Forestluv

@outlandish Should the rice be replaced periodically with fresh rice?

This is a way for a mind to distance itself from acknowledging and taking responsibility for participating within harm dynamics. I’ve used the same arguments you are using back when I was unable to see my relationship and impact within inter-connected networks. You don't seem interested or willing to introspect this at this time. The original thread question was about how one justifies their participation within harm dynamics and I think you are giving great examples of such justifications.

It sounds like you are on a good path. I would encourage you to stick with what resonates with you. I am simply offering an imaginary contextualization I am creating right now. Quite often, I like to reveal the nature of opposites. It is both brilliant insight and total bullshit. What I am offering has no more truth than what Rupert is offering or that anyone else is offering. You get to create your own reality.

In theory this is a walk in the park. In direct experience it is extremely difficult. In practice, I've found it helpful to enter places of panic and terror to surrender and transcend panic and terror. Panic and terror equals peace. Yet this is infinitely more difficult to do in direct experience than thinking about it in the mind. This is why psychedelics have been helpful for me. . . . I had to directly face panic and terror in my direct experience to realize the absolute peace within panic and terror. I could not have thought my way through it. On my own, I will not volunteer to enter panic and terror - and surrender to it. Yet with psychedelics, I had no choice. There is a similar process with surrendering into love, peace and bliss. Yet this is much much easier to surrender into, ime. . . . If the above video was titled "Direct access to Terror", I doubt many people would watch it. If the teacher said "Rather than a meditation session of serenity and peace, we will now have a session of mental torture to teach you the nature of absolute peace. People would get up and run away. . . Yet, Terror = Peace. It's the same thing on an absolute level. Other beings may have different paths. I'm just speaking from my experience and I'm not saying it is the ultimate truth. For the vast majority of people, it is best that they relax the mind and allow the sense of peace to reveal itself - and to theorize about how absolute peace exists within trauma. Actually realizing this in direct experience is extremely hard on the human mind and body. My practice has involved what appears to be some irreparable damage to my physical brain and body. Yet there is absolute peace within that. However, I would not suggest my path for 99.99% of people.

Yes. I understand that. I think most people would interpret this "peace of our true nature" as a "thing". It is seeking the "peace of my true nature" and not seeking the "non-peace of my false nature". I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that. It's a wonderful space. Ime, there is a deeper level of an unconditional peace that is present regardless of what the mind and body is experiencing. That absolute peace is present during anxiety, panic, terror. love, bliss etc. It is unconditional. I don't think this is how most people would interpret the video above. I think most people would associate this "peace of our true nature" as a sense of serenity and peace. Absolute peace is present during those moments of course, because it is absolute. Yet it is also present when the mind and body is distressed. If I organized a spiritual retreat entitled "The realization of absolute peace while you experience panic and terror", I don't think many people would show up. Most people are seeking relative feelings of peace and thats totally fine. If I organized a retreat in a serene area of nature and called it "Discover your true nature of peace and serenity" - a lot more people would show up. The human mind and body wants to experience states that are pleasing. There is something to be said for that. It is very loving and healthy for the mind and body. I would not discourage someone from pursuing this.

Regarding stress to the mind and body, 5meo is gentler for me than a comparable amount of LSD. 15-20mg of 5-meo is generally very easy for me to handle. It is often blissful and what I would imagine heroine is like. Even in the 30mg range of "ego death" it's gentler than a comparable ego death on LSD. In part because 5-meo is very clear for me. Everything gets dissolved without any wacky stuff thrown in. Of about thirty 5-meo trips only about three were challenging. Yet I haven't done 5-meo for about eight months, and I don't know if the dynamics would be the same now. As well, this is relative to my mind, body, conditioning, state of karma / conditioning etc. It is different for different people. One thing I would suggest is not having expectations of a difficult trip. There are many stories online about how difficult 5-meo is. This can lead to a self-filling prophecy. If I have an expectation that this is going to be hellish, as soon as the self starts to lose control it's easy to have a mindset of "Omg!! Here it comes!! The hell everyone online was talking about!! There is no turning back. I'm screwed". . . It doesn't have to be a self-fulfilling prophecy like this. There are people that use 5-meo to reach blissful states similar to heroine.

