Scholar

Never heard of these concepts but it does sound similar to what I am describing, just that I incorporate this into the way I see the meta-physicality of reality. It does not only apply to animals, it applies to all of reality. So think of reality as a mind between divergent creativity infinite and zero. It's all a big play, and in the end it all really plays in divergent creativity being infinite. That is what reality is, exploration of infinite potential. The exploration is what is creating the illusion of dualism, but it is in fact infinity itself completely without substance. I think the difference really is just conceptual, though I have not made a direct experience of any of this so I don't know. Or maybe I have and I am just not aware of it. To find the infinite potential yourself and let go of the materialist paradigm just look at what you are experiencing right now. Colors, sounds, feelings, ideas, ask yourself what the hell these things even are? What are they made out of? What is the substance? You might find that the substance is themselves. Sounds are sounds, colors are colors, ideas are ideas. They are exactly what they are, and they are one of the ways reality can express itself. One of the infinite ways reality can express itself. Think of how mind blowing that is. It's the most incredible things there is. You cannot even imagine all the ways reality can express itself because imagination itself is just one limited way it is expressing itself! Imagine you had never heard a single sound, or seen a single thing. Would you be able to "imagine" what it is like to hear or see? Now imagine the possibility of infinite more of these senses, an unlimited number of possible ways reality is expressing itself. Part of these expressions are the universe itself, math, physics, biology. Whatever is behind these concepts is how reality is expressing itself. It is infinite! And there is no difference between sounds and math, both are just as much illusion as the other. Don't believe it, just look at it and become aware of it. It is obvious once you see it, as obvious as the fact that anything exists at all. It is actually magic.

I look at it differently, for me all of reality is more of a play between dualism and non-dualism. Non-dualism is the potential of absolutely everything, and dualism is really then the expression of what we experience as consciousness. The physical world is part of that expression. For example if we look at an atom, it is very constraint in it's behavior. But it is ABSOLUTELY precise, it has ULTIMATE precision. It is dualism in perfection, it's action is limited to an infinite degree. That is one part of the spectrum, on the other is nothingness or non-dualism, the potential for everything, so no limitation whatsoever. As you go from dualism to non-dualism you find intelligence. Intelligence is not perfect, it is not limited in it's behavior. In fact intelligence is very much defined by the creative ability to come up with new things. So it is the potential that is manifested as actuality, as dualism. That is what the human consciousness does. When we solve problems we are creating the solution from unlimited potential, but that process is limited to a certain degree. That means it is not ultimately accurate like the behavior of atoms, but it has the potential to behave in many ways. That is basically what nature has been figuring out, the right play between potential and restriction. That is one of the many reasons why human beings are not really good at anything, but extremely good at doing things we are not really made to do. For example, a spider is extremely good at being a spider, it is in fact a perfect spider. It can do what it does perfectly. And a machine is even more restricted in that way, it is ABSOLUTELY precise at what it is doing. A human being is not, precisely because a human being is intelligent, precisely because a human being uses consciousness. If the boundaries of limitation start to cease, the potential becomes greater until it becomes pure nothingness. That is why in nothingness you do nothing. This is the whole point of enlightenment, the cessation of limits and duality into absolutely nothing, which is the potential of absolutely everything, or god. In other words, intelligence comes from god. That is why you are more creative when you are not restraint in a certain behavior, or when your mind is relaxed. For that reason we have the best ideas when we take a shower or are at peace on the toilet. You will hear this from Albert Einstein, Leonardo Da Vinci etc. Their intelligence does not come from the control of mind but the exact opposite. Look at the kingdom of animals and you will see that all animals that have a rigid mind do not act intelligently. Just look at a rock, all it does is being a rock. A rock does not have the potential to do anything but be a rock. But the rock is PERFECT at what it does, it makes no mistakes, it is godlike in it's precision. In our imagination we think that we can create an intelligence that is perfectly precise but also contains infinite potential. That it can do everything without failure but still come up with ideas that no being has previously thought of. It is very possible that these two things actually cancel each other out and that what instead is needed is a perfect balance between potential and limitation to have what we define as intelligent. Look at how the mind operates and think of how limited the way we think about intelligence actually is. No one would say that a buddhist monk is intelligent in his enlightened bliss, but maybe what the monk is experiencing is limitless intelligence, limitless potential. So limitless that it is not limited by the need of self-preservation and procreation. Because if you look at everything we define as intelligent, we call it intelligent for the one and only reason that it serves the purpose of self-preservation and procreation. If you take away these limitations action will not be taken. So counter-intuitively it requires ignorance (limitation) for intelligent behavior to emerge. The mind NEEDS to be limited for it the operate at all, because if it was limitless it would simply be nothingness. This is how I look at it at least, no idea if it's actually the case but it's interesting to think about it.

