Scholar

Where will this lead us? The more I look, the more I believe Mysticisms proper place is Mystery. To cut the tongue of those who speak of it. Only a geniune Spark can lead into the Abyss. For the Spark to take flame it needs Questions, not Answers. Esperanto extinguishes the Spark.

I feel like you have created a duality between: Objectivity, Universality vs Subjectivity, Relativity Look at how you are categorizing different aspects of Isness into these two categories. You say "Judging insects are gross is not universal". Observe very carefully what the chimp mind is doing. Look at it. 1."Insects are gross" 2."World and Person, Person and Person!" 3. "Person insects are gross, Person insects are not gross" 4. "All Person insects are gross, Universality! Person insects are gross, Person insects are not gross, Relativity!" This is the whole stick of the chimp mind. You have created, from "insects are gross", a thing that is foreign from "insects are gross". "Insects are gross" is not relative, nor universal. "Insects are gross" is "Insects are gross". Relativity is Relativity, Universality is Universality. This duality is illusional. There is no such thing as Universality, Objectivity, Relativity, Subjectivity. These things only are because the duality is so. What you have not realized is that the deconstruction of the Chimp Mind will, necessarily, lead to these kinds of Untruths. The Duality which comes forth as a result of having collapse another one. There is no person which judges. There is no "validity to them", outside of "validity to them". Your philosophy is abitrary, a result of dualities which have yet to collapse. And even that is nonsensical. The nonsense is everywhere, in all things made. Nonsense is fundamental. Language is utterly impossible. Reality and Insanity are equal, there is no difference between them, they are the same thing, yet two labels. Empty the cup, empty the cup, empty the cup.

He is from Scotland, too.

I think I can frame it like this too, without going to deep: We need not to abandon judgement to find Truth, rather we: A) Need to see judgement for what it is. B) Cease to identify with judgement. And this applies to all dualities. The seeing of any aspect of Isness will connect us to it's Divinity, as the closer we look the more it will dawn on us how utterly mysterious and impossible it is, among many other things. The cecessation of identification let's us see it even more clearly and not only that, it will also reveal it Divinity within. Judgement is impermanent either way, it will come and it will go. It is not our work to manipulate it. This means to not say morality is merely relative, but to also observe goodness and badness very closely, and to cease idenitifying with it, but yet to not attempt to deny it. To accept that one will suffer and feel sorrow, to accept that one will judge and feel evilness. To not view it as impurity, but rather to see the purity within. Let the purity of the substance purify itself, just so we can see that there has been nothing to purify all along.

The Goodness you speak of is not the same goodness and badness we speak of. I am still referring to the duality. By having pointed to Devilry, you yourself have created Devilry. Accept goodness and badness instead of denying it. See the Goodness in goodness and badness, instead of claiming it to be Devilry. Use goodness and badness instead of throwing it away. It is a wonderful tool, and it's design is beyond intelligence. Relativity is an aspect of what surrounds goodness and badness, but that which it is itself is far more mysterious and wonderful than our chimp concepts that revolve around it. To deny and attempting to get rid of goodness and badness is literally like trying to get rid of any other of your sense. It is like trying to get rid of your vision. It is non-sensical. Instead learn how to use it properly. Before that, you need to examine what it even is that you are using.

