Forestluv

Social intelligence.

@Key Elements I’m not saying Ghandi wasn’t a good leader. He was a great leader within a context. It isn’t an either or thing for me. I’m not taking a position opposite to yours. There are different approaches and traits of good leaders. It is context dependent. You have offered some great traits for certain contexts. There are other traits of good leaders and other contexts. . . . I would say one ability of a leader of leaders would be able to have a holistic view, be able to integrate various traits and skills of leaders, have vision for which traits/skills/approach is best for a given situation. They wouldn’t take a one size fits all approach. From an integrative holistic view, Ghandhi’s leadership skill set is an important piece, yet there is more. It goes deeper and broader.

@TrynaBeTurquoise I’ve had such experienced it, yet as soon as my mind contextualizes it, it is lost.

@Key Elements Fun video. Yes that is a form of empowerment and it takes a lot of courage. I can see a lot of value in empowerment, leading quietly through example and understanding that those who cause harm may do so due to their own trauma and by acting out unconsciously. Yet I also see some situations with power dynamics that are so imbalanced that the recipient of harm has no chance of gaining sufficient empowerment to overcome their oppressor and it’s helpful for leaders to directly intervene and be noticed. For example young children being traumatized in cages in the border have no chance of getting empowered enough to overcome their oppressors. I think behind the scenes quiet leadership to address the situation is helpful. I also think leaders directing inserting themselves, confronting oppressors and bringing it to the attention of society is also helpful. I volunteered for years in a psychiatric ward. Most of the patients I worked with were female victims of domestic violence. It would be great to empower women such that they can stand up to their abuser and smack him down like in the video. Yet that is not the reality I saw in the hospital. These women were virtually powerless. They were trapped in abusive homes and had nowhere to turn. No family, friends or social support system. They had no financial resources, lack of education and were dependent on their abuser for shelter and food. They were generally gaslighted and terrified to take any action that would upset their abuser. Most had been taken into the psychiatric ward after attempting suicide. The power dynamic was soooo far tilted toward the abuser that the video you posted looks like a naive and bizarre portrayal of domestic violence and how to address.

@Key Elements Yes, in some contexts leading by planting seeds can be a great way to lead. In Trump, I see a man that has experienced trauma and as been conditioned to behave as he does. He can’t help it and doesn’t know how to play the cards he has been dealt. Yet the same is true for a man that is sexually abusing others. One could say they got dealt a bad hand and don’t know how to play that hand and are acting unconsciously. Yet they are also causing a lot of harm to others and that doesn’t help those that are being harmed. . . . I din’t think 100% anti-trump confrontational leadership is best, yet I also don’t think 100% seed planting is best. I think a combination is best. In regards to the female victim, of course we could help with healing and empowerment. Yet that wasn’t what I was pointing at. To make it more dramatic: imagine spotting a man beating and raping a woman in the park. Helping her with victim mentality and personal empowerment may be beneficial down the line - yet if this guy kills her in the park, there won’t be any victim to empower. The first thing we need to do is step in, confront the man and get him off her.

Gotcha ? You seem to suggest an external god as you say “developing itself”. What is “itself”? As well, you say god is magical “beyond just IS”. I’m not sure if you are creating dualistic categories or trying to describe facets of One diamond. I think your questions have been getting deeper and more advanced over the past month or so. As you go deeper into nonduality and into the collapse of dual/nondual, intellectual concepts won’t be center-stage anymore. It will provide structural support. Nonverbal things like intuition, empathy, beingness, essence, presence, knowing, Now etc will become more impactful.

@Key Elements There are various contexts and contextualizations. . . . If you saw a young vulnerable woman being overpowered and sexually abused by a man, how would you respond? How would we lead in this situation without anyone knowing we exist? . . . To me, it seems best to insert myself into the situation with a sense of ethical authority. To pull the man off of his victim and tell him that his behavior is inappropriate and that it will not be allowed to continue. Yet I would do this in a firm and empathetic way. I understand that the man may have been sexually molested himself as a child and may be suffering with his own internal demons. I would acknowledge that and offer him help to heal through that - either through myself or professional counseling. Yet the sexual harassment of vulnerable women will not be allowed to continue. If necessary, I would bring the situation to community leaders and offer assistance if I might be helpful. Yet I wouldn’t pursue any recognition or awards for doing what’s right.

“Destined” is another construct and another can of worms. I would probably phrase it “The happening of the ball being passed is the happening of the ball being passed”. Humans love to think about causation of happenings because it is intimately tied to personal identity, responsibility, functioning in society and survival. . . . It’s very simple in that Now is Now and what is happening Now is perfectly happening Now. Yet the underlying mechanism of causation can get very complex. I’ve tried to integrate all the different inputs influencing causation of a happening like passing the soccer ball. It starts off simple like “the player just passed the ball”. Yet it then expands to many many inputs - how much training did the person have, how much sleep, the weather, the texture of the field, the shoes he was wearing, the neurotransmitters in his brain, his balance and muscle contraction in that moment, what he had for breakfast. . . And each of those inputs also have inputs. It soon expands into infinity and the construct collapses. . . Another way to look at it is that there is a trans-personal god-like source of intention influencing causation. In a traditional sense, religions create an external god that can decide and control happenings (yet also granted humans free will). A more modern construct is of a nondual god essence. I find this somewhat interesting, yet it hasn’t resonated strongly with me.

