Vibes

"I can show you not only how to make sense of every facet of reality, but how to develop artistry of mind. I can show you how to unlock Alien Intelligence." Course incoming.

@Leo Gura From the blog post: ..."Why do you think about politics at all?" Because it's interesting and I crave understanding. That should be the intent to be reminded of, not to fall to one side or the other, not to get too involved that it clouds that intent. I get it.

@Will1125 We zoom into stories and all the hypnotic forms morphing around, and get lost in them all the time. So much distraction, everywhere you look there goes your focus and you get lost.

@Da77en @Hojo Listen to this one. When I watched this movie I was very uncomfortable with the soundtrack but now I love it haha Maybe the key to all is open mindedness and taking in the beauty with no resistance.

Exactly, yall assume trump will do what he says and cares about what he says, when in reality he only says what you wanna hear in order to manipulate you...

It was very good imo. You explain very well.

@Da77en I appreciate your post, thank you! The video too

That was fucking inspiring, thank you!

Everyone is dumb af, you are the smart one here Classic.

Pretty good documentary on trump's psychology. The man cheats even when playing golf... How pathetic is that.

Same as yours, moments that might not even have happened in childhood. But some I'm certain they happened. I practice being more present with emotions and not resisting or running away from them. And some time ago I was trying to remember if I had deeply traumatizing experiences in childhood through meditations, but didn't discover anything new that I didn't know already. The glimpses might be a lingering effect of that, now that I thought about it. What about you?

Yes, I'm having lots of those lately. They all have a deeper quality than just normal memories, it's like you get literally transported to that moment for a micro second isn't?

Full Documentary:

