Search the Community

You have more work to do. There is nobody to claim consciousness. Consciousness is sovereign, and you are speaking as a human being. "You" as javfly did not make a single thing. If you think your mind is real and everyone else is a figment of your mind, you're delusional, not awakened. Consciousness is impersonal—it created you as well as everything else. One wave does not make the entire ocean around it.

death is the boundary between personal consciousness and impersonal consciousness; death ends the dream and releases consciousness back to the absolute... true or false when the absolute manifested and objectified into the universe, it split consciousness in two, a subject and a object ... this was the only way for god to love itself the subject consciousness depends on and is housed by this body but will quit projecting this universe once the subject perishes

@spinderella "MY consciousness" is not a thing. Consciousness is impersonal. It is the thing from which personhood (and everything else) arises. However, "MY awareness" is more accurate (but still untrue). Awareness is a perspective that occurs within consciousness. Awareness is the ability to focus and differentiate "things" out of consciousness. "Your" body is a form of awareness, as it allows for seeing, hearing, breathing, etc. In a sense, it is a contraction of consciousness that you experience as a perspective. I am putting pronouns in quotation marks, as awareness is actually the reason for the illusion of separateness. Because you are aware, reality appears as if you were the center of it. Therefore, it is the precondition of the appearance of the separate self ("mine", "yours", etc). Awareness is not "yours", because awareness precedes "you".

@flume I actually did not know that Leo made such a video until this thread, and even then I haven't watched it. Apparently, my reasoning for cheating is quite different from the video. I agree with you here. In my view, it doesn't matter how good the sex is or how beautiful, great, smart, and funny the woman is. When a man cheats on his woman, it's almost always about him, not about her. Male sexuality is very impersonal. Even if she's the world's most beautiful woman and the world's greatest mother and all the great things in the world, at some point his attraction towards her will decrease and then he will start seeking other women even if they're "less" than her. And "less" here is his own rational judgement. So, he actually knows and understands and even appreciates all the good things that she is, but he will still seek another sexual partner, regardless. So, yes, you shouldn't seek to keep your man loyal. Good sex for men is not the same thing as good sex for women. Good sex for men is mostly physical and perceptive (has to do with the senses, sights, sounds, etc...). Emotional connection is not a prerequisite for good sex for men, even though it's definitely appreciated. You needn't get triggered here, it's just practical advice. However, bad sex is very different from no sex at all. No sex at all is his responsibility, while bad sex is her responsibility. Easy for you to say these things when you don't have the same urges. And they are indeed powerful urges. No kidding. It's not necessarily "bad" or a "problem", but I see your point. And "cheating" doesn't necessarily break that commitment. Of course, that assumes there aren't already huge problems existing within the relationship, like lack of trust and communication. If there are already huge problems, then cheating is not really the actual problem, but really a scapegoat for and a doubling-down on the lack of communication. Either way, I would inquire into why people take it so seriously and consider it very threatening to the relationship. Agreed.

Projecting happens in every stage, more so in Orange, Blue and below. What is so specific for Green? What Green topics are impersonal?

? Or: You’re always letting go... However in either case there isn’t actually someone doing it. It’s the letting-go that nobody can do. It’s a totally impersonal play.

I believe that the impersonal, attributeless, formless witness Consciousness "moves around inside different forms."

