Moments

[remember]

@Serotoninluv i had experience with harm anxiety. it’s fascinating you say you are not psychic and still have harm anxiety - i‘m not saying that what you are experiencing is a prediction of what would happen in the future, i‘m just saying it is something you notice. i‘ m also not saying it’s emotions that are already in the room, but it might be that it’s more a noticing than an ocd.

i had this for a while with seeing people being slapped for being different, in front of my inner eye, there is a way of meditating that away - it’s ahimsa meditation. that’s how i call it, buddhists call it the way of not doing - i noticed if these feelings come up and i do ahimsa meditation not only i relax but oftentimes the person i saw being slapped relaxes too. or i even see them brightening up a lot in sense of mood.

i also noticed it only happened when the situation was already tense and there was some kind of weird atmosphere.

trying to recognize whom these attacks are directed towards can help definitely. it’s not happening often anymore and when it happened last time there was a clear change in consciousness in the whole segment of the subway i was standing in. just by being present (also sent out self love)

another way that might help you is starting doing massages, to find out about the soft hands, or healing hands, your body/mind might react differently afterwards. i‘m not sure if reiki will also help - probably it could.

Edited January 21, 2020 by remember

[Forestluv]

In another forum, I shared about an experience with a gal that I recently started dating. My thoughts below involve some conceptualizing that didn't fit well with the theme of the thread, so I am posting them here. 

We often eye gaze with each other and there have been some transcendent appearances that, to me, seem like an essence of "knowing" from other lives or dimensions. At times, it feels like it was past lives - like we have met and have been separated - yet I can't quite "remember". Other times, it feels like other dimensions occurring Now. For example, during one eye gazing, we had lived years together and experienced ups and downs of joy and sadness. Yet, it wasn't in the past or future that these events took place or will take place. It's like both past, present and future. It's super hard to describe.

So, another member introduced the idea of a "soul contract" in which two souls have a contract to repeatedly meet through human beings. Like a metaphysical contract manifesting in physical form. The idea is that a soul contract is made to teach each other lessons. There can be different soul contract themes, such as sadness or joy - and each have value. . . I immediately resonated with this concept. It seems pretty clear I am in a soul contract with a "sadness/disappointment" theme. I started asking questions like "how do soul contracts get resolved?". What is it like when a soul contract is resolved for the humans? Does the soul contract then evaporate? Can one transform a sadness contract into a joy contract? . . . The underlying orientation was both a fun curiosity, yet also an identification that this is real for me and I want to shape the dynamics. 

I became immersed within this content. There was identification with it. "I" am in a soul contract. . . how amazing!! I wanted to text the woman and share ideas about how we are in a soul contract and what this may mean for the relationship moving forward. . . . The forum member commented that I was engaging in thinking and trying to figure out how I can alter the contract to prepare myself for impending sadness. . . There was initial realization that "I" was trying to create a scenario to save myself impending sorrow. . . Then there was a *popping* out of this story and a transcendent view appeared. There was awareness of the attachment/identification of being a character involved in a story of soul contracts. There was awareness that the immersion was so deep that it was "real". Like a character in a movie not realizing it is a character in a movie. This movie just happens to be titled "Soul Contracts". I've never seen this movie before and it was very intriguing. . . So intriguing that I became the character and started perceiving reality through this lens. I'm in a soul contract and need to learn more about this. I now need to work through "soul contract" issues, such as a recurring them of sadness/disappointment. 

Once awareness of this attachment/identification to this character within the soul contract story was revealed, there was a "flip" over to the opposite side of the duality. At first, the attachment/identification was that the soul contract story was "real", then a flip to the soul contract story is "imagined". There was disassociation with the "realness" of the story and now attachment/identification to the opposite side of the duality. The soul contract story is just some imagination my mind is creating, it isn't real. . . Yet this didn't feel right either - and then the real vs. imagined duality started to dissolve and all sorts of inter-connections began to appear. It has aspects of "real" and aspects of "imagined". And then the duality fully collapsed such that it is both "real" and "imagined", and has many inter-connections between the two. This can be an uncomfortable place for the mind and body, because the mind wants grounding. It wants to know if this is real or imagined. 

Another insight is that this transcendent realization is not only uncomfortable to one's own self, it is also uncomfortable to the other person's self. . .  Imagine sitting in a movie with a friend and you are both so engaged in the movie that it feels real. You totally lose awareness of it's a movie and you fully experience the movie as if it were real. Now imagine having a realization that this is just a movie and you begin to see the structure of the movie. This movie is a just a story that takes place on a movie set. Producers write the script and actors pretend to write the script. None of it's real its all imagined. . . Now imagine telling that to your friend that is engaged in the movie. How will that go over? Not very well. Your friend will probably tell you to be quiet. Your friend wants to stay engaged in the movie content due to conditioning, yet also the allure of actually being and experiencing the character. Revealing the structure and imaginary content can spoil their world. . . Now imagine coming to that movie theater everyday and looking for people immersed in the content of the movie and revealing the structure of the movie. How would that go over? Not very well. People will get upset, lash out and see you as a jackass. People are immersed and engaging in movies of love stories, soul contracts, being a doctor, unemployed, developing a life purpose, soul contracts - there are an infinite number of movies and the vast amount of people seem to want to stay immersed within the movie content. Being so immersed in the movie that it becomes real, gives a sense of grounding, meaning and purpose. Yet both identification to the character and transcendence of the character both carry a cost. 

