Osaid

The idea that mind/ego has a paradigm and gets crushed, is itself mind/ego. Like saying: "How come unicorns keep coming back after having their paradigms crushed?" The idea of an ego, is ego. Don't confuse the map for the territory. Don't fight ghosts. Fighting ghosts is ego. Ego is a ghost. The idea of awakening, going here, doing this and that to rid yourself of ego, is itself ego. Conception. Separation. Division. Look at how the thoughts feel. Look at how the division feels. Look at who is being aware of thoughts and division. You are not in thoughts/division, you are being aware of it. You can't read a story while being in a story. There is no reason beyond reason. Reason is imagination. All is uncaused. You are uncaused. Reason is uncaused. Imagination is uncaused. Imagination can't cause anything therefore reason can't cause anything. You are aware of what is caused, therefore you are not in the cause.

Luckily, mind is not physical. Mind can "die" before body dies. "Body" is itself mind. "It" can happen without having to wait for death. It can happen right now.

❤️

You fail to realize that this is a koan you've created, which points to nothing. Sound of one hand clapping. Sound of a tree falling with no one around to hear it. Sound of God creating itself before it existed?

Nothing changed except the thought of it. Your thought of it. Your understanding of it. Which was "false" in the same way that there can't be a unicorn that understands things. There can't be "you" which "understands" or thinks of "it" or anything at all because there aren't any "things" aside from the thought of "things." Thought can't understand thought. A thought about things can't understand another thought about things. Recursion error. Catch-22. Onto the question of "what remains?" Assuming you also let go of the story that there is "you" which can "let go of stories", then what remains can only be... Nothing. No things. Not a thing. Infinity. Nothingness. Non-definitiveness. etc.

For real haha

∅

Sounds like vulnerable/covert NPD. Research vulnerable/covert NPD. BPD is often comorbid with NPD. The line between the two is quite thin actually, but I digress. If they fit vulnerable/covert NPD very well and you suspect them to have it, then the relationship is probably not salvageable since they are probably purposefully abusing you. Diagnoses aside, listen to how you feel and think above all else. You don't need to know what their diagnostics are to know whether you should stay or not. Do you feel constant anxiety around them? Do they gaslight? Do they manipulate? Do they instill a false hope that they will change or get better, only to contradict that sentiment time and time again? Do you want to experience all of those things for a significant period of your life time? I have to say though, everything you described is textbook covert narcissism. I am 100% convinced they have covert NPD.

They don't, obviously. He was just fooling us.

My favorite pity parties are the ones where you aren't allowed to reference the past or future.

? Not only that, but something other than what you are right now? I know what you mean. You mean the future. The you which isn't here with us right now. But when you get there, it won't include a body. And then we'll say "it's not infinite because it's excluding a body." Maybe infinity can't be "imagining other experiences"? Maybe your idea of infinity has trapped you in a logical catch-22 which points to absolutely nothing? And you chase that "nothing" like a hamster in an infinite wheel? Hahaha is this a threat to signify your annoyance or am I misinterpreting?

But not a body? Pointing out contradiction is "playing with words"? ? Right.

A limitation is a relation between two things. For something to be limited, it is limited by a thing. For limitation to occur, there is "Thing A", which is. And then "Thing B", which is not. The perception of a thing which is and a thing which is not, creates the perception of "limitation." But how can something which is not, Thing B, ever be experienced? It can't. It is non-existence. It must be imagined and inferred. Any single limitation you can think of, is simply just what you can think of. Mind. Imagination. Nothing else. Do you experience yourself as two? Are there two experiences? Are there two experiences which can relate and limit each other? Or do you simply divide it through your mind, and mistake it for yourself?

That is a limitation, which is finite. "Infinity cannot have a body" What you talk about is not infinite. Because you limit it in that sentence. "Beyond current senses" means "beyond the absolute" or "what is not occurring yet." It means there is an experience somewhere else in the future, which you can be. Which you currently aren't. That can't be the case. Not in infinity.

