Emerald

Nah. It would be a little off-brand for my channel. But I do think cold approach makes sense from a male perspective. It just is kind of meh from a female perspective. So, my main issue is that men don't really know how it's perceived from the receiving end. So, some inexperienced guy could hear what Leo said, and assume that that approach is rare and generally appreciated, when it's usually neither.

Yeah. Most of the time, if I'm approached I smile and say thank you to be polite and keep the situation friendly. So, I can see why Leo thought that it would really make a woman's day to hear that. But it's almost like running a script like you would at the mall with the kiosk sales-people who are offering free samples and stuff like that.

I don't know if that's the best analogy. A push into cold water would at least be shocking. But my main point is that it's too common of a method to use to stand out. Paradoxically, subtlety makes you stand out a lot more because most guys who approach are really straightforward.

But Leo was recommending to go up and do cold approaches in that way. To which, I logically assumed the idea was to do that with many women until you get a number or an affirmative answer of some kind. So, from a woman's perspective, it will always feel like scrounging if a guy is that straightforward because you can tell it's a canned pick-up line. So, this is why it kills the meaning and excitement for me, because I know that he's probably just trying to get whatever he can get and approaching many women. Thus, being approached by a man who starts with "You're attractive, so I wanted to talk to you." is just a really dime-a-dozen kind of approach, because that approach is basic af and leaves nothing to the imagination. So, it's just pretty obvious when a guy does a cold approach, especially if he comes right in with a compliment, that he probably does that with multiple women. So, I don't really see any way around that factor. I would literally have to unlearn all of my past experiences with guys who do that and the wisdom of knowing they are probably lukewarm about their feelings for me individually, to be remotely receptive to a guy who does that. But it's not that this is playing out in my head. It's just played out in my life at least 100 times with myself being on the receiving end. So, I'm just saying that it might be effective by the sheer numbers involved... but it's still very basic and boring for most women. And every third approach a woman gets involves a direct statement of "I find you attractive".

This is not a rare thing for men that approach women to do. In my experience, it's a relatively common method of approach. It's a close second to simply engaging in conversation, and not by a very wide margin. And in truth, if a guy is that straightforward like that, it's a bit boring for my personal taste because the meaning behind the action is what I get a kick out of. And if a guy approaches me in that manner, it shows me that he almost certainly does that with every other woman he sees. So, it loses any meaning because it feels like he's trying to pick the low hanging fruit with me. And since the meaning is the aphrodisiac, it doesn't make me feel anything endearing toward him. And if I were to get to know him personally, it also destroys any tension of wondering how he feels which isn't 100% necessary but it still creates less of a magnetism and wonder about him as he already started at 11. So, it probably doesn't flatter as many women as you think it does, unless they're a bit sheltered and really not used to being approached, as this is dime-a-dozen territory. Most women, learn before they're even adults that being complimented by random guys means literally nothing about them as an individual. So, when a guy says, "You are attractive." a woman hears, "Hey. You have a vagina. Would you care for a penis?" Now, I understand that cold approach is the easiest way to meet potential partners for men because it allows them to cast the net wide and you'll eventually get a yes. So, I understand why cold-approach is popular with men... but to women 99% of the time it's like being approached by a kiosk vender that wants to sell you something. So, most women find cold approaches to be more of a nuisance and don't really take them seriously unless they're in a singles setting like a club or bar. Do them anyway if it works for you, but don't think you're breaking any molds.

There is a common email fraud scheme where a guy claims to be a rich Nigerian prince. And he says that he wants you to have his fortune in exchange for giving up your personal information, or something of that nature.

@Shir Since you haven't been in relationships, it may not be clear. But this guy's behavior is not normal, and it makes me suspect a manipulative agenda that extends beyond just wanting a relationship. Normally, a guy won't fixate in this way until he really knows a woman and really likes her. But if he hasn't even seen your picture, and his reaction is this strong, I seriously suspect that something is fishy with him like foul play and catfishing, or that he's got some issues himself. So, I agree with your therapist that you need to tell him a solid "no." This may feel strange if you're not hit on regularly, because you're not used to it. But with a persistent guy it's very important to learn how to just say, "No. I'm sorry. I'm not interested." and if necessary, "...and if you keep pushing the issue then I'm just going to block you."

