Nak Khid

what do you think of their results on research compared to google? Do you think DuckDuckgo is as "smart" ?

The topic of this thread is Ralston and he has a bias against them (if bias is the right word) and asking "How is it possible that Leo and Ralston disagree?" But it is very clear if you look at the letter, everybody has an agenda However the opinion of Adeptus Pyschonautica, the video I posted is a channel focusing on plant medicines such as ayahuasca, and psychedelic experiences, his intro is here. Look at the threads that are currently up on the main page there are mainly opinions "agendas" going on Leos last video was about being open minded. That means look at his agenda and others agendas

well at least he's not exaggerating

I see

https://mcusercontent.com/8a146e2bfe98efdd8c326d97a/files/08332a98-370d-44da-86ff-2c04a3ff1858/CHNL_Summer_2020.pdf?mc_cid=f12b90ff1c&mc_eid=3667cfd58d Ralston's newsletter, letter correspondence with Leo page 15-16 (near middle of scroll)

https://mcusercontent.com/8a146e2bfe98efdd8c326d97a/files/08332a98-370d-44da-86ff-2c04a3ff1858/CHNL_Summer_2020.pdf?mc_cid=f12b90ff1c&mc_eid=3667cfd58d Ralston newsletter, correspondence with Leo Gura, p 15-16 (see link for full, inlc Gura letter) (excerpts) Leo,You are correct, I don’t agree with your formulation, sorry. Don’t hurt yourself with the drugs, it would be sad for your brain to be damaged by overdoing chemicals, and it can happen. I will always disagree with you on the drugs, it's not possible for them to create enlightenment, but they can certainly change your state. Of course, you can become directly conscious no matter what is going on. But I will never support drugs. This is not because I am against them as a stance, I did many "consciousness raising" drugs in the late 60's in the San Francisco Bay Area, and then I stopped. It is because I know they can't do what you want them to do. Enlightenment isn't about physiology or chemistry. Timothy Leary gave it a really good try long ago, he was very serious, and even had levels on his property indicating the amount and constancy of being on LSD depending on where one was on the property. (I know LSD isn’t 5-MeO, but the message is the same). He was convinced he could become permanently and deeply conscious using it. He failed after decades of trying. It doesn’t work that way. I know he had extreme altered states, many insights, and seems he was a good person, but no real enlightenment. It is OK that you go this route, and I hope you don’t hurt yourself, so be careful. But I know it will not work, in a year or a few years you will find that out. Only you can become directly conscious, no drug or state or change can do that for you. I hope you didn’t get discouraged with the direct approach and decided to be lazy, trying to get something else to do it for you.And actually, yes, I do walk around in a constant state of kensho and satori, but I suspect you have a different notion of what that means.I think what you mean as an awakening or a direct consciousness is experiencing something first hand. This is an important thing to do in this work but you misunderstand what direct means. And you confuse brain and neurological activity and what can be experienced with consciousness. As for your other questions:1. Yes to the beginning, no to the end. There is no "will". 2. Perhaps, but I disagree with your conclusions. It isn't that way. 3. Yes, but not as individuals or entities.4. No, no one has, no human mind can be omniscient, and in absolute consciousness there is no need for it, because nothing exists. You are speaking of experience, and that kind of experience might better be called psychic or supernatural or an altered state. Are such states possible? Yes, and it is possible for one to be very powerful and aware in many ways. But no state, no matter how grand, is enlightenment. !Love,!Peter

God is Finite and impermanent as all things are Many religions in the history of the world have worshiped a finite god. The attribution of the belief in “infinity” has lead toward a de-personalizing of God. God is in actuality finite and personal but supreme above all other finite and personal beings. God has a specific nature and it includes certain limitations that are not voluntary on God’s part. Among those limitations are that God cannot know the future insofar as it contains events not yet knowable because they will be determined by free will beings other than God and that God cannot coerce free creatures to do his will. These denials/affirmations about God are necessary “contractions” apart from which the “expansion” would make God religiously unavailable if not irrelevant. Concern with the problem of evil—i.e., with reconciling the existence of evil with that of a good God—becomes acute for thinkers who rest their case mainly on the existence of evil in the world they find around them, and this has led many to realize a finite God, according to which the world may be under the direction of a superior being who is nonetheless limited in power, though not in goodness. This is a serious alternative to the idea of a supreme and unlimited source of all reality as found in the usual forms of theism. Indeed, it is a moot point whether the idea of a finite God should be classified as a form of theism. It does come close to traditional theism, however, in its insistence on the unity and absolute benevolence of God. There are clearly advantages in the notion of God as a limited being, especially where evil is concerned. Though one could still insist that God intends nothing that is not wholly good, one can now account for extensive suffering and other ills on the basis of the limits to God’s power. God is doing his utmost but there are are evil powers—that he has not yet subdued, though hopefully he will eventually do so. There is also induced in this way a sense of urgency in humanity’s own obligation, as the apex of creation, to cooperate with God—to be a “fellow worker.” God will clearly need this help, though he himself is in the vanguard of the battle against evil. Thus, those who incline to the idea of a finite God usually have been activist in thought and practice.

