tsuki

Sigh, I guess it's time for playing with my ass .

This is the part I don't fully grasp yet. I mean, I can see how the relative is the absolute, but I can't see how the absolute is the relative. I can see that the relative is how the absolute expresses itself, but I can't draw equality between expression and being. I guess it's my masculine bias.

Didn't intend to sound like I'm invalidating your experience. All I wanted to ask for, is for you to frame it. How is it possible that the relative can influence the absolute? How is it possible for an entity within the relative become conscious of the absolute? If you don't have an answer for these questions, it does not mean that you're wrong, but I would appreciate if you admitted it. It always does and I'm open to the possibility that I'm bringing beliefs to the table.

Because it's relative. There is no "fundamental" level within relativity. Every single relative thing is dependent on some other circumstance. You may alter the chemistry of the brain and it's definitely the basis for how the brain works, but chemistry is dependent on some other thing. That other thing is more "fundamental" in this sense, but it's still contingent, relative. Any chain of dependencies within the relative cannot possibly lead to the absolute. Every finite thing has no separate existence and is grounded in some other finite thing. The relative, as a whole, is infinite because it allows for this chain of infinite dependence, but it is infinite only because it, as a whole, depends on the absolute that does not depend on anything else. The absolute is the primordial infinity within itself. It includes every opposite and does not contradict itself. I remember that you once provided me with a metaphor that individual ego is the prism through which Love shines different colors. I think that this metaphor extends to this instance. We can only know the Absolute because we are it, prior to any happenstance we're identified with within the relative. Hence the idea of moving the human aside. I can see how seeing vast swaths of relativity may help to convince someone that it is infinite and psychedelics can be helpful with that. I don't believe though that it can take you to the Absolute. I'm not an experienced tripper, so these are just my beliefs.

@Verdesbird That's an interesting start for an answer, but it's too short. Care to share some pointers?

It just seems silly to me. There is this question that bugs me: to whom enlightenment happens? Well, obviously it does not happen to the human, but practices are performed by the human. Is the goal of the practices to simply get the human out of the way? To be clear, I also include psychedelics as a practice. Like, how INSANE is this that doing anything in the relative domain would get "me" closer to realizing anything? This simply does not compute in my monkey mind. Just imagine striking a silly pose and I'm instantly enlightened to the nature of the mind. How silly is this? Why any particular thing would get me any closer to self-realization than any other thing?

I'm also interested in discovering why. The obvious answer that they simply want to prevent us from realizing stuff on our own doesn't feel right. There's also the appeal of finding things out "naturally", through "hard work", but I know that's how collective ego labels things to dismiss them.

Too smooth to not underestimate it and get addicted. The highest of highs I got on mj were where 100 ug of LSD starts off. Sometimes I was losing the sense of time on mj. On LSD, each hour has several epochs, each of which feel like a whole session with mj. Some of these epochs feel like an entire lifetime. Sometimes, it feels as if time is two-dimensional on LSD.

You're such a charm when your ass is on fire, Leo ?.

So, now we're grinding Ralston, huh? Alrighty.

Actually, creating warped content that defines cult as "not us" would be the way to go for a next-level cult.

@Shebo You're welcome. If you're interested, there's a 2017 movie called "Glass castle" and I have a hunch that you may enjoy it. Enjoy your life <3.

@Shebo You can talk to him and show him the place your decision is coming from, but you can't: make him listen make him understand make him change his mind. All of these require him to make space for your feelings. They are a form of allowing, love. If he's not willing to listen (and it seems like he isn't), then there is no point in speaking at all, much less convincing him to let you leave. If he's not willing to listen and you make yourself vulnerable in front of him by speaking your truth, he may criticize you and hurt your feelings because he is threatened by your independence. If "he" is guilt tripping you into staying by putting the responsibility of raising your siblings onto you, then know that it is not your responsibility until you make it so. Guilt is a very effective tool for control because it is actually us who are guilt tripping ourselves. When we feel guilty, we adopt the inner voice that criticizes us and believe that the voice is telling the truth. The voice is hurting us and we think that it's the way it should be. It's not. Never, ever spend time around people that make you feel bad about who you are, even if those people are a part of your psyche. Shut these voices out and watch them like a hawk. They will haunt you for years if you don't nip them at the bud. In fact, most people never realized just how much they hate themselves. Also, it's very important to leave only if you are able to support yourself. Until you're financially independent from your parents, they have a huge leverage over you because they take care of your survival. If he's dangerous, don't say anything. Don't warn him, just work on your independence and leave when the day comes. You are not responsible for your siblings. You can take care of them, but they are not yours to take care of (much less for life!).

