• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Skanzi

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Location
  • Gender
  1. I want to address a topic that I sometimes see even highly conscious developed human beings undervalue. And that is the importance of valuing your own direct experience over any sort idea that society has put into you. This includes even ideas that I sometimes even haven't seen anyone making it a subject for questioning. The most obvious example that comes to mind now is the topic of food. Everybody, almost everybody I have ever seen seems to have this attitude that certain types of foods are absolutely and undeniably unhealthy whilst other types of food are absolutely and undeniable healthy. But what do you really know about healthy and unhealthy foods from your OWN experience? Have you witnessed how the food affects your body without the preconceptualized ideas in your mind affecting the way you judge the way the effect of the food on your body is? Have you truly experimented with an totally open mind with different kinds of food to see how it would affect you? I doubt you ever have. You may think you may have, but you don't understand how powerful your (subconscious) expectations on the way you are going to perceive it. Take for instance Coca-Cola. Does anyone think Coca-Cola is healthy? I don't think it has to be, but I think in many cases it can be healthy and nourishing to your body. On what basis do I make this statement? Nothing more than my direct experience. What I experience drinking Coca-Cola is that it is initially sweet and pleasant, that it also has this prickly element of the carbonic acid to it, and that it generally doesn't make my body feel any more unpleasant afterwards. I have however noticed that if I do drink Coca-Cola in the evening that I find it hard to fall asleep that night; I assume this is because of the caffeine. I am however mindful of the fact how quickly I am drinking it. Do I guzzle it down all at once, or do I take more tiny sips? Do I fill my glass up with this soda halfway or almost full? These I have noticed are factors of in which way I experience the soda affecting my body. This is just one example. How do you know Coca-Cola would be truly unhealthy? Have you witnessed it from own experience or have you simply believed everyone else when they said that this was an unhealthy drink and have you assumed that what they said would be true? Have you made an identity out of this person that prides himself of being a "proactive, responsible and conscious human being" and have you believed that not drinking Coca-Cola is part of living up to this identity? Have you merely adopted this new approach of demonizing certain foods and idolizing others because you used to come from the paradigm of being below the level of taking proactive responsibility for your life, and now in order to defend yourself (to your idea) to slipping back to that old paradigm of being at the effect of your conditioning instead of taking responsibility for it, you feel the need to identify yourself with a certain idealogy that does not accept the mechanical, unconscious way of acting, and therefore it needs to have certain standards of what is and what isn't acceptable within its belief system in order to make you feel like you have some sense of control over your lower unconscious, impulsive habits? In other words: Do you feel a certain need or necessity to demonize certain foods and idolize others in order to be part a moralistic idealogical system that you can cling to in order to make you feel like you have sense control? And do you choose to adopt this idealogical system because it's a good midway between not following the habits of the majority yet not being willing to standing completely on your own? Because it's still a group you're trying to be part of. You have seperated yourself from the herd of sheep, you may think, but you are not willing to stand completely on your own, so you have chosen to be part of a smaller splinter group of sheep so you can together feel like you are different and wiser than the majority. To be a part of the minority still implies being part of a herd. A smaller herd perhaps than where you used to come from, but still a herd. You are not willing to take FULL responsibility for your life and to be COMPLETELY on your own, where there is only you and your own direct experience as the ultimate authority. Unless you are willing to take absolute full responsibility to stand on your own two feet and let nobody else —not even a small splinter group— decide what is ultimately true for you, you are not going to be free. So if you have a certain group of people telling you what you should and should not eat, or should or should not do, or whatever morals they are trying to impose, then what you are ought to do is to investigate directly in your own experience whether what is being said is going to be true for YOU. If whatever is being said —however unlikely and absurd it may appear— does not seem to correlate with your direct personal experience, disregard the teaching. Because ultimately, nothing is going to free you but your own direct experience. I've always had trouble with accepting something that anyone else said to me as the truth. For me, it doesn't matter if it's supposedly verified by all scientists in the world, or expressed by the most conscious, awakened people that have ever lived, because I sense that unless I get to know it by my own experience, I'm just subject to allowing my intelligence to be hijacked by someone or something else. That's why I have a bit of an issue with the whole subject