Parththakkar12

@Leo Gura You'd said in your Radical Openmindedness video to 'Consider that Trump is a creative genius who is actually helping mankind evolve.' Looks like someone took that advice waaaaayyy too seriously!!

@Serotoninluv I've heard some conservatives say that they have problems with gay marriage. Like they don't have a problem with gay sex, but they have a problem with gay marriage. This is because if they decide to adopt a kid, that kid will grow up with two fathers, instead of a father and a mother. Now I understand that the mother being the primary caregiver is a patriarchially imposed norm, so it's not so clear. What do you think about this?

Another reason why Trump wins : He provides the most entertainment value to the public from all the candidates. This is very important. America is an entertainment-obsessed culture. I often like to joke around that Americans have the unique ability of turning everything into a meme. I was watching Marianne Williamson and I was watching the way people responded to her. The problem here isn't that she makes no sense or that she's airy-fairy (I think there is a little bit of that) the problem is that the people listening to her have very short attention spans and they want to be entertained! If you want to think about complex and serious issues, you need to be willing to invest your concentrated focus and brain-cells to think about what she's saying. Most of them weren't willing to do that. I'd give her the least points when it comes to entertainment value or meme-value. That's why she loses.

Hey, if you apply creativity to con-artistry and manipulation, maybe he is a creative genius! Who knows.

Let me make an attempt at explaining this. I think that his appeal comes from the fact that he doesn't come across like the general elitist politicians who are politically correct all the time. He comes out there with this attitude of 'I don't care what anyone thinks of me. I'll say whatever's on my mind. I'm gonna be impulsive af. I am the biggest creative genius in the history of mankind, sorry, the history of the universe and I'm gonna show you how it's done!' This can be new and refreshing for certain Republicans who resent Obama for being there for 8 years. This also makes it so that all the skeletons hidden in the closet of political correctness come out in full display. People can't stop him because they're restricted by morality/political correctness when Trump isn't. He has no morality, which he leverages as a strength and he manipulates/dominates everyone using this edge.

I think he's conscious that he's lying, but doesn't give a fuck. He consciously manipulates people to believe what he wants them to believe and people are left gaslighted and in a battle of 'For what Trump said' vs 'Against what Trump said'. Trump actually doesn't care what comes out of his mouth at all!

Because they are NPCs brainwashed by the Leftist media. Simple as that. Same for the Right. The big guys up there don't give a fuck about freedom of speech, or civil liberties. All they want is power and control. You need to understand this about them. They will program you with whatever serves their best interests relative to power and money. This goes for big tech companies and all governments. This isn't good or bad from an objective perspective. This is just how it works when you have unconscious masses who just want to do their thing and not be involved in politics, or community, or systems.

There is one thing you don't do with NPCs and that is to argue with them. Whatever the fuck you do, NEVER argue with an NPC or you will incur their wrath! They will not budge from their ideology. They cling to their ideology for a sense of reality and they will fight tooth and nail to prove themselves right. Being right to keep their sense of reality intact will be their number one priority.

You can have respect for their view-point. However, there is no need to see them in high regard! They are very ordinary and manipulate-able. You can do what you want to do and justify what you do using the narrative they're programmed with! They will get very ideological and support what you do because of your justification, which they will agree with. For example, you have someone who is obsessed with productivity and who thinks productivity is king, i.e. they're an NPC in that regard. They see you contemplating some metaphysical concepts and they try making fun of you. You can show them a practical application of what you're contemplating, like say in marketing or in sales or relationships. Then they'll think you're a genius!

If you are a leader, you are in a position where the decisions you take are very important to the overall system. Who you are and what your role is in the system is actually a massive leverage point in the system. Your position is the one with the most power in the system, i.e. the system will do what you want it to do. A lot of lives could be affected by the decisions you take. If I could create my own society, here's what I'd do relative to leadership positions : I feel that it is very important that we put the most evolved and competent people in leadership positions. Specifically someone who is able to jump between different perspectives and understand how systems work, how ideologies spread, how to create change. This is tremendously important for the following reason : The post I've linked goes into detail about why collective egos defend certain ideologies. Now, say you are a Stage Yellow leader who understands this about ideologies, that they are created/spread according to the goals of the specific system and thus they define good vs bad, right vs wrong. If you aren't attached to the contents of the ideology, the following options open up: What you can do is that you can now use ideology as a tool without getting attached to any specific ideology yourself! You can define a certain system goal, powerfully and consciously create and spread an ideology in that system accordingly (cuz most people are simple-minded black-and-white thinkers). You can analyze what happens when you spread a specific ideology. You can understand whether the ideology was a success or failure, its pros and cons, potential details and improvements, potential rules and conditions, potential complications in it, etc. You can get really good at creating the right ideology according to the specific group you are working with and the goal of the system you're heading. Say you spread an ideology. But, because you didn't quite know the people you were working with, you made an ideological mistake and it starts to backfire. This can happen if you don't know the system well enough. You will be able to switch course whenever you see it backfiring! When you are attached to the ideology yourself, you will be too busy defending your ego when it is made clear to you that the ideology is backfiring. You will be able to catch yourself falling into this trap if you are a Tier-2 thinker. My reference is 'Thinking in Systems' by Donella Meadows. In the chapter on Leverage Points, the most powerful leverage point she gives is Paradigms! Say this society collapses under its own weight and it's up to you what kind of a society you'd want to create from scratch. What would you create?

