lmfao

@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.

@Wyze Cults keep their followers in line by toying around with the most primal and low consciousness aspects of their human nature. The desire for validation, love, fear, belonging, dogmatism, tribalism: these are all things which cults manipulate. The higher the level of consciousness of the followers, the less extreme the cult can be to get away with their shit. To me, spiral dynamics models what the natural course of development is for human perception and thinking. Why this development happens the way it does, I don't know. SD is modelling the sequence of how humans grow and change their perspective on things when they see their current perspective "isn't working" (with "working" being relative to some hard to define standard). It is because of this that being higher on the spiral is associated with being higher in your level of consciousness. But this is just a correlation. In my view, the difference between stage green and stage yellow is massive. Tier 1 and Tier 2 are very far apart. Hence the people in tier 2 are higher consciousness on average. "Cults" which work for tier 2 people will hence have to be more sophisticated and intellectual in their dogma, and will also have to be far more subtle about their manipulation. Cults for tier 2 will be less cultish. I'm calling a cult tier 2 if its followers are tier 2, not just the leader. I forgot what definition Leo uses for determining whether a group is a cult with a simple black and white answer. Regardless of that definition, I wouldn't be surprised if you can get tier 2 communities with significant cult dynamics.

I found this eerie quote from a book(I find it eerie because of a video I've seen). "You are not you--you have no body, no blood, no bones, you are but a thought. I myself have no existence; I am but a dream--your dream, a creature of your imagination. In a moment you will have realized this, then you will banish me from your visions and I shall dissolve into the nothingness out of which you made me In a little while you will be alone in shoreless space, to wander its limitless solitudes without friend or comrade forever—for you will remain a thought, the only existent thought, and by your nature inextinguishable, indestructible. But I, your poor servant, have revealed you to yourself and set you free. Dream other dreams, and better! Strange! that you should not have suspected years ago—centuries, ages, eons, ago!—for you have existed, companionless, through all the eternities. Strange, indeed, that you should not have suspected that your universe and its contents were only dreams, visions, fiction! Strange, because they are so frankly and hysterically insane—like all dreams: a God who could make good children as easily as bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave his angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice and invented hell—mouths mercy and invented hell—mouths Golden Rules, and forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites a poor, abused slave to worship him! You perceive, now, that these things are all impossible except in a dream. You perceive that they are pure and puerile insanities, the silly creations of an imagination that is not conscious of its freaks—in a word, that they are a dream, and you the maker of it. The dream-marks are all present; you should have recognized them earlier. It is true, that which I have revealed to you; there is no God, no universe, no human race, no earthly life, no heaven, no hell. It is all a dream—a grotesque and foolish dream. Nothing exists but you. And you are but a thought—a vagrant thought, a useless thought, a homeless thought, wandering forlorn among the empty eternities!" I remember watching this video a few years ago which led me to this quote

@Shadowraix If you're dealing with anyone who's a fundamentalist christian/muslim kiss your chances good bye. This is also applies for the ultra pragmatic, cringy materiallistic types of people. You could never convince them. Perhaps a Sam Harris style of approach works well? Sam Harris was the one who introduced me to meditation when I was big fan of his. I think its impossible to explain full blown non-duality straight away. I think the only thing you can do is point someone towards to the habit of doing these beneficial practices (meditation, yoga) for themselves, but not many people see the point in trying them. Sam Harris tells people about meditating and lack of free will without attacking the scientific paradigm. I remember he said in his talk about death (where he did a guided meditation) that "as a matter of experience" everything is consciousness and the present moment is all you can ever have. But Sam Harris proceeds to them say something along the lines of "but its not the case that everything is consciousness from the perspective of physics or science" so as to not come across as crazy to his audience.

I'll be trying to do a strong determination sit and my back starts out straight but it starts to slouch without me noticing. Should I just refrain from correcting? Something I've often done is that ill inhale very deeply as much as I can so as to force my back to be straighter without using my other muscles as much as possible (since in a strong determination sit there should be minimal movement of muscles besides the ones needed for breathing).

@MM1988 I remember when I had my first glimpse of non-duality I was looking at the urge one has to breathe. Are you creating that urge? Or is that urge simply there without "you" doing anything? And once you see that "you" didn't create that aspect of your experience (the breath), you can apply the same form of awareness to see that "you" haven't created anything else about your conscious experience. Existence itself is effortless, it is a spontaneous happening where the concept of cause of effect collapses. For every waking moment of your conscious experience you are always in a situation which you did nothing to create. If there is no past or future, then how could reality be anything but effortless?

Alright, thanks.

Im guessing that whatever country you go to only a small subset of people are "high consciousness". If I had to guess though, countries in which Eastern religion is popular will be the most "spiritual" on average. That doesn't mean these countries will be heaven on earth nor be absent of regressive societal attitudes. People are saying in this thread that India is the most high consciousness. Supposing that consciousness could be quantified, maybe it's the cause that the arithmetic mean of India's consciousness is higher than western countries but what if it's the case that their median consciousness is lower than western countries? Just a random thought to consider. Non-western countries are lower on the spiral in average, and whilst there isn't necessarily a causal link between level of consciousness and your position on the spiral I'd argue that there exists a correlation at the very least. Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, these religions all have their dogmas and even if they are all pointing towards the same thing at least Zen Buddhism for example doesn't moralise at you very much. Eastern Religions don't place much of an emphasis on having the right beliefs and dogmas, they place a higher emphasis on seeing reality clearly and acting in accordance with nature.

Good video. Breaking up is indeed hard to do, it's hard to admit you've been putting your energy in the wrong things completely.

Anyone else find that this technique makes their throat hurt a lot and dry out their mouth really quickly?

Nah I haven't seen the film. I might watch it. Sci-fi films can be nice, I remember watching They Live and it gave me an eerie but funny feeling inside.

@Leo Gura Good point. He has a small chnace of winning, although if by some miracle he ends up in a 1v1 with trump I wouldn't be too surprised if he won. Like you said though, voting simply for the highest stage is not always the best choice. They may not interact with the current system set up in the best way possible for both the long and short term improvement of the system. An extreme case of this would be trying to get a stage green person to lead a stage red society. As society is in America, I could see why you could argue for there to be a strong and blatant expression of green so that green has its place firmly cemented in society. He advocates for some pretty bold things. Universal Basic Income, wants the country to stop using GDP as a measure of success and shift towards measuring success in terms of human wellbeing and fulfillment. He's thinking long term about automation of jobs and about how so many people will probably lose their jobs.

Vote for Andrew Yang. He looks yellow as fuck to me. I'll just insert my 100% neutral opinion into the thread.