Scholar

What about general Yoga techniques and practices? Is there no collection of all the practices that include things like Kaya Sthairyam and so forth, terms that you don't really hear in western mainstream yoga? When looking for Yoga I only find the bastardized western versions of it.

I have recently found out about the concept of Dharma, I think it is related to what I have been trying to describe. The Cosmic Order is beyond all individual morality, yet individual morality is a reflection of the Cosmic Order. Within the core of all Cosmic things there can be found a root to Ṛta. I think we can be limited when coming from a nihilistic western philosophy paradigm, which seems to be putting no relevance to this aspect of the worldly dream. There will be no Enlightened Civilization without Dharma. Dharma is in essence the way in which the Cosmos allows for consciousness to expand. Within the dream, Dharma is the foundation upon which Transcendence stands. Not because of Good and Evil, but simply because this is the way it is. It is the way the Divine expressed itself in this dimension of the Cosmos. Acting against Ṛta is not possible.

Yes. The chirping of the bird can be the chirping of the dinosaur: A bird is not just frantic and cute, it is also a patient dinosaur swimming through the air.

When a child is told a lie, you can teach it the way to discover the lie for itself. Otherwise, what will become of the child if it were to simply belief your story about the lie? I think there is a deeper dynamic going on. The desperate attempt of avoid the formation of religion might be misguided. Religion will form one way or the other, the minds which form religion can do so from any place they want. I don't feel like this is mere devirly, I think this is intentional, it is contributing to the workings of the greater dynamics. I would simply surrender my teachings, for the uncorruptable spark among corruption is a thing of beauty. Imagine if the teachings of Chirst, of Buddha, of Teotl would have not formed religions? Would you have ever heard of them? And what other teachings would have formed religions? Religion allowed a spark of the Divine to tremble throughout history, throughout civilizations, throughout all kinds of people. It allowed for those who seek the spark to find it. It allowed for the uncorruptable among the corrupted. In my view this as Divine WIsdom, The child, whether you want to or not, cannot help but hear a lie even when you speak the truth. There is no point in rushing the development of the child, or to protect it desperately from corruption. All you can do is give proper guidance, a guidance which is appropriate for the child. If you look at the workings of the Divine, can you not see it's ultimate patience and compassion? It does not seem like it is fearful of creating religions, or avoiding corruption. In a way it does even encourage it. In the end it knows that the uncorruptable cannot be corrupted. There is always a balance to be found. I don't think our teachings are in our control. They flow with the currents of the world, corruption is inevitable. I don't see the point in avoiding it. When the teachings come from a place of Love, compassion and understanding, I think it does not matter where they end up. The teachings of Chirst are like water, they have adapted to it's surroundings. This was completely out of Chirst's control. The water took the form of it's environment because it is water. This is how the water survives, it is why water is indestructable. You cannot destroy water, you can merely change it's expression.

