tsuki

@mandyjw Right below the quote you posted? This is the most, to-the-point critique of this video I could make. Science is never going to find God with those assumptions.

Take note that I did write a poignant critique of his critique.

@mandyjw I suspect that you want to point to the fact that I am okay with suffering and misery in the world? That is not something that comes out of shadow work, that comes from integration of the heart and the mind. Shadow work is to the heart what learning is to the mind.

Hmmm?

I'm not sure if I'm still blocked, but I'm going to post it anyway. I was once advised here on the forum to relax my throat like a pelican. It helped tremendously to quieten the mind.

Gosh, aren't you excited today @Joseph Maynor ? Thank you for not getting discouraged and pressing on until you got your answers. That's so like you ❤️ Oh, and I was kissing your ass too, don't forget that ❤️

@Leo Gura could you perhaps comment on this? Do you agree?

What's in it for me?

There is a difference between a preacher and a mystic. Preacher is a mouthpiece for ideology, while a mystic is the source around which an ideology is built. Any sufficiently advanced individual will seem like a preacher, there is no avoiding it. When it comes to consciousness work, there is no way of confirming whether another person is legitimate or not by judging what he says. There should also be no need for that. I think that Leo's videos should be treated more as a fuel for creativity or inspiration than imply knowledge to be believed. I don't know if it's me or you, but I'm sensing a green sentiment from you, about relativity and caring for other people. It's not like I'm shaming you for it, it's just that Yellow has a way of finding truth and having strong convictions that do not stand in opposition to others. Leo's stories are like that if you pay close attention. That being said, I really think that Leo is coping out. The criticism he's not properly addressing right now is the ego backlash he's facing for growing too rapidly. if he chose to bow down to peasant us, the whole forum could grow alongside him. I think it's a shame really.

Do you care to name them? I'd like to hear your input.

It depends on you, I suppose. Do you gain anything out of his metaphysics, or do you simply treat it as a comforting story? That is the difference between religion and spirituality - distraction/comfort vs embodiment.

Well, I did - spirituality is about direct insight, religion is about stories that explain them to laypeople. They both aim at relieving suffering, no?

Actually, this video had a sentence like that. What's wrong with religion? The quest of spirituality is to relieve us from suffering that science failed to solve. To get your own spiritual insight you have to do a damn lot of work and most people can't afford that. The second best that comes right after is comforting stories that you can wrap your head around, that make sense. The problem with today's religions is the fact that the last prophets we had died thousands of years ago. Their legacy is dead, outdated, misunderstood, highly contextual to their time period. The organizations that are supposed to take care of it have no spirit left and force people to abandon their minds and believe something that makes no goddamn sense.

If you become developed enough that you stick out like a sore thumb out of your immediate surrounding, people will actively work to bring you down to their level. You can view this as fright, jealousy, envy, pride, etc, or simply as a badly verbalized plea to help them grow. At some point you will simply have to help others, or relocate. EDIT: Hmm, I may have misunderstood. Are you asking if it's okay to share them with other stage blue people, or is it okay to translate them as a blue person? I answered the former question.

@Truth Addict Alright, I watched the video. The quest of metaphysics is enlightenment through modeling. You create such a complete model of reality that you lose your mind, your ability to verbalize it. The models are only meaningful when they are imperfect, relative. The absolute truth has no mouth to speak and no ears to hear it. There is no point of explaining the perfect model to anybody because there is nobody to hear it, everyone is already 'it'. That is how perfect the model is. The Leo you are seeing on the screen, the one you can talk to, will never be enlightened. He will only speak imperfect models because they are imperfect, because there is someone that does not understand them. It's a peculiar position to be an enlightened metaphysics teacher. That is why the highest teaching is silence and nobody knows the true enlightened masters. So, is it a belief? No, it's his best shot at explaining nonduality, but the fact that something follows out of it, a point of life, should tell you that it's incomplete and personal. Nothing follows from nonduality, there is no everything is one and therefore something. Absolute truth when spoken always curls back on itself and leaves you dumbfounded.

Didn't watch the video yet, but from what you wrote it seems like you are not the target audience of this video. If blue is responsive only to ideology, then you need to use ideology to get them out of it. The belief that ideology is inherently wrong is an ideology in itself. While I also find some of Leo's ideological content a little disgusting - we shouldn't underestimate the fact that Leo's livelihood is dependent on his teachings. He cannot afford to be completely turquoise with his audience because that would make him too obscure. I suppose that's the cost of making a living off teaching a varied audience. Of course, since I didn't watch the video yet, I may be talking nonsense.

