Haumea

This is what some people fail to understand. All full enlightenment is is the death of the I-thought (plus deconditioning of old habits.) It doesn't mean "your" body dies. Your body lives in the natural state. Was Jesus not fully enlightened when he taught? How about Buddha? How about Ramana Maharshi or others of that caliber? How does this even make sense to people?

No problem. Sahaja literally means "co-emergent" - thoughts arise in complementary pairs simultaneously, so no fragmentation is possible.

It's not exactly "the nature of thought." It's the nature of MIND. MIND = ego + thought. You can have thoughts, but no "MIND", i.e. thoughts but no I-thought. That is sahaja. I have thoughts. I have no I-thought. The fragmented dualistic nature is of MIND. It's the ego identification with thoughts that is fragmenting. Good discussion, Faceless.

Faceless: I think I get what you're saying. That's a frame of reference issue. All those are brought in as a package deal within an ego state. When you transcend the ego, you get a different frame of reference. E.g. If there's a gross ego, there's an other, there's the world, there is fragmentation: projection, repression, etc. All that is correct. Then the frame slowly shifts through various stages. I can describe the frame of reference in each state I experienced. "Time" is annihilated when the I-thought is.

Dude, I'm not talking out of my ass - promise! The discovery was shocking to me as well. It seems few teachers fully explicate it (at least in the way I'd like to see.) Bottom line is, "integration" IS sahaja.

I understand fragmentation. I have no clue what that sentence is supposed to mean. Those are different things. I actually experienced the entire process over the last year. I've observed it work intimately. Before that, I was working on my integration (using various means) for almost 20 years. Are those credentials sufficient? I've actually experienced it first-hand. It's not a theory for me, not a belief. As long as there's an I-thought, there will be some fragmentation. That's bottom line.

Historically speaking, full enlightenment is rare, true. That changed after the 2012 Awakening. The process is taking off exponentially. Within 6 years what used to be atypical will be, if not common, considerably less rare. I have no idea what that means. Fragmentation is only possible because of the I-thought. No I-thought, no ability for fragmentation to persist. There is nothing for the fragment to attach to. True, but rapidly changing. To get that fundamental change the I-thought must go. That happens at full enlightenment, not first stage enlightenment.

The ego typically doesn't go all at once, but in stages. The numerical scale corresponds to certain experienced stages of ego/egolessness. I understand fragmentation. You cannot integrate fully without transcending as well. The ego state won't allow you to. A better question is, is this woman is fully integrated herself? What evidence is there that that's the case? If not, she's teaching theories without embodying her teaching. I hate to tell you, but any semi-charismatic person can get on YT and get some people to believe their theories. Skepticism is advised.

Try doing it when there's no longer an I-thought. It's even funnier. You can't even make the thought come up (obviously.)

The question is "how important is it to you that your partner spiritually develop?" That sort of depends on your personality, I think. You may be ok with your partner as is, happy and content. Or you may want a relationship where you're both developing together. Depends on your particular inclinations.

Enlightenment isn't something to be achieved or attained. That's not how you look at it. It is a natural state to be surrendered to. Addition by subtraction. You're not attaining something. You're relinquishing something false, illusory, unreal. Indeed, letting go. To put it in plain terms, enlightenment is just "you" without all your bullshit.

You can use astrology to figure out life purpose (in an abstract sense) now, based on North Node placement.

Haha. Obviously, smile at him, not at your phone or something. I guess that needed to be added in this day and age.

As I already said in my comment, you can't get there from here. You need both transcending and integration, otherwise you hit a roadblock. You can only be a troubleshooter in a limited way - your ego state is the limiting factor. If there is still an I-thought, there is still identification with ego parts and disowning or projection of shadow parts, hence incomplete integration. I haven't taken her workshops, so unless they are well-balanced in this manner, she is offering a partial solution just like the gurus she is criticizing. And as always - charisma and presence aren't a substitute for full self-realization, both in gurus and "integration" teachers.

The best way a guy knows that you're ok to approach? Don't glare or have a frightened expression. Smile. Every time (unless, obviously you'd rather a particular guy not approach.) There. You've now improved your chances by 500%.

Dear Everything: You Still Gotta Clean Your Room. Sincerely, Everything.