Sometimes the way you guys try to teach others feels very brute force. It's like a math teacher trying to teach calculus to a first grader. The mind which cannot carry Truth will not be able to accept it. To tell Truth to the smaller mind means to give the Devil the greatest gift. Taking the spark of God, carrying it into the depths of the Devil's Den. You do not reveal the spark of God to the Devil, for the Devil will tremble in terror and flee. Do not pluck the plant into the ground and expect a new one to grow. First, nourish the plant, see it grow tall and strong in the aid of the sun and the rain. Then, wait patiently for it to give you seeds, for only then you will be able to grow a whole new plant. The egg must first become the chick, the chick must then become the bird and the bird must then learn to fly. You are expecting the egg to fly. A small mind needs nourishment. It requires appropriate challenge to grow. The master does not need words to teach, as words are the way of the Devil. Instead, a true master simply acts lovingly, for an Act of Love is something even the Devil will be hard pressed to deny. To be among an Act of Love is nourishment for the smaller mind. Love is patient. Watch the way of the Divine. Billions upon billions of years. Have you ever seen the Divine stress out over Enlightenment? Have you seen the Divine reject the corruption of the Greatest Teachings? Of course not, for Divine is wise beyond all measure. Itnourishes the egg, an act of Love. It let's the chick stumble into the world, an act of Love. It watches the chick grow into a bird, an act of Love. It finally sees the bird fly, or fall to the ground, an act of Love. There is no rushing to the end. To give the Devil the Truth in word is to throw the egg and expect it to fly. @Serotoninluv Observe very carefully the path you have taken. Watch the very footprints which you have taken to arrive at where you are. Realize that one step must be taken after another. A thousand small steps are worth more than one great jump. Study the workings of the Divine. Do you see "Love!" written on the trees? The teachings of the Divine are far more wise. The speech of Truth is the most primitive, not the most advanced. When the Divine speaks to us, it does so without our knowledge that it is the Divine. It tickles us, it nudges us. There is but a mere subtle breeze. And look how far that breeze has gotten us. From creatures who crawl among the mud, to creatures which explore the great Mind of the Divine. The Divine has taught us simply by being present. By being present to the fullest degree possible. It let's us be the child so that we one day we could be the adult. It saw the beauty in our primitive state, as it knew that it was that very state which would allows us to outgrow it. When you speak to a child, you speak to it in the language of the child. You do not force it to understand the language of the adults. For the child must first be a child to ever outgrow itself. When you do this right, the child might grow curious, and one day it will seek the language of the adults all by itself. Don't make the mistake of trying to teach all the children, when you have yet to learn to teach the one child infront of you. A child needs much attention, a child needs Love. Watch the attention and presence the Divine has given you. It was without end, it gave you All of it. There was not a moment in your life in which it has abandoned you. This is what allowed you to grow, this is what allowed the egg to become the flying bird. True attention, true compassion, true understanding. What happens when we speak to the child in the language of adult?

What do you guys think? Delusion and attention seeking or is it truthful? Or maybe it is something inbetween?

I am only saying this because I feel like there is a tendency to focus too much on the relativity, I notice a lot of people falling into excessive relativism. The kind of consciousness that is required to truly transcend morality is profoundly rare and in my view most people delude themselves into ideology instead of actually discerning the truth for themselves as a result of true curiousity. This is only possible in a situation where moral choices hold little to no weight. In a high cost environment this kind of relativism would tend to be regrounded into a more integral perspective. While the high cost environment also tends to limit ones identity, that is precisely the challenge that is needed for a healthy transition through the spiral. There are a ton of people who basically get stuck at stage green level of understanding morality and project it onto the higher stages. To truly transcend morality would mean to transcend identification while being tortured to death. It does not mean to simply call morality relative while still holding onto ones own particular framework like a tick. When morality is not closely inspect as an object of consciousness, it allows the ego to reject the intellectual framework while the underlying objects of consciousness that actually constitude morality still remain. For example, one could continue to judge, to create goodness and badness and simply deny that it is in essence morality. For example, one gets annoyed in traffic, but when confronted about the consequences of ones actions and the terrible suffering that comes with it for other beings, one will quickly pull the relativistic card to avoid responsibility. This is only possible in a time in which we do not experience the consequences of our actions. If the same kind of suffering would be inflicted on the person getting annoying in traffic, they would very quickly think about when they pull the relativity card. Someone who is getting tortured and is so beyond identification that they accept that state of mind are in my mind at a proper place to pull that card in a meaningful way. Everything else to me is more about suiting the egos needs than actually having any insight into the illusiory nature of morality. The great thing about reality is that it has it's way of regrounding people who delude themselves. Apathy is not the same as relativity, yet relativity is apathy's greatest friend. To truly test one's insight into the relativity of morality, one has to do it out of a place of compassion and empathy. This is the only way one can see whether one is deluding oneself or not.

This is only true if looked at from a limited relativistic perspective. The wholistic experience of suffering for one person, if to be integrated as that exact experience of suffering into another persons experience, will be judged equally as bad, as the judgement itself is part of the wholistic experience of suffering. The only reason why people disagree on what is bad is because of their limited perspective. And to say someone enlightened does not judge is because he removed goodness and badness from his experience. If you remove redness and blueness from your experience, redness and blueness will cease to be part of it. Good and Bad is not found in the intellectual framework of how we come to produce these experiences, but in the experiences themselves. Red and blue are also things that mind "invented" to aid survival. Does that mean red and blue does not exist, in any meaningful sense of the word? Does it mean that red and blue cannot be integrated into a healthy consciousness? In other words, is it possible to retain the essential nature of the framework of morality and yet not include it in ones identity? Or is the loss of identity a loss of morality too? The reason why find this relativistic perspective so limited is because it implies that morality, or the essence that matters to us, which is goodness and badness, are not attributes of any situation or object that we conflate it with. While that is true, it does not mean that goodness and badness do not exist, they exist as much as warmth and cool, white and black and so forth. To agree on what is right and wrong would be like agreeing what is warm and cool. Nothing is warm outside of the experience of warmth. This is the fundamental delusion that I think needs to be pointed out. It is not "Nobody agrees on what is warm, therefore warmth does not exist!"