Method I did a 1h 30min session of kriya supreme fire once on every chakra, and then I alternated between the 2nd, 4th, 6th and 7th. After every breath hold of kriya supreme fire, as I was waiting to recover my breath, I did a chakra opening exercise on the same chakra. Kriya Supreme Fire The general Idea for this exercise is to focus on a chakra while holding breath and doing the 3 main bandhas. The area of focus for the 2nd chakra is over the hip bone on the stomach, the heart space for 4th chakra, third eye for the 6th chakra and top of head for the 7th. This fills the chakra with energy. For instructions read Kundalini Exposed by SantataGamana. The energetic increase from this exercise can saturate dysfunctions of your chakras and manifest in various ways, it could be dangerous, especially for people new to energy work. Do at your own risk. I'm not trying to avoid spelling out the technique here it just takes too much explaining to go into in a forum post, better read it directly from the source. Chakra Opening On every out-breath you gently relax the chakra, fill it with bliss and tap into its positive expression. This synergizes with kriya supreme fire as it gives more energy to work with. The positive expression of the 2nd chakra is pleasure, 4th is love, 6th is presence, 7th is energetically melting together with the kosmos. There are many ways to do this. Here is an example for the 2nd chakra. I recommend Enlightenment through the Path of Kundalini by Tara Springett for more general instructions and Wheels of Life to better understand the chakra system. It was very energetically intense. When I had finished and opened my eyes I saw the word in a way I never had before. It was a way of perceiving, cognizing, behaving and experiencing myself, a totally new way of being that I realized was turquoise. The Anatomy of Turquoise The 2nd, 4th, 6th and 7th chakra make up the inner workings of turquoise. Everything I witnessed fell into an open heart(4th chakra). My open 6th chakra made the love indiscriminate, totally compassionate for even the darkest side of a being. That ability to see someone in their totality, without judging its ugly sides, is what gives turquoise it's famed holism. A 2nd chakra bond was then formed with being entered my awareness, could be a part of my subtle body, psyche or could be another living being. The indiscriminate love then worked through that bond to create the desire to heal the being. Healing means making happy, as happiness is the psyche's way of signaling health. It's then perceived that the being has bonds with other beings that in turn has more bonds. These bonds continue out to a whole network encompassing every being on this planet, aka, the web of life. The open 7th chakra made this cognition cosmic rather than personal, giving a 3rd person perspective required for the impersonal nature of the 2nd tier. Conclusions That state of mind requires a high degree of energy and purity. If I were to sustain that level, I would have to purify lower traumas and impurities that are keeping my energy down. Cleaning up is so important for vertical growth. I had never experienced yellow even close to this strongly before. It almost seemed like I had skipped that stage in many aspects. Just like rationality is the way of knowing for orange, intuition and empathy was a way of knowing for turquoise. Yellow systems thinking gave context for that intuition to give structure to the web of life. Turquoise is in essence a holistic healer. Leo has portrayed turquoise as spiritual in essence, which I now think is wrong. The ego transcendence achieved by spirituality is one aspect of turquoise, but turquoise is not complete without the involvement of the 2nd chakra in the way I described. I have ~2 years of energy work under my belt. I was meditating quite a lot around the time I had the experience. Normally I'm pretty orange but with a yellow worldview. But I also have a high amount of trauma and undeveloped sides of my psyche, so if my spiral development could skyrocket like that, then anyone could do it.

Ironically I had no plans of continuing this journal. I started a new journal and it got deleted with the data loss. Lately I've been so busy and so energetic that I haven't been writing that much. The daylight hours are so long it's hard to sleep and there's so much to DO. It felt great until a couple days ago when I started to feel like I'd been on vacation too long and was starting to get homesick. Funny that our vacations are mostly full of activity. I listened to the beginning of an Eckhart Tolle video that autoplayed while I was working and someone asked how they could reconcile what he teaches with Abraham Hicks (without naming her). He said that there's the inward and outward movements, the creating and dying back. As an explanation within duality, I equate this with seasons, I generally feel great about the busy, energetic seasons and then loathe the winter, yet understand one depends on the other. This turned into such a huge pattern of suffering over the years, that seems so silly and impersonal. Before the shift I had I almost got stuck in idolizing the spiritual winter stage, then discovering the law of attraction resulted in huge experiential understandings which in turn after the fact may have flipped the balance. The belief that happiness comes from conditions, that happiness comes from events, circumstances and things and is something that someone can have and something someone can lose or secure is so sneaky. You actually create best when you aren't expecting anything from it, this is the essence of creation. I guess that's why I like journaling. I like the amount of focus that trying to explain something in a way that someone else might understand helps me find me on a certain subject. When I'm journaling on my own, it's often lazy and lacks flow and intention. Yet, I also don't really expect anyone to read it or get anything from it, it's for me. So it tricks me into finding a good balance. I got stuck in this really self centered perspective that I was the chosen one. Years ago I adored and kept contemplating this line from the Sia song, "I'm still fighting for peace." And I want it, I want my life so bad I'm doing everything I can Then another one bites the dust It's hard to lose a chosen one You did not break me I'm still fighting for peace Funny when you put the song lyrics together with this video I made. "It's hard to lose a chosen one." How strong this narrative has been of the chosen one. Jesus Christ. Harry Potter. The hero's journey. Essentially you are your own chosen one. You are your perspective. And so much more, you are all the possibilities and the choosing. In the narrative anyone who chooses himself is a narcissistic asshole. "I volunteer as tribute." Because if I don't I loose lose someone I love, someone weaker than I. Jesus Christ. I must do this only as a sacrifice, to save others. I make myself infamous, I make myself eternal in the story, eternally heroic and loved by sacrificing myself for others. 12 This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You're telling me now, that this as an ideal is suffering? This is all bullshit? Jesus, is co-dependence love? Hello? Hello? C-can you hear me? I can be your China doll, if you like to see me fall Boy, you're so dope, your love is deadly Tell me life is beautiful They think that I have it all I've nothing without you All my dreams and all the lights mean Nothing without you All my dreams and all the lights mean Nothing, if I can't have you

