Forestluv

@eputkonen Yes, I am familiar with the rope and snake analogy. It is a helpful analogy, in certain contexts, that I’ve used. The rope-snake analogy is a dualistic construct. It includes an imagined, nonphysical thing (a snake) and a real / physical thing (a rope). Imagined or real is a duality. Physical or nonphysical is a duality. Dual or nondual is a duality. ”You do realize that enlightenment refers to a happening to a specific body/mind.” This is the creation of a thing called “enlightenment”. This “enlightenment” is a happening that is not another happening. This happening thing happens to a specific thing called a “body/mind” and not to another thing that is not that body/mind thing. If that construct is helpful, great.

That is a duality.

There are some people with legit paranormal, yet there are a variety of paranormal abilities and skill levels. For me, I pay attention to my resonance with them and how genuine it is. Similar to how I would interact with a doctor, mechanic or electrician. If a doctor told me he could do everything and wanted to sell me a cure all for a “reasonable” price, that would give me a bad vibes and trigger warning sirens. If a doctor seemed genuine and told me his skills - what he could and couldn’t do well, I would trust her more. If she told me that they medication had risks and possible side effects, I would likely trust her more. Similarly, if a psychic told me they could predict my future with accuracy and any misses are my fault, that would raise warnings for me. If a psychic told me where she had skills and where she lacked skills, I would likely resonate more. If she told me that there can be ambiguity at times, she can’t always see clearly, and at times we may need to work together to be on the same frequency, that would resonate with me. Yet a fraud could say the same things to sucker me in. For me, accuracy is only one factor. Our resonance and my intuition would also be important. I would want to do things like eye gaze to get a feel. Yet I also need to be careful with this because part of me might really want to believe. I also have a naive side that has been taken advantage of.

@Kushu2000 From your perspective, you are correct. You are perceiving through a particular lens and images will be portrayed through that lens - the exact images you are perceiving. If we were to make an actualized.org documentary, you would be the best person to play the role of “Kushu2000”. Not even the best actor in the world could come remotely close to portraying you than you. You perception through your lens is absolute perfection. No one else can come close to that perfection. What you are not seeing is the attachment and identification to that lens. You are holding the portrayed images very tightly. The ego will do this because the survival of the egoic identity is dependent on holding and defending these ideas. Again, I am not saying the ideas are “wrong”, they are perfectly correct for the lens you are wearing. If one wants to expand, they will need to transcend the lens they hold so dearly. Yet this can be extremely difficult. In a way, it is death. It is the death of the character that is identified to a story. This transcendence can be extremely difficult and uncomfortable. Yet it is also freedom. This story about how others are “full of shit” is not “wrong”. Yet it is a distraction. It is a distraction that will allow the mind to remain contracted within that narrative.

It’s a mosaic. Imagine a painting that is a mosaic of red, blue, orange, green, yellow and turquoise. It’s not a question of which color the painting is, it is a question of the balance of colors, how the colors interact and how the colors evolve. For example, there is some red and blue, yet not very much. I would say the average on the forum is around upper Orange. There is some red and blue that appears, yet it generally isn’t a good fit and they don’t stick around. There are plenty of red / blue forums on the internet that would be a better fit. I’d say most of Leo’s videos the past year are Yellow/Turqoise which allows for an upward pull. Yet there is a lot upper blue / orange getting pulled up to green before it can go yellow/turquoise - particularly in the dating and politics sub-forums. The dating sub forum is mostly blue / orange. The high conscious subforum is more toward yellow / turquoise.

@Angelite Yes, as I said I don’t disagree with you. There are multiple ways to look at it.

