Osaid

In order to hate someone, you need to lack full context of who you are hating. In order to hate, you need to imagine a myopic version of someone, which doesn't include the full context of their life and what they've been through. If you did perceive them with all their context, you would fully understand them, and thus be unable to hate them. Metaphysically, there is something very interesting happening here, which is that you are literally imagining a version of someone which doesn't and cannot exist, and then hating and rejecting it, because why would reality be so harsh and cruel so as to allow someone like this to exist? The answer is, they don't exist outside of your limited and myopic imagination of them. You wouldn't get mad at a crocodile for trying to bite your arm off, because that's all it knows how to do. That's how it survives. It's too ignorant to understand morals or even consider empathizing with you. That's just how they are. Just like the crocodile, people who do low-consciousness things literally don't know any better. If they did, they wouldn't be doing those things. It's not accurate to look at what they are doing from a high-consciousness perspective. It's like expecting the crocodile to know morals and not bite your arm off, and then becoming morally outraged at it when it does bite your arm off. People who commit what is perceived as evil, although it might not look like it, are doing what they believe is best with their level of understanding. If they were at your level of consciousness, they wouldn't do what they're doing, but they aren't. It's ultimately just ignorance. That's just their survival mechanism. That's all they know. They're unable to perceive how what they are doing is incorrect or evil, or else they wouldn't do it.

Interesting, I can see how that can easily be misused. It is a fine line.

This isn't really love, it's a lack of love towards yourself. It's based on fear. This is a narrow and neurotic form of love that stems from something conditional. It's being a doormat. You deny yourself love by putting other people's needs and perception above yours. This is an important nuance and misconception to notice.

I love him because he spreads awareness in regards to abusive relationships and how you shouldn't judge people (such as Amouranth) without knowledge into their personal life I love him because he gives us the opportunity to practice deeper levels of love and understanding I love him because he donated 250k to a pigeon and dove adoption agency (Even though it was out of anger towards Amouranth and it was meant to drain their bank account. Maybe he has a soft spot for birds?) I love him because I know that any hate towards him comes from a lack of understanding

Famous twitch streamer Amouranth has leaked phone calls and messages from her husband showing him to be a manipulative psychopath. On the call he threatens to kill her dogs because she didn't hear what he said correctly. In the text messages he says he is throwing hundreds of thousands of dollars of their income down the drain because she isn't responding to his texts when he wanted her to. He has apparently been the one in charge of a lot of the streams and the one advising her to do hot tub streams, so he has had a lot of control over her. On her last stream, a door opens behind her and the stream instantly ends. We haven't heard back from her yet. The husband thing has come out of left-field, until now Amouranth has kept it ambiguous as to whether she is single or not. It's likely to be real because there aren't really any benefits for her to pull a stunt like this.

i like how you've classified ice cream as a fruit/vegetable, very clever. i will use this trick next time i have to eat my fruits and veggies more like, a giant glorified raisin when is the last time you had pineapple?

I'm very adamant on the idea that younger people see spirits and entities much easier. The stereotype is true, where you see little kids in horror movies that point to some invisible monster that the adults can't see. Although, I get that this was a psychiatric hospital. There was also some study, I'm too lazy to look it up, but it said something like babies have a more "psychedelic" and flexible mind. You can probably find it on Google somewhere.

hopefully in my next reincarnation I will become such an entity

shadow people and disembodied voices during sleep paralysis when i was very young saw some ghost/spirit/entity with a blue tint, in the waking state. It looked like a little boy. I don't really purposefully pursue entity work, but sometimes you end up encountering the odd ghost here and there. Plus I think it's kind of creepy so i'll just let them do their own thing.

yea but it had a bit of info wars propaganda sprinkled in

I do agree there is a lack of open-mindedness, but I think this thread is pretty tame in regards to that. You're not gonna find much better elsewhere on the internet. I still think the people here are on the more open-minded side, despite all that. People here are just adamant about their positions. Maybe because they misunderstand you, or vice versa. I wouldn't call that closed-mindedness, just bad communication. I haven't seen anyone here explicitly saying you're wrong for exploring this, they're just adding their two-cents. Which, admittedly, might seem dismissive, seeing a bunch of people tell you "it's all one bro". But they're just trying their best to get you to figure out why exactly they are so adamant about it. I can see why it might seem closed-minded to you. You want there to still be a possibility that reality is maybe dual in some way, but everyone is insisting that it must be non-dual. That's because a lot of the insights here are not gonna be based on speculation or theory, but 100% confirmed through direct experience. You're not at fault for being skeptical about that, of course. You shouldn't take it on blind faith. It's mostly because people think they have a lot of the implications figured out. I do think a lot of people have misinterpreted his Infinity of Gods video, though, which is kind of fair because of the way Leo presented it. I think it's somewhat warranted considering the title comes off as some absolutist statement. Even if it might seem obvious to you, people will always assume differently. That's fine, I think it's very relevant and important to explore the discrepancy between the classical teachings and Leo's teachings, since Leo himself is now openly stating to abandon Buddhism if you wanna go all in. If you want mainstream spirituality, Sadghuru is the perfect form of that. His way of displaying spirituality is very grounded and practical and relatable, and thus very palatable to the masses. Even so, he is still somewhat controversial, which speaks to how tricky it's gonna be to nail in the deeper insights. Leo I would say is the opposite of current mainstream spirituality. He doesn't care if it's palatable. Leo is like a psychedelic trip personified. He just throws the truth at you, and if you're not stable or grounded enough to handle it, so be it. We might be getting wolf-leo for the Halloween episode, if his Instagram is anything to go by. Close enough to mouse-leo? Spongebob knows:

