Forestluv

You could start the process right here and now. Tell us what you want to attract. As well, you might start a dream board to charge up your LOA.

@Identity Another way to look at is is inquiring “what is the physical body?”. . . You seem to be specifically referring to a physical body, yet what is a physical body? The molecules and cells? If so, “your” body has died many times. Over the the last decade, all of the molecules / cells have turned-over and died. The physical body from 10 years ago is completely dead. Yet it sure doesn’t seem like it.

Yes, my “friend” has. ?

@Vaishnavi I noticed one thing Trump does that was not covered in the video. In regards to Trump’s Muslim ban, Kimmel first asks, “But isn’t it un-American and wrong to discriminate based on someone’s religion”? The question of what is”American and Un-American” gets to the heart of Trumpism. As Trump is about to define “the problem”, the audience applauds in support of Kimmel - that it is un-American and wrong to discriminate based on religion. Trump picks up on this and intuitively knows he needs to throw out some cover and respond “I mean. . . Look, I’m for it”. He often uses the phrase “Look. . “ To suggest there is something we cannot see. In this case “Look, I’m for it” alters that narrative that Trump is discriminatory. In other words: “Look, I’m for non-discrimination in religion, but the problem is. . . “. Then Trump goes on repeating the word “problem” and the problem is death and injury. Yet notice how he doesn’t bring up religion or Muslim. He uses generic terms like “people” to mask the underlying discrimination. For example, he says “People are coming into the country looking to do tremendous harm”. He doesn’t say Muslim people. He just s says “people”. This gives the appearance of being non-discriminatory: “I just want to stop the people who want to cause harm - race or religion doesn’t matter”. This is the cover Trump uses. Trump does not have a “people ban” or “any person that harms us ban” - it is a Muslim people ban. And Trump followers know when he says “people” or “they”, he means Muslim people. . . Trump also does this with black and latinx people as cover for racism. The first part of Trump’s manipulation is to define the narrative as being non-discriminatory and just trying to protect Americans from harm. He then has a transitory manipulation step. Before Kimmel can question/challenge Trump on his view, Trump immediately cites all the significant people that agree with him and call to congratulate him. So now, someone that disagrees with Trump is un-American and is odd. It was now too late for Kimmel to address the first manipulation, and he took a swipe at Trump’s second manipulation by saying “They were probably crank callers”. Trump did not like this response, because it undercut his second tactic. As interviewers have wised up, they have challenged Trump’s tactics. Trump doesn’t like this, so has discontinued press briefings and has manipulated the environment when he interacts with press. For example, nearly all of his contact with the press in “chopper talk”. Trump stands besides an active helicopter making lots of noise. This gives the appearance Trump is very important and is off to some urgent important work. It also weakens press challenges. A reporter may shout out “When you say ‘people’ are you referring to Muslim people?’”. With all the noise of the helicopter, Trump can pretend like he couldn’t hear the whole question and can shout back “What I said was that people enter the country wanting to cause harm”. The reporter is trying to shout back “No, that’s not what I’m asking. I’m asking if. . . “. In all the noise and chaos, Trump can pretend like he can’t hear the reporter and say “Next, question please”. . . The helicopter noise environment gives Trump cover to avoid and evade questions - yet it doesn’t look like he is rude or trying to evade questions. If he did the press briefing in a quiet room, it would be totally obvious. When he does interviews with international leaders, he os occasionally asked challenging questions. Trump can’t pretend he didn’t hear the question and usually gets angry and confrontational. @Hansu I think you make a super important points about relative meaning of terms in conversation. Yet in the context of the first video, Trump’s core terms of “problem”, “injury” , “harm” and “death” are being used with standard meaning nearly everyone agrees with (If someone can into a neighborhood killing people, all the neighbors would agree it is “harmful” and a “problem”. Here, it’s not so much the literal meaning Trump gives to these terms, it is how the terms are used.

Last week a friend of mine told me about a guy she dated. She is average size. This guy liked thick curvey women. She told me this was the only guy she ever dated that loved her weight and even encouraged her to gain weight. He genuinely loved her weight and thought it was sexy and beautiful. She told me he was the only guy she felt completely comfortable with her physical appearance and weight - and she misses that about him.

Pretending to be a little old lady from Madagascar. Oh shoot, that’s a different forum. . . .Nevermind.

