The observer

@lmfao Thanks! This is a great thread, I absolutely relate to it. And yes, I would say I'm more lexical than impressionistic in this specific phase of my life as I used to struggle so much with articulating my thoughts. Recently, I started shifting from vague expressions to accurate descriptions because I thought it was limiting my communication, especially here. Somehow, I get how impressionists think, relate, and express their thoughts but I have to say when trying to pose a theory, it's generally better to express it in a detailed objective manner than in an artistic intuitive manner. The receivers will understand/interpret your theory differently to each other, so by being lexical at least you guarantee that you are being as objective as possible but then the interpretations which are out of your hands will differ, some will understand your theory like you intended and some won't. Lexical expression gives smaller room for interpretation and thus makes the communication of models more effective. Of course, some people (whether lexical or impressionists) are able to understand and get how impressionists express their thoughts/theories, and that's great. But there's a bigger risk of misinterpretation, at least in our modern times as we're generally more used to the scientific approach. I will watch the video and perhaps give my feedback here. Thanks again.

@VeganAwake ?

In the Abrahamic religions, there is one supreme being which is the ultimate God. Figures like the old man in the sky are metaphors for this. He is necessarily one and only one. He is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient. He is necessarily loving and merciful. He is necessarily infinitely wise. And he is tough on the sinners as well. I think Leo is somehow getting convinced of that idea. Nothing wrong with that per se. But I would say that there might be a problem of unawareness. He seems to take his understanding for Absolute Truth when it is, in fact, a mere understanding i.e. concepts. To contrast that, Leo used to believe that God is one with all beings and that every single point of view is infinite God. Again, nothing wrong with that. But he also seemed to have taken this understanding for Absolute Truth. He always does that as he's an INFP/INTP (not sure which one, but probably the latter). So, basically, he is not bringing anything new to the table. These ideas have been discussed and debated upon for thousands of years. It's just a matter of perspective. You can think of God as one infinite being, which then you must end up worshipping, chasing, seeking, etc... basically like most religions do. And you can collapse that dualistic thought and end your seeking once and for all like the Advaitas do. There are no rights or wrongs here. And no one has a choice, really, for that matter. This is just a possible meta view of what's going on within the minds of human beings and how they lose their truths as part of their communication. Every individual human being has their own truths. When they mistake them for universal truths, they start telling others that they are doing things wrong and that they should change and correct their erring ways. And so the clash between certainty and uncertainty begins. Certain people, like Leo, Jesus, Mohammad, etc... start preaching their own truths. People reject them at first, but then they insist. This insistence creates fear and uncertainty in the receiving side, and adds power to the preaching side. Nothing wrong with that. Just trying to give an oversimplified reading/overview of how I perceive things to work. So then gradually the receivers become blind followers, and then the leaders die and the followers preserve their positions. They refuse to evolve, because they're not seeking change. And so, they become out of touch with reality. This separation creates suffering in the world. And that suffering, somehow, creates another leader that gets to the roots of being and then tries to shape the world in a new better order. This cycle will keep going on forever without meta views, which I'm providing here. Not that my meta view is the only correct one, but that going meta creates awareness of the dynamics at work. God is everything, including meta views, so there's no way for expecting what's next. We're all really just affecting reality in our own unique ways. We're simply altering/veering reality in the ways It allows us to do.

Love this!

There's no self to bypass anything. That's the trick. The whole notion of spiritual (or non-spiritual) bypassing stems from ego trying to control the narrative. There will still be bypassing until you realise that it's illusory. At which point you will be liberated.

@UnconsciousHuman I don't know, man. If I were to create a model like this, I wouldn't say that Orange would be looking to prove everyone else wrong, and show that they are right. Instead, I would say that they would use proof, logic, reason, and rationality as their core values and main principles. To me, taking this position or any other positions is irrelevant to being open-minded and the desire to be right. Sure, they can intersect at times, but I would view them, generally speaking, as parallel to each other and not so much related as that can be the case at any other stage. If this is still out of context with your thread, then I apologise and wish you a good day/night because I am done here.

No, it is not. I mean, sure, the appearance seems like limitation but where are the limits exactly? Really. What is a distinction but another arbitrary distinction (mind, imagination, illusion, etc...)? And just like with fear, look closer and it disappears. You see the sleight of hand? Creating something out of nothing. The formed is, in fact, completely formless, but thought/distinction makes it looks like it's not. That's exactly why form = formlessness. Once you think of distinctions, they get created and you see form. Once you stop thinking of them, they disappear and that's formlessness. Formlessness is not the absence of form. It is the absence of distinction. A distinction is not actually a thing. It does not actually exist unless you allow it to do. As long as you are able to make distinctions, you are living in form. When you move to no-mind/no-thought/no-distinction, you will abide in the formless. One way to achieve this is to surrender everything, including all questions and desires. As long as you accept reality as it is, you are one with it. Once you start resisting/minding/desiring/seeking/questioning again, you create distinction and you separate yourself. This is all illusory and part of the communication process. None of it is actually true. Form cannot be killed either, because life vs. death is an arbitrary duality. This, again, is dualistic language. You can't compare yourself to yourself unless you believe that you are not who you are. In which case, you would be operating from the dualistic mind. However, if you truly believed in duality, and that's your right, then that would mean that there is an external God which you/Leo deny and which the Abrahamic religions worship. Which side are you on right now? You're either pantheistic or monotheistic. You can't be both.

