Beware of The Comfortable Beliefs

[Phil]

1 hour ago, Devin said:

Wouldn't it be a belief to believe anything is a belief? Like Isn't all communication even internal dialog based on the belief of separation, internal dialogue would be believing thoughts or feelings are separate from "source", like any question is based on the belief of separation(something to know(finite)).

 

17 hours ago, Devin said:

It's where I don't understand Phil's teachings, although he says there's no understanding or understanderer it seems like that's what he does, like getting all the words right, trying to not believe or contradict, it seems more like aversion rather than attraction. Like trying to escape what is(including beliefs).

 

 

If there’s no belief in a Phil, Phil’s teaching’s, understanding, doers, doing, right & wrong, contradiction etc… what was the point of the comment?

Who or what is / was said to not understand?

 

Why would communication have to be based on the belief of separation?

 

Why imply there is someone separate of what is, which could be trying to escape, what is?

[Devin]

26 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

 

 

If there’s no belief in a Phil, Phil’s teaching’s, understanding, doers, doing, right & wrong, contradiction etc… what was the point of the comment?

Who or what is / was said to not understand?

 

Why would communication have to be based on the belief of separation?

 I'm not opposed to having beliefs, my complaint is against the opposition to having beliefs actually. I believe in Phil and have no issue with that.

 

26 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Why would communication have to be based on the belief of separation?

Isn't the point of communication communion or coalesence (joining(unseparating))

Edited August 16, 2023 by Devin

[Phil]

27 minutes ago, Devin said:

 I'm not opposed to having beliefs, my grievance is with the opposition to having beliefs actually.

Is inspecting & dispelling beliefs believed to be opposition to beliefs?

Wasn’t it ‘your own’ comment about Buddism, levels, good & bad, etc? 

As in, maybe ‘your grievance’ is how some beliefs feel, not per say indicative of any actual opposition.

‘Enjoying delusion’…? 🤔 

 

37 minutes ago, Phil said:

It's where I don't understand Phil's teachings, although he says there's no understanding or understanderer it seems like that's what he does, like getting all the words right, trying to not believe or contradict, it seems more like aversion rather than attraction. Like trying to escape what is(including beliefs).

What was the point of this comment?

Who or what is / was said to not understand… what isn’t believed to be?

 

Doesn’t seem to make sense, outside of maybe an ulterior motive or intention maybe? 

Maybe an unacknowledged belief…? 

 

27 minutes ago, Devin said:

Isn't the point of communication communion, or coalesence (joining(unseparating))

The point would be opinion, possibly believed to be objective, based on the belief in separation.  

[Devin]

34 minutes ago, Phil said:

Is inspecting & dispelling beliefs believed to be opposition to beliefs?

No, the blaming suffering on it and the seemingly incessant obsession with it does though.

 

[Phil]

@Devin

Suffering = discordant beliefs.

Suffering is discordant beliefs. 

 

Who’s blaming or obsessing?

Blames an emotion. 

Obsession is essentially rumination / fixation. Discord / suffering. 

 

Maybe the fundamental difference is the making a case for, or being pro-suffering… as if suffering is beneficial or has value or something.

That would be the overlooking of that suffering is how some thoughts / beliefs feel to you. 

The overlooking might be because it’s believed, that that is known or understood… while overlooking the more obvious - how it (suffering - some thoughts / beliefs) feels. 

As opposed to there being a you that is suffering. 

Suffering is always a ‘table for one’. 

It’s (suffering) never because of ________. 

 

 

There’s possibly a salesmanship brainwashing aspect at play regarding Buddhism. I’m not Buddhist, but I am The Buddha. Buddhism in accordance with The Buddha is about suffering & cessation of suffering, or, enlightenment.

 

It’s quite straightforward and simple, and has nothing to do with states, levels, or any such nonsense. Saying that it’s does is the brainwashing / manipulative for-the-sale-of-my-product aspect. 

 

The Four Noble Truths

Life is suffering. 

Suffering is ignore-ance. 

The end of suffering is alignment. 

Alignment is the end of ignore-ance. (Enlightenment.)

 

Has nothing to do with knowing or understanding, and is readily available  to everyone. 

 

[Devin]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

@Devin

Suffering = discordant beliefs.

Suffering is discordant beliefs. 

 

Who’s blaming or obsessing?

 

’m not Buddhist, but I am The Buddha. Buddhism in accordance with The Buddha is about suffering & cessation of suffering, or, enlightenment.

 

 

The Four Noble Truths

Life is suffering. 

Suffering is ignore-ance. 

The end of suffering is alignment. 

Alignment is the end of ignore-ance. (Enlightenment.)

