Jwayne

What is also authoritarian is your implicit claim to a universal morality which all cultures and languages (even those you don't speak, nor understand) should adapt themselves to. That's the definition of cultural-epistemic imperialism. And this implicit claim, ostensibly, is founded on either your personal reasoning and/or mystic experience of 'omniscience' both of which betray messianic thinking. Specifically, that one person - you - has personally come to absolute knowledge (i.e. of morality) and everyone else everywhere must agree and adapt themselves to it. It's obviously peak arrogance.

China is a one-party meritocracy, with a very remarkable history of delivering results over the last 3 decades. Really starting with Deng's reforms. Every measure of economic progress supports the objective achievements of the CCP in uplifting their people from a history of extreme deprivation and poverty (in the 1970s) to an impressively stable, safe, happy and prosperous nation. Their record of progress speaks for itself. You'll need to elaborate on Dugin and explain what exactly you disagree with. Because "he's full of shit" is an empty signifier to someone whose read his books.

I advise everyone over the age of 25 to go get a full hormone blood panel done to see if you would benefit from testosterone therapy. Or, if you have other deficiencies that need to be addressed. But for many men the root, bioenergetic issue is hypogonadism. You are climbing uphill if trying to overcome hormonal imbalances with substances or inner game.

It must be contextual. In some (many) moments, a material action is appropriate to serve humanity. The situation wherein withdrawing into spiritual practice is the (theoretically) most optimal action is a specific one with its own specific pre-conditions. It is not a universal.

How will it know what 'art' is? And what guarantees what it generates will be recognized by humans as 'art'? It must be fed information to perform a task. That necessarily means there is human bias built-in to the first step.

To engage with that line of reasoning you will need to engage with Eurasian thought on its own terms, the way it sees itself. Such as by reading Aleksandr Dugin and then having a conversation along the merits of multi-polarity, or Dugin-Heideggerian philosophy concerning plurality of dasein, and so forth.

China is non-interventionist and has been experiencing the fastest economic growth in world history the last few decades, including sharing the prosperity with citizenry (lifting 800m+ people out of poverty) rather than to a mere few financiers at the top. This is very opposite to the USA experience during the same time period.

Some scientists are also currently studying an underlying scaffolding to reality that precedes time and space, and from which they emerge (as known via human perception). Good news is in the future there will be a more advanced mainstream scientific consensus than what we have now.

What is unique about the essential aspects of the teaching that hasn't existed somewhere before? Am I missing something?

Fair enough

I'm sorry, can you do both things at the same time? I find using screen-based technology to be very distracting. What is it about exalted experience that makes people immediately (like... within seconds) share about it on Actualized.org?

You're not having a 'mystical experience'. You are logged-in to the forum and typing.

What happens all of the time is that people read 'You are God' and then conceptualize it into a new identity. So 'I am God' is just the verbalization of the (new, subtle) ego and especially, when further there is no verification to be evidenced to anyone, not even bi-products (i.e. embodiment) that could testify to any kind of mystical experience. To compensate they talk/write repetitively about it.

It's very difficult to read this. Because the 'comprehension' isn't going to happen verbally/conceptually in these words. Yet the reader is imagining it (i.e. the experience) using these words and picturing it based on their limited appreciation for what they imagine is being conveyed. So I really find it to difficult to ascertain a value to even stating such things. Whatever is said is turned into a conceptual fantasy in the reader's mind and they procede to engage with it theoretically based on their own ideas. And then, of course, they ask funky questions (often getting more lost) and entire threads are created that way.

I would answer in the following way. When you learn something, it becomes embodied as part of your instinct. So you don't need to consciously call upon your memory (of the verbal understanding) with your conscious awareness. It's like muscle memory, it happens faster than your volitional thinking.

I wouldn't assume in any particular situation that it is so. But that the phenomenon does happen is clear enough. And you're right, always forgive and help however you can.

It's good when Leo is harsh with people, and when people respond honestly with the best that they can. This is how to move things forward: I empty my mind, and you empty your mind. And out of that confrontation we get to a new place.

A lot of people will come to forums like this for help. They aren't successful in different areas of life, and don't have in-person mentors or role models to turn to. So they go online. And so we can forgive these guys for being awkward because they're suffering and need compassion. But there is something we can't forgive. And that's weirdo men who are going online looking for validation by winning (imaginary) internet status points. And so they boast about how 'enlightened' they are so as to (in their distorted perception) earn reputation and get some semblence of a (digitalized) social life. They also need our compassion - yet are often only receptive to, what many would call, bullying (or trauma). In other words, we have to be particularly harsh with them and call out their bullshit without hesitation for their own good. Then there is another category of just awkward people in general. Maybe they half-ass their 'inner work' and so never really developed into themselves. And so they're just kind of weird. This is on a spectrum, and lots of people in-person (including women) are like this.

I'm here for a broader conversation than a commentary on Leo Gura's ideas. I don't find the Spiral Dynamics model to be impressive, it's rather reductive, childish and regressive in terms of not being rigorous and almost anti-academic in its foundations. Another one that's popular online is David Hawkins map of consciousness. I don't find that to be very insightful either. What I do like is meeting people, especially those that are metaphysically-inclined and seeing how they've lived and applied this in their life. The written musings here about psychadelic trips, "god-realizations" and hierarchies of which state is 'higher' are not that interesting. I'd rather learn about the people themselves and make friends that way.

Your description - typical of the way people on this forum write - demands much elaboration. When this is left to the reader's own translation, you end up with pseudo-communication, e.g. pseudo-agreement/disagreement. Because everyone is talking past one another. If you are using the terms used in some video series, then I trust people will be in common understanding. But even then, there must be exhaustive clarification of each term. That typically happens within the practical dimension of a tradition wherein humans contextually transmit meanings directly. As for a productive contribution, I said it should regard collective aims - which substantiates it into something beyond private indulgence.

I generally agree with that. Every challenge will summon a response from understanding, both the embodied/internalized aspect and the part you must consciously work out in the moment.

I prefer studying books over watching videos. What should happen is that people return from individualist spiritual practice with some kind of productive, generative contributions in some way conducive towards collective aims .

It's not good for anyone to "trust you". What you explained could just be parroted from something you've read or imagined. Your apparent confidence has no value for someone else, and actually could mislead them. This is the kind of pissing contest that happens everyday on this forum. "I'm so enlightened (more than the others) but it can never be demonstrated to you."

Changing your behavior can happen as a conscious intent to 'make a change' or can be a consequence of a transformation of substance (i.e. learning). Consciously changing your behavior so as to appear as higher understanding to others and then to gloat with their approval, is, of course, a trap of self-delusion.

That assumes not-murdering is a necessary outcome of understanding. In that case, I would argue, your action to murder was necessarily informed by understanding. It is certainly not divorced from understanding, so to speak. Because whatever you understand is with you - inescapably - in your decision-making.