I know, but if we keep the conversation at that level we are limiting ourselves and students to that level. The Nowness within Goodness is utterly mysterious, it can't just be waved away by saying "It's all relative". This is to me especially important because telling people morality is relative often creates a shadow and this weird kind of relativising of everything. It is a stage green trap, and I see it time and time again. Then they wonder when relativity bites them in the ass. Instead I think it would be better for focus on closer inspecting first the conceptual framework and then the underlying dimensions of existence which make up these frameworks and labels. That way there will be an emotional integration and we will go beyond the relativistic notions of the already sufrace level frameworks of morality. Basically what I am trying to say is that what we are suffering of is kind of naive realistic notion of Morality. Like saying a ball is blue, when blueness is not part of any object, and when the object itself is actually a construction. Just looking at this dynamic will help us seperate the Badness/Goodness from the actions, situations and mind-states we correlate them with. Not because we create dogma around it, but because we can CLEARLY see that they are two distinct substances. Seeing they are two distinct substances is the next step of moral evoluton. It allows us to see that Goodness exist in all Humans, literally, also in all animals. The same is true for Badness existing in all humans and animals. It makes us see that it is part of us, that it is a dimension of our Being. The trick of the snake was to convince us not of there being Good and Evil. The trick of the Devil was to convince us that Good and Evil are attributes of things not Good and Evil. We do not have to get rid of Good and Evil, and in this sense of morality. We only have to clearly see it for what it is. And that has nothing to do with relativity. This is the next step after having realized the relativity. This is in my view true inspection of what morality is, instead of constructing new frameworks or trying to somehow denie it. I am saying all of this because the framework you currently use creates such needless confusions. People think they have to abandon goodness and badness, and they create shadows or delusional philosophies. Goodness and Badness will still be there, you are simply going to ignore it and call it something else. I view it to be more Loving to see Goodness and Badness rather than denying it. To embrace it even. Obviously that kind of Goodness and Badness will have a very different effect on us than our current way of using it. But the importance is that we can Accept Reality fully without abandoning Badness and Goodness. And I think you have recognized that in the past few months. If you are going to be tortured, Badness will still exist within you. It will arise, and you do not need to deny it. You do not need to deny yourself. Accepting that badness arises when you see your child being raped is so much more powerful than trying to somehow construct your mind in a way so that there does not arise badness when your child is being raped. This is the genius of God. He gave you all the tools, you just need to know how to use them. Instead you are throwing them away. An utter shame, when the badness you are accessing is as divine a thing as Blueness is.

No, this is all logic non-sense. It is conceptual. If you saw what I talk about you would laugh at the absurdity and impossibility of existence. You wouldn't just go on and say "Oh well, you are just chasing you own tail making concetual distinctions.". There is noone to accept anything, there is no "making disinction" or "chasing ones tale". This is a fantasy, a fantasy which tells itself, which stands by itself. This is precisely the magnificence which is not seen. The fantasy is literally impossible, it is completely and utterly mysterious. Get over this non-duality concept. I don't even know why I am bothering with this. If you are curious you will see yourself. If not then I doubt you ever will. The reaction to this shouldn't be. "Ah, you are doing this, bla bla, you are doing that, bla bla." The reaction should be: "Holy fucking Jesus Chirst how the fuck is this even possible?! Blueness is FUCKING INSANE. IT IS INSANE!!! How can this EXIST?!"

What I talk about has nothing to do with constructs or ideas. I am no constructing Blueness, as much as I am not constructing Suffering. Maybe I am in the sense of being God and imagining all that, which I would frame differently anyways, but that is obviously not what we are talking about. We are not talking about Ideas, we are talking about the Substance of Goodness, the Substance of Redness. While I am framing this understanding in language and with relative terms and concepts, it has nothing to do with what is pointed at. Notice how many different ways of explanations I am able to deliver, how many conceptual frameworks I can construct that are foreign to each other. I do not care about these things, I want Leo to see, or atleast know that he can already see. The layer I am refering to is prior to Relativity. It is not prior to Absolute. Blue is Blue, to say Blue is Relative is to say Blue is Relative. But Blue is Blue. This is not language, the language is there for you to see through delusion and through the world. What is another relative perspective supposed to be? Perspective is an idea within Now. Now is not Perspective. Now is Now. Blueness does not exist in Perspective, rather Blueness lies next to Perspective. It is not the child, but a silbing of Perspective. I am not married to spritualistic ideologies that have been constructed. I am not satisfied with common sense, as I can clearly see the absurdity which keeps it together. The absurdity which is so obviously mysterious and inexplicaple. There is no Subjectivity in that sphere of mystery. There is no Relativity. That is all Chimp Talk, as much as what I am doing now. I can Chimp talk forever, I can Chimp Talk with different bricks, different frames. It doesn't matter, this is not about the Chimp talk.

