Carl-Richard

Moderator
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    16,218

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Carl-Richard

  2. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    Bruh the pen broke me.

    Reading cognitive science and neuroscience is basically getting this point hammered into your head again and again. It breaks your mind after a while. "Prediction errors", "forward models", "cognitive schemas", "fast-and-frugal heuristics", "ecological rationality", "Gestalt psychology", "top-down vs bottom-up processing".

  3. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    1 hour ago, Ramasta9 said:

    the 'cringe' as Carl-richard would call me lately,

    I was calling my own comment about you cringe, not you 💀

    You thought I thought it was cringe that you pointed out Putin's energy? I meant it was cringe I pointed out my impression of your past and current patterns. It was meant to disarm my next statements, but you took the disarming as an attack 😂

  4. Posted

    3 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

    The key is not meditation, but the absence of inner friction. It's about teaching from childhood that operating from comparison, from external factors, is a mistake, a low level, cowardly, a puppet, easily manipulated. We must teach the courage to follow one's inner compass, to be absolutely sovereign over oneself. Then you can meditate if you want.

    You have these funny concepts.

  5. Posted

    4 minutes ago, Ramasta9 said:

    I thought it was a nice video and nice message. I enjoyed it so i shared, I am staring to realize its a mistake to share these things here. 

    It seems anything (Russia, AI, or whatever this forum labels "conspiracy") is a instant trigger for you and many others on this forum, especially the moderators, which i can understand because of your role your compelled to behave more like robots, but remember its just an online forum, nothing too serious, but never forget your human and organic nature that thinks and feels and senses and knows things beyond the surface layer.

    I can't watch AI videos because they are robotic :,) They rot my soul, and the brain-to-brain connection is non-existent. The organic feelings that try to peer through the surface layer just runs into metal, silicone, 1s and 0s.

  10. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    13 minutes ago, Someone here said:

    @Carl-Richard dude ..control yourself. You are a moderator.

    I gave a caveat that it is cringe, give me a break :P And by giving that caveat and still going ahead with it, I was indeed controlling myself :,) You see, this person you're talking to right now is very mean, calculated, cold, when he wants to >:) I will also just splerg out emotions if that's what's up, if that's part of the plan >:)

    But yes, Ramasta, just thoughts, just thoughts.

  12. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    1 hour ago, Ramasta9 said:

    Vladimir Putin is the only current world leader i get a genuine energy from.

    That you get genuine energy from? You're getting hypnotized by that weird woman with a weird voice 🥴

    I find it cringe to point out personal things generally, but I think you're very impressionable by outside influences, more than you might realize. It's the fruit diet thing ("I just feel better on it; I also just happened to read this book on it where they argue why it's the most evolutionarily healthy diet"). It's this ("I feel Putin's energy as positive; I also just happened to watch a supposed psychic read their energy and describe it as positive"). It's perhaps other things ("they said she was 141 so I think that she is", I don't know as much about that one). Just some thoughts, don't need to take them as absolute truth ;P

  13. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    I believe your motivation for meditation is one of the very strongest predictors of the outcomes of meditation. If your motivation is enlightenment, that will lead to more profound outcomes than if your motivation is stress-reduction or whatever metric you would want to maximize your well-being at a normal kind of level. And changing your motivation (authentically) is hard. It's wired into you. If you're not motivated to meditate for enlightenment, there are very few things that can do that for you.

    So where would you expect to cultivate such a motivation with greater efficiency? Schools. Children are under creation, they are impressionable, and they are not distracted by life, by having a job, a family to take care of, financial status, social status, etc. Even if you meditate consistently every day as an adult, even while aiming at these higher states (awakening, enlightenment), you might not want to give up your job, your family, your finances, to become enlightened, or to pursue these things more rigorously. You're attached to these things, authentically giving them up is not usually something you can do over night.

    That's the crux of the issue of an unenlightened society. Nobody wants to give up what they have. They want to cling to what is their current life, the status quo, what feels secure. Even if they know very intimately what the enlightened experience entails, they might not want to actually give (and give up) what it takes to get there. So to create an enlightened Earth, you must start with the soil, you must water it so that the plants grow, you must give the plants the right attention and tools to grow into the potential that you give them. Let the old plants do what they do until they wither away. That's just the state of nature at this point.

