woohoo123

Thanks. Not denying the power of human spirit, determination and will. I think the main thing which irks me about LOA is it sets people up thinking they are guaranteed to succeed if they have the right 'vibration'. I follow combat sports closely, and I have seen this makes the ego very fragile. People literally have breakdowns after they lose championship fights, because they have never entertained the idea of failure and when this happens it completely destroys them mentally. Their entire identity was built on being an undefeated, unstoppable champion. I think we should have an indomitable will and a vision for success, but also at the same time be open that ultimately the Universe does not have to conform to our desires no matter how badly we want them. That doesn't mean we don't try and it doesn't have to be disheartening, rather for me it is a more accurate view of reality. There is a time and place for the LOA message but I think at some point we must also embrace our limitations, else I think we are setting ourselves up for a ticking time bomb.

What's so bad about being called nice? I think its a rather good thing actually. I am out the dating market now, but with the amount of pick-up and men trying to be 'bad boys' and 'masculine' I like to fantasize how cool it would be if women had the chance to date a nice, polite gentlemen for once. People may say 'but that doesn't get the girls'. But that wouldn't bother this gentlemen, because he is just expressing who he is. His self-esteem and deliverance is not dependent on whether people think he is 'nice' or not. He is a gentlemen and has class. I think that is pretty bad-ass. Sorry for daydreaming

Does that mean it’s possible to see things in the ‘future’? And re-live experiences in the ‘past’? Why does it feel so smooth and not disjointed? Is that just how human consciousness works?

Reading the Osho doc he seems to be describing every moment is a new reality, similar yet completely different from the one a moment ago. The connection between these is what creates an experience of time. why does the ‘new’ reality have to be similar to the existing one? He describes an example by moving his hand, why can’t his hand be here one moment and a mile away the next? It would create quite a disjointed reality, but what is determining the rules here? Why is he describing reality that way, like it is a law of physics?

Thank you for your response. Not trying to be argumentative, this is a big development point for me. My question lies in - are there limitations? If so where are they defined? If one simply believes they are unlimited, does that make it so? If not, what else is missing? I don’t see that discussed much in the LOA videos. This lack of grounding makes it hard for me to interact with LOA content. In the boxing video you provided, I am more interested in why the other boxer (Deontay Wilder) could not knock him out/win the fight. Are we saying this is purely because the loser of the fight ‘vibrational state’ was off? I find it hard to believe Deontay did not truly believe he could win this fight. Up until this fight, he had 40 fights, all undefeated with a 90% knockout rate (that is incredible btw). His daughter has spina bifida and he says this is his reason to fight. Deontay wilder got into boxing late (age 21) but still became world champ. This is a Rocky story if I ever heard one. But he still lost this fight, why? Why did this man lose? Another example: where did these guys go wrong? Surely they must’ve believed their own BS otherwise they would not have signed up to demonstrate. If you are not grounded, reality slaps you real hard. If vibrational state/feeling/will/vision is everything, I think it only captures half the story (but I still feel I am missing something here)

I find it very difficult to reconcile/make sense of this and LOA in general. On one hand its like 'impossible is nothing' to the egoic self, on the other hand its like 'infinity contains finite so there are some things you cannot change' How do you know the difference and how to resolve this paradox?

Also I think that doubt and negative emotions can be very powerful for success. Driven by pain, anger, frustration, etc. you can remain in that state for a long time, and keep using those emotions to fuel you to greater heights. For me doubt is also very important and useful. Instead of being confident, I spend a lot of time doubting myself, poking all the holes I can in myself, seeing where I can fail, then patching those up or having a plan for those. Paradoxically doubt makes me stronger and more confident in the long run. Although not sure if LOA always seems to communicate this, when I watch videos by Abraham Hicks for example it always seems to be putting yourself in a 'good state' which I don't think is necessary for success.

