Scholar

I think they are, because you have created a framework of belief based solely on experiences that you would deem supernatural. You justify these beliefs by putting authority into experiences that might be limited and limiting. For example, of how many spirits do you know that report that slavery is wrong? You could insert any kind of act that causes suffering and find a way to ground your justification in a certain type of experience. To me that is similar to the type of "bullshitting oneself" that this topic is about.

Spirits can become a problem when all they tell you is took on blind faith, like for example believing animals are lesser beings and therefore not treating them with respect. The devilry can exist in the spirits too, they can limit your identity, especially when they resonate with your energy that is already compressed. I think you are a good example for that. The devil will plant his seed among truth.

Yes, dismiss everything I say as nonsense. Call that which goes against your beliefs gibberish. Be arrogant. Doesn't sound like devilry at all.

Lol, how you just took that phrase completely out of context and how deified Sadhguru is in your mind is just the most ironic and beautiful way to prove me point. It could not have been done in a better way.

I would worry more about it being corrupted by people like you, who put absolute trust into it. The deeper problem is that Sadhguru did not communicate to you the skepticism and autonomy that is required for this kind of thing to be less corruptable. If it truly was less corruptable, you would be sitting here being worried about how Sadhguru might be deluded and how he could have a blindspot, how even Sadhguru might not be able to overcome the forces of the ego. The best sign that Leo is doing a good job is by seeing how skeptical people are about him, even his followers. It is probably very difficult to have a good balance between being an authority and still have your students be autonomous, and I think that is something that Sadhguru simply has not as much awarenss of as Leo, it does not seem that way to me.

The fact that you think it is uncorruptable is the best indicator for how easily corruptable it will be.

I feel like when we take the environmental damage in consideration and future prospects if we continue doing what we are, that atleast in the western world even from the perspective of human survival it would still be an imperative to at least transform the most damaging forms of animal agriculture. Do we really have 100 years to solve this? I feel like if we had a cultural movement here that would push and invest into technology like lab grown meat that it wouldn't take us as long. But people aren't even aware of how damaging animal agriculture is, let alone the moral implications. If our world wasn't in such a dire state we could take our time but we have taken such a path that I don't know if it is possible. It doesn't seem like the next few decades will get any better, but far worse, as far as environmental destruction goes. Is it not maybe time to create a momentum for more radical action? It's strange to me how nature puts us into these situations, it's like there are checkboxes for survival. "Better get along before you invent nuclear weapons" "Better start caring about your environment before it bites you in the ass" Sometimes I feel like we are barely good enough to pass the tests and that one day we will fail and another species who will be more evolved in the future will be able to navigate all of this in a manner which allows it to thrive. It's like reality cannot allow something to continue to survive if it does not evolve certain traits. What if dolphines or other cetaceans are the future? They seem to have a much higher capacity for empathy, which would prohibit them from the kind of self-destruction we are causing. What if dolphines are actually more evolved than we are, what if they have a greater potential? One could argue they would have to find a way to somehow get their hands on tools and the like, but what if they evolve differently? What if there could be an animal with a far higher capacity for spirituality than us?

But if we truly were to feel that we are everyone else, would we not feel our utmost imperative to be to fight against the animal agriculture? After all, compared to human suffering, the suffering found as result of our consumption is far, far greater than the suffering of all human beings during the entire history of mankind. Trillions of selves being killed in gruesome ways every year, compared to the suffering of a few hundred million human being selves. Especially when we consider that animals most likely have a more vivid experience of life and therefore their emotional suffering is more amplified, considering they do not have intellectual frameworks to navigate reality as humans do. A good question to ask is, would you rather live every life of every person who was killed in the jewish holocaust, or would you rather live the lifes of every animal that is killed as a result of animal agriculture? That is literally more lifes each year than there have been humans born in all of earths history. I think we all know the answer to that, yet we do not behave accordingly at all. The question is, how could a sane, non-biased being not find this the most pressing moral and political issue? Just by putting yourself into the position and trying to quantify the suffering, I don't think any exclusive human problem comes even close to it. The only argument that could be made is that prioritizing human suffering will result in a quicker abolishment of animal agriculture. But I feel like that same argument can be made from a place of bias towards human suffering, as an excuse to shut out the suffering that is caused to other species.

Mark Rowlands has been using it as an argument for animal rights, stating that if we were to design a truly just society we would consider all sentient life as we would not know whether we might be born as a different species. In the end it's basically just the Golden Rule in a different form.

It's called the Veil of Ignorance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance

Do you think that the less ego someone has the less he will feel skeptical about different ideas? Skepticism exist for survival, so when there is no attachment to survival, do you not think it might make a mind more prone to believe in inaccurate ideas?

I think Destiny's position is that these socialist ideas will not be effective as a way of advocacy for change. In his view we should do it step by step, focus on specific policy issues that everyone can agree on to have gradual change towards progression. He doesn't see a lot of value in idealistic socialist utopia's because to him they are more of a distraction, especially when you have socialists who focus only on that and not on actual policy that can be effected today.

I feel like Biden is mostly blue anyways, he is kind of an opportunist. He is using progressive ideas for political gain rather than truly valuing them.

