Beginner Mind

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    572

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Beginner Mind

  1. Posted

    52 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

    @Beginner Mind If you act as a non-dick by your standards, you can still have plenty of personality that can attract. Dick-ishness is just one personality trait. Another would be a personality of humor. Many women are attracted to a guy with a great sense of humor that can make them laugh. 

    Imagine you were learning to play guitar and you were out on a first date in a bar. There is a jazz jam on stage. You want to play guitar for a bit. You are nervous yet rwant to push yourself out of your comfort zone. You take a deep breath, walk upstage and play two songs well. At the end of the set, a couple musicians sit down and chat with you and your date. . . You made a very bold move that most women would be very impressed with and attracted to. And your bold move had a Dick Factor of zero.

    I used to have a decent sense of humor... But it kind of got buried after some suffering over the years.  I used to employ David DeAngelo's philosophy of "cocky-funny", where you display a bit of arrogance combined with humor.  But having been humbled by life in recent years and discovering the value of humility, I want to abandon the cockiness going forward. 

    That's a good example you give of being bold without being a dick.  I think even having the balls to approach a girl at all can make a positive impression in the girl's mind, as many men are afraid to even approach.

  2. Posted

    14 minutes ago, Chumbimba said:

    Be authentic and bold. Wear your heart on your sleeve even if it means getting it stabbed a couple 100 times. It stings but feel the pain out and you will stop giving a fuck as you keep doing what you really want to do. 

    Agree 100% about being authentic and bold, but what if your boldness crosses over into dick territory?  If I have to be a dick in order to spark attraction, I think I'd rather not engage with the opposite sex at all.

  3. Posted

    A few years ago, I was at a bar in South Korea and there was a cute girl sitting next to me who I had never met before.  I was pretty drunk and feeling bold, and without even thinking about it, I found myself grabbing her beer from her hand and taking a drink of it.  She didn't react.  I just gave the beer back to her and that was that.  But I couldn't help but notice that she was eye-fucking me for the rest of the night.  And as it was a small town we'd bump into each other in the weeks that followed and she would actively try to spend time with me.

    This event showed me the power of being bold...  But looking back on it, I can see how it was a douchey thing to do.  At the same time, I know from personal experience that displaying no boldness or personality at all will get you nowhere. So I guess I'm wondering, how does one display boldness and spark attraction without being a douche? 

  6. Posted

    1 hour ago, Display_Name said:

    Of course its easier, it's easier for literally everyone, which is why you have 1000x more competition and your results will be a lot worse. 

     

    Look, I'll break it down. Due to biology (the ramifications of pregnancy) women are a lot more picky on who they sleep with. Add salt to the wound, theres also more men than women doing online dating. 

    Result: women have an insane amount of options, men have very little. 

    The supply / demand is completely fucked. 

    Say you're a 7/10 in looks. From online, thanks to the slanted supply demand, you can date 5s. Approach in real life where supply demand is normalised and you can raise your attractiveness considerably through social skills and subcommunications, you can date 8s and even 9s that wouldn't give you a second glance on online. 

    That's just how it is

    Yeah, I may have to work on my bravery and approach more women in real life.

  7. Posted

    3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

    Try it yourself. Create a profile using some random handsome white tall masculine dude's pictures. Write nothing at all. Just say "Hi". Girls will come a flocking. Then try that with your crappy selfies. Crickets...

    xD  I'll take your word for it.  Perhaps what I really need to do is work on my social skills and approach women in real life rather than online.  Or maybe a combination of the two?  We'll see.

  8. Posted

    5 hours ago, Esoteric said:

    @Beginner Mind Because that is not happiness, not really anyway. It is only dependent on their circumstance. Should they get cancer or get in an accident that will make them unable to move. How stable do you think their so called happiness is then? Real happiness is stable and independant of circumstance. Even egoic personalities that seem happy most of the time still have that nagging sense of impending doom in the back of their heads.

    So is the way to true happiness losing the sense of self as Wei Wu Wei suggests, or something else?

  10. Posted

    7 hours ago, Armand said:

    I wouldn't limit myself to just "spiritual singles," as you can find spiritual people lurking on any dating app. Why do you think it's so important to find someone that's within the exact same space as you are mentally!? You can grow a lot by experiencing all different types of people and gain more confidence/knowledge by dating around a bit.

    Good point.  I've thought about this as well.  "Could I be with a non-spiritual person?"  And the answer is yes, I could see that working.  Perhaps I could show her that there is more to life than meets the eye, and she could show me what "real life" has to offer.  Could be a beautiful match...

  11. Posted

    10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

    Online dating requires above average looks, REALLY good professional profile photos (no selfies), and massive volume.

    Online dating requires serious work. You don't just put up a profile and start getting dates. You gotta game it more than real life.

    Online girls are screening you almost entirely on looks because they have nothing else to go by. Your personality has no chance to charm them. In real life you can hit much higher outside your league with charm and boldness. This cannot be done online. The girl has to decide whether she will sleep with you purely based on your profile photo in 1 second.

