• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

So many people I know and respect are smug know-it-all atheists...

Or its because such a spirit-of-love is just an idea that some people entertain?

Hmmm....

No, that's not what it is. Forget the word spiritual. If you do enough inner inquiry, quieting of the mind, and debunking of various ego layers, you naturally arrive at a more loving existence (the term "arrival" here is awkward because you don't actually get anywhere, it's more of a remembering). It's not conceptual. It doesn't involve belief or mind whatsoever. It's experienced in the body, once it has been unencumbered of an intrusive, suffering mind.

But to explain that to you rather than show you is pretty futile. The scientific mind can't get it, anymore than any other kind of mind could try to.

The paradox is that getting "it" requires you to do nothing whatsoever. Just be the stillness that you already are.

It's not a concept.

swilow said:
Just wanted to say that you seem good these days . You seem to have passed through some darkness and I'm glad for you.

Thanks... still not totally better, but I'm not presently dying, so that's a plus. :)
 
About the Einstein quote - it's funny how freaked out people get when something threatens their world view. In their mind, of course there couldn't be any connection between a world-renowned scientist and a spiritual figure, that obviously doesn't happen! Einstein wouldn't let the side down like that.

Ninae, no one is getting freaked out at all. You always imagine that there are unanamed, spiritually benighted hordes of materialists opposing your views. I questioned that quote. I don't think Einstein considered himself to be revered or worshipped.

But, from the limited research I have done, it seems that Einstein is referring to Peter Duenov's saving of Blugarian Jews, and not his mystical teachings.
 
Yeah except you make it sound easier than it actually is. Stillness is a problematic concept for people because it overlaps with sleep. I mean I'm already way more relaxed than most people at a base level, but like everyone else I'll eventually lose control whenever I try to go deeper. I still get something out of it, but I suspect it's a tiny fraction of the magnitude we can experience. Any advice on how to discipline myself? A bit off topic I know, but it's something I'm really interested in.

Let me put this another way.

Whether you are thinking about something or not thinking about anything, there is stillness. Stillness isn't one of the transient states like happiness, mental activity, or anger. It is presence, always present no matter what is going on. It is foundation.

People believe that when they meditate they are experiencing stillness, and when they stop meditating they lose stillness. A common question is "how do I maintain stillness as I move through my life?" The answer is that stillness never leaves. You don't go to it, or depart from it. Right now I am stillness typing at a keyboard. When you sleep, you are stillness sleeping. One could replace the word "stillness" with true nature, emptiness, silence, etc. It is pure presence, the true experiencer, it never changes.

The irony is that if you are trying to be still or thinking about how to be still, both are already taking place in the presence of stillness.

My advice is to just stop trying. You don't have to do anything to get it. That means quieting the mind and creasing chatter as a first step, in order to recognize this basic truth. But eventually you see that you're just always the witness, meditation or not. Nothing else is required. Just stop.
 
Sorry for the double post... let me sum this up even simpler.

You are always meditating. When most people wake up in the morning, they immediately begin the meditation of "me". I have to do this, I have to do that... the chatter begins. Then there's the meditation of making food, of going to the gym, of going to school... the meditation that I am a student, or a worker, a man or a woman, a good son or daughter, a good wife, life is amazing, or life sucks. Some people take time out to sit down and meditate, in which case they are meditating on meditating. In all of these situations, you are presence, stillness, the witness, meditating on something as an added layer.

(Meditation that's being practiced, always changing)
---------------------------------------------------------
Stillness, presence, the witness (never changing)

They're actually one thing, not two separate things... but language makes it seem so.

The only practice you could do, if you can even call it a "practice", is recognition of stillness. Then you become stillness meditating on stillness. Until eventually there is just no meditation, and you are living as stillness.

My words make it sound way, way more complicated than it actually is. You're already doing it, you already are "it", you're just not aware of it, and all the practice is, is awareness. And whether you're aware of it or not is irrelevant -- that's the beauty of it. You're always it. And it's the same "itness" that every person is, the same stillness. There's no way you can fuck this up.
 
Hmmm....

No, that's not what it is. Forget the word spiritual. If you do enough inner inquiry, quieting of the mind, and debunking of various ego layers, you naturally arrive at a more loving existence (the term "arrival" here is awkward because you don't actually get anywhere, it's more of a remembering). It's not conceptual. It doesn't involve belief or mind whatsoever. It's experienced in the body, once it has been unencumbered of an intrusive, suffering mind.

But to explain that to you rather than show you is pretty futile. The scientific mind can't get it, anymore than any other kind of mind could try to.

The paradox is that getting "it" requires you to do nothing whatsoever. Just be the stillness that you already are.

