Emerald

If you're trying to attract a lot of women and have a lot of sex, you'll need to be self-confident and fit the stereotype of the alpha. You can pick up a lot of women looking primarily for attention and a sense of worth through use of their attractiveness and sexuality. The sexual interactions between men trying to fit into the masculine ideal and women trying to fit into the feminine ideal, are primarily based on the confirmation of value and worth. Both sides are trying to mitigate the effects of a deep feeling of baseline inferiority and using the attraction of a person that resembles the opposite ideal to convince themselves that they are indeed worthwhile. If you go down this path, you must become the mirror for a woman's desirability and she must become a mirror for your power. But this is not the game to play for those seeking self-realization. Plus, it becomes as boring and redundant as masturbation after a handful of experiences. If you're looking for a woman, you just need to be yourself and at that point it's a gamble. As a woman, it's quite uncommon that I find myself genuinely attracted to a man. But when I do get attracted to a man, I'm completely over the moon for him. But it's never because of any particular quality he has. It's simply because he is who he is. I like the whole person because that person makes me feel a certain way. Certainly, there are traits that are deal-breakers. But there are NO traits for me that are deal-makers. So, if no women are interested in you, it's because women tend to orient themselves in a platonic way to every other man but the one that they really really like. And they also tend to put on a platonic facade to the man that they do like. For her, if she's like me, rejection from the man she likes is a big blow, because she probably only likes that one guy and she likes him a lot. It's not as though she could just approach another one that was just as good. So, hiding attraction is very common for women.

That's fair enough to say. Certainly the polarities of Yin and Yang can be noticed in all living and non-living systems, including individuals. And it can be noticed that women as a group tend to be more Yin in nature, despite there being many individual exceptions. It just sounded like you (or someone else as I didn't go back and read the posts I was reacting to) were saying that a woman's enlightenment comes from loving a man who is enlightened... like enlightenment through osmosis. Which honestly seems a bit silly to think it would work that way. Also, there was a strong paternalistic and simultaneous patronizing/sacralizing tone to the post about a woman becoming a mistress and not a master. Like it was saying something positive and uplifting about women but in a way that disenfranchises women and clips their wings through the use of identification with the feminine principle itself. This sacralization/denigration is a social pattern that I've experienced all throughout my life since childhood, and it has always irked me. It's not a wonder that so many women (and men alike) are actively repressing their feminine side. No one wants to be pinioned by it. But one thing that I read regarding the feminine principle has stuck with me as a good piece of wisdom: Never identify directly with the Goddess. To identify with Yin itself at the expense of Yang is incredibly dangerous and crazy-making as identifying with the feminine principle is self-negating. But not self-negating in terms of self-transcendence... but moreso a repression of the ego and all aspects of the particular self. When this happens life becomes like a chess game with no king. There is no direction, no understanding, and even everyday tasks become impossible. Life becomes like a prison. Since the Yang is the particular and the changing and the Yin is the general and the unchanging, everyday life necessitates Yang to function well. So, the masculine principle is like a really efficient vehicle for survival and all the goings on of the world. The feminine principle is being and existing. So, both are needed for proper functioning. But of course these principles even ebb and flow back and forth between the physical and non-physical. The masculine is the spiritual and the feminine is the material. But the feminine is being and the masculine is the particularities of the content within being. But all this is an understanding that springs from the vantage point of duality. Enlightenment is perception beyond the illusions and false dichotomies of duality. This includes the dichotomy of masculine/feminine, male/female, or yin/yang. If we look at our first-hand awareness of reality, there is nothing particularly masculine or feminine about what we're perceiving beyond our interpretations of and thoughts about our emotions. Our visual field is not masculine or feminine, neither are our other sensory fields. The content of our thoughts might reflect ideas of masculinity or femininity or identifications with these principles but thoughts themselves are not masculine or feminine. Now, when I had my experiences of ego transcendence (for want of a better term), this state felt unmistakably feminine. And I had always since wondered if that transcendent state was inherently feminine or if it was repressed femininity coming to the surface. But if I look at the experience I had just become more aware and allowing of the sensations of the body. So, perhaps the content of my emotions were feminine by my interpretation. It's difficult to say.

It's important to keep in mind that Leo's target audience is predominantly male. There are plenty of women interested in spirituality and enlightenment as well. It's odd to me that a couple of the people on this thread think women are so different than men, and there is this simultaneous tone of denigration and sacralization to the whole thing. Like women are these sacrificing angels far higher than any man and who abide in love and reach enlightenment in a completely different way... but are also incapable because they are not men. It makes me roll my eyes because being a woman who is a whole person, it feels silly to have such a stereotype placed over top of me. I see the human animal as primarily the same. We eat the same way. We sleep the same way. We shit the same way. And we probably get enlightened the same way. Certainly, there are general differences that can be noticed. But if we look really honestly at real men and women and not at polar sexual ideals, we find that men and women are 98% the same even if we like to focus on and exaggerate our very subtle differences.