If the goal is a relative feeling of peace, of course psychedelics aren't necessary. For me, psychedelics often stimulate a sense of groundlessness that can cause anxiety in my mind and body. If my goal is a sense of peace for the mind and body, psychedelics would be far down on my list. Ime, psychedelics are much better for insights and expansion - which can be uncomfortable relative to a mind and body. If I am seeking a sense of peace, I'd much rather mediate in nature. Yet paradoxically, over the long-term . . . having many psychedelic experiences of anxiety and ego death has actually help lower my anxiety, allowing for a sense of peace. One thing I keep in mind is that the desire of a sense of peace is a desire at the personal / human level.

@Dumuzzi Looks like I misinterpreted your frame. Thank you for clarifying that.

@Dumuzzi I don't need to worry about creepy men either. The chance of me being rapped by a man is super low. The chance of a woman being raped by a man is MUCH higher. The risk is on two completely different levels and, imo, it's not fair to equalize them. It would be like me saying to a woman "yea, men can get breast cancer as well. Breast cancer is something both men and women need to worry about". And then telling a story about how some men got breast cancer. The frequency of women getting breast cancer is MUCH higher than it is for men. The risk is so low for men the vast majority of men do not need to worry about getting breast cancer. Are there isolated incidents of men with breast cancer? Yes. It is fair to equalize this at an individual level. A man with breast cancer should get equal compassion and care as a woman with breast cancer. However, it is not fair to equalize it at the population level and say "breast cancer is an issue both men and women face". At the population level, more resources should be invested in researching and treating breast cancer in women. . . Similarly, are there isolated incidents of men being raped by other men? Of course. At the individual level, a man being raped is just as concerning as a woman being raped. However, at a population level rape is a widespread risk for women and only an isolated risk for men. Imo, it would be unfair to say "Rape is an issue both men and women face" because this equalizes the risk at a population level. At the population level, more resources should be invested in helping women in regards to rape.

During my journey, I've contemplated many different rationales for meat eating, including this one. Yet this argument is super weak to me and doesn't even pass basic logic. Rather than concentrate on what others are doing, I ask myself "what type of person do I want to be? What are my values and how can I behave according to my values?". If other people are behaving in a way I think is unethical, I will not participate. As an analogy: I notice a group of men torturing dogs in a park. I have three options: 1) I try to stop the men from torturing the dogs. 2) I do nothing and walk away. 3) I join the men and start torturing the dogs. My personal value would be that it is unethical to torture dogs. At a minimum, I will not participate in the torture. I would not think "I can't stop the men from torturing the dogs. The dogs will be tortured whatever I do. I might as well grab a bat and start beating the dogs". . . To me, this makes no sense. I would be clear about my own personal values and take responsibility for my behavior. For me, torturing a dog is unethical and I won't participate in it, regardless of what others are doing. Having personal values and holding oneself accountable to those personal values is a sign of integrity. . . If I say "It is unethical to torture dogs" and then I join in the torturing of dogs - that would be a lack of personal integrity. I don't eat meat, yet I do eat animal products on occasion (cheese and yogurt). Thus, I am participating in animal cruelty. Yet rather than rationalize this away, I acknowledge my impact and take responsibility. I don't create bizarre thought stories to avoid taking responsibility for my participation in animal cruelty. Doing so would prevent me from expanding my empathy and love for other organisms. For me to expand my empathy and love, I need to be clear about what my edge of empathy and love is and grow beyond this edge. If I put my head in the sand with rationalizations, I will not grow and expand.

One thing I like about being male is that I don't have to worry about being sexually harassed or raped. It doesn't even cross my mind. Last night I walked through nature at night by myself. I was not stressed or worried that I could be raped. It never even crossed my mind. When I travel on buses, go to public events and go to work, I don't have to worry about creepy women sexually harassing me or raping me. I don't need to take precautions to protect myself from being raped. I don't need to worry about the clothing I wear. I don't need to carry mace. I don't need to have elevated stress hormones in my body as preparation for fight or flight. . . I literally never even think about it. That is a privilege I have as a male and I wish that women also had that peace of mind and body.

