Truth Addict

Journaling - for the first time in my life

191 posts in this topic

@Aakash

Unfortunately, I don't have the luxury of having access to psychedelics. And I don't think reading will answer this question, cuz if it could, then I must have known it already from your answers.

And for the record, I've watched Leo's series on Absolute Infinity.

Edited by Truth Addict

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know leo's video's are the total truth of absolute infinity 

so he has video's in there , 2 i think 

all you have to do is listen and soak it in, don't question it. 

Thats using the mindframe 

wrong until proven right, life doesn't work like that....  its about being right until proven wrong . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Truth Addict said:

but I'm questioning the underlying assumption of infinity.

What if there isn't any? Can that be proven?

18 minutes ago, Truth Addict said:

In other words, those are signs that reality is infinite, not proof. I want proof.

What kind of proof would satisfy you?
If you want to learn something, you have to accept it as a possibility and then seek it in your direct experience.
What I wrote of is not 'signs'. I do not have it memorized, I access it as I write it. Find the commonalities between these 'signs'. It's subtle.
Have you ever tried to understand what it means to understand? What happens when you have the 'AHA' moment?

Edited by tsuki

Bearing with the conditioned in gentleness, fording the river with resolution, not neglecting what is distant, not regarding one's companions; thus one may manage to walk in the middle. H11L2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Aakash said:

You know leo's video's are the total truth of absolute infinity 

so he has video's in there , 2 i think 

all you have to do is listen and soak it in, don't question it. 

Thats using the mindframe 

wrong until proven right, life doesn't work like that....  its about being right until proven wrong . 

You're kidding, right?

12 minutes ago, tsuki said:

What if there isn't any?

Then reality would still be reality.

15 minutes ago, tsuki said:

Can that be proven?

I'm not sure I understand what you're referring to.

17 minutes ago, tsuki said:

What kind of proof would satisfy you?

100% certainty in whatever means.

19 minutes ago, tsuki said:

If you want to learn something, you have to accept it as a possibility and then seek it in your direct experience.

That's what I'm doing, or at least what I think I'm doing.

19 minutes ago, tsuki said:

What I wrote of is not 'signs'. I do not have it memorized, I access it as I write it. Find the commonalities between these 'signs'. It's subtle.

Hmmm.. ?

20 minutes ago, tsuki said:

Have you ever tried to understand what it means to understand? What happens when you have the 'AHA' moment?

Yes, a new distinction gets created every time I learn/understand/get an insight of something new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Truth Addict said:

Yes, a new distinction gets created every time I learn/understand/get an insight of something new.

What I was asking is: how exactly are you making these new distinctions.
Like, you know how to move your hand, but do you know how to make a >>new distinction<<?

2 hours ago, Truth Addict said:

I watched the video. Not much helpful.

How about you explain to me what absolute infinity is?


Bearing with the conditioned in gentleness, fording the river with resolution, not neglecting what is distant, not regarding one's companions; thus one may manage to walk in the middle. H11L2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, tsuki said:

What I was asking is: how exactly are you making these new distinctions.
Like, you know how to move your hand, but do you know how to make a >>new distinction<<?

'I' don't make the distinctions, obviously.

If you're asking about the process, then my best guess would be: by comparison, and shuffle. But the making of distinctions is direct and unexpected, so the other answer is that there's no process, distinctions come out of nowhere, or from somewhere unperceiveable.

34 minutes ago, tsuki said:

How about you explain to me what absolute infinity is?

Absolute infinity is absolute infinity. It cannot be explained by words, if it was true. It has no qualities because qualities are limitations. But limitations must be included in infinity. So, it's a strange-loop. I will stop here because any further description wouldn't do the concept 'infinity' justice. Like I said, it can't be explained by language, because it's paradoxical and contradictory and illogical.

Edited by Truth Addict

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@tsuki

For the last day, I have been trying to confirm the connection that you're trying to point out to me. And although it seems convincing, but I like to challenge it and explore other possibilities before. I will not accept it until I submit that there cannot be any other possibilities. Right now, I think there is, so I'm still not bought into that idea.

The reason why I'm suspicious is because this connection requires thought, and thought is not to be trusted.

The other reason is that because it doesn't answer the question: Why choosing/operating from this specific experience/POV?

The other reason is that because Leo created this idea, and it's a new age hippy idea from the movie: The Matrix, all of which I'm highly suspicious of their delusion and devilry.

The other reason is that my little brother says that humans crave discovering stuff and claiming knowledge/righteousness, which seems to be the case, especially with Leo.

So...

I really appreciate your help tsuki, you are an amazing guy! Thank you ❤️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow!

I just realized the tremendous amounts of money, work, and effort that women put into their looks. The highly judgemental system they apply to themselves and other women is unbelievable! Beauty is probably the number one priority for most women in their life, since it's highly related to their survival.

The story of how I realized this is from one customer that was pretty much judgemental of my work as a photographer. I don't usually receive judgements or negative feedbacks because I maintain a frame that doesn't allow most people to have the chance to even rate my work. I trick them into thinking that my work is perfect, and it actually is, I mean was.