 

 

You don't see this /\ as aversion for suffering?

 

You know how LOA says focus on what you want not what you don't want(aversion), that's what it seems like to me, aversion from suffering rather than attraction to joy or peace.

Edited August 16, 2023 by Devin

[Phil]

23 minutes ago, Devin said:

You don't see this /\ as aversion from suffering?

Suffering is how some thoughts & beliefs feel.

Aversion is mentally averting away from feeling.

 

An example: ‘I feel this way because of other people or how people are.’

Discord / suffering is felt.

Non-aversion is listening to feeling, and inspecting or questioning the belief.

Aversion is believing the thought or belief is true, in spite of the suffering felt. 

 

I don’t know what “aversion from suffering” is, given suffering is how some thoughts feel. 

23 minutes ago, Devin said:

 

You know how LOA says focus on what you want not what you don't want(aversion), that's what it seems like to me, aversion from suffering rather than attraction to joy or peace.

There’s no suggestion here like ‘focus on what you don’t want and suffer!’.

Wanted & unwanted are preferences, not per se beliefs. 

 

When you say “it”… “that’s what ‘it’ feels like to me”… I’m not really sure what “it” is referring to. 

 

Again, not sure what “aversion from suffering” is. 

 

I notice you’re very picky and choosy about which questions you reply to. Wondering why that is. 

[Devin]

1 minute ago, Phil said:

Suffering is how some thoughts & beliefs feel.

Aversion is mentally averting away from feeling.

 

An example: ‘I feel this way because of other people or how people are.’

Discord / suffering is felt.

Non-aversion is listening to feeling, and inspecting or questioning the belief.

Aversion is believing the thought or belief is true, in spite of the suffering felt. 

You don't think the following quotes make it sound like suffering is bad? They don't seem like a statement from someone trying to avoid suffering?

 

"The Buddha is about suffering & cessation of suffering,"

 

"The end of suffering is alignment."

 

 

3 minutes ago, Phil said:

There’s no suggestion here like ‘focus on what you don’t want and suffer!’.

Wanted & unwanted are preferences, not per se beliefs. 

 

That's not what I mean, you know how LOA says instead of focusing on 'not losing your job and house' focus on 'being wealthy'

 

LOA says whatever you focus on you receive, so if you focus on not losing your wife, you will lose your wife. If you focus on not failing you'll fail, if you focus on having a great marriage you'll have a great marriage.

 

In this context it would be instead of focusing on ' "cessation of suffering" ', focus on 'joy and peace' instead.

[Phil]

48 minutes ago, Devin said:

You don't think the following quotes make it sound like suffering is bad? They don't seem like a statement from someone trying to avoid suffering?

 

"The Buddha is about suffering & cessation of suffering,"

 

"The end of suffering is alignment."

No. I’m honestly at a loss as to how those quotes could seem to imply suffering is bad. Suffering is about how some thoughts feel. In large part, how the illusion of knowing that there is good & bad feels. The recognition that knowing is the thought ‘knowing’, would likely be relieving & liberating, relative to the discord felt of the belief in knowing and the misidentification as a knower. 

 

48 minutes ago, Devin said:

That's not what I mean, you know how LOA says instead of focusing on 'not losing your job and house' focus on 'being wealthy'

Yes. Abundance, truth, rather than shortage & lack, falsity. Alignment of thought with feeling. 

 

48 minutes ago, Devin said:

LOA says whatever you focus on you receive, so if you focus on not losing your wife, you will lose your wife.

I disagree. Focusing on not losing your wife doesn’t result in losing your wife. Losing your wife is not a receiving or creating of anything. 

 

I slightly disagree with ‘whatever you focus on you receive’. There’s alignment of thought with feeling to consider, which in large part is inherently a dispelling of limiting beliefs. 

 

That focusing on not losing your wife results in losing your wife could be said to be a limiting & potentially discordant belief. 

 

There is also to consider the wife’s attracting. 

 

48 minutes ago, Devin said:

If you focus on not failing you'll fail, if you focus on having a great marriage you'll have a great marriage.

Loa is fundamentally vibration based, in that all is vibration, including us “vibrational beings”. That which is vibration is vibrationally apparent and is not actually a separate thing, which could fail. That could also be said to be a limiting & potentially discordant belief. 

 

48 minutes ago, Devin said:

In this context it would be instead of focusing on ' "cessation of suffering" ', focus on 'joy and peace' instead.

A critical point is the if of if there is suffering. If there is suffering, there is a discordant thought or belief.

Focusing on thoughts about joy and peace would likely feel better.

But, joy and peace can not actually be focused on. 

