Emerald

Yes, that's true, it is an assumption. But it doesn't mean that it is a false assumption for 'why' (assuming that God even traffics in why) God wants to experience the illusion of separation and the illusion that it is a mortal human being. So, yes, we are always "it," but when we go trying to discover that we are "it" and indeed not this separate human being, it's a possibility that this nullifies (our/God's) original potential plan to experience the illusion of truly believing it is this individual. But this is highly speculative of course because it assumes that God even has reasons, as reason is a limited tool from the limited human lens. So, when I said "You only have 80 years to be this particular human being...", I already took into consideration that this is an illusion and that what we are is "it." But I was looking at the potential reason for the illusion.

To recognize that everything is perfect and whole and that nothing can ever be wrong by realizing that there is no separation between the self and the rest of reality and that you are a perfect part of that wholeness. Cultivating unconditional love is necessary to love the self. You can't love yourself without loving everything, and you can't love everything if you don't love yourself. But don't think of this as something to do. Unconditional love is the natural state. The only thing you can do is to undo the blockages and barriers from unconditional love.

Just to clarify, my post was not specifically about Leo. I can only speculate with regard to any individual that is not me. But my post was more about people who try to self-actualize and how it's often used as a coping mechanism, and how hard work can actually be a coping mechanism. This means that, relative to the original post, Leo is not exempt from these issues just because he's really thorough with his self-actualization endeavors. Also, it doesn't matter if the goal is to create an empire, rise to political power, or follow your life purpose, it can be motivated by many unconscious shadow reasons. But it is also possible and even probable that he (and other self actualizers) have some degree of genuine motivation laced in with the shadow reasons. It's why it's difficult to tell whether or not your motivations are genuine because it's very difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Well, if I look from the non-dual perspective that all is one, then relationship has to be a relationship between the one and itself at the ultimate level. So, relationships between two people are illusory, just as (presumably) all happenings within existence are illusory including the illusion of self. But perhaps the illusion exists for a reason (if the one even traffics in reason, at all). So, the potential reasons for relationship that come up in my limited human mind are 1. The one wants to know what it is like to relate to another despite it being the only one, as the one must know everything by its very nature (assuming that God is omniscient as religions have told us), and how could the one know everything if it doesn't know duality and relationship. 2. The one wants to know what it is like to know conditional love due to the fact that its nature is unconditional love. 3. The one wants to know what it is like to know imperfection due to the fact that it's nature is perfection. So, relationship gives the one the experience of separateness, otherness, imperfection, conditional love, differences, conflict, pain in opposition to the state of unconditional love and infinite well-being that is the state of entropy that our attachments keep us from falling toward. So, relationship often creates and solidifies the emotional attachment needed to stay out of the state of unconditional love and Truth that is the original state, so that the one may stay in a state of illusion to know more how it is like to be other than what it is. Full enlightenment might potentially nullify the reasons that the one wanted to experience the human perspective in the first place. Maybe enlightenment is ultimately foolish, despite that it is more expansive and is qualitatively better from the human emotional standpoint. You only have maybe 80 years to be this particular human with all its imperfections, while you have an eternity to be the one. Why do you have to be the one now and nullify all the beautiful illusions and the beautiful terrible suffering that stems from it? That is, other than the fact that you are indeed God and can do whatever the heck you want to regardless of whether or not it seems to make no sense. It's not as though there are any rules to the game that you didn't yourself create. But from the dualistic standpoint, relationship is two or more different people, places, things, or ideas that share something in common or have some form of dependence on one another. So, we could say that practically, this is what human relationships are as well. Human beings naturally and instinctually tend to create relationships with the exception of some understanding, idea, or goal that prevents a person from engaging in them. Even enlightened human beings create relationships, which is not necessary for the purpose of "getting love" as enlightenment is the realization that all is one and all is love. There is no sense of filling some place that lacks "love". Real love by its very nature is impersonal, unconditional, and non-directional. So, it has nothing to do with the emotions felt in a relationship on the dualistic level. But on the non-dual level, it is the very substance of the one and of all of existence. And the relationship is another creation of this one that is love. So, relationship as most people know it is not love, but all is love. So, relationship is also love. With this in mind, it seems that most enlightened people tend to still create relationships romantic and otherwise. Perhaps, because enlightenment is a state of non-resistance there is no reason to resist the natural urges to form bonds with others or natural urges in general. It doesn't matter in the end as it's all an illusion, but that's no reason to forego these instincts or resist them... but simply to be detached from them and see them for what they truly are. In the same way that there's no reason to forego practical things such as work. "Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." And at that ultimate level, relationship is truly an expression of love just as everything else is an expression of love. But it's not int he particularity of the relationshipees or in the emotions shared by the two. But it is the very substance of all things involved in the existence. It's the very dance that reality does to create the illusion of relationship that the reality and love can be found. To be continued...

