Osaid
Moderator-
Content count
3,209 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Osaid
-
-
2 minutes ago, Salvijus said:The sense of self is a perception first of all.
It's as much of a perception as Santa Claus.
2 minutes ago, Salvijus said:A perception that we are a seperate entity of some kind of mixture of mind and body.
Sure.
2 minutes ago, Salvijus said:"if body dies I will die" hence I must protect the body and serve this perception of a seperate entity by serving the body.
For this specific example, I'm gonna be anal and say that no, you don't need to fear dying in the future in order to take care of your body. There is more to caring about life than fearing death. Many religious zealots would actually have no fear of death purely motivated by ego, because they believe that they have virgins waiting for them in the afterlife.
However, the fear of death can be a motivation created by the ego to preserve the body, that much is correct. But that type of motivation is not necessary to value being alive.6 minutes ago, Salvijus said:First of all... All the need to protect the body is gone. Why? Because you no longer believe the body is you and the importance the body has becomes zero. The body is only important because of the belief and false perception that we are the body.
You don't need to believe that something is "you" to value it. You don't need to think another person is "you" to value them. You don't need to think that the taste of vanilla is "you" to value it. "You" adds absolutely nothing of value to experience. It is redundant.
-
9 minutes ago, m0hsen said:As a kid, all you have is a desire to enjoy yourself, be playful and alive,
The vibe and energy that you have is very close to your true nature
Kids are very spiritual to me... untill they lose it all when grown up develop an ego and suffer it.
I believe it is because they experienced "less time" on Earth, thus they have less memory and knowledge to tie their identity to. Tying your identity to your imagination makes the world unnecessarily rigid.
-
4 minutes ago, Salvijus said:First you need a sense of self to be a person.
Being a person doesn't involve a sense of self at all. You just need the person. No extra sense needed.
There is a difference between being a human and thinking you are a human. The thinking is the redundant sense of self. It's an extra unnecessary input.7 minutes ago, Salvijus said:You don't feel any threat because you don't even have a sense of self that would need protection. Hence like a vegetable state.
8 minutes ago, Salvijus said:Without the personal sense of self. If somebody was talking to you it would be just random sounds to you and you would pay zero attention to it because it is the person(ego) who places value on sounds and gives it meaning.
9 minutes ago, Salvijus said:Without the personal sense of self. You wouldn't have any sense of duality. Everything would merge into one singularity. Again. Very disfunctional state to be in. Without the sense of duality... Functioning is impossible.
Your sense of self has nothing to do with what is not imaginary. So you would protect what is not imagined.
The sense of self is entirely imaginary and it does not represent anything actually in your experience. It's redundant. You don't lose any functioning by discontinuing your imagination of something which never represented anything. You can't lose your body by stopping imagination. You can't lose your ability to understand language by stopping imagination. You are giving too much importance to your imagination. You only lose the duality that you imagined yourself in. Anything that actually exists outside of imagination cannot be dualistic, because there is no such thing as something which is existentially dualistic. All duality is imagined, no exceptions.
You are already functioning without duality, you're just imagining that you aren't. That is the crux of it. If you see duality as if it is something existential then you are mistaking the map for the territory.8 minutes ago, Salvijus said:Without the personal sense of self all sensations would be "just a sensation" and nothing more than that and would have no value and so responding or paying attention to sensations (even 50 years of pain) would just be a waste of energy for some who has no interest in person(ego)
A lack of interest or value does not equate to a lack of self. It is just a difference in desire and value based on the circumstance.
Being able to value something without any ulterior motive is exactly how love is experienced. When you taste vanilla, you love it purely for the sensation of what it is, not because of something you imagine about it. You don't need to imagine things to value things. You just need to experience them. -
On 3/13/2024 at 2:13 AM, Sugarcoat said:I would say yes. Dreams contain me. Can be first pov or third
If the dream contains the dreamer, wouldn't the dreamer be part of the dream itself? Which part of the dream is the dreamer going to be made of?
