Scholar

No of course not, that's not how rights work. You don't have a right not to get cancer.

And this is exactly why the kind of advice given here can lead to extreme harm. Some people are just out of touch with how other people feel and they will not notice when they just push boundaries and make others feel uncomfortable. The attitude of "I have to just push and push until I get to have sex with her!" can very easily lead into the rape-territory, because women tend to want to avoid confrontation. The issue is that people might regret their choice afterwards. When you push someone until they are super horny, they might do things that they would otherwise not want to do, similar to when they are drunk. Instead of being so defensive about this I would recommend to self-reflect and adopt responsibility for possible harm you might cause.

I gave this a quick read and it seems like the backlash against the Aryan Invasion Theory has more to do with Indian Nationalism. https://scroll.in/article/936872/two-new-genetic-studies-upheld-aryan-migration-theory-so-why-did-indian-media-report-the-opposite I will not download the pdf you provided, maybe find a link to some website that has the pdf.

It's clearly hyperbole, but that is basically the attitude he is taking, and I think he knows it, and I think he thinks it's a good attitude to take, which I fundamentally disagree with.

Here is the difference between me and Leo for example: Me: "Everyone should read the guidelines but I know that many people won't, which is an issue because this means many people will be uninformed about the fact that there is no privacy on this website even though the expectation will be that there is. Because I think breaching privacy is a serious thing, I think I should find a way so that ensures that atleast people know about this one particular thing because of how important it is, after all I don't want people to think they have privacy on here, because even if they don't read the guidelines for whatever reason (which I know most people won't because that's just how the internet works, and I have no way of screening these people out anyways) their privacy is still important to me. Therefore, I will create a system that ensures that whenever someone sends a message, they are informed that it is not private. This way I have reduced harm, because after all, there is no free will, there is no such thing as people being ignorant, there is only reality taking place and therefore all I can do is use my compassion for the most loving outcome." Leo: "It's not my fault that they don't read the guidelines lol, fuck these idiots if they choose not to do it it's they fault their privacy gets breached. I'm not willing to do anything, they deserve it if they are this stupid."

I think your attitude is unhealthy. Clearly they are not. The issue is that it wouldn't be difficult whatsoever to ensure that everyone is informed, by simply having that warning as part of the PM system itself so even people who don't read the guidelines are aware. The issue is that Leo expects things from people that they will not do, and he is too stubborn and incompassionate to ensure the safety of everyone. There is a reason why we made wearing a belt in a car required by law. He has a very typical self-help attitude and it's toxic imo.

@Leo Gura I think this is the reason why it should be made much more clear that there is no privacy on this forum. The fact that Leo can read everyone's PM's goes against the expectations of pretty much everyone who uses the internet and other forums. Sure it is written in the Guidelines, but I think it is the responsibility of the owner of the website that this is made clear, and knowing that many people choose not to read guidelines just causes unnecessary harm and violations of privacy. For the same reason that you can't just sneak into your TOS some sort of absurd clause that says using this website costs 1000€ and then sueing people for not having paid it. A similar thing happened to me as am kid and it turned out it was illegal to do that. Aside from the law and whether this is some sort of breach, morally speaking I think it should be obvious that in such a situation it is on the owner of the website to ensure that everyone using it will be informed by this. Much like websites like Facebook should be informing Users how their information is being used and not just sneak it into the TOS. I was also surprised by the fact that Leo could read PMs, so were many others, that alone should tell you that you are doing a really bad job at informing people, independent of the expectations you put upon them. You should want them to be informed and make it your responsibility, precisely because you are the more conscious one and you are aware that there will be completely unnecessary negative consequences by you not doing so. And I remember that I read the Guidelines when I registered.

People who do carnivore diet report worsening of autoimmune reactions, the longer you are on it, the worse your micro-biome will get, not the better. The reason for this seems to be a pretty simple. The bacteria that are responsible for breaking down plant matter will starve if you don't feed them planet matter, while other bacteria will prosper and take over, making it conversly harder for you to reestablish a healthy microbiome.

Yes, this is akin to having cancer in your leg and then saying "Bro, I cut off my leg and I feel so much better! Cutting legs off is healthy!".

