gettoefl

Let me flesh this out a little. I do not believe the issue is whether the mind is real or can be “switched off.” And I agree with you that the mind is certainly part of lived reality, and pretending otherwise is unhelpful. But that’s not the distinction I’m pointing to here. The distinction I am making concerns the very structure of the mind. One configuration of mind posits that it is organized around: a center that must be preserved interpretation as being personal and consequential meaning tied to vulnerability In that configuration, suffering is not an avoidable mistake bur rather it is structurally inevitable. The second configuration of mind is one that is organized without: a defended center ownership of meaning the assumption of vulnerability In this configuration, the mind is just as active - perception, sensation, thought all continue - but suffering no longer arises, because there is nothing that can be harmed. So this isn’t about rejecting the mind in favor of an “animalistic” or sensory state, nor is it about glorifying raw sensation and It’s also not about turning the mind off. It’s about whether the mind is self-referential and defensive, or non-appropriative and open. Where spirituality critiques the mind, at its best it’s not calling the mind an error. Rather it’s pointing out a particular way the mind relates to itself that generates unnecessary pain. To say “both are just constructions” misses that point. Two constructions can be experientially night-and-day different, even if both arise within the same reality. So I’m not arguing for less mind or weaker mind. If anything, what I am proposing is a mind that no longer has to spend all its energy defending a vulnerable self which in particular means a mind that’s free to function fully because it isn’t busy protecting an identity. In summary: The issue isn’t mind versus no-mind. It’s vulnerability-based mind versus invulnerable mind. That difference is not intended to explain everything, but ignoring it simplistically explains suffering away rather than understanding it.

The first is fundamental I'm sure you would agree. You don't know a world until you see it.

I’m not suggesting that one construction is “true” and the other “false.” What I am saying is that one construction brings with it apparent vulnerability and ongoing suffering, and the other reveals invulnerability together with the absence of suffering. Collapsing that difference by calling both “just constructions” indeed explains everything yet at the same time clarifies nothing.

One is a construction within experience and the other is the absence of construction. The first is limited because it is made of distinctions while the second is not unlimited in size or scope but it is unbounded and unconstructed because no distinctions are being made at all.

Mental construction is what one sends back to the world. It is based on sensory perception. You see before you know. Even if you just saw in a book.

I would say your account works fine at the level of image representation, the conceptual domain where seeing, liking, and remembering are all brain-mediated constructions gathered at an arbitrary center. At that level, they evidently belong to the same domain. I want to say that there is another sense of “seeing” that isn’t representational at all: a non-conceptual awareness prior to image, memory, or evaluation. In this sense, liking cannot occur, because liking already presupposes interpretation. I suggest seeing and liking become the same only once seeing has already been converted into representation. In short, there are two ways to see a tree: I already know everything about what I am right now seeing o my man vs. I actually know nothing about what I am right now seeing o my God.

Love is just God re-grafting all its long lost limbs strewn across the millennia and scattered across the universes. Come back home my love, nothing wrong was ever possible.

Hate is just love taking out the trash, don't you know. Gimme space, forget grace the raucous shriek of an ego, amigo.

Only God exists. A thought from God can arise, let there be something born - call it ego which stands for expiring god offshoot - apart from God. An impossible happening but a possible thought and the thought has to expire since only God can exist forever. Upon this thought gets built the entire belief system of the ego. From this an illusory world gets projected, seeming to be real but not real, and covering over God and making God seem absent. The world continues only because its original thought is believed. When belief is withdrawn through forgiveness, the world is gently undone, and, as was always the case, only God remains. So only God exists alongside God's necessarily temporary thoughts about what does not exist which we refer to as illusions and may be believed or not believed.

Thoughts aren't personal; they are collective. That is why Leibnitz and Newton discovered calculus at the exact same moment. The thought was ready to be birthed.

Thought is energy in the ether. You can latch or you can leave. Any thought is available to everyone. There is no private mind just one mind. If you latch to a thought, you will claim it as yours and make things arise from it. If you leave it be, it weakens. If everyone leaves it be, it disappears. All the thoughts floating around is how conscious humanity is. You are not bound by those thoughts. They are all ego. You are a lot more than ego. Moksha is your destiny. Leave thoughts alone.

The point of meditation is that state needs to carry over into non-meditation so that the two become one. We meditate so we no longer need meditation. This takes great consciousness and a lifestyle aligned with the highest purpose. Meditation needs to inculcate efficacious life choices. You no longer waste time. Life is precious, divine and miraculous.

Renounce then replace. Buddha did the former well but that is why he had to come back. To replace. Replace is, I do not know what this in front of me means but I renounce my silly limited mental ideas and I let this absolute meaning be revealed.

Some food for thought is that unconditional means you can't limit it to two people.

Santa and death are non-existent in a 2-person universe. Santa and death are existent in a 1-person universe. There is only a 1-person universe. Therefore non-existence is non-existent as its name suggests. I imagine santa and death however I wish and update based on life or not however I please. I may be stupid but that is the reality of my life experience so let's live and let live

Communication is simple. You get 60 seconds to speak or 6 sentences to write. That is all my bandwidth accords you. This is a imparting style known as parliamentary procedure - look it up - which was adopted by Toastmasters. Intelligence and respect for others, is how to speak in a minute folks. Set the buzzer and then stop your six sentences.

Needs are needed. Wants are traps. Want is: this will make me happy. It won't. Distinguishing between wants and needs is the tricky part since body is complicated. Do you need sex or do you want it?

No they are opposites. Love is to give. Attach is to take.

Mediocrity is seeing mediocre everywhere. Who made you judge and jury? People are happy. You are not. Yet you judge. People are incredible. You have work to do.

Attachment is the belief in the illusion of a thing increasing my happiness. I believe this makes me happy. So, why do I believe this? Because I believe in the illusion of a body that I claim mine. This body needs to be made happy. The belief, I am this body, needs dissolving. The truth is, I operate a body for the purpose of realizing my true nature. Next question is why did I attach to a body? Let's save that enquiry until we have given up on the above. One step at a time.

Love is what reality does: propagates ever more of itself, expands and extends, eternally and ecstatically. Good loves to beget good. Us mortals have taken a break from this to labor under apparent limitation and apparent separation. You just believe in limitation and separation and this makes them seem real not that they were ever real. Yet love is still available. And is the way home. Let go of imaginary separation (which is what spirituality is supposed to teach). Only if you are ready to my friend. You may think I have having a good time thanks. Well then keep on at it. Love is patient and everything is in hand.

In the world’s frame of reference, there is no true good. I act to benefit myself, another is going to lose, and all action will be rooted in self-interest, no matter the surface justifications. From the absolute perspective, however, whatever I do is not done merely for myself but to myself. To give is to receive and to take is to suffer. There is no win–lose, only win–win or lose–lose which is the exact inversion of the world’s logic.

Find out what meaning is. I explained it in the above. Step 1 of epistemology is, I do not know what anything is.

To judge well is to know I am - not I am that.

What is what's the meaning. There isn't inherently. There is meaning assigned by you. And all that is egoic. Stop foisting meaning onto everything. Live in epistemic humility. Then what will speak loud and clear.