Nak Khid

wrong, the concept of opposites is dualism the insight of nondualism is that opposites are not real but instead false mental constructs You second statement is a straw man you are saying "the false belief that opposites can exist independently of each other" I didn't say that There are no opposites in reality and thinking they are is a mental construct an illusion that some people might say could be used as a tool So you have built a straw man and are very confused. After it is established there are no real opposites in reality then they don't exist independently of each other and they they don't exist dependently of each other they don't exist at all that is nondualism

So you don't believe everything is imaginary?

yes, if one considers irrationality genius but I'm surprised you would disagree with the idea since everything is imaginary

I think this may be Leo's unique philosophy. Did Terrance Mckenna or Martin Ball say psychedelics show you what Love is? If someone knows please let me know where they said this, they may have

Buddhism doesn't talk about God, love and passion I'm not saying they are right or wrong but Leo is not that fond of Buddhism (although it seems, agrees with some aspects of it). What Leo teaches is closer to Kriya Yoga, Paramahansa Yogananda and Advaita Vedanta although he might call these influences. He has a mega thread on Kriya Yoga for instance, what Yogananda taught Yogananda spoke of God and love a lot . Now he is more into is own ideas rather than saying his ideas are coming out of these traditions. Rupert Spira is also influenced by these but Ralston is more influenced by Buddhism Buddhists sometimes peak of everything being an illusion but more frequently they talk about impermanence. Leo talks rarely about impermanence . He focuses more on the infinite and this is more similar to things in Hindu philosophy However spirituality practitioners such as Buddhists and these forms of Yoga generally (not in every case) withdraw themselves from worldly affairs. they generally do their mediation , routines and rituals and don't involve themselves much with the latest news and current events. But lately Leos is not saying "infinite love" quite as much and he has said before and n the "Why is there Something video" he said that "Everything is Nothing" . That has more of connotation or existentialism or nihilism and some think Buddhism has a nihilistic aspect but Leo does not endorse those philosophies directly, he is clarifying what he meant by that. I'm just mentioned this because he mentioned Buddhism and I don't think that is what Leo would say is one of his primary influences but he can correct me if I am wrong

Some say everything is imaginary If this is true and everything is imaginary what does imaginary mean? Is it a synonym for "everything" ?

Somebody could imagine a dragon was standing in front of you and likewise you could imagine the the dragon had a top hat but you are saying that if you break your leg you could imagine it being instantly healed but despite this, you say you must go to the doctor. This is what people mean when they something is real and not imaginary

This term "nondual" it was mainly associated with Zen Buddhism although the Vedanta school of Hindus, also centuries old now describe their philosophy as nondual as well. And Zen monks never describe nonduality as experiencing God