Well, I can't speak to you personally about Leo, because I don't really know him. Though I do suspect that he isn't immune from energetic issues simply because of his degree of hard work. It's often the hardest working people who have the most issues with energetic affectation as it's very often an unconscious attempt to feel more significant than others and outrun the reaper. But if you notice an affectation/agitation in someone's energy, it's simply because there is a part of them that they're not conscious that there's an issue with. Spirituality has a lot to do with becoming more aware for this reason and reintegrating those parts by letting go of the mindsets that cause agitation. From personal experience, I can tell you that the shadow side of self-actualization is that it's most often pursued due to a feeling of lack and inferiority. That's how I got into it. It's a way that a person who feels chronically inferior can come to feel superior through building the self up and adding social value to one's self. So, if a person has experienced traumatic blows to their self-esteem, they will have a hard time letting go of the crutches that often come laced with personal development endeavors due to the fact that they're very very VERY effective crutches.. temporarily. The self-actualization will be a surface level solution to a much deeper internal problem. So, self-actualization can be both a curse and a cure depending on how it's used, and it's nearly impossible to tell whether or not you're using in properly unless you've cultivated the ability for deep self-honesty. But there is a pattern that can be noticed in those that use personal development to put a temporary band-aid on deep wounds. I call it the personal development perpetual hamster wheel. This is the unhealthy pattern. 1. There is first a feeling of baseline inferiority and lack of self love. 2. Then there is an attempt to overcome said baseline feeling of inferiority and lack of self love through adding value to oneself through personal development endeavors. A person may start a business, go to the gym, do pickup, read books, pursue success in school, pursue creative success, ladder climb in a job, run for political office, pursue enlightenment/spirituality, etc. 3. After many hours, days, weeks, or years of work a line is crossed where feeling of success comes about followed by a brief high where the person feels superior through superior performance. 4. A day or so passes, and the person is back to the feeling of baseline inferiority and in need of another achievement or conquest. 5. Repeat until you die

