No Self

There are practical reasons why being 'good' is in one's self-interest, but do not assume that failing to engage is 'bad'. Humanity's biggest problem is a lack of consciousness (this is, for example, why all of our attempts at political and economic systems have ultimately failed or are in the process of failing). Improving your consciousness is a valid contribution in itself, and can lead naturally to contributing as per your highest calling. The best practical reason for being 'good' comes from near-death studies. After death there's a thing called a Life Review in which the entire lifetime is re-lived briefly but in detail, but from the perspective of other beings affected by your actions. In addition to having to experience harm caused to others, the particular afterlife and any future lifetimes will be affected by the level of love and compassion displayed in this lifetime. This is not a judgement per se but is a similar outcome. It puts a lot of Jesus' teachings about loving one's enemies into perspective, and exposes how flawed Western society's idea about winning at all cost is in the bigger picture. That said, again, there is nothing wrong with being detached or alone. It is merely a cosmic argument about the natural consequences of causing harm to others.

Potentially. But I can't comment on this one. The Lord Buddha and Papaji were among those who ran off and never wanted to come back. Jesus and Ramana never even considered having kids. I remember him sharing research proving that people without kids are happier, but then arguing that everyone should have kids anyway just because it is 'noble'. I thought, "What?" Honestly, this is what happens when an intelligent person is straining to try and justify conservative BS. On the contrary. The extent of the commitment of parenting is utterly indescribable. If there is any question, the answer should always be no. Spot on, it is sad to watch the world become more overcrowded, people become lonelier and the animal kingdom under siege just because people feel that they 'have to' have children because society says so. Unfortunately that does happen, but keep in mind that in an enlightened society, entire communities raise children. This spares the children from inheriting neurotic behaviours from the parents, allows the parents to have some sort of a life balance, spares the elders from becoming 'useless', spreads the workload and ensures a sense of community. Keep in mind there are other potential options: there are children in need of loving homes out there. Or alternatively, being an involved uncle/aunt/community member is a good middle ground that enables time around children without being completely depleted of energy.

This is true in the sense that a thought that is believed in results in a lower state of consciousness than, say, a meditative state. Thought by itself is just a type of noise that is detected internally within the body. It can also create certain types of experiences when it seduces the consciousness to identify with it. If someone believes that the bogey man is hiding in their closet, they will experience life as if there really is a bogey man in the closet until they actually go and investigate by looking. But the ultimate consciousness is that which simply observes without participating. Even the idea of being a spiritual seeker trying to find something is watched by a silent witness.

There are legitimate criticisms of Democrat culture. Though the system is rigged (as Trump ironically pointed out), the biggest single reason for losses is the lack of unity amongst the majority. The gun lobby, the 'anti-choice' Evangelicals, the Incel types as well as groups with legitimate grievances like neglected, jobless rural communities all work together like a well-organised militia. In a word, they are UNITED. Contrast this with the identity politics nonsense of the left where, for example, a huge deal is made of the gender, sexual orientation and skin tone of the candidate rather than actual policies. This is one of many examples of the overly emotional shitshow of bitching and in-fighting of the Democrats that allows Republicans to simply walk up and take victory.

The thinking is just a function of the brain/body - phenomena that comes and goes. The true consciousness is the same one even in the dream state and deep sleep (as well as any other altered states of consciousness you care to name).

It is understandable to feel this way. And yet, had you instead pursued superficial success, you would no doubt have quickly reached a crisis and regretted having invested solely in conforming to society's definition of 'success'. This is an aspect of the mid-life crisis phenomenon. There is some sort of balance to be found, as financial independence is invaluable no matter what the life philosophy. Personally I don't care for human admiration, even though the ego loves it, because I have experienced how fleeting and shallow it is. From this point, it is important to accept the decisions already made and make the best choices today moving forward. You are free to be true to your truest vision right now, which may or may not involve focusing more on worldly success.

