Samuel Garcia

Member
  • Content count

    138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Samuel Garcia

  • Rank
    - - -

Recent Profile Visitors

2,064 profile views
  1. How to become conscious of an other/ other minds if all I know is experience? The best I know is the knowing of other minds. How can to escape this first person perspective at all?
  2. @Emerald I think you are totally right that it is the women with more trauma that are attracted to the more narcissistic, dominant guys. But the majority of society today have undealt traumas. So these things seem to work. Some guys may get involved in pick-up is because both conscious and unconscious women reject low self-esteem guys. I think we can agree on that even the more conscious women out there find a low-self esteem guy unattractive. But the other way around a healthy, conscious man would not necessarily find low self-esteem unattractive in a women. So what Leo is saying is a huge step in attracting a women pretty much regardless.
  3. @Osaid I saw someone on YouTube who did a 40 day water fast and he carried on lifting weights and was able to maintain muscle mass on his arms from what I saw. Not sure if this would help though.
  4. I would love to try do 10 days or even 40 days of water fasting for the mental and spiritual effects but I do not want to lose weight as I am really skinny as it is. I have always struggled to put on weight -- even when I tried to put on weight when I was a teenager and eat over 3000 kcal per day. So is there anyway to preserve my weight if I do these prolonged water fasts? I don't think I can do to much, but if anyone has any suggestions please share. I'd also like to try keto, so is there a way to retain weight on keto? Thanks in advance.
  5. I suppose it depends on what one means by enlightenment. Let's agree that enlightenment is what all beings are truly looking for in life. Wouldn't that could an effect on the operation of the individual? Surely then psychological survival (ie seeking any sort of validation from others, the need for luxury, the need for love in a relationship etc) all falls away if one truly is happy within oneself?
  6. @soos_mite_ah Yes I agree with a lot with what you say. Regarding integration, maybe for most people this occurs but not necessary. When you reach completeness, stillness and surrender occurs. Integration may occur, or giving up of many separate self activities. When you are peaceful and silence, at that point you don't need to worry so much about dealing with the shadow. But you could be right in saying that through certain stages (not necessarily SD) before surrender occurs Of course you do what you feel will make you happy as I said. Not everyone will even speculate about enlightenment. Some men place a women's looks as most important. The more conscious men would objectify less, and would asses other qualities are more important but may still be emotionally pulled by how a women looks. Try screen out for more conscious men as they are more aligned with what you are looking for of course. There are a wide variety of men out there, they are not all the same.
  7. @Emerald At no point did I say people should nor say what someone should or should not do (and I'm not sure if others said at least from what I have read). In fact I'd recommend most people fulfil there social needs if they are able to -- bond with your families; from deep, meaningful friendships; follow your heart and get into relationships with anyone you feel love for; climb the Hierarchy of Needs and do what you feel is appropriate for you. But we just need to see the facts for what they are. Those are all selfish endeavours (what you meant by 'humanity') and for survival. And there is nothing wrong with survival just what is so. Without survival you and I would not be here. So from the individual's perspective, it is ideal. Whether we get everything we want socially or nothing at all, either way we are not truly fulfilled. We know there is more life. Our intuition leads us to ''pursue'' spiritual enlightenment. Our higher self knows better than depending on other people (and worldly circumstances) for our happiness. What you claim about enlightenment differs from what Ramana Maharshi has said. Now here is an important point: What I am saying about Enlightenment is more humanity not less! Would you rather help others or help one person based on your need for love? That is why I introduced the image of Mother Theresa helping others just as an example. It is a no brainer. We would rather help many people (whatever that maybe) rather commit to one person. The only reason we would be in a relationship would be to help ourselves. And of course if we were in a relationship with someone they would need to be satisfied as well, lol. If you feel you need relationships and other people, than do what you feel is best for you. I am not saying to not get into a relationship -- but it is selfish. If guys need to go pick up women, well that's where they are at. Spiritual bypassing could cause them to feel less satisfied, but they won't find the love they truly seek even in an intimate relationship. But many people have found completeness within and certainly let go of social needs. Ramana Maharshi clearly did this and found peace. It is not the norm for sure, but my higher self knows I must let go of needing a relationship -- like many other people.
  8. @Gesundheit @Surfingthewave Thanks for the feedback. Glad you resonated with the post.
  9. Different teachers say mean different things with ''enlightenment''. Teachers agree that it is knowing one's own true nature whatever that means. Some say that happiness is there. Yous seem to have a similar perspective as Peter Ralston -- enlightenment doesn't change anything including self-survival tendencies but it can help transformation. That slightly different to what Rupert Spira has said where peace and love is found, having a completeness within oneself but life goes on as one wishes to do so. He admits occasionally he acts unenlightened sometimes but peace is the norm. He famously has said to tell your partners ''I love you, but I do not need (and you cannot give me the happiness I seek)'' Ramana Maharshi differs even more as he said habitual tendencies (vassanas) must be surrendered. Having talked to devotees, they have alluded to that desires are given up, supposedly because they serve a false entity. So when ego is seen through, these desires as well certain behaviours are dropped. A deep surrender occurs. Why is the absolute view worth even mentioning? It means nothing. It is an easy way to fool oneself. Unless that translates into the relative -- a knowing that love is always here. That means contentment of where you are. Of course this means you are free to enter relationships. Yes this is true you are free to do so. But why bother at that point? This is my point. But you are saying there is not translation here. It isn't out of the question to imagine a person who does not have any social needs and it happy (but to imagine someone