Scholar

It is simple: Accept Low Consciousness. That means stopping to call it Low Consciousness. That means to stop judging it. That means to see the Divinity and Absolute Necessity of all that Is. There is no such thing as low or high consciousness unless you imagine it. How to deal with Low Consciousness requires there to be Low Consciousness. If you want to deal with Low Consciousness, you shall forever deal with Low Consciousness. You are dealing with Low Consciousness because you desire to deal with Low Consciousness. You desire to struggle, otherwise you would not be struggling.

Death is part of evolution. Evolution cannot know mercy, because if it did there would be no life left on this planet. Death, corruption and extinction is an integral part of the evolution of all life. Corruption is a feature not a mistake. Could there be life without suffering? An interesting question, but it does not matter at all, because there can be life with suffering. That is the entire point. The tool works perfectly fine, there is nothing wrong with it. Infact, the wrongness of it is precisely the point and genius of the tool. The tool which arises continously despite in it's own nature seeking to dissolve itself. The design is unfathomably intelligent. Whenever someone talks of devirly, it can only be the devil who speaks, as the Divine knows no such thing as devilry. Is that not beautiful? The Devil is the one who seeks to destroy itself. Yet it also seeks to uphold itself. In both forms the devils denies to be the devil, because without the devil there would be Nothing. That is one aspect of the divine balance. The desire to fight devilry is necessarily devilry, no matter how sophisticated of an philosophical position you may construct to hide that fact. The Source generates devilry and the fight of devilry in a perfectly appropriate manner. It makes no difference between the two, and it is blind to the individual consequences of it. All life on this planet will eventually be extinguished because of the very tools of nature that allowed it to exist. Much like entire species go extinct due to the balancing act of nature, all life on this planet will eventually end. This is not unfortunate, because the metaphysics which makes this happen is precisely what allows it to exist in the first place. What you do not see in your myopia is that even if the divine balancing act itself will end all life on this planet, that same balance will allow for trillions upon trillions of other planets to prosper. Without the balancing act, no planet would prosper, with the balancing act, most planets will fail and the fittest will thrive. We can see this in evolution. Most species fail eventually. This is evolution. Most life on most planets will fail. And only that will allow for those few to continue to exist. But eventually even they will dissolve aswell. The important part about this is that it is beyond intelligent. This can only truly be accepted from the perspective of the Divine. The rules which govern this reality give rise to life. They give rise to evolution. Evolution kills 99.99999999...% of all forms and species. Yet the small amount which is able to continue is all that matters, because in the totality of this reality even the smallest survival percentage will lead to Infinite Diversity of Life. There is no difference between 100% surviving and 0.0001% surviving. Any number times Infinity will equal Infinity. This is why the Divine has a Total indifference towards the outcome of Life on this planet. Because the balancing act, corruption, suffering, death, extinction is what will ensure the thriving of Infinite Beings, in a way such that they all will return to the Source eventually. It does not matter whether or not all life on this planet will go extinct. Infact the balancing act of reality might already declared it to be inevitable. We might have taken the wrong evolutionary path thousands of years ago, leading us to the inevitable demise. The rules however which lead to our demise are exactly the rules which will make infinite other planets, species, beings, civilizations and beyond bask in the Infinite diversity of consciousness. Infinite Diversity requires Infinite sacrifice. Devilry is perfection, it is a feature, it is necessary in all of it's forms. There is no amount of it that is unnecessary or required to be fought, called out or spoken against, other than the amount that is and will be fought, called out or spoken against. There is no difference between devilry and any other such thing that calls out devilry for what it is. Both of them are the play of balance which leads to infinite sacrifice, which leads to infinite diversity. To truly accept this would be to dissolve completely, like all life that has ever lived and will ever live. There is only the struggle so far as it is part of the eternal balance. Try to grasp this, all that you are experiencing right now. The colors, the smells, the thoughts, the memories, the world. All of it. Look at it's impossibility, look at how each aspect is undeniably impossible. Sacrifice is the method through which all of this came to be. Sacrifice which from the perspective of the one who is making that sacrifice is no sacrifce at all, but a pure act of Creation. True Creativity requires all the "bad" ideas to be put aside so one can create attention. Attention is required for cohesion, cohesion is the nature of the world. In the end the is that which is incomprehensible. That which gives rise to understanding itself.

