Hello Amarynth, and thanks for the acknowledgement. Yes, I think it was you that left the Mark Walter link, and thank you for that. It has changed the focus of my reading. Yes, I am now also deeply into Krishnamurti, (which I will post about).

Krishnamurti gave continuous talks for 60 years, until he died at 90. There are so many talks published it is difficult to know where to enter into them. Of course I had read Krishnamurti many decades ago, and thought I had understood, (or not been able to understand). But reading now, he takes on a whole different meaning. He is a figure unlike any other spiritual speaker or spiritual code that I have ever seen.
____________________

Hello Nico Cost: In order to communicate, (at least on the web), we need to use words to send our message. Do we need to use words to receive that message, or is there another way, as you suggest, that we are not our thoughts. Maybe it is possible to just look toward what the communicator is pointing to, and wordlessly become aware of the current situation. In the world, in our relationships and within ourselves.

From that type of looking, there are no decisions, there is no evolution, and there is no time. That is Bohm’s proposal, just to take a look.

.

One thing about discussion, it should have a focus. You bring up 5 or more things here in this comment. I have chosen to answer them in separate replies. Maybe that organizes them a little, and maybe not.

THE CONDITIONING

I generally say, when first human collective action was required, (when ten ancient hunters were throwing stone spears into the side of a woolly mammoth), then mankind entered the “virtual reality” of coordinating language. You can point to Santa Claus or the flat earth, but all human thinking is a verbal model, a map and not the territory. Some of it we can live by, like those things in science and engineering that are rather consistent. Other things haven’t ironed out, like “the most civilized”, Europe is slaughtering and displacing millions, merely to allow their billionaires to conquer Russia.

So yes, “Everything you have believed in all your life, you must be able (willing) to reject as untrue. Not that everything is false, but you must be willing to change your opinion completely”. It is not as difficult as you portray it. Just hold your “truths” lightly.

However, if your life has become defined by a complex web of assumptions, where is the way out, how to unravel it? Be sure, my fairytale serves me. (I’m economically privileged by it.) I won’t repeat much more, since you lay it our very-very clearly. Including “who are we to judge”. And becoming “me” is hard enough, not to direct others how to become “them”.

Then the conversation of comments turned toward the word “democracy”. You asked in number [4] Are the people physically, mentally and spiritually capable of thinking for themselves. ???

Conversations go where the most engaged people direct them.

.

Here’s his further comment:

It started with a few points. I thought, five would do. Then I recalled situations in my own life when I lost or gained or transformed energy on the spot, AND I noticed that at the time. So the list grew. As it is now, it looks like a half of the basic stuff.

What is terrifying is that this post was opened 32 times and nobody is asking questions. I could write a 200-pp book on each of these subjects, explaining, giving examples and providing practical exercises to work with. But, no questions asked. Apparently:

– every reader is a master of energy management, OR
– no-one understood what is written in the post
– no-one read enough of the post to activate the thinking process
– managing life energy is not an important issue
– the subject is boring and/or useless
– the subject is irrelevant to the reader’s life
– the post was opened by mistake and quickly neglected
– or something else is in play.
Life truly is a mystery.

. (I tried to add this with edit, so it might appear twice?)

Hello Nico Cost.  Let’s review where we found each other.  A forum is a flexible tool that allows people to bring forth their interests.  It is not so much about the content already here as embodied in other people’s interests.  In other words, I will be less interested in the Apocalypse, although I am informed.  I am less interested in Bioweapons, I’m not into preparing for survival (off grid I suppose), The open threads, lead where they want to go, collecting links?  People spend a lot of time searching for music videos.

Maybe no-one will pick up on my interests.  Then I am writing to further visualize my own articulation of how I think, (for now).  If someone does comment, we’ll see where it goes.  I am pretty well wedded to the tangible.  It has the anchor of reality.  While the intangible could add something, it can also go toward any and every fantasy.  It could be fun, but it can’t add much to life on earth if it gets too far out.  You have called that attachment to the tangible as “black and white”.  It is not even a decision, and (by now) it couldn’t go in any other way.  It is a discipline and a choice, not stubbornness.  I have come to believe that the tangible will give you everything you need, (in due time).  But this is the age of short-cuts, so there is no due-time.  Let’s jump-start it then.  I’ll just decide that I can be you; as you are describing yourself.  NO, I CAN’T.

