Forestluv

I think there is a lot of value in the video relative to specific forms of relationships. I think his video is oversimplified and overgeneralized. He sets up a binary framework by repeatedly saying "illusion relationship" and "actual relationship". Yet, he never defines what an "actual relationship" is. The meaning of relationship is a highly subjective / relative concept. There are hundreds of different forms of relationships. It's highly complex and simplifying it to undefined "illusion relationship" and "actual relationship" only works at a surface level. It's "either / or" blue-level thinking. A person is Either in an illusion relationship Or an actual relationship. It doesn't incorporate Orange-level continuum thinking such that relationships lie on a continuum between illusion relationship and actual relationship. For example, a couple that live 100 miles apart that see each other on the weekends and communicate via social media on weekdays might be considered 60% illusion relationship and 40% actual relationship. As well, his binary framework does not include relativism found at Green and Yellow levels. From a relativist perspective an actual relationship would be however a couple or group define what "actual relationship" means for them. You say that "it" could work in any type of relationship, yet if we look closer - does it really? He excludes social media based relationships by labeling them as "illusion relationships", so it doesn't work for people that define a social media relationship as an "actual relationship". (And he cites outdated social media such as facebook - and does not consider more common and more interactive social media such as facetime/skype.). As well, he states "We want to take it slow, we want to see where it goes, we don't want to label things, we just go with the flow" as being in the illusionary relationship category. So, "it" doesn't work for this type of relationship. Yet, for some people taking things slow, not labeling and going with the flow is very healthy and works for them. If that's what a couple decides is best for them and that is an "actual" relationship for them, how can the speaker discredit their relationship as not being "actual"? There are also mongamous relationships, polyamourous relationships, open relationships etc. And with each of those forms of relationship, there are subforms of relationships - monogamy can range from strict monogamy to a flexible monogamy. Does "it" work for all of these forms of relationships? I don't think so. What about a woman that is in a primary relationship, two secondary relationships and a comet relationship structured as a hierarchical relationship with her primary partner. The video assumes a person only has one relationship (he consistently says "a relationship" in it's singular form. So, is this woman in an "actual relationship"? Should we group all four of her relationships and decide if it's an "actual relationship"? Or should we consider each relationship separately? What if she is highly committed to the primary partner and one secondary partner and they have lots of quality time together - and one secondary partner and the comet partner is based on social media? Would we say she has two "actual relationships" and two "illusionary relationships". At what point does an actual relationship become an illusionary relationship? Or what about a happily committed married couple that likes to spice things up with threesomes and swinger parties? How would we label their swinging partners? What if the swinging partners were in a tight-nit group that communicated through social media and got together for a party once a month? What if they shared deeply with each other and had close bonds? How would we apply the speaker's advice to this couple and their swinging relationships?

This looks like the next generation of conservative values. My parents’ generation criticized my generation’s style of relationships as being shallow and lacking substance. Similar to how he is doing here. He seems judgemental and ideological in this video. I don’t think this is fair portrayal of millennial relationships and I don’t think they are inferior to traditional relationships.

Just ideas floating around. . . My mind is trying to claim them as beliefs. . . ?

@Joseph Maynor Keep in mind these are all just ideas. If your mind holds the ideas as beliefs, it will limit your expansion. The way you state the ideas seems like you believe it.

Says who? The emergence of genders is not restricted within previous human constructs of gender. Old models of gender do not get to set rules that restrict the parameters of new emerging models of gender. Horse carraige drivers did not get to set the rules on how emerging automobiles would be manufactured.

That sounds like a human construct to me. It’s filled with interpretation, value judgement and intention. You seem to use a lot of intellectual concepts and present them as truth. Those ideas are not truth, they arise from truth. Be aware that if your mind holds those ideas as beliefs, it will limit your expansion. All those concepts are within something much broader and deeper. Don’t get too attached to them. Be open, flexible and nimble ?

Gender and sexuality is evolving fast. I think there are genders emerging outside of the masculine - feminine continuum

You seem grounded with it. I’ve been single 4 months and gravitating to this space. Yet, I don’t know how I will feel when I’m feeling n the next relationship.

Sometimes I wonder what it would be like to take a different path. I often placed personal freedom and autonomy over self-sacrifice within the relationship. I think this made it hard to form the types of bonds you write about.