@VictorB02 I have a hard time seeing someone I broke up with hurting. Sometimes I feel like I’m the one causing the hurt and I want to make it better. Breakups can be emotionally hard. I’ve been on both sides many times. When I’m the one breaking up, one thing I keep in mind is that I am no longer that person’s primary source of support or that person’s therapist. It can be tempting to try and be like a friend to the person, yet that can give false hope and make matters worse. Yet I also don’t want to dump someone without a care for her. The balance for me is to distance myself without causing unnecessary harm. For example, one of my exes kept texting me and trying to get closer. I texted something like “I enjoyed our time together, yet I’m moving in another direction now. I hope you are able to get support and I wish you the best”. I started taking longer to respond. At one point, I didn’t respond for several days and she started to escalate and get upset. I texted her that I’ve been on a spiritual retreat and haven’t been checking my phone. I wrote that I hope she is doing well and wish her the best. . . . I always kept a distance and gave general statements like “I hope you are doing ok and I wish you well”. I avoided any type of specific drama she used that would pull me back closer to her. As well, there were some fleeting times I missed her and wanted to contact her, yet did not do so as that would re-ignite things. I try to distance myself in a caring way if possible. I only block and take a hard stance if the person gets overly aggressive. For example, one ex sent me subtle threats and another ex suggested something bad may happen to her if I didn’t come back. That type of thing is too much and I did a hard stop.

@Angelite To me, that is semantics with the terms “above” and “below”. You are assigning different meaning to the terms. I’m not disagreeing with you, yet I’m also not interested in playing with semantics.

@purerogue Part of dominant group privilege is that can be unaware of their privilege. They don’t need to address it or deal with it. That is part of the privilege. If you were female, black or brown in America, you would quickly become aware of privilege. As well there will be strong resistance to seeing one’s own privilege. One exercise I do in my classes is I go to the chalkboard and tell the students I am going to ask them a question to brainstorm and I will write all their ideas on the chalkboard. I will start off with the men in the class. To the men, tell me all the ways on a daily basis you take to protect yourself from sexual harassment and abuse. . . Silence. . . The men are looking around confused. They don’t know if this is a trick question. . . More silence. . . Sometimes I tease them and say “Don’t be shy guys, tell me all the ways”. . . Then I ask the women the same question and the answers come rapidly. I can’t keep up with them. The men have the privilege of not being concerned about protecting themself from sexual harassment and abuse on a daily basis like women do. The men don’t have to consider it or deal with it. Another dynamic is that the vast majority of men will quickly put up mental defenses. About 10% of male students get blindsided by this exercise and have a moment of awakening. They get a glimpse and get curious. Yet about 90% of men will quickly put up defenses of “Well yea, but” and then the defenses go up. Based on how you phrase your comments and questions in this area that you don’t seem truly genuine, curious and open. At least from my pov. . . You don’t seem to genuinely want to know, understand beyond your current perspective. It’s very very hard to expand with this mindset. For example, you write “I want to know, seriously yet have not noticed them”. To me, you don’t come across as someone that genuinely and seriously wants to know. It’s all around you, yet you do not see and sense it precisely because you don’t want to know. You have all the opportunities to know around you. You could make platonic female friends and genuinely ask them and come to know. You could go out to a cafe with black friends and ask them with genuinely curiosity, yet you don’t. . . I’m a natural empath and it’s very easy for me to see and experience other people’s perspectives. And I’m also very curious and fascinated by it. One of the keys is to drop ownership of any perspective, go empty and allow it to arise. Yet this seems to be extraordinarily difficult for most people. More dramatic means are generally necessary. For example, you could go live within an oppressed minority group. I lived in a poor community in Honduras for a while and many privileges were revealed. Yet just telling you would be insufficient due to thought filters and defenses. . . Or one could date a person of an oppressed minority. I dated a black woman and directly experienced racism. She helped reveal many of my privileges through direct experience. Or one could volunteer within an oppressed marginalized group. I volunteered for years in a psychiatric ward and many of my privileges were revealed. This type of direct experience would be sufficient for many, yet not all. . . Another method might be through psychedelics. Psychedelics can dissolve one’s own attachment to identity and increase levels of empathy and awareness. . . The next level would be extremely radical. For example, if you transitioned into a transgender woman you would be nearly guarenteed to have your previous male privledge revealed. From what I’ve observed, merely thinking and conceptualizing about it is insufficient intensity for you. If you are truly serious about expanding in this area, I think more intensive direct experience would be necessary. These are just my observations. I may be off. Do with them as you wish.

