RendHeaven

Yes - I observe that yellow tends to "take a break" from sexuality by recognizing that it doesn't lead to to Eudaimonia. Yellow can appear to act in the same manner as blue (at quick glance), but rather than coming from a place of suppression/repression/tension/inauthenticity, it has genuinely let go of sex, is capable of having it, but decides not to from of place of sincerity & relaxation. In some ways this is a "phase" bridging green and turquoise, a right of passage. You can't really go turquoise with your sexuality before knowing what it feels like to let sex go completely. I also see some people pretending to be "above" sex by mimicking this stage, but you can tell when people are faking it. I think stage yellow sexuality is what blue was trying (and failing) to copy with all of its denial. How to know you're at this stage (instead of faking it): You've had mind-blowing and fulfilling-loving sex before but you naturally don't chase it whatsoever - it doesn't even cross your mind. Turquoise comes full circle imo and engages with sex again, but with the newfound recognition that life and people are more mysterious and beautiful and full of love than we ever imagined at green or yellow, and the difference between self and other is imaginary. Turquoise can appear to act in the same manner as green (at a quick glance), but rather than coming from a place of "two people merging" to "make love," it doesn't even see "two people" to begin with - in that sense, sex with a partner and masturbation are metaphysically identical, in either case Self-Love (and especially appreciation for existence) is expressed - and there is never a moment of "turning on the lovemaking" since love was never "off" to begin with... "sex" is happening as you stroll around the street just as much as it occurs in the sheets. Sounds impossible, sounds like I'm redefining the word "sex" on a whim... maybe I am, and maybe that's fine. In a nutshell, this stage is about realizing that definitions were never solid anyway. It's like all of our collective human definitions are shapes made by clouds, and we think they are immutable, until the clouds move and we realize the shapes were "never solid anyway." And only then are we free to appreciate the cloud for simply existing, no matter what shape it takes. And acknowledging the cloud no matter what shape it takes - that's basically what sex is, isn't it? When the clothes come off and the bodies merge, what we're doing is we're dissolving definitions and holding space for whatever unfolds. The same with masturbation: when "you" stroke "yourself" it's like God petting his child, "I love you" by becoming the child and definitions dissolve... ...ok that last bit sounds weird without a reference experience ???

Lucky girl doesn't realize that normies like us would kill for her gifts

Cringe how?

Fuck, man...

Common theme seems to be charismatic/nice people "in disguise." Why might we struggle to tell the difference between genuine and disguised niceness?

Absolutely speaking, "you" were never "alive" to begin with. All of this conceptualizing is myopic belief-making.

Or, maybe a guy who already has social abundance has so much positive feedback, self-confidence, and willingness to follow his desire that he bets on himself in a heartbeat and effortlessly says hi, attracting her on the spot. There's nothing "inherent" about your limiting belief.

First of all, correlation does not equal causation. But more importantly, what was the sampling method and size used by these researchers? How is "acceptance" defined and derived? You ain't got "cold hard truth" until these nuances are resolved.

Not at all. Psychedelics are a tool just as a stove is a tool. They both have profound benefits and potential dangers. OP is saying to NEVER use a tool while the telos of a tool is usage lol. I am pointing out the silliness.

Complete nonsense. It seems as though you are immature and you got burned. This is like saying "NEVER EVER EVER COOK WITH A STOVE! YOU WILL GET BURNED!" Like bruh just don't touch the fire lmao. Cooking in no way necessitates that you touch fire. I will continue to use a stove as I see fit whenever I want to cook, and I will simply not touch the fire. Likewise with psychedelics: Earn high self-esteem, have survival handled, become grounded, purify your biases all prior to the trip. Then, all that remains are profound benefits that satiate your spiritual hunger (as food would satiate literal hunger). It's actually very simple and effortless if you're mature.

Might we be unconsciously forming an identity out of "healing?" And if so - doesn't that just reinforce the sense that "I am broken [since I need healing]" ?? Have you considered that there is literally nothing to heal? Being unbroken (so to speak) doesn't mean supergluing two shards together but rather noticing that there were never two shards, only one whole! I mean who tf told you (by word or action) that you are "broken" (don't get caught up in this), and more importantly - isn't it stunning that we've allowed their judgements to override our default state of wholeness? Have you ever suspected that you're PERFECT (literally flawless) and WHOLE right now, as you are? Cuz this is the case - despite what you or I or anybody else says. Just a vibe I'm getting, could be wrong

Means you've got more room to grow

It pains me to read some of these responses. Those criticizing Leo here are clearly out of their league, punching upwards at empty air. It's like @aurum said somewhere earlier: There are genuine and meaningful critiques that can be made of Leo's work, but I have yet to see a single one on this entire thread. All criticisms here are from "below" - they all attack a self-conceived, misrepresented fantasy loosely based on Leo's work - rather than the real thing. For more on criticizing from "below:" Please keep in mind that Leo is not playing games when he says that he has a decade of contemplation over you. The lack of reverence is just laughable, though entirely predictable and inevitable.

