Parththakkar12

I can understand it can seem bypass-y. It is not meant to bypass the practical reality of our world today. Practical benefits to Love are that you can see the other side as a part of yourself. Which means that you can see that if you're hurting them, you're hurting Yourself. Now you can still choose to hurt Yourself and understand that You will heal over time. But, you will not let your ego co-opt the whole process and run rogue. It's one thing to participate in a battle to win, it's another thing to understand that it would be the natural thing to do and move accordingly.

I might just have the answer to this. I have found this to be the product of attachment to my mind in my case. I used to struggle with this. But then, as I had some ego-death experiences or enlightenment experiences, I dis-identified from my mind. Then, the naturally in-alignment choice was made for me - I was able to use my mind differently. Rather than identify with my worldview and use my mind that way, since this part of me had found the Truth, I then started using my mind to 'point to' or 'talk about' my perceived experience in the Now. This is what happened with me. I intuitively felt guided to share this. Useful skill. I did happen to stumble upon it without particularly looking for it! I happened to find the right teachers, be in the right area of the world to learn about the 5D. I didn't go looking for it as an escape from my 3D normal life, my 'normal life' happened to include it! There are a lot of people who get into channelling, past-lives, etc. to escape the problems of their 3D life. I'd suggest that you don't worry too much about it if it doesn't naturally come to you. Actually, I've been involved with this stuff even before I came across Leo, even before I joined the forum! Now why didn't I bring it up earlier, you might ask. Here's why : the problem of communication is a really difficult one. I have been focusing on integrating everything I see, while having normal communication on 'normie topics' and integrating all of that! Normal human communication is a very complex process. Human beings today don't know how to communicate while being on the same page. Projection tends to get in the way of achieving clarity of communication even on day-to-day topics. This has been the way in my experience : first you intuit what the other person is open to hearing, then you intuit a way of getting past their projections (which involves getting conscious of them), then you take their mind/belief-system/ideology as a part of your mind (You can do this if you're at Yellow), then you directly interact with their mind. This has been my practice for the past 4-5 months. This debate-intensive forum has been great practice! I'd never thought I'd get the opportunity to tell someone about my spiritual worldview this early on. I'll consider this a W in communication!

When I say 'I' or 'my', it is the human being Parth. So I use those terms in the 3D sense. When I say 'present' and 'past', I mean those in the way we commonly know present or past, according to the 3D materialist construct. My bad! I didn't really explain 'attunement' to you. Alright. Attunement is the same as empathy. It happens on a felt level, it's like I can feel your emotions. Here's my claim - We are all one on an emotional level, which is the energetic level. You can consciously decide to 'tune in' to my perspective, or my felt experience. This can also be seen as waking up to the fact that my perspective is a part of You, intuitively feeling it and tapping into it. I can see that you, of all people, would be able to do this. Now the emotional level is a 5D level, which is higher than 3D or 4D (time). On this level, we are all one, there is no separation. But, on the level of 3D, we are separate human beings living different lives. Our physical bodies are different, our brains are different, our memories are different, our belief systems are different. You cannot access these things using your human body because it's physically separate from mine. You will have to interact with me and ask me about these things if you want to know about them. However, on an emotional level, you can feel into not just me, any being in the Universe. You can feel into the energy of Adolf Hitler, Elon Musk, Angelina Jolie, anyone. That is attunement. That is true from an Absolute perspective. However, from the 3D materialist perspective, we are different human beings. The life experience/sensory experienced through the instrument 'Parth' is different from the experience experienced through the instrument @Serotoninluv. This is how I meant it. My claim here is that the rules of the 3D world say that one instrument cannot access the memories, beliefs and sensory experience of another instrument unless science makes that possible. By attunement though, you can access the felt perception of another perspective without having to break the rules of the 3D game! Again, I use the term 'mental software' in the 3D materialist sense. We're having a bunch of conversations here : About the 3D materialist physical time-space reality, the 5D emotional reality where attunement/Oneness happens and the Absolute level where all dualities collapse. All of these realities have different rules which shouldn't be conflated and applied wrongly. The 3D time-space reality is a part of the higher-level realities, sort of like you have building blocks of the higher-level realities building the 3D reality. Oh man! Now you're blurring the lines of cause and effect. Cause and effect is a thing in 5D reality, where you can see the mechanism of how the 3D world gets created. That we can call Infinite Mind, which creates our 3D time-space reality by a chain of cause and effect. Mind thinks in terms of cause and effect, so that necessarily means that cause and effect exist on this level. Now of course, as we all know, this duality collapses on an Absolute level. I may not have been fully clear here. Language also tends to break down in these conversations, I did my best. You can ask me to clarify points that aren't clear to you.