@Parththakkar12 Stawmaning and victim playing doesn’t help development or progress toward gender fairness. When I started my job with my employer 11 years ago, women earned less salary than men for the same work, women had less representation on committees and there were complaints of sexual harassment that went unreported or were not taken seriously. I wasn’t threatened at all by trying to resolve these issues. Nearly all the women at my work just wanted to be treated decently and fairly. They didn’t want to harm men. One of my female colleagues complained about how men were sexist pigs. Yet to say she was representative of all women at my work would be a distortion. As well thinking “women think I’m a sexist pig” is a distraction to addressing the issues at hand. Addressing these required a coordinated effort and getting leverage on upper administration to make changes. Over the last 10 years, the salaries of women have been upward adjusted to nearly match men. Every committee has female representation. We have set up an anonymous call line to report sexual harassment and an independent agency does an investigation. These changes toward gender equality have not taken away any of my benefits. In fact, this progressive toward gender equality have made my workplace environment much better. It is much less toxic than it was 11 years ago. As well creating a “feminist vsnon-feminist” conflict is a hindrance to progress. It was much better to simply see the unfair conditions and work yoward fairness without labeling people as a nasty “feminist” or “male pig non-feminist”. It’s just not helpful.

You are conflating oppression dynamics, which's creates a distortion. Oppression involves a power dynamic in which a dominant group treats an subordinate group unjustly. By definition, women do not oppress men. Men have been the dominant group that have oppressed women. This can be extremely difficult for the dominant group to recognize and accept. They will create all sorts of twist to avoid seeing this, such as “Well we have it hard to. Or what about. . . “. Or creating false equivalencies. This isn’t just with gender. In the US, white is the dominant group that has oppressed blacks and many white people create all sorts of stories to avoid seeing this: “white people have it hard too. What about reverse racism”. Of course everyone in the dominant group doesn't live a life of unicorns, rainbows and cheese puffs. Members of a dominant group often have severe challenges, in particular to their survival. Slave owners had serious survival challenges and many were severely injured and killed in war. Yet this does not nullify or equalize the oppressive power dynamic between slave owner and slave. Your example of war oppression is not gender oppression. Women are not oppressing men through war. It is a different oppression dynamic. In this dynamic the rich and powerful are the dominant group oppressing the poor without power. Billionaires and senators do not go to war or send their kids to war. Lower / middle class men are disproportionately affected. Wealthy powerful men are sending lower / middle class men to war. Women are not oppressing men by sending them to war. And men are not oppressing women by sending them to war. Men oppress women through other means. Imo, wealthy oppression of the low/ middle class is important to address, including the disproportionate oppression of men in war. Yet this oppression dynamic goes way beyond war. White, wealthy men oppress the lower/middle class in many different ways. I like that Bernie Sanders and AOC want to address this issue. . . Yet, men oppressing women is a different power dynamic. This oppression is also important to address and it’s nice to see politicians like Bernie and AOC wanting to address it. Yet conflating class and gender oppression muddies the waters and makes it more difficult deal with either oppression dynamic. It would be like saying that both slaves and slave owners fighting in the civil war were oppressed. Without distinctions, this frame doesn’t allow us to address each form of oppression. This allows the status quo to continue and allows the dominant group to continue its oppressive behavior. Imagine male soldiers oppressing women through physical and sexual abuse. When calked on this, the males reply “Well, we are being oppressed too because we are poor involuntary soldiers that have to fight in war”. This conflated frame doesn’t help either injustice.

One can take any stance they want. Just be aware that it is biased and/or arbitrary. Many people are under the illusion that their biased, relative stance is an objective morality. For example, someone might say humans deserve a right to life and dogs don’t because a human has a higher intellect. Most people are delusional that this view is objective moral truth. Yet it is biased humanism. We could also say a dog deserves a right to life and not a human because dogs have a lower center of gravity and can run faster than humans. Yet most humans won’t like this because it is disadvantageous to the survival of their self and species. Humans don’t care about protecting dog fetuses and humans aren’t trying to pack the Supreme Court with Pro Life for Dog judges. Most rules humans make are biased toward humans. It’s no surprise. It’s a reflection of self-centerdness and desire for survival.

