Forestluv

@Amanda R Batista It sounds like you have experience with personal development and you are engaged in common personal development techniques. Your comments about metaphysics, Leo's love video and mystical love experience suggests you are drawn toward something beyond personal development that involves an awakening of the heart. My hunch is that nonduality may resonate with you. If you want to explore this area, I would recommend finding a nondual teacher or two online. Based on the feel of your post, I would recommend Lisa Cairns for you. She has a youtube channel with lots of videos. I recommend starting with videos over the last six months. She teaches from her heart and doesn't over-intellectualize. As well, she is balanced between personal development and nonduality - which I think may resonate with you.

@tashawoodfall I’d try sitting with the jealousy and getting to know it. I’ve found my jealousy can have insecure/attachment/controlling energy. Yet, I’ve also experienced a form of jealosy that has an innocent wanting energy. Almost like a child with a pure innocent wanting being jealous. It’s kind of adorable in a way. Like a spinoff of love. The first type of jealousy I need to personally work through. The second type of jealosy I can be light-hearted and playful with a partner. Poke some fun at her and myself. One of my flaws in romantic relationships is I can take things so damn seriously. I need to lighten up more and be playful more.

Dang, not too long ago you were Captain Conceptualizer.

@kieranperez Once someone reaches that level, I can't imagine them living like a regular guy. Can you imagine adyashanti working as a manager at Office Max and going out with the guys for a few beers? It just doesn't have the same substance. It's just not attractive. I'm not nearly at that level, yet my interest in common social talk has gotten incredibly thin. I've always found small talk boring, yet now it almost feels painful. I had a date with a regular lady last night who talked about her cruise around Italy, how she got seasick, how the dramamine didn't work until the second day, how she ate on the boat. . . Then she goes on about her coworker and how she smelled alcohol on his breath and she doesn't think he should be allowed to bring in his dog to the office, because it's not a therapy dog. . . It was at such a low level of consciousness and superficial. That is the average level of consciousness around my area. It was painful sitting through it - I wanted to get the hell out of their. It's not much better with my co-workers. The have a higher intellect, but they are asleep as well. Walking around like robots with little awareness and no curiosity about growing. The nearest buddhist group is an hour drive away. I can see how high conscious people would want to teach and help others to evolve.

Gotcha. I misinterpreted your comment.

Sure, telling a newbie "You" and "Ego" are separate is non-threatening. Yet, it just digs their hole deeper. Why put on this charade for them? Imagine going to your meditation group with seasoned meditators and the leader makes an announcement "Today we will have someone new to the practice joining us. So to be non-threatening to her, we will all pretend that "You" and "The Ego" are separate. During the next three months we will only read misleading books that refer to "You" and "Ego" as separate entities and we will all speak as if this is actually true. Then once she gets comfortable in the group, we will let her know we fed her a pile of lies so she wouldn't get scared away.

I consider that type of inquiry an advanced beginner stage. I don't think people who have never meditated or done introspection can jump into that type of self-inquiry effectively. I think meditation while counting breaths is better to quiet thoughts. And every time a thought arises to label it as a thought. Even recognizing a thought it a major jump up in consciousness for a newcomer. Most newcomers to spirituality are completely immersed into their thoughts and feelings. There is no space. They ARE their thoughts and feelings. They ARE their story. If asked to contemplate "who am I" the mind will be like "Duh, I'm Harry. I live in California. I'm a 42 year old carpenter. I have two kids, a dog and a cat. Hmmm, what else? I like going to baseball games, rock concerts and art galleries. . ." It would be like a bio for a dating app. Your suggestion is a form of the "observer + object" stage, yet I think it's more advanced than simply being able to recognize a thought. Most newcomers have never even witnessed one of their thoughts - because they ARE their thoughts. Perhaps I am underestimating people who have never meditated or done any introspection.

@Gabriel Antonio I'm not a fan of that Eckart Tolle quote. That reinforces the narrative that there is a "You" at odds with an "Ego". It says this "You" cannot fight the "ego" and win. That "You" cannot fight darkness and win. This is the type of feel-good fluffy stuff that will resonate with a beginner. Beginners have set up a dichotomy of "me" over here and "ego" over there. This type of rhetoric is non-threatening to the ego/self and it may gently introduce people to spirituality. The problem is that it is misleading and reinforces the game the self/ego has set up. That is why the ego will *love* this type of rhetoric. "See!! Even Eckart Tolle says there is a "me" and an "ego!!". I think we should tell newbies straight-up: "You are Ego". The entire story about yourself is you/self/ego. It's going to hurt, but lets rip off the band-aid and show them some truth. That way they can get straight to business and start deconstructing the self/ego rather than strengthening the self/ego. I spent years immersed in this "me and my ego" mentality. It's a waste of time and it's counter-productive. Someone might feel some relief at first, but it creates longer term problems because it fractures the personality construct into "me" and "ego". IMO, it's lazy spirituality.