As someone who has a bachelor of fine arts degree, a bachelor degree in art education, and an art history minor, I've studied and thought a lot on what conveys meaning and value to art objects versus non-art objects... or what separates "good" art from "bad" art. And I've come upon the conclusion that the emperor truly has no clothes. I've seen people go up to things like a short piece of rope in a museum, that it's quite clear that the artist didn't work tremendously on or have any talent to do so, and spend minutes there investigating it. Entire papers and books could be written about the piece of rope on display as art. I've seen those same people scoff at "lower" forms of art, such as anime or art from popular culture or highly skilled but mainstream friendly artists. It lead me to question, "Does art have a correlation with talent?" and "Does art have a correlation with uniqueness or novelty?" and "Does calling something art mean that it's a good thing... or is art more of a neutral label?" The fact of the matter is that a thing becomes high art, as soon as a reputable museum owner deems it as such or if some other important figure within the art world deems it as such. And it is seen as a lower and more trite form of art, if it's too mainstream or seen as trite or too "popcorn". Keep in mind, that I loved this all. I really enjoyed looking at a rope and analyzing it. I'm not kidding. I really loved the open-endedness of it all. One of my art pieces in college consisted of me cutting off all my hair in front of the art class and another was just me stealing a political sign, that someone spray painted a picture of Pac Man on, that I then claimed as found art. So, needless to say, I felt no threat that a piece of rope stuck put on display, and my art was non-art. Once I came to grips with the meaninglessness of the art label, art became much more magical, because I realized that meaning and patterns could be found in every micro-decision the artist made. And that the possibilities for even bad art to be a tool for self-exploration. So, to read a piece of art, was to read the human behind it. Before, I could care less about looking at art. I only liked to create it and I always wanted it to be excellent. But this introduced the human element and all art became juicy then. But it made me realize, more than anything else, that "art" as a contemporary concept was just an arbitrary assignment of value based upon the whims of the upper elites of the art-world and the institution of the museum/market place. And even though my professors were some of the most open-minded individuals that I had ever met, there still had to be enough dogma to the institution to keep it funded and keep it afloat. So, there was also a deeper realization of why there was so much hullaballoo around defining art and assigning value to it in the first place. Since the invention of photography, visual art has been having a big existential crisis. It rarely ever serves a function. So, how can something that has no function still have meaning? And if it isn't meaningful, why create it in the first place? In modern society, few adult human beings allow themselves to do things that don't make rational sense or don't have a meaning or function. We learn, as late elementary school aged children, that things that are rationally pointless and serve no practical function should not be pursued. Since creating is simply a human instinct (probably biologically related to the need for communication and concrete conceptualization and the desire for play), we need to create some functional meaning around it in order for adult human beings to do it without being seen as childish or crazy and for art institutions to stay afloat as being relevant. Since, we have other "more efficient" ways to communicate such as photography, and we have all of our utilitarian needs met in modern society relative to visual objects, we need to cobble together some other meaning to still make it okay and valid for us to continue making things that now have no functional value. So, an entire institution with colleges, museums, collectors, and artists are all riding on their ability to make people see the emperor's non-existent clothes. There is no difference between an art object and a non-art object, except for in the minds of people.

You don't have free will because YOU don't exist as an entity. What you are is God. God has free will, so you have free will as God. But you don't have free will as Neo (or whatever your name is) , because Neo is not really what you are. Neo is a label put over a collection of processes and perceptions that are created and perceived by your awareness... which is the awareness of God. So, it isn't exactly a paradox, but it seems like one if you believe yourself to be a separate self and don't know you're God.

I have a basic foundational knowledge of the chakras and how prana is said to move through the chakras and the various nadis. But my knowledge is more academic than experiential. I do occasionally do chakra meditation. I have crystals and incense around my house. I also got Reiki done once. But this is the extent of my experiences with pranic healing. What I can say is that the little I have done of it seemed to be effective.

Woo hoo! I finally got it! It makes me realize that I want a whole lot of things.

Thank you for the website, but I already have a file converter. I tried it as both a jpeg and as a png file. It's not the file size. It has to be under 9.77 mb to fit. As a png file, it's only 1.8 mb. As a jpeg, it's even smaller. But I told Leo about it yesterday, and he said there was a technical problem that he was working on.

Don't worry about this. It will all be the same. Sex will function the same way as before. Only you'll be more connected and aware of the reality of the matter. You will be with the experience and not with your interpretation of the experience. This is not the case. Emotions are primary, and the thought come afterward to make sense of the emotions, to make them make sense to the human mind. Now, I think what you're thinking about is that a thought (as a lone occurrence) can spark emotions. You think "I did a great job." and you feel happy. You think "I'm such a failure." and you feel sad. This is true in this respect. But the emotion happens before thoughts come in and attempt to make meaning of the emotions. To bypass the emotional reaction and go straight to the thoughts and interpretations is what makes the emotion unconscious. Because you're bypassing reality for an interpretation of reality. It's the same problem with unconsciousness of all phenomenon. Unconsciousness is to bypass reality for the interpretation of reality that's created by thoughts. So, listening to your emotions is not listening to your thoughts in an unconscious way. Listening to your emotions is to become more conscious of the reality that gives way to thoughts, so that you understand that your thoughts are a measuring tool that too small to quantify the infinite reality.

