Search the Community

@Xonas Pitfall I see what you mean. One thing to take note of is that, if you ask men this question, they'll tell you what they fantasize about that evokes a sexual response because that is what a single man consciously values. But they won't (because mostly they can't) tell you what they really respond to when they fall in love with a woman and want to have a longterm relationship. The conscious agenda of a single man is one of casting the net far and wide... and it's quite impersonal. So, they're going to give you fairly shallow answers if you ask "What are men attracted to?" because men are attracted to fairly surface level things at the outset. But men don't fall in love with what they're attracted to. If you've ever watched porn, that's the level of depth with which they respond to things like tits and ass. It doesn't have a real deep emotional effect on the man, such that it works to bring him closer. What a man responds to in a deeper way is Feminine energy, which in practice means... A woman leaning back into her Feminine energy and giving him space to pursue and woo her A woman being in touch with her feelings without an agenda to manipulate A woman enjoying herself and having fun A woman being open and vulnerable and soft A woman listening and giving space for him to also be a bit vulnerable A woman caring for herself and pouring her energy into herself A woman allowing him to help and feel needed A woman appreciating what she enjoys about him or the things he does But none of these are a way to get a man to be attracted or fall in love. They are not tactics for getting a man, but a way of existing as a woman who wants to experience the joys of the Feminine. But they are also things that happen to create a space for a man that a man desperately longs for. Man-world can be cold and mean. So, men tend to really crave for the softness of the Feminine. So, "How to attract a man?" is not the most effective question to ask. To answer that, it's just to be a woman and to realize that you don't need to do anything at all. But it is in you operating without agenda and just doing what you please that will be magnetic. That's why I said to never try to attract a man. The right man will already be attracted without you trying to attract him. But to deepen the connection and to help him open his heart, just focus on treating yourself like your own beloved and sit comfortably in your Feminine energy... in touch with your feelings and receptive to enjoyment and delight.

Exactly! They don't increase, but reduce brain activity and by this throttle down (and in the case of 5-MEO kill) your mind (with a small m) , and by doing that you get access to broader consciousness ( impersonal one). In the case of 5-MEO your mind (with a small m) is completely shut down and you become Mind (capital M). By this mechanism you get information which seems to be not yours on high doses of LSD (from the Collective Unconscious) or to become God on 5-MEO. The mechanism by which this is happening is a weakening of the Ego or complete destruction (like 5-MEO does) - things which will show up on a CT-scan as a decrease of brain activity. Everything is consciousness in the end, our personal minds are just delimitations in that consciousness and psychedelics are making the borders between personal and impersonal more transparent (disolving them completely in the case of 5-MEO). Ma