This woman is no ordinary woman, she was confident and broke my frame very easily. I don't meet such people quite often, that was such a very rare case. In terms of ego development, I bet she's way more developed than I am, or at least she doesn't have the hang-ups that I struggle with discovering and correcting, and other people have.

I wasn't attracted to her sexually, even though she's average, on my scale I would rate her at 6 tops, losing one point for being kind of fat, one point for wearing make-up, one point for not being able to attract me sexually, and one point for being overly-confident and for breaking my dominant frame cuz that would make her stronger than me and I don't like looking weaker than women.

I haven't stated clearly what made me realise the main insight here. And this is the craziest thing here is that I always knew it, but never understood the depth of it. She was focused on every tiny detail of the picture that I took of her. She would see things that I would never notice and not know that they're even 'things'. The curves on her face she would tell me to emphasise, even the tone of the colour on every part of her face should pass the bar, and dear Lord the bar is high up in the sky. The standards are sacred and must never be touched.

That was a just little preview of how she was. And I believe that even everything I saw was just a little preview of how women are in real life, and even more shocking is that that's also still just a little preview of how they think/operate behind the scenes, and how their minds are wired.

By the way, she was not neurotic, just so much careful, precise, and critical.

Another note is that women don't apply the same standards for men, even though they have preferences, but they don't care as much as men about their partners beauty.

And I always wondered how women look beautiful. Being beautiful is a full-time job. Women know exactly how to be beautiful and how to attract men. They're like spiders building their traps and maintaining them. Sorry ladies, or should I say sorry spiderwomen?!

Edited by Truth Addict

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Truth Addict said:

The reason why I'm suspicious is because this connection requires thought, and thought is not to be trusted.

Is that a dogma of yours or do you actually understand the cases when the mind is deceitful?

5 hours ago, Truth Addict said:

The other reason is that because it doesn't answer the question: Why choosing/operating from this specific experience/POV?

The other reason is that because Leo created this idea, and it's a new age hippy idea from the movie: The Matrix, all of which I'm highly suspicious of their delusion and devilry.

The other reason is that my little brother says that humans crave discovering stuff and claiming knowledge/righteousness, which seems to be the case, especially with Leo.

Your specific experience/POV is conditioned from your birth by your environment.
The dormant mind is just a recycling plant that adds cohesion to the impressions it had collected.
This agglomerate is what is called the false sense of self and that is the part of the mind that is to be mistrusted.
But, you may ask: by whom is it to be mistrusted and on what accord?
The agglomerate has to accumulate knowledge and learn to mistrust itself.
It needs to dismantle and question its own motifs until the light of the en-lightenment sees itself, its own presence.
What, in the end, is enlightened - is the mind.
Thoughts are still there after it occurs and these thoughts are not conditioned. They reflect reality accurately.

The origin of ideas Leo is presenting is irrelevant. They are upaya, a trick for the ego to dismantle itself.

5 hours ago, Truth Addict said:

I really appreciate your help tsuki, you are an amazing guy! Thank you ❤️

That's always nice to hear, especially from people I consider my equals ❤️|❤️.

Edited by tsuki

Bearing with the conditioned in gentleness, fording the river with resolution, not neglecting what is distant, not regarding one's companions; thus one may manage to walk in the middle. H11L2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, tsuki said:

Your specific experience/POV is conditioned from your birth by your environment.

The dormant mind is just a recycling plant that adds cohesion to the impressions it had collected.
This agglomerate is what is called the false sense of self and that is the part of the mind that is to be mistrusted.
But, you may ask: by whom is it to be mistrusted and on what accord?
The agglomerate has to accumulate knowledge and learn to mistrust itself.
It needs to dismantle and question its own motifs until the light of the en-lightenment sees itself, its own presence.
What, in the end, is enlightened - is the mind.
Thoughts are still there after it occurs and these thoughts are not conditioned. They reflect reality accurately.

Yes, that's only true from the spiritualist paradigm.

What's left there without it is just experience/POV without explanation. Which means that the explanation is just a thought-story, a perspective, a try at explaining what is, but never what truly is (yet paradoxically also what is).

26 minutes ago, tsuki said:

The origin of ideas Leo is presenting is irrelevant. They are upaya, a trick for the ego to dismantle itself.

I understand that. That's why I'm always careful about not confusing the pointer for the moon.

22 minutes ago, tsuki said:

Is that a dogma of yours or do you actually understand the cases when the mind is deceitful?

The problem is so deep with this, because it's the problem of epistemology. How do we know anything for sure? Is thought a reliable source for information? What about non-duality? Is it true that everything is one and that there's no difference between any two things at all? etc... Plus, my direct experience of perception suggests that duality is true.

I don't believe that non-duality is the ultimate truth. I mean it might be, that would mean that infinity is true, but I'm suspicious because I don't know whether non-duality is true or not. What if it's possible to differentiate between two objects but our abilities are too weak for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Truth Addict said:

The problem is so deep with this, because it's the problem of epistemology. How do we know anything for sure? Is thought a reliable source for information? What about non-duality? Is it true that everything is one and that there's no difference between any two things at all? etc... Plus, my direct experience of perception suggests that duality is true.