It seems some humans play a character that involves so much suffering that they want to "awaken", yet they don't want to let go of the movie character. They want to upgrade the character to one that doesn't suffer and has peace and joy in their life. . . As well, there are a small percentage of people that are motivated to find truth. They want to know the truth of the story, regardless of the consequences. . . Yet the trick is that the character cannot transcend itself while identified and immersed within the character. From the perspective of the character, transcendence appears as death. Thus, it is no surprise that those who try to reveal the structure of the character and movie will often be seen as a form of threat. And in a way they are. In some contexts, going around exposing the structure of their character / movie can be an insensitive, jackass move. 

 

[Forestluv]

Below are some thoughts about individual consciousness and collective consciousness at multiple levels. 

The first video was recorded in the 1940s. The first 3min. shows the behavior of slime mold. Slime mold shows aspects of individual consciousness and the emergence of collective consciousness. The start of the video shows the slime mold living as individual amoeba. Notice how each amoeba is a separate entity. Each dot is a separate organism with an individual consciousness - each single amoeba cell is a separate organism that senses their environment relative to other separate amoeba. It is a population of separate, individual amoeba. Under starvation conditions, something extraordinary happens. The individual amoeba signal to each other and aggregate. They then form a multicellular "slug". Most importantly, this is not a random collection of individual amoeba in a random pile. The amoeba aggregate and form an emergent new collective organism. The slug has organization and individual amoeba cells differentiate into specialized cells of the slug, which allows for new emergent properties such as behavior. The key here is that there is a new collective slug organism that is the collective consciousness of all the individual amoeba cells. . . This is easy for the mind to intuit. We can recognize that a new consciousness has appeared. Similarly, each person is a collective consciousness of individual cells.

The next video is a step up in consciousness. The key is that it is the same phenomena as the slime mold. We are just moving up a level. This is a level of collective consciousness that many minds have a hard time seeing because they are conditioned to see reality in a certain way. As well, the higher-level collective consciousness is not in mainstream awareness. There is no term for this higher collective consciousness. Biologists have only begun to study this phenomena. It's a different way to sense and perceive. A different relationship with reality and it will change the way you relate to reality.

Let's consider how we are conditioned to perceive the world and how it can be easy or difficult to shift conscious levels. imagine being conditioned in a world in which the amoeba above were only considered separate individual entities. When they aggregated together, you would only be able to see a collection of individual amoeba in a new shape moving in a new way. You may ask "I just see a bunch of individual amoeba moving together. Where is this new collective consciousness called a "slug"?". . . How would we respond to that? We might say, "You just need to relax and let go of seeing it as a bunch of amoeba. There is a sense of a collective being emerging. This being has a new collective essence to it. It's not just a collection of individual amoeba. Its a new organism you haven't perceived before". . . . You can easily see the emergence of the collective slug consciousness because you have been conditioned to perceive individual cells as a collective organism. Slugs, birds, dogs, humans etc.

So the next video is the same thing, yet an even higher level collective consciousness will be revealed. I don't want to call it a "higher level organism" because it is no longer an "organism" - is a higher level collective consciousness we don't yet have a term for - yet we will. . . For example, in the above video, would you call the slug a "higher level amoeba cell?". Of course not. Something new has emerged so rather than calling it a "higher level cell", we call the entity emergence an "organism". . . . Also, a population of individual amoeba cells is not an "organism". They are just a bunch of individual amoeba. The key is that they aggregate together and a new collective entity emerges - the slug.

The below video shows a "murmuration". A group of individual birds aggregating together to form a higher level collective consciousness. In the beginning, there is a population of individual separate birds. So, each individual bird is like each individual amoeba. Just like the amoeba, the birds aggregate. And just like the emergence of a collective entity "slug" there is a new collective entity (murmuration). This murmuration is not a collection of individual bird organisms. Form the collection of individual birds, a new collective consciousness arises. The temptation of the mind is to see the collective consciousness as a bunch of individual birds moving in cool ways. Yet it is not. Scientists cannot figure out the mechanics, because they are analyzing it as a collection of individuals birds rather than an emergent new collective consciousness. Individual birds are not communicating via pheremones, or siganls etc- that is too slow. Something else is happening at a collective conscious level we do not understand. See if you can relax the mind and let go of seeing it as a collection of individual birds. See if you can "sense" and "intuit" the higher collective murmuration consciousness. This awareness can change the way you see reality. This type of collective consciousness is present all over - we are just not accustomed to sensing it. A big pile of ants has a higher collective consciousness. When you are at a crowded concert with dancing, each person is an individual amoeba and there is a collective consciousness of a "slug" dancing. People love to experience this collective consciousness, yet it is subconscious. Someone might say "I loved the energy of the concert", yet they were never aware of the collective "slugness" of the concert. They were still identified as individual, separate persons. 

