aurum

This thread is pretty old. I don’t practice sungazing consistently anymore. But when I did, I usually did it during sunset. Sunrise was too early. And you don’t need to do sunset and sunrise, just one or the other.

*Warning, sungazing can be potentially dangerous for your eyes. Use all described safety precautions* What is Sungazing? ~18 months ago, I came across this practice called sungazing. Some of you may have heard of it, but for those of you who haven't, let me explain what it is. Sungazing is an ancient practice that recently started getting popularity due to the work of a guy named Hira Ratan Manek (HRM). The idea is simple: all things are energy, and we can absorb the energy from the sun through looking at with our eyes. Specifically, here is the practice HRM recommends: Wait until what photographers call the "golden hour", which is one hour after sunrise and one hour before sunset. This is to prevent damage to your eyes, so take this seriously! Stand with bare feet on bare earth (sand, soil) and simply look at the sun. On the first day, look at the sun for only 10 seconds. Everyday afterwards, increase the time you look at the sun by 10 seconds until you get to 44 minutes. If you did this everyday, it would take you 9 months to get there. Once you get to 44 minutes, stop. For the next year continue to gaze 15 minutes a day, or just walk on bare earth with the sun on you. Say goodbye to sungazing, you're finished Here is a video of HRM explaining the practice in more detail: My Sungazing Journey I had never heard anyone recommend sungazing before, so I was intrigued. Old beliefs like "staring at the sun will damage your eyes!" came up, but I decided to let that go. It seemed incredibly simple and the claimed benefits were pretty wild. Some of these benefits included: Mental, physical and emotional healing Spiritual development Improved eyesight Reduction or complete elimination for the need to eat food More energy, less need for sleep. Since I just finished my initial 44 minutes, I'm going to go through each one of these benefits and explain what my experience was. Claim: Mental, physical and emotional healing Result: I've definitely noticed a change for the better in all of these areas. It was very common that after a long sungazing session, I would find myself having an emotional release. However, I think HRM's claim that sungazing will fix all your physical and mental problems is a bit exaggerated. Claim: Spiritual development Result: Positive. To me, spirituality and well-being are one in the same. So since I saw an improvement in my emotional and physical health, I'd definitely say there were spiritual benefits. I also became much more interested in nature during this time. Claim: Improved eyesight Result: I have pretty bad myopia, and I can't say sungazing improved my eyesight at all. However, it also didn't destroy my eyes as most people would assume. Claim: Reduction or complete elimination for the need to eat food Result: I also can't say I noticed any difference here as well. Another claim that may be exaggerated Claim: More energy, less need for sleep Result: I do feel like I have more energy overall. Sometimes after a session I would feel particularly "plugged in" so to speak. I also noticed that when I started a session, I would usually start yawning. Yawning is a classic sign of an energetic release and sudden upshift in your vibration. However, I still sleep the same amount as before. Overall, I think sungazing is a beneficial practice. It takes little to no effort to go outside and look at the sun, and you will see improvements. However, my results could be biased. I also do a lot of other spiritual practices. So it's hard to isolate sungazing as the cause of some of the benefits I've seen over the last 18 months. For that reason, I think it would be awesome if more people on this forum would be willing to give it a try and post their experiences. Sungazing has the potential to help a lot of people but there's little to no mainstream scientific research on this stuff. So this could be like an underground group experiment. Who needs grant money? TL DR; Sungazing works, but potentially not as well as some people claim. More people should try it!

Totally, I see that in some of my new age friends as well. Seems like you and I always end up talking about Green traps, we must both be spending too much time around greenies Some people do regress down the spiral. And that is concerning since I also see Charles as one of the most important voices out there for social change. My perspective is that he is still solidly in Yellow. He has been doing this for years and years and has consistently demonstrated that integrated awareness over time. If he did legitimately backslide, I’d be pretty shocked.

I just looked over his QAnon essay and I can see what you mean. He definitely went hard on the “it’s the system” side of the argument. Obviously systems do matter. Someone who is unaware of the systemic view is going to be helplessly lost. And we don’t want to fall into the trap of blaming individuals for obvious collective failures. That would almost be the moral or psychological development equivalent of the “pick yourself up by your bootstraps” argument conservatives make. In other words, Charles is arguing that our systems generated the alienation and ignorance that then lead to alt-right conspiracies and Trumpism. However, I think you are also right that it’s not that simple. Even systemic thinking is just a lens, and we have to know when to put it down. Just viewing everything through “the system” may leave important things out. Which, ironically, tends to be something Charles is very good at noticing. He often calls out our tendency for reductionism and simplification of our problems, and yet talking about “the system” could fall into the same trap. It may be that some people are just not ready for love and harmony. It doesn’t serve their spiritual journey at this point. They still have lessons to integrate. If we try and push people too far too fast, that could really be our own agenda sneaking in the backdoor. An agenda that wants them to be the way we want them to be. That would definitely be a potential Green trap.

