Carl-Richard

Do you like that?

I very well know the difference between my anus and my back, thank you.

Make sure to only turn it on at the very end (and obviously no clothes on). You don't want to get desensitized

I wasn't exactly crouching over the fan

Negotiate boundaries?

What did you use to do?

Explain to me how it works.

Damn, that was pretty progressive. Any particular people that inspired you? I would listen to more of that.

While it's true that you can't sell absolute garbage, there is something to be said about audience capture. People listen to tons of different artists where there is no true "better or worse". If it's bringing something unique and creative to the table, or if it's just something that people generally like which is decently executed, and if you're persistent about it, you'll eventually build an audience.

Whatever level of suffering exists, there will be people who think it's the greatest injustice, "how could God do such a thing?", etc. The thing about life is that it's adaptive, and what makes us adaptive also makes us suffer. Suffering is what makes us play the game. If you didn't suffer, you would become infinite formlessness right now. Even a person who spends most of their time in non-dual states has moments of resistance, subtle residual patterns that still needs working on.

Be.

To repress anger is easy. To express it responsibly is harder. I do not recommend repressing all anger. Closing yourself off internally has external consequences. You'll turn into a rock.

@Tyler Robinson Notice the message behind the thread you're commenting under.

I'm essentially saying I won't believe it before I see it You currently don't have the capacity to imagine the full extent of the cohesive whole in its entirety, let alone the entirety of each "part" that you're proposing. It's just an abstract idea. So whatever you're proposing is not the thing, and I want to see the thing. I currently only know this thing (reality 1.0), and so do you.

@AtheisticNonduality Tbh, I feel to decisively label him as Orange-Green, when I don't feel comfortable labeling him at all, is inappropriate. He is kinda all over the place: sometimes he comes off as an epistemically arrogant Orange, sometimes he comes off as a Green New-Ager, and sometimes he comes off like a perspectivally complex Yellow. Of course, it's to some extent like this for all people, but it's very noticeable with thisintegrated, and I can give detailed accounts for all of these examples. And I can hear him saying "what if me being different just means I'm Turquoise?". Maybe? Could someone at Turquoise come off as an Orange dunce 1/3rd of the time? Maybe Turquoise is just completely wild, I don't know. The best explanation I've got is just thisintegrated being an atypical guy with an atypical personality, way of thinking and history.

Doesn't really work on young people

Still conceptual though.

First time on LSD at 18 years old: chasing and grasping onto experiences leads to suffering.

Trust your experience and trust your rationality. They're talking about conceptual distinctions that are useful for describing some limited aspects of reality. They're not describing the ultimate nature of pure consciousness, which is unlimited. You do you. I used to be like this. I prefer to have my rational mind on team with my spiritual experiences as much as possible (which is never 100%, but it's better than being perpetually confused).

I've sat in meditation many times where the sensations of my body, the perceptions of my visual field behind my eye lids and the sounds in the room, literally start fading away, consistently the same way every time, to the point where I feel like I have no body, no mind, and that there is no space, no time. I didn't go all the way though, only up to the point where I felt like I was no one, nowhere, and that I would disappear forever and never come back, because that is a scary thing to let go into when you're completely sober.

This video in general parses out a lot of the fine distinctions between things like "mind" and "Mind" (and in fact idealism and solipsism). The Kastrup-Spira combo is excellent for this. 14:49 is about perceptions specifically.

So I guess everything is slippery, heh? Want more videos?

I think you should focus on the last part where he said conceptual distinctions are ok to make for utility reasons. That solves everything.

I guess you're a videos guy, so I'll let Rupert take it away:

Again, I'm making a distinction (a conceptual one, merely for utility) and again, everything is consciousness, so the distinction technically happens within consciousness. In other words, you can have consciousness either with perceptions present, or you can have consciousness without perceptions present. It's just easier to say "perceptions vs. consciousness", because "consciousness with perceptions present vs. consciousness without perceptions present" is a mouthful, and it logically follows if you already know that everything is consciousness (which I've said 12 times now). And what is a perception? It's anything that has a form that you can experience, and it's generally very humancentric and linked to your sense organs: sights, sounds, smells, sensations, thoughts, feelings, emotions, colors, objects, etc. Again, consciousness can exist without perceptions present, like in cessation, and it can exist with perceptions present, which makes the distinction useful for differentiating between these two things.