@UnconsciousHuman Okay, I think I get that. But regarding Orange people, you're giving them only one characteristic which is the desire to be right. I don't think that's accurate. I think anyone at tier one regardless of their stage would want to be right, and that desire declines as one moves up to Green until they reach tier two where one stops caring at all about being right or wrong and they become "completely" objective in a sense.

@UnconsciousHuman I hope you will like the suggestions I've made below. . RED: You are looking for ways to develop power and go about it in an impulsive manner. (Trolling, belittling, hating etc...) +RED: YOU ARE LOOKING FOR YOUR OWN INTERESTS WITHOUT CONSIDERING OTHER PEOPLE AT ALL (YOU DON'T SHOW RESPECT OR ANY EMOTIONS, YOU DON'T THANK PEOPLE AFTER GETTING WHAT YOU WANTED). +RED: YOU ARE INTENTIONALITY AIMING AT TRIGGERING OTHERS BY USING SNEAKY MANIPULATIVE LANGUAGE. BLUE: You are here to conform, belong, create ideology, follow rigid rules, and preserve principles. +BLUE: YOU ARE HERE TO SPREAD YOUR WORLDVIEW WHATEVER IT IS. +BLUE: YOU ARE NOT OPEN TO THE POSSIBILITY OF SOMETHING OUTSIDE YOUR CURRENT PERCEPTION AND UNDERSTANDING. ORANGE: You are looking to prove everyone else wrong, and show that you are right. (ACCORDING TO LOGIC/RATIONALITY). +ORANGE: YOU ARE LOOKING FOR PRACTICAL ADVICE. +ORANGE: YOU ARE SEEKING TO IMPROVE YOUR COMMUNICATION SKILLS. +ORANGE: YOU ARE USING THE FORUM AS A TOOL FOR MARKETING YOUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL, WEBSITE, OR BUSINESS. GREEN: You want to contribute to the forum community, connect, bond, and help individuals as well as receive guidance. +GREEN: YOU ARE HERE TO SPREAD HUMANITARIAN VALUES. (INTERSECTION WITH BLUE).

@Consept And I agree. It's good to see this subject being discussed. No one said it should be perfect. We're just stating possibilities for more comprehensiveness. Like for example, someone at stage Orange does not exclusively seek to prove his worldview. He could be looking for practical solutions to some problems he's having without necessarily having to be systematic about them. That's just one thought for expanding the model. Nothing is perfect, yet it does not hurt to try to get closer to perfection. Especially that the OP seems to value accuracy and to be open. It's really good to see him open because then we can offer him our expertise on how to best be open without wasting years of his time (like I did) going about open-mindedness in the wrong direction. Of course, all of our experiences are limited by nature, but what isn't?

@Shiva99 Possible causes: Lack of vision. Lack of direction. Overthinking. FOMO: fear of missing out. Lack of disciplined, passionate, and purpose-driven friends. Lack of alignment with your core values. Lack of expression of your true feelings (e.g. through a journal). Might be some basic stuff like diet, lack of fresh air, lack of sleep, bad postures, or unorganised lifestyle. Addiction. Victim's mindset.

What's the difference? Becoming more solipsistic and nihilistic? And why would you assume that I've not realised God yet?

What work? And would I die if I don't do it? Great then! We're going down the same road. Also, I'm quarantined, fasting for Ramadan, and bored. Can't I just have a little fun with you? Happy birthday, Leo.

Of course, there's nothing personal about anything. Personal is illusory, as is choice. To put it another way, let's just say you were unaligned with God's will (even though that's technically false), and now you are. (I've been there too ?)

Okay. I know this probably sounds basic to you Leo, but the depth of awakening is infinite, right? Isn't infinitely chasing awakening just another form of God? God is free to seek and chase forever and He will still be God. As well, if God drops seeking once and for all, He's also still God. The difference sounds relative to me. There isn't an objective to God because God is Its own objective. For me, letting go of the chase wasn't so difficult. Desire is equal to identifying with imagination. I have very little desire so probably that's why. I don't know why I'm saying this maybe I'm trying to change your mind. I should just stop haha.

