Nak Khid

1) A "personal" god usually refers to a god that cares about you if you have faith in god. 2) Another form of god is impersonal, an energy or essence behind nature which doesn't care about things, it is not human-like in that regard 3) "You are God 1" everything is personal and derives from you there is no other consciousness but yours 4) "You are God 2" , "you" means all of consciousness, everything is also personal 5) "You are God 2" , "you" means all of consciousness, "personal" is a meaningless concept So depending on which god you believe in.

what if you walked into a room and when the house had been constructed 17 years ago a guy named Ed found an old golf ball lying around and had put it inside the wall in the gap for no reason and you have no idea it's there, this golf ball. On top of that there's also on raisin in there that the other worker Juan had accidentally kicked in there with his foot that Ed dropped on his lunch break. So there's this golf ball and raisin inside that wall and you have no idea they are there

I agree Mars is fake (as is everything but consciousness)

similar to the Christian message, Mark 12:31

awareness has limits, you can't see what's behind a tree and if somethings tail is not sticking out

He explains it well but I don't agree with his preference. Mindful meditation being aware when a thought or feeling arises, acknowledging it is there and letting it disappear. In Burmese Therveda (Vipassana) this is done by "noting" A thought comes you label it "thought " this makes it pass easily. You are not listening to the thought's issue. You are watching what your mind does naturally. It has thoughts and feelings. You act like an outside observer so these thoughts and feelings may pass quickly and there there is a short nothingness in between which you experience. Another thought arises, then it falls. You don't cling to them. You are not trying to solve problems. You are letting go of thought. They come and then they go. This trains you not to be reactive to the automatic way that thoughts and feelings come in to you head and at the same time experience the stillness between the thoughts. You don't try to stop the thoughts. You become aware of them in order not to cling to them, you notice "there's that one again" . You are not trying to solve a problem, you can do that when you are not meditating. You are learning not to fear these things, to have a set period of time where they do not bother you. You may still feel bother by one. Note feeling bothered and move on. Do Nothing meditation Zen mediation is often the above type, Mindful meditation, being aware of one's breath, and thoughts how they rise and fall and paying attentions to one's breath which also rises and falls and has it's natural irregularities. However certain practitioners have also mentioned "do nothing" meditation. This is similar to mindful meditation, for given amount of time you sit with back straight and do nothing bu there is no there requirement other than you don't try to do anything. Self Inquiry you ask yourself "who am I" ? You turn inward to ask "who is doing the questioning" . There is no one at the bottom of that. Again you feel there is, again "who am I"? This is internal you are not focusing on random thoughts you are focusing on this question. Where are the thoughts and feelings coming from? Who is really having them? Is there anything really there? Concentration meditation (Samatha tranquility meditation) you decide on something to focus on, a random word or set of words repeated over and over again with eyes closed (vocalizing optional) or with eyes open on a candle or a visual point. Your mind drifts and then you remind your self of the focal point. You are not trying to be aware of things , thoughts and feelings to train your self no to be reactive to them like in mindfulness. And you are not asking yourself who you are. You have selected a random focal point and are using concentration to keep your attention there repetitiously. This leads to tranquility and focusing ability , like a baby been rocked to awakeness. Transcendental mediation is one of the forms of this type. Also similar to prayer and devotion Trance, repetitious sensory stimulus is used, sometimes sound and music, sometimes body movement, , could include intense breathing techniques or hallucinogens, sometimes done with other people or shamanic guides. Varying combinations of these things This is to inspire visionary experience and changes in physical perception and mystical experiences

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHUajtPXPDw VIDEO: Self-Enquiry & Mindfulness Meditation

Are Zen and Advaita Vedanta atheist?

that's why I didn't include puppies

what technique are you using?

A dog's consciousness doesn't create the world anymore than a movie does.