I get what you are saying, but my initial response was due to the provision that through removal of "egoic layers and self-imposed suffering" one becomes aware of the "love of your own spirit". You could say that the reason I do not feel univsersal love is due to my own flaws (flaws shared by many, I am not singling myself out) or I could say that perhaps such a concept as unfettered love is not a part of our reality. I look at the world, and I do not see much love there. This is not really an indictment of it, just a statistical assesment of the amount of living beings that can feel love in the way humans describe it.

I feel like love isn't something that exists without being cultivated. Its a reaction, a response, not a default position. To me. I don't value unconditional love because I don't think it is really love at all. Love should be earned; I only love those I deem worthy of my love; sadly, I find it hard to love myself for many reasons.

I think that cultivating inner stillness and tranquility is incredibly valuable. Its way more valuable than idea's of inherent love, or love as unbound to humanity. The only peace I have is when I still my mind through meditation (or drugs :\)

Thanks... still not totally better, but I'm not presently dying, so that's a plus. :)

Definitely a good thing. I imagine that your close conversation with the End has given you an interesting perspective on life.

Its why I insist upon seeing suicide as valid. If I come to an awareness that I can end this for myself at any time, and that I in fact might- this gives me a heightened appreciation of what I do have- because I am desperate not to end my life. I keep it up my sleeve though.
 
Last edited:
I agree. I dislike that new age ideal of a conscious, living universe. Its spiritual apologism IMO. It tries to use scientific knowledge to further something highly unscientific. That alone dos not make the ideas unworthy, but it means they don't hold up to sustained enquiry. The science used to claim a living universe will also tell you that most of the universe is inert.

You might find this book interesting though: War of the Worldviews. Its a seqence of debates discussing the nature of reality between Deepak Chopra and Leonard Mlodinow. I admire how courteous and polite it is. I heartily disagree with much of Chopra's nebulous idea's; I feel more sympathy to Mlodinow but he loses me at times.

.

Deepak Chopra is full of shit....but there's another approach to what he's getting at that is much more scientific. Ditch Deepak for Teilhard de Chardin. The universe is not aware, but there is the noosphere - the realm of human thought. Interesting how the internet reifies the noosphere. And there's the Gaia Hypothesis - stay with the weak version for scientific credibility. What will the Earth be like in 10,000yrs? Do you really think it's going to be business as usual? Is life on earth going somewhere, becoming something more? Probably not by itself, but that's what Homo sapiens is for. One day we will bring the green life of earth to all the dead worlds, gardens on the moon, living zepplins in the atmosphere of jupiter.....
 
They separate between human emotional love and spiritual universal love. Emotional love is something we can all feel for our loved one's or pets. But as we all know it's unreliable, especially in the romantic form.

The kind of universal love he's talking about is more rare and more like an all-embracing love for all the world. Most of us can only experience some of that through drugs (marijuana, opiates, ecstacy). I think that's also one reason they're so addictive because it's a state we deep down miss and really want.

The closest most of us come to universal love is probably in the first years of our life. Young children do have that capacity to feel powerful love for everyone. We just forget what it's like and then we start to believe it doesn't exist.
 
My advice is to just stop trying. You don't have to do anything to get it. That means quieting the mind and creasing chatter as a first step, in order to recognize this basic truth. But eventually you see that you're just always the witness, meditation or not. Nothing else is required. Just stop.

This is the basis of stillness no doubt.

A technique I find useful when attempting to approach stillness is simply counting. It may sound simple but it gets your mind flowing quickly down a singuar track. A well worn neuronal canyon, one which you barely need to think about to roll along. At first you'll still slip into thinking other things than counting. But recognise it, and return to counting.
At the beginning I found when I just tried to stay still, as my intial focus or intent, it was very difficult - my mind would scatter down many different tracks for a long time. So by consciously counting for a while (maybe 5-10mins before you attempt stillness), you can forge a singular focus point. Jumping off the tracks with singular purpose is much easier than with many.
Go beyond the numbers.

(I'm fucking stoned mind)
 
Last edited:
I'm not an atheist anymore, I used to be an agnostic leaning toward maltheism and atheism but now I usually think God is more good than evil and is using my and others telepathy to make the world a better place and giving me a lot of telepathic powers so I can help others and save my soul from a long Hell sentence because I used to be a psychopath but even then I always wanted to do a lot of good things but I don't know if God has the power to help us defeat this wicked government. Unless he decides to directly intervene himself/themselves.
 
They separate between human emotional love and spiritual universal love. Emotional love is something we can all feel for our loved one's or pets. But as we all know it's unreliable, especially in the romantic form.

