Why Don't I Want to Work?

[Jonas Long]

11 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

 

I didn't write that,  It was added to my post.  Wow.   So when I type WW here, when I save it its coming up as "Willy Mother F’ing Wonka".  I don't know what's happening here.  It seems to be an edit in an attempt to make me look foolish. 

Lol no, it's actually not you being targeted.  Any time anyone writes Willy Mother F’ing Wonka it shows up as Willy Mother F’ing Wonka.  It's a pretty hilarious Easter egg. 

[Jonas Long]

20 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

 

But I didn't write that.  That's what bothers me.  Immaturity left to its own devices can cause a lot of harm. This is why we need mental idealism -- we need the ability to envision doing better. Your emotional idealism aspect has a mental aspect, and does not function independently of mind. Emotions alone are not the complete guidance system. There's also intuition as a guidance system.

Idk how you managed to make this a reply to a post I made 4 months ago, but either way, maybe take it as a reminder to not take things so seriously.  That's where everything goes wrong. 

[Phil]

On 7/17/2024 at 11:28 PM, Joseph Maynor said:

 

I didn't write that,  It was added to my post.  Wow.   So when I type WW here, when I save it its coming up as "Willy Mother F’ing Wonka".  I don't know what's happening here.  It seems to be an edit in an attempt to make me look foolish. 

 

On 7/17/2024 at 11:54 PM, Joseph Maynor said:

 

I did not write "Willy Mother F’ing Wonka".   I can only guess my post was edited to make me look bad.  I wrote W.W. but name spelled out.  

 

As @Jonas Long said, it’s essentially an Easter egg. It’s lighthearted, fun. 

 

It’s apparently interpreted very differently:

 

The “me” based on the belief in “others” of, “It seems to be an edit in an attempt to make me look foolish” is the separate self of thoughts. “It” doesn’t actually exist. (Ego). 

 

The “me” of, “I can only guess my post was edited to make me look bad” is the separate self of thoughts. “It” doesn’t exist. 

 

 

On 7/17/2024 at 11:34 PM, Joseph Maynor said:

Again you you you.  The devil is most likely not someone else, it's probably closer to home than most people prefer to realize.  This is what Carl Jung understood.  And you don't want to hate your devil, that's a trap.  You want to accept your devil. It's part of you -- it's not something external than be cut off or chopped off.

With respect to self-realization - “people” and “parts of you” are beliefs, reinforcing delusion, misidentification with / as, the separate self of thoughts. 

 

 

 

On 7/18/2024 at 12:03 AM, Joseph Maynor said:

Guys, I'm leaving this community.  This is my final post.  Thank you for letting me work on here.  I wouldn't change anything in hindsight.  I wish you all progress on both the Enlightenment Path (the Divine a.k.a. Your Being/Self) and the path in life (the human a.k.a. your movie/dream).  It was fun.

This is many posts ago. There seems to be a complete absence of introspection and therein realized honest & integrity. 

 

Therapy, while apparent and centering around the sep self of thought, can be ideal as assistance with introspection and dispelling these beliefs. Though transference might occur in that setting as well, it’s likely nonetheless potentially fruitful as these beliefs are highly discordant & isolating. 

[Reena]

5 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

This seems to be a very blunt claim.  Are you saying I’m dishonest and lack integrity?  I just don’t see why these kinds of personal jabs are necessary.  There’s no need to go to this kind of conclusion.  “Complete lack of” is very strong language and not somethingI would say frankly.  I’d be very hesitant to say something like that about someone.  

In your defense, I would like to say that I appreciate certain aspects of your character. And that is consistency. You're more or less consistent with what you say. You don't lack integrity at all. You don't try to lick ass or go with the public. That sort of honesty is good. 

And I agree that the the use of the word complete is actually strong language. 

 

[Phil]

24 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

This seems to be a very blunt claim.  Are you saying I’m dishonest and lack integrity?  

This is still based on the separate self / selves of thoughts. 

55 minutes ago, Phil said:

Though transference might occur in that setting as well, it’s likely nonetheless potentially fruitful as these beliefs are highly discordant & isolating. 