of science in general; especially the field of psychology. I'm okay with science being used for technological advancement, but if I hear that scientists have discovered that you should eat this more often, or do that more often to be happier, it just doesn't feel right to simply believe them, no matter with how much purity their studies have been performed. Because the issue is: How could I actually know for certain that this is true? And if it is true, how do I know it is true? I rarely ever reference my statements to what someone else has discovered or said because it hasn't really any value to me if I haven't internalized a truth that is being given to me from the outside, or I can't verify that the data that is being shown from a scientific test would actually be accurate. I do however like reading up on scientific discoveries or words that (spiritual) teachers say just to wonder and amaze myself over the possibilities; just to dream a little bit or get my mind a little bit challenged. There's no harm in just looking at it, but just don't blindly believe anything you read. You can also check if what's being said resonates somewhere with an understanding that you yourself already had at some level. Other people's teachings or words can facilitate and help your own contemplation upon life and numerous insights may be had just listening to or reading the information that other people have to give. But what they say will be useless to you if what's being said doesn't connect with something deeper within yourself. Ah well, you can also just do it for fun And you know, maybe even in cases where you're acting upon certain habits that even with a higher degree of sensitivity and awareness there doesn't seem to be anything bad with them, maybe there is even in these cases a potential that it does have a longer-term negative effect on your body and health, but personally I'm just allergic to any knowledge I can't verify by my own experience so I just can't really follow up on it. Because how do you know that when your body starts forming certain problems later on, that it was without any doubt because of this supposedly bad habit you allowed yourself to indulge in? There are numerous other factors that could have caused this physical problem. My feeling is that there shouldn't be really much of a reason to worry about it because I feel like the wisdom that you need to make this discrimination of what's going to be good for you and what not is already innately available in as the intuition of the higher Self. I can't prove that statement absolutely, but that is my feeling. More about how the higher self later on. Having taken this attitude of always going by my own experience —or at least approximating it more and more— I have found simply in my personal experience that a lot of things that the health, nutrition and exercise gurus say are simply not true, or at least not absolutely true. They are at least not true for me and my physical/emotional/energetical/mental/spiritual system at this time. There are many different factors and many different layers in which different intakes may lead to different outputs or effects, that you are not to take ANYTHING that ANYONE says simply for granted. Sometimes people may speak the truth and in the way they express themselves it may appear to be the truth, and it in fact may be the truth, but how will you know if this is the truth if you don't see it for yourself? Take what others say into account, be open to it, but verify for your own experience and your own experiments —without as little preconceived notions as possible affecting your experience and interpretation— what is ultimately your Truth. It doesn't matter if it is (alledgedly) against everything that science says, because science is still in development and scientists are often blind to their own ignorance and biases, or there can be intentional, deliberate manipulation and hidden political agenda's or other agenda's playing a role here. Or it may be so that some things they say may generally be true for the majority of people, but it doesn't have to be an absolute law. So having taken this attitude of always wanting my own direct experience to be the ultimate authority, I have experienced that certain things that almost everyone deems to be unhealthy can in some cases be healthy, and the other way around. In my own experience I haven't generally found pizza having a negative effect on my body. Cheese can sometimes feel like a very nice thing to eat, other times it doesn't feel super pleasant to eat that. Sometimes I really like eating different kinds of grain products, other times these same grain products don't make me feel that great at all. The point is that I can often quite accurately intuit how its going to affect my body and feelings by just sensing within myself whether I feel eating it or not. Sometimes I like to eat candy, but if I eat too much at once if it it doesn't feel good. I now experience that even eating one piece of liquorice or candy can make me feel a bit restless in my head for like 15 minutes afterwards. I do however notice that for instance fruit juices with a decent amount of sugar in it don't seem to generally have this same effect, interestingly enough. I think this may have to do with the fact that water can act as a great neutralizer for what would otherwise be a sugar overload. So I drink lots of fruit juices, but I never buy sugar-free. i feel like sugar is an important and perhaps essential ingrediënt in our or at least my energetical/physciological system. Sugar free means it is added with all these sweeteners which may perhaps be pleasantly