VoidJumper

Maybe we’ve got something to learn from the monkeys 😅

Mhh I actually found the exchange very interesting. Especially the part were Leo straight up ignored all of Artems points and arguments, and once he called him out on it simply banned him.

What are you talking about? There’s barely any Buddhism…

Sounds pretty cool 😂

Really cool beautiful conversation, highly recommend it. If you don’t know Artem, check him out, imo he is the real deal. He has written a bunch of stuff at true-freedom.net for anyone interested.

On enlightenment, discerning true insight, abusive teachers and more:

At the core of this is the false belief that something is wrong and you have to make it right. That's what causes suffering. In spiritual seekers, especially after some initial progress, this belief tends to increase, resulting in even more suffering than before. It's really quite amazing when you investigate to see how almost everything you are doing has something to do with this fundamental erroneous belief. Something is wrong and it needs to be fixed.

Been rereading Jed McKenna. Here is a quote from Damndest. Do with it whatever you will: Chris has his hand firmly on the tiller of his life. He's in control. He's making the decisions and he's determining his own fate. Captain of his own destiny may be how he thinks of it—his own man. If I were some revered master in Japan, Chris is one of those guys who would slave in the kitchen for ten years without ever speaking with me. If I taught with results in mind, Chris would never even be allowed to open a book or converse on spiritual matters until we pried his hands off the tiller. Rigid ego can scuttle the ship before it gets clear of the harbor. I've watched much smarter people than myself, much braver people than myself, break their ships fatally on the rocks because they were too full of themselves to release control. This stuff isn't about brains and balls, it's about desire and flow and purity of intent.

All you people crying about how there is no proof that you can become so conscious that psychedelics don't affect you anymore...well, here would have been your chance to collect some!?! A self-proclaimed enlightened being with psychedelic immunity has offered himself up. Why wouldn't you want to investigate? Simply to prove him wrong you should have taken him up on his offer. But your unwillingness to engage and arrogant dismissal only appear as denial and egoic self-preservation to every independently thinking person on here. Is Leo's goal with this forum to filter out anybody who doesn't blindly believe him and the be worshipped as the most conscious alien of the galaxy? Or does he actually want to help people? If it was the latter, he wouldn't run away from an opportunity like this for some truth to be revealed. (If the guy really is full of shit and Leo is so much more conscious, it would quickly become apparent if they had a conversation, it would maybe take up 30mins of Leo's time. Not a high price to pay)

I have landed on this question: Are some things more true than others, or is everything equally untrue? Example. On the one hand is an islamic terrorist and on the other we have ordinary Joe. The question is, is one worldview more true then the other? One thing can only be more or less true in relation to specific something else. For example, we can decide that we want to live in a peaceful society and in relation to that goal, it is more true that it is wrong to blow up innocent people. But that is just an artificial goal. Who is to say that the world indeed should be peaceful? I don’t know what the world should be like, do you? I have my personal preferences of how I would want the world to be like, but the world don’t care. We can create an artificial context (e.g. society) dedicated to a certain goal. All well and good, but ain’t nothing true about it. Here is an outrageous statement: The beliefs of the islamic terrorist are no more or less (un)true, than the ones of anyone else. Damn peculiar.

One truth is clear, whatever is isn't boring

To make a point that the issue isn't the idea of vaccination itself, but rather the formulation of modern vaccines. But you're right, I shouldn't make claims when I'm not willing or able to back them up

Because @Hatfort made the claim that antivaxers are wrong and justified it with this example of how a lighter version of the disease was used to bring about immunity etc., while the potential problems with vaccines relate to the composition of the modern versions. Sure that's why I said I was agnostic. I find the arguments interesting and compelling, but am not in a position to verify anything for certain. It can be a positive to come at a given field from the outside because you didn't go through the years of brain washing required to rise up within it and don't have any incentives to keep the scam going. What am I supposed to do? Sacrifice 10 years of my life to become the worlds foremost expert? And then do that on every single controversial issue? What I can do and what the greater population can do, is listen to the arguments of both sides and then make a judgment based on who is making the better case. Now this only gets more difficult as a group of people who have decided they are the arbiters of truth only allow one side to be heard. And I'm not gonna lie, that kind of thing makes me immediately suspicious. Of course he is resonating with me because he aligns with my ideology, my worldview. But I have no horse in the race. If he can be proven wrong I would actually be quite relieved, but as far as I am aware that hasn't happened yet. You seem so certain you know the truth. What are your qualifications @zurew ?

Are these the words of a crazy conspiracy nut?