lmfao

@FoxFoxFox Yeah I'm not sure what sort of environment makes someone like that man. The video he uploaded made me physically sick and he sounds borderline psychotic in his manifesto. On to the other point you made about how men are raised. Well the "detachment" that men are traditionally taught is not the same sort of detachment you learn form consciousness work. The word detachment can have different meanings and hence you might confuse what the word means in different contexts. You could probably look at whatever buddhist word people use for detachment, it probably has a more specific meaning for what is meant by detachment in consciousness work. The detachment you learn from Enlightenment work leads to you loving all parts of reality equally. It's about union with reality. Western masculinity has this schizophrenic attitude of "dominating" reality and "conquering" it, rather than becoming in tune with it.

@martins name What I like about Yang is that he seems like someone who can get along with all the different demographics in America. There are significant amounts of dysfunctional blue, dysfunctional orange and even dysfunctional green in America. Since I think Yang is above it all, I think he can push everyone forward. Yang is healthy green and healthy orange fused together imo. I don't know whats the case for Bernie, but I sense a more developed presence from Yang. That's just my two cents.

@Highest ego is just another part of reality, it isn't anymore further from "Truth" then anything else. Ofc you haven't contradicted that, I just feel it worth saying. Even the concepts of "delusion" and "illusion" are thoughts which are as "fictitious" as any other thought. Even the word "fictitious" is but a thought. Since "the ultimate truth" encompasses all words and thoughts you cannot use thoughts to contain and communicate its nature. This has created a paradox by the mere fact I type these thought stories. The ultimate truth cannot be adequetly spoken about, only felt.

@Highest It depends if you find it interesting or not. Everything is an illusion, but what parts of the illusion you find interesting is up to you. @Shadowraix Yeah I 100% agree with you tbh. At a fundamental level I have no scientific understanding of how "information" and "intelligence" works and so I'm ultimately undecided on how close brains and computers are at a literal level, but beyond the literal level the comparison is very true just in the realm of thinking about self actualisation. @Serotoninluv Yeah his dollar bill thought experiment was stupid. The largest stretch of a conclusion I derive from everything he said about that experiment is that even if a human brain were to "be like" a computer it would obviously be very different in important ways. The absence of having a photographic memory doesn't invalidate the brain to computer comparison at all. Yes exactly. It was indeed an argument from ignorance. It reminds me of religious people who demand that you have every single existing unknown be explained in scientific terms before they accept science, rather than looking at the knowns science has given. A religious fundamentalist might ask "how do randomly moving molecules form biological life" and the absence of an answer gives them justification to say that it must be God.

I dont think its possible to be weak in beige. As I understand it beige is the lowest common denominator, your starting point. But even if you say "If you weakest link is at purple, your development is actually at purple." I still think thats wrong. Peoples development is multifaceted and are multiple stages at a time. Yes

yeah true.

Quote by Noel Ignatiev. Pathological green at its worst, quite reminiscent of blue. Perhaps it is blue. The label you give such a thing is perhaps arbitrary anyway.

#YangGang

A student once asked his teacher, "Master, what is Enlightenment?" The master replied, "When hungry, eat. When tired, sleep."

@Aakash Sam Harris recently deleted and re-uploaded all of his YouTube videos within the span of a month, and so his view count has been messed up because of it. His previous podcasts have way more views than what is written on YouTube.

@Arcangelo Ah yes it was a massive burden off of my chest, but instead of my mind ruminating about whether I was sinful or ruminating about whether God exists, it ruminates about other things. Such is life.

@Jed Vassallo If most of what's written in that article is true, it would seem that at the very least Mooji is getting a few personal advantages from his followers if he's sleeping with them. Being enlightened has no direct relation to ethics, so this wouldn't surprise me. I can't say I have a good enough understanding about psychology and people to say whether sleeping with your students is always bad as a guru. Sex is a complicated thing. I can understand people having very great love and admiration for a guru. It's just something which can happen. And the article insinuated that these rituals they do are bad, but I think it could perhaps be the case these rituals are just like any other spiritual practice but the author of the article is twisting it. Nothing wrong with rituals. One thing I hope is not the case is that these followers have their non-dual experiences and emotions connected to some delusional belief structure. Back when I was still a Muslim, there were times when through deep prayer I'd feel very strong emotions due to a 100% conviction in the idea that all of reality is inherently good thanks to God and the existence of the afterlife. But looking back, those states I reached were attached to something external and phony in a sort of way. That isn't to say those states were not profound and meaningful, just that they partially arose from a place of delusion. And so whilst devotion is obviously powerful, I am extremely skeptical of people who would justify followers of a Guru to think that their Guru is some lofty, divine, infallible figure. That is just pure stage blue territory. And if a Guru is just teaching his followers to look inwards and do practices, I don't see why the followers should then think their Guru is a literal God in the duality sense of the word. The same way current christians might think of Jesus as being a God separate and above them. Ofc I don't know whats really the case for Mooji. But if he is encouraging his followers to worship him and do gestures of respect I would be suspicious. But if a guru is instead encouraging his followers to instead hug him and he hugs them back thats obviously different. Mooji doesn't be having to be telling his followers that he is some divine, infallible figure who is above them. It could always be much subtler, as the dynamics of any group are nuanced with shades of grey. There could still be cultish dynamics where Mooji is treated like a messiah. But then again, feeling of admiration for a person who's changed your life would be powerful enough to the point where you love that person completely and utterly and it would be natural. Regardless of what's the case, still listen to his teachings if they're good regardless of whats true about his life.

