Consept

This is a big responsibility, I'd tread carefully with this whoever takes the role

I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of men by women. (That's not to say men understand women particularly well either). Men desire variety, this has been this way for thousands of years, our bodies and sexual drives are tuned in to be like this. So whether it's through masurbating to porn or actually having sex with different women, this drive does need to be acknowledged and fulfilled in some way, it can be transcended of course but this is not easy. I think why its so demonised is because of the perception that it can destroy families or that if the man sleeps with someone else he can't love the woman. But what has happened is that female dating strategies has become the norm, anything outside of that is seen as bad or wrong, whereby those that don't want to partake in a strict one on one monogamous relationships are seen as weird or players. To me it seems like people love the idea of monogomy more than they love the person they're with ie if the person doesn't want to be monogamous they could be rejected, there's a devotion to monogomy at the expense of people. The ops question sums it up whereby there is no understanding that he might want to masturbate to porn to experience this variety, this is complete suppression of his sexual desires, which to me is not fair. She can do that of course but I dont think many guys would put up with it. One thing though is that there should be open communication, obviously betrayal, as in saying you want to be monogamy but then not keeping to that is a seperate thing and is understandable of the other party isnt happy with it.

Thanks for sharing

I think this is a really good point, becoming a good human is so important and this can sometimes be forgotten because of this quest for enlightenment. My own experience was a belief that i could transcend all the human stuff because i had a couple glimpses, but i didnt realise how important just being a 'healthy' person is, at the very least it should be the foundation of anything else

I understand, I was just trying to see it from his perspective, it wasnt really an attack on you personally I was just making the point of seeing why he would be triggered. But apologies if you feel attacked i dont want to make you feel bad or look bad and i do get that emotions were flying. I honestly try my best to see your side in any debate we've had and even if i disagree i try and be as respectful as possible, however i feel that you dont give much flexibility in your positions, you speak with a certain vibe of 'this is just how it is', which is cool but you have to appreciate you may not always be 'right' or there maybe a fuller perspective and at the very least it stifles the conversation. But we can agree to disagree if you dont feel that to be the case, we dont have to have a debate about it. Theres no hard feelings on my side and i hope none on yours

If i got 40 messages aggressively coming at me in a short space of time Id have probably reacted the same way, theres levels to be being triggered. I appreciate though it is a very delicate subject and obviously peoples emotions are very heightened, im with you in that i probably wouldnt have talked about myself, especially not straight away. Also i dont feel like actualized.org is a cult at all but there were some other valid criticisms that i think were relevant and worth exploring

Hmm im not sure, he could very well be doing it for views but i dont think that takes away from his points, some of which were valid. I also dont think its a bad thing to poke at actualized.org or any other group or person, as long as its not obviously false and done in bad faith. This seems like an attack on the character rather than a discussion of his criticism. It is interesting seeing perspectives play out in this case the pscychonaut guy and Leo. There will always be bias from either side Leo believes that hes doing great work that is helping many people awaken and this guy thinks his work is good but maybe in some cases too extreme in terms of certainty and manner of delivery to the audience. The thing is both of them are right from their perspective and also both can be right, its very possible Leo is doing great work and that there is spiritual arrogance and delivery methods that could, unintentionally, encourage people follow in a cultish way. The thing is though whatever you do there is always a dark side to it that youre not even really in control of, especially if it involves a group of people, i doubt there are any speakers or youtube people with large followings that dont cause some negatives to their followers or to the world, its then easy for others to pick on these negatives and class the person as all bad, without looking at what theyre actually trying to do or say. If this forum purports itself to be a high consciousness one it should be able to take on board criticisms, filtering out the bias and slander, and use it constructively to further look at ourselves and where we can improve, otherwise we're just like every other 'movement', defensive and insular.

There are definitely issues with @Preety_Indias conduct on the forum, I think the main issue is that she's usually strong and wrong which can lure people, Inc myself, into unnecessary debates. I do feel her heart is in the right place and I think she genuinely does what she thinks is best, but I would urge her to really consider her posts and how they may trigger other people. It also does set a bad example because others have been banned for less, I'm not saying she should be banned at all, but I can understand how some might feel slighted.

