tsuki

Today's meditation - 35 minutes, aimed for 45. Sightless gaze on the flame. I can dive into the flame, but once I shake out of it and check the timer - I'm done. I just don't appreciate how violent life is. When I'm lost in the gaze, even blinking or breathing feels like rape. I get accustomed to the stillness and I forget just how disturbing movement is. One of the deep fears I experience when I'm lost is that once the mind becomes still I will not be able to turn back. That is because there is nobody within silence to think that it's enough meditation for today. On the other hand, there is no silence within the battery of thoughts to hear the violence of what is happening. There is no such thing as empty experience. Again, the whiteout arrived very quickly and it started to turn to blackout. As strange as it sounds, it was difficult to tell whether it was black or white. Yesterday's uncontrolled eye movements turned out to be defocusing. As I relaxed my body, the eyes stopped pointing at the flame and I saw two candles. The animal got scared of that and it took a few trials and errors to stabilize it. If the candles were too far apart, the eyes would refocus forcibly.

This reminds me of the following video: I thought you mind find it interesting.

You know that God creates through devilry, right? We're instruments of God's will hahahahaha.

So, in order to preserve the separation between map and the territory, you have to say that being lost is equal to not being lost. I'm proud, you little devil.

@now is forever Okay, how about this: You're reading a Buddhist scripture and POOF, you're enlightened. How is that not getting lost in the map?

@now is forever

Ahahaha, yes... certainty is our greatest friend when we don't want to get lost in maps.

Oh really? What if I'm standing in the middle of the shopping center and I know where I am, but I don't know where to go? I'm trying to read a poorly designed map and I wander off into imagination, trying to guess what kind of horrors the designer's childhood must have been like to produce such a monstrosity... and POOF, I don't even know why I came here in the first place. What did I want to buy here, exactly?

Oh really? What if a map is complicated or poorly designed?

@Shadowraix I'm sorry, but I can't accept what you're saying yet. That is because I have contemplated these issues and came to different "conclusions". Probability theory is the language of applied science. It speaks about trends and expectations. You can never repeat an experiment exactly. If you do, then your method of measurement is not precise enough. This remark is more general, but I posed it in scientific terms to relate it to what you wrote. They don't work. They arise in emptiness and we rationalize the connection when we introduce time. When you observe reality as it unfolds, it is governed by synchronicity. Causal chains of reasoning only exist in retrospect, or when you plan ahead. However, when you observe this reasoning as it unfolds, it is governed by synchronicity too. Everything arises in emptiness for no reason whatsoever. The only rational response to a universe like that is: gratitude and happiness. My question to you is: What is the use of usefulness? What is the reason for indulging in reason? (These are the same question)

Today's meditation - 25 minutes, focusing on candle flame. I was able to enter the white space very quickly. I started mixing this technique with meditation on energy. My eyes starting moving uncontrollably after some time. I got scared there for a little bit. When I meditate on the flame, I experience something like half-formed thoughts, or whispers. It's strange because stilling the micro eye movements seem to stop the subliminal inner talk.

Okay, will you let me be your student for a while? Will you write something more about that so that I can find connection to what I experience?

And I appreciate that you asked. I explained a map that maps maps, and Leo explained a territory that maps territory . They are the same thing, really.

Okay I'll try from a different angle. Logic is an attempt to formalize rules of thought. To describe with language what are its rules. Its purpose is to stop ancient philosophers from trying to kill each other in debates. Of course, nobody ever succeeded in stopping a philosopher from debating, so instead of discussing how to live one's life well, they started debating the rules of thought. Then, they built another formalism on top of that and BOOM, 2000 years later we have academic philosophy that nobody understands. The prank is that the proper way to use language is to say 'pass me the salt, please' as long as the other person does not question the meaning of salt. You can also say 'please use modus tollens to prove this theorem' but you need to both be in the same territory to use the same map. You cannot have a language that describes what language is. That is because you can always use language to question the rules. There is, however, a practical application of philosophy. You can understand the metaphysics under which you operate and it gives you the access to the top-most language you are operating under. It is the Matrishka to be open/broken. Once you do that, it cascades down to the most mundane of things and transforms reality you experience.

It's impossible to discard something that does not exist. Illusion is appearance without substance. Absolute vs relative is a duality. There is no duality between duality and nonduality.

I think your avatar explains it perfectly.

You are so intelligent that you can convince yourself that you are stupid.

