Natasha Tori Maru

@theleelajoker Agree, unstoppable force and immovable object >.<

@theleelajoker didn't say women only have good qualities. You assumed he saw only positives. You never included men. Re-read the statement in your post. I consider that retracting the statement if you are being genuine.

Thats true I was making some assumptions. These were based on your previous answers also. But you must admit if you don't currently have the experience of many women close to you - you can fall into myopic attitudes due to the atrophy of experience. Easy to forget experience if you are replacing it with hearsay. Humans never remember things properly. Myself included. Respectfully disagree as this whole conversation is a narrative and IS the context in its entirety. I have noticed you read each users post separately. What I am picking up on is the common thread through ALL your posts. You effectively played your hand here. You haven't even acknowledged the entire thread of actualizers presenting alternatives and even Leo himself warning you of the wild generalizations you have presented.

@James123

@Lyubov Yep

What? I didn't make any comments about women not being into abstract things? Are we having the same conversation? I don't have anything to say on the matter. Okay so ... is positive? Are we discussing open minds? Can you stay on point - are you deviating around in an attempt to subtly undermine my character implying I do not have an open mind? Let's not forget you were the one to label women as grifters & exploiters here. Who really has a closed mind? Notice it is only you pushing this narrative with a whole thread of actualizers being like 'Nah, no lol'. AND YOU STILL WON"T BUDGE. Additionally - the point I was making was your blatant gender misappropriation. No idea what the point is.

Through the spiritual path you actually fall in love with life all over again. Wonder, mystery, awe all return. And you realize this is actually the ONLY place you want to be

Welcome ! Never fear being authentic and genuine - we all disagree a lot but the next thread over users will be laughing at each other in jest

In red - you are speaking to another man, not a boy, yeah? That is a man. Did he idealize women? I thought he was presenting counters to your argument. He never said women couldn't be grifters/exploiters. And they can be. I am more challenging you to see that you are misappropriating traits to genders. People are just dickheads really - case closed. It's fine to generalize - but most of your conclusions are misappropriated AND show negative bias, which, I suspect, is why @theleelajoker raised positive. To bring balance. Saying 'I love women' isn't some get out of jail free card. The guys here are bringing up stories from direct experience, and you did acknowledge you don't have many female friends/acquaintances. I think we can all agree experience trumps any 'theory' or hearsay. Most especially, if you want to see the 'truth' of woman, you cannot be having just shallow surfacy interactions and lack of variety of experience. You also need depth and variety of connection to hit closer to the truth. @theleelajoker provided his experience there.

Yep - I agree. It is a form of emotional labour many women are completely blind to. Teal Swan would call this 'containment' It is also a process I am familiar with myself, as I am often the one to perform 'emotional compression' for others. Although at a guess this might come down to personality type and balance of masculine/feminine. Never had an issue with holding space for others emotionally. I am very reserved expressing my own emotions moreso. Have you had issue navigating emotional landscapes when emoting, as this fella suggests many men do, when unfamiliar with expression? Some men have A LOT going on and when given an opportunely to express it can be like a damn overflowing. I could NEVER punish someone for such an earnest expression. Immaturity does that. Personally, I have no issue when men cry. I never get the 'ick'. I definitely agree that if you do not fit societies standard for gender emotional expression you are denigrated for it. I am punished pretty hard for being blunt and candid when I have a big agenda I need to execute. And woman to woman - if I do not emote properly, as society deems I should, I get slapped with being cold. Heard THAT before....

Fixed that for you.

Haha I would say that's not awakening/enlightenment - that's an e-peen measuring contest

@Chadders I think you misunderstand @Carl-Richard Experience is truth - it is this reality directly right now that is true. The realisation is that there is nothing else - you just forget this due to survival manifesting an ego. And this ego - the self - gets in between your being, and your experience. It is difficult to realise this - and - as you say, easy to 'intellectually' know this. The spiritual path will bring you closer to the nature of your true being. In terms of a direct answer - only you can find this answer by engaging in the spiritual process.

@Human Mint They are 2 separate realizations.

Actualized Quotes #287 It eats - powerful reminder. Thank you

So by the above, context is the condition of possibility for a thing to be what it is? But then, looking at it ontologically - appearing is being - but then this contextual thing only appears within a field? FUCK No context - no thing? WHAT

@Carl-Richard A literal minefield >.< How the hell do we manage to communicate anything at all with this turd version of communication 'language' Some bastard needs to unlock telepathy secret

This one is really troubling me. I don't know what it is at all. I get an impression in my mind it is like the background that defines the foreground. Invisible but causal. The tricky part is it doesn't show up as part of the 'thing', but it determines how the 'thing' shows up. No separation between the thing it gives meaning to but co-arises with it. Like a paradox - separate but together.

