Poetry uses implicit and intuitive structures, which can be an elegant way of communicating, but it can also be prone to misinterpretation (due to the lack of explicit precision). Imo, an elegant use of poetry generally requires a refined sense of context awareness, e.g. knowing the person you're talking to and their past experiences, how their mind works, what they're feeling and thinking in the moment, etc.
Truly intuitive people (e.g. "real" spiritual gurus) can touch your soul with so little words, because they know so much about you by just looking at you or observing your behavior. In fact, when your context awareness (and just general awareness) becomes extremely refined, I believe you can see the karmic footprint of somebody just by glancing at their eyes. That is where you get stories like Ram Dass meeting his guru and discovering that he essentially knew everything about him (e.g. that his mother had just passed away), or Sadhguru (jokingly) recalling his experience in school (paraphrasing: "I was paying so much attention to the teachers that I could see their past, present and future").
And you can certainly see moderate versions of this in your own life: you know very well when somebody is sad just by looking at them, and if you by some second clue (or multiple) can derive a possible explanation, and if it happens to be true, then you have effectively read their karmic footprint. In that sense, "psychic abilities" are just extreme versions of normal psychological phenomena (e.g. affective empathy, seeing patterns, logical inferences, etc.).
One example from my personal life (which wasn't confirmed, but it still illustrates my point): at one point during my degree, I noticed that one of the lecturers suddenly called in sick a large number of times. Already then, I thought something must have happened. And then the few times I saw her after that, I couldn't help but feel that she was very sad, in strict contrast to how she used to be. The conclusion that popped up in my head was that someone near her had passed away. Again, I don't know that this was the case (I also had other theories, like a breakup, or just general stress from teaching while pursuing a PhD), but you can see how an extremely refined ability to pick up on such signs and draw true conclusions could lead you to be labelled a psychic.
Of course, there are alternative explanations of psychic abilities that rely less on explicit signs like how somebody looks or their emotional state (e.g. that it's possible to merely download information about someone you've never even seen or met by pure intention). But in either case, the way you arrive at a conclusion is equally interesting in my opinion.

You need to know the shit you talk about. That makes a huge deal.
Also don't get fooled by what you see. I bet Leo does plenty of preparation and organizing work for his videos.
Get to know your shit first, then have the courage and resilience to practice regularly. 
And remember, when it comes to communicating and articulating yourself, there will always be good days and bad days.
 
 

The only way out is through.
You can make use of capitalism to build yourself a decent life. That's what everyone has to do. You shouldn't expect government to just give you a good life. Turn yourself into a massive value provider. You can make good money in this system if you are hardworking and highly creative.

I have seen the importance of videos of being a teenager and the advice for young people video, However the question still remains what are important things to do in mid 20s I am 26 and relatively financially stable and I do not need to worry about work right now. Forgetting about COVID - what would you recommend for me to do other than to find my life purpose obviously and to explore the world.
 
my daily routine looks like this: (with some procrastination here and there)
 
meditation yoga + grounding life purpose course breath work violin/guitar reading / researching / reading forums swimming/hiit/mma visualisation

Ok, I see what you mean, it has been a feature of Soviet-block countries. And it didn't work at all. One can argue that these countries have had enormous growth during that time, so the system was working and their worse situation compared to West Germany for example could be attributed to worse war damage and no Marshall's plan money (Stalin rejected the money).
Yet, the fall of the block is an indisputable proof that there have been deeper problems. The system had problems with effectively using it's wealth, I mean Russia is still one of the wealthiest countries in the world when it comes to natural resources, but its economy doesn't match this wealth.
The capitalist system has had agents that were wasting resources and successfully using economy's potential. The soviet countries has been uniformly wasting resources. Although, I believe it's not a problem which is necessarily connected with socialism as you defined it now, because I can imagine independent public institutions with a lot of power that successfully distribute funding towards various enterprises.
I am not proposing implementing such system any time soon, it would be a stage Yellow system and it would require a lot of careful sketching of ideas, development of bureaucracy methods and education, because for it to work, the workers would need to be educated and voice their needs, no more no less, I mean their needs as representatives of the enterprises they work at.
The world is too obsessed with points, pointless metrics and money chasing for it to work. Maybe the point at which academia grows up out of this stupid attitude and develops more enlightened ways of operating, maybe then we can start thinking about implementing something like this politically. Because if PhDs can't make a socialist work environment for themselves then no-one can.

But the best way to win someone's trust is by being honest and not wearing dozen of masks. So it's still pays to be honest.

A groundbreaking philosopher & (in my opinion) the most important biologist alive have an amazing discussion about Michael's work and the parallels/implications with ontological idealism. I really, really enjoyed this one - some really  thought-provoking gems in there!
 
