Forestluv

I'm not professionally trained in imminent suicide prevention. I can only encourage you to see a specialist in this area or to speak to someone that may help you. Have you tried calling a hotline? I imagine there are 24hr. hotlines with people trained in this area that can help you.

It's a combination. I would be genuine. To me, the term "conceal" suggests "hiding" something. It might be easier to explain this on an intellectual line. I teach genetics at a University. Sometimes I go on a date with someone and something related to genetics pop up. Maybe something in the news about genetics or perhaps a friend just had stem cell therapy and she is curious about genetics. Should I speak to her at a University level of genetics? No way. That would be inappropriate. It would come across as being arrogant and would not be helpful to her. It would be overwhelming and would cause tension. Rather, I would explain things in simpler terms - yet I would also appreciate her curiosity and I would feel good that I had knowledge to offer her. I wouldn't say I was "concealing" knowledge. I would say that I was offering knowledge at the level of the situation. Similarly, if I went out on a date, I would get a feel for the level of emotional depth the other person is comfortable with. If she casually mentions an insecurity she has at work and I go deep into the existential nature of human insecurity and fears of intimacy etc. that is inappropriate. As well, if I try to connect emotionally and there is a nonverbal boundary - I need to respect that and not dig deeper. Just like I wouldn't start talking about complex genetics concepts. The key for me is to sense this - it is often nonverbal. I feel an essence. Or she may change the topic or turn her body away. I would screen for people that have a certain level of emotional IQ and openness when I first meet them. Yet this is also developed over time. It is not "either / or". There are certainly times when I meet someone and she is totally closed down with major defenses and is totally out of touch with emotions. I would pass on this one. Yet another extreme is also a red flag. If someone totally opens up on the first date and becomes an emotional mess. . . no way. I'm attracted to women that have a sense of maturity about their emotions. They are grounded and have an openness that is appropriate for the situation. Also, that they have an interest to explore emotions and develop emotional bonds. Yet that takes time. Someone grasping at that on a first date looks very immature to me. I would say exploring your own emotions solo and with others - yet not in a "frothy" or "clingy" or "needy" kind of way. I also found it helpful to listen to heart-centered spiritual videos. As well, express emotions more. Write poetry, do art - allow those emotions to be expressed.

I'm not sure if this is written in the metaphorical "ego death" sense or the literal physical death. If it is referring to physical death, I encourage you to contact someone specialized in suicide prevention.

I understand what you are saying. I warned and then I proceeded to provide what I warned about. I understand that. There is also another "view" that I was pointing to that comes "prior" to the statement above. It is not imagery or conceptual. I think the only way to "see" it is to have the direct experience. It is really hard to point to and I am unable to transmit it to you. I would if I could, yet I clearly can't here. I'm doing the best I can, yet I can't transmit it to you here. . . Yet, that happens to me a lot. I've only met a few people in my life with the direct experience. That is why I often avoid pointing to it - it generally is misinterpreted and causes confusion as has happened here. It is not the fault of the receiver or the tansmitter. It's just so difficult to transmit. Perhaps, words may plant a "seed" in which the direct experience may arise. From the orientation you have been speaking, yes. I agree with that. I agree that this orientation and pointer has a lot of value here. Allowing for the existence of a timeline, I also agree with this. I would say that would depend on context. In many contexts, I agree that using the simplest of terms with little description is often beneficial. I see a lot of value in integrating perspectives and holism. I spend a lot of time in this space and see a lot of value here. Yet in it's truest sense, what I was pointing to is not about integrating perspectives or holism. It's not about using short descriptions or long descriptions. "Here", one word is too many and a million words are not enough. I again go back to the clear translucent crystal. It is not the actual crystal itself. It is not the image of the crystal. It is not conceptually about a crystal and ideas about everything and nothing. It comes prior to that. That which comes prior is doing it's best to express itself. But it can only use words and images to do so here. Yet it is not the words or images. As soon as the mind thinks in words and concepts, it is too late. All distinctions would need to dissolve for the direct experience to arise. To me, the crystal makes sense because of the direct experience of "prior". It's not even "me" that has had the direct experience because it's "prior" to that. To see it through a clear crystal, one would need to let go of the image of a clear crystal and that "I" am perceiving it through a clear crystal. It's more like from the clarity of the clear crystal everything arises from nothing. To me, "it" trying to express itself makes sense. Not because my mind can make sense of it, but because the direct experience that comes prior to imagery knows itself. This is the best I can do. Perhaps it may be helpful to someone reading the thread. Perhaps not.

