Nahm

Develop your talents, obviously. Geez.

In the same vein my friend, are you seeking?

@Inliytened1 Gotcha and thank you. If you were seeking, there’d be more to say, or maybe better said, it’d feel appropriate. I appreciate your sharing of your insights all the same. ?? @abrakamowse Yes, no right or wrong words. Perhaps I can just clearly state - the intention is self realization, and maybe interesting conversation. I’m aware there’s nothing to know.

@TheExplorer Sounds like you’re doing great, that’s really good to hear! I do want to point out a distinction, just in case, regarding what I said on thoughts stories and stories... In a nutshell, experiencing as “you” “in the thought story” pales by comparison to actual you, getting deeply ‘lost’ into the story, into your life. There are sensations at play with this regard, as no thought story will ever compare to the dream life. You probably knew what I meant, but just clarify in case you took it differently. As far as the retreats... @Serotoninluv Has solid experience with group retreats and would be a better resource. I’ve always had a bit of a lone wolf solo retreat philosophy.

@mandyjw lol. No issues with compliments and thank you’s - and thank you, and likewise! Was just another pointing so to speak, that the “talent” which might appear, is indeed you in actuality, and ever-present in all things indeed, Beautiful. Breath taking. ♥️?? @Serotoninluv ?

I was asking if God needs anything for God to know God is God, and it seemed to me (might be misunderstanding you) that you are saying, yes, God needs reflection, nothing, void, everything already...so I asked again... And if I am reading / understanding your comment, you are reinstating....”yes”...”it has to be itself thru itself forever”......as in....for God to know God is God...?

God needs nothing, void, everything already, “playing it through”....to know God? Is that what you’re saying?

@pluto Sorry...you’re saying God needs some thing for God to know God is God? What is the thing God is ‘reflecting’ from, or off of?

What is talent, but a projection upon magic? There was a question yesterday...”If I hit you in the head and you lose consciousness, how could you claim there is still consciousness?” The assumption at play is that what was witnessed was actually the loss of consciousness, derived from the assumption something other than consciousness was initially “there” to begin with. When all that was actually “known” was sensation (maya: “hand touching”), and thought (maya: “person, hand, bat, action”). Then remains the “seeing of” movement / change (maya: space, time, physicality, separation, vision, other)....leaving all that was known was the seeing - but the knowing of the seeing is not knowing a separate thing of “seeing” at all. There is no evidence nor direct experience of separation between knowing & seeing whatsoever, sans the re-addition of maya, as projection of other. “These” are but the very same knowing/knower/known/seer/seeing/seen. In this example there is what is directly experienced, and then the adding of uninspected meaning, creating an a priori assumption, that somehow within the movement is a separate individual which possesses consciousness and experiences the ‘loss of consciousness’, while the direct experience is : passing out, not passing out - or, knowing of maya, and knowing of maya - no actual experience of in between knowing and knowing, only a hindsight a priori assumption, a hindsight filling in of the blank, when there was, in actuality, no such blank directly experienced. In the same sense, do you directly experience sleeping for eight hours at night? The direct experience is ‘fall asleep wake up’, and further, we can not even claim that as direct experience but rather, consciousness - consciousness. The blank filled in, is a thought about a blank filled in, not the filling in of an actual blank. Consider, what is your maya of, ‘someone sleeping next to you’? And what is your maya of, you? That we routinely recreate phrases such as “making love” and “sleeping with her / him”, a priori... as pointers to bliss, is a heck of a pointer to actuality, or true nature of, non a priori self. The asking of that distinction can not actually be answered / satisfied by distinction, as still, only your distinction remains, (if that). Another way to express that might be I was not asking for reference to categories, but rather, what you hold as homeostasis. It is in maya, your distinction (if at all), and is your creation (if at all). If a producer made a movie about Shinzen, and the movie articulated and portrayed Shinzen’s life & talents to such an amazing & astounding high degree, truly such an engrossing film, that for a while, you forgot you were watching a movie, “experiencing” vicariously... would you say the producer of the movie was insanely clever in making such a convincing movie, or that you are experiencing your own cleverness, in believing there is a producer, a movie, a you, a Shinzen, and a me saying this? What is context, sans your distinctions / what is distinction, sans context ....And again then, what is homeostasis, un-categorically, without context / distinction? Actual? What is this “ego”, which has abilities, which possesses scope? Which possesses talent? Can you claim you’ve seen or actually experienced talent? Can a distinction such as talent be held and also be understood in actuality, as the holder is “itself” an a priori distinction, believing to be holding an actuality, but has rather an assessment, one’s own distinction. Is “the talent of another” not truly your own talent of illusion of other? Is there this & that perspective, or is there perhaps the beginning of the uprooting of perspective? Is talent not your maya to dispel? Is anything known to you about his skill of meditation? Or are you projecting an idea of yourself, via comparison, upon magic (“Shinzen”)?