OK, I've watched the whole video. Things I'm not quite clear on: 1) What does she mean by "11 dimensional consciousness"? (I assume it's something like awareness of all levels of the experience of non-duality or something like that but not sure.) 2) Why does she say that "spiritual" and "human" parts are opposites? (I can only assume she's referring to a state of detachment typical of the 600s/no-self stage which may close off feelings.) 3) What exactly is Integration? (I can only assume it is Integration in the classical Jungian sense, Shadow integration. I'm fairly confident she means this.) So, let's say I've intrepreted her terminology correctly. I would rate this video as Mostly True but missing very important context which may distort the conclusions a viewer may reach. Things that are definitely true: 1) Many gurus in the 600s exhibit the behavior and tend to present with the psychological profile she describes. 2) Integration needs to be an essential part of the spiritual experience at every level of awakening. Things that she may not know or understand, or simply left out of the video (which may confuse people): 1) You can't get there from here. There's a limited amount of integration that is possible without going all the way to 1000, i.e. the end of I-thought. The process is spiral in nature. E.g. while in gross ego state (roughly 580 and down) there is only so much integration you can do. You're going to hit a roadblock, which is an excellent opportunity to transcend to a higher state. Now, at 600 and even 700s it is indeed dangerous to become a guru for the reasons she and others before her have described. You're not done, but you may think you're done. The problem is, again, you can only do so much integration without going through this stage! So the danger is in lack of awareness of where you are. No-self is just the beginning, not the end. One is not ready to teach, although many will anyway. 2) To elaborate on 1) - having an I-thought is what prevents full integration. You may be well-acquainted with your shadow parts - certain entheogens will show them to you in technicolor and dolby surround (and you don't need to be enlightened or even a serious spiritual seeker), but as long as the I-thought pops up, it will identify with your ego parts. You will simultaneously experience no-self and a subtle ego/shadow split. There will be no sahaja, i.e. co-emerging of what was an ego/shadow split. So unless she understands all this, she will not be successful in helping a student to integrate. Is there any evidence she is? I don't feel like researching it, you tell me. (Sorry for the obnoxious bolding, I felt those were important points to stress.)

The fact that it's trying to re-assert itself means you're making progress. Ignore it and keep practicing. You have to let it know that you're going to ignore its bullshit. When it knows you mean business, it'll fold like a cheap suit.

I don't know, but once I stabilize in sahaja, I'll seriously give Siddha Yoga a try just to see what he's talking about. Does he say whether it's actually a stage or a temporary state? If it's a stage, I'd like to hear a better description. I've heard people in sahaja give a similar description of a universe inside a snow globe or something like that, so I'm not sure it's a higher stable state rather than an experience in sahaja.

That's a fair statement. Each stage taken to an extreme (which usually happens over time) is problematic, and each consequent stage is a response to the previous stage's extremes. I'm sure by the mid-2040s Turquoise will similarly edge out Teal. It is also fair to recognize the extremes of Green, their genesis, and their negative impact, since it is still the leading, though crumbling edge. What began as an attempt to be compassionate and help the historically oppressed groups has become an enabling of their psychopathologies, which obviously doesn't help the people it purports to. It is the devouring mother archetype. From a spiritual point of view, the problem with Green is that, as I said, it enables Shadow projection. The Victim Ego vs. The Oppressor Shadow. This kind of paradigm must be transcended in order for spiritual evolution to continue past a certain point. One must own their own "evil" shit (which is not so "evil" when recognized and integrated) and cease projecting it onto others.

Don't worry about it. Trump (among others, like Jordan B. Peterson) will kill Green as the leading edge by 2024. Teal (you called it Yellow? Must be a different color code ;)) is coming in like a champ. Bank on it. Postmodernist identity politics is in its death throes. It cannot survive as the leading edge, no matter how many cautionary books Ken Wilber writes. Too toxic and destructive. Incapable of resolving its own contradictions and simply unworkable in the real world (catastrophic results all around.) The next stage will be very good. Spend the next 6 years building up your own value, and don't worry about Greens. They'll get louder and louder as the end comes.

Leo never mentions the nature of manifest reality, though. I suspect that 5-eo-dmt didn't really go into the manifest (i.e. archetypal realm) - it seems more like something that takes you into the Void. There are other entheogens that connect you with high archetypes. There is the field of possibilities, and there is manifest reality which works according to constraints and the evolutionary process acting on that field. Those are the rules of the game The Self itself brings into being, otherwise there wouldn't be any point to it. "I can be anything" isn't interesting at all. No rules (i.e. limitations), no game, no fun. However many worlds or universes there may be, there is a set of constraints in every universe.

Sadhguru is very charismatic AND he freakin' looks great. In the modern world especially, that's a deadly combination. He looks the part, plays the part and he mostly says very sensible, insightful things (he's not some kind of wild social radical like Osho was.) Unfortunately, believing EVERYTHING he says may confuse or frighten some people.

I know for a fact that this doesn't happen. The body is run by nature. The presence or absence of the I-thought makes no difference vis-a-vis survival instincts. If someone started shit with me, I would kick their ass...in a loving way, of course. Don't worry about this even for a second. There are (at least?) 3 people on this thread post-1000 still very much alive. (And most importantly, do not confuse fame and charisma for full awakening.)

That's been my line of thinking about this. Back in the Osho/Hawkins heyday, you couldn't really get a good sample of enlightened people, so it was difficult to distinguish the essential from the incidental. These days it's much less of an issue, and so a lot of these myths are hopefully on the way to dissolving. (Hawkins also says a lot of other stuff that doesn't wash, such as "almost no-one has been fully enlightened except Jesus, Buddha, Krishna et al of that heft.)