Grateful Dead

Agree!

I have a different perspective on this. The mind projects the world in order to distract itself or to hide within it. I view it as my task to see through this and return to the undistorted starting point. That is what I meant earlier by liberating the mind. However, I am not looking for a solution to a problem; rather, I am looking for the source from which the problem arose. This is how I interpret it: The world (pictures) comes and goes, but the mind (screen) remains. Perhaps the misunderstanding arises because you equate mind solely with the ego. In this context, however, I was referring to the mind as the Self, the eternal Spirit. I believe this is what you would call pure Being. To me, this Being is both Spirit and Mind. To waste a life, for me, would mean mistaking the fleeting images on the screen for reality. So I don't focus on the world, but on reality, the source.

"Just as the spider emits the thread (of the web) from within itself and again withdraws it into itself, so the mind projects the world from within itself and again withdraws it into itself." Isn't he saying here that the mind projects the dream? Or how do you interpret that?

If perfect means sickness and death to you, then perhaps we simply have different definitions of the word. For me, it means indestructible, untouchable, eternal. So, if someone punches you in the face in your dream tonight, does that confirm the reality of your dream body for you? From my perspective, it only confirms the mind's commitment to projecting. Pain is the most powerful weapon the mind uses to limit itself as a body. Yes, the brain is merely a device that the mind uses to filter reality into a small, physical perspective. The brain is only matter in that sense, but matter cannot think; a kidney has no experience. I can also quote Ramana: "Just as the spider emits the thread (of the web) from within itself and again withdraws it into itself, so the mind projects the world from within itself and again withdraws it into itself." "The world is not external. Because you identify yourself with the body, you see the world as external. The world is but a form of the mind." "There is no world apart from the mind. In deep sleep there are no thoughts, and there is no world. In the wakeful and dream states, there are thoughts, and there is a world also." "The world is like a cinema film. The pictures are projected on the screen. The pictures come and go, but the screen remains. Similarly, the Self is the screen on which the pictures of the world come and go." All quotes from Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi and Who am I?

If the body is perfectly designed, why does it age, get sick, and die? A body without a mind is dead. I agree with the point that there was never a "you" in your body. But not because the body is a perfect machine that doesn't need you, but because the body is a projection of your mind.

When you move your hand to drink water, why do think you do that? It's because you believe that you are a body that requires water to survive. If you truly believed in nothing, then there would be no reason to sustain the body or to claim it as your own.

So you believe that when the body-mind dies, the game simply comes to an end? And then what?

I could go along with that, but that is precisely where I see the problem I described earlier. If you view yourself as a limited expression of reality, and you feel that this is right simply because it is the expression of reality in that specific moment, then, in my view, it is easy to remain stuck within that limited form. I agree that idealization is a trap. However, because I perceive form as inherently limited, I don't expect it to be perfect. I don’t turn relationships into idols; I utilize them as a means for liberation. So I accept the limitations of others and the world in general, but when we are so to say stuck in the mud, I recognize that the mud is just the form, not the truth. My compass is inner peace; that is what I align with.

It depends on what exactly we are talking about. If you mean the temporary ego-mind, it will simply vanish into nothingness. If we are speaking of the mind as source, then it depends. If you have liberated the mind, it will fully remember its true nature. If not, then the projection of the mind will continue in a form similar to the present one.

It is not merely the expression of life; that, in my view, is the interpretation of the mind. Love is the substance of being.

I don't think it's spiritual narcissism to recognize the untrue as untrue. It's not as if I consider cosmic tantric sex to be more true than casual sex. No form of sex has anything to do with reality for me. In other words, nothing in the world of forms is ultimately true for me. Nevertheless, since I still perceive myself within the world of forms, I use it as a means to achieve freedom. In that sense, casual sex isn't what I'm striving for because it's a dead end. I choose a sacred relationship through which both partners transcend their perceived limitations. The point for me is, what you describe as dense, I see as limited and therefore not true, since reality is unlimited.