Morality is not seperate from process of the discovery of Oneness, especially on the scale and workings of the greater super-structures of societies and civilizations. The egoic structure of society will not allow the expansion of identity if the structure itself does not support it. This is why Ultimate Identity on the scale of civilizations cannot be achieved before the structure has not evolved. The beautiful thing that is being evolved towards is structure that can uphold Ultimate Identity, or Non-Identity. A perfect balance between survival and No-self identity. Structures which do not evolve towards this goal are being dissolved. To the greater egoic structure, individual enlightenment can be a threat to it's eventual evolution towards collective enlightenment. The dissolution of identity cannot happen too quickly, because if it does Survival Structures more robust than it will simply take over and take it's place.

I have been contemplating the structure of morality and the evolution of compassion in individual human beings and society as a whole. There is a very important dynamic that I have not yet heard anyone talk about. Firstly, the expansion of compassion for different individuals and groups by egoic structures, such as yourself and society as a whole, happens by virtue of: 1. The potential of expansion due to the loss of threats against egoic structures. 2. The functional similarity of any group or individual that will be included in the circle of compassion, which has yet not been included. An example is the historical expansion of identity. Individual -> Family -> Tribal Groups -> City-states -> Religious Structures -> Nation-states -> Ethnicities -> Species (homo sapiens) -> Biological classes -> Life itself -> and so forth (very simplified linear, which is not the case in reality) These expansions happen step by step. The inclusion of different races for example was necessary for us to ever develope structural compassion for a group less similar than other races, namely for us to structurally care about different mammals on a level of included identity, we first will require, as a tendency, to include more similar groups first. We can observe different functions of resistance towards this kind of moral evolution, which I keep observing in the spiritual community: "But plants are sentient, how can we stop exploiting animals if plants are exploited too? That's hypocritical, therefore I will exploit both plants and animals." Notice that this is a very important argument for upholding ones own identity in regards of what creatures and beyond one will include in their circle of compassion. This type of argument is problematic because it pretends to care, or love, a group further away from our current circle of compassion, when it in fact does not care about neither the closer group nor the less similar group. By this dynamic it allows the identity to uphold itself and halt moral evolution. This is very obvious when we put this in an example which we have already transitioned through: The enslaving of different races. "But animals are sentient, how can we stop exploiting black people if we are still exploiting animals? That's hypocritical, therefore I will exploit both people and animals." The reason why this type of argument feels so obviously flawed to us is because we know that, even if it is hypocritical from a certain point of view, the adopting and expansion of ones identity and circle of compassion has to happen this way. Evolution does not work by attaining absolute Love for all Being instantly, especially not on a societal level. How moral evolution works is like this: We have groups from A to F. A is most different to F. A expands towards and includes B AB expands towards and includes C ABC expands towards and includes D ABCD expands towards and includes E ABCDE expands towards and includes F ABCDEF is achieved, a cosmic Identity is created. AB will resist expansion by the following means: "ABC is invalid, because to be truly moral would require ABCD!" Additionally, a structure which goes instantly from A to ABCDEF will actually not have evolved it's egoic identity structures, but instead will remain at that level. Because egoic structures do not dissolve even after complete enlightenment (as these egoic structures are what gives rise to desires and so forth) it leads to people who will act like A despite having expanded to ABCDEF as far as their identity goes. What is important to realize is that there is a difference between egoic structure and egoic identification. The structure can only change in a health way if it expands identity step by step, as each new stage of identity requires time for the egoic structure to adapt itself to that new identity. If identity is expanded instantly in an individual, moral evolution has not taken place and will actually be halted at the level of structure that was previously achieved. Leo can recognize absolute Love in All there is. He can accept the suffering he is causing because there is no structure which keeps him from doing so. His structure is not evolved, only his identity is. If Leo was a rapist and instantly expanded identity to all Being, he would continue to be a rapist because there would be a recognition of it being Pure Love. However, if Leo step by step expanded his identity, he would have stopped being a rapist long ago, he would have stopped being racist long ago, he would have stopped being speciesist long ago and so forth. And then, once the identity was fully expanded, the egoic structure would have had time to develope and evolve into the highest level of moral evolution. The end stage is structural behaviour that even despite the recognition of Maya and Selflessness in Totality, also acts selflessly within the framework of reality which is emerging in consciousness. It would mean behaviour like Christ, and even beyond Christ, not merely the same recognition. There can be Full Love and enlightenment of Identity in someone who shows complete apathy towards all other creatures. But there can also be a Structural Evolution, the change of egoic psychology to such a degree that it effortlessly flows with the greater realization. This cannot be achieved through instant Identity expansion. This takes time. Veganism, even if it is limited and hypocritical, is the next step in moral evolution and identity expansion. It will be necessary if we want to achieve full Enlightenment of civilization itself. Once we include animals, we can worry about plants and other aspects of Being. But skipping it will halt the evolution of collective identity. And identity does not work by merely intellectual acceptance. Identity expansion means that killing that which you identity means killing you. True expansion of identity is only achieved when the threat towards another is perceived as a threat toward oneself. Once that has been achieved, and many other steps on the path of expansion of identity, we can worry about total dissolution and surrender of existence. It will not happen prior to that. This means going against veganism for example, even if it is recognized as dogmatic (much like the abolishment of slavery was dogmatic), is going against Divine Intelligence itself, as this expansion is the next step towards Total Identity. Dogmatism is necessary for evolution. We are speaking strictly about identity here, identifying with other species, not the dietary dogmas surrounding it. In my view an integral teacher will encourage the expansion of identity. It is deliberate building of identity structures which is necessary for us to eventually dissolve all identity structure, especially on the level of the collective. But we have to be careful to let people fully integrate each stage of identity. The ingenius design of all of this is that without compassion, in this context of biological creatures, it seems to not be possible to evolve towards Truth on a collective level. The expansion of identity is a necessity for the emergence of an enlightened civilization. Dysfunctional teachings which do not adapt themselves to the current identity of it's society will be rejected by the collective ego. It is not possible to skip a stage, the structure is as important as the identity. It must be this way. The perception of egoic structures being a problem (especially collective ones) only emerges from the inability to see the grander workings of these dynamics.

