Forestluv

From the perspective of a separate self, it's easy. . . There is my reality and your reality. From the perspective of Reality, there is nothing in need of reconciling. Transcending this construct is a major realization. I think you are in striking distance. Imagine something that happened to you yesterday. Look around you Now. Observe what is happening around you Now. Observe the thoughts of yesterday. Realize the thoughts of yesterday are happening Now. The thoughts of yesterday are imaginations occurring Now. Imo, this is one of the most important awakenings. If the awakening is clear/deep enough, it can bring down the whole house of cards.

You seem to put more effort/emphasis in communicating/teaching True Love than something like True Perfection. If this is so, why?

@Leo Gura Is the love / Love understanding analogous to perfect / Perfect? That is, Now = Everything = Perfect. Many people will disagree with this as the ego wants to put relative conditions on what is Perfect. "How can a car with flat tires be Perfect??!!". Yet this hijacks True Perfection for conditional perfection. In doing so, one cannot realize True Perfection. It seems like something similar is going on with True Love and conditional love - yet this may be even harder to realize since humans seem to be much more attached/identified to conditional love.

If that is what you imagine yourself to be, then it is true. Now is Reality. Past and future are imaginations happening Now.

What "self" are you referring to? If the dog recognizes itself as 'me" in a mirror, it jumps up a conscious level. If the human recognizes "me" as "Me", it jumps up a conscious level. The dog will not recognize itself with standard dog consciousness, it needs to level up. Similarly, the human will not recognize Itself with human consciousness, it needs to level up. Human intellect and constructs won't cut it because that is within the human/personal realm. . .The term "level" isn't quite right, yet I don't know of a better term for this analogy. We can understand more, much more. Humans have limitations within infinite reality, yet humans are contracted much more than they realize. They grossly underestimate their potential due to being unaware of it. No They aren't aware relative to a human construct/perspective of awareness. Nothing wrong with that. Yet a trans-human consciousness is not constrained to these human constructs. You ARE the plant and tree. Are You aware of that?

Leo covers that in the below video. I think Leo has gone to deeper, broader levels since then. The video below covers the Absolute and relative distinction and I think a lot of people would find it helpful in this area.

If Mystics know, feel and command. Why would clairvoyants be the feelers and mystics be the thinkers? When you say Mystics know, feel and command - are you using the term "feel" in a different context than the normal emotional feelings usage? Will it be obvious to a Mystic or Clairvoyant that they have abilities? Or can a Mystic or Clairvoyant have undeveloped potential they are unaware of? If so, what are some signs that someone has undeveloped talent? Could there be "odd" occurrences they dismiss? Perhaps someone taking a tour in a historic building suddenly *knows/feels* that something tragic happened there, yet are unable to describe it or make sense of it through thinking. This person may find it uncomfortable, brush it off, switch gears and put their attention back on the tour guide - such that the paranormal connection floats away. . .

If you took a 7 y.o. child from Europe and plopped him down in the center of Mumbai, India all by himself, do think that would be enjoyable? Do you think he may keep problems afterwords? That's what it is like for some newbies that don't use an appropriate dose and setting. What is "appropriate" depends on various factors at the human/personal level.

@Phoenixx Imagine a dog barking at itself in the mirror, believing it was another dog. Now imagine the dog realizing that what he is looking at in the mirror is "me". It realizes itself. That would be a huge jump in consciousness. Yet this self is not the last bus stop. Let's level up. . . Imagine you are a human that thinks you are a self, now look in the mirror that is all around you and realize Yourself. It is another huge jump in consciousness. Until that is realized, the transcendent will be contextualized as a human and will be confusing. Just like how a dog contextualizes it's mirror image as a dog and is confused. A dog interprets it's mirror image is a separate dog and barks at it (themself). Similarly, humans interpret themself as separate from all things around them and will "bark" at others (Themself). . . Intellectual thinking like "yea, yea I get that" is insufficient. That is still at the human level. The realization is much deeper than figuring it out through thoughts and images.