Yea, I didn't mean to jump in and be all "spiritually correct". I now better understand the sentiment of your question. I would say that there is a certain type of happiness a person can experience. You asked whether a person could experience "true happiness" along the path. Are you asking about a deeper true happiness than standard personal happiness most people think of. Like the happiness of getting a good job, having free time to watch movies, having a good meal etc.? I would say there is a deeper true happiness than this. Ime, I had "glimpses" of this deeper happiness - a type of peace, stillness, bliss. Yet only glimpses. Ime, "transcending" the self is necessary because it is a more expansive happiness. If I am contracted within the personality construct, happiness will be limited to within that construct. Yet when consciousness expands beyond the personality, a deeper more expansive happiness arises. Perhaps I am just using the term "transcending the personality" and you might be calling it "enlightenment". I don't mean to be a stickler on terms. The sentiment is more important. . . I would say that some type of personal transcendence is correlated with the arising of that deeper / expansive happiness. At least ime. It seems to be the case from what I read about others as well.

From one perspective, you are saying somewhere is somewhere - which I agree with. One cannot point from nowhere. Yet, I also see your point and how I can improve my description for this situation, which I have attempted in the below post. That is not quite what I am pointing to. Yet I can see how your pointer would be more helpful in this situation. I have rephrased my description below. That is not my intention, yet I can see how a mind can view it that way. I appreciate your input. It helps me to see another perspective and how I can develop a more helpful pointer in certain contexts. I've taken your input and have attempted to create a better view from for this situation (written below). Hopefully, it's improved! Thanks for your input. I'm still learning and your perspective is helpful.

@Paul92 From one perspective, this is an ego that has hit rock bottom and is ready to surrender. Many people on the forum have direct experience with that and can be helpful. Many people on the forum have tried to offer you help with that and would continue to do so if you are open to it. From another perspective, this is a mind-body that is is telling us it wants to commit physical suicide. In such a case, no one on the forum is professionally trained in suicide prevention and therapy. If you are on the edge of committing physical suicide, it is a very serious issue. Just realize noone here is professionally trained in suicide prevention. I would strongly recommend seeking professional help with someone who is formally trained in this area.

You are not seeing my pointer. To be somewhere, I need to be somewhere. Yes, I am doing my best to point to nowhere, yet I need to be a somewhere to do so. You are saying the other person and I are both somewhere. Of course we are. As soon as one thought or word is spoken, it is a somewhere. I am not saying my somewhere is nowhere and his somewhere is somewhere. Rather, I am pointing out that his somewhere is somewhere. I am aware my somewhere is also somewhere. For this realization, I think it is essential to have the direct experience of nowhere. Not in imagery or thoughts. The direct experience of the actuality of nothing. In doing so, a human mind can observe the complete dismantling of all distinctions to nothing and the reassembly of distinctions into everything. I cannot offer a being that direct experience. The best I can do is point to it - and in doing so, it is a somewhere. I am not trying to point to a somewhere I call "nowhere" - that of course would be another somewhere. I am trying to point to the actuality of nowhere and I must be a somewhere to do so. These realizations come "prior" to the psychological dynamic of associating "enlightenment" to a "person". It would have been of no value for me to address distinctions that are prior to the distinctions of the question asked.

Of course. I am communicating on the human level. In doing so, I use imagery that human minds can understand to point beyond the imagery. If I communicated with human minds as if they were dog minds - it would be meaningless. Likewise, I would communicate very differently with a dog, bird or tree - since their relative reality is quite different than that of a human and they would not have the capacity to understand clear crystal imagery - at least not in the way humans might. I suppose if we want to get more "spiritually correct" I could say. . . "Based on the relative nature of a human mind, one might point to "enlightenment" as being sort of like a clear crystal that contains both everything and nothing. Yet this in and of itself is only a partial truth, since the full truth cannot be described. Any description would be a piece of a more expansive truth and only relative to an organism perceiving it. Even this description is a tiny partial truth. So is that last statement and this statement". . . Yet to me this is never-ending bulkiness, so I tried to trim it down. But yea, your point is essentially that being somewhere in]s not being nowhere. Yes, yet any thing is a somewhere. Any pointer is a somewhere.

This is just what is arising for me. . .Notice how you once again asked if one can follow this path and find some level of happiness without becoming enlightened. Part of the enlightenment story is that a person becomes enlightened. Ime, this is a huge distraction. . . Why not just ask if a mind-body can experience happiness? Or if happiness be found within the storyline? Why add in the "enlightenment" bit? It's just a distraction imo. It's reflective of a personality dynamic associating some goodies with an idea of enlightenment. . . Can a person find some level of happiness without becoming a tree in China? The question doesn't make any sense without the personal association. At the level of the human/person, I would say "yes". That a mind-body can experience happiness. My mind-body has experienced sensations of happiness, so my direct experience is "yes". . . Yet I would draw a distinction with human/person "happiness" and a transcendental "happiness".

