Consept

@RendHeaven The question wasn't about harm it was specifically about the lies that he tells as that's a lot more easier to measure - https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

Raising consciousness, I truly believe the change has to come from inside of everyone, it's a massive job as well

Your reality is fascinating

The idea of marriage is a construct, it hasnt always been there and many cultures currently and in the past have had different forms of marriage. Contemplate your questions but truly imagine you were gay, as in you feel exactly the same way towards guys as you do currently toward girls, see what answers you come up with

Why is the automatic assumption that everyone is just watching cnn and repeating it on here? People can have independent well thought out views and AND come to a conclusion you dont agree with. What youre doing is projection and a very weak argument bro, if you want to make any kind of argument you should aim to prove that he doesnt lie, not resort to an ad hominem attack

I think he sees it as something within the rules of the game, so actual truth for him is not really a consideration, he wants to achieve certain things and will use whatever means is available for him to do so. If you look at the people that were running his campaign like Roger Stone he is more upfront about the manipulation he does and is quite proud of it as well (check his netflix doc). Trump as the front man cant be that upfront but hes hinted at it many times. Im not sure exactly where trumps line is, i dont know if he would kill someone etc but we've seen that within his rules misinformation, framing things in a certain way and lying are all allowed. If you look at his family history his older brother killed himself because he didnt fit into the cutthroat reality that his dad had created. For Trump it couldve been s survival mechanism that he had to be this win at any cost person, he seems anchored to that belief. Add in to that Trump is not a particularly talented or intelligent person, he would have to do sneaky things to become successful. Just my perception of it anyway

True creation tends to come from a place of no thought and flow state, so i think creating music is an ideal outlet for this. If you ever hear the stories of classic songs, the artists always say things like 'it just came to them', so music can be something that comes from some place other than your conscious mind, obviously theres manufactured music that usually takes from other popular songs and trends, but something original is true creation. Regardless of the genre or content i think this can be the case, for example depressing music could be whats truly in that artist or violent music the same thing. So yeah keep doing what your doing

You could look at evidence for this, there are many people in the world that have all those things, try and workout whether they're truly happy. Or look at those who once seemed happy in that situation but have since renounced that life. Someone like Russel brand has had that kind of journey for example. There are quite a few that commit suicide even though they have that situation so that's another thing to consider

@zeroISinfinity No one can really tell you, if I tell you it will just conjure more imagination in your head. This is solely an experiential thing, if you are completely present in the moment you will experience it. But it is difficult and we're not used to this state, it is our natural state without illusion though. If I tell you something you can do you'll be trying to arrive at inaction from action so obviously that can't work. You can practice meditation and just observing your thoughts as they arise, not questioning and not getting attached to them. Mooji has some guided meditations that might help you with this. Just to ask, have you ever had a moment where you were completely present, this could be something you love doing and you got completely caught up in it and after realised you hadn't had a thought for a while?

It's not so much that there's no 'you' it's more like you can't be what you think you are. You wouldn't say your thoughts are necessarily true or everything you think exists but your idea of 'you' only exists in your thoughts. You can't be your thoughts if you're able to observe your thoughts and you can't imagine what you truly are because that will also be a thought. Another thing is that you don't even choose to think, the thoughts are just happening, if you could choose to think where did the thought come to choose to think? So you really only exist as awareness, most of your body just functions by itself. Your heart beats itself, all your organs function by themselves, your blood pumps by itself, you even breath automatically most of the time. So the only thing you might say you have control is thoughts but like I pointed out, you dont. So where are you? If you look into neurology they describe the conscious mind as the part that thinks it's the star of the show but it's not at all. Your sub-conscious mind really pulls all the strings, just when you're awake and aware you think it's you, but that is just a thought. So contemplate the awareness that you are

I posted a similar thread last week Basically it's fear that keeps us from realising what we've got and limits growth

Haha Ive felt that before. you can listen to what you want, it's just once you become more present and build up your awareness, naturally certain music won't appeal to you anymore. I still listen to rap if I want that energy, usually at the gym or if I just want to hype myself up. But I don't live in that energy if that makes sense. I actually found myself listening to more older music like motown and soul. For you it might be something different. There's no rules to this shit, just be present and see where that takes you. Also there's loads of conscious rap or more soulful rap, check out tribe called quest, old but good

