Carl-Richard

Why are people so afraid of society? All this talk of being an original, independent thinker, not brainwashed by the herd; when taken to this extreme, is just narcissism and autism. You can make a meaningful and tangible contribution to the human project, or you can hide out in your ivory tower of highfalutin masturbatory non-existence. What is really the most courageous, virtuous, conscious and loving option if you have the choice? The Bodhisattva chose to be a sheep.

Opeth recently got a new and young drummer, and now the live performances sound almost like the studio version: The solo and the parts after couldn't have sounded more tight.

This topic devolved into a sad mixture of meta-ironic guru double-speak and sarcastic jokes. it's almost like somebody is going to be thrown out from the forum again.

Yes, you must eventually let go of the guru, or of the meditation practice, but it doesn't negate their value whatsoever.

Why is that a problem when looking for truth in itself is also a fundamental misunderstanding? After all, that is why Neo-Advaita exists. Why are you against Neo-Advaita? Why is doing any spiritual practice necessary when that only perpetuates the illusion?

It's not stale. It's just simple and ubiquitous. If you have a desire to be original and push the envelope of human cognition, you can do that outside of spirituality. The "state > growth" position is why it's better described as psychonautics. If a state is not integrated into your being and made into a platform for organic growth, then it's either forgotten or outsourced to the intellect, and the latter is inherently anti-spiritual.

Then it's impossible to awaken, with or without a guru, because if you're not awake, you're by definition constructing dualities, e.g. that there is even a truth to be found. You can never circumvent that problem in parts. You have to address the structure behind it, and a teacher is way too helpful for that to not take use of.

The teacher is literally you. You're constructing a duality.

I think what Leo is doing is different from spirituality. Call it psychonautics or something. There are many things Leo is doing that I would consider unspiritual, and there are other things which expand on such insights, and I think the desire to call other spiritual gurus "not awake" is a manifestation of both.

This guy got banned from competitions for winning too much. True freak.

We were talking about spiritual freaks earlier, so I'll arrogantly mention myself (I don't give a shit ): I had a sober awakening experience the third time I had ever sat down with the intention to meditate for an extended period of time. I haven't meditated for over 2 years and I still have regular moments of no mind.

@Nilsi wut. He doesn't literally have 8 arms. That's just a meme ? Steve Vai has probably the largest hands of any famous rock guitarist, and he is also one of the greatest. That said, he used to practice 12 hours every day. I believe he was talking about Allan Holdsworth in the clip (who also had massive hands).

The story of your life.

Probably the most harmonically and melodically complex song I've heard in a while.

People generally go to parties so they can stop thinking. You're better off trying to teach them meditation.

Most of these people are primarily mystics, not intellectuals, philosophers or psychologists. Nisargadatta was illiterate.

I would expect a long list if it what you're saying is truly the case.

That's it? Two people?

What are your examples of great and serious intellectuals, psychologists, philosophers?

I went for an evening walk some days ago and felt like truly laying down my defenses and experience my authentic self at that moment. What I felt as my heart opened up was a flood of memories and moods from a very specific time of my life, before I was a teenager, and along with it a feeling of emotional vulnerability and the need for intimacy. Then last night, I watched this video of Ken Wilber talking about shadows and explaining them through an evolutionary lens that I've previously not seen the full implications of: He talked about how all evolution follows the motions of "transcend and include", and that either one of those can get out of order (you can either transcend too much and forget to include, or vice versa). If you transcend too fast without properly including earlier aspects of yourself, you'll split off that part of yourself as an unconscious sub-personality, which will actually have that age of when it split off. So then it clicked, that what I experienced that evening as I peeled back my defenses, was that former piece of myself that I had split off: the emotionally vulnerable part of myself that desired personal connection and intimacy. It was visceral, as I literally felt like I wanted to hug and hold someone, and again, as a rather young version of myself, around the time I actually had girlfriends. Then I started thinking about why I split it off. Then I started thinking about how I've been trying to integrate what I call "Red Andrew Tate energy", which I also know I've been repressing, but not in the same way (it goes much deeper). Was maybe my path to asserting my need for vulnerability through exactly that — assertiveness? How counterintuitive is that? Maybe I was always too vulnerable and too lacking in assertiveness, and the defense mechanism was to close it off and hide it away, rather than letting it flow outwards ("internalizing" instead of "externalizing"; a classic pattern for me). So then, my path of integrating the shadow (my understanding of it and how it has been shaping my life), has become even more clear: I have to develop my assertiveness in order to regain my vulnerability. It's almost paradoxical, but it makes the most sense that way.

The Infinite Gods video seemed completely redundant to me, so I guess yes?

He is not on the street begging for cash is what I meant.

Do you think he is talking to you — a 4-digit poster on his forum — or a stray YouTube surfer who just finished five bong rips?

@RMQualtrough That is probably a jab at me Well, if you view my my latest post in context with earlier discussions on the same topics, you can view it as a tacit critique of him being maybe too individualistic with how he uses language. Maybe it's not such a good thing to use words like "awakening", "intelligence", "love" or "solipsism" to convey the type of insights he is talking about.

You just have to unpack what those things mean. Being a self-actualized entrepreneur who has transcended survival needs, who is interested in existence, who is not particularly invested in any social games, AND has taken hundreds of trips of the strongest class of psychedelics known to man? That is probably very unique, and all of those things feed directly into what he means by awakening, likewise with intelligence. It sounds arrogant on the surface if you project your own definitions of those words, but it's actually too humble imo.