Eskilon

What people say is usually irrelevant, people arent honest with themselves. They hide stuff from others and especially from themselves. Do you think Donald Trump saying yes to that question is truthful?. Yet he will absolutely say yes. Basically most new agers I wouldnt call them dull though. But they lack rigor and can be wishy-washy. But you might call them dull, it depends on your standards for dullness.

That's for it to decide, that is, the commitment is to whatever is true (or skillful, functional, healthy), not what's self-serving, even though in the end it might be beneficial for us too. what's it? And why should one be commited to whatever is true? how can you possibly know such a thing? Also, how do you know what is self-serving and what isnt？ yeah, I dont know how u can know that. What if there isnt anything beyond you? Yeah, but common sense doesnt make things true. Consensus doesnt make something true in the ultimate sense. So I dont know how can you depend on this for your investigation. Theres no such a thing. Who made those rules? And why do you trust them? Theres no such a thing of "what's so" you are always interpreting reality, theres no getting away of subjectivity. Subjectivity is inevitable, just like perspective is inevitable. Apart from physics and its consequences, the things you said here are ideals. Why should one have integrity? Who said so? Why excellence, and not dumbness? You are making this things up. I get what you are saying but this still assumes a bunch of stuff. Sure in the pragmatic realm it might work, but we are not talking about pragmatics, that's simple stuff.

I agree! Emotional labor is a huge field of life. It is such a deep topic in human experience.

It does mean that, it depends on how deep your experience is. Yes it does mean that from a certain point of view. That's just your values, you are against dullmindedness and being wishy-washy. But not everyone might be resistant of that.

If you value truth you are already well above the rest - it DOES say much. Like one old mysterious master once said "Arguing is for fools". You only argue because you have some agenda, or you want to preserve your form. Which theres nothing wrong with that, just admit that it is your folly and that it is not better than any other folly out there. Let's see how you argue when you meet the only certainty in your life: Death.

Yeah but row much rigor should one have? Where should we draw that line? Do you see how this is just another sophisticated form of bullshitery? Why can't I question everything one says infinitetly, is that too much rigor or too little? Also, which principles are correct to adhere to and which isnt, how should one know? Can one know such a thing? Can you prove to me that your principles and standards are not complete bullshit, or should I just take them on faith? And also, how much proof is enough proof? Can we know that for sure?

Its such a rare skill to people to be truly open-minded. It is a very simple skill, but really hard to obtain I would say. Fortunate are those who got this as a gift. Even here on this forum, people say that they are open-minded but you can feel their subtle arrogance on their words, you can feel their inflexibility. Especially on the most infamous topic: Solipsism.

Leo is plotting something

If you are calling mahasamadhi hearsay, then it doesnt make sense in you believing Ramana and his stories. It's all hearsay and fantasy. You were not there nor did you personally verified everything he has said. Happiness as we know it is related to movement, be it internal movement(thoughts, emotions) or external(actions). Can you be happy without moving an inch? Well, if one is happy all the time, why do you get out of bed? Just be there forever with your eyes closed and be happy lol. Fantasy is a complex topic, all that you have ever interacted in your life might be a fantasy. Including morality, contemplation, meditation and so on. You might want to investigate the nature of distinctions and relativity.

It may well already be the case - happiness being independent of all that. We simply tend to attribute our happiness to the circumstances that seem to elicit it. But again: are agreeable feelings that arise the same as happiness? And if not, what exactly are we talking about? Most likely anything consistent with one's self-agenda. Perhaps happiness is even independent of the self, in a strange way. Yeah, I like the words you use. May, perhaps. You don't know. So, for the time being happiness is conditional. How you do you know you are not changing from one fantasy to another? Don't be so quick to call stuff fantasy, the distinction might not really exist as you might think. It might be a matter of perspective and the doings of your own mind.

Good luck with that. Maybe if you awaken and leave the body forever, other than that, it doesnt seem true. In other words: Mahasamadhi. Everything else is bullshit.

Just because he didnt use if doesnt mean it isnt conditional. Happy with our work? Why not without work? Or something else entirely? This is conditional.

I really like him and his teaching style. But sometimes I find him to be a bit simplistic.

@TheGod It's good that you are really honest. And I think this aplies to most men here and overall. They wouldn't give a fuck about women if suddenly they had no testosterone and no Libido. Like imagine if a lustful man suddenly became an Eunuch(complete one, no balls and penis), my bet is that he would abandon all women pursuit entirely, maybe not even wanting friendship or something platonic with women. Men are selfish and transactional, and sex gives drive and meaning to men, if you took those things out of men, he would turn to power, money, spirituality, knowledge, politics, anything but women. I am not saying true love without sex is impossible between men and women, but it is exceptionally rare.

My guess was INTP lol. it's unusual for an ENFJ to be this much into math, because of that Dom Fe and inferior Ti. But hey, it could be a really developed Ti, its possible.