Scholar

Would like to provide me with examples that you would consider assholish given the deeper understanding I have offered to you?

I don't really see anything he is saying as particularly assholish. You should contemplate how much compassion you would have for someone who puts your family in a gaschamber to then eat strips of the flesh. See, the more you care about your family, the more difficult it will be for you to not form hatred for these people. Do you think it would be fair to demand or expect from you to be compassionate towards these people? And don't forget, you demand them to be compassionate to people who literally pay for the rape, murder and death of others, while none of them will show any compassion towards the vegan who simply is angry at them for doing so. The level of cognitive dissonance that requires is astonishing.

I mean, people rioted for months in the US because of a little discrimination, think about what people at that stage would do if they viewed animals as actual individuals. Do you think these people would care whether you have your food sensitivities? No, they would take you to the street and lynch you.

As you expand your identity, what will happen is that you might be thrown down a few stages in terms of your survival. Think about this, your stage is linked to your state of survival. If you do not identify with animals, our society is actually pretty progressive. People are safe for the most part, crime is at the minimum and so forth. Now, if you expand your identity to include animals, the picture changes. Suddenly you go from one of the most progressive societies that ever existed, to a society that is causing more death and suffering than any society has ever before in the history of the world. You go from "everyone is equal", to "those who aren't humans can be tortured, murdered and raped for pleasure". You suddenly find yourself in a society what to you would seem like Nazi Germany during the holocaust of the jews, and even worse because each individual within that society seems to directly contribute to this, rather than being enslaved to an authoritarian system. In that state, it is very easy to fall back to more primitive survival patterns. And consider that this person might have an atypical mind, he might have some sort of autism, or whatever else. Ask yourself this, if you lived in a society in which people raped infants for fun, would you lose your faith in humanity? See, the kind of person who would get radicalized in that kind of society would be more sensitive than everyone else, they would actually be higher developed, even if they thought it was justified to commit terrorism. Put any person that lives today into the time of slavery, and they would become radical extremists within a few hours.

Much in the same way that if a spiritual guru was to say slavery was justified because otherwise, who would feed and keep the slaves alive, calling that silly would also just be my perspective. As is you calling this a perspective. That it is a perspective is irrelevant to what is going on here.

Sadhguru somehow argues that it would be better for cows to be breed into existence continuously even if it means they live a life of suffering, because somehow it would be immoral to let the articifial population of cows continue to faze out of existence over time. How can you take a position like that seriously? So we forcefully breed these cows, and we pretend we are doing them a favor while it happens to be the case that we exploit them and basically give them a life of misery?

No, because he clearly is a little weazel whose arugments simply do not make sense. If your arguments are shit and simply incorrect, it is beyond just some sort of difference is perspective, it is clear that bias is blinding you. Have you even watched these videos? The guy is incoherent, he is employing every trick in the ego-handbook, and you can see just how triggered and emotional he gets with the topic. If he truly gave his perspective, he would simply say he doesn't really give that much damn about animals, and whatever else his true positions are. But he does not, because he probably is himself too unaware of his own biases.

Perfect saints? lol Sadhguru is a complete dumbass as far as this question goes, you can practically feel the ego dysfunction emanating from him.

A high conscious person wouldn't think it was wise to force their own narrow understanding of the world onto everyone. Just because you think it would be good if everyone was forced to take the vaccine doesn't mean that it is a good idea. This mindset is the perfect demonstration why dictators are such a bad idea, you would be a terrible dictator. Just the fact that you think this would work makes you a terrible dictator. A conscious dictator would immediately create institutions that would replace his own dicatorship.

You better have no compassion for all the non-vegans who die from any virus then as animal agriculture is directly linked to the emergence of viruses and superbugs. Some people believe enslaving and killing animals for pleasure is an inherent human right. What we do to animals is worse than all human genocides combined. Do you think we should have compassion towards humans who contribute to what we do to animals and the world? Funny how people call vegans judgemental.

Exactly, but the fundamental problem is that when CNN is inaccurate, it creates people who believe in the Joe Rogans of the world, or atleast affirms their position. People shouldn't take Joe Rogan more seriously than CNN, but sadly it just looks much worse on CNN when they get something wrong, which is what helps people like Rogan seem more credible.

Destiny makes a good point about how the media is kind of contributing to this problem by sloppy journalism or the misrepresentation of facts. This gives conspiracy theorists the opportunity to make themselves seem more credible and trustworthy. Also a great deconstruction of how utterly silly and inconsistent these positions are, even if on the surface they might seem reasonable. I think Destiny is actually doing something really valuable here by showing people how to look at these claims, how to do the research to verify them and the general thought process as to how to really get a good grasp as to what is being said. Joe Rogan is like a misinformation machine, he is utterly full of shit and doesn't realize it at all. His positions are largely genuine, but he completely lacks the ability to navigate the modern information landscape, which is precisely why he is so harmful to society despite his good intentions.

