Joseph Maynor

This is controlling conduct. Kissing up then telling him what to think? "And don't you deny that!" Who says this? Based on what? This has turned into a self-aggrandizing joke. I think we want to help, but a person has to want to take in constructive criticism. We're not helping.

I think you should probably stand down a little bit in your posts to this thread as will I. This is not helping. Become a watcher instead of trying to drive the train. Be a white belt. Be a beginner. Once the beginner thinks he's a teacher many things go astray. This will be my last post to you in this thread.

Try not mechanically responding 30 seconds after every post and then come speak to us about lack of bias. You don't have lack of bias. You're trying to dominate this thread and have been for some time now. That's bias! Very strong bias coming from you -- the person who defined awakening as lack of bias. This is the kind of crazymaking I would expect from Leo Gura.

When the student becomes the teacher this is the kind of scenario that is created. It's called spiritual ego.

I disagree. I think your ego might be a little too attached to "being awake." That was his point too. Someone who is awake is not always telling people they are, they don't have to. They got it. They don't need to let everybody know they got it, if that makes sense.

So you think you know who is enlightened or not? No offense man, but that's a dodgy game when you start getting into that kind of labeling. You don't know whose enlightened or not, and that was his point.

Good. We're all in this together. ❤️

I'll say this, if you can find good reasons for a bias then despite the fact of it being a bias, it's still sound. For example, if you harmed a lot of people and I can prove that to a jury of your peers and you go to prison, then despite that being a bias, it's a good bias from a relative perspective. "Don't analyze it" you say, sure. That's what you would love for us to do, right, from your biased perspective. Because when you're subjected to analysis, your claims fall like a house of cards very easily. So you're the teacher, ok, you're making claims -- all I'm doing is trying to learn from you and I am. Are you the teacher or are we the teacher? Anyone can designate themselves a teacher, but a true teacher leaves a lasting impression and a lesson for all, including those they argue with.

This is incomprehensible to me, sorry.

"The point is don't use it one instance and then say you aren't in another." This is a false equivalency. For example, if I'm biased towards eating dinner right now (which I am) -- that doesn't mean I shouldn't be biased against violent criminals and want them to be in prison. You can't take every "bias," equate it as a bias, and then make generalizations that come to a biased point of your own. The absolute doesn't trounce the relative. Not every bias is weighted the same. If I'm hungry and want to eat, yes that's a bias, but that's not the same as having a bias that hurts many people. Not at all. I mentioned this to you before the issue of trying to reduce the relative to the absolute. It's not bias that's the problem -- it's certain specific biases that are the problem in a relative sense, especially those that hurt many people. Adolph Eichmann's bias as a Jew killing Jews is not equivalent to my bias in wanting to eat dinner right now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

Robed Mystic said: "Bias is bias. No we shouldn't let everyone out of prison and we shouldn't dismiss a teacher because of who they are and thus not look at their communication. We should look at the communication and not the teacher." My Response: "Bias is bias" is a tautology, not a premise or argument. There's no movement in a tautology. There's words there, but no persuasive action. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(language) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)

I understand this very well. Loyalty of this kind can be created by certain people in their discourse/rhetoric and actions, especially when there's a community one is addicted to where these ideas are reinforced. There's a tactic, logic, and source of this phenomenon that comes from the top. This is not new. I could easily give examples of this where we would all see this so clearly and you can probably think of some, but I won't. You can actually study this phenomenon.

We all have bias, and bias isn't always bad. Should we let everyone out of prison due to bias?

This is characteristic of the kind of response you'll find on Actualized.org. If one were to analyze or deconstruct this it wouldn't do any good. Does this sound familiar? Don't worry about it. Just assume who the teacher is. If you don't like it, it's your fault. You're never the teacher. You're not awake, they are, etc. The exact same talking points. I could analyze this deeper if I wanted to, but I choose to just note a few things in order to make my point. But then imagine 10 users all doing this and piling on you in the exact same way and then the moderators doing nothing about it.