That’s like an American saying “I’ve been to Canada twice. I didn’t get much out of it because it’s all subjective and I’m a hardcore American”. If that person traveled to 100 foreign countries around the world, learned foreign languages and lived within local communities - he would have a very different perspective. His mind and consciousness would expand. He would no longer be a “hardcore American”. So too with psychedelics.

Below is the drumming track I listen to for shamanic breathing. I like this track because it’s straight up rhythmic drumming without any new agey spa music thrown in.

In a sense that is true. From the human/personal mindstate it appears as though there was an alteration of consciousness and then a return to "normal" consciousness. Yet there is also something else going on. There is a type of essence that can linger. Ime, as I cleared away background noise, this essence became purer and longer lasting. As well, there is easier access to it while sober. I can access essence/vibes/beingness while sober. In this sense, psychedelics are not just a chemical, like alcohol. To me, this a human construct of what awakening is. For example, "awakening is some thing that does not include insomnia. If a person has insomnia they are not awoken". We could add on lots of stuff to create a human imagination of what awakening is. At the level of the human, I think this has a lot of value and it is what humans commonly refer to as "enlightened" or "awake". Yet this is a shallow understanding of awakening. It goes deeper. It goes "prior" to any of these thoughts/images/concepts. It is prior to the person, prior to human. It transcends all that. It would be the same as saying "I cannot be awake if Martin Ball has insomnia". This wouldn't make sense. What does Martin Ball's insomnia have to do with whether I am awake or not? This question seems absurd because I don't identify as being Martin Ball. He is a different person than me. My awakeness is not dependent on whether or not Martin Ball has insomnia or not. . . We can take this one step further. It would also be absurd to say "I cannot be awake if I have insomnia" (or any thing). What does "my" insomnia have to do with whether the transcendent I is awake or not? This would be absurd because the transcendent I does not identify as being the personal "me". It is transcendent of that. The awokeness of the transcendent I isn't dependent on "me" anymore than it is dependent upon you, Leo, Trump, or Leonardo DiCaprio. And Ram Dass didn’t experiment with LSD on a daily basis. No one does, due to the inherent high tolerance to psychedelics.

@Schahin It depends on one’s notion of “you”. Who/what are “you”?

Also consider: no-doer means no “I”. If there is no-doer, there is no “me” to act as a doer. If there is no-doer, how can I sit on my couch and do nothing? That would require a doer! There is no longer a “me”, doing or not doing anything. That gets transcended/removed. There is simply happenings without a “me” taking ownership of anything. Fun stuff ?

@Mezanti “Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by persistent antisocial behavior, impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited, and egotistical traits.” Based on this definition, Orange would be the last bus stop.

What counts as “labor” or “service”? The teenagers playing soccer and pickpocketing tourists seemed to obtain a return for their labor. Did the banking CEO that pushed toxic loans earn his millions as a return for service? From the perspective of the banker, he provided a service and earned a return. They even said this in Senate hearings. From the perspective of the famil that declared bankruptcy, it wasn’t a service at all - it was a fraudulent scam. These terms are relative depending on context and perspective.

@Meditationdude Are you ok taking a cannabis edible? Edibles can have a quasi psychedelic state. And I had a cannabis edible in a sensory deprivation tank that was on par with a full psychedelic trip.

@Beginner Mind I think this is one of the most important realizations. The illusion of personal choice causes an immense amount of stress and turmoil in the mind and body. The realization of no-doership can relieve a of of suffering. Yet, absence of responsibility does not mean that I am not responsible. I see a lot of people partially realize no-doer and then hold the belief “I am not responsible”. That is only a half truth.