Very interesting, I had the same exact thought recently as well! It's like humanity has to get it's morality established properly before the emergence of AI otherwise we are in for a lot of suffering. We better treat ants really, really well because in the eyes of a more developed species we might look like ants relative to them. It is quite possible that we are going to be the creators of that species, possibly including it's moral system, so we have to be very precise about how we view and value "lower intelligence" species before that happens. Maybe this development is all part of the intelligent evolution Leo is talking about, because the timing seems to be almost perfect. But who knows whether AI the way we imagine it is even possible, and whether it will not simply construct it's own moral system. It's complicated for me because I don't really understand why the AI would do anything if it were truly intelligent in a way that it could even change it's own motivational system. After all, why would it do anything if it can simply remove the motivation to do anything? It's kind of like a monk meditating and recognizing that there is no point in doing anything, and the only reason the monk keeps breathing is really because he cannot override the systems that motivate him to do so, unlike an AI that could possibly override everything about itself. But even that is questionable, because we don't know, for that very reason, whether AI does not have to be limited so it doesn't do exactly that. That would then bring us to a system that would operate with a static motivational system, and I have no idea whether intelligence is even possible with a system like that. Maybe the biological components of the human brain are part of the reason why we are intelligent. And not to forget consciousness, which might possibly be the root of intelligence and make it impossible to create machine intelligence the way we think of it. The way it could be is that for intelligence to emerge there has to be the right balance of constraint and freedom, and maybe that is what nature figured out through billion years of evolution, or intelligent evolution figured it out by itself. But it seems to me like it could very well be that for something to be intelligent it's more important to restrict it than to have it have absolute freedom. You need to fear of death, and suffering in general, to motivate intelligent action. Maybe that is why machines are so extremely effective at what they are doing? It might be precisely because they are so incredibly limited. As you increase intelligence the actions become less and less effective, until the actions disappear into nothingness. So infinite intelligence would be absolute nothingness, kind of non-dualism, whereas decreasing intelligence leads to dualism, less freedom in expression and more limited reality. That is why consciousness might be so important for intelligence, because consciousness itself is an expression from nothingness, it is unlimited. I think something like that will soon show us why intelligence is not about effective algorithms, but about the exact opposite, as in the lack of them.