@Nervtine I suppose the sage answer to this would be whatever you do and whatever you feel, do it with a formless mind. Humans are diverse in their nature, I think that for the vast majority empathy is something natural. You can perhaps see empathy being like any other emotion you have and treat it like all other emotions. Whenever I've recently done meditation, I feel more caring and compassionate towards people. But it's a sort of universal love for all aspects of reality, good and bad. A love which is void of judgement for how reality expresses itself. And I feel as though that anyone in a non-dual state is in awe at the fact that there is existence at all, and is in "love" with all of it. There is one thing I will say though. I know that it is the case for myself and for probably many others, we are often nice and kind to people not because we genuinely care for them but because we are (at least subconsciously) afraid of the consequences of not being nice. Why do people in power become so corrupted? Because they can be selfish with no consequences. Their reasons for being nice beforehand were selfish. It is in this way that people experience a neurotic, corrupted form of empathy and put on a mask of being nice. It's selfishness masquerading as empathy. Whilst I think it is extremely rare, I wouldn't be surprised if there existed someone perfectly enlightened who had no qualms about killing someone and they would kill a person bugging them in the same way that they kill a fly bugging them. It isn't personal to them and in of in itself the action causes no problems for them. I don't know

@winterknight Do "bad" things inherently exist? I remember recently wondering after meditation why is it that certain sensations ( e.g. thirst, hunger, anxiety, fear) generate suffering and are deemed bad whilst other sensations generate pleasure. After meditation I'll sometimes think "suffering doesn't exist" and whilst that is a sloppy way of phrasing it it comes from the feeling I have that suffering is just a thought story. Even the idea I have that I am suffering is a thought, which I see as something which obfuscates things further. It's not necessarily whether suffering exists or not I'm wondering, I'm wondering whether suffering is inherently bad. It's not like I haven't suffered deeply before when I say this, I have been suicidal.

@Rujan Mehar Bajracha Listen from 00:00 till 02:20

The way I see it, everything is subjective. "Facts" don't really exist without some assumptions. Because facts are a construction within human language. Is the Law of Identity a fact? Is is objective to say 1=1? Or is that subjective again? We're using language and ultimately it all breaks down, and like you said it's a pointer. Writing pointers is good and all, everyone does it all the time. I mean at the end of the day we can all run their mouth for the fun of it since all these words are just noise within reality (so we can say literally anything it doesn't matter) , but the true self isn't a concept.

@DodoYour first equation "X - Awareness = Nothing (If I am not aware, I do not exist)" was constructed with the premise that everything about a human is nested within awareness, and you used that premise to then justify your premise. Nothings wrong with that, but you haven't gotten anywhere by using maths since you're using an axiom to verify the validity of that very axiom. It's circular logic. Everything is indeed nested within consciousness, but you're not going to illuminate that by using maths. But now we enter a semantic game. Is everything "awareness"? What does that word even mean? Or is reality just BANG BANG SPLISH SPLOSH WEEEEEEEEE WOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

