The observer

I wouldn't want to pass that down. Make my children suffer from such problems? No, thanks. The world already has enough suffering.

@IJB063 It's okay dude. Keep living in your little pit of misery.

Too many assumptions here. And it's definitely not like heroin. When you have it, you will feel complete and stop seeking more. The high is not addictive by itself like heroin, but the person can get addicted to it. It's on the person to be aware of that. An idiot can get addicted to anything, even very ordinary things like food. That doesn't make food a bad thing, obviously. However, when you find your soul mate, they will cure you even if you are that idiot. Not that they will do anything in particular. Simply their presence is transformative. It's Ineffable. It's like being cured by God. Certainly, but you shouldn't lie to yourself about it either. If you aren't happy with who you are and where you are, then acknowledge it first. Having these ideals can be counter-productive. No one is born completely independent. It's a work-in-progress, and a soul mate can boost the process. If you can't be independent and happy, that's fine. Your soul mate will understand that and help you grow towards it. They won't try to possess you like other people will, but they will want you to choose them freely without pressuring you to love or accept them. That's the most beautiful and profound thing about it. Because they free you of obligation, you love them even more. Conditions are as important as no-conditions in love. There cannot be love without them, it's simply unmaintainable. Conditions give shape to the relationship and they're good for both partners. But there needs to be communication, which is the easiest thing when you meet the one.

No. God is a property of Turquoise and higher. LMAO.

Interesting questions! We could speculate. I would say it's due to the circumstances that were there. Someone had to be the son of God to guide people to God. Jesus happened to be that someone, and he was honest about it. Also, it could be a metaphor. Keep in mind that family units at that time were the most important thing in society. Fathers used to be rigid and rough with their children. Families were built in patriarchal formations. The father was the dominant force. Jesus came to set the children free and to correct the wrong ways of the fathers. He used the father-son analogy to illustrate that God is loving and gentle, not dictatorial. And also to illustrate that children should be willing pay their lives for their fathers (Cross). It's a correction of the problem from both ends with love. To end all the disagreements of who has the right or best religion. Islam was his vision of the one final all-encompassing religion of all religions.

It's obvious. I could become aware of it on demand. A little meditation to calm the mind down facilitates the process.

@Maxman Investigate the underlying emotions. Look particularly for the fear of being wrong, the fear of being wronged, the fear of being disliked, the fear of conflict, and the fear of getting hurt. Essentially, I believe that stems from a patriarchal environment during childhood. If that's the case, then here's the solution: some shadow work into your childhood traumas. That alone can fix the problem and some other neighbouring shadow problems.

Your brother's thoughts are your thoughts. Notice, whatever thoughts you have right now about your brother's thoughts are in fact occurring in the same nothingness. There's no person that is you or me or your brother. The person is a thought, a part of the Godhead. The Godhead is just one thing. Nothing.

Hmmm.. Okay. Sorry for the confusion.

Proven to whom exactly? You? Even if you say you are awake, who else is there to confirm that? That's all taken on faith by the quality of the marketing you make. Regardless of all that, even if we assume that you're awake, most people who take psychedelics aren't awake and will never become awake. The exception is not the rule, obviously. @raphaelbaumann You're demanding to experience your brother's life, but that's not how it works. Direct awareness of your experience does not say anything about your brother's experience. Your brother, right now, is your thoughts of him. When you meet him, he's the body and voices you experience alongside the thoughts. Your brother is himself, like you are, without distinctions. God.

@Gili Trawangan Dude, relax.

I'm surprised that you're even taking this thing seriously and asking questions and considering opinions. Dude, relax. You are having easy sex with someone who doesn't want to commit. That's the dream. She might be sleeping with others, but so what? As long as she's clean and without STDs, there's nothing to worry about.

Oh, you don't know... Of course, when you think about love, it doesn't make sense. You have to experience it. Conditional or unconditional is irrelevant, because all love is conditional in different degrees, even the so-called "God's love" is conditional and it depends on different factors. Love by definition means bias. If you love something, that means you have to hate something else. That's bias. Romantic love is about finding a partner who shares your biases and cares about them the same way you do or more, while at the same time you doing the same thing in return, without expectations from both sides. It's a perfect looking out for each other's best interests, even if the whole world is against either or both of you. The best metaphor I find is a lock and key. You find someone that completes your imperfections so that you feel perfect and complete, even when they're not there anymore. You may part ways with them, but you never become enemies. Love remains as it was, only it changes in form. Anything short of that is not true love. If you haven't found that yet, then you don't know what love is. The key opens the lock forever. There's no lock anymore. Of course, you can object to all of that with all sorts of arguments. And no one is forcing you to love or believe in romantic love. But that's my perspective from my experience. Make whatever you want out of it.