sweet, but I feel like it doesn't nourish me. It's a bit similair to as if you're chewing on a piece of food but not swallowing it. It tastes nice but it is missing something. There are moments or days/weeks when I feel like eating a lot of chocolate and then it feels really nice to me, and then there are other stretches of time where it doesn't interest me whatsoever. I have this oscillation in interest/disinterest in certain foods quite a lot. Some foods I eat a lot during certain periods of time, and after a while it completely disinterests me. For instance: Sometimes I buy a lot of strawberries of blueberries and then I absolutely just munch on them, and when having eaten enough of them i don't feel like eating them again for quite a couple of days or even weeks. And so I have a lot of eating habits that most people wouldn't be able to see the intelligence or sensitivity of. When they see me eating candy or drinking a Coca-Cola or whatever they may be thinking I'm just acting out of habitual, unconscious impulses. Little do they know I'm actually very sensitive to what I'm eating and I make most that is in my diet a conscious choice not based on a logical system of what "is meant to be healthy", but I intuit in my body what it desires for and I trust its instincts. OKay, sometimes I do habitually reach for food that then I realize I don't really want to eat, but it doesn't happen too often. The same thing by the way for me also is applicable with for instance exercise. I hear everybody say that exercising is healthy and one should do it more often. In my own experience, it simply makes me feel more congested, uneasy, unpleasant. I think the difference between me and a child that wants to steal the candy pot and eat it in its entirety (and afterwards finding himself sick), is the fact that my decisions aren't only informed by lower instinctual impulses, but also by a higher connection with spirit or the higher Self. If you are both connected with the higher and the lower, then the higher will inform the lower what to do: Spirit will inform body what is good for it and what not. And if it were to be the body and the lower unconscious impulses alone, then indeed there would be an unhealthy lifestyle. That is why this advice of trusting your own experience is in reality only applicable to those who have gotten enough distance between them and their lower drives that now they know they have a developed capacity of discipline, and once discipline has come to its full culmination one will be able to make a conscious choice to let go of their disciplinary rules and idealogies and let once again body speak for itself, as now you have been able to connect spirit and body together and now every time you choose to let go of your discipline and instead follow your intuition, it will be a proper decision. If you are not developed enough, any of this advice will be malicious since now instead of allowing spirit to take charge, you are indeed reverting back to the lower unconscious impulses and it will not be an improvement at all. The important difference here is whether it feels like a decision you have to gather courage for to make. This is actually key. Advising to let go of discipline to someone who does not have the right amount of development and understanding can in fact be very, very dangerous. Because the receiver of this message may in fact not be the higher self but the lower self (ego) in such a case. If the higher self receives this message, it will be an incredibly useful advice. If the lower self receives the message, it is simply the ego seeking an oppurtunity to reinforce its own position. A choice made through the lower self (ego) or a choice made through Spirit (or higher self) may seem very, very similair on the surface. But the quality of this decision is vastly, vastly different. Generally, the advice to trust your instincts should not be given to people who lack a capacity or history of disciplinary action and willpower. People who have gone through such a phase though can be greatly benefited by the advice to forsake discipline, or at least try to. There is however a great possibility that some ego will be left that will now try to make this letting go of discipline and willpower into another form of discipline and willpower. Still, it may be the way forward, as holding on to discipline and strict regulation may imply coming from a more egoic standpoint. That's why I say it requires courage to trust spirit and allow instincts to have their own say and to forsake any of your old idealogies. Because going deeper into the egoic position does not require true courage. It is very easy and convenient for the ego to use any well-intended advice for its own purposes. It requires courage to let go of old identities and beliefs, but it doesn't require courage to stick to a position you have already been familiar with for too long. So with this post I would like to invite people here to be more critical towards their own assumptions and really start to examine: "What do I actually really know for certain?". And what do you know for certain? In fact, is there in philosophy actually one thing we can know for certain other than that we are? I'd like to invite the readers here to just really examine their own experiences better and to see where there's potential for your own beliefs to color the way you interpret your experiences. Beliefs are very powerful in the way that it colors our reality, without this belief actually needing to be an objective truth. Examine how beliefs might affect your life. So that's the end of my post. Be brave, be intelligent, and be alert.