There are a lot of videos here I need to go through.. but can someone share their opinion on this? For me personally I have been quite skeptical of LOA... Mostly because from my experience the best successes I have had tend to be ruthlessly pragmatic and optimal stage orange and forget such a thing LOA exists, For me LOA encourages people to wish for 'impossible' things instead of learning to accept their power and influence is limited Encourages people to rely on non-physical advantages, rather than realizing their current physical situation is way more important to achieving their goals. Eg. Two boxers visualize winning a fight. The victor is (probably) going to be the one with best training regimen, natural talent, physical strength etc. Doesn't matter how much they visualize or 'want' to win. In these scenarios I find it a bit embarrassing to watch the pre-fight interviews and each boxer always has their own story in their head 'I want to show the world what God can do etc.' Then they get KO'd and lose the fight. LOA to me seems irrelevant in this case. Or in a similar manner throughout medieval history kings have always done strange rituals and turned to soothsayers for the edge in battle. A king can be very confident going into battle and time everything correctly according to their belief system etc. but when it really comes down to it none of that really matters, its more down to size of army and your strategy. Another example for materialistic gains I would put my money on someone like Andrew Tate who tends to be very 'smart' in terms of manipulation rather than some person who reads about LOA and has a vision-board stuck on their wall. The reason they are reading about LOA is likely because they are failing in the first place. Someone like Andrew Tate who is more busy 'doing' and focused on the actual details of 'how' is actually probably going to be more successful. Without a concept like LOA, I find it easier to process disappointments/hiccups along the way as I don't have any expectations for how things are supposed to turn out (who said it was going to work out anyway?) For me I have always preferred treating the world as if it were physical for materialistic gains, only turning to spirituality for spiritual purposes. To me LOA seems a bit of distraction and only real value is in motivational terms (ie. tell the spiritual people 'you can do it!' so they don't give up) Happy to be corrected on the above if people have other views.

I am wondering why we don’t see more enlightened people as part of mainstream religions? I think the real question I’m asking is does enlightened people believe in supernatural deities? If not, why? And if so, how might the interaction differ than if a normal person were to approach it? As far as I’m aware, enlightenment is the realisation of universal consciousness. But it doesn’t tell you about the ‘details’ of what can exist. I can see the rejection of the omnipotent God, but what about ‘lesser Gods’? Eg. Beings from occult or the Roman Pantheon for example? I am imagining a world (thought experiment) where God and Satan exist. ‘God’ in this sense is more like Yaldaboath (deity of light and creation) and imagined by consciousness as per everything else. But he is still a deity nonetheless, and has an influence on existence. In short, pray to Yaldaboath or you’re going to hell. The enlightened person could recognise the fundamental nature of reality, he could also say that Yaldaboath is imaginary, but that doesn’t change the fact his egoic self is going to hell if he doesn’t worship this deity. I would expect the enlightened person to join mainstream religion in this case, as naturally as the enlightened person would eat, or jump out the way of a moving car. Avoiding hell should be as natural as not dying in the ‘real’ world. He may recognize his ‘true’ nature is beyond pain and death, but I don’t see why that should stop him preventing his own suffering in hell (even if he sees suffering as illusory) I can only conclude the enlightened person does not join mainstream religion because they don’t actually believe that hell/Yaldaboath etc. exists. In the same way there is no need to jump out the way if a car is physically not there (as opposed to being physically there but still ‘illusory’) - but how can the enlightened person be so sure of this? What am I missing? Or am I just wrong and it is never really talked about? PS. I am not religious, nor advocating it. Just curious about the question.

I think it depends on what I mean by ‘deity’ and how it presents itself. If deity means it physically appears before you and said ‘I’m going to hurt you unless you do X’ I imagine most people (enlightened or not) would comply. ‘Deity’ here could be replaced with a soldier, criminal, abuser, etc. ‘hell’ in this wider question can be replaced with the experience of physical suffering. At this point, whether or not it is a ‘deity’ or ‘hell’ is kind of irrelevant. The question is will an enlightened person avoid physical suffering if they had the choice? I guess that is down to the individual. ‘Deity’ can also mean an inanimate statue or a name in a book, where the worshipper has to (more obviously) ‘construct thoughts’/story to ‘bring it to life’. In this case most people (enlightened or not) would likely agree this is belief and not change their behaviour. That is until the point where there is sufficient empirical evidence or personal experience to suggest that praying to the statue brings about observable difference. As the belief grows this becomes more and more like the first case I described. For example ‘deity’ in this context can be something like bacteria. Most of us have not observed it, nor does the average person have the means to prove its existence to themselves, but we feel its consequences and we change our behaviour accordingly. Even though some may argue bacteria doesn’t ‘exist’ (and only its effects exist) to me it ‘exists by proxy’ given we have to deal with its effects.

