Winter

Absolutely 😂 I am this hilarious and confusing exchange. What I'm trying to know, Phil's thought, doesn't exist indeed. I am this reality which is materialized as if there is a Phil who had a reason to think Jesus was funny, implying that there exists such a reason. But right now, it's true that this information is missing. The present moment keep changing though, maybe soon I will materialize into a Phil which will finally answer why he thought Jesus was funny in this context? Who knows. The curiosity is killing me. 😂

By definition, he is. 😂 If you label something then that thing is labelled. I'm open to the idea that Jesus isn't who he is commonly thought of as, maybe Jesus is a frog. But if you are bringing up this idea that there exist or existed something called Jesus (and that perhaps he wrote that quote) then by definition that thing is Jesus.

I feel like I understand the main intention of Jesus' quote which is a pointer to nonduality (just don't do dualities and you'll feed good). But I also see potential traps in Jesus' quote, in his way of expressing, which makes me criticize the quote itself as not being that good of a pointer. Of course it doesn't matter that there are ways to misinterpret the sayings of Jesus. Like Spira says it takes a splinter to remove a splinter (or something like that). What perplexes me however is that upon pointing to Phil the potential "splinter" property of the quote, Phil responded that "Jesus is so funny", as if Jesus "knew" about that possible splinter and left it intentionally as a "joke". If that's not why Phil said that in response to my point then I don't understand why. But when it comes to experiencing non duality... the quote is cool and all but it might as well just say "shut up" 😂 I don't find a quote or any other thought particularly helpful in "arriving" at non duality, as if you aren't already there I'm glad you've beaten this flu! I'm lucky I don't think I caught a flu in years. Too busy with school and stuff to allow myself that.

@Mandy If it wasn't clear, what I found hilarious is the idea that one needs to do some attention exercise just to understand what someone else mean. All in all, I'm only curious as to why Phil said "Jesus’s so funny! Arguably the funniest of all time." I'll admit I initially assumed I knew why and I feel like this was a mistake in the sense it spun the conversation in a thousand directions which are not really relevant. But I'm still curious about that.

Yes, thank you. How about you?

😂 Hilarious.

Whether you want to call one self and the other reality or both selves is quite irrelevant. But yes you could do that translation. No the in and out of heaven really refer to a state of happiness which you are either in or not. The quote can be interpreted as saying "stop making those dualities and you'll be in heaven, continue doing them and you are not". To equate perceiver to inside would be to equate it to heaven and to equate perceived to outside would be to equate it to hell. I don't see how that makes sense. The only thing that's attempted to be stretched here is an understanding of what you said in order to make it make sense 😂 It was assumed that no impersonation was going on but now with this message it is absolutely ambiguous. If you are Phil's wife then hello, nice to meet you and what did you do to Phil?? 😂

@Phil No matter how many times I go over what you are saying, it's like I always misinterpret it lol. I don't see how imagining a self victim of dualities relates to perception being seen as a duality (perceiver vs perception). I feel like if I keep trying stretch that comparison into anything that makes sense will just push me farther into misinterpreting what you said. Why is Jesus funny then? I thought it was because he put the idea of an in and an out in his quote.

Look at you trying to define which thought I had and which I had not 😂 Ah yes exactly this one, but not that one. The difference I perceive though between my past reaction to the quote and my understanding of your reaction to it is the admirable amount of good faith you manage to put in quotes swarmed with dualities. My initial reaction to those dualities was one of worry for a self (or another) who might fall victim for those dualities as traps, like for instance believing there is an "in" and an "out" to awakening. It was more seen as a threat, a possible belief I might collect if I were to believe that quote. It's clear however that there is no such self which can "fall" for dualities. You on the other hand seem to admire Jesus for his humor, as if Jesus was aware of all those dualities and possible traps and purposefully decided to write the quote in this way "as a joke". It's a lot of good faith you put in Jesus. Would you put as much good faith in anyone else? If so why assume I even was believing any thought and not just joking like Jesus? What about Putin, Hitler, Stalin, are those people just joking too?

Yeah perhaps I've been taking dualities too seriously. It's like I needed to point out every one I see, to make sure none of them could affect me unconsciously 😂 Yet its apparent this self victim of thought is not actual. But if there is no harm in dualities and we can just laugh at their silly implications without feeling affected by the thoughts they communicate, wouldn't that make any quote from anyone potentially as funny? But I don't find Russian propaganda funny because I feel bad for all the people stuck in it. I don't find neo nazi ideas funny because of all the suffering it causes in people. And I don't find Jesus' implication of there being a heaven funny because I feel bad for all the people seeking heaven by following rules or fearing judgment and hell.