I've only very recently got the book Kriya Secrets Revealed, I'm on lesson 8 so far. I've liked it all so far. I've liked Ujayi breathing in particular. Last few lessons of the book have been about visualising chakras, and visualising energy moving through your spine. I've done a few exercises and they've been good for calming down monkey mind. My question broadly is, what do you make out of chakra's in Kriya Yoga theory? Has anyone here had any deep experiences with chakras? As far as my experiences ago, ive had my forehead tingle a lot on a few occasions and I've also felt weird sensations on the upper part of my spine when doing normal meditation. Are these chakras "real"? Or does the prana and chakra model simply provide a good foundation for visualtion and breathing exercises, exercises which calm the mind? Like when it comes to chanting for example (whether it be "ohm", "mu" or any sort of sutra or mantra) my view is that these words are chanted not for their inherent meaning but that these words have sounds which serve as a good point for developing mindfullness. All of Kriya Yoga seems to have chakra theory underlying it. It's a bunch of concepts. But if these concepts have tangible weight, like say nutrition or psychedelics for example,I want to know. The thing I've noticed about chakras is that the idea I have that a particular chakra has a specific spacial location is based upon a concept I've heard, not based on direct experience. The book tells me a chakra is at the base of my spine, so I focus on the base of my spine. I sense "something" there and project some sort of meaning onto it. The problem here is that I could arbitrarily pick any other location on my body (e.g. My legs), sense something there, and project some sort of meaning to it if I wanted. The only thing I've had direct experience with is forehead tingling and a broad upper spinal tingling. Another thing is that when I'm doing deep meditation, I feel as though the visualition of chakra's perpetuates the illusion that I have or am a body. Which I why I see Kriya Yoga as something I'll do before regular meditation, and not as a replacement. It especially seems to perhaps perpetuate that illusion if I'm falsely projecting meaning onto my sensory experiences.

@Dodo I don't know how exactly you formulated the statement "X - Awareness = Nothing (If I am not aware, I do not exist)",but I wonder if you're using the same reasoning I'm about to demonstrate, with the reasoning being shown to be faulty. Whether or not brains or hearts exist or not is not the point, the point I'm making is that if a system can only exist in the presence of more than 1 variable then the system cannot exist in the absence of one of the variables (e.g. brain) but that does not mean the system can be reduced to that 1 variable. X-Brain=Nothing (without a brain I do not exist) ⇒ X= Brain However I could equally say: X-Heart=Nothing (without a heart I do not exist) ⇒ X=heart X=heart and X=brain ⇒ heart=brain However "heart"="brain" is a false statement. Your reasoning is perhaps likened to this. A= b + c + d ⇒ c+d≠A ⇒ A=b

@Highest I don't feel like you've addressed my questions fully. What do you mean when you say you can do anything you "vision and imagine"? As far as the true self goes, reality is perfect. So you're referring to the ego getting what it wants right? Are you saying that an increase in consciousness leads to the ego getting whatever it wants? You wrote: What is "something that can be done" supposed to mean? Things that are within the laws of physics? Why are these things that you can do not possible for most people? Do they involve supernatural/psychic powers?

@Highest Who is this "I" that can do anything they "vision and imagine"? The true self is all of reality. What makes you think that the contents of reality will fall in accordance to the ego's desires? The ego is simply a subset of the true self.

@Joseph Maynor I feel like the image is supposed to represent Sadhguru staring into your eyes and saying "Come on Shiva, stop hiding. You can't fool me." or maybe Sadhguru is staring at you to convey the words "Are you for real dude?". I love the gag, Shin always brings some humour to these threads.

@Highest I think I understand what you mean man. Is the point you've been trying to make is that one can go about their entire "normal" life with its activities with full non-dual awareness? I'm sure you're already aware of this, but its worth saying that someone with non-dual awareness would have happiness regardless of external circumstances (e.g. can you have sex). Perhaps some people in this thread think you've been implying the converse to my previous sentence, idk. @now is forever The way I see it, all @Highest has been trying from his original post is that non-dual awareness and high consciousness states are extended to all facets of your day to day life. The OP is referencing activities which can be extremely pleasurable (sex and smoking weed) to contrast the notion that some people have that you have to be a complete ascetic to be spiritual. It's not like the OP is saying that smoking weed and having sex are the most fulfilling things you can do, they're just examples of things you can do mindfully. Although it should be emphasised the neither weed or sex are needed to be happy and life a fulfilled life. It's about having non-dual awareness in all situations. Situations with "pain", situations with "pleasure". I mean what was so sad about what the OP said? He said he had sex with a girl a week ago, and that he said he wants to genuinely connect to people.

@Mikael89 What's wrong with getting a little puff and fucking bitches? Although not at the expense of life purpose and other things. Although I'm slightly confused by what the message of the OP is. The degree to which someone is enlightened is a scale. The degree to which someone is low or high consciousness is a scale. Everyone has insights and know truths, even if they haven't fully embodied them.

@Highest After having a Non-dual glimpse I thought "if reality is already perfect and effortless, whats the point of personal development?". And what i've realised is that even if reality is perfect, that doesn't mean that you're not gonna suffer and have neurotic thoughts. It's great if with Non-dual awareness you can do all the things you mentioned and the sort. It's probably what's ideal. But it's not easy to get to that point. It usually requires a lifestyle that revolves around purification. I like you saying you don't have to spend decades meditating to grow properly. It doesn't have to take that long to develop mindfullness and have glimpses of God awareness. But since people already know that, maybe I'm missing something about what point you're trying to make.