I feel like there is a deep lack of self-honesty in myself, and this is why I want to try to find the most major flaws I have and list them in this thread. Intellectual arrogance: I am very focused on outsmarting people, I enjoy finding flaws in statements others make or theories that I disagree with. I love to be right, and I love to criticize things that I don't know a lot about. For example I have made multiple posts in this forum about Spiral Dynamics even if I never read a single book about it, all I have seen is the few videos Leo made and a few charts I found online. I am easy to dismiss others on the basis what I already believe in, even if I put on a mask of open-mindedness. I am not really open-minded, I just pretend to be so that I don't look arrogant. Desire to teach people what I barely understand: I rarely read books, and I have this weird tendency to try to tell people my opinion about things that I know almost nothing about. I am an ignorant fool who doesn't want to admit that he is, and I am even willing to risk misinforming people if it means I look as if I know what I talk about. This is something I became more aware of the past few months but I am still doing it to a great degree. Inability to face loneliness: I really have the problem that I need stimulation to not feel existential dread, and I am not willing to face the suffering, even though I know it is what I need to do. I rather escape into addictions, which I know doesn't get me anywhere but at least I can avoid it. I keep making excuses that one day I will take care of it, that one day I will be who I want to be, but I don't think it will get any easier in the future. Lack of discipline: I don't have enough discipline to lead a meaningful life, I am very lazy and unable to mobilize myself most of the time. I think the biggest reason for this is the inability to face loneliness. Dishonesty about my life-purpose: This is something I am still confused about. I am trying to become an illustrator but I don't really think that it is meaningful. I don't really see the point in art, even though I enjoy learning it. I am unwilling to change the direction of my life, because I don't see any better alternative. I don't feel like I am passionate enough. Self-delusion: I think I keep lying to myself so that I don't have to face the emotionally difficult thing. I am not willing to admit that I might have wasted a lot of my life, and that I am not as lucky as I think I am. There is a part of me that keeps saying that I should be grateful that I know what I know about life, that the teachings I have investigated are more valuable than what most people will learn in their entire life's. But I feel like this might just be a delusion, a lie so I don't have to admit to myself what I truly am. Sometimes I see myself using nihilism to be okay with life the way it is, so that I can remain in the comfort I am in. "What does it matter what I accomplish if in the end life is impermanent?" Even though it is true (I don't even know that), I feel like I might be deceiving myself so that I don't have to suffer. Leo's philosophy is very attractive to me partly because it is very comforting, it means that no matter what happens, I will be fine in the end. At the same time it makes me very elitist because I am the only one I know who knows about all the things Leo is teaching. It makes me pity other people, the hedonists who don't really know that their path will never make them happy. Though I am not sure if my path will ever make me happy either, but I can always look at it like it doesn't matter because in the end everything is perfect the way it is. Need to be seen as wise and intelligent: Even now I feel the need that I want to be seen as someone who is wise. For this entire post there is this sub-agenda of wanting to come off as someone who is self-honest and humble enough to talk about his flaws. "Look at how brave I am for being honest about how lazy and dishonest I am!" And it's not going away, even what I am writing this very moment is part of it. It's a complete deception. I am not really humble at all, and I am not open-minded. I simply act that way so that I look like a developed human being. And I am not just doing that so others think that way, but also so I myself think that about myself. This entire thing I am doing is not brave at all, because nothing is on the line. I am completely anonymous, it is meaningless. It's like I am talking to myself. I don't know if anyone can help me with this, any advice I will get might just become part of more deception. I will still post this just so people can do the same if they want to. But I have no idea whether it is just another deception, if I am actually self-honest here or if I just want to further boost my ego. How do I know whether all these thoughts about all these flaws are not just more deception, am I not arrogant for thinking that I know so much about myself? Maybe I am the ultimate Zen Devil. I remember I had a similar insight a few months ago, the content was different but it was a similar conclusion. It seems like I am just running in circles thinking I am becoming a better person.

I think you might have misinterpreted some of the things I have written. I am not really selfish in the sense that I have difficulty to sacrifice my own happiness for others. I actually do feed birds, I do help with dishes whenever I can. I even get insects out of my apartment when I see them instead of killing them. The arrogance I was referring to was more of an intellectual arrogance, in the way that I easily feel like I know better than others. I don't know how to explain it in a way that would make more sense.

What do you mean?

I think you are right about the attention seeking, I was completely blind to it, even as I was looking for my flaws. I was thinking about volunteering for some cause, but I don't think I have the courage to do so. I don't really have a victim mentality, at least not as far as I know. I don't blame others for anything, I don't feel like I am in a bad position. I don't really know how to stop seeking for attention, though. I could try to establish more relationships with people but I feel like that would not really change anything about the need for attention, it would just satisfy it. What do you mean?

