JuliusCaesar

You're making quite a few assumptions there, though I must admit seeing that made me think similar things also.

The point I was making, is that it's possible exactly such an individual might have insights others you consider to be better wouldn't. Because he's dramatically more selfish than they are, or at least so it would seem. And since there's the possibility of something novel in him, it's also possible that there's something of value there also. But you don't know if his perspective has any value to you unless you listen to him. Only if we want to. I understand, just as entering negative time-space is like the equivalent of walking on prison grounds to our higher selves. You don't want the teacher's negativity to impact you. And that's fine, but it doesn't undermine or even contradict anything I've said. Close, but no cigar.

Of course. Perhaps he isn't trustworthy, that in no way undermines any of the truthful things he's said. Thanks for that, this "Scholar" likes to compare apples to oranges it seems. Sure, but in either analogy, the underlying logic is the same so I don't really see any reason to prefer one over the other. The point I was making is that it's necessary to boil the ocean - listening to all sources as opposed to having preferences.

I second this. Let me ask you a question if Adolf Hitler says that 2 + 2 = 4, does it become other than that simply because you don't like the source?

Lol, all hail the almighty Aztec Deity Leotl! He has some manner of affliction to his solar plexus that he's struggled to understand and fix. Been to many Medical practitioners and they're all clueless. Tried asking psychic mediums to opine on the subject, and predictably they all gave him different stories. He even tried to heal it from a high state of consciousness once, which worked for a while but then his condition resurfaced. And he thinks that trying it again won't yield different results at least from what I can gather by listening to him.

If you ask me, his followers are making a mountain out of a molehill.

*Tim Allen Noises* So you're saying you see dead people?

Sure we can technically agree on that. This however is illogical, repetition creates different and more powerful results. True, and Leo dosen't even need it to be enlightened anyway. I agree with this. This, however, represents a leap in logic. Though there's some truth to it.

I just looked at his Instagram, some funny shit lol. Wouldn't surprise me at all if he was tripping balls posting some of those. People such as those will always find some means of attacking him. That isn't to say that Leo isn't giving them extra ammunition with some of those pics. Nonetheless, he can behave however he pleases. What? This is like saying that thinking higher doses of drugs creates more powerful effects than lower doses is delusional.

Fair point, most of the people here assumed that a spade was a spade, myself included

I believe by awakening they meant awakening, not moral philosophy. As for my own self, I tend to prefer Machiavelli or Henry Kissinger relative to this vertical.

No explanation is necessary, the things you've said already made sense to me before you wrote them. But almost no one understood him, and the establishment hated him for his selfless tendencies. And ironically, that was from a purely secular perspective the most successful part of his life, we're still talking about him 2000 years later.

Haha, how funny. Out of curiosity, could you list some or all of the things she has claimed to be? She might not be contradicting herself at all. She sounds like a non-corporeal or semi-corporeal entity to me. Did she exist prior to your experiences with her do you think?

I accept your definitions, though I can't speak for others. And of course, when speaking with them it seems best to use their definitions of words however they may be. And just as a side note, just as all humans are God in human form, so the same is true of all the gods. So on that basis, there's the possibility of people still using the definition of Avatar you're not using, even in accordance with your own definition in spite of the apparent contradiction. Well sure to some extent, however, this seems to potentially imply that you believe there's no way for humans to evolve into gods, which isn't necessarily an accurate representation of your views. As I imagine that, though you may not be conscious of such a thing, you're probably at least wise enough to realize that you couldn't possibly know that such a thing doesn't exist, not unless you know absolutely everything about human possibility, which then you wouldn't have human limitations, and we probably couldn't even call you human anymore since to be human is not to be omniscient in any sense. Besides where we define everything as being limited to everything you know as a human. Kind of like saying humans are omnivorous, even though there exist a great many things they cannot consume like planets and black holes for instance.