On dating apps the top thing women say the want in a guy: sense of humor. I wonder if that’s true when the are actually in a relationship. I’ve never had issues come up about humor.

@Shadowraix Leo mentioned he will do a video soon on cults. I’m so curious.

There may have been some relationship fatigue, yet I think I also realized an inner truth. My whole life I had been conditioned to value long-term commitment as a virtue. Then, I began to question whether long-term commitment was virtous in and of itself. Then I began realizing that beneath my desire for long term commitment was seeking energy, fear and desire for control and security. It’s been a process of letting go and learning to be ok with uncertainty and impermanence. I don’t know what the future will hold - people change. Life changes. These days, I try to be fully present in a relationship. To be a good listener and supportive. To express unconditional love. To give of myself genuinely and freely. These values have risen higher than my desire for long-term commitment. If things naturally evolve in that direction, fine. Yet I no longer seek to steer things in that direction.

Good points. There are also lots of profiles in all caps saying they don’t want any liars, cheaters, games or drama. Unfortunately, that is exactly what they will attract and the cycle will continue.

Not necessarily. Making a relationship last has no inherent value to me. In some situations it has value - but no inherent value in and of itself. I spent 10 years trying to make a relationship last until I realized this truth.

What form of meditation to you usually practice?

As consciousness first arose from absolute nothing, there was no seeing, hearing, smelling, feeling or tasting. I just realized that this was a sutra I chanted many years ago with a Shambhala group. It didn't make sense at the time, yet chanting it seemed so spiritual. I know understand it through direct experience. Fun stuff.

Marijuana isn't physically addictive like alcohol, meth or heroine. Yet it is highly habit forming. It's easy to fall into the habit and hard to break. There are forums filled with habitual pot smokers struggling to quit. Many smokers just want to take a two week break to reduce THC tolerance - and struggle to do so. For someone with an addiction habit to more harmful drugs like alcohol and cocaine - they would greatly reduce harm by shifting to a marijuana habit. Yet if someone's intention is to break an addiction quick and live sober - psychedelics are much more effective and have a much lower risk.

@Psyche_92 Very nice. The direct experience of ego death and full nonduality can be sooo beautiful.

Hmmm, I don't know. Quantum mechanics has shown that two entities can be entangled over great distances. Those experiments opened my mind as did glimpses of murky direct experience. I have a sense that over the next hundreds of years humans will discover phenomena that would seem like magic today.

You don't seem to have direct experience or understanding of unconditional freedom. It is much deeper than mainstream ideas of freedom that you have been conditioned with. It's fine that you don't believe that unconditional freedom or unconditional love exists. Yet, just because you haven't experienced it or cannot imagine it - does not mean it does not exist. You would need to go deeper and push yourself beyond your deeply-held beliefs and desire for security and comfort. The ego will fight like hell to avoid this. If you touch upon it, your ego will tell you it is evil and cultish. The self/ego is content seeking truth within a secure and comfortable zone. One can learn and grow a lot in this zone - yet to take self-actualization to much deeper levels, one must be willing to be radically open-minded and be willing to sacrifice security and comfort for truth. I'm not talking about the insecurity of sharing vulnerable feelings or the discomfort of a long meditation session. I am talking about something much more radical and extreme. Some deep awakenings are incredibly beautiful and loving where a person feels at one with everything. Yet, if you want to reach the depths of beauty, love and oneness beyond your wildest dreams behind door #1, you've got to be willing to reach the depths of horror, terror, panic and insanity beyond your worst nightmares behind door #2. IME, there comes a point one has to completely surrender ALL control to venture deeper. You reach a point where you don't get to choose whether you enter door #1 or door #2. You don't get to choose whether the deep lesson is about unimaginable love or unimaginable terror. You don't seem to be willing to venture here. If a comment about child rape throws you into a tizzy about cults, you are not willing to have all your beliefs stripped from your grasping hand and be shown terror beyond your comprehension. And you will not get direct experience of absolute freedom as you lay in complete terror. Philosophizing and conceptualizing about reality is great stuff. Struggling through uncomfortable emotions for personal development is worthy. Debating about enlightenment, purpose, freedom and happiness on forums can shed insights. Meditation, self-inquiry and contemplation can be profound. I like to engage in these practices. Yet I'm telling you that all this stuff is an absolute cake walk compared to some of the stuff that lies much deeper. I'm not making this shit up. It's not intellectual mumbo jumbo. I have direct experience as do several other members on the forum. If you want to stay within the safe zone, that is totally fine - there is a lifetime of personal development lessons in the world. There are so many beautiful teachings within personal development. Yet, you will not experience and come to know the deep truths that require complete surrender of ALL control - including one's own life.