  15. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    9 hours ago, Nemra said:

    @Carl-Richard, isn't the human experience actual?

    I agree that the human experience is limited in the sense that it will end someday and it has a structure.

    When people say that this experience is all there is, I think they are trying to say that whatever exists is. It would be false to say otherwise.

    I think when somebody tries to say "no other minds exist", that is what they're trying to say. And when they point to the limited human experience being the reason for that, they can't be talking about the Absolute. And when they keep referring to limited objects of their experience, e.g. "what you're reading right now", that becomes even more clear.

    If they then at some point concede "ok, no in fact, no objects are absolute, I'm actually not talking about my limited experience but the unlimited experience or recognition of the totality of everything", them we can talk about the Absolute again. But then they are either contradicting themselves or they are simply confused or unable to make proper distinctions that convey their understanding more or less accurately.

     

    9 hours ago, Nemra said:

    Do you know what they mean by "mind".

    That's the crux of the issue. If they were to study what the "mind" is in a Western psychology sense (e.g. mostly human perceptions, sensations, feelings, experiences) and contrast this with the mind in a Hindu Advaita Vedanta sense or Buddhist sense (unlimited consciousness beyond all human experience, emptiness), they would maybe see that what they're trying to deny the existence of is other human minds in the Western sense while they actually are having intuitive insights into the Hindu/Buddhist mind, which is an unfortunate conflation.

    Imagine going into a food store and you run into apples in the fruit section (and the oranges are hidden behind a stack of crates) and you say "there are only apples here, that means oranges can't exist, because only the store exists". That's the level of confusion of a solipsist who declares that their human limited experience is absolute (and that other human minds don't exist), while grounding their reasoning in insights into unlimited consciousness.

  16. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    28 minutes ago, Nemra said:

    @Carl-Richard, if the absolute is beyond death, doesn't that make it the only thing that has ever been, thus making the absolute solipsistic?

    I'm specifically saying the solipsism of taking your finite limited experience as a human (and only it) as Absolute, is what doesn't work. If you want to say that the aloneness of the great beyond or perfect ultimate presence is solipsistic, that's fine, but that is usually not what solipsists want to do. They want to pull it into the human realm. They want to talk about "other human minds" and such topics.

    Their focus is interestingly very human, perhaps because that is where their identification (and attachments and fears) lies. What strikes me is you will (to my knowledge) never find an Enlightened (not merely awakened) person obsessing about the ontological status of other human minds. It's only those who are awakened (or parroting those awakened or enlightened) who are still (most of the time) identified with their finite mind that go into these weird obsessions and neuroses.

    If you ask an Enlightened person "do you think other minds exist?", they will be like "what? Not even your own mind exists. What are you so concerned about? See that you were always dead, nobody was alive, it was all a show, including you and your story".

  17. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    Why are there seasons? Why is there night and day? Why are there orbits around the Sun? Why are there orbits of the Moon around the Earth? Why do women have cycles? Why do men have cycles (breathing, eating, working, resting, women too)? Why does your attention have cycles (between details and the big picture)? Why does your thinking have cycles (between selecting information and generating new information)? Why does your cells have cycles (between clearing waste and building new infrastructure)? Why does your neuronal cells have cycles (between excitation and recovery)? You see, the world is cyclical, and we adapt accordingly.

  18. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    Teachers who talk very little (while initially having the heart in the right place, end up thinking very little and perhaps not making things clear enough, giving out clues but not carrying the students through the clues to the end and leaving them confused) are ironically complicit in spreading the solipsism bug.

    A student will ask a question "what is consciousness? What is the Absolute truth?", the teacher will say "This!" and just lift their hands and look around. Then the student asks "but what is this?". And the teacher answers "just this" and smiles. And the student might conclude that "this" is just their sensory experience, and hence solipsism might arise, but the teacher actually refers to the recognition of your true nature as pure ever-lasting presence.