Got a 1.6 and 2.8 Though I must say the test seems very flawed. It seems like VATA types would in general score higher in terms of the "secondary psychopathy", and to even frame it this way is a bit silly. One shouldn't look at this as if psychopathy is a spectrum and you fall on a certain level of psychopathy. Rather, if you score very high on the "psychopathy score", it might be the case that you have psychopathy. So, the test doesn't actually tell you much about anything, and the questions are so vague that you could answer them differently depending on how you interpret them. It is also not clear where the difference lies between ones actual emotions and say, ones ideology. Psychopathy is a particular condition, and I wager that someone without psychopathy could easily fall high on the spectrum even if they have high empathy, simply because of the things they believe in.

The entire problem is that you are trapped within one particular substance of existence, the conceptual, and you have created a delusion that it is all of existence, or fundamental to existence. What you are doing is like trying to figure out what color existence is. That's how absurd this entire undertaking is. And once you realize it, you will laugh at it. "Is existence blue or is it red? Or maybe it's a yellow combined with a green?"

Just watching the video, it actually does a pretty good job at pointing out some of the silliness of Vaush, and looking at it from a Spiral Dynamics lense it actually is really good at showing off how he is utterly grounded in stage orange, and how a regression to red can easily happen from that place. The difficulty of post modern deconstruction is actually to not revert back to stage red, because fundamentally, it is deconstructing stage blue fundamentally. It is deconstructing objectivity, morality and so forth. To an ego mind this can be very appealling, as it allows you to just live out your power fantasies. We must note though that these power-fantasies are largely grounded in stage orange, they are not quite the same as a grounding in stage red power values. What we can basically observe in Vaush is an unhealthy manifestation of a stage blue shadow. And beyond that he just lacks much of the stage green that would be necessary for him to healthily integrate what he has learned. His it not trascending stage orange, rather he uses the little of stage green he has to even further ground himself in orange. It is a fascinating dynamic to observe. He is a really good example of someone who is dysfunctional in the way they evolve through the spiral. Such people can do huge damage to how society evolves through the spiral, as they pull people into the same kind of pathway and dysfunction, at least in the short term. In the more long term he will probably be an example for how to not evolve, which will help people to avoid this particular trap.

It is simple because it is clear, when it is not clear it is not simple, because it isn't seen.

Hahahaha. So, free will is an illusion. And? That literally means it is real, because that's what reality is. You have to understand that illusion and reality are synonyms. The mistake most spiritual teachers make is that they believe reality must be logical. They deconstruct Free Will and then they say "Oh, Free will was only an Illusion!" Yes, it is only illusion, like all of existence is. So what? Just because you made it cease doesn't mean it didn't exist. And on a deeper level, Free Will is the Groundless Ground. It is fundamental. Free Will is Creativity. Stop assuming reality makes sense or that it is some sort of logical simulation. it has nothing to do with that. You are literally trying to make reality logical, and the result will be suffering. If you think Free Will cannot exist because it would be impossible, then you clearly haven't recognized that to Reality, creating Impossibility is effortless.

The reason why theory is needed is because your mind only understands theory. The irony is that it requires a lot of theory to uncondition your mind into a territory of non-theory. Your mind is fundamentally a theorizer. It will theorize everything, and it will do so unconsciously, without even knowing that it is creating theory. So, really the theory is like a pathway that is supposed to lead you to the cessation of all theory. It is like you are given a map that is supposed to lead you out of a labyrinth. A labyrinth which you are imagining. And all the map is supposed to do, is make you realize that in the end, you have imagined all of the labyrinth, and that all you need to do is stop imagining it, to free yourself from it.

