Forestluv

I also like using a spectrum. From my experience, I’d estimate that about 20% of people are oriented by empathy. They feel their own needs/feelings/desires and the needs/feelings/desires of others. Thus, their sense of well-being is dependent both on themself and the other. For example, if I’m at an amazing concert that I would normally enjoy, yet my girlfriend is upset - I feel that upset and I can’t enjoy the show. I would find it very difficult to just allow her to be upset and do my thing and enjoy the show. Her upset is also my upset. I would have a strong desire to resolve the upset. Not just for her, but for me also. I would want to know why she is upset and how we can make it better. For example, if the music is too loud for her, I would want to move further back (even if that means giving up our great spot close to the stage). Or, I might feel bad that I forgot to bring the earplugs. Most people have some degree of this and wouldn’t be a jackass to their gf, yet those far on the spectrum are oriented this way. On the other end of the spectrum would be the 20% of people that don’t relate through empathy. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this, it’s just a different orientation. They would see interactions as more transactional and how they will benefit. They could still be nice to others, yet the underlying motivation is not a desire for mutual wellness and harmony - it’s more oriented toward self benefit and wellness. At the extreme would be narcissists, which are highly attracted to empaths, since they are relatively easy to extract from, manipulate and take advantage of. I’ve been in several of these types of relationships, in part because I could not image or understand how anyone could be oriented like this. It was really confusing and there were all sorts of healthy dynamics - as you mentioned - co-dependency, people pleasing, seeking approval/validation, being hyper self-critical, taking on too much responsibility, including other people’s feelings. Yet, I think it’s also important to note that an empathetic orientation is not inherently bad. Within healthy dynamics, it is an amazing trait to connect and communicate with others. In the context of this thread, I would say that people with a strong orientation toward empathy with others will resonate differently with their environment, groups, teachers, teachings etc. Similarly, someone that has a natural tendency toward introversion will resonate differently than those with strong extroversion tendencies. Overall, I think it can be helpful to know natural orientations and flow with it. For example, awareness of the five love languages can be helpful in the development and seeping of a relationship. Awareness of a student’s natural learning style can be helpful while teaching calculus. To me, it seems like knowing a person’s natural tendencies and orientation would also be helpful along a spiritual path. I’ve sat in Dharma talks that were extremely intellectual, with lots of historical dates, locations and names. I don’t resonate with that and at times I didn’t hear anything being said. It’s not that I was disinterested and unmotivated for spiritual growth, it’s that the approach didn’t resonate. For many years, I assumed there must be something wrong with me because I wasn’t getting it. This was reinforced in the environment, since the leaders were attached/identified with their approach as being the best for all. In part, because that was the approach that seemed to work for them.

I showed clips of Leo’s videos in one of my courses with 20 students. After showing Leo’s blog video on absolute infinity, one student asked if I could recommend more of Leo’s videos that are related. The next semester, the student stopped by my office and told me he changed his major from marketing to humanities, mostly due to the course material on SD and Leo’s yellow/turquoise level videos.

@Martin123 In terms of inferiority and superiority dynamics, I would say they are present in both types of people, yet manifest differently. A sense of inferiority / insecurity can be expressed by feeling bad about oneself and taking responsibility for other people’s feelings. Yet a sense of inferiority / insecurity can also be expressed by blaming others and trying to control/dominate others. Both empaths and narcissists have inferiority / insecurity dynamics - it just manifests differently. We could refer to manifestation/expression as being inferior and superior and I think that has a lot of practical value in terms of the most effective path of awakening at more transparent levels. Yet, I also think there is a deeper aspect in that those expressing inferiority also have underlying superiority dynamics and those expressing superiority also have underlying inferiority dynamics. When I see someone with a strong sense superiority, I also see someone with inferiority issues deeper down.

You make some interesting points. I would agree that there are different ego structures, yet I’d also say it gets quite nuanced. Are you saying one person has an inferiority complex and the other person has a superiority complex? Or are you saying that one ego structure is superior to the other?

I was just watching a video on “what is an empath” and this was one of the things she discussed. To integrate this with the thread theme, I would say empathy is considered to be feminine energy/trait (yet both women and men can experience/embody it). In terms of spiritual paths, I can see how a path that incorporates empathy would resonate with those that are naturally empathetic.