I’m trying to send positive energy to Leo each day. Unfortunately, I’m an empath and suck at channeling.

@Lento From what you described, she doesn’t sound like NPD or BPD to me. It seems like she more likely has issues with intimacy, avoidance and perhaps abandonment. This part caught my attention: I can’t count how many times I’ve been in this situation. In the past, I’ve had a strong attraction to women that are vulnerable and have experienced abuse and trauma in their past. As you say “I want to make it up to them”. I want to give them what they were deprived of. I want to make it better. I would say that this is a form of empathy and I would consider it an immature form of empathy. I don’t mean this in a condescending way. It wasn’t until I was 48 y.o and went through about 15 of these relationships before I was able to develop this empathy to a higher level. Empathy can be an anchor involved in unhealthy dynamics, yet it can also be absolutely beautiful in mature healthy dynamics. . . . I don’t mean to suggest that you are in an unhealthy dynamic. However, I would be mindful of this empathic dynamic you just described. The good news is that you are aware of it and can work with it. For example. . . Setting personal boundaries. . . .

@Roy Those are great constructs. I was trying to express upon modes of empathy and love.

A recent worldwide study of carnism attitudes concluded: "psychologists were able to confirm that meat eating is associated with attitudes that endorse hierarchical structures." The most common answer why they eat meat was "because it tastes good". Thus, hierarchical species structures and taste preference is what primarily drives meat eating, not a belief that I need to eat meat to survive. The journal appetite is not a vegan propaganda journal. It is a peer-reviewed psychology journal, with a respectable 5 year impact factor of 4.077. This would put the journal at the lower end of the top tier of journals in the field. https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-09-international-survey-psychology-meat-consumption.html I agree that social conscious awareness is important and that coming across as too aggressive is counter-productive. Yet to me, what you suggest is too far on the timid side and is also counter-productive. Imo, you are placing humans at a higher level on a hierarchy (similar to what the survey showed). If we were talking about factory farming human babies, raising them in abusive, painful environments, slitting their throats and BarBQing human baby limbs for our weekend party, I think you would likely have a different orientation. What if these were your family members getting killed, roasted and eaten because "they taste good". Would you really have the same orientation? Would you call people trying to protect your family members from being killed and eaten "green people getting triggered"? . . Consider the deeper biases taking place here. If we were talking about cannibalism of human babies, my hunch is you would not be so focused on criticizing those wanting to protect the babies from their suffering, being killed and eaten. I don't think you would be saying these are "triggered greens" and we should take a gentle approach and love those who are torturing and eating human babies because they taste good. I don't think you would have a gentle approach for those that think "I need to eat human babies to survive". My hunch is you would likely have a greater sense of urgency in trying to educate and protect babies from factory farms. My hunch is that you wouldn't be so critical of people trying to protect human babies from their suffering, being killed and consumed. My impression is that you are placing humans higher up on a hierarchy, like 99.9999% of humans do. Perhaps I am wrong. Yet I doubt it. This isn't just at a green level. There is also a trans-human Turquoise level to consider. As much as you can criticize those attached to a biased personal identification, you can be criticized for being attached to a biased human identification. And this comes from a "me" that is not vegan. Yet there is awareness of my personal and human bias. If someone tried to kill, cook and eat my sister's baby, I would fight like hell to stop it. And I certainly wouldn't criticize someone trying to help me protect my sister's baby from being killed and eaten. Yet I won't do the same for a non-human animal. I don't care as much about non-humans that I don't know - this is due to conditioning and personal / human biases. Yet I am aware of this, which allows for the expansion and growth toward a greater unconditional love. Ime, the best way to get introduced to turquoise level trans-human awareness is through psychedelics. There is no way I could have done it without psychedelics.

