Leo Gura

You can take that position if you want, but that's not how I teach. I teach practical methods for ordinary people. Neo-Advaita leaves out everyone who isn't lucky enough to get enlightened through doing nothing. Which is 99.999999% of the population. By trying to not leave out some people, you end up leaving out all of them. Telling an ordinary person to do nothing will never awaken them. And even if they get very lucky and do awaken, their awakening will be so weak that I don't even want to call it awakening.

I don't debate people. There is nothing to debate. Truth is never a matter of debate. Do the practices, or don't. That's basically the do-nothing technique. It's a good technique. But you won't reach the highest levels of consciousness with it. Not unless you're supernaturally gifted from birth with special brain chemistry. The present moment is not all there is. You need to change your state of consciousness. Your present state of consciousness NOT God-consciousness. Your state of consciousness is absolutely crucial. There is a million things more to consciousness than sitting and being present.

The opposite is the case. THEY create an elite club of 1 in million people who got enlightened through sheer good fortune, and they expect that same good fortune to carry over to everyone else. Well, good luck with that. You'll need it. My approach is far more non-elitist. Any fool can stick 5-MeO-DMT up his ass and experience awakening. You don't even have to sit through my satsangs or kiss my ass.

Extraordinary evidence requires an extraordinarily open mind.

1) My claim that they were worse than placebo had more to do with their negative side-effects, not their lack of positive effects. My point was that in the NET they are not worth it. I do think they produce some positive side-effects that you will not get with mere placebo since they alter brain chemistry similar to a psychedelic. 2) There are many conflicting studies because this is a complex issue. Some studies show that stuff like exercise and other basic practices are as effective if not more effective than anti-depressants. But also, people react to anti-depressants very differently, so it is a great mistake to speak of these drugs in the aggregate, The only thing that ultimately matters is how they affect you personally. For some people it will be helpful and for others it will not. The problem is that these studies do not look at individuals but aggregate data. Overall, I don't think anti-depressants will solve any fundamental problem. The vast majority of people who take anti-depressants do so because they are clueless of their true effects and because they have no idea that their depression is caused by other root factors which anti-depressants will not correct, only making things worse. And doctors mainly prescribe them because they have no idea of how human psychology or consciousness works and they are corrupted by Big Pharma money. The whole thing is a fucking disaster and a tragedy of ignorance. Also take into account that many of these studies are corrupted by Big Pharma money and agendas, so they cannot be taken at face value. And they do not properly account for negative side-effects or alternative holistic treatments.

@Kiko He is good at getting results. But he is also a rapist. So, yeah.... Be careful drinking from the devil's cup.

It's definitely not that. No human technology is remotely capable of what UFOs are reported to do. Occam's Razor is that they are simply ETs. Super-plausible given how many planets exist out there. Humans are rather stupid to expect ETs to just land on the White House lawn. They would never do that. No intelligent beings would so disturb the development path of entire species in such a way. And if they were hostile, they would have already easily killed us. So if ETs are flying around us, they will be highly intelligent and highly benevolent.

I doubt that. I don't think mankind is a mistake.

Since you are God, you are defining everything, always. So what's your point?

It is as enlightenment as enlightenment gets. If anything, it is more enlightenment than any of those Neo-Advaitans know. Let's force the Neo-Advaitan into such a corner that he has to deny Buddha's enlightenment. That will be entertaining. Neo-Advaitan teachings do not pass basic common sense. They only make sense as long as you blindly follow them without any critical thinking.

This is context-dependent and relativistic. Yes, cause and effect is a dualistic notion. From the absolute perspective cause & effect chains are infinite. But that is a misleading conflation of the absolute and relative domains. When a student asks a Neo-Advaitan teacher about what he can do to become enlightened, saying, "There's nothing you can do because you're already enlightened and cause & effect does not exist" is a foolish answer because obviously the student's question is coming from the relative domain. In the relative domain there is much you can do, like stick some 5-MeO-DMT up your ass. In the absolute sense you can argue that sticking 5-MeO-DMT up your ass does not cause enlightenment because cause and effect aren't real. But the simple fact remains: if a student sticks enough 5-MeO-DMT up his ass, he will get enlightenment. It's simple, practical, and scientific. No BS games.

There is no difference between any two things unless you imagine it. Even to distinguish infinite and finite is an imaginary difference.

