Forestluv

You are missing the point. Sadhguru is Turquoise trying to reach out to an upper Orange / lower green audience. The “debate” is an act for the audience. It is like giving children cand or having a game show. Sadhguru is playing a character in an effort to connect with an Orange/green audience. Orange/low green resonates with debates and finds it entertaining. It is an act of love by sadghguru. . . . If it was a yellow/turquoise level audience they would not have a “debating” act, because it doesn’t resonate with yellow/turquoise. . . . .

@Arcangelo It’s rare for someone to be randomly under ongoing security surveillance for sexual harassment and to receive a warning from security. This type of thing doesn’t just pop out of the blue. I would take the focus off of blaming e thermal circumstances and turn toward introspection. Rather than blaming “society” and being a victim, I would go internal and ask things like “What is it about me that is being perceived as sexual harassment by women and security guards?”, “How can I grow toward becoming a healthier male?”. . . . It is also helpful to try and see things from the woman’s perspective. Her perspective and experience is very different than yours. If I was a woman trying to do my food shopping in a supermarket and some guy with a bunch of cologne approached me and hit on me, I would find it kinda creepy. I can see how a woman could perceive it as harassment. There is more to it than just the words. As well, when someone is externally focused it is common for them to filter out some informatio:n: “I just said hi to a gal and out of the blue security guards were harassing me for nothing”. Although it’s possible they were over-zealous security guards, I have a hunch that if the women and security guards told their side of the story, more would be revealed.

That’s not my point. The point is the energetics and intentions of the debate? Compare a Sadhguru “debate” with a real debate between Blue/Orange people like William Craig, Shermer, D’Souza and Hitchens. The energetics is completely different. Sadguru is dropping down and having a publicity stunt “debate” to reach out to upper Orange / lower green. And there are plenty of blue level Buddhists, sI ts no surprise to see debates there. Higher conscious beings aren’t into debates because attachment/identification has dissolved. There is no ownership of ideas/perspectives. There is no “my perspective” vs “your perspective”. At tier2, debating is like chewing on tin foil.

In terms of SD, debate is a hallmark of stage Orange. Debate can be effective up to stage Orange, yet then becomes an inefficient method of consciousness development - due to personality dynamics. By stage yellow, there is very little expansion via debate. Most expansion comes through exploration, observation, discovery and integration. I used the child example to illustrate that a high conscious teacher could have a “debates” as games/toys to reach out to “children”. Sadhguru does not have a debtor mentality. He is just being playful with the kids. If you want to see real debates, look at debates between blue level religious vs Orange level atheist.

@Nak Khid If we wanted to teach math to children, would we explain things seriously with examples of actuarial science in health care? Of corse not. We would use games and toys to illustrate math to children. . .

I wouldn’t call that a selfish agenda since God is those hairless chimps.

@Derrida A baby has a form of nondual consciousness. A baby has no concept of subject object. No attachment/identification to “me” or “you”. A baby has no story about being a character living through time. If a baby throws a ball, the ball simply disappears. There was a ball one moment and no ball another moment. The baby doesn’t look around for the ball or think “I want my ball back”. There simply jus is. . . Then we developed cognition to separate subjects-object, a timeline and a story of “me”. I like using babies to point to a “prior” to these creations. There is a form of consciousness present that is “prior” to the thought stories. An exercise for deconstruction I like is to unwind back to when I was a baby, before all the thought stories. Even back to when I was a fetus and prior to fetus. Before any images, language, thoughts etc. I’ve found sensory deprivation floats to be a good environment for this. Also shamanic breathing. Every “pointer” or metaphor is incomplete. It is a partial truth of one facet. So we can always say “But wait a minute, what about xyz?”. This doesn’t invalidate the value of the metaphor, it’s just a part of the whole. It’s like five blind men feeling an elephant. One man says the elephant is a tail. Another man responds “How can the elephant be a hairy tail, when it is a hoof?”. . . In this case we may say “How can a baby be enlightened when it is has no awareness of the ‘I Am’?”. For sure, we could say that an aspect of enlightenment is awareness of Now for which babies are a good example as well as awareness of “I Am-ness by which babies are not a good example. Yes, I would consider embodiment to be deeper than intellectual acknowledgement. Embodiment is a type of “getting it”. For example, someone might read that “the self is like character in movie”. The person might say “yea, yea, I already knew that. Tell me something new”. Yet the person is still deeply immersed in playing that character and is unaware of the deeper truth. The embodiment would be the direct experience realization , integration and transcendence of the character. This is a much more difficult process and can there can be a lot of resistance and discomfort. . . . Another example might be identifying as a character in a dream. The dream character could intellectually acknowledge the existence of dreams, yet still identify as the dream character. This is different than the alarm clock going off, waking up and realizing “So that’s what a dream is”. That direct experience is deeper than a thought story. . . . One challenge is that thought stories are cheap and easy, the direct experience realizations generally take a lot of practice, effort and time. Regarding hallucinations . . . Imagined = Real and Real = Imagined. Saying that “suffering is just a hallucination and isn’t serious” is assuming that hallucinations aren’t real and therefore not serious. Imo, it would be better to say that suffering is both serious and not serious depending on perspective. I’ve volunteered in a psychiatric ward sitting and listening to patients that re suffering. In this context, I tried to be the best listener possible without judgement and I tried to understand and be loving. In this context, I would not be helpful to tell them “your so-called ‘suffering’ is just a hallucination that isn’t serious”. . . . However, an Eckart Tolle retreat is a very different context. Eckart may reflect on his own suffering and his realization that suffering is an hallucination. This may help people in the audience recontextualize their own suffering. “I hope getting the experience won't require that I abandon my scepticism altogether though. Otherwise that would be similiar to Christians telling you: You need to open yourself to God ( = believe in him) in order to experience him so that you can believe in him. Well .. shit.” Part of the process involves surrender, yet it’s not quite like how you are framing it. Rather than surrendingbto something irrational, it is surrendering to something post-rational. Yet prior to the transcendence, the mind will not be able to differentiate the two and will resist both. However, one can get a sense of the difference. For example, religious people and Leo both seemed to talk about irrational “woo woo” stuff at times. Yet I could tell the difference between a religious zealot and Leo. The key for me was that religious zealots were irrational and could not have a reasonable/logical conversation. However “woo woos” like Leo were able to use reason/logic, so I was able to tell that they were at a higher level and I was missing something.

