RMQualtrough

Because both men and women's standards are higher. In the past a dude would have a friend group, find some commonality with a chubby chick, get married, and have kids at 22. It's always been plastered in media with makeup, beauty etc. But now it's linked to perception of your actual value as a person. E.g. being with someone who looks uncool now means YOU are uncool...

U mirin' son?

I don't get this stuff it's just like... SOOOO absurd. Literally not even one thing that any "pickup coach" has ever said seems to play out in real life. It's like people are writing about one of those anime dating RPGs. LOL. Like it's so divorced from reality when I hear these people talk. What gets me rejected? Getting fat and ugly. What makes women attracted to me? Being lean and hot. Lol. Real world conversations unlike the Mystery weird RPG dialogue options are organic and unpredictable. It's just connecting with people in a real way.

Generally, if I got fat and ugly (etc) I'd be instantly rejected by 99% of hot chicks. If I look good, then I can talk to the same kinda girls and they'll be into me 99% of the time instead. I rarely even bother going out at all if I look fat or have shit hair or w.e. because I know exactly what will take place. Which is just sexual frustration then a severe hangover for nothing.

@somegirl Ofc, being avoidant is literally the precise exact opposite of how people become attracted to each other. Well that's an instantaneous thing, but it's how people become intimate off of that. That's why MDMA is the "love drug". Though I just drink a bit, I find MD a bit dodgy in terms of safety.

@Arcangelo Pickup is bullshit. Incels are narcissists who REFUSE to date anyone in their league. This is all so absurd. I can't really comprehend this is a thing.

Why would you set the bar of your standards to be way above your league? If you're going to do that, you have to accept it makes sense that you might stay single. If you aimed within your own league you could be in a relationship within seconds, like all normal people... You know who seeks "pickup" advice? It's like, short bald Indians who want to date Kendall Jenner. That's why they need "tricks".

@somegirl I don't like to get close to people...... I just do it for one night every week or two where I'll go out and be hyper social etc.

Based sex addict.

'Cause why not suckaaaaaa

I just got with some randoms. I'm tipsy.

Idno bro it strikes up good conversations for me. I agree though.

"Hey, how you doing?" "Hey what you drinking?" (While queueing at the bar and they got something like those interesting looking pink spirits). Srs.

They're ugly, bad image (don't look like the cool crowd), and yet their standards are for Instagram model looking women. That is the cause of inceldom.

Bro please lol. I know looks isn't as important to women in the US though (had a US pal come here to the UK). But it is just appearance, which is image moreso. But still... Then the social anxious wrecks and aspies turn off women who would like them otherwise.

https://www.inputmag.com/culture/leo-gura-actualized-org-youtube-forum-death-suicide

This whole control idea is madness I think... It doesn't make logical sense, but also not sense even relatively if you really explore what is happening within your own "choices". Even in your lucid dreams at night where you "control" the dream. If you really explore that, see where precisely the choice appears, and then what chose that the choice should appear. There is definitely a sentience to reality. See: we are sentient. But not only us, look at "unconscious" living things, like plants. There is an intelligence to plants in elements like recognition of light, growing towards the light etc. Sentience and intelligence does not really equate to control or manipulation. The "unfolding" of creation all by itself, limitless etc. that seems a much better way to phrase it. As Leo did phrase it in a recent video... Riding the wave of limitless unstoppable creation...

And of course this is all taking place at a relative level. Everyone and everything is of course completely, absolutely, ultimately equivalent. And then you end up with a bunch of leaves debating which of them is most like the tree. Ha ha. One leaf says "I'M MORE TREE (AWAKE)!" and another is like "no I am!" There's just tree. Relaively, Rupert Spira is he best teacher to help leaves recognize the tree that they are. Leo's Actualized Clips tend to be better than the whole sermons IMO. Very very good clip recently about identifying with the impermanent (e.g. a self) vs the deathlessness of the totality of existence as a singular unit.

Dude, you just watched a video... Are you absolutely sure? It's difficult to envision the heavy psychedelic headspaces occurring as a result of watching a video.

A lot of the lunacy might come down to the choice of wording? I prefer the term creation over imagination, as imagination carries with it some implied control. People go off the rails thinking if they just smoke some 5-MeO and "become God consciousness" they can perform magic like Harry Potter or some shit. Of course, when there are no boundaries or limits whatsoever, there is nothing to grab. Any border of thingness you may expect to grab in order to manipulate you find is simply not there. You're at the full mercy of unstoppable creation, of Brahman. Experientially it is very frightening and just about the most alien thing anything could ever experience.