  2. I don't think every sort of trauma or impurity in your system can be traced back by childhood per se. I think much of it can potentially also have to do from the phase before childhood (previous incarnations) or the phase after childhood. Just going by personal experience: I am vastly different than my brother even though we had roughly the same upbringing. I have had to deal with a lot of heavy energy and anxieties and feelings of hopelessness and feeling lost and confused whilst he (as far as I'm aware of) didn't have to deal with it so much at all and he is now a rather confident, attractive guy who is doing a psychology-related master with an (on the surface) pretty decent relationship. We both grew up in a (relatively speaking) safe and caring household with parents that didn't fuel us with much unconscious, emotional reactivity and repressive conditioning, although they weren't awakened beings. Granted, I experienced probably quite a bit more stress and anxiety at school and in social interactions than my brother did, as I simply wasn't very good at it, and I was very insecure in the domain of social interactions, but most of that started only happening when I went to high school and not much before it. Considering the nature (genetics)/nurture debate, neither of them seem to explain very well why have been dealing with so much more heaviness than my brother (again, as far is I know of) has been dealing with, as we have roughly the same genetic inheritence and roughly the same upbringing. I suspect myself that much of the heaviness I have been dealing with in this life has much to do with the karmic baggage I inherited from previous lives. I don't claim to know this for certain and it is indeed just speculation, but it does seem to explain my situation better, since otherwise there doesn't appear to be a very suitable theory that would explain the difference between me and my brother. Alternatively/additionally, it can (also) have to do with the fact that I'm a much more sensitive person than my brother is and therefore negative in my life leave a much bigger imprint, but again, how is this heightened degree of sensitivity explainable from the genetic inheritance perspective or the social conditioning perspective? So I think it's false that everything can be explained from the idea that everything you are now is related to childhood, but indeed I do think that there are a people whose behaviour is very correlated to the experiences they had in their childhood. But I just wonder: Why just childhood? Why not your teenage, or adolescence, or adult years? Why should these phases in your life be much less relevant for the amount of trauma-energy that has been put into you as opposed to your chldhood? Do you think that for instance becoming a victim of war activity is not going to give you new traumatic experiences (unless you're a very conscious being)? Perhaps your childhood may set the basis more for how you are going to perceive the experiences during this war, but certainly I feel that new experiences liek this that didn't occur during childhood are still able to affect your psyche to sometimes a rather large degree. I never like it when people say that everything that happens now in your life is all directly and only because of your childhood.
  3. In a nutshell, masculine love is the willingness to do or say the unpleasant, painful stuff that people are going to freak out about, that is not accepted, that is controversial, that people are going to be angry about, that will shock people in service for the higher good, for cutting away the ignorance. Being hard sometimes is necessary. Feminine love is more about sweetness and inclusion, about making one another feel accepted and valued and appreciated. About connection and healing. In a way of thinking about it, feminine love generally is more related to a value that occurs on the short-term or in that very moment. Masculine love is generally more focused on the longer-term change that takes longer but goes deeper. Masculine love is going into the dirt to cut out the roots, which is the dirty, nasty, tough kind of work, and feminine love is mowing the lawn so that it looks clean, tidy and pleasant for the time being. Of course, if the roots aren't cut and uprooted, the overgrowth will return. That's why I say that masculine love generally has a longer-term effect than feminine love. Not that there is anything wrong with feminine love. In fact, if someone is truly very deeply rooted into the feminine expression of love, this will not only be pleasant for the moment such a person communicates with you, but it can also leave longer-lasting effects as well; It has this potential as well. It can truly be healing. Of course, it still won't cut out the roots of dysfunctionality (I assume), but it can potentially provide an upliftment or healing in spirit to such as extent that the person can regain the power and willingness to actually start going to the roots of their suffering. (Divine) masculine love is more direct in it: It will directly show where your dysfunctionalities lie, what needs to be seen and what needs to be done. There is no subtle