Orange is a complex stage. It can have various forms of expression. Some healthy, some unhealthy. When I went through Orange, some features appealed to me, others did not. For example, materialism and consumerism is a hallmark of Orange. Yet, I've never been motivated by money and material possessions or wealth. For many years, I've had the resources to buy nice clothes, a fancy car, a nice house, jewelry etc. - yet I've never cared about that stuff. I've never cared about looking good or how good others look. I've had the education and experience to get a job that would double or triple my salary. I've always been content with a modest salary. I've never been attracted to awards, recognition or job titles. These are all core aspects of Orange that never appealed to me. Ever since I was a young man in my early 20s, I had a lot of green. I was a bit of a hippy and traveled to Grateful Dead shows. I've been involved with meditation groups my entire adult life. I've always enjoyed dharma group discussions centered on compassion, love and empathy. I started volunteer work in my 20s. I've helped people overcome drug and alcohol addictions. For years I volunteered in a psychiatric ward. I would sit and listen to patients and offer emotional support. I've always been comfortable discussing insecurity, fear and vulnerabilities. These are core Green aspects that have been part of me my whole life. Similar to you, I grew up in a fundamental religious home. As soon as I moved out of the house, those Green aspects emerged and those Orange aspects had no appeal. So yes, a plenty of Green can emerge after Blue. However, I did not skip Orange. I went DEEP into aspects of Orange. . . Personal freedom and autonomy were always extremely important to me. I never got married and I never had the slightest desire to have children. I consciously avoided getting married or having children because it would impinge on my personal freedom and autonomy. I've treasured the freedom to do what I want. To date who I want, to move as I want, to travel the country and the world as I want. I worked my ass off to get a job where I have enormous freedom and autonomy. I can learn, teach and research what I want. I have no boss. I couldn't stand anyone telling me what to do or how to think. Moreover, I've always been a seeker of knowledge, discovery and truth. I valued rational, logical thinking. I became a hardcore scientist. I loved to have intellectual debates with religious zealots. I loved Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. I would roll my eyes at "woo woo, airy fairy" stuff. Deepak Chopra was a complete joke of a scientist. In my college classes I taught about how beliefs in paranormal activity were irrational and unscientific. These are all core Orange aspects that were a big part of my personality for about 20 years. I began transitioning out of this about 5 years ago. People who knew me back then, barely recognize me now. So, you may have a lot of Green coming right out of Blue. You may genuinely find many aspects of Orange unappealing. Yet, there may be some aspects that resonate with you.

Hmmm, I'm curious about your context. How would you define "practice"?

I'm in a similar region of the U.S. and have had a similar experience. The average consciousness level is painfully low. Surface level with little substance. I've dated a bit for companionship and entertainment, yet they don't progress to something meaningful. The consciousness gap is vast. Half of what I want to share and explore with a partner is outside their range - it never goes over well and I end up keeping it to myself. This leads to feelings of loneliness - even within the relationship.

Numerous studies have been conducted that rank the harm of drugs to the individual and society. Per capita, alcohol consistently ranks as one of the most harmful drugs (psychedelics consistently rank among the least harmful drugs).

Masculine and feminine is a binary construct that humans made up. It may have some value in that it is simple, convenient and some say help maintain social structure. Currently, there are only two options: masculine and feminine. This is a binary system (2 options). Yet, some people are a complex mix of both. As well, some people don't identify as either in some areas. There may be some traits listed under the masculine menu that doesn't resonate with a person. Then society says "Ahhh!, you want the opposite: the feminine menu!!". Yet, the opposite feminine traits on the menu isn't that appealing other. Traditionally, such people have been told "Too bad, there are only two menus to choose from". Gender roles as they exist today is a simple "either / or" choice. Yet, this oversimplifies the complexity. A new nonbinary menu is emerging for individuals that don't identify with either masculine or feminine on for given traits. This threatens people that have been conditioned with a rigid traditional masculine / feminine reality. Personally, I'm curious what new forms of expression will emerge from new nonbinary gender categories.