Enlightened Cat

Meaning, if there is a sense of "understanding", that is still a misunderstanding, because it creates a person who either understands or misunderstands, when they are both actually the same paradigm; of a person who can be affected by understanding or misunderstanding? Right, because these would denote a person who is always either innocent/blamed, or patient/impatient, thus still keeping them inside of that paradigm of someone who can be those things? I can see how there is not a person who does not desire to adhere to social norms. Because that seems to put that person in a position of "choosing", like "I desire to not like social situations" or something like that. I think more practically how it plays out is that they are in a situation which creates certain desires and beliefs. Perhaps they act out an emotion which causes a public disturbance. This is falsely understood as "I am a person who is bad socially", which veils what perpetuated the emotion in the first place.

I mean, if there is a belief in an understanding of a thing, then there is just belief, nothing else. Did you mean that the statement after "if" could not truly be the case?

Got it. Thank you for taking the time to elaborate. If there is "knowing" or "understanding", then that knowing and understanding is always "of a thing" and thus it doesn't exist, like a unicorn. Applying "knowing" or "understanding" to a person or thing using the label "autism" then inherently separates that "being" from their inherent nature, because the tool of perception (understanding) is simply belief or imagination, like a unicorn. Is that about right?

So the label creates a "false" understanding, in the sense that the understanding is a conceptualization? Which is to say, the phenomenon of "autism" can't be fundamentally understood through a conceptual or dualistic lens?

You say that the label "autism" prevents inquiry. Is that because the label is a set of assumptions/characteristics unrelated to what is being inquired about? Isn't it useful to refer to "people", "understanding", etc., for the sake of language and communication?

Why does desiring these things feel bad sometimes? Is it inherent to the desire? If it doesn't feel bad, then where is the problem? What is the issue with being immersed? There would be no issue if it didn't feel bad, right?

What kind of desire is the thought creating? How does that desire feel, and why? Looking at your current experience, is the desire fulfilled or unfulfilled?

Truth is not an equation with relative parameters like "you" and "other." You cannot realize what anything is using relativity or duality, because they are concepts. Look at the limits of concepts. Don't use concepts to create more conceptual answers, you will be stuck there forever because your mind can make infinite conceptual distinctions. If you say other people do not exist, then notice that this tells you absolutely nothing about what does exist, because you are literally talking about something that does not exist, according to you. You have said absolutely nothing, aside from "something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist." It is just as meaningful to say that Santa Claus does not exist. You can imagine an infinite amount of things that don't exist, it means absolutely nothing, quite literally. You are just running circles in your intellect.

Fear is the desire to avoid a threatening situation. Nothing inherently wrong with that. Fear created through self-image or ego is the same desire, but the situation you avoid is held as an imaginary object in experience, and so it is not really a situation at all, just the imagination of yourself inside of one. You literally become someone who avoids imagination.

Folie à deux. (folly of two, in French) AKA "shared psychosis" or "shared delusional disorder (SDD)". Can't believe he forgot such a great term haha, especially after proposing it himself.

It is a distinction made from imagination. Like how words in a book cause you to imagine a story. The word "thing" causes you to imagine the concept of a "thing." Words are symbols which cause you to imagine a distinction. When you say "a table" it causes you to imagine a table, it creates that distinction in your imagination. A "thing" is just imagination, including the idea of a "thing." Something interesting happens with self-image or the ego, where by creating a separation in identity, such as "a human", it causes you to start separating everything around you as well. Since you believe yourself to be a human, you now simultaneously believe yourself to be living in a world of many other distinctions as well. A human exists relative to other things, therefore you must constantly imagine other things to keep the identity going.

You can't learn what experiencing is, you can only experience it. Just like you can't learn what vanilla tastes like, or what music sounds like. Learning happens in experience, it is not inherent to experience. "Real" and "unreal" is also something learned. it is a distinction that the mind makes. Putting a label of "real" and "unreal" would be an attempt at learning experience. You can learn things, but only things, experience is not a "thing."

I interpret this question in two ways: 1. You are questioning what "experiencing" as a phenomenon actually is. 2. You are questioning "what" is experiencing, which is asking about the "thing" or entity that experiences. "Experiencing" is just exactly what is experienced, although that word can imply a subject, like an entity which is experiencing, The "thing" or entity that is assumed to be experiencing things is not actually there, though.

There is memory of experiences, viewed through what is currently experienced. Then there is the knowledge you attribute to that memory. However, there can't be a "you which experienced", otherwise that creates two viewers, one in the past and one in the present. But, there can be a you which views memory, or remembers things. There is a difference between remembering something and "experiencing the past", the former happens in the current moment, the latter doesn't really happen at all. There is no experience of something which has previously been focused on, only a memory of it. There cannot be an entity which "previously focused on things" inside of your current experience, because you cannot "previously focus" on something which is currently experienced.