I had a similar incident when I was younger. Except I was that kid. Can’t remember how old exactly but I was young. I asked my dad ‘why are we here? How did we get here?’ I was frustrated he couldn’t understand my meaning. I was asking philosophical/metaphysical question but didn’t have the language to express it any better at the time. My father could only understand it in terms of ‘oh we immigrated here before you were born’ lol

Hmm I’m thinking about this more from a necessity point of view. How is going to hell any more of a superstition than say - going to jail because you don’t pay your taxes? (but I guess enlightened people still pay their taxes) Or is it purely empiricism and watching others in this case which delineates these? My understanding is awakening doesn’t change the fact you need to still interact with the world around you. So if deities are part of your immediate experience, worshipping God would be no different from bowing to the Queen or not pissing of the general public. or is the main point here deities have never been part of direct experience for enlightened people? So therefore always remain as belief and superstition? (When I say direct experience I mean something which effects is immediately observable, like gravity for example) Apologies, mind give some pointers please? Or if it’s pointless to talk about, will accept that too. Yes this is what I was wondering…. which is quite interesting. Or I may be missing something entirely

Hi all, Having issues vaping N,N DMT. It's my first time I have tried (syrian rue tea (1.5g) + 10mg DMT, 15mg DMT, 30mg DMT) today but I've not been able to achieve any noticeable effects. I am not on any meds or anything which may inhibit this. I am confident my substance is N,N DMT (don't ask my why). I think it is more likely some flaws in my method of administration. I am trying to vape DMT using a HAMR dab rig https://www.getmyster.com/products/hamr-cold-start-concentrate-rig but I am not sure what I am doing wrong. I am not a smoker and this is my first time trying to operate something like this so appreciate any feedback. Conscious of burning the DMT, I actually take the torch off the stand and wave it back and forth (on a low torch setting where there is still flame) under the nail so I don't overheat the substance. I stop the torch at each state change so I don't move too fast too quickly. Observed state changes: Here is what I saw from my observations it goes from: (1) Yellow crystal -> (2) yellow liquid -> (3) small bubbles appearing slowly in yellow liquid (more liquid than bubbles at this stage), tiny bits of vapour -> (4) larger and more violent bubbles appearing in yellow liquid (there is more bubbles than there is liquid now), more vapour produced -> (5) poof everything is gone, lots of vapour Process I was a bit nervous at first so I took some puffs at stage 3. These puffs were easy to take, there was no resistance to getting that into my lungs and holding it there for 5-10 seconds. But since it is only a little vapour I think that is expected. At stage 4 I turn off the torch and start twirling the carb cap to try and 'evaporate' the remaining substance with the existing heat. I find at this point some of the substance has evaporated but there is still some yellow liquid at the bottom of the nail, I need to apply more heat (turn on the torch) to evaporate that and get to stage 5. At stage 5 all the substance is gone from my nail and I notice my entire rig is filled with a dense vapour. Whereas in stage 3 it was still mostly clear. When I draw at stage 5 the vapour is very dense. I find it hard to hold in and I have a natural inclination to cough it up. The floral/new rubber/plasticy smell is quite strong. After smoking I notice my windpipe is a bit phlegmy as a reaction to it - Is this normal? or have I burnt my DMT? Is stage 5 supposed to be when you actually start to draw in the vapours? Is it normal for vapour to feel this dense and want to cough it up? or am I coughing it up because I have burnt it and there is nasty stuff in there? When I look at my nail there is no produce left at the bottom of it, everything is gone. But I notice there is some dark smears around the inside a little further up. I don't think I am burning the DMT though, I think those are just thin layers of DMT during the evaporation process which stuck to the side and got burnt there due to the heat. There isn't any black residue at the bottom of the nail... Effects Not sure what I am missing here or doing wrong, any advice would be appreciated. After making a large draw at stage 5 on 30mg I laid back and noticed my roof tile patterns were moving around in slightly odd ways, although it wasn't very strong effect it was more of a dizzy effect. I could have a high tolerance but I want to make sure I got my technique right first? The dab rig does have cold water at the bottom which may be filtering some things out.. but I would still expect something... Thanks

