Forestluv

Lol. If you think the USA values equal human rights to the point no legislation is needed to promote and protect equal human rights, you don’t understand America.

This is what a dominant oppressive group would love. “Why think rights of white slaveholders and rights of black slaves? Let’s just do what we have to do”. White slave-holders would haves LOVED that attitude. It empowers a dominant oppressive group and perpetuates oppression. Even today, this is a common frame a dominant group wants. For example, in the U.S. some people would say “Why have gay rights and minority rights? Let’s just do what we do”. Notice how this attitude is only embraced by an advantaged group and not by the disadvantaged group.

This conflates the individual and population levels. It is one of the most common tactics for a privileged group to maintain disproportionate influence and control of the narrative. At it’s root is equating true equivalencies at the individual to create false equivalencies at the population level. The fundamental drive here is trying to preserve individual interests at the population level. For example an oppressive act against a male can be considered equivalent to an oppressive act against a female - at the individual level. This cannot be extrapolated to the population level. This is a different level of analysis. At the population level, more oppressive acts are against females. Thus, to reach gender equality at the population level, more effort needs to go to give females more input and influence. This is the core feature that some men will deny and obscure in an effort to maintain control of the narrative and disproportionate influence. One common way is to equalize the problem at the population level (or try to reduce the degree of disproportion). For example, if a dominant group bears 10% oppression and the non-dominant group bears 90% oppression, the dominant group will try to exaggerate and/or reduce the disparity for there own gain. For example, they may exaggerate the disparity by saying “Women say they are the only ones who face sexism. Males face sexism too! Reverse-sexism”. This obscures the situation because it turns it into a binary model of two poles in which neither poles are true. Women do not receive 100% of sexism. So this construct can be used by men to discredit a more nuanced construct. Advocates for gender equality are not saying women receive 100% of sexism. They are saying that women receive a disproportionate amount of sexism. . . . Another tactic the dominant group other use is to reduce the disproportion or create a false equivalency at the population level. They may say “both men and women are subjected to racism, we should take both of them seriously and in an unbiased manner”. This is an effort to create a false equivalency at the population level. If women are subjected to 90% of sexism and men only 10%, it should not be viewed equally at the population level. To attain equality, 90% of effort should go into reducing sexism toward females and 10% of effort into reducing sexism toward males. This will be very difficult to see and accept for someone that identifies as male and wants to maintain disproportionate influence as a male. And this isn’t just relevant to gender equality. These dynamics arises in all sorts of inequalities between a dominant group and a non-dominate group - for example the same tactics are seen with racism inequality.

@Robi Steel You give a long narrative from a a particular male-centric perspective. An essay pretty much explaining “This is how it is” from this male-centric perspective. I find it interesting that once this male-centric perspective seems grounded, concern about the welfare of women arises and solutions for how women can improve their well-being is offered. This is a form of concern trolling used to control a narrative. More “concern” from a male-centric perspective. You just wrote an essay about “this is how it is” from a male-centric perspective and now ask for male and female to come together. Yet can’t you see you are asking male and female to come together based on your rules for how things are and how things should be? You would likely be happy with women “coming together” if they play by your rules for gender roles. This is classic male bias and privilege. Notice how you are unwilling to give up 50% of your narrative and allow space for a female narrative to have influence and power. It comes across as extremely male-centric and male-biased. If you want to expand in this area, let go of your narrative and learn about the female perspective. Really learn about it. Not through demonized caricatures of toxic feminists that feel threatening to you. Let go of fear of being emasculated. Learn about female experiences. Make some female friends and ask about their experiences and their perspectives. Get their perspective on toxic masculinity, sexual harassment, sexism and misogyny. What it feels like to live as a females. Speak with men that have expanded beyond contracted male-centric views. Read books on gender from female perspectives, go to seminars, take a college-level course, volunteer in female-centric areas. This is the type of stuff that expands consciousness. I’m not saying that the perspective you offer does not have value. It is a perspective that should be brought to the discussion table. The problem is believing that this perspective is correct and “how it is”. If we had a committee to establish a consensus on gender, etiquette and public policy, you would likely be in that meeting wanting 100% influence because you know “how it is”. You likely would not be ok if your perspective only carried 20% weight in this meeting, because you would feel like you were losing control of the narrative and would need to make concessions you find uncomfortable and threatening. This makes it very difficult to see other POVs.