Detachment feels like a forced action. It's a word that implies there is a separate individual which can attach or detach from something. Awakening is recognizing the individual that seems to attach to certain things or outcomes never actually existed. Apparent happenings become impersonal sort of speak.

Doesn’t being identified usually precede desiring? Also, is all suffering the same? I’ve copied and pasted the following several times in the forum. No one has ever really commented on it one way or another. Four types of suffering For whatever it’s worth,,, Intentional suffering is sometimes referred to as Conscious suffering in the Fourth Way. In Talks on Beelzebub's Tales, Bennett distinguishes four types of suffering - Unnecessary Suffering, Unavoidable Suffering, Voluntary Suffering and Intentional Suffering. Lets have a look at each of these to see if they can help our understanding: The first is Unnecessary Suffering. This would be the type of suffering that we incur because of our unreasonable attitudes and expectations towards others, from our ill-will, hatred and rejection of others, from doubt, possessiveness, arrogance and self pity. In other words, suffering arising from our self-importance. The second is Unavoidable Suffering. This would be the type of suffering that comes to us by accident or from events beyond our control, such as interpersonal conflicts, war, disaster, disease or death. Third, we have Voluntary Suffering. This would be the type of suffering that we take upon ourselves in order to accomplish a personal aim, such as an athlete who disciplines himself to win a race, or a student who labours to get good grades. And finally we have Intentional Suffering. According to Bennett, this would be the kind of suffering that we take upon ourselves in order to accomplish an impersonal or altruistic goal, one that is directed more towards service to others or to the Work, and not for any personal gain. Bennett assumes that this is what Gurdjieff meant by Intentional Suffering. From an article on the second Conscious Shock https://www.endlesssearch.co.uk/philo_is_talk_ae2005.htm

The desire for a new future order of things, substantially different from the present, is religious conviction at its core - the awaiting for the eventual coming of the Kingdom of God - in the external outside world rather than the internal personal sphere. Anti-capitalist sentiment, void of a precise and substantiated scientific analysis backed by empirical fact, becomes a religion in itself, a religion of opposition against an imagined external Other cause of evil and suffering seeking to rationalize and explain inner suffering within and caused by the self. It serves, paradoxically, as the opium for explaining to oneself the causes of his or her one's pervasive feeling of alienation from thy self, thy labor, and other's by numbing the actual inner and experiential alienation with a hyper-abstract extrapolation that sees the cause in an imagined imposed order of capitalism, in its perceived and imagined historical, societal and current economic form, while not being aware that it's a system you wilfully participate in everyday life via participation in capitalist exchange - as the author, Mark Fisher poignantly points out: ''accepting our insertion at the level of desire in the remorseless meat-grinder of Capital. What is being disavowed in the abjection of evil and ignorance onto fantasmatic Others is our own complicity in the planetary networks of oppression. What needs to be kept in mind is both that capitalism is a hyper-abstract impersonal structure and that it would be nothing without our cooperation.'' ''The most Gothic description of Capital is also the most accurate. Capital is an abstract parasite, an insatiable vampire and zombie-maker; but the living flesh it converts into dead labor is ours, and the zombies it makes are us." Capitalist realism, as the author Mark Fisher notes, in his book of the same title, is very far from precluding a certain anti-capitalism. As Zizek has provocatively pointed out, anti-capitalism is widely disseminated in capitalism. Far from undermining capitalist realism, this gestural anti-capitalism actually reinforces it. What we have here is a vision of control and communication much as Jean Baudrillard understood it, in which subjugation no longer takes the form of subordination to an extrinsic spectacle, but rather invites us to interact and participate. But this kind of irony feeds rather than challenges capitalist realism. A film like Wall-E exemplifies what Robert Pfaller has called "interpassivity": the film performs our anti-capitalism for us, allowing us to continue to consume with impunity. "The role of capitalist ideology is not to make an explicit case for something in the way that propaganda does, but to conceal the fact that the operations of capital do not depend on any sort of subjectively assumed belief." "Capitalist ideology", in general, Zizek maintains, "consists precisely in the overvaluing of belief - in the sense of the inner subjective attitude - at the expense of the beliefs we exhibit and externalize in our behavior. So long as we believe (in our hearts) that capitalism is bad, we are free to continue to participate in capitalist exchange." According to Zizek, "capitalism, in general, relies on this structure of disavowal." "We believe money is only a meaningless token of no intrinsic worth, yet we act as if it has a holy value. Moreover, this behavior precisely depends upon the prior disavowal - we are able to fetishize money in our actions only because we have already taken an ironic distance towards money in our heads. Corporate anti-capitalism wouldn't matter if it could be differentiated from an authentic anti-capitalist movement. The so-called anti-capitalist movement seemed also to have conceded too much to capitalist realism Since it was unable to posit a coherent alternative political-economic model to capitalism, the suspicion was that the actual aim was not to replace capitalism but to mitigate its worst excesses; and, since the form of its activities tended to be the staging of protests rather than a political organization, there's a sense that the anti-capitalism movement consisted of making a series of hysterical demands which it didn't expect to be met. Protests have formed a kind of carnivalesque background noise to capitalist realism."

