Grateful Dead

Watch this documentary called Kumaré. It’s about an American/Indian man who posed as a guru and built up a following. His followers reported experiencing truly profound spiritual transformations through his transmissions even though he had made it all up and hadn't actually done anything.

When fear comes, just let yourself be completely overwhelmed by it. Nothing bad will happen. You won’t disappear, only the fear will be gone.

To put it simply, he says that if you are suffering, you should contemplate who is suffering to enter a state of openness (not-knowing), which enables a direct experience that dissolves the suffering.

Sorry, but there is no satisfactory answer to that. The mind cannot grasp the formless. I think the best analogy in the world of forms is the perception of silence. A perfect silence permeates everything here; it is formless, intangible, and the only thing that never changes. Yet, that is not what I mean by ultimate reality. Yes, as long as we perceive ourselves as a body, we have to work with that; it would be a mistake to deny it. I think I would phrase it differently, but fundamentally it is the same thing I am doing. Moments of complete openness slowly transform and stabilize the self, making open, non-judgmental perception natural.

I agree with you there. Separation is an illusion. And what we need to do is transform our perception so that we can clearly perceive this. I understand what you mean by that. When you make that shift, the world you perceive seems real, because that perception is no longer based on fear, but on openness. However, this perception is still based on the existence of your body. The surface is projected by your physical body, and the deeper levels by the energetic body. But when all levels of the body disappear, then the relative world also disappears, as if it had never existed, and what remains is reality. That's how I see it.

It is a reality of being human because human existence is based on separation from the Absolute. The only benefit I see in it is that when it arises, it reminds me that I am trapped in the world. It's not that I'm violently dissolving the form or fighting against the world, but rather that I'm ceasing to believe in the form as my reality; that's a very gentle process. My primary motivation isn't to escape suffering; it never really was. I prefer the absolute because it's the only reality that exists. I've had glimpses into some past lives and recognized connections that influence my present existence. As a child, I knew I had died and was now back. Nevertheless, I don't really take any of it seriously; it no longer holds any meaning for me.

To me it seems that you’re contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you say suffering is a real manifestation of the Absolute. But on the other, you say that in absolute terms, everything is the same, so suffering doesn't matter. Then, later on, you say the relative perspective is relevant and the relative is real. But surely, from that relative perspective, the suffering must be real to you, too? How, then, can real suffering still be positive for you? You say there are local differences and they are real, but that there are no differences in the absolute sense, I don't think those two things add up. Ultimately, there are either differences or there aren't. So, you want to merge the absolute with the relative. I do not believe that to be possible. The relative can be used as a gateway to the Absolute but when this has happend totally then the relative is no more. I view form as the manifestation of the very thing that prevents us from surrendering completely to the absolute; the manifestation of form arose from the thought that you are separate from the absolute. Therefore, it is necessary to completely dissolve the perception of form in order to return to reality. I, too, view Being as an eternal, infinitely expanding process of creation; however, for me, that does not mean that Being must manifest in material form. Being manifests spiritually, specifically, as what you are -- spirit/mind. I simply use the form differently. I use it to free the mind. That may be your preference. For me, the perfect move is to liberate the mind so completely that the perception of form dissolves entirely. Then there is no continuity after death, no rebirth as a form, no repeating cycle. Then there is only Being, expanding eternally in its perfect holiness. By the way, what I’m writing about is the ideal I strive for. It’s not as if I’ve mastered putting it into practice; I’m still learning and often fail, too.

In my view, regarding form as a dimension of reality entails several problems. What I call reality is limitless, positive without an opposite and immutable. Form, by contrast, is limited, impermanent, and more cruel than positive. How, then, could I label it as reality? To me, it is simply nothing, an illusion devoid of substance; my sole aim is to see through it completely in order to recognize what is. Yes, we are conscious minds, but from my perspective, evolution has nothing to do with opening up to this formless reality. What is required is to strip the world of forms of all significance and then dive through the void into the light.

The end of illusion is not the end of existence; I believe this is a misconception held by people like Jim Newman. The void has been clearly recognized. Space is empty, but the void is not dead. The void is the gateway to fullness, and whoever passes through it recognizes the truth of their existence, the miraculous, eternal glory of being -- you.

Good point. I think you are right. When it comes to absolute Reality/God, it is indeed true that "drive" is a more precise description of the directional, boundless inevitability of being. Will is more of a term for the relative realm in which we can align our will with the drive of reality.

Right and what you call "drive," I call "will." Or do you make a distinction there?

For me, God’s will is grace. Therefore, ultimate reality is incredibly positive. It is not simply empty, as we have already established but filled with the grace of God.

Yeah that's what I thought too. True I forgot about Kynes… I really missed that too. And why do they make Kynes female when he's actually Chani's father lol..

These are my all-time favorite books; I’ve read them many times. Overall, I’m happy with the movies, there’s plenty that could be better or closer to the books, but they’ve been a treat so far. What bothered me the most: spoiler alert, was that Alia didn't kill the Baron at the end like she did in the book; in the movie, she isn't even born yet. Also, the way Chani and Stilgar are portrayed. I think they wanted to inject some humor into the film through Stilgar and depict Chani as a strong, independent woman.

It’s kind of ironic that Leo low key believes in the dogmatic Christian view that God punishes you for your sins.