If the dreamer isn't made out of the dream, where is it? Outside of the dream?On 3/13/2024 at 2:13 AM, Sugarcoat said:no
they seem enmeshed because attention is not a thing its just the sense of me being separate that makes it a useful concept
maybe there is not. But it just seems like it
Here is an angle to look at:
There is a rock. The rock is made of stone, which has a certain appearance. If you did not have eyes to see that rock, there would be no such thing as the "appearance of a rock." The rock depends on your eyes to perceive it and your eyes depend on the rock for it to exist as something which can be perceived by your eyes. Thus, the rock and your eyes both mutually depend on each other to be perceived. Where is the space for a "self" to take ownership over the "seeing" or "perceiving" of the rock? Isn't it the case that the perception of the rock and the existence of the rock are the exact same physical occurrence?On 3/13/2024 at 2:13 AM, Sugarcoat said:I believe it might affect how different people without a self talk about the self. If for someone it just drops randomly then maybe their understanding of the self will be whatever they had prior to that. But if you go through a long process off shedding all the layers you understand it differently
It is always ultimately the same occurrence, which is just a complete and total loss of self. Their ability to explain and comprehend what happened to them might differ, but they are all explaining and experiencing the same fundamental phenomenon. The route that they take to reach there probably has unlimited variety though.
On 3/13/2024 at 2:13 AM, Sugarcoat said:I asked one enlightened person online about physical pain, they said "it's a sensation like any other, there is no rejection of it, desire for it to go away, no discrimination against it".
There is certainly no more imagined suffering about physical pain. There is no such thing as longing for a state where the physical pain does not exist, for example.
However, the physical pain itself can still be an object of desire. For example, if you cause physical pain to someone, there can be a desire to alleviate that. If you cause physical pain to yourself, there can be a desire to alleviate that. But there is no imagined resistance about how it will affect you in past or future.
If someone is saying that they don't care about physical pain at all anymore, I would be suspicious of that, because that is not what practically happens after enlightenment. There are many people who are resistant to pain, or even have genetics which do not allow them to feel physical pain at all, and they are not necessarily closer or further to enlightenment. Many of them are only able to resist pain because of purely egoic reasons. This should clue you in to the fact that the sense of self is not really about physical pain, but perhaps something more than that.On 3/13/2024 at 2:13 AM, Sugarcoat said:when I had a fixed mental self, for example I remember I had this mental identity of myself as being socially awkward, then this could happen in regards to that.
altough there was a period after my dissolution of the mental self which I could still experience this fear, like there was residues of those old identity patterns. but the way it expressed itself was radically different, it was like directly in the body, and was quickly dissolved because no fixed mind was blocking it kind of.
That seems accurate. The less you imagine yourself the more quickly redundant emotions will dissolve.
There are incremental improvements in regards to thoughts about yourself that can happen prior to enlightenment. Kind of like how therapy can incrementally improve how you think of yourself.On 3/13/2024 at 2:13 AM, Sugarcoat said:i find what Jim Newman says about how the self is this physical tension in the body that creates the sense of im here and then the belief of that. I think it's quite accurate description where im at. It seems to me different than saying it's imagined.
Never looked much into Jim Newman. Physical sensations are not ego but they can be the symptom of one, which may or may not be what he is referring to.
Any physical sensation is not mediated by how you imagine it and therefore it is unrelated to ego. In the same way that hearing sound is unrelated to ego or seeing color is unrelated to ego. There is nothing existential outside of your imagination which can be ego. It is imagination which has to create the distinction afterwards and say "this is me, and this is not me." No point in your experience can claim that separation aside from your mind or imagination.On 3/13/2024 at 2:13 AM, Sugarcoat said:I mean seeming to be here as located in my skull
For example, there can be a genuine physical sensation in the skull, but the belief that "you" are "located" there has to be ego or imagination. Because you are creating a division in your experience by claiming that, and experience has no feature where it can divide itself, it can only imagine that.
On 3/13/2024 at 2:13 AM, Sugarcoat said:did you come to that conclusion by not thinking for long enough then you "dropped" permanently? or
No I didn't do any type of meditation like that. My mind is way too intellectual for that. It took a lot of self-inquiry and incessant questioning of my experience of what I am.