persuasion. There is no going around it. People can nothing but either confront themselves and do the work that needs to be done, or immediately escape in such a situation. With feminine love, the person may be inspired to do the deeper inner work, or they may not. The danger with feminine love is that the person who is the recipient of this feminine love may get addicted to the person who is providing it, instead of taking this healing power of feminine love and its strength that comes with the upliftment of their spirit in the face of this feminine love, and turning this strength into the willingness to face their demons and awaken from/through them. So it's not to say that either masculine love or feminine love is more powerful. They both have their own place. Masculine love is just much more direct and confrontational. It does what needs to be done and it doesn't go around it. (Divine) feminine love is much more inviting and is the art of subtle persuasion to start walking the path of awakening. A perfect example of divine masculine love would be Osho. He can be very confrontational and provocative, but if you have some intelligence and sensitivity you see that it is coming from a deeper place of compassion. He does what he oughts to be the best benefit for all. Someone that sets an example for more a feminine type of Divine love would be people like Eckhart Tolle, Adyashanti, Ramana Maharsi, just to name a few.
  4. I'm simply writing here so this can be my 50th comment, which will allow me to have a signature/subscript from now on
  5. I was going to make my own elaborate reply about how you have the inherent capacity of courage within you and what not, but I think Leo has already said sufficiently enough as my replacement I suppose For real my friend, you have this capacity of courage already within you. If you say that you are too terrified you are just investing in an illusory belief that you can't do it, whilst you CAN. If you keep repeating to yourself that you can't do it, in a sense through the effect of a self-fulfilling prophecy you won't be able to do it, no. Then it will in a sense become a (relative) truth. But still I say that you have the courage, but do you have the willingness? To have the courage isn't a choice because you have it, But will you CHOOSE to do it? Do you have the willingness to act upon the courage that is inherently within you?
  6. Rest assured my friend, it is possible. I myself have for some reason had tremendous difficulties with intimate connections myself, which resulted in the fact that apart from prostitutes, I've really only experienced only one natural(-ish) sexual encounter so far in my life. Until about two years prior to now, I had very much the idea stuck in my head that "I need to go through sex to go beyond it", which implied in my mind that Iit was necessary that in my life I needed to have sex. Though something in me felt that this wasn't really true, I've had tremendous difficulty of letting this idea go— Until the last two years, in where I've started to understand through my own experience that letting go does not require an experience prior to it. Letting go started happening to me, much of it through the means of energetical discharge. It's just that you're not at the level on development yet where you're really able to fully grasp and embody this Truth through your own experience. So the direct answer is no, you don't need it. Having female intimacy is not a requirement for awakening. You can be a celibate and become awakened, though there is no need to deliberately choose to be a celibate or to give credit to the philosophy of celibacy. You could say that so far I have pretty much been a celibate as far as female intimacy is concerned at least, but this is not by conscious choice but because I'm still not ready and detached enough to engage in sexual intimacy. However, this is fine right now to me though, as I am however able to detach myself from the attachment of the need to have sexual intercourse. But I am not against sex; it just hasn't happened to me yet as I am not ready. So just know that sex is not a requirement for happiness or awakening. However, it will probably require a bit of effort from your side for your ego-structure to be eroded away enough that you can come to a space where you are truly able to let go. Until then, I would recommend to either try really hard to become intimate with women (I would recommend the RSD/Real Social Dynamics branche for this), or to try hard to let go of your attachment to needing to be intimate, or both in alternating fashion. Of course, trying to let go isn't truly letting go to your fullest capacity (as the do-er is still present), but it will erode away what Adyashanti calls the "personal will", and eventually you will be able to pull out the deepest roots of your attachments; whether you decide to go chase after women or not. I say all of this because it has been my personal experience, but feel free to doubt me and take your own path seperate from the advice or siggestions that I have given you if that feels to be more appropriate to you. I wish you all the best on your journey, Skanzi.