Jungian Typology as phenomenology, pt 1 Jungian typology is the application of alchemy in the realm of personal experience. Elements are mapped to cognitive functions in the following way: Earth is sensing Water is thinking Air is intuition Fire is feeling These cognitive functions are not separate, they are intertwined with each other. They are interdependent, always coexist simultaneously and blend seamlessly. Looking at one of them is like looking at all of them from one perspective. They form two contradictory pairs that are a union. Considering one end of a pair in itself is nonsensical, like considering evil without the concept of good. It is, however beneficial to create their separate descriptions to highlight their peculiarities. These descriptions seem total, absolute, contrasted, like gods of ancient mythology because they should invoke a certain experience that is of some use in this work. Earth/Sensing is everything that can be perceived. This area can be mapped to five senses: Sight Sound Movement Smell Taste Each of these five senses have inner and outer expression. Outer senses are those that we use to observe the external world, while the inner ones are what we consider to be our private experience/imagination/memory. Sensing as a cognitive function apart from other functions is not intelligible. It is like a camera and a microphone without a person to perceive it. There are sounds that make up speech - both the outer, as in a conversation, and inner, as in inner dialog - but without any meaning. It is more in lines of a background murmur of people talking in a cafe when we're lost in thought. It is the meaning of a traffic noise when we're reading a book and not paying attention to it. There are outer sights, like this text, and inner sights, like visual imagination, but they do not convey meaning. It is like a finger pointing to the moon prior to knowing that it demands from us to look in a certain direction. Movement is the kinesthetic sense that includes outer movements of our body, inner movements that we usually call emotions and the boundary between the two that is called touch. These are, again, to be understood as "pure" sensations without any meaning attached to them. The sensing center is what is usually referred to as the body, and its mirror reflection is the world/universe. Water/Thinking is understanding of what is perceived in reference to a set of rules, such as for example: culture or knowledge. Thinking is not found within sounds (either 'real' or inner/imaginary) because the same meaning can be conveyed in many different ways. It can be conveyed with various pitches of voice, by various people, while keeping the same meaning. We can say the same 'thing' using many different grammatical structures and these structures may even be incorrect to some degree. It is possible to translate meaning between different 'kinds' of language, like for example 'Polish' and 'English'. It is even possible to translate it across mediums, like sound (speech) to sight (painting) while retaining the meaning that is expressed. Thinking in itself is something beyond the senses and and is, at most, intertwined with them. However, the underlying similarity of those expressions is that thought always relates things to something that is already known, familiar. It expresses connections between objects of perception as rules to be applied, or followed. It is mechanical in nature - cold, detached and automatic. The thinking center is what is usually referred to as the mind, and its mirror reflection is culture. Air/Intuition is everything that is, but cannot be perceived. Intuition is the home of penetrating insight, genius, of wordless truth and clarity. It is the possibility to recognize patterns, make connections, see things that are not perceivable through senses. It is the way of looking at things without any tangible context, like a newborn that tries to grasp the significance of something he has never experienced before. It is for example how we can recognize our mother and father right after we're born. It is also how we can recognize our father in our employer, or our mother in our wife. It is how we can step back and look at something to re-purpose it into something new, different, without altering its physical form. It is not something new randomly, by coincidence, it is precisely what we needed in this situation, it is what we were looking for. It is how we learn, how we create something, seemingly out of nothing, how we recontextualize. We know that something is there even if we can't explain it. We observe, investigate, take apart, try and put back together or destroy. It is puzzlement, joyful confusion, fun, creativity and foolishness. The intuitive center is what is usually referred to as the unconscious, and its mirror reflection are the archetypes. Fire/Feeling is understanding of what is perceived without reference to any set of rules. It is not something we do against the rules in the rebellious sense - that kind of understanding is still based on thought. Feelings manifest in the spur of the moment and have the ability to emote us to action. They are most notably expressed through inner movements, but are something beyond them. We may feel the same emotion in different parts of the body with varying intensity, but we still recognize its underlying meaning as being one and the same. Feelings, when contrasted with thoughts, are more primal, basic. They are not, in any way, lesser, or worse - they are simpler, more demanding and direct. Feelings are always to-the-point, even if the point is not always understood 'correctly'. When inspected closely, they have a peculiar inconsistency to them - what feels right, right now, is not always something that will seemingly help us feel better later. Feelings are not random, they have their own twisted logic to them, but this logic is almost purposefully obstructed from view. They are capricious - sometimes cute, but sometimes dangerous or deadly and it is never too obvious which. It almost seems like their function is simply to surprise, but they can also harmonize. They have their own distinct dignity and can solve, sometimes seemingly unsolvable, problems. The feeling center is what is usually referred to as the heart, and its mirror reflection is nature. To be continued.