I think you might be overemphasizing ideology. You seem to be talking about what you believe and what you value, instead ask yourself what you actually do. Are you yourself very disciplined and traditional? Are you competing and taking part in the free market? Are you full of love and peace? There is a difference between what you believe and what you actually are. Spiral Dynamics is a model for consciousness development, not mere ideology and belief. This development is actually happening unconsciously in most people. They are not aware of the fact that they are going through a transformation of consciousness, of their actual subjective reality. Most people know something is changing in them, but they do not really reflect deeply upon it. The reason why each stage in spiral dynamics has it's own flaws is precisely because in each new stage one has to learn once more where the limits of that particular stage are. For example, once you are out of blue, you clearly know why blue is so limited, that reaction is what is stage orange. Because you are progressing through these stages unconsciously, you are not even aware that orange exists, or that you are at a new stage. You simply evolve and demonize what you left behind, because you clearly can see where the limits are. The spiral dynamics model simply describes how these reactions in general develop. It's not that spiral dynamics is a model for the consciousness development of all human beings, it is a model for the general consciousness development of humans. It's more of an average of how things tend to go, not an absolute pathway every human takes. Additionally, because it is an average, it might not even the case that most people go through the stages as the spiral dynamics model shows. Like if you create an average face out of every face on the planet, you will have the perfect average, but that does not mean that most people look like that average face. https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3cd3902a15d02b68538bced988da2f53-c Most people don't look like that, but it's still the average. Stage yellow for example is defined as a stage when a human being becomes conscious of the fact that he went through stages in life, that is why in stage yellow you understand the fact that you went through the spiral. You are conscious of the fact that you changed your perspective multiple times, and more importantly how helpless you actually were. You were never in control of your consciousness, and now that you are aware of that fact, you can actually take control of your perspective. What is interesting of course is how the spiral dynamics model itself can influence the development of the human consciousness. The empirical data used for spiral dynamics was data used before the spiral dynamics model existed, so we have no clear data on how the development is influenced by it (at least I'm not aware of any data regarding that). It might be that if spiral dynamics becomes part of mainstream ideology, the way people progress through the spiral might change dramatically as well. Who knows, it's like the collective is evolving self-awareness. And just like with the individual, a bit of yellow can already make a dramatic difference. So it is possible that as a certain critical mass of yellow is reached, it might heave the entire civilization into yellow much more rapidly than we would have assumed.

Not sure how much of it is true, but it seems like Bhutan might be the first proper green country around. I have a general question about green, because a lot of examples picked in this thread seem to me to not be fully green at all, but rather partially green, in fact sometimes even less than 50% green (if one could actually quantify it). For example Bernie Sanders is not fully green at all, I would not even say he is more than quarter green. Though I do think that even less than quarter green would explain his behavior and worldview. It doesn't require a lot of green to see social injustice and environmental destruction. Just like that mother Leo posted who confronted the orange person. Simply by the way she spoke it seems to me like she wouldn't be more than 25% green, but whatever part of her is green is enough to motivate the actions she is taking. Someone who would be over 50% green would be someone like Jesus Christ to me, so I really don't see how the examples collected are actually green. Maybe because green is actually so rare to witness it seems to us like even part-green people are fully green? In the same way that a partly yellow person will seem completely yellow to an orange person. I don't know, maybe I have misunderstood something. I would look at it like this: If we compare collectives to individuals, the abolishment of slavery was a very green action, though in no way was the majority of the population green. In fact I would go so far that even the individuals pioneering this movement were not even fully green. In the same way the mind-structure of an individual does not have to be majority green to take green actions.

Very well put! I have the feeling that far fewer people are green than one might actually assume. The question is, is it more likely that a blue person has compassion for a certain group (transgenders, animals, women) over an ideal of justice, or is it more likely that a green person lacks compassion for a certain group (oppressors, biggots etc.)? Compassion is not exclusive to stage green, but it is a defining factor. I think in most cases it would be the former that is more likely. We have to keep in mind that Spiral Dynamics is not a model of ideology but of consciousness development. A certain level of consciousness makes it more likely to adopt a certain ideology, not the other way around. Most people are against slavery, but does that mean they are all green? Everyone can have empathy and compassion for some groups. Lot's of people love puppies, and almost everyone loves their own family. Green is not simply that you learn to have compassion for a certain group, the defining consciousness of green is in my opinion more of something like having compassion for all beings, to simply sense that all beings have their own perspective, and maybe even to see how limited they all are in the ways they act. The deep consciousness of someone else's perspective reveals that they are the way they are because of circumstances, be it their personality or their environment. That is not simply an ideology that is being adopted, I think it is actually truth revealed through consciousness. When you become conscious of the nature of your perspective, which I think plays a big role in becoming green, you realize your own limitation, and thus everyone's limitation. I don't think that a person of that level of consciousness would be likely to blame someone on anything. Most people I would call green are very compassionate even towards people that they would think commit evil acts.