We aren’t on the same frequency, which is ok. Thanks for sharing your ideas. ?

@4201 I’m not saying your perspective is wrong. I am offering a different perspective. My impression is that you are interpreting my observations as outside the confines of your question. From this pov, there are underlying assumptions in your frame that I am not adhering to. You are free to interpret my responses as you do. . . . From your perspective, you already know about what I am pointing to and I am evading your question. From my perspective, I am answering the question in an unconventional way and you are missing something. From a transcendent perspective, neither perspective has personal ownership and both of us are correct and incorrect. Everything written is true from the perspective of the author, yet not everything is true from the perspective of the reader. The separation and creation of author and reader allows for many various interpretations. The author/reader gets to assign meaning and create your own reality. You may read this and think “I already know this. All of this is a different topic and he is still evading my question”. If that is the case, then that is the case. And there are many other ways to interpret this exchange. Perhaps there are 100 different minds reading our exchange and 100 different interpretations. Another interpretation may be that this is stage Yellow/Turqouise brilliance. Another perspective that this is a bunch of mental masturbation. Another that this is woo woo BS. The list goes through an infinite number of interpretive filters. Attachment/identification to a perspective is common, yet not required. Without attachment/identification to any perspective, there is freedom and space for expansion. Hundreds of perspectives can appear without ownership. At a human level, this offers a sense of freedom, curiosity and exploration. One “becomes” everyone and can hold many perspectives simultaneously. One can experience other perspectives as if they One’s own, because One is all perspectives and can separate itself into any perspective. Form is formless.

The debate is how one defines “life”. How are you defining “life” and when does “life” begin? If one looks closely at any definition, one will see how it is arbitrary and biased. For example, some say fertilization is the beginning of “life”. Yet why would a fertilized egg be considered “alive” and an unfertilized egg “dead”? And the process of fertilization has many stages. At what point during fertilization does “life” begin? As well, it seems like your concern is with “life” of humans. Why does “life” apply to a human fetus and not a monkey or dog fetus? Answers to these questions will have arbitrariness and bias.

I like this part: "You can only compare yourself to yourself." Trying to describe the relative can be difficult and tricky. As a simplistic model, I would create the following inter-related practical and impractical components. Practical components are differences in roles within a hierarchical system that allows for the function. For example, when people board a plane, there are roles within a hierarchy. There are the passengers, flight attendants, pilot and air traffic controllers. Each person has a role in the hierarchy. If a passenger smells something burning during the flight, they do not have the authority to land the plane. The passenger tells the flight attendant about the burning smell. The flight attendant does not have authority to decide whether to land the plane, however she can alert the pilot. The pilot has authority to decide wether the burning smell is a danger and wether to land the plane. If the pilot decides to land the plane, he communicates with air traffic controllers how to land the plane. . . . Here, there is a hierarchy of below and above that is practical for safe air travel: passenger < flight attendant < pilot = air traffic controller. In a practical sense, it is important for each person to know their role in the hierarchy. If a passenger tried to act like a pilot it would cause problems. . . . Practical hierarchical roles are relative. When I play the role of a passenger in air travel, I am at the bottom of the hierarchy. When I play the role of a teacher in education, I am higher up on the hierarchy. . . . Sometimes my role is the lead actor. Sometimes my role is the guy who holds the cue cards for the actors. The impractical hierarchies are the thought stories of personal value judgements. For example, my mother might say “Look at your brother. He became a pilot for Success Airline. Look at you. You are just a passenger that can barely afford an economy ticket on Loser Airline. Your brother is above you”. . . This is an impractical personal hierarchy.

@Dlavjr There have been times I’ve felt on the edge and my sense was to take a deep breath and continue through it. And there have been times I’ve been on the edge and my sense was to back off and allow my mind and body some time and space to integrate and acclimate.

@4201 You initiated contact with me in this thread and asked me a question. My answer and observations to you seem to be unsatisfying and unhelpful to you. As I said, my impression is that you have personally communicated to me to back off with the dynamics I am observing. I respect that and will not continue offering observations to you that you are personally adverse to. I gave you my observations as honestly as I could. You are free to do as you wish with them. Throw them in the trash if you want.

