Sorted by New

Wiki Contributions


Was the youtube link video? Do you have the video of the TED talk? Audio is boring, but I can wait.

At last, I've finally found something that you cannot change. Well then, just call this "reality" and discard everything we've said so far.

But if you are creating these maps at every given moment, isn't the maps changing depending on you? :D

Yeah, call me when someone learns to affect the map.

Can we call it your perception of the map? Because that's all there really is, that's why it's a map. Nothing exists which isn't in your present moment, except as maps.

Check this out:

If you're interested in giving meditation a try again, try the headspace website/app.

Meditation for beginners on youtube from actualized is a great start, he also has a guided meditation track and more:

In my opinion by not approaching the meditation for benefit's sake will you paradoxically benefit the most, but I don't know, it's a speculation. Alan Watts have some great videos about this and similar on youtube :)

No problem, wish you the best :)


So... you can change laws of physics?

I don't know, I'm not a physicist. Based on my limited knowledge is that you cannot change the map. Imagine everything in the world being a map called X, and it has a revision number. Just because you know the maps are X and have a revision number doesn't undermine the content of the maps themselves. Your life experience might become different, however.

Who is then?

For there to be control, there has to first be someone or something which can be controlled and a controller. All is illusionary. You can create maps, but they will still be maps in relation to the arational.

And why do you call it my Matrix, since I cannot affect it in any way?

I'm telling you in a practical sense since you have to have the experience yourself. You believe you are a creature, being of some kind. You can affect your matrix, by realizing it is a matrix, it's kind of paradoxical.

1) law of physics change for people who have different maps

I'm saying laws of physics is a map. Our reality is arational and exists without reasoning or understanding. Sure your map may be more accurate than other maps, but it's never the territory as it's a human projection.

2) you're just calling reality "maps that can't change", in which case there's no point in having this conversation.

No, of course, you can change maps. But it'll always be a map. "It's a map and it'll never be the territory, as it is a map"

If that's true, why isn't Liza sucking my c@{k right now? It's my Matrix, after all.

If you silence all thoughts, you experience arational reality. But the moment a thought appears, you have a map, if you didn't silence all thoughts, you created a map. If you believe you are experiencing arational reality, you are not, as you created a map of the memory of experiencing arational reality. Within a snap of a finger you may become present, and each snap of the day you are either aware or not.

Thoughts and all senses are the matrix of which you base everything, thus you are the Architect, the projector. But it's not normal to be God.

Just because it is your matrix, doesn't mean that you are in control. Because the thought of you is a part of your matrix, so is the illusion of control, and everything else.

So how do you call those parts of the maps that agree on each other and are independent from individual minds?

Maps that agree on each other, will always be maps. L a n g u a g e i s a m a p. Some maps may have higher expected value in relation to maps which are perceived to have low. But they never break the illusion of being a map itself.

Maps can't ever be independent of maps, that's the illusion of one map being the territory. Some might say it is more likely that something is the territory, but I disagree since you can become aware what is the territory in the present moment and it is arational.

One is responsibility: if you do "place" people on a path, you assume some. You do, don't you?

As far as I see it, rationality isn't bound to the matrix (virtual reality) which we create. In this present moment, you can be aware of all thoughts and question them, even the existence of yourself. These are all concepts we have pre-determined to be the territory without realizing it in the first place. All are maps.

The responsibility is of the individual to do the work and it's always the case, as that's where the maps are coming from, they are a projection.

That is my assumption, and everything simply is. You are your environment, you do not exist independent and are able to filter out things which you do not like, that's assuming control and holding onto the belief of the existence of you and all other beliefs.

The other one is knowing what you are talking about. You are a pseudonymous handle on the 'net. Is there a particular reason to believe you have a clue?

I simply give my argument which can be refuted, argued or discussed for and against. After the discussion, you update your map regardless what you choose to do or not. I do, however, speculate that we are self-organizing and if it as if everything is already on the path, by looking back.

Whether you want to use the binary enlightened/unenlightened distinction is up to you. I'm not a fan of binary classifications.

I like to use enlightened/unenlightened, because if you are enlightened you know. But you also might be tricking yourself that you are enlightened, thus cannot become something which you think you are. I think I have had a glimpse and some of it transitioned over. But then there is the ego, the monkey mind. Very close but still far away.

I'm just saying that you are making assumptions about me that are not true. You likely don't have preexisting categories for the state in which I happen to be when it comes to my relationship with the self.

That's true, it's only assumptions. I assume you have ego because I have it, because I think a lot have it and here as well. It seems to be such a norm. But I don't know how to spot it outside of my own assumptions from experience. Maybe some MRI scans have seen this 'self'-hallucination.

In a discussion, isn't it possible when someone is making an assumption about you, that you reply it is not true? Is it the case you do not have an ego?

Basically you are inspired by an idea and try to preach it to people who think differently and categorize other people on a path where they are less evolved than you are.

I might be dogmatic in thinking I am more aware of certain things, but that's just the order of whatever. It's a paradigm of the ego definitely, transcending it would be interesting.

It can also be the case it doesn't seem like many can even phantom to understand what I am communicating, or even are able to see everything from their perspective.

In a Buddhist view, that would likely be seen as strong attachment to ego. From the way you are writting it appears like you don't have self awareness of that fact.

You have to see it from the perspective of ego, an ego lies. By spotting which text is from the ego and thus removing it, I have tricked myself in the process and strengthened my ego. There isn't a bad part of "I" "you" or anyone else, which is the ego, the whole thing is it. But I do become more aware of my unawareness, and tricking myself in the process. This is hard.

The people I know who had samadi experiences are not like that but are generally more self aware of drives like that. They also generally aren't attached to binary classfication as much. It also seems that you don't have awareness of how that issue affects you.

We go to those that are enlightened, they do not come to us. Nothing matters, everything is nothing. Binary classifications is such a non-issue. :)

implementing the concepts through work. And maybe through spreeding the gospel. That's however not how it works.

I know.

It's a typical approach for New Agey people and those often don't get very deep because they treat some knowledge as dogma with prevents letting go of concepts.

That seems like a strawman.

That said, I'm not seeking the end that the Buddhist seek. I'm also not saying that anybody should.

Everything I have said is secular, but I think that you see the world through your own eyes.

Maybe it was because of the word "enlightened/unenlightened/enlightenment"?

People go on paths regardless what you do, the better you are at convincing the likelihood they venture on a specific path is higher, I think. I don't see why it's a question of qualification, that would be more from the paradigm of the ego I think.

You seem to be strongly attached to whether or not something exist and the binary classification of something either existing or not.

No, I think it's unlikely, however.

That suggests that I have a single map of "I". That doesn't happen to be the case. There might have been a time where my level of introspection was structured in a way where it's true but that's not the case today.

You aren't enlightened are you? It's unlikely that you aren't in the trap of the ego otherwise.

You argument resolves around you yourself having a wrong map that you haven't given up. As a practical matter it's questionable whether you are even at the moment on a course that leads in a direction of giving it up, but that would be a debate about spiritual guidance.

Of course, I am becoming more aware of it. I do think that I am on the course of giving it up, one can give it up at any moment, but it might just happen randomly.

My argument also revolves around placing you and others on the path.

I know that it contradicts, the point is that you can see for yourself is this the case. By realizing all the concepts of "you" are maps, and that there is no need for thinking (creating new maps) to reveal this truth, you can merge with arational reality. But it can only be done by direct experience. This is an empirical investigation.

Load More