I never said this was a cult or that Leo was or is trying to be a cult leader, but what you said there really sounds cultish On the real I like his work and i think he's doing important stuff but no one is above criticism. Leo has himself criticised many public figures and most likely if they saw it they would react the same but it doesn't mean his criticism wasn't valid, it's similar here, sometimes you can be so focused on your own work you miss the blindspots, if someone points them out they may not be 100% right but try and take what is valid and dont dwell on the misunderstandings

This is a comment I was going to leave on the other thread in response to Leo's reaction to video @kieranperez posted. It's directed at Leo but anyone who feels to respond feel free @LeoGura I thought the discussion was open and as @Forestluv said they came at with good faith. I do agree that they misunderstood some of your pointers and teachings, however they made valid points about some of the culture on the forum which has been brought up before in terms of turning non duality into an almost religious rhetoric. There's also this thing of giving a non-dual answer to a practical question, 'I want to start a business' - 'who is the I that wants to start a business?'. I've always felt there's an over emphasis on psychedelics which again can turn into religion like rhetoric and yeah there is constant one upmanship on who's really enlightened etc. Most of these issues are what you'd get on forums so it's not necessarily your fault. I also don't think the video was really criticising your teachings, they didn't say you were wrong, it was more a critique on the culture being built around it. To be fair this is a very delicate balance, your teachings are advanced but I do feel they sometimes miss the human connection that say a mooji or sadhguru exude. I'm not saying you should be on that level, I think you offer something different which is important, but when it comes to seekers they can really be taken in by your ideas and also certainty about things, you can across as 'this is just how it is' and you may be right but I think it can have a negative affect on people who are not really ready yet. People dont realise you're on a journey too and unfortunately give all their sovereignty over to you. Anyway just some thoughts and it comes from love

This is an important discussion

When someone passes i always feel sorry for their family more than them as they are the ones left to suffer and seeing it first hand it, can be devastating and leave a lasting impact. Its a shame Soonhei went that way, i didnt know him too well but he seemed to provide a lot of value to those around him and im not sure he fully understood what was being lost. It was weird because im currently reading a book called 'Death' by Sashuguru, after i saw this thread i opened it up and i was on the page titled 'Suicide, ill leave a couple of pics at the end of the 2 pages in which he mentions when someone on the spiritual path commits suicide. Regarding the forum taking more responsibility for this, i dont really see it as Leo or the forums fault, for one it didnt seem as if he had mental health problems, therefore you can only really say he needed spiritual guidance but again the forum and Leo cant be expected to do that. There are tons of forums, social media etc etc that actively encourage suicide, it wouldnt be fair to say this forum encourages it. Also he wasnt new to the spiritual path, he did what he did somewhat consciously, if anything it seemed as if he was looking for confirmation for his eventual actions which he didnt get here. Surely this forum has saved many lives, ive seen numerous threads where people have talked about being depressed and suicidal and they have received so much support, if we change the make up of the site you are essentially risking these peoples lives, its the whole thing of people only notice when something goes wrong.

Interesting question, ultimately it will come down to the individual or individuals, involved to work out what is best for them. There are pros and cons whatever road you go down. Monogamy has worked in that it's an easy solution and it is generally good for society especially such a large one as ours, in terms of organisation. Therefore because of the bias toward monogomy it feels like the default choice. Going forward I think this will really be tested especially as we go into majority green and above. I think there will be more openness about the disillusion of monogamous marriages as we're seeing with high divorce rates. Traditional monogamous marriage is sold on a false promise of the one and romantic, eternal love, not to say this can't exist but its not the norm, considering the divorce high rate and other things. So it will be interesting to see the relationships of the future, ultimately the point of marriages is to create the best environment for kids, so let's what humans come up with.