-
1 minute ago, Salvijus said:The only way to function is to have a sense of self. Without a sense of self it is impossible to function anymore. This is basic logic.
No.
Why would you need something that does not exist to function? It's like saying you need Santa Claus to function. -
9 minutes ago, Salvijus said:And in such a state a person becomes unfunctional anymore. He's just in samadhi. Truly out of time now.
This is what true no self, no ego looks like.
That is the common conflation of it; that you become dysfunctional and what not. There is a conflation that the body is antithetical to no self, which is just not true. There are common "anti-human" sentiments like this which pop up in spirituality; that no self or absolute truth is located in some ethereal state of consciousness outside of being human.
You are talking about a specific state where you cannot function in the body anymore, that is all. If you say that state is coexistent with a loss of the perception of time, that could be the case, but then you are conflating specific ego-defying states with enlightenment itself. Enlightenment exists everywhere, always. -
1 minute ago, Salvijus said:I think you missed the third option which I was trying to share.
The third option is "to not even notice the body" Because attention goes to those places that we believe are of value to us. And body has value only for the ego. Hence when all ego is gone, all attention would be on infinity. And 50y pain would not even register in your awareness because your attention is on the Beyond only.
A big point of mine was to highlight that the physical sensation of the body is not ego. It is as much ego as hearing sound or looking at a color. I feel this is a common conflation. Physical sensations are not ego or limitations. It is what you imagine about them that is ego. The body is as valuable as your current experience of it.
In order to not notice your body you would have to phase yourself into some state where the perception of body does not exist. Otherwise, the body is not imaginary, and thus it is inherently unrelated to the ego. If you remove your hand from a hot stove because of the pain, that is not ego, that is a biological motivator designed to move you away from physical danger. If you afterwards say "I decided to move my hand from the hot stove" and you genuinely believe that, then that is ego, because it is the imagined sense of control and ownership which you are overlaying on top of the experience. -
14 hours ago, Salvijus said:Here's an interesting thought. @Osaid
Where desire goes, there attention follows aswell.
If one had no desire to serve the ego. That one would have zero attention on the body. Because ego is the identity with the body/belief that the body is "me". So without any desire to serve the ego, attention would be sucked away from the body into infinity (also called samadhi where one zones out of existence for a while in infinity) . And the pain of 50years of sitting he would have no special importance that would require attention. And what you pay no attention to, you don't register its existence even into your awareness.
(For example when I used to play video games in cross legged. I wouldn't register the pain/numbness in my legs (and other simptoms associated my body) because I would be so absorbed in gaming.)
Just something I was contemplating and wanted to share.
Yes that's right, desiring something is the same as putting attention on that thing. This is mostly correct except for one thing about the ego.
The body is a common identification but it's not actually what ego fundamentally is. Ego is simply the belief that you can imagine what you are. Many imagine themselves as the body, but they can actually imagine themselves as many other things too. They imagine that they experienced the past, that they will experience the future, perhaps they imagine that they are the universe, etc. The variety for identity is really pretty much limitless. This doesn't necessarily increase or decrease the pain perceived in the body, it is desire which does that, and that desire may or may not come from ego. If you desire to avoid pain, it actually creates an emotion to drive you away from that pain in the form of fear/angst, and so yes it brings attention to it which exacerbates it. However, if there is no desire to avoid pain, or if there is even a desire to experience pain for whatever reason, it does "override" the sensation to a degree, because there is no emotional resistance, and furthermore there is going to be some another sensation/emotion which takes its place, like love/excitement/pride/joy. In the case of playing video games, that is a perfect example of how a strong desire can create a feeling of love which can completely override your perception of pain, so yes that is possible.
As you said, when you're focused on a game, you don't really notice the pain in the body. That is because you actually have a desire to continue playing the video game despite the pain you are experiencing. This is the exact same thing that happens when you "surrender" to physical pain, but in this case instead of surrendering you are replacing the desire to avoid pain with the desire to continue playing video games. I imagine that the game probably induces a flow state which causes you to ignore the pain too, because the flow state has no "self" in it.