You gotta test and isolate variables. If porn does something for you, then that tells you that there's something specifically about being in front of a real person that is the problem, and it is not necessarily some biological dysfunction or complete lack of libido. And also it might validate or invalidate your theory, if you can't even get turned on by porn anymore then it's most definitely not porn-induced, cause porn should at least turn you on. This is important info. If you're not horny enough after 8 days of abstinence, I personally would say that rules out porn as a culprit. Especially if you were horny enough to be masturbating so regularly prior to that. From my experience, the horniness caps at around day 8-10. Unless you are some serious porn addict, like masturbating 5 times daily over a long period of time, I doubt much of the problem is porn, and if it is, I'm pretty sure the 8 days would negate that. I understand that people can be very different in terms of sexuality though. This is just how I have noticed that this stuff affects me personally and what I would do. If you're scared of undoing your progress in abstaining from porn, fine, you can go for a month or something and then watch if it gets better or not. IME, I've gone that route before, and libido really does not change much beyond day 10, but maybe it will be different for you. Even if porn offsets progress, you can always go back to abstaining. So I wouldn't sweat it too much. That's not bad considering you were watching it as an experiment, which is not the most attractive scenario to watch porn in. Do you feel the 8 day abstinence has made some sort of difference?

A lot of times people get nervous or feel like they're under lots of pressure to perform well during the sex, which turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Did you feel nervous around her? Were you able to be playful around her or were you mostly serious? Is your libido still dead even with porn? That seems out of the ordinary to me, that it really just vanished like that. It might even be that, you were nervous the first time, and now you are so fixated on that experience that every time you try to engage in a sexual experience you're just reminded of that experience and it makes you feel nervous and lose libido. Like I said, the psychological aspect is big. If possible, you can even edge yourself to porn before meeting her to get your head in the game. Maybe you weren't in the mood or weren't in the right headspace, this can help with that. If not, it might be some odd temporary phase. Give it a week or two and see how it gets better or worse. Our bodies are constantly trying to maintain balance, and reaching that balance might take a bit.

I'm sure this is the cause then. Do you think something triggered it? Or did it sort of gradually become worse? Do you also have any lingering feelings of anxiety, or is it just a very neutral state of anhedonia? Are you able to be calm? What's your diet like, then? What do you usually eat? Do you eat a lot? Maybe not, since there's not much pleasure?

Have you been especially depressed recently? Or especially stressed? Are you getting enough sleep? Any big changes in diet? A lot of libido really just comes down to your psychology and how you feel mentally. Have the 8 days of abstinence helped at all?

You feel like your libido has died since doing 8 days of no fap? Is that correct? I've had the same thing happen after 30 days. They call it a "flatline" in the no-fap community, the frequency at which it happens is uncertain.

These look like seizures. You can see this streamer having one, and looking back behind him in the same way (there is screaming and panic in the video so be warned):

Can't wait for my hyper-intelligent shapeshifting kitty awakening

Somewhat unrelated, but interesting synchronicity that Leo and Teal Swan's new video that day had the exact same type of thumbnail, planet Earth with an eye sticking out.

I would rather this than normal TV. Maybe I was meant to be a cat.

It's definitely worth exploring. Let's see if you come to a similar answer then.

I get what you mean. The word "trust" implies a possibility for fault. There is no fault in perfection, therefore it is somewhat inaccurate to call it trust. There's no need for trust at that point, because you already know it to be true and perfect.