How does it feel as you inhale? Not sure if you get the same as me (in terms of just wanting to cough it immediately). I have read around some people say it is smooth some say it is harsh. I don't think I am burning it or if I am just being a bit soft because I am not a smoker and not used to it?

Yea I was wondering if that was normal or not for people who vape it. I'm not a smoker and tbh it kind of put me off vaping it altogether if that is the 'normal' experience. That shit can't be good for your lungs. The other possible scenario is my DMT is contaminated with other chemicals somehow which is causing the harshness, but be interesting to compare with what other people experience or if I am just doing something flat out wrong.

Sharing an insight I had with other guys who may be in similar situation that I’m in - in a long term relationship but want to leave it to burn through karma and bang hot women. Then maybe find the same relationship again in a few years once you got it out of your system. This is not to discourage or discredit other views, just sharing an alternative view I was ruminating how great it would be to leave my gf and have an orgy. Then I realised ‘you know what, I’m not in an orgy right now, but I still feel pretty good’ Then I paused for a sec and was like ‘wait what?’ I realised I had a narrative in my mind - I have to bang X number of women and have X sexual experiences to be happy, but in my direct experience this was not true. I’m just sat here on my own, and I’m good! Even if you have 0 experience, everything is still perfectly good the way things are now! (although I appreciate its hard to realize from the other side) The other narrative is you need to have X number of sexual experiences before you can find 'the one' and be confident in that choice I feel the general narrative from the spiritual community for young men is to let go of attachments, fulfil all your fantasies, become the hero of your journey and you do this by going from an incel to gigachad. This transformation means you need to do pickup and having lots of sexual experiences so you’re not a social retard. There is some truth to all the above and for me this DOES intensify my FOMO because I recognize the truth in it. I am one of those guys who never had many girls before my long term relationship (it’s not perfect though) and it makes me wonder what if…. One of my issues with commitment (in relationships) is this big WHAT IF….. and I am beginning to doubt the doubt itself. I can feel it’s not really necessary for me to have lots of sexual escapades to feel happy or fulfilled. Yet I do see a lot of the material I consume is making me feel like the experience I already have is somehow not enough and I could be doing better (and I accept they may be right in some sense). In terms of sexual experiences, sure I WANT it, but I realise I don’t NEED it. The desire is there, but I don’t feel tortured because I don’t have it (and may never experience it). For me I realized this unconsciously became a 'requirement' that I expected from myself in order to feel fulfilled in the dating world. I believed I could never feel satisfied with my current relationship unless I had X number of experiences behind me. ‘I must sleep with 10 women and pick one’ - if you’re a guy who met your sweet heart at 16, you may have some doubt in your mind and want to explore. But at the same time realise you don’t HAVE to do this. I realized I was treating it like a rigid rule system where you need to go through so many women to truly ‘know’. But really, life is so complex and varied, this may not be the case for you. Just because you haven't slept with 10 women prior doesn't mean you can't enjoy and commit to your current relationship right now. You don't need to necessarily need to be always looking for that next thing. The person in front of you now could be all that you really need. I think its important to look for that doubt within yourself and acknowledge that it does need to be explored. But at the same time there isn’t anything wrong with committing to what you already got - even if you don’t have all that ‘experience’ that the pickup artists and Leo seem to exude. You don’t need to have a rigid narrative where your sex life needs to go X way because someone else said so. I acknowledge that that following this FOMO can lead to growth, but so can committing and developing a deep relationship with someone. FOMO can be good, but it can also cause unnecessary suffering and sometimes break good relationships unnecessarily; because it highlights the fear and doubt in you, then blows it up into something much larger than it really needs to be. It can make you feel inadequate, based off your limited number of sexual encounters you feel like you've not seen enough and somehow it means you're settling for someone below your potential (arghhhhh dun dun dunnnn) In some ways, its like you're letting someone else undermine your reality, and make you think you need something you probably really don't - but only you can decide that. Again there is validity in following FOMO, but I wanted to share the other perspective as I don't think I have seen it anywhere