I can’t say I’ve noticed a shift. But I also have never met the guy. I would say he seemed discouraged in his last essay that mentioned the screen play. Perhaps he was just burnt out. And maybe the screenplay is the thing to put life back in. What do you feel was an example of his perspective shifting to a more radical green?

I'll second this. There are limits to systems thinking. Map is not the territory, trying to access Truth via logic etc. But that's like a 1% problem to have. Most people are no where near systemic enough in their thinking. If you've truly maxed out systems thinking, that's a good problem to have. You're probably at least SD Yellow. First you have to learn about it. So read books on systems thinking / systems theory. Then practice the lens. When you see something happening in the world, try to apply that lens of systems thinking. It doesn't make it the only lens, but it can be a useful one. Practice when to pick it up and when to put it down.

Yeah I love Charles, his social commentary is off the charts. And he hints at deeper spiritual truths, like at the end of The More Beautiful World. But it would be fascinating to see how his perspective would change at even higher levels of consciousness.

I've been talking about degrowth economics for a while now. Was excited to see CNBC just did a good article on the topic: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/19/degrowth-pushing-social-wellbeing-and-climate-over-economic-growth.html "As policymakers prioritize an economic rebound, scholars are backing an idea that pushes social and ecological wellbeing over a system that pursues relentless economic growth. "Degrowth would require societies to abandon the idea that the percentage change in gross domestic product is an accurate indicator of progress, and instead learn to live better while producing less." “We must ask ourselves; do we really want to pursue aggregate growth if it’s going to put our planet — and our civilization — at such extraordinary risk?” Jason Hickel, an economic anthropologist, told CNBC via telephone." “Ultimately, this is the core insight of degrowth. Right now, we assume that every sector of the economy must grow, all the time, regardless of whether or not we actually need it. A more rational approach would be to think about what sectors we actually need to grow, like public transportation and renewable energy, and what sectors are clearly too big and should be scaled down: like SUV production, private cars, the arms industry, advertising, and so on,” Hickel said. This is where economics is heading. The endless debates about capitalism and socialism totally miss the point. Market activity is also on the chopping block of things that will "degrow". Although I don't see that mentioned. There is a lot, lot more to the story than this simple article, but it is a good primer for those of you interested in the economics of the future.

The same way any social charge is made. The old thinking begins to deviate so hard from reality that it cannot survive. Glitches are being thrown in the matrix created by the older economic paradigm (2008 financial crisis, health crisis, ecological crisis, etc). Denial has to get larger and larger and becomes more and more obviously untrue. Eventually reality wins. Even degrowth is just a subset of new economic thinking that I’m watching emerge. So it’s already happening. In term of more actionable ideas, here’s a list: 1) Education. There is a debate in the community about the word “degrowth” and whether it’s a useful word or not. On the on hand, it accurate gets to the point. On the other it can trigger misconceptions, such as that degrowth implies society will be worse off. However, if people are properly educated on the topic, then some of those misconceptions can be avoided. 2) Utilizing decentralization methods of communication. Mainstream outlets are limited in their ability explore heterodox ideas. Their function is mostly social coherence, not to deeply explore the cutting edge. Using decentralized means of communicating (social media, local events, dialogue etc), these ideas can get out there. 3) Success cases. There has to start to be experimentation and successful examples of degrowth being implemented. The more people see it working, the more it will catch on. Andrew Yang will likely be bringing a few degrowth ideas to NY if he wins mayor. So that may be a start. 4) Better transition scenarios. Right now degrowth and other heterodox ideas are suffering from realistic transition scenarios for politicians. It’s nice to say “we should do a UBI!”, but how? Economics involves complex systems, and unintended consequences can abound. The details of any sort of new policies must be clear and well defined, accounting as much as possible for possible failure scenarios. Politicians generally will not do anything overly risky, lest they make a mistake and get voted out. So anything not “business as usual” must be well prepared. There of course will still be resistance, despite everything I just said. That’s inevitable. But I trust time to do its job.

I agree, he seems mostly peak Yellow to me. He clearly has had some nondual experiences and is open to spirituality, which makes him very different than Orange. And he's much more systemic, self-aware and integrated than Green. But he seems to be holding onto materialism to a certain degree.

