Synchronicity

I think this is a very valuable point. It does seem that many of us in the spiritual community place Enlightenment on a pedestal above everything else when we should all be open to more possibilities contained within Truth

My first-hand encounters suggest that reality does indeed include this stuff. So if my take is truly representative of reality as it is, then yes, reality is a singularity of infinitely many infinities similar to what @Someone here detailed above People will say that there can’t exist infinitely many things because, for example, that means that there must exist a supernova so powerful that it blows up infinitely many Universes. Therefore, how are we still alive if such things exist? Well, that’s because reality would be so infinite that such a supernova could destroy infinitely many universes and there’d still be infinitely many more left over. So infinity accommodates itself so perfectly that it allows for the existence of anything and everything (including endlessly powerful supernovae). Though I do realize I’m saying all this without any evidence to offer. Just my first-hand take

boom and boom I like both those responses^^^ Now yes, there are people like Frank who say that nonexistence is real and furthermore, that it’s an achievable realization through practice. I’m not invalidating this in any way. Cessation is certainly an actual realization and can be very valuable. But I’ve had a discussion with Frank as well as many other zen practitioners and what I can say is that what they call “nonexistence” isn’t some Universal End where everything ceases to be. We’ve all heard the old zen proverb, “before Enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After Enlightenment, chop wood and carry water.” So rather than some Universal End to all of existence, cessation integrates into every activity. Nirvana = Samsara You fuse it with life itself and integrate it. You still exist to chop wood and carry water. The cessation just becomes One with that activity. If Cessation were instead, some Universal End to everything, then there’d be no more chopping wood or carrying water. But notice that no serious zen teacher describes cessation as an escape from existence where everything ceases to be. Instead, you still exist to chop wood and carry water. So in a strict Stage Orange philosophical context, what Frank Yang and zen masters call “nonexistence” is still a part of existence. It’s just that what we’re calling “existence” here is an infinite singularity that contains everything, including what those zen masters label as “existence,” “nonexistence,” “both,” “neither,” “cessation” etc. It’s Pure Oneness/not-Oneness So the “cessation of Oneness” that Frank talks about is also included Hopefully that adds some valuable clarity to the subject @Adamq8 Just thought I’d give a detailed response on this since you requested my take

Very well put. Yep, the lack of biases is so total that it comes full circle on itself and experiences certain biases through certain forms.

Okay, I see what you’re saying now. Yeah I think you’re probably right there, if I were to ask them from that angle

Yes, they’re into the symbols. But what I meant was, they’re referring to what those symbols point to when they make such statements No…they do accept that. I’ve spoken to many mathematics professors and so far, all of the ones spoken to accept that mathematics is a language. But what they do think, is that the language points to something fundamental about reality. So in that sense they think mathematics is fundamental. In their opinion, they think math is a language that points to something more fundamental because it’s built on equations and self-evidence rather than spoken languages like English, which are built on grammar and syntax. Just explaining their side of the argument. Not saying I fully agree with it. But people here seem to not be understanding their side fully

@Endangered-EGO Not saying I agree or disagree with the math professor but you’re misunderstanding what mathematicians mean when they say “reality is mathematics.” They don’t mean that the mathematical language itself is reality. Instead, they mean that what the math points to is reality. After-all, if someone said, “a duck is an animal,” that doesn’t mean they’re saying that the word duck is an animal. What they mean is that the thing the word points to is an animal.

Yeah definitely happy to talk about this with anyone who’s interested. But I generally don’t do so here on the forum just cause it doesn’t really pertain to the consciousness-work done here. I know Leo likes to keep everything streamlined. So out of respect for this forum’s purpose, I won’t share here. But anyone can always feel free to DM!

@johnlocke18 I understand your frustrations that there’s some things Leo has said in his videos that aren’t being acknowledged here. I’ll give an example just so everyone can understand why he’s still critiquing In his Outrageous Experiments in Consciousness video, Leo mentioned all sorts of things that Unconditional Love is willing to experience from 1:36:50 - 1:37:20. One of them was, “are you willing to put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger?” Now I understand that what Leo meant was, infinite consciousness is willing to undergo that and love that but still… you must see how that can be used as an explicit justification for spiritual suicide as a practice of unbiased love. Not saying I agree with that interpretation. But to say there’s nothing there that could lead one to suicide is irresponsible. That’s why the OP’s frustrated. Nobody’s acknowledging statements as explicit as the one I just mentioned. Now I’ll give Leo the benefit of the doubt. He’s super-busy and makes long videos. So maybe, just maybe he’s forgotten making such statements or maybe he doesn’t see how explicit they are I’m not telling Leo to change his teachings but these are just some things present within them that lead to these kinds of critiques. But look… if everyone thinks that such criticism is a distraction to the work on this forum, then I’ll offer my services. Just give me a role to answer to these criticisms so that they’re not distracting everyone. I’ve handled tons of situations like this already, if this is deemed necessary. Not asking for that role, just offering it if it helps

