UnbornTao

And it seems to apply to living beings in general; we humans are just very prolific at it. It goes deeper than resisting one's experience, doesn't it? Asking "What within our experience isn't completely at ease and free?" creates a contrast to better see the dynamic of struggle.

I'd say you do, for the most part, not as blame but as fact. For example: Doesn't it seem that in the very act of dividing things into good and bad experiences -- which is necessary for you, by the way -- it already gives rise to struggle, among other things that you do? A rock doesn't seem to struggle. Why is that? What is the case for us such that struggle can occur?

Stop the drama already.

I’d suggest that survival isn’t just an ancillary process, it is your life. The experience you’re having right now is survival in action. For instance, consider that your very perception itself is a survival occurrence. Sorry I'm not addressing the play part in here. Might do that at a later time.

Uh-oh.

It's much more profound than a mere manifestation or a psychological explanation.

"Is there room for one more?"

Notice that it is much more than just an intellectual exercise. You center yourself on your current experience, and get real with yourself. If you haven't experienced it, you don't act as if you have. You aren't artificially adopting ideas and affectations for any reason but are instead willing to search for what is true, regardless of your conceptions, presumptions, or opinions about the subject matter. You keep your feet on the ground--on functional perceptions.

"God, who is asking the question?"

@Rigel Nice! Go have some insights.

It would be a matter of you serving something that isn't yourself, not something else serving yourself, as if.

@Davino Cute. What's our conscious experience in the matter when all is said and done? That's the key.

Sure.

I wasn't dismissing thought but rather pointing out its inadequacy when it comes to grasping infinity. We really live as if our notions, wants, experience, can be a consciousness of it. Take into account beliefs can straight up generate experiences and states so that they are self-confirming and consistent with one's worldview. "What is my experience in the matter? Is this a state, perception, conviction, concept? When everything else is set aside: What am I for real?" I bring this up because you is still held as your self -- localized, embodied.

I'd start with experience: thinking about eating isn't the same as eating. So, we notice a difference here. But it is a good question. As an analogy, no matter how big a cup is, it will never be able to hold the entirety of the ocean. Hence the assertion that what existence is can't be thought. Yet, we still confuse about it with it. We can remain open, though, and go after breakthroughs.

@Nilsi There's also the tendency to mistake fluency in "spiritual" language with having had insight for yourself. The latter is not so easily come by.

Good question.

But is it? You experience your self as being a certain way right now, and as a rather solid reality -- the center of it all. I suspect that assertions of that kind come from an “intellectual” stance. We likely don’t yet truly apprehend what infinity is, except as a fuzzy notion. This is important to recognize. My point is that that you say sounds a lot like “somethings," this and that. What are you, a thought, objects, etc? These are experienced as distinct from one another, so we say a thought of an apple isn’t an apple. One could say an apple is infinity, and that you are God, but when the apple gets peeled, you likely don’t see it as if it were you or yours, except as a temporary state, perhaps based on conviction. There’s an overlooked dynamic in operation here, independent of our more explicit beliefs that we want to be true. And hey, maybe an apple isn't an apple. It turns out that absolute can’t be thought because thought is late to the party, so to speak, even though it may have been invited (it is a form of the absolute). And, after the bullshit, the laundry.

A thought is a thought; you are you. "Myself" is distinct from everything it is not. One's nature is actually up for grabs, no matter what we think. What you are is what you are, an activity is an activity. Confusing those is a trap. For example: Can you think "infinity"? What comes to mind?

What it is and what it implies is up for grabs, and this is very likely coming from hearsay. Your job is to personally grasp what you are, whatever that may turn out to be. And it can't be what you think it is.

The problem is that it is a closed-circuit questioning, as it already presupposes and holds the existence of your self (notice the separation) as real and solid, and, above all, as already "known." So, my claim is that currently you are clueless as to who or what is supposed to be the subject of free will or lack thereof. You just take what you hold yourself to be for granted. Beyond intellectual claims, you live as though what you do has consequences, and you likely experience yourself as having a say in the matter, so act with intelligence. I suspect this conversation could be used to justify all kinds of shit, and wonder why it is undertaken in the first place. It can be titillating, though.

@Shogi Maybe check out Obsidian.

By becoming conscious of it. You do that through questioning and opening yourself up to an insight of whatever's the case. Since we're talking about yourself here, question what you are.