tsuki

@Truth Addict Alright, I still refuse to believe that you're dense. If you want it to continue, then go ahead.

Oh gosh, I refuse to believe that you're dense. It's like you want it to continue . How is it that there is something, a 'me' that is perception itself, that cannot be located and does not have any attributes? Try describing infinity. Can you do that? Try describing nothingness. Can you do that? Try describing a 'me' that cannot be located and does not have any attributes. Can you do that? Do you know the nature of that mistake? It's not about factual incorrectness, it's about seeing. You read a book, a detective story, that has a plot twist at the end and where the whole thing gets recontextualized. All bits fall into their right places, it's not the maid - it's the butler! What is that moment, the illumination? Can it be perceived? No - it's the footprint of mental scaffolding crumbling, revealing the truth. You do not add thoughts in this work, you remove them. You may have removed many things, but identification is still there. You don't see infinity, you treat it as a concept. What triggers you about Leo is your own concept that you're trying to overcome and you're blaming him for it.

I'm asking you to try to locate the thing that is perceiving. It does not matter what you call that thing, I used to call it "I don't know". Are there many Idon'tknows? What is Idon'tknow made of? Does the Idon'tknow have any structure? The Idon'tknow you're looking for is not a thought. Again, "my" perceptions? Please locate the thing that these perceptions belong to. Even if you were able to find it, what would that thing be other than a perception? What perceives that? There is not even one thing that is Idon'tknow. Idon'tknow has no qualities, no shape, no size, no color, no pitch. Null, zero, none. Only if the mind identifies as perceptions .

That implies that you are identified as your perception. Pardon my neo-advaita, but what is the thing that is perceiving 'your' perceptions? How is it different from the thing that perceives through Nahm?

Because you seek because. Yes, it's a loop. It should indicate that the mind is not wholly in control as it thinks it is.

Jungian Typology as phenomenology, pt 2 The four cognitive functions form two pairs: The perception axis: Earth/Sensing - Air/intuition, The judgement axis: Water/Thinking - Fire/Feeling. Jungian typology assumes that our attention is finite, and that we split it across cognitive functions unevenly. Moreover, since the two functions sharing one axis seemingly serve the same purpose (like thinking vs feeling and sensing vs intuition), we identify with one of them and externalize the other. These observations form the basis for classification of personalities that are built on top of our cognition. There are 16 types and they are designated by the order of cognitive functions and their introversion or extroversion. Introversion of a cognitive function means that this function is the 'home', a sense of 'I' of a person. It has a subjective connotation to it. Extroversion of a cognitive function means that the function is externalized, as if it was an object to be manipulated. It is something distant. Introversion of one function of a given axis implies the extroversion of the other function of the axis.

It seems from this paragraph like you know the answer to your problems, but are unwilling to explore it for some reason. If you're sure that you've done everything you can to rule our medical issues, then maybe it is some psychological trauma you're yet to process? My wife has similar issues throughout her body and had emotional releases from Reichian therapy. Practices regarding emotional mastery can be helpful too, I've heard that Bryon Katie's "The Work" is very good. There are people out there that claim to be enlightened just by doing her practices. Good luck man.

I don't express myself like I want to, because what I want is not always the way to go. You're following your heart and that's fine if that works for you, but you have two judgement centers. Keep working on deep belly breaths and remove the glass from your stomach. You will see what I mean.

@mandyjw I was criticizing the way in which people use science to debunk spirituality. Science is never going to find God when it is formulated this way. It is not its purpose.

@mandyjw Right below the quote you posted? This is the most, to-the-point critique of this video I could make. Science is never going to find God with those assumptions.

Take note that I did write a poignant critique of his critique.

@mandyjw I suspect that you want to point to the fact that I am okay with suffering and misery in the world? That is not something that comes out of shadow work, that comes from integration of the heart and the mind. Shadow work is to the heart what learning is to the mind.

Hmmm?

I'm not sure if I'm still blocked, but I'm going to post it anyway. I was once advised here on the forum to relax my throat like a pelican. It helped tremendously to quieten the mind.

Gosh, aren't you excited today @Joseph Maynor ? Thank you for not getting discouraged and pressing on until you got your answers. That's so like you ❤️ Oh, and I was kissing your ass too, don't forget that ❤️

@Leo Gura could you perhaps comment on this? Do you agree?

What's in it for me?

There is a difference between a preacher and a mystic. Preacher is a mouthpiece for ideology, while a mystic is the source around which an ideology is built. Any sufficiently advanced individual will seem like a preacher, there is no avoiding it. When it comes to consciousness work, there is no way of confirming whether another person is legitimate or not by judging what he says. There should also be no need for that. I think that Leo's videos should be treated more as a fuel for creativity or inspiration than imply knowledge to be believed. I don't know if it's me or you, but I'm sensing a green sentiment from you, about relativity and caring for other people. It's not like I'm shaming you for it, it's just that Yellow has a way of finding truth and having strong convictions that do not stand in opposition to others. Leo's stories are like that if you pay close attention. That being said, I really think that Leo is coping out. The criticism he's not properly addressing right now is the ego backlash he's facing for growing too rapidly. if he chose to bow down to peasant us, the whole forum could grow alongside him. I think it's a shame really.

Do you care to name them? I'd like to hear your input.

It depends on you, I suppose. Do you gain anything out of his metaphysics, or do you simply treat it as a comforting story? That is the difference between religion and spirituality - distraction/comfort vs embodiment.

Well, I did - spirituality is about direct insight, religion is about stories that explain them to laypeople. They both aim at relieving suffering, no?

Actually, this video had a sentence like that. What's wrong with religion? The quest of spirituality is to relieve us from suffering that science failed to solve. To get your own spiritual insight you have to do a damn lot of work and most people can't afford that. The second best that comes right after is comforting stories that you can wrap your head around, that make sense. The problem with today's religions is the fact that the last prophets we had died thousands of years ago. Their legacy is dead, outdated, misunderstood, highly contextual to their time period. The organizations that are supposed to take care of it have no spirit left and force people to abandon their minds and believe something that makes no goddamn sense.

If you become developed enough that you stick out like a sore thumb out of your immediate surrounding, people will actively work to bring you down to their level. You can view this as fright, jealousy, envy, pride, etc, or simply as a badly verbalized plea to help them grow. At some point you will simply have to help others, or relocate. EDIT: Hmm, I may have misunderstood. Are you asking if it's okay to share them with other stage blue people, or is it okay to translate them as a blue person? I answered the former question.