 

[Zigzag Idiot]

 

@Serotoninluv  That's perfect footage!

I've drawn a lot of pondering in the past around the sensation/realization of watching large flocks of blackbirds. But also crows, quail, dove and mallards. How in the tight flying patterns, they change directions erratically but still in unison,,, 

 

In Gurdjieffs Allegory, Beelzebub's Tales To His Grandson, he describes the Beings of Planets, the Beings of Solar systems and the Beings of Galaxies with vast lifespans that comparatively makes a human lifespan look about like a fart in a snowstorm.

I'm not trying to 'sell anything' in the following but just making note of synchronicities. ?  Couldn't resist sharing. ?

 

CHAPTER 8
The Impudent Brat Hassein, Beelzebub’s Grandson, Dares to Call Men “Slugs”

Summary

Hassein asked Beelzebub to tell him about the three-centered beings who are on the whole like them, but whose skin is a little slimier than theirs, the beings who breed on the planet Earth and who call themselves “men”.

Beelzebub laughed that Hassein called them “slugs” and he told him that it would be very interesting indeed for him to learn more about them, for they are most peculiar and they have many characteristics that he would not find in any other beings on any other planet of the Great Universe, and he promised to tell him the events of a general cosmic character connected with this planet that led to the grave concern of our Endlessness. 

From -  https://gurdjieff.org.gr/ae/chapters/en50/chapter08.htm

 

Also what you've shared reminded me of the idea of the "Conscious circle of Humanity" as it's expressed in Gurdjieff's work.

It's in the neighborhood anyway, around the idea of a new Collective Consciousness,,,,

 

[Forestluv]

Yesterday, I saw the phrase: “I am nothing. God is everything”.

Such a simple phrase and so many different contexts of meaning. I think the most common usage would be with religions. Here, the “I” is my personal identity. The “nothing” doesn’t mean a transcendal Nothing by which the illusory self is seen as nonexistent. N this context “I am nothing” means there really is a me, yet I have no real meaning or purpose without god. The “God is everything”, means an external god separate from me. “Everything”, means everything good and worthwhile. “Everything” means everything humans should aspire to. This includes things like love, honesty and kindness. 

There are also transcendent understandings of the above phrase, yet getting there requires an expansion that often causes an internal conflict - which can cause immense suffering for a being - often seen on the forum. Transitioning from the religious frame to the transcendent frame involves questions like “How could god allow things like torture, child abuse and suffering”. This adding in a condition to the above phrase to form “God is Everything except bad things like torture, child abuse and suffering”. A temporary bandaid to stop the bleeding is adding in personal “free will” and a god vs. devil construct. Now, god is everything, except for those bad things that are personal free will (or the devil). Yet this is temporary grounding. If a person digs deeper, they will encounter a dilemma with the existence of personal free will. . . . The other side of “I am nothing” also has transcendence. Here a being transitions fro m the context of “I have no purpose, meaning or worth without god” to realizing the illusory construct of “I”. Here, the “I” is seen to be nothing - in the context of an illusory non-existent structure”. This transition can also cause immense mind-body distress and send a mind swirling into battles of nilhism or solipsism. 

The transition also involves an enormous amount of conflation which causes confusion, frustration and suffering.

I am Nothing = God is Everything. . . I = God. . . . Nothing = Everything. . .  I = Everything . . . God = Nothing.

However:

i isn’t god or God. . . . nothing isn’t everything.

There is a ton of fluidity in here and it will be extremely confusing for a being attached/identified to dualistic constructs that allow a sense of comfort and grounding. Transitioning higher involves instability and groundedlessness. It takes years to clear up clouds, untangle knots and release karmic attachments. . . . Lots of thoughts and questions will arise like “how dare you say that you are god! you are crazy!!”. (A conflation of personal and transpersonal “you”. Or “If I am god, why can’t I make unicorns appear?”. If I am Everything, why don’t I experience someone else? Why don’t I know everything?”. If i am everything that means I’m a torturer and child abuser. And god is also a torturer and child abuser. Does god just allow this, or does god enjoy it?. . . These are all conflations and need to get worked through over years. Few beings get close to clarity, many beings partially clarify, and many beings don’t clarify at al, in their lifetime.

As said many times, the most important energetic orientations for transcendence - is a desire for truth for its own sake, curiosity, open-mindedness, willingness and letting go. This increases a beings chances 1000X. Yet it still seems to take so much time and effort. One of my hopes is that in the future there will be an integration of mysticism, energetics and science that can promote transcendence and clarifying.

