Forestluv

@Ibn Sina I’m not disagreeing with you. I am trying to provide clarity. You give a great example with the ice cream cone. Someone eats an ice cream cone and thinks “I decided to eat this ice cream cone. I caused this”. This would be referred to as a “proximal cause”. Yet as you state, we can expand outward toward an ultimate cause. What caused you to desire ice cream? Perhaps the hot weather? What caused the hot weather? What caused the neurons in your brain to fire in such a way for you to desire ice cream? What impact did your diet have on this? What influenced your self image such that you are not on a strict diet to lose weight and can’t eat ice cream? What events led to the ice cream vendor to live in this town and open an ice cream shop? These are all valid inputs, yet it gets deeper. You state “An infinite chain of cause and effects that has bounced us like a ping pong ball to and fro has finally brought us here.” Notice how you use the term “infinite”. If it is infinite, then we cannot trace the cause. If Ultimate cause is infinite, then it is untraceable. As well, notice how you say “an infinite chain”. This suggests a linear chain of cause and effects. Yet this goes beyond an infinite linear chain. It is beyond linear. For every causal point in that linear chain, you can branch off and find inputs from another line that influenced that cause. It is infinite in multiple dimensions. Infinity is not simply infinite along one linear chain of events in a timeline. Infinity has infinite dimensions. At this point, we are at total inter-connected One. This is a nondual realization. However, this is not to say causes in-between proximal cause and ultimate cause and not useful. It is very useful to have a functioning society.

Notice the opposition thinking here. The brain is conditioned to think in opposites. This creates separation and leads to suffering. Is Leo 100% businessman that gives 0% shit about us? That is an extreme view that would be hard to hold. The opposite view would be: Leo is 0% businessman and gives 100% shit about us. That is also an extreme view that would be hard to hold. You are asking your mind to choose between polar opposites. Since neither polar opposite is absolutely true, there will be internal turmoil as the mind tries to interpret the world through this lens.

A few of the mockings in this thread are over the top. Mocking can be fun and beneficial in some contexts, yet it can also be harmful in other contexts.

I don’t see it as a plan - that is too anthropomorphic to me. I don’t see it as determined unfolding ether - that has too much of a cause and effect timeline in it. From one perspective, it’s amazingly simple: there is simply One Now of happenings. From another perspective, it’s incredibly complex and includes imagination and reality, time, intentions, desires, cause and effect, material and immaterial etc. An integrated, comprehensive understanding here goes deep and broad. Notice how you say responsibility is an illusion because there are too many variables that influence what we do. Yet then say we can follow the reasons behind our action to see there is an outside cause. That would be assigning responsibility (to an outside cause). I’m not saying either is right or wrong, just that they are not the same perspective. If there are too many variables that influence what we do, we cannot find an outside cause. What factors caused that “outside cause”? What factors caused the causation of that outside cause? Eventually, it leads to infinity in which everything is One interconnected whole. I think this is one of the most direct ways to have a nondual realization.

I think you make a really good point about having conscious ideas and thoughts about what is good for the collective. Everyone has their own self biased ideas about what is good for the collective, including myself. I may like to think my ideas are “more conscious” and better at a collective level. This can cloud one’s ability to see different perspectives and nuances. For example, China uses a lot of surveillance for the “social good”. In parts of China, they have sophisticated AI and facial recognition. There are over 200 million cameras in China monitoring people’s behavior and assigning social scores - one’s score is a measure of how trustworthy they are and affects someone’s level of freedom and access to resources. To me, this seems like a way to control people and maintain power in the communist party. Yet some people think it’s good for the collective and helps promote personal responsibility and public safety. From one perspective it’s done out of love for what one sees as good for the collective welfare. . . At times, it can be difficult to distinguish what is “progress”. It can be relative, nuanced and self-biased. When I look at social conflicts in other countries, I see it from an outsider’s perspective. Yet when I look at conflicts in the U.S. it is much harder to see it from an outsider’s perspective.

It's great hearing Alan Watts tell this story.

Grasshopper. . . .You don't know what absolute infinity is, you ARE absolute infinity. There is no external thing called "absolute infinity" that one can come to know. Why spend all this time conceptualizing through thoughts? Direct experience is king.