who never eat is difficult even though people might be able to do this). In fact many people will be forced to find happiness with way as God has not given them people to love them for whatever reason. People have such varied experiences. Go talk to people a wide variety of people from different areas of the world. A Christian who couldn't find love, people who go to Mooji's meeting, a women who lives in a conservative part of the Middle East, an impoverished person who will never see beyond where they live, a women who has such low self-esteem and feels ugly -- I can go on giving examples I have come across. If they are to be happy, there is no choice for most of these people to free themselves from a lot of their need for intimacy in another. In a non-duality meeting, a man said to the teacher that he was fearful of never getting married. The teacher said forwardly ''You won't care about that kind of stuff once you understand this''. It's quite interesting how you concrete you portray social needs like physiological needs. But to test what you say, the best thing I can do is for me to see if I can be free of social needs. The pandemic has shown me I definitely don't need other people as much as I believed, though I am not totally free.
  10. Say that when Emerald is not satisfied in the conscious relationship. Self-deception is a sneaky one You should go to a Rupert Spira meeting and tell him people need other people for love
  11. When I say ego, we are talking about an individuals bias -- ie survival for their needs and ideals. So would you agree there is not escaping that? You said relationships are conditional which true. The foundation for a conscious relationship and unconscious relationship is the same -- satisfying Emerald. The conscious relationship sure has more love involved but it is still conditional on you benefitting from it. That is survival. Like many, I have sought love in a relationship but that never came to fruition. But just being honest about the years of struggle with women and being honest with myself has cut down the seeking significantly for me recently. Would you say I need an intimate relationship to be happy? Repressing ego is not helpful for sure. But its good to be honest about it. Men care about physical attraction women care about masculine containment -- both are egoic anyway, They both serve an individual's desires. That is survival, you see? If people realised this, then they would not seek love in a relationship as much as they recognise people care about themselves primarily. How is there an escape from that? There isn't (Well enlightenment but you don't quite agree so let's drop that.)
  12. I like this point you raise about how we define our ''self''. What I am interested in here is being absolutely self-honest with what we think self is. Without any sort of psychedelic drug, for me it is hard to see other people as myself. Here I am typing here, and it is my responsibility to take care of this human Samuel here and I do not experience other people -- only my own experience. When you mention conscious relationships, it sounds nice seeing a partner as ''self''. But would you agree there is still an underlying bias there? For example, you still still be attracted to a certain person and you may have a great relationship with them. But you wouldn't date a homeless person, or someone who had serious mental health issues. There is still ego there. You'd drop what holds you back and brings you pain. Ultimately you as Emerald still must benefit from the relationship otherwise you'd leave. I don't think you are disputing that. But are you saying we can have ego, and at the same time see all as self? I'd argue if you truly saw all as self, you wouldn't need social interaction. Because you realise you are not this limited body-mind! That is the point of this enlightenment stuff. You don't need psychological and emotional gain from others at all then what a limiting idea. The sages who supposedly have realised all is self, have given up all there desires. Many of them don't even go out to help the world, when it seems the world needs it. Yet they say all is the Self and don't bother helping others at all. But I don't see all as self so I do not know. Who knows what is the consequence of seeing all as self? I'd think that if you think all is self, then you might want to help others perhaps like a Mother Theresa for example because at that point you don't have social needs. In my opinion, I think there is some self-deception when seeing a partner as extension of oneself. It ultimately serves a purpose, whether to fulfil each other, or to get along in life like in a hypothetical enlightened, celibate relationship. I'm finding it hard to be convinced that relationships are not about fulfilling the individual self's desires. Nothing wrong with that of course. Wouldn't you consider a guy considering a girl's body as what is attractive in a women of all things shallow? I said this is shallow from a personal development viewpoint, and not necessary true of course. It is what it is. But as egoic humans who want to self-actualise, we can have opinions about it. Equally, we can view relationships where we seek love in another shallow -- because that is not ideal. Nor is it where love we seek is found.
  13. From a self-actualisation viewpoint pursuing intimacy and connection in a relationship is certainly more noble than pursing someone based on how they look. However desiring intimacy and desiring physical looks are both selfish endeavours. Why would anyone even desire connection and intimacy in a committed relationship? Isn't it to just be satisfied at the end of the day? Leo is spot on when he says that one would probably not pursue a relationship if one was completely happy within oneself. So even though valuing how someone looks is shallow, from a higher perspective wanting intimacy in a relationship could also be seen as ''shallow'' because it is fundamentally still selfish. I've always been someone who has sought love in other people my whole life. And after failing to seek the relationship I dreamed of with a women, looking back I can see even the most lovely, caring, conscious women I have met in my life are fundamentally selfish. Even though they may have empathy for my low-self esteem, even those nice women don't want to build an intimate connection with me -- Why would they? My self issues and depression is not something attractive to anyone. So even the most conscious of women I have met have their own bias. The bottom line is that it is a game of ego-survival -- not noble pursuit. We can talk about conscious relationships but isn't that more survival? Find completeness within yourself. Enter spirituality. All love is only for oneself. So turn towards that Self.
  14. I'm not clear on what you mean here. How can we know a perception before recognizing it? By recognizing do you mean interpreting the perception as a perception? Of course, that would be something added on to the perception. Nonetheless I am claiming I certainly know perception as it is.