question, it doesn't matter and you are over-analyzing minutia. There are bigger fish to fry

I know this isn't your idea or the way that you think, but the hypothetical "scientific" explanation you've given is not clear or coherent. It's tough to answer since the claim being made is unclear.

Lead by example!

Lol you misunderstand Leo and then mock that very same misunderstanding as though it were not you who came up with it. That's pretty funny too!

I'm not sure what to make of this...

what makes you think "things" "fall?"

I don't know if that's a fair interpretation of the average modern zen master (in Japan). I went to visit some temples this summer and was struck by how cheery many of the masters were.

Wow. Yes

Perhaps because "this stuff" is not meant to be explained. We all try though haha.

You speak as though God is a "thing" which can "do vibrating." God is no-thing. How does no-thing "vibrate?"

Be careful! Enlightenment isn't about how often you have negative thoughts. It's about Truth and Reality. What is Real? What is True? That is all that enlightenment will reveal