Tim R

Yeah... I think it's only Darryl? you don't have to be an alien to talk about the good stuff The simplest explanation is probably the correct one (Ockham's Razor).

In this video clip, Leo misrepresents JBP's views on individual and social responsibility and makes a straw man out of them. Disclaimer: I'm not here to defend JBP, I'm not taking sides, this post is simply meant to point out what I consider a biased and unnuanced perspective on Leo's part and I think that a lot of people who agree with him on this one are making the same blunder. And judging by some of the comments under that video it seems that I'm not the only one who thinks that. JBP is an individualist and yes, and I think he overemphasizes individualism. But he certainly doesn't ignore or even deny the fact that we are a global collective and that we are a society. And that when Japan dumps radioactive waste into the ocean, it effects us all and I don't think that there's anybody, not even conservatives who would deny something like that. Yes, he says that you must fix yourself first before you go out and attempt to change the word, but that's definitely necessary and I don't see how there could be a viable solution to do this any other way; because if you are completely clueless about the world, about yourself and about society and you then proceed to apply your cluelessness (and possibly resentment, as JBP often points out) in an attempt to fix a broken world, you will make a mess of it and it will be worse than if you had never done it. He even encourages people to take care of their community, to fix their family and to fix their society. The example Leo gives which I consider to be a straw man is about kid who has ADHD or autism due to heavy metal pollution in the water; Obviously this is a social/collective problem. It's not the kid's responsibility that he's sick from the heavy metals. And yet, Leo frames it as though, when this kid would ask JBP what to do about it, JBP would tell this kid that he's responsible for this problem. This is certainly not the case and this is not at all an accurate representation of JBP's views. If you think it is, I welcome you to show me a clip where he says anything comparable, where a more or less severe collective problem is entirely passed on to individual responsibility. Also, he never said anything like "stop caring about capitalism, racism, socialism" etc. And certainly not to ignore, accept or allow such a thing. Social problems can only be solved through individual responsibility, because a society is made up of individuals, essentially. And if each individual is irresponsible, the whole of society is irresponsible. Nobody in their right mind would make sich a kid responsible for polluted water and give such silly advice as "take responsibility for your life, listen to my lectures, bootstrap yourself and things will get better". I mean go ahead, try fixing the excess problems of capitalism and consumer society after having read one book by Marx and Engels and thinking that now you understand what to do. It doesn't work that way. You need to fix yourself before you fix something bigger than yourself. The problems of our world are so complex. You can't just come along and start tinkering around like someone who has just graduated from high school and know wants to perform a 20h surgery. And btw, being a clinical psychologist, JBP has studied neurology a fair but, so I doubt that this example with neurological damage due to heavy metals would result in JBP giving this "classical conservative advice". I invite you all to take part in discussion about this!

I doubt that there are even 3 people here who are truly capable of seeing 9/11 as an act of "pure love and goodness". Because if one were to say something like that as a mere platitude, that would be disgusting and a clear sign that one ought to examine ones values and principles. I say this so bluntly because there's too many people on the forum who rationalize everything to death and project some abstract philosophy of goodness, love and perfection on the world, when in fact, they haven't even begun to properly develop their values, let alone deconstruct their biases...

Not anger, not fear, but definitely sadness. And deep dismay, along with appallment and disbelief. I was watching some old clips and videos from that day this morning, and the live news from New York back then, and it seemed just surreal after a certain point.. Although I think I know what you mean by "going meta" in this context, I deliberately don't merely detach from / go meta on this situation. Because my emotional "attachment" to it is intentional and a very conscious decision. Attachment - detachment - compassion This is what I think the process of going meta looks like. First we are emotionally and otherwise attached, then we learn to detach. And when we know how to be fundamentally detached, we can allow ourselves to "attach" again, but this time it is not ordinary attachment, but a kind of detached compassion that requires a deep, deep emotional intimacy with the situation. Although I gotta say, it's very difficult for me to recognize the love in this act. The horror that so many thousands of people have experienced just drowns out the love for me. Maybe at some point.

How much do you know about the upcoming federal elections in Germany? Do you know what is happening politically in Germany at the moment? How important is it to you who wins? What do you know about the candidates? How much is it reported in the news? I'm just really curious as to how important this is to the US and its citizens, because when you guys had your election earlier this year, our media was constantly reporting on it (at the very least towards the last week or so) and everybody knew what was going on and had their opinion. So how much is our federal election present in your collective consciousness?

Yeah I know?? actually the first thing I wanted to write was that either your catholic friend or the angle is a troll?

So "focus" is the self-referencing? (somehow?) If focus is "yours" (or "mine") as you said and judgement makes things seem to be not me but "yours/mine", i.e. seeming to be separate from me, then the act by which "yours" is created is focusing? Or am I completely overthinking this??

@Nahm What is focus?

