I think Leo Gura should have children and close the forum.

[Jowblob]

I think @Leo Gura has mentioned somewhere in a video from a higher consciousness perspective that having children is selfish. Because when you awaken more you will see/feel that everyone is you/god, so having children is a measly goal. A good goal like leo gura has said is to do something for humanity or leave things for humanity.

For example: Create many videos on youtube of different type of perfect dishes, because ones you reach a higher state of consciousness others can use youtube to manifest your dishes and taste them.  This is you actually doing non selfish work and leavings things for god/all .

Having children is only usefull if you're useless yourself and and want to have a chance that your "children" will leave something for god/humanity/all.

I did it in a smart way, and was a sperm donor. So i probably have kids somewhere, but i don't waste my time/energy on raising them. That's why i'm retired at 31 and not a work slave. Higher consciousness makes you more free

Edited Wednesday at 04:45 AM by Jowblob

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Jowblob

At the same time, you could argue that having children is for a higher good for humanity - Leo's mother carried and gave birth to him. Leo then created content to assist humanity elevating its consciousness. So you could argue Leo's mother ALSO did something selfless for humanities higher good. The children we bring into the world - how are we to know what they will then go on to create, put out. Assist. 

Creativity is humanities birth-right. 

Einstein's mother/father, Newton's mother/father. They participated in the creation of those individuals that changed the world and assisted humanity.

So despite the perhaps selfish individual reasons for having children - from another perspective you could argue the outcome was selfless with how they contributed to humanity. Intention may be selfish - but outcome is selfless.

Perhaps it is not so clear cut

Edited Wednesday at 04:58 AM by Natasha Tori Maru

[Sugarcoat]

4 hours ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

HahahahahahHAHhahahahahHAHhahaha, I love you. Bless your comment 💗💗💗💗💗💗💗💗💗💗💗

Thanks

[Sugarcoat]

10 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

10 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

You've been smoking too much on your e-cigarette. I'm just saying that I'm not talking about lineage, maintaining the population, etc; my paradigm is openly egoistical.

I also didn't say that having children is the pinnacle, but that it's a very logical investment.

I also say this is an illusion; there is no consciousness to evolve.

There is a fluid matrix influenced by (one could say mirrored, to become somewhat non-dual again) an egregor, a social body.
Leo is not particularly healthy or evolved; spiritual people are far from being more healthy and evolved than average; precisely because they are not (come back non-dual again 🫨) a psychedelic trip, a spiritual work; they are THE WORLD.
The only way to "evolve" is to be social, because the implication that I am the world is the only way to give something to oneself, is to give it to other.

A Marxist would say that you are the result of your social body; I deeply agree, but this is fundamentally at odds with the idea of the evolution of consciousness, at least the model typically proposed by spiral dynamics.
Or even Jungian...

If you're loving, you'll normally want children.
If you prefer a cat to a child because "it requires less effort," then you're a lazy or cowardly person.
But in life, you don't become happy by being lazy or cowardly, whatever the reasons; the end result is less vitality.

Even when you are hardworking because you are driven by neurosis, as is often the case with personal development coaches, you will see that the frequency towards which you will slide will be cowardice/physical weakness.

You can't love "awakening" or "humanity," it's meaningless. I don't believe it for a single second.

Ofc.

+ Be careful, narcicism and selfishness refer to different phenomena.
Eating apple pie is "selfish" but not at all narcissistic; engaging in political actions to show how virtuous you are is very narcissistic, but it is "altruistic."

If you see what i mean.

No, it doesn't work.
It's a fantasy based on hot air.

People love their children, but it doesn’t mean they are generally loving. Loving your children can be very limited, the same person can simultaneously be a racist. Loving your children is usually just a natural biologically wired kind of love. It’s not something someone has usually came to by evolving themselves and opening themselves up. Someone could be very close minded and judgemental and still love their children.

”It’s a logical investment” is a selfish standpoint. “Selfish” doesn’t mean bad, but I just mean it’s self serving, and not beyond that.

Even if consciousness work would be illusion, one could say people drawn to it are people who have gone a bit away, or at least desire to go away, from the basic impulses and desires into more transcendental desires. Suggesting higher development. The desire for spirituality shows that part of the human that is touching upon more transcendental things. It’s not necessarily “better” than following your impulses: but it’s another level to being human. 
 