This is thing, you still have to have your boundaries, especially if the person isnt even self aware of their condition, as you say you have to protect yourself. But that doesnt mean there cant be compassion for the person, they obviously didnt choose to have the condition and it must cause them great pain as well. I think Kanikas videos help with understanding and take away a lot of the hate thats thrown at people with npd or other conditions. Also it makes you think about free will and choice, are people with npd really choosing to act this way?

What happened?

@Preety_India Couple things because you keep misquoting or misunderstanding me, I'll assume its not intentional, but it makes for an unnecessarily long discussion where I have to clarify every word. One, I never meant ugly as in appearance, I mean ugly as in the bad or shadow side of people, it specifically concerns character, I didn't even consider looks. Two, I never made a distinction on what gender should accept the other, I never said a woman should accept bullshit and a man shouldn't. Obviously both would have to accept each other. Three, I didn't say passively accept, something can still piss you off and you have boundaries etc, but overall you accept that person. Again with the example of mother and child it's not a passive acceptance, if the child does something wrong the mother will tell the child off, but whatever the child does, even it grows up to be a killer the love will still be unconditional. Assuming you've had this end of eternity love that you speak of with someone, are you still with them now?

My point is fairly simple, I'm just saying it is extremely rare that there is unconditional love in romantic relationships. By saying you're not willing to accept the ugly (as well as the beautiful in a relationship) , creates a condition, thereby making it conditional love. My point with the mother and child is that the mother is more likely to accept the ugly in her child, making it closer to unconditional.

I came across this channel and found it really interesting. Basically this chica is a diagnosed sociopath and narcissist and setup a YouTube channel to take away the stigma there is toward those with her condition. I must say I learnt a lot from her vids as normally when this topic is talked about it frames then as evil, which I understand the reasons for but it's good to her insight from someone who has it and is self aware

Well I said acceptance of the good, bad and ugly, which includes the beautiful, you seem to be saying you only want the beautiful. If you switch it to say a mother's love for their child, the child may not always be beautiful but the mother will accept all sides of the child, ugly or otherwise. This type of relationship is the closest to unconditional love imo. If you think of 'God's love' it is about pure acceptance, for example in the Bhagavad-Gita God shows his true form which includes the good, bad and ugly to Arjuna who can't handle it. With romantic relationships, you yourself are saying that the ugly shouldn't be accepted within this and this is even a scarcity mindset. But this seems to be a conditional arrangement based on the other person meeting whatever criteria you have, which is very different to the examples I've laid out.

Where did I say that?

Is this not a contradiction though? How can there be unconditional love without acceptance?

@Preety_India it's not that 'romantic love' is impossible to get, it just feels like it comes with a lot of preconceived, naive, notions of what love is. What this then turns into is people being unhappy in perfectly good relationships just because it doesn't fit the description of this all encompassing love. Real relationships should include the good, bad and ugly, that is specifically what love is, acceptance. If you're not able to accept something because it's less than your idea of love then paradoxically it can't be love.