That joy & peace can be focused on would be an example of a limiting and potentially discordant belief. 

In cessation all there is is joy & peace. 

[Devin]

39 minutes ago, Phil said:

The recognition that knowing is the thought ‘knowing’, would likely be relieving & liberating, relative to the discord felt of the belief in knowing and the misidentification as a knower. 

 

In cessation all there is is joy & peace. 

This /\doesn't seem like aversion? "Would likely be relieving" is obviously just a belief, along with some state of "cessation".

Edited August 16, 2023 by Devin

[Devin]

Is the spheres video the best on aligning thoughts and feeling, and why you would want to do that?

[Devin]

It's all about alignment with source right? Suffering shows you your operating belief is out of alignment right? What's the point of being in alignment? Just peace, cessation of suffering?

 

But there's nothing wrong with living with discordance, out of alignment, you're just saying if you want peace this is what's in your way? Or to create what you want you do this. You're not saying what you want is cessation, you're just saying how to do it?

Edited August 16, 2023 by Devin

[Phil]

1 hour ago, Devin said:

This /\doesn't seem like aversion? "Would likely be relieving" is obviously just a belief, along with some state of "cessation".

No, not at all. Quite the opposite. “I know” is the rudimentary illusion of the separate self of thought. The belief doesn’t resonate, and there is corresponding bodily contraction. It’s relieving like relaxing a clenched fist is relieving. It’s tricky due to adaptation of assumptions & beliefs. Imagine not noticing your fist has been clenched your entire life, having totally normalized the tension, in large part because everyone else believes the same, does the same, and assumes the same…  and then feeling the relief of the unclenching. But not just a fist, the entire body including the brain & nervous system. ‘Relief’ points to the feeling or how the de-contraction feels experientially. 

 

 

States is a belief, the activity of thought, conceptualization. This is readily verifiable in direct experience by attempting to point to what the thought is actually about in perception, and or attempting to find states in sensation. It’s a terminology which gives way to higher and lower states of consciousness, and possession of consciousness such as ‘my state of consciousness’ & ‘your state of consciousness’. The possessor is the ever-elusive separate self of thought, the misidentification behind the contraction.

 

This is the materialist’s paradigm purported as spirituality, in so far as spirituality is regarded as the endeavor of the investigation as to what is absolute and therein unchanging under any and all circumstances. The belief in states is conjecture, and is combined with other terms like ‘my baseline consciousness’, to manipulate and deceive in a ‘three cups & a peanut’ manor in which there was never a peanut, just the shuffling of the cups. It’s essentially egocentric spirituality which only revolves around one ego as the authority on consciousness or spirituality, as it were. The understander of infinite consciousness. 

 

 

Cessation isn’t a state in that it isn’t a thought or the activity of thought. It’s the cessation of the activity of thought which is inherently the cessation of beliefs. Other than direct experience, this is verifiable via an electrode skull cap showing brain activity (or rather the absence of) on a screen. Cessation is referred to as a state like no mind is referred to as a state, to discredit meditation & manipulate the listener into believing / trusting the teacher and what the teacher knows and understands.

 

Value, which is the thought ‘value’, is a pillar of this deception, as it’s very important the listener values the teacher’s knowledge, high level of understanding of consciousness & authority. Without, no one would  listen, given the virtually countless mental, emotional and physiological benefits of meditation, as well as the benefits those benefits bring to relationships and really all endeavors in life. The three cups no peanut mind game essentially requires isolation, less the mind game uncovered. The fruit of, the effect of, or simply how it pans out, how life goes if you will, is indicative of and similar to, the tree. Unless for whatever reason one prefers mind games, isolation, manipulation, deception and being mislead. Then I suppose its a good fit. To each their own. 

 

Emotions & expression the other hand unfetter and aren’t spiritual bypassing.

 

 

1 hour ago, Devin said:

Is the spheres video the best on aligning thoughts and feeling, and why you would want to do that?

I’m not sure which one that refers to. The spheres are in most.

This one’s more intricate, connecting the alignment dots, going through the scale, mentions relief & how expression is life changing…

 

This one’s slightly less dorky and more of an overview of alignment of thought with feeling / conscious creating…

 

48 minutes ago, Devin said:

It's all about alignment with source right?

Yes. Put another way; aligning thought with feeling. 

48 minutes ago, Devin said:

Discord shows you your operating belief is out of alignment right?

Any belief. Emotion is guidance as to how & why a belief is discordant & aligned. But not a conceptual how & why. In a direct, ever-present guidance, without condition manor. 

48 minutes ago, Devin said:

What's the point of being in alignment?

