tsuki

@Torkys So, you've realized that desire is the other face of resistance. Have you realized that 'inner work' is just a fancy name for 'resisting resistance'? Or that it is the same as 'desiring to not desire'? Ego backlash is just a fancy spiritual term for change. Once you are on top, the only way is down.

@Zweistein You're back! Too bad that I'm gone now . I really enjoyed our deep conversation in the other thread. It was a goldmine. Is there a difference between our thoughts and 'other people'?

Are you=I=we ready to watch the ego build and tear itself down with equanimity? Are you=I=we ready to admit that the ego is not a wound to be healed? Do we watch other people, or do we watch our thoughts about them? Do others think about us, or do we think about them thinking about us? I=you=we=us=them=others Just two mirrors facing each other.

@Privet Oh, thank you for your concern. The funniest thing is that I intended the same thing for you with my response. My answer was not conceptual. I guess that the key 'problem' with any discussion is the unwarranted feeling that we all are Rinzai zen masters, trying to send each other out to meditate more. Monks in the monastery however understand their position as a student and anticipate a koan from a master. Perhaps I should listen to your questions as a student then, so that we can understand each other. Desire is just the other face of suffering. Nothing else for me to see.

@Privet ? What's up with the video?

@Privet Too many profound questions in one post that I can answer in a short reply. I will get into that later on today. For now - everything is a thought. Thoughts are not somewhere behind your eyes in the colorless space. There is no such place. Thoughts are 'out there', intertwined with everyday objects. I usually call them obviousness. As you look at the screen, it is obvious that the screen is a screen. The Narrator does not have to say in the inner voice 'screen'. The screen is, what it is. Same for your fingers and the effortless movement of your eyeballs as you read this text. What are thoughts made of? Meaningful duality that is mindlessly resolved by choosing either A or B.

If I understand your question correctly: a problem is when expectations are not met by the given circumstances. The mind is, of course, responsible for both setting up expectations and interpreting circumstances. All problems can be permanently solved by working with the mind alone. That doesn't mean that we will then be a constant sloppy mess of a person. On the contrary. Calm mind is much better at observation and adaptation.

@Privet @robdl Would it be a stretch to call the do-nothing 'technique' simply making space for the realization to occur? Getting used to the idle workings of the mind so that we do not mistake it for reality. In this sense, meditation is a trap for the meaning-seeking mind. When you 'get it', there is no point to it, but when you 'don't get it' you want to meditate to solve your problem with the mind. The absurdity of this situation comes from the question: who is the one that sees the problem? The mind sees itself as a problem, and yet - proceeds to select a method, or a teacher, to solve itself. Why would the problematic mind trust itself with the important task of solving itself? lol Isn't that the whole point of it? To stop the mind from solving problems it invents itself?

@CreamCat There is only one ego in existence.

Memories (past) are just fantasies that you call real. Plans (future) are just fantasies that you call possible.

@SoonHei That is a very good analogy. When you think in terms of relativity of motion - who is moving? Are you moving, or is your friend moving? Or is it perhaps that motion and stillness are just a result of perspective? That they are in fact the same thing from within your analogy? Given your excellent analogy with a train, why is it that consciousness is something that does not move at all? Isn't it that motion and stillness are just a result of a perspective? What if you can observe consciousness by yourself simply by recognizing its constant, never-changing movement? Your signature is also an excellent reference point for this discussion. If we return to past and future, can it possibly be that these two things are actually one thing from a certain perspective?

Exactly the way I'm doing it with you here. Asking questions and honestly trying to answer them. Do you actually feel like a receiver of consciousness? Or did you just make it up because it felt right?

@SoonHei You just went to fairyland. You are treating yourself as a receiver of the cosmic waves of consciousness that move through time. Where do these ideas come from? Where do you store them? Can you focus your attention in the now and point your finger at them? Do not create justifications for your beliefs. Prior to you writing this story, where did the story reside?

@SoonHei Am I supposed to answer your question? What do you mean by past and future? Let me guide you.

@SoonHei You are assuming that enlightenment changes anything. It doesn't. Your glimpse went away because you recognized it as something different from what you experience everyday. Try to see how there is no you right now. Nothing changes when there is no you. How?

When do PAST and FUTURE occur? Aren't they thoughts with certain qualities that occur in the now? Since reality is an illusion, it follows that illusion is reality.

@Cameron What if the questions you arrived at are fundamental questions that are the basis for all others? If you were able to answer those - then all of the other ones would resolve as well. What if I told you that there is a possibility that these two questions are actually one and the same question? Would that change anything to you?

@Zweistein Good bye!

@zoey101 Oh, I see. My fiancee's parents split when she was around that age. She went went through similar circumstances and it shows till this day in certain situations. She became much more relaxed for the past three years. It takes time and willingness to heal. I think that you're doing great. Keep working and I'm sure it will get better. I'm glad that you enjoyed the video I recommended.

@zoey101 Did anything significant happen around the time when you were 12?

@zoey101 Why would 'she' want to scare you? Is your reflection not you? Nothing wrong with that of course, but It's interesting that 'she' is hostile somehow.

Let's take it from the @Leo Gura's latest video: There are always contents of perception. These contents are what we call facts. Facts are self-apparent (obvious). Facts are always explicit, even if they are arrived at through exploration of a question to which answer is unknown at first. However, which facts are perceived is 'decided' implicitly. No fact that is being perceived is the process by which facts become self-apparent (obvious). This process in which facts become self-apparent is what we call context. Context is the implicit part of perception. Context may become explicit through language, but the facts that are being 'produced' are not the context that produces them. That is because the original context we are describing is replaced by the context of describing a context. Therefore, the present context is always absent from perception. At the moment of the production of facts, the context is always implicit. Both context and facts are what informs our ability to act. Recontextualization is a way to influence actions by changing context without changing the facts. There are various depths of recontextualization. Depending on the amount of actions it influences, the recontextualization may be radical. In my current understanding, a mystical experience is a radical recontextualization that influences the ability to describe one's context (making it explicit). This influence is what leaves space for novelty to arise. This is why we say that we have experienced the death of the self, because the context is what we usually identify with. The mystical experience however does not leave us context-less. The context simply becomes unknown, and by repeated attempts to describe it, we arrive at farther and farther awakenings. That is the role of contemplation.

@Shu Meaning is the difference between yes and no.

@zoey101 Your explanation makes sense to you. You are not answering to me here, but to yourself. There are no 'correct' answers to my questions other than the ones you feel are right. We are not trying to make me understand you, but make you understand yourself. I will 'squeeze' my understanding to fit your words, so don't worry about me. Why is it unnerving that your reflection glares at you when you're not looking?

@now is forever I didn't like that word because to me it is conflated with meaning of 'introducing something that was not there'. It should be more - like you say - in lines of process/action/movement, etc. Well, if we assume that yellow is the one that is able to observe this theory in practice, then this very theory can be used as well. Yellow can see all the stages below, but also understands that in tier two, he is like Beige with respect to some other dimension of oneness. Raising consciousness to see the difference between 'self' and 'other' puts him to Turquoise, but this differentiation is much more nuanced than the transition from Beige to Purple. The basic 'skeleton' of steps is the same. This is the power of ambiguity. Perhaps, this is how prophecies work lol.