Pure being is not just a void. As you yourself confirmed earlier, being is fullness. It is creation itself, and it expands infinitely; that is love. To me, it sounds as if you believe that when the body dies, life, and therefore love, also dies. For me, love is the essence of being; what you experience as a body is only a shadow of it. The body, in my view, is not what enables experience, but rather what limits it. It's kind of like shining a flashlight in a dark room and thinking that's the only reason you experience the light. The sun shines even when your little flashlight is off.

Just because you don't remember what existed before your physical existence doesn't mean there was nothing there. Perhaps the body itself is precisely what prevents you from remembering what truly is? Before the body, there was eternity, and in reality, that has never changed. When the body ultimately disappears, all that remains is infinite love. Using the body as proof that nothing exists outside of it is like a prisoner pointing at the wall of their cell and saying, "Look, that's all there is; there's no world out there." It seems to me that you're defining everything through the limitations of your physical existence. If you think love is temporary and dies with the body, then what you call love is what I see as the body-mind interpretation of love. It's already filtered. What I call love is indestructible and eternal.

But if you don't recognize this dense, limited, or separate reality as wrong, isn't there a risk of getting stuck there? To use your analogy: If you don't see anything wrong with superficial, casual sex and then simply live out this limited form of sexual connection your whole life, you miss out on the true depth that's possible in relationships. From your perspective, it sounds to me as if you're simply accepting this closed-off view of reality when it's there, since it's the expression of reality at that moment. That's how it sounds anyway, but obviously you still open yourself up. For me, it's like this: if I notice that something is limiting me or seems like a separation, then I see that as a faulty perception in my mind, and I don't want that. So I let go of this false perception and bring my mind back into alignment with reality. Or, to put it another way, as soon as something disturbs my inner peace and freedom, then I know something is wrong, and I examine my mind to find the whats wrong. If nothing disturbs my peace, then these openings happen all by themselves. I see it this way: when the mind is in harmony, it's perfectly natural for the mind to gradually open up. But if the mind limits itself through faulty assumptions, then this process is blocked.

Interdependence is not Unity. Unity is perfect fullness; there is nothing outside of it on which it depends. The fact that the body needs sun and air only confirms, in my view, the fragile, vulnerable nature of the body. Reality doesn't depend on anything to survive; it is indestructible, and I base my existence solely on that. As I wrote before, for me the body is merely the tool through which the mind communicates. If you dream tonight that you are writing a novel, does that confirm the reality of the fingers in the dream writing it? Or does it confirm the reality of the mind imagining it?

Love is the ultimate reality, I agree. I see the body as both a tool and a limitation. It's like the second thorn I use to pull out the first. Love doesn't need a body to exist. The illusion of having a body is ultimately what obscures and limits love. True awakening is the realization of boundless love beyond the body.

I can certainly relate to what you are writing. It's a happy life and a functional state in the world, but I view it merley as an intermediate step toward true enlightenment. In absolute awakening, the world vanishes and only the Light reamins. You see the face of Christ everywhere and your heart overflows with love. This state is no longer functional within the survial matrix and it's not desirable for an individual being, which is why it's so rare. Many are in the process of awakening imo, but full attainment means the complete cessation of the illusion of being a separate body.

It is not about denying it. As I said above, that would be dishonest. It is about seeing it for what it is: a limited form of reality in which you do not want to remain. We can say it's an Illusion because that means that it is a deception. And that deception consists in making it appear as if reality is limited.

We could also say that there is no mind, only Spirit or that the mind is ultimately Spirit; I agree with that. To use your terminology: Spirit/Mind has the capacity to orient itself toward or identify with its own density, or it can orient itself toward or identify with its own boundlessness. And what is density, if not a temporary illusion that limits you? This conscious shift toward boundless freedom is what I mean by mind training. You can learn to choose clarity over confusion. When I speak of the mind, I am referring to that part of you that defines itself through boundaries and density; by Spirit, I mean the boundless. You may have phrased it better, as you point toward the ultimate unity, but I feel that approach can also lead to confusion. If you control the tab, you decide whether water comes out or not.