I would be careful about getting too immersed into an "enlightenment story". Within this story all sorts of images and expectations are placed upon enlightenment. Yet enlightenment is like a perfectly clear translucent crystal - it contains nothing and everything. Who is that "someone" to live a happy life? Is there a someone to become happy or is there simply happiness with no owner? Who is that someone that owns happiness? The psychological self will always perceive through a filter of "what's in it for me? would I become truly happy if I gain enlightenment?". This will produce a distorted and cloudy view. One will not see the clarity within the crystal. Is not true happiness within the great clear crystal that contains both everything and nothing? Look into a clear crystal and see happiness within that clarity. If by "happy" you are referring to pleasurable sensations within a mind-body, that is a very different question, imo.

@LambChop Sometimes I feel like there is a beautiful glass statue inside of me. It is so sweet, delicate, gentle, innocent and loving. Yet that stature has been handled roughly in the past and got banged up quite a bit by a few people. So, that glass statue got put in a safe place so it won't get harmed. Yet, relationships just aren't the same when I keep that part of me locked up. My tendency in the past has been to over-share that part of me and getting burned. I may like a gal and open up - I might write her some poetry and start falling in love, under the illusion she is with me. Then finding out she has been just keeping me around and is cheating on me. It's devasting to that inner part of me and it gets locked up. Yet then the next relationship is just on the surface and I feel like I'm just going through the motions - it isn't meaningful or satisfying. What's helped me is to practice self love - not in a selfish egostical way. Rather in a loving way - like how I would treat others. To be kind to myself. Prepare a healthy meal for myself. Do yoga and take a bath occasionally. When I can reach a level of self love, I am not dependent on the other person for love. I don't try to please them so they will love me or give me attention. I don't need to open up my inner self on the third date and hope that they will approve of me. I am grounded in love, whether or not they are emotionally available. I am not dependent on them. I also need to establish healthy personal boundaries and respect their personal boundaries. Together, this allows a gradual trust to develop. You mentioned trust and I think this is a really important factor. Trust and also mutual support. Yet I've found I cannot develop that if I am not grounded in love and my well-being is dependent on what another person thinks of me or treats me.

@billiesimon Ime each relationship has it's own unique chemistry and dynamics (affected by one's personal history, their age, their life situation, their physiology, their culture etc). I don't think it's possible to make a blanket statement and say "this is what women want". Rather than trying to figure out what women want and to try to be that person, I've found it better to look at myself and what my genuine personality is and work with that. Then, a natural attraction and good chemistry with a woman arises. For example, I am naturally more open and empathetic, and I'm generally comfortable sharing about all sorts of emotions such as vulnerabilities, fears, insecurities etc. I like connecting through emotions. For example, I might like doing an eye gazing exercise with a partner to stimulate connection, experience what arises and then share about it. To me, that creates a sense of unity and bonding. I get to learn about her experience. There is often a sense of mutual support and a sense of "us" when we are together. Some women find this to be a complete turn-off. They want some image of a stoic male, some type of "alpha-male" or whatever that whole game is. I have no interest in living in that world. We absolutely don't connect. There are other women that like a level of sharing emotional and empathetic connection - to a degree. I generally like going deep and that depth can be overwhelming to many women. They just want to casually talk about and express their emotions - and bond on a relatively surface level. Here, I have to be careful not to go to depths that will freak them out. For example, Tantra and eye gazing can get emotionally intense and it can get uncomfortable for a lot of people - both men and women. I've had to learn about establishing healthy personal boundaries in this area. I tend to be more open and "over-share". It can be too much for some people. As well, being open and vulnerable does not mean dumping a lot of emotional baggage and projecting onto another person in a selfish or manipulative way to get what one wants - like attention. That is an immature expression. A more mature expression is a type of grounded, centered, genuine fearless vulnerability - it has a very different essence to it. Some women are attracted to this. Some are not. I've also found that over-sharing and empathy can create an unhealthy co-dependent relationship. Especially when a person that leans empathetic is with a person that leans narcissistic. I have over-shared in this dynamic and the other person uses that information in a manipulative selfish way - such as gaslighting. The empathetic person can get trapped in this dynamic because they feel empathy for the other person's negative emotions and want to help them, yet the other person isn't interested in being helped - they are motivated to get what they want. I think, in general, women like to have a certain degree of emotional and empathetic connection. Those that want more will be attracted to men that have a higher emotional intelligence and capacity for empathy. I'm aware of this level of desire and readiness with someone I'm with and I share at the same level she is sharing. Occasionally, I will go more open and deeper and get a sense of her response. Quite often, she will want to explore deeper. Other times, she will get a bit defensive and re-establish boundaries. Then I respect those boundaries and pull back. . . . There is a "now" aspect of emotional intimacy that is independent of the timeline and there is also an emotional intimacy that takes time to development.