@Adamq8 I thought as a moderator, it was your duty to be making sure that everyone’s having a healthy and open discussion. So why are most of the mods laughing at criticisms of Leo… and telling people to keep quiet about them? This forum’s just getting more toxic, in my opinion

@InsecureAnon I’m going to list a lot of examples just because that’ll work best in making you feel better about what’s possible. Take the time to read these. I’m not denying that height preferences exist for some women but there’s a whole other side of the coin that’s there… I was a gymnast at the University I just graduated from a year ago. So I’ve been around tons of shorter athletes my entire life. I’m about 5’7” - 5’8” (170 - 173) and I’m tall for an elite gymnast. A lot of my teammates were 5’4” - 5’5” (163 - 166) Let me tell you what I’ve seen from hanging around these people day and night… 1. The best on the team is competing at the Tokyo Olympics right now. Yul Moldauer (look him up). His girlfriend for the past two years (so, long before he became an Olympian) is the hottest cheerleader on campus. Yul’s 5’3” (160 cm) and is East Asian in ethnicity. Those are two negatively judged stereotypes when it comes to sexual attraction. Yet, his girlfriend is about 5’7”, blonde, blue-eyed, and full-figured. 2. On that note of college cheerleaders, whenever any of the college athletic teams would throw parties, the cheerleaders always came to the gymnast parties. Not the basketball parties, not the rowing parties, not even the football parties. Always the gymnasts’ And yes, quite of few of them would get laid. Not only that, but five of my teammates entered relationships with some of the cheerleaders. 3. Normally, gymnasts are ripped like you describe yourself. Yet, one of my best friends is 5’5” as well as dead-average in build and looks. He’s the epitome of a 5/10. Yet, during his time in Uni, he had three different relationships that each lasted for about a year. One girl was his height while the other two were slightly taller. All of them were hot and none of them were even petite. So he didn’t even have to resort to restricting his standards to exclusively petite girls. 4. My family’s short enough to where I’m the tall one out of us. My brother’s 5’2” (158 cm) and in-person, I saw a sorority girl ask him out. She was my height, green-eyed, and very beautiful. 5. For this final example, I’m gonna use myself. Throughout college, I had all these outstanding examples around me, showing me that height-preferences could be beaten. Yet, I ignored them all. I myself never got a girlfriend while in college. Like you, I was convinced my height played a major factor. I became so acclimated to seeing the examples I’ve listed above that I didn’t even apply them to myself. Now, I look back over all those successful examples and realize that my vision was clouded. All the evidence was happening around me everywhere. Finally, what I’d like to say is that - if none of these examples help - realize that you’re living in the 21st century. Stem-cell research is HUGE right now and there’s some doctors saying that stem-cells could be injected into growth platelets to revamp natural growth in adults. Now, nobody knows how long it’ll be until that becomes an affordable reality but I’m guessing you’re pretty young and technology’s moving fast. It’s possible that this becomes something sooner rather than later. In addition, the general populace is also becoming increasingly conscious of its biases and preferences such that more women are giving shorter men a chance. You’re lucky to be here in the 21st century. You’ll be safe and sound

@SQAAD you’re not gonna find anyone on this forum who deals with these concerns because it’s not their niche. However, these types of brutal spiritual subjects are in fact, my niche. There’s other places which are a lot more accommodating towards these subjects than this forum. I think you’re beating a dead horse by staying here. I’d point you to better communities that have more expertise on this subject but I’m not allowed to, as per forum guidelines.

Most gurus offering transmissions will tell you - when it doesn’t work - that it was unsuccessful due to your level of consciousness. This is just an excuse. A person who’s good enough at transmissions will be able to give them to people regardless of where they’re at consciously. For example, a doctor can provide a patient with a vaccine no matter what level of consciousness the patient is at. Furthermore, the vaccine causes effective changes regardless of the patient’s consciousness. Transmissions work within the relative domain just like vaccines do. So just as an effective vaccine can significantly effect people regardless of their consciousness, so too would an effective transmission. So I would say, stay away from transmissions unless and until you find someone who can give it you like handing out a pen. You don’t even need to schedule a session to be handed a pen because it’s so immediate. No waste of time, no waste of money I’ve seen this done multiple times under casual experiments but I’m not going to source out information until it’s out of the experimental phase. It has to stand independent of placebo

I’d advise people not to pay for transmission sessions. It’s too experimental of a service to be considered a fully-formed product yet and plus, there’s people who do them for free so that you can try some sessions without wasting money.

