RedLine

I think flow has to be more with concentration rather than awareness (meditation has 2 components concetration and be aware, elightment is the second one but you new concentration skill to get there) for example when I am the zone doing pickup if feels more like concentration

Well, maybe not all of us have that freak spiritual genetics and we need to fill the existential hunger with some ideas until we can have direct experience; I have been meditating hour and hours for years and I have not experience any major insight yet. As Leo said you always fill the gap with something, the methapisical question can´t be avoid. So yeah, ideas are important, let´s say I have an extrem nihlistic relativistic athetics cosmovision, probably it does not even make sense to me to meditate and it does not make sense to puruse any goal for me and I become depressed, meanwhile if I believe Being is God and Love, it probably give me strengh to be a good person and follow my spiritual path. I know it because I experience both during my life. Ideas and believes are very important -and cannot be avoided-; don´t despite them.

When they talk about being = non being, relative=absolute, emptiness=form, I understand they are talking about non-dual stage (Wilber), or arahatness in buddhism, where the Absolute and the Relative are experience as the same, but this does not have methapisical implications nor is related with cessation. If Wilber talks about God and the Absolute I thinks it is because it make sense inside his philosophical system; it is an intelectual understanding, not an experience. He talks about Consicussness but also he admits he is able to enter into cessation during the brain waves stuff and there is no consciuss there, he does not explain this contradiction.

You are wrong. Not all schools are equivalent, that´s too relativistic. You can make intersubjective studies and see that is possible to classify different phenomenology and different methapisics from differnet people and tradicions in a map of transpersonal development, that is what Ken Wilber did. And according to this map the therevada buddhists (at least those who reach nor being nor not being) are in the top of the spiritual develoment, why? becasue they already experience what I am God and I am consicussness people say (advaita guys for example) and went beyond that phases.

There is something scary and non appealing in your discourse. It basically match the modern athetistic narrative because: 1. Since there are something called Cessation where 0 consciousness happens, it is logit to assume that that is what will happen after we die, forever. 2. It reduces God and Love insights to temporary and interemdiate levels. They are not ultimate reality. They are basically fireworks that occur in your mind, as a modern atheist would say. I know that your permanent 24/7 experience is incredibly bliss but what you say sounds fucking depressing from outside haha.

what Leo describe does not look like suffering at all also what the monk says is a nonse, if the goal is void into nothigness and oblivion because life and rebirth are suffer, because everything is suffer, why would the world was created in the first place and it did not remain as that Nothing he wants to achieve?

Yes. That is the correct interpretation of the Buddha. Here´s what a buddhist would answer to Leo´s video (the answer is not for the last video, but it applies too):

Yess. Very good comment. Leo despise non-dual stage and theravada buddhists despise God-realizations as intermediate realizations. For me they are not compatible because, in some sense, they consider thier stuff is "ontologically superior". It is not just a matter of preferences. Personally, I don't have any position. I'm just confused about this radical difference between the two groups.

What do you answer if somebody ask you if you believe in God? And I don`t mean the God of the religions but God as Good. I am not sure what I believe and I am not sure what to answer.

Because they see God as an object which can be trascended so Reality is more like Nothing, wich is not good nor bad; it is more similiar to the atheist narrative

take the good in people, not the bad don´t understand your obsesion with this guy obviously this guy does not know anything about spirituallity but he has very good teaching in other fields

Culadasa, Shinzen young and Daniel Ingram wrote good stuff about that. Check them!

Well the thing is most advanced spiritual guys like the Buddha don´t believe in God, he is more like an atheist.

What is the state of China society? are they premodern/bue? Apparently they are very identify with their nation/community (like premodern Europe for example) but at the same time, they show some very individualistc behaviour (modern) sometimes it does not fix very well in the deveoloment maps

So this don´t give a shit about other people stuff is red stage maybe? But the social organization is super blue What I think is Spiral Dnynamis is garbage. China society debunks spiral dynamics.

Mostly it is correct. "Spiritual ideology" handycaps your progress. If I had started this journey from atheism and nihilism, like when I was young, I would have get 100x gains. Just comtemplating reality without any idea about what it is, without any answer.

those mental games don't take you anywhere just shut up and be aware of everything happening in your experience field

Is all that stuff permanent, is it always present? I guess not. So it is not the Truth.

Is there an art, not to pick-up girls, but to make friends, convince people, get hired, etc? I know there are some books like How to Win Friends and Influence People but I didn´t find anything with the level of detail of PUA´s teachings for pick-up, with its own technicalities and so on. I am very curious about deconstructing charm.

Definitely not. There is freedom and whatever thing can happen. Do you think Gof created holocaust "for a reason"? like a colective punishment to jew people or something? that's stupid

He actually taught a lot of techinques about deconstructing solidity/ego: self enquiry, noting, nety nety. All of them are about the same: going more meta, deconstruct reality

4 hours/day the last days?... Try 4 hours/day the next 5 years

Killing people is not necessary a bad/ego driven act. If you have to combat evil maybe you have no choice but to kill people, if there is a war you have to kill people, etc. It depens on the epoch and the context. A warrior is not a murderer. You are assuming that I defend that being enlightened is being perfect and attacking this argument. I have never said this at any time; straw man fallacy. However, f you claim somebody is super enlighten then that one can´t be a wicked guy that systematically abuse people. Then maybe he is not that saint, judge people for their acts. Enlighten people are more compassion than regular people because his enlightment make then much less ego driven; of course it doesn´t mean they are perfect, humans are imperfect only God is perfect but as I said: MORE CONSICUSS = LESS SELFISHNESS, and this is something I clearly experience, it is not a theory. Ethics and Awareness are the same; Good=God.

some freudian weird stuff definitely something to avoid

If he were so realized he would not have abuse people. More consciuss = more compassion/love = less ego driven.