Jacobsrw

@Yarco agreed. We should be open minded enough to contemplate what someone says before rejecting it. However, we must also be careful to not swing too far into leniency that we then become assumptiusts. There needs to be a delicate balance between openness and conscientiousness. And Icke could be right in some regards, yet he pontificates more than providing solutions. Which could be concerning. A new radical movement could be made if people blindly believe without proper actionable solutions. Something definitely sus seems to be going on with COVID-19 but creating theories and dogmatically believing could be just and dangerous as following the mainstream media.

@Fortunate Son I agree sometimes there is a need for radical perspectives so minds can expand. I wasn’t critiquing that but more the approaches used to do it and the responses as a result. Yes I also agree that this pandemic is a necessary step of evolution regarding the human consciousness. However, I also caution that spreading radical ideas can do just as much damage as they were first intended to fix. Time will tell I guess whether we wake up or fall deeper asleep. @legendary agreed. There are some points to consider, however, none of them are substantiated, still possible though. And yes that was my concern. It is all great to propose advantageous ideas but they are rendered redundant or dangerous if not supported by compensatory resolutions.

@Fortunate Son Well I I would say the rhetoric used is cultish. If you watched the video, this is evident. The incessant fear mongering, straw manning and blame that was projected. This is not high consciousness dialogue at all, it’s self-indulged propaganda. Actualized.org definitely has cultish aspects in they way it is used. But the platform itself is not a cult since the very foundation of it is to openness to any ideal, without a need in believing it. I’m not disputing everything he said but the way in which he said it. And further, that half of what was stated is not even substantiated by the evidence he tried to use against what he was blaming. Furthermore, the concern is not that people are opening their minds to new possibilities, but that they are being deceived into believing a know ideology without sufficient evidence nor strategies. In so far, this could result in egomania reaction. As people will just resort to their most primitive level response they would from fear. Too much radical open mindedness can corrode an undeveloped mind.

@Brivido “The biggest conspiracy is the humans capacity to create conspiracies...And in so far, we can become deluded by our efforts to avoid delusion” Conspiracy theories provide solace for the mind. The mind cannot comprehend what is beyond it, so it creates grandiose ideas in compensation. They also entertain the mind because the it can not withstand silence or nothingness, it’s just further noise to fill the void it denies to accept.

@28 cm unbuffed To me, luck is an illusory concept concocted by the mind to make sense of experiences to which it could never fathom. Luck is probably better understood as “at the right place at the right time”. Is a the wave that carries a pearl to a sailer man luck? No it is more a consequence of the oceans universal nature with its surroundings. Had a bird received the pearl, it just be an irrelevant coincidence. It’s only perceived as luck to the sailer man because to the ego-mind a pearl is a rarity worth a fortune.

@Panos I appreciate what you’ve written here. I resonate with some of what you’ve proposed. In that, Leo purports many statements that do require contextualisation and can be easily misled. In the past I’ve wondered why he hasn’t extended efforts to disclaimer each video with the necessary context. However, I’ve come to realise, that’s not his duty. His duty is, in his perspective it would seem, is to share some of the most valuable insights to man in the most transparent way possible. In such efforts, he sacrifices this by falling to heavy critique. Although really, I feel much of the criticism he receives comes from a place of projection and insecurity. Leo points to the very things we do not wish to explore. Our very own nature and existence at large. One who does not explore these areas will get extremely uncomfortable hearing Leo’s propositions. Not for the faint hearted, but that’s the style in which he presents. It’s not for everyone. It’s for those dedicated to the path. And those who aren’t, will likely not get much from it to begin with due to the inability to commit. Appreciate what is available, utilise what you can and discard the rest.

@Osaid thanks for the feedback. That’s extremely interesting, I’ve heard of supernatural instances in children. Isn’t it funny how an adult will just brush off a child’s visions as just “monsters under the bed”? Yeah I agree, children are a lot more intuitive and can sense at deeper levels, their extremely sensitive to reality. Much like indigenous folks.

Yes that’s very true, I respect your views. I agree with what you are saying here. The child hasn’t experienced it all. I was just suggesting the child is more aligned with consciousness, as it is a less obscured state, thus being more available to the process of enlightenment. Appreciate your feedback, thank you ?