Your comment is thoughtful. Sometimes I feel that people use the word "God" (with it's capital G) to mean "revere this thing" and I wonder if it hearkens back to a Christian upbringing in some cases even if they are using it in a Christian context. -Although in some Hinduism it is invoked. I have heard some people say Yogananda sort of package his teachinsg to appeal to a Christain raised audience. For instance: "The kingdom of God" is used. Here he says "his presence", "his" is invoked You can read some of these statements and somebody with a Christian might relate to it. Then there is the is other idea out there "you are God". I have another thread on this Interestingly nobody replied to it. If "you are God" is that different from saying "you are a person" ? Are people "God" ? But you don't hear that. Are dogs God ? Is an empty box of Cheerios God? Is everything God or only living things? If "God" is a word meaning everything then why would somebody say "you are God"? People don't say "you are everything" because it is assumed yes, pick anything you want and it's part of "everything" So why the term "God" I believe the intent is "revere this thing". Interesting I make a thread "You are God" and I also put in an interesting second post later of the sayings of Swami Vivekananda. Nobody replies. Yet when atheism is brought up some people come in and reply offended by the idea What about "the All" ? what about "oneness" ? what about nonduality? isn't this all "God" ? I would say the word "God" does not have to used to express that. When you are in a Western country "God" has a strong connotation of Judeo-Christianity even if untended. What about saying "you are everything" or "we are part of a universal consciousness" "be one with everything" "energy" etc ? - because agreeing with that is not so easy to determine. People acknowledge that if they are on a football team that are part of team, by extension we are part of the universe. Even an atheist could acknowledge parts and sum of parts. However when the word "God" is invoked there is an expectation, say "God" back or you are not part of the team, and I am expected to write it with a capital "G" Reverence for a word. Is doing that really nondual? Of course "nondualism" is another concept, another word. But it doesn't have the same sense of authority, that humble yourself quality

Christoper Langan's support of conspiracy theories, including the 9/11 Truther movement and the white genocide conspiracy theory, and his opposition to interracial relationships, have contributed to his gaining a following among members of the alt-right and others on the far-right. Journalists have described some of Langan's Internet posts as racist, and accused him of veiled antisemitism Christopher Michael Langan (born March 25, 1952) is an American horse rancher and author, who has scored extremely high on multiple IQ tests.Langan's IQ has been estimated on ABC's 20/20 to be between 195 and 210, and has been described by some journalists as "the smartest man in America" or "in the world" Langan was offered two full scholarships, one to Reed College in Oregon and the other to the University of Chicago, Langan chose the former, which he later said was "a big mistake," causing a "real case of culture shock" in the unfamiliar urban setting. He lost his scholarship because his mother did not send in the necessary financial information, so Langan returned to Bozeman and worked as a forest service firefighter for 18 months before enrolling at Montana State University – Bozeman.[11] Faced with severe financial and transportation problems, however, and believing that he could teach his professors more than they could teach him, he dropped out.[3] He took a string of labor-intensive jobs for some time, and by his mid-40s had been a construction worker, cowboy, Forest Service Ranger, farmhand, and, for over twenty years, a bouncer on Long Island.[3] He also worked for the technology company Virtual Logistix In 1999, Langan and others formed a non-profit corporation named the Mega Foundation to "create and implement programs that aid in the development of severely gifted individuals and their ideas". The organization is designated for those with IQs of 164 or above.[1][4][6] Langan has developed a "theory of the relationship between mind and reality" which he calls the "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe" (CTMU).Langan says that the CTMU "explains the connection between mind and reality, therefore the presence of cognition and universe in the same phrase".[13] He calls his proposal "a true 'Theory of Everything', a cross between John Archibald Wheeler's 'Participatory Universe' and Stephen Hawking's 'Imaginary Time' theory of cosmology".[3] In conjunction with his ideas, Langan has stated: "You can prove the existence of God, the soul and an afterlife, using mathematics."[1][4] When remarking on Langan's CTMU, American artificial intelligence researcher Ben Goertzel said, "Langan’s ideas are well worth reading and thinking about." He also says that the theory "doesn’t really justify anything resembling conventional ([i.e.] anthropomorphic) religious 'Gods'".[14] The CTMU was also reviewed by computer scientist Mark Chu-Carroll, who argued that the theory is an "ill-defined variation of naive set theory". In 2004, Langan moved with his wife Gina (née LoSasso), a clinical neuropsychologist, to northern Missouri, where he owns and operates a horse ranch and undertakes activities for his Mega Foundation.[12] Although his theory implies the existence of God and the afterlife,[4] Langan does not belong to any religious denomination, explaining that he "can't afford to let logical approach to theology be prejudiced by religious dogma". "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe" (CTMU). "When theorizing about an all-inclusive reality, the first and most important principle is containment, which simply tells us what we should and should not be considering. Containment principles, already well known in cosmology, generally take the form of tautologies; e.g., “The physical universe contains all and only that which is physical.” The predicate “physical”, like all predicates, here corresponds to a structured set, “the physical universe” (because the universe has structure and contains objects, it is a structured set). But this usage of tautology is somewhat loose, for it technically amounts to a predicate-logical equivalent of propositional tautology called autology, meaning self-description. Specifically, the predicate physical is being defined on topological containment in the physical universe, which is tacitly defined on and descriptively contained in the predicate physical, so that the self-definition of “physical” is a two-step operation involving both topological and descriptive containment. While this principle, which we might regard as a statement of “physicalism”, is often confused with materialism on the grounds that “physical” equals “material”, the material may in fact be only a part of what makes up the physical. Similarly, the physical may only be a part of what makes up the real. Because the content of reality is a matter of science as opposed to mere semantics, this issue can be resolved only by rational or empirical evidence, not by assumption alone."