I'm glad it helped!

This might be worth watching, it can be applied very broadly:

No, what is the quote about?

To make Truth comprehensible, to turn Truth into a thing conceivable. That is the Devil's greatest trick. And not only is it his greatest trick, it is also his last. It is the last Wall which stands infront of the Light. In desperation he will build it in a way so that it will seem to be more sophisticated, so that it might stand taller than all other walls. He will make it so that the Wall itself will be confused for the Light. Make it so that all who stand infront of it look at it in awe and wonder. It will be those who sought the Light themselves who will come in the defense of the Wall he has constructed. This is the Power of the Father of Lies.

I don't care about that. What might be missed here is this: The Devil is not merely within Individual or Chimp Ego. The Father of Lies exists in even the interactions between individual chimp egos. The Devil exists not merely in individual mind, it exist both Above and Beneath it's surface. The Devil swims between the collective minds and that which gives Rise to Structure of individual minds. All Teachings that speak truth come from the Father of Lies. Enlighten two people, but keep trillions in the Dark. That is the work of the Devil. To hide Truth in plain sight, all one needs to do is speak truth. The Devil creates the Intellectual curious. The Devil let's him find Truth. The Devil then let's him speak truth, so that noone shall ever find Truth. The Devil cannot persist in the Light of Truth. This is why the Devil let's the Messiah speak truth. He let's him speak truth, because the Devil will always win in the Realm of truth. The Devil makes the Messiah take Truth into the realm of truth, because this is where all of the Devils power remains. Noone can argue with Truth, but everyone can argue truth. Noone can delude themselves with Truth, but all can do so with truth. Remember the Father of Lies. He had billions of years to evolve. He contains unsurmountable Divine Intelligence. The arrogance of the Messiah, the lack of Devilry, is precisely that which is the Devils greatest gift. The only weakness of the Devil is his inevitable dissolution. Once, the Devil put the Messiah on a Cross. Now he gives him a social media following. Same results. He plays us like a damn fiddle, precisely because his intelligence surpasses that of any chimp that has ever walked this earth. Only collective wisdom can fight the collective Devil. No single chimp can hope to do so alone. If he believes he can, the Devil already won. This is the way of sabotaging the collective wisdom, by corrupting that which collects around the uncorruptable.

