Narcissist cant see that he is in wrong, because he has so much shame in him that he must resort to gaslighting,shaming,blaming,being a victim etc.

if I would know a rigorous answer to that, I would probably be one of the smartest person alive. This is one question a lot of people struggle with and the concept of an antirivalrous world is about. As I said before, debating about it won't be sufficient enough, because debating is structurally limited for this, and here is why:
 
Debating already assumes an already agreed upon goal/goalpost where we will try to move towards during our debate, unless this is not established, we will talk past each other and we won't settle/get anywhere. Debating is about using logic to get from A to B. Morals precedes logic and  sometimes if we have foundationally different morals, we won't be able to agree upon the goal/goalpost, therefore we won't even be able to begin our debate and won't be able to settle our disagreement(s) by debate Therefore the argument would be , that we need to have a common set of foundational morals that we can all use and agree upon  (religion) and just after that we can start talking about debating certain topics. Once that foundation is established, that will give a structure to our debates and we can then debate about how to move towards certain goals within that structure.
You might say "yeaah, but there never was a universal religion that everyone agreed upon, and we still managed to survive and to move society forward" - that would be a good point, however the next part of the argument would be , that even though in the past we somewhat managed to do that (because we weren't that depended on each other and in the  past we could use might to get what we want), in the 21st century where everything is interconnected and we are depended on each other, some of these disagreements (that are at foundational moral level) needs to be settled to be able to solve some of our global problems and to be able to not live in constant fear that the other party will use their might (justifiably from their perspective) to defend their morals.
The weakest part of this argument is obviously about the "how". How could we get to a universal religion without war and actual fights? The answer to that question is incredibly complicated and I am not educated enough to talk on that, however, first we have to agree that there is a strong need for it, and then we can talk about the "hows" (notice that here we have to agree on the goalpost to be able to have a debate about it and to be productive).

The most effective way is the one which is in line with your cognitive phenotype.
You will find yourself drawn towards certain teachers/teachings and less towards others. 
Both your nature and your individual conditioning will play part in that process.

Any teacher with the necessary amount if integrity and wisdom can lead you towards progress and realization.

Some high integrity teachers are imo:
- Angelo Di Lullo 
- A.H Almaas
- Adyashanti
- Leo Gura
- Frank Yang
- Peter Ralston

It also depends on what you want to achieve.
There are multiple realizations to be made and each will come with it's own set of conclusions.
Hardcore neo-adveita and no-self teachings will bring their different flavours than god-realization.

@LoneWonderer
 

I'm sure ER doctors on the frontline dealing with the slaughter of the pandemic of the unwaxed population who refused the vaccination in the middle of a cytokine storm, would give you a massive rubber glove high-five. 
Easy to quack from the comfort of one's home looking at some random data set the way these guys are doing. 
Playing Call of Duty is not the same as being on the front with a rifle in your hand and bullets flying over your head 

It can be surprising once you let go of identification. The veil of you that is left isn't lost. It becomes more sublime. Life is relaxed, creative, intelligent, and authentic because it is a purer expression of your essence. Your only regret is that you didn't realize it sooner.

I see this is enough clarification without getting into the nitty-gritty thank you! All I can say from personal experience, burning through karma, doing khanika-samadhi (style) meditation and psyches and weightlifting maybe long-distance run, dissolves a lot of karmic cravings, especially when you also exhaust them to some extend. 

Structure wise it also resolves the karmic rebirth cycles. (khanika-samadhi) There are schools arguing about this. All I can say is this definitely takes longer, and I like Yangs approach of using expansion and contraction and the auto-paradigm from Shinzen, it's not you and when you break it down further, it's also not the automatism of the body anymore. I can't get to these stretches physically lol, otherwise I'd have more evidence "empirical evidence". 
What about the expansion and contraction paradigm? What is your take on this? (From Sasaki Roshi & Shinzen's overtaking of it) as far as I understand (I legit have no time to dive into the technical depths of clarity), it leads to non-dual type of flow experiences and has a very psychdelic component to it even under the influence of psychdelics, it has an expansiveness paradigm to it, so nothing is reduced everything is expanded and the paradigm integrates, even the reductionistic perspective in that sense. 