The kind of universal love he's talking about is more rare and more like an all-embracing love for all the world. Most of us can only experience some of that through drugs (marijuana, opiates, ecstacy). I think that's also one reason they're so addictive because it's a state we deep down miss and really want.

Is universal love something we experience as recipients or is some kind of universal field that permeates everything? I don't understand what the words even mean but I think I may have missed out on whatever sensory organ experiences universal love. :\

The closest most of us come to universal love is probably in the first years of our life. Young children do have that capacity to feel powerful love for everyone. We just forget what it's like and then we start to believe it doesn't exist.

Again, I question the value of "powerful love for everyone". What is so profound and special in love meted out for no other reason than the workings of some kind of natural process? I mean, we have to protect children for years because they do not understand the reality of the world, that it is dangerous and confusing. They may feel love for everyone but the reason that this sensation atrophies is because all human children inevitably learn better. You can love everyone but they sure as fuck will not all love you back. Not everyone or everything is worthy of love. Most of the world is brutal- the natural world, thing of beauty that it is, is a constant struggle. Most inhabitants of the world die as food for something else and they are lucky if they are dead when they are eaten. The world is simply as it is, unfettered of human conceits and ideals. Our dissatisfaction with it is a result of us wanting it to be something other than what it is. What it is is a stage for a biological struggle that has no ultimate end point, no direction, and no one/nothing watching, caring, loving. You are free to choose, you are not forced to pay homage to some weird notion of universal human emotions.
 
I get what you are saying, but my initial response was due to the provision that through removal of "egoic layers and self-imposed suffering" one becomes aware of the "love of your own spirit". You could say that the reason I do not feel univsersal love is due to my own flaws (flaws shared by many, I am not singling myself out) or I could say that perhaps such a concept as unfettered love is not a part of our reality. I look at the world, and I do not see much love there. This is not really an indictment of it, just a statistical assesment of the amount of living beings that can feel love in the way humans describe it.

One way that it could be explained that would make sense to you is that the world is, in many ways, your projection. That's not to solipsistically suggest that the world is you, because no matter what your practices are shit can still happen. But it's your projection in the sense that your inner world tints the entire framework of the reality around you. It creates a selection bias in your experiences and perceptions. So if you're angry, you see the world as a place that's out to frustrate you; if you're cynical or depressed, you see the world as a place that won't ever deliver, etc. So when you debunk various ego layers and delusions within yourself, causing inner peace to be cultivated, that is reflected in your world as well. It's that whole saying, "Change the world by first changing yourself".

There is one deeper level to it though. The love level is not a transient ego like the others. It is a foundational state... meaning, with cultivation, it is irreplaceable by other states. You could be angry but still take love into the anger so that it becomes fair justice. You could be depressed but take love into it in order to transform it into meaningful lessons. And it's not a love that delivers a hormonal kick like infatuation, where you always feel good; rather, the love becomes something that consumes everything else, so that it is always the overriding factor. English is awkward because we only have one word for love. The love that you're referring to in your personal dismissal is not the love that I'm talking about. Transient love is not true love, in this sense. Some might call this the Love of the All. It's a love that never goes away... it consumes everything and anchors everything within it.

In other words, there is something that is Real, and it's not driven by a "you". The irony is that people who talk about objective reality aren't seeing it because they are too busy espousing it conceptually. The truth is that you are being done, it isn't doing you. The only thing that makes it seem otherwise is the intervention of a holographic self/ego. This is very deep (yet simple) and I don't expect you to believe me. And that's okay.

Whether or not that is "universal love" as a separate entity, is anyone's guess. Since everything is one and there are no separations, there is no mine or yours, or inside or outside. Love is love. If you're hung up on whether it's in your brain or delivered by god, that's an attachment and prevents simple experiencing of the love. So I would say that aspect is not important.

It becomes obvious that there's no "you" doing this, which eliminates all concept of direct control. Don't bother to try becoming enlightened. You can't make it happen even if you wanted to.

I am doing this ---> I am doing ---> I am ---> I ---> .

I feel like love isn't something that exists without being cultivated. Its a reaction, a response, not a default position. To me. I don't value unconditional love because I don't think it is really love at all. Love should be earned; I only love those I deem worthy of my love; sadly, I find it hard to love myself for many reasons.

Let me put this another way...

What is love, but connection? Is there any other useful definition? (I'm open to other ideas on this.)

In Buddhism they say that everything is empty of self, yet is all interconnected. Nothing exists independently. What it means is... the difference between you, me, and everything is perceptual. An ego that sees it as such. Debunk that, and you see the oneness. From that oneness experience, is love. Not because we are looking for love in it, but because its inherent natural (dare I say scientific) quality is love.

