Forestluv

Of course there are incidents in which US intelligence oversteps boundaries and acts inappropriately. Yet in the case of Russian interference, we are not talking about isolated aspect of corrupt intelligence. We are talking about the whole operation: ALL the career servants in US intelligence AND US national security advisers AND US diplomats. There is not a single expert or authority in opposition. Not a single whistle-blower. Further, they all testified under oath under penalty of perjury and imprisonment. To believe that this is a massive consensus in which all the US experts and authorities are lying in a massive conspiracy against the US and their own self interests is beyond absurd. A person would need to create all sorts of bizarre twists and stories to create this absurd reality. The alternative is that they are telling the truth. People like Bill Taylor are at the highest level of integrity and non-partisanship. They are the type of people that dedicate and sacrifice themselves to sovereignty and democracy. They are never in the limelight. They work quietly behind the scenes. They are not owned by corporations. They are not motivated politically. They are not motivated to get reach, advance their own person agenda, get re-elected, to become famous, to gain power etc. They are not politicians and they don't lie about this type of stuff. Imaging questioning whether Adyashanti was lying. Thinking that he is trying to manipulate people so he can get rich and famous and become president. It would be an absurd story.

I didn't refer to a fantasy creation called "Russiagate". I have no interest in that silliness. I am referring to actual Russian interference. That is the threat to democracy. Every US intelligence agency, every US national security advisor and every US diplomat related Russia all agree that there was Russian interference. The highest authorities have investigated, have direct experience and testified under oath. To refer to this consensus of the highest qualified experts and authorities in the world as "Russiagate" is absurd. It would be like saying what Stephen Speilberg says about his movies is "Movie-gate".

That's not why I don't consider him high conscious. I would say Dore is part of the progressive team, yet I wouldn't consider him a particularly high conscious progressive. Yet that's fine, he is still part of the family. I disagree with your interpretation of "Russiagate". In particular, all US intelligence agencies, national security adivisors and diplomats agree that Russian interfered in the 2016 election, are continuing to interfere and the interference is a serious threat to US democracy. I think TYT and Sam Seder took on the issue seriously. TYT, majority report et. al. did take on these issues. They just didn't cover them to the extent you want and how you want. Not every progressive media outlet will cover the exact same issues to the same extent. You don't think coverage of Russian interference is an important issue. That's fine, you prefer other issues. I think Russia interference is an important issue and I like to see some coverage on it. You are defining "progressive" through your personal filter and extrapolating that to others. An aspect of being progressive is fighting for those that are oppressed. Yet being progressive is more than that and has nuances. For example, climate change and environmental conservation are progressive issues. As well, there are variations on how we protect those who are oppressed. For example, I see Russian interference into our elections is oppressive. Fighting against Russian interference is fighting against oppression of people. Imo, you are splitting too many hairs and going overboard. There is a mentality that we progressives are all on the same team, united. We can still hold each other accountable, yet we are on the same team. That is not the vibe I get from you. It seems like you are trying to develop litmus tests and dividing progressives into "real" and "pseudo" progressives. Rather than TYT and Sam Seder being part of our team - they become an "other". This causes too much separation and division, which is harmful to progress, imo. By your litmus tests, I probably don't qualify as an official, certified progressive in your eyes - which is fine from your perspective. Yet to me it's kinda silly. I don't think you are being critical in a way that is productive for progressive evolution. TYT does a lot of good work. The majority of their work is aligned with progressivism. Yet you seem to be portraying them as pseudo-progressives that are causing more harm than good. Imo, this is not a helpful orientation.

I noticed you listed Jimmy Dore as one of those higher politically-conscious progressives, which I would disagree with. Imo, you are going over-board on criticizing TYT. They are clearly on the progressive side. In my POV, progressives need to take care with how we criticize our fellow progressives. You don't seem to be criticizing TYT as fellow progressives, imo. That's like saying calculus is algebra-lite.

TYT is on the progressive side - they are part of the team. They are not perfect, yet they are nowhere near the corruption of corporate mainstream media. Holding fellow progressives accountable in a supportive manner is fine. Yet, stigmatizing/demonizing our fellow progressives as corrupt corporatists is a form of self cannibalism and not a good idea, imo. There are very very few perfectly pure progressives, if any.

This summer, AOC proposed legislation to relax draconian restrictions on psilocibyn research for medical applications. She got next to zero support. There just isn't any legislative support at this time. Having passive support of a president is better than opposition, yet passive support in congress is essentially no support. The move the needle, it would need to be the presidents #1 issue - an issue they would be willing to fight for and use their political capital for. There is no presidential candidate even close to this. Legalizing psilocibyn at the national level will take decades to occur. Notice how half the U.S. states have legalized cannabis, yet it is still about a decade away from national legalization - psychedelics are decades behind cannabis. The local level is the much better route. For example, Oregon has a state initiative similar to AOCs initiative. Oregon's initiative will allow health care providers to utilize psilocibyn. AOCs initiative has a 0% chance of passing. Oregon's initiative has about a 50% chance of passing.

