Tim R

But that's the point!!

@Dodo Show me the difference between 1 and zero

That's a great insight! Oh? And why is that?

What's the deepest insight you can have? Is there even a deepest insight? Is it the insight that insight into the nature of consciousness is an infinite enterprise because consciousness is infinite itself?

Damage to the brain does not imply "damage" to consciousness. He confuses perception with consciousness. Of course, perception is held within consciousness, but consciousness is not perception. A counter argument could be: you could damage your perception organs and thereby "damage consciousness" (according to his logic), like for example if you were born blind, you wouldn't see anything at all (nothing, not even blackness), or if I would damage your visual cortex (or the whole occipital lobe), you would also not be able to see anything at all any more (again: not even blackness, because blackness is a visual perception). If you were born blind, your occipital lobe and your visual cortex might be perfectly fine - but your eyes might not function. Same result, it's just a change in perception (which occurs within consciousness), not in consciousness itself. Consciousness is not an epiphenomenon which has "physical, material reality" as its origin - "physical reality" is just an idea which is also occurring within consciousness. At least admit that, Elon!

Don't you see that Love is selflessness? The Self, the real you, is selflessness/ego-lessness. The Self is Love. It's not something the Self does, it is Love.

@zeroISinfinity Love you???

@mw711 Yeah... Screw this I'm gonna find out myself

A very good friend of mine has fallen into the rationalistic sort of "there's nothing to understand"-Neo-Advaita Trap... He thinks that he has understood, but as we start to engage in a discussion, it very quickly becomes obvious, that he hasn't. When Buddhists say "there's nothing to understand" he thinks that this is to be understood literally - in the sense of "rational understanding". And that's right, of course there's nothing to understand (with the mind!!), but only though direct experience. Now, today I tried to explain to him why existence literally is love, as I came to understand a week or two ago. Of course I know that there isn't really any point in trying to explain this, but I just wanted to hint at it. He then tried to explain to me how it could be the other way round - hate being the absolute "quality" of reality (as you will find out rather quickly, this can't be). As much as I love him, concerning this (and Non-duality as a whole), he is deluded and hasn't yet understood/experienced, what is actually meant. How to get him on the right track? How to disperse his delusions? It actually concerns me a bit, because it's this toxic, sort of unpleasant (Hardcore-) Neo-Advaita...

Yup, you got it perfectly right. Except when you say love or acceptance - because you are not yet talking about actual Love or Acceptance.

It doesn't help to call these things "suffering" either. It is precisely the most meaningful, inherent quality of reality. You confuse love with Love. Love includes everything. It can't reject hate or suffering, otherwise it wouldn't be Love. love is actually not Love, but rather something akin to affection and liking based on what the ego declares to be good. We say "I love this - but not this." So it is tied to condition - that's not Love, Love has no conditions. Therefore of course, love is included by Love. But so are also suffering and hate. What do you mean when you say "suffering"? Does the universe suffer or the ego? Being raped is bad from the ego's point of view. The universe however is selfless(ness). There is no rejection (suffering is the consequence of rejection), because rejection is the same as ego/identification: "I am me and the rest of the world is not me / this is good and this is bad (it ought not to exist) / this is this and not that./ etc. You see? Existence can't deny itself. It can't reject itself. It is utterly selfless acceptance of all that exists, it's Love.

@Mikael89 Doesn't delusion imply that you're not aware of being deluded?

Holy Shit... Existence literally is Love. It IS Love... How the f*uck could I've not seen this? Existence IS, and it can't be anything else and therefore it accepts itself completely, even if it doesn't seem to accept something (like when we don't like something) about itself, it actually does because it IS and therefore it is accepting... It literally can't be anything else... Holy shit... I always thought Leo meant something like a feeling, like ordinary love, attachment, desire.. It's nothing like that. It's a state of being, it's a quality of the universe, It's everything, always, everywhere... It is the simplest thing that could possibly be.. It's the only thing that could be.. It was a fleeting glimpse I just had.. But finally I had it, just wanted to share it with you guys. It's true..

A couple of months ago, I realized that it is necessary for me to properly integrate stage Green. I am a very yellow person, and I checked many times that I'm not confusing my developmental stage with Orange. I still have very few orange spots within me which need some integration work too, however that is currently not my main concern. For quite a while now I've been into mysticism, enlightenment work and so forth, but I reached the conclusion: before I go down that road any further (I've seen the ox and it actually scared me a bit), I probably should integrate the earlier stages and since Green shares a similar structure with Turquoise, it might be healthy to further develop and integrate that part. I have Green within me, but I feel it's not fully developed. So my question is: Do I use the same techniques which a stage Orange person would use? Because I am not at Orange anymore and I don't resonate with 95% - 97% of Orange's values. Or is there a more sensible approach to Green? I know the limitations of Green and I think it is that, which is responsible for my situation. (Don't get me wrong, I'm neither resisting Green's values, nor am I confusing Green's limitations with Orange's judgement of Green; I know the healthy manifestations)

So, if this was just a strategic move, what would be the goal? (more/stronger) sympathy from his supporters? Playing the victim? Blaming the liberals for celebrating and thus polarizing both sides even more? On the other hand, if this is legit and he's actually infected - what would happen if it killed him?

