Forestluv

A deep human desire is to return Home.

and nothing to be understood.

@Nak Khid Look around the room you are in. See it as One Everything. Point to a thing that isn't One Everything. There is no-thing that isn't Everything. There is Nothing to contrast Everything with. I could give many examples of meaningful practical applications. Yet any example of meaning would be relative. Thus, there is no proof of objective universal meaning. Yet, there is truth prior to "proof". . . Have you ever searched for proof that now is now? Of course not, because the truth of now is prior to any evidence/proof of now. It would be more accurately categorized as "nonduality" The Einstein quote is an insight in a certain context, yet it goes much more radical. The Einstein quote asserts that there are so many things in existence that the human mind cannot comprehend it all. This is true. Yet it isn't what is being pointed to as Everything. This is more radical and goes beyond logic. This is intuitive since logic must be within it. One cannot transcend logic with logic. . . Direct experience becomes key.

Are you asking about the underlying motivation to say this? Or are you asking about the underlying truth of the saying?

Nothing. There is no thing in Everything. Yet each thing of Everything is also Everything. No things and all things are both Everything. This is the mindboggling nature of Everything. It cannot be captured. Everything = Nothing. Yet that is not pantheism. Pantheism is the belief that every single thing is god. This is both true and false. For any statement about Everything/God, the opposite statement would also be god. Yet that's not what pantheism is about. For example, a pantheist would state that every thing is god. Would they also accept that no thing is also god? I doubt it. Pantheism is using a common colloquial form of "everything". Yet, they haven't gone the full monty. If they did, their whole ideology of god would collapse, since the opposite of their ideology would also be god. They aren't willing to enter that abyss. Yet this isn't to say that pantheism has no value. Pantheism has some cool constructs and insights. And it can have practical value. I don't have anything against pantheism. It's just contracted - like all other constructs and dualities.

The realization of Everything.

I think a better definition of Pantheism is that every thing is god. This is distinct, yet included within, Everything is God. Everything is God = Nothing is God. . . I don't think that is what Pantheism means. This involves the realization of Everything. If one assumes an understanding of Everything and focuses on God, the deeper realization will not be revealed.

Starting threads without context are discouraged. Please provide some context at the start of the OP for the thread.

Who/what is the author of the book about sausagehead and his dog? Who/what is the author of the book about an author that wrote a book about sausagehead and his dog? Who/what is the author of the book about an author that wrote a book about an author that wrote a book about sausagehead and his dog? Off we go into infinity. . . No Authors = All Authors

@Existence You might be entering a deeper level of contemplation that is not limited by reason and conceptual constructs. We can create conceptual constructs about god and what god experiences, yet there is also an "ISness" that cannot be captured through theoretical constructs trying to define what IS is. For example, "If. . . . then. . . " constructs have an underlying assumption. In the question above, we are assuming that there is a thing called god that has no desire to do anything? Do we know that is true? How do we know that is true? . . . Quite often, we are not even aware of our assumptions. When we become aware of the underlying assumption, the rest of the question becomes mute. For example, what if god does have desire to do something? Then the question is recontextualized or dissolves. Fundamental to these questions is a thing called "existence". What is existence? How can we distinguish between existence and non-existence? Who determines whether it counts as existence or non-existence. Could there be an in-between of "quasi-existence"? What is the difference between "reality" and "no reality"? Is there one reality or countless realities? Does a human and a donkey share the same reality? Whose reality is more real? Is waking reality more real than a dream reality? Is there a separate thing called "god" that is imagining this reality? If so, who/what imagines that god? These types of questions are designed to pull the mind out of logical, reasonable thinking. Similar to zen koans. As well, there is a "trans-human" ISness that is not contracted within a human perspective. It can be fun to create constructs to these questions. It can also be insightful to question the questions.

This gets into the "I AM" realization. People are conditioned to add on to the "I AM" and identify with that add-on. Then a personal story arises. For example: "I AM. . . a man". Here there is identification of being "a man" and a man story follows. . . "I AM a man. As a man, I am more masculine than woman. As a man, I should be assertive and decisive. I should take control". . . Or another story may arise, depending on the conditioning of the human. . . Or "I AM Russian", "I AM an artist", "I AM a person with ADD", "I AM often insecure" , "I AM smart", "I AM stupid". . . and on and on and on. . . See what happens when there is only "I AM". Just that I AMness - with nothing extra added on. What is the direct experience of simply "I AM"?

@JonasVE12 Imagine there is a green marble and a blue marble. We can create separation and say there are two individual marbles - the green one and the blue one. Notice how there is no attachment/identification to either marble. We don't say "I am the green marble and you are the blue marble". Now imagine there are two individual human bodies. Notice the attachment/identification. The mind thinks "I am this individual person and they are that individual person". Here, there is not just individuality of two human bodies - there is an additional attachment/identification to individuality. That attachment/identification add-in is ego.

