theleelajoker

Honestly and curiously asking: Who? I either forgot or haven't encountered such people What's the reason(s) you give them credibility to even consider to follow their words without using own common sense? Edit: I followed some stuff without questioning myself of course, too. Probably still do re some things unconsciously. But it was never a single person, it was more following ideas established by society in general.

Yeah, I would say that Ralston seems to lack...compassion? That words seems right. He is so deep in his own reality tunnel that he either forgot or even never experienced the challenges you mention. A friend of mine visited one of his courses in person and he (Ralston) seems to lack certain empathic qualities...at least from time to time.

Quite the claim to say his view is "flawed". HTF you know that? What purpose does it serve for you to think that way? What consequences would happen if you reverse your POV by 180°? You don't need Leo for that. It's super the most basic common sense there is, isn't it? There's not a single person whom I attribute just a tiny speck of credibility who says otherwise. Seriously, I can't think of anyone that goes "Don't use your own common sense, don't make your own experience, following me blindly and never question" And for the ones now saying "what about religion or sects" I refer back to tiny speck of credibility and the common sense you're born with as a human I pointed out above.

I think a HUGE problem is that people rely on "teachers" they only know from videos, or stories or similar. Guys, you know the part this person wants to present as their online personality, not the person itself. And the sheer fact that this person sends videos as a one way street, without live resonance and feedback - that should already tell you something.. First person, real life experience. Live experience over an extended period of time. Anything else - what do you even expect?

Re content, I agree. But I don't get the context. My point was that re @CARDOZZO it is not plausible to make a post about "lot's of sex or sex opportunity doesn't make me happy" while saying sex is not a priority. People that don't have sex as priority don't use dating apps, or if they do they don't have 30 contacts and 20 matches (don't recall the exact numbers) re sexual contacts, and they don't do posts about their sex life in a forum. They don't approach many girls, they don't have an approach or philosophy about how to talk to girls or how they get to sex, because their thoughts don't touch these topics so much. It's like saying "I don't care about football" while being in a football stadium watching a game lol

1) OK 2) Careful with assumptions about my dating behavior. Also in is forum I have argued in favor of authenticity, honesty and against manipulative pick up behavior. I agree, lieing and playing games is a huge energy drain 3) Having a tinder profile IS already a sign of priority of sex for me. I don't have one (any more ) and some of my ffriends also don't. Other friends do use it because it's a higher priority for them to meet girls to have (the potential for) sex

Aren't you the guy that posted the stuff about all the Tinder and Whatsapp contacts that want to fuck with you? The one that said you achieved the pick up dream but realized it doesn't make you happy? (I'm paraphrasing) Can't believe you got to this point without giving it a priority in your life.

Maybe. Maybe your point is just a symptom of the need to look for an explanation re your individual experience, labeling it as "truth" because it's to hard to just take things as they are and live without explanation in the mystery of life.

I don't know Daniel Schmidt well enough. Maybe it's true what you say, even if I didn't get the same impression as you got. But I sense lot of projection and I doubt you have seen his work? Thing is, I do believe there is constant communication going on, and I do believe that there's SOME resonances mechanism with "external reality". Maybe I experience reality that way because I want to see it that way, maybe it's a case of John C Lilly's "whatever you believe either is true or becomes true". Don't know, it's simply the way I experience life. Simple stuff I experienced like I say something now to person A, and a few minutes/ hours/ days later person B that was maybe 1000km away and never ever was in touch with person B picks up the exact context and words. That kind of resonance as one example. Leaving this side-topic aside, my personal biggest awaking jump came from simply being present. Just sitting and moving attention though my body, or watching breath, or just sitting. So for you it's will, for me it's being present, for others it might be substances, or jerking off at midnight. So what to take from it? Nothing. Nothing but personal experience. Many people project their experience into generalized "that's the way it's is". I think that's BS. I say no one knows how it works and just looks for a coherent story. Of course, might be that I do that too - just with my own generalized story of " you are wrong it can't be known" 🤣

It's a POV, yes. I'm not disputing that it's different - very different - for people. We're fully on the same side. It's the conclusions we draw from these observations where we disagree. I had a meditation teacher, his message was basically that you can't awaken as long as you try to awaken. It's in the line with "life gives you what's you want when you stop seeking." So doing all the methods you describe might me counterproductive. Daniel Schmidt (IWOW documentary) has a saying - awakening as an accident, you can't create the accident, but you can get more accident prone. So maybe there's influence, but no control? Not sure if I remember correctly, isn't the Buddhist POV that anyone can reach enlightenment? Or, maybe it has NOTHING to do with you, me, efforts and endowment - maybe it's just the appearance of cause and effect the use of techniques, and truly it's higher intelligence directing the awakenings in line with criteria that are unknowable or incomprehensible for us? Or maybe it's a system, where many things are interconnected and/or constant change? Maybe you could reach awaking degree X with 30, but X+5 with 50 years? And maybe X+10 with 70, but only if you spent a lot of time with people that have X+10 ....etc etc. I could go on for long time with different plausible POVs My point is: the idea of mono-cauasality, you have genetic endowment and that determines XYZ, simple does not resonate / convince me. And it bothers me to hear it pronounced as "truth" when I can't see convincing evidence or arguments. (Not meant personally, it's strictly about the idea). You can say it's an idea you think about, ok. Gotcha. But proclaiming truth goes too for IMO. I might be wrong though, and maybe you're right. Sure, that's possible. However, if my life would depend on it, I would pick quite a few different explanations before going along with yours. Hope my tone is better now!