All statements are partial constructs.

It’s a good sign of consciousness evolution. Most likely, you are purifying out conditioned karma. At this stage, trips can enter purer states of essence. Yet it can still ebb and flow. Integrate your recent trip and stay open and humble heading into future trips.

@Farnaby You are asking about relative love, a feeling of love. Relative love is impermanent. It will appear and disappear. There are many degrees of intensity and many different flavors of love. In a relative sense, relationships may involve stagnation or loss of interest. They may involve growth and maintenance. When a relationship has reached it’s terminal end depends on the couple and their dynamics. How I sense it will not be how others sense it. We each have our own values and resonance. For me, I have never had a connection that was 100% connection 100% of the time. Everyone of my relationships have involved connection, disconnection and re-connection. The amount of cultivation varies among couples. I dated a gal with a very strong connection, yet it was fleeting and she kept disconnecting. I put in an enormous amount of energy into re-connections. I dated another gal with an equally strong connection. We both drift apart at times, yet we both put in effort to re-connect and much less energy for maintenance and growth is necessary. It’s much more natural and flowing. Yet over time, dynamics can change. Ime, it’s very rare to find someone with a strong metaphysical connection that naturally persists over time. So-calked “soul mates” is a rarity.

@Angelite I’m somewhat interested in your constructs, yet not enough to engage in the construction. Thanks for your ideas and have fun?

@4201 Very nice observations. The evolution of consciousness involves self dissolution/ transcendence. This evolution involves resistance from the self. That dynamic commonly plays out in the forum. The self will resist the transcendence of itself. It is important to work through this dynamic. Notice the shift in narrative. . . . There has been a frame shift from “there is *definitely* a problem. Without doubt”. . . to. . . “sure, all I did is give my own subjective opinion”. That is a major jump in consciousness, yet there is more. There is still attachment and identification. Consider the statements: “Can this well-crafted explanation be used anytime a problem is seen?" and ”I know exactly what you are pointing to” There are assumptions here that serve as blocks to something deeper. There are multiple levels of a mind trying to control an internal narrative. You have essentially said that you are aware of the movie, know the structure of the movie and want to engage in the content of this movie without being distracted from the movie. You are not aware of “exactly” what I am pointing to. “Definitely”, “Without doubt” and “I know exactly” are expressions of maintenance of an internal status quo. . . You have partial awareness of what I’m pointing to. Your strong adverse reaction is subconsciously telling me to “back off”, which I respect. . . . You mentioned that you have been practicing spirituality in this area. I can tell you that there is a door in this area allowing further exploration and realization. You currently have an aversion to this, yet knowing it is nearby can be helpful. It can allow aversion to transform into curiosity.

This is still immersed in self content. I am pointing to the transcendence of this. The creation of a teacher called “Leo” and the creation of “problems” this “Leo” teacher has are imaginations appearing in the mind. Another mind could create imaginations of a “Leo” teacher that has expanded/deepened his consciousness and is now radiating profound Wisdom. If one can let go of their attachment/identification to these imaginations, there can be awareness of structural mental mechanism. There can be awareness of the underlying conditioning and karma related to these imaginations that are appearing in the mind. It seems like your mind is immersed in the content of the thought story it is creating. The mind can create imaginations so compelling that the mind no longer is aware of what it is doing. It is like you have created a movie so convincing that you had forgotten it’s a movie that you are creating. There is transcendence of this, yet the ego will resist because it means “game over” for the movie character. The self wants to continue as the self, so it does things like create characters and problems to engage in. Notice how your mind thought “There is *definitely*” a problem” and “Without doubt. . .”. This is reflective of a mind that wants to regain control of the internal narrative. A self that feels a little light coming it’s way and doesn’t want to be discovered, so it ties to double down on the story such that it is “definitive” and “without doubt”. . . . The self is sooo sneaky. You just aren’t conscious enough to observe self-maintenance dynamics happening in the mind.

Yes, close. Yet not quite close enough to start digging for the buried treasure.