The assumption that you are supposed to fit in with your family, because you were born to it, is false. You are your own person. You don't have to share, approve of, or even agree with their lifestyle/views/biases, etc. It's extremely difficult to watch when people you love suffer, but it's important to resist the temptation to "fix" them. It will make you bitter, because they won't listen, and it will make them resent you, because of unwarranted criticism. You can't save them, you can only love them, the way they are right now. The way they are right now is the only way they are. There is no other person there, the ideal that you hold does not exist, so stop loving it and focus on the real deal in front of you. To love means to accept and nourish. See them for who they really are right now and affirm it. There is no other way. Still, you are a person. The most important person in your life and I hope that you don't deny it. You have your limits and when you approach them, it's important to draw boundaries to take care of yourself. You don't draw boundaries at their expense, you do that to protect your love. If you don't draw boundaries, you will have to fix them, and in doing that, you will stop loving them. If it means that you have to leave - then leave.

@Billy Shears I'd say that it's not a matter of quantity, but quality, and the personal needs you have. Seems like you are looking for deeper, more meaningful relationships and they require the participants to speak their hearts, say what they really feel, and put themselves in a vulnerable position. Most people aren't willing to do that because they never stopped hating themselves and criticism is automatic. I wouldn't be too concerned with people who put you down. It really isn't about you, but about their own issues. You can't save them from themselves, you can only work for your own wellbeing and choose the company that suits your needs.

No, not remembering the exact moment, but I do remember weeks or months when I was scared of death when going to sleep. Well, not exactly scared, but more like sad, that this life would one day come to an end. It was intensified when I turned the lights out. Then, I learned that going to sleep in a pitch black room was not the only option and I stopped covering the windows with blinders.

@Shmurda I don't know, unfortunately. Have you tried exploring lucid dreaming? It seems like what you're looking for, but it does not capture the moment of transition between waking and sleep state. Instead, while you're sleeping, you wake up to the fact that you're dreaming without actually waking up.

I'd say: no, not in terms of consciousness. In terms of the operation of the body, maybe - perhaps you would need less sleep if you were in permanent samadhi? Who knows? I think that the difference is that in deep sleep, everything is gone: thoughts, feelings, perceptions and identification and all that's left is ignorance (but ignorance is not a thing, it's lack of awareness). In meditation, the lights are still on, so to speak - you are not ignorant. I think this is why Ramana Maharshi used to say that in deep sleep you are closer to the Self* than you are in wakefulness. You just have to remove ignorance. I don't think, however, that he meant that you should be aware in your sleep. I think he meant that you should go "the other way round", through deep meditation into pure awareness: pure awareness | (deep meditation) Stuff + awareness | (meditation) Stuff + conditional identification | (wakefulness) Stuff + unconditional identification | (sleep) lack of awareness | (deep sleep) * - bear in mind that Maharshi's Self has the opposite meaning from Ralston's self. Ralston speaks of Maharshi's Self as Being. Could you clarify by re-stating the question? I'm not a strong meditator so my experience is limited.

Sleep as an activity is still something within the domain of the self, which in my opinion is the opposite of meditation. Therefore, there is no "meditating to sleep".

Started using duckduckgo thanks to this thread. Not regretting at all.

I was reading "Bhagavad-Gita As It Is" translated and commented upon by Abhay Charanaravinda Bhaktivedanta Swami. Not sure if I'd recommend it though. It's sexist and somewhat chauvinistic.

Hey, there's a question that's been bugging me for a while and I wonder what you guys think of this. Is ignorance (itself) intentional? Is is "part of the design" and is it capital G "Good"? If that is the case, then why is the ego considered devilish/parasitical/demonic? Is it because seekers, prior to enlightenment, are devils and judge suffering? The other formulation of the same question: what is the origin of the ego? Or: what is the reason for seeking? The last question seems the most palpable - we seek to escape suffering, but this answer is relative to existence as the separate self. Patanjali seems to answer these questions by saying that ignorance is the only thing to do after the first distinction, between Purusa and Prakrti, has been made. From the separate self's perspective however, it seems pretty cruel to have been be created merely for the sake of Purusa's entertainment.

It seems like I'm striving for permanence of this conversation. Thank you @Meta-Man and @mandyjw.