Jirh

The governing laws of a society don't have to be religious or spiritual. It just so happens that they mostly are in stage Blue societies. In this case, religion is a placeholder for the laws, not the source.

Dude, why are you insisting on this idea? It's as if you're getting something from it. The differences between religion and self-help are enormous, both in content and structure, they are practically opposites. The differences make any similarities negligible. Self-help does not even attempt to answer the big questions. It completely bypasses them and focuses on material gains. I would love to see an example of religion's philosophy on improving life. All I know of religion's philosophy is that it says you shall pass through this life as a guest or a visitor and only take what's necessary for the trip from life to death, nothing more. Martyrdom is another interesting concept that contradicts self-help. It's a complete annihilation of the self, and it's completely religious, completely the opposite of self-help.

Why assume that consciousness requires change/time to amount to an experience? You can have consciousness of a static object that's not changing over time. It's not rocket science.

Lol. People be obsessing, trying looksmaxxing. My GF gives me fashion advice because she thinks I'm outdated How I got her with my outdated looks? You'll never know Your girl should take care of your looks, you shouldn't. You just follow the rules she gives.

Actually, no. That's just ego attraction, based on comparison. Raw attraction is a seperate thing. It's a reflex. Something you cannot fake or make your way out of. My opinion depends on which one you're interested in.

@Natasha Tori Maru I think you're nailing it. Good for you! I don't think you can top magic. It's just the best state to be. I do the same mostly. Sometimes, more intellectually, and other times more intuitively, depending on context. And generally, I try to balance my thinking with my feelings and vice-versa. You seem well-balanced.

Sounds like a word salad that doesn't make any sense. And actually my experience suggests the opposite. But thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Are you saying awareness is not aware? If it's not aware, then it's unaware. And awareness cannot be unaware. That would be a contradiction.

That's a juicy one, for sure! Here are my thoughts after years of deep contemplation: Causality is an illusion; a perfectly solid and convincing one. But still ultimately an illusion. An illusion is something that seems there while it isn't actually there. Same goes for free will. We feel we are conscious agents doing stuff freely, but when we examine it deeply, we don't choose our motivations or capabilities or circumstances or anything, even our breath, so where's the freedom and agency? Determinism, on the other hand, is the truth that we refuse to accept, no matter how we try not to. We always seek change through causation. We aren't aware of our lack of free will. We feel capable of making a difference. But what difference are we making if the script is already written? From the moment we decided that we want to create change, to the moment our endeavour is over.

Why would consciousness/awareness require time? I think that it's self-sufficient on its own. And that it is actually what creates the sense of time or the structure that you mentioned. There is awareness of something, simple as that. No need for time or anything else. There's also an awareness of time.

So, it's aware of thoughts. I would say that it's not limited to just thoughts, but it's a good place to start. What are thoughts?

I haven't felt like this in a very long time. I'm feeling peaceful and in-sync with reality. I feel complete. Perfect. When I first awakened, it was peaceful but chaotic. Then it was peaceful through different states, including sad, hurt, excited, tired, bored, etc... Things can change. But peace remains. I have it. I am it.

@Basman I see your point and respectfully disagree. From my pov, religion is not about improving life, it's not even about life itself. It's about abandoning life for the afterlife (Abrahamic), or some samadhi state (Eastern), or something else. All the practices are motivated by a desire to "win" something immaterial, typically spiritual but it could be egoic too. It's the opposite of self-help because self-help is mostly a material endeavor for material gains, although spirituality slipped into self-help as means to improve mental health. But the same material motivation sits underneath. Better mental health, for a better life not a better afterlife. They are not just different styles (stick vs. carrot) like you outlined. They are polar opposites. Like you can't possibly do both at the same time. You can't combine them. Not because they're time-incompatible, but because they're actually antithetical to each other.

How does the concept of God relate to self-help? I am finding it a bit difficult to make the connection. If anything, it seems like the opposite. Why pray when you could just set a morning routine? Why seek forgiveness when you could just reframe your trauma? Many religious ideas don't seem to correlate with anything in modern self-help. Examples: pilgrimage, resurrection day, charity, collective practices, seeking forgiveness, etc... God/Religion is the benchmark that proves you will never be good enough on your own.

There it is; no-self, or emptiness. Though, what is awareness aware of?

@Natasha Tori Maru Honestly, that's unacceptable. You should feel safe enough to reply on your own terms at the timing that feels right for you. I think anything or anyone that demands more than that should be reconsidered. You have a life. You have things to do, hobbies to explore, emotions to manage, chores to take care of, etc... Please don't let anyone make you feel like that's too much or secondary to keeping a connection with them. They should respect you enough to let you feel comfortable living your own life. Otherwise, they're bordering on abuse, and that's unacceptable. However, my point was a bit different, even though I agree with you on the benefits of lockdown. I was observing the general pace of development in life. Like there are new things every second nowadays. And you kinda have to keep up with everything if you want to stay relevant. It's tough and exhausting. Life used to be slower and more stable before the AI revolution, and more so before the internet, and more so before TV, etc... It just keeps accelerating in development, and it's hard to keep up with everything. I feel like each of us will eventually be forced into some narrow area of interests that then makes people into different species that can hardly recognize and connect with one another. My point was mainly about identity change. We are approaching post-modern identity, but we barely got used to the modern identity in the first place. It's just too much change in too little time.

Many people nowadays would rather scroll IG mindlessly than put their phones down to talk to you in person. It's crazy if you think about it. Human connection and intimacy replaced with dopamine addiction.

We hardly know ourselves these days with life moving so fast! It's really tough.

No. But they don't want broke, ugly, loser ass men, either. Most women want a competent, self-sufficient, capable man, who's not necessarily a model or a CEO, but average at least. Of course, the better you are, and the more successful you are, the better your chances. But the problem is that the average man nowadays cannot pass the bar for most women. This is because the standard cost of living has increased significantly. Most men cannot provide a standard lifestyle for themselves, let alone a woman that requires safety (emotional and financial) to be attracted. It's partially women's collective fault for letting this be the standard. This happened because the average woman nowadays feels entitled to a great life even when she doesn't have anything to offer in the relationship except looks. And this is men's fault for letting looks be the main standard for selecting women. Welcome to materialism.

Self is the sense of existence. Like "I'm here, I exist, somehow, somewhere, someway". It's vague and not specific. But it is certain and ever-present with you. Ego is more like the narrative or identity structure that arises when awareness (or sense of self) contracts around a story: "I am this person, with this history, these preferences, these fears." It's the boundary-maker. It utilizes conscious cognition and memory to unconsciously draw lines between "me" and "you", "inside" and "outside", "mine" and "not mine". And it changes depending on context. Generally, when Buddhists talk about no-self, they aren't describing a state or an experience. They are usually talking about the natural state of reality being a selfless emptiness that changes in appearance or content but never in essence. It's more theoretical, like they are stating a truth about existence, not an experience that can be had or an achievement to be attained.

@tsuki Okay. This clearly isn't going anywhere. Take care.

Thank you for the review. Why do you think that's wrong, though?