Carl-Richard

Does using a 7-letter word to refer to a concept instead of a 9-letter word change the underlying logical structure?

1. Try to be truthful. 2. Don't try to be humorous, learn to just be. Socializing is just about being together. That's the truth about socializing. Humor falls out if it naturally at some points. But it's ok to just socialize and not be humorous. Humor is a happy surprise. Forcing humor can be one of the least humorous things you can do. People also like when you say insightful things and being deep. But that doesn't always happen either, and forcing that might make you come off like a jackass. Forcing what isn't there, that's a general trap. Forcing what isn't there, is to not be truthful.

So you're able to concede to for example @Someone here defining consciousness as "everything" in one case, but also defining consciousness as "perception" in another? Generally you're able to use the word "consciousness" differently depending on the discussion you're having?

You'll never hear @Breakingthewall ask "can we agree on the definition and proceed from there?", which is a common courtesy in discussions, because he is not concerned about discussing but asserting his frame. Do you feel like this describes you, @Princess Arabia ? Are you able to adapt your use of words to the situation or are you constantly stuck asserting your own frame?

Then use the word "perception". Or if you want to talk about being aware of being a self, then "self-aware" or "self-reflective capacity" or "meta-consciousness". Or having an inner world that creates its own representations or interpretations of an external world: intentionality. Or being awake and alert instead of asleep: wakefulness. Or being under anesthesia: anesthetized. Or being in a coma: comatose.

Changeless.

Nested recontextualization, really interesting.

Only you believe this.

If you want to die because you want to go to heaven, you go to hell. And if you want to stay alive, you actually prefer hell over heaven.

James Bond in No Time To Die.

Yes. No.

Transcending suffering is so profound that it is worthy of the name Truth.

A buddhist believes in the Four Noble Truths and follows the Noble Eightfold path. David Goggins goes hard. Buddhists literally talk about the cessation of suffering. David Goggins talks about going hard. Where you got the similarities from, is hard to grasp (only if we don't assume ad hoc reasoning).

Spoken like a true fanatic👌

Probably many people throughout history.

Heaven obviously exists. It's what's at the other side of the hell experiences.

Hell experiences are reasonably a thing. But is Jesus the only Lord and Savior? 🤔

Yep. Different things work at different points of the path. At some point, for example focusing on the breath can seem counterproductive and simply resting in awareness is more productive. And sometimes resting in awareness is counterproductive because whenever you encounter samadhi, you recoil in fear. Then letting go of the resistance becomes more productive. And if you don't feel you can let go of the resistance, then finding out why you can't let go is more productive. At some point, meditating every living moment of your life and obsessing constantly about enlightenment can be more productive. And at some point, letting go of the practice, letting go of the obsession can be more productive. That's the tension between Neo-Advaita "you're already it, stop, relax" and the progressive path "meditate or take psychedelics", or Integral people "work on your shadow and integrate your psyche before self-transcending". It's not a tension when you recognize that different things work at different points of the path.

Leo has expressed resistance to letting go of his identity, as have @Inliytened1 for example. That means you're not enlightened. If you are still hanging on to your identity, you are still identified, you are still suffering. And when you let go, you're free from suffering. So enlightenment is about suffering just as much as it's about truth, because seeing the truth means you stop suffering. Seeing illusion and delusion means you suffer. Suffering is tied to ignorance. You should read more Buddhism.

You can't deny there is a correlation between how long you can meditate for and how deep you can meditate. If you can enter deep meditation after 5 minutes, you can also very likely meditate for a very long time after that without problems. But if you cannot meditate for more than 5 minutes, you probably can't meditate very deeply in any case.

You can't meditate for 13 days straight without meditating deeply.

Do you distinguish between the relative and the absolute? Do you know about this distinction?

I see Leo contemplating reality but he is not enlightened.

If you can't distinguish relative from absolute, I can't help you. I can help you, but you have to at least become familar with the concept.