RedLine

Sorry this teological problem have been consuming me for years. I cant just ignore it. It comes to me again and again. Everything is Perfect as it is but we can't assume it, otherwise we would just fell vegetable, go to mahamudra or something like that; definitely we wouldn't be functionals anymore.

Absolute all of you, including gratest masters, who are stating that everything is Love/Good and there are not degrees of love/good, are been hypocrites because you don't actually believe this in your day-to-day life, you are just saying it as a belief but you are not asuming the consecuences. "I am a big master, everything is Love, everything is Perfect as it is, but I have to help humanity to reduce suffer" Hypocrite

There are better and worst things. This is the same as saying that there is good and bad. Look at my metaphor of the thermometer. Even if you admint everything is good you have to admite there are differente degrees of good (for example it's better (good +++) not to be tortured 24/7 than to be tortured 24/7 (good +). good+++ > good +. You have good and bad here. Then you cant´label it as Love anymore, if you label the Absolute as Love, it means you are relating to the love concept you have experience in your "relative life". What is the relationship between Love and love?

Truth and Happiness are the same. If somebody is seeking for Truth it is because they think that the fact of knowing the truth is gonna bring them happiness, even if Truth would not be "good news"

Because if you don´t try to achive/aime for something you are gonna fell into laziness and nihilism and you are gonna suffer. So the answer is to live a better life.

that is part of the technique, if you are daydreaming it doesn't mean you are doing the technique wrong quote error

Is it possible to contemplate a glass without imposing the idea of "glass" over it? Is it possible to contemplate a glass without contemplating a glass? Do te distinction between ideas vs direct experiencie actually make sense? it looks like reality is always made by ideas/concepts that we LEARNED, even when we directly contemplate it.

he is a low quality liberal thinker

not after enlightenment

the second one

Becuase I still think words/ideas (philosophy) are intincrated with our understanding of reality so it is interesting to deal with them. Any experience you have you are interpreting it with your ideas and your words so you are manipulating backwards what you have experience. That dicotomy between experience vs thoughts is not accurate.

I meditate 5 hours per day. So you are the only one who is allowed to deconstruct concepts in your 2 hours parloting videos?

I am creating everything. Even in deep contemplation I am creating what I am experiencing.

Even if you are enlighten you see forms. Here you can take 2 position: 1. You are still seeing reality through ideas. 2. You make a distinction between the idea and the object. The idea of the glass and the direct experiencie of glass as object. But then how can you explain where the glass come from?. Isn't it a demarcation you made at some point? Isn't something you are creating rn? So what is the difference regards to toughts/ideas? They have the same properties.

You make a distinction between ideas and forms. I don't think ideas and form are different. You are still seeing trough ideas in that states you describe. Of course is much more clear that the regular mind noise but still ideas.

I know what you mean. I did the experiment. But there is still a form there, a form of a glass. You are still seeing reality trough your map of meaning that you learned when you were 2 years old or whatever.

What is direct experiencie? Is it Nothing/Oblivion? Because whatever object (form) you see, it is a learned object, it is an idea.

it is possible but it is extremely unlikely

When you realize you are not in the object refocus again. The trick is don't feel guilty when you realize you are not in the object, it is normal, just gently focus again

Ok, I understand, thank you. One more thing, in daily life would you prioritize your attention to "awareness of everything" or would you proritize focus on the object? For example right now that I am writing, should I hyper focus on writing and consider the background as secondary, or should I take the "aware of everything" as my main focus point and the writing as secondary?

Why can't you practice be aware of awareness while walking ( without concentration object)? Are you saying you can only do it in sit meditation?

so you mean you can maintain peripheral awareness without concentration object? For example, walking meditation is explained as concetration on the feets + peripheral awareness of the scenario. Is it possible to do walking meditation using only peripheral awareness?

The problem I find with this technique is I am attaching to objects very fast so I have to refocus on the awareness again and again and this become neurosis. I would say this technique is uselful only for advanced yogis who have a high degree of equanimity and concentration.

do the work there is no shortcuts

beliefe = experiencie thought as content (as a reality) and not as form (a thought itself) so yeah you are not gonna remove that structure permanently with a pschycodelics trip. Best case you substitute your previous belief for the belief of the trip.