On Fear by Krishnamurti @Spiritual Warfare " The first thing to ask ourselves then is what is fear and how does it arise? What do we mean by the word fear itself? I am asking myself what fear is, not what I am afraid of. I lead a certain kind of life; I think in a certain pattern; I have certain beliefs and dogmas and I don’t want those patterns of existence to be disturbed because I have my roots in them. I don’t want them to be disturbed because the disturbance produces a state of unknowing and I dislike that. If I am torn away from everything I know and believe, I want to be reasonably certain of the state of things to which I am going. So the brain cells have created a pattern and those brain cells refuse to create another pattern, which may be uncertain. The movement from certainty to uncertainty is what I call fear. At the actual moment, as I am sitting here, I am not afraid; I am not afraid in the present, nothing is happening to me, nobody is threatening me or taking anything away from me. But beyond the actual moment there is a deeper layer in the mind that is consciously or unconsciously thinking of what might happen in the future or worrying that something from the past may overtake me. So I am afraid of the past and the future. I have divided time into the past and the future. Thought steps in, says, ‘Be careful it does not happen again’, or ‘Be prepared for the future. The future may be dangerous for you. You have got something now but you may lose it. You may die tomorrow, your wife may run away, you may lose your job. You may never become famous. You may be lonely. You want to be quite sure of tomorrow’. Now take your own particular form of fear. Look at it. Watch your reactions to it. Can you look at it without any movement of escape, justification, condemnation or suppression? Can you look at that fear without the word that causes the fear? Can you look at death, for instance, without the word that arouses the fear of death? The word itself brings a tremor, doesn’t it, as the word love has its own tremor, its own image? Now, is the image you have in your mind about death, the memory of so many deaths you have seen and the associating of yourself with those incidents—is it that image which is creating fear? Or are you actually afraid of coming to an end, not of the image creating the end? Is the word death causing you fear or the actual ending? If it is the word or the memory that is causing you fear then it is not fear at all. You were ill two years ago, let us say, and the memory of that pain, that illness, remains, and the memory now functioning says, ‘Be careful, don’t get ill, again’. So the memory with its associations is creating fear, and that is not fear at all because at the moment you actually have very good health. Thought, which is always old, because thought is the response of memory and memories are always old—thought creates, in time, the feeling that you are afraid, which is not an actual fact. The actual fact is that you are well. But the experience, which has remained in the mind as a memory, rouses the thought, ‘Be careful, don’t fall ill again’. So we see that thought engenders one kind of fear. But is there fear at all apart from that? Is fear always the result of thought and, if it is, is there any other form of fear? We are afraid of death—that is, something that is going to happen tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, in time. There is a distance between actuality and what will be. Now thought has experienced this state; by observing death it says, ‘I am going to die’. Thought creates the fear of death, and if it doesn’t, is there any fear at all? Is fear the result of thought? If it is, thought being always old, fear is always old. As we have said, there is no new thought. If we recognize it, it is already old. So what we are afraid of is the repetition of the old—the thought of what has been projecting into the future. Therefore, thought is responsible for fear. This is so, you can see it for yourself. When you are confronted with something immediately there is no fear. It is only when thought comes in that there is fear. Therefore, our question now is, is it possible for the mind to live completely, totally, in the present? It is only such a mind that has no fear. But to understand this, you have to understand the structure of thought, memory, and time. And in understanding it, understanding not intellectually, not verbally, but actually with your heart, your mind, your guts, you will be free from fear; then the mind can use thought without creating fear. Thought, like memory, is, of course, necessary for daily living. It is the only instrument we have for communication, working at our jobs and so forth. Thought is the response to memory, memory that has been accumulated through experience, knowledge, tradition, time. And from this background of memory we react, and this reaction is thinking. So thought is essential at certain levels, but when thought projects itself psychologically as the future and the past, creating fear as well as pleasure, the mind is made dull and therefore inaction is inevitable. So I ask myself, ‘Why, why, why, do I think about the future and the past in terms of pleasure and pain, knowing that such thought creates fear? Isn’t it possible for thought, psychologically, to stop, for otherwise fear will never end?’ One of the functions of thought is to be occupied all the time with something. Most of us want to have our minds continually occupied so that we are prevented from seeing ourselves as we actually are. We are afraid to be empty. We are afraid to look at our fears. Consciously you can be aware of your fears, but at the deeper levels of your mind are you aware of them? And how are you going to find out the fears that are hidden, secret? Is fear to be divided into the conscious and the subconscious? This is a very important question. The specialist, the psychologist, and the analyst, have divided fear into deep or superficial layers, but if you follow what the psychologist says or what I say, you are understanding our theories, our dogmas, our knowledge; you are not understanding yourself. You cannot understand yourself according to Freud or Jung, or according to me. Other people’s theories have no importance whatsoever. It is of yourself that you must ask the question, is fear to be divided into the conscious and subconscious? Or is there only fear, which you translate into different forms? There is only one desire; there is only desire. You desire. The objects of desire change, but desire is always the same. So perhaps in the same way there is only fear. You are afraid of all sorts of things but there is only one fear. When you realize that fear cannot be divided you will see that you have put away altogether this problem of the subconscious and so have cheated the psychologists and the analysts. When you understand that fear is a single movement that expresses itself in different ways, and when you see the movement and not the object to which the movement goes, then you are facing an immense question: How can you look at it without the fragmentation that the mind has cultivated? There is only total fear, but how can the mind, which thinks in fragments, observe this total picture? Can it? We have lived a life of fragmentation, and can look at that total fear only through the fragmentary process of thought. The whole process of the machinery of thinking is to break up everything into fragments: I love you and I hate you; you are my enemy, you are my friend; my peculiar idiosyncrasies and inclinations, my job, my position, my prestige, my wife, my child, my country and your country, my God and your God—all that is the fragmentation of thought. And this thought looks at the total state of fear, or tries to look at it, and reduces it to fragments. Therefore, we see that the mind can look at this total fear only when there is no movement of thought. Can you watch fear without any conclusion, without any interference of the knowledge you have accumulated about it? If you cannot, then what you are watching is the past, not fear; if you can, then you are watching fear for the first time without the interference of the past. You can watch only when the mind is very quiet, just as you can listen to what someone is saying only when your mind is not chattering with itself, carrying on a dialogue with itself about its own problems and anxieties. Can you in the same way look at your fear without trying to resolve it, without bringing in its opposite, courage—actually look at it and not try to escape from it? When you say, ‘I must control it, I must get rid of it, I must understand it’, you are trying to escape from it. You can observe a cloud or a tree or the movement of a river with a fairly quiet mind because they are not very important to you, but to watch yourself is far more difficult because there the demands are so practical, the reactions so quick. So when you are directly in contact with fear or despair, loneliness or jealousy, or any other ugly state of mind, can you look at it so completely that your mind is quiet enough to see it? Can the mind perceive fear and not the different forms of fear—perceive total fear, not what you are afraid of? If you look merely at the details of fear or try to deal with your fears one by one, you will never come to the central issue, which is to learn to live with fear. To live with a living thing such as fear requires a mind and heart that are extraordinarily subtle, that have no conclusion and can therefore follow every movement of fear. Then, if you observe and live with it—and this doesn’t take a whole day, it can take a minute or a second to know the whole nature of fear—if you live with it so completely you inevitably ask, ‘Who is the entity who is living with fear? Who is it who is observing fear, watching all the movements of the various forms of fear as well as being aware of the central fact of fear? Is the observer a dead entity, a static being, who has accumulated a lot of knowledge and information about himself, and is it that dead thing who is observing and living with the movement of fear? Is the observer the past or is he a living thing?’ What is your answer? Do not answer me, answer yourself. Are you, the observer, a dead entity watching a living thing or are you a living thing watching a living thing? Because in the observer the two states exist. The observer is the censor who does not want fear; the observer is the totality of all his experiences about fear. So the observer is separate from that thing he calls fear; there is space between them; he is forever trying to overcome it or escape from it and hence this constant battle between himself and fear—this battle that is such a waste of energy. As you watch, you learn that the observer is merely a bundle of ideas and memories without any validity or substance, but that fear is an actuality and that you are trying to understand a fact with an abstraction which, of course, you cannot do. But, in fact, is the observer who says ‘I am afraid’ any different from the thing observed, which is fear? The observer is fear and when that is realized there is no longer any dissipation of energy in the effort to get rid of fear, and the time-space interval between the observer and the observed disappears. When you see that you are a part of fear, not separate from it—that you are fear—then you cannot do anything about it; then fear comes totally to an end."