If you consider that every desire roots from a deeper desire to feel positive emotions or avoid negative emotions, ask yourself which emotion you are after that keeps you attached to this other girl. Do you feel like it would say something about your personal worth? Or do you feel like you'll be able to feel some novel way from achieving the desired relationship to this girl. Then, as you become aware of what you want, you can start to see how external circumstances can't bring you the emotional fulfillment that you're seeking from this girl. No external circumstance has an inherent emotional value and emotions are internally created. So, you can allow yourself to feel that way without the aid of external circumstances going the way you want them to.

Existential crises are bound to come up multiple times for spiritual seekers. I've had a bunch of them in the past myself starting from when I first learned that death was permanent when I was three. My father is a mechanic, and when I was a small child his shop was right next to a small pond. During the March of every year, the baby frogs would be all over the place inside of and outside of his shop. I liked to catch them when I was little. One time, I was watching this baby frog who was on the floor. I had seen in movies and shows how people were resuscitated after almost drowning and I gathered from that that death could be reversed if done shortly after the death happened. I believed in resurrection back then. So, I squished the baby frog and I wanted to see how it would be to resurrect the baby frog. So, I ran to my mom in a panic saying "Call the frog hospital!" telling her what happened and that we had to bring the frog back to life. She told me, (paraphrased) that she's was sorry but that he's dead and that death is permanent. I was devastated. Not only had I just killed a poor little baby frog, me and everyone I knew would one day die as well. There was no longer the innocence to see death as avoidable. So, since then dealing with the inevitability and permanence of death has been an up and down struggle with many existential crises. But I think this is the very struggle that has helped me grow more and more aware as I've grown older. I've not yet made friends with the grim reaper but it's one of my biggest goals in life.

I wasn't talking about the 5-MEO specifically. I was just reading through @Natura Sonoris's comment and I had had a similar experience to what he described. The reason why I don't think it was a seizure is because I wasn't incapacitated physically: no seizing, no automatic movements, and I was able to speak about how I was feeling in a relatively articulate (albeit panicked) manner. But I had wondered if I was overdosing, running through panicked thoughts about what I just smoked, having a seizure, having a heart attack, and a host of other things. But there was a clear distance between myself and my senses that made me feel incredibly uncomfortable. So, perhaps it was something seizure-related. After this experience, I would have occasional panic attacks while smoking because I would be triggered back to that experience of being out of control. It's one of the reasons that I quit when I was 20.

There's no such thing as right or wrong. But I think there's a fine line between creating to add to the ego and creating from a place of authentic desire to create. Most people, the urge to create comes from a desire to get somewhere with their creation or add value in some way to their self-concept. They wouldn't create unless it has something of benefit to the self-concept. But a person who creates simply from the desire to create, this is not an inherently ego-sustaining practice. Realistically, however, a person's actions will always match their state of consciousness. So, a person who's identified with ego, cannot extricate the ego from creation. So, the best thing to do is to accept where you are. Continue to create, because it's likely a mixed bag of genuine inspiration and egoic ambition. But try to expand your awareness so that you can see exactly where the ego begins and ends in your creative endeavors. But don't suppress your drives for creativity... this will spin the illusion of ego in a much more profound way because you'd be in resistance to what comes most naturally... ego driven or not.

I had a similar experience to this. I don't have epilepsy nor have I ever had a seizure. But when I was 14 years old, I accidentally smoked a joint laced with something... at least this is my theory as to why this happened. I never got confirmation on that. But it was way too much for me, and I thought I was dying. It was my first panic attack. I immediately started feeling like I was big and small at the same time. Like parts of my body in space were non-relative sizes. Like my arms could be smaller than my toes. I started feeling really small too. Then I experienced the sensation of my tongue as only a bunch of vibrations. Like I was swishing my tongue around my mouth behind my teeth and there were spots of my tongue that didn't register with my brain. If you could imagine that my tongue was a huge collection of dots of vibration, and about 3/4 of those vibrations were missing. I felt very disconnected with reality. Scary stuff. Was this similar to what you experienced?

My thoughts on him, exactly. Plus, he clearly exaggerates his previous lack of wealth. He's always saying that he was sleeping on a couch in a mobile home with $47 in his bank account. That means that he never overdraft. He never had less than $47. So, in my book, he was never as hard-up as he claims to have been. Plus, living in a mobile home isn't necessarily indicative of poverty... it's working class.

I would probably feel the same way if I hadn't had a couple of enlightenment experiences to know that there's something there. I don't know how someone would keep up their resolve without having had a glimpse. That said, it may be a good thing to suspend belief in enlightenment, and instead simply seek truth for the sake of seeking truth. This will probably yield you better results in the long run because one of my big attachments is attachment to enlightenment. I don't have the luxury of suspending belief in it as easily though because I have memories of my experiences. But because you're presumably a tabula rasa, suspending belief in enlightenment may be good as long as you don't abdicate the search for truth. There really is no way back from where you are now. There is only the option to remain where you are or go forward.

