Gesundheit

I won't dismiss that. I don't dismiss any criticisms. Show me where I'm being a hypocrite, and I'll look at it as objectively as I can. But don't expect me to just nod my head and agree with your perception. You can perceive me however you want and still not have a clue about me. A lot of people confuse standing one's ground and not sucking up to others for a double-standard. I am well aware of the pitfalls here. Bring forth your thoughts and I'll examine them. Don't just tell me what you're perceiving without giving me the context, because that doesn't mean anything to me, and I will eventually dismiss it.

Bro, this is gold! I couldn't have said it any better. I wish I could talk like that, that would have costed me a lot less trouble. Emerald should read this and reflect on it time and time again, but maybe after she cools down.

@Emerald Yes, we live in an era where women don't make mistakes and if you critique one, you will be called a misogynist. If you perceive me like that, nothing in the world will convince you otherwise. And if you want me to suck up to your delusions, then you're dreaming. That's feminism going wrong. And I'm quite sure you will get butt hurt and turn this against me and call me a misogynist again. Instead, look at my post here: If that sounds like a misogynistic comment to you, I don't know what won't. You don't believe only men are selfish? Then what are you disagreeing with exactly? Why have you been against Leo's advice from the very beginning? Or maybe you believe that women's biases are more Godly in nature? I have evidence for that in one of your messages with me. Overall, you're just showing resistance to whatever I'm saying. This won't go away no matter how I keep talking. And, no. I won't share my experiences in public. If you're genuinely interested, go ahead, my messenger is open for everyone.

Sounds like you're trying to challenge me and prove me wrong, which you've projected onto me earlier. It seems like an accurate shot in the foot. Now, the mere fact that you even ask to hear about my experiences shows how shallow you've gone. I am not sure what it is exactly that you want to hear or even how it would affect your perception of me. What you're missing is that epistemology is far more important than experience, because you can have all the experiences in the world and still misinterpret them. Not that I don't have the experience (btw, I would be more than happy to tell you all about my experience in private if you are genuinely interested), but that I don't cling to it as absolute truth without first examining and refining it with proper epistemology. The insights themselves are the proof, not the other way around. And as a matter of fact, I've already given you insights that you had no access to before, and in some cases still don't. For example, I've already shown you how selfish all humans are, when you initially assumed that only males are selfish. Another example is the bunch of epistemological errors that you've fell into regarding psychology. Not that I'm trying to convince you of my "high" level. I am not trying to sell you ideology here. Contemplate what I say impartially, and maybe you will realize the truth in it. Maybe I've got that part wrong. Actually, I wanted to state many times that I think we would make very close friends in real life, but I kept it to myself out of pride. I am still hesitant as I'm writing this because I'm anticipating a perception of neediness or people-pleasing on your side, which I don't think is an unrealistic expectation, given your history of projection. I can't really say anything about this. I will only confirm again that it is all your projection. You're ignoring my truth and are convinced that I am lying. It's really hard to change a first impression, and I couldn't care less about it.

@Surfingthewave There's no anger here. The "aggressiveness" feels completely normal to me, I wouldn't even call it "aggressiveness". I sincerely can't understand how people assume aggressiveness merely from words. To me, it just doesn't compute. Like, seriously, where's the danger/offence that you perceive in my words? All of it is imaginary. Take a look at that, maybe it's not because of my words, and rather because of the ego that is interpreting them.

Out of all the things that I anticipated to be projected onto me, low self-esteem comes quite as a shock. I have no problems with people not liking me. I've stated many times that I'm not here to comfort others. I couldn't care less about other people's opinions, especially random people on the internet. If you really want to be liked, that says more about you than it does about me. So maybe work on fixing that.

Thank you. This is actually exactly what I was talking about in my thread here: I find it quite ironic that I've already clearly stated my truth, but people still feel like they have to assume things about me. You seem impartial, so probably you've missed it. Here it is, if you're interested: This is what all of what I'm doing is about. I wouldn't be replying to you if I found what you're saying to be true, because I almost exclusively get triggered by falsehood. In my most enlightened states, I wouldn't be on the internet arguing with others, and even if I was reading, I wouldn't be replying. In my most enlightened states, I would simply be sitting alone and enjoying the inner stillness (which is one of my points of reference for my claims about enlightenment), but I am not in that state right now, so here I am. There are a lot of things that people say and I agree with, but I don't find it necessary to state my agreements with others. For the most part, I only state my disagreements. That's why I tend to trigger people a lot. They probably think that I'm implying that there's something wrong with them, when in fact it's just my desire to share wisdom/truth. Perhaps we could call that perfectionism.