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/

In 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait, a U.S. ally . When Iraq who had the strongest military in the region at the time Saudi Arabia and the United States did not like it because they perceived the power of Iraq to be a threat to stability and the crucial resource that fuels the modern nations, oil is in the region. They did not want Saddam Hussein who was a secular Arab dictator after being emboldened by a take over of Kuwait to then progress to take over Saudi Arabia. So with the aid of U.S. airstrikes they beta back Saddam Hussein under Bush I Shortly after it ended in 1991, Shia and Kurdish Iraqis led several uprisings against Saddam Hussein's regime, but these were successfully repressed using the Iraqi security forces and chemical weapons. It is estimated that as many as 100,000 people, including many civilians were killed. Iraq was ordered to destroy its chemical and biological weapons and the UN attempted to compel Saddam's government to disarm and agree to a ceasefire by imposing additional sanctions on the country in addition to the initial sanctions imposed following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The Iraqi Government's failure to disarm and agree to a ceasefire resulted in sanctions which remained in place until 2003. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the George W. Bush administration began planning the overthrow of Saddam's government and in October 2002, the US Congress passed the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. In November 2002, the UN Security Council passed UNSCR 1441 and in March 2003 the US and its allies invaded Iraq. ____________________________________ So why did the U.S. with allies then invade Iraq if Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 ? Because they thought that by regime change they could democratize Iraq and if not that put someone in place that would be U.S. friendly. Saddam Hussein had had friendly relations with the U.S. before they invaded Kuwait. The 9/11 attack made the U.S. look vulnerable and it was extremely scary and shocking for a lot of Americans. After Iraq invaded Kuwait was this the first step in Iraq taking over more counties in the gulf or was this just a territorial depute with Kuwait? This is unknown But there was a think tank in Washington called Project for a New American century. They had a vision for the middle east that being a superpower the U.S. could create a middle east that would be U.S. friendly and yielding. The gulf produced a much higher percentage of oil in the world then.. This need for oil is like the blood of the nation not just a source of profit. There had been an oil crisis in 1973 when the members of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries proclaimed an oil embargo. The embargo was targeted at nations perceived as supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War. The effects of the embargo were immediate. OPEC forced oil companies to increase payments drastically. The price of oil quadrupled by 1974 from US$3 to nearly US$12 per barrel ($75 per cubic meter), equivalent in 2018 dollars to a price rise from $17 to $61 per barrel.[3] This price increase had a dramatic effect on oil exporting nations, for the countries of the Middle East who had long been dominated by the industrial powers were seen to have taken control of a vital commodity. The oil-exporting nations began to accumulate vast wealth Oil is crucial to our whole economy and more so at that time. So the concept was that an independent minded militaristic regime like Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a threat to the economy due to access to oil . Eventually Saddam Hussein was killed by Iraqis on the side of the U.S. but this whole concept of regime change and a military "shock and awe" campaign proved to be much less effective than planned. And the middle east has many complex political agendas of it's own and use many guerrilla and other asymmetrical warfare tactics. So defeating a country is one thing but controlling it thereafter is another entirely

Yes to say everything is love is to deny that there is suffering in the world and before the Buddha was enlightened he lived as a prince and had seen o suffering. After he left the confines of his court and went out into the world he saw that there was suffering there. Yes to say everything is love is like someone saying everything is shit To say everything is love is to deny that there is suffering that people experience and in the case of the person himself who says that everything is love ___________________________ But what about the fact that we will all die so it is wise to accept that and not try to fight what cannot be changed. Or a hurricane is coming your way and you cannot change it So isn't it the same thing to says everything is love and then love everything good or evil or whatever it is ? Is love accepting everything ? No. Waving a white flag is not love --and we can change things - we can reduce some suffering Love, suffering, boredom, joy, jealousy, kindness, hate, empathy, indifference, humor, confusion, peacefulness, passion all of these things exist In a sense they are "infinite" in that after you die some other people will continue to experience these things However actual experience of love, joy, boredom, hate, tranquility etc etc all of these things are impermanent, not infinite So how do we express love? Whole heatedly, as if it were infinite

. No that is dualism, the idea that something needed to contrast something else. What is "needed" to contrast an apple? A non-apple ? No there is no such thing such "non-apple" that is a mental construct what about an orange? No, oranges could have never existed. They don't need to exist for an apple to exist Things exist "nothing" does not exist like non-apples do not exist "Nothing" is a mental construct and everything or something does not "need" it That would be dualism

Nihilism can have this effect on people

rope has been tied to fence

going to bed soon, had three tabs open, going back and forth between feeds

So how are they going to get the Feds to go home when if the Feds went home they could take that fence down ?

EST time 2:28 AM Portland 11:28 AM _________________________________ Big gas coming in

There was a protester last night, had a leaf blower to deflect the gas

I wonder if Trump is watching this or is like "tell me about it in the morning or wake me up if the fence comes down"

Now they are talking about another case Breonna Taylor. Not long before George Floyd there was the Ahmauad Arbery case and other cases going back years

Today in Louisville where the Breonna Taylor case was, police had separated with barriers and armed all black militia group on one side (NFAC) aka The "Not Fucking Around Coalition" (who showed up at Mount Rushmore earlier in the month) and on the other side of a wide street the 3% an armed white (mainly) militia group In the NFAC area one of their guns accidentally went off and 3 of their own members were wounded (but not that seriously I think) To think what could have happened had either of those groups taken a shot at the other

what would the protesters likely do if the fence comes down and those troops can't handle the crowd? What would the protesters do to the building?try to break in?

It depends on which, under Bush I or Bush II