Natasha Tori Maru

@Raze link no worky for me

Yes exactly - which is why there are dangers. You speak of the 'Spiritual ego' where we think we have discarded the ego, only for it to have clung to spirituality in a new, more refined form. The ego hides behind the story we tell that the ego is transcended. You stop looking for your own bias because the sneaky ego tells you it has already been found. In reality it just found a new, better hiding place 😭 This is why you are always on the path. In the end, even spirituality must be discarded else we get stuck on that ground. All grounds need to be discarded as they form ever more contractions for the ego to identify with, just as quickly as you dissolve them, they form up again. This is why it is hubris to think we can transend geneticd or incentive structures. The ego feeds us a story we have overcome these basic needs. Groundless is the aim. Nonstop process. Never-ending process. Forever process. Just as life is a process to be engaged in. It is not a problem to be solved. Merely a process to engage in. Oroborus.

You are more likely to see your young male date return home and suicide than you are to be murdered by him (as a woman). While intimate partner violence is a major issue (and many men are abused and it is chronically underreported), suicide is the leading cause of death for young men 😢

@Olaf gosh, it's a hard question - not making it easy for me, ay 🥲 Raising awareness, inspecting belief. Investigating bias. Investigating the self through enquiry. The problem is, these methods are all available and being used. The ego is the trickiest thing. The ultimate bias. The realisation of oneness and unity gets lost to the appetites of desire and aversion....

I've listened to this a few times. Worth it. I recall when it first came out a few years back.

Again, this is a belief uninspected.

Awakening, enlightenment. Higher consciousness... whatever term you prefer. Time and time again it has been shown these do not exclude one from the effects of genetics and incentive structures.

It is worth inspecting the judgments we attach to hardship. When something is difficult, do we automatically label it with some aversion (or desire?) IE "bad". There’s a difference between the experience itself and our interpretation of it. Pain, stress, and difficulty are very, very real. Some of the most powerful things we experience, but what we make of them is not fixed. Hardship doesn’t inherently mean something has gone wrong. For most people it does feel that way. This isn't always the case, some are inherently high in wisdom and can shift perspectives and interpretation. It’s possible to hold clarity, perspective, even a kind of steadiness, while going through it completely sober. You do not need to be high to maintain a higher state in this way. It can be achieved even during the worst of times if we drive to be able to view things from all perspectives. Hardship is a catalyst, but not a virtue.

The disillusionment post caught me also. I wonder if this is a product of dissolving conditioning to release attachment (so, grounding). The content consumed during this time would need to be spectacularly screened/filtered to not pollute the new soil being tilled. Social media algorithms would be terrible during this process.

Heh heh - indeed! Which is why I prefer to have people PM Leo. But he is a busy man. The moderators also understand that some people have privacy concerns that require urgent attention

@Willy Phallicus you speak of possibilites of where empathy or compassion can lead. This does not automatically lead to condoning pedophilia. There's a moral leap there that isn't assured. You can understand and empathise with something and not condone it. If one cannot understand this, it typically points to poor/unclear boundaries. 'I can understand and have compassion for your troubles with addiction. But I cannot have it in my life.' - this is an example of empathy for an addict, who hurts themselves and those around them. But making it clear it will not be tolerated, allowed or approved of, and it is wrong.

My experience also.

I think you are correct. I think its both! Men are socialized not to express the full spectrum of emotions. Which leads to any emotion being labelled or expressed as anger. Yet they face disapproval for expressing the anger emotion/feeling, due to this being labelled a hazard. It effectively stifles men, which can lead to suppressed anger and depression/nihilism. Not all men are effected the same way. These are just general patterns. Appreciate your experience and perspective also

Only Leo can fully delete and wipe an account. However, as a moderator I can ban you and flag you as a spammer - which will hide all your posts Feel free to PM me, happy to help out here !

Fucken Leo, sure knows how to pick em'