goldisheavy

It doesn't matter what Buddhists think, actually. My point was that if you admit the idea of Buddha into a discussion at all, just for the purpose of discussion you must admit some kind of definition of Buddha. And for this, we can examine the many things that Buddha said about himself. Buddha Gotama pretty much invented himself and invented the concept of "Buddha," as far as we know. Sure, he said there were other Buddhas before him, but I am saying, "as far as we know." One of the things Buddha has done is to refer to his realization as "unexcelled." And of course Buddha's realization is key to what makes a Buddha. Well, you don't have to accept anything at all. But when you discuss things, you need to be aware of the definition, if not for any other reason than to know what to question. Now, if I understand correctly, it is impossible to prove that Buddha's awakening is unexcelled, and Buddha asks his students to accept it on faith, after you evaluate for yourself other things Buddha says. So what would happen in practice is that Buddha would preach something, and people would find it helpful upon reflecting on the teaching. Then, since Buddha gave so many apparently believable and useful teachings, when he says, "my awakening is unexcelled," lots of people have no reason to doubt it. At the same time, there were people who thought that Buddha was nothing special and left. There was at least one guy who said that Buddha had no mystical experience and came to his teaching solely by philosophical deduction and induction. So the guy left, disappointed. Buddha said the guy was a fool and that as long as the guy continues to think that Buddha had no mystical experience, he will continue to circle in Samsara. Or something like that. So even in Buddha's time, not everyone agreed that Buddha was the real deal. Some people thought that he had no experience and was just a bullshitter. Lots of people disagreed. It happens. What's cool about Buddha is that he didn't stone the ones who disagreed. He just let them go and continued helping those whom he thought he could help.

http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/magazin...currentPage=all I found this article to be very interesting and worth reading in its entirety. Here are some choice quotes: "In interviews with the press, Edward Scolnick, Merck's research director, laid out his battle plan to restore the firm to preeminence. Key to his strategy was expanding the company's reach into the antidepressant market, where Merck had lagged while competitors like Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline created some of the best-selling drugs in the world. 'To remain dominant in the future,' he told Forbes, 'we need to dominate the central nervous system.'" "It's not only trials of new drugs that are crossing the futility boundary(*). Some products that have been on the market for decades, like Prozac, are faltering in more recent follow-up tests. In many cases, these are the compounds that, in the late '90s, made Big Pharma more profitable than Big Oil. But if these same drugs were vetted now, the FDA might not approve some of them. Two comprehensive analyses of antidepressant trials have uncovered a dramatic increase in placebo response since the 1980s. One estimated that the so-called effect size (a measure of statistical significance) in placebo groups had nearly doubled over that time." "Beecher's prescription helped cure the medical establishment of outright quackery, but it had an insidious side effect. By casting placebo as the villain in RCTs, he ended up stigmatizing one of his most important discoveries. The fact that even dummy capsules can kick-start the body's recovery engine became a problem for drug developers to overcome, rather than a phenomenon that could guide doctors toward a better understanding of the healing process and how to drive it most effectively." (*) Futility boundary definition: "Ultimately, Merck's foray into the antidepressant market failed. In subsequent tests, MK-869 turned out to be no more effective than a placebo. In the jargon of the industry, the trials crossed the futility boundary."

I agree, and I think it's a good thing too. A harbinger of good things to come. Of course it is. If you think there is a theme behind my posting(s), or a certain set of themes, you are right.

Oh yea? Good. I am the same way too. I refuse to answer certain questions in certain contexts. You don't have to like it, but if you call it mere "dodging" then you're just an idiot. Tried cleaning out your ears?