@Hojo Thanks!

How can you do it without going to sleep? My biggest problem in meditation was always falling asleep. I do practice falling asleep consciously at night, but it's a very difficult balance to achieve between too awake and too loose...

Okay, so have you experienced death? I discovered that I'm not the body, and how thoughts, feelings, sight and sounds connect together and create a sense of being / being inside the body. I've seen this with my consciousness. I can't really explain. I discovered that I exist without breathing. Does the guy in the video ever said something like this?

You can't actually explain an experience, you gotta have it. So I understand if some things are not convincing enough and seem like bs from the perspective of someone who didn't have a certain experience. Your point is that other gurus have been talking about what Leo talks about long before and better than Leo and therefore Leo is not original or the smartest? Why does that even matter? I know some because I have had them too. Like I said, the guy in the video doesn't seem to have had deep experiences, it all seems conceptual.

He's very special in the sense of his experiences investigating life in the relative sense and metaphysical. It's very difficult to say what is intelligence, if you learn fast, understand many things from many points of view, make new creative connections, learn and improve from experience, etc all that is intelligence. Leo has all those and more, more deeply. Have you experienced some of what he says, like reality is a Mind for example? Those experiences are much deeper intelligence than just being what we usually call smart imo. The guy in the video doesn't seem to have had those deep experiences, it feels like he's just great at understanding conceptually. A lot of knowledge but little experience.

I meant that 'the smartest guy in the world' is not the smartest guy in the world, it's just some bullshit title some others have given him and Leo is way smarter imo. But also, so far I haven't found anyone smarter than Leo... But what do I know, I'm not very smart myself haha

Leo is the smartest man in the world...

Ha! He won't answer that. He wants to fuck with your mind.

Yeah, I feel it. But then Leo comes and reminds me that crocodiles can eat my legs