In the scenario of sitting for 50 years, the problem with the pain is entirely dependent on your desire, yes. If there is a genuine desire to endure the 50 years, there would be no problem. If there is a desire to preserve the health of the body, there would be a problem. If I am forced to do it with no way out despite having the desire to leave, it is possible to "surrender" to the pain which simply means that I absolve the desire to avoid the pain momentarily because I see no way out of it. It entirely depends on what you want. You could "phase it out" as if you are busy playing a video game, but nonetheless it is biologically programmed that your body will indicate that it is being harmed through pain, and that will create a biological motivation to drive you away from that pain unless for whatever reason you have a desire to stay with that pain.15 hours ago, Salvijus said:So without any desire to serve the ego, attention would be sucked away from the body into infinity (also called samadhi where one zones out of existence for a while in infinity) . And the pain of 50years of sitting he would have no special importance that would require attention.
I want to make something very clear about this part though, which is that the sensation of pain itself is infinite. Same goes for the sensation of the body. I imagine you could figure out some technique which "zones you out" of perceiving physical pain in some way, but that is more like a mental "resistance training" because you are training yourself to phase out the literal perception of pain in some way.
Samadhi is simply the state of having no ego which "merges you into infinity" because you realize that you exist as something which has no limitations or boundaries. Physical pain does not contradict that state though, because physical pain has no boundaries or limitations to it either, along with the rest of your experience. Physical pain doesn't inherently have anything to do with the ego because you don't imagine it. It is like hearing sound or seeing color. -
1 minute ago, Someone here said:Yup I wish someone smashed me in the face with this simple fact back when I experienced those discordant thoughts . Would've saved me days and week of insomnia and hellish nightmares of suffering.
Thanks.
Welcome. I understand because I've been in it. Happy that you're out.
-
10 minutes ago, Someone here said:I wonder how do we define the authentic self?
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?
10 minutes ago, Someone here said:Or what is a personality disorder?
It's a maladaptive way of seeking out love in other people, caused by trauma.
-
3 hours ago, Someone here said:The lesson i learned is that Psychotic illness (speaking from experience ) is when that physical avatar changes..or when the perspective in which the present moment is looking through (or looking at infinity through the finite mind) changes..so much that consciousness seems to disrupt itself. In other words synchronicities which we all take for granted..like the fact that we miraculously find a job..the planets are miraculously holding themselves together.. the graceful flow of consciousness breaks down and devolves into a disruptive stream. I'm not entirely sure though what exactly causes this . Does it all boil down to chemical unbalance in the brain? No idea .
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. -
9 hours ago, Reciprocality said:the distinction between what is and is not conscious is conditioned on the properties we refer to if we want to use the term.
You are assuming the properties that you refer to.
9 hours ago, Reciprocality said:That which is non-conscious supplants your mind with the possibility for your statement "everything is consciousness" to have the meaning you yourself think when you say it, if your usage of the words are consistent with the natural language of english.
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.20 hours ago, Reciprocality said:However, if you want to question the initial distinction itself between what is conscious and what is not by suggesting some inconsistency then the burden falls on you and even if you could successfully show that the distinction has problems with it you contradict yourself when you assert that everything is conscious, because you could not do so without reinstantiating the distinction.
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 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:That's the thing, I never manage to pin point myself as some fixed entity or define myself exactly. Im not any sense perception. But somehow I can still "sense" myself. When im thinking, wether auditory or images of my body, I sense myself in it. Yet at the same time I sense myself like I am behind my eyes watching my thoughts. So there being like a division. Ive thought about it beforehow I kinda feel like im both the one who has their attention on themselves, yet simultaneously my sense of self is the object of this attention. But I can't identity one entity .
When you have a dream, is there is a dreamer which is inside the dream?
5 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:that does make sense. Attention for me seems to require a sense of self, so I am paying attention to something, could be myself
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?
5 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:When your sense of self disappeared, did you prior to that, go through a gradual process of dissolution, where layer by layer dissolved all the way to zero, or did it just drop one day without going through that entire process?
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."