You say being social is the way, you can be social with anyone, you can adopt a child. You can love children that aren’t your own, love people of all sides of the world. You don’t have to be limited to the biologically wired love for your children. It can be included, and might be the strongest, but you don’t have to be limited to it like many are 

 

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 06:12 AM by Sugarcoat

[Basman]

For many people, having kids makes you love life more, but it's also true that for many kids are a distraction from what makes them love life. It is all about honoring one's life.

Those who don't want kids usually love freedom, a certain kind of lifestyle and their special interests more. That doesn't mean they wouldn't love their kids if they had them, but they would feel like they couldn't fulfill the potential they where built to honor.

Edited Wednesday at 06:23 AM by Basman

[Nemra]

10 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Close to him about what ? Why consider Leo as a God ;It is "just" an entrepreneur who became interested in psychedelics and philosophy.
he is good where he is good line any human being. 

I am the result of an entire life to think, to be interested in the politics of my country then psychoanalysis, and lots of trauma directly experienced or transgenerational; My paradigm is very solid and yes I propose point of views to Leo and other.

Giving points of view is already what we are all doing here, no one is untouchable.

A priori Actualized is not a sect.

See, you interpreted the way you wanted.

I meant you don't know him well enough. So, it's pointless, because you are giving him advice based on your projections and not on actual knowledge of him. I'm not defending him. He already does what he wants and couldn't care less what you think he should do because he already thinks for himself.

This is basic.

Also, having children isn't the end-all be-all. Maybe for you it is.

Edited Wednesday at 06:51 AM by Nemra

[Someone here]

Even then ..he needs to feed himself and his children. 

[Schizophonia]

6 hours ago, Jowblob said:

I think @Leo Gura has mentioned somewhere in a video from a higher consciousness perspective that having children is selfish. Because when you awaken more you will see/feel that everyone is you/god, so having children is a measly goal. A good goal like leo gura has said is to do something for humanity or leave things for humanity.

 

He is wrong.

There is no single action who isn't selfish, precisely because     you     chose     to     do it; it's an illusion.

That's said if you want there are actions who are narcissists, generally out neuroticism/psychosis (self diriged) and actions who are altruistic (object diriged).

There is no love in "doing something for humanity"; Even priests who have vowed celibacy spend their time helping others with their personal matters, doing humanitarian work where they can, for example, take care of children, etc.
The same goes for Buddhist monks; they do it out of selfishness; they are not against pleasure, but rather against small pleasures.

It's the same thing you do with a child, you inject (potentially, then all scenarios are different) a large amount of love into the universe; in a simple and practical way

This way of seeing things is neurotic; it is secretly about satisfying an integrated tyrannical superego (inherited from the Oedipus complex) at an early age.

 

Quote

 

For example: Create many videos on youtube of different type of perfect dishes, because ones you reach a higher state of consciousness others can use youtube to manifest your dishes and taste them.  This is you actually doing non selfish work and leavings things for god/all .

No, that's not true. It's more narcissistic (look at my good recipes), and you give less love than you do with children.
Do you think that people who look at your recipes become more energetically empowered by watching them? Of course not, that makes no sense.
Again:

1) A lot of energy exchanged with one individual is always, overall, much more important than a tiny bit of energy exchanged with many people; just like a €1,000 check is always more important than 100 one-euro donations.

If you're a solipsist, then THERE IS NO ONE LOOKING AT YOUR RECIPES.
There's only what's perceived here and now; the real question is what generates the most love (or rather, the affection you want, generally speaking) here and now.
And it's a false dilemma; the people who make recipes are the ones who are likely to have children; you'll see that antinatalists are often too selfish (in the sense of not wanting to give) to bother doing things like that.

 

2)When you say "I mustn't be selfish," you are tacitly implying that you are not a man and are still functioning as if you are subservient to a powerful father figure.
We recognize neurosis by the superego's inclination not to take the form of a common law/reality principle ("I mustn't eat too much cake because I'll get fat") but rather to take an authoritarian form that directly opposes, to put it simply, the "id" (I mustn't eat too much cake because otherwise it's bad for some reason (unconsciously afraid of challenging Dad in the Oedipal competition)).

 

3)As I said in point 1, the universe is a reflection.
When you operate altruistically, it's actually mostly narcissistic, and you'll encounter mirrors and, generally, a world like that.
Are Leo's mirrors mature, masculine people full of love; fathers, entrepreneurs, members of charities, altar boys, etc.?
Or is it something else? Ahah, that's the energetic reality of this egregor.