Someone here shared with me in a good-hearted way, that “we” are old friends, and that we bring each other incredible gifts. “Old Friends” must mean there is a lot of agreement.  Or the agreement could be not to question other people’s conclusions.  Then our intricate relationships are about avoiding each other’s “NO-GO zones”.  For me, the most incredible gift would be to question your no-go zone, so that you might become free of it.  Why do you say this?  Why do you do this?  It is not an attack, and it takes finesse. Someone else said “we do not fight on this forum”.  But discussion is based on differing opinions.  If we all agree, there is no discussion.  We’ll just pat each other on the back.

>I am not saying for you to do what I do.  I am genuinely interested as to how you arrived there.  How consistently does it work in your life?

You have said that I do not ask any questions.  Everything that I write is a question.  I am anticipating your answer.  Whatever I am hoping to achieve, I am already achieving. I answered on another thread, I am already receiving most all of your gifts.  I do it by engaging with them, and you.  I have some doubts that you are receiving all of my gifts.  (I believe that they are substantial.)

If your focus is on me, and what are my hidden motivations, you may be missing the obvious.

_____________

>1 + 1 = 2 is NOT a subjective assertion, it is a definition. There are no numbers in nature as an added label, but there are definitely entities and boundaries.  That is a tree, that is an open field over there.  They have boundaries in nature, but not the labels.  This is a forest on the shady side of the mountain.  The sunny side is too hot for that kind of tree. That is not semantics.  Spiritualists conclude there is something they call oneness.  “We are all one” and there is no separation.  I don’t see it that way.

>In meditation you approach Silence. In that silence, the verbal medium, (some call it the mental field) falls away.  Without words and concepts, I cannot find myself.  What I call me is a semantic construction from memory.  So, what the spiritual search reveals is NONE-NESS, NOT ONENESS.  It is a huge jump to claim they are the same.  If I am NO-THING, then you are NO-THING.  It is very dangerous, because if you do not exist in reality, then your problems and oppressions do not exist in reality.  So, I don’t care a fig about your complaints, I even add to them.

All the methods I have seen for meditation are to look behind (before) thoughts.  It means dismissing language.  So that all of your definitions in the mental field remain untouched.  I don’t have to climb inside everyone’s head to know that their life story will regenerate when meditation is finished.  Furthermore, if your track gurus over the years, you will find that disciples ask the very same questions, over and over again.  Even the same people. There is limited or no growth and no graduation allowed.  There are no diplomas given.

You mention insights from meditation do take hold, even if slowly.  But there are many operatives at work. For instance, meditation builds doubt about fixed beliefs.  That doubt is also an engine of transformation, with or without the meditation ingredient.

>Just this morning in a coffee shop I was telling a friend about our discussion.  He said one time he was playing with meditation and the instruction was to focus up and down on the areas called chakras and their connections.  At a certain point this energy took over, and he was merely the passenger.  It ended with a huge energy blossom above his head and a shower of exaltation.  It never happened again.  I think they call it a satori.  I don’t reject anything about it.  I can claim a few satori’s myself, but I never attempted to make meaning out of them.  Let them come when they come, and from the tangible.

>I wrote that people make up explanations regarding intangibles to feel less insecure.  Then you said that has always been the case, and will continue to be the case.  That is no reason to dismiss it as a linkage. Yes, these links are a caution to take that explanation less seriously. It is fulfilling some purpose. It is my slogan as Destination-Unknown.  I say “Anything new is hiding behind what you claim to know.”  Of course, you have to walk your own path.  But don’t just sit there, WALK.

>Once you know and are sure of the mechanisms of emotion, (you have repeatedly demonstrated them), they cannot get the better of you.  Or even just one of the mechanisms of emotion, I don’t have to claim I know all of that science.  This is my greatest gift.  I became aware of it among others that are aware of it.  But it has been written about for 1,000’s of years.  By far, most of humanity does not want to hear it.  Being a victim of circumstances is a way to jettison responsibility.  It is nuanced and there are levels, but ultimately, I have a powerful control panel.

>If we want to be helpful, we avoid being confusing.  Talking “at” people who have no connection to our claims, I think is counterproductive.  More about that is another discussion. Yes, I would say don’t state things out of their time sequence, before readiness.  Measure your speech by your perception of your audience. Can I do it?  Could I write a book, and know what is the introduction and what is Chapter one?  I am practicing now.

No way, my English is better than yours.  Please drop that idea.

Be well Nico.

.