I know a lot people are into self-inquiry with "who am I"? Yet an ego can go through hundreds of ideas until it gets exhausted and gives up. I think it is faster for a beginner to get to the "observer + object" stage as soon as possible. It's only a step forward, because the self/ego will attach and identify to this new "observer". Yet, it's a huge step forward for beginners because there is realization that everything the self/ego identified with is a sham. Now, we've go to deal with identifying with the "observer", yet IMO this is the biggest spiritual awakening most people will attain in their lifetime. It's like someone realizes they have been playing an actor on a stage their whole life and that isn't who they are. It seems so basic in spiritual circles, yet I think it's very rare in the general population.

Yep. A super common trap for beginner's. The self/ego is super sneaky. It creates a diversion: "Hey look over there!!! It's an ego full of stuff I don't like. It's self-centered, it wants lots of attention, it's judgmental, critical, greedy, anxious. . . If I want to grow and get spiritual, I better start dealing with this ego problem. I better read some books about how to deal with my ego". It's a waste of time. It's actually counter-productive. It reinforces the illusion that a self and ego exist. It's just a game the ego plays to keep itself in the game. Once you are onto this game, the ego has plenty of tricks. The ego creates a bunch of words for itself to muddy the waters. "I", "me", "self", "ego" are all the same. One exercise you can do is stop calling the self/ego by a name as if it is a noun. As if it is a thing. Rather, try referring to yourself as a verb. I.e. "Right now, I am Amandaing". That will disable the intricate life story the self/ego has created.

Well sure. And so does a gazillion other distinctions in your life. Identification with anything is duality. Language is duality. Anything you view as separate is duality. You are swimming in duality. It serves a purpose, the human perspective is dual - it makes living more convenient. If you want to work on identification, I would suggest going after the Big Guns first: your own thoughts and feelings. Every time a thought arises during meditation, label it as "thought". Every time you recognize you were lost in thought, label it as "thinking" and return to the breath. Every time you get distracted by a feeling, label it as "feeling" and return to the breath. This will help you break your attachment and identification to your thoughts and feelings.

Everything you wrote sounds very mature and healthy. I hope society is evolving in this direction. From my POV in the U.S., many women would share your ideal - yet when it comes down to it, many women will pass on a guy who expresses emotion and empathy in favor of an over-bearing "alpha male". I've seen it over and over. Women saying they want to date a nice guy, yet keep getting involved with mean guys. If I want to date a gal, I generally have to keep emotional expression and empathy to a minimum. Nearly all women say that want a guy that is "emotionally available". Yet, even small amounts of emotional expression can turn off most women sexually - in particular expressing vulnerability. It leads to a reaction like "You seem like a nice guy, attractive and successful - yet for some reason, I don't feel the magic". They move on to a mean, controlling guy. Of course this isn't all women, yet it is common. On a dating profile, if a woman writes she is looking for a "nice guy" - it is a huge red flag for me.

I grew up with a fundamental Catholic family. When I left for college, I used a "slow burn" approach. I gradually started distancing myself. I talked with my parents about my classes and social life - I avoided religion. When I went home, I still went to church with my family (but I did not receive communion). When religion popped up in conversation, I didn't engage - but I did not try to abruptly change the conversation. I just listened and said "Oh. . . Ok. . .. Mmmm. . . interesting. . . "etc. Then, when there was a gap, I gently changed the conversation. Overtime, religion gradually came up less and less. After about 10 years, it never came up again. Even when I visited home. I just joined them for Christmas mass and bowed my head when they said grace during meals. I knew Christmas mass had a lot of meaning for my parents. I didn't make it a big deal. I liked running into old high school friends at mass and the Christmas choir and bells was beautiful. I never made a big "announcement". I never pretended that I was still Catholic. No drama, no tension. It just gradually dissolved.

LMAO. Very creative!!