the idea of death is a great meditation tool. nothing is more contrary to the ego than death. everything you say about fear of getting old, wasting your life, etc., is pure ego. There is nothing like a good or bad life, only the present moment, free of judgment. if you stick in the present and free the mind of thoughts, the fear of death disappears, because it is seen that the impersonal amplitude that you are cannot die. it is the same for any being, and if your body disappears, there are still countless other bodies existing. But of course, forget about your ego, there will be nothing left of it. that's why you have to die before you die. generously surrender the i. Or not so generously, i surrender it to gain the permanence and the beauty, maybe that's why each time i do i have a big ego reaction. The no ego is full of beauty , but empty of content. The ego hates that emptiness

Exactly. If you look at yourself from the point of view of death, you will see that your "I", your sense of yourself, never existed. it was a mirage. but being, existence, cannot not be. what happens is that it is impersonal, empty.

Four types of suffering For whatever it’s worth,,, I copied this from the thread on George Gurdjieff. A legitimate swatter of hornets nests,,,, Intentional suffering is sometimes referred to as Conscious suffering in the Fourth Way. In Talks on Beelzebub's Tales, Bennett distinguishes four types of suffering - Unnecessary Suffering, Unavoidable Suffering, Voluntary Suffering and Intentional Suffering. Lets have a look at each of these to see if they can help our understanding: The first is Unnecessary Suffering. This would be the type of suffering that we incur because of our unreasonable attitudes and expectations towards others, from our ill-will, hatred and rejection of others, from doubt, possessiveness, arrogance and self pity. In other words, suffering arising from our self-importance. The second is Unavoidable Suffering. This would be the type of suffering that comes to us by accident or from events beyond our control, such as interpersonal conflicts, war, disaster, disease or death. Third, we have Voluntary Suffering. This would be the type of suffering that we take upon ourselves in order to accomplish a personal aim, such as an athlete who disciplines himself to win a race, or a student who labours to get good grades. And finally we have Intentional Suffering. According to Bennett, this would be the kind of suffering that we take upon ourselves in order to accomplish an impersonal or altruistic goal, one that is directed more towards service to others or to the Work, and not for any personal gain. Bennett assumes that this is what Gurdjieff meant by Intentional Suffering. From an article on the second Conscious Shock https://www.endlesssearch.co.uk/philo_is_talk_ae2005.htm

but to what extent can you be enlightened? I guess quite deeply. I see reality as about to dissolve, a screen of color, like a set behind what is emptiness. I talk to people and I see their emptiness, they are just forms ... like me! but what is behind, that void, seems unknowable . it is nothing, it is completely impersonal, not human, but somehow it has to be intelligent, it is enough to observe the apparent reality to deduce the intelligence of the absolute. But how can the absolute be intelligent if it is nothing? because obviously, it is not "something". We are the absolute right now, and it's impersonal. Is impossible to understand that there is void, nothing, like an abyss. Think about that is insane, maybe that's why the mistics always says that it's uncognwable. Except Leo, of course