@caelanb You are lost in the conceptual. Forget about enlightenment, forget about Leo, forget about everything. Your problem is not that you are too skeptical, your problem is that you are far too unskeptical. Right now, look at existence itself. The color of the screen that, according to the mind, you are looking at. Does this exist? What would it even mean to deny it exists? See, to deny something, you require it to exist, otherwise how could you possibly know what even it is that you are denying? So, look at the pure isness of the color of the Screen. And now ask yourself: What is this? How is this possible? If your mind comes up with a concept for an answer, recognize that the concept is it's own form of Existence. After all the Concept Exists, is that not so? How would you otherwise even know of any such concept? If it exist, look at it clearly. And then look at it, at what it is. Then, return your attention back to that which your concept was supposed to describe. Are you aware that these two objects or substances of Existences are clearly not the same? That the purity of the colors you are experiencing is utterly foreign and different from the concepts which you thought would explain that color? See, ask yourself: What even is explanation? What even is concept? What even is understanding? And then, clearly look at it. Look and see the difference between Understanding and the colors which you are seeing. If you recognize this difference, you will notice that there will never be any kind of understanding, explanation or concept that could possibly explain, understand or conceptualize that which is not the conceptual, explanation or understanding. Notice that all of this, the conceptual, the colors, every other substance which you call subjective, that all of those are made of Pure Existence. They are Existence itself. What else could they possibly be? The exist, so clearly they must be made of Existence. That's what they literally are. Nothing in existence could possibly be anything else. This is everything you have. This is Existence. You never had anything. And now notice, anything that you will call outside of this existence, will necessarily be part of this Existence. Any possible concept, any possible substance, will necessarily be part of your existence. But nevermind that. You can forget all of this. If you want to know the Nature of Existence, look at it. It's right here, you are made of it. Everything is made of it. Any philosophy, any evidence, any scientific model, any material, anything possibly will be made of existence. The same existence which you are made from. So, simply look at it. Look closely enough and you will recognize the Nature of Existence, and that the Looking itself was nothing but one more Form within Existence itself.

No. No. No. Anything you could possibly think will always be only that, thinking. When you think to yourself "Reality is imagined", you have created delusion if you cannot see clearly the nature of what has happend. All you did when you said "Realtiy is imagined", is that you created a concept, not much different from the concept of a unicorn. This is what you must work on first before you continue with anything. As long as you cannot see the conceptual for what it is, you will forever be trapped in it. You will look at it as the Ground of Being, when Being is Groundless. When you recognize the Groundless Ground, you will not need to say anything about it. You will not need to understand it is imagination, as illusion, as unrealness. Because you will recognize that all of these things are forms in and of themselves, forms that emerged from the Groundless Ground. When Leo says Imagination, he does not mean imagination. He means:

The fundamental issue he has is that he is trying to come up to a notion of reality through conceptualization. So, you did engage with him conceptually, but it will actually make it impossible for him to ever reach reality. It's like he is trying to come up with a concept of Redness without having ever experienced Redness. It simply makes no sense, it will be an empty construct. He is so lost in the conceptual that it will be difficult for him to disengage and simply look as Isness as is. He has to construct his concepts as a result of direct experience/Isness. He has to look at the color red, and then he can create concepts that fit Redness. There is no other way, and most importantly, he needs to clearly recognize that the Isness of Redness and the Isness of Concept is seperate. I think your early meditation videos made this clear. It is very interesting because I for long couldn't quite grasp what you meant by the fact that it makes no sense to doubt the Absolute. Today, it is unquestionable to me, and I can clearly see what doubt is. I can clearly see the conceptual for what it is, and as long as I did not recognize this I was trapped within it. It is like the mind is trapped within interpretation, and it confuses interpretation to be fundamental to reality. But actually, it is the other way around. And once you simply look at reality, you recognize that A) it is without a doubt reality, B) it is without a doubt absolute and C) doubt itself is something that cannot touch reality. All of these things are seen, they do not need to be interpreted. You tried to guide him a bit with the hand example, but he was still trapped in the conceptual and interpretation. Like I said, it is futile to go about it this way. He has to undo that which is trapping him within the conceptual, within one particular aspect of reality which he actually confuses to be all, or fundamental, to existence. That's the whole game. Existence is right infront of you, all you have to do is open your eyes to it. The nature of existence is necessarily in everything that exists. That is so obvious and so simple, yet a mind that is trapped in the conceptual cannot grasp this.

I think there is a balance between ending your career to create your own socialist upotia in the jungle and literally engaging in the the most capitalistic tendencies possible that you yourself called out other celebreties for engaging in. Whether he likes it or not, he is in a position of leadership, and he will be an example to many people, like you are Leo. At least you don't live the opposite of what you are espousing, like Hasan does. The guy is literally engaging in the most ridiculous superficial stage orange lifestyle you can imagine. Hell, I know stage orange people who would cringe at what the guy is doing and what he is spending his money on.

First just become clearly aware of this, seek out that feeling, that desire, and look at it as clearly as you can. Do this for some time, make it a practice.

Time-stamped.

Vaush is a bit different from Hasan, in that he is more honest about his values, which are very clearly not stage green. Here you have a stage green socialist criticizing Vaush: The key difference that you will notice is that Vaush will argue against taking responsibility for what happens collectively, as someone at stage orange would naturally do, whereas Perspective Philosophy will argue for taking responsibility. How they arrive at these positions is relatively meaningless, because both of them are ad-hoc rationalizations for more underlying value systems. If you do not know Vaush's history, he is very much inspired by another steamer called Destiny, his entire philosophy is basically a copy of his, a sort of utilitarianism that is grounded in egoism. Ironically Destiny has already developed past that point and in practice is further developed on the spiral than Vaush, even though both are very deficient in green.