First of all, what is written on that image you posted doesn't occur anywhere in the bible, neither in Genesis nor in the book Hosea (where there is another reference to Jacob wrestling with God / the angle) . And secondly, not all bible passages / verses have necessarily anything to do with nondualism or mysticism in general. In fact, only a small, small fraction of all bible stories consist of nondual pointers of any sort, and most of them don't even occur in Genesis (which is where Jacob wrestles with the angle), but rather in the new testament because that's when Jesus showed up. The story of Jacob wrestling with the angle is I think more commonly known as "Jacob wrestling with God". I recommend you watch this lecture: It's from JBP's biblical series (which imo is the best of all his lecture series). Of course he won't go into nondualism, but I don't think this story is aimed to describe anything mystical anyway. But to get back to your question; My interpretation of why "the angle was hitting him with his own hands" is because the struggle with God/reality is the struggle with yourself, literally. And the reason why the angle/God says "stop hitting yourself" is your frustrated desire to end suffering; which itself is the cause of your suffering. Edit: JBP presents a totally different view on this story (obviously, given that it isn't written like that in the bible), but I recommend you watch it anyway.

In Russia, there is a saying that goes; when you look at yourself in the mirror at night, you will frighten your soul And it's kinda true?

Because nothing lasts. Your physical body won't keep working forever. In fact, every single cell in your body has been replaced after 8 years or so - so you are in a constant process of dying in order to keep living.

In the end, no theory is necessary. Not only that, but you will have to shed all your theories and concepts about what awakening is. The purpose of theory in this work is to prepare you mind to be let go of. It's not your mind that will awaken, but that which has been clouded by the mind.

The fall of man is one of the most profound bible stories there is. It describes the fall into duality. Which is why after Adam and Eve eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, they get kicked out of paradise. They fall into illusion/duality/knowledge. It says in Genesis 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. This is right after God created Adam and Eve. They were not yet self-conscious; no duality "me" and "other". It goes on to say: And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. This is the description of the moment that they became self-conscious. This is the moment they developed an ego. Genesis 3 ends with: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. This ties in perfectly with Leo's latest episode; to know good and evil is to have bias. And to have bias is to fall from paradise.

I like it. The ending is beautiful

Yeah? but because Leo was giving 20 examples for something which Curt already understood? no need to list two dozen movies.. Btw, if anything, it was Leo who kinda interrupted Curt a bit to often. I don't think he "denied" infinity either, he was just being skeptical, which imo is perfectly fine and totally understandable, given how incredibly radical some of the things Leo said must've sounded to his ears.

I don't think he was "triggered" at all. On the contrary, he was impressively open minded.

Fear and stupidity make a lot possible my friend...

Lol, none of the above. There is no "how" to reality.

Lmao this guy?? "he does have brain worms but I don't think Ivermectin works for that" haha

God damn.. Alex Jones is deluded beyond hope of repair. I wouldn't want to live in his head for a second. imagine going around with that image of the world and people..

@Dazgwny Wow, that's a juicy mindfuck? There's a nice German word for this: "Schachteltraum"; Schachtel - "box" and Traum - "dream".

She's amazing?

@Flowerfaeiry Didn't mean it like that? The point is that thought alone won't lead you anywhere. Telling yourself that everything is imaginary won't lead you to actually realizing that. "Everyone is me". Is it accurate to look at other people as me? Only if I have awoken to the fact that this is so. Otherwise it's just a meaningless thought. I mean go ahead, do as you like. But the thought "imagination" is not the same as imagination.

Not quite. Because so long as it's a mere thought, it's perfectly meaningless to you. You might as well think that materialism is true or that other people have been created by the Christian god. This is all fantasy, as far as you're concerned. Because it isn't yet grounded in actual insight. This is very important to understand; It's like asking "is it accurate to think that reality a dream?" and the answer is: no! you can't know that reality is a dream until you have awoken from it and recognize that it was just a dream. You see? Just like in an actual dream. Only upon awakening from the dream do you realize that it was all a dream. Or if you become lucid, which is essentially the same as awakening within the dream, but the main point is that you realize it to be a dream. "Dream" is just another word for "imagination". When you awaken from a dream/become lucid during the dream, you realize that it's just your imagination. But if you don't awaken to that and during the dream some dream character comes up to you and tells you "hey, you know, actually this is all just imaginary", it doesn't mean anything to you! until you actually awake for yourself. Otherwise your thought of imagination is still only part of the dream that you have bought into and are still buying into and thus are not realizing to be a dream. That's why the thought isn't enough. And the fact that you're asking this tells you that you haven't yet awoken to imagination - otherwise you wouldn't ask and it would be perfectly obvious! just like when you awake / become lucid This is the duality of dream and awakening; It takes the awakening to realize the dream.

@Knowledge Hoarder I don't need to know, but I did it for two reasons; 1) Mainly just out of plain curiosity 2) To a certain limited extent, it allows you to recontextualize this forum and much of what is going on here. If for example, people would start to argue about scientific or any such technical issues, it would actually make a big difference if we had let's say 90% people who have (only) graduated from high school VS if we had 90% people who have a PhD. You can see how that would matter a lot, if you were to talk about a scientific problem. Or any other problem, which formal education gets you to master!! That's basically the main point here. Obviously we don't have such a gaping difference, so there is no such major pull in any direction to be considered/ used for recontextualization. The results (so far) are interesting nonetheless and probably something to keep in mind anyway. It also lets you roughly gauge the average members age, but I think I did a poll on that a year ago or so. Most members here are fairly young. @NoSelfSelf When Leo starts handing out degrees for realizing God after plugging??