About 'perspective' and 'ideological position' - They are connected and there is no duality fundamentally between the two, so I wouldn't disagree with your interpretation. However, what I was pointing to was 2 different facets of the same thing. For example, my lived experience, which is my present moment experience and the memories of past experiences I have, would be considered Parth's perspective. My ideological worldview, or the mental software that runs my mind, which gives rise to my ideological positions is my individual interpretation of those experiences. Now say you get deep into my perspective, such that you are able to attune to my lived experience. You still wouldn't have access to my ideological worldview without interacting with me, because we are physically different people. The rules of the 3D videogame say that different brains cannot access each other's beliefs. This is the difference between the facets I was talking about. SD also holds room for Tier-2 to accommodate for any and all reasons! My point here is that it isn't actually possible to make absolute claims that one reason for holding a view is more conscious than another reason. Now SD gives us a model that has incredible accuracy. Having said that, it would be a mistake to conflate the map for the territory. SD does, in fact, have respect for this in the way it defines Tier-2. I'm gonna take the risk of making a very fine-grained distinction here : There is a difference between levels of psychological development and level of consciousness. SD models the former, the latter cannot be modeled. Does this mean that you cannot know whether someone else's perspective is conscious of something or not? No. You can attune to their perspective, get into it and understand their level of consciousness, i.e. what they see vs what they miss. My point is that it is slippery territory. We are on the same page relative to this. More power to you! If you are able to get into their perspective this deeply, you can in fact know what's right for them. Your advice could really be legit advice as it can directly speak to them. I can relate with this. Happens to the best of us!

I understand the good intention behind it. There are a few things about evolution along Tier-1 I'd like to share: The ability to create rationalizations to support your existing ideology comes to you when you move from Blue to Orange. That's when you discover your rational mind for the first time, you learn to defend your ideological position from outside attacks on it. You are able to do this by being selectively skeptical, i.e. being skeptical of the other side and not your own side. Now, this is like a new-found ability for you and you will want to use it to defend your ideological position. Then as you progress up Orange, you learn to use your rational mind better and better, you are able to find logical inconsistencies in the ideological positions of yourself and others. You really care about being the winner of the debate and proving yourself right. Intellectual honesty can become a value of yours at this stage. This will be the case as you want to prove yourself to be the 'fair winner' of the debate, so you will want to win it being as intellectually honest as possible. This carries on into Green. At Green, you start to shape your worldview to accommodate for the perspectives of specific groups of people. You still care about proving yourself right though because now being right becomes important for your ability to create the change you want. You are still identified with creating the change you want and you will still believe in battling the status-quo to do so. Proving yourself right is a power-struggle. Here's the issue with using power-struggle to create the change you want - Social change is not about winning. It is about seeing that you are a part of the whole and acting such that the whole super-organism moves forward. It is incredibly vulnerable in that you are asking for the change you want, with no way of ensuring it will happen or no way of guaranteeing support. It is all about making relationships between collective egos work.

There is a difference between 'perspective' and 'ideological position'. Perspective would mean someone's current life experience, while ideological position/mental worldview would be that person's interpretation of their perspective. A conscious person is someone who is able to contain other people's perspective within their perspective. This technically does not have a lot to do with their ideological positions. You actually cannot prove how conscious someone is based on their ideological positions or mental worldviews. Maybe they have unconscious, biased reasons for supporting Trump, maybe they have reasons that are extremely conscious. More conscious than what you or I can perceive! You may be able to see whether the reasons are unconscious or conscious, but you will never be able to prove it either way. There is every possibility that someone who is lesser conscious than you is more right on certain issues than yourself. Someone who is deep into their own limited perspective would know their own perspective better than you, because you haven't entered their perspective deep enough! They could have pretty strong reasons for supporting Trump. If you invalidate and negate their reasons, it won't make their reasons go away. Also, it isn't necessarily healthy for everyone to have an expansive perspective. A lot of people are trying to get a handle on their own sense of reality, which is why 'loosening their hold on their perspective' could result in loss of sanity. You may not be doing them a service by telling them to let go of their perspective, that holding on to their perspective is somehow objectively wrong. It can take a long time before you are secure in your own perspective, after which you can move on to include other perspectives as part of your own. You don't have to let go of your perspective in order to understand another perspective, integration is possible.