@Joshe I'm DEAD. END IT ALL NOW There, I found some FUCKING self left!

@Princess Arabia Gosh - having an ego moment looking at my garbage sentence quoted Agree again. Men are just as dramatic as women. JUST this morning one of the drywallers threw a nail-gun at our supervisor and starting screaming about being disrespected. 'I won't be ordered AROUND BY SOME YOUNG cu** GREEN AROUND THE GILLS SHIT' Some men fail to realise anger is an emotion - one they engage in FREQUENTLY. And it is usually a mask for what they really feel: sadness, hurt, pain, grief. Again emotion is looked at through a narrow lens without assessing the full spectrum. Really can't argue with that as an example

@Princess Arabia Agree. Basically - we pick our battles. I'm not about to start raking sand here, I will devote my energy to something that I deem worthy. If I think I can bring an opinion or view others haven't considered I for sure will. And I won't hold back. Most especially as I know there are less responders and many, many more readers (users and anon) who browse these forums. Sometimes I do engage in a battle if I think it is educational for the person - but if you watch closely I tap out when I realise they are limited in intellectual scope. And I don't put others in boxes either - because I might have a conversation with that person in a month and they have had some great growth and realisation. Also - I don't find any use in misappropriating behaviour to gender. It has never served me. Really, what is it achieving? What is it actually achieving to say 'Oh that's just what men do'. Frames and generalisations are useful but limiting. They aren't going to help you understand all women. It's a case by case basis. As it should be. As God ordained so it could experience an infinite variety of conscious configurations to harvest experience. If you are really unbiased most of the time its just people peopling as people like to do I do think the women of this forum are a different breed. It's rare to find women (people!) who want to be ripped apart and reconfigured continually to try to understand reality in its glorious fullness. The women here have made me respect other WOMEN more as a female. As I used to be quite denigrating to my own gender.

The idea of a fixed, independent, separate “me” is a mental construction. Not an actual, solid thing. There are real neurological pathways. As per your example, imagine you have a 4-year-old son and he's tortured in front of you. Could you choose what to feel, whether to suffer or not? Even if the “self” is ultimately an illusion, that illusion still functions. And that function has real consequences. Perception arises through raw data: movement, visuals, sounds. Then interpretation happens through the self: 'My son tortured, this shouldn't be happening. I am powerless. This means I have failed' Notice all of that has the narrative 'I'. This narrative self turns pain into suffering. Then, neural pathways get activated once the self has 'kicked in' which are hard wired - but notice they won't just go off by themselves - they are activated through your identification with the event. So the illusion reacts as if it is real. Even though the 'self' isn't a permanent entity - it's a process and functions as if it is real. So you see the 'No-Self' but still the 'suffering' - it is a paradox. There is no solid self - but the illusion of one runs the show until it is clearly seen AND no longer believed in. Until you realise this, it feels real. Reacts as if it were real. Causes suffering as if it were real. Self is a process, not a thing. So even without a real self the system behaves as if there is one. That is - until deeply seen through. The above is what I suspect you haven't 'seen' through... yet. So to apply this in a non-dual way without the self narrative: The son is tortured - now what? Perception still happens, you see, hear, senses function as per normal. There isn't an escape - non dual (no-self) isn't a dissociation. Pain arises within but its not 'yours' - grief agony, helplessness. These all come up fully, even MORE vividly because there is no resistance. There is no resistance because there isn't the 'self thoughts' of a narrative looping. So the mind isn't saying 'Why is this happening to me? I cannot survive this' etc etc. The suffering is pure sensation without any identity encapsulating it. So because there is no identification there is no added suffering. When the self is present you have psychological torment 'My son' 'My failure'. In the no-self mind there is just pain, grief shaking etc but no one there suffering. So you see, this is the extra layer of suffering, on top of the already unpleasant experience? That is the unnecessary suffering of the self that is generated through thoughts. Now in the above compassion still flows - but non-duality does not shut down the heart, rather it OPENS it. Without an ego or 'self' there to protect itself the raw compassion felt can move to act, protect, grieve, and love. It is life expressing itself even in the horror. So no-self is not anti-human spirituality. It enhances all feeling and brings you closer to the raw truth of it. And this has been what I have experienced. Think of electricity, lighting vs a wire: - In ego, pain travels through the wire of self, burning YOU. The wire 'self' causes resistance and gets burned - suffering. - In no self (nonduality) lighting strikes but there is no wire, so nothing gets scorched. Lighting still happens though. So no-self means you feel MORE because the heart isn't defended. But suffer less because no identification with thought.

Yes. My direct experience from construction sites. Men do this also.

You poor thing

😮 My interest in Kriya yoga is piqued. If it does anything to enhance vividness, recollection or duration, I'm IN. I had no idea it could do this