I am not woke, but sometimes I like to roleplay for fun in my head what my life and struggles would look like through an awakened persons eyes. If you had direct experience that everyone/thing was one consciousness - how does that affect your decision making process? I understand you don't need to be 'woke' to make any particular life decision, I'm just interested in how you feel about major life events relative to someone who hasn't had these experiences. For example say breaking up with a partner, is this easier somehow? if your boss shouts at you at work are you more likely to get up and just leave because - why are you there anyway? Less afraid of doing risky (not reckless) activities like skydiving, bungee jumping, extreme sports because you are eternal anyway? Do the usual worries and fear of life seem less 'acute'? You feel more 'free' to do what you want because you care less about what 'others' think? Does life feel like a bit of a video game to you (where you're not reckless) but it feels more 'fun' because you can make big decisions but always know you are safe somewhat? You're more free somehow because you are less focused on survival and more on... other things? If you have any other comments I would be interested in hearing them

ok.... what the actual fuck did I just watch? WARNING SPOILERS AHEAD -- PLS SKIP IF YOU WANT TO WATCH MOVIE For me two parts stuck out in this movie, it wasn't the ending. Interesting because I am dealing with a few issues at the moment, and I think my mind latched onto these symbols I saw in the movie. The first was even though there was a shit tonne of pain in this, it was nice to see love from the main character. In particular when she finds that woman with the headchain and you can sense all the other woman wants to do is seek comfort and hold somebody. It was hard for me not to feel a bit disgusted by the way her physical body was portrayed after all the trauma, so it was nice to see someone actually try to care for her, comfort, clean her wounds and remove the headchain. At several points in the bathtub I thought the main character was just going to go for the mercy kill and end it for her. Idk for me it was like, you're still lovable, worthy of love and can still try to heal even when your decrepit, ugly and just totally fucked all over. The second thing that stood out to me was the self-harm in the movie. For me it reminded me of my addictions I am working through. When I saw those scenes in the movie I felt love, in the sense I wanted to give the characters love so they would know it is ok and they don't need to harm themselves. Everything is ok, you're safe, you're good. You can heal now kind of thing. I see the parallelism with my own addictions, because it is self-destructive behaviour yet it feels like I can't stop myself. Also its interesting there are some comments about the ending. People on this forum are likely to interpret it a different way from others. I watched a YouTube analysis which had the complete opposite interpretation (skip to 14:30)

Leo's videos are so long I am accustomed to listening to it as I am walking or doing some other activity. I don't sit and watch Leo's face for hours and hours, but I can easily listen to his content throughout the course of a day. I wouldn't notice the video changed in that case. For me the music is a bit distracting, detracts from the message and makes it seem like some kind of 'motivational video' that is trying to trigger some emotional state in you. If you look at the Youtube channels which publish those content its always like 'MOTIVATIONAL101', 'GRIND ALPHA MALE', 'HIGH VIBRATION..' etc. I don't really like that style as it tends to lean into more attention grabbing and click baity kind of vibe which doesn't resonate with Leos content in general. I am fine with the clips being short snippets of the original. As others have said very useful when searching for something as you have stuff going on in your life and you just need a few mins refresher to remind yourself a few things rather than sitting through the whole video again.