Instead of soto-zen type sitting, beign aware and doing nothing, it's like an active form of the same paradim from my feeling and personal experience with both. Expansion and conctraction feels more percise, and karmic dissolving (although more risky...) than just soto-zen sitting. I like both very much! Although I prefer expansion and contraction (rarely anyone teaches this...)

From a more personal experience from the reductionistic compressions, there will be expansive flavours that show you the contraction and reduction of whatever is, has a total opposite to it. More like union type of experiences, moving fully into femininty especially feeling full. The opposite of Yang moving more into Yin nature... beauty, fullness, love. There is just more of it in that paradigm, yet it goes no further than non-duality in that sense. This is sort of the stopping point of the roshis roshis of the roshis... 

Also at integral there is an understanding that Vipassana and I received a tip, goes no further than causal = white light, archetypial sorts of understanding, and that the zen practices all deepend the understanding to non-duality. They get stuck on the emptiness idea. 


Thanks in advance for claritifcations! Also for the optimization point, this takes serious effort, time and work. Guess sticking around is the name of the game.

You might be right on the brain development thing. But you also gotta consider that we are talking about a time when lifespan was maybe 30-35 years. So yah, figuring out humans can eat meat and survive more effectively was a major evolutionary benefit.
I didn't really want to go into this but how do you know brain adaptation wasn't due to survival adaptability (learning to hunt, track, harvest and preserve animals, build tools, traps, observe behaviour) rather than a meat itself. Would certainly be a question for evolutionarily anthropologist.
Vegans might be prone to more psychological distress, maybe. The article you shared is based on a systematic review of cross sectional evidence. By design, cross sectional study cannot infer neither causality nor association, it is actually a pretty useless study where other evidence is available. 
Finally, how do you know that depression in vegans cannot be caused by extended empathy for the wellbeing of animals and the way most humans don't give a fuck about the cruelty of animal farming? I'd say vegans are depressed because they feel misunderstood and kinda facing an impossible task (we could talk about the epistemiology of stage green but this is not the time and place).
It is important we don't make haste conclusions where none can be made  because, again, cross sectional evidence is quite low at the hierarchy of evidence and the real answer is that we don't know why in that article, vegans showed more psychological distress. 
Btw hearing that you are mostly Mediterranean eater is a good news, somehow I thought you are a hard ass carnivore ?
Anyways, I'll leave this thread now. Not looking for a fight here just challenging your opinions as i think you are being a bit unfair with the vegans and maybe...a bit biased? ..but then we all are one way or another.
Take Care

He's not afraid to look egotistical. I think he doubles down on it on purpose. He sees "acting humble" as a façade. Is it egotistical for someone like Leo or Sadghuru to describe themselves as "awake" or "more conscious"? I don't think so. Such concepts and ideas are often used by the ego for self-grandiosity, but not always, and having the courage and authority to say those things as a matter of fact is not a bad practice IMO. It's also a test of true humbleness on your side to see if you are going to be put off by such statements and accuse them of lacking humility or realize that they genuinely do have more experience and knowledge to offer you. 

Admittedly, his post is very hyperbolic and exaggerated. For example, the part where he says "your whole life and everything out of your mouth has been a lie". Obviously, this isn't exactly true, but it's very eye-catching and dramatic. It would be a mistake to take this at face value since it's just hyperbole to catch your attention. He's just saying that to get his initial point across in a more emphatic way. That's it. 