A "good" thing relative to what? Is it good relative to my welfare as a person and human? Or is it "good" relative to worms crawling within dirt?

I'll again preface that i am not vegan. I am not demonizing non-vegans as I myself am not a vegan. The reality is not that in nature all animals consume other animals to survive. Some animals eat other animals to survive. As well, humans are not just another animal. Eating other animals to survive is not necessary for humans in developed countries and humans have the capacity for rational thinking and to be aware of this. It is an option. People choose to eat other animals because they prefer eating other animals, convenience and their identity, not because they need to do so to physically survive. What is trying to survive is the egoic identity of being a meat eater, not the survival of the human. I agree that humans are not in a place where they are able to give up meat consumption, but I don't see it due to a need to survive. I see it more as preference and identification. It is a form of humanism that is highly biased. And it's not just with eating meat. It is also about how humans treat animals like pets, animal rights and human relationships with the environment. Species-centered humanism. It is also seen in religion and spirituality. Notice how god created humans in his own imagine. And in spirituality - notice how all spiritual constructs of enlightenment is accessible to only humans. Notice how all "enlightened" teachers are humans teaching human constructs. Very few humans have gone trans-human. Very few humans are in tune that a babbling brook is on the same level as a spiritual teacher as adyashanti, sadhguru etc. In some ways, the babbling brook is at a higher level. Yet to humans this will seem absurd because they perceive through a human-biased filter. Humanism is all around us. 99.9999% of people are identified as a human and will perceive the world through the lens of humanism. Everything is contextualized in terms of how this effects humans. Identification to being human is a conscious level higher than identification as a person, yet it is still relatively low compared to what is available. This has both truth and untruth. If I see a man physically abusing a child in a park, I can accept where he is at. I can see that he is abusing the child due to his own conditioning. He was probably abused as a child himself and is acting out. I can see that he cannot help himself as he beats the child. I can have compassion, understanding and love for him. I don't need to demonize him. However. . . does this mean I should not intervene? Should I allow him to continue to physically beat the child with a baseball bat? . . . There is a way to intervene without judging or demonizing him. Yet, sitting by idly allows him to continue beating the child and that makes me complicit in that child abuse. This again comes down to humanism. If human babies were being factory farmed to be eaten by humans and the babies experience abusive conditions and pain prior to the killing and eating of the babies, I doubt you would have the same position. I doubt you would say "So many triggered human baby lovers here. This a good example for the green mega-thread". . . There is a trans-human turquoise view.

I'm not saying equal representation is the only metric. Yet it is a revealing metric for social perception and change. The issues you speak of like dowry, female infanticide, equal opportunity for education for boys and girls, the whole institution of arranged marriage etc. is related to the gender representation (and diversity representation) in government. For example, the Indian government is currently about 14%. If we flipped the script and the prime minister was a relatively young progressive female and 86% of government was relatively young progressive females, there would be some major changes taking place - including in all the areas you mentioned. By looking simply at the percentage of women in government of India and Sweden, one can make inferences about that society. There is a big difference between 14% and 45% women and that is an expression of the underlying conscious level of society. India is much more patriarchal and less progressive than Sweden. The same can be said in the U.S. We are also way under-represented with women. I'm not pointing at India as being an outlier. Similar dynamics are occurring in many countries. The position of "gender doesn't matter, we are all human beings" is a hallmark transition from upper Orange to lower Green. The center of consciousness in the audience was likely center/high Orange, which is why Sadhguru pitched it at this level.

One of the metrics I look at for gender equality and perception of women is the percentage of women in parliament. Currently in India, women compose 78 of the 542 seats in the lower house of parliament = 14.4% women. This is a record number, reflective of changing attitudes - yet still below global averages. In the U.S., 24.5% of the lower parliament are women. Yet these numbers look archaic compared to the higher evolved countries. For example, Sweden parliament is 46% women. This is a great question for a higher level of evolution. It applies in all countries. A man may say "I see men and women as being equal". In the U.S., this was a progressive position in the 1980s. In the year 2020, it is a centrist position. The progressive position is to be an advocate for women's rights. This applies to all justice issues including racism and the environment. And easy way to see someone's level is how they react to progressive positions. Are they an advocate for social / environmental justice or do they sit aside or resist justice? For example, Jordan Peterson tries to come across as being progressive for gender / LGBTQ / environment, yet he is only progressive by 1980s standards - not 2020. When he is pressed, he defaults to resistance, he is not an advocate.