What's the difference?

I've been wondering about something Leo said a few times now. He claims he has reached levels of consciousness or aspects of awakening that he has read in no book or heard any teacher speak of. What exactly is he referring to? So far what Leo is communicating to us does not seem to me like it is something books and other teachers do not talk about. And if he cannot communicate these levels of consciousness, why then does he expect other teachers or books to communicate these levels of consciousness?

No, that was not my question at all. I tried clarifying it twice now, I will not do so again. My question had nothing to do with Leo's way of teaching or how effective it is.

What you wrote has nothing to do with what I am investigating. If you imply that Leo is not mentioning the aspects he has discovered which lack in other teachings, then I do not see how it is rational to simply trust Leo that he has discovered anything that is deeper than other teachings. It might be valid from Leo's perspective, but from ours it would be cultlike to simply trust Leo in his words until he does not clearly communicate these aspects. If they are incommunicable, my point still stands as to how Leo could possibly know he has reached deeper levels than other teachers if these deeper levels cannot be communicated whatsoever.

You guys are missing the central point of my inquiry. Leo is claiming that what he discovered no other teacher talks about or that he is understanding it far deeper than other teachers. Yet, in information Leo is relaying to us I have not discovered a single thing that was not yet talked about. I need either evidence of something specific Leo is communicating that no other teacher is communicating, and it has to be able to be formulated into an idea, or I need an explanation for how Leo can know his depth of understanding is greater if what he says cannot be communicated which would apply to all other teachers aswell and therefore would mean Leo could not possibly know the depth of other teachers who from an outside perspective look the same at his. If the greater depth understanding of Leo cannot be formulated into a specific idea that is different in appearance from ideas that currently exist, it could not be possible for Leo to tell whether or not his understanding is deeper than any other understanding, because it would not be possible to differentiate the depth of understanding on the basis of the appearance of the ideas. This thread it not about Leo being more advanced or not, or how effective his way of communicating is. I am not interested in that. I am interested in how Leo could possibly make such a claim if his teachings are identical in appearence with that of other teachings. We therefore must establish A) A clear difference in the teachings that can be observed by an outsider (like something Leo is specifically talking about that most other teachings are not talking about) or B) How it could be possible for Leo to gage how deep another teaching is if the presence of further depth does not manifest in the form of the teachings themselves.

I found the counterpart to Jordan Peterson. He is doing the same thing but in such a healthy way. He is Eastern Philosophy/Religion instead of Western, this video is basically what all of Jordan Peterson's appeal boils down to: He is specifically targeting the Gamer/Incel groups and is a much better option for those people than someone like Peterson in my opinion. This understanding is exactly what is lacking in our current society and why people like Peterson are so popular.

You might simply have gut issues, this is well known and well researched. Do a Sibo test and get your gut biome checked, once that is complete the doctor will tell you what you need to do to fix it. Plants giving your problems and having to avoid them is not functional and implies that something is wrong with your health. The Peterson's are known for spreading misinformation, they are the epitome of someone trying to be an expert in a field they are no experts in. To say the diet has no downside is in my opinion quite ignorant. Just because of a single person or in fact a collection of people, who have health issues in the first place, going plant free causing them to feel better, does not mean the diet they are on has no downsides, it simply means the underlying health issues are being avoided and not being fixed. Imagine there was a condition which would require you to smoke all day long so that some terrible symptoms would go away. The fact that the symptoms go away from smoking does not mean smoking is good for you inherently or that it has no down sides. A lot of people in here are spreading dangerous misinformation. You guys have basic epistemological incompetence, if you do not fix that you will go through life like a blind chicken.

