Pharion

Member
  • Content count

    86
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Pharion

  • Rank
    - - -
  • Birthday 11/29/2000

Personal Information

  • Location
    Canada
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

788 profile views
  1. That's a good, and tricky question. It depends on what exactly you mean by detachment I think. Ideally I want to have a life and self that I've worked hard to make better. People and things I care about, etc. But at the same time I don't want to be attached in such a way that I'm afraid of losing those things or will be crushed when they inevitably all fall away. So in summary, caring deeply about things is good, and putting lots of work into things you value to make them better is good (self, career, relationships). Detachment to me means having a healthy perspective about it. Knowing, and accepting that everything you cherish will end. It will make you more grateful for what you have, and less fearful, but not dispassionate or uncaring. That's the kind of detachment you want to aim for in life I think.
  2. @SQAAD I’ve had a similar experience as you watching videos when I was younger and contemplating painful death and torture. I’ve also suffered with chronic pain for a long time so it’s been a theme in my life. The most productive answer I have struck upon is that the degree of suffering and fear of suffering is a sign, or result of your level conciousness. To clarify, why is dismemberment, torture, burning so terrifying? Well, it’s painful, sure. I could be wrong here but think that deep down pain itself, in fact all sensation is neutral. Depending on your level of conciousness, sensation is just sensation and it doesn’t have to be negative or positive. The reason things are painful is because they are destroying us and hurting our surivival. Burning to death is so painful because your body is literally withering away and your ability to survive is decreasing with every moment. This is my explanation for why these martyr figures can do what they do. They are so conscious that they are able to let go of survival, the body and life itself and allow the experience in without judging it as negative or fearful. So, this is my explanation for why god allows these things. Of course god loves everything and reality includes everything. Reality would not be full and complete without these things being part of the spectrum. But we are not doomed to suffer horribly if kidnapped by Mexican cartel, as long as we are able to detach and come closer to god conciousness, the experiences that caused suffering and terror before are transformed into just raw experience with no label good or bad.
  3. Confident charming asshole= High value guy. Weak kind caring person= Low value guy. Hot bitchy dumb girl= High value girl. Ugly smart caring girl= Low value girl. I disagree with this dichotomy. It's true in particular contexts, but the opposite is true in other contexts. In shallow social situations like parties, highschool classes, night clubs, you're dichotomy is fairly true. If you are assessing long term relationship partners, and value intimacy and a good connection and relationship, everything is flipped. Sure, attractiveness and charisma still help, but those are secondary to personality features like being caring, trustworthy, having integrity as you said. Also, in real life those shallow things often don't matter much in regards to finding a good partner for a relationship. My girl finds me really charismatic and charming not because I objectively am, although I am (haha), but because she loves me and "gets" my humour and personality. I find her the most beautiful girl not because she's a literal model but because I love everything about her and that's just how my mind perceives her now. If you have chemistry and a deep connection with someone, usually your mind works out the shallow stuff anyway. Anyway, I don't say any of this to disregard your point. The message you're aiming at is definitely true, its just important to recognize that it's not universal, or equally important in different contexts or for someone with different goals...
  4. This. I think that's a really good goal to orient yourself around. I'm 19, and I think aiming to nail all of that stuff down by age 30 seems like a solid idea. It would be less overwhelming to not feel like you should be gunning for maximum spiritual growth right away, and instead focus on building your lifestyle, career, relationships and such first. However part of me also thinks this seems like a trap. Lot's of teachers I respect warn about making excuses to pursue worldly things and delay the growth and letting go that really matters. Leo even has talked about the idea that your ego wants to "run out the clock" and use distractions to stop itself from being dissolved. On the other hand, there is the idea of Maslow's Hierarchy of needs which I think you alluded to in your post, as well the idea of Dharma which suggests that we have a duty to carry out our unique gifts and perspectives in the world, which would fit with your idea of delaying the heavy enlightenment work until later in life. Anyway, I don't have the answers to this, but I'm curious what you other guys who are young think about this. Is it responsible to work on your material life, skills and such for a while first, or is that just a distraction and excuse so that your ego can stay in the driver's seat for longer. Perhaps it is even better to start pursuing awakening earlier in life before you have so many attachments that will be painful to let go of? Let's discuss.
  5. I am a young man but I have been Vegan most of my life. My father has been Vegan for much longer, and my girlfriend became vegan a couple years ago. I can say that I am not aware of any deficiencies in any of us. Although I don't have the healthiest lifestyle overall, My dad does and he is the healthiest person I know. Always has good energy, very rarely gets sick, or has problems with digestion, sleeping, or anything else health related. I feel like I am about as healthy and energetic as the average person my age, and so is my girlfriend. Only thing I supplement is B12 occasionaly. So, to answer the original post I would say definitely no. Or at least, if they do, its not perceptible. Like with any diet, it comes down to research and common sense. Eat a wide variety of foods, eat a lot of whole foods and "super" foods (Eg. hemp hearts, berries, nuts, leafy vegetables) and you should be good on any diet in my opinion.
  6. I can relate to your experience. I think for men especially there is a lot of subconscious conditioning that makes attraction to other men confusing and shameful, or repressed even if you yourself are open minded. I think part of the reason why sexuality so misunderstood and understanding of it is so immature is that we don't want to shake the foundations of social dynamics between men and women, men and men, women and women etc. We are afraid to express love and attraction freely because of the ramifications. Also, I would advise you to be honest with potential partners. It probably won't matter in the relationship unless you are not going to be committed, but starting an interaction with a potential intimate partner with fear of rejection or a need to hide something the wrong approach. Would you want to be with someone who would not accept you?