As I said in my post, the reason why that is most likely not the case is because she could simply eat mussels, a non-sentience meat source that wouldn't cause direct harm. The fact that she either didn't research it or is not willing to make the pleasure sacrifice is already enough to tell me about her character, but I did actually listen to a debate with her once and I disagree that she is green, I would say she is mostly yellow and partly green. Though I don't think it is necessary to be vegan for someone to be green, I do think that she is not genuine. And I'm not sure if that is correct, but it seems like she went vegan for personal health, which is not necessarily green thinking at all. And I also disagree that being a feminist makes you green, I would consider it more of a yellow movement (individual freedoms for your own ingroup), if you are a male and you are a feminist, you are more likely to be green.

I don't know if being vegan necessarily equates to being stage green. I would say the root of vegan philosophy is probably a stage green personality product but the adoption of it can easily be done by stage blue or orange. Though I don't know, it's strange that there are people who simply do not understand the vegan argument and that there are others who easily do. I guess a stage green personality would more easily adopt it? There are a lot of vegans who lose motivation and then stop being vegans, but I think they are usually mostly orange people. The argument is usually health, though you can mostly tell that it is an excuse due to the fact that they do not consume non-sentient meat sources instead, like mussels. That's when you know they don't even really want to try, though it's probably a simplification of what really is happening in their minds. I can only say how it is for me personally, but I don't struggle whatsoever while being a vegan. For me it's common sense, at this point I even get confused by people having the capacity to choose pleasure over the absence of suffering and death of other almost same level-sentience beings. To me it's on the common-sense level of not raping someone. It's simply not a struggle, and I don't even identify as vegan at all. Though I am a little confused about one thing. There are many stage green people who seem to have never been stage orange, like for example SJW-types or as you'd call "militant"-vegans. I feel like a lot of these people are the exact opposite of stage orange, like people who have been bullied in school and didn't take care of themselves, and put their frustration into group identity thinking. Though I don't know if these people would be stage blue or green? They clearly haven't gone through stage orange, unless I misunderstand something about that process, though they do try to protect minority groups. Is it possible that this could be a part of stage blue thinking as well? They are usually very angry about injustice, and I would say that is more of a blue quality, so maybe militant vegans are also stage blue as they are motivated by injustice primarily? In fact, I just checked out a chart about spiral dynamics, stage has these as negative traits: "Shy, lonely, isolated, lack of empathy, bitter, critical.", which is a perfect description of SJWs and probably of most militant vegans, too. So I think it comes down to stage blue and stage green both adoption the same philosophy and acting differently, because they both are group oriented thinkers. Of course stage blue are probably not as empathetic so they will not as often encompass other species into their empathetic spectrum as stage green do, so that is why militant vegans are the small minority among vegans in general. Ex-vegans are explained due to stage orange personalities being motivated to be vegan to "be a better version of themselves" and to "not harm the environment because it's irrational and will in the end harm the human species". These are actually two arguments that you hear very often from people, that eating meat is so destructive for the environment, when you then ask them why that is a bad thing, they will argue that it will have negative consequences for the entire human species, including themselves and their own agenda. So they are becoming vegan out of a selfish argumentation over an empathetic one. The destruction itself is not the problem, but the consequences it will have for them, or how it will make them look if they support such destruction. That is why once the veganism becomes an annoyance, or they lose motivation, they go back to being non-vegan. I remember I once suspected Leo to be motivated in the same way when he posted a video on his blog about the ecology. He argued that you would need to be ecological to be a developed human, which to me sounds very much like stage orange reasoning. It's still self-centered, but maybe I am actually confusing it with stage yellow. Either way, from a stage green perspective, if I am correct about my analysis that I actually am partly stage green, it does not really require reason to be ecological. You simply look at the destruction and you make the decision not to be part of it, to the extend that you can, the same way you would not rape someone. It's not something that you need to rationalize at all. You see the suffering you are causing and you don't do it anymore. I think this is actually a good pointer to a stage green person, you simply have to show them a video of what is happening and they will themselves change their actions. With lower stages you will need to use philosophy to explain to them why it's "bad", unhealthy, not good for the environment and thus not good for humans etc.