I have a friend that is very outcome oriented. We’ve been friends as long as I can remover. We grew up in the same neighborhood. He has always been hyper focused on outcome. For example, we trained for our first marathon together. On training runs, he was obsessed with our pace and how long to the finish. After a couple weeks of training, he was frustrated that he wasn’t in marathon shape. During the marathon race, he kept asking about our pace and finishing time. He really wanted to break 3:30 at the finish and that’s all he talked about. I kinda wanted to take in some scenery and talk with some of the other runners. Maybe I’d meet someone cool from another country or something. Yet I didn’t say anything to my friend. I didn’t want to upset him. Looking back, I feel like I missed out on the race and wish I had asked him to quiet down. . . . This was a common theme of our friendship for years. I kinda liked hanging out with him, yet he was so focused on the end goal that I always felt like I was missing out on the activity itself. . . A few years ago, we traveled to Peru. We were taking a long hike up to see Matchu Picchu. We were with a cool group of people and we were all excited to get to the destination. Yet my friend, like always, was obsessed with the destination, saying stuff like “I wonder what the weather will be like when we get there. I hope it’s not too crowded, I don’t like crowds. I wish we were already at Machu Picchu and didn’t have to do this hike”. . . The hike was actually beautiful and we were with some cool people. I spent over a thousand dollars for this trip and had been looking forward to it for months. It was a once in a lifetime opportunity and I was missing out on the journey because my friend was nonstop talking about the destination. . . I had it. I wanted to enjoy the journey and I didn’t want to look back on my life realizing I missed it all. Enough is enough. . . . I turned to my friend to tell him to quiet down and let’s enjoy the journey. As I looked at my friend, I realized my friend was me.

What comes to mind for me is “Being Now” I often notice my mind a try to manipulate an environment to achieve a result. I may manipulate a “meditation environment” to achieve some state - no-self, attention, peace, insights, bliss, relaxation. This has it’s benefits, yet also it’s downside because this orients meditation. Orientation isn’t necessarily bad. If I want to travel to Mexico, I better orient myself south. Yet with orientation comes a price. . . Some of my best meditations are spontaneous. Just me sitting on my couch staring at the window and just Being Now. No bells or whistles. Just Now-ness.

And that which identifies as the dreamer of dreams is also a dream.

I’m not saying your perspective is wrong. To me, the perspective is narrow and you are extrapolating. I feel bad for a boy or girl that is discouraged from developing their masculine traits. And I feel bad for a boy or girl that is discouraged from developing their feminine traits. Yet I don’t correlate male = masculine and female = feminine as best. It is just as disappointing to me to see a boy discouraged from expressing masculine as a boy discouraged from expressing feminine. Yet in most cultures, it the suppression of males expressing feminine is more common, so that is my bigger concern. You seem to be hyper focused on the loss of masculinity. What about a young boy raised in a house with a masculine father who learned masculine traits? This boy was deprived the opportunity to develop as a feminine man or transgender woman. If he was raised by lesbian women, perhaps he could have blossomed into a beautiful transgender woman - rather than being stuck as a masculine male. When we identify and see only one side as being good, it creates a lens of perception. If I identify as male and think masculine maleness is best, I will interpret reality through that lens. I will feel bad for boys raised in single mother homes because they didn’t get a chance to have a masculine father role model. if I identify as nonbinary and see exploring non-binary gender as best, I will feel bad for children that grew up with heterosexual parents and were raised to believe they were male or female. I would feel bad they didn’t have the opportunity to explore non-binary genders. Both views come from a place a love, we want people to have access to what we think is good. Yet each view is also contracted through a lens of perception. I don’t see a LGBTQ or progressive conspiracy to brainwash children into becoming gay, lesbian or transgender. The goal is for LGBTQ inclusion and equality. Yet to the majority dominant group, inclusion and equality appears as a threatening power grab that is harmful. Cis, trans, straight, gay can all be included in society. Ironically, the opposite of the situation you describe above is very prevalent and causes a lot of harm. LGBTQ kids undergo enormous marginalization/ostracization/stigmatization. Abuse toward LGBTQ teens is prevalent - such that they often mask their identity and suffer. Their rates of psychological problems and suicide is much higher than the general population. Why don’t you feel concern for these kids? Why aren’t you a advocate for them and willing to fight for them?

There seems to be judgements of what is “good” and “bad” as well as a rationalization of that judgement as being “right”. Of course a household with heterosexual parents can be healthy, it can also be unhealthy. As well, a household with lesbian or gay parents can be healthy. You don’t seem to be seeing this through other perspectives and relative experience. . . A man you judge as insufficiently masculine is as “natural” as you are. The relative experience of a human being that identifies as man or masculine is as true and natural as the relative experience of a human being that identifies as a woman or feminine. There is a young man that has an inner desire to be more masculine, yet didn’t have the resources as a child. There is a young man that resonates with femininity, yet suffers because society tells him there is something “wrong” with you. There is a young man that is gay or desires to be a transgender woman, yet suffers because others have projected onto him that he is not normal and needs to be someone he is not. Marginalization/ostracization of gender is a major cause of neuroses, depression and suicide in young adults. I would love the person. If they asked me for help to learn about their true self and grow, I would try to help them. I wouldn’t say “No, that’s actually not who you are. You need help to be someone I think you should be”. If someone told me they desired more confidence and assertiveness, I would try to help them with that. If someone told me they desired to get in touch with their emotions and learn how to be vulnerable, I would help them with that. I wouldn’t project onto them what I think they should be. For me, that doesn’t feel loving and being truly helpful. I’ve found it helpful to spend time with actual LGBTQ people, learn and observe how natural they are.