This is just my impression. . . She is a single mother raising two children on her own. One of her boys is a special needs child. Some of the places we were exploring together were new frontiers and groundless. My sense is that she felt like she was being pulled away from her reality with her two kids. I was super disappointed, yet respected that and wished her well. We are still in occasional contact as friends.

This is an old thread and the OP hasn’t visited the forum in 2 years.

@FoxFoxFox You’ve come a long way. Welcome back ?

The deeper levels for me include personalities, yet go much deeper than personalities. The basic necessities to start off are mutual support, willingness to be vulnerable and a desire to grow, both individually and together. Importantly, there is a sense of us. Not me and her, us. This us is like a third entity in the relationship and it’s magical. It’s spontaneous, free, joyful and loving. It can be mystical. It’s so intimate that each of us loses touch with time and “me”. We are like two parts of one organism. It’s like being in a flow state together. For me, it’s been rare and these moments have been fleeting.. . . It’s so pure and I live for that yep of stuff. Now I can’t be in a relationship without it. To get there, I have to be willing to open up and allow her to enter my inner realms. That can be a big risk. With each level deeper, there is more power and there is a risk she uses that to her advantage. This is why mutual support, mutual vulnerability and trust is so important. In many relationships, I desired to reach these experiences levels quickly and I opened up and allowed her entry early on. I was naive and got manipulated in ways I couldn’t have imagined. After deep hurt, I would respond by putting up enormous barriers and protect those inner layers. Yet being on the surface and going through the motions is so painful for me. I have a yearning to go deeper. I can no longer do those types of relationships. Now, I screen the best I can. When that “it” is present, I’m willing to open my heart and go for it. . . . The last gal I dated, there was that transcendent we. That magic. Yet it scared her and she told me she couldn’t continue. There is deep sorrow in that loss, yet joy and sorrow are two sides of the same coin. The deeper I go with joy, the deeper I go with sorrow. Yet it’s sorta a beautiful form of sorrow.

If I dated a gal like this, she would need some mad skillz in other areas to keep me around.

To me, this is a game of separate personalities. She will not take advantage of me. This helps protect my self, yet the protection comes at a cost. It is more difficult to transcend the personalities and enter a union of us. . . The prevailing dynamics will be "me" and "her". It is a mindset of "My" wants/needs and "her" wants/needs. There are pros and cons to that. The pro is that it reduces the chance of "me" getting taken advantage of. The con is that it increases the chance that the relationship will lack depth and meaning. There is too much fear, self-centeredness and protectionism. That is unsatisfying to me. Personally, I want to experience the deepest levels of love and joy. And that means opening myself up to the deepest levels of sorrow. Yet it sounds like it's working for you. I'm not trying to change your mind. This is just my personal experience.

I've tried that too and it caused me a different type of personal suffering. Personal power causes me personal suffering. It's not the power part, it's the personal part that causes the suffering. Yet it seems to be working for you and that's great.

For me, playing these power games caused a lot of personal suffering for many years. Yet if it's working for you, go for it.

This is so awesome. And it can be done anytime and any place. I also do a modification of this exercise. At the 3rd step, wanting to feel love is great. I also do a variation of being love and the universal AMness of love.

