Consept

This is speaking from an individual cost benefit analysis, from this perspective yes youre right you will most likely be fine. But really Covid or any contagious disease or virus is a community and society issue, which is why a vaccine is needed. If you were talking about diabetes that just affected you then your cost benefit conclusion would be fine, but it cant really be the same rationale in this instance. Also youre looking at covid from just deaths, whereas with the vaccine you pointed out the side effects, there are definitely more longer lasting side effects from covid than the vaccine, youve put your reasoning for not taking the vaccine is side effects. If that is a valid reason for you surely you would go down the road with the least side effects. There seem to be a lot of anti-vaxxers that are much more passionate about their position than people moralising about taking the vaccine. I dont think youd find protests or 'pro-vaxxers', people dont particularly want to take the vaccine in general but they do for their own reasons, theyre not really passionate about in the same way anti-vaxxers are. Which then begs the question of if we take your point that its counter-intuitive, shouldnt anti-vaxxers shut up about it as well as theyre probably driving people to take it?

Everyone that is emotional about a strong, dogmatic, belief feels this way. For example religious people have felt like this through history, if we look at modern day isis suicide bombers, they truly believe they are doing Gods work and saving people. This is an extreme example but the point is any belief system is going to believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong and when you take that stance it naturally follows that you would want to prevent those you love from going to hell or doing the wrong thing. This would be the obvious trajectory of such a belief which goes to show the dogma involved, in that theyre so sure they are willing to pull others into it. I dont agree with everything about science and it can also be dogmatic, but at the very least they will rarely say we are 100% sure about something, theyll just say this is what the evidence shows, in theory they will also take on new evidence and have an overall scientific consensus about what can be said to be 'scientific fact'. This is not the case with religion or other dogmatic beliefs, hence the emotional responses. This is true on both sides, you can get bad science and you can get people emotional being written off. But again the emotions come from having a belief. If you said 'i think Leo is 30' you wouldnt really care if someone else said hes 35, you may want to know which is true and then you would do further research, but either way you wouldnt be emotional about it because it doesnt have much bearing on you and youre not attached to the outcome of it. However if for whatever reason you felt certain he was 30 and it was important to you, those that then said hes 35 would be seen as enemies or at the very least wrong, you would definitely get emotional about it as you would feel attacked or not understood, you may even start questioning how we measure age or something like that. As i said many people are not necessarily attached emotionally to taking a vaccine, whereas people who are against it are. Pro-trump and anti trump was different in that the argument was emotional on both sides, the vaccine issue is more anti-vaxx bumping up against the scientific establishment rather than people on the other side. The paper you posted was quite interesting in that it said that science is falling behind in terms of the communication to the public, anti-vaxxers are getting better at visually showing their points. It also talks about how people are now taking science is seen by anti-maskers in this case, as an individual thing that they do and have autonomy over and is no longer seen by them as something with a scientific consensus and using the current scientific method. Which is an interesting way to look at it, so essentially its not even a case of anti-vax or not its more a thing of do you trust the scientific method and those that have studied these things for years or do you trust in your own ability to go through all these scientific journals and come to a conclusion off your own back. One thing i have noticed is that those that dont trust the scientific method always start off with an anti-science leaning, they also tend to have dogmatic beliefs whether it be vaccines or whatever. Personally i have no problem with the challenging of science, you should always question it, but you also have to appreciate where its good points are and how it can be useful.

Yes I agree, there won't be an emotional or dogmatic response but there could be a conclusion, however they are also open to new information. Also 'anti' implies an emotional response which is why I said they wouldn't be anti anything, they just may not agree with certain things or have different conclusions. The people I've seen online and otherwise who are anti-vaxx or even vaccine hesitant, are usually very passionate and emotional about their beliefs, whereas the scientists, epidemiologists and even intellectual thinkers are not really the same way about taking the vaccine even if they believe you should take it, even the average person who takes the vaccine is not really passionate about it, they just do it as they think its the best for society. When you get anti-vaxx protests you won't see people on the other side who are pro-vaxx protesting as well, with contentious issues where people have contradicting beliefs you would always get this but it's not the case here.

@BadHippie I'm not necessarily saying you but I think what the op is talking about in terms of their friends is that there's a dogmatic anti-science, pro-everything natural, anti-medical establishment, anti-government perspective. They going having these strong bias' and if they do research its just to back up their original beliefs. Now this isn't to say some of their beliefs aren't true, because they will be and some of their narratives might be sling the right lines, but what makes the distinction between yellow and green is that yellow would agree with some of greens points but will also incorporate scientific perspectives or any other perspective that has value. Green can be anti-vaccine but yellow wouldn't really be anti anything, it would look at the whole picture and come to a conclusion, actively looking for where they could be biased and factoring that in. Green is not really aware of this pro-nature, anti-science bias, they just believe their perspective is truth and everyone else is misguided, which is normal for dogma.

Its kinda normal for those who have their identity wrapped around green, specifically new age type thinking, to shun any medical science. Theres a dogmatic view that unless its completely natural it cant be good for you, in some respects they have points but there isnt any flexibility to their argument and in the real world it can cause a lot of problems, for example if they refuse certain treatments that could cure them of a life threatening disease. This view has always been under the surface but has really exploded since the pandemic which is situation where they would get pushback for their views, whereas before they were the only ones who could be potentially harmed by this view now its a society issue. Rebel wisdom did some interesting content about it on youtube, they called it conspirituality. I like Russel Brand as well but i think hes leaned a lot into this control, elite type rhetoric, hes not necessarily wrong but i think he fails to see the whole picture.

I would disagree with green, it maybe true if they're debating those with similar beliefs or those that are fairly open minded. But if they're debating someone at a lower stage who disagrees with them they can get into moral superiority and judgement, name calling etc. Debates about veganism can get crazy, also dont forget a lot of green people got into maga and conspiracy theories. Point is they're still arguing from a position of my view is the correct one and all others are at best wrong and at worst evil

@BipolarGrowth Good stuff man! I have some cash so to invest so i am looking at property investments, im in the UK so it might be slightly different but theres a lot of potential here as well. Would you recommend buying a not so great property and doing it up to rent? Ive also been looking at investing overseas as theres a bit of adventure thrown into it, but that could be a bit tricky.

Ive had first hand experience with this with trying to explain this to four different partners. What i can say is that the best way to do it is to gauge their openness and what about spirituality might interest them. So for example if theyre religious you can bring up stuff that Jesus said or if theyre more scientific minded you can bring up some interesting stuff about neuro science and how it says there is no 'self'. The main thing is to realise what your intentions are behind it, dont try and convince them as a way to get them on your 'side', just look at it as a sharing of ideas and ask them questions to just challenge them a little. The worst ive got it is outright fear lol, theres also just not much interest and then theres those that are quite open and want to know more, however none have really gone too deep into it with other teachers and see me is the pinnacle of non-dual teachings (which shows that they didnt go deep at all ). But they can make for interesting conversations, it can also help you crystallise your ideas when you have to explain it to someone else. More than likely your gf sees at as religion type thing where you just believe something just because, which is probably why shes scared. Imagine if she said 'did you know Jesus died for your sins', youd be a little freaked out and the more she explained it to you the more youd be shut off to it.

If someone was hyper masculine, the advice theyd get is to integrate their feminine side. Similarly if you feel you're leaning quite far on the feminine side then you should integrate your masculine, it's really all about balance to become complete. Also like @universe commented, if you're busting quick in positions that you're dominant that would indicate that at least your body is more responsive to those positions. In general it's easier to last longer if the women's on top anyway so that's not indication of much.

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?