electroBeam

I don't see that the difference between blue and green is a belief. Why is there a difference between blue and green, and not red and red? Is that mental construct too? How in any way does it make sense to say that the difference between blue and green is a made up belief? On the same level as a unicorn and a horse.

I can't specifically figure out what the difference between the colour blue and green is, but I know there's a difference. How can this be a false distinction? Are you saying all colours are the same thing?

Yes the dimensions of a wall is made up, along with the idea that collisions cannot happen. But the universe has to be of a certain way in order for the material paradigm to make sense(notice here I'm not saying 'for it to be real', I'm saying for it to make sense). In order for super mario world to exist, someone has to program it that way. I don't see in my spiritual practices that this shape that allows the material world to make sense, is a mental construct. If it were, everything would be possible right now! I mean every single belief would make sense. It would make sense that an ipad is a triangle, and a square, and a circle, and everything else. It would make sense that the sky is blue, green, purple, red, etc. But it would be silly to say the sky is purple. Its not true to say that. Like an ipad is square. Forget word games for a second, there is a physical difference between a circle and a square, and that's because reality has collapsed in a certain way right now. But what makes it collapse in that specific way? Why isn't an ipad a circle right now.

Where the point is being missed here is the nuanced difference between the essence of thought, and the essence of ideals in consciousness. A visualisation about Super Mario World is different to actually seeing super mario world in the 5 senses (seeing and hearing). The visualisation is something that can be controlled off your own volition, the actual experience of Super Mario World can't. Its clear here that the essence of super mario world is real, while the thoughts about it aren't. Same goes with santa clause. Santa Clause is a thought off your own volition, the materialistic paradigm isn't, its like mario world, its essence is real. You can actually experience it with the 5 senses, you can't experience santa clause with the 5 senses. Its very different.

The essence of Super Mario World exists. Super Mario World still exists. Of course what it represents doesn't, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means the stuff that it represent's doesn't exist. Same for the materialist's paradigm. Look around, the paradigm exists, its real! Of course, what it represents doesn't exist. The entire world is made up of symbols. But these symbols aren't just our imagination, they are real, the symbols exist as real things. They aren't at the same level as a unicorn, or some thought we just make up. Super Mario World is a symbol that exists, its not at the same level as mental construction or mere thought, its much more tangible

Because youtube videos are stupid

another way to feel your spine is to lift incorrectly at the gym for years

In kriya yoga practices, do gurus expect you to be able to actually feel and be aware of prana? Or is it assumed to just be a mental tool for doing the practice. I cannot feel any energy go up and down my spine during practice, only can visualise some made up idea going up and down the spine. Is this correct, or are you actually expected to feel energy go up and down the spine?

Tennis coaches observe your posture, your form and where the ball goes to figure out if youre doing a technique correctly. Maths teachers observe your working out to see if you understand a certain math technique or not. But how do yogis figure out if you're meditating properly? There's nothing materialistic to see? Or do they use other dimensions to sense if you're doing something correctly?

if you guys reach mahasamadhi, you guys will happily leave your body.

Sounds like the educational system and western universities as well.

@Leo Gura where do you get your sources from that it has to be totally pitch black?

@How to be wise what do you think fried chicken and burgers are mate hahahahahahahaahah. How about you actually read the ingredients of fried chicken and burgers first before embarrassing yourself.

Is specialisation a necessity in our careers these days? What will a specialist be able to do that a polymath will not? Leo talks a lot about specialisation in his life purpose course, but I'm the type of person who doesn't generally enjoy specialisation.

Intelligence isn't always a good thing. You can be intelligent but still want to dominate the universe. Psychopaths are insanely intelligent, probably more than Terence Tao. Intelligence is like the sharpness of a sword, the more sharp you are, the more effective you are at manipulating and playing with knowledge, this doesn't mean you will produce topics and opinions of beauty, it just means they will be insanely complex and advanced to what you're able to comprehend. My computer in some instances are insanely intelligent, my machine learning algorithms can approximate functions far more advanced than Terence Tao could ever do, its clever, but its not necessarily beautiful or mysterious.

right, suffering can happen at the same time of growth, but its not a prerequisite. This reminds me of a story indian yogis use to say: Back in ancient india, bracelets were banned in temples because they were considered a sign of misfortune, but one man really liked his bracelet so he kept it on during meditation sessions. One day, coincidentally heaps of people were getting enlightened in the temple, and at the same time this allowed people to have more awareness, and they noticed the bracelet on the man's hand. They said "wow they day you wore that bracelet is the day we all got enlightened. We shall make a rule that everyone must wear a bracelet whenever they enter the temple" Even though he had been wearing the bracelet the entire year. This reminds me of your theory about growth, you saw a few people get in pain from getting enlightenment, plus after all the Eric thomas and Tony Robbins bs its now trendy to enjoy suffering and aim to suffer, and now you've turned it into a culture, a sort of ritual.

