xxxx

I do not deny the existence of preferences. Because, preference is the very nature of being - but within these, there are further dualities, with boundaries, however imaginary, that can be ascertained to a degree, according to the levels of your perception --- and these are pushing you towards something that you are inadvertently attached to. The key point here being - comprehending the nature of the intricate dualities of the concept of preference. An 'indifferent existence' is an oxymoron. It cannot, and will never exist together. Existence can never be indifferent - it can masquerade as that, in an illusory form, hidden underneath some sort of deeper, and most probably, egoic manifestation - giving an idea that you are being indifferent - where in reality, you just aren't, and never can. As you said, total indifference cannot exist beyond concept, and therefore, is not a pre-requisite to this discussion, altogether. Did watch the video, and it does stress upon the point that I tried to put forth, ab initio - Leo talks about something called the 'Emergent Phenomenon' - that the randomness coincides with the non-randomness, too - there is a complex order to it, and variations do tend to have a very real effect. The point with the free will debate is not that people become hopeless (hint: egoic love for self, and the consequent loss of it masquerading as indifference), but that people comprehend the nature of ego and Nothingness, in the first place. This was one of Leo's first few videos on such topics, and what he is trying to say, in facile terms, is that it's all God - and that free will requires the acceptance and realization that it is all Oneness - and there's nothing quite outside you - for Everything is you, and you are a product and the manufacturer of it. That, an 'I' is not solely responsible for all that happens to 'themselves', because in the greater picture, 'I' work in tandem with the vastness, unbeknownst to my egoic self that strives for rigorous separation. He talks about these 37 trillion cells working for us, and not the egoic 'I' - and that is what it is - there is something working, that is not so arbitrary. We cannot shun it by saying that nothing makes sense, because quite evidently, there is some sort of meaning that we are able to give. Moreover, one cannot give meaning to things that do not make sense - the meaning and the cohesiveness of a certain thing have an inter-dependent relationship. He gives the example of being seated in a car, and realizing that you have no control since you are not the one steering the vehicle towards its destination - the idea behind this is that while you may realize that your illusion of control has been broken, it doesn't completely erase the fact that you are in a car, and are actually going somewhere. Therefore, understanding the concept of free will, in my opinion, means that while I may be walking the path, it is not the 'I' that is walking the path --- but anyway, both of it does mean that the path does exist, and is being travelled upon. As Leo put it, it is the mind that constructs preferences and thereafter makes the decisions - and each decision has a consequence. With the example of Google that he gave - if just because Google considers itself an input, no matter how deceived it is, it will never cease being an output - it is a something, and the something has real functions and is striving in some regard, and will behave in a particular, predictable fashion if certain buttons are pushed. The free will debate just juggles around the concepts of ego vs surrender - but it cannot deny the existence of things and or the functions attached to them - that is, once you have realized that ego is at play, and that it likes to take all the 'credit' - you, as an enlightened being, will try to not include it in the actual play. . Preferences do have mechanical elements to it - if one needs results, they need to train and try - and that's a very coherent process of this reality, as well, that would be absurd to deny. The results are the attachment. And if something is mechanical, it works by cultivating 'practical' relationships that need to be honored for its effective completion, without which the goal will never be reached. To be honest, we are all seeking something, and that, by its very nature gives it a mechanical touch. The very concept that surrendering gives the feeling of 'power', is somewhere, in itself, a subtle sort of attachment. Now that I think of it, haha, existence is nothing but a series of infinite attachments, glued together with love or whatever we may call it - that we can just accept through becoming enlightened through empathy; nonetheless, the lack of judgement, coming back to your original question, cannot happen in this finite, human lifetime, because judgement is the very core of your existence. The path is the judgement - that requires attachment for its effective, mechanical completion - with its own set of consequences based on the levels of 'personal' conduciveness. The path has a lot of choices, which you are not making, but You are making - that cannot be completely controlled, but regulated, for components of it are mechanical, and in the human context, limited.

Interesting classification. (Bio) Logically speaking, haha - ( human ) preferences arise out of attachment. There's method to the madness, after all. It's not so arbitrary. Of course, from the meta perspective, it makes no sense - but the limited nature of ours, spread over such real (imaginary) 'time', has given us some context to play along with. Something like - I prefer (am attached) to this human existence. Food is imperative to my very existence. Therefore, I prefer food, too. With this analogy - I have no other choice than to prefer food, if I prefer existence. The dependence is real. It may seem like an arbitrary, independent preference, but this difference is so subtle that it escapes our attention. . Therefore, if you are attached to a bigger concept, you will endeavor to fulfill your preferences in that regard. Makes me think - are preferences any different from attachment, at all? There can be one large (collection of) preference (attachment; which is, after all, not infinitely arbitrary, with regards to the human context), and the other ones that follow for the sake of fulfilling it. I am not so sure about this. Preferences are not something you are wholly subjected to, without any room for change. Preferences are something that you cultivate, over time - 'choosing' amongst the vast array of things. Preference equals choice - and there's a lot of it - and all of choice, for us, is limited. Hence, we have limited aspects of choice that we can choose from, which means that it can be controlled to an extent. While you may not have 'complete' control over it, there is a point to which one can regulate it - considering what you are actually attached to, haha.

