Baller
-
Posts
57 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Baller
-
-
On 6/7/2022 at 3:24 PM, Blessed2 said:
Any thoughts / advice? What do you think about enviromentalism and climate change / ecological problems?
It's virtue signaling for the most part. It's absurd to think your gf's individual actions make a difference when China is building 247 GW of coal plants. It's simply feel-good crap for people who feel guilty for some - any - reason. Sure, I'd like to see electric cars and non-fossil fuel power plants dominate as soon as possible, but I can't take that kind of asceticism seriously: it's more about personal psychology than results.
-
LOA is simply "remove the inner resistance to what you would like to manifest."
Why is there inner resistance? Because of unintegrated aspects of the psyche which are in conflict. You may consciously want something, but your unconscious is against it.
So you need to get the unconscious onboard.
-
The Enlightenment For Dummies answer is that "no, that's Leo's bullshit."
Solipsism is the philosophy of psychic inflation, i.e. The Cosmic Ego.
Enlightenment is seeing through the ego, the local or the cosmic.
-
Yeah, the whole "I am God" thing is very much a Leoism, i.e. an artifact of psychic inflation.
The thought "I" ceases to exist internally at some point (although one still obviously uses it in conversation, but it is understood to be a social construct, not an existential reality. You understand it as just a social avatar.)
I know I used to be able to think "I" and it used to mean something but now when I consciously try to think "I" all that triggers is the experience that there's only one field of awareness permeating everything, or however you want to call it.
There is ONLY GOD if you prefer -- not I AM GOD.
-
5 hours ago, Cupcake said:
1. Demonization of people who are vulnerable
Nope.
5 hours ago, Cupcake said:2. Ostracization of people who are vulnerable
Nope.
5 hours ago, Cupcake said:3. People can visit a therapist and still visit online forums. They don't need to be locked in a mental asylum. They have every right that others enjoy
Sure. But they cannot have both freedom and simultaneously demand a special environment that imposes on others. That's called "asking for privilege."
5 hours ago, Cupcake said:4. Enabling victimization of vulnerable people under the disguise of "we can't do anything."
See #3.
5 hours ago, Cupcake said:5. Childproofing is a terrible way of degrading /denigrating people who are sensitive, traumatized and vulnerable. It's basically a passive way of ridiculing them. They are not children. They are only asking to be understood and treated humane.
Everyone is "sensitive, traumatized or vulnerable" to some degree. I am as well. The difference is that I'm not asking for special treatment because I feel I'm entitled to it. If I don't like what someone is posting, I can block them or stop responding.
5 hours ago, Cupcake said:Your whole post is the most unempathetic thing I have come across. Grow the fuck up.
You first. Your comments on this subject reek of entitlement and victim privilege. They are a form of passive bullying, i.e. CRYBULLYING. You should recognize that the world doesn't owe you anything -- only then will your mental health begin to improve.
-
In my opinion, it really does depend on the physiology of the individual. It's for some people, not for all or even most.
-
Vulnerable people shouldn't go online. They need to be seeing a psychiatrist or psychotherapist, who can assist them in making connections with supportive people.
"Well, they can't because..." Sorry, no. The world cannot be childproofed for a small minority of people. This idea that anything good can come from "treating yourself" by going on forums needs to die already, it's utter BS. Even if there isn't outright triggering or abusing, the potential for really bad advice is massive.
-
1 hour ago, Aware Wolf said:
We live in a world that indoctrinates. News, marketing, social media. It's ridiculous to single out universities. There's actually quite a bit of due process. There's often many levels of judicial boards. The due process may end with state universities with the Governor of the State. After that, people are free to try the courts. Universities can be criticized for many things, but a lack of due process isn't one of them.
Absolutely not true. Kentucky has just passed a bipartisan due process law, as one example.
So this is the state government stepping in and addressing the lack of due process on college campuses.
QuoteThe procedural protections guaranteed by the bill include:
the right to the active assistance of an attorney or advisor during all stages of the campus disciplinary process;
the right to cross-examination of adverse parties and witnesses;
timely written notice of charges, and specific details about the facts giving rise to them;
reasonable, continuous access to the administrative file and evidence in the institution’s possession; and
impartiality from the hearing panel, including a prohibition against an investigator also serving on the hearing panel.
1 hour ago, Aware Wolf said:I think you're right in some cases Universities can indoctrinate. Maybe students become less racist, more open, reflective, and open to other points of view. In many cases, people have a good university experience and start to question long-held beliefs. I remember a few years ago, Texas wanted to outlaw "Critical Thinking" classes because they might teach students to question what their parents taught them and their beliefs.
Oh please, don't give me that cant. Go take a look at the FIRE website that I linked above and then tell me that attacks on free speech are somehow indicative of students becoming "more open to other points of view." You're pretty much proving my point about indoctrination. There is zero in that statement that a person who thinks for themselves would utter, it is so cut-and-paste.
