UnbornTao

Make a decision now. A process, by definition, is something carried out, rather than an existential (metaphysical) aspect of reality. In other words, it is an action or set thereof. We could think of reality as the primary condition that allows the existence of process. What is versus what is done. To use your example: obviously, you wouldn't choose to open a 'door' if there were no frame for it; you might instead decide to insert a frame so the door can exist. The doors you open are ones you've already decided to open. And no extraneous explanation or story is necessary for what's essentially a simple physical action. I'm trying to shift the discussion toward our experience of decision-making.

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 improve our experience too. Something outside or beyond ourselves makes the demands. To start, we could take this out of the realm of abstraction and focus on what's presently in front of us. What is what? Acknowledge what's occurring and call things by their name. If you're experiencing anger, don't pretend it is something else. The act of questioning doesn't exclude common sense or basic discernment. Questioning every detail or triviality we stumble upon is obviously unfeasible. Often, what we want is to formulate high-quality, open-ended questions. For example: What is anger? Rigor in this case would require making finer distinctions within our experience of that emotion in order to discover what it comprises and why it exists. You may find out that, contrary to personal and cultural belief, anger is caused by you and not others. You may also find that a sense of hurt always underlies the emotion, and in that way, a more authentic condition is revealed. Principles are like rules, setting the parameters of reality. It's not about correctness but simply about "what's so". Aligning with them - or failing to do so - produces real consequences. If you have a body and live on a planet, you have no choice but to align yourself with the principle of gravity. If you pretend you can jump off a cliff and fly, there will be consequences for failing to adhere to gravity. The same applies to life principles such as honesty, learning, excellence, and integrity. They're not ideals, by the way, nor are they necessarily the images that arise when considering the term. What are they? What do they demand of us? For example, when you set out to learn something, objective feedback will be provided if you pay attention. Can you make the dish as instructed, play the song, or score the goal - or not? The result is the proof. Now, apply that to other principles: Are you being sincere with yourself about your internal state, did you keep your word, did you create something with excellence? The choice of whether to adopt a given principle is yours; in any case, it's useful to be aware of the consequences of going one way or the other. A bit messy, but I hope it helps in some way.

Well, suffer something minor now, deliberately. Generate some form of suffering. (Not physical! I'm talking about mental-emotional suffering, like comparing yourself to an ideal self-image, or simply imagining the lack of something you desire.) OK, now that you've done that successfully, what went on in your experience such that that particular form of pain could arise? What did you do? How did you interpret and make sense of events? That's the gist of it. A lot of this is the equivalent of poking your own eye and then attributing it to external causes. Of course, that's a simplistic analogy, but it makes the point: we aren't aware that we are, in fact, "poking our own eyes." We don't make the connection (experientially) between our actions - broadly defined to include what we think, believe, interpret, and so on - and their consequences. The main thing is to recognize that this activity is what one is doing, even though it appears that the suffering is caused by circumstances. An exercise: What are you not suffering right now? Create a contrast between your current experience and one in which a new form of suffering is ocurring. What does that contrast reveal?

Yeah. Also, it's a bit more abstract and airy-fairy than usual - compared to the other sub-forums, which deal with more "mundane" matters.

I'd move almost all of these kinds of posts to the Intellectual subforum.

Chocolate cake?

The best way to quit is to not try it in the first place.

I suggest you clarify what it is you are inquiring into - in a grounded way. Are you not talking about interaction and effectiveness? If so, why bring up existential matters? Or maybe I'm mistaken. But you don't need these extraneous explanations or stories; you can just make a decision. Also, let me take a different approach: How do you see 'force'? In your experience, what does decision-making require?

Definitely. That's an important recognition. Then again, why concern ourselves too much with what stands in the way when the direct route is available? Rather than going off on tangents, go straight for the target. Your method may be more gradual and better suited for transforming the self, but both approaches are useful as long as truth is the goal. I'm not sure about the role of the mind in contemplation, though. It is far from an intellectual exercise, and yet the mind might have some influence - like ballparking your efforts or getting at the door, so to speak. The leap at that point is consciousness' job. Where is your last sentence coming from? There's no need to undo something you aren't doing in the first place. But that's beside the point: why not be happy, period? We could give it a serious try. And we'll go through this and that experience and state and feel different emotions.