@InDeep “Teaching” is just one way of describing it. Every approach or pointer will have limitations and won’t seem useful from another perspective. From one perspective, to “teach” suggests a hierarchy. From that perspective, there are limitations. I often take views from various levels and see how different evils are integrated. For example, atoms compose molecules which compose cells which compose tissues which compose systems which compose an organism which composes a population. I use examples like this many times and they have great value in certain contexts. When we say “levels” here, that can be interpreted as being superior. A “higher” level is superior to a “lower” level. When we say a cell is at a higher level than a molecule, this is for convenience. “Superiority” is not necessarily inherent to the model. Similarly, we could interpret “teacher” as being “higher” than a student. Yet that is not inherently so. These are add ins. This intention can be present in some contexts, yet not in other contexts. I could talk about “levels” of consciousness in a context of superiority and I could talk about “levels” without a context of superiority. I like the imagery you use, yet no one model or imagery is complete. If SD is a whole, there are no levels. There is no levels to move up. From a perspective, “moving up” is similar to “build”. If a cell is whole, there are no levels to “move up”. Atoms are not at a lower level than molecules at a lower level than the cell. It is certainly useful to build a model of atoms-> molecules -> cell. Moving up levels is similar to build. Atoms build molecules which build cells. We could say the cell is both one whole and contains parts which we can organize into levels. In terms of “listening” to each other, that has value in some contexts as you mentioned. Yet is not very helpful in other contexts. This is were development, expansion and “teaching” comes into play. For example, Blue is oriented toward binary thinking. Either / Or. In some contexts, this is useful. Yet in other contexts, it’s not useful. My mom is blue and would see someone as a racist or a non-racist. I understand this simple binary construct and it is useful in certain, yet not in others. In another context, people are not simply racist or non-racist. There are degrees of racism. Someone can be strongly racist or mildly racist. As well, everyone has subconscious biases regarding race. In this sense, we all have components of racism. As well, some might be racist toward certain groups and not racist toward other groups. I would not be able to have this conversation with my mom. She would say “Why do you always have to complicate things? People are racist or not racist. That’s what it boils down to”. Here, I could listen to my mom for hours talk about who is racist and who isn’t racist. I can understand her perspective because I have developed above Blue. However, my mom will not be able to understand Orange. She cannot comprehend gradients and nuances. She can listen to me when I speak at Blue, yet she cannot comprehend me when I speak at Orange and above in this area. If she was open and curious about developing this ability, I can explain it to her. I would call this “teaching” since I would be transmitting a cognitive skill to her. . . Similarly, an Orange level thinker would have difficulty comprehending the relativism of “racism”. Orange understands in terms of objectivism and would not be able to comprehend a yellow level thinker. When “pulling” someone up the spiral, we can try to use terms and modes at that level. And I agree that keeping it impersonal is important. Yet this has limits. One cannot explain gradients in strictly binary terms. If they did, it would be binary and not a gradient. Similarly, one cannot communicate relativism in strictly objective constructs. One cannot communicate intuition or empathy strictly through material evidence and facts. There comes a time a person has to make a “jump” in consciousness. For example, when a dog sees itself in a mirror it will not recognize itself and bark at itself. You can point to the dog and the mirror over and over saying “look it’s you!!!”. Yet the dog would need a jump in consciousness to realize “whoa!! That’s me!!”. This is a dramatic example, yet this component is with developmental psychology as well, which is integral to SD. Personal hierarchies in Tier1 is a common manifestation of a personality construct. The dissolution of a personalized construct begins in Tier1 with empathy and cultural relativism, yet is more of a feature of Tier2. Then, attachment/identification dissolves one can mucbetter see multiple perspectives without judgement and superiority. Having transcended the personality, yellow would not make personal value judgements within Tier1 stages, yet Yellow would not consider all perspectives to have equal value.

It seems like you have strong opinions that you are attached/identified with and would like to debate. Ime, these types of debates are inefficient because a person argues and defends a perspective they are attached/identified to. Such debates tend to contract a person further into the perspective, rather than expand. For me to debate you, I would need to hold the opposite opinion as yours. I'm just not into that type of conversation.