Enlightenment has a lot to do with letting go and seeing reality as it is. This means letting go of mentally created frameworks and rules. It seems to me from the post, that you have a lot of ideas and personal rules that revolve around sex. Rules that are likely subtly projected onto reality (not enough to where others could call you dogmatic or judgmental), but probably strictly enforced on yourself internally from the ego's inner bully. Things that are okay. Things that are not okay. Things that are preferable. Pre-conceived notions, ect. This is just a guess, from my own past experiences, but it sounds familiar. But, as a married woman, sex is a lot like eating. It's very enjoyable and can be intense, but there doesn't need to be any extra meanings attached to it as relationship newbies often expect. It also seems like you have a lot of ideas and notions surrounding enlightenment. So, I recommend letting go of all of these ideas and listening to what you really want and how you really feel. Be aware of what you really want. Do you feel like seeking Truth? If yes, seek Truth. If no, don't seek Truth. Do you feel like having sex? If yes, have sex. If no, don't have sex. Do you feel like having sex and seeking Truth? If yes, do both. If no, do neither. Don't listen to the thoughts, listen to the emotions. Thoughts lie, emotions do not. Life is leading everyone to enlightenment anyway, as enlightenment is more toward Truth and chaos. It's easier to make a mess than to maintain a home. And, in this analogy, the mess is enlightenment. It's the natural state. So, don't be afraid to make a mess and break rules. Let yourself do things that seem to contradict each other. All you have to do is let your illusions unravel themselves. So, seek enlightenment through getting in touch with Truth. Truth (aka reality) can be found in the present moment and the emotions you're feeling. So, I would start with getting a really deep understanding of what motivates you and what you really want. Then, have no preconceived notions, and steer life in any direction that makes you feel expansive. Let your intuition guide you, not your thoughts.

I would love to go to Bhutan to visit. My husband has always wanted to go there and to Tibet as well. But unfortunately, relocating there would be out of the budget range for our family. I have a family of four and plane tickets to most places in Asia cost upward of $2000 per person. So, that's already $8000, just for moving expenses. However, plane tickets to Central America cost about $300 per person and South America just a little more than that. Plus, if the spiritual teacher's prediction is true about China being involved in an upcoming conflict, it's quite possible that other areas in Asia may become involved as well. Also, I'm familiar with Spanish and I'm confident that I could become fluent in relatively short order if I needed to. But to be honest, I'm not even sure which languages are spoken in Bhutan, let alone what they sound like. So, that would add another layer of difficulty to moving.

Sorry, I should specify. I didn't call you delusional as a fixed negative personality trait. I said you have delusions, as nearly everyone does. I too, have delusions related to other things. I really didn't mean any personal insult behind my messages, though I do get a little personal when people project upon women as I have some issues with feminine repression and this salts the past wounds that gave way to this repression. But my main purpose, was to point out that you're projecting, so that you can recognize the process and drop the projections. Often times, we get into mindsets that are based in self-deception, and we're not aware of it.

This is still more projection and an avoidance of the fact that you were projecting in a previous post, through use of spiritual bypassing. If you're aware that there is only one thing, and that one thing is God, then why do you assign so many value judgments to large groups of people? And why do you judge the state of the world? Is it not also God, and also you? You still seem to be dividing reality into fractions, which is the opposite of the realization of oneness. Also, if God is "here to be served", and everything is God, why do you judge God's creation which is also God? But if you want to continue the conversation further, you can PM me or create a new thread. It's against the forum rules to post off-topic things, so I try to avoid it.