Where will this lead us? The more I look, the more I believe Mysticisms proper place is Mystery. To cut the tongue of those who speak of it. Only a geniune Spark can lead into the Abyss. For the Spark to take flame it needs Questions, not Answers. Esperanto extinguishes the Spark.

I feel like you have created a duality between: Objectivity, Universality vs Subjectivity, Relativity Look at how you are categorizing different aspects of Isness into these two categories. You say "Judging insects are gross is not universal". Observe very carefully what the chimp mind is doing. Look at it. 1."Insects are gross" 2."World and Person, Person and Person!" 3. "Person insects are gross, Person insects are not gross" 4. "All Person insects are gross, Universality! Person insects are gross, Person insects are not gross, Relativity!" This is the whole stick of the chimp mind. You have created, from "insects are gross", a thing that is foreign from "insects are gross". "Insects are gross" is not relative, nor universal. "Insects are gross" is "Insects are gross". Relativity is Relativity, Universality is Universality. This duality is illusional. There is no such thing as Universality, Objectivity, Relativity, Subjectivity. These things only are because the duality is so. What you have not realized is that the deconstruction of the Chimp Mind will, necessarily, lead to these kinds of Untruths. The Duality which comes forth as a result of having collapse another one. There is no person which judges. There is no "validity to them", outside of "validity to them". Your philosophy is abitrary, a result of dualities which have yet to collapse. And even that is nonsensical. The nonsense is everywhere, in all things made. Nonsense is fundamental. Language is utterly impossible. Reality and Insanity are equal, there is no difference between them, they are the same thing, yet two labels. Empty the cup, empty the cup, empty the cup.

Star Trek holodeck will be nothing in comparison to what is possible. Look at how few dimensions of existence and duality the chimp mind is accessing: Sight Hearing Taste Smell Touch Temperature Location Dimensionality Geometry Feelings and Emotions Identity Worldness Entitiness Force Rythm Math Logic Thought and so forth and so forth. With all the subtleties it is probably a few thousand dimensions of existence. There are infinite. Dimensions so foreign to us, but familiar to an animal or a plant. Dimensions so foreign no blubble of consciousness in this universe ever contained it. We will be able to explore millions upon millions of dimensions. Dimensions so foreign, the worlds we will construct will be beyond what we could possibly imagine. Beyond everything I just mentioned. Imagine a world in which all of our current dimensions are mere additions rather than the main menu. Dualities which no creature ever experienced. But before that, we will be able to expirience all creatures themselves. We will be the spider which weaves it's net. We will require no speculation no more. It will be the ultimate expression of art for the worldly creature.

He is from Scotland, too.

I think I can frame it like this too, without going to deep: We need not to abandon judgement to find Truth, rather we: A) Need to see judgement for what it is. B) Cease to identify with judgement. And this applies to all dualities. The seeing of any aspect of Isness will connect us to it's Divinity, as the closer we look the more it will dawn on us how utterly mysterious and impossible it is, among many other things. The cecessation of identification let's us see it even more clearly and not only that, it will also reveal it Divinity within. Judgement is impermanent either way, it will come and it will go. It is not our work to manipulate it. This means to not say morality is merely relative, but to also observe goodness and badness very closely, and to cease idenitifying with it, but yet to not attempt to deny it. To accept that one will suffer and feel sorrow, to accept that one will judge and feel evilness. To not view it as impurity, but rather to see the purity within. Let the purity of the substance purify itself, just so we can see that there has been nothing to purify all along.