Perhaps more “helpful” questions might be: How can we accept and love him without projecting onto him that he is incomplete and needs “help” to develop masculine traits? How can we help men that judge other men as being insufficiently masculine in need of “help”?

People resonate differently with each psychedelic. If you want strong CEVs perhaps try psychedelics that generally give strong CEVs like dmt, ayahuasca or 4-ho-met.

@cetus56 Like when a neutron star meets a black hole. . .

Monty Python is another form of insanity...............................

On the comedown of a 5-meo trip, I saw images of scientists in a sandbox trying to figure out how the scoops, shovels and buckets worked. Yes, it looked like a joke.

@onacloudynight I won't judge whether anyone's relative experience qualifies as insanity. . . Yet it seems that you have a contextualization of insanity that is different than mine. That is fine, yet we can't communicate well on the topic because we are on different frequencies. @ttom A can of worms got opened up!!

@Forrest Adkins Where do you think intelligence comes from?

This is a theoretical abstraction in your mind. You don't have direct experience or empathic understanding. Your empathic abilities are not strong enough to do it indirectly, so you would need to actually go through the insanity and torture yourself. . . Yet I would never advise someone to do this, since it is very traumatizing to the mind and body. To me, intellectualizing this is a form of mental masturbation with little benefit. The deeper understanding is through direct experience. Yet it is not the type of direct experience someone volunteers for. It just happens.

For a lot of people, this type of transcendence can be like losing one's mind. It can feel groundless and scary. Things like no-self and no free will, can be intriguing and engaging to discuss on internet forums. Yet the actual direct experience can be scary. This can take various forms and have various degrees of intensity. For some people it can be relatively intense, for others not so much. For some, it seems more like depression or existential angst. Similar to what you say, I've had moments that felt like I was losing my mind and I let go and it became ok. There can be other dynamics as well. I'm fine talking about it with people that are working through insanity because they are in it. I volunteered in a psychiatric hospital for years. I would sit and talk with patients. Actually, I mostly listened to them without any judgement. Just with acceptance and love. . . Yet discussions that are speculative are counter-productive. People create all sorts of stories in their heads. "Oh my gosh!! I thought I was doing ok on the spiritual path, yet I didn't know about the demons I read about on a forum that I will need to face. This is awful, I don't know if I can handle it". Human minds will make up all sorts of stories. They reach for the blissful stories and push away the scary stories. . . There is no good in planting a scary story seed in someones mind. I wouldn't worry about a deeper form of scary that may arise. That creates LOA energy. If it does, it does. If it doesn't, it doesn't. Whatever appears, appears.

Reminds me of the time I was looking for my keys. I search all over and couldn't find them. I started getting frustrated and thought maybe my gf hid them for some reason. The thought story intensified and I got really frustrated. Until I realized they were in my jacket pocket the whole time. It was wearing a ski jacket that had a couple oddly-placed pockets. The keys were in an odd pocket I never use. Then I asked, “who put my keys in the odd pocket? Could I have put them there? But that wouldn't make any sense. Why would I hide the keys from myself?” . . .

The term "insane" is used in various contexts. For example, insane can mean eccentric, abnormal, nonconformist or weird. Insanity might be a form of genius or crazy good. "Dude, you just hit a hole-in-one!!! That shot was insane!!". . . Or insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results". The OP is using the term "insanity" in a relatively benign context. There is another form of psychotic insanity that is much much more intense and horrifying. There are various forms and it's really hard to describe. If someone does enough psychedelics, they are likely to enter insanity zones. . . . I just wrote here about one of mine, yet I think it's best I delete it. It depends on context. In terms of an eccentric, weird or crazy kind of insanity, that is a reasonable question. Yet it still assumes an element of sanity. There are forms of psychotic insanity that are tortuous. It would be like asking "Why not just enjoy the torture no matter how extreme it is?".

