Haumea

No need to kill the body - just the ego. "No mind, no problem."

Of course any concept which implies a Subject-Object relationship (and which of them don't?) is going to be dualistic. There is only The Self describes it best I think, but any time you use language, forget it. (You are That) is pretty good too.

Being doesn't have a mechanism, but "the mind" does. It is quite predictable. If there's a mechanism to enlightenment it is mind/ego habits deconditioning and leaving pure Being.

Here's what Ramana Maharshi said on the subject: Q: As some sacred texts say that the supreme state is that in which the sense organs and the mind are completely destroyed, how can that state be compatible with the experience of the body and the senses? A: If that were so there would not be any difference between that state and the state of deep sleep. Further, how can it be said to be the natural state when it exists at one time and not at another? This happens, as stated before, to some persons according to their karma (prarabdha) for some time or till death. It cannot properly be regarded as the final state. If it could, it would mean that all great souls and the Lord, who were the authors of Vedantic works and the Vedas were unenlightened persons. If the supreme state is that in which neither the senses nor the mind exists and not the state in which they exist, how can it be the perfect state? As karma alone is responsible for the activity or inactivity of the sages, great souls have declared the state of sahaja-nirvikalpa (the natural state without concepts) alone to be the ultimate state. (The Spiritual Teaching of Ramana Maharshi, p. 35.) So faceless is right, it is basically cultural prarabdha as I understand it. So unless you're a very traditional Hindu or something like that, I don't think there's anything to worry about. (Also, this kind of explains the whole Sadhguru business with this issue.) Western motto is "more human than human/I want more life, fucker, I ain't done!"

If you're a descendant of the Mongols or something (i.e. blood type B ) cow milk is beneficial (or at least neutral) for you. If, like most people, you're O or A, try almond milk instead.

Because it can't NOT exist...haha.

The only possible reason is they are too old or sick to enjoy it. I haven't really heard any other convincing reasons. I suppose if you're really psyched about becoming an angel or something higher on the food chain, it would make sense. Ramana Maharshi was facing an arm amputation due to cancer, so he said "forget it, see ya!" I don't think most people who reach sahaja do this.

Lucas, First stage of enlightenment (the "600s") can be a trap for some people. This is Zen Devil territory. It is quite existential-nihilistic in flavor. Once you get into the 700s and above, those feelings will go away. Sahaja is astonishing beyond words. Truly glorious. First-stage enlightenment doesn't begin to compare.

I don't know if Tinder is the best way to go for what you're looking for (although I hear it's a different pool in different countries.) I know here in the States e.g. there's eHarmony and Match and sites like that. I would build a social circle instead of going for cute Tinder randos. This is probably the best way to go as long as it's people of similar "caliber." Obviously being super-successful and relatively "together" at your age can be a mixed blessing. Actively assembling a social group of guys and girls is a multiplier, because that easily attracts more women and more options for you. (And I don't mean friends on social media, obviously, but real life social gatherings.) That's what I would focus on. Invest a year or two in that, and it'll pay off handsomely.

Hi moonlight, MBTI is unreliable to the degree it's a "self-report instrument." There's quite a bit of discretion in whether to answer questions broadly (general trends over the course of your life) or narrowly (specific events affecting your behaviors at the moment.) I would recommend answering questions in the first manner. In my experience, type doesn't change (because change is actually incorporated into the type as well, i.e. developing your tertiary and inferior function.) You retain your dominant, auxiliary, tertiary and inferior functions. I would recommend reading the type descriptions on sites such as this and seeing which one resonates most, or if you are not sure, ask someone who's known you for a long time to do so. To me, all 16 types are highly distinctive. ENTP is Ne dominant/Ti auxiliary; INTP is flipped (Ti dominant/Ne auxiliary) and ENFP is Ne dominant/Fi auxiliary. ENTP and INTP share all the same functions, just in different order; ENFP shares only 2 of the 4 with each of them. If I had to guess based on statistical likelyhood, I'd go with ENTP, but obviously I'd have to observe you for awhile to have a stronger sense. One of the immediately noticeable differences between ENTP and ENFP is that ENTP is more likely to be provocative with intellectual arguments without sugarcoating it in humor, while ENFP does.