@Nak Khid This gets into authority. We are our own ultimate authority, yet we turn over our authority to others all the time. This can be useful in certain contexts, yet I find it helpful to be aware when I am doing this. I like knowing someone’s background before investing in their theory, yet there is a balance of skepticism. If someone at the mall is peddling “Get enlightened and lose 30lbs in 30 days for only $30”, I would be skeptical. Yet if some seems genuine, has a history of study/experience and their work resonates with me, I’d be curious to take a look. Also, intellectual parroting is nit embodiment. The map is not the territory. There is a deeper understanding that comes through direct experience. Once this direct experience reveals itself, it’s pretty obvious but in others. For example, someone may parrot stuff they read about nonduality. If they haven’t had nondual experience/embodiment, it’s super obvious. Imagine someone memorized a bunch of English sentences yet couldn’t construct their own sentences. It would be quickly obvious that they can’t speak English.

There is a “hide” option for users. Yet we ask that it be used sparingly. If starting and hiding threads becomes common, things don’t flow so smoothly.

@Name Depending on context, you are correct or incorrect. It’s easy to assume we know what existence is. “Duh, my hand exists and a uncorn doesn’t exist!”. Yet there is a deeper existential realm. To gain a deeper understanding, one could inquire “What is existence?”. Or one could contempkate the inter-connectedness between existence and non-existence. Or one could get direct experience. For example, the experience of not being able to distinguish between existence and non-existence, such that there is no difference. Perhaps through lucid dreaming or psychedelics.

Sure, it depends how one uses it. . . . I’ve been stoned watching Rick and Morty and didn’t get much spiritual insight. . . I’ve been stoned while doing yin yoga and deep spiritual insights were revealed.

Why force a decision between language vs. non-language. This just creates limitation and conflict. . . For example, I know someone that worked through her mental issues through horse therapy. She spent a lot of solitary time with her horse. Most of this was no language. She couldn’t speak a language with the horse and she wasn’t trying to figure things out in her head through language. There were non-language aspects. Was language part of it? Sure, I suppose she had to speak with her parents and the rancher. And perhaps she had a human guide. Now she is starting her own center of horse therapy. . . To say that language is sufficient and that’s all we need seems silly to me. Likewise, to say language is unnecessary and should be avoided seems silly to me. It’s all inter-related and integrated. It’s like traveling to a foreign country and saying “all we need is the rental car. No other modes of transportation”. That’s fine, yet there is also bicycling, kayaking, hand gliding, mopeds, boating, zip lining etc. A rental car is great, yet if we restrict ourselves to that, we limit our range of experience and understanding.

I spent a day in the jungles of Belize with a jungle man. We went canoeing in his hand-made canoe. We capsized in the rapids and swam for our lives back to shore. We barley made it to shore before the next rapids ahead. . . . As I sat there, I realized I lost my shoes and cell phone. Then I realized my feet where in a fire ant nest and I was being bitten. As the burning sensation rushed through my body, I jumped up screaming and “dancing” as I frantically tried to get the fire ants off me. . . There was a moment of pause and the jungle man and I started laughing hysterically at the absurdity of it all. . . . It was a beautiful moment of transcendence.