Quote

Having children is only usefull if you're useless yourself and and want to have a chance that your "children" will leave something for god/humanity/all.

Again, you're neurotic.
We don't care about "leaving something behind," and as I said, when you want to "leave something behind," it's basically a narcissistic delusion, and therefore the affects distilled into the world by your avatar will probably be mediocre; especially since you're solipsistic, so logically you shouldn't have these considerations.
Also, there's an over-inflated ego here; you're not the reincarnation of Napoleon or whoever; you're a random person.

Precisely, having children is one of the main, most powerful, and simplest ways to exchange energy.
Not the only one ofc; you're not going to spend your life taking care of children; that's not what it's about.

Quote

I did it in a smart way, and was a sperm donor. So i probably have kids somewhere, but i don't waste my time/energy on raising them. That's why i'm retired at 31 and not a work slave. Higher consciousness makes you more free

You have no higher consciousness, that too is an infantile narcissistic delusion to avoid having to be an adult.

I've already said this in response to Sugarcoat, but when you think about it, when you have been a minimum socially integrated or, better yet, somewhat aware of Marxist culture, it seems increasingly pathetic to see people talking about higher consciousness because they eat magic mushrooms when they are not particularly competent in some domain, have no culture, actually suffer from mental illness and are incapable of giving, have a medium or even low iq qnd/or too brain rot to even read a book, etc.

There is an overestimation of oneself here.

Ken Wilber talked about this in a video, I think, the title was something like "Western vs. Eastern Vision of the Ego."

Edited Wednesday at 11:03 AM by Schizophonia

[Schizophonia]

5 hours ago, Nemra said:

See, you interpreted the way you wanted.

I meant you don't know him well enough. So, it's pointless, because you are giving him advice based on your projections and not on actual knowledge of him. I'm not defending him. He already does what he wants and couldn't care less what you think he should do because he already thinks for himself.

This is basic.

 

You could say the same thing about all the personalities who are commented here.
But since you're subservient to Leo/put him on a pedestal, you say it now.

 

Edited Wednesday at 11:42 AM by Schizophonia

[Nemra]

7 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

You could say the same thing about all the personalities who's commented here.

Yes.

And you should be careful with the advice you give anyone here. It comes with a responsibility, which you might not like.

You are analyzing people without getting enough input from them because this forum is not designed for that.

Some advice cannot be formed based on your experience and understanding of yourself.

7 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

But since you're subservient to Leo/put him on a pedestal, you say it now.

I probably have some blind spots, as I respect him a lot. I try to be aware of them.

[Jowblob]

@Schizophonia

I can see where you're coming from, in some things you might be correct in others not. You're reflecting a lot from your own ego mind identity and a state of being a bit like carl with those psychologist labels or overanalysis, also that is a phase that you will eventually grow out off. I can tell you that because your natural state is not in unity you won't understand many things, that's why you're using your rationality so much. What you don't know yet is that  and you can relive a human life just how it was lived for example the life of Christiano Ronaldo or Leo. Every action is stored in yourself, so it doesn't simply wipe or vanish. Just by this example you should understand, that having a "kid" or "energy exchange" doesnt do much.

Edited Wednesday at 12:54 PM by Jowblob

[OBEler]

I skipped through this thread, the topic is too cringe. 

I will close it if no one stops me.

[Daniel Balan]

I thought we have a guideline that clearly states that the users of this forum shall not write posts while drunk, high on french cocaine or under psychedelic influence.

Here it is: 

• No wild-eyed ranting and raving, or posting while drunk or high.

[Schizophonia]

6 hours ago, Jowblob said:

@Schizophonia

I can see where you're coming from, in some things you might be correct in others not. You're reflecting a lot from your own ego mind identity and a state of being a bit like carl with those psychologist labels or overanalysis, also that is a phase that you will eventually grow out off. I can tell you that because your natural state is not in unity you won't understand many things, that's why you're using your rationality so much. What you don't know yet is that  and you can relive a human life just how it was lived for example the life of Christiano Ronaldo or Leo. Every action is stored in yourself, so it doesn't simply wipe or vanish. Just by this example you should understand, that having a "kid" or "energy exchange" doesnt do much.

If you want to try to contradict me you have to enter into my dialectical process, otherwise you might as well say "no I'm right".

