Scholar

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.

Self-justification is also Ultimate Love. It doesn't really matter, Reality will do it's thing anyways. If you do not think all of Isness is Utlimate Love, then whatever you describe cannot be Ultimate Love. Ultimate Love is not merely a good self-justification for the causing of all Suffering, it is literally equivalent to it. There requires to be no justification.

The greatest Act of Love is to veil Love so as to fully accept non-acceptance. You have already achieved this, there is no greater Love than suffering and duality. Survival and morality are all Ultimate Acts of Love. Love knows no hierarchy. When Leo says there are greater or lesser kinds of Love, it is not God who is speaking, it is Leo the chimp.

Again I am not interested in a debate. I can only recommend you to do more research into gut health and resulting inability to absorb nutrients (especially plant nutrients), into the effects current standard diets have on our guts and into what kind of dogmatic diets vegans tend to be attractive to (insanities like raw-food vegans who not only do not have the required gut but also seem to be against supplementation, and a general tendency to dismiss the fact that human beings are omnivores not herbivores etc.). Also do some research into human history, we ate insects for the majority of our evolutionary history, we are obviously omnivores. That does not mean animal products like red meat and fish are optimal for us and if you were to be honest about the data we have on this subject I think you would see this. The environmental impact of the animal agriculture alone should force us to consume insects instead of mammals, birds or fish. Mussels, insects and so forth can be prefectly adequate for people who have gut issues and cannot maintain a vegan diet. For people who have genetic issues it will also suffice. The rest can probably survive on eating a vegan diet until we are able to produce lab-grown meats that will completely resolve all ethical and environmental problems. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/09/24/russia-produces-its-first-lab-grown-meat-sample-a67416 Russia is planning to do so until 2023. If you really thought meat was healthy and needed to be consumed by humans you would promote the heck out of this kind of thing, atleast if you had the consideration for ethics and environment that I do.

So you are just going to cherry pick studies and ignore the majority of data regarding this and an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that a plant based diet is healthy and is correlated with reduction in all cause mortality? I am not interested to have a debate, but I would recommend you to try to be unbiased and research the other side of the argument.

But it also comes with heme-iron, cholesterol, hormones and all kinds of bad stuff that you are better to avoid if you can. You can get all of the nutrients above on a plant based diet and most people do not have to worry too much about absorption or internal production issues if they eat healthily. If there are issues, which will not manifest months or even years into the diet anyways, there can be an introduction of different kinds of foods like mussels so as to mitigate these problems.

Being nice is not a virtue if it stems from an inability to be violent. The one who does not kill another because he is unable to is not really moral, because he is inherently a slave to his limitations, much like say a cow would be. The one who is fully capable of being violent, evil and destructive but who chooses not to be can be said to be moral. So, ask yourself, what is the reason for why you are nice? Is it because you are a follower or because you are a leader? A leader is nice for a very different reason than a follow might be, and it is the case that women tend to be attracted to leaders. The problem with the one who has not the opportunity to be immoral is that once they are put into a position of power their true nature will be revealed. It is very easy to be nice when there will be consequences for it, but what about when you are in a position of absolute power? If you could snap your finger and kill anyone, how would that change you? There is always an uncertainty in the weak, because one cannot judge how they will act in positions of power. I observe this very often, when the "nice guy" gets together with a woman, and once comfortable and attached starting to treat her exactly the same way how the "bad guy" would. This is a basic power dynamic, think of Lord of the Rings. Power corrupts, if you never had power, how can one possibly know whether you are not going to be corrupted by it? Sure you can be nice and dandy when you are talking about how you don't need the ring, but once the ring is in your hands, things might very well change. And the weak, in general, are the ones who will be corrputed by power the most, because they never held it in their hands before. The most attractive thing is uncorrupted power. However it is very rare, and corrputed power is often more attactive than uncorrputed weakness.

I find that debates, from the perspective of an intellectual humble observer, can be a great tool to reveal obvious flaws in a teachers way of thinking and therefore their general comprehension ability. If I for example would see Leo commiting major logical fallacies in conversations related to the world I would get suspicious of the validity of his claims regarding politics, science and so forth. This is however not as much related to spirituality. I get suspicious of people who desperately avoid debates because they might be attempting to control their environments so flaws in their thinking cannot be revealed and therefore their authority be upheld. I know this mechanic to well because I used to do so myself. When there is a skilled debater they will be able to formulize a flaw in thinking and reveal it to a larger audience. There is a very fine line as to when someone can say they are beyond orange and when they are actually avoiding orange so that they do not have to deal with something intellectually. Anyways, debates can happen very playfully to test each others ideas and be great tools to exercise and learn formal operational thinking, which even nowadays most people lack, including many advanced spiritual teachers. Just because someone is beyond orange does not mean they have integrated all of the aspects that can be learned in orange. Someone who studies logic and the like for example will be far more masterful at these aspects of orange than any Yellow teacher will. A Tier 2 teacher would always do good to work to integrate more aspects of orange instead of simply disregarding them. This is the very reason why Leo is Leo. He has a sophisticated integration of Orange and for that reason has advantages over many spiritual teachers who did not bother to integrate these aspects as well. The "optimal" human being would be someone who fully integrates all stages to a masterful degree. Someone who fought in wars and killed people, who then realized the value of honor and religion, then spend decades studying reason, science and philosophy, then proceeded to open his heart to all creates and expanding his empathy and so forth and so forth. This is obviously beyond the capacity of any modern human being, so we will lack in many stages of the spiral. Today it is especially things like red and blue that are lacking in us, which is the typcial "The civilized man could not survive a week in the wild". This arrogance of being a higher stage and therefore having authority in all aspects of life is very misleading.