nothing is imaginary though

"leftist" , there is also the connotation of leaning toward socialist. Did you watch this on youtube : " Why Sadhguru Called Himself Far More Leftist Than Others?"

I had a hunch relaity yes but boundless energy is another illusion

You are the box

what if it was in darkness and you didn't know if it was a golf ball or anything else? and it's existence would have struck you before you even considered what it was

the truth hurts

what if a rock falls on your head?

this is easier, Burmese style keep doing any of the cross legged positions to get used to the for longer periods. Switch leg orientation each time. If your legs fall asleep move them around or extend them and then return to the mediation. Then do half lotus for a shorter period (switch leg each time) - or stick with Burmese, it's not that important. Full lotus has a very solid feeling but takes months of routine. At the same time every fourth day do a chair sitting mediation so you can also extend the time period to 30-45 minutes and not worry about legs. Straight back is more important Some people like this seiza position with this Seiza bench or some use a pillow, the thighs sloping down in front of it _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Also try this Zen method a few times. You don't have to choose it but it should be tried and if if harder at first, good -- try this first in a chair and then cross legged. head is tilted down slightly. You will face a blank wall. Eyes open slightly. That's the difference, eyes open slightly for the usual duration. You may or may not like it. If you don't that may mean it's good for to overcome. Or you may like it. - something to try, not better but one method. The eyes are slightly open slits. This is to stay alert and aware not fall asleep or day dream Another method eyes open, gaze at a candle in a dark room. This is different a concentration meditation. It has it's uses. Everything try 3 times at least to test. Then stick to it for a few months or forever

what about bigfoot?

you mean a gur-you ?

Most people who argue that the Buddha wasn't interested in the nature of reality provide two examples from the Pali Canon. In the Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 63), a monk named Malunkyaputta declared that if the Buddha did not answer some questions -- Is the cosmos eternal? Does a Tathagata exist after death? -- he would give up being a monk. The Buddha replied that Malunkyaputta was like a man struck by a poisoned arrow, who would not have the arrow removed until someone told him the name of the man who had shot him, and whether he was tall or short, and where he lived, and what sort of feathers were used for the fletchings. Being given answers to those questions would not be helpful, the Buddha said. "Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding." In several other places in the Pali texts, the Buddha discusses skillful and unskillful questions. For example, in the Sabbasava Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 2), he said that speculating about the future or the past, or wondering "Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?" gives rise to a "wilderness of views" that do not help liberate one from dukkha (unpleasant physical or mental experiences) The Path of Wisdom The Buddha taught that ignorance is the cause of hate and greed. Hate, greed, and ignorance are the three poisons from which all suffering comes.

there must be thousands of 5 Meo and NN DMT masters out there since there are people who have used them multiple times