Horse's mouth? You must be referring to my confidence in my contemplation skill. Been at it all my life, more or less, nonstop, with a slight pause in my adolescence. But I refuse to say I am an authority. That would be counter to my vision. I do not accept authorities above myself in contemplation. And I recommend all others who care about the contents of their minds reject all authorities on contemplation and think for themselves. I am a horse's mouth in that I don't need to look a stray horse in the mouth when it comes to contemplation. I got my own. And I also suggest that you be your own horse too. As for Vajrasattva, it's going to take some kind of change for me to begin liking him. I started out pretty neutral-to-friendly with Vajrasattva. Then at one time, when I felt that someone complimented him in an absurd manner, I voiced my surprise. I didn't think Vajrasattva was bad at the time, I just didn't see anything special in Vajra, so I said so. Then Vajrasattva exploded all over the forum with his insane posts and crazy energy outbursts, just because I didn't agree that he was a shiny beacon of light. I wasn't even saying anything negative about Vajra at the time. But then after he exploded on that comment, I started paying more attention to Vajra and nowadays I don't like him. Later I began to like him a lot less when I found he's a Muslim. I can't stand Islam. I don't like religion in general, and I think Islam is the worst religion on the planet. It's the most destructive and ruinous religion on Earth. Then I found out Vajra has an entire posse on this forum, all his "customers." Then I also found out that there is a chance Vajra is donating to Islamic charities that support terrorism or that fund fundamentalist schools. Unless Vajrasattva comes clean as to which charities he donates to, so that we can check their validity, I am going to assume Vajra supports either terrorism or Islamic fundamentalism. In a word, I don't like Vajrassatva and I am going to comment on it, pretty much as long as I am on this forum. I am not going to talk about it every day, hell no. I have better things to do. But when Vajra says something really stupid, and he invariably does that from time to time, I will take the opportunity to voice my displeasure. Vajrasattva can keep peddling his stolen wares on this forum because this is not my forum. If this was my forum, I'd kick him off so fast, that time would slow down as Vajra approached the speed of light. If it was my forum, hell, I wouldn't even accept Vajra's advertisement on it. But this is not my forum and not my decision. However, I don't have to like what Vajrasattva is doing. I believe Vajrasattva is harmful for the people in the same way sugar is harmful. Sure, a little bit is OK, but if you eat only sugar, your arteries will get clogged and you'll die from a heart attack or you'll get type 2 diabetes. That's your Vajrasattva: all calories and no nutrient content. So to list my beef with Vajra: 1. Sells that which he doesn't own. 2. Poses as an authority (this is required to sell crap like that). 3. Promotes Islam. 4. Has a "posse" of dittoheads infesting this forum. This wouldn't be a problem if Vajrasattva either wasn't here on the forum, or was here, but wasn't selling anything. But since he is here and he is selling here, it creates a conflict of interest when people, which superficially look like "independent" posters, are actually Vajrasattva dittoheads who protect their pimp daddy.) So Vajra can keep doing what he's doing, but I am unlikely to like what he's doing. I don't think Vajra is going to change any of his behaviors, and I don't think I'll change my dim view of those behaviors either.

I don't buy this statement. Well, it's worth a try. Immortal body is a good experience, even if it doesn't work quite how you imagine. Remember, if the body has conditions and causes for its arising, it also has conditions and causes for its cessation. Thus, whatever you can manage to give birth to, is most certainly not eternal. It might be a better and longer lived body, but is it going to solve all the problems that appear right now in our society? Where does our society come from? I agree. I think cultivating a better body is a good idea. I just don't know if it solves all the problems. Personally, I doubt it.

You sell that which you do not own, for one. Two, you are using this forum as a sales platform without monetarily compensating the forum. On most forums this is strictly forbidden and for a good reason. You have two options that will make you less of an ass: either start your own site, where you can do what you like, or start buying ads like every other business on this site. You have hurt this site by advertising and selling in the open discussion forum. Thus you've managed to conflate free and open discussion with business, and by doing so, you've degraded both with your pretense. I don't pose as an authority. Period. But you do. Everyone gathers at the pub of their own free will. The world is changing very rapidly.

