Good question. One can be agreeable without agreeing. When I host people on my show, I view them as "guests" I have invited into my virtual home. And as guests I choose not to antagonize them but rather allow them the space to express themselves and what they experience as true. The intent is to listen to what others have to say. When I am invited onto other podcasts, I am more confrontational about my viewpoints and am prone to challenge things I don't agree with. As for your second question - an "end" presupposes a finite process. I'm not sure why all these guys imply there is an 'end' to enlightenment because it is quite evident that we are not part of a finite process.

You’re welcome. Thanks for tuning in!

I’m glad to hear it resonates with you. Thanks for watching.

Our pleasure. Nice to see you here!

Hey this is Steven, so those statistics are flawed due to the fact they count exchange wallets (consisting of millions of people's funds) as a single entity and the artificially draw up highly concentrated figures

​@@theforum7952Hi Steven, thank you for your answer. I didn't refer to these wallets. But what about the wallets of Nakamoto, Micro Strategy, Elon, Winkle.. etc. Wouldn't those be immense shareholders if Bitcoin really becomes the "world currency"? Skip the answer if my question is bad research. That's what made me skeptical so far, Bitcoin parading as decentralized while being highly centralized after all.

​@@theforum7952Hi Steven, that's not what I meant, I mean for example the satoshi wallets, micro strategy, winklevoss, elon etc. Those will be immense shareholders and could highly affect the price with movements on their wallets. Would you agree that this is a problem and makes BTC actually less decentralized than it appears to be?

well I wouldn't say its epistemically true that the looker IS your face, how would you even know this, I am not talking about having this experience because I have, but how do you know its true, what is the feature of a thought that seems true to one that isn't, currently I feel like asking or thinking about which is true or false whether it be your original face or your self reflected one, is not relevant, after all both change right? how can something be True if it changes, what is TRUE is what IS. So if you are being self reflected THAT is true, and when you are your original face THAT is true. Honestly I don't know which is true I only know what my experience is if even that, but I cant extrapolate from that some supernatural truth about reality.

​@@nicbarth3838somebody read his saltzman :D

Your original face doesn't change. It's the face you can't see. Facelessness. It's not about metaphysics. This is about the nature of perception.

@@jimclatfelter ah ok so help me understand, so does your original not need to be noticed for it to still be? is it like paint where even if the facelessness is the red that covers a steel beams metallic bareness it still is true when covered by red. I guess what I want to know is if facelessness is still present when you feel like a person. Also what quality is there to facelessness is it the lack of self reflection from feeling like a person when observing things visualy? I dont understand, and I used to several times but I keep loosing this knowledge.

Yes, visual facelessness is always present, whether you notice it or not. No one sees his/her own face. When you are noticing it, you are consciously aware that you are faceless. But you don't have to notice it every minute. Notice it when it occurs to you to notice it. Notice it or not, it is still the ground or foundation of your being, awareness itself.

that sounds very much like an adopted believe

Dont know what you mean by GOD and I will never understand GOD because I am human, Knowledge that GOd is or is not, is unknowable, yet if someone claims to know GOD then they are making a claim from a source of knowledge that is not accessible for everyone, no way to test it for yourself, because some may pray and find nothing while others do and they find confirmation. I think we interpret our experience of reality from a series of beliefs and in order to make a claim about reality you have to have knowledge of what it is, but we cant, how much of reality do we really perceive. I dont have a problem with those who have Faith in GOD my problem is when those same people make the claim that their experience of reality represents an objective representation of what reality is and that you can use GOD as a means to negate any investigation in to knowing how you come to know things, by saying that GOD told me. I have accepted that some will have these beliefs and that they are probably useful and necessary and that I am not any more privileged to know reality.

I'm here for Shiv's commentary and thought processes actually...I really appreciate the clarity of his mind 😊

SAME@@jixie_93

If it was not for Shiv these people wouldn't get together and have this discussion. To me it was wonderful to listen to the talk just as it was and I'm glad Shiv is sharing his experience and even this intimate video with everyone so freely. It was also great to listen to the attendees of the meeting. Deeply appreciated vulnerability.

So you look to others for clarity of mind? The metaphors and analogies are interesting but there is so much more going in each individual. Talk generalizes and gets in the way from getting on with it.

@@skoog5600 It's so difficult to stand alone, rare are those able to look at themselves as they are, without outside help. Irremeedable beggars ?

my thoughts exactly !

that's what I believe

@@nicbarth3838 I don’t because of my psychedelic experiences and the study of near death experiences.

@@nicbarth3838 I don't because of my psychedelic experiences and also the study of near death experiences.

A sign of enlightenment. Osho was another person who didn’t blink