I understand and agree with that. That is a foundational component of SD. I was getting at something different. I may be off on another tangent though. When I teach genetics, I often have to over-simplify the concepts because the students are not at a developmental stage to comprehend greater nuances and complexity. For example, I first teach freshman students that there are two types of alleles: recessive or dominant. I don't tell them that gene alleles aren't technically just recessive or dominant. This would be confusing. I tell them in binary terms appropriate for their level. This is not completely accurate, yet it is necessary for their developmental progress. Once they have mastered this, their sophomore year I tell them "Remember how I told you that gene alleles are recessive and dominant? Well that isn't quite true and you will need to expand beyond that construct to understand what I am about to teach you next". I then teach them about codominance, incomplete dominance, alleleic hierarchies etc. I'm not saying the previous stage didn't have value. Knowing the binary construct of recessive and dominant has value. A student must learn this before moving forward. If a student is struggling with codominance and incomplete dominance - we go back to the previous level of teaching and I make sure they understand the foundational teaching. In this context, one teaching isn't more valuable than another teaching. They are both valuable - one builds on the other. Yet, I'm also clear about how one builds on the other. Simple recessive and dominant is a binary construct that has value and is necessary as framework to build upon. When we are expanding into gradients and multifactorial teachings, I may go back to the binary modes, yet I don't re-contextualize them to advance higher. This would cause confusion, imo. Yet I can see how others would disagree. Sometimes it's important to revisit simpler concepts to learn more advanced concepts, yet sometimes revisiting simpler concepts can be a hindrance to evolving higher. It is context dependent. While evolving, I prefer to keep earlier material in their prior context as structural support, rather than recontextualize it. Imo, doing so can lead to short term progress, yet will hinder longer term progress. I'm not really disagreeing with you. If you are exploring from a meta yellow perpective, it's fun stuff to explore. Yet, in practical terms, I don't think it's the clearest and most efficient approach. That's just my preference though.

@Bodigger There have been over 250 mass shootings in the U.S this year. 346 in 2017 and 340 in 2018. Hundreds of people die each year in mass shootings, yet it's not just the number of deaths. That is only one measure of impact on a society. If there were 300+ drunken brawls at football games each year claiming hundreds, we would take serious action to reduce the deaths. People wouldn't say "well it's only a few hundred people dying at the games, more people die each year driving to the games". In the case of mass shootings, there are simple common sense measures to reduce the number of deaths that the vast majority of Americans support. Yet American gun culture goes deep and there are powerful lobbyists that are a hindrance. Reducing the number of pick-up trucks in Europe would be simple, since it is not part of their history and culture. Getting Japanese people to reduce their fish intake would be very difficult because it is deeply immersed in their culture. Restricting hand grenades and rocket-launchers in the U.S. is much easier, since they are not part of the culture. This is one concern about allowing ARs and guns to be more accessible and widespread. By this logic, everyone carries firearms and we live in a wild west environment / Mad Max world.

Green is not the most expansive. Don't drop down to Blue in an effort to expand further. Trying to better understand Blue and integrate Blue into Green - may help to develop a healthier Green - yet it will not evolve one into Tier2 and Turquoise. It is more radical than that. Blue is more contracted than Green. For a deeper and more expansive community/inclusiveness, evolve further up Green and on into Tier2 and Turquoise for a more expansive community and inclusiveness. Trying to integrate within Tier1 has some value, yet it is very limiting and ends up being a hindrance to further expansion. You are trying to stretch Blue beyond it's developmental stage. It's like saying "Wait a minute healthy 6th graders may actually be more developed than healthy 8th graders if they include aspects of the 8th grade". That may have some value in certain contexts, yet it is stretching the 6th graders beyond their developmental level. And it aint gonna help someone get to the 12th grade.

Not quite. But that’s fine ?

What you wrote is within something “more advanced”. You would need to realize it yourself. Being immersed within a narrative hinders that realization. Any narrative.