Below is just what is arising in me. As a person, I am not an authority. Others may give different insights that resonate with you. I think when people talk about decisions and actions, they are 99.99% at the personal level. "How do I make decisions?", "How do I take actions?". This has practical value for survival. Decisions and actions are how we navigate through life. In terms of evolution, reflecting on prior decisions and considering how we can improve our future decisions has an evolutionary advantage. And only humans can do it. Yet if we take a closer look, it's an illusion. Decisions depend on a timeline and a story. Nothing wrong with that. But that aint happening Now. If one surrenders into Now, there is no person and there are no decisions. It would be more accurate to say that there are happenings without a "me" taking ownership of it. There may be thoughts about decisions happening Now, yet in the context of Now they have no more relevance than bird chirps. Stories like “I decided to have cereal with blueberries. Then I decided to do Yoga instead of running because it was hot outside” - are just stories. Yet that’s what humans do - a big part of our life is storytelling. However, there may be a transcendent form of decisions. A god-like mechanism of decisions. Yet this would be a different context than how we normally use the term decision since it would be transcendent of the person. I haven’t heard anyone communicate on this level, yet Leo seems to be exploring this area. I have limited direct experience in this area.

This is really straightforward. . . Words and symbols are within infinity. A subset of infinity cannot capture infinity. A simple example: Words and symbols cannot capture the direct experience of tasting an apple. Any description of how an apple tastes is not the experience of tasting an apple. Go describe the taste of an apple to someone who has never tasted an apple. You can spend years describing the taste of an apple and that person will have never experienced the truth of the actual taste.

@ActualizedDavid This "death" refers to attachment and identification to a psychological self and a body. The physical body does not die in the traditional sense. It keeps going. It is self attachment/identification to the body that dissolves.

Still applies. The map is not the territory, yet the map is territory. Being attached to words is quite limiting.

Map and Territory.

@Nivsch I noticed that Israel denied Reps. Omar and Tlaib entry hours after Trump's tweet and call to block them. I'm curious about you view on this and how the government and society may view it.

@Schahin I think you ask some good questions, yet I don't think I can answer them properly. The way you frame it has a controller and something to control. This may be true and I totally get how it can be framed that way. If someone has an opportunity to experience being god, it seems natural that they would want to find out "How do I do it?", "How does this whole thing work?". I can see how deeply spiritual people would pursue those questions and that there are meaningful awakenings there. Yet to me, those questions seem important to the person at the human level. Ime with "trans-human" consciousness, questions and curiosities important to humans was no longer important. Rather than being a god that controls all things, it would be closer to say I was all things. But even that can be misinterpreted with the term "I". This piece you wrote is so poignant. It reflects the love, wonder and yearning within the human spirit. It's so beautiful.

“There is no-doer” is a major realization and it helped me with harsh self-criticisms and regrets I carried. Yet “there is no-doer” can also get out of hand. I’ve seen people use “there is no-doer” to justify all sorts of behavior - which twists the realization out of context.

@Schahin This is just my take: I think it would be best to first consider the illusory nature of a personal self. Adding in a traditional external god with divine plans muddies the waters, imo. For example, right now I have a headache. If I am god, why can’t I stop my headache? Is god choosing that I should have a headache? These questions are arising from a personal level of consciousness. Consider removing the god part for a bit. Asking if a person should take 100% responsibility assumes that there is a person and asks if an occurrence is caused by the choices this person has made. This construct has practical value at the human level. Yet let’s take a closer look. . . Who/what is this person? If we are to assign responsibility to a person, there must be a person that has agency to make choices and cause effects. Assigning responsibility to the apparent proximal cause (the person) is convenient and has practical value. Yet if we look deeper into ultimate cause, we will start to see many inputs outside the person that contributed to cause. The number of inputs expands to infinity, such that no thing or set of things cause the effect. We are left with One/Nothing/Everything/Universe. Yet this truth does not have much value at a relative human level. Some people may refer to this One/Nothing/Everything/Universe as “god”. This is transcendent of a personality construct. Or we could introduce a god with agency that has a divine plan. The tricky thing here is lower conscious ideas of an external god that makes decisions and has a plan. These ideas about god have been conditioned into most humans and using these assumptions will distort understanding. Higher understandings of god are much more expansive and I would say direct experience of such consciousness is really important to gain understanding. Taken together, I think it would be more efficient to ask your questions with substituting “One/Everything/Nothing” instead of “god”. This can help get trans-personal realizations without the baggage of “god” terminology getting in the way. If the inquiry is about a personal illness, the desire for Truth may be quite strong - yet so is personal attachment and identification.

@Schahin Your questions are putting stress on traditional framework that a “you” exists and a concept of a god separate from “you” exists. We can intellectualize on this framework, yet eventually it will collapse. Yet this can take years (or decades) of intellectualizing. I would put more pressure on this underlying framework and deconstruct it. . . . How can we assign responsibility to a person, when we don't understand what a person is? How can we assign attributes to god without direct experience and understanding of god? I would back up the truck and inquire who/what is this “you”? Who/what is this “person”? Who/what is god? Without depth in these areas, intellectualizing about how persons and god interact will be superficial. This is much deeper and radical than you realize.

