RedLine

You can stop having sex and go back to your toughts in any moment. You would´t get pleasure from sex if you did not wanted. You have pleasure because you want to have pleasure. The contrary it is called rape and it is not considered precisely as pleasure. However, you cant´stop pain. That is what defines pain; that you can´t stop it.

I know what you mean, you are mostly right. I would introduce a nuance: we are not "designed" to survive but to truth (which is the same as infinite). What happens is most people think ego survive is the truth. Basically there are two forces that moves human action: Eros and Tanatos, or Atman and Project Amtman in Wilber´s terminoloy. one goes towards life and the other towards death. Both looks for inifinite. One of them wants to find inifite through ego and the other one killing ego.

If you are experiencing pleasure you can go back to your thoughts whenever you want. If you can´t go back to your thoughts you call it pain. If you are experiencing pain it is hard for you to go to your thoughts because the pain is taking all the limelight, it is forcing you to focus on that.

then for you nirvana is not more real than samsara? Isn't it the spiritual path to seek the truth?

Of course statistically almost nobody do it. What I mean is if you want you can. It is not you cannot do it, it is you dont want to do it. Almost nobody wants to do it and they need years of meditation to slowly get into fear (reduce ego defenses) and see nothing wrong happens. I actually think I am ready and I could do it. I am looking for a place to yell, cry, vomit and shake. I feel my main fear is led out of control. I had meditaion and pchycodelics experience where I felt I was close to accept fear -death- but I was afraid to start yelling and trembling so neighbors would call police. When you are having pleasure you can go back to your toughts anytime you want. That is why you like it, your ego "feels safe".

You are illuminated and you are reading a comic. How can you understand that comic if you are not operating through previous concepts that you learn? You could not understand it. The comic wouldn't even exist if you dont´have the concept of comic, paper, colors, etc. If you state reality is what we create , then how can you say samsara is an ilusion if it is what we are experiencing if we are not enlighten?

That is the point. Enlighment is to overcome survival. It is true though, even when you are in high stages of consciusness, there are always attachments in some degree, othersiwe you would die. That is why "complete enlighment" does not exist. There is always some little attachments (survival).

Physical pain switches your attention focus from your ego to the pain. That´s why you dont like it. If you fully accept the pain I think there is not difference between pain and pleasure. The difference is that you belive in fear. Ego death is not the same that suicide. People suicide because they think there are a "better ego" after that.

Because their shadow is the masculinty and they try to rationalize it with spiral dynamics condemning the lower states when even the creator of this theory Clare Graves stated that there are not better or worst stages. The main shadow of the West in 2020 is the repression of masculinity.

Ok, I will try: If you are in samsara, for you, to be alive, in opposition to death, means stay in the permanent chat of your head, keep the internal dialog, keep all that ideas and stories alive. So why do we fear pain? Because we fear that the pain takes control of our complete experience and we cannot fully continue with our neurotic chitchat. It is the same reason why we fear death.

It is hard to explain but it is actually the same.

Now you could say: But I feel fear right now. How you can say it does not exist? I have an answer for this: Right now you think that your thought of fear relate to a real object which is fear. Once you realise that the object of fear does not exist (because you observe it and nothing wrong happened), that thought of fear does not make sense anymore because it does not point to anything. If you find that a tought is just a tought and don´t point out to any real sustance then the tought automatically desapears.

What I don´t get is that you created RED at some point where you were a child and learned to separate colors. I mean, there are objects out there because at some point you labeled those objects with words. So even when you are seeing RED, it is not pure Being, because you are still filtering reality through languaje. You are still "seeing reality from your ego".

He is right. The West repress masculitnity. The West is in the last phase of its declining. It will probably be replaced by other civilization full of life like the Muslims.

What is the correct way to be present/contemplative while we are working/studying? What is the difference between being present while we are working/studying or not been it? Is it actually possible to mediate while we are working/studying since we are "changin things" and not contemplating without trying to malipulate (this is what meditation is about)? The most I can do is be super focused on what I am doing and don´t multitask. But I still feel that I am not as conscious as when I am doing Do Nothing or some other meditation. To be aware I need to do nothing, just watch, I don´t know how to be aware and take action at the same time. I feel that I am in my mind, because I am changing things so working/studying goes against my spiritual calling. Since most of us are basically most of our vigil time working/studying, I think these are very importante questions.

As Leo said, some people spend years meditating without results and others just need some weeks. It is not like you study 1000 hours and you get your diploma. I admire your discipline. Just keep working and let the Grace decide. If you are doing something wrong, you will probably find it through practice.

Why do you pursue spirituality? Because you think it is better than not chasing it. Better implies a judgment an this judgment is an ethic judgment. All decisions are drived by ethics, by what is good and what is bad. Even when you take bad deicisions, short term decisions, you take it becuase it gives you pleasure in the short time and you consdier pleasure is good. If you remove ethics from the equation you wouldn´t even wake up from bed neither eat and you would die. Why do you survive? becuase you think living is better than die → ethics. Elections and ethic are the same. When there is election there is something better over something worse. This is why I am specifically using the term ethic and not moral. I am using ethic in a metaphisical/pure way, not in a materialistic/sociological way. You start geting it. That is the Mistery of life that nobody can solve: God is perfect, God is everything but the world is not pefect, there are suffer. This is classically formulated as the Relative vs Absolute paradox. Leo is not right when he pretend he solve the final mistery of universe. Mysticism did not solve everything. There is reality beyond your subjectivity. Think about the notion of progress. If you believe there is a progress in evolution/history of course this is about ethics. Progress is progress in ethics, otherwise it is just change. Change is neutral, progress isn´t. Everything is a human projection. This assertion does not explain anything.