Beautifully said! This is similar to what I was explaining. The child has a pure innocence to it which slows it to be more aligned with Being. This is why children are so mesmerising to watch. They just move with fullness and beauty of their experience. The don’t try to superimpose upon it. Thank you for such beautiful words ?

This is my point though, you’re actually highlighting it. Corruption is a self fulfilling prophecy of the ego which is learnt in the adult state, not the child. This is evident. The child “state” is not tarnished or altered, in other words it has not been corrupted. The adult “state” from which the child arises is tarnished and altered, therefore it is corrupted. So when the adult assumes the roles of a tarnished self or conditioned or developed self, it is then exporting this to other child self’s which have not yet been tarnished or altered. Therein, creating the very thing we assume as development but is actually just a state of conditioning. Is it “bad”? No. It’s useful for a seperate ego self. However, is it truthful? No. Infinite consciousness is much more like the child untarnished, untainted and blank. This is my proposition. Adulthood is not development but illusory conditioning which concocts the very hallucination we call “physical reality”. This is also exemplified on a psychedelic state from which conditioning collapses. I feel what you are saying assumes that when one shifts into adulthood they are shifting to higher levels of developed consciousness. This is where I disagree. An adult doesn’t develop perse, it assumes a role which in a relative human perspective is “development” but to infinite consciousness is merely a temporary state, no more developed than a rock. I understand what you are suggesting here, but it undermines the fact that the adult mind manipulates reality where as the child’s does not. Therefore, it is more synonymous with infinite consciousness, as it is more consciously pure. It may not be focused and stable but it is far more conscious of existence as it is.

@tsuki I agree yes it is dualistic, but only on the level of relative existence (the state we are currently living in). This duality ultimately collapses, however, until it dies one has to assume a position from which to operate. Actually I would argue the child does not develop assumptions naturally but has them imposed upon them through rigorous conditioning. A child is a vehicle of its surroundings not the other way around. Thus, it is corrupted from what is outside of it not what’s inside of it. I would postulate a child could very well be enlightened had it not be predisposed to the environment it typically does. But no, I do not by any means inferr a moral judgement, “one is good one is bad”. Morality is but another imposed illusion assumes by the ego. I am suggesting one stage is at a more advanced level of consciousness, that being the child. I agree the adult is no different than the child as an entity or concept, since they are stemming from the same source. However, the difference lies in levels of consciousness not dualistic thinking. Different levels of consciousness manifest different levels of being, which is obvious in our heavily materialistic society today. At lower levels of consciousness a “being” assumes the position of an adult ego, where at more advanced levels a “being” assumes the position of the child, as it is less imposed upon. Both a states or activities in consciousness and as such are temporary, corresponding to a higher or lower level. I merely suggested the child position is a more conscious level than the adult position, from a seperate self point of view. From an absolute perspective they are one in the same. However, rarely does operate from such a place.

True. However, he wouldn’t be enlightened in that case. To be enlightened means transcending beyond dogma and belief altogether. One cannot be open to Being while equally closed to aspects within it, otherwise that would contradict being the openness to begin with.

@Virtually I feel they are speaking about consciousness from two completely contrasting dimensions. I could be wrong but it seems, Leo is speaking about it through the lens of human subjectivity, where it seems Ralston is speaking about it through the lens of consciousness itself. Ralston is trying to convey the fundamental nature of Truth where Leo is elaborating on all the finite compartments within it.

Interesting distinction. I like this example. However, If one is open to Being would they not be automatically open to content? Since Being contains ‘content’ within it. Although one not open to Being and open to content is common. Stage orange, materialistic, which pervades the entire globe.

He assumes that one who is irrevocably destined for infinity would be in fear of it. That is a massive assumption. One who experiences infinity would likely not know a limited life in which to compare it with, therefore infinity would the equivalent experience to a finite life.

Hahaha don’t get to comfortable up on your high horse, I extrapolated on a feW myself ? However, thanks again, great episode.