Have you even read the study? It undermines it's very findings in the Limitations. Self-report surveys is one of the lowest quality data you could have. The fact that you guys jump on these like it was a holy grail just makes it clear how biased you are. Imagine a survey like this for a banana-only diet. You'd immediately see why it would be an issue to have such a survey. We have excellent data on health-outcomes of vegan diets, which is why consensus of professionals and institutions tends towards reducing consumption of animal products and increasing consumption of healthy plant foods.

The question is, why? Everything you experienced before realizing Oneness, was part of Oneness. Your "pre-realization" was Absolute Truth. Nothing changed.

I get an immature vibe from this post. It feels like you got annoyed by something and now you are "Well, bad luck you idiots now I won't share my treasures with you! See who will laugh last!". It is fine to not share it but why can you not explain this in a more reasonable manner? I don't know what happened, but if there was a negative reaction that hurt you feelings so now you don't want to expose yourself like that anymore than just say that, it's fine. Or if you think it could be damaging to some people then say that. But the way you frame it, it looks more like you are too immature to handle the backlash. I agree you shouldn't be teaching solipsism, but probably for different reasons. Also Leo, I think you need to watch out for your own ego here. Because if people want the highest truth, they will have to discover it on their own anyways. Your explanations are fantasies, as you well know. It's not like you are giving people "truth", you are giving them concepts and ideas, nothing more. I also disagree with the way you frame reality, as if there were lower and higher truths. That just seems to be the monkey-mind talking.

The way you see it is another construct and symbol. I am saying that you cannot help but frame it, and I want you to see the frame. It's not the concepts that you create, but rather that which gives rise to it. You are trying to frame it again, can you see that? "Oh, so in actuality, awakening to non-duality is in fact dualistic, huh?" Only if it is deemed so. It doesn't mean anything, unless it is deemed so. I can't really help beyond that.

Like I said, it is deeper than communication, it is your very sense of reality that you have and why you communicate certain things in certain ways in the first place. The "dualistic assumption" are inherent to the "realizations" you have.

I don't know if you can force yourself to burn through something. Why do you want to do that anyways?

Isness is Acceptance. If something exists, it is accepted. That is what Acceptance is. The fact that Suffering exists, means that it was fully accepted. Total Acceptance means to Suffer, to fear suffering, to resist suffering, to be happy, to be unhappy. To be tolerable, to be intolerable. Acceptance is not merely psychological, it is metaphysical. You have already accepted EVERYTHING. You accepted infinite Suffering. And this is it, this is your acceptance of it. Your existence is pure and full acceptance . There is no deeper acceptance than that my friend. This is your courage. You have accepted Existence so fully that you made yourself ignorant, because your ignorance was required for reality to be complete. Your inacceptance is that which you Accepted. Everything that will ever happen to you, you are fully embracing. That's what it means for something to happen to you.

The issue is that idealism, pantheism and mysticism require a relationship to an opposite to exist. Oneness cannot be conceptualized without it being opposed to Seperation. Thus, you have fallen into a duality, and called one side of that duality fundamental. That duality is not fundamental, unless it is deemed so. To pose something is direct, there must be indirectness. To pose something is Experience, there must be a World and an Experiencer. By calling Reality Experience, you have accepted the Opposition to it, you have accepted Seperation, Otherness, Outsidedness. See, if you had no conception of the physical, it would make no sense to call anything mental. What would mental even mean if it was not "non-physical". This is the monkey chasing it's own tail. Reality is not mental, nor is reality physical. Reality is = Reality is = Reality is = Reality is You attempt to put a boundary on reality, You seek to find it's most fundamental Nature. You seek to capture it so you, in your ignorance, can call it this or that, or can discover it to be this or that. If you think Separation doesn't exist, then you do not see Separation. Fundamentally, everything that you deny exists. If it did not exist, you could not deny it. And most importantly, just because it doesn't exist doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Existence is so Absolutely Relative and Groundless, that it doesn't even have to Absolutely Relative and Groundless to be Absolutely Relative and Groundless. It is so Groundless that it is not even Groundless. Look into it. It is so Groundless that even the Absolute is Realitve, and it is so Relative that the Absolute is Absolute, without being Relative. This is why the impossible is Possible, because there is no Restriction other than every Restriction. You think Truth is one thing rather than another. But everything is Truth. Not just a little bit, but Absolutely and Relatively. You hold no more or less Truth than an ant does, or Donald Trump does, or the Buddha does. Unless it is deemed so. The irony of the Ego. When it finds Infinity, the first thing it will do is tell itself what Infinity is, not realizing that in that moment, it lost Infinity. Your mind cannot do anything but find a shape in the shapeless. Helpless, like an ant. Because you are not beyond an ant, The only difference is that you could realize your limitation, and how much of an ant you actually are. That the point of your existence is to be an ant, and that you will be an ant until you dissolve completely. As a practice, observe Isness and how it keeps shaping itself. And then, let go of observation until there is no observing left. That observation itself was just another shape. That Isness is so Infinite, that what IS deemed to be most fundamental, is only so because it is deemed so. That even the realization of that, is merely another shape, another deeming of it so. And then... It is not called Mystery because it is impossible to communicate. It is called Mystery, because it is Mystery.