 

@Someone here oh god nooo don't subscribe to the "soy kills your testosterone" nonsense dude, cmon we had this conversation ??Ok, no seriously you're totally safe eating soy products. 
Who says there is an epidemic? If so many men are borderline infertile why do we see a boom in population growth? 
You know what I think there is an epidemic of?
Lying shits on the internet who sell fake problems and selling fake solutions to this (which pretty much defines 3/4 of the influencers in the fitness industry preying on the insecurity and inexperience of guys who get most of their life exposure through their digital devices and are disconnected from reality ) 
The minds of young have been corrupted to such a degree that they are willing to give themselves cancer as long as they can get a six pack now and have an illusion of attractiveness and masulinity 
EDIT: btw nothing here is personal bruh, this is more of a rant of mine

of course a food can make you feel better temporarily but that could be down to numerous factors.
Eating a food that you like and that tastes good causes a release of dopamine and serotonin in the brain. Sure you can translate this as "wave of masculinity" but that's probably just a natural response to something you enjoy. It makes you feel good. That's why we pursue the things we do because they make us feel good. 
Foods can have all sorts of secondary effects but it doesn't;t mean they cause permanent alterations (with the exceptions of some that do such as red meat possibly causing irreversible changes to the vascular system)_ 
Some herbs, like astragalus or Rhodiola can cause adrenals to release epinephrine short-term, which make you feel better, for a short time and then the levels get rebalanced and you are back on ground zero 
Coffee causes some dopamine release and blocks adenosine receptors - that makes you feel better. Doesn't mean it is making you stronger, just triggers some release of a few molecules for a short time. After couple hours, that feeling goes away. 
Some plants may cause a short-term vasodilation through nitric oxide buildup but it doesn't mean they somehow suddenly increase athletic performance by 30%
It's just all this mechanistic translation into long-term outcomes that I have issues with. 
the word "boosting" indicates that you can just take a shot of something like drinking a potion in MMORPG and just get +20% buff in a given biomarker. It doesn't work that way.
Androgenic hormones are tightly controlled by the hypothalamus-pituitary-gonadal axis. If you inject yourself with hormones, the natural production will go down to rebalance itself. If it gets too low, the pituitary will send a signal into your testicles to make more. This is happening thousands of times per day without your input. 
It's not a system you can affect as easily without taking synthetic hormones. Again, we are talking long-term, not short term variations. 
Sure, if you get deficient in these it may have negative effects. But what we mean is once you have healthy levels, taking more of any of these doesn't do anything. If your optimal testosterone levels are 650 nanograms per deciliter then this is where you will be most of the time and eating more oysters is not going to make you permanently go to 750. 
Whenever someone says "has been shown" ask them "where, can you show me?" 
 
I would discourage you from seeking superfoods - like the one thing that is the best , the greatest the most masculine & dick-hardening food and just focus on eating a variety of all sorts of foods. Making sure you are not hypocaloric is going to provide more benefit than macrodosing a single food nutrient. 
By the way, this is a bit off-topic but in the epidemiology, when long-term data is accounted for, omnivores, vegetarians and vegans have mostly the same levels of testosterone regardless of their diets. People who eat the most soy have the same levels as those who eat the most steak, on average, statistically speaking. Or if there are variations, they are tiny and statistically non-significant. 
But this reality is boring, so quacks will say stuff like "eat eggs to boost your hormones" because that's what insecure gym bros love and that's what sells. You can sell books, seminars and supplements by convincing people that what you say is true even if it isn't. 
 
The final topic I'll make is - always look out for the long-term effects of something that is claimed to cause rapid improvement. Heroine causes rapid dopamine increase but in the long term can give you dementia and cardiac arrest. 
Anything that rapidly changes the homeostatic balance of biological biomarkers is either toxic or a pharmaceutical grade stuff. 
I'll leave it at that 
 

They would naturally be left to age & die without forced reproduction each year. The colonies would shrink over the decades, farmlands reused for other purposes and the idea is that farmers remain farmers but are now subsidised to grow plants even with primary focus on organic produce....right now that's a pipe dream. 
Or you could go old school and deploy animals for agricultural purposes (e.g. land ploughing) and use them to help you create organic farms for crop planting. I don't think that's necessarily unethical. The animals naturally respond positively to "exercise" and movement compared to being locked in boxes and fattened up so they can be sold for steaks. 
I think there is even some research that cattle that is being kinda pushed to move more, have higher levels of serotonin in the body. But I don't know if that's true. If you see cattle in the wild where they have large pastures, they keep moving all the time, shitting & pissing all over the place and naturally contributing to redistribution of nutrients back to the soil. They still have young but not at the rate at which they have it on meat farms where they are being impregnated 

