Gesundheit

This issue is unclear in Spiral Dynamics. The 9 Stages Of Ego Development addresses it better as a conflict between values and cognitive development that happens at the pluralist/individualist level. Here, a screenshot from Cook-Greuter's paper talking exactly about this particular issue: Y'all should really study something beyond Spiral Dynamics, or else you're gonna be left behind.

See, this is exactly what I'm disagreeing with. They "can"? Seriously, dude, WTF? Pain and discomfort here are not a possibility. They're an inevitability. Rape and torture don't feel good in the moment, and there's no way I can agree that they do. Unless you're in a certain temporary high state, you will suffer severely in the process. What you do afterwards is none of my concerns here. What I'm talking about is the actual uncomfortable situations that don't feel good to the body. Let the mind out of the equation for now and focus on the body for a moment. Where's happiness as my true nature when I'm depressed? Where's infinite love as God's true nature when I'm suffering? You see, these things are unicornical because even if you don't think about the pain, they'll still be painful. In fact, I would argue that pain is the biggest source of thoughts, which adds more suffering on top of the original pain. The thing y'all don't seem to understand is that it's not because you're somehow special that you were able to overcome your sexual abuse/traumatic past/whatever. It's probably because you have a comfortable life right now that you would be a fool to suffer otherwise. Because what's the point of suffering a traumatic past when you can simply move past it and enjoy yourself in the moment? Enlightenment work helps, granted. I myself have transcended a lot of my unnecessary suffering through awakening. I don't see a point in whining or complaining about past suffering. But again, I am not talking about a past suffering, nor about a future concern. I am talking about suffering in the present moment. My grandma used to have multiple illnesses that would make her cry every single day for nearly a decade, and there was nothing we could do about it except giving her pointless medications, until she died. She would always cry and scream what did I do to deserve all that? I do realize that part of her suffering was psychological, but dude what about the physical? Why should anyone go through that? If that still doesn't cut it for you, I'm sure if you were her, you would be the same. Your circumstances might have lead you to realize the power of the mind, while hers didn't. So I can't really blame her for the unnecessary suffering she was causing to herself. She wasn't enlightened in any way, but she didn't know any better. However, my point still stands that if it wasn't for her malfunctioning body, then she would have suffered a lot less. And that's the whole point. If all suffering was invented, then it would have been a lot easier. But some of it is inherent in reality, which makes reality not happiness, and not love.

@Snader These people don't think they're giving practical advice. They think it's absolute truth, which is what I'm disagreeing with here. Otherwise, have at it. I have no problems with practical advice whatsoever. Btw, I don't recall OP asking for advice.

German articles drive me crazy! Thanks for the info. I just added Latin to my list. I would appreciate your input on Chinese.

Sleep early, seriously.

God.

Lol I sure don't. But perhaps you think philosophizing is a good thing? I don't hold a value judgement on philosophy. It's just what it is, and it happens. Well, then, explain some of the naive replies here. And explain infinite love in practice, outside of philosophy.

Yep. It is an ideology. This shows the limited nature of language. The truth is that ideology is inevitable in the human condition. You can't be a sane human without thinking. Thoughts = ideas = ideology.

Yourself. Women are just human beings, and so are you. Nothing more special or sophisticated about them than you or the people you know. Deeply understand yourself, and you will understand everyone, even deeper than they do. Of course, use outside resources for help. Be open-minded. Collect understanding from everywhere. Generally, when women give advice for men, they will generally tell you relationship advice, what they want in a relationship, and how they want you to be behaving to maintain that relationship. But they don't tell you attraction advice, how to get a relationship started, or how to get them wet. For some reasons, they expect you to know all that stuff already. So, understanding the biases of your sources is important. This is a high quality conversation. Check it out.

God is dangerous, and It is safe, too.

Lol there is no such thing as consciousness. If you can't point to it, then how is your question different from: How can we be sure that otrfhuf is not generated by the brain?

I always say it's easy to talk philosophy as long as you're living a comfortable life. But what happens when someone comes and rapes and tortures you? All of the sudden, you'll be suffering and in pain. All of these unicornical ideas about happiness and peace of mind will fly out of the window. And you will be left with hatred towards life and God and everything. Hippies on drugs won't understand, because the high effect is stronger. But drugs don't last forever.

I will not allow your dumb question to ruin my happiness

@Sempiternity Control is a relative notion. It does not apply to God. Inquire as to how the ego seems to be having control, and notice that it's just a mirage. It's just thoughts about control, but not really control. And the thoughts themselves are not under the ego's control, even though they may appear to be. What is control?

You guys ruin the inquiry the moment you start referring to consciousness as the human consciousness. This term "consciousness" is extremely problematic. Just throw it out of the window. Due to that epistemic mistake, what you're suggesting here is not very far from solipsism. It's just a polymer of solipsistic individuals, without a shared objective reality to ground all of their POVs, which leaves some very important questions unanswered, such as: How is existence possible? How is otherness possible? And what happens when one of the POVs dies or gets dissected?

You say that you as God should be able to control the dream, but you don't realize that God is already controlling it from the beginning, and that that's just ego going against God's will in appearance, while, in fact, both reality and the appearance are still under God's control and follow his will.

It's a state of mind that that can be easily achieved with a healthy human body & mind. But otherwise, the hardest thing to get. It has absolutely nothing to do with any material possessions or other people or the outside world.

Well, one of the best solutions is to treat each person as an individual person that has nothing to do with any other person. This makes it easier to understand others and form deeper connections with them, instead of building walls and using experience as a way to maintain fear or even create more fear. Don't let a few bad examples shape the rest of your life. Learn from your mistakes, but also be positive, forgive, and move on. And ideally, work on overcoming fear in general.