You know what, since I like you a lot better than the ugly Vajrassatva, you deserve a better answer. Consider this. If you don't trust me now, why would you trust me later? So if I say something about my experience, how will that prove anything to you? On the other hand, if what I say resonates, and if you find it useful in your contemplation and experience, why do you need a reason to use what I say beyond simply you finding it useful for yourself? Further. I stand against authority. I believe our cultural over-reliance on authority is harmful. Now, don't you think I would be a hypocrite of the highest order if I were going around saying how I dislike authority while at the same time establishing myself as an authority of some kind? I don't want to be an authority. I just want to be goldisheavy. I don't want to manipulate your mind. If anything, I want people to begin to discern manipulations and to rise above them. I want people to become stronger and more powerful. For this reason I don't like beings that suck down all the power into themselves, thus concentrating it in themselves at the expense of the surrounding people. I do the opposite. Whatever best knowledge I have, I share it. What I think is the most powerful and good, I give it away for free. I want people to have the best tools, for free. I believe that all spiritual knowledge is your birthright. It is yours. If I sold you even 1 bit of spiritual knowledge, I would be like a dirty interloper who stole your own socks and tried to sell them back to you. I don't want to sell you your own socks or shoes. If you forgot where your socks are, I don't charge you 300 dollars to remind you where you put them. I am not fucking evil. I am a nice guy. I just say, yo Scotty, your socks are under your bed. That's all. No charge. No obligations. No strings attached. They are your socks and you deserve to know where they are if that's what you want. Do you see my point? It would be really idiotic if I made myself a lost shoe authority. People can find their own shoes just fine and if someone reminds them, that's just being nice. That's not supposed to be a business. And since it's not a business, I don't need to qualify myself what gives me the divine right to remind you where you put your socks. It's very simple. Being able to and wanting to are two different things. Maybe that's the point. If you believe something simply because you're impressed by my qualifications, then I have failed you as a friend, and I have done you harm. Don't worry about qualifications. Just see if anything I say makes sense or resonates for you. If you can relate to it, or if you find it useful, use it. If not, don't use it, or argue against it, or whatnot. In our culture and in our present state of collective mind we are strongly attached to the tit of authority. I am trying to ween us off.

Nice try, Scotty. I give you a B+ for effort.

I have no respect for you whatsoever. You are a fraud and I think it's a shame you've parked your ass on this forum and made it your marketing platform for KAP. This forum is for discussion and not for sales. If you want to sell crap, buy an ad like everyone else and have it put up in an advertisement section. That would be honest and you'd be helping this site financially, which you should be doing if you're making money advertising on this site. I don't mind answering these questions when someone asks them sincerely, but I won't answer them for you, or for anyone in this thread, in this context. I have a lot of experience, but I am not going to qualify or justify myself to you. As a matter of fact, these questions creep up in a sincere fashion in other threads and I do answer them as appropriate. If you really care, go dig through all that I wrote and look for your answers. It's something you want to know, so find it out. I don't owe you a damn thing. I am not selling a product. You are. Because I am not selling a product, I am in a sacred space which protects me. Because of that, I don't need to justify or qualify myself. And fuck, if I ever qualify myself, it won't be to an ugly half-witted ape. I am simply conversing on this forum. Everything I say depends purely on reason and on willingness to participate in an honest and open discussion. Nothing I say depends on my credentials or authority. I specifically do not want to mention anything that may qualify me too much, because I do not think my qualifications are relevant. What's relevant is the mind of the listener and how I can affect it in a discussion, and not who I am, not how old I am, not where I have been, not what I have done, not what I do now, and so forth. I am just a good chap who is here to communicate with the good people here. I'm like a person who pulled up a chair at a bar. I don't sell a product. I don't have anything to prove to anyone. I just present my point of view and I am content to let everyone decide on their own how to take it. I don't want to weigh people down with my impressive being, and nor do I want to bedazzle people with my fuzzy bright lights and kundalini bliss bubbles. I will leave all that energy and crystal zapping behavior to others who are more qualified, ahem, ahem, har, har. I am not here to participate in penis measurement contests. I know where I stand and I am very comfortable and confident in my abilities. As is your habit and training Vajrasattva, you are shooting blanks.

Oh yea, I agree with you 120% there. I call the phenomenon you describe "spiritual quietism". I am against spiritual quietism.

