Tim R

I didn't say that we can't critizie capitalism only because we live under it. Of course we're forced to pariticipate. But you can decide to what extent you participate in capitalism. And buying a Porsche and a mansion isn't exactly congruent with anti-capitalism, there's just no whitewashing this. Guess you're right here to a certain extent, at least when it comes to devices like smarthones & other necessities. What I was trying to point out is that people are often oblivious to this discrepancy. But even so, you have to make a decision; are you going to buy the most expensive & most exploitative device like a $1500 IPhone 13 Pro Max or some less obnoxious phone that doesn't virtually scream "consumerism" & "capitalism"? So there you definitely do have some alternative(s). And that's exactly what I meant with buying a less pompous house & car. Even though we are forced to play the capitalist game, we can decide how much we're participating. Especially when you have 'won' the game and are rich, especially then you can afford not to play this game to this Villa- & Porsche-extent. Again, I'm not saying that he's not supposed to be rich or not live a good life. It's the extent to which Hasan pushes all this which I find hyporitical. Where are we going to draw the line? Some people might say that a $3M house and a $200K car are not hypocritical. What about buying a $600K Lamborghini and a $8M mansion? Still okay?

@Godhead How about starting by not living in a big ass mansion in the Hollywood Hills and driving a luxury sports car?? It's not like "either 1-bedroom apartment in a shitty area or $3M villa in Hollywood", there's plenty in between... Same goes for the car, you don't have to drive a 2006 Twingo, you could buy a BMW 3 series or whatever. I'm not saying he shouldn't be wealthy, but if he truly was a socialist and walked his talk he wouldn't have bought these things. It's like pretending to hate people who eat meat and yet stuff yourself with steak. And his simps would say "oh what, is he not supposed to eat anything now??", it's like no, there's other things for you to eat. You can't rant against capitalism, the ruling class, social / wealth inequality, wear shirts that say "eat the rich" and at the same time be this top 1% champagne socialist who makes massive personal profit from the very structures you so rant against. At least have the integrity to admit to what you're doing, that you are and do all these things. And that in fact, it is hypocritical. But of course you can't do that because you'd then promptly lose all of that. He could use his money for a good cause, but he doesn't, because he doesn't truly believe in socialism or social equality. And his stream doesn't do sh*t for social equality. If he would at least use his money for that. He's a capitalist who pretends to be a socialist and who successfully managed to fool his Gen Y/Z audience who can't yet think for themselves and who are probably to a large extent the same kind of people (perhaps not quite that rich tho), kids from good upper class families who get outraged on Twitter about capitalism and social inequality using their new IPhone.

'Thought' is just 'thought'. There is no 'thought'. It's a self-sustaining illusion and only possible because you believe in 'thought'.

It's not possible to sacrifice love in order to maintain love, because the very act of 'sacrificing love' is done out of a love for life. Neither is it possible to sacrifice life (whatever exactly you mean by that?) for what I love, because whatever I love is life. Love = Life

Stop reporting things you don't agree with. And maintain civility.

@Brittle_buddha @halfknots Have you written other trip reports? I would love to read more. You guys really know how to use words

That's not a definition, it's circular. Might as well use "experience" and "happening" synonymously. 1. There are no experiences that don't happen 2. All that ever happens is experience That is even less of a definition. It's an assumption. You're trying to prove that a subject is necessary and here you're trying to put the necessity of a subject for expereince into the definition of "experience". It doesn't work like that. You can't just arbitrarily define experience as something that requires a subject (which is still just an assumption yo're making arbitrarily) and then proceed to use that very definition as "proof" for the necessity of a subject for experience, that's a pretty gross logical blunder. You made a sincere attempt, but unfortunately you just went in circles and based your arguments on assumptions. If you really want to know the answer to "is a subject necessary for expereince? / is there even such a thing as a subject?" (the latter one being the question you should ask first, because the first question already assumes that a subject even exists), you have to check direct expereince. This is absolutely necessary and non-negotiable.If you want to know the truth about the nature of experience, you can't think about it, you have to go directly to the source.

