Enlightenment / Love / Matrix/ Survival

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Grateful Dead said:

To use your analogy: If you don't see anything wrong with superficial, casual sex and then simply live out this limited form of sexual connection your whole life, you miss out on the true depth that's possible in relationships

That analogy is perfect; let's see what's true and what's an illusion. When you compulsively seek casual sex, it's not out of biological desire but due to structural closure. You live enclosed in an energetic bubble, and sex is your way of obtaining energy from the outside, achieving micro-openings, momentary connections with reality that recharge you.

This isn't false at all; it's the manifestation of a closed structure. If you think that's wrong and that sex should be a pure spiritual communion, devoid of selfishness, celestial and tantric, and for you that's the truth, well, that's an ideal you've never experienced and that I seriously doubt exists, since sex in its essence is biological friction, an expression of the genetic struggle of life, selfishness, exclusion, and possession.

So, the cosmic tantric sex that one aspires to is just an idea of how reality should be, not a truth about what sex ultimately is. At the end the true selfless sex has a name: celibacy. 

So the point is that dense states are not false, are a level where you are acting. The problem is the terminology true/false when it's used to say that being selfless is true and selfish false. It's absolutely confusing and leads to spiritual narcissism 

[Grateful Dead]

53 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

That analogy is perfect; let's see what's true and what's an illusion. When you compulsively seek casual sex, it's not out of biological desire but due to structural closure. You live enclosed in an energetic bubble, and sex is your way of obtaining energy from the outside, achieving micro-openings, momentary connections with reality that recharge you.

This isn't false at all; it's the manifestation of a closed structure. If you think that's wrong and that sex should be a pure spiritual communion, devoid of selfishness, celestial and tantric, and for you that's the truth, well, that's an ideal you've never experienced and that I seriously doubt exists, since sex in its essence is biological friction, an expression of the genetic struggle of life, selfishness, exclusion, and possession.

So, the cosmic tantric sex that one aspires to is just an idea of how reality should be, not a truth about what sex ultimately is. At the end the true selfless sex has a name: celibacy. 

So the point is that dense states are not false, are a level where you are acting. The problem is the terminology true/false when it's used to say that being selfless is true and selfish false. It's absolutely confusing and leads to spiritual narcissism 

I don't think it's spiritual narcissism to recognize the untrue as untrue. It's not as if I consider cosmic tantric sex to be more true than casual sex. No form of sex has anything to do with reality for me. In other words, nothing in the world of forms is ultimately true for me.

Nevertheless, since I still perceive myself within the world of forms, I use it as a means to achieve freedom. In that sense, casual sex isn't what I'm striving for because it's a dead end. I choose a sacred relationship through which both partners transcend their perceived limitations.

The point for me is, what you describe as dense, I see as limited and therefore not true, since reality is unlimited.

[Breakingthewall]

3 hours ago, Grateful Dead said:

The point for me is, what you describe as dense, I see as limited and therefore not true, since reality is unlimited

But as humans we are limited. You could say that you are the unlimited expressed as a limited human, then any relationship will be limited in any sense. For me it's essential to understand this because otherwise I could idealize how a relationship should be and this is a mistake, I am in the human mud and I must understand how to navigate in it 

[Sugarcoat]

3 hours ago, Grateful Dead said:

nothing in the world of forms is ultimately true for me.

Nevertheless, since I still perceive myself within the world of forms, I use it as a means to achieve freedom.

Ummmm

[Grateful Dead]

46 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

But as humans we are limited. You could say that you are the unlimited expressed as a limited human

I could go along with that, but that is precisely where I see the problem I described earlier. If you view yourself as a limited expression of reality, and you feel that this is right simply because it is the expression of reality in that specific moment, then, in my view, it is easy to remain stuck within that limited form.

47 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

then any relationship will be limited in any sense. For me it's essential to understand this because otherwise I could idealize how a relationship should be and this is a mistake, I am in the human mud and I must understand how to navigate in it 

I agree that idealization is a trap. However, because I perceive form as inherently limited, I don't expect it to be perfect. I don’t turn relationships into idols; I utilize them as a means for liberation.

So I accept the limitations of others and the world in general, but when we are so to say stuck in the mud, I recognize that the mud is just the form, not the truth. My compass is inner peace; that is what I align with.

[Breakingthewall]

2 hours ago, Grateful Dead said:

agree that idealization is a trap. However, because I perceive form as inherently limited, I don't expect it to be perfect. I don’t turn relationships into idols; I utilize them as a means for liberation.

So I accept the limitations of others and the world in general, but when we are so to say stuck in the mud, I recognize that the mud is just the form, not the truth. My compass is inner peace; that is what I align with.

6 hours ago, Grateful Dead said:

 

Of course, form is limited but we can and we must open ourselves to the unlimited, because it's the only possibility in our position. 

As I see it, human society has gone through three major phases. The first was the tribal phase, where the individual and the tribe were one. The second was the civilization of dogma, where the individual was supported by duty, law, religion, and belonging. And finally, in the West, after the psychedelic revolution of the 50s and 60s, the counterculture emerged as a symptom, the manifestation of a process that destroys the pillars of society and breaking down continuity.

At a certain point, for the first time in human history, new generations absolutely despised the values of the previous ones. Human beings glimpsed freedom and believed that all humans would be brothers and sisters without law or religion, without commitment or family. imagine all the people living for today, you know.

The supreme value became the individual. What could go wrong? Teenagers raising teenagers. The society of likes, where being liked is the supreme value, a partner a tool, and the only purpose is to be happy. This leads to the total isolation of the individual, bubbles of ego that use each other as a drug and a source of dopamine.

Okay, this certainly sounds better than living in the Middle Ages, but wait until you get old. The individual sustains themselves through projecting into the future, but that ends, and psychiatric medication is needed. This isn't bad; it's a phase change. There's only one path, and that's a true openness to the ultimate nature of reality. This sounds like a joke and a lie, but it's absolutely real

Edited 3 hours ago by Breakingthewall