kbone

He does tend to do that. Both of you write exceptionally well, though, and it is barely noticeable. Perhaps, it is the lack of modal verbs (can, could, shall, should, may, might, must) that make his assessments of other's views sound so blunt, and him sounding so willing to get into the nuances. He keeps misinterpreting my posts as being emotional/aggressive or me being narcissistic, when I'm just being objective about how I see the mind is conditioned and the self is constructed.

It is conditioned by the past and projects into the future, yes. Yes, the psychological death and the subsequent rebirth as what is existentially open, naked, and fearless. Noice allusion to the Phoenix rising from the ashes. I getcha.

Interesting.

Great to hear you can open to it at will. Maybe your mind just got sidetracked... dunno. You don't need to explain. And yes, it would be nice if everyone could easily just notice that TPTPAU is immediately available, but typically they run headlong into the thought structure of their making (with a lot of unconscious attachments to needing to be right, win an argument, and so on and so forth), and try find shelter in their structure. Stepping into the mind ( bifurcating functional tool ) is the relative reality, and it is impermanent, along with the rest of the appearing universe, including the "structure from freedom" (?).

You've limited your self to a conceptual framework. Sounds like a collection bars for building a prison in progress. True nature is/was/will always be FREE. Find and settle into the Peace That Passeth All Understanding (TPTPAU) and you will understand where I am coming from. Yesterday, you went further and further unconscious of it, running headlong into the river of logic and doubt. If you understand what TPTPAU means at all, you'd start there. In my book, you did not exhibit that you do understand it, much less stay rooted in it. Jussayin...

Nah.

Aaah man, back to the statistic on suicides by firearms.

C'mon, you can get more radical than that. The mind functions as a bifurcator. Just use it wisely.

The word mind is synonymous with thinking.

🎯

Old testament style! But yeah, if you believe in god as omnipotence, at some point in the line of reasoning, you may have to admit that it's capable of wielding a knife in some abattoir, or maybe even while staring you down in some late night rendezvous in your building's elevator. Mind you, if that's the case, god can be pretty funny, too.

What you continue to point to is understood. The mind was engaged to write this post and it will have to be in order to read/understand it, while THAT to which you have been pointing remains unblemished by any of it. The Peace that Passeth All Understanding is forever available prior to what mind maketh of any situation. Just notice if/when the mind is engaged, you're wading out into the river. Is this post beautiful, or do you prefer my silence?

It certainly seems advantageous to not personify god, imagine a personal god, or otherwise if one is in the more 'advanced' stages of being honest. Slippery slope and/or a back door for mind to come in and obscure the innate clarity via the domino effect of abstract thinking. It's kind of like what is said about telling a lie, and what one has to do to keep propping it up. "A lie is like a snowball: the further you roll it, the bigger it gets." ~Martin Luther Peeps use the word 'god' in all sorts of ways, and I've even heard peeps arguing for and against god in a way that they were talking right past each other, not even aware that they kinda snorta were actually 'idealizing' the same dealio. Some people have auditory problems and can't hear well. Others have listening problems simply because they are lost in their mind-driven ideals. It happens. Pay attention, be aware of when you have engaged the mind, and know that once you have done so, you have entered into the dualistic world of probability, communication, interpretation, relationship, cause/effect, etc.

Are you stating predeterminism is real, then? Slippery slope.

You sound upset, and maybe even a little confused between what states are versus what realization is. I could be wrong, but it's just how the post sounded. Psychedelics can have their value, but they can't ground you in the present with an innate gratitude. Quite often, people feel the need to persistently seek such gratitude via the use of such medicines. Metaphorically, crutches also have functional value, but if you feel the need to use them even though you can walk without them just fine, one might notice the psychological component of the dynamic.

That video more or less aligned with my general stance with the use of psychedelics. It talks about the potentials and the limitations. Thanks for sharing.

🎯

🎯

I'm perfectly willing to give you a number of historical and comparative linguistic anecdotes that could shed some light, if that's what you are looking for. Only for certain kinds of minds think they are interesting and/or relevant, and I don't wanna bore you or anyone. I've literally been told to shut up on a message board dedicated to non-duality when bringing up such things about the English and proto-Indo-European languages. He didn't assume (as I did) that because people thought in language and pictures, that those meaningful/logical aspects of mind might be part of what arose as confusion and obscuring thoughts, hehe. PS: I really like your essay and subsequent discussion with Jinzo on "existence-explained". Great stuff. You have a gift for putting things into words.

As for the thread title, "Why you don't live in the world / But in the Source", I'd poke at it like this... and with all due respect. @James123 is steadfast, direct, and a loving dream-character in my book. What is initially realized is profound, and often initiates the utter collapse of the entire thought structure previously understood by the mind as reality. Once the dust settles, the realization seems to point to the mind-based fact that, conceptually speaking, reality is in/of the world (i.e., existence), and what was/is Realized is inclusive of reality. This gives rise to the idea of illusion, perhaps, as if what is perceived is NOT the entire reality (such a problematic word, hehe). This, neurologically speaking, is the left-brained/logical expression, which is limited... still. The integration that is often alluded to, is to employ the right-brain, in the embodiment process in "the return". This latter part, the complete integration 'after the return', is what Zen Masters would be testing for (See: koans, Zen stories between master and monks, etc.... they can get pretty extreme, AND why they often gravitate around paradoxes - which are always born of the thinking mind, and not the open mind-heart). 'Together', they are what the Sino-Japanese character for mind pointed to ( 心 ). To add a further twist for students of the language, the exact same character is used for heart. Ch'an/Zen pointed to the full-on realization of (capitalized in order to distinguish) One Mind ( 一心, '一' means one or united), as the source of all that exists. Even that superficial understanding does not grasp the grasplessness of it, of course, as there were never 'two' to be united (which is the realization of 'not two'- non-duality). Some called it the Void, due to ITS inexplicable nature, beyond words, concepts.... mind.... IT is not a thing, but THAT in which all existence arises. Pisses the mind off during the search, hehe. So, how would I write the title? It would probably depend on the context, inclusive of the peep spoken to, the prior discussion/context, the goal of the interaction, the intensity of the peep, etc. But here are a few to tinker with: +Why you don't live in the world, but are in/as Source +Why you live in the world, but are not necessarily of it (Refers to the Bible, while not a direct quote, John 17, where he prayed for his followers, emphasizing that they are in the world but not of it) + Why the world is in the Source, but not necessarily of it Depending on the context (again), I might even go to the extreme Advaita Vedanta that Ramana or Niz often used, and say there is no 'you', but YOU in which existence unfolds. Lots of expressions.... All of this, it appears, James has realized, but he can chime in if he'd like. On a more inquisitive and then somber note: This may allude to reasons why when during conversations, many cultures, when referring to "me", will often point to their chest (heart). Interestingly, when the Japanese do the same gesture, they point at their face (which is how most are remembered by 'other people'). However, when committing suicide, statistics show that three times more people will shoot themselves in the head (mind) than in the heart. Hmmm...

Roight.

True dat; I've always been in awe of the spectacle. Gratitude. Sure, life can be difficult. What do you mean by "conquering myself"? Great soliloquy in a cool movie. Evidently Rutger ad libed that scene. Solid.

Going for a hike?