SeaMonster

There isn't one answer, it depends on your particular life path.

To realize you're the prison guard.

Well, enlightenment doesn't cure bipolar disorder, if that's what you're asking, but it may encourage the person to properly medicate. Also, "problems" are in the mind of the beholder. A lot of people have "fake" problems -- in other words, they stem from ego attachments/aversions and trying to control what's not under their control. They refuse to let go of the egoic agenda. This is the essence of "suffering." What enlightenment does is give you the opportunity to decondition these attachments, which -- unlike some people think -- have nothing to do with "survival." It's not like enlightenment completely obliterates the primitive brain and you simply no longer care whether you starve, or die of thirst, or whether you're attacked and murdered, etc. That would be an idiotic kind of "rational" coping mechanism, not enlightenment (which integrates the higher and the primitive functions) "Survival" doesn't mean you need a million followers on social media, or to become a multimillionaire or anything like that, and then if you don't get that you feel like you're dying. A lot of people exaggerate what "survival" means. So if you're asking "why bother?" it's because the stupid ego-created "problems" are an enormous drain on one's life.

You're right and everyone else in this thread is wrong. Of course you sound like a Buddhist Rat (copyright Leo Gura 2023) so it's not going to be a popular opinion here. Leo is a hammer who sees the entire world as a nail. In other words, his blindspot is that his conceptualizations are REAL. He has a psychedelic experience, then he conceptualizes what he has experienced (turns it into words, ideas, subjects, objects, subject-object relations, etc.) Of course what he doesn't seem to want to understand is that his unconscious frame, or if you prefer, his state of consciousness OUTSIDE the psychedelic experience, is responsible for the conceptualization of what he has experienced. It is not some divine revelation that MUST be accepted. It is bringing the psychedelic experience into the normal, waking, dualistic state/frame. That state is filled with all kinds of baggage, obviously. When you try to explain this to him, he gets frustrated because he thinks you're "gaslighting him" -- "trying to fuck him in the ass." This is not the reasoning of a normal person, it's the reasoning of a paranoiac who associates changing one's mind when a better explanation exists with being dominated and abused. This is a symptom of childhood trauma that he refuses to face and move past -- very sad. There are three types of people and two of them unhealthy. One type has such a weak frame that even when they are right, they can be gaslighted into denying their perceptions. Another type, even if they are wrong, will stand by their errors and see any attempts to change their mind as attempted domination or abuse. And the third type is openminded enough to accept better explanations when they come up, but also strong enough not to be manipulated by insubstantial attempts to force them to deny their perceptions. So everyone on the forum needs to ask themselves which type of person they are.

You're imagining that I'm imagining everything. You guys fail at basic logic and language comprehension.

I prefer to feed Little Red Riding Hood within. She was truly Buddhist, picking the Middle Path.

Thumbs up.

verb (used with object),im·ag·ined, im·ag·in·ing. 1) to form a mental image of (something not actually present to the senses). 2) to think, believe, or fancy: So I'm not imagining "everything" if what is present to the senses is included in "everything." So no, you're incorrect.

I think this video is an excellent resource for creating misery in your life. Just follow the suggestions in it!

This is more of Leo's gaslighting ontology (words like "does not exist" and "imagine".) Leo is literally raping you with his mind when he says shit like that. It's like a distorted Buddhism from hell. When they say the body doesn't exist, they mean that the concept of the body is a reification which can be deconstructed (it's a convention not a reality), but it doesn't mean anything beyond that.

Isn't resistance basically another way to say "procrastination"? You have to discover WHAT the resistance IS, not merely that there is resistance.

If you think this life is the will of God (sort of in the Islamic "Inshallah" sense), you are probably nowhere close to being a spiritual seeker anyway; you're probably not going to get there in this lifetime (too many stages to hop through.)

Read with an open mind, and if you come across material that makes you uncomfortable or you resist it, come back to it until that goes away.

They are not looking for the "true nature of a man" (which is like saying "soul" or another ill-defined reification.) They are looking for certain markers of masculinity, and while it would be preferable to them that the guy is good and masculine, they will take bad and masculine over non-masculine.

Honestly -- this is all very theological, and is completely irrelevant to spiritual realization. I think the Buddhists (Buddhist Rats (tm LG 2023)) are essentially right and you focus on the Eightfold Path and drop the theological bullshit because it adds little of value to you.

That would be nice, but I usually have to remind her, because she's very busy and her personality is such that she sometimes neglects self-care.

It's not a bad map, but just so that we're not confused, these are not necessarily mutually exclusive boxes. One can "live" self-esteem by doing things in the other boxes (e.g. doing exercise.) In other words, I take a very behaviorist outlook on a lot of this stuff: self-esteem is how you act/behave, not necessarily some freestanding feeling or thought we have about ourselves. I wouldn't reify self-esteem or wisdom or anything in the Psycho category -- it's more of a Forrest Gump thing (stupid is as stupid does.)

If you're building an identity as a unique t-shirt designer that's fine -- we're just saying it's not an essential part of game to go to cartoon character lengths. If one does do that, you have to question the attention-seeking.

I don't have a problem with it as far as my parents. I get my mom to meditate sometimes for her own benefit/relaxation but I don't expect them to care about spirituality beyond that -- it's just not going to happen and I've accepted it. No, if you were enlightened it wouldn't appear as anything ordinary to YOU, but you would also be aware where you are in comparison to others, and present yourself in whatever way was necessary to help them awaken.

Don't worry about comparing yourself to where others are. Believe me, when you're enlightened all that bullshit goes away anyway, and at worst you are frustrated at others' pace to catch up with you. But you had excellent insights earlier in the thread, probably some of the most advanced of anyone here. Run with those and drop the forum bullshit.

Yeah, certainly it's part of the game and you have to at least have the courage to do it. Honestly, some parts of Mystery Method never sat right with me -- I found them gratuitious. E.g. the storytelling DHVs sometimes seemed more like trying to get attention/narcissistic supply in the way that HE did it, and also the peacocking was just way over the top for the same reason. They weren't essential implementations of game, it was just his personal pathology, I think, and were rightly mocked by the wider culture. Like, it can all be much more subtle, you never needed to turn yourself into a cartoon character.

Yeah, it's kinda ass-backwards. If you have serious flaws in your "Inner Game" (which is really another way of saying self-worth or self-esteem or being grounded, etc.) then that is going to trip you up no matter how many approaches you do; that is going to be your limiting factor at all stages of meeting/being with women. And guess what -- if we examine the historical record, that is what guys like even Mystery were prone to.

One of the weakest aspects of Pick-Up for me (and I followed the development of the entire movement, from the early 2000s on) is that they never really focused on Inner Game. They always talked a good game about Inner Game, but any coverage of it was always ridiculously insufficient and superficial. But to me, Inner Game is about 90% of game.

This isn't actually true. You don't need to become a COMPLETE ASSHOLE. You just need to be an "asshole" when it's called for/appropriate. Nice guys sometimes see the world in black and white; you have to travel the Middle Way, like Buddha.

Presumably because no matter how many successes you have, if your failures are critical enough you will go down. Now, I don't know whether he is right or wrong, and whether China's failures are critical enough, but successes don't matter in such circumstances. The Soviet Union had all kinds of successes up until the moment it collapsed as well. It's rare that EVERYTHING goes wrong for a power before it collapses.