Tim R

Sorry mate but that's just BS. Having bad eye sight is also Truth.

@Goldzilla Wtf bro. You're not actually suggesting that if he had "integrated" the practices, he wouldn't need glasses?

I like her too, but still think she's a bit too Neo-Advaita for my taste. This whole "you are enlightened, there's nothing for you to do"-schtick is not helpful in most cases and mostly just creates delusion and suffering in beginners. If you want to find, you must seek. You must even seek when your very seeking is what prevents you from finding. Because only by realizing that you can't find, you will find. What she says is of course true and you can't find what you've never lost. But you think that you have lost something. So what "finding" means in this context is not "regaining what was lost", but realizing that you have never lost anything to begin with! But you must find that out!!

@KennedyCarter Red meat doesn't cause cancer tho. There are studies which suggest that the consumption of red meat is associated with certain types of cancer. But that's not at all the same as "red meat causes cancer". Always do your own research, don't just believe what you have read or heard somewhere.

@ivankiss That's beautiful and truly wholesome. Uniting "illusion" and "reality" requires Love. For this duality, which one has so worked on creating previously, must finally collapse as well. The Zen Master Dōgen says: "Before one studies Zen, mountains are mountains and waters are waters; after a first glimpse into the truth of Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and waters are no longer waters; after enlightenment, mountains are once again mountains and waters once again waters."

@Holygrail Yes, you got it. When "nothing" and "something" collapse, Nothing remains.

I just found this Meta-Analysis on the relationship between breakfast and its impact on mental health. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33314992/ Results: The total sample size of all selected studies was 399,550 individuals with age range of 6 to ≥65 years old. We found a significant positive association between skipping breakfast and Odds Ratio (OR) of depression (pooled OR: 1.39; 95% CI: 1.34-1.44), stress (pooled OR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.04-1.43) and psychological distress (pooled OR: 1.55; 95% CI: 1.47-1.62). In contrast, there was no significant association between skipping breakfast and anxiety in all age cohort (pooled OR: 1.31; 95% CI: 0.97-1.65). However, subgroup analysis based on age stratification showed that there was a significant positive association between skipping breakfast and anxiety in adolescences (pooled OR: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.25-1.77). Conclusion: In conclusion, skipping breakfast was positively associated with odds of depression, stress and psychological distress in all age groups and anxiety in adolescence, underlining impact of breakfast on mental health. Wasn't sure if this belongs in "Self-Actualization" or "Health, Fitness, Nutrition", because it's actually a rather important issue so I thought it's better if many of you know about this, since we have a lot of rather young members here and surely a lot of people who skip their breakfast. It seems to be a rather modern phenomenon.

He released this video almost 4 weeks ago and it has over 300K views. Usually his videos top out somewhere between 30-70K views, how did this video generate this (relatively) enormous amount of views? Is there something more down to earth about it? Not really, right? Or is it because of this dope ass thumbnail?? Congratulations Leo, it's been a while since your videos made almost 100K clicks a week. You could probably easily make over 1M views within a month with videos like "how to get laid" or something like that... And I guess many of your subs crave this practical kind of stuff, not just how to get laid but this type of self-actualization stuff in general. Guess most of your subs are from your first few years on YT.

By thinking that it knows what's up, society engages in a perpetual cycle of delusion which is transmitted through the generations and which only finds an end in individuals who break out of the socially reinforced ways of perceiving reality.

Yes of course. There are hundreds of factors. The point of my thread was to get the skippers among us who experience psychological distress to rethink their habits - because I usually skip breakfast and I've noticed that if I don't do that, I tend to feel better. So to those of you who are like me: experiment! "This is in contrast with the results of a study indicating that breakfast skippers had better quality of life and lower levels of stress and depression than breakfast eaters who ate a poor or very poor quality breakfast. In addition to breakfast skipping, quality of breakfast is another factor affecting mental health. Inconsistent findings mentioned above might be explained by different quality of breakfast eaten. It has been shown that individuals who ate a good quality breakfast containing cereal or other grain based products and dairy products, had higher scores of quality of life and lower scores of stress, depression and psychological disorders than those who consumed a poor or very poor quality breakfast." This however seems to indicate causality between life quality and breakfast. Having a shitty breakfast will mess with your hormones and even your neurotransmitter production and make you feel like crap. I actually think the causation originates from skipping breakfast (in most cases). I even think that for people who skip breakfast because they are psychologically stressed, having breakfast would partially mitigate their psychological ailment. Eating is just too fundamental of a human need and I can't imagine how not satisfying that need in a proper way would make you feel better?

Nice

No it's not. I've experienced both and I can tell you that they are very tricky delusions. They are not the recognition of emptiness/nothingness. In DP you still identify with many things and ideas, which is why DP makes you suffer. You still think that you are "inside your head". That you are the witness, separate from that which is witnessed. In fact, this separation is extremely strong in DP. In DR you still cling (not consciously of course) to the duality of real-unreal. That really depends on the psychiatrist. The problem with modern day clinical psychology and psychiatry is that they don't know very much (or anything) about these things, which is why they treat them as "anomalies" (which they are of course!). But anomaly =/= pathology, and even the psychiatrist knows that. No-self can't make you suffer. Only self can suffer. The problem with "categories" like schizophrenia is that they are used (nowadays fortunately less often than in the past) for psychological phenomena which are not accounted for in Western psychology. So it really doesn't matter if I experience some spiritual awakening and a psychiatrist would label me as "potentially psychotic" or whatever. Isn't that so? What does he know about no-self? What does he know about consciousness? What does he understand about thoughts? About Love?