I've found people tend to have highly conditioned minds that are resistant to deeper truths. Sometimes using a common word in a different context, or a radical context, can throw the ego off it's defensive posture for a moment and allow a person to recontextualize and gain insight. Yet, it can backfire as well. One example is with "freedom". Most people think of freedom as having free time, doing leisurely activities, having the money to do what they want, being free of worry and stress etc. Yet, that is not true freedom. That is self-centered seeking and temporary relief. True freedom is not dependent on conditions. It is absolute and ever present. True freedom is present during sex, watching movies, while getting raped, while sky diving, while mowing the lawn, while eating lunch, while being tortured in a prison. . . This is a deeper realization of true freedom outside their comfort zone. It's the truth. Lots of teachers stay within students' comfort zone. Sometimes people need to get pushed outside their comfort zone to grow. It can be uncomfortable. Teachers have challenged some of my dearly-held beliefs and sent me into discomfort and distress. As well, I've challenged people's beliefs into their discomfort zone. I've learned that people have a "stretch zone" that is conducive for learning. Beyond that there is a "panic zone" which becomes counter-productive. This particular video seemed to trigger a lot of people into a highly defensive and judgmental mode. Perhaps the child rape reference was an over-reach that sent people into lock-down mode. Yet rather than spiraling into a mental storm, why not get interested in why the mind-body got so intensely defensive and angry? One could contemplate "What is happiness"? Is happiness dependent on conditions? If someone answers "No, I believe in unconditional happiness", then Leo's video is nonthreatening. If someone answers "yes", than there is no unconditional happiness. In fact, there would be no unconditional love. If we take unconditional happiness off the table, how can we let unconditional love remain. Could a parent feel love for their childs' rapist? If not, all that talk from wise spiritual teachers about unconditional love is just a bunch of feel-good bullshit. All the books on unconditional love, aspiring to unconditional love that is talked about in churches, self help groups, yoga, spiritual retreats. All bullshit. It's either unconditional or conditional. If you believe happiness is conditional, where should we draw the boundaries for appropriate conditions for happiness? Under what conditions is it acceptable to experience happiness? Are these the same conditions for everyone? If someone else's boundaries of happiness differ from your own, at what point would you judge that person as unethical or deranged? Don't just consider extreme examples. It's easy to only consider the extremes. Also consider grey areas. Where is your threshold? At what exact point would someone cross over into the unethical and deranged category? Or, is it a continuum? Would you judge a person to gradually progress from "normal happy" to "slightly deranged happy" to "moderately deranged happy" to "evil deranged happy"?. If someone experienced happiness of child rape, does that make that person evil? Or was that person conditioned over their lifetime to experience happiness in horrific conditions? Are they truly making a choice in that situation to produce hormones and neurotransmitters leading to the sensation of happiness? Or are the happy feelings beyond their control? Should we feel disgust or compassion for such a person? Or would it depend on the circumstances? What if the parent was repeatedly raped during their childhood and they used happiness as a defense against experiencing trauma? . . Is your perspective of what happiness is universal? Could other cultures have a different framework for happiness? Surface level spirituality is easy. Reading up on Spiral Dynamics is easy. Challenging deeply-held beliefs is hard. Challenging deeply-conditioned beliefs is hard. It's really uncomfortable and people avoid it. Sometimes the work requires radical open-mindedness.

Hmmm, Leo gives the example of the unmistakable experience of orgasming during sex. How about we go Full-On Yellow here and *integrate* these concepts?. . . 1. Start having intercourse 2. As you are orgasming, have someone punch you in the face. 3. Then immediately pretend you did not blow your load.

I think that is a "short putt" for most egos. They would comfortably say "I thought about asking for a raise, but then changed my mind" - thinking they were in complete control the whole time. Do you think that the appearance of some thoughts can be linked between people over distance. For example, imagine waking up one morning and a thought arises about an old high school buddy you haven't thought about for years. You send him a text and he responds "OMG, I just thought about you this morning!! I can't believe I just got a text from you!". Most people would consider that type of thing a "coincidence". It's a rare event, yet rare event happen occasionally. Yet, sometimes that type of thing seems to happen more often than coincidence would explain.

Oh yea? Well, I can get my heart rate down to under 40 beats a minute - Ha!

@ajasatya What a beautiful couple!!