It seems obvious? Because you think that you can be something else in the future? Because you think that you were something else in the past? Maybe it's just you thinking, nothing else?

Imagination appears as imagination; about a "you" in the future which is less limited than you right now. Imagination certainly is, as a unicorn or Santa Claus is. Right. Imagination is not antithetical or excluded. It is imagination. Imagining unicorns isn't "unicorns", it is imagination.

I don't think it is basic or semantic or "hair-splitting" to convince people that infinity is antithetical to being human and located in a future. "Annoy" by contesting that idea? Being misguided or deluded about what you are feels bad. Just trying to prevent that.

It's obligatory for me to interject everytime you talk about infinity.

Might as well say "infinity exists somewhere other than what exists right now" or might as well even say "infinity doesn't exist." You are just talking about the future here, not infinity. "Lack" is created through mental inference/imagination. Not through infinity.

Goddamn. As expected though. Highly religious sects will inevitably have to employ narcissistic tactics which end up causing some form of trauma in the long run. No other way to create compliance, and compliance creates sustainability to a certain point. I find highly religious countries to be a breeding ground for narcissism or NPD for those reasons.

But that's good because it makes her submissive and easy to marry!

If it is one substance, where is the space for a sense of self? If there is one simultaneous physical occurrence (looking = eyes + rock), where is the space for a sense of self? Certain identities have different limitations than others which feel different. The persistent "block" you feel is probably a result of being stuck in that medium of imagination; the medium of imagining yourself in various different ways, and the constant desire to imagine a better and more accurate version of yourself. Don't know either. If you can't find it in your experience, then the idea of it doesn't really matter much. What really matters is what this means to you and how that makes you feel. What does it make you imagine about yourself and how does that make you feel? And is it accurate to imagine yourself that way? Hope is a desire to alleviate a current feeling of sadness through a future situation of love. This statement implies to me that an illusion is present which prevents love. This cannot be the case if it is truly illusion, because how can something unreal like illusion prevent something real like love? It simply must be a misperception, and that misperception cannot have power beyond being a misperception. Similar to saying "Santa Claus makes me hopeless or prevents love." The fear you feel towards the imagined self is actually equivalent to the love you feel towards yourself, it is all the same simultaneous occurrence. It is a desire to protect yourself from the imagination of yourself which creates fear. That desire is motivated by the love you have towards yourself, and the love that you already are. It is great to realize what you are, or aren't. In essence, you are a thing that is constantly trying to feel great or be great. Imagining yourself feels bad because it isn't you. It contradicts what you are, and so it threatens you. The great part is that it isn't you and it can't be you. For example, if it feels bad to see things as hopeless, that is you retaliating against the imagination of yourself as "hopeless", in the same way you would retaliate against a bear which threatens you.

It actually doesn't. That's just how it seems when you try to intellectually perceive non-duality. It's more like realizing that all duality is made of imagination or thought. It doesn't exclude it, it just perceives it more accurately. That might be a better way of looking at it. It's like someone comes up to you and says "I think that I'm a unicorn" and you're like "no you're not actually a unicorn, it's an imagination of a unicorn, you're just thinking it" and then they're like "no you can't just exclude unicorns like that." Like I'm not excluding anything, you're just imagining something and then also imagining that it isn't imagination on top of that. That's exactly how duality works. When you look at duality as something existential beyond your imagination, you're mistaking the map for the territory, the map being your literal imagination. When I say infinity or infinite I am talking about an awareness of something which is genuinely not limited by anything that exists. You cannot perceive something like that through some kind of intellectual definition, only through awareness itself. In the same way that you can't perceive sound or color through intellect, you can only partially grasp it through certain words and definitions, but those words and definitions never capture that "thing" itself. This is exactly correct. Because any framing is by definition not infinite or non-dual. It must exist outside of any frame, and so logic or intellect or imagination can't ever touch it.

You are still looking at infinity as if it is math or logic or incremental or relative.