The human mind is conditioned to think there is something to find, something to attain, someplace to arrive. Realizing the opposite of that is a facet of awakening. There is nothing to find or attain. There is no place to arrive. That is a major realization. . . Yet then the mind will create a new duality and grasp the other side - it will get attached to the belief there is nothing to find, attain or arrive. We can let go of that as well. . . Then there is nothing, something and everything. The realization of Nothing/Everything is a major facet of awakening. To me, it sounds like you have enough conceptual understanding. The concepts can only take a person so far, because any concept (and its opposite) is Nothing/Everything. For the mind to hold a thought / imagine - there must be separation. That thought / image is not another thought / image. This is why direct experience is key. This awakening allows for liberation. This awareness seeks nothing. This awareness is beholden to nothing. This awareness is attached/identified to nothing. It is absolute freedom. Because you are creating things called "me", "you" and an "it" to get. That is relatively true. You've got the separation part down, no need to work anymore on that. Absolute Unity hasn't been revealed yet in direct experience. Thoughts / images are appearances, yet they are very tricky appearances. They are alluring and mesmerizing. Yet they are appearances in Now similar to dog barks appearing Now. For me, a key is not to trap my mind into thinking I need to choose between two opposites. Thoughts / images have no more relevance than any other appearances Now. Yet they also have more relevance than other happenings. A deep insight into the nature of reality has no more relevance than a bumble bee in flight and it also has more relevance than a bumble bee in flight. Awareness of Nothing/Everything has no attachment to either. It is free! The figuring can be helpful to form a framework of support. For example, imagine someone has direct experience of Nothing/Everything. Afterwards, they are like "whoa, what just happened?". Without any conceptual support, it is easy for the person to dismiss it as "woo woo, airy fairy stuff". With a conceptual framework its more like "whoooaaa, so that's what those awakened ones were talking about all those years. . . ". In terms of my personal story, there was a time I felt like there was something deeper I wasn't getting. At times, there would be a still small voice of "your not listening". And I'm like "I'm trying to listen. I'm meditating. I'm participating in a Sangha. I'm journaling. I'm doing Yoga. wtf else am I suppose to do to 'listen'". It got really frustrating. . . I was really curious what this "it" is. I didn't care if it would benefit me or not. It was like something in a safe and I wanted to figure out the lock combination to see what's in the safe. . . What resonated with me was psychedelics. I tried them a few times solo and they revealed so much. Then I went to an Ayahuasca retreat in Peru. At the personal level, each person is different and and have unique pre-dispositions, abilities and resonance. Personally, I sucked at meditation and "just being". I was so analytical and thinking dominated, that I missed all the tiny gaps and glimpses. Others resonate much better with meditation and just being. I've walked in nature with newbies and they are pretty good at getting in tune with Now. It's just how they are. Regarding it being so obvious. . . One thing I remind myself is that "it's paranormal until it's not paranormal". What seems obvious now was mind-blowing during the realization. "what just happened??!!". Yet once it sinks in, it seems pretty obvious. It's remembering something I already knew. @silene After having nondual experience, it's very common to feel like there is a "flipping" between nondual and dual realities. That is a relative human perception / experience. I often feel that way. It's beautiful and can feel amazing and fun. I can even start to influence it - drifting off into a nondual reality. This can also be transcended such that nondual = dual and imagined = real.

That pain is Love and the one experiencing that pain is Love.

Because every thing is within Everything. Tell me one thing not within Everything. . . Everything contains all contradictions. Everything contains any statement I make, the opposite of any statement I make and every variation possible of the statement I make.

Aspects of pain came up for me during some deep yin yoga last night. . . . One thing I observed was categories I can create of "physical" and "emotional" pain and how the two are inter-related. As well, how feelings and thought stories are inter-related. For example, I have a chronic knee condition. During the yin yoga, physical pain appeared. This was simply a sensation occurring, yet then a thought story also appeared. Thoughts about how my knee isn't getting better, thoughts about how I can't do things I used to do, thoughts about how it's only going to get worse with age. Then, an emotional type of pain arose - a type of suffering. I just wanted it to be better. I wanted the pain gone. I wanted a better Now. Anxiety arose. New types of painful energy arose and the pains combined. More attention was placed on the physical pain, which intensified the thought story suffering flavor of pain. There were moments in which the physical pain got so intense that I couldn't imagine how there can be any other type of pain. A moment without this physical pain seemed like an oasis. One thing I've noticed through these pains is it can be challenging to be present Now. To simply observe, feel, experience and Be Now. Because the mind didn't want to be observing, feeling, experiencing and Being Now. There was a desire to move from Here to somewhere else. Yet I can never arrive to that somewhere else - which is a component of the pain mixture.

"The more you contemplate enlightenment the further you stray from it" "Further" needs a "closer" for contrast. This imagination often has practical value. For example, I started getting back into Yoga last week. Last week, I felt very "far" away (from some destination). This week, I feel a little bit closer (to some destination). Here, the destination is a type of fitness for the mind and body. A mind that can be present while doing Yoga and a body that has good flexibility, strength and balance. So there is value in the "close/far" construct in terms of development, yet it's easy to become immersed into "close/far" thought stories and miss what is occurring Now. Of course the thought stories of "close/far" are occurring Now, yet they are so alluring and it's super easy to become mesmerized into here and there - which loses the presence of Now. For example, last week there were lots of thoughts like "I used to be in better shape. I shouldn't have stopped doing Yoga. Now I can't even hold tree pose. I'll probably give up again. Why even bother? No, wait that is a defeatist attitude. I can do this. With one hour of Yoga, I will be back in good shape within a month. I can do this!". . . In one sense, this is a practical timeline. In another sense, I am immersed into an illusory thought fantasy and missing out on what is occurring right Now. Thoughts have mesmerizing power. Thoughts occur Now, yet they mesmerize awareness/attention away from Now - into a fantasies of past, present and la-la land. . . For example during my Yoga session bird chirps appear side-by-side with thoughts. However, bird chirps do not have the mesmerizing power like thoughts. I don't get identified/attached to bird chirps. There is no "bird chirp destination" that I am "close to" or "far away from". The bird chirps are simply appearing Now.