Simply working with mind-made definitions can trip up the mind, and peeps get all crazy, contort their minds in arguments, oneupmanship games , and all the rest . So, imo/experience, it is much bettererer to learn experientially, in solitude, taking the time to experiment and see for one's self. The worldly order is so caught up in the levels, definitions, and competition, when in actuality, we're talking about the nuances of waves, layers, subtleties, and self-evident certainty. ALL is NOT TWO, but when using the mind, we can notice and play with DISTINCTIONS. The nuances you speak of can be noticed via meditation, playing with the types of samadhi, referring to the Plotinus model, and contemplating the nuances of the samadhis. This has a twofold effect: it doesn't rely on mind-based stuff to 'verify', so much as to USE the mind to report, leaving it OPEN to notice and explore the 'higher, more subtle' nuances.... CONSCIOUSLY. In the system of samadhis, 'nirvikalpa ' is often considered 'the highest level' with respect to meditation due to its degree of 'emptiness'. Note that this is not Realization per se, since we're talking states here. Hard core meditators seem to like to tinker with these, compare and contrast, and share nuances to play with: savikalpa, sabija, nirbija.... whole bunch of them, but I didn't tinker or experiment with that many of them consciously (just took it on as an interest). If one is looking at Plotinus' model, one will see that with meditation, folks are typically playing in the existential waves of the SOUL level, shifting back and forth between personal and impersonal consciousness (or a bit higher, up into the higher self/ 'Intellect' (Nous- not to be confused with left-brainish/intellect) on occasion, maybe picking up some of the energetic woweezowees, or some cool, peaceful clarity. Whereas, experience would be more of the physical nature, in which the environment, society, jobs, running errands, etc are interacted with via mind (Note: all this can be a form of meditation, too, mind you). Nirvikalpa samadhi is basically just consciously 'emptying' the content of consciousness (mouthful, hehe) to a pinpoint-like state, but again, it is not realization per se. It is more like high-level Nous in Plotinus' model, perhaps even floating up there 'next to' The One, somewhat "consciously knocking on the door", hehe. The shift into realization of The One is noticeable, but oddly not that 'memorable' in itself (for want of a better word), though the effects are noticeable on the mind, in the quality of grounding in 'experiential life', etc. It was during one of these forays in which the mind was informed that Realization is acausal; "I" can't force 'my' way into The One ('I/me' are not even present). Meditation is more like a 'making oneness prone' to realization. They say prayer is like talking to 'god/The One'; whereas, meditation is like listening.... receptive. For mind-locked folks trying to figure it out, it can seem paradoxical, and peeps get all worked up for nothing, giving in to unconscious desires to dominate, be right, be the best, knock down others, find more whatever, and all the rest. Tranquiiiiillooooo. However, once it is fully Realized that "form is formlessness, formlessness is form", one has settled the mind into its secondary role. and is in a more-or-less 'normalized', awareness-state of sahaja samadhi type of dealio, one is much more aware of when one has consciously touched/entered mind and via which the dualities are at play. Life is much smoother, even when confronting the vagaries of life (i.e., right HERE, right NOW). As such, nirvikalpa samadhi is seen, not as moot, nor even all that necessary at all, but still nice, especially saaaay, before a long day of interacting with a large group of close family members who may be a bit at odds with each other! On those kinds of day, the waves of existence can get a bit tumultuous, and the tempests are rearing their sirens. Good to notice the potential pattern in advance, fear not, and go in grounded in/as awareness. Tranquiiiilooooo... The Peaceth that Passeth ALL Understandingeth.....

Depends: 1. If the thought hypnotizes, then maya. If it moves through ones Infinite Being like the wind, non-grasping, non-hypnotizing, its essence seen immediately once arising out of ones Infinite Being, as ones Infinite being: then the manifestation of the Absolute in the form of a nongrasping/non-hypontizing conceptual thought. Although, paradoxically, there is only Absolute Being and its dream-arisings/mere apperances, either hypnotizing/maya/gripping, or non-gripping/non-hypnotizing. It is fully realizing what one can never not be. What Reality is. Not as idea, but as always available realization, beyond any possible doubt. Because that would just be more thought dream-arisings happening within ones True Infinite Eternal Reality/Being. Besides which nothing can exist. That which is always the case. Truth/Absolute has to be present always, even in Deep Sleep. That gives an idea how utterly empty and non-personal, yet real and permanent/timeless Absolute Reality is. Koan: What is Deep Sleep? What is present in Deep Sleep and right now also? Necessarily always and eternally so? Truth. Unborn. Ones True Infinite Eternal Being. Infinite Consciousness/Being. Giving rise to all manifestations/arisings as the Clear Light of mere dream appearance, lucid and ultimately empty of self-existence. Infinite Consciousness/Being, dreaming all possible realms, dreaming all illusion-beings. Utterly impersonal, silent in its raw-state, and eternal and unborn in time. An Infinite Abyss/Opening, yet containing all possible appearances and realms arising within this Opening of Reality. And yet giving rise to illusion arisings/appearances of personal, separation, center, location, Maya. And of course all words/pointers are based on Duality, and ultimately fail. So, much more precise than pointers are Koans. Like: Koan: Who exactly is asking this question again? Who or what is this Openess/Opening? Selling Water by the River

Is > direct experience > process (self is included here). Being might be absolute. I'm just making something up here. When you say "a being," it makes me wonder whether you're actually referring to 'self' - to what we think we are - since you seem to be holding being as an entity. Being could also be thought of as what is, prior to the existence of an entity. Impersonal, in a sense. Maybe. It seems that what we generally mean by 'experience' is perceiving something - "I see the pineapple, so I'm experiencing it."