False. God is not a synonym for everything False and destructive deception False Then you have fallen in love with evil and that is wrong. "Up is Down" "Hot is Cold" , these sort of statements are meaningless attempts to try to dismantle a person's discernment . Rape, torture and murder are not things to be love. They are destructive and cause suffering. You have been mis-taught and misguided. This is not what the Sages teach, nor those of healthy mind. It's simple, don't poison the water The basic problem are these grandiose mindgames, hypothetical extreme questions designed to confuse and daze and result in a divorce one from treating oneself and others humanely, an entranced stupor

.

http://www.theorangeduck.com/page/infinity-doesnt-exist Infinity Doesn't Exist - Daniel Holden

Could you give some detail on you you received rasa ? You say near enough fortnightly for 9 months, I assume that means about 18 times total. What was the cost? And when you heard about it did you immediately think it was possible or did it take you a while to become convinced? thanks

"Open your mind to the possibility that evil does not exist at all that is just a fabrication of your mind that means that the most evil thing you can imagine, imagine that it's not actually evil' ~Leo Gura ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ And will our minds be opened to the extent of committing an act of evil? I would like to know of any other person who teaches that one should devote time to imagining murder and rape are good.

you imagine infinity exists !!

There is no proof that infinity exists. It is an axiom of the mainstream mathematical community, which means it is assumed OPEN YOUR MIND

1966 _______________

Maybe if you're anti-reality. The tree does make a sound regardless of you being there or not You would have to be egocentric to think otherwise. One hand can't clap, another answer to a trick question ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ You ain't God , get over yourself

what if there's a conspiracy to call people conspiracy theorists?

if you open your mind too much your brain falls out, so don't go overboard

It is numbers game and a networking game You are currently working at Macy's ?

A conspiracy theory may be true. Some may be somewhat plausible but others completely ridiculous and not worth the time listening to the details of

the test would be do an experiment with a group of people, maybe 30-40 they are blindfolded and told they will be lightly touched on the head, safely and painlessly and with no reason given, no mention of shakipatand the subjects would not be Indian so they would have even less chance to guess what the experiment was about Half the people are touched on the forehead by the guru who says they can transfer shakipat the other by an ordinary non-guru person Then the people are interviewed after and asked if they noticed and differences after the touch. They continue to be not informed about the details of test and are interviewed a week later to see again if they reported any changes, experiment over So then you compare the half that were touched by the guru with the other half that weren't

Shaktipat Levels of intensity Levels In Kashmir Shaivism, depending on its intensity, Śaktipāt can be classified as: tīvra-tīvra-śaktipāta - the so-called "Super Supreme Grace" - produces immediate identity with Śiva and liberation; such a being goes on to become a siddha master and bestows grace from his abode (Siddhaloka), directly into the heart of deserving aspirants[5] tīvra-madhya-śaktipāta - "Supreme Medium Grace" - such a being becomes spiritually illuminated and liberated on his own, relying directly on Śiva, not needing initiation or instruction from other exterior guru. This is facilitated by an intense awakening of his spiritual intuition (pratibhā) which immediately eliminates ignorance[5] tīvra-manda-śaktipāta - "Supreme Inferior Grace" - the person who received this grace strongly desires to find an appropriate guru, but he does not need instruction, but a simple touch, a look or simply being in the presence of his master is enough to trigger in him to the state of illumination[5] madhya-tīvra-śaktipāta - "Medium Supreme Grace" - a disciple who receives this grace desires to have the instruction and initiation of a perfect guru; in time he becomes enlightened. However, he is not totally absorbed into this state during his lifetime and receives a permanent state of fusion with Śiva after the end of his life[6] madhya-madhya-śaktipāta - "Medium Middle Grace" - such a disciple will receive initiation from his guru and have an intense desire to attain liberation, but at the same time he still has desire for various enjoyments and pleasure; after the end of his life, he continues to a paradise where he fulfills all his desires and after that he receives again initiation from his master and realizes permanent union with Śiva[7] madhya-manda-śaktipāta - "Medium Inferior Grace" - is similar to "Medium Middle Grace" except that in this case the aspirant desires worldly pleasures more than union with Śiva; he needs to be reincarnated again as a spiritual seeker to attain liberation[7] manda - "Inferior Grace" - for those who receive this level of grace, the aspiration to be united with Śiva is present only in times of distress and suffering; the grace of Śiva needs to work in them for many lifetimes before spiritual liberation occurs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaktipat

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ They do use the term here although but Hindu practitioners might not consider it legit https://the-natural-state.com/rasa/rasa-transmission/

That would be a conspiracy about Leo not a theory of Leo's. A conspiracy theory could be true or false. When people use the term in a negative way they are talking about the majority of conspiracy theories that have very weak evidence. Something to consider is that people who have conspiracy theories, for instance that the 26 people killed in the Sandy Hook shootings was fake will point to various things they think are suspicious But these various things they think are hard to explain can be explained by other wacky theories not just their wacky theory and having an explantion does not means it is what really happened. The various details they bring up don't prove their particular theory is correct. It just may show some details are not clear. It could be possible that an official explanation is false but if this is the case it doesn't mean if they could prove that an official explanation is false that then their particular alternative theory is true but they often act like it does. Could you quote some of these Leo comments on conspiracy theories and what thread they are in?