@Ibn Sina I’m not disagreeing with you. I am trying to provide clarity. You give a great example with the ice cream cone. Someone eats an ice cream cone and thinks “I decided to eat this ice cream cone. I caused this”. This would be referred to as a “proximal cause”. Yet as you state, we can expand outward toward an ultimate cause. What caused you to desire ice cream? Perhaps the hot weather? What caused the hot weather? What caused the neurons in your brain to fire in such a way for you to desire ice cream? What impact did your diet have on this? What influenced your self image such that you are not on a strict diet to lose weight and can’t eat ice cream? What events led to the ice cream vendor to live in this town and open an ice cream shop? These are all valid inputs, yet it gets deeper. You state “An infinite chain of cause and effects that has bounced us like a ping pong ball to and fro has finally brought us here.” Notice how you use the term “infinite”. If it is infinite, then we cannot trace the cause. If Ultimate cause is infinite, then it is untraceable. As well, notice how you say “an infinite chain”. This suggests a linear chain of cause and effects. Yet this goes beyond an infinite linear chain. It is beyond linear. For every causal point in that linear chain, you can branch off and find inputs from another line that influenced that cause. It is infinite in multiple dimensions. Infinity is not simply infinite along one linear chain of events in a timeline. Infinity has infinite dimensions. At this point, we are at total inter-connected One. This is a nondual realization. However, this is not to say causes in-between proximal cause and ultimate cause and not useful. It is very useful to have a functioning society.

Notice the opposition thinking here. The brain is conditioned to think in opposites. This creates separation and leads to suffering. Is Leo 100% businessman that gives 0% shit about us? That is an extreme view that would be hard to hold. The opposite view would be: Leo is 0% businessman and gives 100% shit about us. That is also an extreme view that would be hard to hold. You are asking your mind to choose between polar opposites. Since neither polar opposite is absolutely true, there will be internal turmoil as the mind tries to interpret the world through this lens.

A few of the mockings in this thread are over the top. Mocking can be fun and beneficial in some contexts, yet it can also be harmful in other contexts.

I don’t see it as a plan - that is too anthropomorphic to me. I don’t see it as determined unfolding ether - that has too much of a cause and effect timeline in it. From one perspective, it’s amazingly simple: there is simply One Now of happenings. From another perspective, it’s incredibly complex and includes imagination and reality, time, intentions, desires, cause and effect, material and immaterial etc. An integrated, comprehensive understanding here goes deep and broad. Notice how you say responsibility is an illusion because there are too many variables that influence what we do. Yet then say we can follow the reasons behind our action to see there is an outside cause. That would be assigning responsibility (to an outside cause). I’m not saying either is right or wrong, just that they are not the same perspective. If there are too many variables that influence what we do, we cannot find an outside cause. What factors caused that “outside cause”? What factors caused the causation of that outside cause? Eventually, it leads to infinity in which everything is One interconnected whole. I think this is one of the most direct ways to have a nondual realization.

I think you make a really good point about having conscious ideas and thoughts about what is good for the collective. Everyone has their own self biased ideas about what is good for the collective, including myself. I may like to think my ideas are “more conscious” and better at a collective level. This can cloud one’s ability to see different perspectives and nuances. For example, China uses a lot of surveillance for the “social good”. In parts of China, they have sophisticated AI and facial recognition. There are over 200 million cameras in China monitoring people’s behavior and assigning social scores - one’s score is a measure of how trustworthy they are and affects someone’s level of freedom and access to resources. To me, this seems like a way to control people and maintain power in the communist party. Yet some people think it’s good for the collective and helps promote personal responsibility and public safety. From one perspective it’s done out of love for what one sees as good for the collective welfare. . . At times, it can be difficult to distinguish what is “progress”. It can be relative, nuanced and self-biased. When I look at social conflicts in other countries, I see it from an outsider’s perspective. Yet when I look at conflicts in the U.S. it is much harder to see it from an outsider’s perspective.

It's great hearing Alan Watts tell this story.

Grasshopper. . . .You don't know what absolute infinity is, you ARE absolute infinity. There is no external thing called "absolute infinity" that one can come to know. Why spend all this time conceptualizing through thoughts? Direct experience is king.

Below is just what is arising in me. As a person, I am not an authority. Others may give different insights that resonate with you. I think when people talk about decisions and actions, they are 99.99% at the personal level. "How do I make decisions?", "How do I take actions?". This has practical value for survival. Decisions and actions are how we navigate through life. In terms of evolution, reflecting on prior decisions and considering how we can improve our future decisions has an evolutionary advantage. And only humans can do it. Yet if we take a closer look, it's an illusion. Decisions depend on a timeline and a story. Nothing wrong with that. But that aint happening Now. If one surrenders into Now, there is no person and there are no decisions. It would be more accurate to say that there are happenings without a "me" taking ownership of it. There may be thoughts about decisions happening Now, yet in the context of Now they have no more relevance than bird chirps. Stories like “I decided to have cereal with blueberries. Then I decided to do Yoga instead of running because it was hot outside” - are just stories. Yet that’s what humans do - a big part of our life is storytelling. However, there may be a transcendent form of decisions. A god-like mechanism of decisions. Yet this would be a different context than how we normally use the term decision since it would be transcendent of the person. I haven’t heard anyone communicate on this level, yet Leo seems to be exploring this area. I have limited direct experience in this area.

This is really straightforward. . . Words and symbols are within infinity. A subset of infinity cannot capture infinity. A simple example: Words and symbols cannot capture the direct experience of tasting an apple. Any description of how an apple tastes is not the experience of tasting an apple. Go describe the taste of an apple to someone who has never tasted an apple. You can spend years describing the taste of an apple and that person will have never experienced the truth of the actual taste.