[Schizophonia]

1 hour ago, OBEler said:

I skipped through this thread, the topic is too cringe. 

I will close it if no one stops me.

There's nothing cringe you're weird.

It's your personal sensitivity.

 

Edited Wednesday at 08:45 PM by Schizophonia

[theleelajoker]

@Schizophonia

I think you have in general some interesting perspectives, observations and points. Sometimes really enjoy reading your perspective here in this forum. Also learning from it and/or being entertained. 

I also think a different use of some of your time outside this forum will be beneficial for you (just making assumptions  ).

Something physical, that gets you out of your mind. Something social, where you interact with people of your approx age. 

Yes yes you're french and so on, you don't like being told what to do etc etc.....just saying  

 

Edited Wednesday at 08:23 PM by theleelajoker

[Schizophonia]

14 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

People love their children, but it doesn’t mean they are generally loving. Loving your children can be very limited, the same person can simultaneously be a racist.

Yes it's true, but it's like saying someone doing doing sport isn't important if he eats too much at McDiabete.

The good, productive reasoningis to say it's already that done, it goes on the good direction/it's better than eating too much big mac and not doing any sport.

Quote

Loving your children is usually just a natural biologically wired kind of love.

Yes, but like any kind of love. 

If you want to go with this materialist paradigm, well, every sensation that life allows you to experience is possible because it's intended by your biology, your brain.
From there, there's no pleasure, love, higher or lower affect; it's a delusion; in any case, it's a will/possibility of your little primate brain.
I don't know if what I'm saying is clear.
Of course, obviously, most people will want to do something other than be with their children all the time, even women; in case I wasn't clear.
If only because to feed them you have to work, lol, anyway.

Quote

It’s not something someone has usually came to by evolving themselves and opening themselves up. Someone could be very close minded and judgemental and still love their children.

Already responded 👍

Quote

”It’s a logical investment” is a selfish standpoint. “Selfish” doesn’t mean bad, but I just mean it’s self serving, and not beyond that.

Again, i already explained several time but it's not important; i do my propaganda.

Every single action is selfish; totally. 

Even when you think you're being empathetic, you're actually serving your own pleasure in being empathetic, your repressed guilt, your power strategy (also repressed), etc.

And secondly, there's nothing wrong with being selfish, even in the usual sense; the goal of the superego is to function well in society. This whole thing about saying you shouldn't be selfish, higher conscience, blah blah blah, is a mentally ill delusion.
It's also hypocritical; because we're constantly eating meat that comes from some obscure slaughterhouse, a phone made by exploited Chinese people, and little African children being sent to rare earth mines. We're constantly crushing insects that piss us off, trying to humiliate/insult politicians we don't like, etc.
So talking about what is more selfish, having or not having children, for all these reasons seems like nonsense to me.

Quote

Even if consciousness work would be illusion, one could say people drawn to it are people who have gone a bit away, or at least desire to go away, from the basic impulses and desires into more transcendental desires.

 

There is no transcendental desire.
Let's go back to the materialist, biological paradigm since you like that; a desire, a pleasure, a delight is possible because it is permitted by your nature.

Now you can play the Buddhist and explain that life is suffering and that by abandoning desires and meditating, everything will be fine.
I believe this is an illusion and that the majority of Buddhists, even highly evolved ones, will never fully transcend their desires.
And these desires, when they aren't neurotic/psychotic, are generally social things (children, friendship, enough money to live, etc.).
My whole criticism, as I go around here and there and on this somewhat trollish topic, is that the "personal development" egregor, and by extension the people/archetypes who participate in it, has a tendency to come into conflict with the social. 

Quote

 

Suggesting higher development.

 

There is no higher development; it's the delusion of spiritual idiots.
There is an energetic structure, a rhizome if we want to borrow Deleuze's good idea, a "moving" one that strives for its survival and seeks to "grow," and which is therefore conditioned in this objective by a social structure and environmental conditions in general.

If you believe in profoundly moronic theories like spiral dynamics—because yes, spiral dynamics is one of the most moronic and individualizing sociological models that can exist—you'll be led to believe that people in the West are nice and in favor of gay marriage because "they evolved" naturally because "God" is like Pokémon. Someone like @Jowblob might tell me I'm saying this because I'm not aware of unity/non-duality, but precisely if you're a solipsist, then you know there's nowhere to go and that if you're going anywhere, it's actually your ego.
Now, on the human level, even if it's a hologram, it's still very real, so there are things that feel good and others that don't.
My entire thesis is a critique of the paradigm of personal development, of Actualized, of Leo, etc., all that egregor, as something effective for doing good.

