SOUL

If one's psychology is crap even if they 'attract' supreme awesomeness, they will see it as crap and ultimately turn it from the awesomeness it is into the crap they see it as through their subsequent interaction with it being influenced by the crappy perspective.

The concept behind the law of attraction has been changed or misunderstood by people from it's initial form and may be contributing to your issue with it. It didn't start as attracting what one wants or already is and it isn't attracting what one needs or is meant to as is also portrayed as. It's initial form was by having positive or negative thoughts one attracts positive or negative experiences. So instead of this being a "magical" dynamic that people also have twisted it into, it is a mystical one, it's more a cognitive bias. If one is thinking in positive thoughts then the positive in the experiences will be highlighted in perception. This doesn't mean there won't be any contrary traits to what the perception of them but since the mindset doesn't acknowledge them it doesn't fill the perspective one has of the experience. Also if the perception is oriented a certain way the interactions one has with the circumstances and individuals in these experiences will be influenced by the behaviors in light of the perception. Such as if you are friendly and smile with others people are more likely to be friendly and smile back but even if they aren't the positive thinker won't have a negative perception of the exchange, they will have a positive one, a sort of confirmation bias. This mindset will have an accumulative effect on one's life experiences and it will appear as if there is an "attraction" of the like 'charge' so to speak. Did this make it any clearer?

We cannot really "kill the ego", what I have found from the endless regurgitation of guru speak is what really happens is the ego just acts like it 'commits suicide' or dissolves itself and then hides from the awareness in the subconscious mind behind all the trappings of the "enlightened non-dual" rhetoric calling it "truth". After chasing that mythical dragon in hopes to slay it for years I have chosen another path that has brought lasting peace and fulfillment to my life experience. There are no tricks or tips, no practices or beliefs, no ideas or concepts, no truth or right that I can teach about this path other than to say, just be it in the moment. Whatever you seek for your being.... just be it. Then what is all this other stuff in our mind, body, emotion and spirit that tries to interfere with what we seek to be? Some will say it is that ego that needs to be killed. Well, the ego can be killed as readily as the past can be changed or erased so if one is trying to kill the ego they are simply letting the past distract them from the present. In this very moment, in every moment just be what one seeks for one's own being and the ego will take care of itself.

Why kill your ego?

....because joyful people are already enjoying life.

@Capethaz Yes, it's very apparent you aren't satisfied from the way you lashed out at people here in admonishing them. Your post was expressing much contradiction, first you tell people to stop with the "bullshit" theories and then say "start debate".... so which is it? Stop or start? Then you are critical of what you assume others want, how is it you know what everyone wants? I would venture a guess from what you yourself want but didn't get any "happiness" from so project that out onto others. While I agree not basing our own happiness... or peace... on external circumstances is a healthy recipe for actually being at peace if you aren't "there" yet how is it that you can confirm this actually works? Peace isn't "there", it's 'here'..... at every moment, just be it. "Practice" is the word we use for actually doing what it is we are speaking about so when we practice what we preach we are living what we teach. Although practice also refers to training in a particular skill, we are repeatedly doing something to gain a proficiency in that skill and in this instance we are practicing peace so we become 'experts' in being at peace. You tell us when we are at peace we won't care about who is right.... after you have already told us our theories are "bullshit" so it seems you think you know which is right and care enough to say ours aren't. You tell us we should listen are learn yet you say we should stop sharing the "bullshit" theories, so if everyone stops then who is there to listen to? I don't mean to be critical of you but i only point out these contradictions as possible reasons why you don't have this peace yourself, they create inner tension which results in a turmoil that disrupts the peace. Then take your advice to listen to someone who has a healthy measure of peace in their life and let go of it, just let go of that tension in you. We all have our theories and we are sharing them, we each 'graze' on each others theories, yes debate as you said. From that feeding on the ideas and concepts of others growing in places like this some of it nourishes us, some of it empowers us and some of it is bullshit that we get rid of but even the bullshit enriches the soil of our garden so has some value to our work and path.

Release unhappiness and not seek to be happy, the middle path is always at hand.

Anyone else see the irony in a "rant" about peace? It doesn't really seem like you have this "peace" you speak of yourself otherwise you wouldn't be so disturbed by what people write in a forum on the internet. Take a deep breath, let go of expectations and desire so you may attain an inner peace and cease to suffer what others are doing. Besides, how do you know what everyone is seeking?

Cease being addicted or there will be just another vice to replace it. I find that many who profess to live an awakened life are really just addicted to the pursuit of enlightenment so all they did was change it from one thing to another, not cease it. Some might say well, what's wrong with that? Isn't "enlightenment" good? Except that if the pursuit brings the same angst, anxiety and yearning as every other vice and not bring inner peace it won't produce the results sought. A poignant analogy would be to say that an addicted mindset pursuit of enlightenment is like taking drugs to get sober.

