aurum

That distinction does exist, but it's usually not made in practice. For most people, criticism = hatred. Because in order to see criticism as not hatred, you have to see the criticism as valid. If there are valid critiques of feminism that are not equivalent to hatred, then what are they?

This is a self-sealing belief though. It assumes all pushback against feminism is actually due to misogyny, which therefore justifies feminism. She might as well have wrote: "all critiques of my position are wrong because my position is right". Feminism, like any ideology, has its problems and is not above critique.

I'm contemplating Leo's latest post on his struggles with disillusionment. To what degree is it possible to simply be satisfied with being conscious while living as a human? This is the question.

What's the difference between when you're asleep and right now?

No, sickness does nothing for my consciousness. At best it forces you to slow down. But even there, the sickness is not causing the increase in consciousness. Slowing down is.

I don't see how this relates to the question. Awakening is a state of consciousness. Practice is anything you do that is aimed at creating that state. We call those specific things practices, because somethings turn out to be more effective than others for awakening. Sticking your thumb up your butt is not effective at creating the awakened state. This is empirical. Therefore, we don't teach sticking your thumb up your butt for awakening. What is empirically useful for awakening: meditation, psychedelics, certain kinds of yoga, self-inquiry, etc. So the question is, do you deny the empiricism of how these practices generate awakening? You can argue "it's all Consciousness", and that's true. But it's also true that different practices have different levels of effectiveness for awakening within Consciousness. Psychedelics happen to be a particularly potent dream tool.

So do you deny the effects of all spiritual practices then? Including the processes Ramana himself taught?

No amount of good intentions makes up for ignorance.

@eTorro It depends on how bad your financial situation is. If you make good money but your family is still hounding you, that's wrong. But if you can't afford the things you need, then you're wrong and are likely using spirituality as a bypass. Spirituality is not an excuse to opt out of money, because money is just the way humans survive. Unless you're not going to survive, you need money and will be a burden on others if you don't have it. Someone will need to finance your spiritual bypassing. Likely your family. Not to mention that you shouldn't even aim just to be a "lack" of a burden. You should actively aim to be a source of value for others in your life, such that they can lean on you.

Watching Leo’s IG reels on repeat to train my algorithm. Train the algorithm, or the algorithm trains you.

I'm talking about a serious stroke that leaves you permanently impaired. Obviously many strokes can be recovered from.

It's the exact opposite. You will 100% lose your awakened mind state if you get dementia / stroke, no matter who you are. Nothing about Ramana or any other spiritual teacher is so special that it would prevent that.

You could be dating someone who is excessively neurotic. But also, these sort of responses from women are often like warning bells. She doesn't feel safe / secure / containment in the relationship. She's not in her feminine. The issue is almost never just about the specific issue itself. It's about your general orientation. Are you handling survival effectively? Are you genuinely taking responsibility, or are you avoiding? Ignore these warning bells at your own peril.

Yes, but it’s more than that as well. You have to have the natural potential / talent. The natural potential is the lottery part. Practically, you don’t have control over of this. But that does not mean success is random.

Survivorship bias does not eliminate that there are real factors that determine success. Like skill. Skill trumps everything. If you are skilled and committed enough at something, you will eventually be successful.

I watched the video you linked. That was more than enough.

Sounds like typical new age, influencer BS.

If there were only relative truths, that would be an absolute.

This would not be good at all. Some degree of wealth inequality is important in a society.

Bro that cannot work in a real relationship. Your lifestyles are going to clash, it's inevitable. The question is how benign it is and whether it should be considered a dealbreaker. Assuming a decent partner, most lifestyle quirks people have are pretty benign and can be easily compromised on. The idea that you will never have to compromise in a relationship is absurd. Decide what you want. Do you want relationship and compromise, or zero compromise and isolation?

Okay, then it sounds like your standard is you don't like when people have particular ways they want things. Is that reasonable?

Marathons are definitely problematic. I see so many people destroying their bodies over these.

It's a tradeoff. If you're literally not willing to budge at all, then of course you cannot be in a relationship. It's just a question of what do you actually want. Also, consider if your standards are actually legitmate or just self-imposed absurdities. I could make a standard that no one I live with is allowed to breathe within five feet of me, and this would immediately ensure I just cut out 99.99% of people.

Yes, it's an ideological bind.

Liberals are incapable of properly understanding the manosphere, no matter how well intentioned they might be.