5 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:I can't still wrap my head around that it's all just imagination. How come I seem to be entangled with this imagination? and affected by it. That is also my imagination saying that (which im entangled with) so it's like a loop. I still can't tell if that's all there is to this self tho.
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.5 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:the belief thing to me is still puzzling. I can be open to the idea that there can't be an actual self, and I can understand it conceptually perhaps, but it doesn't seem to me that I believe I exist, I just "seem" to be here, if that makes sense.
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?5 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:yea I can see, this does apply to my experience somehow . But still it just "seems" like I can imagine myself, even if it might not be actually true, not that it seems that I am the literal thought tho. Do I believe that I can imagine myself? is that the cause for this ability, and thus it creates this sense of self? that is still what puzzles me, this belief thing, how could I realize that I can't imagine myself? I would have to see that I don't exist at all, it would have to drop, Yet if this self is the very imagination, then the imagination would have to drop, but then if I start to think again after a while suddenly im imagining myself again, and come back to existence, so I would have to see how I can't imagine myself, thats what it boils down to. kind of what you're saying ?
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. -
-
7 minutes ago, Salvijus said:Okay it's enough chatting for me. I'm going to sleep. Was nice to participate in this talk:)
👋✌️
Peace
-
2 minutes ago, Salvijus said:You have to agree with me when I say these are quite gigantic claims.
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.
-
1 hour ago, Salvijus said:But let me get this straight. You're claiming you can sit for 50years with absolutely no sense of restlessness or impatience?
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.
-
7 minutes ago, Salvijus said:I would be able to sit with eyes closed foe 50 years and not even notice it.
Now you see the size of weight of claiming to have transcended impatience?
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. -
8 minutes ago, Salvijus said:the problem is, some people are completely oblivious to their inner conditions and they always think they are "fine" when in reality they are "far from fine".
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.
-
7 minutes ago, Salvijus said:the realization might be simple according to you. But the elimination of misery has so many layers... That is what I wonder if you truly appreciate the depths of it by saying you have ended all of it... Big statements... Big big big statements.... Super gigantic statements right there.
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. -
8 minutes ago, Salvijus said:well... I wonder if you realize the weight of claiming to have escaped all misery that gets generated by the ego.
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.
QuoteA part of me thinks there's probably lack of self awareness and lack of appreciation in you of how many subtle layers of unpeace can there be. But it's just my gut feeling. But good for you if it's true:)
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.
-
10 minutes ago, Salvijus said:Idk, in my understanding emotions are not situational. Emotion is a response to a situation. And you will respond to a situation depending on what you wish to serve. The little me or The whole. And if you are only interested in serving The Whole because you know that you are actually serving yourself and everything is one. Then... It's a different world altogether.
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.
-
2 minutes ago, Salvijus said:To say there are no more insecureties and impatience is a really really big claim to me that only very few in a 1000years are able to achieve.
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. -
2 minutes ago, Salvijus said:I sort of agree. In my understanding the desire shifts from serving the ego to serving the whole. And serving THE Whole is pure love. And the more you serve the whole the more love you feel. So every action that eminates out of you becomes just pure expression of love at that point that is not ego centric anymore. Actions are no longer in service to the "little me" would be another way of saying it.
That is correct. The only emotion worth desiring is love. It is the most intelligent thing to do. Your imperative essentially becomes to change your environment in order to facilitate that emotion, in whichever way you want to manifest it.
It is very interesting how it works. The baseline emotion becomes "peace" or "content" which are forms of love, because there is no desire at the baseline. If you have no desires, then that fulfills your desires, which creates a positive emotion. It's like a double-negative type of thing; the desire to have no desire fulfills itself, creating a baseline emotion of being content.
in Spirituality, Consciousness, Awakening, Mysticism, Meditation, God
Posted
I remember visiting my childhood neighborhood a while ago and it felt way smaller. Like about 10x smaller. It physically felt smaller and claustrophobic. As a kid it felt like an open world adventure game. It really made me contemplate about that, and I believe it is because of how we tie our identity to imagination over time, aside from just the physical size difference. I wonder how it would feel to visit again.