Just keep meditating, don't worry about understanding it using concepts. You seem to be on the right track.

Monkey-man: https://biblehub.com/john/10-30.htm Case closed. Jesus was an advaitist.

The key phrase is "everything that CAN exist." If you interpret that correctly, it means, as Leo said, an infinite number of PREDICTABLE (i.e. constrained) worlds. It does NOT mean the constraints of any particular world are violated. If a bird could sing a Beatles song in some world, it would be within the constraints of that world, so it would not be a weird occurence IN THAT WORLD.

1) Yes. 2) Yes. 3) Because you still want to; in fact, probably more than before. The only difference would be that - people doing it because they wanted to, not because they "should" or have to or are in some way manipulated or coerced to.

The point of what Leo teaches in not to believe in it. The way to take it is, "this what I have experienced/maybe what you will experience along the way." And then you find the best techniques/means for yourself to get there. So, there's nothing to believe; there are only various things to try and see if it works for you. "Belief" is of the ego. The person in sahaja has no-mind, i.e. there is no ego to rigidly identify with a belief system as would be the case with dogmatic belief. If it doesn't work for you, don't do it; if it does, keep doing it. Simple, really.

Over the last year I've come around on Islam as my level of consciousness has increased. Firstly, Mohammed's project was a vast improvement on the tribalism of the Arab people some dozen centuries ago. (Of course, his success in this was partial. Arabs are still fairly tribal. But it was a necessary and moderately successful undertaking by all accounts.) This is something that probably escapes a lot of Islam's critics. (BTW, same applies to Genghis Khan and his empire.) Secondly, some very smart people have persuaded me that Islam is not unreformable. And they were right: pay attention to the social and legal changes in the heart of Islam (Saudi Arabia.) Women will have near-Western type equality with men within a decade. They are doing something very smart: instead of inviting endless culture wars as we have now in the West, they are building cities with relaxed, Western-type laws and culture. Localism is best, localism works, people need to stop trying to inflict their vision on one another. Live and let live. Allow for religious enclaves and liberal enclaves. This is real diversity. Iranian mullahs will likely be deposed within a year or two. Iran is already fairly Western in outlook, so the reforms there may come even faster. We're at the tail end of the radical Sunni Islamic extremism era that began post-Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, where the O.J.s (Original Jihadis) honed their chops; roughly from early 1990s. We are now in the mopping up phases. ISIS is nearly toast; Hezbollah will be taken care of within a year or two. You will get lone wolf (and maybe small group) attacks for awhile because there are now Jihadist breeding grounds in Europe, but eventually Europe will decide suicide is not the answer and proceed accordingly. So I say we're done with it by 2025 or so. I would guess it's closer to 111, but that's still the highest of any group, and when you get to the higher edges (130+ and 140+) it really becomes out of proportion to the general population. The reason for that is likely a form of what I call "literacy eugenics." Ashkenazi Jews have been what some historians call "service nomads" throughout the last millenium or more (tax collectors, highly skilled tradesmen, physicians, merchants, etc.) More IQ demanding professions than, e.g. farming. (Especially math and verbal; visuospatial less so.) So there was likely a filtering process of those who couldn't hack it and had to leave the group.

I actually did a psychedelic to deal with social anxiety (along with other issues) and it was effective, but ultimately it's going to tell you what you already know: basically get your shit together and start becoming a whole person, stop neglecting yourself. Social anxiety is the fear that you're inadequate in some way, and the only way to permanently deal with that is to embrace challenges life is throwing at you as opposed to hiding from them.