I had some weird "dreams" last night. Maybe this thread charged it up. . .

Reading through your original post, I get a strong sense he does not want to be in a relationship which is causing him distress. My hunch is that he is not comfortable talking to you about it because you are oriented toward steering things toward a relationship - what he shares will get framed into a relationship - which is not what he wants. I may be off, that's just my sense. I’ve been on both sides of this. I spent years trying to create and maintain a relationship with someone who deep down didn’t want a relationship. I’ve also been on the other side: trying to get out of a relationship kindly, without hurting the other person. I’ve found trying to stay together in these dynamics doesn’t work. Ime, there is an easy way to find out if this is what’s going on. It sounds like in the past you were the one that put in the effort to rekindle the relationship and get it back on track. Perhaps don’t do that. Go a month without initiating any contact. A month without any efforts to steer things back to a relationship. Allow him to pursue what he wants. Given that time and space, maybe he will discover that deep down he wants a relationship with you. Perhaps he will move in another direction and pursue other interests in life. When two people both want to be in a relationship together, it is a very different dynamic than what you describe above. There are still difficulties and things ebb and flow - yet what you describe above sounds very different to me. It sounds like a guy that wants out of a relationship. Why be in a relationship in which you need to keep convincing the other person that they should want to be in a relationship with you? I find it much healthier to be in a relationship with someone that naturally wants to be in a relationship with me.

It sounds like he has been trying to communicate over and over that he doesn’t want to be in a relationship - that he is more oriented toward casual sexual relationships, while you are oriented toward a more serious committed relationship. He has directly said this and I would trust him that he is telling the truth that he doesn’t want to be in a relationship. To me it sounds like you two are just oriented differently and incompatible. Ime, this ends up causing misery for both people. In the past, I’ve found if I care more about their welfare than my desire for a relationship, I will let them go. I’ve been in situations in which I did care for their welfare, yet I had a stronger desire to steer things toward a relationship and it ended up causing more harm than good. I’ve found at times my role is not to be someone’s psychologist or health-care provider and the most loving, compassionate thing I can do is to let them go, because I’m actually causing harm to them by trying to keep them mine. At times, I also want to avoid deep sorrow, yet that is the other side of deep love. Yin and Yang. When I am the one wanting to get back together, I’ve found it helpful to commit to 30 days of no contact. During this time, I work on myself - personal issues, starting a new hobby, self love etc. If the person has said they want to break up and don’t reach out to me during this time then it’s not meant to be be. After 30 days of no contact, I consider contacting the person if I am ready to do so as a friend - and if I have interest in doing so. It’s hard, yet I’ve found it to be the best move after someone clearly indicates they want to break up with me.

My shaman stone. The mystical dreamweaver.

“I’m not coming back this time. . . “

@mandyjw That is beautiful. I'd love to have one!

Yea, I guess it's the relationship. Now, I won't buy them online. I'd want to meet it first to see if we have chemistry before we start a relationship together. . .

Yea. . . it seems my thinking is only a problem when it's a problem. I don't seem to notice thoughts that aren't problematic. . .

I went shopping for stones with my Reiki friend. I was examining them and didn't know how to choose good ones. I was looking for the prettiest ones, yet that didn't feel right. I asked my friend and she said "You don't choose the stone. It's a relationship - the stone also chooses you. You choose each other". She said it like freakin' Yoda would have.

Have you tried a psychedelic? There is nearly a 100% chance of full ego death. The ego will return, yet you would get a good look at life without an ego. It's how I got my first ego death experiences.

Yep. One of my deepest fears was that if I fully let go, something bad would happen - I experienced a lot of harm anxiety. I had deep fears if the "me" wasn't controlling the narrative, some darkness would arise. Like I would run outside and scream terrible things or hurt someone. It was a way for my ego to hold on. It pretty much said "Without me, all sorts of terrible things will happen". My other big anxiety was that I got in mind-body spaces in which I couldn't make it stop. I couldn't make the ISness of what was happening in the present moment stop. The weird thing was, it wasn't like anything bad was happening. It was just that I couldn't change or stop what is. There was no escape from it. Yet there is also the other side of the coin. . . for example, deeper levels of love, joy and beauty than I could have imagined.

@Satchidananda That is one heckuva story! Yowzers!