Phil

@Rose Universe as in the whole / the entirety / all that is / there isn't something else… ?

For The Enlightened One there is not two. That which is not two is The Enlightened One. @Someone here Suffering isn't a concept. Suffering is felt. If that isn’t noticed the odds of bringing suffering to an end are zero.

@noomii Share what is true about yourself.

@WhiteOwl 😂 🍻

@Nadosa Lot of variety. Today Alabama Shakes, Tool, Geordie Keiffer, Harry Styles, Muse, Shakey Graves, Cherub, Cypress Hill & Greta Van Fleet. How bout you?

My wife did her masters online through University of Pheonix. I think it was 2 or 3 months. She said it was good. Hope that helps, good luck!

@Orb Awesome suggestions! I agree. I like cold water on the face, laughter, exercise / loud music, meditation, fast, look at dreamboard (every morning).

🥰

Yes that’s it in a nutshell. You are fulfillment. Thought can seem to obscure.

This seems to be overlooked. What might happen if the prior interpretation (op) were let go? For a thinker, there may be concerns for what she as a thinker thinks, while there might not be any concern for what any other thinkers thinks, and this may be because the thinker would be separate and finite, and potentially fulfilled by her. So what she as a thinker is thinking could be thought to be very important to the thinker. This is not psychology, existentialism or philosophy, This is humor.

There a swing from feeling (happiness) coming in a future, to having been in a past (‘when was the last time I was happy’). Then there’s the tell all statement; what I knows. Thoughts thoughts are (only) experienced presently, isn’t it so? An emotion is as well, yet may not jive with what’s known.

The belief in separation, things, and therein that there is a separate finite self. What seems to be overlooked is the directness of the thought(s) that there are other thinkers thinking. Seems to revolve around what this thinker might think, and no concern for what these other thinkers might think. The resolve is introspection, or, going deeper into the reality of yourself. Emotion as guidance for thoughts “tells you so”, isn’t it? Don’t settler for “harder”, acknowledge the guidance, experience the manifestation “in the flesh”. That there isn’t a thinker isn’t some thing a realizer realized. It’s a belief unobscured by daily morning meditation. What would the same experience, perception and sensation, be like without the thoughts?

Buddha means Enlightened One. Same as Nonduality (not two). The fourth noble truth is, fourth, and the delusion is previously addressed by the first three. If anything isn’t nonduality, there isn’t nonduality, yet this would be based on the belief nonduality is a claiming (of what is) rather than a negation of what isn’t.

@Blessed2 Post pics of these things and I’ll have a look.

Awesome. I’d give it a google. It’s very ‘snowflake’. The general median seems to be about .2 grams every three days.

@Blessed2 Great question! The phrasing of “appearing as experience” could seem to imply appearing “as something else” (called experience). Of the presumption there is something, there is the potential for the obscuring presumption “which began”, and therein “which could end”.

Direct experience could seem to be conceptualized, yet, a concept (thought) is directly experienced.

Alignment could be framed as the alignment of thought, emotion & the present.

When whipping through the forest on a minibike pegged at top speed - don’t look at the trees, you’ll crash into them. Look at the opening. Hedonism is an example of diversity & freedom. Don’t judge, it only seems to give it power. It’s looking at the trees. If a craving of old arises, take pause. Sit. Allow it to come & go. With each occurrence there is but more clarity these phenomena come & go within you, and hold no power over you. Keep discovering the non. It can also be helpful to play it all the way through. Why did you let these habits go? Where was that headed? You made changes… where are you headed now? Focus on that. You won’t get there crashing into trees.

@Kevin First & foremost - that’s some top shelf introspection sir. Beautiful. A thought / interpretation can be met with a mix of emotions. Sensation too. Like the interpretation ‘hangry’.

@Isagi Yoichi Some ants are conducive to well-being, some ants are not.

Yes, very much so. There’s thought, and there is the true nature of what’s appearing as thought. Thoughts are not things. So there isn’t right or wrong, nor good & bad, there’s how thoughts feel. Discord & alignment. If a thought / interpretation feels off, one can slow down and say - something feels off about this thought / interpretation, and allow a better feeling, more resonating thought / interpretation. Whenever one allows this, a better feeling, more resonating thought / interpretation does inevitably arise - because of the truth of the true nature. One can also carry on in spite of the discord too, because one is free & there is no assertion. One can even double down despite the discord felt, and suppress, force, manipulate, deceive, etc, etc, etc. The body bears the discord of this, and with momentum of this, there is dis-ease. Changes can also be made in spite of the guidance, such as with DuPont, which cause disease.

@Someone here 100% 🍻 And so there is no reality.

In shorthand, colloquially, “you are love” is all good in my book. It’s far more resonating than you are separate, finite, form, a person, human, etc. Looking more deeply into the statement however, it’s defining, as if this were known or knowable, which implies a separate finite self, form, person, human, etc. If this were known, love would be the verb and you would be the noun. (You love, and reality is.) Reality is you loving. But not a doing or an action, a being in the verb sense. Loving is synonymous with creating. Love is being focus, by being the lens-sphere. Whatever focus is upon, more is experienced. But there isn’t what you do love and what you don’t love, as you love and reality is, and reality (the lens-sphere & world-sphere) are Whole. Not separate. Not things. Might be clarifying, might not… Infinite can not know finite. Since infinite is formless that’s not a problem at all. Infinite simply be’s the world-sphere. But because infinite is self-aware, for infinite, there is no world-sphere… for infinite “that” is just the very same infinite. For infinite to experience a world, infinite must veil itself of its own infinitude - of being aware, that infinite is being, the world-sphere. Infinite veils itself by being a second sphere. A lens-sphere. Focus. Infinite must veil itself to “know” / experience / for there to seem to be, a world. Infinite never knows or understands anything whatsoever about itself - because infinite is already infinite. Sometimes it seems it is mistakenly said that infinite being needs humans to learn about itself, to know and understand itself. That’s said on behalf of the sep self of thoughts. The believer, or, one who believes it knows. The knower.

Help me out. How does that statement not make logical or grammatical sense? In what way, or what doesn’t it jive with?