And I guess we'll just ignore that you approach completely lacks any nuance. "Don't take psychedelics, bad idea". Really?

It's true that you can't always know that, but: in most cases, you actually do know about it. You don't just live a mentally sound life without any issues or salience whatsoever and then bam! suddenly you're psychotic because you've taken 3g of mushrooms. It doesn't work like that. If you have a predisposition for psychosis, you probably have something else too. Dude. No. I would agree with you on the dp/dr thing, but most certainly not on the rest. I have had all my awakenings spontaneously and while I was sober. This has nothing whatsoever to do with psychotic predispositions. Seriously, how do you come up with this stuff? Do you even know what an actual psychosis is? The difference is that with spiritual awakening, you deconstruct your mind in a conscious way. Spiritual enlightenment is not predisposition for psychosis. You really have to explain that one to me. Wouldn't necessarily say so. Spiritual enlightenment has been known and recorded by humans for thousands of years. In most cases, there actually is. Because in most cases, you will have some sort of symptomatic which gives you a clue that there's something slightly off. If not that, someone in your family has had psychotic episodes.

That's wrong, period. This is a relic from the 60s, where politicians used to fear-monger with "acid-casualties". Psychedelics can't make you schizophrenic or psychotic. They can only trigger already existing predispositions for psychosis (schizophrenia is considered to be a form of psychosis). Which is why you should better not take psychedelics if you have struggled with mental problems of this kind. But for a healthy individual, your point does absolutely not apply. The science on this issue is very clear: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.16968 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0269881114568039 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0269881114565653 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3747247/

"You're so stupid, don't you realize that you are God?" Look at this. This is absolutely fascinating. How Jordan reacts to hearing that he might be God. Immediate retraction into a context of clinical psychology. "Let's not get into anything spooky here" kind of attitude? He suspects it, he's interested in it, he wants to know but he's not ready yet. He wants to push himself a bit and he definitely does. Lately he's been talking unusually much about psychedelics, have you noticed? Great discussion, damn I love this stuff❤ I think the day will come that Jordan will have a mystical experience that will shake him to the core. He's too curious, he must know. And I'd bet my money that he has either seen Leo's video on him or that he will see it in the near future. I even think that he has already discovered it after he has discovered Leo, because in his question for finding out about God he must've come across at least one of Leo's videos on God. Only of course he can't start talking about that because Leo's stuff is - as we all know - too radical for talking about it on his podcast. It's fascinating to watch his development. Maybe it also has something to do with the fact that he nearly died a year ago and that got him in touch with transcending survival and now he's interested in mysticism. Who knows. Let me know what you guys think?

- On the nature of illusion - Is illusion real? Duality illusion - reality - What are illusions, why do they exist and how they work - Giving and explaining a few examples of illusions, starting with basic stuff like the value of money and getting into more existential things like time or the sense of self, the mind, etc.

i think some of you seriously need to read into what "cult" actually means. This is getting ridiculous.There's a guy on YT and his internet forum. That's it. What bloody cult?? Only because there's a few people on a internet forum who can't think for themselves, that doesn't justify throwing cult accusations around. @AdeptusPsychonautica There's nothing wrong with pointing out dangerous or potentially harmful behavior - in fact, that's obviously a very good thing. But the way you misinterpreted, misrepresented Actualized.org, Leo, the forum, the members and then went on to insult "the vast majority" of Actualized.org members as "fucking imbeciles"is just embarrassing and childish. Your video was mostly not a thoughtful critique, it was about "I'm right, you're wrong". I'll say it again, that's embarrassing and very childish. Your generalizations of the members of this forum are outlandish. There are many mature and wise people here and I'm sorry that you've been harassed by some member(s), but that doesn't justify the way you spoke about the members and Actualized.

What makes you think that gender is not a construct?

You're right, we are not conscious. The truth is much funnier. We are consciousness - just like you. If you think that we are something like unconscious "NPCs" in "your dream", then congratulations, you're deluded and have not yet understood the essential nature of consciousness.

Well said? However, it's not possible to prevent confusion entirely. And if we're going to engage in discussions about various spiritual topics, we have to consciously take into account that there will be confusion, no matter how careful and responsible our choice of words may be. I disagree. "More accurate" is your interpretation as the listener. I don't think you can accuse someone of making "inaccurate statements" when it comes to such ineffable aspects of reality (and yes, they're no more ineffable than talking about ice cream, but let's pretend they are). So there's that problem. Language is inherently limited and when talking about god, consciousness and love, you will be seen as woo woo and nonsensical (to "normies" or people like Adeptus), no matter what you say (of course that doesn't mean that we should be totally careless)

@wildflower I think you replied to the wrong post..?

@Inliytened1 Because you can't simply go to people and slap "you are god, you are the entire universe and you are consciousness, you are creating this moment" into their face when they just accused you of being delusional with these kinds of thoughts, if you hope to actually improve their understanding. 1.) because they already think this stuff is delusional 2.) they don't believe it anyway 3.) even if they would listen to and believe you, they couldn't understand it because they lack the mystical experience

Yeah but that's a bit too much mate. Keep your feet on the ground, we're talking about people interacting with each other. No need to deny the existence of other people in the relative sense. Do the eyes deny the existence of the ears only because they can't hear?

@Inliytened1 I really don't think this is the right approach... Telling people who already think that what you're saying is completely deluded that "you have created them to wake you up" sounds like total and utter lunacy to such a person. Whether it is lunacy or not is a different issue. The right thing to do is to stop fixating on Leo as a person - but in such a way, that Leo remains?