actualizing25

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    262

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by actualizing25

  1. Posted

    @Leo Gura Do you think it's morally wrong if you live off the taxes of other people, just so you dont have to work and are free to for example pursue enlightenmenf full-time? I know some people here in Germany, who havent worked for years and decades and who are taking advantage of the welfare system. It isnt that much money, but they say that you can live from that money.

    Imagine you are free everyday. I would do spiritual practices all day long, meditate for 12h, everyday. Thats a lifestyle Im considering for myself, but I somehow think that its wrong, because you live off the taxes of other people. But on the other hand, maybe the government would waste these taxes for other things.

  2. Posted

    @Leo Gura There are social systems (for example, where I live in Germany) that make it possible not to work anymore while they are giving you money to surivive. Its not very much, but if you are minimalistic you could live with that money. You would have escaped wage slavery and had enough time to pursue enlightenment full-time. You would leech off society, thats true, but better give the money to poor people or people who dont want to work than to waste it for war or other stupid things.

  5. Posted

    52 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    1) Because to become that successful requires a giant ego and obsessiveness which turns into an addiction.

    2) Simply because they don't even know enlightenment exists. 99% don't know! The Social Matrix does not make you aware of enlightenment and most people are totally lost in the Social Matrix.

    Maslow's model is not really good for explaining mystical or enlightenment-prone people.

    The cold hard truth about mystical and enlightenment prone-people is that they are born with special genetics which give them naturally higher states of consciousness than normies. Rarely will a normie turn into an enlightenment-prone person. Most people who become enlightened were usually spiritual and conscious from a young age. Their enlightenment was just a natural fruition of that, rather than a case of them working through Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

    Most of your celebrities and business people are folks with low spiritual intelligence.

    Then again, there are exceptions. Jim Carey for example.

    For me it is not understandable that successful people dont care about enlightenment because someone, who is very successful is in general someone with very much ambition. They are successful because they want more out of life than the average Joe. So they chase success until they get it and after a while they get used to it.  Because of their personality type and ambition the next logcial step would be that they naturally seek for something higher, to want more out of life (this desire made them successful in the first place). So I can totally understand Maslows point here. But in reality it looks quite different. 

    Enlightenment and spirituality will become more and more popular within the social matrix. Even today more people know about it (thanks to people like Tolle) than 20 years ago.

    Regarding your last point: So you are saying that someone, who is interested in enlightenment and interserested in pursuing it, is someone who is more conscious than someone, who doesnt care about it?

  6. Posted

    If you look into the life of successful people or celebrities you see that all their needs except the need for Self-Transcendence are met. They obviously dont struggle with their basic needs like food or shelter. Im sure they get plenty of sex. In their position it is quite easy to meet your social needs like intimacy or friendship. Needs for status and approval are obviously easily met when you are a celebrity or successful. And many of these people have mastered one domain of their life, so their need of actualizing ones potential is also met, for example a successful musicians or actor etc.

    But why almost none of these people are concerned with Enlightenment? According to Maslow it would be natural, if your other needs are met that you think about Self-Transcendence, but in many cases that just dont happen. 

    I have also noticed that those people who are most concerned with enlightenment are those whose lower needs are not fully met.

     

    Whats your opinion?

  7. Posted · Edited by actualizing25

    Why is it that this reality before my eyes, this consciousness is the only thing that exists? Why is it me that is imagining all other beings and things, why is it not someoneelse, who is imagining me? I mean, This reality bubble I am currently inside is the only thing that exists. Why does God chose me to have the possibilty of waking up? Why not someoneelse? Why is not someoneelse experiencing this one reality, but me? If you really think about it, its a total mindfuck, that its just me, and none of you guys exists right now, because you are not inside my reality bubble right now. And isnt it the greatest gift of all that I am the "chosen one" because its just my reality? Too many questions...

  12. Posted

    So my main motivation for awakening is the promised happiness and peace all the gurus are talking about. Of course Im also interested in understanding reality and god, but that's not my main motivation/main focus. I dont want to escape any kind of suffering, because Im not suffering very much and my life is pretty good, but Im intuiting that there is something more to life than just materialism, something that brings real happiness. Im currently trying to let go of wanting lasting peace and happiness through enlightenment, but it's very hard. How can I bring myself to wanting to understand reality more and pursue awakening because of this motivation rather than the other one? Because Leo always says that if happiness or true fullfillment is your main motivation for awakening you will never reach it, which I dont understand because there are so many gurus, so many books written about it that are saying that it is possible.

     

    Whats your advice on that issue? Thank you very much. I appreciate every answer :D

  13. Posted

    @Superfluo Lets say there are different levels. Who says that self-understanding is a "better bias" than escaping suffering? What are the reasons for being so? See, Leo is biased towards self-understanding and is devaluing the other path and labels it as selfish and egoic and then other people who pursue enlightenment to escape suffering devalue the other path as egoic and selfish. From a meta-perspective we have two different parties who are denying the other one. But of course we can have a third party who pursues enlightenment to understand AND to escape suffering.

  14. Posted

    @Leo Gura But you can't deny that there are some people out there, who do enlightenment work to escape suffering and they become enlightened and end their suffering. So it is possible. Everyone has their own bias, when it comes to this work. Why not appreciate all biases instead of saying that one is better than the other?

  16. Posted

    Why is it that just a few people are interested in pursuing awakening/enlightenment? I mean it's the answer to all their suffering. It will bring them the happiness, love, peace they are desperately searching for. Why are they distracting themselves with materialistic pursuits such as money, success, fame etc. Isn't it obvious that enlightenment is the only answer to reach lasting happiness? Is it that they don't know about enlightenment? or are they not devevolped enough to grasp the importance of waking up?