Interesting question. It can be viewed from many different angles. Vsauce once argued that the excitement inherent in sports seems to derive from experiencing life as our brains wish it operated; clearly-defined us-versus-them, precise rules of engagement, a specific purpose and a means of reducing success and failure to simple mathematics. The brain loves unpredictable and intermittent success/failure, too. Contrast this with the maddening mush of real life where no one knows what they are doing, it's not even clear who is on your team, its apparent purpose keeps changing, etc. (And yes, a deadly twist on the same phenomenon explains religions and cults which sell us the fool's gold of an over-simplified narrative on life, its purpose and who is us versus who is them.) Crash Course 'Big History' have pointed out the overwhelmingly similar DNA of humans versus chimpanzees, along with shared behaviours such as forming into groups and engaging in conflict with out-groups. This not only explains religions but also nationalism, political tribalism and ingroup vs. outgroup conflict of all types. And team sports. Combined with the prerequisite of talent, fitness and hard work, sports people can be viewed as representing motivational success and inspiration. Sports can be seen as a harmless channel of primitive human energies that offers the excitement of tribal warfare without the bloodshed of our distant ancestors (or less civilised societies today). Or, the whole notion can be dismissed as Western society promoting egocentrism and glorifying 'winning' over more enlightened ideals of making the world a better place, helping others or seeking to act from divine inspiration. Personally, having said all that, my preference is to avoid over-analysing. It is as it is!

Looks interesting from what I can read. The problem is that the nature of social media algorithms is to keep people engaged by progressively feeding them more and more hardcore content. Hence anyone who is anywhere on that pyramid will be on a slippery slope to anti-Semitism. It's a very profitable field day for the nutcases like David Icke whose job is to divorce millions from reality. Hence, the problem is more to do with social media than being open-minded to these ideas. Either hold social media accountable, or educate people with critical thinking skills, so they can be conscious of when posts are radicalising them.

My source for the claim that Communism has never been attempted was not a leftist source, but CrashCourse Economics on YouTube. I tried to find the reference but failed. The most obvious flaw in the implementations involved giving unlimited power to murderous psychopaths. But I agree that it is ultimately futile. On a very small scale, communities where people care for one another can work, though it doesn't seem to scale up to entire nations due to the social forces that naturally promote narcissists to the highest positions of power. We are better off incrementally improving existing systems by weeding out corruption and striking the right balance of government intervention versus free market type policies.

I agree that fact-checking would be a good thing, even if it would not have any impact on the most radicalised individuals. It would at least help to steer people who are on the fence away from the darkest forces on the internet.

It has been said that true Communism has never been attempted. The likes of the Soviet Union and Maoist China represented not so much collectivisation as giving a single madman ownership over tens of millions of people, then being surprised when human rights were not so good. More akin to the tragedies of Belgian Congo.

Solar panels in such a small space will produce at most 1 or 2 kW, which will be reduced to a fraction of that if there is cloud cover, and and even less if there is snow. A heater in cold conditions would require about 2 kW, so would only work on a bright sunny day! Not to mention that thing called night time. I would suggest giving this a trial run to ensure this has been thought through.

The most frustrating aspect of this situation is that the worst corruption happens quite openly and is not hidden in any way. Take the fossil fuel lobby and its involvement in politics, such that most of the biggest governments in the world are openly opposed to climate change science. Here in Australia, the right's narrative went from, "there is no climate change" to "there is climate change, but it is not man made" to "it is man made, but Australia is a small country and makes no difference" to "we are taking action" (when they are not). This is the government that has been in power all along, and is not going anywhere soon. All in line with fossil fuel interests. The conspiracy nutcase phenomenon involves blaming outgroups like reptilian baby-eaters for all the world's problems, and will be the first to deny climate change. It is based on the fantasy of having no personal responsibility, and being able to exclude inconvenient facts in order to have a comfortable internal narrative of life. Divorcing from reality is the opposite of what is needed; this is not a case of open-minded individuals breaking free of a mainstream mental prison. At best, conspiracy theorists are jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

There is a growing need to have open dialogue on this topic because 'conspiracy nutcases' are going mainstream and entering into politics around the world. Because their followers are motivated primarily by wanting a sense of brotherhood or a feeling of ego gratification (moral high ground over Deep State and exclusive 'insights' into the state of the world), they are divorced from reality. Given that conspiracy is defined as a group of people working together to do something evil such as spreading misinformation, conspiracy theorists themselves meet this definition. The following video includes some examples of politicians entering the mainstream whose world views are divorced from reality due to conspiracy theorism. We cannot address actual issues until nutcases are not running the asylum.