Again, you fail to see what I am pointing to. I actually am mind blown that this is so difficult to see. You are referring to a conceptual idea of right and wrong, much like there is a conceptual idea of color, how it arises and so forth. This is surface level, this does not go into any depth at all. Goodness is not merely a conceptual idea, if you sit down and observe how the conceptual idea arises and what it is linked to, you will observe that what Goodness is actually far better categorized as is an emotion. It is deeply imbedded and influences how we perceive all sorts of things. Nobody agrees on what is Good and Bad because in each individual mind Goodness and Badness emerges at different kind of mind-states. It works exactly the same as Anger does. Some people get angry at some things and others get angry at other things. However, they can never disagree upon what Goodness and Badness itself are. That would be like disagreeing on what Blue is. That can only be part of a conceptual framework, it can only ever be a confusion of labels. To say something is "Bad" is like saying something is "Annoying". This is delusiona, nothing can ever be annoying. Trees cannot be annoying, trees are trees. Annoyance can emerge in the presence of trees and therefore there can be a conflation of two dimensions of reality (namely colors and the emotions of annoyance), but that does not mean the delusion is socially constructed. It is exactly the case that anger is as much socially constructed as right or wrong, literally. Your perception of what will make you angry will also make you perceive it as bad, vice versa. But all of this is still too surface level. I am talking of one layer deeper. The layer in which only anger is anger and only goodness is goodness. In that layer, goodness is not created or correlated to anything. It comes directly from the source itself, it is an expression of all possible dualites. It is Pure, and it is there. It is just as much a fascet of existence as Blueness is, and it is just as Absolute as Blueness is. It is not relative as much as Blue is not relative. You do not truly see the mysteriousness of goodness and badness. You think it is an invention of a chimp, like some sort of tool it has created. As if Blue and Red were tools a chimp created. Goodness, like Redness, is utterly mysterious. It can exist on it's own, with no survival agenda, with no chimp to cling to it. It can be a pure expression of duality. It just happens that the chimp mind found use for that dimension of existence. It found that with it, it could create the Play of the World. And no, it was not the Chimp Mind which found that to be the case. It was a far Greater Mind, a Mind which can make pop Blueness and Redness, Goodness and Badness, into existence, just like that. That is completely beyond survival, it is pure Expression, pure Dance. However, that Pure Goodness or Badness would obviously not have such a label. It would not have all the moralistic notions attached to it which you currently do. It would be pure, like Suffering is. Like Redness is. Like Shouldness is. Of course, without contrast there no Duality, there is no Maya. I am not trying to go that deep here. And look carefully: There s no Good and Bad in Absolute, relative to what? There being Good and Bad in Absolute? These language games make no sense to even talk about, as the presence of the sentence itself is duality, thus the grasping of that will always be the proof of duality. Also this is a huge trap as it creates a Duality between Absolute and Relativity which literally is one more duality. When I look at what Is, it is more like a dance than this binary machine thinking. Sometimes I feel like Leo is not reading what I am writing and just skipping over it. Maybe he has no time. When I use these concepts i always move in the sphere of Maya. I don't think this way when meditating, it would be absurd.

This is the problem when people are guided towards a goal rather than truly having a desire and curiousity to discover the true nature of existence.

They are however not socially constructed, as much as anger, blueness, hearing is not socially constructed. No blueness, no noness, no noself. All is illusion, what I am pointing to is not as fundamental as what you are pointing to. Goodness is as much invented as blueness is. It is not for survival, it is for expression itself. Survival is more surface level analysis then what I am pointing to and all is illusion/imagined is too deep and fundamental. You see quarks and biology, yet you might not see the chemistry inbetween, the molecules which are made of quarks and give rise to biology. You are throwing the ball either too high or too low. There are layers between Absolute and Relativity. There is absoluteness in all relativity, and there is relativity within Absolute. However look at how binary that is, it is more like a dance of waves that are playing with each other and the interactions between them themselves are what we can observe too. It lies in the crust of Unity and Reflectivity. Not the surface, nor the light, but reflectionness itself. Goodness cannot be Invention, as only Invention is Invention, and only Goodness is Goodness. Pure duality is still illusion, but duality flowing into itself is delusion. The world is delusion, and all dualities that make world are illusion. You see all the fish in all the oceans, the greatest of depths. You see all the birds and all the insects in the skies, high as it goes. Yet you seem not to see the critters which walk upon the earth, which crawl through the dirt and climb through the trees. That which slumbers between the Ground of Being and the World. That which was so subtle, you have not noticed that it has dissolved when you fell into the Abyss, because all your eyes were trained to see is the World, not the parts which the World is made of.