Earlier tonight, I had my first awakening, ever, of The Self. That's new to me. Before this, I've only known about it and understood it in theory, since I've already awakened to no-self and have had many Samadhi experiences with it, and due to the fact that both types are identical in non-duality. I've awakened to multiple facets consecutively, but I'm not sure about labelling them correctly. I'll try to list all the differences & similarities that I've noticed between the two types of awakening: Perhaps the most important and clear difference between the two is that with no-self awakenings, there's no self to experience anything. So, awakening occurs, but there's no self to register that it's an awakening. It happens without a perceiver so to speak. It feels empty. And you only realize it was an awakening in retrospect when you think about it later. The Self awakening, however, has an Omnipresence component in it. You're there, and you become completely present that your awareness extends beyond the human experience. You know that it's an awakening during too, and not only afterwards. Self awakening is an awakening to the everythingness of reality, while no-self is an awakening to the empty container of the illusion. I am everywhere vs. I am nowhere. I am everything vs. I am nothing. Of course, these dualities collapsed during the awakening. Both carry the sense of ultimate peace within them, aka Samadhi experience. Peaceful fearlessness. Everything is me. I don't even exist. What is there to fear? The path towards no-self awakenings is different from the path towards Self awakenings. Recently, I started embracing the ego instead of trying to diminish it. I think that's what yielded in my awakenings tonight. The recent events that have been happening to me and how I have been reacting to them, I've faced all of that directly tonight. And I was able to overcome and transcend it. While in no-self awakenings, there's no facing of events or fears or anything. Instead, they're more about direct letting go, kinda like bypassing, but not really bypassing cuz there's a progress being made. Both aren't just temporary states of consciousness. They're actual awakenings that can be locked down permanently, with spiritual work. The awakening experience fades away, but it leaves marks. I use the word awakening for the things that can be permanently obtained, realistically. There is definitely progress regarding these awakenings, as opposed to "infinite love awakenings" or what I call: Narcissistic Delusions (which I have personally experienced naturally, in different facets, at different times, and for prolonged periods of time). I used the quotation marks to highlight the fact that these "awakenings", as great and healing as they may feel, but they're just temporary states of consciousness that cannot ever be locked down permanently. They're simply elated emotional states. They don't have an absolute truth component to them because they're limited to the human condition. They have the component of Omniscience, which is utterly delusional. While none of that applies to Self and no-self awakenings. And still, Self and no-self awakenings have healing properties, because of the accompanying Samadhi experience.

There is no self to be reincarnated. The self is a fabrication.

The solipsism confusion is the silliest one I've ever come across. I mean, why do people only assume that it's either black or white? Really, let this sink in. Why assume that the question has only two possible answers? Either everyone is conscious, or it's only you? What if there are only two conscious beings? Or only three? Or only four? Or only five? Or whatever number that isn't 1 or everyone? Can you see how your mind is playing a biased game here against you? Just to trigger your worst fears, because you can't stand being alone. At least with my approach, you will end up in not-knowing, which is a better place than loneliness.

He died and left no trace.

@Emerald Please stop painting women's sexuality as something more special and sophisticated than men's. We're all just human beings with human emotions/desires and survival needs. There's nothing more sophisticated about women's survival than men's survival, just the ways each of them manifest in. Pick Up is not designed to boost the survival of women. It is designed to boost the survival of men, regardless of women's agendas, because everyone is equal and out there for themselves. Just like feminism is designed to boost women's survival, not men's. (You can't have everything). And both of them absolutely work. Pick Up boosts a man's attraction, and there's not a single bit of doubt about that. When a woman finds a man attractive, it's absolutely identical to when a man finds a woman attractive. There's no need to paint women's sexuality as more sophisticated than men's, because it absolutely is not. When a woman finds a man charming, she is likely willing to be sleeping with him as soon as possible. That's the rule of thumb, but there are rare exceptions. And the same thing applies to men. A man just can't wait to be sleeping with a hot woman, but there are rare exceptions too. The exceptions in general are women who are strategic thinkers/have social expectations or people have certain standards/conservatives. And even within these exceptions, there will be exceptions, and people will fail severely and repeatedly at holding themselves against an attractive person. Because sexual desire is such a strong force that almost no one has the ability to stop or perfectly control, especially when young. When an experienced PUA plays his moves on a woman, it's more or less like a woman showing her boobs to a man. At that point, the woman won't likely think that he might be a serial killer or that he's even playing a fake persona, because these possibilities couldn't exist in such a charming guy, according to her worldview. You see how this works? In the emotional/intuitive system, this is how it's interpreted: Charming Character = Natural (irreversible equation). This is the basic code of how women judge men. But notice, it's not the other way around. Natural does not necessarily mean having a charming character. And this is a huge bug in that evaluation system (emotional/intuitive), which can be, and is most certainly exploited. You may be an exception here, but most people aren't above their sexual desire by any means. And a lot of women lie about their history, rightfully so, for social inconvenience. Men exaggerate, and women do the opposite. So, excuse me if I don't take most women's input into this.

I couldn't help but spill the truth that most women are not similar to those on this forum. Most women are not the thinker type. So, of course, anything women say here should be taken with a grain of salt, because they're a minority, and it only represents their limited pov from their limited archetype. The truth is that most women are willing to have sex with a PUA from the very first date. Why? Because a successful PUA is what's actually attractive to most women. Guys, don't listen to women's advice or perspective here. I mean listen, but don't prioritize it. Your priority should be to become a good PUA. That is what most women want. The rest is details that don't matter as much.