Gesundheit

Perhaps change the narrative from "none of that actually happened" to "that is an interesting story and I'd like to hear more". What's the "it" that makes you realize that you're really just it? And how do you distinguish between a thought about the past and a random thought about nothing in particular like a pink elephant with three eyes jumping on one leg?

It's something you experience after you've had enough sleep, or after your father freshens you up with his almighty glass of water thrown at your face ?

My hypothesis regarding chakras is that they're the circulating blood within arteries. The pulsation supports this hypothesis. So, yes, they could be physical nodes or something like that.

I meant damage caused by aggression, like a gunshot. Clearly, I did not mean post-modernism.

As long as there is doubt, there is no enlightenment.

Of course, it will happen, in the future.

Teal is stuck at stage Green/Pluralist. She lacks nuance/systems thinking, and bigger picture understanding/holism. She has not surrendered to God and is unaware of absolute truth/infinite intelligence/infinite love. These are just right off the bat. Now, to the video: Her main argument was basically about how some people tend to repress/suppress themselves, and that that's somehow related to spirituality. She equated spirituality with religion and demonized them both altogether. I don't know the specific sources she's implying, but I have never up until this day come across anything that promotes suppression except religion/stage Blue. I mean if I am to take her perspective at face value. If I am to go deeper, then she should watch Leo's video: Why Libertarianism Is Nonsense because her views are actually nothing but a libertarian's pipe dream. Anyway, back to the point, nobody within spirituality that I have come across demonizes humanness. Maybe some radicals do, but who really cares about them? They're less than a minority. The subtle distinction here is not to demonize humanness, but to recognize the delusions within it (whatever that is, and I'm assuming you've probably cringed from reading this, but I won't be discussing human delusions here). And then Awareness Alone Is Curative. But to be ignorant and accept human delusions as truth is foolish and a sign of lack of insight. That is what actually causes suffering, not spirituality like she's claiming. Spirituality is the removal of human delusions, and therefore the removal of suffering. To accept all human delusions as fine means to allow and encourage murder, theft, violence, wars, rape, racism, addictions, etc... She's very naive to even suggest such a perspective. There's a nuance that she's missing, and that is the lines we can draw on certain things. She doesn't want to limit any human expression, well, how do you respond to something like that other than with a slap on the face to remind her of the power of absolute freedom? I mean you gotta do something, because if you don't, someone else will, and they will do it rather ruthlessly, to the point of no-return. They won't be looking out for her best interests like you are. They will be looking for their own best interests even if that means stepping on her, to put it lightly. She's unaware of the dangers of the kind of freedom she's advocating. A little imagination is all you need to see that freedom = chaos, and that chaos = suffering. Humans are the most dangerous species. And only a hippie would be naive enough to think about allowing all human expressions. I actually typed many other points/critiques but then I accidentally pressed back and they were gone, so I'm not gonna remake this any further. If anything comes up as I'm discussing I'll bring it forth, but for now I'm pissed and done. P.S. This would have made a good thread in the enlightenment section.

Correct, except that there's no me that does any of that.

It depends. When discussing enlightenment, there's no way I'm going to play with my values. Truth always comes first. In other discussions, of course, I try my best to balance.

Haven't perceived any aggression. You're still moderate, I would say, compared to the rest here. It depends on you more than it depends on it. Some aggression can be destructive. And that's the whole point, because psychologically, deconstruction has a huge value, similar to construction. Enlightenment removes the person, and there's no easy way to do that. Life throws harsh challenges onto people, randomly so to speak. If you're too soft, you won't be able to handle them very well, and you will get hurt psychologically, which will make you either question your current self and grow, or cling to it and stay stuck and form a shadow. Physically, however, deconstruction is not always beneficial. But challenge is necessary to make a more functional, healthier, and stronger body. Obviously, if you want to become healthier, you go to the gym and challenge the limitations of your current body.

You're paradigm-locked and have no clue about me. But yes, the practices you suggested are good and I do them. In fact, I just returned from a 2 hours of walking meditation session.

Noted, although I don't believe that will be the case for me. Who knows? We'll see. You're looking at the details but not connecting the dots properly. I said that helping people is a compulsive behavior of mine, and I also said that I do prefer this style of communication. You're assuming that my style is somehow connected with the compulsion, and that's correct, but the way you're connecting the two issues is wrong. In my top 10 values, truth and practicality are the top 2, with truth in the lead. So, if when I am faced with a situation where I have to choose between truth or practicality, I will choose truth, because I believe that it's the way to go. While practicality might seem tempting to a lot of people, it only serves as a crutch and a sedative for the actual problem. It doesn't address the real underlying issue of lack of completeness. Truth, on the other hand, promotes healing on the long term, even though it won't be an easy pill to swallow. So if I am aligned with my top values, I will be blunt instead of comforting. When I am comforting others, I'm actually being a hypocrite with myself. And I have done that before, but not anymore.