@Ayilton I loved it too. I really like how they treated memes like scaffolding for storytelling and filled it with high quality philosophy. You should watch that video @mandyjw. Are you a boomer, or a bloomer? "Uh oh, but tsuki, I am not a boomer and a bloomer, I am infinite love!"

You're welcome, man. I appreciate your questions because I have to push my understanding, make it clearer. I'm glad you found it useful.

It is definitely not just an intellectual process. My view is that the heart and the mind are two separate 'circuits' of understanding. Thoughts/mind relate the objects of perception to knowledge and culture, while feelings/heart is something more original, spontaneous. It does not look for the acceptance of others, but it is not acting against them. The heart does not communicate discursively like thoughts, it is felt in the whole body. It has something to do with authenticity and honesty. If it speaks, it speaks in metaphors and riddles that you only understand retrospectively. It's like a capricious little kid sometimes. Well, if you stop trying to stitch the heart together, it is still broken and clouded by shadows. You cannot trust your feelings with a heart like that, you have to purify it. It is not the mind's fault that you're acting like a devil - you're hurt and you're trying to react to it in all the wrong ways. The point is, I think, to supply your mind with correct knowledge and purify your heart from shadows so that you have two separate circuits of understanding/judgement. If you have a mind that is right and a heart that is pure, then you can recognize what your intuition is and start being guided by the two wisely. I don't think that there is ever an end to shadow work, just as there is never an end to learning. One perfects the heart and the other perfects the mind. It's not just about your personal shadows, there are also collective ones. I'm not sure if you can get rid of those on your own, but you're still subject to them.

My point was that there is no such thing as Earth, and that the there is no such thing as humans. The only delusion there is, God's delusion, the mechanism of creation. The Ego is not in opposition to God, it is how God creates. It creates through separation, through bubbles of consciousness.

In the morning we had a walk to the forest with my wife. I exercised only once in the past week because I was tired after work. We had a short jog and it felt wonderful. It was a weird feeling to enjoy my peace while the morning traffic was raging with people trying to get to work. It connected with my recent insight from the previous walk we had. We noticed a starling in the woods and I was just admiring the complexity of the place. Simple life forms gathering together to form a giant self-contained organism. When I noticed the bird, I thought that it is an eye of the forest. A tiny speck of consciousness that formed a bubble and separated to venture off on its own. When we were listening to the chirps, I thought that stilling the mind is like trying to still the forest. That it is just as intelligent as any of us is. These small life forms, form the environment for increased complexity. This is where we came from. We could feast on other, progressively more complex plants and animals until our minds were big enough to close on themselves. We became self-aware by seeing ourselves from the third person perspective - through awareness of our death. This is why we left the place and started to engineer our own world by manifesting our thoughts. These thoughts, culture, live in our minds - small life forms that grow progressively bigger and are manifested in reality. We are so complex, so fragile, only because we are standing on the shoulders of giants. Maybe, one day, we will create something that will treat us like a resource - just like we treat the woods today. We are not aware of just how we came about to be like this. We're gods within God that spawn gods.

In my experience, it is helpful to intimately know the thought-stories about my past. Distilling them down to insights, to root causes, makes them repetitive, mundane. They loose their grip on attention and simply let you deal with the underlying problem instead of blaming or retaliating. There is no need to bother other people when you know that you can take care of your own needs, so I think it fits into shadow work to some degree.

I don't think that it is possible to 'fix' the psychological self through understanding its mechanics, seeing the parts that interact with each other. There is nothing that can be introduced to make this thing work 'as intended', in a self-loving way. The only way is to break this mechanism altogether and see what happens then. I think that the mind works the way it does because it constantly tries to stitch the heart back together, not realizing that it cannot be done this way. The heart will mend itself through conscious suffering, if we're only going to let it bleed and weep for a while. If the heart ever demands something to heal itself, it is always just a few inches away. and we're naturally attracted to it. It is not meant to say that the mind is somehow a villain, on the contrary. It can do extraordinary things if we just let it stop trying to fix the heart. It can even take the control over if we're not willing to face the suffering and trick itself into believing impossible things, just to give us momentary relief we're asking for.

As I was hugging myself, a single tear ran down my cheek. It was unlike regular crying, without struggle for air. Just a single tear. If it didn't also happen during my LSD trip, I would not give any significance to this. In times like this I would usually just hug my wife, but it would never quite cut it. It felt as if I wanted to hug her so deeply that I would return to the uterus. When I told her that she said: "I'm sorry, wrong address" and we laughed it off. To think that I have my own uterus inside called "chest" and all I needed to do is to embrace it. I would never come up with a twisted metaphor like this on my own hahaha. Good job, heart you spoiled little shit. I love you, alright? Next time just tell me what you need, okay?