Joseph Maynor

Realize you're the mirror not what's reflected in the mirror. Then let the reflection in the mirror be without thinking it hurts the mirror. You don't need to react to what's in the mirror if you realize you're the mirror itself. Let talk happen, just realize it's not the Self. The Self doesn't need to kill talk to be the Self.

In terms of Enlightenment talk, this is actually kind of funny, but also good too. https://wildsimplejoy.com/what-is-spiritual-enlightenment/

Apocalypse Now

American Beauty

Abre Los Ojos (This is the movie Vanilla Sky tried to recreate, but you gotta watch this version with English subtitles)

The Wicker Man (the original not the new one)

Magnolia

That spooky I thought. I guess we better burn it at the stake!

Understood. But what is this @Phil character saying what's what to other separate selves? Let's dig a little deeper. Give us a good answer here. I know what you're gonna say but still. Don't hold back. Have fun. Create.

@Phil What are your beliefs?

Oh my God, I've died and gone to Heaven. What a fantastic remaster. This album needed a remaster so badly. One of my favorite albums. I can hear sounds in this version of the album I never heard before.

I Heart Huckabees

Relative means the human (the world of ego and the finite self). Absolute means the Divine (the Infinite Self). You can get to the point on the path where you're not putting relative truth in the shadow. but you also realize it's not true. Then you can embody the absolute while also playing around with the relative. There's nothing that needs to be burned at the stake in this experience. I understand what @Phil is teaching, but it's absolute only. He doesn't acknowledge the relative as existing or worthy of discussion. I've been at that place years ago now, but I kept that and then subsequently relaxed my attitude relating to taking the relative out of the shadow. You can actually hold the relative and the absolute at the same time, there's no bright-line conflict there. They are different too, everyone knows that. I know I'm so stupid right? Lol.

There's 2 answers that can be given, a relative one and an absolute one. The relative answer is not true, but it can be illuminating and useful.

I will. Thanks for politely asking me.

They created a bit of a laugh at your expense which actually strengthened their bond. It sucks that people do this, but it helps to understand systemically why it happens. Think about this one, a group can only exist once a scapegoat is fashioned. The group then emerges and survives to spite the scapegoat. This gets deep into relationship dynamics. So they were trying to bond, but they chose them at your expense, and kind of used attacking you as the catalyst to do it. They weren't trying to include you in the group of bonding nodes (in this case dudes).

He has a hang up about sex, more specifically girls being taken advantage of for sex. He went after Leo on this issue too. He uses the word creepy a lot to refer to the bad people in these construals. I wonder if he just doesn't like sex, but he's linking sex with abuse in some weird way. I have a hunch as to why, but I would never reveal it.

I don't respond to you because I think you've been overly personal in how you've taken shots at me on here. I might question things more than anyone on here, but I'm a good guy and deserving of a degree of respect like those who agree with you.

Allow me one more comment and I'm done. Ponder this one: If there are no separate selves, why are you so concerned with sending these messages to separate selves? It's almost like you're assuming in your very project that there are separate selves. Why identify in the characteristic ways that @Phil identifies? I guess you just assume that's just the way it is, but still there are no separate selves. But I would think you would do even more to excise "yourself" from the illusion you've identified. If there are no separate selves, why teach? This would be a perfect interview prompt. What I'm picking up is the separate self thing is being tacitly presumed but denied in the lingo. You can't kill it that way though. It's still in there, it's just being on the surface disparaged. It boggles my mind. I just don't see the consistency. It reminds me of having one's cake, eating it, and then finding ways to redefine "eating" so we don't have to look at the fact that we're eating it too. Lol. Explain my misunderstanding here, if any. I appreciate your work by the way.

What about your reactionary responses including but not limited to this one? I think you have a blind spot and are kind of projecting onto me and others. You can't own it yourself, so it's always gotta be scapegoated in others. To me it's very obvious shadow issues.

I'm just holding you to your own standard.

Wait a minute @Phil. Let's slow down right here. All you do is play the role of the knower who purports to know how reality works and you're telling all of us you're right and then deciding that others are right or wrong to the degree they comport with you.

Most likely a bad idea.