Only aggressiveness is true. I admit that I have a more aggressive attitude than most people here, and perhaps in life in general. It's just who I am. Life has always been rough with me, so that's probably why. I don't see my aggressiveness as problematic. I don't even perceive aggressiveness as a problem in life anymore. Life is harsh, get used to it. The rest, I don't acknowledge. I don't project or fall into logical fallacies. I have a pretty strong epistemic ground and I am well aware of my shadow. So, I am 100% confident that those things you mentioned don't apply to me. BS. Yeah, so? That doesn't mean that she's perfect or knows everything. You're putting her on a pedestal because you're biased towards her and against me, that's all. There's no difference between me and her except in your imagination. Nice! You don't objectively examine the information. You just look at the source and follow blindly. Just because someone has a YouTube channel does not automatically make what they do perfect or everything they say correct. It's a common logical fallacy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority If I said that to you, you'd probably tell me that I'm gaslighting you with unsolicited advice, and then you would run crying to the mods. I know this pattern, you've done it before. And I couldn't care less about your opinion. Maybe follow your own advice and simply mind your own business. Not that I have a problem with taking unsolicited advice. I try to integrate everything. Any advice is always valuable. I'm just showing you your inconsistencies. Yes, I remember vividly. You could not handle a different opinion. Sorry about that. Completely my fault. People here are too soft, and I am too rough. Not only women complain about my tone. Every ego complains about it. I said it's a curse that I'm trying to rid myself of. Maybe you didn't see the edited post.

And she continues with the projections. I'm aware of your ayahuasca experience btw, and I distinctively remember Leo telling you to go deeper and you resisting. You didn't go deep enough to make such claims about enlightenment, so I'm not sure what it is that you're doing here. Clearly, whatever you experienced back then is not the end all be all. Not that I have the full scope of enlightenment either, but at least I have gone deeper than your deepest experience, and all of my breakthroughs are sober. There's a lot more for you to learn. If you don't want to learn anymore, that's fine. It's none of my business. But you have no right to take the teacher role when you're not even in school. It is wise for someone with such little experience to humble themselves down and know their place instead of projecting, and preaching with a condescending tone. This has nothing to do with you as a woman. Rather, it has to do with you as a human with an ego. This misogynist thought that you're projecting onto me never even occurred to me. I don't discriminate between genders, but perhaps you do. I've read somewhere that you have hatred towards men, which you're still struggling with up until this day. I mean, the irony, for God's sake! Just reflect on what you're saying for once. The inferiority/superiority thing is not it either. The fear/insecurity thing is not it either. And neither of them has anything to do with women. All of that is your projections. The truth is that I am this way with everyone, including my closest friends, family, and even myself. I try to align myself with the truth to the best of my abilities, but this tendency gets out of hand sometimes and extends out to include others. I have a desire to share the truth and wisdom that I have with everyone. And I know that people won't like it, so I try to keep it to a minimum in real life. Eventually, I come here and pour it all in. And you know the rest. It's a curse, really, and I want to get rid of it. This desire is my biggest delusion.

And I agree. But I wasn't giving advice, neither was I rude. I was just saying my truth, and the truth is harsh and some people are too soft. In fact, it's even the other way around: I'm the one who's being insulted, judged, critisized, projected on, straw-manned, etc... repeatedly, but I'm keeping my patience and taking it all lightly. For example, Emerald implied multiple times that I'm a liar or ignorant, and she made too many projections/assumptions on my level of realization and embodiment, even though I stated multiple times that I don't claim enlightenment. If I was to level myself down, the thread would become a chimp shit-flinging exhibition. I'm not claiming perfection, though. So, I admit that I may have lost my temper here and there. But overall, I'm the victim here, and people are trying to throw their responsibility/problems/shadows at me so that they can portray me as the abuser in order avoid looking inwards. That's the ego, my friend. It's extremely clever. Technically, it isn't my problem. If someone feels offended without being insulted, then that's on them. I take responsibility for my feelings and expect everyone to do the same. I'm not here to comfort people or sell them tasty/cozy ideas. I'm here to talk truth. People will react and be offended, and that's par for the course, because truth is not ego-friendly. The ego is a tricky thing to deal with, and it will use all possible justifications and defense mechanisms to preserve itself.

@Etherial Cat I'm not, but your perception is understandable. The mods are welcome to judge, btw.

Lol they don't exist even before enlightenment, but I was being generous. You're claiming that they exist, well then, show me. Bring forth your strongest evidence. My argument is that people have existed long before modern psychology, and they lived their lives and died of natural causes. So, clearly there's no such thing as psychological needs. I don't even need enlightened people to disprove psychological needs. Two normal persons will react differently to the same external event. Why? Because each of us perceives the world differently. You're trying to make your individual perception universal, well good luck with that. Whatever you imagine you need psychologically, is simply your imagination. Just because you suffer from your imagination being unmet does not make it real. It makes it rather unnecessary and something to get rid of. Attachment is the problem, not the truth. Y'all disagreeing with me are too soft for enlightenment. And nobody is forcing you to believe me or even to chase enlightenment. If you like your current level, then so be it. Go ahead and stay where you are. I'm not gonna push anything on you. But I will speak my truth regardless, and the truth is harsh. So, of course, you will not like it.

