Carl-Richard

Let him grow.

Welcome home!

Is it a coincidence that Maya is a feminine name? I think not

Is this some sort of Bible?

If I were to play devil's advocate, there was a time in the universe's early history that not even hydrogen atoms existed. They only formed after some time when the universe cooled down. The concept of emergence posits that new forms have always and will always emerge out from pre-existing structures, and that is what drives the evolution of the universe. This is therefore compatible with the idea that consciousness is an emergent phenomena of complex computational structures, coincidentally neurobiological machines (brains). Rationalists have no problem accepting absurd statements if they've been indoctrinated into accepting them. To cross your gut-feeling in favor of your intellect is seen more or less like a badge of honor. Self-righteousness and self-bias is a deadly combination. I think a way of addressing the problem that a materialist would be more able to understand is to point out the fact that calling it "emergent phenomena" in the first place is actually just a euphemism for "non-physical" or "immaterial" (atleast in the way that they're using the word). There is no physical/causal mechanism there, only a fancy word which serves as a materialistic "God of the gaps"-argument ("if we're not sure how, then Matter did it"). If consciousness is an emergent phenomena (non-physical), then to say it's still "caused" by something physical is a contradiction, because then you would have no reason to not just call it a physical phenomena. If the physical nature of the causal mechanism was known, then you would for sure just call it physical. There is no physical evidence of such a thing; no measurements, no mechanisms. The inclination towards the word "emergent" only comes from a lack of confidence. The problem is that most materialists don't have the epistemological impetus to go down that line of reasoning in the first place, so the probability that they will be able to follow the arguments or let alone have an open mind is close to zero. To truly entangle the indoctrination of materialism takes a rigorous and thorough investigation of its assumptions and the phenomenology of experience. I have a video example of how this may look with Rupert Spira taking answers from a "trained scientist" with materialistic concerns:

Orange is pursuing success for the sake of success, money for the sake of money. Going green doesn't mean you give up all your money. It's just that your priorities change. Maybe that will lead to you becoming less wealthy, but that isn't necessarily the case.

Reality is infinite. Intellectual understanding is finite.

Would be interesting to see where he is at in a few years. Assuming he is young, he has a good shot at evolving to green, something along the lines of Joe Rogan (not peak green).

One of the constraints of the movie format in relation to yellow in particular is that the meta-perspectival nature would probably not translate well into a "message" that you would want to put in a movie, or atleast I can't imagine it catching on in our current culture.

@DocWatts Spiral Dynamics tends to get wonky when you apply it to art, especially with yellow. You can take aspects of it (like the message) and place it there, but even then it's not something you should expect to come across.

@blandana

Any examples?

Imagine that one day, they do travel back in time, but they find out that everything they knew was wrong

Well, that's on you. You're not saying much

That is one way to look at it, yes. The true "goal" though is to realize total unity, total Love, and that requires immense acceptance, trust, and surrender. Complete erradication of all boundaries, all distinctions, all separation, all resistance, all fear. That means you have to have to literally give up your own life to God. With that said, having a physical body is fine

I'm sorry that you don't feel moved by the things on this forum. If I was given one power in this world, it would be to get everybody to experience the beauty that lies right in front of their very eyes. That is atleast why I'm here: to be with other people who share the same experiences as me, the deepest experiences of my life.

The same way that you're not aware of it. There are different states, stages and aspects of awakening. There are states and stages that are dominated by aspects that can feel very empty and void-like, and you can get stuck there and believe that it's the end. Love tends to include an experience of light, energy, life, intelligence, complexity. Another way to look at it is that a "loveless" awakening is when you become aware of the "space" or structure that reality operates within (emptiness, void, Shiva), and a Love awakening is when you become aware of the substance within that space (energy, Love, Shakti). Later awakenings will also eliminate that distinction, and everything becomes Love.

The question is really: are you willing to love something to death?

Love is the substance of reality

It is. You're just afraid of it.

This is projection at its finest. Loooool! 1 hour is 1/24 = 0.041666 = 4.2% of your day. You have plenty of time to meditate. You could take your own advice and get off the computer. Then you'll have a couple of hours to meditate everyday What practice do you do?

What was the answer?

But that is exactly NOT what it's about. You're not supposed to take it on belief: you're supposed to go experience it for yourself. That is exactly why there is no point having a debate about it.

That makes zero sense.