Any judgment toward thoughts is itself a thought  Just be aware that every thought, no matter how sincere, has the treacherous potential to be conscripted into the service of the ego. Even the thought that "I am no-self" or "I am enlightened" or "I am free from thoughts" is the ego pretending to be what it can never be.
Don't fight with your thoughts. It only empowers them by binding your attention to them. Allow them to arise, without resisting or identifying with them. Let them come and go like clouds in the sky.
Eventually you will learn to consistently remain present, with thoughts in the periphery of awareness. Some thought and feeling clouds are heavier than others. The energy of past experiences is trapped within them. You develop the capacity to sense those that are ready, and lean your awareness gently into them. The light of your being softens their boundaries, and eventually they release their rain back into yourself.
This is only an analogy, but I am trying to describe the inner process of unifying the mind. It is the gift of meditation, which conducts the disparate voices of the self, and teaches them to sing in harmony. Each thought blends into the seamless Hallelujah chorus of enlightenment. ?

McKenna's flagship quote explains it all: 
“Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behaviour and information processing. They open you up to the possibility that everything you know is wrong.”

A guy called Timothy Leary. Not the sole reason, but he exemplified the first wave of naive and idealistic Green, which was not strategic, not systems-aware enough to foresee the pushback from the mainstream.
 
 
 

Throw a lot of logic out of the window and just learn to be playful and fun. Fun conversations are rarely about the content of what you're saying, they're usually about the energy between you. The hardest people to have conversations with are people who have no energy, not the people who have nothing going on in life.
It's easier said than done. But the gist of it is getting out of your head, not thinking about the content of what you're saying too much, relaxing, and letting go of the logical flow of a conversation.
Learn to make stupidly lateral connections from what a person says, don't answer literally, intentionally misinterpret what they say etc. etc. 
For example if someone told you they were a cashier rather than just saying "oh thats nice, I bet you have interesting stories about shitty customers" you could say "i bet you must fucking hate people with a job like that" with a playful energy which well then coax out those stories in a more entertaining way

I was typing a joke before, that all of these words have such a british sarcastic tune to them, I am aghastly appalled at the bewilderment of this specimen, I just wanna see nature documentaries from national geographics with this kind of vocabulary. I love this level of hidden irony/sarcasm so much. It just leaves room for misinterpretation. I worked in London and gave my co-worker an impression of this, he told me it's to offensive and I had to stop I had to laugh so hard. 

Aghast is relatively easy.

Active Listening: a very important skill to develop in life (and some of the toughest ones)

I mean I agree with you here for the most part, but we’re not talking about hypothetical futures, we’re talking about statistical observations that you can make about current society and the levels of bias present in them.
Right now, an individual that says “men are taller than woman” is not likely biased against women. But an individual who says “men are smarter than woman” likely is biased against woman. The discussion is about levels of bias in an individual in our current society with our current genetics for male and female.
Yea of course if you had long enough you could breed anything you want into existence, following your logic you could even breed gestation out of woman, and so even that is a ‘bias’ to say that woman gestate. But that’s on the scale of many many lifetimes and not really relevant or practical to our current discussion.

They are probably of the notion that logical = intelligent… when very logical people tend to get things wrong quite a lot.
They think logical equals true. But logical just refers to what makes the most sense given certain pre-supposed assumptions about reality.
That means, if we assume that the world is flat… then it makes good logical sense that we could sail off the edge of it.
It’s a false premise. But it is totally logical.
And I’ve noticed that men do fall in these traps a bit more than women because men tend to be systematic algorithmic logical thinkers while women tend to be more intuitive emotional thinkers.
And if a man holds a great deal of false premises, his logical orientation will make him an simultaneously intellectual and foolish. I’m sure you know the type of person I’m talking about.
The issue is that the social scientists are so steeped in patriarchal thinking that (even in their attempts at Feminism) they don’t realize that they’re biased toward masculine principled orientations and against feminine principled orientations.