Good luck

@EntheogenTruthSeeker On boredom: "Grace fills empty spaces, but it can only enter where there is a void to receive it." - Simone Weil "Simone Weil is surely thinking here of her time in the car factory, when her vision of the ideal was replaced by the awareness of death. She saw her coworkers trying to escape this awareness by cruelty to each other or by simple daydreaming. If they only knew to accept the void, she thought, their work could be a means of contact with God." - Laurie Gagne Exodus 20:4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below." Wake up!

Dear God! You're a champion!

Well said. Lemme add that even the notion of "questions" are drenched with social matrix stink. As well as the notion of a "notion"/"negating a notion." There are no questions or notions, fundamentally. But by the time you truly realize that, you're floating above the charade and laughing, and you've got nothing to combat. That's not to say that questioning is not valuable, though. It can set you in the right trajectory. But the mistake is to think that you're out of the muck just because you're a questioner!

LOL.

It's gonna be ok.

why must something be "real" for it to be manifest? and what meaning is there in saying that it's "yours" when there are no others? redundant...

@Batman Hey at least the last line was good shit

I'm stealing this for my upcoming book.

bwahaha you just said you were going for no BS and then immediately said "mathematical energy" with no context or explanation with a straight face lmaoo I'm gonna be charitable and assume that you were being poetic/figurative, though if you meant it literally I'd love an explanation There is a difference between questioning from "above" and questioning from "below" - especially regarding metaphysics. When you question from "above," you totally embrace the guru's position and more - you've realized more than him metaphysically, and so you see the precise limitations of the guru's paradigm (for you have already traversed that territory). The new paradigm from where you currently question does not exclude what the guru is saying, but it embraces his teachings AND MORE (of which the guru has yet to realize). Your comparison is sincere, and you have no interest in who's right or who's wrong. At a certain level of awakening, you can be so certain and lucid of your True Nature that the realm of language, communication, ideas, philosophies, teachings... these all become like a playground to you to frolic in. You detect immediately and certainly when a teaching is self-deceived or lacking, and at this point you have no will to fight against it or to disprove it. You'll question it just enough to sense its deception, laugh, and then move on with your day unperturbed. When you question from "below," you subtly reject the guru's position without ever having embraced it; you've realized nowhere near as much metaphysically as the guru, but you are personally in denial of that. You think you know the limitations of the guru's paradigm, but you don't really, as you've never even bothered to traverse that territory. The paradigm from where you currently question is bias-affirming and ignorant, and you simply have more to realize before you can begin to sincerely compare (but this is hard to admit). Due to being cut off from your True Nature, you carry existential doubts which you wish to dispel. Your main interest is to either prove the guru wrong or to prove yourself right; or even more subtly, you may demand that the guru publicly demonstrate his rightness, and only then will you be open to his teachings. Either way your mind is mired in the game of rightness vs wrongness. For some reason language, communication, ideas, philosophies, teachings... these all have a dense importance to you, as though something would be lost if you ever let them go. Since you are not certain and lucid of your True Nature, whenever you detect that a teaching is self-deceived or lacking, you must always be wary of your own ego misinterpreting. When you encounter an unpalatable teaching, you feel the need to resist it, and your questioning has an agenda. I'm not gonna prescribe you to either camp, although I encourage you to self-diagnose. Keep in mind it's totally possible to see yourself questioning from "above" for certain teachers while questioning from "below" for others... everything I just laid out is context-sensitive and of course, relative. In a strange-loopy way, I also encourage you to question anything I just wrote, but be wary of whether you're coming from "above" or "below"

Absolutely speaking, there is no such thing. Clearly, it is. Absolutely speaking, this never happened. You're clutching to this idea of "the relative world" like your life depends on it lol. Maybe that's not an accident.

@Leo Gura Learning that I literally invented you was the most epic moment of my life. I wanted to tell you about it but... by that point you were uninvented, leaving nobody to tell haha. Even now as I type this out in a state of relative unconsciousness, I intellectually know that when I close my laptop, you Leo will literally vanish along with all of the brightly-lit pixels (not that you were ever there when the pixels were alive either ) yet I maintain the vague conviction that somewhere across America there is a human being similarly situated with their laptop reading this message. What a stunning assumption! Moreover, if "you" actually respond to this, what is literally the case is that the appearance of "a message from Leo" would self-spawn in the form of consciousness reconfiguring itself with no material or temporal cause whatsoever, and yet it will further bolster my assumption of a "you" "out there!" I'm still in disbelief at how you manage to make a teaching out of this. I'd love to teach something similar one day, but it's a titanic task, simply nobody will understand. You're asking to be misinterpreted. What an ingenious barrier of entry.