Quote

 

The desire for spirituality shows that part of the human that is touching upon more transcendental things. It’s not necessarily “better” than following your impulses: but it’s another level to being human. 
 

Spirituality is an impulse, it's a passion; something desired by "your brain," your egoic process.
There aren't egotistical things and less egotistical things; since everything comes from the ego, ahah.
It's an illusion. I think @Razard86 mentioned it somewhere.

Quote

You say being social is the way, you can be social with anyone, you can adopt a child. You can love children that aren’t your own, love people of all sides of the world. You don’t have to be limited to the biologically wired love for your children. It can be included, and might be the strongest, but you don’t have to be limited to it like many are 

Ofc.

But you might be able to fly to the next town, but the easiest way is to take the car. 🚗

Edited Wednesday at 08:31 PM by Schizophonia

[Schizophonia]

10 minutes ago, theleelajoker said:

@Schizophonia

I think you have in general some interesting perspectives, observations and points. Sometimes really enjoy reading your perspective here in this forum. Also learning from it and/or being entertained. 

I also think a different use of some of your time outside this forum will be beneficial for you (just making assumptions  ).

Something physical, that gets you out of your mind. Something social, where you interact with people of your approx age. 

Yes yes you're french and so on, you don't like being told what to do etc etc.....just saying  

 

Thanks 

You are absolutely right; I am now at the stage where I am fighting with my usual mirrors, which correspond to the me I want to change.

 

🫨

Edited Wednesday at 08:33 PM by Schizophonia

[Brittany]

I never understand why people on the Layman path go into Enlightenment/Transcendent/Monastic spaces and try to preach to everyone about the goodness of the Layman path.

Marriage and Kids are a wonderful and beautiful thing.

But people on the Layman path need to stop entering Enlightenment spaces and flooding them with:

• "But it is bad to let go of all attachments."
• "You have to participate in society though."
• "Humans are social creatures"
• "You should give up non-duality and tend to your humanity"
• "Having kids and getting married makes you even more evolved than ego transcendence"
• "You are spiritually bypassing"
• "In the past, they taught detachment. Now, we need to focus on being aware while remaining attached"
• "Well you can't meditate all day, you got to go to work and pay bills"
• "I feel way more fulfilled as a mother than I did when I was pursuing enlightenment"
• "Nonduality is dangerous and it is better to focus on shadow work instead"

There is a section from Autobiography of a Yogi from Paramahansa Yogananda:

Ananta took me to their home.

The son, a young man of ebullient manner, greeted me in the courtyard. He engaged me in a lengthy philosophic discourse.

Professing to have a clairvoyant knowledge of my future, he discountenanced my idea of being a monk. “You will meet continual misfortune, and be unable to find God, if you insist on deserting your ordinary responsibilities! You cannot work out your past karma without worldly experiences.”

Immortal words from the Bhagavad Gita rose to my lips in reply: “‘Even he with the worst of karma who ceaselessly meditates on Me quickly loses the effects of his past bad actions. Becoming a high-souled being, he soon attains perennial peace. Know this for certain: the devotee who puts his trust in Me never perishes!’”

But the forceful prognostications of the young man had slightly shaken my confidence.

With all the fervor of my heart I prayed silently to God: “Please solve my bewilderment and answer me, right here and now, if Thou dost desire me to lead the life of a renunciant or a worldly man!”

I noticed a sadhu of noble countenance standing just outside the compound of the pundit’s house. Evidently he had overheard the spirited conversation between the self-styled clairvoyant and me, for the stranger called me to his side. I felt a tremendous power flowing from his calm eyes.  “Son, don’t listen to that ignoramus. In response to your prayer, the Lord tells me to assure you that your sole path in this life is that of the renunciant.” 

With astonishment as well as gratitude, I smiled happily at this decisive message.

“Come away from that man!” The “ignoramus” was calling me from the courtyard.

My saintly guide raised his hand in blessing and slowly departed.

“That sadhu is just as crazy as you are.” It was the hoary-headed pundit who made this charming observation. He and his son were gazing at me lugubriously.  “I have heard that he, too, has left his home in a vague search for God.”

I turned away.