Oh my god this has gotta be the most ironic thing to happen this year...

Currently I seem to be in a phase, in which I am more aware of my emotional state than usual, which I find very pleasant. Now, I have two questions: 1. Have you any advice on how to get even more in touch with my emotions and how to properly deal with them? 2. What ways of emotional "cleansing/detox" are there, besides from psychedelics or (shamanic) breath work? Thanks in advance!

Yes, basically. Love is unconditional, it embraces everything, nothing is left behind, nothing rejected. That is also the case for existence, you see? Everything that is, is (obviously). And so everything that is, could not not be, because it already is!! Whatever is, isn't accepted by existence, existence itself literally is acceptance. It can't be anything else. How could it? Existence can't be anything but unconditional acceptance of that which is - it's Love. Hope this helps... if not, well, you won't grasp it with your mind anyway so don't be disappointed

Always lifts my mood tremendously

@Dodo Never said anything along these lines, did I? All hate is included by Love, because all hate is. And all that is, is and therefore is Love. Love and Being are literally synonymous. So hate is actually Love and the entire Universe could never be anything else but Love, no matter what happens. It's Love which has no opposite. Don't confuse Love for affection / liking. I think some of you misunderstood what I was saying - I didn't force anything upon him. Neither did I project anything on him. I just tried to point at the fact that he won't understand anything, if he keeps using his mind as a substitution for experience. @Nahm I see... I never thought about something like that... So some people are actually not ready and it's not helpful (at all) to even hint at something like the fact that existence is Love?.. Is it possible to suddenly realize something like that without having purified your Karma? What would happen if this were to happen? But yes, it's probably not very wise to talk if nobody wants to listen, or if the listener is not ready yet. My mistake. Thanks for the many replies <3

“The psychotic drowns in the same waters in which the mystic swims with delight." What is it with "crazy"/"psychotic" people? What can we learn from them? Why do we misunderstand and ridicule them? Obviously the distinction between "human healthy consciousness" and "psychosis" is completely arbitrary. If their state of consciousness isn't "dysfunctional" in the first place, why "treat" them? What's there to fix? There isn't a single shared state of consciousness / perception in the universe, so how could we declare a "normal" state of consciousness? Is it possible as a society to understand and solve this linguistic fallacy? It would be accompanied by total Deconstructionism, are we ever going to get there?

@tsuki Yes, very true. Gotta learn to love this too, you're right.

@Nahm Wow, I didn't know that, thank you for sharing so much information. Where did you find it? Compressed on a website or did you do your own research?

No, these are not harmful entertainments. First of all, what precisely do you mean by "harmful"? If we say "something is harmful", it means that it somehow negatively interferes with our desired outcome, right? But you see, there is literally nothing inherently harmful in the universe. Only your thinking makes it so. So it depends on what your goal is. Even if your goal is to find out what reality is (fundamentally), it is not harmful to engage in science or thinking, because through recognizing that you won't find the Truth in science or religion, or belief, or words, or concepts or anything else along those lines, you get redirected towards your goal. Getting lost in a maze is not a bad thing, because now you know at least that you went the wrong way. You see? Calling science or conceptual knowledge "stupid games" depends on your personal and thus relative goal, too. Even to think that learning about quantum physics just for it's own sake is a bad, useless or harmful thing is wrong, too. It's a game. What do you think spirituality and searching for Truth are? Doing spiritual work is just a game as well. If you think spirituality is something more serious, something more real or more developed than drinking beer, watching TV or doing materialistic, rational science, you're utterly lost and haven't understood it yet. Don't you see that spirituality, meditation and psychedelics can be regarded just the same way as getting drunk? Both are ways of trying to get rid of yourself and the suffering that the self implies. Don't be arrogant. There's nothing, absolutely nothing better about engaging in spirituality than in anything else. So in conclusion: there is nothing inherently wrong or harmful about knowledge, science, talking, thinking or studying for it's own sake - because "harmful" depends on what your goal is.

I was trying to understand the 4th dimension (as a spatial dimension, not as time). Could it be, that change in the 3D world is just the shadow of the 4th dimension cast onto/into our world? Watch these 2 videos to understand how I came to my idea of change being the shadow/projection/cross-section of the 4th dimension. Could it be, that all 2D-objects are nothing but cross-sections of 3D? Equally, all 2D change would be nothing but "lateral" movement in 3D? The boundary between 2D and 3D doesn't actually exist, 2D-inhabitants are simply not aware of it. So in a very fundamental sense, all 2D appearances are actually 3D appearances (they're just appearing to be 2D). So could it be, that all our 3D appearances and processes are the same typ of cross-sections (although I'd actually have to say "tesseract-shadow") of 4D? Only they appear to us to be 3D? What about the contents of an N,N-DMT flash? I personally haven't done it yet, but I often hear things that sound rather... hinting at 4D. Any experiences/references?