Even if we can agree that no preference is ultimate or absolute because if it's here it's natural -- that doesn't mean it's smart to say or do certain things with your words. The Buddhists call this right speech. Just because you think something, that doesn't mean there's no space between that thought and what is wholesome to come out of your mouth. So morality is important. It's important to be diplomatic if you're a man in how you talk about relating with women. It's incredibly important. Again, this is the nuance, the finesse, the judgment call; what separates the gentleman from the other kind of guy. And you might say, well, the gentleman is not being honest, or some other objection. But think about this, if we all said what we really felt all the time about people we wouldn't have a civilized society! So, I pay critical attention when I assess someone's character in how they use words. And if you're a man using wrong speech to talk about women, to me that's just messed up, because women can be an easy target in that way, and I think it's on every man to speak well of women especially if you're talking about dating and sex and so on. But this might just be my preference, and I'm fine with that too. You can feel a certain way without having to say that in words publicly. You can control your words despite your thoughts, and I want to argue that this is good lying -- right speech involves good lying/right lying. If one has a racist or sexist thought, it's probably best to keep that to yourself and say something much more diplomatic with your use of words.

@Ges Anyone who doesn't eventually become a fighter in that environment I would question. Passivity is violence sometimes.

Consciousness is awareness. It's prior to thought. Thoughts occur across consciousness like a flaming arrow shot across a lake. Consciousness is a standing ground in a way. It's a watching go by. Most people are so focused on things they never realize consciousness. To be able to realize consciousness or awareness is a gift on the path. And then there's many things that can be done after consciousness is realized but not before. You will watch everything from consciousness -- even your own death, and all other moments of your life. It's all the same in that it's all experience/awareness/consciousness. The five senses occur within consciousness, but even those are an abstraction somewhat in space and time, a "carving out" of consciousness using words. The five senses is an incredibly useful model, but consciousness is the field that registers all information including the "five senses" if that makes sense.

Leo Gura surprisingly omits mentioning casinos in his new scams video despite living in Las Vegas for several years now. We often don't see the scams that are right in front of our eyes. I love Las Vegas and visit often, but I also know what's what with how Las Vegas properties make their money. And I don't gamble, but I still enjoy the properties and know almost all of them well -- on and off the Strip and in and out of downtown. Vegas is nuts and I love it -- but I experience it on my own terms! What's wierd though is when people are there you can bond with "the other" in a way you can't do in other places. (Some) people are so open there because they're happy. There's also the worst of the worst in Las Vegas too -- people that are just way out of control. But even those people are easy to navigate because you're in freaking Vegas! It's an adult wonderland.

I think concealment of identity to such a strong degree is one of the major cons of online forums from a relationship building perspective, if you're actually trying to do relationship building work within this technology. If you want relationships without identity, that's not ideal -- that's like starting off on the wrong foot. I'm not dismissing this mode of communication; I would just say make sure it's not your only source of social engagement and understand its limitations. I enjoy this community and I wish it well. But I also look at it like -- if you don't even want to tell me your name (either implicitly or expressly) or use your real photo, then why am I still talking to you? And I still do talk (sometimes), but it doesn't sit well with me because it's too abstract. As time passes, I think this online forum technology will build back in many features of "the personal" with enhanced security technology and reputation tracking technology. I'm making a video on this so it's best not to derail this thread by asking me lots of questions about this here. It doesn't make me feel good at all to use a fake identity or name or to deal with someone else who does that. I want to know who I'm dealing with and I want them to know who they're dealing with -- and only then do we have the basis to properly get to know each other and build a relationship. And of course all the people "in the know" know each other's names and photos and so on, but that information shouldn't be restricted to that small circle like that, that just ain't right because the general forum member lacks that information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_identity

Let's look at the word total together. A total awakening means the end/the terminus. If someone claims a total awakening and then adds addendums to that, that's evidence against the initial claim to a total awakening, pretty clearly. From my experience and perspective -- awakening is gradual throughout your whole life, and there's masculine and feminine awakenings too scattered in there. You're constantly awakening if you're pursuing development work your whole life long. And then the other qualifier I want to raise is -- not everyone grows at the same rate or ultimate destination from the perspective of the collective for whatever reason (whether nature, nurture, fate, genetics, grace, systemic issues, etc.). Muslims, love them or hate them, are consistent that Muhammad was the last prophet. That's a total awakening in the sense of at least they're honest about it and live it/practice it. A total awakening is a terminus, an end point. So, if you come in later and say, well, "I had another total awakening," probably (in my mind), you were wrong both then and now.

Be careful when someone (some other) wants to define what smart is with themselves at the apex of that. You alone are at the apex. You can't defer that to anyone else. This is the most important lesson in masculine development work. Women and feminine guys need to really grok this. You're the sovereign. Your feelings, gut feel, intuitions matter much more so than any hearsay opinion from someone else about what's what. All another person can really provide you with is an analogy, a metaphor. But you're the truth. Keep that. It's your wheelhouse, always, whether you realize that yet or not.