I don't understand all this love for Communism and Socialism on a spirituality forum. Communism and Socialism are essentially leveling, chop-the-tallest-poppy ideologies. This is what happens to "spiritual people" under those systems and cultures. "Oh, you're enlightened? You think you're better than us? *Whack*" Whether it's The Law of Jante in Scandinavia or the treatment of Tibetans and Falun Gong by Chinese or anything smacking of deviation from state-approved materialism in the former Soviet bloc. I think there are a lot of young people here who have all these rosy notions of a utopian society after capitalism. Communism and socialism are "everybody is miserable, everybody's resentful, everybody hates everybody because no-one has the right to be who they really are." It is the furthest thing from a spiritual society.

I'm taking 360 mcg (300% DV) of K2. The blood test was in January, so smack in the middle of winter. If I relied on sunlight in the winter, I'd be back at 19 again, at least 39 is not too bad.

Copied from another thread with some edits and additions: After experimenting with the Blood Type diet, and looking into the "debunkings" of it, I can say with a good degree of confidence that it works pretty well, and the debunkings are pretty shoddy scientific work (as is anything when it involves holism.) Maybe not 100% but it's up there, high correlation for sure. Since most people in the West are type O or A, you do get the mostly paleo/atkins vs. mostly vegetarian camps dominating the scene. Most people who are comfortably vegetarian/vegan are likely not type O (most A.) Most people who love their organic grass-fed beef are type O. No diet is universal. Diet needs to be personalized. Blood type is a good starting point. Eventually I will explore the GenoType diet which will narrow it down even more. Is it possible the discrepancy in dietary teaching among gurus is due to blood type/body type/genetic makeup?

I can tell you what the limitations of both are. A core component of CBT is addressing beliefs. The trouble is, the therapist's level of consciousness is the limiting factor in addressing beliefs. They got egos and hence many limiting beliefs themselves. (And if you're doing the workbook yourself, you cannot possibly know what is and isn't a "belief." Even if you think you've identified a belief, you probably don't understand WHY it is false or can let it go. There is still an emotional fixation on it.) NLP aims to reprogam the unconscious through language. Again, as long as there's an I-thought, there will be something to attach to mental constructs and create neuroses. It's like playing whack-a-mole with neurotic constructs. If you get fully enlightened, you don't need either. The ego-shadow dynamic (i.e. attachment to certain material arising and disavowal/repression/projection of other will reduce and then cease.)

He could be in sahaja within two years if he wanted to, but I'd say probably within 10 years (i.e. (c)) I think his life dynamics make it hard to get fully enlightened fast: worldly success AND harsh sadhana (AFAIK.) The first keeps the ego propped up, the second whips it mercilessly. That's a hard polarization dynamic. It's a lot easier for someone in really bad shape psychologically, a failure, a loser to get enlightened fully because there's a lot less for the ego to cling to. (This is something Jesus knew based on the company he kept.) The less there is to lose, the easier it is to lose it. A lot of 1000s were pretty messed up in some way. So I'd say, if he made radical changes, within two years. I also realize it would be almost impossible for him to make them.

First of all, I do not think there is an "enlightened point of view" when it comes to e.g. politics. Enlightenment is just living your true nature. Some are naturally more conservative or nationalistic, some are more liberal or globalist. Anyone who tells you otherwise is attempting to conflate her personality with spirituality. If we want to talk about globalism, we have to acknowledge the historical waves towards globalism that inevitably receded with time. Alexander The Great, Rome, Genghis Khan, the great European empires, etc. Now we have the latest iteration with multinational corporations at the helm that really took off after the fall of the Soviet empire. It's facing major blowback from the people of the world who certainly do not want to be pawns in some oligarchs' game. I'm sticking with my prediction that the latest iteration of globalism will recede within 6-7 years. Within 25 years there will be 1000 times the number of enlightened people on Earth there are now. Enlightened people, liberal or conservative, do not want to be someone's pets or pawns. Whatever shape global integration takes, it will not swallow up localism but will respect it. It will be a whole different ballgame.

Let me just add that, of course BEING is a hell of a lot more important than KNOWING (especially for many/most people who live in their heads) so I think Leo is absolutely right to stress BEING in this context. Ultimately, if you got BEING handled, the KNOWING takes care of itself.