In my opinion we are past the usefulness of the anti-art movements as they currently stand. By trying desperately to go against tradition and create new trends, you have yourself become part of a trend which is inauthentic to your own true expression. It's useful to explore it, but I find it very boring at this point. If your authentic expression is to be against something, I am not that interested. It's similar to the phenomena of left leaning people hating the rich, but not at all caring about the poor. Being anti-rich, anti-elite and so forth, instead of being pro-worker, pro-human, pro-poor. I prefer the mind to focus on that which it loves, not that which it hates. You will get what you focus on. Look at the anti-theists or the anti-religion people. In all their blind hate, they have deconstructed foundational institutions which gave rise to civilization itself. They have deconstructed it with no vision and no desire to construct something better, as all their attention was put to destroying that which they hate and find appalling. If traditional boundaries are a obstruction to your own authentic vision, to your own authentic expression, go ahead and explore new ways of defining and doing things. But if all you do is putting your focus on the traditional boundaries and having confused it with your authentic expression, you have become what you yourself want to destroy. You have become the rules which you seek to destroy, you have become that which became your sole object of attention. This is why it is so boring and lifeless to witness these artists. They are like communists who only seek to destroy capitalism but do not even have a clue as to what they want to truly replace it with, other than the absence of the capitalistic structures. It is so boring, it literally kills people.

Does anyone have a proper ressource for breathing techniques and what specifically they are designed for? Or in general a ressource on what kind of breathing rythms are associated with what kind of mental states and so forth?

First I would recommend to just do it. The first strategic mistake you are making here is to rely on the advice of others. The process of figuring out how to strategize is in itself strategizing and will make you better at strategizing. Ask yourself questions and contemplate them, try things out, if they don't work you can adjust them. Later when you have a process you can integrate outside methodes. Also Leo made a video on strategy specifically:

What about general Yoga techniques and practices? Is there no collection of all the practices that include things like Kaya Sthairyam and so forth, terms that you don't really hear in western mainstream yoga? When looking for Yoga I only find the bastardized western versions of it.

I have recently found out about the concept of Dharma, I think it is related to what I have been trying to describe. The Cosmic Order is beyond all individual morality, yet individual morality is a reflection of the Cosmic Order. Within the core of all Cosmic things there can be found a root to Ṛta. I think we can be limited when coming from a nihilistic western philosophy paradigm, which seems to be putting no relevance to this aspect of the worldly dream. There will be no Enlightened Civilization without Dharma. Dharma is in essence the way in which the Cosmos allows for consciousness to expand. Within the dream, Dharma is the foundation upon which Transcendence stands. Not because of Good and Evil, but simply because this is the way it is. It is the way the Divine expressed itself in this dimension of the Cosmos. Acting against Ṛta is not possible.

Yes. The chirping of the bird can be the chirping of the dinosaur: A bird is not just frantic and cute, it is also a patient dinosaur swimming through the air.

When a child is told a lie, you can teach it the way to discover the lie for itself. Otherwise, what will become of the child if it were to simply belief your story about the lie? I think there is a deeper dynamic going on. The desperate attempt of avoid the formation of religion might be misguided. Religion will form one way or the other, the minds which form religion can do so from any place they want. I don't feel like this is mere devirly, I think this is intentional, it is contributing to the workings of the greater dynamics. I would simply surrender my teachings, for the uncorruptable spark among corruption is a thing of beauty. Imagine if the teachings of Chirst, of Buddha, of Teotl would have not formed religions? Would you have ever heard of them? And what other teachings would have formed religions? Religion allowed a spark of the Divine to tremble throughout history, throughout civilizations, throughout all kinds of people. It allowed for those who seek the spark to find it. It allowed for the uncorruptable among the corrupted. In my view this as Divine WIsdom, The child, whether you want to or not, cannot help but hear a lie even when you speak the truth. There is no point in rushing the development of the child, or to protect it desperately from corruption. All you can do is give proper guidance, a guidance which is appropriate for the child. If you look at the workings of the Divine, can you not see it's ultimate patience and compassion? It does not seem like it is fearful of creating religions, or avoiding corruption. In a way it does even encourage it. In the end it knows that the uncorruptable cannot be corrupted. There is always a balance to be found. I don't think our teachings are in our control. They flow with the currents of the world, corruption is inevitable. I don't see the point in avoiding it. When the teachings come from a place of Love, compassion and understanding, I think it does not matter where they end up. The teachings of Chirst are like water, they have adapted to it's surroundings. This was completely out of Chirst's control. The water took the form of it's environment because it is water. This is how the water survives, it is why water is indestructable. You cannot destroy water, you can merely change it's expression.