@BlessedLion Would you mind explain with an/some examples please? I don't quite see immediately how being integrated leads to more mastery? I am wondering if survival issues that is 10/10 for most people bother you less once you have had deep spiritual experiences. I am not enlightened but I imagine your boss firing you feels way different if you take life at surface level vs when you realize life is a bit of a game for example LOL

Hi- I was contemplating why God didn't just make my life a paradise. My initial answers were that it is already a paradise, but rather pain and struggle were a creation of my mind and a natural product of my experience being here and seeing contrast which leads to desire etc. But somehow part of me is thinking 'well God should have thought of that' it doesn't explain why God doesn't design a Universe (in his infinite intelligence) where I am blissful all the time. Then in my mind stuff comes in like pleasure is not possible without pain etc. There is a reason for pain makes you grow etc. But none of that explains to me (in a satisfactory manner) why God would 'design' pain and suffering in the first place and allow humans to experience it, when any purpose for pain can be done with bliss too (pain seems really unnecessary to me?) He wants me to feel pain because God loves it? (but I don't). Maybe I still have a naiive notion of God, where I am trying to confuse human (biased) love with absolute love? I am quite accustomed to associating peace and appreciation with God. But can one also feel appreciation for God for the pain they experience too? (although I do find it hard to do this because fundamentally I feel it is unnecessary, other than the fact God likes it)

Think I may have shot myself in the foot here... what I am really asking is why does God design pain the way he has. But once you start asking why, there is a never ending chain of why. Only infinite intelligence can understand infinite intelligence so I am probably never going to get it this way. I also guess the reason I want to understand why God designed pain (to hurt) is so I can use this understanding to help alleviate the suffering in my own life. Feels like another self-defence mechanism used by the ego to try avoid painful emotions by dulling them through logical understanding of 'spiritual stuff'. But I think I need to give that up. This video puts it nicely. 'Suffering is the burning up of the resistance we have in order to surrender' - I really like that like that quote

Has anything changed recently that may have triggered those old bad habits? Maybe you can get some insight? if you use your addictions as a coping mechanism, feeling bad about life in general can lead to a downward spiral. Sometimes as adults we expect to make progress in a linear fashion. Each attempt or practice should be better than the last. But that’s not always the case and that’s ok. I like the analogy of a baby child learning to walk. The child may get up and make 3 steps before falling. The next attempt l, they make only 1 step and fall over. The next attempt they may try to stand up and immediately fall down. Throughout this process the child has just one focus - taking the next step. They don’t spend time doubting themselves, they don’t sit in despair at all their previous failed attempts and start worrying themselves if they will ever be able to walk. They don’t beat themselves up or guilt themselves when they fall down. They just get up and take the next step.

It reminds me of different perspectives. Sometimes my gf would shout me over urgently, I immediately stop what I’m doing and run over. When I arrive she asks me which handbag goes best with her outfit. I literally don’t care and am a bit annoyed how trivial the whole situation is. But she spends another 10 mins in front of the mirror and thinking hard about it. in some ways maybe you’re the girl in the mirror and making a fuss over nothing really, so if you change perspective it is simple to see this is really nothing worth worrying about. At the same time though maybe you have had some life experiences which tells you this is important. If I were you, I may try asking the question - is it possible for me to be happy without being physically hot? Is my life still worth living if I were not a hot woman? if the answer to the above is ‘yes’ then contemplate ok it may still be a desire, but you may not really NEED this as much as you are leading yourself to believe. Then I would ask what it is you really want from being hot? Is it approval from men? Is it approval from yourself perhaps? If it is approval from others, maybe ask yourself if you do really need that to be happy? Can you still see the value in yourself even when men deem you to be ugly? If it is approval from yourself, maybe ask yourself if you are worthy of your own love and sense of self-worth even if some parts of you don’t accept your appearance then maybe you can go through a process of becoming your own cheerleader, what other things do you admire about this woman? Can you love her even if she isn’t hot? Can you still support her and cheer her on as she goes for her hopes and dreams admist struggle? Is it still possible to love and admire this woman? There may be some limiting beliefs about how you will attract men if you are not a hot woman. But I think if you start going through the process of falling in love with yourself, you start to see your own value more clearly and this limiting belief will go away on its own (you deserve the best, even if your appearance does not match your expectations)