 

24 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I just don’t see why these kinds of personal jabs are necessary.  

“Personal”, and jabs therein are interpretational. 

 

This forum is about self-realization, and is not pro-delusion. 

 

24 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

There’s no need to go to this kind of conclusion.  “Complete lack of” is very strong language and not something I would say frankly.

Personal is interpretational, and therein so is the conclusion. It is that conclusion & mistaken identity the forum serves to expose & dispel. (Liberation.)

 

Saying this, and yet continuing to post, reflects a seeming absence of integrity:

”Guys, I'm leaving this community.  This is my final post.  Thank you for letting me work on here.  I wouldn't change anything in hindsight.  I wish you all progress on both the Enlightenment Path (the Divine a.k.a. Your Being/Self) and the path in life (the human a.k.a. your movie/dream).  It was fun.”

 

 

 

24 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

 

 I’d be very hesitant to say something like that about someone.

There isn’t someone. 

 

24 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

 I think enough is enough with this.  This is a very harsh thing to say to someone — “Complete absence of introspection.”  

There isn’t someone anything is being said to. That there is, is ego / separate selves of thoughts. 

 

This is a forum of self-realization, and is not pro-delusion. 

 

24 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Who has a complete absence of Introspection?  

There aren’t separate selves already. Only thought makes it seem so, if at all. 

 

24 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

That’s hyperbole.  

No, it’s self-realization. 

It’s true. 

 

24 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

And how does that relate to the second clause which doesn’t even seem to follow “and therein realized honest and integrity?”.  Please clarify that.

Introspect. Clarity is already abundant. Only seemingly obscured. 

 

24 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

 I’ve already been put through the ringer in this thread, please keave me alone.

If the self-realization purported were sincere, it’d be very obvious that is already that case. 

 

24 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

 I can’t continue on in a community where the leader says stuff like this about me, and it invites others to attack me too.

There is no leader here, please review the guidelines again. 

 

24 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

 You’re giving people a green light to continue to bash me on this thread.

Separate selves of thoughts, not reality. 

 

24 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

 Enough!  Please.  Let it die.  I think you’re just trying to stir the pot at my expense.  Haven’t I been beaten down enough already in this thread?  Do I need to be tortured more?  Is that going to make anyone feel good?  It feels awful.  

 

All interpretation on behalf of the separate self of thoughts.

 

This forum is about self-realization and is not pro-delusion. 

[Phil]

Just now, Joseph Maynor said:

@Phil I’m not gonna leave if you’re still putting me down.  That’s not lack of integrity? That’s standing up for what’s right. 

That’s an interpretation of perception as separate selves. It’s delusion. 

There aren’t actually separate selves which do or don’t lack.

Lack is a personal belief.

Personal is a belief. 

 

This forum isn’t about delusion or reinforcing beliefs, it’s about self-realization. 

[Reena]

26 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I think so too.  Thank you.  I think I have strong integrity.  I realize it comes from shadow shit but I’m not gonna sit here and have someone project on me like that where it gets published to the Internet.  If I said something like that to someone on here I would likely get a warning point.  It doesn’t have to get so personal.  We can discuss without saying you you you are so bad bad bad!  I know where it’s all coming from, but still.  Don’t use me as a foil in that way.  It’s not right.  I don’t need to painted into a devil.  And that also encourages people to troll me too when the leader says something like that.  It’s like — it’s ok to target this guy for correction.  

You have to ask yourself what you're ready to compromise on? And what's your answer for it?

 

[Phil]

1 minute ago, Reena said:

You have to ask yourself what you're ready to compromise on? And what's your answer for it?

 

How many selves are ‘in’ that belief?

 

How many are found in direct experience?

[Phil]

Just now, Joseph Maynor said:

If the roles were reversed you wouldn’t be saying this.  You would be issuing warning points.  You’re very sensitive when you’re the one being challenged, I’ve confirmed that.

There is no you. (Saying, issuing).

 

Being is inherently sensitive (not a separate self, a you). 

 

Being is infinite. Already. There is no assertion, no one challenging. 

