Recent Posts

Regarding "my" why questions, I'm saying that the very fiber of my being is intimately related to even the most mundane word that I write. Why I'm here at all and why I'm writing this very sentence is the same question.

The charmingly cumbersome elaboration of the not-so-simple simplicity (where the charm is chiefly a function of dry humor, obviously)

It was recently discussed here that "as much as some individuals here point away from 'the conceptual', to take any kind of explanation of non-duality as 'the truth' is to remain fully in 'the conceptual'."

I should highlight another common pitfall: Some individuals here say the truth is so simple and merely surrounded by complexities, yet they subsequently proceed in trying to plop the truth out in a 'well-placed' handful of words all neatly and cleanly.

When the going gets tough, the answer is simply 'too much thinking', 'too much concept', 'too much ego', or something else along those lines..

But aren't those the only possible culprits? After all, isn't it that simple?

I laugh at evil mathematicians but I cringe at naive poets, indeed the only thing more confusing than truth, is ignorance..

Why do you exist? Why do you post on this forum? Why is your vocabulary, grammar and sentence structure the way it is? These questions cannot be considered in isolation, just as a mere handful of words in isolation cannot speak to anything of much importance (this is even more true in the case of poetry where context, including delineation against lack thereof, is primordial).

Ironic how people claim to be one with all yet dismiss association with their most intimate manifestations.. if your words are truly so toxic, perhaps participating in a discussion forum is an ill-suited activity for you!..

Perhaps "proper monitoring" is not the solution, but the problem! 

Just an expression, too easy becomes hard.. but in terms of vector, clearly there is movement, direction.. the easy and hard don't nullify each other and we're not going endlessly around in a loop either.. it's just harmoniously balanced equilibrium between the poles, a singularity that does its own thing..

I want to acquire as much stuff to increase my well-being (in immortal context) as I can handle, anything more would be lunacy, anything less would be idiocy.. Heh as Orwell says in times of universal deceit restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent people!.. some say 'less is more'.. is that more clever than what I just said?.. no, it's the exact same thing.. stupid words, I guess "greed" means wanting what you can't have!.. oh no you shouldn't want for anything, tisk tisk.. do you even have a vector?.. having is much nicer than wanting, but one needn't stop at finding what's already there, plenty of room to create remains, to increase one's very capacity in the first place!.. or one could work to reduce one's capacity in the first place.. or one could be aloof of their capacity and have it reduced for them until they disappear for good.. how silly, how sad.. more capacity ain't better, but it sure as heck ain't worse, neither, know what I'm saying?.. apparently even people who believe in fate look both ways before crossing the street..

The huge irony here is that for as much as some individuals here
point away from 'the conceptual', to take any kind of explanation of
non-duality as 'the truth', is to remain fully in 'the conceptual'. I
see some wanting to have their cake and eat it too i.e. to say that
non-duality has nothing to do with 'the conceptual', and then find a
subtle way to hold onto it.

Aren't you throwing out the baby with the bathwater?.. It's not about discarding 'the conceptual', that would be like denying an aspect of reality.. you can't just remove it.. because ultimately as all is consciousness, all is also concept to some degree.. there's the word tree and there's the tree itself, but neither are totally real.. in the distinction between existence being of a holistic mutually-contingenct and interrelated nature on one hand while simultaneously being of an individualized and interactive nature on the other hand, herein is concept part of the actual fabric of reality in terms of a creative, sentient process.. indeed one is not a mere thought of the divine, not a mere figment dreamed up but in fact one is a dreamer themselves, if one has reached this point of realization at least.. this has nothing whatsoever to do with thought impacting reality like the law of attraction and other such nonsense, it has to do with a sort of twilight of awareness between the poles.. ultimately the pivotal distinction this conversation is getting at is the extent to which 'the conceptual' is properly digested or not.. to 'See', what this means is that at any instant you are passively aware of a great many things, such as your name, your date of birth, that what you're reading this on is a computer, etc, but you aren't constantly repeating these things to yourself in your head.. it's a matter of awareness, still somewhat a function of mindfulness and aloofness, but separate from experiential alertness.. or if you wish, as is the trend these days, strip yourself of all you know, so that you can See like a little child, perpetually gawking at the apparently precious small things in life, only able to see the universe in a grain of sand, through the lens of of the womb, rather than as it actually is..