 

Hey so I'm a college student and recently I got caught for academic misconduct and I don't know what the punishment is yet. It's probably going to be on my personal record forever, and as a pre-med this is a big rest in peace. To be honest, I wasn't dead set on studying medicine in the first place so right now I'm not TOTALLY freaking out about this, although I did throwup a couple of times. I guess I'm just looking for some general advice from y'all actualized people right now, because the last time I was traumatized was a heartbreak and actualized.org saved me. You guys see the big picture in things so yea, I just want some words to help me get over the initial shock? General college / career advice could help as well.
Thanks so much

You can try to talk to S and offer to strike a bargain with him where you two agree to stay out of each other's way and then you will tell your family you back off.
You and S should try to negotiate some rules of engagement and behavior. You should brainstorm what you want these rules to be before you talk to S.

@Matthi This is an opportunity for you to grow socially, to learn to be comfortable around other people. That is necessary for your future regardless.
Try this exercise: go deliberately be around other people, and when that happens, consciously try to relax your body and mind. Don't think about anything, don't tense your body, and just be at ease as other people are around you. And keep doing that. You don't even have to talk to them. If they talk to you, you can tell them that you just want some space to relax and meditate.

Well, there is Coursera, Edx, Udemy, Udacity, Khan Academy. Lynda and more.
For me, I took more of Coursera and Edx to get some accreditions/minor diplomas or certificates but they ultimately don't seem any useful in my job search because company will still look at your main degree etc only.
Peterson still has a huge ego when he called his academy under his name. Why not called it 'Novel Academy' or something?

If you guys are just looking for basic college ed classes by top-notch professors on the cheap in video format, that already exists:
https://www.thegreatcourses.com
It will takes Peterson over a decade to generate as many courses as the above already has.

Im not saying or claiming its impossible to have enlightenments or awakenings or that one shouldn't go for it - Im just suggesting epistemic humility which people here clearly lack - in other words be open to the possiblity that you can be wrong.
Thats why you can see a lot of people here acting as teachers and all-knowers all the time rather than actually acknowledging the limitations to methods .
A lof of people here are making a lot of assumptions but they try hard not to see those as assumptions even though they have to take them for granted.
You can cut through a lot of bullshit by asking "why" and "how do you know that" on a loop, repeatedly to this people and you will see how even though epistemically similar their approaches are - a lot of their conclusions are different.
A lot of guessing about other peoples developmental level (as if anyone would have some objective standard to go by - which people clearly don't have - they just go by self-referentiality [or in other words by the experience and knowledge that they think to be true])
There is clearly a lot of ego involved in all this which distorts everything very greatly. A lot of emotional attachment to certain methods, huge emotional attachment to the idea that one is more conscious compared to others, huge emotional attachment to 100% confidence in your core claims (people here need the feel of that psychological safetiness, otherwise they open themselves  up to the possibility , where their whole world can fall apart)
 
Notice what people argue about here all the time: "I have a bigger enlightenment dick than you" " I am more conscious than you" "your method is limited compared to mine" - when it comes to Leo , he is making a lot of claims about methods that he is guessing about at best, but he won't acknowledge that he is guessing - he will present it as if it would be absolutely true.
So for instance, he will present the idea of doing meditation to reach his current knowledge as either laughable or structurally limited, even though he is using his limited understanding and logic to reach his conclusion (that meditation is structurally limited) and he hasn't gone through 40-50 years of intense meditation work - so he uses mental masturbation and inductive reasoning to make a definitive claim about something without verifying it himself through experience. He might say "okay, but no one can verify all the methods at that depth and length" - sure, but then don't make definitive claims about it  and again have some epistemic humility and say: "To the best of my knowledge right now here is my take on this x method" but don't die on the hill with such claims.
 
 
 
The time here anyone accepts infinite consciousness as a possibility - is the time, where constant recontextualization opens up, which will undermine your previous thoughts and knowledge about everything as you become more conscious.  Leo will say: "no no  it won't negate it , it will include it" - even in that case you should go with epistemic humility all the time , but there are things that contradicts the claim of " it won't negate it , it will include it".
So for example, if there is a person who says God doesn't exist and then he becomes a person who says God does exist, in that case there is the negation of ' God doesn't exist' and the undermining of your previous thoughts and metaphysics going on rather than an inclusion.  Or a different example could be a person switching a materialist paradigm to 'everything is consciousness' paradigm - that case there is a clear negation of the materialist paradigm going on there - you negate the idea that the materialist metaphysics is true. So those two examples clearly demonstrates not just the fact that greater consciousness will undermine your regular knowledge about things, but greater consciousness can undermine your ideas about the structure and nature of reality and yourself, therefore having a 100% confidence in your own metaphysics according to this - is not a good idea, because  there is a possibility that it will be undermined in the future as you gain more consciousness.
So the conclusion is that if you believe that 'you can always become more and more conscious no matter how conscious you are right now', then you also have to accept the possibility that your deepest ideas about yourself and about reality and about consciousness can be undermined later as you become more conscious compared to your previous self. So the idea of any of you having 100% certainty in your metaphysics is irrational and opens up you to be deluded.
 