Imagine what the world would be like if God had a selfish agenda like we do. "Look at those nasty hairless chimps ruining my planet, better get rid of them before they spread to other planets. Let me just spray some chemicals all over the planet."

Yes, one does good not to be attached to their own creation. In Art-school we learn this by having our drawings be torn apart by our teacher until we no longer care for them but instead for the process of creation itself. This will also give us confidence in ourselves so that we can rely on the process of creation instead of on what we have created. This makes us better Creators.

I agree, but because all of us are using maps all day, as we are thinking creatures, we will inevitably be using tools that either increase our consciousness or halt our progress. For example seeing how concepts like Perception, Relativity, Imagination, Mind, Map vs Territory and so forth are actually part of the Materialistic Paradigm and ironically contribute to it's limited Framework is to me essential. This is not merely about using different words and concepts, this is about Seeing in what kind of relationships these concepts stand and therefore how the "Meta-framework" has a substantial influence of how we a look and perceive reality. By replacing the Pre-Consciousness concepts with Post-Consciousness concepts we actually get to observe the Pre-Consciousness concepts from a distance, we see their limitations by not being immersed in them. The Post-Consciousness concepts will, by having clearly constructed them ourselves, be obviously constructions to us. The danger of the Pre-consciousness concepts is that they go so deep we do not recognize them as constructions anymore. We are so familiar with them we do not even consider alternatives. In other words we are unconscious that the Pre-Consciousness concepts are even concepts. We don't actually see them for what they are. Like watching a Movie for the first time and being utterly immersed in it. That will not happen if you have created a Movie yourself. If you have created the Movie yourself every scene will be a reminder of how you have created it. Think of how people viewed the world thousands of years ago. When Spirits were fundamentally part of their Reality. Their worlds were different, their languages we different, the conclusions they formed from Non-dual experiences were different. To me it is very clear that Leo has framed his entire Philosophy within the Materialist Paradigm, precisely because he has put it in opposition of it. This is, to me, unnecessarily limiting and does not celebrate the full spectrum of expression that is possible.

I am aware of that statement and that you are aware of what I speak of in terms of how things are. Our disagreement is in the framing, the usage of language to communicate this understanding. I don't subscribe to the idea that all frameworks are equally valid or useful for us, especially in terms of our existential investigations. In my eyes the materialist paradigms and their resulting "non-materialist"-paradigms (which stand in opposition to the materialist paradigm and are essentially a spawn of it, and therefore attached to it like a tick) are very unnecessarily vague, confusing and conflating because all of them stemmed from a deeper unconsciousness. Once the consciousness increase these frameworks have been kind of made to work from within that consciousness level. I would prefer for us to actually construct a cleaner framework that is specifically detached from the limited materialistic framework and does not require to stand in opposition of it, but rather is it's own evolutionary pathway of frameworks. Whether we like it or not but these frameworks have an impact on our consciousness and how we view the things we are talking about. Instead of having a framework that works against the essential nature of Oneness, Non-duality and so forth we can construct them in ways so they streamline these aspects. Things like "Perception, Mind, Relativity" always stand in contrast to the Materialistic Framework. They are essentially part of it, and in my eyes it is obvious that the usages of these concepts will keep as trapped, to a certain degree, in that paradigm. Basically what I am trying to say is that due to our unconsciousness in the past we have created entire languages and concepts based on that level of consciousness. When we are using that same language on a different level of consciousness we will naturally come to the limitations of that language and these concepts, which is happening all the time. And this is not mere surface level, this goes really, really deep. I don't see a lot of people adressing this problem while to me it seems like it has helped me increase my consciousness quite significantly. Think of if a high consciousness alien was to construct a language, what words would it never even come up with that we keep using all day. How would it refer to different kind of objects when objects themselves are part of the language framework and therefore more of conceptual clumps than anything else? There are a lot of things that would look completely differently. To me Leo and a lot of people when using language and attempting to communicate non-dual Truth are banging their heads against the wall. While of course this is obviously inevitable to a certain degree, I do think we could make it far more comprehensive if we were to adjust our language significantly.