• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by David_eh

  1. 13 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

    @Source_Mystic You're underestimating enlightenment.

    The distinction you make between symbolic and actual is a duality, and it will collapse.

    See, you're assuming physical existence has reality to it (materialist paradigm). But it doesn't. You were never alive to begin with. That is a self-deception.

    Once all dualities collapse, there will literally be no difference between life and death.

    I said what I said precisely to puncture this illusion of physical existence which was assumed in the questioner's question.

    The problem here is a misunderstanding of what "death" means. "Death" isn't about the body, so much as it is about the idea of "you". This was explained in the Self-Deception episode. Stop thinking of death as a physical process. Death is a mental process.

    What death really means is: death of the idea of you.

    Because the truth is, there never was a you to begin with. So the only thing that can die is the idea of you.

    Death is not a problem of physicality. Death is a problem of false identity. See, you're sort of like an insane person who thinks he's Napoleon. Of course he isn't really Napoleon, but he believes it so much that to him, if he ever stops believing he's Napoleon, that will be his death.

    Yeah, except that once you're dead there is no using the illusion of separation to explore.


    It is a tool, not an affliction for crying out softly. The affliction is the disease of us and them. Or the illusion is being separate, not being period. There is a huge difference in the implications.


    No wonder people are so confused. 


    If you're going to teach about non-duality please do so responsibly. There's no reason a proper understanding would lead to a nihilistic outlook. 

  2. I figure killing yourself (unless in constant pain or the like)  is like writing half a book. 


    I also think it's pretty irresponsible. Everybody has something their uniqueness brings to the table that we can all benefit from. Almost seems selfish coming from someone who has allegedly seen through the illusion of the self. 


    Your uniqueness is what makes you useful. Not "special" whatever that means but useful. If two heads are better than one when it comes to figuring out stuff then we've hit the mother load. 


    Pretending to know there is no meaning is highly illogical. For one thing, you don't really know either way and for another, meaning could be something that is made rather than found.


    If you want to find meaning then help somebody. If you want to find purpose then be useful.


    It's really that simple.

  3. 3 hours ago, Thanatos13 said:

    One thing that I never understood was why bother doing literally any of it when suicide is a more expedient alternative. 


    Its like an insight I had one day when I realized I don’t have to or need to live. It’s optional 

    This is a very strange insight in my eyes. That the individual self is a trick of the mind doesn't mean it's just a waste of time or whatever.


    Just because we see through the illusion doesn't mean we stop using it... 


    Put another way, duality is our tool, not the other way around.


    Carl Sagan said we are a way for the Cosmos to know itself. 


    Are you nihilist or self actualizing? 




  4. As a new member and someone who doesn't exactly know the core doctrine other than non-dualism I'd probably continue to find it useful to the extent of learning exactly what that is while I find the time to watch what seem to be some pretty insightful videos. 

    What I've read by Leo I've enjoyed and agreed with I think but being a unique aspect of the oneness, I see some things from a different angle. 

    That being the nature of uniqueness, I wouldn't ever be able to take on a guru except as another pointer to the moon, so to speak.  I hope that made sense, heh. 

    Picturing it as a seasoned member I can totally see your logic here. 

  5. 10 hours ago, Shiva said:

    If you take one Apple and another's Apple, you have undoubtedly two apples.

    But we defined what we call an Apple in the first place. Therefore, we also defined the result.

    If we begin to question our notion of the concept "apple" it will ultimately collapse because it has no ground. It collapses with the logic that one apple plus one apple equals two apples all together. 

    Logic is not inherent to reality. We made logic up to model reality for our own needs. And it works to some extent.

    Even just seperateing and isolating apples in order to count or own them is a concept because having borders between things is a concept. 

    There is an infinite amount of possible apples and the potential for apples has always been.


  6. 2 hours ago, Edvard said:

    Except I didn't put God as a requirement of no free will. 

    Just to make it clear: do you believe the self exists? Do you believe you exist? What do you think of when I say «dissolving the ego». And what do you then think is left?