I won't opine on the possibility/impossibility of becoming awakened by reading. But as to what I think helped me as a human self comprehend it that's in the domain of books. I'd definitely have to put Lucid Dreaming: Gateway to the Inner Self by Robert Wagoner at the top of the list. It contains some very radical things, that anyone with an open and intelligent mind reading becomes practically forced to do spiritual work seriously in some capacity. For number two, I'd say You are the Placebo by Dr. Joe Dispenza would have to be it. Simply because early on in my pursuit of spirituality, this very book answered some hard pressing questions I had. And as for number three, it's not really a book, but the trip reports on Erowid of various entheogenic substances. Yes, you have a great many instances of people misusing and abusing things, and having horrible things happen to them that are nearly always totally unproductive. At the same time, there are many instances of hard-hitting experiences that make certain facts like you being God, our "physical universe" being nothing more than a dream, sober people being affected by others tripping, etc all rather obvious.

I don't even know to respond to this.

Move past your limitations, and push the envelope of possibility far beyond anything that seems reasonable.

I've long been acutely aware of the underlying mechanism for what you all are describing here. This hearkens back to the age-old wisdom, that you are the sum of the 5 people with whom you spend the most of your time. As for this notion of spiritual transmission, I've only ever experienced that specifically from watching Leo's live awakening videos. The effect of becoming others by experiencing them is usually too subtle for you to notice it's effect. But when people around you are in high states of consciousness it tends to become obvious. Furthermore, this is fundamentally why animals tend to act differently around you when you're tripping as if they know because on some level they're aware that you've changed states.

@Phil777 and @Michael Jackson From the perspective of any normal person, the two of you are insane also. As well as Leo, myself, and a great majority of the people here would if we made our views public, be considered psychotic as well. And just as Galileo was thought a fool and idiot by most intellectuals in his day, so would many of today's scientists would think of Leo if they knew his views. @Jowblob It seems that with this post, you're touching on a subject for which many here are not ready. It isn't so much that he can do these things because he's a god and you're an ordinary mortal(though there's some validity to such a notion). It's that you're capable of moving beyond your human limitations because they're imagined by you. Using some manner of imaginary mechanism to do so. The ways forward for one such as yourself are many. And you know exactly which one is best, because you know all things. The problem is that you don't know that you know.

I would probably endeavor to do the same if it weren't for the fact that in my judgment, that juice isn't worth the squeeze.

You've demonstrated that my assertion is correct because under the definition the OP is using every living human irrespective of whether they have extraordinary powers or not would qualify. Leo often uses the OP's definition also, because Leo realizes that humans are just the highest God hallucinating that it's a human.

You mean to say that they were saying stupid stuff because it sounds from this like you're accusing yourself of saying something stupid over there. This probably sounds obvious, but have you asked her what she thinks she is?

This is interesting because firstly, there's nothing inherently negative about either of those. At the same time, however, at high doses, they both would open you up to telepathic communication from a wide variety of beings including negative ones. So I'd like to know more about this, relative specifically to what doses you used, what you experienced in the trips that were significant etc. Well, that may just explain why you've had such negative experiences in the occult at least partially. I've personally also experienced many of the same paranormal things you describe, but without such negativity. Sure I have had my own faults. The foremost of which being my deficiency of faith. But I've never had anything that made me believe I was under a curse. Except for the period of about a week when I was first reading Datura trip reports written by recreational users I experienced something similar. Mind you, I was doing this at the time gathering information with the intention to use her myself though not in a recreational capacity but in an entheogenically. Knowing that I wanted to do Datura is relevant to what I'm about to write below. So I spent a day with my dad, and he had no way of consciously knowing that I was reading about Datura or wanting to do it as I never told him or anyone else in my life, and he doesn't have access to my computer. Anyway, he told me about this dream he had where I was in the hospital and I had a son who looked exactly like me who was very sick. When I first heard this I couldn't believe my ears because it was immediately obvious to me that this was some kind of warning for me produced by his subconscious. But my logical mind fought that conclusion not really on any rational basis but because my ambitions drove me towards Datura, I sort of refused to believe anything negative about her at the time even as I was reading stories of college kids going insane and becoming badly injured and even the occasional mortality. So ironically, much like my namesake as he appears in Shakespeare's play who wrote off the old oracle who told him "Beware the Ides of March, Caesar" with "Ahh, he's a dreamer, I'm not going to listen to him". So I too kind of wrote off the warning the same way. But then shit that ordinarily was fine in my life started going bad, and I realized the correlation between me reading the horror stories of recreational datura trips and this so I stopped reading them. And everything returned to normal. This is probably a good part of why I don't treat the things you're saying with the same level of incredulity others here have. Though I'm still having difficulty in understanding how exactly it is or could be that you'd be experiencing something similar without reading about very extensively or doing Datura or some plant similar to her. I'm starting to think though, that you're deeply suicidal tendencies may have affected your spiritual experiences even more strongly than when I had first hypothesized the supposition. And that alone has the potential to hold muster as being the majority of the cause of the unfortunate circumstances in your life. Just to be clear, I wasn't bringing the validity of your precognition into doubt. I was merely trying to point out that you could have perhaps chosen a better example than the one you did with the girl. That last one even I'm not sure if I'll ever do in the span of my infinitely long life.