So basically you dismiss someone out of hand because of your pre-conceived notion about them, yet if someone says something you agree and matches your story like Mikovitz you take what shes saying as truth automatically. If what he is saying is true, with which hes backed up pretty much everything and countered all of her points with real evidence, what the hell would you even need to truly consider the other side? Please keep in mind if anything Mikovitz said could be backed up id be more than happy to accept that its true, we dont seem to have the same understanding of truth, you seem to be anchored to a story.

Last questions, when you come across someone like me say who doesnt believe in most conspiracies, is the assumption that i havent looked into it enough, if i have it wasnt with an open mind and if i would only open my mind and look into it fully i would come to the inevitable truth that a lot of conspiracies are true? Do you ever consider that i may have looked into it before or maybe even believed them previously, but after looking into them thoroughly and balancing both sides i came to the conclusion that there wasnt really anything to most of them and that even be the case in reality? Is that a possibility?

What if after investigating the flat earth the person holds on to a belief the earth is flat and even the importance of that being the case, disregarding or finding circular logic and stretching facts to explain why its flat. Is that gullible or what is that?

@DrewNows so what is the point of speculation? And if you are going to speculate why does your speculation tend to back your originally held beliefs? Just to confirm I don't look for a reason or validation to reject conspiracies wholesale, if someone says something that's out there I will look into it. The common theme I've found is that they're mostly built in faulty logic

I've watched some of his other videos and it is actually amazing to see esp after you see his older content. He will run into problems because his audience are just not gonna get it, so he'll have to come to terms with that. But you don't often see something like this play out and it is incredible to see

@The observer this point makes the most sense. You don't see everything or know someone involved in anything but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There have been wars, terrorist attacks, military coos, I don't really know anyone involved in them but I can't assert that they're not true, they may not be but until I go to these locations these things are happening in, I have no standing to make a claim like that. For now the second hand information, witnesses etc makes sense, so until something disproves it, I'll believe it. Similarly with this, you can't make a claim the virus doesn't exist until you've been to hospitals talked to doctors, patients, families. Then talked to scientists and virolgists working on this, looking at how it came about etc. If you want to sit in your house with no experience of this situation and assert that somethings not real, whist not accepting the evidence and also having no first hand experience of the situation, I'm sorry but the fuck are you talking about? 2 sides of an argument is fine but it relies on you gathering information on each side both first and second hand and coming to a conclusion. BTW I know of 4 people who contracted it, 2 of which died ones in a coma. So is it only real until something like that happens to you? If you have unfounded assertions and encourage others to believe it, what happens if they believe you then go about spreading it?

@DrewNows Pointing out something is different to a belief, limiting or otherwise. If I point something out and you say its a limiting belief it doesn't mean my original observation isn't valid. If you are wishing to question my observation, you would say something like 'there are many older spiritual people that believe conspiracies' and then point to who they are. Otherwise I could say whatever you believe are your limited beliefs with no reasoning, it becomes pointless. All these teachers seek to find truth, my observation is that its interesting that people like mooji are not saying anything about conspiracies even though they directly talk about the situation, whereas younger people like Teal Swan are pretty much talking about conspiracies as if they were true. You're saying it's because they are trying to keep their audience, even if that was true, why would it just be on the older teachers side, why wouldn't that apply to the younger people, in that they're audience believes in it so they appeal more to that? I would say you were closed minded in that you can't truly imagine that the conspiracies aren't true, so when I make this observation your mind twists and turns to preserve this anchored belief you already have, even though you have to jump to speculation to do so. How do you know whether higher level teachers care about their image to their audience, you have no clue, but you say it as an assertion. I'm not saying they don't care, I don't know either but I'm not making that assertion. But logically I would look at it and say, they usually say anything they want regardless if it goes against mainstream which it usually does, so why would they stop if they truly believed a conspiracy? The implication is they believe it and are not saying because of image, that is complete speculation.