This is a very good question. Better people than you and me are trying to figure this out. It is the full-time job of spiritual teachers and conscious artists to figure out the answer to this question. This is a communication problem. Nothing more and nothing less. It is an issue of communicating with closed-minded, unconscious people who you are actually vulnerable to. You can have a successful communication, i.e. your point can go across successfully only with the co-operation of the recipient, to the extent that they will co-operate with you. My favorite spiritual teachers are the ones who master the art of communication with the unconscious perspective. This requires you to be able to go deep into their perspective. That way you will be able to directly show them the glitch in their matrix and give them a real shot at waking up and becoming conscious.

This is the result of the shadows of Green. This is what happens when Green people get hyper-identified with their progressivism, such that they turn conservatives into the enemy. When you have a group of people who get hyper-identified with their ideology, they will defend it collectively. Individually even if they know that it isn't the absolute truth, they will defend it. It will be in the name of 'creating change'. You will find this to be the case on this forum, or any progressive collective ego for that matter. Now this forum is exclusively designed by Leo to be a debate-intensive chamber where we're trying to brush our ideological worldviews against other ideological worldviews, so that we can learn from it and integrate each other's worldviews. This is what Leo specializes in. However, collectively in the forum, we can fall into the trap of defending that 'integrated ideology' from the 'more unconscious ideologies'. This leads to people making assumptions about the other side based on their ideological position, which is fundamentally intellectually dishonest. You will be collectively ostracized, scapegoated and targeted by the collective. This is the opposite of what we want to see happening if we are a forum of conscious people. Hyper-identification with your ideology does not work for creating real change. What we need to do is we need to move to Yellow, where we are integrating the conservative perspective and being accommodating towards them. This is how real change gets created. The way to do it is not to push for what you or your group want at all costs, damn the consequences to the other groups. If that is what's happening, or if that is what is getting reflected to you, maybe you need to re-examine the change you're wanting to bring. The way to do it would be to dis-identify with your perspective, no matter how integrative, and focus on understanding and integrating the other perspective. This will make your desires for change more integrative, sophisticated, nuanced. You will see more and more people wanting to be on board with your change when that happens.

That's strange-loopey.

Being a leader doesn't necessarily mean you dictate what people believe or don't believe. What it does mean is that you take a clear stand and you base your work around it. You are in the business of creating social change, which means you will have a vision of the change you want to see and you'll lead people in the direction of that change. It depends on how you define it. You are free to open your eyes and see for yourself what will create positive change, you don't have to blindly believe someone else's definition of progressivism. Now there is a consensus of what the public believes is progressive vs conservative. There are archaic institutions out there which have all sorts of oppressive, exploitative dynamics. The society you live in has certain needs relative to the times and the dynamics it is currently dealing with. The more tapped in you are to the reality of your society, the more credible your perspective you will have. In the business of being an intellectual expert, credibility is power. The more credible/powerful you'll be, the more chances you have of leading, the more potential you have of actually creating the change you want to see. The way you grow your perspective to be more and more credible is by participating in debates with people who are credible. You can consider it a power-struggle of sorts to win credibility. The more you've participated in a power-struggle/competition, the more you've failed and the more you learn/develop, the stronger you'll be. Now there are intellectually dishonest people who will use factual inaccuracies/projections to prove themselves right. This can be considered 'punching below the belt' or 'cheating' in the debate. You just gotta see that and resist the temptation of proving them wrong. Anyone can fall into these traps.