The Goodness you speak of is not the same goodness and badness we speak of. I am still referring to the duality. By having pointed to Devilry, you yourself have created Devilry. Accept goodness and badness instead of denying it. See the Goodness in goodness and badness, instead of claiming it to be Devilry. Use goodness and badness instead of throwing it away. It is a wonderful tool, and it's design is beyond intelligence. Relativity is an aspect of what surrounds goodness and badness, but that which it is itself is far more mysterious and wonderful than our chimp concepts that revolve around it. To deny and attempting to get rid of goodness and badness is literally like trying to get rid of any other of your sense. It is like trying to get rid of your vision. It is non-sensical. Instead learn how to use it properly. Before that, you need to examine what it even is that you are using.

I know, but if we keep the conversation at that level we are limiting ourselves and students to that level. The Nowness within Goodness is utterly mysterious, it can't just be waved away by saying "It's all relative". This is to me especially important because telling people morality is relative often creates a shadow and this weird kind of relativising of everything. It is a stage green trap, and I see it time and time again. Then they wonder when relativity bites them in the ass. Instead I think it would be better for focus on closer inspecting first the conceptual framework and then the underlying dimensions of existence which make up these frameworks and labels. That way there will be an emotional integration and we will go beyond the relativistic notions of the already sufrace level frameworks of morality. Basically what I am trying to say is that what we are suffering of is kind of naive realistic notion of Morality. Like saying a ball is blue, when blueness is not part of any object, and when the object itself is actually a construction. Just looking at this dynamic will help us seperate the Badness/Goodness from the actions, situations and mind-states we correlate them with. Not because we create dogma around it, but because we can CLEARLY see that they are two distinct substances. Seeing they are two distinct substances is the next step of moral evoluton. It allows us to see that Goodness exist in all Humans, literally, also in all animals. The same is true for Badness existing in all humans and animals. It makes us see that it is part of us, that it is a dimension of our Being. The trick of the snake was to convince us not of there being Good and Evil. The trick of the Devil was to convince us that Good and Evil are attributes of things not Good and Evil. We do not have to get rid of Good and Evil, and in this sense of morality. We only have to clearly see it for what it is. And that has nothing to do with relativity. This is the next step after having realized the relativity. This is in my view true inspection of what morality is, instead of constructing new frameworks or trying to somehow denie it. I am saying all of this because the framework you currently use creates such needless confusions. People think they have to abandon goodness and badness, and they create shadows or delusional philosophies. Goodness and Badness will still be there, you are simply going to ignore it and call it something else. I view it to be more Loving to see Goodness and Badness rather than denying it. To embrace it even. Obviously that kind of Goodness and Badness will have a very different effect on us than our current way of using it. But the importance is that we can Accept Reality fully without abandoning Badness and Goodness. And I think you have recognized that in the past few months. If you are going to be tortured, Badness will still exist within you. It will arise, and you do not need to deny it. You do not need to deny yourself. Accepting that badness arises when you see your child being raped is so much more powerful than trying to somehow construct your mind in a way so that there does not arise badness when your child is being raped. This is the genius of God. He gave you all the tools, you just need to know how to use them. Instead you are throwing them away. An utter shame, when the badness you are accessing is as divine a thing as Blueness is.

No, this is all logic non-sense. It is conceptual. If you saw what I talk about you would laugh at the absurdity and impossibility of existence. You wouldn't just go on and say "Oh well, you are just chasing you own tail making concetual distinctions.". There is noone to accept anything, there is no "making disinction" or "chasing ones tale". This is a fantasy, a fantasy which tells itself, which stands by itself. This is precisely the magnificence which is not seen. The fantasy is literally impossible, it is completely and utterly mysterious. Get over this non-duality concept. I don't even know why I am bothering with this. If you are curious you will see yourself. If not then I doubt you ever will. The reaction to this shouldn't be. "Ah, you are doing this, bla bla, you are doing that, bla bla." The reaction should be: "Holy fucking Jesus Chirst how the fuck is this even possible?! Blueness is FUCKING INSANE. IT IS INSANE!!! How can this EXIST?!"