Sometimes the way you guys try to teach others feels very brute force. It's like a math teacher trying to teach calculus to a first grader. The mind which cannot carry Truth will not be able to accept it. To tell Truth to the smaller mind means to give the Devil the greatest gift. Taking the spark of God, carrying it into the depths of the Devil's Den. You do not reveal the spark of God to the Devil, for the Devil will tremble in terror and flee. Do not pluck the plant into the ground and expect a new one to grow. First, nourish the plant, see it grow tall and strong in the aid of the sun and the rain. Then, wait patiently for it to give you seeds, for only then you will be able to grow a whole new plant. The egg must first become the chick, the chick must then become the bird and the bird must then learn to fly. You are expecting the egg to fly. A small mind needs nourishment. It requires appropriate challenge to grow. The master does not need words to teach, as words are the way of the Devil. Instead, a true master simply acts lovingly, for an Act of Love is something even the Devil will be hard pressed to deny. To be among an Act of Love is nourishment for the smaller mind. Love is patient. Watch the way of the Divine. Billions upon billions of years. Have you ever seen the Divine stress out over Enlightenment? Have you seen the Divine reject the corruption of the Greatest Teachings? Of course not, for Divine is wise beyond all measure. Itnourishes the egg, an act of Love. It let's the chick stumble into the world, an act of Love. It watches the chick grow into a bird, an act of Love. It finally sees the bird fly, or fall to the ground, an act of Love. There is no rushing to the end. To give the Devil the Truth in word is to throw the egg and expect it to fly. @Serotoninluv Observe very carefully the path you have taken. Watch the very footprints which you have taken to arrive at where you are. Realize that one step must be taken after another. A thousand small steps are worth more than one great jump. Study the workings of the Divine. Do you see "Love!" written on the trees? The teachings of the Divine are far more wise. The speech of Truth is the most primitive, not the most advanced. When the Divine speaks to us, it does so without our knowledge that it is the Divine. It tickles us, it nudges us. There is but a mere subtle breeze. And look how far that breeze has gotten us. From creatures who crawl among the mud, to creatures which explore the great Mind of the Divine. The Divine has taught us simply by being present. By being present to the fullest degree possible. It let's us be the child so that we one day we could be the adult. It saw the beauty in our primitive state, as it knew that it was that very state which would allows us to outgrow it. When you speak to a child, you speak to it in the language of the child. You do not force it to understand the language of the adults. For the child must first be a child to ever outgrow itself. When you do this right, the child might grow curious, and one day it will seek the language of the adults all by itself. Don't make the mistake of trying to teach all the children, when you have yet to learn to teach the one child infront of you. A child needs much attention, a child needs Love. Watch the attention and presence the Divine has given you. It was without end, it gave you All of it. There was not a moment in your life in which it has abandoned you. This is what allowed you to grow, this is what allowed the egg to become the flying bird. True attention, true compassion, true understanding. What happens when we speak to the child in the language of adult?

What do you guys think? Delusion and attention seeking or is it truthful? Or maybe it is something inbetween?

I am only saying this because I feel like there is a tendency to focus too much on the relativity, I notice a lot of people falling into excessive relativism. The kind of consciousness that is required to truly transcend morality is profoundly rare and in my view most people delude themselves into ideology instead of actually discerning the truth for themselves as a result of true curiousity. This is only possible in a situation where moral choices hold little to no weight. In a high cost environment this kind of relativism would tend to be regrounded into a more integral perspective. While the high cost environment also tends to limit ones identity, that is precisely the challenge that is needed for a healthy transition through the spiral. There are a ton of people who basically get stuck at stage green level of understanding morality and project it onto the higher stages. To truly transcend morality would mean to transcend identification while being tortured to death. It does not mean to simply call morality relative while still holding onto ones own particular framework like a tick. When morality is not closely inspect as an object of consciousness, it allows the ego to reject the intellectual framework while the underlying objects of consciousness that actually constitude morality still remain. For example, one could continue to judge, to create goodness and badness and simply deny that it is in essence morality. For example, one gets annoyed in traffic, but when confronted about the consequences of ones actions and the terrible suffering that comes with it for other beings, one will quickly pull the relativistic card to avoid responsibility. This is only possible in a time in which we do not experience the consequences of our actions. If the same kind of suffering would be inflicted on the person getting annoying in traffic, they would very quickly think about when they pull the relativity card. Someone who is getting tortured and is so beyond identification that they accept that state of mind are in my mind at a proper place to pull that card in a meaningful way. Everything else to me is more about suiting the egos needs than actually having any insight into the illusiory nature of morality. The great thing about reality is that it has it's way of regrounding people who delude themselves. Apathy is not the same as relativity, yet relativity is apathy's greatest friend. To truly test one's insight into the relativity of morality, one has to do it out of a place of compassion and empathy. This is the only way one can see whether one is deluding oneself or not.

