Informer

The desire comes from the illusion that there is anything separate to own anything else. It's not about is it good or bad, its about what it really is to help one further inquire personally. Likely not having something that you want is a desire, it is not setting a goal. You can have goals without the pretense to gain ownership over something to make you feel good in reality, when you can just choose feel good in actuality, regardless. It's is your choice ultimately. When actuality is perceived it is realized that there wasn't really a desire for ownership, but it was a desire to feel good about you or who you think you are.

I think Intuition is a synergy that is formed from a balanced and centered mind combined with the realization of metta. Like Heart-mind. The synergy could very well be ever present yet seldom realized. You could say it is foresight, you could also say that it is logically built deductive to inductive reasoning as well. That is because intuition is those things, yet not only those things.

Vmarco, From your explanation wouldn't a coincidence also be considered intuition? Considering one of the requirements is without logical lines of formulation. Would you call a coincidence perceived in retrospect intuitive? For example, Nostradamus used logic to deduce perceived cycles, with obvious lines of logic in the process.

I am curious as why you think that it is "you" raising the energy in the first place? What do you base that on other than your own subjective experience?

Well lets deduce the crown element from what we know about nature today.

Haha good job! Did you use pf-tek? The triterpenoids (i think) require alcohol such as ethanol to extract from the cells dense wall. The polysaccharides should come out in boiling water. "A brownish crude polysaccharide fraction, named PL (yield: 3.8% from the crude material), was obtained from the dried fruit bodies of G. lucidum by hot water extraction. .." http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031942201004502 IE: Make it into a tea, otherwise you may just poop it back out.

I realized that throughout the day there are many instances where events are beings observed and a judgement is immediately formed about the event. Once a judgement is formed, a bias is created when observing the rest of the event. So by making a judgement you are effectively choosing a side. Neutral is said to be without bias, yet when in practice it may make you appear to be "cold and distant" or a "hermit". Truly neutral is a rare perspective many seek, yet are unable to fathom. The reason for an unfathomable perspective stem from the misunderstanding of what seeking really means, what knowing really means. Neutral does not mean without love by any means, in fact it is the only way to be able to love everyone and everything fully. Neutral does not mean being a push over, it means you can love someone regardless of what choices or actions you choose in relation to another observable perspective. So what is seeking and what is knowing?

That was eloquently put and shows perspective nice. I like the term for it as "seeker", a philosopher of knowing of experience.

Hahaha, how could I be?

There are other ways to decide things besides the brain

excellent!

Haha, I would be assertive and explain the events to the participants, depending on the situation. It's relative, maybe in one instance you would want to say something, in another you may not. I think violence should only be considered in defense, when all other means have been exhausted. I wouldn't choose violence on anyone and expect the same. I think some people can tell when another chooses violence, and are simply waiting for the action.

What sensation was the kidney? Burning? Tingly? x inner smile? = win. If you are looking for herbal remedy or preventative/rejuvenation effects:

I think the writers of the existing text wrote them in such a way that had multiple meanings for multiple perspectives. Such as a wave VS a particle. In the wave all the particles exist but when there is a point made one universe prevails, subjectively. In actuality there was only the wave, so if some things are revisited later, they can be reverted back and be seen beyond the point or elaboration that was made. This is because actuality hasn't changed. Have you noticed this waveform writing? What about particle writing?

I think it becomes more evident when you look at the various particles the original waveforms have become within the divisions amongst many religions.

Pfft, buddhism is no greater or lesser than the other texts in philosophical sense, imo. If you focus on one point you miss the wave. It is interesting that buddha hinted at things like non-locality and reincarnation, but the other aspects in other texts are of equal value.(especially in regards to differing and alternative perspectives)

Yeah, it's relative really. Reality is relative, Actuality.

n one instance I manifested the grandest ego to him, where is own was meek and humble, then I pointed out exactly what happened and explained how it was an illusion. (or tryed to ) (*Warning* do not try this at home, may result in serious injury*)

Vmarco, I am trying to determine why you correlated imploding to yang and exploding to yin? (It only seems to be true from the perspective of an opposite universe)

Like for instance, a common ground I have with an athiest is our disdain for the human interpretations of "dieties and gods".

Oh, and you don't need to use the dogma to explain spirituality either, that is a big turn-off for atheist imo. It seems like relating experiences seems to draw the most interest. Like if you achieve metta, and have a chance to talk about it, I would. You can use terms like love, ego, suffering, amongst many other words without the need of a god or diety for explanation of teh phenomena. Don't do it if you fear to be torn down, because then there is still learning for you before you take it to others.

You will likely have to find a common ground to relate too. I can talk to this guy about spirituality, he is like anti-religious, and generally judgmental about these sorts of things. We have been through many of the same events through our life, crazy life experiences together, so I may be the only person he will ever meet the rest of his life to explain it to him. This is because he has accepted me as a friend, even before I had any realizations. (So he can see first hand that I have changed for the better) If you wanna jump in with someone you don't know, then you will need to have a really good understanding and articulation, as well as the ability to switch perspectives, conceptualize, and provide examples, (imo) It also depends if the person is willing to question what they believe more than anything. Some people do not care to question what is thought, if that is their choice then it should also be respected as such, imo.

That is good jconnars. I think you probably know the answers, meditation does guide toward neutrality imo. The thing is that most people don't spend the day in meditation. The intention was more in regards to the likes of Social Interactions. It is basically mindfulness, realizing that you are choosing, not only in meditation but throughout life. There can be thoughts without judgement, then thoughts are closer to observations. Like dedicating one hour a day to meditation Vs using all the waking hours for it.