I'm sorry to hear that you're dealing with this. Would you say that it's accurate that you have a resistance to feeling positive emotions? Also, you seem to have an idea that you have to get somewhere, be a certain way, or achieve something to be valid as a person. This, of course, is not true. But it can be hard to see when dealing with a feeling of baseline inferiority. For this, I recommend looking into the idea of significance, meaning, worthiness/worthlessness, purpose, deserving/undeserving, and good/bad. It's my impression that you believe, on some level (perhaps unconsciously), that these concepts are real things so when you go looking for proof of your own worth and significance, you find none and start to feel worthless. But worth/significance/meaning/etc. are only imaginary concepts. They don't exist. But neither do worthlessness, meaninglessness, insignificance. These are just the measuring tools of the human lens and have nothing to do with reality. Beyond these value-based (value also doesn't exist) understandings of yourself, is something that is always valid no matter what that could never be invalid. If you can see past the labels of the human lens, you will find that everything is perfect and that you are part of that perfection. You don't need to do anything or improve yourself in any way. You are valid, no matter what you do.

This video explores 10 common false dichotomies that are part of the ego-consciousness paradigm. So, big/small, up/down, creation/destruction, life/death, natural/unnatural, significance/insignificance and several others. There are really thousands upon thousands of false dichotomies in reality, so I may do other videos on the topic in the future since they're great for inquiry into the nature of reality and self.

I mean to listen to a song and learn to play it without a tab or sheet music.

I would imagine that any field that helps you separate the experience of something from your conception/symbolic understanding of that something would be helpful. So, learning to play music by ear could be one. Also, wine tasting is another. Then, if you've ever seen the movie "Le Parfum" the main characters olfactory abilities reminded me of the same type of thing. Basically, anything that immerses you into the sensory experience of reality that requires you to leave your pre-conceived notions out of it.

That's my perspective as well. To be honest, I don't really understand why some people are so adamantly against it. Certainly there are issues with them, but nothing compared to diseases if we look at the big picture. That said, I don't believe that vaccines should be mandatory because there can be a ton of specific medical reasons why a particular vaccine could be harmful.

I may start posting my videos and progress on here again, after neglecting my journal for quite while. Anyway, this one is about how to be open minded without being ungrounded or gullible.

It's a list of book names with ratings and descriptions. No actual books though.

Yes precisely. Masculinity and Femininity are both relative truths that stem from the illusion of duality. They are really just metaphors that help us categorize things, and a noticing that complementary forces go into each system and cycles. So, with regard to creating something the creative aspect is feminine and productive aspect is masculine, so it can be done by people of both genders. Everyone both is and does, and you can't be without either. However, from the non-dual perspective all is one thing, so it too is a false dichotomy.

Thank you for sharing my metaphor.

Explore the nature of the thing called evil. Look for it as a tangible quality of reality. You will not find it. Evil is only a concept. Also, why would yoga be evil according to your conception of evil? The most practical way to label evil, in my view, is "that which intentionally causes harm." Since yoga does not intentionally cause harm, yoga is not evil to me. So, it's odd to me that you would have this question. It sounds like you're perhaps buying into external authorities that make claims to the truth. The thing to understand about evil is that it isn't a real thing... it's only a concept and is thus predicated upon each individuals subjective thoughts and values. The only valid reasons to avoid an activity are 1. You don't wan to do it. 2. You're incapable of doing it. 3. It would harm yourself or others. Otherwise it's only egoic fear.

I just recorded a video about open-mindedness without being gullible. It's funny to see a post about it.

It's part of the female archetype because it is primary (just as the mother and the womb is primary) and has to do with being. Just in the same way that nature has to do with being and how we call it Mother Nature. Also, the word "matter" derives from the term "mother". So, anything that is primary and foundational is the feminine principle and any specific formation that roots from off of the feminine source is masculine. So, think feminine source and masculine expression of that source. They are two sides to the same coin only the feminine deals with being and the masculine deals with doing. There is a HIndu Goddess Durga who represents this idea. Durga is the source and she is a Goddess, but she has many arms and in each of those arms is the symbol of a male God. An expression (which is masculine) of the non-rational (which is feminine) is simply to observe what is without labeling or getting caught up in thought stories. So, meditation is an activity that takes its primary roots in the non-rational. But it's difficult to put your finger on things in the feminine principle, as they are largely internal and not very obvious. It is like water to a fish. So, the non-rational is not really something that is particularly expressed, it is simply what is. It is being.

Thank you! This is so helpful. I tried to set up a mailchimp at one point in time but decided not to bother. I'm definitely going to get one now.

Reality itself is non-rational. So, rationality is the measuring tool of the human intellect, that's there so we can have an understanding of reality. But there is no actual reality to rationality. It's a framework. So, reality without the lens of rationality applied is the non-rational, as the non-rationality is primary.

Thank you! I have social media profiles (Intagram, FB, and Twitter) but I hadn't heard of Buffer. I'll definitely check that out. I do have form submissions on my site though, though they don't go through Mailchimp. Basically, I just get people's name and email address. Is that the same thing or are there other features to the mail chimp form too?