Natasha Tori Maru

When I see others trying to facilitate understanding or asking questions that make you really pause and contemplate. This is just a potential indicator. I don't try to gauge who should be a teacher by comparing or contrasting my own experience/knowledge - because I find it is wildly different! Additionally, I constantly go back and throw away all my philosophy and return to 'maybe I do not know' All I know is anyone trying to tell you THEIR truth, is going to be your truth, cannot be heeded. Maybe all a teacher can do is point to a potential that indicates they know something.

I don't know, to be honest! I don't know anything. Revel in the not-knowing 😁 All human beings are on the path, even when they don't realise it. Some just further long than others? There really isn't anything to aim at - just discovery 🙏

@UnbornTao try starting there - that's the most concise answer I could get

The difference is (and my text is full of self!) - I acknowledge ego is involved @UnbornTao images.mp4

I suggest you ask Leo what the forums are for. Again, more assumptions. These are just, like, your opinions, man. Other than to complain - what is the point? Many of us can see there are tons of users at all stages of development. Are you a teacher yourself? Coaches use language to teach when direct facilitation is a barrier. What methods do you employ to facilitate and guide? And the reason you ask why you care? Because you feel entitled.

Okay fundamentally we can end the discussion here - because this is a false conclusion based on some wrong foundational understanding of reality, perspective, experience, being. It's definitely worth re-investigating this one. No self is the ultimate surrender of the ego - the collapse of separation and distinction. Union with other and all else - an inner crucifixion. The self is the barrier to union, and sacrificing the self is the not a destruction, but opening. The highest form of Love. It is not anti-human. You feel just as keenly as the person experiencing a constricting, attached ego self. The whole gamut of human experience - you just don't identify with it and therefore, reduce suffering. The self is the BIGGEST construct humans cling to - identify with - and this causes the suffering. You need to realize just how much YOU are clinging to this. Right now - through this dialogue. Because on the other side of this is pure joy and love of reality. Experience is beautiful - even the mundane. Even the pain. Just another set of experiences I do not judge. It does not serve. Well, you are arguing to be right. Your version of right. Let's not get delusional about how much ego IS involved for you. This whole endeavor is a great example of attachment to the self. Ciao ciao

Okay. Okay - how about we restart with: Define what you conceive is 'no self' in one sentence.

@James123 We know There is the addition you (so to speak) make, to enhance and elevate. To my (so to speak) perception. So to speak

There is a compulsion to reply - what is that? There was no requirement for any of your (so to speak) teaching

Language - If I am understanding the paragraph you are referring to? I think so... But my evil intention there was to point out where James was operating from ego - injecting his need to teach where it may not have been needed, required - or relevant

If you think you aren't arguing to win you are mistaken It is YOU who misunderstands no-self.

The idea behind no self is this: You realize the 'self' you think you ARE is not what you are at all. You see that it is an illusion. But you also see that it is needed for survival. Seeing it for the illusion it is, enables you to let go of all the parts you thought you needed. You can release negative attachments. You stop telling yourself all the stories about yourself - your history - that create unnecessary suffering. It's not about your body being an illusion. It is real. It is about the 'complex' you think is you - thoughts, ideas, concepts - is all in your head. No-self is what you term as 'opening up' - it is the realization that enables the opening. This is the part you keep saying is so hard to dissolve. It's no issue when you see the illusion.

It is not the goal. It is just natural to realize it is an illusion. It just happens on the path to truth. And yes - you still need a self. It is always going to be present. But you need to understand that no-self isn't about obliterating the self. It is about realizing it is an illusion. And that you are attached to it - and it brings you suffering. You realize it is an illusion, and it lets you shed and do away with all the unnecessary parts of you that you thought were needed. It is not a trap at all - it is the openness that you speak of. Then why are you going on about how you have to open the self? If you cannot do it? So you are saying open the self but then keep the self? You are saying to open the self, but intimating it cannot be done. The implication here is that the self is causing issues.... which is true. So why keep all those parts of it you don't need? And if you manage to do so - where do the parts go that are dissolved to be more 'open'? Do you see how they don't exist, if you can dissolve them, no matter how hard that is?

If the self is open - there are no borders. So, no defined self. So, no-self. Which is why I keep repeating you are saying the same thing. Only in your word-view you seem to think the self is something real - which contradicts this openness unlimited concept yes? How can a limited thing, the self, be unlimited - openness, without also being an illusion to be realized as the paradox it is? 'Cracking open' the self to be open is actually the process of realising the self is an illusion - you just seem to have a personal issue with the potential conclusions that could come about as a result. Anyway, I guess I'm answering so you can dance around with some more wordviews

Obviously I like BIRDS >. <

Are you still taking all the above supplements? And have you tried cutting them ALL out? We cannot know what is in those supplements. They only list what they test for - that leaves this ??? for what truly could be in them. Just a thought. You have my compassion - I have an autoimmune issue that causes fatigue.