-
3 minutes ago, Aware Wolf said:
Universities wrestle with the consent dilemma.
Universities are not the real world, they are little indoctrination factories for impressionable young minds. Places that suspend all due process to train little totalitarians.
-
Just now, Lester Retsel said:
Dude, you sound gross. I'm done here. Bye all.
OK, cool. Have you ever been to a club?
-
2 minutes ago, Lester Retsel said:
Well they are clearly intoxicated to some degree(slurring, etc) but there is no saying to what degree.
I don't think there's anything clear about it unless you have their alcohol blood levels. They could be pretending to be drunk for whatever reason (to give themselves permission to act out, whatever.) I'm just not a consent extremist, sorry. Let's stop pretending that club girls don't go to clubs to make out with guys if there's an opportunity.
-
6 minutes ago, Lester Retsel said:
You can't assume an individuals level of intoxication based on how they seem.
You're assuming that they're drunk by how they are acting. How do you know they are even drunk then?
-
8 minutes ago, Lester Retsel said:
https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCqHEqUuD1gggzMMrIR47oNg/videos
Some of the vegas videos have been trimmed down and posted on this channel. His rhetoric on the subject is peppered throughout many videos, lots and lots of examples on the sex and dating threads on his forum.
I love to trash Leo as much as the next guy, but those are a nothingburger. The girls are not incapacitated, just drunk. One kisses him back and the other tells him not to use tongue. That is not "inablity to give consent." Don't see anything illegal. Look up Nevada laws on consent if you want.
-
4 minutes ago, Lester Retsel said:
Hey all, this is Lester Retsel, I haven't read this whole thread yet, just saw that I was accused of taking my criticism too far visa vi leo being a sexual predator. The thing is, the things he talks about and films himself doing in his Vegas videos legally qualify as sexually predatory, meaning he is sober and very forcefully making moves on and kissing drunk girls. This means they cannot give informed consent and he knows it. So, technically, and by law, this is the case.
Do you have a link?
-
1 hour ago, Forza21 said:
Yeah, i think that way too.
Ramana taught that there is no I, and there are no others. But if there is no I, there is no "me" , the ego is an illusion. It was constantly missed on actualize.org, i wonder if by mistake, or on purpose?My sense is that it's a mistake due to narcissism.
1 hour ago, Forza21 said:And have you noticed, that God-realization might be used to justify not dropping an ego? "
Actually, when you look at "stages of enlightenment" models like the Ten Oxherding Pictures/Maharish Mahesh Yogi/David Hawkins, etc., God Consciousness is a middle stage, so not a complete realization. So yeah, you can very much get stuck there if you don't drop the dualistic God concept. (Last stage is identity with God, i.e. no separate Self but The Self.)
-
Talk about cherrypicking by Leo. Here's a better Ramana Maharshi quote:
QuoteWithout the “I”, there is no “you” nor “he”, nor “she”, nor “it”. When the “I” enquires into its
source, the “I” itself subsides, and the second and third person also disappears. Reality, our
own natural state, shines forth. -
40 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:
It shows the dangers of the use of psychedelics on the path.
Yeah, I agree. My conclusion is that if you have a personality disorder, especially NPD, psychedelics are to be avoided.
My own experience is that I did have a short period of mild inflation, but then I was brought back to reality by some experiences and reoriented myself. Certainly it was nothing close to what apparently happened to Leo, thank God. I didn't think I was an avatar of Absolute Infinity (LOL, love that Leonism) or the only object in existence but I did think the experience qualified me to teach others. But there was so much more to let go of.
But yeah, you have to integrate any apparent "progress" on the path, otherwise you're going to get humbled and quickly. Humble yourself or get humbled.
-
1 hour ago, Joseph Maynor said:
I think what Leo misses is he thinks his finite consciousness is Brahman. So when he hears Atman = Brahman he takes it that way. But what that really means is the underlying consciousness behind all finite consciousness/finite beings is God or the Self. The human's mind is not the Self.
I agree in principle, but I don't think he came to that purely via logic but rather he did have psychedelic experiences of the infinite and then when he came down his ego "snapped back" with a vengeance as would be true for any strong narcissist and then he channeled the experience through the filter of the ego and its conceptual maps.
This is pretty much what e.g. Ram Dass warns against in "Be Here Now" on pp.98-99. Psychic inflation in Jungian terms.
-
2 minutes ago, Iesu said:
Frank yang said you could be an enlightened pyschopath
Yeah, most certainly. And you wouldn't even have to kill bad people like Dexter. 😉
2 minutes ago, Aware Wolf said:The parallel is for people who claim some sort of total enlightenment or special attainment. 99% of those who make such a claim are lying, crazy, delusional, grifting or predators. Why put yourself in such a rogue's gallery of characters?