  7. Out of the ones I haven't seen here yet: Check out Adyashanti, Ozen Rajneesh (disciple of Osho), Shunyamurti. All of them pretty dope, if I do say so myself . Both Shunyamurti nor Ozen Rajneesh are not very well known in the spiritual community, but both of them very interesting individuals. I personally also have a great affinity with Adyashanti. I don't know what it is but I really love the way that guy teaches and... how he is.
  8. We often take the freedom that we're handed for granted after a while. It is so for everything. And I don't judge anyone for it; after all, it's a natural human tendency. But I do want to encourage the readers of this post just to take a moment to appreciate the fact that we are in fact able to have the oppurtunity to have such a forum where many (relatively) highly conscious people are able to discuss and exchange their thoughts. It's a privilege, really, taking a look at both the past and still many different cultures in the world, where such opportunities are not allowed. It's not certain if such forums will still exist in 10 years time. I'm in fact not certain if the world is becoming more free or less free. I'm hearing confusing and conflicting messages so I can't really decide for myself. What do you guys think about this notion, actually?
  9. I will give a different point of view. I'd say first take care of yourself before you can take care of others. Fill your cup and eventually it starts oveflowing on itself. Don't try to give away the water of your strength from your cup to the cups of others if you feel like you are losing water from your own cup. If you are not truly ready to give, it will not even be a transaction; It will simply be spilling on the floor and be lost for both. Modern society is full of people pretending to be empathethic and compassionate. A person that is deemed as "nice" can have just as much ego —if not more— than people who seems selfish. It's just ego operating in a different way. Ego is not determined by surface-level selfishness. And in fact, compassion is not empathy. To be soft and warm is not to be compassionate per se. Compassion is seeing what the situation requires, in accordance to your current level of consciousness and energy; It's a sense of deep responsibility for one another, a sense of you having a responsibility to make the situation as much a win-win outcome as much as possible. Empathy is a soft, kind, warm way of relating to one another. It can be helpful in some situations, but in many other situations it can actually be harmful. Compassion is more intelligent, more total than empathy. I'd encourage you to keep being self-centered, but without necessarily being inconsiderate or indifferent to others, even if it's just an inner attitude you carry and not so much behavourial. Be compassionate, but you don't have to be (or seem) kind and a "nice" person. It simply means feeling a responsibility to stay conscious and to have a sense of (unconditioned) integrity.
  10. I am a liar. Am I speaking the truth or am I a liar?
  11. I was diagnosed with autism when I was around 12. I don't necessarily identify with the label so much. I see that certain symptoms do see to correspond, but I don't think that these symptoms as behavioural or mental traits are necessarily written in stone. Every thing that autism seems to hold one back from can be worked through. So please don't go around identifying yourself with your label and symptoms and then say: "this is how I am and this is how I always will be". This very assertion is in fact more likely to keep you down, as you identify with your condition and by doing so refuse to go past it. Do acknowledge however what is there in your current situation. From a higher perspective, I think that autism are generally people who are more sensitive, and are generally more heavily affected by the negative impact of social conditioning by society (because they are more sensitive), and therefore have a stronger pain-body (Eckhart Tolle term) and more rigid, compulsive mind-patterns. I say this both from what I observe on others with autism and from my own experience. This does not mean that autism, or its symptoms, are not necessarily a bad thing to have. Sure, they're bothersome in many ways, but for people who are more bothered by their own negativity and their own destructive mind-patterns, the more they tend to rise higher and higher than any "normal" person of society could when they do decide to awaken. Just like the same amount of gunpowder creates a much bigger explosion when its concealed in a strong metal enclosure, as opposed the same amount of gunpowder in a firecracker. Potentially a big and strong firecracker, but still not nearly as powerful as a grenade. However, the question is if the person is in fact able to gather enough energy to break through its enclosure. The more energy there is that is keeping you down, the more energy that is available once this blocking patterns are released and transformed into the energy of awakening.