There are two kinds of "unmoved." I already mentioned this before, so I apologize if you don't appreciate this repeat. There are beings who split their mental landscape into inner and outer. The inner is you, and the outer is the world. Then the inner world is a reaction to the outer world. The outer world is held to be objective. This is a rough picture. From this point of view, being unmoved means that even though the outer world moves, the inner world does not. And guess what? This view is both deluded and unattainable. And then there are beings who do not split their mental landscape into inner and outer. Those beings are super rare at this time. To them because there is no inner vs outer, the meaning of being unmoved is different. It is transcendent. So these beings are unmoved in a transcendent sense. In another sense you could also say that nothing within such beings is fixed or fixated, thus these beings are very alive, very flexible, very agile, and very much moved and moving as opposed to being rigidly unmoved. They are also very sensitive, and thus they are not unmoved in the sense of being numb to the world either. So you can say they they are unmoved, yes, but you should understand that the exact manner in which such beings are unmoved is very, very difficult to comprehend.

I can respect that choice. I don't particular disagree with this. But I have a feeling that if I were to actually probe for your idea of the implications the above has, I would find something to disagree with. I wouldn't jump to that conclusion if I were you. I am not going to tell you not to think that way either, but just take your time. Maybe what you're saying is what's happening. Or maybe there is something deeper, more meaningful, and more interesting to it. Maybe there is a new way of life that's worth living, or more worth living than the previous way of life. Or maybe not. Just please don't be in a hurry to decide that yet. As you say yourself, you just realized recently that perhaps there is no objective reality. That's still pretty fresh. I realized the same thing more than 10 years ago, and yet I am still slowly digesting all the implications of that realization today. Granted, you might be much smarter and wiser than me. Maybe you can digest everything by next week. I don't exclude that possibility. However I don't think you've had a chance to digest this new discovery yet. So all the conclusions you might make about the motivations of the people who don't believe in an objective reality are still raw. I love the diverse manifestations of mind. I think that the view of objective reality and even the view of the limited validity of phenomena (as in, only holding this set or that to be valid and all else invalid) is a form of escapism. I want to merge with the full spectrum of manifestation. I don't want to fixedly exist only in a narrow band of it.

However, you must connect with the other point of view. You have to mentally reach out and feel what the other view is like and embrace it for the purpose of discussion. You don't embrace it as your main view in life, or as what you truly believe in, but for the purpose of discussion. This skill is absolutely essential if you ever plan on having a real discussion. So, for example, if I talk to someone about God, I embrace the view of God during the discussion. It doesn't mean I believe in God. It doesn't mean I am in danger of becoming converted. It's nothing like that. Do you know what it's about? It's about empathy. There are two kinds of empathy: emotional and intellectual. Emotional empathy is easy, it's when you feel how another feels. Intellectual empathy is when you can think in the manner that another person thinks. Intellectual empathy is an essential skill if you plan on becoming a contemplative human, because humans are social beings, and if you become a contemplative one, you'll have to embrace other people's thoughts into your contemplation. You should mentally try to step into my shoes. I know it's impossible to actually do that, but you should produce that intention if you want to converse with me. Another thing that would help you, is to view me as a grandpa. I am mentally older than you are, however difficult this may be to believe for you. If you view me as a child, you'll never connect with me in a real way. You'll just constantly be talking down to me. If you at least view me as an equal, you have a chance. But your best chance will be is if you view me as someone much older. This of course means that having a real discussion is even important to you, and so far I remain convinced it is not. I respond to you because you always manage to give me some faint sense of hope, that maybe you're actually trying but just don't know how to discuss things. I always want to give up on you, but you seem to always manage to give me this idea that you might connect at some point. Actually, you must be able to present my understanding back to me. This is called intellectual empathy. Even if you do not agree with my understanding and even if you never plan on using it for yourself, you should be able to at least mirror it for the purpose of discussion. You should be able to retell my beliefs in your own words back to me in a manner that convinces me that you understand what I am saying. Then once I am convinced that you got my point, you can argue against it. This skill is absolutely essential for a real discussion. What you are doing is called "intellectual bullying." You're polite, right? But the deep meaning of what you do is offensive, because the deep meaning of intellectual bullying is that you don't have empathy. Which means you don't care. You're self-absorbed. You're not reaching out, which is what people expect in a discussion. Mind you, you can still disagree! By all means disagree. But at least leave the person you disagree with, with an impression that you understand what it is you disagree with. Who cares? I talk using normal English most of the time. If I slip into using Buddhist jargon, just stop me and point your finger at my inappropriate use of the jargon. As long as I use ordinary words to communicate, you have no right to point to Buddhism as an excuse. There is a deeper connection that's possible that you are not yet achieving. I've described above what is required to achieve it.