A lot of it has to do with packaging, marketing, branding, and communication style. And then you should also know your way around some basic SEO. So, getting exposure on YouTube often has to do with things that are purely practical and not in relation to the actual spiritual content you're putting out. Luckily, there are a ton of videos to help you learn these things. So, the quality of the content should be high. But even if a person has high quality content, if their packaging/marketing/branding/communication style isn't there, then a lot of people will just go elsewhere. And this is because, on a subconscious level, people will take a YouTuber less seriously if they don't have a consistent thumbnail style, high quality video imaging, and good editing. Also, for SEO, on the initial front, be sure to tag, title, describe, and talk using words and phrases that people will likely type into Google search and YouTube search. It will be nearly impossible to be found as a small channel to do otherwise, as it's hard for YouTube to recommend your video to anyone, it won't know where to rank you, and you won't have an established subscriber base to boost your viewcount and watchtime upon initial release. But there is also a huge luck factor as well. All the biggest channel growth moments for me, have come out of nowhere and in big spurts. Like I recently just jumped from getting about 20 subs per day to getting about 50 subs per day. But if you have any questions, feel free to ask.

I think that any time a spiritual teacher says anything, it can lead to negative consequences for a lot of people. So, even though Leo says a whole bunch of times to not just blindly believe what he says, the mind almost does this unconsciously. And then, if a person is unaware of this, they'll be stuck in that trap until they do become aware. But this is part of the path. And now that you realize this, you can throw away all the beliefs and move forward. There is a story called "The Parable of the Raft", and the main idea is that you need a raft to cross the river, but once you've crossed the river, the raft becomes a hinderance. So, if anyone gets attached to any particular spiritual ideas or teachings, this can be like holding onto the raft even though you don't need it. So, right now, the trick is to explore anxieties about letting go of beliefs that were unconsciously picked up from Leo's content. And to change those ideas from beliefs to tools that can be either picked up or set down. But this is not really an issue with Leo in particular, even if he does tend toward an intellectual approach and may create more of this belief-effect for that reason. You would have eventually come to the same conclusion about any teachings that you've learned. And this is good. It shows progress, even if it feels like going backwards and losing things.

Just remove all limiting beliefs and approach this potential relationship with a beginner's mind. Relationships are just a part of life, and you need not resist them. Resistance itself creates unconsciousness. Let everything go, and just enjoy your life and the experiences. Don't suppress anything, as you know nothing.

When it comes to making a choice between the same-old corruption with empty promises of progress and the same-old corruption plus Fascism and a moral leader that waters the seeds of hate, it is unfortunately wisest in that situation to choose the same-old corruption with empty promises of progress. Because, even if those promises are empty on the part of the establishment, they are still having a positive influence on the populace. So, in this case, you want to stick to the demons that you know... especially when Bolsonaro is so vile. And this is true even if you are sick and tired of the same-old-same-old coming from the establishment. Electing a Fascist will only give you more of the same corruption and much much worse, to the point where things may never go back to as good as it was before.

Which vitamins can you not get from plants/tubers/nuts/seeds that you can get from fish? I'm pretty well-versed on nutrition, and the only thing you can't get from plants is B-12. But the only reason why is because B-12 comes from dirt and human beings eat a diet that's free from dirt because we wash our fruits and veggies extensively in modern day. And all animals only get their B-12 from the dirt as well. So, this is why we get B-12 when we eat them. Other than that, you can get every essential vitamin, minerals, or amino acid from plants.

You're not really understanding what a Zen devil is and why people are telling you that you're being one. I do personally believe that it doesn't make sense to eat meat because it causes needless suffering to sentient beings. And I do believe that animals suffer unlike you who doesn't believe that animals suffer. But you state your belief in the idea "killing animals instantly for food = no suffering" as though it's a fact... when it's really just an assumption based in no evidence what-so-ever. But eating meat isn't Zen devilry in and of itself. Zen devilry is the use of mental gymnastics relative to canned insights about non-duality to justify all behavior that falls into the realm of self-interest regardless of consequence to others. So, I do think Eckhart Tolle is contributing to suffering when he eats meat. But I don't think he's being a Zen devil, and using a canned mind-based understanding of non-duality to justify eating meat for his own self-interest like you are. So, I would consider Eckhart Tolle's meat consumption to be a problem that he would be wisest to refrain from. But he's probably not jumping through hoops in his own mind to make himself unconscious so that he can prop up an identity of "righteousness" while actively doing things that needlessly encroach upon others' lives. That's the difference between simply doing actions that cause suffering and Zen devilry. So, they're both problems on the relative level, but they have different causes. In order to avoid being a Zen devil, don't use absolute truths invalidate relative truths. This will make you very unconscious indeed.

