Eskilon

@Hojo According to Advaita Vedanta, the deep sleep state most experience at night is actually ignorance(avidya). There you have existence(sat) but you don't have awareness(chit). It is possible to become aware there and experience pure awareness(Turiya) which is the fourth state of being, that is different from the other 3 state: Jagrat(waking consciousness), Swapna(dreaming) and Sushupti(deep sleep).

The opposite of fact. Or is it？

@Leo Gura So basically why Communism, Marxism doesn't work is because humans are insanely selfish Baboons?

I remain open. Cant know if he is really channeling some extremely advanced extraterrestrial or just making an persona and faking it. But I would say his laws(which as Natasha says, could`ve been derived from other traditions) is pretty solid. Here are the 5 laws of existence according to Bashar: You exist. Everything is Here and Now. The One is the All and the All are The One. What you put out is what you get back. Everything changes except for the first four Laws.

Avatar is great

What is, What is ?

The Strange-Looper. @strangelooper Sup

@Schizophonia There are no shoulds in reality. One can do whatever one wishes. You are actually projecting and being neurotic lmao.

What about hellish realms. Something like buddist hells. I think in buddhism there are at least 8 hells lol. At the end of the day, no one knows. Just live your life and whatever is the case you will be there lol. Or not. Both ways is fine.

You can exist without desire. Hence you exist in deep sleep. And what is the problem with that?

100% Desire is just you chasing your own tail, it never ends. One comes, another is waiting for you. You cant truly become happy that way. That's why all ambition is bullshit.

Stop projecting bro.

Agree with this. People downplay buddhism here all the time. But it has deep, deep truths. Desire IS the root of suffering. And liberation from all desire might be substantially different from awakening itself. You can awaken, but that doesnt mean you are free from doing. I think Buddha nailed both ends, that's why its difficult to understand.

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.