    The individual self exists only in relation to everything else. That is not to say it doesn't exist.

    When you say "dissolving the ego" I think you are trying too hard. The "I" is an illusory tool, not something to dismiss. 

    I do find it fascinating talking with people that think we aren't real but the illusion is existing separately, not existing period.

  7. 2 hours ago, Edvard said:

    Why is that silly? If you like caviar, you can still have caviar.


    Yes, you could say it's God's will, although neither «he» has free will, in the ultimate sense. This is correct:


    Except that a creator god is nonsensical. 

    It is silly to pretend we have no ability to make decisions and follow through. 

    There is not free will but there is conditional will. If there was free will I could sprout wings and fly but if there was no ability to affect change at all like many here think then we would all just be on auto pilot.

    It's an amusing little thought but in the end it is irresponsible doctrine to pretend we have no ability to assert our will.

  8. 1 hour ago, Edvard said:

    @David_eh you and some others here are talking of free will as though if it didn't exist, actions don't matter. Nothing about what makes you suffer or feel better changes whether you believe in one or the other (except that knowing what is true is beneficial for us all). 

    No free will doesn't make everybody equally wise or stupid, but it does take away the responsibility, reason for true blame, and our notion of pure evil, which is a big deal if no free will is true. Yet you're saying like :«but..but.. no free will? Then why should I do anything then? When nothing I do will make me better than others? Like, it's kind of silly to self actualize when it doesn't make me superior».

    So, who is saying that? The ego of course. And what are we trying to do with the ego here? Seeing it for what it is; an illusion. Right?

    The illusion is a tool, not some kind of boogeyman to be gotten rid of. 

    None of what you just said made a lot of sense and I don't think you understood my argument. 

    Who said anything about being superior? If there were no free will then it is kind of silly to bother trying to decide on anything including what to have for lunch.

    Saying there is no free will is the same as saying there is no personal responsibility for our thoughts and actions. It's the same as saying it's all God's will and it's a complete cop out. 

  9. 2 hours ago, Edvard said:

    That means free will is possible. But it isn't... only as an illusion it is. So certain logics have to be absolute. Now of course, the concept of free will or not is an invention of the mind.

    Oh, maybe free will is not formed or perceivable? But it is logic, and I would say absolute...

    I'd say that conditioning dictates our thoughts and actions only to a degree and that conscious choice does the rest. Through taking charge and being mindful, we interrupt animal instinct.

    Otherwise it's kind of silly to bother with self actualization.

  10. 22 hours ago, RawJudah said:

    Happy New Years people!

    Ive come to the realisation that all this self help stuff and living differently from the average person isn’t for me. I’ve been meditating for a month (not a long time I know) and I really don’t enjoy feeling different from other people. It’s almost like the more self help stuff I do the more detached from everyone I feel. It’s weird. And it’s driving me crazy. 

    Anyone else had this issue before?! Anyone gone back from taking the red pill to taking the blue pill? Living like the majority out there? I didn’t realise that it’s this detaching and tough to try to live the different life to everyone else? I don’t like the feeling like I’m looking down on the average person.

    id love to know anyone’s thoughts on this.

    sorry for the negative vibe and I’m sure I’ll get some strange hate from this.


    If your practice makes you feel like you are somehow superior to others then I'd dare say you have a ways to go.

    If you are calmer than the average person then people will feel more at ease around you. If you feel free to speak out against things like racism even when it's disguised as humour amongst your peers, you embolden others to do the same.

    It has nothing to do with looking down on others and everything to do with compassion.

  11. On December 23, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Faceless said:

    Is “your” thought yours or just thought? Do you make decisions or are the decisions you make determined by your conditioning? 

    I think it's a Middle Way/interdependence thing. Decisions are surly influenced by conditioning but conditioning depends on individual world views and what is done with the input.

    When we are mindful of what we are doing our will is much more free than when we are simply reacting to stimulus without proper consideration. 

    The idea that we have no free will seems to me to perpetuate a kind of irresponsibility.