Overall without getting into internet discussions, the assumptions are made based on internalized attitudes as far as I can tell, we are miles a way from a super-holistic study from 10 different fields analyzing one sector in big picture style. Having Ken Wilbers 4 quadrant model in mind helps to re-frame the idea that the test is just there as a reflection tool. At best study sexology to contemplate difference in male and female behaviour on the pure biological level as well as have an idea of it. These are all different topics and themes, and it's rare to see an interdisciplinary approach. Sex at dawn is still a pretty eye-opening book about this, I had only one date who'd be willing to discuss sex that deeply, I am looking for women similar to this, who enjoy sex and are willing to explore most dates have mostly been sorta survival like, so far besides 3 that had more depth. I mean even Owen Cook has a dirty sneaky level of awarness of knowledge behind this.

There are differences although they accumulated in attitudes and predisposition without any presumptions there simply is no bias, even when the dynamic is different. It's interesting to study these, although without a high-level of non-judgement and development these topics are close to impossible to talk about I meet although a couple of women who were super open, it just did not fit logistic wise. It's more like a deep dive into reality and masculine feminie polarities I really love this when going out I sort of miss it. 

I was personally curious about if there is a tool to reflect on the issue of sexism besides reading endless "hot quick articles" and something slightly more deeper. I would look at it holistically, I dunno I just don't think feminism is a good topic for dating, it might be in a relationship as a concern for social causes and historical impacts and just sheer interest and curiosity. I gave it a go for online-dating and meet a super manipulaitve women even though I legit have concerns and enjoy to talk about the topic, it's just not really my kind of tea currently. I dunno I did not like the feeling of rigidity of talking about it, and me feeling guilty without doing anything etc. So I just stay clear from toxic vibes in that regard, I dated and meet more integrated women so to speak, who did not need to lash out and attack. Most are also not like this. Maybe 1 in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. Approximately. 

I am sometimes unsure how far I can trust PUA advice, as I struggle beign sexually with women and legit just consent already worked for me, so I am curious how far I can build the sex life of my dreams in terms of also "awareness and consciouness" and not only more "traditional spiritual" ideas. Even though I am not against it, I just don't want someone traditional ever.

Not a single Buddist is Awake.
Buddism is pure bullshit.
The only one on this planet who's Awake is me and Peter Ralson.