 

@Zigzag Idiot Thank you for your kind words and thoughts. These days, many of my insights spontaneously appear. They don’t come through books or previous philosophers, mystics or scientists. I’ll be walking through nature and it just spontaneously appears out of nowhere. It feels like I am the first to realize it. This can be exciting, yet also sad. Quite often, I am unable to communicate and share it to others. I spend a lot of time thinking about “How can I put this into words and images?”. Most of the time, I can’t quite do it and communicate it. This can feel lonely at times. . . . So it’s super cool when someone comes along and says “yea, I’ve had a similar realization and so did this guy 150 years ago”. . . . I’m like whaaaat??!!”. Then it’s cool to see how they tried to express it. There are so many different forms.

I don’t know if anyone has read Lewis Thomas. He was a biologist that observed nature in really interesting ways. He could integrate, cellular, organismal and population levels. And he could write beautiful imagery. He would be walking in nature and see a huge mound of ants and see a whole world within that mound of ants - and write beautiful stories about it. . . . I’m approaching the last stages of my life and sometimes I wonder what my last chapters should be like. Sometimes I think of trying to integrate things like reiki and neuroscience. Other times I want to sit in nature and observe everything in all sorts of levels. I’m trained as a molecular biologist, yet teach all the way up to evolution and ecology  - I can “see” many levels - molecular, cellular, organism system, populations, ecosystem, mystical, energetics, spirits, mysticism. I love to observe and write. Yet would this make a contribution? Would anyone care? . . . I don’t need to make money off it, it’s more about contribution now and in the future after I pass away.

[Forestluv]

I'm starting to realize how deep and expansive paradox and meta views are. As well, paradoxes and meta views are closely intertwined. 

Unfortunately, it makes communication with "normies" very difficult. I find the dynamic so interesting.

A mind without access to paradox and meta view, perceives it through more basic software. Like 4.0 information being processed by 2.0 software.

The most common perceptions I see are:

1. An assumption that the other person disagrees with you. The mind holds "my position" as true, therefore "your position" is a counter position. This leads to a debate trap in which the person is debating themself. 

2. The mind cannot be immersed within a position and see it from various angles. . . In organic chemistry, there is a focus on molecular interactions in three dimensions. It is very difficult for the mind to hold an images of molecules in there mind and rotate it in three dimensions to see it from various angles. The vast majority of students need to purchase physical molecular models. Similarly, it is very difficult for the mind to hold a view in their mind, rotate it and view it from different angles. I've noticed that very few minds can do it - mostly due to attachment/identification to the view. This ability empowers a mind to make inter-connections, integrate and be multi-perspectival, 

For example, there is a current debate on the forum about whether enlightenment is simply awakening to Now or whether it takes "work" over time.  Each is true in a certain context. Yet a mind immersed in a view will not be able to see how it relates in different contexts. 

This is yellow level territory. An indicator that a mind is starting to transition into Tier 2 is if the mind pauses and thinks "it depends". This is an early indication that the mind is transcending a hard binary mindset. For example "Is this right or wrong? Just give me a 'yes' or 'no' answer!". Well, it depends on the situation. . . For my mind structure, this is so basic and I'm amazed at how hard it is for many minds to see. Unfortunately, it can make conversations difficult. 

3. "You are over-complicating things". A mind with 2.0 software will perceive 4.0 information as "overcomplicated". In terms of SD, this is a classic mind response to "higher levels". A blue-level person will see an Orange level person as "overcomplicating things". For example, my mom thinks each person is either a man or woman. Men are masculine and are attracted to women. And women are feminine and are attracted to men. It's that simple. When I try to explain variations of gender she will respond "Why do you always complicate things?! A person is either a man or woman. It's that simple". . . . Similarly an Orange-level person will perceive a Yellow-level person as "overcomplicating things". Hallmarks of Yellow are multi-perspective meta views, integration and understanding of paradox. Orange doesn't have access to this. . . In the above example: a Tier 1 mind would take a position, either: "Enlightenment is spontaneously Now" or "Enlightenment occurs after spiritual work over time". By taking a position, the mind restricts itself and will not be able to see the truth in each position. 

4. "Take a Stand". This is another one I commonly see. A Tier1 mind will see a right or wrong, especially Blue and Orange. I used to think it was only a Blue level trait, yet its widespread in Orange and fairly common in Green. Its not until Tier2 that bimodal mindsets are transcended. This is not because the mind is unable to cognitively transcend it - it is due to attachment/identification to a view. And that doesn't dissolve until Tier2. If you want to determine if someone is in Tier2 - look at their attachment/identification to "my view" and "your view". . . From a Tier1 perspective, Tier2 is maddening. Tier1 will often yell "Take a stand with one position or the other!!" and they will see a Yellow level person as indecisive, weak and lost in overly-complex abstract thinking. 