Absolutizing fantasy is neither accurate nor appropriate. You don't want to paint it with a broad brush. Fantasy is fantasy; it can often be readily recognized, especially when it is superficial and exclusively based on wishful thinking. Being clear about what is what in one's experience allows us to better notice when something is straight-up biased, subjective, or self-serving. Rigor is a useful distinction, and alongside openness, rootedness is another key principle to adhere to. We can distinguish between different types of claims: An account of events or a story, for example: "Bob went to the beach." Conjecture - an assertion coming from a particular cosmology, stated like "Our Guru was able to walk on water, defying the laws of gravity, because this and that adopted notion, and look, so many people believe it." From how he operated, Ramana seemed sincere and trustworthy, so his communications carried weight. This discernment matters. Still, that story simply exemplified a point: happiness is "internal." I agree that your thoughts, emotions, and actions have consequences, and they should be acknowledged. However, the deeper question remains: can you be happy regardless of your current state? You assume that circumstances are what creates happiness in the first place. Feeling good, getting things to work out, and gratification may not be happiness but something like success or relief - nothing wrong with those things, by the way. If you didn't care about "surviving a self" at all, perhaps there'd be no impediment to being happy all the time. This is why I asked above. Here's an experiment: Be happy now. Now, notice the excuses you immediately come up with in relation to that instruction. One might be: "But I can't - what would motivate me to take action?" But that assumption is inaccurate. You can be happy now and still do things, since this freedom-happiness is independent of action and experience. Suffering isn't required as a driver for action; intent is the main ingredient there.

Appreciate it, I share that sentiment.

What do you mean more specifically? Are you talking about making decisions? If so, you can actually make a decision right now, and it would be a done deal. You've made the decision.

I'm not really interested, but it looks cool.

Is openness its own goal? What purpose does it serve? How do we balance that principle with groundedness? Together, they form a dynamic essential for discovery. Generally speaking, openness seems directed toward learning, effectiveness, or becoming conscious - in one form or another - which suggests there is something to be grasped. It is not simply "anything goes," nor is it merely about being overly abstract or philosophically entertained - unless that is your goal. When we recognize that we don't know something, or that we lack skill in a given activity, we can open ourselves to possibilities beyond our usual patterns, knowledge, and viewpoint - even mind and perception. There is also the trap of adopting openness only as a character trait - as a social manipulation and aspect of one's self-image. In this way, we may pretend to be open while failing to follow the principle in practice. And again, remaining rooted is key, in a way that acknowledges real possibilities.

@TheSomeBody Okay, thanks for the contribution.

What did you experience? What is it that you hope to accomplish by engaging in this pursuit? Thinking sloppily doesn't help. Setting aside stories, preferences, and overly extraneous concepts, look into your experience as-is. For example: In what ways is what you said real? You yourself admitted in your first post that this belongs to the realm of belief - and that's accurate. It's only "real" insofar as it is imagined to be. It's a subjective state. It may seem real as a result of how your mind interprets and makes sense of circumstances. The sensory input gets filtered through all kinds of thought-forms, like preference and presumption. This same principle may apply to many areas of life, but it stands out especially with consciously adopted beliefs. What happens after death is unknown to everyone alive. And notice: being alive, we also don't truly know what life is - nor the self, the mind, or experience, for that matter. Your stance is founded on a set of unconscious assumptions. If it's the afterlife, then that's still more "life." Obviously you haven't died, since you're writing here. Without taking that for granted - what is life? Maybe you were never alive in the first place. There's a lot to uncover there. Can you see how the mind can fabricate entire worlds that aren't objectively occurring? With some effort, I could make myself believe almost anything I wanted, but that would essentially be lying to myself.

That's fair, but I don't see where I insulted him or was offensive. My post might have come off as blunt or rude, though. It's true that I wanted to destroy his commitment to fantastical thinking, so I figured I'd give it a shot.

What are you up to? Promoting dogma isn't aligned with the spirit of the work we do here. Also, that BS (the video) looks AI-generated. A completely different approach is to destroy every fantasy and belief you hold - rather than piling up more. This greatly increases your openness and your ability to examine matters in a more grounded and powerful way. Why not give it a serious try? It is more difficult but also more real, after all.

If my data isn't stolen, count me out.

Love it. Is that a yogurt factory?

I'm leaving it up for grabs. Did you read Ramana's story on the other thread? Insects bit at his legs, he lived in a cave, and all he did was sit. On what condition did his alleged happiness depend? The main disconnect here is that what you're calling happiness is simply getting what you want. When you don't get what you want, or fail to avoid something unwanted, you call that unhappiness - and this whole dynamic boils down to survival. Cnsider this: why aren't you happy all the time? By fantasy, I was referring to mahasamadhi. It's entirely hearsay. And yes, there are such things as wishful-thinking, beliefs and wholly biased, subjective fabrications.

Gorgeous landscape.

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. Fantasy is overrated; changing one's mindset and disposition is underrated.

Where did that come from?