After watching Leo’s video on open mindedness, a few things clicked. Implicit understanding which gets clouded by the ego was illimitable. Personally, I found the video extremely fruitful in many ways. It led me down paths of inquiry of my own in which I further discovered things beyond the content itself. The episode was a catalyst perse. Here some of the insights I came across both from Leo directly and my own contemplations. •Open mindedness is not static, it comes in degrees and gradations, constituted by levels of relativity. •One is not an “open minded” person but rather open minded situationally depending on the capacity of tolerance. •To learn anything truely, one must first be open minded. Otherwise what will be discovered will only be within the parameter of an already existing position. •Things that appear absurd and crazy are only so because you are closed minded to a paradigm different to it. •Your level of open mindedness is predicated on the context of your existence. Where you were born is the determining influence on your level of openness. •A thing is only what it is according to the limits of your level of openness. You only see the degree to which your openness has allowed you to see. •Close minded paradigms use self defence mechanisms and threats to convince people of their paradigm. Fear is one very mechanism used to obscure open mindedness. •People are open minded to the extent it serves their paradigm and close minded to extent it threatens it. •Love is synonymous with open mindedness, fear is synonymous with closed mindedness. •Imagination determines the action you are able to conduct. Without imagination you could not go to places not presently in front of you. A must first be imagined before it can be pursued. •Imagination can be a tool to open the mind - since all is imaginary anyway.

@Skin-encapsulatedego I admire your enthusiastic interest but be careful not get caught down a rabbit hole. The most powerful teaching will always be the rawness of your own direct experience. Try no to romanticise or fixate on teachings but rather observe and investigate your very direct experience.

@Skin-encapsulatedego Ralston is magnificent and eloquent in what he speaks. For me personally, after watching dozens of his videos and finishing the Book of Not Knowing, I’ve surmised that he is likely fully aware of such a principle of love but referees to it in different terminology. He uses words such as Being, Truth Etc. The manner and caliber in which he speaks displays that he uses them almost synonymously with the word love. I feel he may also be avoiding explicit use of the word “love” due to its utter bastardisation (can’t blame him). Having use it he may further perpetuate its misuse and delusion. He uses many terms that are much simpler and less conventionalised. His practice you are referring to is much like Leo stated. It’s a basic practice but just requires extensive concentration. Same with Self inquiry, they both lead to the same destination (which is nowhere) but just travel different paths to get there. It’s basically just exploring into ones own existence. Don’t get caught up in these differences, seek to understand the nature of your own existence in your own direct experience in which ever way best resonates.

@GodDesireOnlyLove @fridjonk Very true. It’s so beautiful is it not... utterly astounding and incomprehensible. We can’t even put into words the magnitude of what we are attempting to explain ??

@fridjonk Hahaha but that’s the point! There is no point once you realise it, in which there is only a point proceeding the realisation of it ? Or, the meaning of life is that there is no meaning. Which counterintuitively, becomes a meaning so meaningful it’s beyond meaning.

@WhatAWondefulWorld I am sorry hear you feel in this way. Not to pull a pun on you but it really is a “a wonderful world”, your username says it all. Life is an experimentation. Don’t limit yourself to what you have only attempted or interacted with. Go out and test many things. The more the better, that way you will know what you have the capacity to master. And I guarantee you have the capacity for multiple things. Impossible that you couldn't, considering the eccentricity of you, which can never be replicated. If you begin to explore you will realise you have so many things you could do that there is no limit, there’s infinite possibilities.

@Leo GuraThat’s one way to put it. Or, the point is that there is no point.

In all due respect, your teachings may be pointless but what they are pointing is not. The very point of a thing can not be what is being used to convey it.

@Seeker_of_truth they only exist dependent on the mind, they do not exist objectively in reality. Categories are something finite that the ego has asserted. The best thing you can do is dissolve your categories by exploring them. Contemplate why you like one thing over another and why one thing has to bring joy over another. Explore this so deep that you get to a bottom. You should find that all this is founded on a fragmentary belief system that can be discarded. You could then explore how joy can be seen in all things. What is joy and desire? Explore this and the answers should come to you. Our problem is that we are so stuck in the ego-mind that we can see the reality beyond it. Once we do, joy can be experienced whenever.