No. You are a devil for using the truth of non-duality to justify a behavior that contributes to pain and suffering. Zen devils use the truth of no-self to play mental gymnastics with those truths to justify harmful behavior like rape, murder, stealing, manipulation, etc. And they would use an idea like, "Cows don't have an ego, therefore they don't suffer when we kill them. Therefore, it's okay if I kill a cow." Not only are they assuming a lot of things about how cows experience things, they are also using canned insights relative to non-duality to justify something that they themselves find morally quesitonable... And if they didn't find it morally questionable, then they wouldn't bother with the rationalization. This is the entire game of Zen devilry is to use non-dual truths to justify any and all behaviors that they want to do without regard to who it harms. So, it's really about using certain insights to rationalize self-interest over the interests of others or the common good in general. So, Eckhart Tolle and Nasgardatta are probably not doing this, even if they do eat meat. So, they are not Zen devils.

You have to think more systemically than this and go from the root of the problem to solve it, instead of the surface area where the problem starts effecting you personally. The reason why there are so many refugees in your country isn't actually because of policies within your country being naive and allowing in too many refugees. That's not the root of the problem. The reason why there are so many refugees in your country is because they are fleeing a war zone. And that war was caused by corruption in politics. So, aiming for peace between "left" and "right" is a really localized and topical way to attempt to solve those types of issues. In fact, quelling conflicts between people in different political parties is a bad thing, because conflict raises awareness and pushes us forward. I know that I won't kowtow and compromise on a lot of things as I feel just that passionately about them, and a lot of people feel that way. And the conflict between those people is the discomfort that keeps us aware and allows us to grow. And when there is not awareness, that's the fertile ground for corruption to blossom, which is really what you want to be focusing on. But if you really want to nip that specific problem in the bud and strike at the roots of the problem, you need to ruthlessly care about Muslims and why they're coming to your country in the first place, instead of just caring about peace in partisan factions and maintaining your personal comfort zone. Right now, you only seem to care about maintaining the norm in Germany and getting rid of conflict and disagreement between people in your own country... and mostly for your own comfort and fears of "What if". But make no mistake, Germany is not the country that's actually in deep trouble. The country that is in deep trouble is Syria, and that's why they're there. So, regarding Spiral Dynamics, you should be a lot more Yellow about this topic. Strike at the roots, not at the branches. Cure the illness, not the symptoms of the illness.

The reason why I think this is because of the fact that you made this thread in the first place, and seem to be very adamant about defending your decision to eat meat... even against people who didn't directly tell you that you shouldn't. So, this indicates to me that there is perhaps a guilt about eating meat, because you're trying really hard to defend it even against people who aren't directly challenging you on it. So, you seem to be projecting some guilt and then trying to absolve yourself of that guilt.

How did this confirmation happen? Did you watch images of animals suffering with an open heart, and truly feel okay with it? Or did you begin and end in the mind, while using certain rational defenses for why eating meat is morally defensible because of a desire to protect your self-image as a "righteous person" from your own personal judgements? And then did you work backward from the idea "I'm a righteous person", and then find a way to continue identifying as a "righteous person" by using mental gymnastics to find ways to justify meat-eating on a public forum where you can convince others (and thus yourself) that meat-eating is a defensible action and that you are still a "good and righteous" person? My guess is the latter. So, my question is... Why does eating meat make you feel so guilty?

I think astrology is really interesting. It's a lot of fun. Birthday: 4/26/1989 Sun Sign - Taurus (leader of the Earth house) Moon Sign - Capricorn (Earth sign) Ascendent - Virgo (Earth sign) Also, in the Chinese Zodiac, I am year of the Snake which is an Earth sign because of the snake's close proximity to the Earth. And I am specifically an Earth snake as each twelve years the signs change from one element to another. So, my husband is also year of the snake, but he is 12 years older than I am. So, he is a fire snake. But there are also water snakes, metal snakes, and one other type that escapes me. Also, the vast majority of my extended chart which has about 20 or so constellations to it, consists of Earth signs. And all the chart that doesn't directly relate back to the element of Earth are water signs with just two Air signs thrown in there and no Fire signs. If you want to check your extended chart, here is a link to a great website for it that one of my subscribers shared with me - https://astro-charts.com

So, you're believing in what Nisargadatta says just because he's an enlightened master? Why does he know better than you what's right for you?