When you see someone in a happy relationship, why not feel happy for them? Feel happy because they don’t have to go through what you had to go through.

@Schahin Imagine identifying as a character within a dream. If You realize you are dreaming, it becomes a lucid dream. The dream continues, yet you are aware it is dream. It can be super cool - as long as the dream character surrenders. If the dream character throws a hissy fit and tries to hold onto control, things could get ugly. This happened to me one time while I was doing a “reality check” with pin a dream. The reality check worked, yet the dream character refused to accept it and tried to maintain control - things got messy. When the Big You, realizes You are dreaming, the duality between dream and reality dissolves. It can become magical. Yet from the human perspective, there can still be sucky parts - getting sick, breaking a leg, feeling pain or hunger etc.

This is an awesome video of healthy Orange spirituality.

What is a decision? What is the substance of a decision? Isn’t a decision a thought story? Imagine removing the thought story. Imagine you are playing soccer and are “in the zone”. No thoughts. You steal the ball. You break away and dribble toward the opponent’s goal. You are one-on-one with the goalie. You pass the ball to your teammate. An opposing player blocks the pass and kicks the ball out of bounds. The crowd groans in disappointment. These are all just happenings. Now let’s add in a self that is a decider. The construct of a self decider has practical value. The next day, you feel bad and think “I *should have* taken the shot on goal. I made a bad decision”. You watch game film with your coach and he tells you that you need to improve your decision-making and improve your ball handling skills. In the game video, the coach shows you that due to the position of the goalie, you would have had to shoot the ball with your left foot. The coach tells you that you favor your right foot and don’t have enough skill and confidence in your left foot. Your coach tells you to practice shooting with your left foot 1 hr per day - so the next time you are in that situation, you will make a better decision and shoot the ball with your left foot. You *decide* to follow his advice and, in doing so, you improve as a player. By the end of the season, you have scored three goals with your left foot and are in the starting lineup. The construct of a self that is deciding has practical value. It allows for personal development and improvement. Humans are the only species capable of creating constructs of self and decisions within a timeline. They are the only species that can reflect on decisions they have made in the past and how they can learn from their poor decisions (mistakes) and how they can improve in the future. This is a powerful asset for evolution. The construct of a self that is deciding has practical value. It allows for personal development and improvement. Humans are the only species capable of creating constructs of self and decisions within a timeline. They are the only species that can reflect on decisions they have made in the past and how they can learn from their poor decisions (mistakes) and how they can improve in the future. This is a powerful asset for evolution. . . . The construct of self as decider can also cause nene turmoil and suffering. The soccer player could also have been stigmatized for making such a stupid decision. He could have dropped off the team and beaten himself up for months for making such a bad decision. This could have reinforced a self image of being a loser and how he can never do anything right. . . Or the player could have thought he made the right decision passing the ball and it was his teammate’s fault. . . . Lot’s of different thought stories we can create with a self and a decider.

That’s quite a relationship you have with yourself ?

There are very few democrats that are anti-socialist economically. The vast majority of democrats want economic democratic socialism. As well, about 40% of republicans are economic socialists. This is why republicans are working so hard to frame modern democratic socialism as scary old school Stalin socialism. To confuse voters into thinking green democratic socialism is blue socialism/communism. It has worked well in the past, yet is losing effectiveness as the country evolves up toward green. See figure 2 https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond

Identifying as a human self brings limitations. For example, as a human I won’t be flying around chirping like a bird. As a human who has never learned Chinese, I didn’t wake up this morning speaking fluent Chinese. There are limitations as human form, yet our potential is way beyond what we think. The other half of your question is within a personal dynamic. Who/what is this self? Who what is this “decider”?

Your post wasn’t deleted, it appeared in a duplicate thread.

Duplicate thread

@Leo Gura You mentioned a meditator bias with time. Is there also a meditator bias with standard? People often see psychedelics as a “temporary altered” reality and assume sober is the regular standard reality. Perhaps due to a lifetime of conditioning and identification to a human sober mindset.