Absolutely. For the sake of simplicity, I will say for me, yes. But for others, it may be something else. The language used in the question is a can of worms, so I just answered from a face value level.

mandyjw is just wjydnam spelled backwards. signal is just langis spelled backwards. backwards is just sdrawkcab spelled backwards. Nothing significant about any of them.

The need for closeness is due to the lack of self-love/enlightenment, which is ultimately a delusion, and it won't go away with comforting. In fact, it will only get worse. Comforting is like a painkiller. It only gives you temporary relief, but never addresses the real problem. Moreover, the path towards liberation requires going through hardships that are uncomfortable for the ego. That's why I said that people here are too soft for enlightenment, because the truth is harsh, and there's no way around that. I'm critiquing someone that doesn't even exist. But some people think that they do exist, hence all the butt hurting.

There are signs/signals that I can receive, but not emit.

That's just your paradigm. And it's not true in my experience. A person who is truly interested in growing will not take anything personally. I have worked with friends and family members on resolving certain issues, and the directness was most appreciated. In fact, I was asked specifically for that particular reason. Why? Because they were sincerely interested in growing. Contradiction is inherent in growth, because, by definition, here is not there. I am trying to move from here (compulsively helping people), to there (sitting alone and enjoying inner stillness/enlightenment).

Some people are genuinely straight out freak geniuses. I have met people who possess exceptional wit that I cannot even begin to fathom. Leo surely falls somewhere on the spectrum. Unfortunately, I don't know how to approach this question because I am not one of them.

Why do you make a distinction between the two? Emotions are the reason why I implement my strategies, just like anyone does. Of course, you can add nuance to the strategy, and I do use nuance sometimes. Have you read all my 3058 posts? Then again, even with all the nuances in the world, there's still no guarantee. Some people will perceive things in the most unexpected ways. This is important to realize, because the ego does not possess infinite intelligence even though it might think it does. All in all, and on the most fundamental level, I don't really want to be here helping people. It's a compulsive curse and an addiction that I have and am trying to get rid of. So, yeah, becoming the best communicator is not my most desired goal.

Interesting. The thing is that there's no guarantee either way. You could be extremely soft and careful, and still not make a difference. In fact, being indirect can be counterproductive sometimes as opposed to being direct. Directness does not miss the point. It points to it directly. Plus, it weeds out people who are not actually interested in moving forward, and who lack in self-love. On a self-development forum, I expect everyone to be growth-oriented. So, my technique should be working with 100% effectiveness. Yet, the reality is different. And not everyone is genuinely interested in growing. Says who? Who decides health in this case? Maybe the healthiest people are the ones who actually gravitate towards me. Maybe only the weak ones will go away. I mean, if we define health as strength.

Some of us don't know and deny that, though.

I know what you mean, but God is the devil. Nothing can be more or less God than it currently is. After all, who's choosing the standards?

@AdamR95 Well, the truth is that there's no objective way we can measure our development. You can't really say that someone is more developed than someone else without a set of criteria to contrast everyone against first. Consider that all growth/development is relative. It makes a lot more sense this way. Yet, in practice, someone who is more developed in a certain area can see the lack of development in others. However, this will only be an assumption and can only be verified by the other person. If the other person denies that assumption, there's no way to prove it to them, in practice. You can tell them that they're closed-minded or something like that, but then what's the point? Who's to say what's better? What if being closed-minded is more useful to them than being open-minded, at least in that particular area? So, at this point, you start to question the value of open-mindedness and how it's ultimately just another subjective criterion that you've made and favored above others so that you can call yourself "more developed". You probably know what I'm talking about, because you told me previously that I am chasing my tail, and that's correct in a sense. In another sense, I am not completely satisfied with my current situation, so I will keep chasing my tail until I am. That being said, not everyone recognizes that, but that's ultimately what I want to share with others. But people clinging to their identities stands in the way, so here we are. Then again, I recognize that it's all meaningless in the end. Thanks for your feedback, anyway.

I'm sorry, but I don't consider any of that aggressive. Yes, I know that I don't take other people's emotions into consideration when I talk. To be frank, part of that I do on purpose. People cling to their identities through emotions, and I purposefully try to trigger people's emotions which in turn will bring out their shadows and attachments. I do that to alert them and push them further on the path. That's part of my curse when it extends out to others. Some people will benefit from this if they're open to it and ready, but some people won't and will react and go into self-defence mode. It's a risky practice, but it can also be extremely rewarding if one is open to it and willing to grow. Don't get me wrong, though. I don't do that to avoid looking inwards, I actually do the same thing with myself, even more harshly, and attribute most of my growth to this one practice. You may not believe this, but what you've read so far is kindergarten compared to how harsh I can be. I am more careful with others than with myself, and with women I'm extra careful. It's kind of frustrating when I am told that I am a misogynist, because I am actually trying to help.