To Ananta I remarked that I would not engage in further discussion with our hosts.

[Sugarcoat]

18 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Yes it's true, but it's like saying someone doing doing sport isn't important if he eats too much at McDiabete.

The good, productive reasoningis to say it's already that done, it goes on the good direction/it's better than eating too much big mac and not doing any sport.

Yea their love is still valid it’s just that it’s often easy to love your children while becoming truly loving in general is harder

18 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Yes, but like any kind of love. 

If you want to go with this materialist paradigm, well, every sensation that life allows you to experience is possible because it's intended by your biology, your brain.
From there, there's no pleasure, love, higher or lower affect; it's a delusion; in any case, it's a will/possibility of your little primate brain.
I don't know if what I'm saying is clear.
Of course, obviously, most people will want to do something other than be with their children all the time, even women; in case I wasn't clear.
If only because to feed them you have to work, lol, anyway.

 

It seems humans have the capacity to challenge this wiring and perhaps rewire it for something greater

18 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Every single action is selfish; totally. 

Even when you think you're being empathetic, you're actually serving your own pleasure in being empathetic, your repressed guilt, your power strategy (also repressed), etc.

And secondly, there's nothing wrong with being selfish, even in the usual sense; the goal of the superego is to function well in society. This whole thing about saying you shouldn't be selfish, higher conscience, blah blah blah, is a mentally ill delusion.
It's also hypocritical; because we're constantly eating meat that comes from some obscure slaughterhouse, a phone made by exploited Chinese people, and little African children being sent to rare earth mines. We're constantly crushing insects that piss us off, trying to humiliate/insult politicians we don't like, etc.
So talking about what is more selfish, having or not having children, for all these reasons seems like nonsense to me.

 

It’s not all self centered. That’s too black and white. A portion of self gratification permeates almost everything but it’s not the whole picture. Otherwise I’m with you when you say it’s not inherently wrong to be selfish. 
 

 

18 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

There is no transcendental desire.
Let's go back to the materialist, biological paradigm since you like that; a desire, a pleasure, a delight is possible because it is permitted by your nature.

Now you can play the Buddhist and explain that life is suffering and that by abandoning desires and meditating, everything will be fine.
I believe this is an illusion and that the majority of Buddhists, even highly evolved ones, will never fully transcend their desires.
And these desires, when they aren't neurotic/psychotic, are generally social things (children, friendship, enough money to live, etc.).
My whole criticism, as I go around here and there and on this somewhat trollish topic, is that the "personal development" egregor, and by extension the people/archetypes who participate in it, has a tendency to come into conflict with the social. 

There is no higher development; it's the delusion of spiritual idiots.
There is an energetic structure, a rhizome if we want to borrow Deleuze's good idea, a "moving" one that strives for its survival and seeks to "grow," and which is therefore conditioned in this objective by a social structure and environmental conditions in general.

If you believe in profoundly moronic theories like spiral dynamics—because yes, spiral dynamics is one of the most moronic and individualizing sociological models that can exist—you'll be led to believe that people in the West are nice and in favor of gay marriage because "they evolved" naturally because "God" is like Pokémon. Someone like @Jowblob might tell me I'm saying this because I'm not aware of unity/non-duality, but precisely if you're a solipsist, then you know there's nowhere to go and that if you're going anywhere, it's actually your ego.
Now, on the human level, even if it's a hologram, it's still very real, so there are things that feel good and others that don't.
My entire thesis is a critique of the paradigm of personal development, of Actualized, of Leo, etc., all that egregor, as something effective for doing good.

Spirituality is an impulse, it's a passion; something desired by "your brain," your egoic process.
There aren't egotistical things and less egotistical things; since everything comes from the ego, ahah.
It's an illusion. I think @Razard86 mentioned it somewhere.

Ofc.

But you might be able to fly to the next town, but the easiest way is to take the car. 🚗

This ties to a discussion about how independent the mind is from the brain. Humans can engage their minds and form identities and beliefs that go against their wiring (like wanting to be a monk alone in the mountains while having social desires). So transcendental could mean it goes beyond the basic wiring. For example desiring enlightement is not really “wired”. The human has possibility to create a reality using their mind that isn’t much connected to the natural reality, as if the mind can become kind of independent . It’s still dependent on the five senses to gain “inspiration” from tho. I don’t know.
 

Edited Thursday at 03:12 PM by Sugarcoat