What I talk about has nothing to do with constructs or ideas. I am no constructing Blueness, as much as I am not constructing Suffering. Maybe I am in the sense of being God and imagining all that, which I would frame differently anyways, but that is obviously not what we are talking about. We are not talking about Ideas, we are talking about the Substance of Goodness, the Substance of Redness. While I am framing this understanding in language and with relative terms and concepts, it has nothing to do with what is pointed at. Notice how many different ways of explanations I am able to deliver, how many conceptual frameworks I can construct that are foreign to each other. I do not care about these things, I want Leo to see, or atleast know that he can already see. The layer I am refering to is prior to Relativity. It is not prior to Absolute. Blue is Blue, to say Blue is Relative is to say Blue is Relative. But Blue is Blue. This is not language, the language is there for you to see through delusion and through the world. What is another relative perspective supposed to be? Perspective is an idea within Now. Now is not Perspective. Now is Now. Blueness does not exist in Perspective, rather Blueness lies next to Perspective. It is not the child, but a silbing of Perspective. I am not married to spritualistic ideologies that have been constructed. I am not satisfied with common sense, as I can clearly see the absurdity which keeps it together. The absurdity which is so obviously mysterious and inexplicaple. There is no Subjectivity in that sphere of mystery. There is no Relativity. That is all Chimp Talk, as much as what I am doing now. I can Chimp talk forever, I can Chimp Talk with different bricks, different frames. It doesn't matter, this is not about the Chimp talk.

Again, you fail to see what I am pointing to. I actually am mind blown that this is so difficult to see. You are referring to a conceptual idea of right and wrong, much like there is a conceptual idea of color, how it arises and so forth. This is surface level, this does not go into any depth at all. Goodness is not merely a conceptual idea, if you sit down and observe how the conceptual idea arises and what it is linked to, you will observe that what Goodness is actually far better categorized as is an emotion. It is deeply imbedded and influences how we perceive all sorts of things. Nobody agrees on what is Good and Bad because in each individual mind Goodness and Badness emerges at different kind of mind-states. It works exactly the same as Anger does. Some people get angry at some things and others get angry at other things. However, they can never disagree upon what Goodness and Badness itself are. That would be like disagreeing on what Blue is. That can only be part of a conceptual framework, it can only ever be a confusion of labels. To say something is "Bad" is like saying something is "Annoying". This is delusiona, nothing can ever be annoying. Trees cannot be annoying, trees are trees. Annoyance can emerge in the presence of trees and therefore there can be a conflation of two dimensions of reality (namely colors and the emotions of annoyance), but that does not mean the delusion is socially constructed. It is exactly the case that anger is as much socially constructed as right or wrong, literally. Your perception of what will make you angry will also make you perceive it as bad, vice versa. But all of this is still too surface level. I am talking of one layer deeper. The layer in which only anger is anger and only goodness is goodness. In that layer, goodness is not created or correlated to anything. It comes directly from the source itself, it is an expression of all possible dualites. It is Pure, and it is there. It is just as much a fascet of existence as Blueness is, and it is just as Absolute as Blueness is. It is not relative as much as Blue is not relative. You do not truly see the mysteriousness of goodness and badness. You think it is an invention of a chimp, like some sort of tool it has created. As if Blue and Red were tools a chimp created. Goodness, like Redness, is utterly mysterious. It can exist on it's own, with no survival agenda, with no chimp to cling to it. It can be a pure expression of duality. It just happens that the chimp mind found use for that dimension of existence. It found that with it, it could create the Play of the World. And no, it was not the Chimp Mind which found that to be the case. It was a far Greater Mind, a Mind which can make pop Blueness and Redness, Goodness and Badness, into existence, just like that. That is completely beyond survival, it is pure Expression, pure Dance. However, that Pure Goodness or Badness would obviously not have such a label. It would not have all the moralistic notions attached to it which you currently do. It would be pure, like Suffering is. Like Redness is. Like Shouldness is. Of course, without contrast there no Duality, there is no Maya. I am not trying to go that deep here. And look carefully: There s no Good and Bad in Absolute, relative to what? There being Good and Bad in Absolute? These language games make no sense to even talk about, as the presence of the sentence itself is duality, thus the grasping of that will always be the proof of duality. Also this is a huge trap as it creates a Duality between Absolute and Relativity which literally is one more duality. When I look at what Is, it is more like a dance than this binary machine thinking. Sometimes I feel like Leo is not reading what I am writing and just skipping over it. Maybe he has no time. When I use these concepts i always move in the sphere of Maya. I don't think this way when meditating, it would be absurd.