@ardacigin ...and homeostasis?

Yes. It is love which is “self realized”, not a person. It is Happiness which is “self realized”, not a person. Unlike a person on mdma, “the person” is actually love. Less a person realizes this, more the ineffable remembers the ineffable, recognizing self as “everything”. Love is inescapable......sans infinite combinations of smokescreens of the apparition of separation.

@pluto Are you saying God needs man to know God is God?

@ardacigin Very interesting and relatable, I’m curious, how do you define spiritual talent? Also, how do you define homeostasis?

@Kushu2000 Right on lol.

@Kushu2000 There are mushrooms on a ton of ancient sites, building, manuscripts, etc. Psych’s were rampant long ago (thanks Nixon). Check out the faces on Easter Island for example, pretty blatant.

The “attraction” is so many floors deeper so to speak, than the actuality of what a “perspective” is, though not at all separate. If you’re creating your own reality, and reality is an all encompassing term, then you are creating perspective, perception, and your “self” which creates perspectives, and appears to be perceiving. If you think of driving an old blue truck right now, it’s easy to notice you are not actually driving an old blue truck right now, but rather, that’s a thought you’re aware of right now. It seems to get tricky in adding the actuality, the “slight of Hand”...if you were actually driving an old blue truck right now, and thinking about driving an old blue truck, it’d be convincing that is you driving and thinking, unaware you’re creating all of it.

@Pouya Cool. Except... you aren’t a human, you don’t have moods, you’re not ‘meeting people and seeing things’, and reality is not a separate thing from you. In that ‘reality just is’ perspective, in the unknowing of the actuality of reality, arises the questioning of if there are “positive’ and ‘negative’ “sides”. There are no “sides” at all, sans a linguistic cover up, so is “reality” both, or neither? Separated as such, by the perspective, ‘reality just is’...that ‘you’ has a source...and you don’t know if it’s “positive”, or “negative”, both or neither. Indeed, “it’s about going beyond that”, beyond thinking, directly into the self, the source of the whole of all hollow thought. Realize the ‘attraction’, and the source makes sense, realize the source, and the attraction makes sense.

Tightened

Let so much thinking go. Find out what you’re made of by doing what you actually want to do.

@Pouya Is there a “source of negative”, and a “source of positive”? Are you finding “attraction” empowering you on either account? All your dreams coming true by aligning with the sensations telling you your perspective is not True? That ever worked, even once?

You might need some space and silence through some stages, for sure. But there is no reason to lose friends because of how much better you are than other people. That’s a silly egotistical perspective. If you’ve transcended views someone else hasn’t, it is inherent then that you are aware of that and aware they aren’t. Love & compassion, as well as simply not mentioning everything that arises in the mind are useful. The nugget here is - why on earth is importance placed on someone needing to understand you? Why so easily influenced? Sounds like fear based friend loss essentially. Why would you equate spiritual growth / self discovery, with losing anyone or anything, rather than relishing in the deeper ‘realness’, the Truth? In a world full of fools, one is playing the fool. “Up there” ? ? ?

Seriously, what more could be needed. Add me to the list. Sing Absolutely lose your self in it.

It’s a beautiful thing.

@Conrad ?