  7. I also struggle with accepting that this type of thing exists and could happen to anyone including me. Death / torture/ horror show how attached we are to "the game" or "the dream" I think. With enough consciousness and acceptance, I think these things would loose their disturbing, horrific, hard to accept quality. It just shows the canyon of potential that exists in most people if that makes sense. I don't have any answers for you, as I have not been able to get over this and accept it myself, other than to say that nothing is inherently horrific. Something is disturbing / horrific from the the perspective of being attached to something that is under threat (fear) or being destroyed (suffering eg. torture)
  8. @Nak Khid I very much reject your correlation of these two systems. First of all, a very small minority of humans are at stage beige. Not the bottom 49% or so on LOC as your system would suggest. Also, "Vulnerability and allowing" being correlated with red? No way. Red is domineering and assertive by nature. If anything, LOC 100-199 sounds more like red. I would be confident in saying im generally at green / yellow in the SD system, yet nowhere near 580 on LOC. I don't mean to be ruthless here, but it seems like you just matched up these two models without giving it much consideration. I could be wrong. Not that it really matters, but I do not think these models should be correlated. SD, especially in the stages below green, has little do with levels of spiritual awakening in my opinion.
  9. I have to agree with Leo on this one. The numerical scale is just too simplistic and artificial to be accurate or very useful. Still, I'll humor you for the sake of science. I'd probably say I am between 400-500, maybe lower, definitely not higher. As for teachers, maybe it is better to have teacher who is not fully enlightened or at "1000" Personally I find teachers more understandable when they have an experience and perspective more similar to mine.
  10. The "clicking" thing idea of Athene was part of my journey to discovering spirituality proper. While it is and was a very interesting idea, the main issue I see is that he offers no reliable of way of clicking. It's a theory without a practice. Fun to entertain as an idea, but hard to actualize. I could be wrong, its now been about two years since I stopped investigating Athene, but at least his is bringing people into the right ball park of ideas, and leading them close to the proverbial rabbit hole. His philosophy has a purpose, but its use is, I think, more to turn people on to better ideas than it is a path to be followed itself. If anyone knows of a practical method or practice advocated by Athene's followers so that one can "click" I would be interested to hear it.
  11. This an open question to hopefully get a discussion going for @Leo Gura and anyone else who feels like they have a good answer. So, with the assumption that human consciousness is more than the result of a biological survival machine, what can we infer about non human consciousness? Could artifical intelligence created by humans potentially operate with the same type of spiritual consciousness that we experience and tap in to as humans? Could an artificial intelligence have an awakening experience? What of animals? What of aliens? Could an intelligent non human ape potentially experience the same kind of spiritual realizations that humans can? What would happen say, if you gave 5-meo DMT to a dolphin, a chimpanzee or an elephant? Could they experience ego death? As I said i intend to open discussion with this rather than give conclusions, by posing some interesting questions. So, what do you think? PS: I am aware that consciousness is not something we "have", and that all of these things exist within consciousness. I'm using phrasing to try to get the general point across, so please don't focus on the details of how I exactly framed the question and rather on the broader idea being presented.
  12. @Taylor04 There is a lot to unpack here my friend. First, do you really think Leo is at stage green? His entire platform and life purpose revolves around gaining knowledge, exploring reality and truth, different perspectives and models of reality. Green is not so interested and obsessed with knowledge, wisdom and perspectives. YELLOW is however. Also, Leo is obviously more individualistic and masculine, again traits of stage yellow. Although I will apply some self awareness in saying the characterizing a person as being fully at one stage or another is not productive or very accurate. I think you would be hard pressed to find a single true libertarian at stage yellow, as it is precisely by gaining a more nuanced and broader perspective past "stealing is wrong, taxation is stealing so taxation is wrong" that you see the severe limits of libertarianism. I identified with libertarianism up until fairly recently so I understand the belief in it. Ok on to the next thing. global warming is, according to the vast majority of western scientists (who are at stage orange might i add) very real and already having major effects on the planet. Yes, green probably cares about it the most, but that doesn't make less of a real threat. I don't think libertarianism is selfish for the record, but I do recognize now that it is ineffective at meeting the needs of the majority of people. "And vegeterianism is green. Tier 2 is not malnourished." again, majority of stage orange doctors would disagree with you. It's not a factual statement. Leo isn't even vegetarian to my knowledge. Im curious which stages you would place yourself on. I encourage you to actually research some of this stuff rather than going on assumptions. In terms of green being the dominant meme in western society... i just don't know how you could think that. why are our political leaders at orange / blue entirely still? why do we have a capitolist, individualistic society that is obsessed with science and technology as well as consumerism and competition. why is this the case if western society is at green?
  13. I live in Victoria, Canada. Very close to Vancouver. I think we are more at stage green here than vancouver, although of course the dominant culture of the country / hemisphere is still orange. But yeah, leader of the federal green party is from here (green in both senses of the word to my knowledge) and the conservative party isn't even in contention. Green party almost always wins by a lot, sometimes NDP (semi socialist party) during elections. Canada as a whole is not really at stage green I think. Maybe it is compared to much of the USA, but not really. Parts of British Columbia are, to an extent though, including Victoria and Vancouver. In terms of anything higher than yellow... I don't think any city is there yet unfortunately. Even the "green" cities i'm talking about are, in reality mostly at orange.