Emerald

Thanks. You too. We're the spider and the fly at the exact same time. We weave a web of our own thought stories for our own benefit in life, but we're also the ones that get tangled in the web.

I'm definitely getting a lot out of it. It's very helpful to see people working out and deconstructing assumptions.

Thank you. I was thinking about the notion of "in" earlier in this thread, where I was considering if something could really be in something else in my perceptions. I was little confused at the idea of a tactual sensation being inside of another. There seems to be depth to my sensations but I'm not sure, so I think space would be a good concept to use for inquiry.

Thank you. This is very encouraging. I am too but it's a secret... j/k it's totally not a secret.

Thank you. My interactions on here have really given me fresh eyes through which to view things. Before I was just stuck in traps that I didn't even know I was stuck in. But I'm sure there are still plenty of traps that I'm stuck in that I'm still unconscious of. But you definitely don't sound like an arrogant dick.

Good one.

I will do that. Thank you.

Enlightenment could be achieved by someone who has killed before. There is a popular Buddhist story about a mass murderer who became enlightened. But he had renounced murder directly prior to beginning on the path. But enlightenment is seemingly synonymous with unconditional love. So, an enlightened person would likely not be inclined to murder because they don't want to be murdered. That said, enlightenment doesn't make a person perfect or even a moral person. But even thought there are no clear standards of good and evil in and of themselves, there are proper and improper ways to do things. For example, if you want to lose weight, there are particular steps that have to be taken to do that. So, in that context, eating a lot of high calorie foods is bad. But if you want to gain weight, eating high calorie foods is good. So, if your goal is to achieve an end, particular means have to come into play. So, for a person to become enlightened there are particular practices for increasing the chances of having a breakthrough i.e. meditation, self-inquirty, contemplation, etc.

Thank you. These are great questions.

I just recently had an insight about perceptions as not being perceived, but morseo as things themselves. So, there is not necessarily some mechanism or organ doing the sensing of a perception. But maybe the thing that I think of as a sound, isn't being received by an ear, but it exists as a thing inside of awareness itself. It's just a sound floating around inside of awareness. But I will definitely deconstruct my idea of what "exists" means. That one is probably full of preconceived notions.

The reason why I do it is to empty my cup of preconceived notions and assumptions that I may not be aware of yet. I'm trying to make myself receptive and open for a potential breakthrough of enlightenment.

That makes sense. This is where I'm not quite open enough to see things clearly. I have recently started thinking in terms of 'if it doesn't happen in the present moment, it's only the content of a thought.' In a sense, this opens me up to my present experience and I can sense the content of my perceptions very clearly now. But I'm starting to make it a rule, and I don't think that's going to be fruitful. So, what was true before I was born? Based on my "rule," nothing of course. But how can I experience the truth if I have to look for it in the content of my thoughts? Do you have any other leading questions? Or do you recommend I use it sort of like a Zen Koan and just sit on it until an insight comes?

That makes sense. I only took one philosophy class, when I was in college but most of our reading material was based on these types of existential questions. I would say that this process is the diametric opposite though. Instead of trying to find what's true and create a framework of knowledge like philosophy does, you're trying to find what isn't true and trying to deconstruct your existing framework.

I hear his books are great, but can be a bit discouraging because of his nihilistic take on enlightenment. It doesn't sound good to the rational mind. I didn't know of his work until I started talking with people here on the forum. So, I haven't read anything from him yet. I learned about Spiritual Autolysis by looking up the process online the other day and I already had a huge breakthrough about what a perception is and is not. I also, now follow his forum, where he allows people to create a thread to ask him questions regarding their progress toward enlightenment. Make sure to read the rules first though, if you should decide to join the forum. Here is the link: http://jedmckenna.createaforum.com/index.php Thanks