You went meta, haha --- yes, I know that it is Consciousness / God that is living the killer's life. If everything is you, you wouldn't be making this post in the first place. There is something that you seek to put forward - otherwise, others clinging or not clinging to perspectives wouldn't make a difference to you, no? The answer to all is meta, but we exist within finitude, and hence, need to be considerate of this specific aspect of the kaleidoscope, too. If you are so totally aware that everyone is you, why be bothered with uncovering their deception at all? Well, you'd say that uncovering it would make them truly happy - but then again, that resides in your very practical-headed humanness, where you hold the perspective of making the others 'aware' and 'happy' dear - somewhat of a human goal. . I'm quoting you here to give it some context- "Understand that from certain perspectives reality is finite and you are simply a human. So many people get caught up in being God that they forget to enjoy their humanness. You are both human and God. You are not one more than you are the other." . Now simply, as a human, would you take part in the action of killing? Of course, as God / Consciousness you are it, but as Valwyndir, would you? I do not think you will - because again, of the same 'human psychology' that you are talking about. The same psychology that fears being put into prison for your entire human life, where you will no longer be able to 'uncover the deceptions' of others; the broken-heartedness of seeing other parts of you sad in their human form; the very human psychology makes you deliberately cling to certain fixed values and beliefs, right? As you put it, you are simply human, and yes - this humanness wouldn't allow you to do something of that sort. In this human form, actions do have consequences, and sometimes, they can take a physical and psychological toll on you, for that is the very limited nature of your dual being. . For example - let us take the water torture method - where drop after drop, on a specific part of the skull would drive a person insane - and you'll see them descend into madness, and hence, die - a very torturous death - so, if your killer friend would ask you to participate in this 'show' - would you, as a specific, limited, human Valwyndir do it? . You are both human and God - and the human has a lot of limitations, both physical and emotional - and limitations require some aspects of attachment and overlaps - for a lot of you is human, and therefore, a large part of it is shared - and this aspect is very crucial to your very human existence / survival. Shared systems require shared acceptance that further requires shared sense of actions. So tell me, would you enjoy your humanness, in your very human form, by participating with the killer in his 'benevolent' endeavor, in the real sense? Or, would you just cling to your other beliefs strongly?

The issue that you have been highlighting throughout this post is with judgement. Whereas, I, personally, think that the over-arching theme should be that of empathy. The non-clinging, complete acceptance of everything comes with empathy. That, you have blended with this immense vastness, and hence, are empathetic towards it all. However, in this finite context that this non-dual infinite is living through us, has its own limitations; and these finitudes in their very nature demand our judgement - so there is a room for some clinging. You have painted an intricate picture of the complexity of all this, but one must also understand that the more intricate a thing, the more there's room for ambivalence. What you call 'love' is also a judgement you are making, right? Say, if you want to 'spread' love by making people happy --- that's a judgement on your part - some sort of clinging to the feeling of happiness, and the subsequent provision of it, through whatever means. A serial killer who has seen the lows of life may resort to killing, in order to spread love, by ridding people off their lives, therefore, helping them unite with the One. Now, you'd say that you'd empathize with the killer, of course. I'll add a slight twist to this --- say, this killer comes to you, with an awful lot of 'pain' that has been inflicted upon him, and tells you that he feels complete love when he kills people, and if you would join with him to do the same? According to you, now that you subscribe to non-clinging of any perspective, would you do the same? Is his perspective as valid as yours? . There's a huge difference in theory and action. Action requires some sort of clinging, and the ability to place things on a scale, therefore, subscribing to certain values on the basis of what seems most appropriate or conducive. . So, where do you fall into in your questionnaire here - I'd like to know? Would you invalidate the killer's perspective? Would you call his approach 'correct' or 'incorrect'? Would you be okay gaining his new perspective by living his life, while keeping your old perspective intact? Therefore, coming to my first point --- so, while your post is great in the theoretical sense, there's a slight glitch when it comes to the 'action' part of it --- and it is for this reason that I find your questionnaire a little questionable. And it is for that reason, again, that if one were to answer only yes in the questionnaire, doesn't mean that they are to be placed on a 'ground'.

Thank you for your answer, Nahm. I am unable to comprehend the profundity of this specific message. It seems very facile — but I’m sure that’s not the case. My understanding of this is that God is experiencing division in this form — through the emotionally complex, interdependent roles of human lives. Could you please explain what hidden meaning this particular paragraph holds? How did this insight help you? Also, what is the significance of the word sword in this context?

