Forestluv

There is absolute Perfection of what is Now. Yet does this extinguish relative perfection? If an alcoholic beats his wife and kids, would his excuse “Your trauma and suffering is Perfection” suffice? In an absolute sense, it is Perfection, in a relative sense it is not. In the vertical axis of Now, all is Perfect and there is nothing to do. In the horizontal axis of time, there is forward motion toward development, evolution and maturation - and lots of stuff to do. Both are the same coin. A flower or tree is Perfect Now and need not strive toward Perfection. Yet that flower and tree also strives toward perfection through time. It is continuously Perfect through the process of perfection. I’m Perfect Now, yet I also work to purify myself toward perfect clarity. My imperfections are Perfect.

I’m sure this varies among women, yet I’m curious in general how high this is one in terms of actual attraction. For example, on a date a woman mentions she has an art hobbiest and shows a couple photos of her work. The guy is genuinely impressed and appreciates her creative ability. She mentions she is participating in an art exhibit and he genuinely wants to go. After the show, he becomes really interested in her, beyond her looks. Before their next date, he buys a couple art utensils he thought she may like. He doesn’t know much about art, yet it is a genuinely kind and sweet gesture. He is not doing all this manipulatively to get laid. I imagine most guys don’t think this type of interest beyond looks is that important to a woman - she just says it is. Much higher on the list is status, wealth and physical attractiveness of the male. Do you think there is some truth to this? Or are men grossly underestimating the importance of interest beyond looks?

There is the absolute perfection of what is and the relative perfection we strive for. A bit of a paradox. I’m Perfect, yet also a work in progress. If I say “I’m Perfect as is, there is nothing to do”’ I miss out on purifying my imperfections and becoming more clear. If I say “I am imperfect and need to work toward perfection”, I miss out on the Perfection of Now.

That is a difficult life situation to be in. It’s hard for me to imagine dealing with a life-long lover and partner in life dying from terminal cancer. The anxiety and powerlessness of it. . . I hope JP recovers well.

I may have misinterpreted what you wrote or taken it out of context. That was not my intention. As you wrote, sometimes not addressing nuances can increase clarity - yet sometimes not addressing nuances can decrease clarity. It can be challenging to balance. It something I go through a lot with my students. I am not trying to argue with you. It’s not “me vs. you” and “right vs wrong” . I posted a link above that supports your claim. . . saying that you are right. . . Rather than arguing as me vs you, right vs wrong - I prefer to explore. For example, in what ways are the arousal mechanisms the same between men and women? In what ways are they different? Together, I bet we could come up with many aspects that are the same and many that are different. That is awesome you are a medical student. I am a professor at a University that teaches med students. It’s a great career and I wish you the best. What area of medicine would you like to specialize in?

By saying there are differences, does not exclude aspects of sameness. Overall, similarities. In terms of science, recent studies of neural imaging found very similar brain responses to sexual imagery between men and women: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.inverse.com/amp/article/57689-meta-analysis-sexual-arousal-brain-differences-men-and-women In this context, it would be fair to say that the responses are very similar (although I would say “the same” is a bit of a stretch). Yet in other contexts, there are clear differences. A woman can become repeatedly sexually aroused dozens of times in a short time period - having 10+ consecutive orgasms and getting re-aroused between each one. Men physiology is very different. Men have a much longer refractory period and are pretty much “one and done”. In this context, men and women are very different. At a highly technical level, we can’t even say two men have the “same” physiology of arousal (or two women).

It’s not a contest of who is smarter. I don’t know of the context of that statement, yet taken on it’s own - it would need very imaginative definitions of the terms “same”, “physiology” and “arousal” to make it true. Men and women have differences within endocrine, neural and muscular systems - which has differential effects on sexual arousal. Of course there will be similarities, yet also differences. It would be fair to say “men and women have some similarities regarding the physiology of arousal”, yet claiming “the same” is absurd. And this only addresses the physical - there are many relative differences as well. Appealing to authorities can create a dynamic in which a person is confined to a contracted view and erroneously tries to extrapolate that to apply to a larger view.

Omg no. ?

I didn’t say it was. I said “when a man says”, not “when Mikael89 says”. Even if sex isn’t the primary motivation for you, you are missing several aspects - as many women are trying to explain to you. Notice how women aren’t saying “Yes, yes! Mikael89 you’ve got it. You understand us.” Rather, they are saying “No, no Mikael89, you are not understanding. I’ll try to explain again”. To me, this indicates that you are missing something and misunderstanding something.