Your own assumptions. Are they supposed to be beginners? Is this place supposed to be more enlightened? This place is just a tool for learning. It's not supposed to be anything. You are assuming enlightenment is everyone's goal. It's not a destination. I would never call myself enlightened. If you were, you wouldn't bloody say it! What would be the point? There are many here who are engaging in open contemplation dyads - look for those as they are where you see the process. That is where others are pushing the limits and breaking through belief and assumption. Leading each other to their own truth and elevating consciousness. Maybe your ability to sort through is still sharpening At the end of the day, there are always going to be users who are more eager to SAY something, to display knowledge, rather than do what is more useful.... Explore from a place of deep not knowing 😁

You cannot now the mine virus this statement created for me 🙃 I will work on a preamble for 'What is Art?' first ❤️ I'm going in the direction of 'Art as truth'. Either as what it can reveal about the human condition and reality, or how the lies of art (manipulation of perception and graphical tricks, as an example) reveal the falsehoods we do not realise are embedded in perception. Subjective expression to render the impression of a thing - a 'lie' that reveals a different kind of truth, by challenging assumptions and revealing tricks of perception. All of my training in graphic art is based on rendering an impression. Never the real truth. But by learning the techniques of impression I see to the truth of things with much more acuity. I learned very early the parts of realty others ignore, to render only the relevant. Because I have been trained in art since birth this has been the core tenant of my entire life, and it was not until the contrast of the social domain - especially these forums - I realised what it did to my experience !

Maybe we could look at it as the James' context - ego - wanting to display it's knowledge 🙃

Sorted 🙃

Perhaps the ego, the self, is context for communication. Until awakening 😈

I understand this!!! I've been trying to come at the problem from the opposite side - how would the definition of context change if we were a telepathic species? I think you hit the nail on the head - language is probably the easiest example of context to work with here. And because we are a voiced species it has defined us - made us unique and special. Differentiated from other species.

I just don't think we can continue a dialogue. I went into this conversation 1) hoping for open-mindedness regarding trying to understand each other's perspective and 2) assuming at least we can agree on english terms and definitions (and assumed base understanding of terms). And if not to refine them to an agreed upon definition. I understand your worldview and agree with most of it. I do not agree with your definition for 'anti-human' because you haven't yet had the revelation of no-self, and how it is more human than the ego self. Selflessness, sacrifice, all naturally lead from no self - some of the higher tenants of elevated consciousness. It doesn't mean ignoring emotions of deleting things. There are just a key set of truths I operate from that mean I am confusing you. I think because it is outside the realm of your experience it appears 'inhuman' when it is just an unknown. In addition - 2 more things are happening: you don't seem able to recognise where you are assuming and drawing false conclusions. Ie thinking no-self is no emotion. And your explanations often loop off into other points. Instead of addressing the question directly, often you turn the paragraph off onto a tangent that is correct, but has nothing to do with the question. And because of that, the contemplation isn't working. So the above is why I don't think we cannot continue.

Muahahah! 😈

I think most women tend toward a relationship. There are some women who have a higher desire for sex and variety, and will seek that. Even the women who would prefer a ltr will engage in casual sex: think about it as someone going in and exploring a bunch of experiences. You typically discover who you are, what you like and don't like, through experience. Many women go through a phase of enjoying casual sex for this reason. So it definitely happens. And could be something you encounter. In addition - something that isn't ever spoken about here - some women screen for quality of sex. I don't know how common this is, but for myself, I have engaged in more casual flings in an attempt to find a comparable man. Fact of the matter is - I look for a man I think can get me off. Because most men think having a cock that's hard is enough. But you need to actually KNOW how a woman's body works. Which comes from experience. The worst thing during casual sex is engaging, and realising it's going to be a training session rather than a firey bang 😜 I don't know if that represents a lot of women, but it was a driver for me regarding casual sex: finding someone who was GOOD at it. A lot of this mess comes down to women who lie and fake it. And let men believe they kill it in bed - when in actual fact they need to be told the clit is 5 inches down and no, finger banging right out the gate is HORRIBLE. I don't do casual sex because I cannot be fucked trying to find someone good! Just thought I would add that as I don't think many men realise this about women. I just think most women want emotional engagement and closeness over sex, which leads them to a committed relationship.