Da77en

@James123 I have heard of that quote and agree with it, however, the societal structures are a reflection of your consciousness and if you only focus on improving your individual physical self there are things you wont become aware of. The simple action of responding to what is happening in your world in a positive and constructive way expands your consciousness and makes you more aware of particular changes you need to make within your individual self. There definitely needs to be a balance between focusing on your individual growth and responding to things happening in the world. If you focus too much on one or the other I feel like you limit your overall growth a lot.

@PurpleTree I know that there is this idea that "manifestation" is some new age concept, it's actually not. Stage orange business men have been starting to pick up on it and you are manifesting whether you are aware of it or not. It just means that you understand how to get results in your life, that's about it. It has absolutely nothing to do with these less grounded new age concepts. Anyone who pays close enough attention can clearly see they are attracting the situations and circumstances they experience. This is a very basic aspect of consciousness, people just insist on sticking to rigid materialist and scientific paradigms.

Definitely. I've listened to that one before. Funnily enough I've been listening to "anxiety inducing" playlists of music because it was relevent to letting go of fear. Songs like this are good for intensity, people who perceive it as fear inducing might think it would be strange to listen to it for the expansion of consciousness, but it works.

Thank you!

I'm excited to see Isha get more involved with the west. I've thought about volunteering for Isha, it's just that it has a pretty conservative approach to spirituality. In order for Isha to become more and more mainstream from my perspective needs to start incorporating way more progressive ways of teaching, which I have seen it improving on recently. The kind of approach that works well for India wont necessarily work as good for the west. Actualized.org is the most progressive/liberal spiritual movement I have seen in terms of the style of teaching. There needs to be a balance of conservatism and progressivism. One or the other doesn't allow for the necessary balance.

I completely agree that he’s amazing, does a lot of positive things, is a force for good in the world, etc. I love Sadhguru and I don’t want to make it seem like I’m making a personal attack. It’s more of certain things that are in a sense below the surface that can attract controversies. If he isn’t controversial why has he had so many controversies? It’s not necessarily such a bad thing as long as you are able to manage them well, which he has. It seems like he could have a much bigger presence in the west if he managed particular aspects of is public image differently. I think the main idea is he presents himself as being a pretty hardcore yogi and if that kind of vibe isn’t balanced out it might give people some wrong impressions. This is just anecdotal and is from my personal experience, to me from the kind of energy he gives off it makes complete sense on why he would attract so many controversies and I’ve heard him talk about it before.

You’re welcome!

@Hojo I really like this music, thanks for posting it. What I've noticed is when you let go of the fear, songs that might have been perceived as being fear inducing start generating intense states of expansiveness.

I've always sensed that Sadhguru had some sort of support for Trump because he has the same kind of controversial vibe that Trump has, that's why Sadhguru has had all these controversies throughout the years. Sadhguru also has a very conservative style of teaching spirituality which could be influencing his support for Trump. No offense to Sadhguru, I love him, but he deliberately chooses to be controversial. I've heard him say that it's his karma that he needs to work through it but it doesn't take decades to let something like that go from my perspective. He could let it go within a couple of months, he just has very conservative attitudes towards spirituality which may be leading him believe that it has to take a long time.

It is spirituality but you need to understand it directly as opposed to just as an intellectual concept if you want expand your understanding of this aspect of consciousness. I typed out a response earlier but then realized people would probably take it way too intellectually and over-complicate it even though it’s a very simple aspect of life. if you go through the process of clearing out your fears your consciousness will expand to the point where you start understanding things directly and automatically without the need for any particular contemplation/analysis/discussions. The discussions can make it seem way more complicated then it actually is so I remind people the importance of having balance between discussions/analysis and more direct spiritual practices. From my perspective the optimal state is where no discussions or contemplations are needed and all understandings are automatic. The nature of attachments and detachment is very similar to the nature of identity so that’s probably why it sounds similar to what Sadhguru has talked about, but just rehashed as you said. It’s still good to be able to understand these things multidimensionally and not just though one particular lens of what someone like Sadhguru has talked about. Also, it's definitely not my invention, these are aspects of consciousness, not someone’s personal theory, philosophy or something like that. No one exclusively owns the rights to any particular insight. If we want to provide support to each others evolution and wellbeing these are things that are important to share, not hoard. As long as you actually understand what you are saying and are not blindly parroting some guru. If someone is parroting someone they may as well just refer to who they are parroting.