Well, a “romantic relationship” certainly sounds softer than “getting a woman”. Yet, what you mean by “romantic relationship” may be different than what most women are attracted to. It seems many men may use the term “romantic relationship” as it may be softer and more appealing - yet deep down it seems sex is primary in “romantic”. What is being expressed in this thread is that there is more breadth and depth that most women desire. There are emotional connections, mutual support and a sense of partnership. Men can say they want these things, yet it’s pretty obvious when a man says “romance”, yet really means “sex” and sees the woman as a sexual object. When a man says “romantic relationship”, it’s usually code for “sexual relationship” and sometimes code for “fuck buddy”. It’s not the terminology you use, it is the underlying orientation. One way to expand from this is to form meaningful platonic relationships with women. Yet most men are not interested in that because the sex is by far the highest priority.

I would look at what it means for you “to get a woman”. That may be unattractive to most women. I find it unattractive.

@SQAAD If fear of suffering is the only thing interfering with your eternal happiness, why not give up that fear and be happy all the time? What is preventing you from giving up that fear? And is absence of the fear of suffering sufficient for happiness?

@mandyjw Beautiful writing and imagery. ?

That sounds like an amazing opportunity. It reminded me of the film Samsara - which captures an essence of awakening through travel, culture and nature.

@Nivsch What if Net. cant’t form a unified government? Will there be a stalemate and nothing gets done? Could he go an authoritarian route and claim executive privilege like Trump? Could he call for another election? He doesn’t seem like someone who will accept loss of power.

You raise a common conundrum: what if awakening to Truth is not beneficial to me? From a personal perspective, I can see value in being unaware of Truth. Similar to learning the Truth of a magic trick. In some ways, it ruins the fun. As you suggest, there is value in living aligned with one’s personal truth. This is the area of personal development. As well, a lot of spirituality involves living a meaningful personal life. Yet there comes a time in spirituality in which continuing means the transcendence of the personality. The realization that “me” doesn’t exist like I thought it did. The downside of that is that the gig is up. The game is kinda over for the ego. And the ego will not like that at all - so it usually involves considerable discomfort at times. On the flip side, there is also liberation and new deeper appreciation for reality. Yet one doesn’t get to “test drive” this before they begin.

Like I said, we are not on the same frequency and I am unable to connect and communicate with you. I wish you well. Maybe we will connect on something else in the future, maybe not.

From my POV, I am trying to explain prinsof to someone unaware of prinsof. Which is fine. It happens.

I liked how Leo addressed the question of whether one should even take a spiriruitual seeking path at the end of his 10 Ox video. Profound stuff.

In terms of communication, it doesn’t work. It’s like speaking two different languages. I’m unable to connect, which is ok. It happens sometimes.

We are not on the same frequency and my input is not helpful here, which is fine. I wish you the best ? ❤️

No, that is not what I’m saying. I’ve tried to explain it many times to you and each time you want to immerse within a world of contextualization/conceptualization. When you do so, you won’t see it. For example, if you spent a week in nature - away from all people and technology - you would expand beyond your conceptual comfort zone. One may spend an hour admiring a flower, becoming the lower and realizing absolute infinity within a single pollen grain. Not creating constructs and models of the essence of a flower and how it represents absolute infinity. I can tell you have not these types of awakenings by the way you communicate. There is no way to fake through it. . . . Imagine someone who has never done scuba diving trying to convince a scuba diving instructor what the experience is like. This person can spend months reading about scuba diving, speaking to scuba divers and imagining what scuba diving is like. They may go snorkeling and think it’s like scuba diving. . . Yet it will be clear to the scuba diving instructor this person has not experienced actual scuba diving.

You are using an idea of “direct experience” to elevate experience/ideas to higher truth. Notice the obsession to go “beyond infinity”, to extraordinary levels on SD - coral, teal, ruby, whatever. To rank the conscious levels of all forum users, moderators, Leo and nonduality speakers. To post insights only you have received and to gain admiration on the forum. Notice how your threads and posts have become more and more dramatic that attracts attention. As soon as you say “my direct experience was. . . “ it is no longer direct experience - it is contextualized experience that is occurring within direct experience. Direct experience is Now - whatever contextualization you give Now is a contextualized experience. Yes, there are no words to describe the ineffable. It’s not about the words. It’s the relationship with what the words are referring to. You don’t seem willing to look at the attachment/identification to experience. Presenting experience, images and ideas as “direct experience” does not grant immunity. I’m sure you have had insights that are difficult to put in words. Yet as of now, it is a tangled mess lacking clarity.

This is the center of the knot. What emanates from this is secondary. You are like a spider that has become caught in its own web.