    The thing about your true nature is it has existed since before you were born. Now, imagine how ridiculous it is realizing you were never actually born and then you start talking about that the human experience you have now is actually what is the most real thing. It's like you're experiencing the most extreme form of amnesia, forgetting completely where you came from before all these human stories, perceptions, thoughts, ideas about minds and other minds.

    It's not just that you saw the Sun and now you retreated back to the cave of shadows. It's that you were a Supernova, but you forgot all about it.

  19. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    4 hours ago, Eskilon said:

    Damn, interesting didn`t heard about his experience before. Actually, heard very little about him. I don`t follow much western masters, nothing against them or anything though.

    Watch his BATGAP interviews if you want to be absolutely blown away. The experiences he talks about makes all the ridiculous stories of saints throughout history sound plausible.

  20. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    27 minutes ago, Loveeee said:

    Yes, but it's not some ethereal realm, it's your experience right now, I'm perfectly conscious how my current "human experience" transcends space and time 

    "Your experience right now", if it is limited to right here, right now (and whatever colors, sensations, experiences you associate with it), does not transcend space and time. Space and time is exactly what is meant by "right here, right now". But if your experience right here right now is part of (or at One with) something greater, and this thing transcends space and time, then you can look at what is right here and right now and feel that it is part of this larger thing. But that does not mean that the right here right now is all that there is. It's all that there is right here right now.

    You're trying to claim something limited as unlimited when you say "these limited things are the only things that exist, and this is Absolute". The Absolute is unlimited.

  21. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    2 hours ago, Loveeee said:

    @Carl-Richard @Eskilon @Nemra @Oppositionless

    You're omniscient, what you're conscious of right now, your current "human experience", is all of reality

    Are you saying it isn't, or simply that it's impossible to know it is ?

    I'm saying that is not Absolute. There is no limitation to your experience as the Absolute. That's true Omniscience. Your experience as the Absolute is fundamentally beyond space and time, beyond immediate appearances. The mistake of making limited appearances Absolute is the mistake of taking the shadows as the Sun.

    And it's understandable, as the human mind has trouble conceiving of experience beyond space and time. Even when having had glimpses into it, the mind can still make the conflation, because it inevitably tries to make sense of it. And as the Absolute is beyond space and time, beyond immediate appearances, there is nothing stopping it from creating experiences beyond those limited appearances.

    What's stopping it? It's not bound by space and time, unlike the appearances you're pointing to. It can create "separate" bubbles that don't overlap (or partially overlap) with each other. Because the separation is not spatial, not temporal, you don't have to notice. Now, this is different from saying "there are" such separate bubbles out there, but from the Absolute perspective, nothing stops that from being possible.

  24. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    Sometimes a student goes too deep that you need a guru mechanic to re-install a "seed of ignorance" so that they can function in the world.

     

    I believe Ramana Maharshi was in such a state at some point.

    And a note about the video: it's interesting how he said he had to manually count the years back to see how old he was. It's like his Default Mode Network was so turned off that it did not have the automatic loop of "age" anymore and he had to use his tasking network to find it manually. I've said before that the non-dual state is essentially being in the tasking network so thoroughly that no self is to be found, and apparently, unless you make it a task to find it.

  25. Posted · Edited by Carl-Richard

    4 hours ago, Ramasta9 said:

    All i was saying was I have seen people who are very old and don't look it because in the west we are programmed how old a person is and how old that "looks like" but that is not entirely always true. Often when the diet, lifestyle, environment is ideal, people can be 70 and look 40, in fact naturally they look 70 but we say 40 because of the general consensus and programming we have around what that age should look like. So someone being 141 is not surprising for me at all, i've read many cases of people even older and their energy speaks volumes. I keep an open mind than a closed one.

    It's just the attitude of seeing an Instagram video with no external references that says "this woman is 141 years old" and then you say "this woman is 141 years old" and not "this woman is allegedly 141 years old" or "according to this Instagram video, this woman is 141 years old" that doesn't sit quite right with me. And I could imagine that this attitude of evaluating information might feed into other areas where you might be evaluating information.