bryan johnson looks like a drug addict

[Leo Gura]

Look at timestamp: 1:57:27 he reveals a lack of God-realization in that Jim thinks only the self is a dream, not the physical world. This is a shallower level of consciousness. Of course the physical world is a dream! What else could it be? How could there be a difference between self and world? And world and dream!

Jim is talking about a deep no-self realization. That's all very great. However, God is far beyond that.

Edited 7 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Sugarcoat]

 

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

This is really good. He is spot-on.

To me he has been the most obviously "non dual" , just the simplicity and straightforwardness. A person couldn't "fake" talking like him

[Leo Gura]

34 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

To me he has been the most obviously "non dual" , just the simplicity and straightforwardness. A person couldn't "fake" talking like him

No one claims he's faking it.

But is not anywhere close to fully conscious of GOD.

No-Self is not enough for GOD.

[integral]

33 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No one claims he's faking it.

But is not anywhere close to fully conscious of GOD.

No-Self is not enough for GOD.

Hes implying everything is magic, what is there to realize beyond that?

Doesnt magic imply infinity? 

Edited 5 hours ago by integral

[Sugarcoat]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

No one claims he's faking it.

But is not anywhere close to fully conscious of GOD.

No-Self is not enough for GOD.

Oh I didn’t refer to your other comments when I replied, I simply built on your comment of him being spot on. So yea I get that you’re making a different claim. 

[Davino]

3 hours ago, integral said:

Hes implying everything is magic, what is there to realize beyond that?

Doesnt magic imply infinity? 

[integral]

43 minutes ago, Davino said:

??? whats the difference? Reality is magic therefore anything is possible therefore that's infinity.

[oOo]

Mr. Newman seems particulalry performative.

Absence of any signs of adequate affective empathy is not a bumper sticker for enlightenment. 

Something that has slipped by niches within this demographic concerning this subject as a whole.

Psychopathy and non-dualism is perfectly compatible.

And so is non-duality and empathy.

This is the distinction between moral centrism and generative morality I brought up earlier:

Nondual experience will likely render moral centric stances incompatible with ones own organic generative morality obsolete, rather than brain damage to the ability to adequately empathise. A moral compass, is first and foremost functional (nervous system) not structural (social programming). Generative morality differs by sex, hormones, genetics and has epigenetic effects from culture and environment like most other standard functional resolves of similar complexity, like the way fluid intelligence tends to be presently measured.

Non-dualists indicating to be more enlightenment by lacking affective empathy is likely the result of simply falling higher on the narcissism and psychopathy spectrum.

People are naturally more likely to be attracted to non-dualists that fall higher on the psychopathy spectrum simply because they also tend to be more charismatic speakers.

This isnt demonisation, it is characterisation and determination. People are far more easily to be misled if they take every claim of people falling higher on this spectrum at face value. Zero emotional response to killing babies is probably a red flag, and comedic gestures thereto, at the very least a yellow flag.

Absence of empathy, or, wisdom that just seems performative, does not mean one cannot learn anything from a teacher, it means the architecture of the learning experience, like the categories of how learning is filtered and funnelled, needs better performance metrics from the learner.

Psychopathy does not equal extreme danger, this demonisation needs to be refined, it actually means less biases in some areas but enormous blindspots in others. Psychopathy and spiritual teaching is compatible, but its compatibility is very different, and one where a more experienced student is probably more appropriate to discern rather than a beginner starting off with a psychopath.

[Schizophonia]

6 minutes ago, oOo said:

Mr. Newman seems particulalry performative.

Absence of any signs of adequate affective empathy is not a bumper sticker for enlightenment. 

Something that has slipped by niches within this demographic concerning this subject as a whole.

Psychopathy and non-dualism is perfectly compatible.

And so is non-duality and empathy.

This is the distinction between moral centrism and generative morality I brought up earlier:

Nondual experience will likely render moral centric stances incompatible with ones own organic generative morality obsolete, rather than brain damage to the ability to adequately empathise. A moral compass, is first and foremost functional (nervous system) not structural (social programming). Generative morality differs by sex, hormones, genetics and has epigenetic effects from culture and environment like most other standard functional resolves of similar complexity, like the way fluid intelligence tends to be presently measured.

Non-dualists indicating to be more enlightenment by lacking affective empathy is likely the result of simply falling higher on the narcissism and psychopathy spectrum.

People are naturally more likely to be attracted to non-dualists that fall higher on the psychopathy spectrum simply because they also tend to be more charismatic speakers.

This isnt demonisation, it is characterisation and determination. People are far more easily to be misled if they take every claim of people falling higher on this spectrum at face value. Zero emotional response to killing babies is probably a red flag, and comedic gestures thereto, at the very least a yellow flag.

Absence of empathy, or, wisdom that just seems performative, does not mean one cannot learn anything from a teacher, it means the architecture of the learning experience, like the categories of how learning is filtered and funnelled, needs better performance metrics from the learner.

Psychopathy does not equal extreme danger, this demonisation needs to be refined, it actually means less biases in some areas but enormous blindspots in others. Psychopathy and spiritual teaching is compatible, but its compatibility is very different, and one where a more experienced student is probably more appropriate to discern rather than a beginner starting off with a psychopath.

Why do you say it’s a psychopath 

[Sugarcoat]

10 hours ago, PsychedelicEagle said:

lol

Bryan is vegan btw, so he wouldn't eat babies — at most extract their plasma and plug it together with 5-MeO, for maximum longevity.

You’re like the Bryan Johnson of this forum so I bet you’d do that too😅

I’m having fun exposing you guys 

[Sugarcoat]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

 

Well, luckily weed alone is enough for me, so your babies are safe. For now.

Also, eating babies sounds expensive, and I'm cheap, so that doesn't jibe with me.

Stoner hippie Leo 

[Sugarcoat]

53 minutes ago, oOo said:

Mr. Newman seems particulalry performative.

Absence of any signs of adequate affective empathy is not a bumper sticker for enlightenment. 

Something that has slipped by niches within this demographic concerning this subject as a whole.

Psychopathy and non-dualism is perfectly compatible.

And so is non-duality and empathy.

This is the distinction between moral centrism and generative morality I brought up earlier:

Nondual experience will likely render moral centric stances incompatible with ones own organic generative morality obsolete, rather than brain damage to the ability to adequately empathise. A moral compass, is first and foremost functional (nervous system) not structural (social programming). Generative morality differs by sex, hormones, genetics and has epigenetic effects from culture and environment like most other standard functional resolves of similar complexity, like the way fluid intelligence tends to be presently measured.

Non-dualists indicating to be more enlightenment by lacking affective empathy is likely the result of simply falling higher on the narcissism and psychopathy spectrum.

People are naturally more likely to be attracted to non-dualists that fall higher on the psychopathy spectrum simply because they also tend to be more charismatic speakers.

This isnt demonisation, it is characterisation and determination. People are far more easily to be misled if they take every claim of people falling higher on this spectrum at face value. Zero emotional response to killing babies is probably a red flag, and comedic gestures thereto, at the very least a yellow flag.

Absence of empathy, or, wisdom that just seems performative, does not mean one cannot learn anything from a teacher, it means the architecture of the learning experience, like the categories of how learning is filtered and funnelled, needs better performance metrics from the learner.

Psychopathy does not equal extreme danger, this demonisation needs to be refined, it actually means less biases in some areas but enormous blindspots in others. Psychopathy and spiritual teaching is compatible, but its compatibility is very different, and one where a more experienced student is probably more appropriate to discern rather than a beginner starting off with a psychopath.

I think you’re reading into it too much