@Bazooka Jesus NN DMT is very different than 5-meo-dmt. Just because they both have the letters "DMT" in them doesn't mean they are similar. That would be like asking if carbon monoxide is similar to carbon dioxide. . . Generally, 5-meo-dmt has no visuals, or very light "visuals" which to me are more like images that are not visualized like objects. It's not like going into a movie theater of visuals. As well, you don't need to do 30mg of 5-meo out of the gate. Try about 15mg - take a moderate trip and see how it goes. For me, 15-20mg is a smooth transcendent experience. It's very clear and lovely. For me, moderate doses are much easier to handle than moderate doses of LSD and shrooms (which have a high body load, edginess and possessiveness to me).

You can rationalize it through any terms you want. I am referring to beings that have a nervous system complex enough to feel pain. That is the standard use of "sentient" in spirituality. To reduce the term to include plants in disingenuous and a rationalization. I don't understand why you are unable to acknowledge that your diet contributes to the pain of animals that can experience pain. As I said, I eat cheese and yogurt on occasion and I acknowledge this contributes to the pain experience by animals. Rationalizing this as "well, plants are sentient to? What am I suppose to do?". For goodness sake, take some responsibility for your behavior and the impact it has on other animals. Who cares? Eating babies is more appetizing to a cannibal. Just acknowledge that you like eating meat and place that as a higher priority than the welfare of the animals it impacts. I'm leading by example: I eat cheese and yogurt, because I like eating cheese and yogurt and I place this as a higher priority right now than the welfare of the animals this impacts. Ok. Then eating babies is a biological act that does not require any belief or thought. Let's go out and eat babies. I'm not vegan, yet I face these issues head on. Eating meat is a weak argument. I've gone through 100s of rationalizations in my mind. They all collapse. In developed countries, many food products (like cereal) are fortified with vitamin B12 and these are FDA approved. One does not need to eat meat as a source of vitamin B12. The other arguments are ones of convenience. I have used this myself. Sometimes, it takes a little more effort to meet all vitamin intakes through a vegetarian diet. I have done this myself. I have chosen to eat cheese and yogurt at times for convenience. Yet again, this boils down to. . . I am placing my own minor convenience over the well-being of the pain it causes to the animals. I think it's important to acknowledge this. It's amazing how people twist themselves into all sorts of knots rather than acknowledge this. In today's society, eating meat and animal products contributes to causing pain to animals that experience pain. To me, all the arguments used to justify this is trivial and I'm saying that as someone who eats animal products and is contributing to the pain suffered by animals. As well, I acknowledge that I still see animals as "the other". They are not yet included in my inner circle of who deserves not to be given pain and consumed. Humans are in this inner circle. I would not eat a human baby. Pets are within this inner circle. I would not eat someone's pet dog. However, not all animals are included in this inner circle. I still eat some animal products.