What’s the most unconventional (weird / strange) piece of advice you’ve ever got, that ended up working splendidly? Any kind of advice — relationship, career, finance, health, spirituality, psychedelics, etc. At first glance, an advice that struck you as being very weird, but eventually turned out to be something that made a whole lot of positive difference to your life once you embodied it? Would love to see your answers. Best,

A few questions: 1) What is your definition of heaven and hell? 2) Can a person do very horrible things, that in ordinary circumstances would affect anyone deeply, and still be in a state of heaven, considering people tell that these are mental states (example: enlightened serial killers)? 3) Now, we are aware of certain laws surrounding our existence — what if there’s actually another dimensional physical hell for not having acted out of love here in this human existence? Like, a specific law governing that — something like the laws of physics? What if? And where does one draw that line concerning love — love for self / others / no hurt / kindness? God is infinite, right? What’s stopping it from doing this? It very much can do that, too, among the infinite other things. In this case, how do we lead our lives? Is there a blueprint? Probably we are a part of the plan of a physical heaven and hell for God? How can we be sure that we are not? (Take the movie Interstellar {using this just for the sake of an example} — hell could be that we are stuck in a space of just experiences, and these are solely bad, and they keep playing again, and again — an infinite loop of hopelessness?) 4) In our human form, how exactly should heaven feel? The other thread, on happiness got me thinking about this possibility. Can the feeling of heaven be eternal? If it’s all so mental — what’s stopping us? 5) Is heaven the transcendence of the ego, or a dwelling in the ego? For you cannot feel anything outside your ego — and states of happiness and bliss are felt. 6) In the case of the aforementioned scenarios regarding the mental states— is hell is a permanent state of being (our lives being deeply rooted in survival), with heaven just a temporary state, with a lot of limits? Shall be happy to hear your insights.

@flume Thank you so much for your answers, Flume. They have been of immense help. I know a bit of Latin (legal maxims, haha) --- but shall delve into it in a wholesome manner. . Yes, I totally agree. It has been the case with the places that I have travelled to; while I may have not been able to communicate with the locals fluently, I was able to understand, to a considerable extent, what they were trying to say. I usually learn a few phrases from the locals, and use it for the purposes required. Anyway, thank you for the tip regarding grammar. . Thank you so much for the detailed answer. If you could do all the three above, it will be of help to many of us here. I look forward to this. . I checked the website out --- amazing. I know a bit of French; did it for 7 years in school, so this will be helpful in brushing it up. Also, no --- I am not one of those crazy people who types with nine fingers. I type quite fast, though, but just with two fingers, haha. Only if I knew how to use the other seven. I feel so ordinary right now - thanks, man. Anyway, your approach is very interesting, and I am sure it will be quite useful in this endeavour. Thank you. I really appreciate the help. . Thank you for your advice.

I do not want to beat around the bush, and if I do write this down, it may seem all over the place. This video will be able to explain it better. Please watch it completely, and then we can discuss this further, in detail --- if you'd like to. . .

@Mu_ has pointed out the things I wanted to say. However, I'll add a few things here: This is a healthy discussion, and I shall be glad to hear your insights. When you said that God is no more peace than it is anguish, etc., - I am not talking about peace as an emotion here --- it is a constant state of being akin to death. You asked what happiness it --- and this, manifestation of peace, according to me, is eternal happiness; conversely, we are all immersed in a rather fragile physical body, so we have limits. Most of these aforementioned 'negative' states of being scream of the limits of our existence, and we, end up catering to what we know best about, that is going to help alleviate the pressures of life, and term it happiness, through the process of gain and loss; in the sense that we try to constantly seek something above us, in a search for hope, that will serve as an emollient to these wounds that the society inflicts upon us. I am not telling that suffering, pain, etc., is not a manifestation of God. Of course, it exists, and in the meta perspective, it is God that is responsible for this --- but we are the limited expression of God --- the true nature that I was talking about is devoid of humanness --- for there's an infinite amount of existence that isn't human. We are just specks here --- albeit, it is very real for us. Imagine a sage sitting atop a mountain, having retired from the morbid constraints of everyday life --- they have chosen to let go of these attachments, and if the suffering arises, anyway - they are going to live with it, and even die with it, in peace, happily. (Check this article out: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/02/04/the-curious-tale-of-the-200-year-old-mummified-monk-reportedly-frozen-in-a-lotus-position/) I think, suffering arises out of our reluctance to accept the reality; that can be very difficult, too. I am not telling that I will not fall into the clutches of adversity, if they are presented to me while I am embedded in this finite form --- I am very much likely to fall prey to it. I cannot exist within the society and not expect the society to royally fuck me up. Nonetheless, it is definitely possible to experience that eternal happiness; the criteria being that you have to be completely detached from your humanness, and get into, quite literally, the God-mode. . For example: After meditating, does it have an effect on your overall well-being; at least for a short span of time, wherein, post that feeling of nothingness or peace, the emotional manifestation of it, i.e., happiness, pervades throughout, slightly nudging you into the state of complete acceptance, giving rise to a feeling of joy? Yes, this may be ephemeral. However, this can very much be eternal, too. . Also, just tell me, if it were not for other humans influencing us, would these exist, at all --- stress, murder, rape, theft, etc. Then, in terms of disasters --- would it matter to you if there's a crazy tsunami on some exoplanet, then? To what degree would this affect you? Cancer --- correct me if I am wrong here: how much of a human doing is this, owing to our lifestyles, etc.? Disability --- what if you see a dog that is blind or without any limbs? Do you think that dog is always in the mode of suffering? Hell --- who makes life hell? How do you define hell? If something threatens your egoic survival, is it hell? What I am trying to say is that these are our limits, not the complete picture. God exists in it, and very much, infinitely, out of it, as well. Yes, this understanding might be termed a utopia, but tell me, what about God isn’t a utopia? . Let me know what you think about this. Shall be happy to learn.