If I were a public figure who had my own forum, i.e. if I were in Leo's position, I would also take the most progressive stance. Now because I see what I see, I wouldn't be bashing the conservative perspective and I'd try to integrate them. But if you look at it strictly ideologically/systemically, Leo is right. This is what Leo identifies as - a philosophically minded person who is a very good systems thinker. I'd agree. Now why the most progressive position? Why take a position at all? Why not be neutral and inclusive position? I'll tell you why: Ideological positions will be taken according to what you want to do. Ideological positions inform your action, whether you are an individual or a collective. So if you are an ideological leader, i.e. your ideological positions are important to a lot of people, the best way to use that power is to push whatever change you want to see in the world. This would be after you've worked on yourself enough to not get drunk on your power and to be able to handle it. The way to do it would be to support progressive agendas. You have only 2 choices to choose from - progressivism or classical conservatism. If you want to see change happen, you will have to push for progressivism as you don't really have an option. If you are a leader, you will have to take some sort of stand. Your stand will be the stand of the collective you're leading because you're the one calling the shots in your collective. At least operationally this is the case, because the structure of the systems in the collective say that you set the rules, the mods ensure that your rules are followed. This is part and parcel of being an ideological leader, or a leader in general. You may have seen Leo say 'Go start your own forum' when someone challenged his way of handling this one. He can do that as this is not a democratic forum. This is exactly how leadership works - Whoever has the most power leads. Now you can build yourself to be that powerful if you want to lead.

With Blue it's actually interesting. Blue people are heavily attached to being 'good people'. So, they will be very sensitive to your potential disapproval and their behavior will be very nice and kind. This can come across as empathy, when actually this is a reaction to their fear of disapproval. They will tend to prioritize being a good person above being an individual, i.e. they will prioritize their moralistic ideology above expressing themselves authentically. The empathy is not real empathy, they don't even know themselves individually! This is true for all humans. Having emotions though doesn't mean you are empathetic. For example, Orange people have emotions but their rationalism takes away from their ability to be empathetic, in fact their materialistic ideology doesn't believe in empathy! That is true. The transition from Red to Blue is interesting, in that you manipulate the emotional reactivity of Red to indoctrinate kids. The reason your programming works is emotional reactivity, but you're programming them to be able to prioritize an ideology above their emotions when deciding how to act! The reason it doesn't work for sociopaths isn't that they don't have emotions (they do), it's that they don't have that ability to suppress their emotions. 'Normal people' are also emotionally reactive, but they're able to suppress it so that we can collectively survive in relative safety. Sociopaths also tend to be emotionally reactive, but they can't suppress their emotions, which makes them dangerous. Maybe it is. It's still done out of an attachment to what they've been indoctrinated with though. The selfish attachment to selflessness! I don't believe you can become completely ego-less as a human being. You can realize that the ego is an illusion, but being ego-less is still an idealization for you. Conscious people try their best to come close though.

The ones who really care and empathize are Green people, not Blue people. Blue people have been indoctrinated to sacrifice for something bigger and they blindly follow it and defend it. It actually isn't humanly possible to be selfless. Now you can realize that you have no self, that you're not human. But that doesn't happen at Blue!

@Girzo If Trump were using this forum, he'd say 'Leo's a really great guy, he has an incredible forum, awesome people in there, giving me all this attention. Vote for me 2020!!'

I'm sure the top answer will be 'He's hilariously funny' or 'His memes were the best!' I agree. I'm not American, I didn't vote.

@iceprincess Ikr!! Then these same people will demonize mass shooters when a mass shooting occurs. Mass shootings occur for similar reasons, because of the shadows of society.

What you're saying totally makes sense. I want to add though that this can change. Being at Turquoise doesn't mean that you'll necessarily be a bleeding-heart SJW. You can channel your inner ruthlessness when it comes to arresting people AND be mindful that the guy you're arresting is you. I'm not saying this is easy or realistic in the near future. But it is something to aspire towards as a society.

Make it a free speech platform that doesn't have the censorship problem. A lot of people will thank you for it!