[fridjonk]

@Serotoninluv Well put Luv. 

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

For example, there is a current debate on the forum about whether enlightenment is simply awakening to Now or whether it takes "work" over time.  Each is true in a certain context. Yet a mind immersed in a view will not be able to see how it relates in different contexts. 

That's so true. I find this is where integral theory comes perfectly in handy instead of the more simplistic spiral dynamics approach. I find it goes way more into detail. As you say, a minds interpretation of a state or a mystical experience depends solely on which view point their spiritual knowledge is at; or as Ken Wilber calls "growing up". So a stage green or a stage yellow person can have woken up, but their developmental "growing up" has yet to continue to evolve; and will eventually.  I see a lot of people here who think they've "made it" when they become liberated or awakened, but they still don't realize that their view point of their awakening is relative to their structure and stage. That's my two cents on that matter 

 

[fridjonk]

I'd like to add Marcus Aurelius as an perfect example of how one can be truly awakened and one with nature, yet view the world from a blue perspective. He was big on dedicating oneself to service of others and for society; he had lots of the "good" traits of blue. 

[Forestluv]

A thread about being overly serious and worrying caught my attention. . . I was raised in a very serious environment. Everything was so heavy and serious. If I got a "C" in a class very serious. Hours of lecture and a meeting with my teacher. . . If I left a light on in the house - very serious. A lecture about how hard my parents are working to put a roof over my head and food on the table - and I'm throwing money out the window (about 4 cents worth of electricity). Even family vacations were serious.

Chronic seriousness has many unhealthy aspects. It's hard on the body. A chronic state of seriousness increases tension and levels of stress hormones such as cortisol. As well, it is a state of distress to the mind. Yet the mind and body love to find an equilibrium. Chronic seriousness may become "normal". Occasionally, a chronically serious person may catch glimpses and see it as a problem. Perhaps their bf/gf brings it to their attention. Perhaps the are at a party with people that are being silly and laughing - a serious may notice they can't let go and want to experience being playful and laughter. . . Yet often, a chronically serious person will avoid playful environments because it feels uncomfortable - they feel like they don't fit in. 

On the flip side, being playful, silly and laughing a lot is healing. It is a release to laugh and be playful - especially when we laugh at ourselves. It is enjoyable and increases our quality of life. It allows rebalancing and recovery from stressful serious times. 

A couple questions people asked me while I was immersed in serious zones: "What do you do for fun in your life?". If I can't answer this, its a good sign I'm too far serious. I may say "I go running". Yet is running "fun" for me? Or I may say, "I hike. I meditate. I contemplate". Yet is this "fun"? Am I spending any time in actual "fun zones". For example, going to a concert and dancing. Playing a coop board game with a friend and being playful. Playing frisbee golf with a friend (and not being overly competitive and serious). Getting excited when we hit a good shot, high fives, smiles and laughter. Actually playing,. 

Another question I ask is "How often do I laugh and smile? When was the last time I laughed so hard I couldn't stop?". 

I've noticed that many people crave to be playful, joyful, silly. They want humor and laughter. I've spent a lot of time with online dating and one of the most common desirable traits women say they want is a good sense of humor and laughter. People don't want to be in overly-serious relationships with chronic worry, issues and drama. As well, people want to be seen as an "easy going guy". So many online profiles have comments like "I like to have fun", "I'm an easy going", "I like to laugh a lot". Yet then when we go out on a date, they are sooo serious. . . 

@fridjonk Thank you for your comments. I'm not very familiar with Marcus Aurelius. A blue-level person that was also awakened and one with nature would be an interesting case. 

[Forestluv]

This phrase on the forum caught my attention "it's being imagined by you as God."

In one context this is true and can be a useful "pointer" in some contexts. It also has untrue features in another context - this can be subtle and difficult to pick up on.

From one perspective, there is an underlying assumption of separation. The human mind is conditioned to perceive through a filter of separation. For example, the mind is conditioned to think in terms of a "me" here and a "god" out there. This filter will make it very difficult to see what is pointed to in the above statement. When the above statement goes through a filter of separation it creates; an "it" that is separate from "god". There is a "god" thing imagining a non-god "it" thing. It doesn't matter what the "it" is. . . A belief, an image, a coffee cup. It doesn't matter. What matters is that whatever this "it" is. . . "it" is separate from another "it" called "god". This separation allows one thing "god" to imagine another thing (whatever "it" is). . . The main problem I see with this construct is that minds are conditioned to believe in an external "god" out there. An external god that creates other things, judges other things, imagines other things etc. This is how the mind is conditioned. It is much more difficult to see without the separation. Here, the creator = the created. There is no separation. We could say that which imagines is god and that which is imagined is god. Yet this is very awkward for a mind to hold. How can the creator and the created be the same?. . . Another approach is to let go of trying to capture within intellectual constructs. As well, the term "god" is so loaded with prior conditioning that it can be hard to let go of. . . An easier path to this realization is "observer" (creator) and "observed" (the creation).