Eckhart Tolle spent 2 years sitting on Park benches after his awakening, which gradually led to him becoming a spiritual teacher. If it is right for you then go for it. Winters might be harsh though.

Lots of good points here. Plot twist: what if there is no 'self' to love?

The syndrome being described pretty much sums up the entire Baby Boomer transition from free-love hippies to 1980s corporatists bringing us the so-called decade of greed. With hindsight, the supposed green stage was driven by rebellious feel-good antics more than a true oneness or reverence with nature. Hence, it was only a small step to devolve into outright self-indulgence and sell out on any sort of ethical pretensions. All of this is a part of a legitimate evolutionary process, but mother nature only has a finite amount of resources...

We're on the same page. Sometimes words like 'love' and 'self' can be used in slightly different ways so it can appear that there is something to debate. But surely everyone does things that feel good? That includes people with dysfunction relationships with themselves who chase after sexual thrills?

Gracias. Yes, I hope the futility of the racist label starts to become apparent. It is like arguing whether Russia is in Europe or in Asia. (Russia is 'transcontinental'.) For a good analogy, the KKK started out as an organisation dedicated to various charitable causes. The original mission statement contained little hint of any racist intentions. Obviously, it drifted over time. The mechanism behind this drifting phenomenon involves lots of virile men eager to be seen as highly enthusiastic members, leading to the collective slowly descending into what we might call extremism. Given the rather bland conservative mission statement of the Proud Boys, the ultimate goal seems to be a return to a 1950s-style society when the whole world revolved around their demographic (the 'housewife' thing is a red flag!). This attempted overcompensation also suggests that they feel they are neglected members of society, as per my previous rant. They are cherry-picking from their favourite decade. They don't seem to want 1950s nuclear warfare panic. And the isolationism of closed borders is a far cry from the US' extensive international involvement of the '50s, nor would there be any equivalent of working towards putting man on the moon if they are no longer willing to fund anything via taxes. So whether or not the aspect of black community subordination would be included in their self-centered vision is a matter of interpretation and cannot be established with decisive precision. But it can be predicted that the movement will change, and not necessarily for the better.

That can happen, as it can legitimise theories when experts are seen scrambling to battle against them. The result has been ongoing debate about why the Earth may actually be round, which is kind of pathetic. And yet, the absence of people opposing the rabbit hole echo chambers allows demons of disinformation to grow without restraint. There does definitely come a point where theorists will only pretend to be interested in debate, when there is no possibility of changing their beliefs. If anything, they are there to flex their reinforced-steel stubbornness and laugh as bullets of facts bounce off them. Yet in the early stages, the process of manipulation could be halted at any time.

This is largely true. Sometimes there are practical reasons for relationships, and sometimes there can be very deep bonds between two people. Some even argue that people are healthiest in relationships from a biological standpoint. Many birds form pair bonds for life in a similar way (though are not necessarily sexually monogamous). But I only make these points to be a devil's advocate. On the topic of self-love, the commentary that resonates with me the most comes from the Power of Now. Eckhart says that loving one's self (or hating one's self, or being proud of one's self, etc.) involves an unnecessary subject-object duality. Being one's Self is enough. I love this because otherwise there's an idea that the Self is not good enough and something internal needs to 'love' it. This is no doubt better than trying to get something external to love it, like another person, but still feels like needless noise and strain. The line, "Be still and know that I am God" comes to mind right now. Peace!

Many people can relate if they are honest. People usually feel pressured to act upbeat so we don't get the true picture. Then, along comes the Buddha and bluntly states, "All life is suffering." The wisest thing to do is to use this life to pursue freedom. The sensations in the body and the tragic stories told by the mind have nothing to do with you. It only appears so. Kill what is false by exposing its non-existence.

It's all good man. It's a 'fight or flight' situation. If you got any info on their appearance, clothing, etc., I'd still file a police report just so that there's evidence that can be used against them if/when they strike again. But up to you. Take care. Sorry to hear this. I think guys that do that are usually drunk or something. They can be stung for indecent exposure, etc., if you wish to take action.

Who is this 'me'? Doesn't really sound like God.