So first of all this is an overall look at this, its not necessarily personal to me in that im looking for justification for anything, i just think its an interesting talking point, here goes. Recently with lockdown being relaxed here in the UK ive had a chance to meet more people socially, some of which were female friends. We got into discussions about and around the title topic and i came to interesting perspective. So majority of women, if you ask them what their ideal situation is, are looking for one partner that they respect, that they look up to, that for lack of a better term is their 'one', someone they can put all their energy into and who will put all their energy into them (this is for marriage or long term). If you ask men they may say the same thing but if you get a bit deeper most men would be happy to sleep with other women if it was relatively easy and if their partner was cool with it (most partners wont be but you know ideal world). They would like to keep their partner as the main woman of course. (this will be different for different men of course but im not necessarily arguing about that). Now heres the thing, when asked what would be the worse thing for your partner to do, cheat emotionally or cheat physically, men said they wouldnt want their partner to cheat physically and women said they wouldnt want their partner to cheat emotionally. In society physical cheating is seen as the only real cheating, thats the dealbreaker and if someone does that to you, you should leave them. Keep in mind though if a woman is satisfied sexually and emotionally with one person she most likely will not physically cheat. Men feel a strong obligation not to cheat, due to society pressure and so it sometimes is not even a consideration as its a bad thing. Heres the kicker though, if women feel that emotional connection is worse than physical with someone else then they should consider deep friendships they have with men cheating and actually worse than physical cheating by their own standards. You might say well you can be friends and it be plutonic, yes this can be true but usually someone in the equation is in the friend zone, meaning that one party can say to the other 'lets sleep together' and the other will be up for it. Usually its the guy thats in the friend zone. So in this scenario the woman is able to have an emotional connection with this male friend and get his time, his energy etc, but what he might want deep down, hes not getting. As an example one of the girls i talked to recently has a 'male friend', who likes her and she only gives him attention when she breaks up with someone shes saying, she never sleeps with him, but he constantly pays her attention and gives compliments etc. She basically gets her emotional and validation needs met temporarily before she meets someone more serious. This is not a unique situation. If you reverse the situation and say mens needs are more sexual, they do have emotional needs of course but theres more emphasis on the sexual needs. If I said theres a girl that l know likes me but i dont take her seriously for a relationship, i just give her a call when i break up with someone else to have sex and hang out, people would think im a user and terrible person. This also follows in long term relationships and marriages, women might have other male friends, these friends could be fulfilling certain emotional needs, maybe their partner doesnt listen to them as much or whatever. Now im not saying theres even anything wrong with this, in a way it makes sense, why shouldnt you get your needs met? But why does it not apply to men who want their needs met? Men tend to have a desire for variety sexually, as evidenced by the numerous porn categories, so this desire is there, but what we're told is to completely stuff this need and forget about it. But by the same token women are allowed to have their emotional needs met by multiple men, which they themselves consider to be the worse form of cheating. Keep in mind also humans were mostly polygamous or polyamorous for centuries, within their tribes. Even now its common place in tribal societies, to have multiple wives, assuming you have the resources to look after them. This is done because the first wife can no longer take over all the needs of the man, she basically is happy to get a younger wife to come and help. Im not saying this is perfect either, im just saying its interesting how if you grow up in another society your take on what we think are big issues is completely different. Anyway this is more to spark up discussion, so hopefully people wont get triggered, but interested to hear other viewpoints.

From your original post it sounds like the fantasy you had of the perfect girl only really existed in your mind. Once you 'got it' you no longer wanted it because the real image could never live up to the mental image. Also in fantasies its more about what the person can do for you and how their perfection will enhance your life in some way. The fact is the reality can never live up to this, this isnt limited to relationships, it can happen with jobs, businesses, holidays, whatever. Our minds are amazing in what they can create but on the flip they can almost ruin reality. I think true progression will just be the acceptance of reality for what it is and not think that some particular outcome or achievement will enhance or complete you in anyway. I also agree with your sentiments that its good to get things so that you realise their limitations and then you can stop basing your life on these things. Anyway its all progress so happy for you that you had this realisation

Consider thats how youre interpreting it but its not necessarily my intention. To me its not whether one sex has it easier or not, if we weigh it up its probably even, for example if you take a man and a woman who are considered unattractive physically, the man has a much better opportunity to get a more attractive woman because the stuff he can work on is considered attractive by women (financial, personality etc). Because men tend to be more physically orientated its harder for a woman not considered attractive to land an attractive male. Thats just example but again i dont really like to use the term disadvantaged as there are pros and cons of being any identity, it would be quite simplistic to say a whole gender is disadvantaged. What im more looking at is perspectives that hold true when looking at statistics but are not really discussed in everyday society, which is what i presented in the argument. Yeah 100%, the guy is putting her on a pedestal and getting a pretty crap deal in the process, this would be the same if a guy was just using a girl for sex and she thought it was something more, she would also need to learn her 'game' and not be played. This is my point, this argument is just showing the other side of the coin.