Leo Gura

You are simply not awake. Otherwise you wouldn't be saying such silly things. You guys are fooling yourselves with neo-Advaita. There is no other. There is only oneness.

Instant classic: https://www.actualized.org/articles/the-trap-of-the-toxic-life-purpose

Nothing gives rise to experience. Experience is absolute and the only thing there is. There is no difference between experience and what you call Awareness. You are imagining me.

I got scorned by my parents when I went from being fat to being normal and healthy. Because people close to you don't feel comfortable with you changing. I also get scorned for my awakenings and spiritual growth. Crabs in the bucket.

His tears are from the deeper recognition of the cruelty of life and the personal suffering and sacrifice he has gone through. You guys are treating this with way too much shallowness. It's the same reason I cry when I talk about God/Love. He's not crying for Antifa, he's crying for the miserable human condition in relation to God. Progressives do not understand JP at all, so all they do is ridicule him. But his philosophy goes over their head.

MDMA is not healthy, so don't rely on it too much.

Peter Ralston is part of your dream. So is self-inquiry and contemplation. Watch your biases. It's absurd that some of you guys with the anti-psychedelic position don't realize that your "natural" awakening is mediated by serotonin. No serotonin, no awakening. So really you are talking about serotonin awakening vs lets say DMT awakening. And you are foolishly claiming that serotinin awakening is real but DMT awakening is not. There is no such thing as awakening without chemicals. Get that. And get that there is nothing special about your current set of chemicals.

Atoms are filled with 100s of various subatomic particles. Standard model has over 200 particles in it.

This is where you go wrong. All difference is imaginary. So there literally is no such difference. Stop assuming it. Everything you see, feel, hear, is nothing.

You lack an actual reference experience of consciousness rising. Take a psychedelic and watch it rise. Then you will understand. And until then you won't. It's a phenomena that requires experience. Yes, you actually increase consciousness. That's the whole point of this work.

When your life becomes a living hell, you will curse God for creating you.

Of course.

You are blind.

@axiom Don't be a smartass.

His tears aren't fake.

Doubt it.

I have reached that point long ago.

No it isn't. You will be in some weak-ass state that you call enlightenment which is actually 1% of full awakening. I support both, obviously. I only debate those people who: 1) Claim that psychedelics do not generate legit awakening. Or claim that psychedelics are a waste of time. Or who claim that they have reached levels of consciousness beyond psychedelics. 2) Claim that there are no degrees/levels of awakening. - - - - -

In other words, nothing new.

Poor form to laugh at a crying man.

Everything is dictated by your state of consciousness. And you current state of consciousness is nowhere high enough to look past all possible suffering. Even a decade of meditation will not be enough to access the states of consciousness you would need to overlook all suffering. All sorts of things are theoretically possible. It's possible to do a triple back flip while juggling 3 razor sharp knives. The question is, how much work are you willing to do to train yourself to do it? You can certainly make a lot of progress to reduce your mental suffering and anxiety. But it will still require a ton of training and work. And this should not be conflated with pure consciousness. It is a technical mistake to conflate these two things. Which is what this whole discussion is doing. Make a distinction between awakened consciousness vs training the human mind/body to respond or behave in certain ways that you might find desirable.

It's a silly point. If you took a model and put her back in time, guys would still be clammoring to get in her pants.

There is a baseline of attraction which is wired much deeper into our genetics than culture can change. A normal healthy female body is never not gonna be hot to the average guy. Culture is a strong force, but genetics is stronger.

Because women are judged so much more harshly on their appearance than men. A significant chunk of a woman's survival hinges on her appearance. And women struggle with fat more than men. 1) Do you really think it's good that many young girls and women have crippling self-esteem problems because they cannot live up to the beauty standards found in magazines? 2) Fat is never gonna become the new hot. That's not something to worry about. Fit and normal girls will always be hot. 3) This cover is just throwing a dog a bone. To get so riled up about it and turn it into a political hill to die on is silly. It reeks of insecurity. A secure human would not be bothered by one or two covers of a fat girl. But an insecure conservative will frame this as the beginning of the end of Western civilization.

I dunno about that. The mind is easily corrupted drop by drop. I wouldn't just chalk this up to him being a psychopath or the like. Mental programming and propaganda is a potent force.