@Sustainable Keanan I’m very into these kind of ideas. You might like this:

@JosephKnecht I watched this when it came out, really excellent. Refreshing to hear some deep, nuanced dialogue. The last half hour or so they get into some nice epistemology. I'll be following this as well.

@Lyubov Are we all sorting out our bad boy / bad girl issues this week? Then you haven't experienced enough pain yet . The wrong girl will literally ruin your life. It could push you to suicide. Then you haven't met the right ones. A girl who is really integrated will blow your mind. But you also have to appreciate what they're bringing to the table. If you're addicted to drama, anything that isn't drama will seem boring by comparison. But of course it's not boring, it's way better. But you have to have the palate for it. It's like sitting and appreciating nature. If you're over-stimulated from modern society, doing something like just watching nature seems incredibly boring. But it's actually fascinating if you can stop being such a junkie.

So would you say you subscribe to a sort of Hobbsian, survival of the fittest view of nature and human history? Or are you just trying to hit us over the head with survival so we'll recognize how biased and selfish we acting? Maybe both? It's something I'm curious about because my study of history, biology and my own experience has lead me to slightly different conclusions. But perhaps I'm not understanding your argument. I agree, sexuality is more complex than we often say. Undoubtedly it boils down to meeting some sort of "need", but what is that "need"? That part is not so obvious. If we consider that there is inherently a spiritual component to sex, where we desire to actually dissolve our ego, it becomes even less obvious to me how sex can only be about survival. What would you consider a choice based on higher consciousness when it comes to sex?

We need to define what we mean by "an asshole" and "masculinity". Some of the women in this thread seem to be picturing a guy who just runs around insulting people and slapping drinks out of their hands. Such a guy would be demonstrating low social intelligence and would be unlikely to have strong social ties. Not going to be attractive, even from the most selfish survival perspective. The women also seem to be conflating what they want in a man with physical attraction. I.e, the kind of guy I'm looking for isn't an asshole, so this can't be correct. Because they seek intimacy and connection, an asshole does not fit that picture. He will not meet those needs. The men are essentially arguing these are two different phenomena, and that you can be attracted to a guy who you know is not overall what you want and is not good for you. Hence the stereotype of women coming back again and again to the "bad boy" that hurts them. Also that higher consciousness traits like kindness are only desirable to women once they are already attracted to a man, as this allows her to not get screwed over by that same lower consciousness behavior. The men seem to be picturing an "asshole" as someone who is socially dominant and aggressive in going after what they want. Even if it boarders on the sociopathic. Such a man would likely have many social connections and resources. Teal's argument in the video is that women are not inherently physically attracted to low empathy, selfish type of behavior. That this is actually a shadow of real masculinity. And that any attraction is only for other reasons, e.g that he displays other masculine qualities or that she is reacting a past emotional trauma. Since most "kind" men have been emasculated, she must take the good with the bad in many cases. Leo and others are arguing that low empathy, selfish type of behavior is inherently physically attractive due to survival gains from that behavior. And that actually developing empathy can reduce one's attractiveness in the eyes of women as it weakens one's desire to assert their own survival agenda. Empathy and other similar traits are desirable in long term relationships, but it has little to no relevance for short term attraction. This whole debate seems to rest on top of a deeper question, which is what does it mean to be human? What are we really "wired" for? Are we wired for selfishness, survival and low consciousness behavior? Or are we wired for something "higher"?

Better but keep working on it. It still feels incongruent to me. That’s the problem with just copying lines, they almost never come off as authentic. Here you go from nice guy asking about her travels to “stay away, I’m a bad boy” real quick. @Ghost gave you pretty good advice as well. A challenge that is fun is usually always good.

Now it feels way too aggressive to me. Keep it light and fun. You're supposed to like each other. Maybe take out the "dumb BS talk" line entirely. Also, I'd be more specific. "Thrill seeker and adventure enthusiast" just doesn't feel like it actually says anything about you. That could mean almost anything. Same thing with your qualifier, it's kind of vague. For instance, in my profile I have a line that says "Falls victim to accents & long hair". Which is true. It's a qualifier but not in a way that's so aggressive. Girls who have an accent and long hair will feel chosen, those who don't, won't. Spaces too. Nobody wants to read a block of text.