This isn’t an original idea of Leo’s. Study General and Special Relativity. Relative time isn’t even a controversial subject like you’re making it sound. Mainstream science has accepted the relativity of time for about a century now (since Einstein). Astronauts experience time moving approximately 0.005 seconds slower per six months than people down on Earth. This has been measured and verified already. And that’s just one very subtle example. GPS systems wouldn’t work without accounting for the relativity of time https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/do-astronauts-age-slower-than-people-on-earth-2015-8%3famp

They’re each competing for the remainder of their own lives. That’s their common prize. You’re being overly-literal about what constitutes a common prize. I don’t have to literally syphon off your life like a vampire to win more life. Just surviving the encounter wins me the prize of more life because my life continues. Yes, I can agree with this point. I would say this is a good synthesis of our discussion. I can see the value of your point about focusing on innovative areas where no competition is present and not letting competition be a distraction to that innovation. I guess then that the remaining question is, do we throw away competition entirely so that we don’t get in the way of innovation or does humanity still need some competition in order for certain areas to thrive? I would say a balance is probably best but you may have a different solution. We’d just have to find which is ultimately healthier. Mods, hopefully this discussion of healthy competitiveness hasn’t thrown off the thread’s topic too much. I think it still applies

Yes true. However, the rest of their life isn’t something they had before the competition. So you could say you’re competing for that extra life which, by your definition, would make it a prize precisely because that’s not something they already had. And that’s working within your narrow definition of what a prize is which is already unnecessarily narrow. The OP already provided you some examples of healthy competition where the participants push each other and create value in each other rather than pulling a zero-sum. But you denied that any form of competition is capable of this because it’s something you have to directly experience yourself to understand. I’ll give you a couple examples anyhow... I’ve had multiple friends go through a type of “biggest loser” competition where they pushed either to see who could best improve their health and well-being. When each of them saw how much the other was improving, it increased their excitement and effort to improve their own health even more I’ve also helped kids out at summer camps and - on your valuable note of creativity - you’d be surprised how much healthy competition can increase creativity. The kids had a ton of fun creating the most helpful boat to get everyone across a river to an island to feed the wildlife there. The biggest sturdiest boat that could get the most resources across won. Each person wanted to create the most resourceful means of transportation. This pushed everyone to outdo each other which came up with a better boat as the result then if they had just built their own without any effort. So there are examples where competition increases effort, excitement, well-being, creativity and even unity. The kids worked together more in unison to provide their best work. This is a feeling you have to directly experience to fully understand. Also, the idea that “all competition is bad and non-competition is good” sounds too black-and-white and too dualistic. Life is a Nondualistic spectrum of unified grey. So I’d invite you to expand your horizons. Otherwise, this discussion isn’t going to be valuable to either party.

I see what you’re saying. But that’s not quite nuanced enough for my liking. The dark alley situation can be considered a form of competition. It’s competition for survival. If you win, you and your family survive. If the criminal wins, you don’t. Also, competition isn’t inherently bad or based on ignorance. There are situations where it’s healthy. See my angle?

In addition to my above comment, note that Orange competitiveness is healthy in sports. Red competitiveness is healthy in a life-and-death situation where your well-being or that of others is threatened. After all, it’s not healthy to be with your family, facing a criminal in a dark alley and have an Orange attitude of “may the best win.” No, just take the guy down and save your family at all costs.

Stage Orange: “Let’s have a fair competition. May the best man win!” Stage Red: “No mercy! Attack his weaknesses! Do whatever it takes to come out on top” So Stage Orange likes to win under optimal conditions (while the opponent is at their best). Stage Red just likes to win [period]

I sense Joy in your words at the possibility of exploring this religion, so I’d let those sparks fly and go for it. See where it leads

Crystal meth read or watch some stories from people who became addicted

@Gesundheit While Solipsism is true I agree with you that it’s not the Absolute Truth like most on this forum claim. There are in fact ways to disprove its Absolute-ness but this forum is too close-minded for me to share that. The method has nothing to do with meditation or psychedelics and so, it’s just unverifiable story-telling to everyone here. And so, it’s of no value for me to share. So why bring it up in the first place? Well because my point is that I agree with you that there’s a way to disprove it although your indirect experience method isn’t quite it. So that’s the area where we may disagree. Anyways, this forum’s not gonna receive what you just said very well. Your contemplation here will be called “mental masturbation” so I personally think you’re wasting your time here with this forum. Your pearls won’t have any value here so cast them somewhere in which they will.

An effective entity removal can be done without pay, without appointment, and without your knowledge (isolation of placebo). $700 isn’t worth it nor is it necessary to compensate the psychic for the amount of work they’d be doing (even if they’re legit).

Training to be a pro athlete can take up to a couple decades of training and even then, only a few make it. Learning these paranormal skills is even more difficult and - on top of that - even more reliant on a base of talent (“psychic gifts”). So it’s not nearly as easy or passive as many psychics claim it is. It really requires a full career of commitment. With that said, I’m experimenting with a course to help people develop these for free. I don’t think money can realistically be charged for this type of work yet since it’s still an extremely experimental field. Spiritual Awakening tends to be much easier (though still difficult) and far more practical. But I still offer this type of practice for anyone who’s interested. Ultimately, no path is better than any other. But I can’t make any promises. I need to be realistic about the high level of commitment and low level of likelihood for developing any of these skills.