100%. Tracing the fear back to the root negative beliefs that generate it is key.

@Ishanga I was just talking about boundless attachment and then you come along and attach what I just said to a guru. If we want to go down that path we can talk about Sadhguru being a copy of Osho, then who Osho copied. It doesn’t do the information justice to attach it to any particular person.

@IshangaI’ve never heard of Sadhguru talking about no-self, boundless attatched-detachment, formless identity and all form identity, preference being built into consciousness, the idea of aligning with your true nature and being aware that you can’t not prefer your true nature. If you have heard these things from Sadhguru it’s that these things are just universal truths. I’m not parroting these understandings from Sadhguru or something like that. What I have heard from Sadhguru is that he does talk about acceptance, compulsive reaction and conscious response, all of the other things I haven’t.

Complete acceptance is all you need to do in order to realize the idea of no-self or the formless nature of consciousness. This brings you into a state of attatched-detachment because you recognize that you are both formless and all form and your identity becomes boundless, seeing everything as different aspects of yourself. Boundless identity means you identity with both formlessness and all form and thus you are both attached and detached from everything. From this state of being of boundless identity and attached-detachment you naturally take full responsibility for your reality and take action for the highest well-being of your entire reality as opposed to taking action to exclusively serve your individual physical identity.

It’s almost as if preference is automatic and it’s simply a matter of being aware of what you actually do and don’t prefer. If people were conscious of just this one thing the world would be completely different. If someone says they don’t prefer their true nature; joy, love, ecstasy, etc. that tells me they don’t actually understand their true nature. They would need to be projecting negativity onto their true nature in order to think they don’t prefer it. Also God is in a sense both attached and detached to everything. It’s simply about having a boundless attachment/detachment so that you aren’t entangled in a limited identity. If you act from that kind of state you will naturally take action in the direction you actually prefer without invalidating what you don’t prefer. Acceptance is the basis of freedom. If you invalidate/resist something you entangle yourself with it and your action will be from a place of compulsive reaction as opposed to conscious response. If you accept everything you will disentangle yourself from compulsive reaction and naturally move in the direction you prefer. Acceptance is the basis of having a boundless identity. Compulsive reaction constricts you and you become a limited identity. When you become a limited identity it lowers your consciousness and you operate from a place of separation which doesn’t allow the full expression of your true nature.

The way I see it is that as long as you validate everything, the preference just allows you to clarify what resonates with you and what does not. In a sense preference is almost built into consciousness because from my perspective you can’t actually prefer fear, pain, and suffering. Even God can be seen as in a sense preferring Love because that’s the essence of God.

Desire is often looked at in certain spiritual contexts as being something that needs to be let go of. Many people aren’t conscious enough to know the kinds of things they actually need and thus their desire serves to perpetuate their limited identities by allocating their actions to doing things that don’t actually serve them. Misinformed desires have led humanity to immense suffering, leading to things like greed, selfishness, exploitation, corruption, etc. If you had no desire what would be the point of taking action? Desire is something that is important but needs to be accompanied with a level of consciousness that allows the desire break through boundaries and limitations as opposed to creating them.

I mostly agree with you, if you are attached to certain outcomes then your desire can start devolving into being fear based. The distinction I make is that you can neutrally prefer something without insisting that it has to come to fruition. If something is simply a preference it won’t inherently generate any fear as long as you aren’t creating attachments, insistences, etc.

