Phil

A belief by default isn’t true. Changing beliefs would be replacing untruth with untruth. On whose behalf are you speaking? As you are present-only & have never experienced not being present, who is the self which has beliefs, which has life, which used to be other than what it presently is…? You are the alternative, yet are without opposite. The underlying presumption is that there is you and understanding / that there is some thing to be understood. Imagine seeking peace & letting go of the seeking and thus there is / this is… peace. Same for understanding. Understanding is synonymous with peace. No difference whatsoever. Neither are experiential. It’s not possible to experience understanding / peace. Akin to changing beliefs being a replacement with new beliefs… attempting to replace misunderstanding with understanding doesn’t pan out. It’s objectifying or thingifying yourself (understanding) as a thought (that there is this thing; understanding). Another example is how attempting to replace impatience with patience doesn’t pan out. It’s because it’s the activity of thought. If impatience is experienced and acknowledged, and the message received, there is no longer the experience of impatience… but it’s not replace by some thing / something experiential called patience… patience is inherent in your eternal nature, only seeming to be obscured by the thought & emotion impatience. Understanding, peace & patience are the sun. Not clouds. Misunderstanding, impatience & the expectation understanding will be experienced are clouds. You’re the unchanging sun. Clouds come & go (appear & disappear).

@Rose How do you continue believing there is a separate material reality consisting of people thinking, motivation, understanding, religions, your old friends, your grandma, a duality of consciousness, etc? Sincere curiosity… given you never experience being born, sleep, death or yourself, how do you continue believing this isn’t you, dreaming?

@Reena 11. 🙂

@Reena Whatever my wife wants.

Why would he feel closer to her than he did to you? When non-existential and non-conceptual, the distinction between pain and suffering is most clarifying & relieving of suffering. That is exactly, precisely what is clarified. It’s the bigger picture, what’s true about you and what’s not which makes sense of everything, including btw all current and future relationships.

That belief would feel discordant to feeling. Like someone saying there are WhiteOwls to WhiteOwl. Discordant describes how a thought, belief or interpretation feels. This discord is of the thought, belief or interpretation. The thought, belief or interpretation is what’s discordant. No. Clarifying & releasing though. Emotion reveals why a thought is / was discordant, thus, fully aware of what it was (a discordant thought, belief or interpretation) and why. One self could know how a second self feels (uncertain / suffering) if there were two of you. Suffering describes how a thought, belief or interpretation feels. This suffering is of the thought, belief or interpretation. A discordant thought, belief or interpretation is what suffering is. The only self there is, is present. So that thought would feel discordant to the self which is present. Worrying vs guidance of worry. The simplest answer is blame’s an emotion not a behavior or action. Feeling blame isn’t really a how, as it’s already the case (per that scenario). There is no ‘re-owning my projections’ as there was / is never a self separate of projection which owned / owns projection. Scenario wise, ‘blaming’ is noticed in hindsight and the discord is acknowledged. That blame is felt (an emotion) can be acknowledged. Emotion is real-time, so as blame is felt and acknowledged… the behavior or action referred to doesn’t occur.

@WhiteOwl Like a movie being watched from the couch, there isn’t anything in the movie. No decisions / deciders.

The frustration, impatience & pessimism are how the thoughts about a separate self feel.

@Reena Ok. I just asked if you had tried, that’s all.

@Jonas Long Then the term ‘something that projects’ would be better. This is projection, just not by or onto something else.

@Jonas Long This is projection like a movie. But not like a movie in the sense there’s something or someone projecting and something or someone projected upon.

@Jonas Long Looking / seeing is projection.

@Jonas Long Yeah. This is it.

@Jonas Long Just by being this / projecting.

@Jonas Long This is inherently meaningful.

@Jonas Long That’s meaningless.

@Jonas Long Meaning is apparent context, if at all. If believed, illusory.

@Jonas Long Separation is an apparent context.

@Orbran Much love.

@Jonas Long Probably. May be contextual.

No.

@Mandy Holy nailed it. ‘All the king’s horses & all the king’s men’ are essentially the emperor's new clothes.

Might seem very ‘broken record’, but have you tried acknowleding the emotions felt (prior to concepts about the emotions felt)? Like blame as an example. The belief blame is not an emotion / is not felt, can manifest as rumination, or endless mental attempts to ‘solve the problem’, which can be conceptualizes as a lack of focus or something about me. Emotional guidance isn’t a problem, and there is no lack of focus, thus the cyclical logic / belief loop(s) / rumination of attempting to make a discordant belief or beliefs “fit”.

Integration is like an attempt to make a whole pizza whole, by putting imagined separate pieces of pizza together. Or like trying to reassemble a shattered mirror, believing one will then see one’s reflection. By completely ignoring emotions and instead believing thoughts / ‘being right’, there seems to be separation / separate things / parts of oneself, which could be integrated resulting in wholeness, completeness, satisfaction or Truth. One can also acknowledge all the labels believed about oneself (already) as they arise and are felt (already), and question & dispel discordant beliefs uncovering the Truth seemingly obscured by, beliefs. Beliefs like I’m an RTGH, or I’m an Aquarius male with impatience issues, or ‘the knower’ which ‘knows there are parts of you’.

@Orbran ‘…But adopting it would require significant changes on my part’. There’s no suggestion of adopting anything. Not sure how many ways ‘nothing’s required’ can be said. That “it” referred to, which fatigues, seems like a waste of energy which could be eliminated… isn’t perspective / point of view, it’s interpretation, which is discordant (as you say…tiresome, draining, etc). Interpretation arises or appears in & of perspective / point of view, including the (discordant) interpretation ‘my perspective’ or ‘my point of view’. I’m not sure how a non individual self could be focused on, let alone how that seems to be suggested, or how that is like ‘spending it’ on an organized religion which largely seem to center around the belief in a God & adherence to beliefs / dogma / conjecture. If a non individual self could be focused on, it’d be focused on by an individual self, and the existence of said individual self by default of existing, would make the non individual self, an individual self. I’m also at an utter loss for who would be separate of This, which could invest or not, in This. There seems to be a lot of discordant presumptions & circular logic, yet no interest in liberation or what’s actually, true.