Osaid

Moderator
  • Content count

    3,100
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Osaid

  • Rank
    - - -
  • Birthday August 7

Personal Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

13,723 profile views
  1. Welcome. I understand because I've been in it. Happy that you're out.
  2. Why do you need to define something you already are? Can you stop being yourself? If you imagine yourself differently, do you stop being yourself? It's a maladaptive way of seeking out love in other people, caused by trauma.
  3. It's not metaphysical. Do not turn it into something divine or metaphysical. It is your thoughts trying to predict and control reality. Your thoughts are trying to put reality in a box which you can understand. You want to fully understand how the sun rises. You want to completely understand whether you will wake up tomorrow or not. Not knowing the answer to these creates fear, confusion, disruption, because it then causes you to imagine and assume the possibility of those things not happening. It is the incessant desire to control and understand reality through thoughts which leads you to smack your face directly in all the gaps and inconsistencies that your thoughts will never be able to fill. You can never understand or control reality through a thought. Let that realization liberate you. You cannot think reality. It is unbounded by any of your thoughts. It is free.
  4. You are assuming the properties that you refer to. This is correct, which is why I personally never say that phrase since it wouldn't convey much. But also, it is possible for there to be a word which has no meaning in its context, in the sense that it points to nothing existentially. The word "non-existence" for example. It literally means "doesn't exist." It could very well happen that you are trying to form an existential conclusion using words that point to nothing existentially. I didn't say that everything is conscious, and that would actually be different from saying that everything is consciousness. The former views consciousness as an emergent property. I am simply trying to say that the distinction of "me" and "other" happens within consciousness, as with all distinctions.
  5. When you have a dream, is there is a dreamer which is inside the dream? Is it possible for there to be attention without an object or experience to pay attention to? Why does it seem that attention and the object of attention are always enmeshed? Maybe there is no difference between the object and observer? If there is no difference between the object and observer, then is there any space left over for a "self", or even a sense of it? To a degree. I did a lot of self-inquiry which incrementally changed my perception of things. It ultimately led up to a singular "drop." There is a psychosomatic relationship created using your imagination. You are using your imagination to create desires within yourself which you then act out. The problem is that the desire is based on an imaginary self. As an example, if you imagine yourself in an undesirable future scenario, you genuinely believe you are experiencing that future scenario from that present moment, and so it creates a desire to avoid the literal imagination of that future scenario, which creates real physical biological symptoms in the present moment such as a racing heartbeat, high cortisol, etc. In other words, it creates the emotions which would transpire if that imagination really happened to you. You now have a desire to change your physical environment so that you can stop imagining the scenario which you imagine yourself inside of. For example, if you were stressed about going to work, calling in sick would cause you to stop imagining yourself at work and thus it would alleviate the stress and anxiety caused by that imagination. This psychosomatic connection can be severed by realizing that there is no entity called "you" which can be at risk of that future scenario in the first place. There is obviously the qualia and different phenomenon happening in your experience, that much is true, and perhaps that is what you mean by "seeming to be here." The imagined part is the entity which you imagine to observe that phenomenon/experience. There is no middleman which has to observe experience, because which part of experience would that entity be made out of? To be as accurate as possible, you believe that your imagination is representing real objects of experience, which is to say, you believe your imagination represents something beyond your imagination. You have turned yourself into an "object" inside of your imagination which you believe actually represents you. You use your ability to imagine yourself in order to place yourself inside of various forms of imagination about the past and future, so you have turned yourself into an entity/object which exists inside of those imagined scenarios which you must protect and look after. Similar to how when you look at the ingredient label of a food product, you have to imagine that those ingredients exist inside of the product. You are using your imagination to symbolize the existence of the ingredients inside of the food product, that is how you know the ingredients that the food is made of. So, the imagination serves to represent something in your experience, which would be the ingredients inside the food. You are doing this exact same thing to your "self", you are imagining yourself as if you are a real object of experience, but that imagination actually symbolizes and represents absolutely nothing in your experience. There is no part of experience which that imagination of yourself represents, it is purely self-serving. Once you stop imagining, then the self stops appearing too, the imagination is self-contained, and thus it does not actually represent anything outside of itself.
  6. You're trying to turn it into a willpower thing when it really isn't. It is purely a psychological absolution of the perception of time. The length of time I sit somewhere doesn't make time more real, that is just a physically strenuous activity like exercise. There are much bigger motivations than restlessness and impatience though, those are the mental imaginations of yourself. There is the physical pain for example.
  7. If I had to go through that I would not experience restlessness or impatience, yes. Probably just physical pain. I would never do that though lol.
  8. You can frame it that way, but logically you can very easily understand that past and future must be imagined, because there is only what is happening right now. Sitting in the same spot for 50 years would be physically taxing, but irrelevant to time. Physical sensations do not indicate time because they are always experienced presently. If you say that you experience past and future (time), I can very simply say: How can something which experiences both past and future be experienced? It is impossible for past and future to occur at the same time. There must be a fundamental error in how you perceive yourself somewhere.
  9. They might think it, but they will certainly feel otherwise. The feeling is like a dashboard indicator which continues to pop up until they alleviate the cognitive dissonance.
  10. Right, it seems that way. Believe it or not, all those layers are perpetuated by a singular misperception: That you can imagine yourself. It is like the butterfly effect. If you spend a lifetime imagining yourself you will create all sorts of elaborate miseries and boundaries about yourself. Your imagination of yourself is equivalent to the perception of time. What would your experience be like if you weren't afflicted by time anymore? Really think about it, though. It must be simple and intuitive, if worms or babies or animals are free of mental suffering.
  11. I dislike that there is "weight" because it is such a simple misperception which causes so much suffering. It should be seen as simple and easy and mandatory. That is part of why I try to communicate it so bluntly and simply. That seems to be a common sentiment at this point. Skepticism is fine as long as it doesn't diminish your inquiry or you don't turn it into some standard which you project onto your inquiries.
  12. There is no difference between the emotion and the situation itself. If you say the emotion is a response to the situation, then that emotion cannot exist without the situation. They both depend on each other and thus they are literally the same. The subject-object duality collapses.
  13. I imagine that once people start doing a better job of teaching it, it will increase quite a bit. I really feel like people just don't explain it well enough. That is one big factor, and also it seems that no one really cares about observing their experience. Otherwise it really is a simple shift which can definitely happen through self-inquiry. If you have a desire to observe and examine your experience, you are already a big outlier. It is not a matter of fighting or pushing away fear, it is realizing that the object of fear does not exist in the first place. Impatience is imagined time. Insecurity is an imagined self which is contrasted with your current experience.