If we observe something, the mind interprets as "I am observing that". For example, I am now observing a monitor. There is separation. 1. An observer separate from 2. a monitor. This is super obvious to a conditioned mind. Yet there is also lack of separation in which observation and the observed are the same. There is just one "IS". This is much harder for the mind to "grok", in part because thinking about it can be a huge distraction. 

[Forestluv]

A comment about assumptions and dualistic constructs. . . 

Consider the following question recently asked on the forum:

"Why is there no free will? Why does god allow this?" (this sets up a mental state that spirals into "no meaning. no purpose".

Let's take a closer look at the question. . . Imagine I ask:

"Why do pink three headed unicorns torture my kittens? How does the transcendent dragon of eternal power allow this?"

With attachment/identification to the above statement, a lot of turmoil will arise in the mind and body. Of course, my modified question appears absurd and laughable. Yet the original question is just as absurd and laughable. Yet, the mind treats it as "reasonable". 

To get to a "higher" level, one must go prior to the assumptions and inquire/contemplate. For example "what is the nature of the pink three headed unicorn? What is real? Whati is imagined? What is the nature of the transcendent dragon of eternal power? What is real? What is imagined?"

Similarly: "What is free will? What is god? What is real? What is imagined?

Going prior to the assumptions is really important, yet so is the nature of inquiry and contemplation. If the mind and "What is free will?" and then goes into la-la land of theorizing - that is the wrong direction. We want to keep going prior. . . . Just sit and look around. . . "What is free will?". As theory enters, let it go. Allow space for implicit insights to arise. Look around and observe. Implicit insights are all around us. . . 

The second point is related to the first: the mind loves either / or dualistic structures. The mind assumes that there must either be free will or no free will. One must be true and the other false. This is an extremely contracted mindset. . . As consciousness evolves, paradoxes will be revealed and deeper understanding of paradoxes will arise. This is essential to get to expanded states of consciousness. Free will exists and is non-existent. Part of this understanding comes from contemplating what is free will? (and then free will vs. no free will). As well, what is existence? (and then existence vs. nonexistence). In doing so, an implicit understanding that free will exists arises. It's so obvious, look around. . . As well, an implicit understanding that free will is non-exist arises. It's so obvious, look around. . . 

With awakenings comes an energetic shift. The above statements would have driven me crazy 10 years ago. I would have gotten very frustrated and confused. Yet now, the contradictory insights above become so beautiful it gives me chills. It is freedom. It is fascination. It is awe. 

[Forestluv]

A bit of an odd situation with a gal I was recently dating. . . .

There aren't many women I meet that are into self-actualization, awakening, spirituality, exploring different realms etc. . . So a couple months ago, I met a gal and we immediately connected. Even our first date, we sat and eye gazed for several minutes at a time and went to transcendent states. Like we had met each other before, knew each other, were separated and now re-united. There was a sense of joy, yet also of sadness. It was like the separation and re-uniting was a pattern. There was joy of being re-united, yet also a sadness of impending separation - like we are not allowed to be together for some reason. I got this sense immediately. It wasn't like a "woo woo" thing, it felt very real and grounded. She had similar experiences. . . And our time together was so effortless. It flowed so beautifully. Yet it seemed transcendent to the practicalities of life. When we got together it was like the "common life" of 4D dissolved and we were in a 5D realm. . . One of my senses was that the practicalities of life would again separate us. That this "transcendent" connection would not hold and this was the sadness of our "soul contract" - it was like each time we get reunited, something would arise and separate us. So. . . what happened?

After being together a couple weeks, she tells me she is separated and going through a divorce. She tells me that she and her husband have agreed to date others, that he knows about me and is totally fine with it. This of course triggers a huge red flag, yet this seemed to be somewhat trivial relative to the transcendent connection I felt with her. I've only felt this a couple times in my life. . . So I decide to keep going with her, yet with a bit more distance. . . . And then one time we are together, I my phone blows up with repetitive calls from a "Caller Unknown". I answer it and it's the husband. He wants to know my intention with his wife. I hang up and he gets upset, re-calling and sending texts that I am messing with his wife and he will hold me accountable for anything that might happen. This is harassment and threats that I don't want to engage in. . . A couple days later, he tells me he had an acute episode and apologizes for his behavior. I tell the gal it made me unsettled and I needed some space. She tells me it's not that big a deal, that they are moving forward with the divorce and he is better now. . . A couple other unsettling things is that they had been separated for two years, yet they got back together every 5 months or so for sex and perhaps some type of emotional support. Yet the husband was clearly still hoping to get back together and her doing this is harmful to the husband as it re-ignites his hopes. Even though he threatened me, I really felt for the husband. I can totally understand his pov and his feelings - I've been in a similar situation. 