You're basically telling me that I'm lying, and that's enough offence. But maybe, just maybe, I'm completely honest and you're simply too closed-minded to see what I'm saying. Did that ever occur to you? What you call humanity is your idea of humanness. I'm not destroying my humanness. Humanity is sick with delusions, and enlightenment is the original state. Again, if you like being crippled, I have nothing to say to you. I like being free and healthy.

@Emerald Sigh. You're repeating yourself. I'm telling you that your potential is much more than you think it is, and you're insisting on limiting yourself. So I will proceed with perfecting my wings and enjoying my freedom and flying into the highest heavens. And you stay where you are. Not only you don't have wings or don't believe in them, but you're legless and proud. Well, if you like being crippled that much, I won't interfere. Have a good day/night.

Psychological needs DO NOT exist after enlightenment! Please do not paraphrase from Emerald. She projected a whole lot of things. I didn't say neglect or stop caring for yourself whether physically or psychologically. She misinterpreted what I said out of whatever things she's experiencing. Enlightenment is paradoxical. So whatever applies before enlightenment does not necessarily apply after. That's what I'm saying. The self/ego, which is what psychology essentially is, is gone after full enlightenment, which I'm not claiming that I have, neither am I claiming that it's 100% possible. It's just what it seems to me from my experiences. I must say that it may not be realistic to remove the self/ego 100%. However, 99% may be possible. If you had only 1% of your current ego, would you still have the same needs or only 1% of them? And wouldn't that change your whole understanding of psychology? Because if you can be well without what you initially thought is necessary, then what does that say about its actual value? Note also that this opens the door to this unique possibility: The remaining 1% can then be viewed as a new 100% and then one can work on removing 99% of it, and so forth. If you put an enlightened "person" (I'm using quotation marks because I know some genius will come and say that the person can't be enlightened) and an unenlightened person to the same psychological challenges, how do you anticipate their reactions will be? How will they be affected, physically, emotionally, and psychologically? And who will experience more suffering and form more defence mechanisms? If you disagree, can you give me at least one example of what you expect to happen in a hypothetical situation? What seems to be missing in your worldview is the importance of the relationship between conscious awareness and the subconscious mind. Enlightenment shifts this relationship. The subconscious becomes conscious, the shadow gets reintegrated, and the self becomes The Self. In traditional psychology, it is assumed that The Mind is made-up of different smaller "minds". This distinction is true before enlightenment (I guess because it's coming from the general population). And it's the basis of enlightenment work. People have different definitions of enlightenment, so it may be tricky to find a common ground here. But that's what I'm saying essentially. If you have any criticism of my views, please critique what I said. Others interpret things from their povs, and I don't take ownership of/responsibility for anything outside of my own words. Thanks.

It's whatever you imagine it to be. If you imagine something and call it A, then imagine something else and call it B, then say that A is larger than B, that's up to you, really. I can create an infinite number of imaginary constructs and then sort them however I want. Now, the question is this: By making this distinction, am I being selfish or just surviving? And who's to say?

Posture is only important so that you don't fall asleep during the practice. The spine has to be erect, otherwise you will feel drowsiness. The rest are unnecessary details that don't matter much. I prefer walking meditation in nature. It's a lot easier and healthier in my experience. Fresh air, sunlight/moonlight, beautiful natural scenery, warm body, flowing energy, and clearer mind. It's a refreshing sport for the body and mind. Awareness tend to naturally grow whilst walking, so it adds more effectiveness to the practice.

@Emerald I've had enough of your fearful/neurotic projections. And now, it's just funny. I'm out of here.

@Emerald ??‍♂️ You're right, from the unenlightened perspective.

