How to be wise

@XYZ That’s not an accurate description of blue. I think that Leo’s video was focusing too much on right-wing, dogmatic religion. Stage blue is about stage red realising that it can’t just do whatever it wants, because of present ‘realities’. Although those ‘realities’ could be anything, but that’s why you don’t see stage orange people just doing whatever the hell they want to other people. They have stage blue morality within them that will let them act decently. Without it, could you imagine the world today.

@Joseph Maynor I think it’s because Trump hasn’t integrated blue properly. He jumped from school bully to business man too quickly.

Stage Red is concerned with people laughing at it:

@Fuku @Sahil Pandit The Work of Byron Katie. It’s really working for me! Get the book ‘Loving What Is’.

@Flammable Concentrate on the question.

@Echoes I’d like my 2 minutes back please!

@Serotoninluv When you go to stage green mobs, strict anti-trump rules is what you normally see. Then what difference is there between antifa and a stage blue left wing mob?

In the book ‘spiral dynamics’ it has some very interesting facts about stage blue. Firstly, that atheism can be in stage blue. In fact, in the book it is mentioned that many atheists are in fact stage blue, and not stage orange. I always thought that atheism was stage orange, but not according to Don Beck and Christopher Cowen. Secondly, we can also have blue feminists. This also surprised me because I thought that feminism was exclusively green, but what do you know. Feminism can manifest itself in stage blue, and again many feminists are stage blue, and not green. Thirdly that stage blue can manifest itself in both right and left wing. So the notion of right wings being blue and left wings being green can be safely discarded. Stage blue people can be in either right or left wing, or even “entrenched in moderation” as quoted in the book. So that leads me to believe that we can have some very different types of blue societies. Some blue societies can look a lot like green societies because of the shared values. Does anybody know of any examples of stage blue left-wingers or moderate people. Far too much we see stage blue people being portrayed as right wingers, but stage blue can of course take any position including what we call stage green or even yellow values. For example a stage blue society that focuses on knowledge and open mindedness.

@Leo Gura How is the Kriya practice going? Any interesting experiences yet?

@Jack River How do you think most people reached enlightenment and emotional mastery. Through sitting and doing nothing? Also, isn’t ‘doing nothing’ what we’ve already been doing. It hasn’t helped us one bit. Everybody in the world is already doing nothing, and it isn’t serving them.

@Jack River A lot of people take up practices and end up solving their emotional problems. What you’re talking about is complete nonsense. Reminds me of the crap that Faceless preaches.

@Jack River How does trouble happen with growing emotional. I see the opposite is true. How can you live with such a raging mind.

? ➡️ ?‍♂️ ➡️ ? The first journey @Jack River

@Jack River The way out of suffering dude. Isn’t that why everybody in the forum is here for?

You guys should check out manoj the yogi. He has excellent tutorials for difficult breathing techniques like Ujai pranayama:

@Adam M You better get the fuck out of there! There have been too many examples of people spending decades meditating whilst their minds continues to trouble them. I think Leo is finally seeing this truth. Inquiry is the way out, not meditation.

@Sage_Elias A stage blue Christian who knows about meditation, yoga and spirituality. Now he has equipped defence strategies for all of them. Dangerous.

@Shakazulu How about experiencing and living that? Check the book ‘Loving What Is’.

I realised this a few minutes ago. A caveman spends less time thinking about reality than a scientist. So a caveman believes only what he sees. A scientist on the other hand believes in planets and space and cells and chemicals, all of which do not exist. That’s because thinking always takes you further away from the truth. A caveman, who believes what he senses, is also not fully correct, but he has less ‘wrong ideas’ about reality than the scientist. So it will be easier for the caveman to reach enlightenment than the scientist, because the caveman has less beliefs about reality, and so is more connected to the absolute. If you found any holes in this theory, I’d like to hear it. But if this theory is true, then it would have been a lot easier to reach enlightenment in the past than now because of modern science and all of its beliefs.

@Mikael89 Just buy the book ‘Loving What Is’ in English.

@bejapuskas It depends on the caveman’s attitude. If he is willing to do self-inquiry, then he is far closer to the truth than the scientist (who needs to undo all of his scientific ideas). @Mikael89 Haha! I would’ve thought that just a few weeks ago. I would think to myself: “if I’m staring at my mom right now, then clearly she exists, because I can see her right now.” But a few weeks ago, whilst doing The Work, I suddenly became conscious of how even when you’re staring at something in that moment, it’s still just a thought in your mind. I was alarmed, and spent the next few minutes laughing. How about taking up The Work yourself so you can experience this? You can never reach there with words.

@robdl It would be better for you not to take Faceless’s advise at face value. ?

@ajasatya Wikipedia is following the materialistic paradigm. Are you in that paradigm as well.

@ajasatya Planets and cells are just as true as saying that a pink elephant is floating on space, because they’re all just thoughts in your mind. Beyond thoughts, you can never experience a planet or particles, because they don’t exist outside your thoughts! All of science does not exist outside your thoughts, so clearly they’re false. The difference between science and ‘earth is flat’ type of thinking is that science is more useful to ‘make things appear to happen’, but all are in the dream. Science is a tool to manipulate the dream, but it’s still part of the dream. Looking at your hand and not thinking about it is more closer to the truth. @Mikael89 My parents don’t exist. There is no past or future, which is the only place they can exist in. I’m quite surprised that you made it this far to Actualized.org and you’re still insisting on the material paradigm. Science is useful, but not true. That’s it. @MM1988 They are both as true. And the caveman doesn’t think that the Earth is flat, because he doesn’t even know that there is a Earth, or even a planet! And good for him, he can do without those false concepts. @bejapuskas Yes the caveman still has some concepts unfortunately, because it’s necessary to survive, but it’s much less than the scientist’s, and much more in line with his direct experience. @Outer To be honest, I’m not so sure that it will be easier for him to become enlightened because of his values, but he is definitely more in tune with reality than the scientist (who would have thought!) @lmfao By truth, I mean direct experience without your story about it. We are all experiencing the absolute (awareness), but the problem is that we tell our story about what it is, and we create a world and people and ‘objective reality’, so the less stories you’re telling about your direct experience, the more in tune you are to awareness. And the caveman shockingly beats the scientist.

@ajasatya but how many of those ‘true’ scientists are out there. Most scientists actually believe that there hands are made of particles, that beyond the sky there are planets, all of which are not true. When the caveman looks at his hand, he sees what he sees. A normal scientist will see that his hands are made of particles, and there are red blood cells running through his hand. So who is more correct, the caveman or the scientist. The answer is that the caveman is more correct, because he has far less beliefs about what he is seeing rather than the scientist. The caveman doesn’t believe in particles and molecules, and in that he is correct. There are no particles inside your hand. If a scientist knows that they are just models, then that’s good. But I’m talking about the majority of scientists who see it as reality. Exactly! @Mikael89 You’re wrong!