This is a complex question. Keep in mind that I am only talking about the genetics here. This is just one piece of the puzzle. There are many variables at play. At a genetic level, we know that trauma induces epigenetic alterations. This is a simplified example. . . . The gene cortisol produces the hormone cortisol which causes stress and anxiety. At times we want the cortisol gene turned on at various levels. For example, if I am trying to be productive a little bit of cortisol is a good thing to keep me going. If I am lost in the woods with bears, high levels of cortisol can be a good thing to help me survive. . . When someone goes through trauma, genes like cortisol can get misregulated. Imagine a normal level of everyday cortisol is 2/10. A person with PTSD might be at a 5/10. They have chronically higher levels of cortisol and are more vulnerable to spiking up higher to a 9/10. The trauma induced an epigenetic alteration. The quality of the cortisol didn't change, the quantity of it changed. This is due, in part, through methylation. Small methyl (-CH3) groups are placed on regulatory regions of genes that alter the quantity of the product. Things like neglect/abuse/trauma tend to hyper-methylate regions throughout the genome. This causes widespread alterations in the quantity of gene expression. This altered methylation pattern can exist through one's lifetime and passed on to children. So your question is essentially: Can purifying yourself correct the altered methylation patterns? Imo, this is a really important question in terms of neuroscience and therapy. It is a cutting edge question and we just don't know. I would love to see more research go into this area. For example, what is the effect of psychedelic therapy on these methylation patterns? What about yoga? Meditation? Walks in nature? Improved diet? Shamanic breathing? Therapy? Acupuncture . . We know very little. We do know that practices like yoga and meditation alter brain activity that persists. For example, in one study non-meditators practiced meditation for a few months. The participants had increased brain mass/activity in a region of the brain associated with empathy and reduced mass/activity in a region of the brain associated with fear. . . However there haven't yet been studies looking at specific gene methylation patterns. I wish these studies could occur, yet they can be difficult to do and it's hard to get funding. Yet early studies are promising. For example war veterans with PTSD that showed improvement with EMDR therapy showed reversal of hyper-methylation patterns in a few key areas, suggesting reversal is possible. . . Personally, I think we are just scratching the surface. I think various types of spiritual practices such as yoga and meditation can correct hyper-methylation. As well, researchers are now designing drugs to correct hyper-methylation patterns. We currently have a crude map. We will learn better how to do it. . . Decades in the future, we will have much higher resolution maps and they will be personalized. For example, a war veteran with PTSD would have their own unique profile. Perhaps his profile includes hypermethylation patterns that can be relieved through EMDR combined with a type of medicine. Another person that has childhood PTSD may have a different profile and might respond better to Reiki and a different med. Another person with another profile might respond better to a support dog and meditation. Another person with psychedelic therapy. We just don't have high resolution maps at this point. I also want to stress again that this is just one variable of many. People tend to get tunnel-vision and think "So that's my problem, I'm screwed up epigenetically from my trauma. Now I am programmed this way". This is a major misinterpretation and can make the person's condition worse. . . It would be like a Chinese person embarking on a trip through Europe and thinking "Ahh, I just need to learn German and then I'll be able to travel through Europe without a problem". Learning German is great and would be helpful, yet it is just one component of being able to travel through Europe successfully.

Selective breeding and artificial selection is traditional Mendelian genetics that involve gene sequences. Sadhguru is also pointing beyond that to epigenetics. There are important mechanistic differences between Mendelian inheritance and epigenetic inheritance. . . The experiments Sadhguru talked about with how mice inherited a fear to cherry blossom smell is not selective breeding or artificial selection. The parent mice that received electric shocks learned to fear to cherry blossom smell. They passed this on to their offspring - not through genetics or teaching their offspring - They passed on the fear through epigenetic modification of chromosomal structure - which is a mechanism distinct from selective breeding and artificial selection. Epigenetics is one form of "teaching" and "memory". The parent mice learned to fear the chemical acetophenone (the cherry blossom smell) due to electric shocks. The parents responded by altering their gene expression to detect and fear the smell of acetophenone. For example, they produced more M71 receptors to detect very low levels of acetophenone so they can avoid it. They also epigenetically altered the chromosomal structure in their sperm and eggs - to transmit this "memory" to their offspring and "teach" them to avoid acetophenone. There were no alterations in gene sequence, no selective breeding or artificial selection. . . . The parents learned to fear acetophenone and passed this fear on to the offspring epigenetically. The epigenetically altered sperm and egg produced offspring mice with brains constructed to fear and avoid the smell of acetophenone. For example, the offspring upregulated the expression of the M71 gene. . . If mice could think they might think "I have no idea why I'm afraid of cherry blossoms. Maybe I was terrorized by a cherry blossom in a previous life. Haha.". . . Epigenetics is still relatively new, yet the fundamentals are mainstream now. It should be taught as standard genetics in high school and university curriculum. I only addressed a portion of what Sadhguru talked about - the part relative to epigenetics. He was speaking in a much broader context that included much more than epigenetics.

Below is a peer-reviewed scientific article in a high level journal PNAS. It shows a significant correlation between childhood neglect/abuse/trauma and widespread epigenetic alterations that persist well after the initial trauma. https://www.pnas.org/content/110/20/8302 The below paper is a peer-reviewed summary of scientific evidence that shows an enduring epigenetic effect of trauma exposure that is passed to offspring transgenerationally via epigenetic inheritance. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5977074/pdf/brainsci-08-00083.pdf