Logic is a map that maps maps. It is a curious property of experience that we can imagine outcomes, but to attach oneself to an outcome via a 'should' is a fatal mistake. Time does not exist, consistency is illusory.

Can we, really? Have you tried to predict something yourself? Take a ball, weigh it and calculate the time it will take it to fall to the ground from a certain distance. Run the experiment and see if it fits your predictions. As you increase the precision of your experiments, you will quickly learn that you need probability theory and statistics to talk about your results. One of interpretations of statistics is that it is a mathematical method of transforming beliefs. In this sense, you are not predicting future, but re-arranging your mental furniture in such a way that the present moment does not surprise you.

Logic is a mental tool that helps you determine truth of statements depending on assumptions you make. Asking whether it is true or not in itself is meaningless.

Moving my energy has been my primary way of meditation for several months now. I did kriya yoga for a few weeks at some point, but It didn't stick with me at the time. It may be a good time to invest in learning the techniques now that I bought the booklist. I tend to stick with techniques that I developed organically as well. Absolutely not.

The doctor said that I must have constricted the nerves connected to the bony labyrinth when I moved my head about. I was instructed to consult a neurologist and take an x-ray image of my neck. When I was taking it, I thought about how ridiculous the idea of shooting deadly radiation at my head is. Just to learn what's wrong with it. Willhelm Roentgen, I salute you for convincing people that it's a reasonable thing to do. Your life must have been hell for you to come up with such an idea. I really appreciate how badly my head hurts today. It's like the body is the older brother to the mind and it is saying: You know, I know that you're smart, but you're stupid and I'm going to make you feel hurt so that you don't hurt yourself, okay? I got a prescription for painkillers, but I don't think I will be taking them. ---------- Yesterday I practiced stilling the mind and observed a candle flame burning. I haphazardly decided to wait until it burns down, but before I started I checked that it would last 4 hours. I decided to stick with one hour and settled for measly 15 minutes. The session was successful. The body was very still but it took willpower to extinguish thoughts and I know that it's not what I'm supposed to do. Strangely enough, when I was practicing SDS few months ago I could still myself to the point where my vision would turn white. It's like only contours of objects would remain, but the whole contrast is gone. This is what happened this time, after around 1-2 minutes. The only thing that remained was the flame.

My mind runs through this question a lot lately and I need a place to chew through the thoughts. So, what am I - or, what is "I"? Or maybe: who am I? Are these questions the same? No point in thinking about that. So far, my line of reasoning goes like this: I am not the monitor, because there is a distance between it and my body, which means that I may be my body. As I started to touch my body, I became aware that the extent of my body is defined by short-circuiting of touch. Touch is a sensation that appears on the inside of my body, and in conjunction with sight, they define contact. As I look at my hand that touches my chest I feel the touch on the inside of my hand, and on the inside of my chest. This is how the extents of the body are defined - by touch on the both sides of the bodily boundary. Now, I became aware that touching something that is not-me is not really one-sided. The sensation of touch cannot really be fully located on the inside of the body. Touch just is, and it appears simultaneously with the visual cue of proximity. Hmm... Anyway, I call my body 'mine', like 'my cup' and 'my monitor', so can it really be 'me'? Can I be the body if the body is mine? Is it just a linguistic twist? Various things are 'mine'. What is the relationship between 'me' and 'mine'? There is definitely a degree of 'mine-ness'. The body is more mine than a cup, and my cup is more mine than my colleague's cup. But why is my body more mine than my cup? Is it because I move my body and I can't move a cup by itself? Well, the eyes blink by themselves and they are more mine than my cup, so it is not a matter of will/control. Is it about inseparability? Have I ever been separate from my body? Am I separate from my cup? No, I'm not. A cup is a cup because it's obvious and undeniable. It is self-apparent, even if there is nothing about this thing that makes it a cup. I recognize a cup to be a cup. So, perhaps - I am the recognition of what a cup is? That is an interesting way to put it. If I am the recognition of what a cup is, then I am also the cup, the monitor, the keyboard, my body, this text, etc. I am everything. It's like there is this duality between objects as concrete things, and actions that I can perform 'with them'. These actions are what these objects are, and I am all of them? But isn't a cup defined by its ability to hold liquid? Is this still a cup? Yes, in negative space of actions. hmm...

https://nathanieljharris.wordpress.com/category/chaos-magic/