OK, before we proceed any further in any discussion, I have a question, but first a tl;dr background for what gives rise to it. There was a man in human form who was very very dear to me. He was the most reliable, trustworthy figure one can imagine. I was lucky to have him in my life as a core human being. Throughout life, when I was growing up, as I watched television, played in the streets with friends, went to school, played soccer/futbol, basketball, built tree houses with friends, worked on my grandparents farms, met and dated quite a few ladies, and thousands of other eventful things in life, my mind was shaped, molded, conditioned in ways that went beyond this amazing human being's mental structure to fully understand where on earth I was coming from. To be clear and up front, I was a friggin mess by the time puberty took hold, and the unconscious beliefs structure was on full autopilot. That is, I didn't understand where I was coming from either. I took advantage of that kind, thoughtful, and devotional human being as I went in search of more, which led to a downfall, which led to a collapse, which led to a complete realization & 'rebirth' I can barely put into words but for the ancient literature and deeply non-dual speerchal pointers that give it the language and contextual meaning it can. What got up from that utter devastation, rose from the dust whiter than any gown, took account of all the nonsense the 'previous self' had put so many through, and learned to speak my heart and truth. It was a profound shift. a profound dropping of a MASSIVE weight that had slowly been added over the years/decades/millenia (poor Atlas), and I was no longer interested in creating a stone to roll up a hill, only to have it rolled back down again (poor Sisyphus). Life was precious, and the mind games were just too clearly seen. The journey back was via a looooong stint in higher education in which I worked/managed programs in the field of cognition and intercultural communication and with thousands of students, women/men, etc deeply delving into what was learnable/unlearnable, how learning takes place (methodology), and deeply aware of how to keep a deep sense of respect and trust at the forefront so that we could continue to explore those tricky boundaries where theory meets the flow of the river of consciousness into which all apparent individuated streams flow. I took responsibility mistakes, became more aware of where the boundaries pop up and so on and so forth, learning how to navigate perspectives and intercultural dynamics of three continents. To sum up, it was pretty fucking thorough series of tests and consolidation patterns for informing the mind of the depths of non-dual realization. Durgint he whole time, I never once even brought up the topic of non-duality, nor really even read a lot about it... didn't really feel the need to.... just let it emerge and slowly works its magic, free of conceptualizations. Almost effortless, except for the trials and tribulations of existence. Life just kept unfolding, regardless of the mind's protests. Clarity on that was it's own reward, and all of the nonsense I used to invite, nurture, carry, and even defend... just fell away. Peace. During that time, the mind was extraordinarily humbled, to be sure, in awe really. It was somewhere in the midst of all that, that my father and I got into a massive argument (which were quite rare). But, at the time, I was making a stand as a man, an individuation with a pretty honestly structured reality that just made perfect sense to me and with respect to how the world might benefit from it. But the problem was that it was at odds with his (at least at the time). I had never really stood my ground, so it was something quite novel, and was indicative of a destruction of our previous alignment as simply father and son. He struggled deeply with it, but I held my ground.... peacefully, aware that it was just two structures of thought rubbing up against each other, but juuuuust porous enough to potentially learn from each other. I pointed that out, and expressed my deepest love, respect, and admiration for him.... pure gratitude for his being. I could tell no one had ever done that with him, especially after such an argument. Our relationship was forever changed, deeper, more respectful,... even though agitated at times. But, he knew I wasn't just a lost, mindless, and disrespectful son... I was at home with who and what I had 'become'. Two or three years later, I was participating on an online forum mostly dedicated to non-duality where ideas that are in the orbit around it are fully fleshed out. There was a guy there that was often so clear about his structured take on things, and were often at odds with any of the basics of a Non-duality 101 course. No biggie, it's often a struggle for minds to come to terms, and it's often a deeply misunderstood realization (which makes perfect sense.... minds are fickle AF). During one of the exchanges, someone brought up the term "Asperberger" which I was only vaguely knowledgeable of, so due to my natural curiosity, I decided to take a deeper look. It hit me pretty hard as I learned more and more about it, it hit me hard that it defined my Dad's life trajectory almost to a T. And he knew nothing about it (he was a hard core engineer, deeply involved in mind-splitting maths and specialized in radio frequency structures....like a friggin genius "Beautiful Mind" type of thing. Don't get me started. It shed light on the 3-4-5 major arguments we'd ever had that seemed (to me at the times) to just pop up out of nowhere. Even more, it shed light on what it must have been like for my mother, who was one of the most devoted, supportive, and loving people in the world.... truly. But the problem was, they rarely if ever saw things in the same way, never could just have a heart-to-heart, and often the conversations ended intense micro-burst arguments, followed by quiet, highly enriched periods of silence... detente's of sorts. That idea of relationship was deeply ingrained in my psyche in various ways, and it was altogether a blessing to have even that, consciously exposed and brought up for conscious examination, to be allowed to just fall away. Sure, it shed light on the constant interface and relation with life, and even to the most intimate day-to-day interpersonal relationship with my best friend. It has enriched and enabled me to have an extraordinarily deep, conscious, and loving relationship with my wife for 25+ (and counting). Out of 4 brothers, I am the only one who is still married, and happily so, but not because I am special. It's because of that special realization and the subsequent and continued falling away of so much the structured nonsense that bubbles up from deep within the psyche, regardless of what theory (ND, psychology, philosophy, or otherwise) says: I know what I don't know, and I know how the mind, with all its conditioned baggage (personal, familial, cultural, shared, human) can get in the way, can sabotage what is a gift, can obscure what's self-evidently clear, and can give rise to contraction from/as the glorious unfolding of Infinity.... just as it is. I have agreed with you on so many points because I think you are openly, honestly, and courageously exploring things of this nature (it's rare), trying to put forth a positive all-inclusive approach... perhaps 'after' SEEING somenothing that has compelled you to express its profundity. I've been pleasantly curious. But then, here, you isolate such an 'existentially speaking' innocuous line out of so much other detailed agreement, and seemingly take it personally. Then you continue on in the same vein of 'logic' as before, and that seemingly wants to portray objectivity and/or an impersonal tone in your ongoing description of "limitless absolute infinity" (and all the rest). All the while, evidently, you seem dead sure to rights what unknown people, some dead for thousands of years. were 'open to' or not. I simply don't know and, while there might be some interest in the discussion (so I point out where it may/may not diverge from Truth seeking), it doesn't really matter... what matters is if the mind is open to and truly understands what the Realization is telling it as 'real' life continues to unfold in 'realtime'. So, my question is, do you have Aspergers?