Alright Kelly Anne, this is gotten off the topic of the thread so I'm just going to quickly explain just a little bit to un-muddy the waters between ideas/projections and objective reality. I understand that he may have come into contact with shallow women before and that he feels negatively about women because of this. But that doesn't mean that all women are shallow, or that it makes sense to blame all women for his negative feelings. So, when he is saying 4999/5000 women are shallow, then this is objectively the definition of projection. And it is objectively a falsehood to say this. No two ways about it. My saying that he's projecting is not an opinion. It's a fact. And since this is a site about developing deeper levels of awareness, I thought it was a good idea to point it out to him. But you seem to want to reinforce his delusions and projections by muddying the waters further with misplaced notions of relativism. Also, when I say that he's being shallow, there is an interpretation there that could be called an opinion if we look at the connotation of the word shallow which tends to be negative. But if we look at the definition of shallow as being 'not deep.' Then his view on women is objectively shallow, because it reflects a shallow awareness of reality relative to women. He simply doesn't have a deep understanding, so I call his opinion shallow. So, this is also a fact. Not an opinion. So, you bring up the ideas that are widely believed in North Korea as an example for how relativistic things are. Truly, North Korea stands as an extreme example of how distorted one's views can get, when human beings aren't grounded in objective reality. There are such things as objective falsehoods that run through every cultural climate, some more than others. So, a large part of personal development, is to ground oneself in objective reality and let go of delusions. So, no more alternative facts please. Hehe!

I was not offended. I just wanted to point out to him that he was objectively being shallow. You can't fix a problem that you aren't aware of.

With all due respect, it's understandable that she called you shallow, as you just called her shallow without even knowing her. You did, in your previous post, project your ideas over about 3.5 billion people on the planet writing off their ability for humanity and virtue, and one of those 3.5 billion is her. This type of projection is the epitome of shallow acts because you ignore the nuances of reality for a two-dimensional idea that you cooked up in your own mind. So, it's not a matter of people not recognizing your depth of understanding regarding the masculine and feminine energies, it's you not recognizing the degree of your delusion, projection, and smallness.

We are designed to be monogamous in the early stages of child rearing. Human babies are born "three months premature" due to the rapid brain growth needed for human intellectual functioning. So, child labor is very taxing on a woman as the child's head is very large. And the first three months are a time of recovery for her and extra protection for the newborn who is helpless due to the brain growth that has not happen due to the "premature birth". If a baby were born with the mental faculties that come three months after the birthing process takes place, the mother could not physically birth the child and survive. So, especially in the initial stages, fathers have a very important role of protecting and providing for the vulnerable mother and child, who can't (in nomadic times) make it on their own. Mothers would not be able to provide food and care for the newborn child, at the same time. Then, there are neuro-chemicals designed to keep a couple together for the first three years of the relationship (long enough to raise a child to a certain point of independence). Now, there has been the practice of powerful and wealthy men having multiple wives and thus multiple children. The idea is basically the same, as he provides the sustenance and shelter for the women carrying his children and thus his genes forward. Though, in this situation, the women and children tend to be treated more like acquisitions and property. So, if this is the reason for his marriages and children, it doesn't really provide the depth and care as is provided in the family model with the monogamous father. But the biology behind it makes sense. After the point that we get past the first three years after a child is born, we are more polyamorous in nature. But many people choose to remain monogamous to deepen their relationships with their partners. But there is also a natural urge for man and woman alike to switch up partners to add variety to the gene pool, which strengthens our species through creating more variety. But ultimately, there is nothing that's unnatural. If it's happening, it's natural.

(technical difficulties with uploading vision board)

@OhHiMark Completely off topic... I did not hit her! I did not!!!! Okay, resume your conversation.

I saw this, but I'm not sure if it's real. I will have to see if it gets to that point.