I would say forms of hatha and vinyasa that include a lot of balancing postures.

There are many webs and all webs are interconnected.

@Nivsch There is sooo much more than language. Observe and notice. . . It’s all around us. . . A new relationship with reality is revealed.

That’s beautiful ❤️ ?

@Scholar I see value in creating post-conscious frameworks to transcend pre-consciousness concepts. I also see value in creating post-post-conscious frameworks to transcend post- conscious concept frameworks. And I see value in exploring other realms as well. For me, theorizing can be like painting a painting. I like going deeper and deeper into the painting, I just need to be mindful of becoming mesmerized and captivated by my painting. There are many other realms to explore and directly experience.

@Scholar Creating new constructs that provide grounding to those evolving is a practical contribution. Maps can be fun to create and useful to oneself and others. If you can create improved maps, that is a worthy pursuit. Your maps may resonate well with others. As well, the map is not the territory and it’s helpful to be aware of the tendency to become mesmerized by maps and miss actual territory.

@Scholar

Sounds like the makings of a roof party. . .

From a meta view, there is the question of what IS is. What is red, brings up relativity. On one level, what is red to one mind is green to another mind. For all we know, what you perceive as red I perceive as green - regardless of the underlying neuronal activity. Yet on another level, there is an underlying shared ISness.

Another approach might be to go meta and challenge their assumption of what the structure of science is. If one can’t distinguish between science and non-science how can they believe in the consent of science? . . . . For example, we can discuss how something is both existent and non-existent. We can discuss how existent/nonexistent is both everywhere and nowhere. This sure does sound like woo woo bullshit, yet it’s also called super position in quantum mechanics. Some say it’s pseudo-science led by quacks, others say it is the hard core science with the highest predictive power of all science.. . . . Another example is entanglement - instantaneous communication over distance. Is this New Age ESP bullshit? Even Einstein called it bs - “spooky action at a distance”. Yet the Nobel Prize in science thinks differently. And then there is multiple dimensions - Airy Fairy delusions of charlatans or String Theory science conducted by respected science with million dollar grants?

My mind got too caught up in the underlying structure and I missed the content. Sorry about that. I think the content of that video is great and it gives a good framework for direct experience. I like how it constructs from Nothing to Everything and back full circle to Nothing. Such that Everything = Nothing. Ime, psychedelics can allow for conscious awareness of these different dimensions. I’ve been on trips in which there where multiple dimensions as the movie suggests. For example, one trip was like being within a dimension within a dimension within a dimension. I was unable to determine which was the “true” dimension. . . On another trip, time was so distorted. I was questioning what I should do. Should I meditate? Watch a vide? Listen to music? Write in my journal? Yet this was beyond the 3/4 dimension of doing stuff in a timeline. It had done, was doing and will do all of those activities. My mind-body was so disoriented. Why would I mediate if I just meditated? But how could I have just meditated if I just watched a video. And how can I be journaling if I am meditating? . . . It was like the branching and multiple infinities shown in the video. . .Ime, I’d also say that 5-Meo can help access these dimension and reach the 10th dimension in which Everything and Nothing collapse together. . . Ime, 5-Meo is so pure and clear it doesn’t give the best details of each dimension. It’s like a fast rack to 10. . . For me, other psyches like shrooms or LSD are better for a direct experience of particular facets of each dimension - like the example I gave above. I think it would be extremely difficult to access such dimensions without psychedelics. Our brains have evolved and been conditioned for 3D/4D and it’s hard to resonate with 5D+. Similar to how a donkey is in tune with 3D and it would be hard for a donkey to access 4D.

I also find it odd when a man says “I understand how women work”. Especially since they have zero direct experience of being a woman. This is an exercise I do in one of my classes: I go to the chalkboard and tell the class I will ask them a question and I want them to call out ideas. I then say “First I’ll ask the males in the class ‘Tell me all the actions you take on a daily basis to protect yourself from sexual harassment and sexual assault”. . . Silence. . . The guys look confused. . . They don’t know if this is a trick question. . . Sometimes I tease them and say “C’mon guys, don’t be shy - let it out”. Nothing. . . . Then I ask the woman the same question and they give rapid fire answers. I’m now writing as fast as I can on the board and can’t keep up with them. I’d say about 30% of the males have a realization that they know very little about actually living as a woman. Also that they have privilege - they don’t need to worry about protecting themself and they don’t need to be concerned about it. I think part of the impact comes because the students are blindsided. I teach science classes and they are not expecting a science teacher to do anything like this. I’m also male, and they are taken off-guard that a male is doing this. If it was a female professor, I think most of the males would dismiss her as “yea, yea. . . another woman trying to tell us about sexual harassment and how hard they have it.”