A lot could be said like happiness, creating the life you actually want, fulfilling sincere lighthearted relationships, the joy of co-creating & communion, even nonduality. But ultimately the point is up to you, if there is one at all. 

[Devin]

30 minutes ago, Phil said:

No, not at all. Quite the opposite. “I know” is the rudimentary illusion of the separate self of thought. The belief doesn’t resonate, and there is corresponding bodily contraction. It’s relieving like relaxing a clenched fist is relieving. It’s tricky due to adaptation of assumptions & beliefs. Imagine not noticing your fist has been clenched your entire life, having totally normalized the tension, in large part because everyone else believes the same, does the same, and assumes the same…  and then feeling the relief of the unclenching. But not just a fist, the entire body including the brain & nervous system. ‘Relief’ points to the feeling or how the de-contraction feels experientially. 

 

 

States is a belief, the activity of thought, conceptualization. This is readily verifiable in direct experience by attempting to point to what the thought is actually about in perception, and or attempting to discern distinctive states in sensation. It’s a terminology which gives way to higher and lower states of consciousness, and possession of consciousness such as ‘my state of consciousness’. The possessor is the ever-elusive separate self of thought, the misidentification behind the contraction.

 

This is the materialist’s paradigm purported as spirituality, in so far as spirituality is regarded as the endeavor of the investigation as to what is absolute and therein unchanging under any and all circumstances. The belief in states is conjecture, and is combined with other terms like ‘my baseline consciousness’, to manipulate and deceive in a ‘three cups & a peanut’ manor in which there was never a peanut, just the shuffling of the cups. It’s essentially egocentric spirituality which only revolves around one ego, as it were. The understander of consciousness. 

 

 

Cessation isn’t a state in that it isn’t a thought or the activity of thought. It’s the cessation of the activity of thought which is inherently the cessation of beliefs. This is verifiable via an electrode skull cap showing brain activity (or rather the absence of) on a screen. Cessation is referred to as a state like no mind is referred to as a state, to discredit meditation & manipulate the listener into believing / trusting the teacher and what the teacher knows and understands. Value, which is the thought ‘value’, is a pillar of this deception, as it’s very important the listener values the teacher’s knowledge & high level of understanding of consciousness. Without, no one would  listen, given the virtually countless mental, emotional and physiological benefits of meditation, as well as the benefits those benefits bring to relationships and really all endeavors in life. The three cups no peanut mind game essentially requires isolation, less the mind game uncovered. The fruit of, the effect of, or simply how it pans out, how life goes if you will, is indicative of and similar to, the tree. Unless for whatever reason one prefers mind games, isolation, manipulation & deception. Then I suppose its a good fit. To each their own. 

 

I’m not sure which one that refers to. The spheres are in most.

This one’s more intricate, connecting the alignment dots, going through the scale, mentions relief & how expression is life changing…

 

This one’s slightly less dorky and more of an overview of alignment of thought with feeling / conscious creating…

 

Yes. Put another way; aligning thought with feeling. 

Any belief. Emotion is guidance as to how & why a belief is discordant & aligned. But not a conceptual how & why. In a direct, ever-present guidance, without condition manor. 

A lot could be said like happiness, creating the life you actually want, fulfilling sincere lighthearted relationships, the joy of co-creating & communion, even nonduality. But ultimately the point is up to you, if there is one at all. 

 

Who would you say was your most influential teacher Spira, Hicks?

[Devin]

Spira says find happiness, do you disagree?

 

 

 

 

[Devin]

 

She says life is the meaning, I agree with that, almost nothing else she says, but I disagree with Spira.

[Devin]

I don't mean to bother you Phil, I'll leave you alone, I just hope for peace for you.

[Phil]

Not bothersome at all my friend. That there is a Phil, a Rupert, An Ester, etc, are arguably the best examples of comfortable beliefs. 

[Joseph Maynor]

On 8/15/2023 at 1:38 PM, Devin said:

 

I think it would be aversion from what is, including having beliefs.

 

It's where I don't understand Phil's teachings, although he says there's no understanding or understanderer it seems like that's what he does, like getting all the words right, trying to not believe or contradict, it seems more like aversion rather than attraction. Like trying to escape what is(including beliefs).

@Phil is all about understanding.   I've rarely heard anyone claim so much understanding.  He probably doesn't call it understanding.

 

 

[Jonas Long]

2 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

@Phil is all about understanding.   I've rarely heard anyone claim so much understanding.  He probably doesn't call it understanding.

 

 

Lemme guess, there a wobble between the comfort vs./and discomfort duality?  And most people don't know or understand about it? 

Edited February 21 by Jonas Long