That is a major insight that few people realize. I think the realization of the illusory sense that I have free will is one of the most important doors to open. Related to this is the realization that I am not the author of my thoughts.

@Pouya I had a revelation in a sensory deprivation tank. Consciousness went back to the womb, prior to birth. Everything after birth dissolved. All language, ideas, things. Anything that comes after birth dissolved. One might think there would be nothing left. Yet a lot was revealed, because it was no longer veiled and clouded.

You are transcendent of this teaching and Ramana Maharishi. Both are creations of You. I also see value in that. ?

This boils down to the usage of “you”. If one tries to see a transcendent Self from the perspective of a finite self, it won’t make sense. It’s like asking “If I punched someone, were my muscles cells responsible? Or were my neurons responsible? Should a neuron just lay back like they had no control?” This frame doesn’t make sense because it is conflating two conscious levels. Your personhood is transcendent of all the cells in your body. Talking about you from the perspective of a muscle cell wouldn’t make sense. To say “I didn’t punch him, the muscle cells in my body punched him!” doesn’t quite work. Yet a being would need to transcend the cells in their body to realize this. Similarly “You” are transcendent of the self construct of “you”. Speaking of the transcendent “You” from the perspective of a self construct of “you” won’t make sense. One needs to transcend the self construct of “me” to realize this.

This is based on “nature and nurture” theories. It has value in relative contexts, yet ultimately it all collapses to nothing/everything. There isn’t even a “you”. What caused your gene sequence? And what caused those causations to cause your genetic sequence? And the causations of the causations of those causations that caused your genetic sequence? Eventually you get to One everything/nothing and the whole “me” house of cards comes crashing down. It goes even deeper. That “you” in bold doesn’t exist.

It can not be explained through the lens you are looking through. However, I’m not saying that lens is “wrong”. It’s like someone wearing infrared glasses asking someone to show them UV light. There is nothing “wrong” with infrared glasses, yet one will not be able to see UV light while they are perceiving through infrared glasses.

I’m not addressing you personally here. These are general observation of social dynamics. The above sentiment could come from someone at Green/Yellow trying to pull Orange up to Green. Or it could come from Orange resisting Green and trying to maintain Orange. These two positions are very different orientations driven by different values and desires. The Green/Yellow person may see the collective good in BI, yet may realize that it may not be practical to implement and there may be unintended negative consequences. The key here is that Green/Yellow values that collective goodness and will advocate for it. Such a person will want things to progress and offer ideas to keep the progress going. For example, they may see some drawbacks in the structure of BI and offer some ways we could modify it to address those concerns and make the proposal more efficient. For example, if BI is funded by rerouting social security funding - it could make both BI and social security programs vulnerable to future dismantling (since social security has much deeper infrastructure). If both B1 and social security was lost, this would not be good for the collective. We may say in this context that the current BI proposal is not good for the collective - yet let’s re-work it to address this concern. Or, a Green/Yellow may say that the most important here is the underlying value of meeting basic needs, yet BI is not the best way and offer other another option to achieve this goal. Orange will have a very different orientation. An Orange person may see the collective good in BI, yet not want to move in that direction because they are anchored in Orange. Similar to Green/Yellow, they may voice support for the underlying intention of the proposal and voice “concerns” about how it’s not practical or it will have unintended consequences. Yet Orange will not want to progress, so they will not offer energy and ideas to progress. Rather, they will delay, stonewall, drag their feet, undercut and make excuses. For example, over the last six years, the workforce at my job has gone from 150 years of being 90% upper-class white to being highly diverse - ethnically, socially and economically. This is had positives for the image and economics of the institution - which is attractive to Orange administrators. The problem is that the administrators are still all upper-class straight white men. There is a lot of grass roots Green, yet Orange administrators resist. They know they can’t resist by rejecting Green values, so they try to appear supportive of Green. Yet they aren’t. They try to appear as being pragmatic and concerned - yet they keep avoiding, delaying or resisting any new initiative toward progress. And often try to slip in Orange level constructs. Just like conservative Blue has “dog whistles” that Green has awakened to, Orange can speak in “code”, in which Green is awakening to. This dynamic can also be seen with corporate Orange Democrat’s resisting progressive Green Democrats.

Great question. True resolution won’t come from the same mindset that created the situation in need of resolution. That mindset keeps the mind engaged within that game and will perpetuate the game.