Why do you limit morality to this relativistic stage green understanding? No action could ever be good or wrong, as only goodness and wrongness can be goodness and wrongness. To believe something is wrong is the same as to believe something is blue. It is a fundamental and deliberate deception, a way how the mind plays around with dualities. It conflates ideas and all sorts of objects or dimensions of existence for each other. It says the chair is blue, when only blue is blue. It says killing is wrong, when only wrong is wrong. Why do you limit yourself to this kind surface level analysis? I keep noticing this. It is like you do not see the layer between delusion and illusion. Yes, all of this is illusion, but so is the very notion of illusion. So is blueness, so all there is. Yet, to say good and wrong is relative is not merely illusion, it is delusion aswell. This is the dimension which I see lacking in so many spiritual teachers, and I wonder why. It is so foundational and so obvious. It's like people just skip over it and don't bother looking. Yes world is illusion, but world is also delusion. Delusion is that by which all duality dances with each other. If this was seen, it would not even make sense to ever say something like "From the absolute perspective nothing is wrong with this.". That would rely on so many delusions that it would be utterly incoherent to even say it. And it is incoherent if truly inspected. It is the essence of incoherence, incoherence itself is that which it is. Imagine a swarm of fish. Your level of analysis is the following: "Swarms of fish can have all sorts of different shapes. There is no true shape to swarms of fish! Every swam can have any shape relative to itself and other swarms." Of course. But this is what is being missed: "Every swarm of fish contains swarmness. Independent of the shape of swarm, swarm is present in all swarms of fish. It is not merely the fish that create the swarm, the swarm itself exist as swarmness itself. That is which swarmness is, and all swarm are swarmness." It's like you lack insight into the structure, into the essence of that which is being labelled. You are lost in the shape of the swarm and do not recognize swarmness itself. You do not see that the swarmness is not merely a collection of fish, that swarmness is swarmness. The shape of the swarm, of any swarm, is not swarmness itself.

I disagree, most of what you have mentioned to me is grounded in orange not yellow. Threat to humanity is not systems thinking, it is contracted collective egoic individualistic thinking. It comes prior to truly caring about the environment and species outside of human beings, it is orange rather than green. Orange would not see a fundamental problem with climate change, environmental destruction and animal suffering as long as it does not effect human beings in some way. The human centric framing of this problem as being an existential threat to mankind, when mankind has been an existential threat for all other species on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years is precisely a hallmark of stage orange limitations. The environment nor other species have been truly included in the ingroup, rather they are still viewed as an extention of value for our own species. True Green would react to the animal holocaust as dramatically as to a human holocaust. There are virtually no human beings on this planet who fully integrated green. Our cultures are far too strongly weighted at strage blue and orange, it does not allow for a truly green frame of mind to develope. This will be obvious to people living in the 22nd century. The entire spiral dynamics model is limited and everything passed blue/orange are more of first signs of a truely new stage than how it will be viewed from a perspective of a culture which is founded at these stages. Everyting passed what we consider orange today is a contracted extention of orange which will from the pov of future civilizations be viewed as orange. We currently view these individuals as green, yellow and so on based on the relative distance they take from our current cultural vantage point. Basically from our standard if someone is 5% green they are considered to be extremely green. Much like 500 years ago someone with 5% orange was viewed as radically developed. However from our pov pretty much every person 500 years ago was almost entirely blue.