I started typing an answer but then I realized this is a difficult topic with a lot of nuance in it. I'll give a summary of what I would talk about instead of actually answering. I'd discuss what it means for something to be valid. I'd discuss the limitations of validity. I'd talk a lot about the benefit of breaking out of the objective reality paradigm being able to challenge the validity of some judgments, so if we move into a new non-objective paradigm but remain with the same views on validity of phenomena, then we are wasting our time. I'd talk about dangers of going too fast and too soon and how the mind has a natural rhythm and flow to it, and how if you try to challenge the validity of phenomena too fast and too recklessly, you can be in a world of pain. I'd say something about what is ultimately possible (anything and everything) if you have the patience and the stamina to go all the way into the rabbit hole. I'd say a few words on how that kind of life would be perceived from our current view point (insane). I'd talk about the limitations of traditions. I'd describe how traditions take the open field of possibilities and narrow it down in a way that defeats the purpose of having an open mind that's been opened to a view of non-objective reality. Just to name a few things. 35, but it doesn't really matter.

No Ralis. Wrong. I'm surprised to hear you say this. I thought you were smarter than that. That is the definition of what a Buddha is. If you even accept the concept of Buddha at all, even for the purpose of discussion, that statement above is axiomatic. It's like saying that "God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent." It's the same thing. It just means that if you accept the idea of God at all, in any capacity, even if just for the purpose of discussion, that's how God is defined. It's an axiomatic statement about God. You don't have to believe in God. In fact, the person who says "God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent" doesn't have to believe in God. I ultimately do not believe in God. But if I talk to someone who does, I respect their definition of what God is 100%. Not only do I respect that definition, but I can use it in an argument skillfully. And that's how, in my humble opinion, all people should be. If you accept other person's language at all, if you accept their terms, you have to respectfully accept some amount of axiomatic statements. And if you don't accept them, that's fine too. Just say so. But don't question the person's communications skills, or grammar, or punctuation, or you sound like a retard at that point. Not every person has equally good command of English. Not every person who makes a grammar or punctuation mistake does so on purpose or due to ill will of any kind. Not everyone here who speaks English is a native English speaker. In my opinion the communication skills of everyone on this forum are fine. What's not fine is that some people don't want to listen to anything you are saying, but that's not a problem with communication skills. It's a problem with willingness.

