• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About RedLine

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Gender
  1. You are "speaking" in your head anyway so no, it is not useful, it could even be negative since you are more "in your head" and less present.
  2. Ask him about the relationship between the Absolute and ethics in relative world: ¿Is there good and bad in relative world? ¿why? ¿why should we do good and not bad actions? ¿is suffer good and not suffer bad? ¿why? from the pov of Absolute everything looks perfect so.. ¿good and bad are just illusions? It is actually one single question but I express it in several for you to understand my point. Thank you.
  3. make sense, thank you! I am also very inclined to awareness but I feel guilty to don´t put laser attention on the object and doubts about if I am doing the meditaiton correctly arise; but you says it is no problem so you give me relief
  4. With TMI I always have the doubt if I should focus hard on the object (stomach in my case) or be more relaxed into peripheral awareness and have the meditation object as a "second priority"; I experiencie the second one as more "mindufull" and the first one as most narrow and concentrate. The problem I find whit this system is that it does not specify the degree of attention you should put in the object so my meditation is mostly disturbed by my doubs about this trade-off between laser attention vs awareness. It spoils my meditation so I just prefere to practicse only concentration meditation or only mindulness meditation, but both togheter are a mess for me.
  5. How do you know that what you "see" is not something you are imagining?
  6. because it is just speculation so why would we lose time in speculations?
  7. I think flow has to be more with concentration rather than awareness (meditation has 2 components concetration and be aware, elightment is the second one but you new concentration skill to get there) for example when I am the zone doing pickup if feels more like concentration
  8. Well, maybe not all of us have that freak spiritual genetics and we need to fill the existential hunger with some ideas until we can have direct experience; I have been meditating hour and hours for years and I have not experience any major insight yet. As Leo said you always fill the gap with something, the methapisical question can´t be avoid. So yeah, ideas are important, let´s say I have an extrem nihlistic relativistic athetics cosmovision, probably it does not even make sense to me to meditate and it does not make sense to puruse any goal for me and I become depressed, meanwhile if I believe Being is God and Love, it probably give me strengh to be a good person and follow my spiritual path. I know it because I experience both during my life. Ideas and believes are very important -and cannot be avoided-; don´t despite them.
  9. When they talk about being = non being, relative=absolute, emptiness=form, I understand they are talking about non-dual stage (Wilber), or arahatness in buddhism, where the Absolute and the Relative are experience as the same, but this does not have methapisical implications nor is related with cessation. If Wilber talks about God and the Absolute I thinks it is because it make sense inside his philosophical system; it is an intelectual understanding, not an experience. He talks about Consicussness but also he admits he is able to enter into cessation during the brain waves stuff and there is no consciuss there, he does not explain this contradiction.
  10. You are wrong. Not all schools are equivalent, that´s too relativistic. You can make intersubjective studies and see that is possible to classify different phenomenology and different methapisics from differnet people and tradicions in a map of transpersonal development, that is what Ken Wilber did. And according to this map the therevada buddhists (at least those who reach nor being nor not being) are in the top of the spiritual develoment, why? becasue they already experience what I am God and I am consicussness people say (advaita guys for example) and went beyond that phases.
  11. There is something scary and non appealing in your discourse. It basically match the modern athetistic narrative because: 1. Since there are something called Cessation where 0 consciousness happens, it is logit to assume that that is what will happen after we die, forever. 2. It reduces God and Love insights to temporary and interemdiate levels. They are not ultimate reality. They are basically fireworks that occur in your mind, as a modern atheist would say. I know that your permanent 24/7 experience is incredibly bliss but what you say sounds fucking depressing from outside haha.
  12. what Leo describe does not look like suffering at all also what the monk says is a nonse, if the goal is void into nothigness and oblivion because life and rebirth are suffer, because everything is suffer, why would the world was created in the first place and it did not remain as that Nothing he wants to achieve?
  13. Yes. That is the correct interpretation of the Buddha. Here´s what a buddhist would answer to Leo´s video (the answer is not for the last video, but it applies too):