I've had similar issues. Power-fantasies and paranoia, it as always roots in fears and loneliness. You would somehow have to increase your level of confidence and feeling of security. Not sure how I resolved it to be honest, I think it dissolved from my awareness alone. Took some time though, 2-3 years. I kind of miss the rants though I remember I gave epic speeches about all sorts of stuff in my mind. Although to me it was more like an act, a role play almost. You could try canalizing the urges into something artistic, depending what you like doing. I wouldn't worry about it too much.

@Recursoinominado Find out yourself. Learning to do this will be part of learning autonomy and therefore moving into yellow. Figure out how you could integrate these values. It's not rocket science.

I heard someone talk about cacao and somehow being correlated to cleaning the pineal gland though I don't remember anymore what exactly it was.

I have cut out Gluten a few days ago and the difference in energy, ability to focus, sleep quality and so forth is just staggering. I was struggling with concentration a lot the past few months. I also woke up really dehydrated and feeling terribly each morning, which already seems to be getting much better. I have only noticed this because I was already avoiding wheat products, but the past two weeks I was eating a lot of bread and pasta and my concentration went really down the drain so that I decided to try and cut it out completely. I haven't felt this good in months, only now I realize how bad I have felt. I was utterly emotionless and unmotivated in comparison to how I feel now. The times I felt better in the past I never correlated to Gluten but rather thought I have nutritional deficiencies due to my vegan diet. However I never had any digestive problems and from what I read most gluten insensitivities or celiac disease comes with these kinds of symptoms. I have been doing some research on gluten and it seems like it can hinder vitamin and mineral absorption and therefore cause disruption in hormonal production. From what I have gathered so far the research is rather limited especially on Gluten-sensitivities. Does anyone here have some comprehensive and reliable sources on this topic in general? I never thought Gluten could have such an impact and I suspect that I have developed a sensitivity in the past few years. It is kind of scary to think that I could have continued to struggle not realizing it was Gluten all along.

You don't have to do anything, I just think your inability to accept flaws in teachers will give you a harder time in this work in general. Integrating different kinds of information from different kinds of sources will not be possible if we get annoyed by presentation style and are unable to retrieve any valuable information. You had expectations and were spouting them as a critique of said content, when they are not a critique but rather your personal preference. "But I want it like this, I don't like how they look, how childish they are. I want my information to come in this form, from these kind of people, in this very particular manner!" You came to me with those critiques so expect me to respond to them. I think you are being childish.

That's a way to dismiss the information. How else do you expect someone to teach you something? By making 10 minute videos about something where you will leave like you think you understood anything? They go into each single study, and if you did watch it you would realize why they do so. I would look at this is amazing, free education instead of being closeminded and dismissing it because it seems to speak against my agenda. They are explaining why both Kresser and Kahn do not understand the studies they themselves are referring to. And they are willing to debate anyone who will disagree with them, infact these guys do debates regularly. The fact that you dismiss this as childish should in my opinion profoundly worry you, as it implies crazy biases. You are insanely nitpicky, complaining about their style of teaching without any context behind it, without even considering why it might be perfectly suitable for what they are doing or why it might be far more helpful than a 10 minutes "big picture" perspective which leaves most people completely deluded and still misunderstanding most of the stuff. This is like complaining about the length of Leo's videos and asking why he doesn't give big picture perspectives. And this is not just about having a different perspective, about disagreeing about which study is more relevant than another. It goes into the precise reasons why Kresser and Kahn are incompetent on how to read studies, how to do basic statistical analysis, not understanding basic mathematical princples and so forth. This is not merely a disagreement, it reveals why Kresser and Kahn cannot be trusted with their information. Sadly the world is not suited perfectly for your needs. Plenty of people have found plenty of value in this kind of content and I bet they will came out more knowledgable than you will after watching some "high quality big picture perspective" videos.