@Breakingthewall Hi, I've been contemplating our conversation and I came to clarity in our main difference. I'll be integrated to what I understand the truth to be. You've got many things right and you're quite accurate regarding the Absolute but you've got it from an impersonal lense that may be categorized as substance-mechanic based. In other words, there is a very high Awakening were you connect with the Sentience of Reality and Consciousness. In this Awakening,, Ultimate Reality happens not be neutral but the ultimate personality or the final I. It's important to get the no-I to infinite degrees as well as the Royal-I. The Universal I in this sense is a particular way and not in another, it's pure Genius and Virtue. Meaning, a Conscious Being which is Infinite, all-encompassing and Reality itself: it feels, it thinks and is always already The ALL Now. Reality as the Ultimate Being is God and in communing with it, you'll breakthrough into your very own Infinite Godly Self, which will be total Openess as well as Infinite Consciousness, Omnipresence, Omnipotence, Love itself, Truth Itself, Intelligence and Universal Sentient Mind. I'm sure you've had Awakenings I haven't yet. I just try to point out this. There's an Awakening were you Become Infinite and discover your true Self to be God and it is perfectly designed in the most intelligent way, which is not neutral, or just happening, or simply open; but the source of all Genius.

It's alive because it is, it could not be and be, but being superimposed to not being. But agree, alive is bad word, better open. About the center, let's see, from that center, I perceive that I, as a center, am a perceiver, but that I, as a substance, am the opening. The opening is absolutely impersonal, but at the same time, I am that. The perceiver is a circumstantial perspective, a structure that occurs; the real is the opening that lives. Life not as a relationship but as a being. As if, given its absence of limits, it is that which I am. The perceiver is always there because it is my structure now, but they are lines; the real is the opening

So you are telling that I'm lying to appear important. It shows your level of perception. I talk about this because I break the mental barrier more or less every day. It's something I've sought out as necessary and something I've learned to do. It's a difficult game; I assure you, there's no possible mistake. Since I can't talk about this with anyone, I'm talking about it here. I can't avoid it. I know how the psyche operates to shut down. I see what the masters say, and I know they're wrong or lying almost always. It's absolutely obvious. I want to articulate the energetic structure that shuts down. I can't stop contemplating how it works, its mechanism. Everything I say here is intended to be totally impersonal, to speak from total clarity. Sometimes emotion escapes, but I try to keep it minimal.