Do you understand that it usually takes an intellectual years to develop and publish ground-breaking new theory?
Go look at how long it took Darwin to develop evolution.

This is the reading list Ralston sent me for the apprenticeship what do you think any questions or comments would be appreciated.
Ralston's books:
The Book of Not Knowing (required reading)
Pursuing Consciousness (required reading)
The Genius of Being (required reading)
Zen Body-Being (required reading)
Consciousness Dialogues (required reading)
Ancient Wisdom, New Spirit
Reflections of Being
Other Educational Possibilities: (if you have time)
Zen Flesh, Zen Bones
Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, Suzuki
Actualizations, Stewart Emery
On Time and Being, Heidegger
The Knee of Listening, Franklin Jones (Bubba Free John)
Steps to an Ecology of Mind, Gregory Bateson
The Way of Chuang Tzu, Merton
Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu
The Book of Tea
Zen in the Art of Archery
Critique of Pure Reason, Kant (difficult)
Some others:
The Journey to Ixtlan, Castenada
@Leo Gura

If you were to do a psychological study of mindfulness, you start by finding someone's general definition of it. Most scientists seem to use Jon Kabat Zinn's definition: "Mindfulness is awareness that arises through paying attention, on purpose, in the present moment, non-judgementally".
Then you need to find an operational definition, which is a little more specific. For mindfulness, it's most common to think of it as either a trait (relatively stable over time), a state (relatively transient) or a practice (e.g. meditation).
Then, you decide how you want to measure it (e.g. using a questionnaire). In the realm of questionnaires, there are many alternatives. The one I used and which is generally most used is the Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS), which measures trait mindfulness. Other common ones are the Five Factor Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ), Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI).
So you see that already before you've arrived at a measurement, there are many forking paths, which is a part of the problem. If studying human phenomena is already hard in itself, then studying some subtle and nebulous facet like mindfulness is probably even harder.

I'm reminded of the story where Nisargadatta would ask a follower "what is your experience of Truth" and no matter what answer they gave his reply was always the same "No that's not it".

There are too many da Vinci Quotes that I like so posting a pdf here.
davinci quotes.pdf

That number is quite normal. Pickup has a steep learning curve.
Results should be judged not by lays but responsive phone numbers, dates, good interactions, etc. Especially in the beginning.

Although I’ve contacted Peter many times and have had interactions with him during the time he was doing satsangs, this was my first time at his intensive (lead mostly by Brendan Lea), and my first retreat in general. The created format for their questions going from who am I, what am I, etc. I thought was a little annoying and rather confusing given that I started with who (which I hear is a common frustration with people in the beginning that do work with Cheng hsin) but I understand why they make the distinction between who and what. It’s basically to distinguish any confusions in the mind about WHO is to get enlightened, as they would put it and then questioning the nature of what your nature is. The thing to keep in mind is that it is an invented framework for working with things and Brendan and Peter are honest and upfront with that. Ultimately it doesn’t matter but I imagine it could avoid confusions down the road even after an enlightenment. 
I really appreciated this sort of pure cold masculine orientation to things as that’s how these guys are and how they run things, particularly Peter. 
 
Brendan primarily is the one that runs things and I think he’s good at his job. 
 
