Haumea2018

Yeah, that's a good point. In the long run, it is a passing stage. Pretty long run, though - we're talking, what, billions of years in aggregate lifetimes or something of that order? And I was referring more to the here-and-now, being in the 3rd density. So as a practical matter, if a spiritual teacher looks suspect, and you're gaslighting yourself how he just MUST be wonderful -- well, it's something to consider.

Yeah. The Law of One material, if you accept its premise, totally blows up the ideas frequently bandied about on this forum and those of conventional nonduality teachings. I mean, sure, you have "Zen Devilry" ("enlightened rogues") but that's typically considered a passing stage on the way to full enlightenment. But here the fundamental premise is that you can be enlightened yet Service-To-Self (i.e. control/power as opposed to love-others-oriented. The split is 95% to self for the first and 51% to others for the second.) Now, most spiritual seekers and enlightened people are, in my experience, Service-To-Others oriented. But definitely not everyone.

No, but he'd probably have a much higher IQ. Just like a professional basketball player would have more height and high-twitch muscle fibers. Not everything's about enlightenment. People at 1000 LOC don't automatically fly after flapping their arms either. But, really, the hate on this forum for the scale is humorous. It's a massive knee-jerk reaction to something in essence described in multiple independent sources, from the Zen Oxherding Pictures to the work of Stanislav Grof and Ken Wilber. Is it a phobia of numbers? Did everyone here fail middle school math or something? Just a reminder: the enlightened/not enlightened conceptual duality is just like the LOC 1000 scale, except there are two positions instead of 1000. An on/off switch vs. a dimmer. So please stop using words like awakening, enlightenment, truth, etc. to be fully consistent with your righteous reactions.

Have your friend ask him "when you say Yellow/Teal is about including the lower stages, how does that manifest in real-world terms, beyond meaningless rhetoric? Or is it basically all about the rhetoric?"

You can't prevent it from occurring in the future. The more you care about preventing it, the more desperate you come across, and the more likely what you're trying to prevent will happen. The only way you may be able to prevent it is to not worry about it happening in the first place. In other words, drop the need to prevent it.

Because of trauma. Being present brings up pain/negative emotions, and there's a desire to distract oneself from them. But you have to stay with the "emptiness and boredom" so you RELEASE IT.

It depends on what one means by "happy." I don't use the word "happy" when referring to enlightenment because of its connotation of positive emotions. Enlightenment = peace and freedom that removes the need to be in any particular emotional state. The desire to experience positive emotions is due to nonacceptance of the Now; you don't like the state you're in so you want to be in a "happy" state in the future. This is what a lot of seekers are seeking because they've never experienced true peace and freedom; they want permanent "happiness" -- that's their only reference point as far as a desirable state. Enlightenment is the experience of the unconditional surrender to the present, which removes the need to be in some other, future ideal state that the mind has conjured up. So the problem isn't THE STATE YOU'RE IN RIGHT NOW, IT'S THE NONACCEPTANCE OF THE STATE YOU'RE IN RIGHT NOW.

That's good in theory, but reality is different, and it's not a linear predictable thing. The process of awakening is NEVER a linear, predictable thing - just chuck that idea in the trashbin. E.g. That's precisely how it is. It doesn't matter how many times you've done it at what dose. It's not going to be something you can calculate, predict or force, because those are ego functions. Surrender is not dependent on what the mind thinks. (Which is why I don't particularly endorse the psychedelic route -- because you can do a bazillion doses and still not surrender. It's not something you can force.)

Addition by subtraction. Throw out what you don't need, what is false, and you have serenity and peace of mind. It's not what you're missing, it's what's weighing you down.

Really, the biggest thing is overcoming your own issues so that they are not a limiting factor for your clients. Otherwise, it doesn't matter if you have a Ph.D. in Psychology, you will still not be fully effective. (And no, being "psychoanalyzed" before beginning practice as is the case with psychotherapists is not nearly enough.)

Ask people you trust, whether friends or parents or whomever what your shadow is, or you can put it in terms of "what part of myself do I neglect or suppress or project?" Then listen to them. It's going to be uncomfortable as hell to accept their input without inner resistance. If you feel that resistance, then you are resisting information about the shadow. I gotta be honest, though. There's only a limited amount of shadow work that will happen until you reach FULL enlightenment. The I-thought is in the way, it attaches itself to your conditioned personality parts too easily. (Not that you needn't try, just be modest in your expectations.)

Well, you can look at it this way. Your life is time-limited; what's more likely to bear fruit -- that which is very much under your direct control, or that which isn't? So, choose carefully...or don't. It's your life.