    If you're turning online because you're too lazy to do it in real life, chances are your results will be bad. Laziness is not a viable strategy for finding attractive females.

    If you have a classically handsome appearance, you can do well online. If not...

    I can see how less of your personality can shine through online, but you do have the opportunity to send messages and convey personality that way, no?  But I see what you mean.

    It's not that I'm lazy necessarily, I just think it would be easier to "approach" a girl over the internet rather than in real life.  I'm not the most outgoing/social person, so I feel like it might be easier for me to interact online.  But I could be wrong.

  12. Posted

    I've been thinking about looking into it.  I'm a bit shy so I figure sending a message over the internet rather than cold approach might be more up my alley.  There's also dating websites like "Spiritual Singles" that allow you to connect with like-minded people, which is cool.  Has anyone here had any success with online dating? Any tips?

  13. Posted

    26 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

    “Destined” is another construct and another can of worms. I would probably phrase it “The happening of the ball being passed is the happening of the ball being passed”. Humans love to think about causation of happenings because it is intimately tied to personal identity, responsibility, functioning in society and survival. . . . It’s very simple in that Now is Now and what is happening Now is perfectly happening Now. Yet the underlying mechanism of causation can get very complex. I’ve tried to integrate all the different inputs influencing causation of a happening like passing the soccer ball. It starts off simple like “the player just passed the ball”. Yet it then expands to many many inputs - how much training did the person have, how much sleep, the weather, the texture of the field, the shoes he was wearing, the neurotransmitters in his brain, his balance and muscle contraction in that moment, what he had for breakfast. . . And each of those inputs also have inputs. It soon expands into infinity and the construct collapses. . . Another way to look at it is that there is a trans-personal god-like source of intention influencing causation. In a traditional sense, religions create an external god that can decide and control happenings (yet also granted humans free will). A more modern construct is of a nondual god essence. I find this somewhat interesting, yet it hasn’t resonated strongly with me.

    By "destined" I don't necessarily mean that everything is predetermined...  Just that everything is ordained by the Source in the moment (not necessarily PRE-ordained).  Tony Parsons speaks of it as Being just flapping its arms around in the moment and making things happen spontaneously, through these dream characters called "you" and "me".

  14. Posted

    The following is a beautiful passage from the book "Perfect Brilliant Stillness" by David Carse.  I was so inspired by this passage that I actually changed my PS4 username to "HollowStick"...  xD
     

    Quote

     

    At the morning talks recently there has been a musician who plays traditional Indian flute for the group after the talks. The flute does not know music: it does not know 'G' from 'B flat;' it does not know tempo or emphasis, and cannot make music come out of itself: it's just a hollow bamboo stick with holes in it! It is the musician who has the knowledge and the skill and the intention and the dexterity, and whose breath blows through the instrument and whose fingers manipulate the openings so that beautiful music flows out. When the music is ended, no one congratulates the wooden stick on the music it made: it is the musician who is applauded and thanked for this beautiful gift of music.

    It is precisely so with what we think of as our 'selves.' We are instruments, hollow sticks, through which the Breath, the Spirit, the Energy which is Presence, All That Is, Consciousness, flows. Just as it is not the flute making the note, but the Musician making the note through the instrument, so it is the breath which is Presence which animates this mind and body and comes out through this mouth to make it seem that this mouth is speaking words.

     

     

  17. Posted

    I think, ultimately, everything that happens is ordained by the Source.  But being told that doesn't help you in any way.  If anything, it may have negative consequences like falling into victimhood. 

    Whether we have control over our destinies or not, all one can do is follow his or her natural inclinations.  Just do whatever feels right to you, and don't worry about whether or not you are responsible for the action.

  18. Posted

    3 minutes ago, peanutspathtotruth said:

    I had the same thought when I watched the first video of Roger two days ago. I just took a look in the book "1000" by Ramaji. Ramesh has been Ramaji's guru/teacher. And Ramaji assesses him somewhere in the 700's. In other words: He's not gone all the way. Of course this is just a number. But the takeaway should be: Look closely at how deep the teacher in front of you has really gone. For pointers that get you to "no-self", they can still be helpful. But beyond that, they might not. 

    In the book "Perfect Brilliant Stillness" by David Carse (amazing book on non-duality), Carse talks about how there may have been some "slippage" in the organism known as Ramesh, due to age.  Carse is very fond of Ramesh's early teachings, but criticizes Ramesh's later teachings concerning the supposed continuation of the separate self after enlightenment.  A very interesting read.

  19. Posted

    @Koyaanisqatsi You mentioned that Roger Castillo was helpful on your journey.  Do you agree with him when he says that once enlightenment occurs the organism continues to live his life as a separate individual?  I'm curious because many sages like Nisargadatta Maharaj taught that liberation means the total annihilation of the sense of being a separate individual.  Where do you stand on this?