Isn't it really subjectifying? We see ourselves and others as objects with subjective experience.

Being at peace with yourself and the world around you radiates qualities that others are very attracted to so seek that in your life and they will come to you just to find out what your 'secret' is.

You are so much better at it than I am but I would encourage you to be encouraging to build up others..... /nlp....hehe

What makes you think you have the pearls and the others are swine? Although, if you weren't so concerned about how you and what you offer is perceived and received by others you might be at peace with speaking your piece. Also, you may think you know what they ought to hear but sometimes just hearing them out and being the mirror for them is the most helpful thing, people usually know what they need to hear and we just are there when they realize it.

I have nothing to defend so why would you think I'm being defensive? I just don't want to engage in a discussion with someone being disingenuous in it so if we are to have an honest discussion then I hope you will take account of the underlying bias you may be harboring. You may have an "open mind" as you say but if you are here to win an internet argument then find someone else to do it with, if you want to exchange ideas then please have some respect for the process. I did not make any "supernatural" claims and that wasn't the point of my comment to you in bringing up that word, the point was there is a certain amount of dog whistling within the scientific community by using words and labels. Saying things like supernatural, woo, quack, pseudo-science is meant to dismiss through ad hominem but is mostly motivated through ideology, power or profits. There are certainly a significant amount of the unscrupulous who will exploit the scientific method but those words are typically used to attack because of those mentioned motivations. We can go on for hours and hours discussing research methods, samples, controls, selection of data, conclusions and hypothesis in trying to ferret out what may be credible science or not. I just find that when the unscrupulous actors come from within the scientific community, established industries or are about previously accepted concepts those labels don't get used as readily. Although if it's about topics or ideas that don't fit the established ideology or industries those words and labels are used as a signal to dismiss it unequivocally. The other point is when there is enough evidence to support an idea or concept in the scientific community that previously was dismissed while using those words, they unflinchingly shift the word play so to accept the new understanding while continuing to use the words on other ideas. This isn't me saying that any of those other claims are really fact that have yet to be established but that the use of those words are tactics control the narrative and information based on ideology, power and profit. Those were my points, not to discuss which or if claims has evidence or not, I didn't @ you in support of any of that. I'm not really interested in getting too deep into an internet discussion on specific claims, there is no benefit for me and my inner work to do so. I just know clearing away my own biases conscious of them or not has allowed me to expand my consciousness for well being. That's why I am on here and I thought maybe you were too so why I went to the lengths I have to discuss something I thought I might have seen in the exchange in this thread. If you are here to discuss specific claims then there are others who will surely step up to do so, you say Leo made claims then ask him about them. I'm not making a claim other than the belief bias that pervades the mind, I'm sure there is plenty of evidence for this but I doubt there will ever be a pill or medical procedure to change that.... or maybe there will. Until that time I am here for inner work in my consciousness to create well being in my life. We cool now?

I find your use of thought concepts on this quite facepalmy....

@Ilya What do you mean by objectifying? Are you just having an appreciation of beauty in passing without developing an deeper personal connection with the person before doing so? Is it just a lustful desire where you sexualize them in graphic detail? There's a wide range of things that happen and not all of them are "objectifying" but until you explain what is actually happening beyond simply saying "checking out" nobody can really understand.. Besides, is "subjectifying" someone a preferred thing? Or are you suggesting we have to walk through life oblivious to any natural characteristic only viewing everything as manifest nothing? You don't have to explain for our benefit so anyone can advise you but if you think or feel there is an issue you may want to self inquire about what you are actually doing and discover what effects it has.

@Serotoninluv Why are you calling it "supernatural claims"? How about just say claims and we could discuss it from there? You proved my point again. Your approach is based in confirmation bias and your baiting communicates your intent. I don't really care to discuss anything with someone like that, there isn't much fruit that can be gleaned from it. I have one particular clear example I could offer but to be direct it's not worth my time to go any further in this discussion. I have things I'd rather place my attention on than this. Peace.