Think about it this way... You are not *perceiving* other people, so what is happening is that you're having a conscious direct experience of infinity manifesting itself in different ways. Where is 'your' Consciousness located? Where is the present moment occuring? The present moment is in fact impersonal consciousness/God experiencing whatever you're conscious of in the 'Now', because 'in the now' you are conscious, so everything is happening in your awareness, since you're Consciousness itself. ❤ So when you say "imagining infinite dreams symultaneously', "experiencing them separately" etc, you assume the present moment is separate from consciousness. Which is not the case. The present moment is You being conscious. Time is imaginary.

Impersonal Consciousness cannot feel alone. The ego-mind does.

Im here to help! You can unlock levels of imagination that are unimaginable! Kind of like your dreams, you have way more imagination when you are impersonal. Don't try to imagine things, but rather see what your imagination has in store, you just be the observer of it. If you can see black only, thats a great start. You have the canvas. Now you can imagine a white dot on it? Try enlarging the dot. Imagine it in another colour. Imagine the black only as another colour too. Zoom in, zoom out, play around that plane of imagination. Start small. In my opinion if you start imagining dots, lines, circles, triangles, basic shapes, then your mind will get the building blocks to imagine more complex things further. Or get more tuned with the imaginative part of yourself. You can try a visualisation technique I like which is to go to the edge of your experience now and "see" what is beyond there. You might get an impression of seeing something from your imagination. Even if not, just do not identify with what you saw and centre as the empty (or otherwise very small) being that is able to see that space of imagination beyond the edge of your visual perception. Then keep watching for what that empty being sees, and keep grounding as that being - which is not hard as it is the one who sees. Tell me if you get any visualisations from this. Its basically self inquiry using the imaginary plane.

Members seem to be already influenced by the air of demonization. Ever since confessing my condition I've been accused of 'crying', creating drama and being suicidal while discussing impersonal opinions.

They can be both, but ad hominems are often directly addressing some personal quality which deviates from the content of the discussion. For example, if you said that you think math is often portayed as more useful than it truly is, an ad hominem answer to that could be "you think that because you're stupid". Ad hominem is essentially when you turn an initially impersonal discussion into a personal matter when it isn't warranted or appropriate.

An awakening with ego also present can be much more pleasant than an experience which is more impersonal. It speaks to the story you’ve just lived. It satisfies that. It explains that. It breaks the limitations of that. If both awakenings were of the same intensity, I’d prefer to awaken in this reality due to the emotional significance of your human life. You living that specific incarnation was not a mistake.

Probably if we use that type of language. I think it more like this. Impersonal divine (higher self) permanent individuality (soul) and present personality (ego). The journey is to transcend the false personality and have the permanent individuality to take over. Then unite the individuality with the higher self and achieve the goal of yoga ( union ). The permanent individuality might be the higher self you are talking about. It is that which reincarnates but also eternal. It is not the ONE but it's goal is to unite with the ONE. All past life memories are stored there. You may not remember but it knows. You are it but also not. It absorbs spiritual experience you have and exalts itself through you. Hint: it is also the thinker but not the thought process.

To get an understanding of the pre trans fallacy while learning the Spiral Dynamics model helped me to have an understanding that truly felt like resolving several disparities at once. It grew my Worldview and stretched my frame of reference. It seems that the impersonal aspects that come into play in the trans personal stage and states are often misinterpreted by others as being cold and uncaring. Just one more aspect of the pre trans fallacy. Thunderstorms have knocked out my electric. I’m pecking away on my cell phone with not a whole lot of battery left.

@Jamajczyk You can't see it, so it only exists like that, as something you can't see. You only imagine that there are bees and snakes unless they are in your direct experience right now, but then you imagine that they can see at all. Some things are personal, some physical, and some cultural, it's wise to know how to differentiate between those, but what unites them is that all these areas are imagined by the Universe, so in the end, it's all imagination, but impersonal imagination, not personal of which you usually think when you hear the word imagination.