  12. I'm not sure if I can agree with you on the statement that you have "lost your higher level of consciousness". Don't deny your evolution. It is very much so that we lose our stretches in which we felt strong, powerful, resilient, happy and such... Life goes in phases and just because you lost a period in which you felt really great, doesn't mean you haven't progressed on your spiritual path. You are correct when you say that you feel like a drug addict trying to get back a previous high; that's my feeling too about the situation. It's not to say that that period of your life WASN'T valuable, but you gotta understand that in order to progress in your path to Truth, you must let go of your past and all the ups and downs you had experienced in them. It doesn't mean that you can't use your past as reference and guidelines for your current and future life, but it is important to let go of the attachment of it. Consider that as long as you're willing and attempting to awaken, so to say, you are evolving. You may get another "high" along the way, but often this comes seemingly out of the blue and often there isn't really a go-to method to either create it or to be able to hold onto it. And if there would be a method to create it, you are still not free because you are still attached to this high, which you inevitably will lose again. That's the point: Every high will eventually be followed by a low. The only true freedom is to go beyond the highs and the lows and connect with something that does not attach to both. That which goes beyond is called the witness. What you will be left with is peace. Peace as an attitude, as a relationship with your experience. As far as contemplation is concerned: Sure, go ahead. There is absolutely nothing wrong with contemplating and asking questions. But don't do it for the sake of trying to regain a certain feeling, but do it for the sake of truly understanding what is truly the case. Because you can contemplate on "what got you to feel that way", and you may find certain reasons, and your insight smay even prove to be rather valuable as far as understanding yourself is concerned. But you won't awaken if all you do is contemplate on something just so you can get a good feeling out of it. Contemplation can only truly be valuable if it is done out of a pure thirst to understand, just for the sake of understanding itself.
  13. I wouldn't necessarily say studying is a bad thing, especially if the study is a preperation towards a practical function in life, and the experience of studying itself can also be a valuable learning curve in itself. I myself am going to study Social Work because I want to have access with my degree to be able to be hired in job applications in for instance in psychiatric hospitals. I feel like people like those in psychiartic hospitals can use an (semi-)awakened being the most and yet are often dealing with most unconscious, insane behaviour from others, because these educated "professionals" may have a lot of knowledge, but very often they lack personal experience of transcending inner struggles, and therefore they can't truly handle the energy of insanity that hangs around places like a psychiatric hospital. I myself have done much of this inner work, and therefore have a grounding of being able helping people to transcend their struggles because of my own inner work (though there is still much inner work to be done). I hope that I can make a change there, but of course my future can still go in many direction and I might end up in a totally different place. Also, just the very experience of studying and facing new challenges that I have to overcome seem as of currently a very proper step for me. And also, I like the focus of my study on the high amount of internships that are required in the cirriculum. I prefer at least at this point experience over knowledge. And also, I also want to study Social work to properly understand the mainstream health care system so that I can be more effective as being a potential whistle-blower However, I do want to acknowledge that the intellectual understanding and "wisdom" of these universities and colleges are still very limited by for instance materialistic paradigms. Universities and colleges may have a lot of smart people and professors, but rarely do they have "wise" people there. Therefore, the question to actually study philosophy at an university is questionable, as professors are often ignorant of non-dual forms of wisdom and its many contradictory perspectives; they are often rooted in many forms of dualism as well and not too many of them are very spiritually mature human beings. In other words: wisdom and maturity are other things than cleverness and being a good intellectual. The internet on the other hand is full of highly awakened forms of content. You just have to search in the right places. So as far as knowledge alone is concerned, I wouldn't do the study if I were you. Except if you're interested in like the history of philosophy and how it all developed, and to sort of compare philosophies from different sources against each other just out of sheer interest. There are also other drawbacks on doing a formal education and working at a job that is rooted in mainstream society or the mainstream system. For instance, in my study Social Work and the work I'm allowed to do with my degree, one thing I'm not looking forward to is having to do much administration and paper work. I'm probably going to end up being very sleek and subtly slipping past many of these somewhat useless rules and regulations wherever I see an oppurtunity, because all this paperwork is so controlling and somewhat paranoid. Considering your study isn't really (directly) aimed towards training you for practical aspects of life so much, it makes your study a bit more questionable as opposed to getting a degree for an education that is aimed to instruct you more towards the practical domains of life. However, it may (or may not) still be potentially worthwhile. Just as you has said in the previous post, I also find in myself that external stimuli like discussion, teachers, student interactions, and potentially also deadlines and having set concrete assignment for yourself by others, can also be of an extra stimulation to sort of get yourself to do something. I wouldn't maybe have agreed with this sort of pressure as being "good" a couple of years back, but now I do see that —at least in my current situation— it has a certain value to it. It can sometimes be helpful to me if I receive external pressure or stimulation to go and do something; It gets me going more easily and I often even appreciate having received this external pressure afterwards. I can't answer your question if you should go and study or not. However, you should consider for yourself very well what your alternatives are and if you think you'd be better off with these alternatives than going to do this study.