@Shin good point

I think its fine to defend yourself in a conversation, as long as you're aware of the mechanics happening within yourself behind the scenes. Ask these questions when your in the middle of an argument, defending yourself etc: -> Why am I defending myself? -> What am I afraid of if I don't defend myself? -> How will this defence help (not me) the happiness of the world in general -> If everyone did what I did, how would the world look? Or if everyone didn't have this defence mechanism how would the world look, be like? Also treat the answers you get back from these questions very skeptically. Don't believe them, don't believe yourself, for sake of methodology, you are just as wrong as the next person, if say you were to ask a stranger on the street these questions. Also I disagree with Shin's view where you should literally NOT do something. Its fine to defend yourself, infact you shouldn't feel bad about defending yourself. The point here isn't to make your life miserable, allow the ego to do what it wants, just be aware of how the ego works while its doing it. See this is why a lot of hardcore, empirically minded Christians and Buddhist people never reach enlightenment, because they treat themselves like computer programs and unconsciously suppress themselves from egoic pleasures in life like having sexual fantasies. You're not growing by supressing yourself, you're just putting more pressure on a balloon that's about to explode. As Leo says, you don't have to surrender to other people's opinions, you just have to question YOURS.

I totally disagree. As Sadhguru says "its not about working hard, its about doing the right thing". Suffering also = setbacks and decline from growth. Consider a case where you have social anxiety. If you go out and expose yourself more, studies show that you get more traumatised and are less likely to go out again. Suffering might = growth, and might not.

If you do something that annoys someone else, admitting you're wrong seems like a spiritual thing to do. The contrary to it is defending a position of righteousness, which in the end feels like clinging onto a piece of shit that's smelly and isn't that good to be around anyway. But what if the person gets angry at you so much that it makes you feel stale inside and posions the rest of your day? Where is the line between admitting you're wrong, and not tolerating someone posioning your life? Is there ever a situation where not admitting you're wrong is the spiritually acceptable thing to do? Or is it all ego

I don't physically apologise, but try and let go of my opinions about defending myself, but is there ever a point in time when defending yourself is the less egoic thing to do. +1 Don't focus on the confession but focus on why things happened. Instead of trying to let go of defending yourself, ask why the situation happened and let go of every opinion that was just grabbed out of thin air, and put all opinions that were deduced in the situation in context (on the chopping block) rather than just letting go of opinions without assessing the situation. So basically give your defense a second chance rather than immediately dismissing it.

having an argument multiple times a day over petty stuff.

@Patang Sure but you didn't really have control over whether you chose to put attention on it or not right?

have you got any example research papers that is open minded? I trying to figure out how to publish a paper without relying on assumptions that someone a century ago just arbitrarily made for convenience. Now that assumption is apart of the ritural of the specialization of that field. Some examples of assumptions: - there's a brain - A measurement is real (like get a ruler and measure something) people think that distance actually exists. I get that its possible to rule something but that doesnt mean that distance exists. - In scientific experiments, everyone assumes that they are observing some phenomena. For example for figuring out gravity, not only do they assume that distance exists, but also that there's something observing the measurements happening (the falling down of a ball) this might seem like I'm nit picking, but this shift in understanding that there might be no one observing the phenomena is huge. Its what the empirical side of science is predicated upon. If everyone in the world had a mental disorder, all scientific empirical evidence would be warped to that disorder. - If you repeat an experiment 5 times, it will repeat forever. Repeatability apparently proves reality will be of a certain form forever hahahahahahaah - (this is the one am concerned of the most, because im trying to do research in this area) The physical phenomena is more important or real than metaphysical phenomena. This is a terrible belief that needs to stop. They have it backwards, they think that feeling pain is less real than an atom that we cannot see, all because Descarte just assumed there was an outside world. So any research I do on Metaphysical qualia gets either discarded straight away, or the peer reviewers will read it with an external cognitive lens. See happiness comes from the inside not the physical realm (if the physical realm exists we cant touch it anyway) so we should be focusing on qualia rather than atoms and cognitive science. Is there any paper that acknowledges these assumptions? Its very hard to publish a paper and get it passed while acknowledging these And its very hard to get a paper published if you decide to just chuck out the euclidiana assumptions all together. I'm not saying scientists are wrong, maybe distance does exists. But I think its highly unethical to just assume that these things exist because youre too lazy to do anything else...

@Patang What exactly do you mean by "you have to work hard"? Do you mean resistance from your mind is a requirement for spirituality? Why so? How did you control yourself to work hard? I find in myself that I completely have no control on whether or not I can work hard or not, let alone anything in the path really. If, say, I am judging people, I can place awareness on the fact that I'm judging people, but whether I judge people or not is completely out of my control. If the mind has too much will to judge, it will, like a tsunami I can't control it.