@Lyubov I’m not loving your bio. It’s cool that you like to travel and that can communicate high value things. But honestly almost every guy says the same thing. I’d take it out. Also I’d definitely take out the “if that matters to you”. Just put “6’1” with no explanation. You don’t need to justify yourself. Also also, I don’t like the and “on tinder for the memes” line. If you’re just on tinder for the memes, why should she take you seriously? She’s trying to fuck, not gain a meme buddy. You could keep the “find a nice office boy” line. But it needs to feel congruent with the rest of your profile and your messaging. Otherwise, if you seem like this super nice guy and then drop that line, she’s going to be like ??? It just doesn’t fit. So yeah I’d basically just rewrite all of that. Put at least one real solid qualifier in there too. Something that says “this is what I’m looking for” without necessarily being so serious about it. Then when girls who match that description read that, they’ll be happy.

Sure, women can be attracted to those kind of guys. And they might really appreciate that in a relationship. But if we're talking about quantity of one night stands, I'll put my money on your stereotypical club promoter / bartender / frat boy any day. I think it's important to acknowledge the difference, because then it means as a guy you have to make a choice. What really matters to me? Is having sex with the most number of girls really what's most important? If being a fulfilled, higher consciousness person means I don't get laid as much with random girls, am I okay with that? Do I want quantity, or do I want quality? The universe is always testing our wisdom . And of course it's not a black or white. Maybe a little club promoter / fuck boy phase meets your needs for awhile. It might also teach your valuable lessons. So it really depends on the person and where they are at.

@Lyubov Post the convos and I’ll give you my best read. I’m sure others will want to as well. The general gist is in the beginning is to keep it light, fun, confident, and subtlety sexual. That’s what flirting is. Make sure your profile is solid too. You’re getting matches, which is obviously a good sign, but a good profile can solve a lot of what looks like messaging problems.

Yeah you got the right idea. I find it’s even simpler than that. When it’s discovered that two people can meet each others needs, a meetup just becomes the next obvious step in that process. Yeah I have a love/hate relationship with social media as well. In some ways it’s great. In other ways it makes me want to throw my phone in a river and never look at it again. But regardless it’s here and it’s the dominant social force in our culture. So until I get a better plan I’m choosing to use it. For the purpose of meeting people through cold approach, the best app is easily Instagram. Everyone has one and everyone assumes you have one as well. And it lets people check you out quickly and get an idea of what you’re about. Tiktok or snapchat as well are up there depending on the age of people you’re talking to. As far as phone numbers, you can still use them. But I actually prefer IG these days. Less investment but also can give people a much larger window into who you are.

You're welcome. No intentions definitely do not have to be explicit. Especially when it comes to dating, usually there's more subtlety. But it's not a hard and fast rule. You could say "hey I'm practicing my social skills", and as long as you own it and demonstrate that you know how weird of a thing that is to say, you might be able to pull it off. If you meet someone and you want them to be a business partner, as some point you're probably going to have to say "hey, we should go partner on X business project". So take it case by case. Also, you need to be getting the contact info and setting up some sort of future event with every person you meet who you like. If you have a good conversation, don't just end it. We're vibing, why are you going to kill it now? Set something up, and do it right then and there. Get their Instagram, get their snapchat, phone number or whatever so you can coordinate. So maybe you happen to meet someone who is also into non-duality and you hit it off. "Cool, hey I know this meditation event that's coming up. Do you wanna go? Oh you do? Cool, let me get your instagram and I'll send you the link". Boom. That's why you want to know what you're looking for. If you didn't know there was a meditation event coming up and that you wanted to go with people, then you couldn't pull off that example.

@RendHeaven It's good that you're doing this. Society is basically set up in a way that disincentivizes strangers from meeting. So you're breaking some of that conditioning. I think your problem is that you just need to focus it more. It's good that you're stopping me on the street to say hi, but why are you doing that? Are you just being friendly? Are we going to party together? Are we going to date? Are we going to start a business? Do we have similar interests we enjoy talking about? What is the purpose of this communication? Obviously you may not know in the beginning. You may have to talk to that person first to find out. But know why you're doing what you're doing and what you're looking for. Human relationships depend on us meeting each others needs. If there's no needs being met, you don't have a relationship. You just have a couple sitting around wondering why they're talking to each other. So be more intentional in what you're doing. Obviously just saying "hi" can be a big deal if you're extremely nervous, but you want to get beyond that.

Holy shit that is amazing. She knows everything about narcissism, but couldn’t apparently see it in Trump. It isn’t just about the conservative echo chamber. These people are desperate. Storming the capitol probably gave their lives meaning again. They know something is wrong, but they don’t know why. It also says she was in bad financial condition, which made her susceptible to conspiracies. Ironic when you consider that dems and progressives would have likely provided a much more stable financial condition for everyone.