That's fair. It's also possible that you are misinterpreting some parts of Buddhism to be at odds with what Leo is saying. This happens a lot in spiritual work, because relative and absolute ideas often mesh together and get conflated. You have to be able to look at it with a certain level of nuance, because often times reality behaves paradoxically, and it will actually behave two ways at once, but one way will be at a relative level whereas the other way will be at a more absolute and holistic level, and then whatever text you're reading might only focus on one of those aspects in a certain sentence. This, for example. Attachments are imaginary, but they can still "matter" because you can be in a state where you are not conscious that they are imaginary. You've also placed imagination on some hierarchy, and on that hierarchy imagination isn't supposed to "matter". Imagination is still an aspect of reality, and thus it is as real as the rest of reality. One part of reality can't be less real than the other. A big trap is seeing imagination as something "lesser" than the rest of reality. Imagination simply is what it is, and it functions a certain way. All you have to really do is become conscious of how imagination works, not denigrate it. The denigration of imagination is a big trap in this work, people start to feel guilty engaging in imagination because they believe it is "wrong" or "illusory". The real question is, are you able to discern what is or isn't imagination? If you can, then that means that you are consciously engaging in imagination, and there is nothing really wrong with that. What is meant to be avoided is unconsciously engaging in imagination, which is being unaware that certain aspects of reality are imagination. Buddhism has a different way of teaching about God, Just as the Qur'an does, and just as Leo does. Actually, as you've probably noticed, Buddhism doesn't use the word God, but rather tries to describe its qualities in other ways. These spiritual texts still have more in common than not in common, although it does seem Leo is starting to try and distance himself from these formal teachings. His main gripe seems to be that Buddhism is much too focused on certain states of consciousness, like "nothingness" and "non-attachment". For example, you're not gonna find a mouse-shapeshifting experience in Buddhist text. Yes, you cannot fully describe something that is infinite. All explanations of God are by definition partial because every explanation requires another explanation and so on, forever. "Description" is inherently a finite activity. The absolute is too infinite to be encapsulated in a description. Words and symbols can only point you towards certain aspects of reality. They are pointers, not the absolute experience itself. They can only lead you to understanding. The absolute encapsulates everything. Even your imagination of what could be beyond the absolute, is part of the absolute. That is what it means to be God, or infinity, or absolute. All the different sizes of infinities are included within God or the Infinity that Leo refers to. I believe the idea of many infinities is a misconception created from his "Infinity of Gods" video. From what I can tell, Leo is not actually making a metaphysical claim that he encountered another absolute infinity, but rather that, once he encountered what seemed to be another absolute infinity, he immediately became conscious that that infinity is actually a part of his infinity, and so it is all actually one absolute infinity. Like I said, it seems to be a different way of describing the "you" vs "other" phenomena, just described through the lens of his new awakening experience. Admittedly, it is a confusing video. At least to me. Maybe because of the somewhat paradoxical nature of his experience.

Who leaked this segment from the mod agreement?

Because "others" is based on a duality between "you" and something "other than you". A paradox is created when you try to describe something that is infinite with something that is too finite to describe it. For example: The next sentence is true. The previous sentence is false. The fact of the matter is, both sentences are true and false. In this case, it's infinite in the sense that it doesn't need to be limited to only "true" or "false", it can be both at the same time. Another example is an experience of nothingness. Trying to imagine nothingness is a paradox to the finite mind, because the mind can only imagine in finitudes, whereas nothingness is infinite. It is true that aspects of reality are genuinely paradoxical, in the sense that they will carry 2 seemingly opposite finite characteristics at once. Paradox does not mean impossible, though. Paradoxes still exist, they just can't be properly described through finite means. I am saying that "multiple consciousnesses" is metaphysically impossible, not that it is a paradox. Here are the reasons as to why it is impossible: 1. All separation is finite 2. Consciousness is infinite 2. Consciousness is prior to imagination I have gone and rewatched some of Leo's video, and I was actually misinterpreting what he said. I thought he was making the metaphysical claim that consciousness can be separated from consciousness, but rather, he is pointing to the experience of "multiple minds" within one consciousness. He is essentially using his new experience to describe how "others" can fit into one conscious experience. The main gist is this: Even if other absolute sovereign consciousnesses exist, you will never be able to verify it because that is inherent to being an absolute sovereign consciousness, and this also applies to all other absolute sovereign consciousnesses. They will only ever exist through your imagination, otherwise their existence steps into your experience, and thus becomes a part of your existence. It is basically his solipsism video, just reworded in a different way, perhaps an even more precise and holistic way. Even if we assume there are, notice that they can only ever be perceived through imagination, otherwise they are simply another aspect of your single conscious experience. There is no getting around this. You have to imagine "another experience outside of your current experience", and that imagination is within your experience, and your experience always contains the imagination of other experiences. If you were to experience another experience, that is still within this single experience. It is only "another" experience relative to an imagined separation between "you" and "another". "meta-plane of existence" is just another way of saying imagination. It's something you are not experiencing outside of your imagination, so therefore you call it "meta", because you are imagining some other plane of existence which is not visible to you right now. This is basically the whole "do others exist?" question, but Leo has replaced "other" with "separate absolute infinity". One experience is all it really needs to spawn "others". There is one experience, and then there is the perception of multiple experiences created from within that one experience through imagined dualities. There is one experience, but it is possible to perceive multiple experiences from within that one experience by imagining yourself to be separate from certain aspects of reality. The "multiple experiences" come from your ego's perception of reality. You really just have to come to the present moment and ask yourself: "How am I perceiving "other experiences" when I only have access to this one single experience?" This is similar to how "past" and "future" is all perceived from within one experience. It's the same mechanism. You imagine "past" and "future" from within the present moment, and so the "past" and "future" are actually ultimately happening from this present experience. You could also flip the logic here on its head and say that "why shouldn't God not give birth to itself only once?". If you don't allow God to give birth only once, that's a limitation you're putting on God.