So I recently am having the experience of kind of reactivating certain parts of my ego that I seem to have repressed through spiritual work. When I do so, I notice emotions coming back to me that I kind of missed from my experience, which seem to be be directly tied to identity. I think I underestimated how much emotional regulation/creation is tied to the ego. And the fact that these emotions were gone from my experience tells me that dissolving the ego is not as simple as it seems. Some dissolution might be harmful, and some dissolution might only seem like dissolution and actually be mere suppression. Identity very much determines how the world is perceived and what emotions one can and will feel. And sometimes when we remove "ego", we might even remove positive emotions from our experience or suppress them.

How do you know whether or not you just use this as an excuse to be able to avoid contemplating this? I doubt you have direct insight into the state of mind of this person. This person could have all sorts of issues that you are unaware of, they might even be deluding themselves in some form. Think of what happened to that Conor guy.

This is interesting. How do you know this? How do you know whether or not to encourage this when you don't truly know what he is experiencing? I mean, all you have is a bit of text, could it not be that in actuality there was something else going on that could be harmful to this individual? For example, what if this person did go deeper and it lead to their suicide. What if your encouragement would lead to that? How do you prevent that from happening when you give advice and even direct commands to people you have no oversight over?

Yes I am open to being wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that a fool is a fool.

By backlash I mean a backlash from reality itself. I don't care about deplatforming, but his and the nonsense of others will have consequences whether or not it's unfair, or whether or not he is less dangerous than right-wing talk radio. The attitude of "It's not my responsibility that X happens" simply is not sustainable in an interconnected world as ours. At some point things will come and bite Joe Rogan in the ass, aswell as everyone who denied reality for so long. Reality won't care who was at fault or what kind of justifications they had for what they did.

Joe doesn't just risk misinterpretation, he is actively engaging in misinformation. He used the excuse that his show is only entertainment many times, and that nobody should take anything seriously anyone says on his show. Yet he keeps bringing on scientists that agree with his bias, and talking about subjects in quite serious manners. In the end, the world doesn't care whether or not he feels responsible. There will be a tremendous backlash, and the longer we ignore it, the bigger the backlash will be. Truth has no mercy.

That seems to me a very individualistic stance. I think it is a bit naive. Deplatforming probably wouldn't be helpful, but I think he should feel responsible for the information he disseminates. He has a huge impact on society and with the power he holds his responsibility increases too. People "should", be aware that Joe is unreliable, but the reality is that they are not. Living in Lalaland and pretending like Joe is not actually encouraging people to take his content as a reliable source of information is dysfunctional to me. But it makes sense to me that you would take this stance as you in my view also tend to reject certain responsibilites and impacts you have on others with your work.

Over time the courts will tend to adopt the cultural dogma, independent of what stage they are at, so that is something to keep in mind. In this case it seems more like an individual judge is stage green (or partly stage green) or appears to be, rather than a systemic change of the judicial system. We have to be careful with rapid shifts, because often those are not genuine evolutions up the spiral but rather an enforcement of cultural norms (memes of a certain stage) through mechanisms of lower stages. For example, shame will be used to enforce LGBTQ dogma, rather than compassion. A stage blue person for example might adopt stage green memes because they are collectivist, rather than genuinely caring about the issue. They care about it because they know they should care about it, otherwise, shame on them!