Natasha Tori Maru

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.

@Breakingthewall If you cannot define and agree to language then that is the end of that. I am just SO surprised you refuse a simple thought experiment or contemplation that doesn't fit your frame. Awareness is fundamental, perception arises within it. Perception does not have to be present when one is just 'being'. Serious meditation should have revealed this... I hope you can open yourself up to be able to look from other frames and perspectives. When you are ready you will arrive at the truth waiting Enjoy! @Inliytened1 I see what you mean!!

@LoneWonderer Agree ! Appreciate the topic bump nonetheless - tis my own frustration with the topic

@LoneWonderer It cut out half the irrelevant stuff. She swings around a big dick with phrases like 'outside of time and space' 'interdimensional beings' 'defies physics' WHAT? Just casually drops that shit. Doesn't define 'interdimensional' or 'being'. What is 'outside time and space'. What exactly is in 'defiance of physics'? Just drop some fancy words and shit all over the epistemological/ontological aspect that is screaming for service. No experts tapping in. I do really wish serious physicists/science took this seriously. But that would probably force them too take a hard look at their own assumptions. There's also the crazy label they get slapped with... C'est la vie

This is a shortcut summary of the above Rogan interview - I'm pretty much with this reporter. More hearsay. zzzz

100% I fucken die inside looking back - but there is no better way to test the ego Guts all laid out in forum posts, ripe to be eaten by the cannabalistic vulture I am.

Hmmm hmmm going into some hard wriggly topics here: Art & creativity can be looked at as imitation/compilation/repetition with a twist. We can use Andy Warhol as an example here - many of his works were just copies presented in alternate ways over and over. Repetition. The Campbells soup can, the Marylin Monroe prints. He has been heavily criticized for this - but it is still a creation. And he is still regarded as a popular artist and original creator. Could you argue that Leo's teaching (actualized.org) is a similar original teaching, based purely on the amalgamation of works that Leo has grafted together? One could argue that, although he has learned and incorporated the works of other masters, it is still something original he is presenting. Has anyone else taken all of these masters and presented the same stitched together view? As you can probably tell I take the subject of art and creativity quite seriously... and this turns into a discussion about 'what is art?' 'What is creativity?' COME AT ME BROS

@UnbornTao Warning points? Warning points. 😈

I do not think so. Might want to look into this as there could be confusion here. You have to agree to use English definitions and understandings otherwise there is no point talking

@LoneWonderer Thank you! I've been thirsty recently. Going hard at remote viewing in lieu of more UAP stuffs Will let you know what I think

@Inliytened1 Indeed I am rather enjoying this dyad and it is helping me refine my own understanding - so no effort wasted. As long as we are aware its just thoughts and some verbal jousting. No one gets upset... I am happy to get into this existential sloppy mess !