Maybe if you knew someone at one point, didn't see them for years, and then came back, their feelings may change if you've changed that much. What I find though, is that people's subtle energy doesn't really change that much and my impressions of a person take even longer to change. So, even if a person changes their mindsets and personality, the people that you already know will continue to see you in the same light. So, with people you already know, the chances of getting out of the friend zone are VERY low. You're still thinking that it's because of something you did or did not do. And that if you just showed more dominant male traits, that she would definitely be with you. This is just not true. It might have been somewhat more likely to happen if you fully embodied these traits right away upon meeting her, but PUA isn't like a perfect technology. It mostly works on the level of the persona. So, if a woman is in touch with her intuition, she is unlikely to bite even if the outward personality changes. From the receiving end of PUA, it can be super obvious when someone is trying to do it to you. Plus, if she knows you more on a personal level, then she knows whether or not she's attracted to you based on your deeper personality traits. PUA relies quite a bit on more surface level techniques and techniques are easy to pick up on in a closer friendship. Now, in a casual social setting where you're meeting new people, like a club or party these traits can make you appear as being more interesting and attractive. First impressions are extremely important in attraction. So, here is where the utility of PUA comes in. So, it's not that PUA can't greatly increase your chances of being successful with someone. It absolutely can. But don't think of it as a perfect science that will work on every woman or even most women. It's an art. You might get one 'yes' for every five 'nos'. And that's pretty good. But don't fall for sales pitches, and expect that you can make any woman attracted to you through doing PUA. People are complex machines, that are predictable to an extent, but not perfectly predictable.

Well said. PUA gurus tend to use this as their sales pitch, but it's definitely not true of me or any other woman that I know. Genuine attractions happen organically. But it can't hurt to know some techniques. Being good at the human mating dance is a plus.

I think women who have a more judgmental way about them, could have thoughts like this floating around. But that would more-so have to do with just being generally judgmental and that personality trait spilling over into their romantic life. For me personally, every time I've ever gotten attracted to a guy, it starts neutral for a few days or a week. Then, I get little spurts of positive feelings coming up, very much out of nowhere. And then the attraction solidifies and stays for a few months or so. It usually dies if nothing happens after a few months or I go through that process with someone else. But there's never a reason for it. At least not one that I'm conscious of. But my attractions are very strong. I understand where your thought process is coming from, and I'm sure it's encouraging. I think that pick-up gurus tend to promote pick-up in that way, anyway. I can just tell you that (for me personally) I've never miraculously gotten attracted to a man that I was previously not attracted to. But I think of attraction as more of an art than a science. It's all about the subtle essence of that person, and not about what they do. So, even as someone who's into personal development, meeting a guy that's into personal development doesn't make me more likely to be attracted to him. I understand. I suppose that I'm the same way in terms of what I prefer for me, if I were to put myself in the same situation. I hate hurting people's feelings though, so I do tend to sugar-coat things. I don't mean to be rude, but I'm going to call b.s. on whoever told you this. Not that I'm saying that they're giving you b.s. on purpose. This is just a really random metric for attraction, and I've never met a woman (straight, bi, lesbian, etc.) who ever set up such particular rules for romantic interest. I think that she might be struggling to find out and come up with a reason why she isn't attracted to you, and came up with this rationalization for why not. But the problem is that there is no "why" or "why not". It just is or isn't. It's not so much that women don't know what they want... it's that we generally don't know why we want it. And without the awareness that there is not rational "why", we struggle and fumble for reasons. This reminds me of the situation with my friend Joe and I. I was in a relationship with a guy named Jeff from the time I was 16 to the time I was 20. And I had known my friend Joe since I was 12, and he always had a crush on me. We even dated for a month way back in middle school. I was always very very mildly attracted to him, but not so much that I would want to pursue anything actively. So, when Jeff and I broke it off, Joe really wanted to spark something up with me. I told him that I wasn't really ready for a relationship, which was true. I had just gotten out of a 4 year relationship. I really wanted to be single for a while, and I didn't really feel that way for Joe. Then I met my current husband, and I really had the hots for him and found him irresistible. I couldn't have stopped myself if I wanted to. So, Joe was really very upset about this. He felt like he had waited for me and put in his time, and he wanted to know why not. And I had no reason to give him. I couldn't articulate it, and I just wanted him to feel better. I didn't want him to think that I found him ugly or something like that. The feelings just weren't there at the time. But I didn't have the self-awareness that I have now, so I just came up with a bunch of rationalizations. I didn't know how to articulate my feelings.