Even if they aren't lying or delusional, one has to be very careful about broadcasting such things. I mean, Sam Harris doesn't do spiritual practice just to remain at his current level of spiritual awareness. But even if they are, if one uses it as sort of a trump card or a license to mindfuck other people, that is bad.
-
17 minutes ago, Aware Wolf said:
Leo would be way down lowest Tier F category, I think. For a guru, there's no free love, no sex scandals, no finanacial scandals, no physical or sexual abuse.Perhaps because Leo doesn't have an ashram. There's only so much damage you can do with an Internet Forum and your fans being horny guys who need to be hosed down. If we rated gurus only on their forums, Leo Gura would def be a higher tier.
I mean, driving some people to suicide with your teachings is pretty fucking bad, if you ask me. Of course there is more opportunity for mischief with physical as opposed to online cults, but he is nevertheless quite dangerous a figure.
1 hour ago, Aware Wolf said:That may be true, but how do you know what's the manic side of bipolar where you feel great, have tons of energy, etc -- and what's a valid awakening?
1 hour ago, Forza21 said:he basically said, that from the point enlightened, the universe takes control, and one's has no free will whatever. But i believe he also said, that he consider it to be very, very unlikely that someone would hurt himself, as you see 'you" in everything.
I think the basic idea here is that overriding serious structural brain issues is pretty difficult, if not virtually impossible. So whether you're bipolar or a psychopath, that's not something you're just going to turn off.
Now, it is possible to maximize your social utility as a psychopath. E.g. becoming a sniper in the military, or a surgeon or other occupations where being coldblooded and fearless is an asset. So the spiritual path for a psychopath - in my opinion - is that of maximizing social utility to others.
However, having said all that, some bad people stay bad (i.e. the path of power as opposed to the path of love) regardless of being enlightened. And it's important to understand the distinctions. Not that I think Leo is in any conventional sense anything but partly or slightly enlightened. There is just a huge lack of self-awareness and self-understanding there.
-
48 minutes ago, Forza21 said:
Maybe i overreact, i have very sensitive radar for that solipsism stuff after all those Leo-stuff 🙂 maybe you are right. All his other teachings are very nice 🙂
You have to remember the context. He is talking to Westerners and he knows the kind of cultural and philosophical baggage they are bringing to the table. But it doesn't alter the essence of the teaching.
-
49 minutes ago, Forza21 said:
I started to think that way, when the suffering was unbearable, all i could do, was surrender and give up that sense of "I', and focuse of my direct experienece. It was moments of pure relax, and joy.
That's exactly correct. That's the name of the game - surrender. And it usually comes not when you're all fat and happy, but when you're suffering and feel like you're stuck. Spiritual practice isn't some linear process, when you gradually and consistently advance. It's practicing until you're about to give up because you feel like you're not getting anywhere. And then you surrender and the leap happens.
-
1 minute ago, Aware Wolf said:
Most people are happy if you just leave them and their beliefs alone. If an astrologer type or a The Secret fan sits at my table at the Vegan cafe, they won't start pedantically lecturing me about it. If somehow it does come up, they're grateful for not hearing "Oh isn't Astrology a bunch bullshit?" They may have a different path than me, but usually there's almost always mutual respect. There's a possibility for sharing.
As far as proselytizing, the more secure in your beliefs you are, the less need there is to form or join a cult.
3 minutes ago, Aware Wolf said:I'm a skeptic about astrology. I watched this Netflix series, Indian Matchmaking. Custom for Indians is to get a astrology chart for compatibility. When they brought in the astrologer -- wow did he nail the person he was giving the chart for! I don't know how to explain it. Interesting.
I've been researching it and practicing in an amateur way for 22 years. The number of people who actually have a good enough technical understanding of it to get results like that is pretty low. The average person who is into it has a very low, pop-astrology level of understanding (which naturally draws skepticism from anyone with brains.) Then you get people who have read more about it and have a little higher understanding but even they are not going to get impressive results. Then there are very few who've done the research and the work who have a pretty good understanding.
You need more than an understanding of signs, like the lowest level person. And it's not even planets and houses. It's the geometric relationship between planets, the configurations they form, certain pieces of data like planetary stations, etc. So it's stuff for nerds.
-
He uses the word, but he doesn't smuggle in all the implications that Leo does.
In other words, whether he uses the word or not, his teaching is inline with traditional understanding of nonduality.
When you are talking to people who still have an ego/empirical self, it is difficult to explain the paradoxical nature of the egoless state (both at once dual and nondual.) So the focus is on the "nondual" part, as that is what the ego-bound person is "lacking."
Waking Up
in Nonduality, Consciousness, Awakening, Enlightenment, Self-Recognition
Posted
My question to ascertain where you are stabilized is "how do you currently experience "I""? Is there a center that you experience?
I'm not talking about intellectual knowledge but actual subjective experience. Can you find a center that implies a separate self, ever? Sometimes? Never?