Nothing makes one special and unique. DNA and fingerprints are what distinguishes us from the rest. Life is pain and suffering, death is relief from pain and suffering Therefore advice like these only fuels life with more pain and suffering. Maybe not initially but when life takes a curveball and shows whose the boss, figuratively speaking. Only advice that's of any use is on how to deal with the curveball when it happens, not how to avoid it. It's inevitable. Life is impersonal so our manipulative tactics will only bite us in the end because no two fingerprint is alike, therefore no advice given can satisfy all if even applied.

This is a fantasy. The subject is not an autonomous core that exists prior to language or society. The subject is the effect of the signifier: it emerges only through its position within the symbolic order - the system of language, norms, and shared meaning. To be a subject is to be constituted by this field, not to stand outside it. The idea of reprogramming one’s mind from scratch to become an autotelic “avatar” is itself formulated within the symbolic order. The fantasy of total independence - of a consciousness operating on a paradigm entirely alien to all human conditioning - is structured by the very language and social categories it seeks to transcend. Even the notion of a pure observer or sovereign witness is an imaginary identification: a construction that attempts to cover over the inherent division and lack at the core of subjectivity. One can concede that there may be something akin to a “transcendental subject” - a dimension of awareness radically beyond language, social determination, and all familiar coordinates of the self. But even if such a dimension exists, it is not an “avatar” that can be appropriated or integrated into an autonomous identity. It is fundamentally ecstatic and liquidating: it dissolves the ordinary sense of ownership and coherence. There is no bridge by which this non-conceptual field can be installed as one’s internal world or used as the foundation for an autotelic self. Precisely because it is radically beyond the symbolic order, it cannot be stably claimed, narrated, or lived as a personal asset. If the symbolic order were somehow dissolved completely, what would remain would not be a purified or self-originating “I.” What would appear instead is the Real: a dimension that cannot be symbolized or integrated into any coherent sense of self. This is not a higher form of subjectivity but the dissolution of subjectivity itself. To return from that place and claim the position of an autotelic consciousness would simply be to re-enter the symbolic field in a different configuration. Even in traditions that describe radical non-conceptual awareness - such as Advaita Vedanta or the writings of mystics like Meister Eckhart and Ramana Maharshi - the moment such experiences are named, taught, or transmitted as realizations, they are thrust back into the symbolic order. They become signifiers within the social field, reinscribing the speaker in the shared horizon of language. The fantasy that there is a stable witness entirely outside signification is another attempt to mask the structural division and lack that define the subject. One can create new concepts, new practices, and novel configurations of desire that feel radically singular. This is what Deleuze calls lines of flight. But such creations remain entangled in the symbolic and social domain; they do not constitute an exit from it. The subject does not pre-exist the field of signifiers but is produced by it. Without the symbolic order, there is no coherent witness left - no avatar - only impersonal experience that cannot be appropriated or claimed as one’s own. If anything, „authentic“ spirituality - if it deserves the name - is precisely beyond the need to be special, beyond the fantasy of a unique and unassailable position. It is the recognition that what is most real is also what cannot be possessed.

I'm bursting out bawling today. For no major apparent reason. Thoughts appearing. Thoughts about freedom and what's appearing. Thoughts about the Absolute. Thoughts about how impersonal it is. Thoughts about how real it feels. Thoughts about how it expresses itself. About how it's not going anywhere, this is it, about how this me, is it there or is it? Don't know. Can't know. A feeling is just appearing and that is nothing appearing as a feeling. Everything is nothing being and I can't get a hold of that. I can't control that. I can't choose what to feel, it just comes and goes. Something here notices that, something here sees the impermanence in the appearance. It's wonderfully frightening. If I dwell on that I might develop anxiety so I don't and this here isn't prone to anxiety attacks because there's no dwelling in the what if's about life much, just what is and the past. Future is not a favorite. It can't see it. Doesn't know it at least i know the past and what is. That's the knowing energy. It seemingly develops the dis-ease of anxiety when it doesn't know and dwells in the unknown. Depression is the knowing energy dwelling in the past. Like it built it's house on a depression fault line. The rain came and dug a hole and knowing built it's house on that fault line and depression is the result. It get's deeper and deeper into the hole and for it to get out it has to rise above the fault line or just move out. Most just stay there and live there. The present moment is the sweet spot, they say, but where is the present moment. How does one find it, or remain there. Every time one tries to stay there another moment arises; where is the last moment. It's gone? The one that you abided in prior. So how can one stay in the present. Impossible. Anyway, I'm just rambling on about stuff no one particular topic and I'm going way too much into left field and all over the place. Enough for now.