I wouldn't say you're wrong, just limiting yourself. We've agreed that there's no right or wrong in SD. And sure, you have valid points, no one is denying that. I would say your model is correct but not quite comprehensive, that's all. I think your model could use some optimisations, and people here are offering you that. It's not my agenda. These are just my observations which are basically projections in the form of thoughts which then were typed by me as "possibilities" and then got interpreted by you as "agenda" probably because of the attachment you have to your model. Not that the attachment is bad or wrong. Again, just limiting in certain ways. I mean me and others who you are arguing with. We're not here to argue, prove, or disprove anything. We don't know you in person and we have no stakes in this game. We're just sharing our thoughts. Yes, perhaps you could sometimes find some people who are looking to condescend your views (Orange and below, according to your model) but it's not likely here on this platform, and also since the different perspectives are multiple and agreeing on a core issue which is that there's more than just one simple way to interpret intentions, then that should ring some bells for you that they probably have a valid perspective and not just trying to prove your model wrong. I would say just try reading all the comments again from a non-attached place and see how different things can be. I think others have offered good insights. If you don't think so, then how can I make any difference? You see the paradox? You don't know until you know. But then how can you know? Sounds impossible, right? But not really. If you've never been to Paris, you don't know Paris yet but you know some other places. How do you get to know Paris while staying in New York? You can't, you see. You have to leave New York and come visit Paris. In other words, you have to let go of your perspective temporarily and try other ones.

This is circular reasoning (early Orange and below). You're proving your model is true according to your model. You're dismissing all outside insights and putting them all in one category: "wrong". Our insights are not necessarily to prove or disprove your model, they're just observations from multiple subjective points of view. And I'm sure we're not on the same page when we say "approach". You probably mean intention but we mean the way this intention is manifesting in the real world. You can't have an objective view if you keep denying different ways of interpretation. Accuracy is not usually gained by circular reasoning but by open-mindedness and careful observation. I would look into the mechanics of creating models before starting to make conclusions. This sounds like a late Green/early Yellow approach which is great in terms of SD.

@UnconsciousHuman I think your approach here is Blue/Orange. You seem eager to prove your model is true and universal and you don't seem to be able to get what others are trying to say but rather you're conveniently deflecting and denying every other way of viewing or talking about your model. I think @lmfaomade a good point. It's not just about the model itself, it's also about how you relate to it.

But Leo, haven't you watched your Absolute Infinity series? ? I mean, of course, a human being is a different form than a toilet paper but that's just appearance. Aren't they both infinite in essence? Where does the human begin and the toilet paper end? Besides, aren't there infinite depths to the being of form? Like for example infinite zooming capacity (cells, organelles, atoms, quarks, strings, etc...). The forms do change, obviously, but the change is an infinite chain, so every single form (appearance) is fundamentally both finite and infinite at the same time, regardless of what state of consciousness it is in. Right?

There's no luck, but there is gratitude or jealousy. A grateful person is unable to feel jealous and cannot fathom gratitude from a jealous person's perspective. And vice-versa for a jealous person. Jealousy is not a problem for the jealous, they're comfortable being devils, they're comfortable being themselves. Ignorance is bliss. However, when a devil awakens to his devilry, it's like when a vampire comes out to light. He has to burn in order to become pure, so he pays for it by dying. There's nothing new about this, it's just evolution and giving birth to new form. Labour has never been an easy task. Some things have to die in order to make way for new things. There's nothing bad about jealousy per se. It's rather simply 'outdated'. You're where you are because you've paid for it. No one point of view is actually better than any other. It's just a matter of perspective.

That you are just a limited human being and not infinite God. You used to deny that, and I don't mean it like that, of course you had a deeper understanding than them, but the point still stands. It's like you've come back to square one after a long ride.

Do you realise that many people have been literally saying this to you for the last 3-4 years? Do you remember how you used to answer us? What's changed? You seemed to have broken out of the limitations of logic (the mind), so why limit yourself again?

Reading patterns is no ordinary thing. Some people are simply gifted. That's what differentiates between explicit-oriented and implicit-oriented minds. If you are able to read between the lines, man, you are gifted with quite a power! Most people get lost in the appearances and overlook the essence, which certainly has incredible power too. Being immersed in the content makes you forget (unaware of) the context. Your survival (pragmatism) hinges upon being immersed in the content. Then again, the quality of your life (well-being/inner peace) is determined by the degree of your awareness, i.e. of the context. So, apparently, both work hand in hand to create the best life. Although, ultimately the truth is that neither of them really has an effect on anything since causality is an illusion. But, hey, enjoy the illusion while you can.

Well, somebody had to do it. ?

how is form finite? where are the limits exactly? can u point to them? or are u just imagining limitations?