UnbornTao

https://www.reddit.com/r/animalsdoingstuff/s/488ZTd5sC9

Three days clean here. Coffeeholic Anonymous.

Have you played around with static sites? Recommend.

What is furry?

For example: Do you think this topic is the lamest, most basic shit there is?

Fair enough.

Oh yeah, defintely. Sounds about right. It's possible that concept influences experience, too. Tricky stuff.

Nice. I should definitely incorporate some of that.

Todd?

Actually, I feel the need to explain myself in more detail, because there's clearly a gap in communication I'm failing to bridge. From our past discussions, it's evident this still isn't clear. Let's start with the claim that you think you understand the work of these masters. Ha. That assumption is worth examining - not because it is impossible but because most of us approach it intellectually. This is not seen for what it is, as I've seen from our past discussions. If we were serious students of Adi Da - sitting in his presence - I guarantee we'd realize within five minutes, if we were paying attention, that we don't realize what he was talking about. The same applies elsewhere. You don't need to join Scientology and adopt its practices to see this. It's simply a function of paying attention to what's actually going on - not an esoteric ability requiring years of breathing exercises or herbal regimens. Notice that if you strip away the accompanying philosophy from many of these teachings, what remains is a simple action: breathing a certain way, stretching the body, and variations of these. There's also the assumption that something you do will get you enlightened as an effect of the practice. The rest tends to be elaboration. And techniques are fine for what they are - but they serve the body or the mind. Healing, regulation, mastering attention. These are worthy goals but they're not the same end. Inquiry is essentially the only practice aimed at discovering the truth directly. What does fasting have to do with discovery? A related issue is deciding what to listen to based on how it looks or sounds - assuming truth has to arrive in a particular form. I'd be curious whether Krishnamurti is someone you've spent real time with. As for spiritual 'curricula' - there's a reason I refrain from discussing that. It's largely irrelevant. Ask Ramana; he'd probably tell you this isn't LinkedIn. Credentials get invoked to validate or dismiss, and that's a distraction. For what it's worth: I've devoted my life to this work for about a decade - hundreds of hours of study and contemplation - and it's essentially the only thing I do. Now, regarding methodology: the sports example - the one you're attributing to Peter Ralston - is mine. I'm not sure how you concluded otherwise, but it's worth pausing on that move, because it's illustrative. The argument was about being grounded. I know that the language and the way I come accros can be used as an excuse to dismis this, as you've heard Leo say this. Hey, this is a good training ground to practice listening. If you think it is the same work as some of these guys, this is not true. And yet you might be thinking that it is! You've said what I share has been helpful, but from our conversations it's clear you don't fully grasp it. And it's precisely this predisposition to claim understanding that I'm trying to dismantle. At times, what comes through beneath the apparent charity sounds like, 'Yeah, thanks - but I'm beyond that,' or it reads as subtle social maneuvering. As for others who might be seen as less far along - I deliberately refrain from saying certain things because I know people will take words and turn them into beliefs. That would require a kind of lying: telling people what they want to hear, on top of whatever I'm still unconscious of. That, again, relates to the quote from that Tibetan lama. Thinking that one has "exhausted" these masters is pure delusion. You are not even doing the same work. The assumption that one is above these masters is also worth revisiting, seriously.

If we look we might find there's possibly some sort of relationship between these. Addiction could be regarded as the ultimate conformity - as in adapting to the form of something.

The use of it is largely a matter of conformity though, besides being convenient. If it's used in bed or in the bathroom, it's likely addiction rather than convenience. You're not using it in bed as a GPS or a flashlight, but for entertainment and socializing, most likely. Addiction and conformity can overlap.

I think that a real insight can be powerful. Not as an abstraction but as something real that you perceive regarding the nature or workings of something. If it's an abstraction, which might be what you're referring to here, then that isn't that real, but perhaps a good occurrence. When it is experiential it is powerful.

Look at what's behind the act of agreeing. But okay, I'll take your word for it. In any case, weren't you approaching them with preconceived ideas about what they would do for you? And where did you hear that? What were you expecting to experience, and why? Subtly, it's a form of confirmation bias. "You'll find X", and people find (create an experience of) it. Maybe. Or maybe I no longer fool myself into mistaking an experience for an 'awakening.' Again, why do you think I bring up masters? These are the excuses and resistance mentioned above. Without any prior sense of what enlightenment is, this trap seems virtually inevitable with psychedelics. And look at the forum - especially those who have drunk the Kool-Aid - which you can tell if you pay attention. I know that being drunk exists in a different domain from what is, and a change in state does not change that. It's just a significant part of, and influence on, what we consider life to be. Remove every perceptive faculty at your disposal, including the mind, and see what 'state' you find.

Can you clarify what you're trying to say?