@Jacobsrw That was not my point at all. I'm sorry, but you're talking about something else entirely. I'm talking about transcending the mind. You don't seem to be interested in that, you don't seem to even be able to intuit what that is, and you seem to be stuck at transcending rationality, but it's okay. Nothing you said I actually disagree with. It's just that I don't take any of it, or any other pointers for that matter, to be actually true. And when I try to point that out to you, I use language, so it seems contradictory and you accuse me of strawmanning arguments. You seem to get distracted by the pointers easily and forget what they're pointing to, when you should instead look at what they're pointing to and then immediately discard them. You say that all is truth. I don't disagree with that. That's not the point of the discussion, that's why I ignore it. "truth/true" is a concept, just like "falsehood/false". They're all pointers that you use to communicate with another person. But if you believe that they inherently have meaning when you're alone with yourself, and that being is truth or true or consciousness or imagination or any other mental construct, then that's exactly what I'm pointing out. The pointers assume that the thing we call being (in this case, I prefer the term being) has qualities. These qualities are add-ons from the mind. They're not inherent to being. To say that being is true must mean that something else that is not being is false. To say that being is imaginary must mean that something else that is not being is not imaginary. That's dualistic thinking, and it's a function of the mind. To get out of this problem and still not transcend the mind, the mind keeps its ownership and says: nothing = everything, although the mind uses many other convenient rationalizations to keep itself alive. And to be more deceptive, the mind creates a new category for this kind of rationality and calls it "metaphysics", and it assumes that it's superior to the former kinds, while in fact that is not the case. The mind wants being to have interpretations, because without that, the mind becomes obsolete. Notice, there is a meaning assumed in the pointers 'truth, nothing and everything', that's a function of the mind, and it requires transcendence to see that. I'm talking about transcending/detachment of meaning altogether, while not disregarding it at all. The mind loves meaning. It does not want to let go of it. It doesn't help to say that no words can communicate being. I'm not talking about communicating being, all communication is between humans and it requires a mind. I'm talking about realising it, which, from your own words, I believe you haven't yet. Realising being isn't something that you can rationalize about and say: reality is truth, all is true, reality = non-reality, nothing = everything, etc... If you still use these constructs when you're alone with yourself and think that they represent anything at all, then that's exactly what I'm talking about, that means that you haven't transcended the mind yet, and that you aren't realised. Does that make sense? Appreciate your contribution too.

Rationality is a necessity for communication. We can't have a conversation without language. Language = rationality. But that's something you know, and it is kindergarten compared to my main point. There isn't actually a mind, nor consciousness. These are merely pointers towards nothing. Consciousness is not the truth. It is imaginary. It does not even help to say that it is a label that points to the actual thing, because there isn't actually an actual thing that is consciousness. To say that there is something called "consciousness" means that you have already gone too far. The mind loves that, even though the mind doesn't actually exist either. I use these pointers (mind, consciousness, rationality, I, you, it, etc...) to serve the communication, but I understand that eventually they all without an exception, are just pointers, and that they're void of any truth whatsoever. Apparently, you believe otherwise. You believe that the pointers carry innate truths. You believe that rationality have truth to it, but limited compared to metaphysics. You believe that pointers actually point to actual things. The truth is that they do not. That's the whole point. But of course, it's paradoxical to say that because here I am using rationality to undermine rationality. And here's where things get interesting. There is a solution to this paradox. There is a leap of consciousness that occurs when you realise that a pointer is just a pointer and not the actual thing, and that the map is not the territory. Not on an intellectual level, like it seems to be the case, but more on an actual conscious level. Now you might think that you have already realised that, or that I'm acting arrogant or something. I'm telling you, you have not realised anything. That's apparent to me from the things you wrote. And I am not saying that to be superior. I'm just trying to show you how your mind is tricking you. Take it or leave it, it's up to you. In SD terms, you're simply using a stage Green lens right now, and you don't seem to be able to take it off, even temporarily. You have outgrown Orange's rationality and are now operating from Green's relativity. There's greater understanding beyond that. I am pointing towards that. But there is a serious leap here, so I understand that it's not easy.

Read again, I said "from an objective pov". Objective = ultimate = absolute. There's no conflation, but you missed the point. To not be objective = to be biased. No explanation of reality is true. There are no relative truths. That's simply your bias.

Nice one!

Nope. You're just biased towards those other forms of expression. From an objective pov, all viewpoints are equal. All viewpoints are merely viewpoints. To say that some viewpoint is "truer" than another, it means to be biased towards it and blinded towards the other. The mind loves to attach to a particular viewpoint. It cannot deal with opposing views. For example, explaining mystical experiences as valid communication with spirits must necessarily invalidate the rational explanations. That's all mind games and not the truth.

Perhaps I would consider that transcendence of rationality, but not transcendence of the mind. In this case, you're right, and I have nothing more to say on this topic.

The mystical/paranormal can be explained as hallucinations, delusions, insanity, or mental illness from the rationalistic pov. But you wouldn't take it as a valid explanation because you've already bought into the spiritual paradigm. I'm not saying either explanations are true. I'm just saying that finding convenient explanations doesn't sound like transcending rationality.

Not you. Leo ??‍♂️ It was a joke, and now it's ruined

Jealous of his hair? ??

Oneness + duality = trinity (non-duality). 1 + 2 = 3 (which is all-encompassing, i.e. =1)

You could say that.

I'm exactly like you are, only 4 years younger. You're describing me perfectly. What is your Enneagram type? Mine is 9. I guess yours is the same.