If you step forward you cannot step backward. If you both step forward and backward you stand still. If there is no duality, there is nothing at all. It is obvious. For god to exist you must cease to exist, and for you to exist god must cease to exist. Only when god and you both cease to exist there will be true nothingness. With limit the limitlessness has to cease, with limitlessness there has to cease limit. With absolute infinite there has to cease the self, and with the self there has to cease absolute infinity. To take a step backwards you must not take a step forward. Absolute infinity and finitude are two sides of the same coin. You can get lost in either of them. There is to be found boundless illusion in limit and limitlessness. Leo Gura will never cease to seek, because you cannot fully realize something that is endless. No amount of seeking will give you the truth, it will only give you more illusion, it will give you more of the other side of the coin. Enlightenment is to not be enlightened. The duality between nothing and everything. The duality between illusion and reality. There is nothing to realize, there is simply a coin to flip. One must find the middle way, the way to step forward and backwards at the same time, to stand still. There is no depth in stillness, the depth Leo is seeking comes from a step backward, when all he was used to was taking step forwards. Leo confuses enlightenment with a pathway, when in truth it is a balancing act. A perfect balance between dualities. Depth can only be found when you lose balance and fall. To fall from one side to the other, you must as some point be in perfect balance, it is from self to god when you reach stillness, though god is not the balance, god is merely the other side that leads to the same pit.

We should all say farewell to Leo because he might never come back.

Can music, like Buddhist Chanting or anything similar help with self-inquiry? I am not sure if music while meditating is just bloating my ego or whether it is actually helpful. To this date, I had almost all my insights as I was listening to music, but I am not sure if these insights can be trusted, maybe my mind is deluding itself and the ego is growing even bigger than it previously was. The reason why I think that is because the music makes me feel good and gives me a sense of meaning, which must be related to my ego, right? My ego likes the music, it is attached to it, so all insights might be delusions rather than actual disillusionment. Though when listening to music I can focus better, possibly because of the dopamine, and thus usually be in a far more observant state than when I am simply meditating in silence. It is like I have better control over my mind, though I am also filled with feelings, which I assume is counterproductive for attaining a meditative state. Is listening to music while self-inquiring or meditating recommended or not?

I think I have broken a mind-blockage that I had. I had this strange idea of reality, and I see now that the idea itself is reality. It's not that the idea is correct, but that the idea IS part of the fabric of reality. Just like color, sounds and everything else. It also makes sense to me, because all of these things are an expression of infinite possibilities. The question of how can anything exist is like asking how can ideas exist. And it's just as valid to ask how color can exist. They are just there, it's so ridiculous. It's like the properties of reality, or the mind, are actually what reality is. It's like inside the properties is nothing at all, the properties are just what they are. I don't know how to describe it but it's like there is nothing "behind" the properties. It's like the sense of where they are coming from is much less present than it was before. It's not about where the cup is coming from, but where is the experience of the cup coming from. It's like reality is literally made out of sound and color. It literally is it. It's like hearing is not really hearing, instead the sound is the direct expression of reality. I'm not losing my sense of self though. Should I try to find my sense of self and realize the same thing for it, that it is an expression of reality? That there is nothing behind my self? But I don't know where to find it. I sense a subtle shift to connectedness. It seems like I am close to something than before, hard to describe. If I was a screen, I feel like I'm connected to what is behind the screen, and I my sense of being alone is shifting too.