It is true that the mind cannot master itself. However, while the mind is a process, you are the Eternal Tao in which this process arises and subsides. You say that you possess the ability to steer a vision in a better direction; this implies that you are not merely this process, but something beyond it, something capable of choosing where to place its identification. You are the Spirit, free to choose whether to listen to the survival program or the Eternal Tao. The mind then becomes the servant of that choice. Ultimately, the sense of separation is indeed an illusion; but as long as we are still pointing in a better direction and engage in this very dialogue, it seems to me that a part of us still clings to the belief in separation, and that it has not yet been fully transcended. The entire world is a symbol of this separation.

There is no need to get defensive right away; I'm just interested in the dialogue. From a biological standpoint, you can no more stop your liver function than you can stop your mind. The liver produces bile, and the mind produces thoughts, though it is possible to influence both functions. If you identify with the mind, you become its slave; however, once you have examined the mechanism and understood it, you can determine how you want to interact with it. The untrained ego-mind is programmed for survival, but a disciplined mind is a tool that can be aligned with the Absolute. I’m not trying to stop my heart; I’m choosing which direction the life-force flows.

You can control your heartbeat through your breathing. Since you have changed that, you can also control your liver function through diet and breathing. Either you are the slave of your mind, or you make it your slave. Also, I didn't really mean that you should control the mind, but rather examine it; and the mind can learn.

I think that saying you should stop listening to the mind is an oversimplification. You must examine the mind and understand what is going on, to switch on the light, so to speak. I am training my mind to be a servant of the Absolute. Simply ignoring it offers only superficial liberation. The mind should serve as a tool imo.

Okay, from that perspective I can absolutely understand it. On an intellectual, conceptual level, I also find it problematic. Ramakrishna, for example, forbade his devotees from reading the Ashtavakra Samhita (a classic book on Advaita Vedanta). But for his most advanced and best students, he saw it as an invaluable tool. The distinction doesn't affect the reality of human experience, because as long as it's perceived as real, it should be treated as such. The core of this teaching lies in whether you identifie completely with the person having this experience, or whether you at least partially recognizes that you are indefinable and boundless. If you identifie solely with the transient biological organism, the separation feels one hundred percent real for yourself, and it would be wrong to deny it. However, if you recognize that you are in reality, completely free, this realization can soften the boundaries of identification, and the separation gradually loses its reality. I believe that someone who doesn't identify solely with the body can reamain anchored in an untouched core even in horrific situations like rape, preventing the trauma from defining who you are. Whereas someone who identifies completely as a separate individual is shattered at the deepest level.

That's not what I'm saying, I mean what you described further down. If you're closed off, then you're living in an illusion and life is torture. If you live with openness, then you're not trapped in mental constructs but in harmony with what is, in the flow of life. My point here is not about different locations, but rather about the depth of perception. It would be more like me saying: fear is an illusion and only love is real. I know you'll say, but fear is not an illusion; it's the product of billions of years of evolution. But this evolutionary program is only necessary as long as you perceive yourself as a separate, temporary organism. Okay, yes, what I meant by openness before was complete dissolution. What you mean now is living with an open heart, which I think is the best thing one can do. Total dissolution happens on its own; you can't force it. Why are you now done with psychedelics? I mean, because you recently said it was very beneficial to you. If you say that closeness stems from fear, then that's exactly what I mean when I say that closeness arises from a belief in separation. Why does someone experience fear and close themselves off? Because they perceive themselves as a separate, vulnerable being who needs to protect themselves from the world. For me, formless doesn't mean empty, cold, dead, or nothingness. I'm expressing that absolute reality has no boundaries, shapes, or coordinates in space; it is absolutely free, indefinable. Grace has no physical form; you can't draw a line around it. Yet it is indescribably positive, pure life itself, perfect presence, so good that just a breath of it transforms millions of years of evolution. And in this boundless freedom lies a peace so profound that nothing can disturb it. Yes, I completely agree with you. If the system closes itself off in defense, then I see it as being trapped in an illusion, namely the illusion of separation. Understanding and dismantling this defense mechanism is the daily practice whenever something arises that triggers it.