Because all of us have tenacious egos, you have to make love a practice, a choice in every moment. Each choice brings you closer to the ego dissolution that restores the Original Condition of loving oneness. What most people seem to agree on who understand this, is that ego doesn't necessarily go away forever, but it becomes more collaborative with the oneness/love experience. That may be most people's happy medium.

The point is... the practice is to help you live from the actual underlying reality, which is always real. You can't see it without the practice. But like I said before, does it matter if it's objectively there or not? As the witness, you are it, and until you see that you are it, you can choose to practice it. Make sense?

Definitely a good thing. I imagine that your close conversation with the End has given you an interesting perspective on life.

Its why I insist upon seeing suicide as valid. If I come to an awareness that I can end this for myself at any time, and that I in fact might- this gives me a heightened appreciation of what I do have- because I am desperate not to end my life. I keep it up my sleeve though.

My perspective on life... I dunno. Sometimes I feel utterly insane and sometime I feel lucidly aware, but it's all taking place upon the substrate of emptiness. I have been aware of The Witness since my first near death experience -- it never leaves no matter how crazy "I" get. Even the way I word it here appears so dissociative because I haven't figured out how to navigate it linguistically (and prob never will), but there's just one thing happening.

For me, suicidal feelings are just wanting ego death. The physical body never wants to die. It will struggle to the last. And the truth is, sickness aside, your body is just fine being a meat sack until it no longer can. If this ego would just shut up and stop trying to drag us into misery and false divisions, we would be able to handle anything that comes. But such is the process.

I know you go through a lot just as I do... I hope my posts don't come across as lecturey. I'm just trying to help. I have no other function at this point but to be of service.
 
Last edited:
I see it a bit differently. Exclusive human love usually leads to disappointment.

Parents and children can love each other, then they grow up. Romantic relationships, people move in together and start getting on each others nerves, etc. Universal love makes you more independent and less needy, so you can take all the love you need from the whole. I think it's preferable and what being "saved" really means.

We all have the "organs" for it. The organs are in your higher nature, your more subtle bodies. You might not be able to feel them now but that doesn't mean they're not there. I think your happiness is proportionate to how much you can take in.
 
Posted by swilow

Its why I insist upon seeing suicide as valid. If I come to an awareness that I can end this for myself at any time, and that I in fact might- this gives me a heightened appreciation of what I do have- because I am desperate not to end my life. I keep it up my sleeve though.

This seems so reasonable to me. I'm so blown away that most of humanity does not see suicide as a gift. There is so little that we have control of in life and the facts are that life can be truly painful. To have the choice to leave a bad or hopeless situation or for any reason really seems wonderful to me. I guess it's really frightening to many people that we are mortal and impermanent, so frightening that they feel the need to condemn suicide for others. Why else would one care how another chooses to live their own life? I mean it is our own life right? Isn't that supposed to be what freedom is all about and why we consider freedom such a valuable ideal? It's one of the great gifts to mankind yet most see it as an abomination. I will never understand most humans.

BTW I really enjoy many of your posts. I'm glad you're here.
 
^ We have freedom but it's not without consequences. Suicide doesn't just affect the person who does it, it affects others. It is generally seen as negative because of what it does to families and communities. Not saying I disagree with you whatsoever... considering free will. You just mentioned that you don't understand so I'm offering one view.
 
Unless you don't have anyone.

I couldn't kill myself because it would hurt my family
 
^ We have freedom but it's not without consequences. Suicide doesn't just affect the person who does it, it affects others. It is generally seen as negative because of what it does to families and communities. Not saying I disagree with you whatsoever... considering free will. You just mentioned that you don't understand so I'm offering one view.

Yes I've heard that one many times. Still for me it's quite illogical. Let's say I have a son who is suicidal. He's in great suffering for whatever reason and his life is one great hell for him. As his father or friend in no way could I expect him to suffer such torment so that I would not have to suffer the loss of him no matter how great. If I expected that of him I could not in good faith make any claim that I really loved him.
 
Well if you're gonna frame suicide as mankind's greatest gift, I think hurting others is a pathetic excuse for not going through with it.

Suicide if it is to be a free choice would make any reasons for or against up to the individual. It's not up to me to decide what is a good reason for another, only for myself.
 
You're saying you'd feel guilty for taking a get out of jail card? Instead of trying to be clever, can you just admit that your feelings are transient?

I see no wrong with what I said. My feelings are transient?

My.

Afraid I don't understand quite what you mean, I'll put it this way.

I will not kill myself because it A) Affects my family and B) I don't think it is the right decision, for me.

No greater gift than a free tapout.
 
Top