It sounds like you made a lot of progress. You were sexual with a prostitute. In a sense, you did "finish". You didn't back out or freak out halfway through and leave. You gave your all and were engaged through the whole process. Regarding "game". Be genuine. You may want to work on composure a bit. Nobody wants to be so nervous on a date that they start shaking and break down - spilling their drink as they babble about their masturbation habits. Yet, it doesn't sound like you are going to become some smooth guy that can sweep a woman off her feet and fuck her senseless until she is too sore to take anymore. If you learn a bunch of pickup lines and strategies - would they feel natural to you? Or would it feel awkward and forced? Is that who you genuinely are? Some guys have this idea that they need to steer initial dates toward sex and close the deal within a couple dates. There are plenty of women that are fine going on several dates and getting to know a guy, then spending some time just fooling around. It doesn't have to be a high stakes scenario like you are a basketball player on the free-throw line with down 1 point with 2 seconds left in the game. Find someone you feel somewhat comfortable with. After a few dates, if the topic of sex comes up in conversation - perhaps casually mention that sex is special for you and sometimes you get a bit nervous. Some women will appreciate that. If some woman judges you as a loser, do you really want to try and have sex with her? The pressure would be really high. There are women that are much more chill and supportive. When I was your age, I had the opposite problem - premature ejaculation. One time I was with a more experienced woman. Things progressed fast and after the second date I found myself in her bedroom talking about books. I had anxiety and almost came before my pants even came off. It was literally three pumps and a squirt. I will never forget the look she gave me as she said "Did you come already??!!! You did, didn't you? Are you fucking serious? That's it?". . . It was an awful experience. Later, I met another gal and mentioned prior to sex that sometimes I come quickly. She replied "Sometimes that's fucking HOTT!! When I turn a guy on so much he can't hold back it makes me feel like a sexy". She then suggested that we could always do it a second and third time - that I would probably last longer. And guess what happened? I came after 5 seconds the first time and she thought it was hot. The second time I lasted about 5min. and then gradually increased my stamina. I wasn't a dynamo with intercourse, yet I knew I could improve my oral skills. I told women I dated that I wanted to get really good at giving oral sex. They were thrilled to let me practice on them. Most guys aren't into oral sex. They flap their tongue around a few times as they are thinking about moving on to intercourse. I learned how to give oral as if I was playing a musical instrument. You can send a woman into absolute bliss with skilled oral sex.

I see what you are saying. Yet, I think you are using the term "free will" in a broader context than your average Joe. I don't think most people use a "free will = thought + manifestation" definition. I think it's more like "free will = thought + tangible result". I.e. Someone can choose whether or not to apply for a job, ask for a raise, mow the lawn, get married etc. In your examples, I think the key is "from where did the thought to make coffee originate?". If I press that question and don't let them wiggle out, it can penetrate into the delusion. I think adding in the part about whether or not the coffee actually gets made will give them an escape hatch into a more comfortable zone. Another method: ask a person to think of a city. Tell them to think of various cities and decide on a city. After about 30 seconds, allow them to tell you the city. Then ask them if the cities just appeared as thoughts or if they went into a database within their mind, looked at all the options of every city they know of and chose one. The vast majority of people will concede that the cities just kinda appeared. This puts a MAJOR blow into the ego's control. Then, the ego will fight back to regain control and say "Yes, but after a few cities appeared in my head, THEN I chose one of them". I can get about 70% of people to realize thoughts just appeared, yet I've never been able to get someone to further realize that there is no chooser. Yet, I'm cool with that. The realization that thoughts just appear is often very profound for people and they can get shaken up by it. For those that insist they control their thoughts. . . I tell them that I actually have more control over what thoughts appear in their mind than they do. Of course they will laugh at me as ridiculous. Then I say "Chicago, Paris, Montreal. . . What cities are you thinking of now? . . . Moscow, Tokyo, Miami . . . what cities are you thinking of now?". . . This tends to make them very uncomfortable and they will change the topic.

That sounds intense. What are the parameters of "non-stop"? Can one eat, drink, piss/poop, sleep?

"What's the longest you've meditated?" Hmmm, is this the spiritual equivalent of macho guys busting out a ruler to see how they measure up?

Both modes of thinking are tools. Sometimes using a handsaw is best, sometimes using a chainsaw is best. My impression of the speaker is different. People restricted to one mode of thinking get upset, disgusted and d defensive when confronted with higher level thinking they don't understand. If he was capable of using both modes of thinking, I think he would have had a more meta view. Calmer, wiser and more inquisitive. For example, I'm uncertain of Leo's relative usage of the term "happiness". He could be using the term in the traditional / rational sense. I.e. happiness is a feeling people experience when good things happen for them. In this context, I can see how someone would get upset because if someone experienced happiness while their child was being raped, that would mean their child getting raped is "good". Within that scope, of course someone would get upset. Yet, Leo could also be using the term "happiness" in a deeper, more nuanced way. For example: "true happiness" is not about satisfying one's desire for self gratification. Perhaps "true happiness" is beyond the self. The human mind is so highly conditioned, that very few people could understand even the basics of the concept. Personally, I don't have a clear idea on how Leo was using the term "happiness", so I am unable to form an opinion about it.

Hmmm, perhaps millions of years of human evolution and a lifetime of social conditioning has something to do with it? Self actualization is paddling upstream.