@Setty There is a difference between criticism from above and criticism from below. Bernie has been green-centered his entire adult life and has deep understanding and embodiment of green. He criticizes Orange from above and he is trying to pull Orange-centered people up to green. It would be a different dynamic if a politician was Blue-centered and criticized Orange from below in an effort to pull Orange back down to Blue. As well, Bernie does not criticize higher stages from below. For example, he doesn’t criticize Turquoise-level views of Marianne Williamson as being irrational or dangerous. And he doesn’t try to proclaim understanding and authority on metaphysics, existentialism and Truth. Bernie stays immersed within his understanding and embodiment of green and genuinely wants to pull people up to green. JP could likely make a lot of contributions in his field of clinical psychology. I have a highly conscious friend who is a psychologist and she tells me that JP has offered some insights into psychology. This is at an Orange level. Similar to how a geneticist like Richard Dawkins can make significant contributions at an Orange level. As well, they are qualified to criticize red and blue from above. For example, Dawkins often criticizes the irrationality of blue religion. This is helpful to those transitioning into Orange. Similarly, JP has some Orange level views that can be helpful to pull up red/blue to Orange. Dawkins and JP may have some high orange level reasoning that can have value in some contexts. The problem with people like JP and Dawkins Is that they have blue and/or orange anchors and are viewing green, yellow and Turquoise from below. Yet they are under self delusion they are at a higher stage of consciousness. Unlike Bernie, they criticize higher stages, assuming they have understanding/embodiment of those higher stages. The harm comes in when they misrepresent and demonize higher stages - due to a lack of understanding/embodiment. They may help pull some up to Orange, yet those people will have a harder time evolving higher because they have been conditioned to resist higher stages. People like JP and Dawkins are a deterrent in evolving through and beyond green. Bernie doesn’t do this. Bernie is not under a delusion that he is an authority on higher conscious stages, and he doesn’t misrepresent and demonize higher conscious stages. Bernie is simply expressing his understanding and embodiment of green and criticizes excessive Orange from above. JP criticizes and stigmatizes green from below. If someone at stage Yellow or Turquoise criticized green from above, it would have a very different dynamic. The difference is totally obvious to someone who has evolved through green and has embodied green. Such a person no longer has the blue/orange baggage and resistance that people like JP and Dawkins have. Somewhat like a fluent English speaker watching an intermediate-level student trying to speak English. To a fluent English speaker, an intermediate level would be totally obvious. Gaps in understanding, misunderstandings in grammar, poor pronunciation, small vocabulary etc. would be totally obvious. This intermediate-level speaker could help pull beginning students up to an intermediate level, yet not up to advanced stages of fluency. If an intermediate speaker was under the delusion that they had advanced fluency, misrepresented advanced things like the imperfect subjunctive and demonized those with higher levels of fluency than their own, it would have a negative impact on the evolution of the community in terms of learning and communicating in Spanish. This is not to say that green is beyond criticism. Yet criticism from above has very different dynamics, intentions, impacts and energetics than criticism from below.

I especially love watching the process of pollination. ?

Good point. Yes, from the perspective that we are shaped from our experiences, new biases emerged. For example, some of my views were biased by growing up in America. Now some of my views are biased by traveling through a variety of foreign countries. Yet, I would say there is much more awareness and less attachment/identification to any particular view.

Self is constructed through biases. Rather than asking *if* I am biased, I try to observe *how* I am biased. This is a very different orientation. For me, it is much easier to see degrees of bias within my mind from this orientation. In part, because it disables the stigmatization and reactionary defense against self bias and allows a curiosity to arise. For example the question “Am I biased toward other ethnic groups?” creates a binary choice between bad and good. I get to choose between being a racist (bad) or a nonracist (good). In contrast, the question “How am I biased toward other ethnic groups?” allows space for nuances, degrees and exploration. I’m now free to consider things like subconscious biases, prior conditioning, micro biases and intention vs impact. The best way for me to reveal this is to step outside my comfort zone. For example, I lived in South America for three months and I also dated women outside my race. Through these experiences, many of my subconscious biases were revealed. Some were easily let go of. Awareness alone was sufficient. Others were conditioned patterns that needed some de-conditioning work.

In which each path is a journey and the journey itself is home.

@Aliman My impression of JP is that he has a fundamental belief in an external, universal, dualistic, objective reality. This imposes a contraction and restrictions. Conversations with someone who believes in an external, universal, objective reality quickly encounter the walls within that paradigm.

@Dumivid It’s really hard to gain muscle mass while doing a lot of cardio. You might want to consider going light on cardio - not much cardio is needed to for baseline cardi-vascular health. Perhaps 20min. 3X weekly. . . . Lifting weights of course is great to build muscle mass. I would recommend considering yoga. It’s great for muscle strength and toning as well as overall balance, posture flexibility and injury prevention. There are tons of free videos online, many are only 20-30min. long.