@ActualizedDavid This "death" refers to attachment and identification to a psychological self and a body. The physical body does not die in the traditional sense. It keeps going. It is self attachment/identification to the body that dissolves.

Still applies. The map is not the territory, yet the map is territory. Being attached to words is quite limiting.

Map and Territory.

@Nivsch I noticed that Israel denied Reps. Omar and Tlaib entry hours after Trump's tweet and call to block them. I'm curious about you view on this and how the government and society may view it.

@Schahin I think you ask some good questions, yet I don't think I can answer them properly. The way you frame it has a controller and something to control. This may be true and I totally get how it can be framed that way. If someone has an opportunity to experience being god, it seems natural that they would want to find out "How do I do it?", "How does this whole thing work?". I can see how deeply spiritual people would pursue those questions and that there are meaningful awakenings there. Yet to me, those questions seem important to the person at the human level. Ime with "trans-human" consciousness, questions and curiosities important to humans was no longer important. Rather than being a god that controls all things, it would be closer to say I was all things. But even that can be misinterpreted with the term "I". This piece you wrote is so poignant. It reflects the love, wonder and yearning within the human spirit. It's so beautiful.

“There is no-doer” is a major realization and it helped me with harsh self-criticisms and regrets I carried. Yet “there is no-doer” can also get out of hand. I’ve seen people use “there is no-doer” to justify all sorts of behavior - which twists the realization out of context.

@Schahin This is just my take: I think it would be best to first consider the illusory nature of a personal self. Adding in a traditional external god with divine plans muddies the waters, imo. For example, right now I have a headache. If I am god, why can’t I stop my headache? Is god choosing that I should have a headache? These questions are arising from a personal level of consciousness. Consider removing the god part for a bit. Asking if a person should take 100% responsibility assumes that there is a person and asks if an occurrence is caused by the choices this person has made. This construct has practical value at the human level. Yet let’s take a closer look. . . Who/what is this person? If we are to assign responsibility to a person, there must be a person that has agency to make choices and cause effects. Assigning responsibility to the apparent proximal cause (the person) is convenient and has practical value. Yet if we look deeper into ultimate cause, we will start to see many inputs outside the person that contributed to cause. The number of inputs expands to infinity, such that no thing or set of things cause the effect. We are left with One/Nothing/Everything/Universe. Yet this truth does not have much value at a relative human level. Some people may refer to this One/Nothing/Everything/Universe as “god”. This is transcendent of a personality construct. Or we could introduce a god with agency that has a divine plan. The tricky thing here is lower conscious ideas of an external god that makes decisions and has a plan. These ideas about god have been conditioned into most humans and using these assumptions will distort understanding. Higher understandings of god are much more expansive and I would say direct experience of such consciousness is really important to gain understanding. Taken together, I think it would be more efficient to ask your questions with substituting “One/Everything/Nothing” instead of “god”. This can help get trans-personal realizations without the baggage of “god” terminology getting in the way. If the inquiry is about a personal illness, the desire for Truth may be quite strong - yet so is personal attachment and identification.

@Schahin Your questions are putting stress on traditional framework that a “you” exists and a concept of a god separate from “you” exists. We can intellectualize on this framework, yet eventually it will collapse. Yet this can take years (or decades) of intellectualizing. I would put more pressure on this underlying framework and deconstruct it. . . . How can we assign responsibility to a person, when we don't understand what a person is? How can we assign attributes to god without direct experience and understanding of god? I would back up the truck and inquire who/what is this “you”? Who/what is this “person”? Who/what is god? Without depth in these areas, intellectualizing about how persons and god interact will be superficial. This is much deeper and radical than you realize.

That is a major insight that few people realize. I think the realization of the illusory sense that I have free will is one of the most important doors to open. Related to this is the realization that I am not the author of my thoughts.

@Pouya I had a revelation in a sensory deprivation tank. Consciousness went back to the womb, prior to birth. Everything after birth dissolved. All language, ideas, things. Anything that comes after birth dissolved. One might think there would be nothing left. Yet a lot was revealed, because it was no longer veiled and clouded.

You are transcendent of this teaching and Ramana Maharishi. Both are creations of You. I also see value in that. ?

This boils down to the usage of “you”. If one tries to see a transcendent Self from the perspective of a finite self, it won’t make sense. It’s like asking “If I punched someone, were my muscles cells responsible? Or were my neurons responsible? Should a neuron just lay back like they had no control?” This frame doesn’t make sense because it is conflating two conscious levels. Your personhood is transcendent of all the cells in your body. Talking about you from the perspective of a muscle cell wouldn’t make sense. To say “I didn’t punch him, the muscle cells in my body punched him!” doesn’t quite work. Yet a being would need to transcend the cells in their body to realize this. Similarly “You” are transcendent of the self construct of “you”. Speaking of the transcendent “You” from the perspective of a self construct of “you” won’t make sense. One needs to transcend the self construct of “me” to realize this.