As far as I know there are cons and pros for different diets and different athletic sports, it seems like some vegans are doing exceptionally well and scoring high despite being a minority. However it could be that it is more difficult to maintain certain aspects of health on a vegan diet when for example going for body building, like your gut health. The same is true for a diet that includes meat that will damage your cardiovascular system, it might simply be the case that these kinds of things manifest in different ways. I haven't done much research though because I am interested in general health outcomes for the general population, if athletes cannot be athletes on a non-vegan diet, but can otherwise be healthy, I don't think athletes can justify being athletes. If every athlete was vegan it would remove the performance enhancing attributes of meat either way. If we can survive on a vegan diet, meat would be similar to steroids. Steroids for which you would have to kill animals. It could be that in a certain way meat does improve our performance, possibly cognitive as well as athletic, and that we are, due to having always consumed meat, used to this performance improvement as our normal way of feeling. If that was true it would simply mean we would need to get used to our new state or find other performance enhancing things that do not cause the mass slaughter of animals and the destruction of our environment, or go to sources that cause less amount of harm, like insects, mussels and so forth. To kill a cow for performance enhancement is to me a little crazy.

Joe Rogan is not a high quality source of information. I have posted this in another thread, but if you are interested to see what it takes to actually understand these topics, and why people like Kresser and even many vegan doctors are misinforming the public due to their incompetence, watch these two videos: It debunks both vegan and anti-vegan arguments made in one of the vegan-vs-nonvegan debates on Joe Rogan.

Watch the 14 hour stream, it goes into detail point by point. Super helpful to understand how deeply deluded people can get by just reading studies without actually being able to interpret them at all, for example having no basic understanding of the difference between relative and absolute risk. This kind of incompetence is found on such a basic level that it basically discredits people like Kresser or Kahn completely. And yes, B12 can cause serious brain damage, however we can supplement which has found to be effective in virtually everyone aside from people who have problem to get B12 from food. These people will not get adequate B12 from meat so will have to take injections anyways. By the way the kind of brain damage long-term serious B12 deficiency is causing is so serious it will literally make you unable to walk and eventually kill you, so it is essential to supplement whether you are vegan or not. I hate vegan dogma as much as this nonsense Kresser is spouting. If you are interested in truth, go ahead and watch the stream. It will open your eyes, probably humble you and make you realize just how prevelant incompetence is among these public doctors who do not know the basic scientific principles nor how to read data. It's basically free education, super valuable.

@Matt23 For a short debunk. For an indepth understanding of why Kresser doesn't know what he is talking about: That's 14 hours of content and it's not enough to fully explain all the non-sense Kresser (and Kahn for that matter) is spouting into the world. There might be some critiques of the science behind the plant based diet, but you will not get it from a charlatan like Kresser. And Joe Rogan is the most biased entity on this subject you could possibly imagine. If plant based turned out to be healthy he would have literally been killing animals personally for years for a completely unjustified reason. That's something even his ego couldn't handle. Here is an unbiased critique of Game Changers from someone who is atleast competent on that area of expertise:

Do you forsee that in the future, like in a hundred years, people will dismiss your teachings because they saw you keeping dead bodies in your fridge? I guess it won't be a problem because of how many new teachers are going to arise.

I have heard a Spiritual Teacher talk about how empathy is actually a great spiritual tool as it let's you to live the life of other beings without actually living their lifes. It in a way allows us to experience that which we otherwise would need to experience ourselves. The teacher was using the model of Souls who spiritually evolve throughout multiple incarnations. The experiences the Soul would have and therefore fulfill would lead to it's development. As it climbed up the hierarchy of Spiritual Needs it would come closer to Self-Realization. It was said that at some point a Soul evolves the ability for Empathy and then even Compassion. These abilities allow for the Soul to experience more Lifes within a single Life-form. The suffering and experiences of others would become a contribution to the evolution of ones own Soul and therefore leading to faster Self-Realization. Would you guys say this model is accurate, aside from the particular way it was framed (within the Soul-Paradigm)? Is empathy actually a great tool that fascilitates Spiritual Evolution? Is this why Higher Consciousness tends to lead to Higher Empathy and Compassion? Framing it in the Soul-Paradigm, one could say the Soul expands it boundaries to include more and more Being, which essentially is what Spiritual Evolution really is all about? Ultimate Compassion would dissolve the Soul as it would mean complete boundlessness and all-encompassing experience, it would basically be the same thing as full Self-Realization.