@Emerald On the absolute level there are no needs whatsoever. That's correct. But I'm not talking about the absolute level. I am talking about the relative level. On the relative level, psychology is an illusion. So, it only seems and acts real for the unenlightened. The enlightened is aware of the illusion and doesn't fall for it or get affected by it. There's a subtle distinction here. You're insisting that psychology is important/real and not imaginary. But the truth is that you have no evidence for that whether on the relative level or the absolute level, except your imagination. You're imagining that there is a set of rules for healthy relationship with reality and that there are certain behaviors that constitute/represent healthy psychology, but that's simply incorrect. This assumption is fundamentally false for various reasons, including: It's made-up by unenlightened, and mostly materialistic humans. Therefore, it's irrelevant to enlightenment. It doesn't take relativity into account. It assumes that the world is objective/external, that reality is set in stones, and that the individual has no, or very little power/control over it. The truth is that the individual has an incredible power that gets unlocked after enlightenment, because reality is manifesting through the individual, it's not simply imposed on them. The models you have for healthy psychology are a human product, which makes them imperfect/flawed. It's not wise to attach to any particular belief system regarding psychology, or anything else for that matter. Don't paradigm-lock yourself into whatever models you have studied so far. If you can't yet see the potential that I'm talking about, that's because you haven't experienced it. So keep an open mind. All models have their limitations, and they cannot capture the entirety of reality. Academic psychologists themselves have disagreements on the most fundamental question: "What is psychological health?". So whatever ideas you have about psychology are not actually yet approved by the experts. Psychology is one of the least understood fields of science. It's ironic that you're telling me not to speculate, when in fact you're falling into a bunch of epistemological errors without even knowing. Check your assumptions before preaching. You have no idea what my levels of realization and embodiment are.

Nice straw-man argument. What enlightenment reveals is that there are no psychological needs. All psychology is imaginary and placebo. Enlightenment frees you from the person/ego/placebo effect.

The thing with enlightenment is that it removes falsehood and keeps the truth. So, it doesn't make sense to say that everything remains the same. It simply doesn't. I don't know what ideas you have about enlightenment, but it isn't as simple as realizing an insight and memorizing it forever. It's infinitely a lot more than that. What you think right now is a need is not necessarily a need after enlightenment. For example, connection and relationships are not really a need. Anyone can survive without them, even in this unenlightened state. Although, granted, most people won't survive well, but will still survive nonetheless. Watch this particular self-bias of your female agenda. Before enlightenment, trauma will result in PTSD, shadow, mind-body complexes, bitterness, suffering, defence mechanisms, etc... After enlightenment, none. Trauma will not affect you anymore. Enlightenment will free you from all the unnecessary "needs" that you once imagined are absolutely essential. It will make you a perfect human. Invincible. I've glimpsed that many times, and I'm moving towards it slowly. The only necessary things to survive are air, food, and water. The rest are imaginary needs that are programmed into our DNA and psyche. Sex is not necessary for survival, only for replication. Connection is not necessary for survival, only for the illusion of safety. Relationships are not necessary for survival, only for the ego's life story.

It hurts my spiritual ego to see this much of self-deception/selfishness/bias/ignorance/dishonesty/attachment/ego/closed-mindedness, especially when I see it coming from women who are supposedly more intuitive and spiritual than men. It's just so sad to me that they claim higher consciousness. It seems the women here are so disconnected from their intuitive core and mostly reacting from their logical/selfish mind. It's an exquisite scene of feminism going wrong. Whoever you are, man or woman, you're a devil. Denying your devilry will only make you more of a devil rather than less. Wake the fuck up!

Let's say you've got that, what's the highest value then?

How do you mean? I know exactly what I want. I want to fuck different girls. It can't get any clearer. First of all, it's not a mindset. It's a natural inclination. If I come here and say that maternal instinct is a mindset, you will disagree. Well, it's exactly the same thing as the desire to be a mother. On the most fundamental/subconscious level, it's the desire to be a father by spreading seeds everywhere possible. Secondly, all my guy friends are the same, and I know plenty, like over a 100. And btw, being polyamorous has nothing to do with the worth of said women. So don't feel intimated by this possibility if that's the case. It's not about you. It's about us. Thirdly, don't take what men say at face value. Of course he won't tell you he wants anyone other than you cuz then he won't get any from you. Navigating this can be tricky. And a lot of guys will lie to get what they want. But obviously, some of them are genuinely deluded, I'll give you that, so they might think they're above their animalistic instincts. I've been there. But now I know the truth. Fourthly, why do you want me to stop? Even if I was completely wrong, why does it offend you to see me talking like that? Sounds like you're trying to maintain a narrative and you're afraid because it's being challenged by something that you intuitively know that it's true. Fifthly, it's quite an evident fact that men are horny dogs. This is not a bad thing unless you demonize it. Men are and will always be polyamorous. Ask any man that is not temporarily deluded or has interest in you. Sorry for destroying your utopian fantasy, but this is the nature of the beast. Some men think that women are angelic creatures. That doesn't actually make them angels. I used to put women on a pedestal when I was naive and deluded and didn't know a lot of women or much about them. In my experience, putting the opposite gender on a pedestal is an indicator of how little you know about them. Male nature is selfish/cut-throat. Just like female nature. Welcome to reality. Actually, quite the opposite. Porn is showing me exactly what I want on the deepest levels. I would be lying if I said that I don't want a variety of girls. It's just not how my sexual desire works. You are in no position to assume things about me or to tell me what is right about myself and what's not. It's just your ego reacting to my truth.