Thank you confirming my points. No, the scientific community doesn't get to draw the lines of legitimacy and be deciders what is "real science", the evidence does, and the scientific community gets to put forth their hypothesis about the evidence just like everybody else does. Reality and the evidence it provides is the arbiter of what is legitimate, we are just the observers of it and we hold each other responsible for being unbiased not good old boy system of protecting the establishment. Yet, they have taken upon themselves to act as if they are the High Priests who have the holy authority to decide what is canonized scripture of science or not. Then you give an example by picking out the most extreme you come across and imply an across the board "quackifying" of anything that doesn't submit to the anointed bearers of scientific truth you attempt to establish initially. Now this doesn't mean we should accept blindly all or any idea just because somebody seized upon some mysterious evidence and extrapolated it out with some extravagant concept. There is way too much ideology and profit behind the establishment's motive for control of these "boundaries" of "legitimacy". There is no problem with feeding poison to everyone including children in a multitude of forms because there is conveniently no incentive to procure evidence according to the "boundaries" set up by the establishment. Yet the evidence is overwhelming that with the increase in industrialization and chemical infiltration of our food system correlates with an increase in sickly people. It is only seen as an opportunity to prop people up for as long as possible to profit using even more industrial and chemical products and services. The reason for this is that there is no profit to be made in exposing the corrupt industrial and chemical "establishment" which also supports academia so they lobby to prevent exposure and protect their profitable establishment. I'm glad there is anesthesia, antibiotics and modern medical procedures when I break my leg or something like that but there are way too many *insert disease* societies and foundations that seem more intent on perpetuating donations or corporations protecting profits and appeasing share holders to stop the misdirection and misinformation.

@Serotoninluv I find that there is quite a bit of 'moving the goalpost' reasoning and ad hominem labeling done by the scientific community to save face or discredit others. One example is the use of the word 'supernatural' to refer to things we cannot currently detect or measure which is done to imply if we can't it must not be natural so doesn't exist. When in reality the ability to detect and measure continues to increase so something that was said to be 'supernatural' in the past to discredit it now gets relabeled in acceptable terms to then justify it while they ignore they perpetrated this slight of hand tactic in the process. By this labeling they want to 'quackify' anyone who would even have any interest in anything they want to consider 'woo'. Then if there is a change in knowledge with the detection, measurement and understanding of something previously thought of as 'woo' they attempt to obscure their paradigm lock from themselves and others to justify their confirmation bias as being 'scientific'.

It is a misnomer to say the totality of infinity because by it's very nature it isn't limited to a 'total' otherwise it wouldn't be infinite. I could say we can expand our consciousness to the 'ultimate state' of infinity so that we can be aware of it's absolute....but that is a mistaken perception. It would be inaccurate to suggest there is a totality of infinity or an end of time it can be accounted for that we can be aware of 'all' because...infinity. Enlightenment is perpetual as infinity has no 'end' to it or 'total' of it so we cannot 'get it all', no 'be all and end all' to enlightenment, there is always the potential to 'expand' consciousness. So, we can have intimate experience in our awareness of infinity and it's nature but the mind will conceptualize it in a finite terms in an attempt to contain and understand it. It can boggle the finite mind in trying to grasp this infinite dynamic and I know it may sound vague but language is limited so is inadequate to communicate the experience. Many years of the inner work in expanding consciousness has allowed me to experience being one with infinity while simultaneously being able to continue to expand because there is no all or end....it's infinite. I'm at peace with it.

@Leo Gura I think I need to provide more context for my reply, my apologies. I was initially making a fair observation to hopefully bring some clarity to the topic and you replied with what appeared to me as a somewhat farcical straw man so I continued down that path with even more humor. Honestly, your reply needed more context as well, there was the actual Greek Saint that the folklore was built on so Santa Clause is both a real figure in history and a fictional legend. So...there's that. If you had used Easter Bunny instead I'm not sure i would have been able to make the topical joke and I thank you for the set up.

Well, if you are nice maybe he will bring you a brain for Christmas.

"Brains do not exist" is mystical knowledge to those that believe it based on their personal experience but if someone were to assert that it is scientific truth/fact they are misusing this personal mystical knowledge.

There is no such thing as "truth" as an absolute apart from context because "truth" is a relative state, it's a correlation between what is communicated as "is" and what really "is". Such as I can say the sky is blue or chocolate is delicious but the relative variables of the circumstances I am making this statement from determines whether this statement is "truth". There is no absolute truth that exists apart from relative states because the word "truth" has a specific meaning and only someone misrepresenting the word's meaning will make this claim. Even "truth" about existence or reality is a contextual relativity, it's based on what we experience and what we are suggesting about it in relation to the experience on including the variables of the universe of which we may not fully have knowledge. This is why scientific truth, religious truth and personal truth are different things that can not only be different from each other but can contradict each other because the set of variables, the ideology, that the "truth" is determined on are different. Someone can overlap various "truth" sets or choose to ignore one or another but every "truth" is determined by the correlation between the communicated and the ideology. This is why there is so much conflict, because different groups with a different basis of ideology are trying to claim absolute truth over all others based on their own ideological variable sets. So when someone say "truth" just is and it doesn't need proof they either don't know what "truth" means or are confirming to themselves their own ideology belief paradigm.

This could also be said about sexual needs/desires, too. If it's consensual between capable individuals it's one story but if it's predatory abuse, rape or molesting with the non consensual, incapable or children it's another thing altogether. Would you agree?