Forestluv

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.

@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.