Osaid

Lol right. A nightmare still seems like something. Whereas what is talked about is nothing. I'm sure it's the "death" and "reincarnation" aspects which were triggered in hindsight.

Is suffering smart? No. Is it smart to suffer? Still no. But actually, it logically makes sense to suffer. Still no! You can package the horseshit any way you want and it's still horseshit. Even a child or an animal can see it. The eggheads are blind to their own horseshit.

Interesting. When the body is still, like in meditation, or even when falling asleep, all sorts of "things" and "ideas" can come up. This is "par for the course". I bring up sleep, because from my POV, falling asleep is not really different at all from meditation. It's like a mandatory meditation you do every night. The same happens when the body becomes sick. Lots of people say being sick makes them more humble. Some say it makes them more grateful. Some say it makes them contemplate death more. Depends on the ideas the person has accumulated mentally. Essentially, the state of the body will make all sorts of ideas about yourself come up and out, kind of like a "mental purging". The exact same happens in meditation. The "smoothness" of meditation, or dealing with any kind of energetic or emotional state, comes down to your ability to focus on what is present (real) rather than what isn't present (unreal). That's why people use the breath and other things as an "anchor" to focus on. Meditation is going back to what is most fundamental, which is the fact of your existence, in spite of any thoughts that seem tempting to "chase after". Meditation is "letting go", like sleep is, rather than "chasing after". Technically, it can be done anywhere, even while moving, as you said. Since the present, or the real, is indeed everywhere. Keeping the body still is just to lessen the significance of the body.

Right. It can definitely spawn an investigation. Because it is so pertinent for the seeker. But the resolution always seems to be "doh, it was just a belief".

Sounds like you're opening the closet and realizing that nothing is in there.

It makes sense that the finite would be concerned with what happens after the finite disappears. Like paper being concerned about scissors. But that's the belief in finite. What about what isn't disappearing, which isn't finite and isn't a belief? Death seems to be spiritual because it looks supernatural and mysterious by virtue of being unknown, but it's a distraction from what actually exists.

Right Everyone is so macabre.

It's almost like hatred, envy, and narcissism isn't actually inherent to either gender (contrary to all the posts in this section of the forum) 🤔🤔🤔

Haha, nope. I wasn't lying when I said it was ineffable. As an analogy, there is seeing, and then there are the objects we see. It's easy to get entangled in all the different objects, to the point where one might even ask "which object am I?". The kicker is that seeing itself is never any of the objects and never was. You can say that you're seeing a table and a chair, but you can never say that seeing is a table or a chair.

Well, if you take away the "your" and the "my", then it's the same "this". So, in the end, it's not this that's ever different, it's your idea of what you are that differs from this.

Maybe. I know what nouns and verbs are, but I thought the decision to bring those distinctions into a talk like this was interesting on Osho's part.

I thought there was something strange about that statement. It's AI lol.

Very interesting distinction to make, I kinda like it.

Osho's elaboration, basically. I gotta steelman him or he'll roll in his grave.

I see, well I was mostly just joking.

Seemed like you wanted someone to argue with.

Very cool. Unfortunately, I have nothing to argue about with you.

What about when you're trying to fall asleep? Same deal?

Language is deep. I am quite sure that there is something happening here where people think language is reality. Otherwise, there is no possibility for symbolism or description or identity or distinction.

Yeah, we could say that's a function of language. All the while, the experience of "grass", or just experience, is clearly not a consensus or agreement. You can definitely debate with someone about what "this" is called (maybe they speak Spanish), but debating about the existence of "this" would be silly because the only way you can argue is through the experience of "this". The debate or difference is only about "what do we call it and how do we filter it through language and knowledge". After what, though? "This" is always here, prior to all concepts, because it's undistinguished. Without saying "this is that" (language), experience quite literally seems to not be anything in particular. I do not see how anything can be distinguished without first making a statement about it.

0 ÷ 10 = 0

If you're seeking something, you can be sure it's not wholeness.

Nice. Experience itself is quite obvious, isn't it? The fact that you're experiencing. Maybe it's the most obvious thing there is. The truth of this can be experientially "grounding" or like an "anchor". Whatever there may be, if it is true, then it must include this fact of existence, which is the most obvious. Meditation is good for recognizing this. Therein, the confusion doesn't seem to come from experience or existence itself, but it comes when you start dissecting this obvious fact of existence into its various contents, like "what am I", or "what is that", and so on and so on. So, I think a good course of action is to keep focus on what is already seen to be real and infallible, and then the unreal and fallible will vanish on its own. You can run around trying to disprove an infinite amount of different things, or you can just keep focus on what is already real and self-evident. Then, it would probably be great to ask: Is there an aspect of reality which is not susceptible to change? Essentially, an aspect which is changeless or unchanging.

Welcome

If you're open to trying, I like intermittent fasting. Like 16 or 18 hours, 1-2 meals a day. Except, I do allow liquids like coffee or tea in the morning with cream or sugar and a snack at most. I think warm beverages like coffee and tea help with metabolism. The meals have to be dense and filling and nutritious though. Lack of nutrition will cause more cravings because the body tries to find it in something else, creating a cycle. Fiber is also good for satiety. Calories are also good for satiety. Hard to go wrong with whole foods. I don't believe in the "low-calorie" philosophy/fad, I think it leads to consuming strange processed foods without any nutrition which creates a cycle of cravings, as mentioned before. Basically, what you're eating is like eating air, so you end up hungry very quickly afterwards or it makes a tendency to snack on air all the time. It's hard to see anything bad happening with the fasting as a "buffer", and you could probably combine exercise too. For weight loss I would probably consume coffee/tea with just cream or no cream at all. As for the question in the title, high fat because it tastes the best.