I like Destiny, he is intellectually honest and will change his position if he views the other side as more reasonable. I wouldn't say lefties hate him, it is more of the socialist/communist part of the left that dislikes him. To be fair though, he does reveal how a lot of them do not really have any viable solutions to capitalism. I think he agrees with the critiques of capitalism, but was not yet compelled of an alternative which would realistically solve any of the problems we are facing without creating an entirely new set of probably even more devastating problems. He is more of a Soc-Dem than anything else. When he is against a specific policy it is usually because of data that would imply that the policy is more harmful than productive. He does not argue from a position of morality. He would not say "minimum wage is bad because people don't deserve it" but rather "Every economist I read says it's a bad idea". I think what one could criticize him for is that he is not willing to do research into socialism himself, rather he would want someone to come along and convince him why it is a meaningful solution in our current environment. He is not just "ranting" against communism and socialism, he actually invites any socialist to come on his stream and debate him on the topic, and so far it really does not look good for the socialists. They basically have a problem with capitalism, which he will agree with, but then suggest a vague idea of a socialist system which could not possibly be implemented right now and would basically require a world-wide revolution to function. It seems to be the case that there is a viable critique of capitalism, which was obvious for a long time now, but no solutions other than social democracy, which is what we are going towards anyways. Where do you think is his understanding lacking specifically? I am not well read on socialism.

Have you heard of Vivo? I don't eat too much veggies so feel much better when I am using it, specifically Vivo Thrive. It's made of natural ingredients and kind of covers key nutrients that might be lacking in a vegan diet. Also has Lion's Mane in it and probiotics, certified by nutritionists. A little expensive but it has been worth it for me. I usually don't feel too optimal because of how lazy I am with my meals.

Stop with what? There is no hostility here

So you think I am projecting when I am accusing you of being attached to your teacher position? How do you know it is not a genuine way of looking at your behaviour? I honestly do think you have an attachment to being "the teacher", and I think you often do not recognize that the "teaching" might not have a good effect because you are too attached to it. Sometimes it is better to adopt a position of being level with the one you want to teach, not always is it good to view them from above. Especially when you are trying to understand them. Whether you understand my perspective or not, I do not think you did a good job to make me feel like you are understanding me. Rather it feels like I am misunderstood and that you are talking passed me to be in your teacher role.

Not a game, a play. Like a theatre play.

I disagree Sero. I actually think you strongly identifying with being "evolved" and high up the spiral. Your thoughts are constructed very carefully because your identity depends on being someone who is conscious and aware of itself. I don't take such a serious approach, I had one experience of the absurdity of realness and it was enough to kind of tickle that out of me. To me the dynamic here is enjoyable, it is a play. I think you would probably notice if you were to read multiple posts on this forum how much I can vary in personality. I use personality very much like a tool, right now I am a little bit of a trickster, as I think that is the most appropriate way to interact. I don't care if I come off as ignorant, atleast not always. Infact sometimes I deliberately play ignorant to have a conversation play out in a way I would view as more enjoyable or insightful. However, the Nessness is something I find very useful, I think it could help many people. There is a sort of immersion that I am trying to get people out of. What my ego is indeed attached to are the animals that are suffering though. It would be inauthentic for me to ignore that. This is after all why we are having this discussion.

I don't have any relationship to the content though other than enjoying creating it. Otherwise I would still stuck being a subjectivist/relativist.

Relative is an idea, nothing more. Meaning, relativity does not actually exist as part of any aspect of consciousness, it is it's own aspect. Confusing something to be relative would be like confusing red to be blue.

What I talk about is not theory though, it's just being. The theory is just language I put on top to play the game. However, what I am pointing to isn't non-duality or enlightenment either. It just just Nessness. How else will I communicate this to you but through words? All I essentially can say is Nessness. Good and Bad is Nessness. Now you just have to find out what Nessness is. And I think your believe in relativism is actually the mental construction which I am trying to deconstruct. I don't see anything relative in my experience, I never infact met Relativism. How does he look? How could Being be relative when Relativity is an aspect of Being? The only thing that is relative is Relativity. That' the entire point here. The only thing that is relative is Relativity. All other claims are delusion, including this very claim. That is the essence of delusion. But only delusion is delusion.

Sero... I feel like I am not the one who is struggling here It's like you are in teaching mode, you don't even try to truly reflect upon what I am trying to say you just go immediately into "How can I teach him?"-Mode. Every conversation we have mutates into a meta-conversation about the conversation. It's like it always becomes a lecture on Spiral Dynamics. I want us to communicate, I don't know why you are giving up so quickly. Either way, I think it would help if you tried to write down what you think it is that I am communicating. How else will be resolve misunderstandings? I think this is kind of hilarious

Sero, one can use binary modes of thinking without being trapped to binary thinking. For example, what I was pointing out is that you guys are very binary about things being relativistic and subjective vs. quintessential (which is what I am pointing to!). I feel like what you do is like talking about what kind of pen I am using to write, instead of actually trying to read what I am writing. Whether I use blue, orange or green language doesn't matter! It goes beyond all of it anyways. Again, can you try to articulate to me what you think I am pointing to?

I know what you are pointing to Sero. But I still feel like you are not seeing what I am trying to point to. I don't attempt to put my language into this framework you are using where you want everything to sound Non-dualish. I don't care about that, I don't care if it comes of as absolutist. I just want you to see.