  14. If we would relate psychopathy to spiral dynamics, which I'm not sure would be very accurate, wouldn't you then say it's more orange-like? Psychopathy seems far more intelligent and subtle than red does. Red seems just very crude, whilst orange seems much more calculative and cunning. My picture of psychopaths at least is people who are a bit more clever and intelligent than I would expect red to be. Maybe I should look up the word in the dictionary.
  15. Being a very emotionally detached person myself, I see something like psychopathy more something like a combination of repressing our softer, empathethic feminine side along with repressing our compassion. I really don't think it's as simple as saying "oh you're a psychopath and you will stay that way forever". I think psychopathy, for a good part of it, is more of a "mode" that people get into, a sort of identity. Compassion, by the way, is in my experience not something that has so much to do with being soft and feminine, as i would call "empathy", but more about a feeling of shared responsibility for one another. I feel that that is more than simply a belief saying "I should be a good person". Speaking from own experience, I lack a lot of "empathy" in the sense that I lack the capacity to connect to others, to listen and be attentive to others when they are speaking, the ability to console others etc... But I have a great sense of responsibility for the general well-being of people and I am very dedicated to helping people and raising their level of consciousness. I care, but I don't empathize. You could call it "hard love". I want to give people what they need, what they truly need, and sometimes that may include be a little bit rough and direct on them. But I am not the kind of person to console and "mother" others. I think Osho is a very good example of a person that has a lot of compassion, but that does (generally) not show that much mother-like empathy and softness. He does a lot of what is needed, but certainly not always what is "nice". Psychopaths, however, got very identified with the stance that life is a game of "survival of the fittest", and therefore they believe that being selfish is the way to go. And they are naturally very good at tuning into their masculine, detached way of being. I do believe they have a sense of compassion, a sense (note, i'm not saying empathy), but that they repress that sense of compassion because they don't believe that it will serve them. I believe every person in the world has a basic sense of compassion but I feel like many people repress it. By the way, I believe that someone who is generally more feminine and empathetic can also lack of lot of compassion or get very selfish. For instance, you can sort of pamper someone who is portraying a strong victim-mindset, and by you consoling them, hugging them and saying sweet words and what not you can in fact reinforce such a victim-mindset. I don't think that's compassion because even though you may be consoling, it is no real benefit to do such a thing because you keep them stuck in a victim-mindset by pampering them and it is no benefit for the greater good. And often much of the reason you believe you should be pampering them is then you get to reinforce your ego-identity as a good, virtuous person who is very 'beneficial'. And if that is the reason you are pampering, you are in essence doing it for selfish reason. You may show empathy in such a situation, but it is not compassion. Compassion looks at what the situation requires considering the greater picture instead of coming across as "pleasant". By the way, my inability to show a lot of empathy is however something I still do have to work on so that I at least have the capacity to show and express it. Human relationships is still something I've got tot work on; There is still something incomplete within me. Empathy does have its place in certain occassions. Anyway these are just some thought-currents of mine. Make of them whatever you want. I don't claim to guarantee you that what I'm writing here is 100% accurate and do not have further demarcations or nuances to it.