There is no contradiction in saying that you can and that you cannot bring about enlightenment. It works just like fishing. Can you bring about a fish from a lake? Not directly. You cannot ever know when the fish will bite. But you would be a total fool to take that to mean that there is no skill to fishing. The difference in how much fish a skilled fisherman will catch vs one who is just randomly throwing hooks in the water is about 10,000% Moreover, the Neo-Advaitan claim is just strictly false because I can consistently bring about enlightenment via 5-MeO-DMT in 15 minutes every single time, any time I want. So the idea that nothing can be done to bring about enlightenment is simply false. Furthermore, the idea that ego cannot take action that will bring about enlightenment is also simply false. You can easily disprove both these claims for yourself with psychedelics. And of course it doesn't stop with psychedelics. You can also do it with meditation, concentration, yoga, visualization, prayer, mantras, etc. The idea that spiritual practices do not bring about awakening is just absurd and counter to common sense because spiritual techniques would not exists unless they were effective for some people. And the greatest absurdity of the entire Neo-Advaitan position is the most canonical enlightenment of all time: The Buddha. The Buddha used his ego to generate his enlightenment by forcing himself to sit under the fucking tree. So the next time a Neo-Advaitan tells you it's impossible to create enlightenment, tell them: But what about the Buddha? And then watch them begin their mental gymnastics. The idea that the Buddha would have become enlightened without doing his 7 years of hardcore practice is laughable. Ego plays a crucial role in bootstrapping enlightenment. Without the proper ego, there will be no enlightenment.

@Loving Radiance Why artificially limit yourself? Just journal. You will know when it stops being useful to you. It's not like you will say to yourself one day: "Well, today I entered the Unitive stage, so it's time to put away the journal for good." The are no such clear lines in this work.

They aren't watching over the nukes to protect themselves, obviously. They are doing it protect us from ourselves. We pose zero danger to them. I would assume they look after our nukes out of compassion and love -- to make sure we don't kill ourselves. But they must do so in a light-handed way, so as not to interfere with our development. Like, maybe if an accidental nuke is launched, they might zap it and we would chalk it up to mechanical failure.

Well, he'll be a lot more intelligent and competent. And more dangerous in reshaping the country along true right-wing lines. I'm not sure who is worse, Shapiro or Carlson. That pic works for either one. I doubt Joe will be up for it in 2024. He's getting too old. I think there might be a push for someone young and more progressive. I don't see Kamala being president. She didn't get enough interest in the primaries and dropped out real early. She will definitely try to run for president again, but I doubt she will succeed. There will be more interesting choices in 2024 and she likely won't excite enough people. But I think she's a good VP pick for Joe.

A) Because US culture is dominant online and around the world. If a UFO was seen in Russia, Peru, or India, you would never hear about it in western mainstream culture. B) I think there might be a connection between UFOs and nuclear launch facilities. Which might explain why they became so popular in the 1950's and 60's, and in the US. If UFOs are real, then they would probably have a special interest in military installations and weapon systems. Which might explain why there are so many military-related sightings.

I've talked about it a bunch.

He'll be running as a libertarian I think Gavin Newsom will be a serious contender.

Who ever made such a silly claim? There are thousands of reports from all over the world.

Yes, we've seen this and discussed it before here many times. Use the search function. Seems like UFOs are legit. Not a conspiracy theory (unless you make it into one).

You've choose a mission which is a bit like: I want to teach people how to ice skate uphill. It would be wiser to focus your teachings and services on those people who are actually suited to it. An important aspect of the life purpose course is articulating your strengths and playing up to them. Design your LP around your strengths, not your weakness. Also consider this very important distinction: teaching people how to sing is not the same thing as being a great singer yourself. You might be a bad singer but a great teacher. So clarify what you really want: do you want to be a singer or a teacher? Rather than teaching everyone under the sun, teach those who show promise. Maybe in theory you could teach anyone to sing, but is that really worth the effort? Maybe it is. I dunno. But maybe it isn't. Just as a comparison, teaching everyone calculus is unnecessary and I would even say harmful, because most people are not suited to it and don't need it. Calculus should only be taught to those who really need it and have a knack for it.

@Recursoinominado Being aware of it isn't the same thing as condoning it.

I am interested in both. You can have an ego-death but still not be conscious of God. Usually ego-death comes as the result of high consciousness, but that doesn't mean it is the highest level of consciousness. There is much to become conscious of beyond ego-death. It seems to be a lot easier to reach ego-death than consciousness of God. And then there are many degrees of depth of God consciousness. The first few levels are pretty shallow. It takes many awakenings to get to the really deep levels, where you finally start to understand what God is, why it is, how it is, what it's doing, what it wants, etc.

The limited stages come from when you're not conscious enough to be in the ultimate stage. Polarization of light is the best analogy. The purest form of light is pure white, which contains all the others. The other colors are what happens when white light gets de-unified. If you re-unify all the light in the world, you will just be left with pure white (which contains all the rest within its whiteness).