I mean "ultimately" any direction is bad. A world full of activists rearranges the chairs on the Titanic, since the root cause of the problem, which is people unwilling to face the shadow, never goes away. You need to turn within to at least consider there may be something there that needs to be changed. But in the context of our present day culture, there are way too many people who simply don't want to deal with their own shit and focus on some external demon instead. So you have people trying to control the thoughts, behavior and actions of others (the perceived wrongthinkers/evildoers) not realizing that their actions are perpetuating the problem instead of solving it. Being on the side of the angels is the ultimate ego trip of our times.

It can certainly be a distraction for people who would rather not deal with their own issues and try to change the world instead. Changing yourself is painful and hard. Jumping on some bandwagon can be very satisfying, but ultimately one has very limited control over the course of events. Also, the kind of mindset that this approach generates can be one rooted in constant dissatisfaction, since the world will never be to one's liking. It's pretty much a guarantee of endless misery and suffering for oneself.

Well, the problem is the shadow and its projection. The ego "parts" are going to be there before and after enlightenment. Before enlightenment there is relatively little shadow integration. The ego parts are "on an island" -- it is a rigid defense architecture. When there's integration you've built a bridge to the shadow/unconscious, so there's less polarization/more integration. In other words, you have begun to accept qualities and roles beyond those rigidly conditioned by your upbringing (and perhaps including genetic inclinations.) You've begun to seriously step outside your comfort zone. People use the word "ego" in different ways. Often, they use it to mean something like "assertiveness" or pursuing one's interests. There's nothing wrong with that as long as it is done in an integrated, healthy manner. The problem is not getting what you want, but having it be harmonious with other factors (such as not having it be jarringly anti-social, e.g.) It is about balance, not either/or, black/white. Anyone that tells you it's some extreme, like giving up X, is engaging in that type of black-or-white thinking. Integration is harmonious, not renunciative.

People like James Randi think that it is such an enticement, that there is no possible way anyone could not be tempted by it. In other words, they project their own values (ego, fame and wealth) as normative. Tells you more about them than the objects of their debunking efforts.

There is no right or wrong in this game. If it works for you, it works for you. It's not a reliable method for most people because you have to be willing to "die"/abandon your "current self" -- voluntarily. Psychedelics can't force you to surrender. If you ARE surrendering in the process of taking psychedelics then that's the primary mechanism for your awakening, not the psychedelics themselves.

On this forum it boils down to snobbery. Green > Orange/Blue. Good old fashioned class snobbery with a "spiritual" twist, but really it's NOTHING NEW. "we're better than THOSE people." Yeah, veeeeeery spiritual.

It's just human nature. Given a choice, people will nearly always choose their long-term pain and unhappiness over short-term pain which will possibly be very intense, but will seed the ground for their liberation. And a lot of "spiritual seeking" is just this kind of choice. You can create all kinds of elaborate teachings about "The Self" or Non-Duality or Enlightenment, etc., but ultimately it's about discovering the undiscovered self through having your ass handed to you by life in whatever way, shape or form. THERE IS NO ESCAPING THAT CHOICE.

I think it's best to ask him himself: Leo -- what do you think your central/critical flaws are? If he doesn't know what they are, and wants to know, I'll gladly offer my 2 cents. If he doesn't know, and doesn't want to know, I won't say anything. If he thinks he knows, but is wrong, I can say he's wrong, but leave it at that. If he doesn't think there are any, then I'll definitely not say anything. If he knows what they are, and hits the bullseye, kudos to him. I'm done offering up unsolicited criticism to people. Most people would rather experience long-term pain than short-term, so I let them be.

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm "hating on your ideas"? So much drama. Here's an idea: people of those states should stop voting for lunatics who raise their taxes and piss them away. If you think this would be a better world if China overtook the United States, I can't really help you. There's too much programming to be undone.

Military is so big because we don't want China to rule the world. Do you think it might be a different world if in addition to its economic influence it was the preeminent military power as well? Ask the Uyghurs. Americans seem to need a reminder every half a century or so that slashing the military is a temporary boon that soon has to be reversed. Anyway, the states that have high taxes have governments that have South America envy. They want no middle class, just ruling elites and peons.

Anyway, it's not a divergence between personal agenda and society. It's a divergence between personal agenda and political views or beliefs, which is different. That's easier to reconcile than the first. Sufficient cognitive dissonance usually does the trick.

That was my point though -- it's easy to support something that will never happen. Did you realistically think Bernie could ever happen? Whatever gave you that idea, if that's the case? The US doesn't elect socialists, at best it elects right-leaning populists, like Teddy Roosevelt.

I think he pretty much said it's the showgirls.