In my opinion, there is a lot right with that, Marblehead. You're content. That's great. I believe you on this totally. So here's our situation between you and I: you like to believe that there is an objective reality and it seems like this belief is essential to the quality of your life. Exactly the opposite of this is true for me. I started out in life believing in objective reality too. I then questioned that belief over the period of many years, with a lot of lucid dreaming, meditation and contemplation practice. Eventually I understood, for myself, with both reasoning and experience, that there is no such thing as objective reality. You ignore every argument. When you hear something that challenges the view of objective reality, you don't answer the challenge directly. Instead you sweep it aside and assert your view on top of it. I feel like I am not actually talking with you. I am trying to talk with you, but what ends up happening in our case is what feels like I talk in your general direction. While I do that, your ears are closed. Then you talk in my general direction. I respond by directly challenging what you said (as opposed to ignoring what you're saying and asserting my view on top of you, which is what you are doing all the time). Then you ignore the meat of my argument and assert your view again. You know where I see this behavior a lot? I see this a great deal with religious Christians. This is exactly what happens if I challenge anything from the Bible, for example. They just don't listen. They ignore whatever I am saying and assert their view right on top of any argument I had, no matter how much thought I'd put into it, etc. It just doesn't matter, because before we even start discussing those Christians know what the outcome of the discussion will be. I started life as a strong physicalist with a full view of objective reality and I have spent a significant portion of my life believing that way. So I have been on both sides of this fence, not just a tiny bit, but a lot. I know exactly how and what you believe when it comes to objective reality. In any case, I don't want to argue with you because I don't think you are interested in a real argument. I've argued this topic with a lot of people a lot of times and I've never come across anyone more deaf than you are. You are right up there at the top with the deaf Christians, etc. Right at the top with the O'Reilley's (from the FOX network) of the world, who simply cut the mike, because you know what? From those guys point of view, "idiots shouldn't speak." So they cut the mike, or they don't bother actually listening. I have a lot of disrespect for you and my opinion of you is very low for the reasons I am so carefully and politely describing here. I am polite because I know you value decorum above all else in life. It's your number one value.

I have a lot of experience.

I rarely say something is "a must". This show is a "must watch." The Buddhas are smiling: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdHK7MiiBzU&NR=1 (part 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmyRki3RB7o...feature=related (part 2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DA3wjs2FXkk...feature=related (part 3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltH0oaPkv8I...feature=related (part 4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPtrRV2iIN8...feature=related (part 5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F1xL_w4Hb4...feature=related (part 6) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrML99qLlBc...feature=related (part 7) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-E7vYYVLUI...feature=related (part 8) Beliefs are powerful. All beings have them. All beings rely on them. A belief in an objective reality is just that -- a belief. A belief in Qi is a belief. A belief that the Universe can be validly studied with the scientific method is a belief too. Even just thinking that there is a Universe to begin with -- that's a belief. Pay attention.

What's missing from this thread is Mak Tin Si.

You're like a kid in a candy store! Enjoy yourself.

Well, you pretty much described it. If you have insight into an unbroken nature of intent, and into the effortless nature of intent, then there is no more fighting, no resistance to overcome, no struggle, and all actions are only ornamental (as opposed to functional). To understand the unbroken nature of intent, ask yourself this in your contemplation: When does my intent begin? When does it end? (Do this with a real example. For example pick up an apple and ask yourself when did intent to pick up an apple appear? When did it end?) This, when you complete this contemplation, will erase the intent boundary within time. To erase the intent boundary within space, you have to contemplate: "Where does my intent end and another person's intent begin?" After you finish this contemplation, you'll remove imaginary intent boundaries across space. In that case, you'll see that intent has no boundaries in it whatsoever. Not in time and not in space. Then you have to consider whether or not it is true that intent must overcome some kind of resistance. Eventually you will see that there is no way that resistance can manifest external to intent. That's the case due to interdependent nature of all phenomena. This contemplation, when completed, will open the effortless nature of intent to your being. And then you are done fighting forever, or at least, for as long as you want. Since you are not stuck in this state (or in any other state) you can return to a vision of separateness and brokenness if that pleases you more. People fight because of two ideas: they perceive external resistance and they perceive discontinuity within the field of intent by differentiation "my" intent from "other" intent, as well as "my this" intent from "my that" intent. Without such imaginary perception fighting simply makes no sense. Who is fighting what? How can you fight if everything is effortless? Fighting is characterized by struggle in addition to conflict after all. Conflict comes from the imaginary discontinuity of intent. Struggle comes from the imaginary perception of resistance or inertia that is to be overcome. Now, when you contemplate this, do not be lazy. Do not simply use the conclusions I put here. Forget my conclusions. Start with the questions I posed and reach your own conclusions in an honest process. This process may take you a very long time to finish, but if and when you do, it will be authentic. But if you ask "Where does my intent begin and another person's intent end?" And then without real contemplation, just answer to yourself, "Ah, the answer is 'nowhere', because goldisheavy said so on the forum", then you are lying to yourself. Don't waste your time unless you truly mean to contemplate this on your own. I give my conclusions as something that I've earned the right to say, because I have contemplated these issues for real, on my own, outside the scope of books, religions, lineages and other edifices of error. I can say it. But if you don't reach the same conclusions honestly, on your own, through your own work, you have no right to parrot them after me. Of course you can say what you like, but you'll be deceiving yourself if you repeat my conclusions without having gone through the effort and rigor of real contemplation.