Good question. It is an entire field of study. It's called being a spiritual teacher. This is what spiritual teachers master. Observe spiritual teachers who are very good at communication, who have good vocabulary. Some very good examples are Leo and Teal Swan. Because they are able to dis-identify with their own ideology (which you can do at Yellow and above), they can interact with someone who is identified with that specific ideology. They are very good at communicating with people identified with different ideological positions. They can do this by getting really deep into their perspective and interacting with that ideological perspective. I myself am very passionate about learning this. Human beings don't know how to really communicate with each other. It will take some really serious commitment on your side to really master this. This is the focus of my life currently. It will be incredibly valuable in all aspects of my life. I'm planning to write a book that has an effect of directly interacting with the reader. I'll be able to do this because I'm learning this! A few good questions to ask yourself when they act ignorant: 'What are they missing?' 'Is this person open-minded or closed-minded to what I'm saying?' 'If they're closed-minded, why are they closed-minded? What are they defending? What are they prioritizing above the truth? What exactly are they identified with?' Be sure to do this only once you've recognized that the person you're interacting with is a part of yourself, that you aren't separate from them. Otherwise, you will fall into the trap of 'trying to fix them' and some sort of moral, intellectual superiority. None of this is true, you are not superior to anyone if you're more conscious than them. It just means that you see stuff that they don't see. Albeit this can make your perspective more valuable than theirs, even if you aren't morally/intellectually superior to them. Of course, @Leo Gura's inputs would be valuable to me too.

Teal Swan making a brave, courageous statement on Black-out Tuesday: This is unbelievably bold given how much she has at stake. Much respect to her!

Good for you. Most people in the world would envy you as they're struggling to figure out what to do with their time in lockdown. They don't really want to solve the problems at hand. They actually want to be activists and protesters, which involves upholding and pushing your progressive ideology, assuming that you're right and everyone else is full of shit. They're newbies in the business of creating change and solving systemic, social issues. I mean they've just woken up to the reality that social injustices exist. They've just been disillusioned with the government, which they've been brainwashed to believe should be fairly upholding the law. This is an issue of both sides not understanding each other's mental contexts. This is more important for you to do, as you're more conscious than them. It's the responsibility of the side that's more conscious to initiate building the bridge between themselves and the unconscious folks. They're under the illusion that we should be equal, or that equality is a good thing. It's like earlier they believed that we are equal and that we're in a fair, free market at Orange. Then you get to Green and you realize that you had certain advantages or 'privileges' over them which is why you succeeded and they failed. Which means, it was never a fair competition to begin with. You guilt yourself into thinking that your privileges are unfair and that is a bad thing. When you develop higher, however, you start to see that unfairness is part of the game and that there is an over-arching sense of fairness to the working of Universal Intelligence. HTH

@John Iverson What he meant it that it doesn't take a special person to follow the beaten path and be a pilot because everyone else they know is doing that, or their culture fed them with the idea that 'Being a pilot is cool'. If you do it like that, you will get mired in the system and you will completely lose touch with your authentic self. Maybe you don't really want to be a pilot/engineer/scientist/doctor, but you went for it because of indoctrination. Now it is perfectly fine if you authentically have a dream of becoming a pilot. You can go for it and be an authentic fit in the system you're entering, in which case you won't lose yourself in the system.

I think the English is fine. She did indeed mean 'You chose to be born as a Black person beforehand, in the non-physical realm'. New-Agers say this, even Leo would agree. Infinite Will means that you choose everything. I think what she's saying makes sense. But she said it at an inopportune moment. Our culture currently doesn't believe that they are responsible for everything that happens in their life. So, when you tell them to take responsibility, Stage Green people will call it 'victim-blaming' and they'll shoot the messenger. Her mistake was to not see this and understand the ramifications of it. What she didn't see was that collectively, our collective consciousness is one in which we play zero-sum games to create social change. We don't care about taking responsibility for anyone and everyone, rather we care about seeing the change we want and that's it. We don't particularly care about how our change could negatively impact someone else. If I were in her place, I'd do a generic BLM post, or I'd not say anything about this. You're just playing with fire if you directly call out collective shadows.

Aww man! I was curious about it. I was hoping to maybe clear up the communication gap that was happening between you and other people.

This is a serious question. I've never understood the rationale behind protesting. How does it work? What do people hope to achieve by protesting for or against anything? Say some crime happens. It could be a sexual assault case by a powerful man leveraging his power. It could also be the George Floyd thing. Everyone loses their minds and starts protesting! Why exactly is everyone doing that?