A couple weeks later, we go to a symphony and have a great time. I think perhaps we can be friends or perhaps dating if things do settle down with the husband. Last Saturday, I send her a text asking if she would like to get together and she responds:

"I would like to say yes, however if you were unsettled by my storyline before (well, actually,  the storyline of somebody in my life), then you will be even more unsettled now. The process of divorce is long and messy and not for the faint of heart. . . "

I responded that I enjoyed our time together and felt a unique connection with her. Perhaps we could get together as friends sometime. . . . I haven't heard back from her and notice she is back active on the Bumble dating site (and hasn't indicated she is still married). So, another guy may get involved in this mess. As well, I found the phrase "it's not for the faint of heart" to be interesting. It seems she wants to meet a guy that will get involved in the "long messy" process and stick by her side in spite of the mess. And she suggests things are getting worse - does that mean the husband will ramp things up and contact some guy's work? Trash his car? Show up at his house? Restraining orders?. . . As well, I found the line "if you were unsettled by my storyline (well, actually, the storyline of somebody in my life. . . ". It's interesting in how she is dissociating herself from her husband. They were married 20 years and have a daughter. They live 2 miles apart and are in daily contact. They help take care of each other's houses and re-unite for a sexual fling every few months and he is threatening a man she dates. How on earth is that the "storyline of someone else in my life"? Perhaps she has a deep desire to dissociate from him, yet for some reason cannot. 

A few things I now reflect on:

-- That transcendent connection seemed sooo real. And it really seemed like we both shared it. Could we have had some transpersonal soul connection, yet earthly personalities and practicalities overcame it? 

-- Could both have been true? Could she be this transcendent being I connected with, yet also a human behaving unhealthy? Yet if so, why would she dump me like this when it became apparent that I didn't want to play the role of a romantic partner walking through a messy divorce with her? She could have said something like - "we re-united again, yet the timing is not right". Yet she left without any indication that the transcendent connection was "real". That is what's so disappointing to me because now I feel like it wasn't real and I was just taken for a sucker again. And if there is a transcendent "soul contract" of re-uniting, getting separated due to personal life circumstances, disappointment and sadness - it doesn't get resolved and will continue on . . . 

 

[Javfly33]

On 21/1/2020 at 6:40 PM, Serotoninluv said:

 

I'd say the frequency and intensity of harm anxiety has decreased by about 80% such that it is no longer an issue in my life. 

If anyone relates - feel free to share experiences, give tips or ask questions. 

Damn reading that post got me thinking. I don´t if it´s exactly harm anxiety but I feel I could ask what you think about this. Because Yesterday I went to the Therapist and she brought up my relationship with a person in the past, which made me remember (internally, I didn´t tell her about it) about something I did on the past. Well, more than "something I did", "something I carefully planned to do" but luckily I didn´t and now I´m way pass of it. 

Basically something related to the extremes of that harm anxiety you talk about about a mother wanting to kill her child.

It´s been years and I had totally turn the page because I´m totally different person now but yesterday after coming home I had this insidious fear about what If I end up telling it to somebody to relieve myself or some shit and they will see me as a terrible bad person.

I mean, I know I have 0 interest in telling anybody. It´s just that I have begun from yesterday to have this insiduous thoughts about "what If I end up telling it omg. Now I am going to have this insidious impulse of fear of telling it. Shit I might actually tell it to relieve the feeling". Something like what you say in here lol:

Quote

I had an insatiable impulse to grab his gun. For no reason, just to grab it and take it. The impulse was so strong that the only way to relieve the terrible feeling would be to actually grab his gun. 

Btw, Amazing journal bro, keep it going! Better than reading a book 

Edited February 18, 2020 by Javfly33

[Forestluv]

(content deleted. I don’t think I articulated well and it could be misunderstood). I will try to write it up better at a later time. 

[fridjonk]

@Serotoninluv But since all this relative love is just a part of an imagined story, that never actually happened, it only seemed to happen, would it matter compared to the infinite love that fills every nook and cranny of reality already, relative or not? 

 

[Forestluv]

4 minutes ago, fridjonk said:

@Serotoninluv But since all this relative love is just a part of an imagined story, that never actually happened, it only seemed to happen, would it matter compared to the infinite love that fills every nook and cranny of reality already, relative or not? 

 

It doesn’t matter in one context and matters in another context. If a being is only aware of absolute love and has no experience with relative love, how can the being interact with relative love? How can that being give advice to people regarding love-related problems in relationships. How can a person that cannot relate, give advice about self love to someone undergoing self-hate. It’s all Love! Self-hate is Love. If someone suffering asks me how to practice self love, from an absolute perspective, I can tell them to try cutting themself with a razor. It’s all love in Absolute Love. This is conflation between relative and absolute. And the problem of having gaps.