I want to share an insight about creating social change. A lot of Stage Green people want social change. These are people who are dissatisfied with the status quo and tend to enter power-struggles with the status-quo. This does not work. If you enter a power-struggle with the status-quo, the status-quo will win. Maybe you'll get some results in the short-term, but it won't carry through long-term. The reason for this is that whenever you have a certain status quo, it's because the majority of people are clinging to it. You'll always have a lot more people for the status quo than against it/for change. If you come in to create some change you individually want, you'll come across as an idealist/rebel/threat. People cling to the status-quo because it meets some need for them. If you say 'Screw their needs! They're evil oppressors who contribute to systemic abuse.' You're right about that. That is how collective ego survives. Any majority wins system survives at the expense of the best interests of the minority. However, you're doing the same by not taking their needs into account! If they say 'Screw you', you'll never get the change you want. There's an alternate strategy. You can focus on creating your own world, regardless of the status quo of the world around you. Here, you can focus on creating a new status quo which you'd be in favor of! You can have other people whose best interests align with yours cooperate with you on this. What you're hoping for is that the new status quo works better than the old one for those clinging to the old one. This way you're not screwing over people clinging to the old status quo and they could be a lot more accepting of your ideas. My claim : If you have a well-integrated Blue, you will understand the importance of having a status-quo for collective survival. If you have a well-integrated Orange, you'll have the pragmatic abilities in you to find the win-win solutions with people who seem to be your arch enemies when it comes to creating change (those clinging to the status-quo). That way you can get it done without having to enter a power-struggle! What do you think?

Too much enlightenment for me! I see people roasting TikTok videos and I forget all about awakening!

@Jacobsrw Makes sense! Maybe you are at a stage where believing in an awakened ego could be damaging. I'm not claiming to be more awakened than you, but we have our unique awakening journeys. If you are at a stage where it isn't healthy for you to believe in an awakened ego, if you start believing in it, you could turn into a Zen devil! When I say awakened ego, I don't mean Zen-devilry. In fact, I just realized that maybe you don't fully trust people who claim to be conscious intuitives who say stuff that conspiracy theorists say because of the risk of blindly believing a Zen-devil. If you are prone to that, it'd be best to stick to your definition of enlightenment and do practices accordingly.

When I say intuition, I am including the insights that come to you when you contemplate something. Those insights are Universally, Intelligently designed to get you out of your mental delusions/boxes and to give you a broader understanding. They come to you in response to genuine curiosity relative to the question you are contemplating.

Oh yeah it isn't a statement of Absolute Truth. I thought we were assuming that no statement can be absolutely right or wrong...? I'll clear that up then : No statement can be absolutely right or wrong because true/false or right/wrong is relative. They aren't claiming that their statements are absolutely true. They are taking their stand as individuals on this. Now I value their perspective because it is a conscious perspective. I don't think that intuition can be deluded. I feel that intuition is the universal mechanism that helps you get out of delusion. Human beings don't have just one ego. We have multiple egos, in fact all egos out there are a part of ourselves. The universe is a fractal, so every perspective can access every other perspective, thanks to intuition/omniscience. It is a very strange-loopy thing where all perspectives are a part of my perspective. Now if one of those egos dies, i.e. goes through an enlightenment experience, the conscious mind still sees that and awakens some more. Edit: You can identify with the universal perspective of Oneness. That would still be your ego, even though it includes everything! Truth would transcend even this ego. However, it can be useful to identify with Oneness because it is better than identifying with a separated ego-self and it causes less suffering. They are not fully enlightened, i.e. not all of their egos are dead. Enlightenment is not a point, it is a journey of awakening. The ego going through this journey of awakening is the aware ego or the awakened ego. If they do become fully enlightened, they will merge with the formless and they will cease to have a form. This would require them to shed their human body. So awakening is a way of life for them. Their practice is to integrate non-duality with the dualistic world, thereby awakening deeper and deeper in mundane everyday life. Edit: Have you seen Leo's video on the 10 Ox-herding pictures of Stages of enlightenment? What I'm talking about is the 4th or 5th stage, i.e. Catching the Ox/Taming the Ox. This is where, you get good at accessing pure awareness through meditation/yoga/psychedelics, and then you integrate it into yourself. You are then able to bring the light of consciousness into the most unconscious, dark ego spaces and create shifts in your own level of consciousness, and then subsequently in other people's level of consciousness.