This is a legit question and I don't know the full scope of the answer. 
A lot of nutritionists/functional medicine docs, naturopaths and holistic practitioners recommend supplements based on hearsay or quick google search.
It is rare for health professionals to review the evidence of efficacy before making product recommendations like these because let's face it, it is boring and most don't know how to do that.
That's generally one of the reasons why some nutritionists keep recommending crap like adrenal formulas or collagen powders because they never bothered to check. That and the fact that many take commissions for prescribing supplements which is a disgusting practice that the Industry has become corrupted with. And so the entire industry is being pulled down by rotten apples (you can see that this is a personal grudge I hold :D) 
When it comes to absorption o curcumin, the clinical trials that show the benefits of curcumin are usually accounted for by either increasing the supplemental dose or frequency of dosing. Even at the low absorption rate, curcumin does appear to have potential benefits, which makes it an attractive supplement so the conquest is now all about absorption. 
I think using it as a culinary ingredient combined with oils and heat processing as well as other spices (such as black pepper which may improve its absorption by manipulating CYP45 enzyme family) is probably increasing the absorption, but I have no way of measuring it. It also teaches people to think about food functionally, and the whole "food is medicine" perspective rather than endlessly popping pills which is a behaviour where we reject ownership for our health and rely on gimmicks. 
Possibly. It depends on where they were grown, how they have treated post harvesting etc. Anything can be contaminated nowadays. 
But let's entertain the idea they are. Still, it appears when these are used in culinary doses, they exert beneficial effects. People who eat more of this stuff, including many vegetables and fruits that are suspected to be (statistically speaking) more likely to be contaminated, still get health benefits compared to those who don't eat them or eat less of them.
Not to mention that spices make healthy food taste better and so we can eat more of it - again pros vs cons tradeoff.
The question also is "what are we going to eat instead once we start eliminating?" If we start eliminating plants, herbs, and veggies then people will start doing all sorts of crazy stuff like powders, meal replacements and processed junk  that rarely results in anything other than disordered eating and unnecessary phobia causing more mental damage than any tiny particles of lead or mercury ever could hope to.
Ever seen what some of those insta influencers eat?  I get blown away but how popular they get considering all they eat are protein powders and processed junk. 
I'll give you a different perspective on this, maybe it will help. 
For some foods, we have a pretty good certainty that they are bad. For example, processed meat like sausages and hot dogs is one of those. As low as 100-150 grams per week (equivalent to one medium hot dog a week) already seems to increase the risk of bowel cancer. For such foods, we can confidently say, the negatives outweigh the positives quite dramatically. Animal fats like tallow, goose fat, pig fat etc also belong into this category where less is better than more. 
For other foods like unprocessed red meat, there appears to be a dose-dependent curve. A little bit (about 80g/day) is conditionally safe, but above that, the relative risk goes up. This is because the negative effects of this food might not have anything to do with total calories and more to do with ApoB binding in the arteries and risk of early onset of atherosclerosis. 
High-fat dairy (butter, whole milk, ghee, high fat cheddar) is also one of those where less is better than more due to breast & prostate cancer risk. 
With everything else, there is harm ONLY where those foods are overeaten and lead to weight gain (sugar, sugar drinks, oils ) but where calories are accounting for are highly health-promoting (PUFA & MUFA oils) or there is neither harm nor benefit (lean meat, low-fat dairy) or there is just pure benefit (veggies, fruits, berries, legumes, soy products, whole grains, nuts, seeds). 
The problem is that once we start eliminating foods that are clearly beneficial like vegetables in fear of some possible (often unlikely) risk we either need to replace them with something else or our diet loses diversity and that will have a negative knock-on effect. We cannot just endlessly eliminate foods without restoring the caloric values from somewhere else. 
A lot of people end up so confused about everything that they take up intermittent fasting in order to avoid the anxiety of actually eating something, they start cutting meals, using overpriced green powders, overeating on a single food category that is often worse than all other foods combined(e.g. carnivore diet) or just go into all sorts of crazy ass ways. Many end up gut problems and mental health problems the moment they want to go back because they've devasted their microbiome colonies, their colon harboured since birth and with these good colonies gone, they get replaced by pathogenic proteolytic species overpopulated during steak, butter & organ diets. For a lot of these people, there might not be a cure anymore because we cannot repopulate gut once it is all gone. 
So just each time you remove something, make sure to put something similar back. Don't just remove it because someone told you so. Do the research and find out for yourself. If carrots are so bad for us, why do people who have higher circulator levels of beta-carotene have less cancer? Why do men who eat more carrots have less prostate cancer? 
These are the types of questions proponents of food phobia need to answer before we will begin listening to them. 
Sorry for the long rant, hopefully this will help to draw a perspective
 

There is a trade-off with having a silent mind: you'll have very few thoughts, but whatever thoughts you do have will carry a lot of significance and be crystal clear. When your mind is loud, you'll be more capable of ruminating over the same things over and over, but much of that is just repetition, unclear thinking, logical dead-ends, fear-based and reaction-based thinking. But sure, being obsessed about something can certainly produce some result that a lack of obsession couldn't produce, but will that product generally be one of virtue and deep genuine insight, or one of ego and delusion? All I know is that the people I consider "enlightened" tend to have the deepest and most streamlined minds I've ever seen. On the other hand, the people I consider "obsessed" tend to have deeply troubled and chaotic minds and often over-complicate the simplest things.

Gaslighting is making you think that what you are experiencing,  saying,doing is not real while it is, blaming is when they saying things based on things you really did do, not trying to change the experience if that makes sense...but the goal is the same from the one whos doing it,consequences are psychologically different on the reciver...