@Someone here I think what youre missing is that life is experiential, science is a map, if you like, of experience, in that it attempts to break down experience into a physical map that our minds are able to understand. For example 'time' is conceptual it doesnt really exist physically but its a measure of movement, the earth spinning around once is called a day or measured as 24 hours. If you get caught up on what time is you lose perspective of what the point of it is, its also not fixed to how we experience it, other beings my experience it differently or you can be in a different state and experience it differently, there are many factors. Every attempt to describe something experiential will always be less than the experience itself, theres not really any exceptions on that. If i experience true silence and peace that is what it is, theres no explanation that could clarify that more than the experience of this peace. You can say yes the brain is it rest and there is no movement and weve done scans and we can see the activity in the brain is minimal. You can even write books on this but the actual experience of peace is not experienced in any way, therefore it doesnt compare to and isnt actual peace no matter the depth of mental understanding. When you say seeing, 'knowledge of seeing' is not comparable to seeing. Seeing is seeing, any description is less than seeing. So lets say youre blind but youre an expert on sight, youve read in braille every book that exists on the subject,you understand all the mechanics of it etc, you still will not understand it even close to the way in which someone who can see understands it. This is similar to awakening experiences, you can do all the research you like about brain activity but until you have direct experience youre basically blind. For a blind person to argue they understand sight more than someone with 20/20 vision doesnt really make sense.

I keep wanting to say this analogy, what your talking about with free speech is like kids in a playground - So theres a load of kids playing but a couple of them are bad and want to start fights and be troublemakers. So one of the kids says 'look lets start a new playground area where everyone is free to do what they want but we'll have some rules because these troublemakers are messing it up for everyone. We will still let them play as long as they follow these rules'. The rules are just to respect others, dont start trouble and be free and have fun. The troublemakers dont agree with this and they come into the new area and say that your rules say we can be free and as part of our freedom we want to be able to be trouble makers, we also want to encourage other kids to do the same by telling them theyre not truly free because look at the restrictions theyre putting on us. As part of the rules the troublemakers get banned, they now complain and are outraged that they got banned and they try and get others to 'realise' that they too dont have freedom. The intention is either to be allowed in but to be able to start fights and do what the wont or to completely destabilise the new area so they can make trouble and start fights. Keep in mind they are free to go and make their own playground area, they just dont want to because they want to have an affect on others. This is what i think is the case with youtube

I feel his pain on this one like everyone here probably does to some degree. I had to come to the conclusion, as sad as it is, that those i care for and, even on a wider scale lots of people in pain in the world, will never realise true freedom or liberation or even accept it as a possibility. Mooji says something like 'what you have learned here always take it with you but dont preach, be silent about it', paraphrasing but preaching unfortunately doesnt work or at least it will probably turn as many people away as you might influence positively. The best way is just to take it in your life and radiate that peace and authenticity, if things come up in conversation or youre asked then talk about it. It is probably the most frustrating thing about this journey, its like seeing those you life torturing themselves daily and also complaining about it but then when you try and help they get offended or think youre crazy. I still get urges to tell people but luckily im pretty much past it

I wouldve said it was open mindedness but i dont think its completely true, i think they get caught up in dogma, conspiracies usually have a foundation of distrust in the government. Most spiritual people will not agree with the government on a lot of points, so it doesnt take that much to then stretch to a convenient answer that ties in like a conspiracy. Also if you notice the spiritual youtube people that believe in conspiracies tend to be younger, Ralph Smart, Teal Swan, that Aaron guy, whereas older people like Sadhguru, Mooji, Tolle, are actually telling people not to get caught up in them and start panicking or just not really addressing them at all. I think thats telling, for me personally ive always listened to the older guys, i appreciate the younger ones have value and have listened to them if a particular topic interests me, but i find myslef often disagreeing or just not resonating with them as much. I think Leo has mentioned the problems with awakening and trying to teach at a young age before

That would make sense except for the fact the USA have the highest amount of deaths by gun in the developed world. I also dont see how theyre more 'free' than any other countries, when compared to most other wealthy countries they have the longest working hours, shortest holidays, higher rates of poverty. What makes them more free, the fact they can sit in the wilderness with an assault rifle?