It isn't possible for people informed by their intuition to disagree, because oneness! Reality is one. Now you can have different perspectives looking at the same reality, but they won't conflict. The universe informing everyone's intuition is the same and it is Infinite and One. If there is a perceived conflict, that is because someone is deluded. In my experience, intuition is directly informed by the Truth and according to the Truth. Yes, the lens would be one of consciousness. However, where do you think the information you download is stored? Who takes care of that information? That is the awakened ego. It is the awakened ego who trusts their intuition as a survival strategy. A lot of what humans do is about survival. Now because it is an awakened ego, even though it has survival needs, it won't see survival as everything. Having said that, even it needs survival strategies. The trick here would be to have conscious survival strategies. The awakened ego will be willing to experiment with conscious survival strategies because it understands that death is an illusion, so you aren't really risking anything if your survival strategies don't work. Having said that, it still wants to live and will participate in survival, because that is the only way to have a distinct perspective and raise your consciousness further. This includes the awakened ego. It doesn't claim to know everything. No ego can know everything as it's just too much. However, your intuition is your access to omniscience, so the awakened ego knows how to access universal perspective. This is what spiritual teachers teach in fact. Their ego, which is one of a spiritual teacher, is good at teaching people how to access their intuitions and have an in-alignment life.

I'm telling you what I know. I'm not telling you to believe me. You can use your intuition to decide whether you want to agree with me or not. However, I do know that in this context, what I'm saying is not an estimation, it is fully fully clear to me. It's not coming from bias or ego. Except that there is one loophole : What if your ego is an awakened ego? Enlightenment means that you realize that the ego is an illusion and that we are all one. Even after you are enlightened, you will have an ego, in fact you will have an ego that has access to intuition and non-dual states. You will still have multiple egos, some will be awakened egos which will be defined by knowledge of non-duality and intuitive understanding. All egos have physical/mental/emotional needs, which is where the need to share what you know comes in. Why do you think they're doing what they're doing, going up against the establishment which is putting in control measures? It is a very human thing to want to help other human beings by telling them what they see from a more elevated conscious perspective. This isn't a fight to prove the validity of what you're saying. That is a game the mainstream media and science plays. This is about telling people who are open-minded enough to consider what you're saying, so that it can help widen their field of view and so that it can help raise their consciousness.

How do you know I don't know! I do know that they're conscious. That is because I can intuitively see and verify a lot of what they're saying. This isn't blind faith on my part. Your intuition is always true (that is if it really is your intuition and you aren't making it up). Intuition is basically universal God-perspective communicating with you and telling you what's what when there are 2 sides debating over something. It is the ultimate grounding you have in reality and it transcends all ideology and rationality. Intuition is your access to omniscience.

When you say 'they should consider all possibilities', you're assuming they don't know what they're talking about and are shooting darts in the air. That isn't the case at all. Same with London Real people. That's the thing with this forum! Whenever you share something you know that is unpopular and outside the mainstream opinion, you will get told to 'admit you don't know' when actually you do know! You have your intuition showing you the power dynamics, which is where the fact that they are non-dual mystics comes in. You can't prove what your intuition tells you, like you can't prove non-duality. They are spiritual teachers who are relaying to us a very conscious perspective. Will people take this as dogma? They aren't meant to, but if they do, that's their mistake. This won't stop them from sharing what they know.

That is precisely correct! However you are missing something. School is an institution designed for collective material survival. Nothing more and nothing less. When a kid comes into the world, it is clueless about this world. The slate is blank. The whole point of school is to have kids spend time in an environment where they're getting indoctrinated with basic information about our world. Even though the passing percentages are low, they still have to spend 12 years of their childhood in that environment which goes to show it's not about giving them useful knowledge that will help them later in life, rather it's about indoctrination. They don't teach kids to push their limits, face their fears, shift their attitudes and increase their creative capacities for this very reason. We can say school has successfully done its job if kids who pass can: Do basic math Read/write basic English Know basics of history/geography/science We can say school has failed if we get the following problems: People can't agree on basic rules of mathematics People can't agree on what the English language is, i.e. some people have been taught different words/grammar rules than others and now there's a language barrier. People can't agree on the name/map of the country they live in The point here is to cater to a general population, so that the mass of young adults who get out of high school know the basic theory about how our world works. The purpose here is collective material survival. It is not to teach individuals the skills they need to create a happy, successful life. This is an individual endeavor and at this point in time, individuals have to figure this out themselves. I know you can get lost in various traps and mazes, but this is where we stand today.