You still don´t get the tremendous implications of what I am talking about. Ehtic alway relate to God because God=Good. If you talk about ethics you are obliged to talk about theology. What is good and bad and how do they relate to God? Answer this. For example: if you choose to follow spiritual/enlighment path, you believe it is better (ethic) to choose that path over don´t choosing it and follow a normal samsara life. Can you get what I mean by ethic? Now answer the question of the previous paragraph if you want we go deep into the matter.

I read TMI and practiced the proposed meditation a couple of months with bad results. I was not able to observe the breath without manipulating it. Then I switch to Do Nothing meditation and results blow up, I enter easily in blisful states, while do Kuladasa meditaiton drove me very neurotic majority of meditation session. I think I am not ready yet for that kind of meditation. I will try in the future again, if I am more grounded. RIght now it is not good for me. I din´t know the second book. I am gonna read it. Thank you.

What you are saying in the second paragraph is the opposite you said in first paragraph. What I am saying is intelectual understanding of reality (spiral dynamics) and contemplation go in opposite directions. 1. Lets go with intelectual understanding first (Relative reality, phillosophy, words): I agree with your first paragraph here. The universe evolving towards highest levels or love. There is progress in history/evolution. Be aware that if you agree with this you are implicitly admitting there is good and bad (you are assuming an ethical system). What is bad? (what goes away from God), what is good? What goes close to God. Lower levels of consciusness (low in spiral dynamics) → away from God. Highest levels of consciusness (high in spiral dynamics) → closest to God. Now, you internalize, you think there are "worst" ways of living/behaviors/cosmovisions and better ways of living/behaviors/cosmovisions. It means you have form an ethic. So now you are gonna subjectively interpret reality trough this ethic (since you are not enlighten you are still judging reality, the ethics is the way we interpet reality, what we think it is good and what we think it is bad. So, if you see a hustler who is in red stage you are gonna judge him, because there is good and bad and he is in lower stages (bad); he should become a liberal, a green for example, that is what you could think. If you look at the society subforum a lot of people has this mind: I judge/reject/condemn this public person because he is in lower spiral dynmaics stages, even Leo has this kind of attitude sometimes. 2. Lets go now with the comptemplative understanding (Absolute reality, contemplation, pure experience): you dont judge anything; everthing is God, everything is ok. There is no progress or hierachies, everything is perfect, everything is already ok, there is not need for change. Of course you cannot accept or interpret reality though spiral dynmicas becacse it implies there are better and worst stages. Your ethics is now: everything is ok, it is not: good and bad. I guess you understand the complex paradax I am trying to express here. It is an exciting field to tackle.

The problem of this model is it doesn't have internal logic. You can't say there is a hierachy of comsmovisions and say there are not better or worst levels and the same time. If you think green is better than red for example you can't be yellow/turquoise because you are not "integrating" red. However, if you are totally relativist and think/feel all the levels are equally ok there is no spyral dynamics anymore. Also, how do you fit spyral dinamics with and ethics of compassion vs vanity (ego vs no ego). It looks like the "individual" stages (red, orage) are worst that colective stages (blue, green), since you are not just worried about yourself but about the others. First you talk about spiral dynamics you need to define this deep question, otherwise everything ia confuse: Is there progress in history or just change (for example progress=Ken Wilber, just change=alt right, kali yuga)? What is good (what goes towards God) and what is bad? (if you state there is progress you need to show how history goes from "bad" to "good" as Wilber does through the idea the human being evolving towards higher stages of consciusness and carry with all the consequences of it.

Spiral dynamics is a very limited tool to analyze society and politics. Also, the idea that, the highest someone is in the model the best is not clear. The creator or the model, Clare Graves stated that none sage is better than other, all states are ok. He said he was in stages red and blue. Imagine now somebody saying "Trump is bad because he is orange stage" It is basically the arguments they use in the society subforum here.

I read that book 5 years ago. Actually didn't find the techniques too powerful.

Well, no. In meditation I feel I am the thoughts. What happens when I go deep into meditation is I start to not give a fuck about myslef so I become silence, piece and a little bit merged with the scenario, there are still some thoughts/mental noise but they are "low volume" and I don´t really care about them. But I wouldn´t say I can "see my thoughts". Maybe I am a newbie and you are an advance so I can´t do all you say yet.

This sounds absolutely amazing. But this is totally alien to me. I don´t really undertand what are the instructions I need to follow. The only instruction I stract from what you said is keep eyes fixed haha. I don´t really know how to let the brain thinks on its own or merger mind and physicality. If I observe the "brain" I am doing nothing, if I am thinking I am the thoughts. I guess a need to be an advanced meditator and then I could bring that skills to no-meditation time.