Gesundheit

Which one?

You got it right my friend. Although you can deepen your understanding. But anyway, ideologues will not be able to understand what you said. They will pour in all of their ego and dogmas onto you trying to convince you that consciousness is real. It's a complex problem that I understand but don't have the capacity to talk about, but yes, you're on the right track.

Eureka! Finally, the insight I was waiting for! God is not infinitely intelligent, but the ego is infinitely stupid. As well, God is not infinitely loving, but the ego is infinitely fearful. It all makes sense now. And for sure, Leo is infinitely deluded lol.

The more I see of God, the less appealing life feels to me. Yet, at the same time, it feels a lot easier to, you know, just live.

I don't think this problem is gender-related. Most guys aren't able to understand their own struggles except on a superficial level. That's why they struggle in the first place lol. The only reason guys can see (but not truly understand) their struggles is because they're facing them directly. Women may or may not be able to see men's struggles, depending on each one's ability to understand and empathize. This takes work, and a lot of selflessness, for both genders. Understanding is unique and rare quality that you can't find in the average Joe/Joelle. It's a quality of the "niche" of minds so to speak.

Are you talking about the whole trend of pick-up? Or about the guys themselves? (all in general). What is the ideal image for your perfect man? Can you give specifics? And can you demonstrate some of the dynamics and relationships you're perceiving between those qualities and pick-up? How much are they related/unrelated? How does pick-up affect those qualities?

I'll try.. Fun is, basically, a feeling of joy. It comes in different tastes and degrees, ranging from feeling slightly intrigued to feeling immense ecstasy. The way it gets created is by desiring certain outcomes. Then the desire goes subconscious, and it starts operating from there. Whenever that desire gets fulfilled, a feeling of satisfaction manifests in the form of joy. Without satisfaction, there will be a range of feelings from boredom to suffering. So, basically, the opposite of fun is boredom and they're prerequisites to each other. You can't expect to have fun at some times without feeling bored at some other times. The amounts of fun you're capable of feeling are identical to your capacity to feel bored. The more uncomfortable you are with boredom, the more fun you will be able to have. If you stopped having problems with boredom, all the fun would stop. The desire to move from here to there would disappear, thus taking the duality of fun vs. boredom with it. This is my juice after 10 days of retreat.

Okay, maybe a little

Defining fun is not funny though.

Sounds great! And yeah I can totally see how this is the case. You prepare your bullet points and then you just let your self go, and then the videos make themselves by themselves. And in some magical way, they come out perfect. But to make shorter videos you'd have to be very careful and selective with your words and with the type of information provided and its degree and depth, which takes time and effort. One thought that comes to mind is that your videos aren't usually open-ended. The systematic approach starts and ends methodologically and it doesn't leave much room for the recipient to continue the contemplation on their own. I think it would be nice to see some changes regarding this, but I'm just speculating and you know better.

Enlightenment does not make you a hermit. If you're genuinely a hermit but was faking an extroverted personality, enlightenment will expose that fake anterior and break it down. Enlightenment will only make you more authentic, not necessarily anything in specific. Also, maybe you're overthinking relationships. Maybe you need to lose your mind, and just chill. Thinking can block you from connection. In fact, it is the #1 thing that blocks most connections. You can always choose to not over-analyse things.

I would take this as a hint and try making a few short (20 minutes max) videos just for a change. The average mind is only capable of being focused for about 20 minutes, plus you dumb everything down to the simplest bits. How about making a couple of short videos on a couple of small topics without breaking them down to the detail level? Do you plan on experimenting with this? Or is the fear of creating ideology/cult holding you back?

Hell yeah! I've asked Leo for this video a while ago at the beginning of the covid-19 breakout. Will definitely watch.

@Someone here Yeah I know I'm deluded and not awake and a devil. You needn't tell me that.

