Someone here

❤️

What does it mean?

@Endangered-EGO so, movement is time or movement happen in time?

What are you talking about

False There is nothing but the truth. Truth is all states equally.

What do you think about the idea that there is no death, as in, a deprivation chamber where we somehow exist in some kind of limbo where nothing exists, except our dread that we are dead and cognition that there is nothing? It seems that life only can know life. It seems that there is no way life can know non-existence (how reductionist science explains it). For example, take total anaesthesia. For most of the people time / existence during anaesthesia will be completely lost - for them these few minutes / hours did not exist - the moment they wake up immediately follows up their last conscious moment. Similarly, if someone is dead (looking from reductionist science standpoint), they cannot be aware of the fact they are dead. So for them, the next moment they are aware of, must be after millions or trillions of years has passed and millions of universes had existed - until they exist again (so the matter organises itself in same way to form that exact person). This seemingly naive thinking could bring about discussion about "Eternal return", that has been in an interesting way discussed by Anthony Peake whose book I read recently and found as thought provoking.

@snowyowl what about deep sleep? What happens there?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths What are your thoughts on the four noble truths in Buddhism? Are they accurate or somewhat reductionistic and simplistic?

Great examples, guys. I think I changed my mind. There might be a fine distinction between the two.

@Mason Riggle nice. I like Alan watts. So are you a solipsist or pantheist? Because you seem to mix the two together

Can you explain this a little bit

No there is no free will. Neuroscience has long ago disproved free will. What I mean is you can't dream up this world however you want. If you jump off a tall building you will die.. If solipsism is true.. Then surely you can change the laws of physics rn

That you can't manipulate reality consciously through your mind.

I don't believe there is a distinction between pain and suffering.

If so then why they teach that you end suffering by ending your desire?

So there is a relationship between desire and dissatisfaction (evil)?.. As desire is what causes it.

That's a nice rephrase. So does it mean that desire is evil and one should not pursue desires?

The sense of being a separate self.

Isn't it oversimplification and black and white to say that all of life is suffering and that desire is the root of suffering? Isn't that a bit general and naive assumptions?

'Enlightenment' tends to be a notion that has been accepted through time/thought and the self clings to the idea and pursues that idea/notion. So the destination seems to become more important than the exploration/observation. The destination corrupts the exploration/observation. Looking for a way out means I am not interested in the exploration/observation but instead to outcome of a self that “becomes enlightened”(psychological safety). We seem to take in ideas from the past(thought) and pursue those ideas to become something other than what we are that moment(escape). We seek what we have learned about enlightenment to end our pain, suffering, discontent. This itself is why we suffer. We are always looking to time (future) to solve psychological issues and that seems to be the root of those issues. We dis identify with what-is actually presently and we seek the idea, which is psychological evolution(time). We disidentify with “our experiences” which is the same as identifying with them. It’s in both cases a “movement of me/the chooser. Pretty peculiar game.

They aren't. The normie is already enlightened. He's just not recognizing it.

@MrWolf To keep me on my toes of course.

Ultimately, the universe is nothing other than the single, seamless process of 'change'. It is seamless because it does not actually contain any 'solely self-inclusive forms'. In other words, the universal process of 'change' does not actually contain any separate 'things' or 'events'. Any given 'particular thing' (for example, a 'tree') is always in a constant state of change, which is to say that 'the tree' is in fact a 'process' rather than a 'thing'. This process can ONLY be occurring if the necessary conditions are present. These conditions are 'not the tree', and are naturally comprised of 'other processes', ALL of which can ONLY be occurring if the necessary conditions are present. These conditions are 'not those other processes', and are naturally comprised of 'other other processes', ALL of which can ONLY be occurring if the necessary conditions are present, and so on, ad infinitum. Therefore, 'the tree' could not possibly be occurring in exactly the way that it is without the ENTIRETY of 'not the tree' (i.e. the rest of the universe) occuring in exactly the way that it is. In this way, 'the tree' naturally includes the entirety of the rest of the universe within it's own existence. Exactly the same is true of ALL 'particular processes', including 'Me' and 'Not Me' (and 'You' and 'Not You'). As such, the fundamental distinctions between all the different processes are purely conceptual, and so, do not actually exist outside of thought, in any real, physical way. Therefore, the only process of 'change' that is ACTUALLY occurring is that of the entire universe as one seamless whole.

@Eternal Unity thank you