Spiritual Autolysis is a method of inquiry created by Jed McKenna, who is enlightened and wrote about this process in his books. It is writing down a sentence you think is true and deconstructing every aspect of it until it is actually true. So, it's like the meditative self-inquiry practice only it's more intellect-driven and on paper. So, if I were going to deconstruct your sentence... "All the existant colors are held within the spectrum of colors" Here are the questions I would ask: Q: Do colors exist? A: They appear to. There are various shades and hues. Q: What are colors? A: They appear as hues and shades that fill in flat shapes within the field of visual awareness. They are two dimensional even though I think of them as three dimensional. Q: Is there a spectrum of colors for them to be "in"? A: Maybe not. I see no spectrum of colors. This could be a framework. The only colors that I know are "real" are the ones that appear in my field of awareness right now in the present moment. So, there is no spectrum of colors to be seen. So, the spectrum of colors is another thought story. Q: What is "in"? A: Can a color be in something? No. colors appear as they are. Q: Can anything be "in" something? A: Not sure. Let's check. Q: Can a sight be in a sight? A: No. Sight is a single flat plane of shapes imbued with colors. Q: Can a sound be in a sound? A: No. All sounds combine together to make one sound. Q: Can a feeling be in a feeling? A: I don't know. I sense depth... so maybe. So, after this deconstruction I can write the sentence again, omitting the false parts. "All existent colors are." Since "are" implies existence, we can omit the word "existent." So... "All colors are." Then I look to see if I can deconstruct it further. i.e. What does "are" mean? What is existence? etc. So, this is the basic process, and you keep deconstructing the sentence until you've explored all possible assumptions and beliefs that are being unconsciously held and communicated.

I think I've gotten to a point where I have what's true boiled down to what I'm actually experiencing in the present. I'm aware that all else is a belief. But if you have a regular world one, I can work with that too. Once I get them, I will deconstruct them until they are true.

Thanks.

Nope. Never been cheated on before. Knock on wood. But I do have a tendency to idealize and rationalize wiser choices away. I'm the living with bears person from time to time. Haha.

There are higher truths and lower truths. Using a higher truth where a lower truth is more appropriate is foolish not wise. On this same line of reasoning, because all is one I'm going to go live with bears. We are one... well you will be soon.

INFJ is just another framework. That's how I see it. I don't take it very seriously anymore. But it's fun to meet others with similar preferences to my own. My values when I was a teen were very different, so the first time I ever took the test I got INTP. But I deconstructed these social patterns as values because I realized they were an outgrowth of conditionings that weren't the most authentic for me. So, in the years since then I've usually tested as an INFJ.

I totally agree. I tend to be very idealistic and perfectionistic and get stuck in my head. I think courting the development of some ESTP qualities will help an INFJ function at their best. Very counter-intuitive.

I'd imagine that a person who had this problem and then became enlightened would probably still need to detox if they were physically addicted. But it would likely be easier to quit from an enlightened mindset. I would think that an enlightened person would be far less likely to partake because they accept reality as it is. So, they're far less likely to try something addictive in the first place.

I think that older people tend to get further and further away from themselves. It's a shame. This pattern is probably responsible for most of society's biggest issues. The people running the show (adults) are the least in touch with the truth of who they are. I would recommend Spiritual Autolysis for self-inquiry. It's where you attempt to write something you believe is true and then deconstruct the thought to find false assumptions.

I've yet to read them but he's on my reading list. I only know what I've seen from his work in the past week on the forum and I've been conversing with him on the forum too. He does seem like a very loving person... but a sneaky bastard nonetheless.

I'm so happy to hear that. I think the emptiness/non-meaning words tends to block out love because how can there be nothingness, unconditional love, and particular loving relationships. It all seems very antithetical. But Jed is right in saying that all you should want from the experience is truth. Because all other notions, except radical truth, can block out the experience of enlightenment. If you come to it expecting unconditional love, you'll never get there, because you're preferring a future moment which is antithetical to unconditional love... because it's a condition. So, I think Jed omits it on purpose, much in the way a Zen Master remains reticent.