Sexual attraction destroyed! There's nothing sexy about a human body, or any other body or thing, to be fair. Attraction does not work on the level of appearance. It works on multiple levels, and thought is the major component. "Attractive" is an emergent quality that is generated by the perceiver through thought. There is nothing hot or sexy about a female body. I would certainly not have sex with the dead corpse of Jennifer Lopez, regardless of how sexy her body, clothing, and make-up may be. Beauty is an emergent quality generated by the mind. And it has very little to do with survival (of the body), but very much to do with conditioning (survival of the ego/identity). This changes everything. Now there is a sudden, yet huge, loss of interest in women. Tbh, it wasn't a huge interest to begin with. More of temporary sessions of obsession, really. Now I feel freer than ever.

@Someone here Yeah, pretty much what I was expecting.

I'm working on it. Maybe I will be able to, and maybe not.

Right click. Save as. I'm in the same position as yours so I will prove you wrong when I prove myself wrong. But currently I am also aware that it's just a position so it could change or be wrong. After all, this impermanence thing is not proven true either.

Of course, apparently. But absolutely?

How can you be so sure?

This is an issue of categorizing things. As well, we could categorize "the one world" in infinite different ways (btw, what about parallel realities? Are they part of "the world"? Or are they independent worlds? What is "the world" exactly?). Who's to say which way is the base and unarguable truth? Maybe thought is not so deceiving. Maybe it just delivers truth directly and without bias. Maybe the "imaginary" boundaries are real after all and not just made up to trick or to help survive. What if the people that perceive more of these imaginary boundaries are not actually deluded but in fact the most intelligent/enlightened?

How do you know? Maybe there's no you, but there's me (playing devil's advocate here). Using the dual terminology, I don't know. Using the non-dual terminology, nothing and/or everything. In both cases, there's no actual answer provided. That's just non-dual terminology where there are no dualities. It's just an assumption based on nothing tangible. How do you know for sure that there is no me perceiving anything? Especially when it seems exactly the opposite. What if there is a me that you can't actually perceive? What if your perception is the problem? What if your perception is too limited and cannot reach the threshold required to perceive separate selves while in fact there are separate selves out there? Hold your horses and go one step backwards. I'd say I don't know. And you'd say it's nothing. And we both would be saying the same thing in different languages, but you'd probably deny your lack of knowledge and tell me that what you said is somehow absolute truth while what I said is just ignorance. Maybe someday, and maybe never.

@Javfly33 The element of consistency is what puzzles and confuses me the most. The world is not just some arbitrary stuff floating around in a space of awareness. There is an undeniable consistency. You can put your hand behind your back and then look at it again, and it will still be there. You can do that experiment a billion times and it will still work perfectly without any bugs or lags. Yet, you can't know for sure that at the billionth and first time it will still work or not. So it's an apparent consistency but not actual in any proper sense. There are these apparent "rules" in reality, but they're not real in any proper sense, as they could change at any moment. One could use a subjective reasoning and say that: well, you're imagining everything, including the apparent rules and apparent consistency. And that may be true in a certain sense, but not absolutely. There are hidden assumptions within these types of explanations. For instance, it is assumed that perception is the actual reality and that thoughts are secondary. As in only direct experience actually exists and everything else is just imagination (perception here implies existence, and thought/imagination implies non-existence) so it's based on creating a duality between perception and thought i.e. existence and non-existence, and then denying that duality and assume it to be absolute truth. Leo does that all the time. From personal experience, every single theory that I tried, no matter how comprehensive I thought it was, have always failed to completely capture reality. Even to say that it's God doing Godly things, and to fill God in the gaps all the way, it doesn't actually answer anything. It's like saying it's a mystery that you can't actually understand, only in a tricky and twisted manner. So maybe there are no answers after all. Maybe everyone is just making guesses and/or is delusional. And maybe we're still apes that have found some way to exert the power of intellectual superiority as means to control and manipulate other apes.

Who? Me?

Good. I needn't read the article because I agree with the headlines. Most of them apply to almost all of the spiritual groups/people I've seen so far. This is all going to backfire sooner or later, and I hope sooner. It's only the natural unfolding of events. Those cancerous deluded spiritual idiots. They just don't know.