Thank you for such a comprehensive answer, Flume. I really appreciate it. I totally agree with this. I learned French for almost 7 years of my school life, and became pretty fluent in it, too - mastering the grammar part, which is supposed to be abstruse - but once I left the confines of academic life, the usage of this language was pushed to the corners, and I forgot a large part of it. Only if school had focused more on the practical part, than the theory part. Absolutely. How does one assess the difficulty of a language? Are there any specific parameters? Point noted, kind ma'am, haha - shall definitely look into this in the future as a possibility --- according to the language, region and availability, haha! I know, I'll sound pretentious here, but I wish to learn all the major languages of the world. That's a deep desire that I ardently possess. Want to brush up my French, ab initio; thereafter, the others. I am giving myself 3-4 years time. You can give me the requisite resources; I'm sure they will be of immense help. . Thank you. .

Okay, I'll try my best to break this down: God, in the ultimate sense is peace - therefore, at our core, beyond these human limits, our truth is peace alone. When we meditate, we feel no emotion - we become nothingness, a neutrality, and there's an acceptance of this infinite oneness. True happiness - that is, an eternal state of happiness is a derivative of peace. We humans, operate out of feelings, and act upon them, right? We are, at the end of the day, God in a limited form - a God that is living through us, through feelings. If we use our senses, we feel; feelings are nothing but a reaction. Say, you stay in that state of complete acceptance of nothingness, you transcend your limited form, and become one with God. You, technically, arrive at death, right? Now, through this unification and oneness, you shall realize that everything is you, and you are everything. You decide to come back, to live through God, in this limited form - a limited form that is nothing but a bundle of feelings - you use your senses, and they stimulate you; feelings are a reaction, we know that --- so, when you realize this infinite vastness, and that everything is you alone, your reaction is of pure infinite happiness and love. Here, the wall is you, the car is you, that dead animal on the street is you, the magnificent house is you, the grain of rice is you, your phone is you, that annoying aunt who talks a lot is you, haha! When you realize that everything is you, would you need anything to make you feel happy, at all? . I hope I was pellucid in my elucidation this time. . Other than that, @allislove's explanation is very good, too.

A few questions: 1) What’s your process like? 2) What are the tools that you use? 3) How many different languages can you learn at once? 4) How long did it take you to become proficient? 5) How often do you revise? Also, are you able to recall it if you haven’t revised it for a while? 6) What are the things I definitely need to do? 7) What are the things I definitely need to avoid? 8) How many languages do you know? 9) Miscellaneous material / resources / videos / articles / books. . Thank you .

@Vision Times change. Cultures change. Likes / Dislikes change. Interests change. Priorities change. . Either your life purpose needs some innovation to rekindle that passion, so that it can keep up with your evolving self. Or, you have developed / could develop an interest in something that fascinates you presently, and wish to act upon it. . It’s your choice. You have the ability to choose, while respecting the changes in your emotional states — and you decide the extent, keeping in mind a lot of factors involved, for you know your situation the best — financial, or otherwise. If your life purpose was that stringent, how different would it be from an assembly line job, where you do things just for the sake of it? . Check if you want to innovate, diversify, or endeavour into a new field, altogether. . Best,

@Someone here Our true state of being is peace; happiness is a human, emotional manifestation of peace — if one is not peaceful, they can never really be happy. Peace is a no-emotion, and one way peace can be felt is through our relation with the other things. Peace comes with unity — and once someone has realised that, everything they do in this human form (duality) will result in true happiness. The concept of happiness requires another — and peace requires oneness — therefore, if you realise the another is also you, happiness arises.