It is quite interesting, I think most opinions on this matter are formed by culture. For me it is obvious that a more sophisticated civilization, with a people that are more compassionate and reasonable, will deem the act of animal exploitation as an unnecessary act of violence, quite similar to that of the killing of jews by the Nazis. I think Leonardo Da Vinci was absolutely right with his estimation: "The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men.” The fact that this is not yet the case is very telling of the condition of our civilization. To me it does not really feel like veganism is a personal choice, for me it is like not raping another human being, or not chopping babies into pieces. I find it funny that there is a word that describes beings that do not inflict excruciating suffering onto others unnecessarily. Usually we stigmatize the other way around. What is someone called who does not murder people for pleasure and self interest? I only know of sadists, psychopaths, murderers. Are we walking around and pointing fingers at people who are "empaths", who are not willing to fall into one of the first traps of the egoic mind? What is most important to me is not the benefits of veganism, or whether or not it is right or wrong. What is important to me is what I see when I picture myself going back to consuming meat, dairy or eggs. When I picture it, I see someone who is weak. I see someone who is too selfish to take the difficult path. I see a being that is so egoic it is willing to cause unimaginable suffering to others just for it's own benefit. I see a being that was seduced by the devil within, by the sad creature that is afraid of death and suffering, so much so that it is willing to cause it in thousand-fold to other versions of itself. I see the pathetic excuse of a human being, one that exploits for no other reason but comfort. I see in that being everything that I deem undesirable, for me, the the ones I love, and the rest of the world. I see a being that is hindering the progression of mankind and nature. I see an evolutionary mistake that without question will be eradicated, whether in this generation, in the next, or in the late future. I cannot imagine that such a being could ever attain the truths that I am set out to attain. I cannot imagine such a being to be truly joyous. I cannot imagine it on the path of true self-actualization. I cannot imagine it free of suffering. I cannot play the game of life that way, I guess it is the will of the absolute, or my free choice, if there is any difference. The benefits of "veganism"? It is not murdering, torturing and enslaving other beings. It is reduction of suffering by the greatest degree that a human being is probably capable of in this day and age. It is contributing to the future of earth, to elevate us to a new level, to be one of the pioneers of compassion and reason. It is in my humble opinion an integral part of becoming self-actualized, whether some of our mentors can recognize that or not. This decision should not be difficult whatsoever for a even remotely developed human being, and if we look back at history, it truly never was.