Nothing. No thing. Google defines it as: The fact or process of ending or being brought to an end. To that I say, a thing which ends can't be. So what really ended, experientially? Buddhism seems to define it as: -The cessation or renouncing of craving and desire. It is the third of the Four Noble Truths, stating that suffering (dukkha) ceases when craving and desire are renounced. (Wikipedia) -Generally the word refers to the absence or extinction of a given entity. As the third of the four noble truths, cessation refers specifically to the pacification of suffering and its causes. (Rigpa Wiki) All definitions point to an ending. Buddhism seems to phrase it as the end of an entity or desirer. If cravings and desires are renounced, so are the craver and desirer. At the end, it seems to be nothing.

In a world where you have to deal with relationships with various other humans, I think it is really worth looking into NPD, the various forms it can manifest, and narcissistic personality structures in general. I am not saying or implying that your relationship involves a narcissist, but even just being able to identify those tendencies can save you from one, and it can even help you notice when you are being gaslighted in general. The mind control techniques of narcissists are the same techniques which are used by anyone who wants to manipulate or gaslight emotionally. Holding grudges aside, it is very important to diagnose the intentions of his words and actions and then act accordingly from a place where you know what their true intentions are. For example, it is one thing to miss a birthday because you genuinely feel you are busy. It is another thing to miss a birthday because of a desire to emotionally manipulate. The actions are the same, but the intentions indicate more. What are the patterns and intentions, how do they affect you, and is it worth it to work through them? In my experience, a common "hook" in mind control is a repeated pattern where they do not change, promise to change, then never do it. One day they will say or promise something, then the other day they will do the exact opposite of that, as if a different person. This behaviour repeats itself perpetually in the relationship. It is not amnesia, but deliberate manipulation, and often a feign of ignorance. You can confirm this by observing it happen time and time again. This is just one tactic narcissists tend to use.

The object of contemplation would probably be about the "I" that knows things, not directly intelligence itself, but the one who claims ownership over intelligence. The ownership and the inherent separation that comes with that ownership is the only thing that can create beliefs about your intelligence. "I know things, therefore I am intelligent because of that." These kinds of identity structures.

Right. Non-duality is not a worldview, and it is equally unwise to hold it as one, because then it leads to solipsistic conclusions. The only reason you believe in solipsism is because you believe that you can think about non-duality. The assumption behind philosophical worldviews are the same, which is "I can imagine something true about experience." If it goes away when you stop thinking about it, it is about as powerful as a unicorn, isn't it? You can't prove it either, you can only think about it. What do you use to prove or disprove a thought? More thoughts? If I tell you: "There is an elephant which appears inside of your closet every time you are not perceiving it. Every time you try to view it, the elephant vanishes from your perception." You cannot disprove this either, but you can definitely turn it into a philosophy about how elephants are vanishing around you.

I just meant that it doesn't create conclusions regarding the past or future, that is what I mean by "nothing." Maybe a bit platitudinous, but "past experience" is ultimately oxymoronic. You are viewing memories of the past, but you cannot view the "you" which "experienced the past", because that creates two viewers.

Yes, where else?

Sounds like a panic attack, which operates the same as all imagined fear, but it is more perpetual. It always ends the same way too, you eventually realize the futility of worrying about "things", which are actually just past and future scenarios. Stopping the mind simultaneously stops the fear. Realizing the limits of your mind immediately makes you stop using it, because you realize there is no point to it anymore. It is the idea of a "me inside of the future which I have to worry about" which perpetuates the panic attack.

I have an interpretation of it. There is an intelligence inside of your experience which is different from your intellect or logic. The "emptiness/easiness" could be the lack of mind or logic, coupled by the clarity of experience itself. Experience has a very amazing clarity to it where it basically says nothing about itself. It dissolves your intellect and assumptions just through you observing it. You can definitely "tap in" to this by meditating or simply observing what happens when your mind or logic is removed. When you have a question or assumption, you could ask "what does my experience say about it?" The answer that your experience gives you or shows you will be from a different source than your mind. You can assimilate yourself with the inherent intelligence of experience simply by comparing it to what you are thinking. Breathing can put you in a meditative state, so it can be related in that way.

Haven't you noticed that "being accurate" or "correct" feels bad sometimes? The desire to be accurate or correct in your way of thinking is intellectual investment, which is contradicted by your experience and emotions. It is not a coincidence that solipsism makes you feel lonely. It is also not a coincidence that not thinking about solipsism removes your loneliness, despite your supposedly "solipsistic experience" not changing. Why does thinking make the difference, if solipsism is truly experiential and beyond thinking? What do you lose or gain when you think about other people? What do you lose or gain when you try to forget about it? Why does it feel better to forget?

Loved reading through this. "There is no cure for beliefs" 🎯

You can't prove anything with figments either.