Forestluv

It depends what on the person. Someone could have a series of fwbs and not get attached, someone else could get attached. Yet I would say its somewhat common for someone to think/hope they can do an unattached fwb yet find they get attached. Its human nature. You seem to be using a fwb in a trivial, casual sex context. This can certainly happen, yet there are other contexts as well. Imagine two people that are highly devoted to their spiritual practice. The person wants to remain immersed in their practice and doesn’t want distractions that may come from casual sex or a relationship. Yet they also don’t want to be fully celibate. These two people may want to have a fwb with substance. Perhaps the two people see each other three times a month to practice spirituality, attend cultural events and explore sexuality. And they both can still dedicate the majority if their life to self actualization. To me, this would be a high conscious fwb, yet it would need a very high level of maturity.

Here is another way of "looking" at it (pun intended). . . This is a question of whether there is an external objective reality. This "external" part is easy. Look at an object that you think is a physical object with consistent image. Now close your eyes. What happened to that physical object with consistent image? It disappeared of course. If it was an "internal" physical object with consistent image, it would remain with your eyes closed. So we are left with the idea that there is a physical object "external" to me. This external physical object remains whether my eyes are open or closed. Now for the "objective" part. . . Lets consider a pencil. What is this physical pencil? What is the image of it? If you put water in your eyes would the image be the same? If you took psychedelics, would the image be the same? Would the image of the pencil be the same for a donkey or mantis shrimp? Of course not. So, is there something about that pencil that is objectively true? Some essence of the pencil that is true regardless of how I perceive it or how a donkey or mantis shrimp perceives it. If so, what is that essence?

One of my co-workers is a chatterbox about her life (and often her problems in life). It can be annoying, especially when I have something "important" to do. Well, the other day she stops by my office and goes into chatterbox mode for about 10 minutes. There is no polite way to escape. I got annoyed. . . and then a sense of wishing her well arose. It changed the energetics. I saw and felt her in a different way. I felt a sense of appreciation and compassion in the moment. This seemed to "reach" her even if she was entirely unaware what I was doing. There was no longer a "her" vs "me" dynamic. I'd say that there was benefit present in that moment.

Haha yes. ❤️ ?

Haha yes.

I wasn't aware Maslow was so awake. Those are some high level observations, insights and clear descriptions. I feel a sense of connection that he gets it through his own direct experience as well as others'. Thanks for posting this.

@TrynaBeTurquoise That describes one dynamic. Hair pulling and spanking is obvious entry-level stuff that is relatively easy to intuit through conservative trials. . . There are other dynamics as well. Women often conceal deeper fantasies/fetishes and it can be really hard to intuit. Women have told me fantasies I didn't even know existed. It would have been nearly impossible to intuit.

Well. . . I was hoping for one of those threads: "I'm enlightened, ask me anything". Yet, I'll take what I can get. . .

Lol. That was actually a role play I was involved in. One day she sent me a text: "I'm your therapist tonight. It's our first session. Arrive in character". . . When one transcends their character in self actualization work, all sorts of doors open. It was like something out of the Netflix series "Gypsy".

This is an area in which intuition and flow comes into play. Ime, under-asking or over-asking can spoil the fun. There is a sweet spot in which things flow. Yet, the chemistry between every couple is different and it's good to get some idea of boundaries. I wouldn't just slap a woman across her face during sex to see how it goes. That is under-asking and it can throw off dynamics - the chemistry, the trust etc. Yet over-asking spoils things as well. If I asked a gal in advance if I could pull her hair and we over-planned, it's no fun - for me anyway. "Ok, first I will pull your hair this much and then you slap my ass twice - this hard.". That is over-planned for me. Part of sexual exploration is uncertainty, spontaneity and the unknown - without under-doing it or over-doing it. This are some ways I would put out "feelers". . . bring up the topic in casual conversation. "I heard someone talking about doing [insert act] during sex. I wonder what that would be like". It could be spanking, wearing a hood, a whip, handcuffs etc. - just said in a casual way. Then I get present and in tune with the vibe. If she withdraws and says "that's really demented" - then it's out of bounds. If she gets curious and says "I've never tried that before, hmmm. . . ". Then it's in play. If she says "That's actually one of my fantasies, yet I've never met a guy that's into it". Then I'm making a stop to the adult store before our next date. . . Yet I won't over-ask and over-plan. For me, elements of anticipation, suspense, curiosity and unknown add excitement - as long as we are playing within bounds. Early in relationships, I also ask that we give each other nonverbal feedback during sex as we explore. This way, we can improvise. If I pull her hair gently and she her eyes roll back as she moans - that's a good indicator to continue that path. If she pulls away and grunts, move in a different direction. I've found it important to be willing to "fail" and have a "micro rejection". If I'm trying to do everything right and be perfect, it doesn't go very well. If I am present for the cues, I can get much better in tune with her and us. Also, mood is really important. If she had a hard day and just wants some "release", that is a different mood than if we had been sexting all day and things were building. . . If you want to take things to the next level, I would suggest role playing.

Exactly!

The original question of the interviewer : Do you consider yourself a god? To address this at a deeper level involves a realization and transcendence of “you”. This can take years and thousands of hours of practice and study. It’s not easily addressed in a simple linguistic response. Yes, and it often gets conflated with “you are god” - which was the orientation of the interviewer “You are God” is a different context than “you are god“. I’m using the term “happening” in a broader context. That is, everything happening now. There are appearances of sounds, smells and objects happening now. In this context, there is simply what is Now. What is happening now may be sitting in nature listening to birds. Or what is happening now may be posing in photos by a Rolls Royce. From one perspective, this is simply what is Now. There is no personal attachment/identification to the birds or the Rolls Royce.