Two threads related to the UK election have been merged.

Below are some ideas about this. They are not directed at anyone one person. I would first ask myself: Am I actually concerned about the social dynamics of gender and abuse? Or am I more concerned that I feel personally neglected, rejected and disrespected by women? These are two very different orientations. For example, I may be in a healthy relationship and curious about social gender dynamics. Perhaps I am writing a psychology term paper on it. This is a very different orientation than if I have gone through a series of dates in which I was feeling rejected, neglected, disrespected and abused by women. These are two very very different filters. Integrating individual and societal levels: The above frame has an equality on one level, yet extrapolates it to to equalize an inequality on another level. For example, we could say it is equally wrong if a woman or a man is raped. At the individual level, we can say rape is wrong whether it was a woman or man that was raped. Regardless of gender, rape can be traumatic and leave wounds and scars that need healing. The person often needs help and assistance from others to work through it. This it at the individual level and does not necessarily extrapolate to the bigger picture level. At the individual level, there are abusive power dynamics between two individuals. At the population level, there are new power dynamics that must be considered. At the population level, the vast majority of people raped are women. At this level, it doesn't make sense to complain that the vast majority of rape kits and support services for rape are oriented toward women. This is also true for domestic violence. I volunteered in an institution that offered support for domestic violence victims. The vast majority (about 95%) were women. These are the social dynamics. In general, men are more aggressive and social structures favor men - giving them certain privileges. In general, women enduring domestic violence abuse have a much more difficult time leaving the abuse. For example, men overall have higher paying jobs and women can find themselves in relationships in which there is financial dependence - especially when children are involved. The woman may have spent years raising the children and never received education and skill development. Her income potential is much lower and divorce courts generally favor men financially. As well, inequalities in gender power dynamics can allow a man to get away with a lot. For example, abusive behavior can be dismissed as "it was just boys being boys" (see Brett Kavanaugh). There are huge advantages for men at the societal level. At the personal level: One may say "Well, I'm not talking about rape of physical violence, I'm talking about other kinds of abuse". Here, personal filters can cloud one's vision. If a woman neglects or rejects me, I may feel hurt. I may say "I've been abused". The personal perception is that "I have been abused". Yet is this really "abuse?" or is it something for the person to work through? In one respect, there is genuine hurt for which we can have compassion. Yet in another respect, labeling it as "abuse" makes it really easy to fall into a victim mentality trap. Part of the victim mentality trap is to overstate a situation, generalize it and then identify with the larger group. For example, if I feel like I've been neglected and hurt by women I may overstate this as "abuse", I can then generalize it (Women abuse men. How about us men that are abused? Why aren't we getting any attention and love?). I can now avoid personal introspection and direct the attention toward women. I can then identify within a larger male group that identifies as being abused by women. I can then join a group like MGTOW - this will reinforce my self image. It deepens the trap. Blaming women, seeing myself as abused and immersing myself with men that reinforce my beliefs and image are all factors that will make personal introspection and growth very difficult. I will keep attracting that type of energy into my life. At a personal level, I've observed a tendency to flip from one extreme to the other. For example, I may blame women for my hurt / frustrations and then flip to the opposite extreme and blame myself. "Well, if it's not women's fault, it must be my fault. I'm just not good enough. I'll never attract a woman and be in a healthy relationship". This is also a trap that will prevent growth. There are other orientations that allow space for development and growth.

You = We = All = God

This thread is three years old and the OP hasn’t visited the forum in 9 months.

I'm not referring to criticism itself or motivations. I'm referring to degree of conditions. Imo, your analogy was unfair based on degree. For example, imagine an immigrant family that has lived in a country for several generations. The younger generations don't even speak their native tongue anymore. They don't even know anyone from the original country. In their current (home) country, they are subjected to brutal discrimination and abuse. They call out that this isn't fair and there should be just laws. Someone tells this person "if you don't like it, leave the country". . . Now imagine someone in a movie theater watching a free movie. This person is annoyed that a few people in the theatre are whispering. He believes this is disrespectful. He complains to the manager. The manager thinks he is complaining in a rude manner and tells him "If you don't like it, you are free to leave the theatre". In both examples, each person was asking for change - the other person didn't like them asking for change and said they were free to leave. In this regard, there is a direct comparison. I have no problem with that. What I'm pointing to is degree. The immigrant exposed to brutal conditions and abuse is a more severe degree than someone at a free movie annoyed by whispering. The inequality of degree is the unfair comparison in my view. I've notice that people often try to leverage snd legitimize their position by choosing to draw an analogy to a condition more severe in degree than their own. On the flip side, it trivializes the more severe condition. That is the unfairness.