Joseph Maynor
-
Posts
2,575 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Joseph Maynor
-
-
-
In terms of Enlightenment talk, this is actually kind of funny, but also good too.
https://wildsimplejoy.com/what-is-spiritual-enlightenment/
-
-
-
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)
-
-
2 hours ago, Blessed2 said:
The "I"-thought really is just a thought loop.
If you inquire by "from whence 'I' come?"... The answer seems to be, "I"!
It's like two mirrors facing each other.
Suspicious!
That spooky I thought. I guess we better burn it at the stake!
-
13 minutes ago, Phil said:
What’s being said is there aren’t separate selves which have beliefs, and the question is what are your beliefs.
What is being said doesn’t mean something else, like ‘what I’m saying’, ‘the truth is’, etc, it just very literally means what’s being said.
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.
-
-
35 minutes ago, Jonas Long said:
Is what's untrue ever really useful? Or is that machiavellianism?
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. -
12 minutes ago, Phil said:
Doing the same thing.
Introspection is ‘the other way’ which dispels beliefs and break cycles & the ‘triggering’ of beliefs therein.
You are the creator of your reality. It doesn’t just “suck that people are like this”. You’re creating the experience. Introspection reveals how.
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. -
1 hour ago, Mandy said:
@Joseph Maynor Could you please stop referring to Leo Gura and just Leo? There are members here who have no idea who you are referring to and guests reading that have no idea who you're referencing. The forum isn't really here to talk about other people, that's how the discussions get sidetracked. Would really appreciate it, thanks!
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).
-
8 minutes ago, Mandy said:
@Jonas Long Ok. I just can't get how it's not funny.
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.
-
26 minutes ago, Isagi Yoichi said:
Certainly, let's engage with this perspective and challenge the notion that the analogy of a night dream falls flat in the context of understanding spirituality and manifestation.
Firstly, while it's true that in a night dream, one might not always have conscious control over the events or contents of the dream, the analogy serves to illustrate a deeper point about the nature of reality and consciousness. In a dream, even though the dreamer may not consciously control every aspect, they are still the creator of the dream world and the experiences within it. Similarly, in waking life, while we may not have direct control over every external circumstance, we are still active participants in shaping our reality through our thoughts, beliefs, and intentions.
Furthermore, the analogy of a dream highlights the fluid and malleable nature of reality. Just as one might learn to become lucid in a dream and exert greater influence over its unfolding, individuals can cultivate awareness and intentionality in waking life to manifest desired outcomes. This process involves aligning one's beliefs, desires, and actions with the vibrational frequencies of abundance and prosperity.
Regarding the assertion that the only way to attract wealth is through persuading others to give it, it's important to recognize that abundance is not solely dependent on external factors or the actions of others. While interpersonal relationships and collaboration certainly play a role in the acquisition of wealth, the principles of manifestation suggest that one's internal state of being and vibrational frequency also significantly influence the flow of abundance into one's life.
In this view, attracting wealth involves more than just convincing others to provide resources; it entails cultivating a mindset of abundance, aligning with the frequency of prosperity, and taking inspired action towards one's goals. This approach acknowledges the interconnectedness of all phenomena and empowers individuals to become active participants in co-creating their reality.
In summary, while the analogy of a night dream may have limitations in illustrating the intricacies of manifestation, it nonetheless offers valuable insights into the nature of consciousness and the role of perception in shaping reality. By expanding our understanding of spirituality and manifestation beyond the confines of conventional thinking, we open ourselves to new possibilities and pathways towards realizing our desires and aspirations.
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. -
-
20 minutes ago, Phil said:
That’s all judgment based on beliefs. Delusion. “Shadow issues” is… shadow issues.
Nothing is hidden.
You can’t own it yourself because there isn’t a you and yourself, nor a you and an it to own. These are beliefs. You can’t “scapegoat it to others” because there aren’t any.
“To me” (the illusory separate self) “it” is….
But “it”… isn’t.
If thoroughly convinced there is a body and you / your actual identity is, a finite body (person, human, thing, etc)…
love will obliterate.
So start where you’re at; love yourself. The truth that I love you is therein inevitable.
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. -
5 minutes ago, Phil said:
All you’re holding is beliefs. The belief there is an other, and a separate self, which is holding other to others standards.
Standards and selves are thoughts.
Notice the reflexivity, the reactionary response… but don’t react (as it were)… just notice only. All veils are therein lifted.
So to speak, spend the whole dream shooting the ‘messenger’.
Or, don’t. Receive the message.
That you can “go either way” there… is the evidence of the truth of what’s being said, which there is not a separate self saying.
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. -
1 minute ago, Phil said:
There’s only to actually check direct experience. Simply attempt to point to a knower and or knowing. Attempt to point to right & wrong.
See that these are beliefs.
Notice the reflexivity, the reactionary response… but don’t act (as it were)… just notice only. All veils are therein lifted.
I'm just holding you to your own standard.
-
5 minutes ago, Phil said:
To believe so strongly “it’s not just gonna fall in your lap” is to overlook the actuality of the entirety of reality, by believing there is a separate self, “the knower”, who “knows how reality works”.
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.
Anything We Say is an illusion
in Nonduality, Consciousness, Awakening, Enlightenment, Self-Recognition
Posted
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.