That would be the accurate interpretation, "Brahman without attribute" (Nirguna Brahman). When people only memorize Leo videos without actually having been through any sort of serious ego death, there is great misinterpretation. The last video I saw with Leo he was discussing riding the wave of a reality which is simply unfolding. This state of being is the stereotypical "zen" state. Ideas of power and control are bizarre, twisted, and often delusional. Desire for control is very un-zen. The entire new age movement is jam packed with magical claims which take serious insight and turn it into a "soccer mom bookshelf bestseller". The type of things James Randi debunked have nothing to do with genuine spiritual realizations. You don't smoke some DMT then gain magical powers like Hogwarts or some shit. An example of a genuine realization might be that literally every form is subjective. A tape measure can read 30 inches, but the perception of how large that 30 inches seems can alter, because of course the tape measure itself is a tool in physical space. So you see that while the measure still reads 30 inches, there is a subjective element to it. I used that in particular as it relates to "how you dream up reality".

I'm not so sure even the whole can "create what it WANTS". Think about even fully lucid dreams. The sense of control comes from a thought lagging behind the manifestation. So the idea "I want to manifest a pot of gold" comes prior to its manifestation inside the dream. But where was the "choice" to have that idea to begin with? The idea/thought just appeared. At SOME POINT in the process something has to just appear. A desire has to appear. When recognition of a manifestation happens at the same time as the idea of it, without the lag, we feel we are not controlling that. And that's still making concessions to linear time. Consider an infinite block without boundary, already existent...

The misconception you describe is probably to do with lacking first hand experience, which means a person can't really separate the jiva (which is like, the body, the ego) from the absolute totality of Brahman... In other words they can't see it as an appearance, and mistake that body or ego for the entity that is eternal and unchanging. The body like all material objects is within Brahman. The body is as much a physical object as a boulder or plank of wood. There is nothing special about the material body. The nature of all matter is Brahman. The ego is Brahman. Every thought and desire is one of the many appearances of Brahman. These very enlightened people realize the body for what it is, which is just another appearance. I think one of them actually, when dying and his followers were all concerned, said something like: "Don't worry, it's just a body!" Because the essential nature of what all of existence is, is eternal. He recognized that his body, ravaged with disease, was just like a rock being eroded by waves or something; as in, just another appearance which was not that essential is-ness.

Of course... Matter is a representation of the activity of pure consciousness/Brahman. Represented to us living beings in perceptions like sight and sound. E.g. the grey matter in our heads is a symbol representing the act of consciousness person-ing. When altering the brain, you are altering a symbol representing an element of consciousness. This is why drugs and brain damage etc alter the human experience, as the matter being altered literally is consciousness and not separate from that. Like how desktop icons on a computer are symbols representing computer code. Altering the symbols is altering code. The symbol is representative. For that reason, the material world provides a fantastic and valid insight into the workings of consciousness, and many clues may be taken from it... The material is NOT separate from consciousness. They are the same thing. One does not act and then the other follows. They are a single unit...

By hyperbolic geometry do you mean psychedelic visuals? The mistake made very often in science (not universally - see Schrödinger for example), is down to a complete misunderstanding of what consciousness IS. If you ask a scientist to define it, they will usually give demonstrably wrong answers. One reason being that they see the contents of consciousness without recognizing the emptiness the appearances are within. Hence conclusions such as believing dementia altering behavior proves the brain "produces" consciousness... The true definition of consciousness is not useful in science because they only care about saving lives relatively, etc. Overall the model of materialism and idealism is functionally identical. What is different is the fundamental substance OF what these things are. Which you can find to be inherently empty themselves. "Consciousness" isolated by itself is nothing, no substance. Its contents are not made out of tangible physical things either. There is no substance at all. Consider literal total unity... If everything is one, matter literally IS the activity of consciousness, and its appearance as somethinge with tangible form is made of perception only. If you think mind is real and matter is fake, that's just materialism reversed, and not actual unity. So, any sort of scientific experiment or discovery you make, is a discovery about "consciousness", or better put Brahman (I prefer that term to God, as God is too personified culturally). Literally everything in existence is Brahman. It doesn't matter whether it's a microscopic particle or a planet, its nature is empty, and it is Brahman.