Trogdorf, I like to compare our situation to pot with boiling water that has a lid on. Briefly: The worst case is when the fire is on "high" and the lid is sealed. This will result in a catastrophic explosion. The best case is when the fire is gentle and the lid is slightly open. The fire in this analogy represents our passion. The lid represents our expression. If you have a lot of passion, that means the fire is on high. In that case, if you open the lid, you'll get a heavy blast of steam in your face, and if you keep the lid open, there is good chance the pot will boil over. Nonetheless, closing the lid is the worst thing you can do. So you have to continue expressing your passion outward. This expression can sometimes be sublimated into various activities, but at some point sublimation becomes dishonest, because when you sublimate you trade what you really want to express, for the next best thing that is socially acceptable. The next best thing is a slight deviation from the point of view of our soul (which I use to denote our core being as we pragmatically know it day to day and not some eternal soul-particle). You can afford a slight deviation here and there, but if you have too many of these, pressure builds up and real, honest expression has to happen, or there will be an explosion. So if you have a lot of passion, and you keep your lid decently open, you won't explode, but you'll be boiling over and there will be a constant heavy steam coming out, which may be uncomfortable. A better thing to do is to in addition to keeping the lid open, to lower the flames. That way the steam is soft and pleasant, and the water boiling is like beautiful music. However, if you turn the flame off entirely, boiling stops. While this does solve the steam problem, and makes the lid position irrelevant, the price for this is the loss of warmth and the creative aspect of steam and boil. I don't think this is a good option. So the ideal situation is a small flame and a slightly open lid. This keeps the warmth inside, the vapor can escape, there is no overboiling and so on. Another thing to keep in mind is that if you try to control yourself too much, you risk creating an internal conflict. This is why if you want to change the size of your flame or adjust your lid, you have to do so gradually and naturally. If you increase or decrease the flame too fast, it can strongly disturb the flow of your being. If you adjust the lid too fast, it can also create problems. We need to allow the adjustments to happen. And we need to do so gradually but steadily and without fear, and most importantly, without any artifice or self-lies. It's better to have the flame on high and the lid closed and explode like a nuke, if that's more honest, then to adjust the flame to low and open the lid but fall into a pretentious state of being. The whole point of expression is to avoid pretense. So if we regulate the flame and the expression too artificially and dishonestly, we defeat the purpose. That's how I look at it. It's kind of a middle way between explosions and a cold lifeless pot.

Thanks. This was interesting to read. Things are not so simple. I have a lot of emotional investment in both people and this world. While my mind inclines more and more toward forgetting this "place" and moving on, it's not an easy change. Because at some point all this what now looks like crap, was worth something. How many times we have died and sacrificed ourselves in the name of this place and what it stands for? You know that feeling when you invest money into a company that has promise. Suddenly the company is doing badly, but you keep fooling yourself, "Ah, I just need to hold out... surely it will turn out great!" Because you already made an investment, you keep telling yourself that if you wait, you'll make out big? But the losses keep accumulating? So finally by the time you gather the strength to cut the losses, the losses are way bigger than they had to have been otherwise. That's the situation I am in now. What's going to happen is that I will leave forever after some "good bye" period. I don't like being human anymore.

Thank you. Well, what's your judgment? I am not going to declare myself a fraud, but I have no objection if you want to conclude that. I am the real deal Santi. More real than anything you've ever seen in your life. You don't even know how to talk to me or what questions to ask me to make the most of what I know. You couldn't even formulate a question that's worth answering. How am I supposed to answer that? What would be a good answer?