This is a strong argument for cave men that lived millions of years ago. However, it is a very weak argument for people that live in developed countries in the year 2020. Eating meat is not a "biological act". You are creating that belief. Eating meat is not necessary for biological function. As well, the argument that plants do not cover all essential nutrients is very weak as well. It is very easy to create a meat-free diet that covers all essential nutrients. This is the year 2020, not the year 1820. Again, the question is whether I choose to contribute to the pain and suffering of sentient beings by eating meat, when I don't need to eat meat for my well-being. As I've said, I am not 100% vegan (I eat cheese). However, I face this uncomfortable reality directly, rather than making up distractions to avoid facing this question. I don't put my head in the sand. I've reduced my meat and animal product consumption by about 90%. That is progress. This is not an all or nothing scenario. I've someone is uncomfortable with contributing to the pain and suffering of animals, I would suggest taking action to reduce that impact (even if it is not 100% vegan). For example, I no longer drink milk. I actually like Rice Milk better than dairy milk. As well, there are some great vegetarian meats available. I've learned to enjoy veggie sausage better than regular sausage (which now tastes nasty to me). However, I still eat cheese and yogurt (as sparingly as I am able). If I was to say "I need to eat cheese and yogurt to get all my essential nutrients and have an optimal life", it would be a lame rationalization. Rather, I face it head on. I eat cheese and yogurt because I like eating cheese and yogurt. I realize this contributes to the pain and suffering of animals and that I don't need to eat cheese and yogurt, yet I am placing my desire to eat cheese and yogurt over the welfare of these animals. From my POV, that is an honest answer and has some integrity to it. Rationalizing my impact on animals by talking about how other animals eats insects is a lame avoidance of facing the impact of my behavior on others.

For me, the threshold is sentience. I don't consider insects to be fully sentient beings, so I don't consider eating insects as "eating meat". Using insects as examples or a rare example of a starving herbivore eating meat is a distraction. It is using fringe examples to justify one's own behavior. If you want to use the example of an elephant, I would gladly have humans to eat like elephants. That would mean that humans would never eat an animal other than fish, and on average, each human would eat about one fish per year. Like the average elephant diet, the human diet would be 99.99% vegan. . . That sounds awesome to me. The personal question is quite simple: Do you want to contribute to causing pain and suffering to sentient beings? All this other stuff is a distraction from facing this uncomfortable question. If you introspect deep enough, this question will get very uncomfortable. All these rationalizations and thought stories are distractions from facing this personal question. As I've said, I am not 100% vegan. Yet I understand how my behavior is contributing to the suffering of sentient beings. I have tried to reduce my impact, yet I am not 100% there yet. . . However, I don't rationalize this by giving examples of other animals eating insects and fish. I face the question of my impact directly and it gets very uncomfortable at times. Not everyone is willing to look at themself, their behavior and their impact on others. It's more comfortable to go into distrative rationalizations to avoid looking at the issue.

In most developed countries, this has already happened. There are some amazing vegetarian foods available. I suppose we could do better in promoting awareness of this. Yet, part of the problem isn't simply having vegetarian options - there is a deeper mentality and identity going on that needs to be addressed. For example, in the area I live - there is an identity of being "masculine" and a "real man". This includes things like fishing, drinking beer, hunting, eating meet, driving a truck etc. I can't tell you how many times I've been asked "why don't you eat meat?". This is not being asked out of curiosity. It is being asked like there is something wrong with me. It is like I am on trial and I need to prove myself as a man. This is a very different dynamic than having vegetarian options. This dynamic is about identity. By not eating meat, I am a threat to this identity - even if I don't say anything about vegetarianism. Simply not eating meat triggers a lot of people. When they approach me and want me to justify why I don't eat meat, I have actually tried saying "I have a rare allergy to eating meat". Here, they become relaxed and say "Oh, I'm sorry. That must be so hard". Yet it is not threatening in the least. Yet if I respond "I don't eat meat because I think it's healthier for myself, animals and the environment to be vegetarian", there is a defensive backlash and they will get defensive - even though I simply stated my own values and did not accuse them of anything. Not all meat eaters are like this in my area. I would say about 30% of meat eaters have this identity and defensiveness. For this group, offering great vegetarian and lab meat would do nothing. They don't care about the food or animals. They care about their identity. For example "I'm a masculine alpha male because I eat meat like lions".

I'm not asking about rape. I'm wondering about more subtle forms. For example, perhaps a woman is being sexually harassed at work (at a low level) - not rape. Or perhaps on a train or at a party. The guy is overstepping boundaries. Perhaps he is getting a little to close, rubbing up against her or whispering something in her ear. How would a man be perceived if he intervened and stepped up for the woman? Would other men see him as a "beta man" or weak feminist lover? Or would he be perceived as doing the right thing?