I think this is a great question. It's something I've contemplated a lot myself. It reminds me of my first two Ayahuasca ceremonies. . . During the first ceremony, the whole story of "me" was deconstructed. At first, it was odd and a bit uncomfortable. Yet then I noticed that the deconstruction/transcendence of me was kinda cool. I was one with everyone at the ceremony. I was one with the music. I felt such deep love. I was fully in the moment. I walked outside and the mountains in the moonlight was so mystical and beautiful. I thought "How have I missed such beauty my entire life?". At the end of the ceremony, we all sat around eating fruit together. It was so beautiful, fulfilling and blissful. . . Two days later, the second ceremony was much different. As my story got deconstructed, there were lessons that appeared. Lessons about how my personality was created. For example, how hyper self-criticism during my life conditioned a subconscious insecurity complex. And how this subconscious insecurity affected my subconscious interactions with other people. This was uncomfortable to look at. I wanted to go back to the fulfilling, blissful realm of the first ceremony. I tried to steer things away from the insecurity to bliss, yet didn't have control. Then anxiety appeared. Overall, they were uncomfortable lessons to look at, yet they revealed insight into my subconscious programming. What had been subconscious was now conscious. One reason it was subconscious was that I didn't want to look at it. . . This expanded consciousness/awareness allowed the letting go of the underlying psychological dynamic. This allowed for a greater sense of liberation and wellness.

Everyone has a certain level of mental background noise. The yoga may have raised your awareness. If it’s just a slight background you find peaceful, you are fortunate.

Transcend the desire to objectively analyze different POVs. Objective analysis is stage Orange. Yellow is about integrative, systemic, relativistic modes of being. For example, Yellow can comfortably hold two opposing POVs without grasping. Yellow understands paradox and is fluid. Perhaps read more about what Yellow is like. My favorite book in this are is "How to think like Leonardo Da Vinci". Imo, Da Vinci is a great example of Yellow.

There are ways we can treat the mind and body lovingly to minimize unnecessary suffering along the path. For example, we wouldn't want to traumatize the mind and body by taking a large dose of psychedelics on an airplane. This is not a good setting for a large dose and could needlessly cause trauma and PTSD. . . Yet, there is a certain amount of discomfort inherent in transcending the ego. For me, there have been periods of high anxiety. So, I've tried to be kind to my mind and body and not give it more than it can handle. It's also possible to go through ego backlash, periods of depression and "what's the point? why do anything" spaces. You say that you are motivated to make your life better and more fulfilling. Ime, as I got to the deeper levels more and more was surrendered: including my life and fulfillment. There are a lot of spiritual areas that focus on improving life and fulfillment. Yet there are also areas in which all of that is deconstructed and transcended. I would be mindful of what your desires are. If your desires are life improvement/fulfillment and you enter areas in which your life, improvement and fulfillment get deconstructed and transcended, it could be counter to the desires of the mind and body - causing a lot distress. As Leo quoted in a recent video "It's all fun and games until someone loses and *I*". . . The desire to know Truth regardless of the consequences on life improvement and fulfillment is a different orientation. I'm not saying one is better than the other. Yet I would be mindful about which rabbit holes I go down and how far down I go.

@Pernani Are you asking this out of theoretical curiosity? Or are you asking because you want to continue down a spiritual path and want to minimize the potential suffering you may encounter? These are two very different orientations. For example, I may be curious in theory whether it's possible to learn how to scuba dive without any anxiety. That is very different than if I am actually going to go scuba diving for the first time and since I've had anxiety disorders, I'm worried about going into panic during the dive and I want to minimize the chance of that happening.

@Nahm Nice guide .

Ok. You are saying you have direct experience in which the body and mind are doing their thing and just act without prior thought. To me, you just answered your own question.

@Swagala Personally, I don't find it helpful to compare my insides to other people's outsides.

@arlin There are some nuggets in there about relative truth, yet imo the way you frame it sounds like a resistant ego trying to control the narrative the mind.

Is this something you were told? Or is this something revealed in your direct experience? Imagine spending 40 years of life assuming something was true and then one day suddenly realizing it wasn't true.

@Pernani I think what you are getting at is the actual experience rather than intellectual conceptualization. As Leo quoted in his recent video "It's all fun and games until someone loses an *I*". It can be fun and games discussing it intellectually in cafes and on forums, yet when it's time to face the music, the experience can be uncomfortable at times. I'm imagining climbing Mt. Everest. Thinking about it can be intriguing and exciting. Yet actually doing it and experiencing it is different. I imagine those that actually climb Mt. Everest have undergone some uncomfortable mental and physical conditions. In addition to feeling motivated and adventurous, I'm sure there are times when they feel fearful and anxious. They may face frostbite or hypothermia. They may face a technical challenge they are unsure they can do. At times they may be empowered, other times insecure. There are times when they feel they can't handle it and out. There aren't any guarantee how the journey will unfold. For some it may be relatively smooth, for others it may involve a lot of suffering. Yet I would think those that make it to the top of Mt. Everest place the top as the top. There are times when reaching the top is more important than security and comfort. . . Imagine a hiker considering Mt. Everest saying "I don't want to suffer during this ascent. Is suffering necessary?". . . It's not so much whether suffering is necessary or not. It's that this mentality will likely be a huge block. As soon as this hiker faces discomfort, what will happen? They will turn around. Similarly, when a mindset is asking "Will seeking Truth involve suffering?" or "What is seeking Truth doesn't benefit me?" - there are huge barriers. Along the path, as soon as one faces discomfort or sacrifice, they will bail. Yet this doesn't mean we need to manufacture suffering. Someone climbing Mt. Everest shouldn't do it naked to manufacture suffering. The person can wear warm clothing and bring supplementary CO2. Similarly, we can be kind to the mind and body along the path. For example, we wouldn't take 200ug of LSD and jump into a pitful of snakes. This would traumatize the mind and body and likely cause PTSD issues that the mind and body would need to work through.