Seek first to understand why it is that you want that and accept the reasons why. Then, once you see your motivations at a deeper level, you'll be able to see if it's something that you should or shouldn't pursue. But brutal honesty is needed as your motivations may not be as straightforward as they seem at face value. Meaning, that it may not simply be a desire for sexual adventures, it may take root in something deeper... or it may not. It may literally just be a desire for sex. If you feel like you want to do it because you feel like you need validation, then be honest with yourself about that and realize that there is a reason why you crave validation that can never be solved on that level. And then, you'll need to explore that need for validation. Or it could be some other motivation as well.

I was considering saying something very similar to this. Spot on!

This is why the mind is a beautiful servant yet a terrible master. You can justify any form of devilry with a little mental gymnastics. It can create all sorts of castles in the sky to live in and cling to. And those who decide to live in a castle in the sky of their own making, totally forget that there is no ground below them. To truly make wise decisions, you must build your castle on the solid foundation of the heart. Right now, you are bringing the analytical mind into matters of the heart, to avoid what the heart has to say. The open heart will tell you clearly what is wiser if you dare to listen.

It is frustrating to me, so I would like it not to be this way. But to be clear, I don't have an issue reaching orgasm. I can't do it through sex because sex doesn't stimulate me enough to achieve orgasm. But I can experience pleasure, and I can climax in other ways. But this is not really the issue. The issue is more-so that when I experience sexual feelings it feels better if I just take time to feel them on my own without even engaging with physicality and definitely not trying to orgasm. I am most sexually fulfilled when imagining a sexual scenario and being able to experience the erotic emotions that come with the fantasy. But once it becomes physical, it loses like 85% of its charm. And I end up feeling less sexually satisfied by doing more work once sex becomes real, regardless of the pleasure I feel (which itself is usually pretty mild). And oddly enough, I prefer the mild pleasure to orgasm as well. So, it's just a lot of mixed messages and a promise of sexual fulfillment that has never panned out.

He's definitely Green with some Yellow, if I peg him anywhere. But, it doesn't really help. Yet again, he isn't the most romantic guy. I tend to have some pessimistic ideas about the experience of sex for a woman. I don't know if they're true in general, but it's been true for me. My pessimistic idea is that since the purpose of sex is toward reproduction it only requires the man to be satisfied sexually because it is the male orgasm that enables sperm to get to the egg and not female orgasm or sexual satisfaction. But in a human species, where we have the capacity for high intellectual thinking and noticing things like unfairness, there also has to be a motivation to have sex for women. So, our mind spins this projection of a sexual scenario onto reality where it feels really good to engage with that fantasy projection... and it is the projection itself that beckons us into a sexual situation where there is no actual sexual fulfillment to be had. It just feels good to feel the feelings associated with the projection, and there is an illusion that making that projection real will intensify the feelings of the projection that we crave. But then, when we actually get in the situation, the desire for the satisfaction promised by the projection doesn't get met. And this leaves us with a desire to seek it more (leading to more babies) and to avoid sex unless there is a really strong and emotionally alluring projection over the experience (nature's form of birth control and thus population control). But that's just my pessimistic idea about it, because that's been my experience. I don't know if all, most, some, or no other women are like this. Now, a romantic guy is really skilled at creating that illusion... That's what I think romance is. But I still have my pessimistic doubts that that illusion (no matter how skillfully created) will ever actually translate to the sexual satisfaction that the illusion and the desire for the illusion seems to promise.

I side with Teal on this one, because I do believe that socialization is necessary for the vast vast majority of people. So, unless a person is living a life of renunciation as a monk or hermit, then abstaining from socializing altogether is incredibly unhealthy and is a denial of our natural drives. I see a lot of people on here who are already socially avoidant, further solidify their tendency toward social avoidance because they start thinking it is a sign of virtue and higher consciousness. But it actually keeps them from addressing their needs from where they're actually at because they may even repress their needs and desires toward human connection. So, my view on this is that a person who is not specifically living a life of renunciation, where renunciation is the spiritual practice in itself, should not abstain from the basics of life. So, a person should eat normally, sleep normally, hold a job, and have friendships and relationships. It's important to meet our human needs. Our humanity is not a mistake to be sloughed off, but is a valid part of this experience. And belonging to a social group is a natural outgrowth of that, and need not be transcended.