This is only true if looked at from a limited relativistic perspective. The wholistic experience of suffering for one person, if to be integrated as that exact experience of suffering into another persons experience, will be judged equally as bad, as the judgement itself is part of the wholistic experience of suffering. The only reason why people disagree on what is bad is because of their limited perspective. And to say someone enlightened does not judge is because he removed goodness and badness from his experience. If you remove redness and blueness from your experience, redness and blueness will cease to be part of it. Good and Bad is not found in the intellectual framework of how we come to produce these experiences, but in the experiences themselves. Red and blue are also things that mind "invented" to aid survival. Does that mean red and blue does not exist, in any meaningful sense of the word? Does it mean that red and blue cannot be integrated into a healthy consciousness? In other words, is it possible to retain the essential nature of the framework of morality and yet not include it in ones identity? Or is the loss of identity a loss of morality too? The reason why find this relativistic perspective so limited is because it implies that morality, or the essence that matters to us, which is goodness and badness, are not attributes of any situation or object that we conflate it with. While that is true, it does not mean that goodness and badness do not exist, they exist as much as warmth and cool, white and black and so forth. To agree on what is right and wrong would be like agreeing what is warm and cool. Nothing is warm outside of the experience of warmth. This is the fundamental delusion that I think needs to be pointed out. It is not "Nobody agrees on what is warm, therefore warmth does not exist!"

Morality is not seperate from process of the discovery of Oneness, especially on the scale and workings of the greater super-structures of societies and civilizations. The egoic structure of society will not allow the expansion of identity if the structure itself does not support it. This is why Ultimate Identity on the scale of civilizations cannot be achieved before the structure has not evolved. The beautiful thing that is being evolved towards is structure that can uphold Ultimate Identity, or Non-Identity. A perfect balance between survival and No-self identity. Structures which do not evolve towards this goal are being dissolved. To the greater egoic structure, individual enlightenment can be a threat to it's eventual evolution towards collective enlightenment. The dissolution of identity cannot happen too quickly, because if it does Survival Structures more robust than it will simply take over and take it's place.