I like that imagery. We can imagine a movie in which we create characters. We can create traits like “arrogance, slacking off, delusion, illusion” and opposing traits like “aware, mindful, dedicated, practice and clarity”. We can create characters that we call enlightened and characters we call unenlightened. We can create sages that have lived through a thing called history and we can create things called spiritual writings that some characters will devote their lives to. We can create a timeline in which the characters think and feel that they are developing and improving through time. We can have the characters think and feel that there is something called temporary and something called permanent. We can have the characters think that there is something to attain/become and a somewhere to go. We can even have characters “break character” in which they realize they were only playing a character. Yet this “broken character” is still a character within the transcendent movie. In the context of the movie and it’s storyline, all of this has value. Especially from the perspective of human characters. Yet from a transcendent holistic God-mind, it’s all One. It’s a One movie. There is a facet of absolute singularity. Making a distinction between my ear and my foot has practical value - especially when I am putting on my shoes or headphones. Yet it would be silly to say “my ear is me, but my foot is not me”. It would also have practical value to make a distinction between a temporary sensation and a permanent sensation. For example, if I had tooth pain it would be of value to describe to my dentist wether the pain is temporary or permanent. Yet it would be silly to say “I am temporary tooth pain” or “I am permanent tooth pain”. Similarly, there is practical value in making a distinction between me and Culadasa. Or a distinction between temporary insight and permanent awakening. Especially if we are having a discussion about Culadasa and trying to develop from temporary insight to permanent awakening within the storyline. I would need to believe (or pretend) that I am not Culadasa and that there are things called temporary insights and permanent awakenings. That has practical value within the imagined human storyline. Yet it would be silly to say “I am me, but Culadasa is not me”. or “I experience temporary insight, but not permanent awakening”.

You don’t *know* yet, which is fine. Part of the human experience is seeing beings as separate from ourselves. Once it is revealed that Jesus (and all sages) is You, that separation dissolves and there will be true *knowing* because the is no distinction between “me” and “jesus”.

You raise an important dynamic relative to experience, contextualization and development. It is very useful in certain contexts. Yet you seem to speak as if this is the one true dynamic. This is one dynamic of many. I had 20+ years of sober meditation prior to my first trip. More was revealed in one five hour trip than than the previous 20+ years combined. And it’s permanent. Once that awakening was seen, it has not been unseen. However, at the human level, it is not bimodal. It is a facet with greater depth and breadth in terms of development. I’m not saying that the dynamic you speak of does not exist. I’m saying there are other dynamics at play here that you may not be aware of. Or alternatively, simply did not address for sake of simplicity and directness. As well, the concept of “permanent” involves a timeline - which is a restrictive construct. There is an absolute that is not dependent on time or mental states that occur within timelines. An timeless absolute that is present during what you refer to as “arrogant, aversion, slacking off, illusion, delusion”. These are all constructs that can be helpful from the human perspective of development and toward a “thing” that is a relative improvement. That is one side of the coin. Yet it assumes a “somewhere” that is not “nowhere” and “everywhere”. It sees the path, yet is blind to the pathless. It does not see absolute singularity.

You are falling for corporate talking points: hook, line and sinker. Medicare for all would cost 32 trillion over 10 years, yet we currently pay 34 trillion. So we would save 2 trillion dollars. Even an analysis from a conservative institute concluded this.. M4A is a superior, more efficient system that removes a business model that profits off of people’s illness. As well, people will not be dependent upon and held hostage by employer-based healthcare. What would you like to do with the 2 trillion we save after M4A? Free college for all costs 0.8 trillion, so we would still have another 1.2 trillion. Infrastructure? Pay down the debt?

@Mason Riggle Do you have a sense of how Trumpers in your area would perceive Bernie? Would they see him as a good guy with good intentions, but bad socialist policies? Or would they vilify him personally as an evil socialist like Stalin?

If we compare the honesty, integrity, morality, love and good intentions of Bernie vs. Trump. . . the differences are night and day. As well, if we compare Bernie supporters vs. Trump supporters. . . Compare a Bernie rally with a Trump rally. Night and day. Bernie is 2-3 conscious levels higher than Trump. There is no comparison. He is a very rare and special politician - perhaps 50 years ahead of his time. Bernie has been on the right side of history every single time. No other politician can claim that.

The problem with smaller government is that it can't compete with corporate. We need a government large enough to out-compete corporate excess. M4A is a great example. The corporate health care industry profits off of people getting sick and denying them coverage. That is a barbaric system. Health care should be nonprofit and we need to expand government to do that. As well, a larger government that can outcompete corporate for campaign financing. Imagine if the government gave every American a $500 voucher to donate to their favorite political candidates (any candidates). That would help neutralize corporate influence and corruption in politics. Politicians are dependent on corporations and are owned by corporations. Government can transfer power back to the people. Don't confuse Red/Blue/Orange government with Green government. Green government the welfare of society first - not corporations or their own political power and wealth. The U.S. currently has a Red/Blue/Orange level of government - the problems people hate with government stems from Red/Blue/Orange toxicity. If we can evolve up to Green, government will be much healthier. I would choose a corporate-dominated Orange government over a Red/Blue government. Yet I would choose a Green dominated government over a corporate-dominated Orange government. As we head into Yellow, there will be public/corporate hybrids, yet corporate excesses will be kept in check and we there won't be corporate toxicity like we have today.