When it comes to the format, as someone whose worked a good bit now with Zen and certain zen masters, particularly Rinzai (though a more toned down version of it), this really does feel like a lot like that. Understandably so since (Rinzai) Zen is a very masculine, militant, and disciplinarian way of doing things. Personally I found it very refreshing and direct and I still feel like they held back the intensity and wish they amped it up more. That’s just my personal take on that though. For me it was very empowering and I highly recommend it if you’re used to this airy fairy egalitarian orientation to things. I found it to be a real breath of fresh air.
I must confess it took me a day to get over my projection of Peter when I first encountered and talked to him in person. This was expected on my end prior and I know that’s usually how this goes. I definitely had a hard time shutting up when it came to asking him questions. He certainly “puts on a character” when it comes to how he is in the dojo and what you see on video. There was a lot I learned about him indirectly from other students and I’ll just say, he’s still a person (as we all are - enlightened or not). That said, the guy is a genius and really a one of those rare kind of humans. His genius as far as I’m concerned really isn’t even necessarily anything to do with enlightenment, although it is impressive in terms of the freedom of a lot of stuff that is not going on for him. I certainly had a lot of fun and look forward to more work. What I found interesting though on the first day was that I felt no transmission or anything from him on the first day, unlike other teachers who I’ve befriended and sat with such that I’m experiencing intensity more strong than any LSD trip I’ve taken. Funny enough, I heard tell from several people he actually hides it to not hook students as it is just a distraction, which I appreciated. Though I can’t help but wonder if that would’ve helped process all the mental garbage in the first days of the intensive and release shit. I also can understand why people think he has some kind of asbergers or something. He certainly seems to lack some kind of basic human empathy thing that most humans are wired with or something. His militant intensity and this austere obsessive personality though was felt from day 1 though and it really stood out, transmission or no transmission, and it was impressive. That guy speaks from that and it really is one of those things you encounter in one of those rare kinds of human like Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, or whatever. 
All in all I highly recommend you go. Or just get enlightened and get on with your life. 
 
Cobsider the following Ralstonion thought, “life’s a bitch and then you die.” ?

Good stuff thanks for sharing. Perhaps you'd appreciate this:
Cheers.

For those who've watched the latest episode and might like to hear another voice on it.
'Integrity comes from and makes real the experience of being whole and complete.' Ralston in Ancient Wisdom, New Spirit.
 
Integrity-talk starts at 11:00
 

The best way is to do work and actually build something that offers massive value to people.
Talk and criticism is cheap and ineffective. The biggest trap is criticizing others. This solves nothing.

Practice conscious relaxing and letting go.
See my videos:
Body Awareness The Power Of Letting Go

You are right that Full Enlightenment can't be transmitted by words. Nor fully described. But it can be very well pointed to.
The stages/states up until that can be described quite well, since duality has not broken down yet fully, and language can work with duality quite fine. Of course, if the referents of certain meditation experiences are not there yet, they have to be created/trained first. But they can be described in such a way that they can be recognized then.
Maybe you find that perspective of Dr. Daniel Brown interesting. Quote from Pointing out the Great Way:
"PUTTING MEDITATIVE EXPERIENCE INTO WORDS
A good deal of Western scholarship on religion assumes that mystical experience is ineffable. Mystical states are said to be so profound that they are indescribable. This view is wrong. Rechungpa, a contemporary of the great Tibetan saint Milarepa, wrote an extremely detailed work on all the changes that occur in the body and mind at the moment of enlightenment. The most striking feature of his Clear Wisdom Mandmudra is the extreme technical precision used to describe internal states. As a tradition, Tibetan Buddhism is perhaps unique in the level of technical precision used to describe meditation experience; there is nothing comparable in Western mystical literature. Western mysticism largely has been restricted to individual practitioners, small groups, or time-limited movements, wherein the mystics either didn't express their spiritual attainments in much detail, or expressed these attainments in idiosyncratic ways according to their unique realizations and cultural context.
Tibetan Buddhism, in contrast, is a highly organized lineage tradition that has been around since the seventh century, with Indian roots that go back much further. The early oral tradition spawned a loose but extensive network of itinerate practitioners who shared or traded teachings and specific spiritual exercises. The monastic tradition beginning in the eleventh century was characterized by tightly organized, stable communities of large groups of meditators who engaged in continuous dialogues about meditative attainments. They developed an elaborate inner science of spiritual development. During this period the technical language for spiritual development became more consensual, technically sophisticated, and refined as standards for discussing attainments developed. This body of technical knowledge was transmitted from generation to generation until the present day.
The central problem then for the Western reader in understanding spiritual development in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition is not its alleged ineffability but the opposite: namely, understanding the vast and sophisticated technical language of internal meditative experience. This book is designed to give the reader a precise map of internal meditative states."
 
https://www.drdanielpbrown.com/buddhist-meditation-teacher
 
In his dissertation, he translated single-handedly the main texts of Theravada-Buddhism, the Yoga-Sutras of Patanjali, and Mahamudra from their original languages, and looked for the deep structures "behind" all these systems.
Excerpts from the summary of his dissertation in "Transformations of consciousness, chapter 8"
"In this chapter, Daniel Brown addresses the second question by presenting an in-depth cartography of meditative stages drawn from three different traditions—the Tibetan Mahamudra, the Hindu Yogasutras, and the Theravada Vipassana (this cartogra-phy was subsequently cross-checked with other contemplative texts, Christian, Chinese, etc.).
The results strongly suggest that the stages of meditation are in fact of cross-cultural and universal applicability at a deep, not surface, analysis)."
 
Selling Water by the River