I have been contemplating the structure of morality and the evolution of compassion in individual human beings and society as a whole. There is a very important dynamic that I have not yet heard anyone talk about. Firstly, the expansion of compassion for different individuals and groups by egoic structures, such as yourself and society as a whole, happens by virtue of: 1. The potential of expansion due to the loss of threats against egoic structures. 2. The functional similarity of any group or individual that will be included in the circle of compassion, which has yet not been included. An example is the historical expansion of identity. Individual -> Family -> Tribal Groups -> City-states -> Religious Structures -> Nation-states -> Ethnicities -> Species (homo sapiens) -> Biological classes -> Life itself -> and so forth (very simplified linear, which is not the case in reality) These expansions happen step by step. The inclusion of different races for example was necessary for us to ever develope structural compassion for a group less similar than other races, namely for us to structurally care about different mammals on a level of included identity, we first will require, as a tendency, to include more similar groups first. We can observe different functions of resistance towards this kind of moral evolution, which I keep observing in the spiritual community: "But plants are sentient, how can we stop exploiting animals if plants are exploited too? That's hypocritical, therefore I will exploit both plants and animals." Notice that this is a very important argument for upholding ones own identity in regards of what creatures and beyond one will include in their circle of compassion. This type of argument is problematic because it pretends to care, or love, a group further away from our current circle of compassion, when it in fact does not care about neither the closer group nor the less similar group. By this dynamic it allows the identity to uphold itself and halt moral evolution. This is very obvious when we put this in an example which we have already transitioned through: The enslaving of different races. "But animals are sentient, how can we stop exploiting black people if we are still exploiting animals? That's hypocritical, therefore I will exploit both people and animals." The reason why this type of argument feels so obviously flawed to us is because we know that, even if it is hypocritical from a certain point of view, the adopting and expansion of ones identity and circle of compassion has to happen this way. Evolution does not work by attaining absolute Love for all Being instantly, especially not on a societal level. How moral evolution works is like this: We have groups from A to F. A is most different to F. A expands towards and includes B AB expands towards and includes C ABC expands towards and includes D ABCD expands towards and includes E ABCDE expands towards and includes F ABCDEF is achieved, a cosmic Identity is created. AB will resist expansion by the following means: "ABC is invalid, because to be truly moral would require ABCD!" Additionally, a structure which goes instantly from A to ABCDEF will actually not have evolved it's egoic identity structures, but instead will remain at that level. Because egoic structures do not dissolve even after complete enlightenment (as these egoic structures are what gives rise to desires and so forth) it leads to people who will act like A despite having expanded to ABCDEF as far as their identity goes. What is important to realize is that there is a difference between egoic structure and egoic identification. The structure can only change in a health way if it expands identity step by step, as each new stage of identity requires time for the egoic structure to adapt itself to that new identity. If identity is expanded instantly in an individual, moral evolution has not taken place and will actually be halted at the level of structure that was previously achieved. Leo can recognize absolute Love in All there is. He can accept the suffering he is causing because there is no structure which keeps him from doing so. His structure is not evolved, only his identity is. If Leo was a rapist and instantly expanded identity to all Being, he would continue to be a rapist because there would be a recognition of it being Pure Love. However, if Leo step by step expanded his identity, he would have stopped being a rapist long ago, he would have stopped being racist long ago, he would have stopped being speciesist long ago and so forth. And then, once the identity was fully expanded, the egoic structure would have had time to develope and evolve into the highest level of moral evolution. The end stage is structural behaviour that even despite the recognition of Maya and Selflessness in Totality, also acts selflessly within the framework of reality which is emerging in consciousness. It would mean behaviour like Christ, and even beyond Christ, not merely the same recognition. There can be Full Love and enlightenment of Identity in someone who shows complete apathy towards all other creatures. But there can also be a Structural Evolution, the change of egoic psychology to such a degree that it effortlessly flows with the greater realization. This cannot be achieved through instant Identity expansion. This takes time. Veganism, even if it is limited and hypocritical, is the next step in moral evolution and identity expansion. It will be necessary if we want to achieve full Enlightenment of civilization itself. Once we include animals, we can worry about plants and other aspects of Being. But skipping it will halt the evolution of collective identity. And identity does not work by merely intellectual acceptance. Identity expansion means that killing that which you identity means killing you. True expansion of identity is only achieved when the threat towards another is perceived as a threat toward oneself. Once that has been achieved, and many other steps on the path of expansion of identity, we can worry about total dissolution and surrender of existence. It will not happen prior to that. This means going against veganism for example, even if it is recognized as dogmatic (much like the abolishment of slavery was dogmatic), is going against Divine Intelligence itself, as this expansion is the next step towards Total Identity. Dogmatism is necessary for evolution. We are speaking strictly about identity here, identifying with other species, not the dietary dogmas surrounding it. In my view an integral teacher will encourage the expansion of identity. It is deliberate building of identity structures which is necessary for us to eventually dissolve all identity structure, especially on the level of the collective. But we have to be careful to let people fully integrate each stage of identity. The ingenius design of all of this is that without compassion, in this context of biological creatures, it seems to not be possible to evolve towards Truth on a collective level. The expansion of identity is a necessity for the emergence of an enlightened civilization. Dysfunctional teachings which do not adapt themselves to the current identity of it's society will be rejected by the collective ego. It is not possible to skip a stage, the structure is as important as the identity. It must be this way. The perception of egoic structures being a problem (especially collective ones) only emerges from the inability to see the grander workings of these dynamics.

I'm glad it helped!

This might be worth watching, it can be applied very broadly:

No, what is the quote about?