 

Again, this is interpretational, and not reality. 

 

This is a forum of self-realization, not a place of reinforcing delusion / personal beliefs on behalf of a separate self.

[Reena]

Just now, Phil said:

There is no you. (Saying, issuing).

 

Being is inherently sensitive (not a separate self, a you). 

 

Being is infinite. Already. There is no assertion, no one challenging. 

 

Again, this is interpretational, and not reality. 

 

This is a forum of self-realization, not a place of reinforcing delusion / personal beliefs on behalf of a separate self.

What is self realization? 

 

[Phil]

Just now, Reena said:

What is self realization? 

 

Introspective self-discovery, not deflection:

 

6 minutes ago, Reena said:

You have to ask yourself what you're ready to compromise on? And what's your answer for it?

 

 

4 minutes ago, Phil said:

How many selves are ‘in’ that belief?

 

How many are found in direct experience?

 

[Phil]

7 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Then why are you reinforcing delusion and personal beliefs on Joseph Maynor as a separate self?

There is no you. 

 

There is no Joseph Maynor.

 

There aren’t separate selves - already. 

 

Consciousness, the very consciousness right now conscious - is infinite.  

 

There aren’t separate selves - that is a personal belief - personal as in on behalf of - misidentification as - a person. 

 

Consciousness is - consciousness. Not “something else” such as separation, divided, as in person or people. 

 

7 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

 This is called having your cake and eating it too.  You want it both ways, to the extent that it’s most convenient for you.  If the roles were reversed, you would be dancing band singing a very different tune!  And I was just used a warning for responding by Phil.

There is no you / “both ways”. 

 

The Truth is just unbelievable. 

♥️

[Phil]

11 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

 

You're mixing up the Absolute and the relative.

Question & inspect, yes?

 

What is are “the relative” and “the absolute” (two), in accordance with nonduality (not two)?

[Phil]

18 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

 

You're mixing up the Absolute and the relative.  Using the analysis that you always do, we could also run your statements through that same analysis.  But what would that solve or resolve?  We can just go round and round mixing up the Absolute and the relative and that's where the debate has no end.  The end of it is to respect the relative on some level, even if it is seen as an illusion compared to the Absolute.  I think it is a trap and a contradiction to try to reduce the relative/the dream to the Absolute/the Divine.  I'll leave it at that.  Much love.  ❤️

As this forum is about self-realization, nonduality - and “the absolute & the relative” is a teaching, by a teacher, which is inherently self deception - there is no respect here for delusion. That would be - delusion. 

[Phil]

23 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I think it is a trap and a contradiction to try to reduce the relative/the dream to the Absolute/the Divine.  I'll leave it at that.  Much love.  ❤️

Self-realization is without paradox or contradiction. These would be apparent conditions. 

 

That there is, that you are “a thinker” is delusional.  

 

 

4 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

So is this a teaching? 

A teaching would be a second, from a second, separate, self. “Playing along” would be enabling delusion, self deception. 

 

The teacher student, or teacher and teacher beliefs are - beliefs. 

 

Personal, beliefs. 

 

Delusion. 

 

Nothing at all to do with truth. 

[Phil]

1 minute ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Okay.  Let's discuss this.  Why then is what I'm doing considered teaching according to this logic?

It isn’t. 

 

It’s delusion. 

 

With respect to truth, it’s not true. 

 

With respect to well-being, it’s isolating, and manifests as dis-ease. 

 

 

That there is a teacher is delusion. 

 

That you are a teacher is misidentification / self deception / delusion. 

[Phil]

3 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

 

Yeah.  This is the Absolute/relative distinction I was alluding to.  You nailed it.

There’s no you. 

[Jonas Long]

I'm noticing feeling exasperated even just following this thread without saying anything.  I think it's because I watched my fake dad die in this level of lack of self awareness, deflection, absolute unwillingness to introspect in the slightest.  And he fancied himself "spiritual" as well. 

[Someone here]

Wut r u guys talkin' bout? 

[Jonas Long]

23 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Wut r u guys talkin' bout?