@montecristo Depends on how the term “exist” is used.

To those unaware of a bridge, trying to cross the river on a raft seems like a good idea.

This is all within the the perspective of the dream character. Nothing wrong with that. It can have practical use. Notice how you use the term “awoken”. The dream character is defining the term “awoken” and is assuming it’s the same for a more expansive level. Yet, a higher expansion transcends this character and the concept of “awoken” is also expanded. It cannot be understood within the contracted dream character. Imagine within your dream you are a guy named Paul that lives in New York. Within the dream, Paul is trying to figure out awakening. He goes to meditation groups, retreats and watches videos. He discusses awakening on online forums. Paul is very curious and wonders what god is like and wether god is awoke. . . Then, your alarm clock goes off and you wake up. You realize you were dreaming. This level of awakening is very different than Paul’s contracted view of awakening. Paul cannot imagine it or figure it out.

In your dreams, is your dream character separate from you? Does your dream character have free will within the dream? Or is it the will from a higher consciousness (your subconscious mind) ? Is there a distinction between your dream character and your subconscious mind? From one perspective, yes. From another perspective, no. Your dream character does not realize it is a dream character within your mind. It is incomprehensible to that dream character. As long as it is identified as itself, it will not awaken to a more expansive conscious state. It can do all the yoga, retreats and reading within the dream it can, yet will not figure out and realize the higher consciousness while still identified with the illusory dream and itself as real. Similarly, one won’t realize they are a dream character within a higher order mind that cannot be figured out and realized within a contracted state of consciousness.

Of course self empowerment is is a factor. Yet that is not what I am pointing at. The perspective quoted above is an element within a broader context, yet adding that element here obfuscates the point, which would then reduce the point’s relative weight in a broader integrative context. If one does not clearly see and understand the continuums of two limited perspectives, they will not be able to integrate the two into a more holistic perspective. In particular, consider this part: “If 1% of the population possessed 90% of the county’s wealth/resources/power, there is not opportunity to access as much of that wealth/resources as one desires.” I intentionally created a context to highlight a particular point to a particular perspective. Within this context I gave, the comment quoted above is quite silly. One would need to take it out of context for the above comment to be reasonable. I am not saying that wealth/resource/power distribution 100% determines one’s opportunity toward accumulating wealth/resource/power in every scenario. To re-contextualize the point into such a simple binary view is a distortion. Personal empowerment is also an element, yet not what I’m pointing out. I’m intentionally reducing the impact of personal empowerment to highlight the element of wealth distribution to those who cannot see it. Without seeing each element, one cannot see both elements within a larger context. And I don’t think referring to certain humans as an “infestation” is helpful. It has a de-humanizing impact.

I didn’t say it was the only concern nor did I advocate for any particular form of wealth distribution. You assumed and added those in. By doing so, the context is distorted. In a certain context, I would agree with your point as partially true. However, you missed the context here and what I am pointing at.

@Bodigger I’m trying to illustrate that concentration of wealth/power has an inherent danger for a society. The more concentrated the wealth/power becomes the more dangerous it can become and more people will be affected. Those that are accumulating and concentrating wealth/power will want to mask this process, so it won’t be obvious to the populace. For example, this quote: This is a fundamental belief by many Americans and it enables further concentration of wealth/resources/power and unequal access to that wealth and resources. This is an example of the masking I referred to above. It is what those concentrating that wealth/power would like the rest of the populace to believe. If 1% of the population possessed 90% of the county’s wealth/resources/power, there is not opportunity to access as much of that wealth/resources as one desires. For sure. There is conscious awareness at the personal level which involves introspection. There is also conscious awareness at the collective level.

@Bodigger I’m curious what your cutoff would be for wealth concentration. For example, I think we would likely agree that if one American possessed and hoarded 100% of the country’s wealth/resources/power and everyone else in American zero wealth, starving, homeless and dying - it would be too concentrated. Only one person would have needs met and everyone else would suffer and die. If the structure of America allowed 100% wealth/resources/power to be possessed and hoarded by one person, I think most people would agree that the structure is problematic and needs to be restructured. However, this would not be possible since one person has accumulated and hoarded 100% of the wealth/resources/power. I doubt either of us could come up with a scenario in which this is good for the American people. It would be horrific for everyone. Assuming that 100% wealth/resource concentration to one person is too concentrated, what would be our cutoff? At what point should we consider wealth/resource concentration starts to become too much? For example, let’s shift it a bit. Let’s say 100 people have 90% of the country’s wealth/power. Everyone except these 100 people live in shacks without running water and is trying to live on $100/ month while the 100 wealthy people are all trillionaires. Again, they would also have 90% of the power, so we would be essentially powerless to do anything about it.