To be fair, that example he gave is far from being the most conclusive example of such a thing. That's to say nothing about your obvious narrow-mindedness, however. True, in much the same way that you don't necessarily need to be a rational person to make the highly reductionist assumption-laden arguments you've consistently made, even in spite of the specious aura of reason-ability they bear. You likewise technically could be very psychotic and manage to get away with being somewhat functional. But the odds are against it, probably about as much as the odds are against your typical gambler walking out of a casino with more money than came in with. What you're describing is commonplace in the humans who have those experiences. To some extent, I'm half tempted to declare this a cop-out as I've actually managed to do what you're describing there. But I know, from direct experience how difficult it is to deliberately cultivate such a thing. Unless you're some freak of nature that's born with those abilities anyway. Plus, I've seen many examples of what you could call somewhat incompetent sorcerers who are somewhat successful in doing magick, but usually never to the degree a person who has no experience with this would demand, and oftentimes they have no conscious control over it. It just goes to show how difficult pursuing this subject can be given the restraints of ordinary human consciousness. I wrote that to combat radical negative views on financial resources which arise from multiple things, the relevant one of them being Stage Green type demonization of Capitalism and Capitalists. Which in my perception at the time, was at least potentially present in you based on the things you wrote. It's clear now to me that you don't hold such views, and if you feel I accused you of doing something wrong then I apologize as that wasn't my intention. I never said it was proof, I said, and to quote me directly that it was "supremely unlikely" he could that. And yes, I know you weren't arguing that the OP is delusional and as such, that wasn't really meant as some kind of rebuttal to anything you said anyway. It just got mixed in with my response to statements you made that in my perception at the time may have arisen from radical views that aren't even particularly valid. Obviously, I was off-base addressing arguments that maybe people other than you on this forum could make and that I mistakenly ascribed to you. And no, I don't disagree with anything you've said there. I think furthermore, that we're very similar in how we view the OP, but that some slight differences have arisen because you and I differ in our approach to the issue. I've taken a more somewhat Quasi-Obama stilted cadence, whereas you've been more critical of the OP. That alone is cause for potential unnecessary infighting between us as we don't really seem to substantially differ too much in terms of worldview.

It's true that our culture has many twisted delusions about the nature of money and worldly success. At the same time, however, there's some seriously bad logic in use here. In that, you're dismissing his claim that he's likely to be a mentally healthy individual because he has worldly success. In fact, there's some truth to this idea. If he were some kind of paranoid schizophrenic, it's supremely unlikely he'd be functional enough to hold down a job as a chemist. Now just since the subject about whether wealth and worldly success are worthwhile. It's of course true that being wealthy and successful isn't likely to make you happy. Most of the celebrities in the world who naturally fit this set of criteria well agree that their wealth and success have not made them happy or even feel fulfilled in the grand scheme of things. There's however, a serious problem with dismissing these things(wealth and success) on this basis. People like to misquote the book of Timothy oftentimes without even knowing it comes from the bible by saying "Money is the root of all evil". This statement, not only a misquote is also nonsensical. Ask yourself this, how many times have bank robbers pulled up to a heist in a Rolls Royce? Or how many extravagantly wealthy neighborhoods are there in which the crime rate is higher relative to their poorer counterparts? Or how many wealthy countries are there, that have the highest murder rate, or conversely, how many impoverished nations have the lowest murder or crime rates? I could go on and on, but you see that this notion that wealth equals evil is mostly just baloney. And yet, so many perhaps well-meaning people buy into it. And this I'd say is potentially a serious blind spot for Stage Green, as they'd seem to with their quasi-Robinhood tendencies be the most likely people to believe this crap besides maybe Reds.