Many of these actions such as letting go of fear, spiritual practices, political engagement aren’t necessarily stemming from an egoic desire as much as a recognition that they eventually need to be done if one wants to significantly evolve. The actions themselves put you into the right state of being to become more aware of what changes need to happen in order to provide for the highest well-being of each individual and the collective. I however do agree that these things need to be done in a way that isn’t stemming from fear, egotism, arrogance, etc.

Exactly. It’s so profound it’s insane. @James123 I’m gonna keep taking action in the direction of getting at least the understanding of fear being taught in our education systems by getting in contact with government officials, Donald Trump might be challenging to reach but it’s worth it. Gotta make the purpose intense enough so that nothing can prevent it from coming to fruition. It would probably be much easier if it was getting in touch with Kamala Harris instead. If any of you have any ideas on how to make this happen, post them here.

I appreciate our discussions. Thanks to everyone who has been participating, these discussions are very valuable. There really is no alternative to creating a world where the fundamental mechanisms of consciousness are common knowledge. The education systems on our planet don’t provide individuals with the core principles we need to actually live an ecstatic life. If this one thing could be changed it would make a profound difference. Lastly, when it comes to any of these thing we have discussed, remember the map is not the territory. I recommend not attaching any particular assumptions to this information and simply using it knowing that letting go of fear will bring you more in alignment with your true nature. You can't even begin to imagine what the effects will actually be by letting go of your fear and aligning your consciousness so there's no need to have any concept in your mind as to the particular effects, just know that it is worth it.

One thing I notice is that there is a repeating of the same old things in a circular fashion just like you did, “Neo-Advaita is another idea”. Anything we talk about are just concepts until you apply them and get results. Another thing about Neo-Advaita is that as opposed to being very specific about the understandings, they are very broad concepts that make it open to many different interpretations.

Neo-Advaita type ideas such as :“Enlightenment is becoming aware that you are aware”, “There’s nothing to do”, “There’s only one Enlightenment” , “It’s where you already are” “There is no path” etc. These ideas are like making the expansion of consciousness into an intellectual concept. If you delve into these kinds of understandings they are usually very surface layer and if you take action to deepen the understanding it circles back into a kind of spiritual dissociation. Consciousness is not some small single dimensional thing, it goes extremely deep. How can someone honestly use the term “Enlightenment” to describe something that is bringing them into states of refusal to acknowledge basic aspects of consciousness. Many of the Neo-Advaita ideas are touching on genuine insights but are then using the insights to bring someone into a kind of spiritual dissociation and spiritual denial. My honest advice to people who’s spirituality is primarily directed towards the Neo-Advaitan ideas is to take action to make your understanding of consciousness more multidimensional and grounded. Be honest with yourself and see if you are able to use the understandings that you have to create significant improvements in your life and other people’s lives. Exclusively intellectualizing about spiritual ideas often results in having a lot of concepts but not a lot practical results in your life.

What are you defining as “You” then in your previous post? The idea of no-self is that the self can not be pinpointed to any particular form, that doesn’t mean that there is actually no self. Consciousness is Self. Complete surrender doesn’t mean that you stop taking action, there’s still more to do after you have these realizations. Consciousness is both formless and all form, you only experience your own consciousness. Saying that you are nothing is just the recognition of your formless nature, you still exist and there is still more of your form nature to explore because that’s what experience is, different forms and frequencies of you. I’m just suggesting that we let go of fear so we can explore the joyful, loving, blissful, ecstatic aspects of our consciousness and continue to become more conscious and understanding of our nature. As a collective we have been exploring and still are exploring negative aspects of consciousness.

I’m aware that I am the only thing that exists and that everything is me. There are still higher levels of consciousness that we can explore and need to explore if we want to continue evolving. From your definition of the term, enlightenment is being where you are now. What I am interested in is the expansion of consciousness. There are levels of ecstasy that I have reacher sober that in relation to the way we have been living shows that Earth is in a ridiculously low level of evolution and that it’s very important that we drastically expand our consciousness individually and collectively. One taste of the states of Ecstasy and Love I have gone into would be enough for the average person to gain enough devotion to the expansion of consciousness to last a millennia, that’s the path I am taking.