Refutation of evidence is not necessary. The truth is prior to evidence. Claiming 100% certainty of evidence is to claim that evidence = truth. Truth comes prior to evidence, so the two are not equal. If a murder occurred, the truth of that murder is prior to, and not dependent upon, evidence/proof. Assuming that the above evidence you state was properly handled, I would agree that the evidence is extremely strong and sufficient to judge as guilty. I would say more than sufficient. As well, I would agree that society’s response should be proportional to strength of evidence and degree of harm caused. Although, I would say that the whether the death penalty is the “best” response would be a different question with many nuances. . . The problem I have is calling evidence 100% proof. This assumes that evidence/proof = truth. This creates all sorts of problems because it is an absolute objectivist framework. As such, constructs will be built upon this framework with underlying assumptions of absolute objectivism. For example, an underlying objective assumption within a binary model of “corrupt” vs “non-corrupt”. Such an absolute objectivist assumption will be the lens through which the world is perceived and interpreted.

The problems I see here are using a binary construct as well as assuming universally objective evidence/proof. I think it is much more nuanced than a binary view of corruption vs. non-corruption. As well, the standard of 100% certainty is a claim of absolute objective truth. For example, I would disagree of 100% certainty of evidence/profile, since truth comes prior to evidence/proof. Evidence/proof cannot be elated to equal truth. . . .That we disagree on this point itself shows the underlying relative nature of objectivism from one perspective.

While hiking yesterday, the story of the Sufi and “getting it” arose. This is just one view regarding time that I thought was interesting. It is by no means the right way of looking at it, just one way. Imagine the Sufi spoke the wise insight and the other person walked away “not getting it”. Five hours hours later the person is alone and a moment of clarity arises and they realize the truth in the Suf’s words. Now imagine the person originally didn’t get it and five years later has a moment of clarity and realizes the truth in the Sufi’s words. In the context of a story within a timeline, these time points make a difference. There are differences between realizing something now, in five hours and in five years. For example, if the person realized the wisdom within those five hours, the next five years of his life wold have been transformed. So there is meaning here within a horizontal axis of time. During my hike, I also consider things from the perspective of the vertical axis of Now (without a timeline). From this perspective, there is no difference between 5 hours and 5 years from Now. They are both Not Now. As well, the moment the Sufi spoke the words and the moment the person realized the truth within those words are both Now. All realizations happen Now. Time is a story happening now. The context of time is a bit of a tangent from the orientation of your original question. I just thought it was an interesting twist since most humans get immersed into stories within time.

“Q: I am asking about the immediate, the transitory, the appearance. Here is a picture of a child killed by soldiers. It is a fact - staring at you. You cannot deny it. Now, who is responsible for the death of the child? M: Nobody and everybody. The world is what it contains and each thing affects all others. We all kill the child and we all die with it. Every event has innumerable causes and produces numberless effects. It is useless to keep accounts, nothing is traceable.” Thanks for sharing this view. I think it is very insightful and few humans realize it. I recently brought this up with a friend regarding causation of an assault and she became quite upset because this view of ultimate untraceable harm seemed quite threatening to her relatively contracted view of proximal harm. I noticed myself becoming immersed within a nondual perspective of ultimate untraceable cause. I.e. inputs of a happening can become highly numerous and complex. Eventually, inputs of a happening become infinite and collapse into a nondual one in which causation is untraceable, since there are no separate thing to be traced or to trace to. Yet, I realized this too is a duality. It is a form of a nondual vs dual duality often spoken about on the forum (also phrased as absolute vs relative). In this case, the duality is proximal traceable cause vs ultimate untraceable cause. It’s not to say either side of the duality is “wrong” or lacks value. It’s to say that upon closer inspection, the inter-connections and nuances between the duality also have partial truth and value. To state it is useless to keep accounts is true from the partial truth of ultimate non-traceable cause, yet false from the partial truth of proximal traceable harm. The tendency for human minds is become immersed, attached and identified with one side of duality. Here, after realizing the falsity within proximal traceable truth, the mind naturally wants to accept the opposite - ultimate nontraceable cause - as being true. Human minds are conditioned to perceive in opposites. With this mindset, we lose the partial truth and partial falsity of each opposite and the inter-connectedness and nuances between the opposites. Eventually, the duality of opposition collapses.

@Truth Addict Do you think seeds can be planted? Perhaps that student used the master’s words to use “truth” as a tool for person gain. After many years of futile seeking, perhaps the Truth of master’s words were suddenly realized.