I was a bit harsh, sorry for that. I had a long day and long night and am tired. The thing is, how you know that people are doing things right? What works for A, or for 60,70,80....% of people might not work (the same way) for someone else. You have assumptions, e.g. you knowing what's right. You can't really now that, can you? Also, consciousness is changing constantly, so what can we really know what's the right path? Maybe it's 100% individual? Who knows. I don't need to prove anything. I'm not saying "it's like that or this". I don't know, and I haven't seen convincing evidence that ANYONE knows or that it's even possible to know.

"It is extraordinarily rare to reach the highest states of consciousness — whether as stable baseline realizations or as insane peak states — unless one possesses exceptional, perhaps extreme, innate endowment" I question this. I don't see any criteria, any evidence, any arguments. You just say it's like this, but you present NO, ZERO indicator in how to measure this "genetic endowment". Do you have a machine at home where you put people into, then the machine spits out "person A has 6538.86 points of endowment, and person N has only 3492.54?" Even assuming that you have this machine, how does it work? And how can you know that this endowment is constant and not able to change? Everything is connected, interrelated, all is one consciousness and still you say there's an individual component in an individual that fixates the seemingly most interrelated thing that exists, consciousness itself? All is see is just a lot of speculation.

Your story reminds me of the one of a friend. He's a more or less "normal" guy, no superstitious believes, cult etc. I don't remember all details, but he also faced uncomfortable phenomena over a prolonged period, as far as I recall it was rather mental then somatic. In short, nothing from classical Western medicine approach and doctors helped, so someone send him to some guy practicing some kind of esoteric stuff. He told my friend something very similar about being possessed by a demon. My friend was sceptic back then, and he was also sceptic when he told me this story, but the guy did something, some ritual where my friend also needed to take responsibility for some actions (don't remember clearly) and it helped. Symptoms disappeared and did not come back. Doesn't help to explain how it works but felt like sharing when I read your story. The guy doing the ritual was not taoist but had Christian background, though.

Lol the second question surprised me 😂 But also, good question.

You are contradicting yourself. If I cringe about it or if have an existential crisis, that's just play of words. I watch the show, I participate in it, and I wonder if that is really the best it can do.i don't feel like it is right now.

I can follow your logic, and I see some validity in it. Definitely. The thing is, that I AM judging Maya. You're absolutely right. And I am questioning a) if that's really the way it needs to be b) of that's really the experience "it" - in form of us humans - wants to have. Because when I look around the world, I don't get the impression thats a) and b) is the case. Maybe I'm wrong? Maybe I'm biased? Yeah yeah sure. It's just my opinion. As I tried to make the point before, the way I look at the world reminds me of a series that got overboard with too much emotions, conflict, violence, tension etc. Or like a meal that got salted too much. Some is fine, but too much is simply too much.

That's one way of looking at it. Don't buy that though, the experiences of suffering for me were/ are real and if I look at others, same seems to apply for them. To be extreme: Don't think you would say the same thing when you bleed to death while your loved ones get raped in front of you

Good questions, and I don't know the final answers. I terms of war my first reflex is that the amount of suffering, death, rape, destruction can't really be worth whatever benefits arise. Thanks that you actually pick up the intention of my posts and constructively discuss it with me.

So if I stop judging things as "dramatic", then the war in Ukraine stops? If I just watch people dieing in the streets in front of me without movement in my mind, then they become healthy again? If I questions my role in the scene, then the woman asking me for help because she gets beaten at home suddenly lives peacefully with her husband? You mostly only assume scenarios where something happens to me - I lose my job, a friend dies, someone insults me etc - and then tell me "don't react then drama stops". Yes, that's part of it. But I'm taking about more then that. And I don't need more advice on how to not react and questioning my role in drama etc. Don't know where I fail to communicate that I'm not interested and did not ask for that kind of advice.

That's exactly the assumption I am questioning. Many people here tell me that I as an individual could stop drama. Instantly. So if I could do it, why not consciousness or Brahman or God or whatever you want to call it?

Why do you think the world is set up the way it is? Is it because it is choice, because it is the only possible way to exist, or some other reason?

Many replies that focus on what or how I should do. Ok, got that. Doing the best to practice my equanimity, and it's getting better. But with few exceptions, almost nobody picked up the question of the drama (conflicts, tensions, anger, violence, war, deseases, famine, climate change etc) in the world. No matter how great my equanimity, this drama won't go aways, will it? You might say consciousness ("it") has to learn how to live peacefully, how to integrate etc. But as of now, I just don't believe that. I rather believe it could stop it any moment but has other reasons to keep it up. Maybe I'm wrong, and I obviously don't know, but I simply don't believe that it's " just happening" and there's no other way. If you tell me that I could immediately stop if I only do XYZ, then it should also be able to do it on a global basis right?

When had a deep awakening, I got an advice that is very simple and yet powerful: "If I don't know where to start, I start with my body"

I remember something like that, too. Was also on mushroom, and quite a lot. Sitting on the floor in my bathroom, and first some crying and then laughing. Laughing about me, and my character, and about some friends and their character in this story of life. Yeah, it seems to me it's a joke. But also, it's not. It's the only thing I know and can experience right now. I guess it's about balancing both - the funny and the serious and embracing it both.

Yeah, good points you two shared. Regarding your re-phrasing; "It would be if this immediate urge to talk about it and not be alone with it after a certain extreme behaviour has occurred is healthy or not"? Joe Hudson has some points that resonate with me a lot, and one that might be useful here is: "make your life an experiment". For instance, ask yourself open questions like How can I find out if it's healthy? What does healthy actually mean for me? What happens if I do X instead of Y? What principles are useful for me to make a decision? If I don't have any, how can if create them? How can I know that behavior X or Y is ACTUALLY GOOD FOR ME? What are my criteria? Etc etc It's quite funny, because emotional regulation seems to be a top priority for many people. Hat a chat with my neighbor in a train and re the question how a man would need to be the first point was not status but "stable, knowing who he is and knowing how he emotionally regulates himself"