David Icke lacks an understanding of systems thinking and how this stuff works. He was literally playing with fire. What did he think was gonna happen the way he was handling this? Was Bill Gates gonna say 'Oh man I completely missed that vaccines are trash! Thank you so much David Icke for opening my eyes to this.' Nope. What happens is that you get banned, sued, hate-speeched, taken out. Look at my last post on the 'Collective Ego Mega-Thread' where I go into why collective egos follow simplistic ideologies. You're either for them or against them. If you're for them, they'll not hurt you, they may even be on your side. If you're against them, they will ruthlessly and efficiently get you out of their way when they go about trying to achieve their objectives. There are more strategic ways to take your stand. You can have a solution-oriented approach to this where you get in the shoes of Bill Gates and really understand what he's doing, you really understand what mainstream medicos are doing and why they're promoting vaccines. If you create an us vs them, even if you win, you'll incur collateral damage.

There is a huge reason collective egos are ideological and take one-dimensional stands on certain issues. The reason is that their stand directs their action in a particular situation. Whenever you are trying to decide how to solve a particular relationship problem or complex social problem, there are a number of perspectives you can take on it. There are a number of approaches you can take to it and there's infinitely many directions you can go with it. It is important that you take a one-dimensional stand that informs your action, such that your action will be concrete, decisive, well-directed and strategic. You will take this stand according to what you believe, what you want from the situation at hand, your total perspective and what you want to do. If you are a Stage Yellow thinker, your stands on particular issues tend to be nuanced, right? A multi-perspectival approach doesn't work when it comes to taking a stand which will inform your action. Your multi-perspectival approach will work in order to have a broader view of the situation at hand and not miss shit. Ideologues can be myopic, closed-minded and limited in their view. A multi-perspectival, holistic and integrative approach to analyzing the situation can be helpful when you're trying to deeply understand it, analyze it systemically, get to the root causes, etc. However, when it comes to taking action, what you do will depend on what you want from the situation. You will take a one-dimensional stand according to what you want and your action will be directed and informed by that stand you take. Collective egos are almost always defined by what they want to collectively do in the world. This calls for taking a simple, pragmatic stand and spreading an ideology that serves your objectives. Very rarely will you see a collective ego take a nuanced position on a particular issue for this reason. If you try to inform your action using a complex, nuanced position, it is often seen as indecisiveness. Collective egos are very sensitive to indecisiveness as they're defined by what they do, so they will not tolerate indecisiveness relative to it. Since they're defined by their actions/goals, it's simple - you're either with them or against them. If you aren't decisive about whether you're on their side or not, they will not trust you. They'll kick you out and replace you with someone who is surely on their side. There's nothing nuanced about this decision!

I have noted all of Yamada Mamon's quotes Leo cited in his video on the Ten Ox-Herding pictures. There's all the verses with the pictures, and what Leo cited about all the stages. Zen quotes.docx

I can't watch 2 minutes of him cuz what he says makes absolutely no sense to me. It's like he uses a word-salad to cover up the fact that he's simply full of shit. Like for example 'The Neo-Marxists are bad.' Why? 'Because delinquescent koala-bears and effervescent panda bears said 'Oh baby kiwi, love thyself'.' What?!?!?! 'This isn't me. The studies show it all.' Fuck you. I saw the comments section on a video of him crying, and the comments were all as if he touched their hearts so deeply, and they had thousands of likes!! Like I saw at least 5 comments with likes on the order of 5K, 10K, 7K! WTF IS GOING ON?!?!?! Somebody please explain this to me.

In that case, maybe he is more evolved than I think but simply lacks the mental discipline to communicate concepts clearly. If that is the case, it is completely understandable. Mental discipline is something that some people easily have and other people struggle with. Most youtubers/public speakers tend to be mentally disciplined people in this regard. Maybe what I was missing was that you can be more evolved on the spiral even though you lack mental discipline. When you're not mentally disciplined, you tend to be unconscious of the logical inconsistencies in what you're saying. I was equating this to Stage Blue. My thinking was that someone at Orange would have had the mental discipline to develop rational mind skills like logical thinking, critical thinking, technical analysis, conceptual thinking, mental modelling, etc. and would be able to communicate those concepts/analysis/models. This was my experience developing from Blue to Orange and it's something I've seen most Orange people exhibit as a matter of fact. Also what he says tends to not be about fixing your life/self-help/success, rather it tends to be about preaching what you should do (get your shit in order) so that we have a more orderly society and 'slay the dragon of chaos together'. That's his idea of contribution apparently. His teachings tend to be about maintaining social order. Now he may have had genuine insights on how to do this from his own contemplation. I'll give him that there is a certain element of cause-and-effect thinking/logical thinking (which is necessary for any contemplation to work btw) but he's not quite there yet. Am I making sense? What do you think I'm missing?