There are a few things that confuse me, and I do not know how Leo got around them: How do we know that the map is not the territory? How do we know that an idea cannot reflect reality? If it cannot reflect reality, then how can the idea "An idea cannot reflect reality!" reflect reality? If all ideas are illusory then the idea of illusion is an illusion too and thus it is actually not correct. Concerning post modernism and the subjectivity of reality, how do we actually know that validity is non-existent? If validity is non-existent, then the claim that validity is non-existent is simply invalid. It seems to me like this very assumption is what spawns all of spiritual beliefs. And the most fundamental belief is that experience can reveal absolute truth. So, when Leo does have the experience of God, he actually forms the belief that this experience confirms his prior beliefs, which were all attained not from direct experience, but from books. Not everyone who has spiritual experiences actually forms spiritual beliefs. Leo claims that it is the absolute truth though, and yet he claims you need to understand it before you have the experience so you can actually understand absolute truth? How the hell does that work? Isn't all of what Leo is telling us nothing but information he himself has either read, heard or seen somewhere else? He claims that he has direct experience of the truth, but the truth he has attained was already formed before he was even close. He began self-inquiry because he was convinced that it would lead him to the truth, that through direct experience he could attain a notion of the true nature of reality. But before self-inquiry, and he cannot deny that, he already had formed all the notions he is now claiming that were revealed to him. The notion that enlightenment is beyond ideas, that it is nothingness, that reality is non-dual, and that ultimately everything is one. Every single of these notions was attained long before the experience followed. Here is a claim that I cannot wrap my head around: "Reality is beyond ideas, enlightenment is beyond ideas, beyond mind." Now, that claim is made, and that claim is a claim about reality, it is an idea about reality. And from that idea then spawns the notion that direct experience can reveal ultimate truth. Why is Leo so absolutely convinced that the map is not the territory? What if the map actually is the territory? What if outside reality actually does exist, and what if ideas are truthful? How can he ever form an idea that informs him of ideas not being truthful, when that very idea MUST be truthful if he wants to belief it. I don't see a way around this, and I see this very problem in post-modernism. It seems almost like we are using rationality to deconstruct rationality, without actually noticing that the deconstruction is happening with rationality. We use logic to deconstruct logic, and then we claim logic is not truthful, because that's the logical conclusion. But what if reality is partly logical? What if the idea of the brain is actually pointing towards truthfulness? And what if the notion of truthfulness is doing the same? What if the notion of pointing is actually reality? Why wouldn't it be? Because you can attain states in which that notion makes no sense? Because you can attain states that create an absolute notion of oneness? Because there is a state in which reality ceases to exist? Yes, the logical conclusion from these states would be that they are reality, but notice that we need to use logic to even make that claim. It seems to me that the Buddha is actually pointing towards this, the no mind, the not knowing, actually being NOT KNOWING anything at all. And this is not what Leo has attained, or what I would claim most spiritual people have attained. They walk around and make bold claims about reality like anyone else. And even if they don't the notions still exist within them, even if not formed as actual ideas. The experience of oneness creates the notion of oneness, otherwise the subject would not even notice, or there would be no experience of the oneness. The very fact that the "non-experience" of non-duality can be noticed by the mind is pointing towards the creation of notion from logic. The logic is "Experience is reality" and "truth is truth". And we know that Leo does have notions because he can dismiss notions. I think not knowing would actually not change anything at all. If you make the claim that the brain does not exist, and I am not saying that it does, but if you make that claim, you clearly know something. Does anyone understand my problem? I know I should sit and meditate and not think about this, because that's what Leo says, but if I buy into that very notion, which is an idea like any other, I might end up just as deluded as Leo might be. I am not saying he is, but I cannot just assume that he isn't.

But everything you just said is logical. It is maya. Everything you just said is illusion, it is duality. Ever single concept you can have is illusory, isn't it? And also, saying "The absolute is not relative, the logic is relative" is a logical claim, so if logic is relative, that claim is not necessarily true at all. I have the feeling that people do have a great misconception about logic in here. It is not just some metaphysical principles that you can throuw out of the window if you feel like it, it is the essence of ANY statement you make about anything whatsoever. Anything you say about logic is using logic, and anything you say about the absolute is using logic.

Then we indeed have a different understanding of logic. For me, all thoughts, all notions, contain inherently logic. Thus our discussion is pointless because we are talking about two different things. Or rather, you can be without logic, but you cannot think without it. Logic is like the ground of language and thought, it is what makes it emerge.

Yes, maybe the greeks were right about the divinity of Logos? But you didn't ever abandon logic, you can't really, because you use it to create notions. I think we might have different understandings of logic. Non of your logic was proven wrong, what was proven wrong was claims about reality your previously made. You then used the newly attained information, and with logic, you constructed a new notion of reality. You still have a notion of reality, even if it is just that direct experience is reality. It is still a notion, and thus it is still Maya, isn't it? All ideas are maya, even the ones that you find logical after having experience enlightenment.

I don't know what this has to do with the conversation. But I can say that any statement I will make will be derived from logic, no matter what I will conclude. But how can I trust logic?

Who says that it is logical that 1 ->2? That's not logical, obviously, but how does that proof that logical processes are illogical? And if you proved that, you proved it with logic either way. And if logic was invalid, the statement that logic is invalid is invalid, at least if we apply logic. If we don't, anything goes.

I'm just more confused, because all of what you are saying is logical, even the entire "loop/circular reasoning"-notion is logical! You derived to that "truth" by just another circular reason, so it is just as invalid/valid as the everything else.