In the video you linked the question is “Do you consider yourself a god?”. The question and response is in a traditional dualistic framework of subject-object god. Osho’s even references religion. The clip is not in the context of a transcendent/nondual context of god. Imo, Osho was correct to point this out that the existence of a separate god is a lie. Similar to how we could say the existence of “me” is a lie. To address the question at a deeper level, we would need to transcend the concepts of “you” and “god”. This generally takes years of practice. The questioner was not at this level and if the response points to transcendence, it would likely have been misinterpreted and misunderstood. Also keep in mind of the historical context. In the 1980s, the environment was very blue in western societies. This is very different than in a green level societal context. In a current example, Sadhguru interacts differently with Orange and green level audiences. Regarding if a highly conscious person can have extravagant displays. . . This frame uses a hierarchy of low to high conscious levels. Using that frame, I would say it is less likely that a highly conscious being displays extravagance, because there is transcendence of the personal construct. It is personality immersion that gets off on that type of personal attention, validation and pleasure. With awakening there is an energetic shift away from self glorifying pleasures. Yet it’s possible for this to occur within a high conscious state, yet it would be less common and have different dynamics. For example, the Rolls Royce’s are simply happenings. There is awareness of Rolls Royce happenings and the pleasure of Rolls Royce happenings. Similarly, there are flower blossoms happenings and pleasure of flower blossom happenings. . . . For me, the material thing is not too important. The attachment/identification to the material thing is of more interest.

It seems there is a general context for the usage of “enlightenment” on the forum, yet I’ve noticed it used in many different contexts. For example, we could say that no person is enlightened because there is no person to become enlightened. We could also say enlightenment is a type of trans personal awareness which includes the person. I’ve seen lots of different expressions. For me, direct experience transcends theory. Yet it can be easy to drift into an enlightenment story and miss the direct experience.

You two get to create and write your own story. That’s the beauty of it. Fo me, it’s important that it is welcomed and we are both into it.

The mind likes to focus on personalities. To me, the primary question is “What is enlightenment?”. If we don’t have clarity on what enlightenment is, how can we determine if something or someone is enlightened? If someone asked “Is Oslo fribvuy?”, we would need to know what “fribvuy“ is to determine if Osho is “fribvuy”.

@Nak Khid From a rational perspective, your ideas make sense and I would agree. In this context, taking a psychedelic temporarily grants super conscious realizations that can be difficult to integrate and embody. This is a common view from a personal lens, which has value. Yet there is much more going on. Your creation involves a sober state that is defined as unaltered/normal and a psychedelic state that is altered /abnormal. You also create a timeline of past and future in which an undefined imagined thing can be permanent. If one observes the ISness of Here and Now, these constructs may disappear - or they may appear very differently. Why does your sober mind state get to decide what counts as “normal”, “higher states of consciousness” and “enlightened”? Why doesn’t your psychedelic mind state decide these matters? A post-egoic psychedelic experience is very much real. Awareness, awakeness, and being is very much present. Yet the ego won’t like that because it is no longer controlling the narrative.

@Bno Yea, unfortunately McConnell won’t allow a senate vote on bills that aim to protect election integrity. That’s part of the structural problem.

That seems to be a fundamental personal/human imagination and desire.

I’m not too interested in a “Russiagate” narrative. I’’m more concerned about Russian interference into our elections as indicated by all US intelligence agencies, national security advisors and diplomats. To me, fundamental threats to democracy should be taken seriously. I’m supportive of US intelligent officials, national security advisors, diplomats and journalists that are putting themselves on the line as they attempt to convey the degradation of our election integrity, which is the foundation of our democracy. Imo, his transcends any single US president, including Trump. And it’s not just limited to Russia, as it’s also clearly revealed with the Ukraine, and likely other countries as well. And it’s not just limited to foreign interference into our elections. Things like voter suppression and campaign financing are also big concerns for me. If we devolve to non-democratic authoritarianism, it doesn’t really matter if we have president trump or authoritarian “president x”. The underling degradation of election integrity and democracy is the deeper issue. I think getting Trump out of office is a key and I think it’s important to play politics well to do that. As you say, the Russian interference may not be an effective case against Trump. It’s very nuanced and includes complexities. The Ukraine situation may be more effective as it is more direct, simple and easy to disseminate to a populace that is not engaged with politics. Yet I also think there is corrosion that goes deeper than Trump.

@Bno From my pov, you don’t seem to have experience of being involved in crime or understand the mind of a criminal. This is a good thing, yet its hard for me to have a conversation within this context.

Russia has leverage on Trump and can manipulate him. That is what they want and what they are getting. They want four more years of Trump and are trying to influence the 2020 election as we speak.

Ime, the most important thing is no contact. No texts, no looking at her social media, no looking at her in photos. Second, release through writing. I released by writing several pages everyday. Everytime it pressures up, open up a relief valve through writing. A lot of the writing revealed unhealthy aspects of the relationship. This was particularly important when I missed the good times, had little hope for a better future and wanted to contact her. And writing allows relief which is really important for the mind and body. Third, do something new and healthy for you. I started doing yoga and it was so helpful to change my orientation. I did 1-2 hrs of yoga everyday and went from a total beginner to intermediate in a couple months. It breathed new life into in my life. It’s a different thing for each person. I think it’s a big help to start something new and bold to re-orient in a new direction.

Russia is gaining power relative to America, in part through Russia’s leverage on Trump. Most Americans are unaware. .The world’s western leaders mock Trump during international meetings. . . Russia is delighted.

When the duality between imagined and real dissolves, things get very interesting. . .