  20. Posted · Edited by Beginner Mind

    I've been a fan of Roger for a long time.  The idea of non-doership was such a huge epiphany for me.  Also, the concept of "genes + up-to-date conditioning".  To realize that everyone is simply acting out their genes and conditioning in each moment, and is therefore not really responsible for their actions, is a game-changer.

    However, I do question some of what he and Ramesh Balsekar have said.  According to Roger and his teacher, Ramesh, after enlightenment occurs the human being continues to live his or her life as a separate individual.  This contradicts many masters like Nisargadatta Maharaj who told us that enlightenment entails the total annihilation of the sense of being a separate individual.

    That said, I've certainly found Roger and Ramesh to be very helpful on my journey.

  22. Posted · Edited by Beginner Mind

    1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

    The author gives beautiful descriptions of nonduality. He is not wrong and there is no need for defense. His pointers are great for revealing nonduality.

    Another way to describe it. . . imagine being conditioned your entire life to see a coin as "heads or tails". This is a duality of heads vs. tails. To point to nonduality, we might say "There is no tails, there is no heads. It is all one coin". A person who has been conditioned their entire life to see heads or tails would have a very difficult time seeing this. Then they may realize "Ahhh, it's all the same coin!!! It's all One!!". This is a major nondual breakthrough and it is true - it is all one coin. Yet the mind operates in opposites and will create a new duality: "The coin is one. It is not heads/tails". Now we have "one coin vs. heads/tails". This too breaks down. It is all one coin and heads/tails. . . The reason we push so hard toward nonduality in the beginning is because the mind is conditioned and grounded in duality. . . 

    So are you suggesting that when the author makes a statement such as "there's nobody home", that in fact the opposite of that statement is also true?  There does, in other words, exist an ego as a separate entity?  It certainly feels that way to me, and to 99.99999% of humanity.  Nonetheless, I suspect that the author is probably right about there being "no one home", as an Absolute Truth.  It feels right to me, even though it goes against my current experience.

  23. Posted

    10 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

    Therefore, the author is saying the ultimate truth is not that things exist. If the truth is that "there is nobody home", then that means "there is somebody home" is false.

    One key way to identify a duality is with the word "is". Whenever the word "is" is used, a duality is created. If a thing is this, then it is not that. If a sunset is beautiful, it is not a tuna sandwich.

    Any word is a duality since it is not another word. That's why "it" is ineffable. The best we can do is use "pointers" in which it is not the dualistic words, it is what the ineffable that the words are "pointing" to. 

    The author's quotes are great pointers. Yet one can still be attached to the words.  In the following passage:

    "In Truth, in the Absolute, in All That Is, there is no evolution, no progress, no becoming better, no becoming. All is as it is. The idea that the world is in bad shape and that the present point in history is pivotal and that something has to be done, is as old as the human mind; it has always seemed thus, at every point in 'human history.'  In truth everything is in perfect balance; the world never gets better and never gets worse, although to the apparent individual instruments it may seem that it does."

    This is a great teaching toward deep and profound realizations. It is pointing toward nonduality. Yet notice how the author points toward nonduality and away from duality. This is a really important step and I can't see how someone can skip this step. Everything he says is true, yet it is a truth within a larger truth. If the Truth is All That Is, how can there be no evolution? How can there be no progress, no becoming better? The Truth is All That Is. The Truth is Everything. The above passage can knock someone off of their conditioned grounding - in this case that there is a timeline, evolution, progress and becoming better. Orienting a person to see the opposite of that is a profound awakening: no evolution, no progress, no becoming better. The human mind is conditioned to perceive in opposites and will embrace this new opposite: no evolution, no progress, no becoming better. . . This is a deep awakening few humans realize. Yet there is more. . . This new duality of opposites also breaks down.  . . There is evolution and no evolution, there is progress and no progress, there is becoming better and no becoming better. . . This is the deeper insight, yet people first need to see the contrast between duality and nonduality before realizing the collapse of duality vs. nonduality. Similar to the author, I have this pointer to get people to the halfway point of seeing nonduality. Once someone realizes this, that ladder is discarded and a deeper level is revealed. . . The author may or may not have realized this, we can't tell by this quote alone.  

    Hard for me to follow your posts sometimes, and I mean that as a compliment.

    I wish the author were here to defend himself because I'm not smart enough to do so on his behalf, however, I will say this: the author does mention in the book that the truth is, as you said, ineffable, so the "ultimate truth" that he speaks of is expressed with that caveat.

  24. Posted

    47 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

    The author creates a duality between Truth and Non-Truth. Between absolute and relative. We might consider this “enlightened duality”. It is a very profound realization and there are many beautiful expressions in this area. 

    Yet this duality ultimately collapses, just like all dualities. 

    According to the author, the ultimate truth is that no one exists, or as he puts it, "there's nobody home."  All there is, is Consciousness.

    There's nothing ground-breaking about his message but it's the way in which he expresses it that stands out for me.  Have you read "Perfect Brilliant Stillness" yet?  At the risk of being a broken record, I highly, highly recommend this book.  The author has actually made it available for free these days so there's no reason not to check it out.