Is all knowledge just a story to you, or do you acknowledge the possibility that knowledge can reflect reality?
Epistemology and metaphysics are unified through non-duality and reveal how accurate knowledge is possible.

Many ancient sources (including Buddhism) teach that reality is one self-illuminating mind.
Studying the small mind of the personal self is how you learn about reality that is beyond it.
That is why all knowledge comes from within.

Edited by tsuki

Bearing with the conditioned in gentleness, fording the river with resolution, not neglecting what is distant, not regarding one's companions; thus one may manage to walk in the middle. H11L2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@tsuki

The only way that knowledge can be acquired is through experience, since experience makes a connection that one can relate to. That relationship is true knowing that is communicated through language. For example, I can't know what fear is until I relate to the term through direct experience.

But that's all still just a theory that was never confirmed through experience. That's how deep the problem is. What if knowledge can be acquired without experience? In fact, maybe that's how all theoretical/conceptual/abstract fields work. Numbers were never experienced, yet we can relate to them and know what they are. Now you might object, using the spiritualist paradigm, that we don't know what numbers actually are, and that they're nothing blah blah blah. But whatever, numbers are numbers and they're there.

Epistemology is a bitch.

Edited by Truth Addict

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Truth Addict said:

The only way that knowledge can be acquired is through experience, since experience makes a connection that one can relate to, that relationship is true knowing that is communicated through language. For example, I can't know what fear is until I relate to the term through direct experience.

But that's all still just a theory that was never confirmed through experience. That's how deep the problem is. What if knowledge can be acquired without experience? In fact, maybe that's how all theoretical/conceptual/abstract fields work. Numbers were never experienced, yet we can relate to them and know what they are. Now you might object, using the spiritualist paradigm, that we don't know what numbers actually are, and that they're nothing blah blah blah. But whatever, numbers are numbers and they're there.

Epistemology is a bitch.

Let's look into this more closely.

  1. The bottom-line of experience is presence, isness without description. You do things non-reflectively or rather things happen.
  2. Then, you stop the world and create an image of what happened. That is samadhi, contemplation in silence.
    In order to bring the non-reflective action into language, you need a context (tradition) and re-contextualization.
    Re-contextualization is when you have knowledge that is expressed as a relationship between symbols, make the symbols ambiguous and 'feel' what happened in your experience. Whether it fits or not. Its basis is analogy.
  3. Only then you can do something consciously - you have made a distinction that can be used deliberately.
  4. Last step is the actual description and sharing and that is what you called 'knowledge'/philosophy.

Knowledge in itself is an object of experience. You can have knowledge about knowledge and it is grounded in experience.
Intelligence however is prior to language. It is the pre-condition of the first point on the list: non-reflective action.
That is the creative potential. It does not come from the person - the person is an invention that is only possible because there is intelligence.
Notice that you always do something first and only then you can reflect on it and make distinctions.

The problem is when the capacity for non-reflective action, presence, has been burred underneath philosophy.
That is what the ego-mind is. It is a recycling plant that obstructs the presence/intelligence. But the presence is always there!

To say that 'something is just a theory' is to admit that you are incapable of reflecting silently upon your experience. The rest is just re-contextualization.

Edited by tsuki

Bearing with the conditioned in gentleness, fording the river with resolution, not neglecting what is distant, not regarding one's companions; thus one may manage to walk in the middle. H11L2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@tsuki

The model you're proposing cannot work without thought, i.e. assuming duality beforehand.

In order to know what knowledge is, a thought of separation must arise, and without duality there's no knowledge. The knowledge is being, the thoughts-stories are not imagined, i.e. there's no image that one would stop the world and then create, the image is the world.

P.S. It took me this long to reply because the language you used was difficult for me to comprehend.

Edited by Truth Addict

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Truth Addict Hmm, I was hoping for a second there that you would actually cooperate instead of backpedaling all the time. Have fun ♥️


Bearing with the conditioned in gentleness, fording the river with resolution, not neglecting what is distant, not regarding one's companions; thus one may manage to walk in the middle. H11L2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always wanted to find out why I am here, why there is life, and why everything is as it is.

It seems like no one really has the answer, because any answer at all would ultimately always be a story.

I want THE story.

Wait, I'm living it already. Okay, so where are the answers?

Damn it son! What good story would reveal its end from the beginning?! Wait and see. You are blessed, you won't get lost cuz I'm here for you.

Rest sure, you can't miss your own story.

..

❤️??

Edited by Truth Addict

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really started hating this place.

Every ignorant fuck thinks they're enlightened masters and then they come and make projections and claims about me. Moreover, due to their deep ignorance, they provide their unsolicited 'advice' mostly in a projection form.

My life is amazing, why am I wasting it on interacting with ignorant people?!

I'm not sure about leaving, but I'm sure that this place is no longer a match for me. Once you've become a human, a chimp will not be able to understand you.

Now I truly understand this quote: "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

I don't usually get triggered, but I'm really angry right now. I think I need to take a break.

Edited by Truth Addict

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now