It would be a travesty to talk of heaven as if there is hell, to talk of entering as if there is an in and an out and to talk of a "then" which happens "when" conditions are met. I'm not saying my interpretation is better than yours, it's just what I get reading this quote. Why do you like quotes? Has any quote ever helped you in any way?

"Once you let go of your dualities you'll find the better side of this other duality I'm creating."

Yet by being true also disproves itself... proving itself once again. 😂

Yeah it might only be relevant to the self conception you have right now, kind of like a piece of the current puzzle even if as itself isn't particularly notable and wasn't the piece of any puzzle back then.

Essentially you are conceptualizing the in-person presence at your sister's wedding as some sort of exclusive thing only the worthy can go to (in the eyes of your sister) and feel hurt you weren't "truly" invited. Have you ever expressed how that made you feel to your family? It comes across to me as you would really want to be seen as an equal in the eye of your sister, as opposed to being seen like the younger sister. The game of trying to change the perception others have of you is indeed a frustrating, annoying one to play. Not much I can say here that you aren't already aware of... But I would say "problems" really stop being problems when you know you have done everything you can about them. Once you've made your call or planned the fix or the sale and you know the plan you made is the best you've got then there is no more reason to think about it anymore and you can go about your day. Only when you hesitate then you worry "maybe if I had done that call or this thing then it would be solved" and then you get pissed at yourself for hesitating and essentially pissed at your husband as well.

What is it about them that makes you call them "low level", frustrating or annoying? What about them annoys you?

In my experience I find much more value in contemplating how I felt when faced with a situation in a dream than focusing on the dream itself. The detail of what was happening in a dream are irrelevant imo, but the way it made you feel, the way it scared you or annoyed you can be used to better understand the self you are creating right now.

I hope they aren't fire ants cause I can't tolerate spicy food 😂

They contain a LOT of proteins and vitamin A, B, C, D, E, K. I can't really find a nutrient not present in insects. If you have an idea feel free to look it up. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352364616300013 They are also an excellent source of omega 3 https://www.nutritioninsight.com/news/insects-are-a-sustainable-source-of-omega-3.html Something that is hard to come by in vegan diets (especially the important omega 3, DHA and EPA).

What about all the land used for agriculture which displaces animal populations worldwide? Imagine being born a mouse and having the forest you live in be destroyed for the nutrition of humans. Do you have no concern for the planet and the animal life on it? If you had you would switch to eating only insects as they are the most nutritious and good for the planet type of food out there. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/02/how-insects-positively-impact-climate-change/ Thank me later.

"I no longer have self-referential thoughts now." 😂 There is no process, nothing goes away. There is no awakening to wait for or to work toward. There is nowhere you are not at as far as you go. Sure you can work on your body, on your brain. But you don't need your body or your brain to be different in order to "be free", whatever you think that means.

A circular definition is a definition that uses the term being defined as a part of the definition or assumes a prior understanding of the term being defined. A dictionary is defined as the set of all words in a language. Of course those definitions are not actual, but required to communicate. About the other stuff : Yes, correct. Thank you.

This duality is SO POWERFUL it will get you to nonduality in SECONDS! Buy now! Money back guarantee! Good point. Ultimately the writting of this post was done under the assumption that there are desires which differ from the judgement of feeling. Thank you for the nice discussion!

Yeah so saying something feels bad = judging feeling = desiring. That "feeling is a call home" or that it means anything, such as "come here" is judgement/interpretation. An understanding doesn't describe "what should be done". Self preservation however, requires things to be done, such as eating. If I let go of all desires, why would I eat? Why would I judge the experience of starving to death "lesser" than the experience of being healthy? Wouldn't that imply a desire for self preservation? No desire doesn't mean letting oneself to starve necessarily but doesn't it equate to full indifference regarding all aspects of reality? Good or bad, life or death, pleasure or pain?

How can there be a desire "I'm aligned with" if there is no "I"? There is no "guidance", that is a thought, assuming "somewhere to go" or "somewhere to be guided to". What you call "guidance" is here and now, or the lack of desire that is pointing to somewhere else. Whether something feels good or bad is a judgement, an opinion and it is based on desire. Right now my body is pretty empty of nutrients, I can feel it. Is it bad? Isn't that just the opinion of one who would want to survive? If you want to "distinguish" whether a feeling is good or bad, don't you need some sort of goal to measure it against, a desire? That injuring your body "feels bad", isn't that an opinion of one who would want to preserve the body? Is there no objective way of determining what "I" want or what feels good? Or should I just assume the body has a desire of self preservation and base whether something feels good or bad on that? Isn't that just what everyone else is doing? Everybody claims they don't want to live forever, but we rarely sumble upon old folks who want to die.