Then it can't hurt you. It can't hurt you. It's just a dream, like a movie. When you go to the movies, let's say to watch a horror movie, you might get extremely scared, but you know it's alright - albeit not at the moment when you're getting scared. But before you see the movie and after you leave the cinema, you know that everything is fine and that there never was a danger, at all. But it sure did seem so! And it's the same thing here. You can fall asleep peacefully, knowing that even if you should have another scary dream, it can't hurt you, no matter how scary it is.

Here's something for you to chew on: try to find the difference between the waking state and the sleeping state. What is there?

I had a friend who said she was able to know that she's sleeping while she's sleeping. Sort of asleep but somehow still aware of it. They even studied her brain at the university clinic. But there cannot be an experience of "un-awareness".

@Brittle_buddha That was an absolute delight to read, wow? it's extremely difficult to talk about such an experience but my god, you nailed it!

As far as I know it's pretty much the same as 1CP and 1P, they're prodrugs anyway.

@Someone here Because consciousness is not something that can be developed, period. Consciousness is not a thing, not a spirit, not a phenomenon, it can't be created or consctructed, it can't emerge, it doesn't depend on anything, none of that. You ask if computers can develop consciousness, yet you don't seem to be aware of the underlying assumptions (on the nature of consciousness) of your question - or rather, you haven't questioned the validity of those assumptions. Consciousness doesn't occur within the world, the world occurs within consciousness.

Dude. Consciousness is none of that. It has absolutely nothing to do with computing power.

In a certain sense that is true. Words/Thoughts are what create "the world". There is no "world" unless one thinks there is. Don't be afraid to speak. If he thinks it's bad to speak - then that is the world he has created.

"Happening - not happening" is a duality. When people say "nothing is happening" they refer to what is, when this duality has collapsed. This is such a case where one must be cautious not to get hung up on the words.

@Someone here Not to come across condescending, but at this point I am rather surprised that you'd ask this question. You think consciousness is this, that or the other, but it doesn't matter what you think consciousness is. Consciousness cannot be thought. You're wasting your time thinking about these matters. Not per se because you're asking the question, that is no problem - but because you constantly ask these sort of questions without seeming to truly try to come to an answer. Philosophizing is good, but after a certain point, philosophy becomes frustrated.

I just went for a run around the nearby lake, it's a few kilometers and I pretty much went all out. After about three quarters of the way, I stopped for a short break at the shore (fun fact, it's called "Buddha Meditationsufer", i.e. "Buddha Meditation Shore") and I looked out at the lake - my consciousness felt vaster than the sky and my body as light as a feather. I thought "hey, I know this feeling!" Because I used to reliably have awakening experiences after or during running, I don't know why. I guess running is an extremely effective meditation/yoga practice for me. Well anyways, I kept running. And when I finally arrived at the other side of the lake, I suddenly got hit by Love. The whole Universe is one big body of Love. It is it. I looked at the people, the trees, the pebbles, the shore, I loved it all and it loved me. I couldn't help but smile and shed a few tears, I was just so happy that all this existed - and I even loved all the curious and concerned looks of the people when they saw me smiling at them for apparently no good reason Existence is Love. When our minds realize freedom, we return to what we have forgotten, to who we truly are. Guess I'll go for a run more frequently now haha

Feel into "I-am-ness" and see if you can find any boundaries.

Everything she says sounds like platitudes. That's probably why you get triggered by it. It just doesn't seem authentic. It's one thing to not resonate with Neo-Advaita, it's another thing to get triggered by it. @Evoke How exactly do you feel when you get triggered?

@Michal__ I think that categorizing the mystic in spiral dynamics is not helpful here. I know you what to contextualize what he/she said, but try rather to focus on what he/she told you.

Doesn't matter. So long as you don't just simply believe what they say, it doesn't matter whether it's their belief or their actual experience. I guess you have to trust your intuition here. See if the mystic is being humble. Are you going to meet a mystic?

You have to give up selfishness.

Because Jesus said things that in his culture were perceived to be utter heresy - claiming that you are God was totally unacceptable. The Buddha lived in a tradition of Hiduism. Being a Buddha was nothing new or heretical.

That sounds like one hell of a gaslighting strategy, damn.