If we go the imaginary story route. . . Imagine that there is a movie and I am to play a scuba diver in the movie. I have zero experience in scuba diving and did not practice the role as an actor. I know zero. I go into the movie saying “This movie is just an imaginary story”. I then enter the movie with snorkeling gear and telling people scuba diving is no different than swimming in a kiddie pool. This is nonsense. In the relative sense, I will not be qualified to play a scuba diver. 

I’m not saying understanding of absolute love has no value. I’m saying there can be a problem when there is a gap of relative experience and conflation of absolute and relative. 

 

[fridjonk]

@Serotoninluv I guess I'd certainly agree with that, it somehow always ends with experience in life being King. 

But, isn't this a place where people come to him, look for awakening to the fullest extent. The absolute truth.

I'd definitely say he has an obligation to not give advice where maybe you or others are more qualified to answer. As he seems to do with more tricky emotional issues. 

I see your point. 

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, fridjonk said:

@Serotoninluv 

But, isn't this a place where people come to him, look for awakening to the fullest extent. The absolute truth.

For sure. Leo is one of my favorite minds I’ve ever encountered. He has been one of the biggest influences pulling me up the spiral. I would say he is decades ahead of his time. The content of his videos might become mainstream stuff a few decades into the future. 

Leo is also one to the best I’ve seen at articulating understanding. Not just how he explains things in words and images. His tone of voice, rhythm and facial expressions are at a very high level in articulating understanding. Only about 10% of communication is words and Leo is very good at the 90% of nonverbal communication. 

What I’m saying is only partially criticism - it’s also observation and empathy in one particular area. 

[fridjonk]

@Serotoninluv He sure is amazing, and so are you. 

[Forestluv]

This moment caught my attention. It looks like a couple that is exploring together. Notice the togetherness. They are sharing the exploration. As well, notice the guy has spotted something he wants to share with his gf. Perhaps it’s a beautiful eagle flying through the sky. For her to see it, she must look up from viewing the map to view what he has spotted. I love the sense of curiosity and awe they have. This is exploration. This is discovery. This is connection. This is being. 

To me, this is Now expressing itself. It is free. . . . 

Now let’s recontextualize this example. Imagine the scenario went like this:

Man: Omigosh, look!!! There is an amazing eagle flying through the sky!!

Woman: You think you are so smart because you think you are some special eagle spotter. Show me on the map where the eagle is

Man: You would need to look up from the map to see the eagle.

Woman: I’ve been reading maps my whole life. I think I know how to read a map.

Man: No, there is nothing wrong with the map. The map is great. You would need to look up from the map and look into the sky.

Woman: Ah ha!!! You can’t show me the eagle on the map. Show me evidence there is a eagle.

Man: You just need to look up to see what I’m pointing to.

Woman: That’s your arm, not a eagle. You’ve shown me no evidence there is a bird. That’ just your perspective. You can disagree with me if you want.

Man: It’s not “my” perspective and I don’t disagree with you. It’s just a beautiful eagle flying in the sky.

Woman: You always have to be right and think I’m stupid. Let’s just stop. 

This is a very different dynamic than the original. Here, there is attachment, identification and self filters. This prevents the exploration, curiosity, awe and connection. The filter adds in a “my” perspective vs. “your” perspective as well as who is right and who is wrong. There is attachment/identification to “my” view. . .This is a contracted mindset that will not expand. She is contracted within her view of the map. She has taken ownership by creating a thing called “my” view. And she wants to defend that view. Her self identity is attached to the “my view” she has created and the survival of that self depends on her defending it.  This may seem like a silly example, yet humans are constantly doing it with each other and are unaware of it. That is essential for the maintenance of manufactured beliefs and self construct, to be unaware of it’s manufacture and maintenance. 

I can’t tell you how many times I point to an “eagle” and say “Look, I beautiful eagle flying in the sky”. And then the other person wants to debate “my perspective of an eagle flying in the sky”. This happens with all sorts of things, including ideas. . . It creates opposing forces of “my” view vs. “your” view. It has no been personalized with owners. To let go of this can feel like dying to a person. . . Yet holding on prevents exploring the magnificence of Being Now and sharing it with others. 

However, this doesn’t mean all views are worth exploring. If someone was pointing to a clogged toilet in a public bathroom, it’s not something I’d want to explore with them. Yet I would not create ownership like there is a person that “owns” the clogged toilet and another person that “doesn’t own” the clogged toilet. It is merely an appearance of Now with no owner. Ideas are appearances Now with no owner, just like the flying eagle is an appearance with no owner. Yet unfortunately, many minds stay within a contracted view they are attached and identified with. They may stay their entire lives within this contraction and never truly explore. And they miss flying eagles. To me this is sadness. I can imagine myself experiencing the joy of seeing our first eagle together. It doesn’t matter who spotted it. There is no “my eagle” and “your eagle”. . . I can also imagine myself wanting to share the joy of seeing a flying eagle together, yet she wouldn’t look up from an attached personalized view. Here, I would likely feel sadness.