Why conflate the two issues. I don't see a correlation between sex work and intimacy. How can two people that don't know each other or only know each other on the level of sex work be intimate in the true sense of the word. Sex work wasn't designed to be intimate, genuine intimacy, that is. Yes, it can be paid for but that's not true intimacy and is on the level of transactional. The problem arises when the one that pays expects otherwise. I find that a lot of men can conveniently separate this dynamic in their personal lives but when it comes to a sex worker, they expect her to be more "into it/him" I guess because he's paying for it. They can conveniently have sex with a regular female without feelings or love and it be purely physical but expects the sex worker to have feelings and do it with compassion and love. How can she when she doesn't know you. True Intimacy, sex and sex work doesn't go hand in hand. There's not even a close connection. Guys will get upset when this isn't the case, because they can have sex without true intimacy or feelings but expect the woman to. They'll get upset and say she's only in it for the money when they're only in it for the sex or whatever it is they paid for. It gets me sometimes that men can (some men) expect a female to want to have sex with a man they don't know or even like. They can and do it on a regular basis. Pick up is hard for the reason that women usually need to have a certain emotion 'touched' before they want to have sex while a man can just see a woman he's attracted to to want to have sex with her and without knowing her or even care to. He can pretend to want to get to know her just for the sake of wanting sex from her and women can feel that and that's why they can get so cold. As a sex worker, it baffles me how men can think the woman is turned on just because he is. Most will ask me what I like and want to do, if I asked them the same. I want to go home and eat ice-cream I'm thinking. Why would I WANT to do anything sexual with you, i don't know you, I'm thinking. I'm only doing it because I'm being compensated and because I can separate the two. Pick up guys will get offended by this while they're out there chasing strange pussy from women they don't even know or like or don't even really want to know. I'll be looked down upon for what I do while men will go out see big boobs, a nice ass, a pretty face and want to stick their dick in that strangers pussy for self-gratification; but when I say I'm only doing it because I'm compensated and it's a willing choice, I'll get looked down upon. Men will chase pussy and i will chase money. What's the difference. I'm making a living while they're trying to cum. Which one is more meaningful. Depends on whose looking, I've become numb to all the naysers because I've seen enough to realize that men are more impersonal than women when it comes to sex and they can freely and happily with a proud face spread their dicks around to strangers and strange women who are willing, while for me it's usually on the level of knowing, liking and respecting the guy to want to even have sex with him and after he's earnt his way to receive the love I have in store even if it's just for a brief moment. A guy wants your heart without earning it, but if I earned my way to his wallet, I'm looked down upon. At least I'm not looking to get it for nothing when I'm working. Most men are looking for sex without even trying to earn it. Yes, it's earnt, you're not entitled to a woman's body just because you exist. Do you go about life feeling entitled to other products you purchase, no. Only to a woman because you feel it should be that way. No it shouldn't. Everything in life is earnt, including sex. Doesn't mean monetarily, just earnt in some type of way. Sex work is a different category all by itself.

i feel a desire to share some old pictures. i feel this every year during this time, sometimes in the months inbetween as well, and it may not be the wisest thing to do, i don't know if this nostalgia is healthy, i don't know if i have the right to share these pictures, if this is harmful in any way ...but i feel the desire to share, and maybe this is the wrong place...if so, please let me know, and i'll delete, but i don't know where else i could share them. so these pictures are five years old, and i survived, i "got better" soon afterwards, but when i look at these pictures, my brain still goes she was beautiful maybe more beautiful than i'll ever be, moving forward ( - sadness arises.... desperation) i don't think i want to go back, back down there....but yes, i do still feel some nostalgia from time to time, looking at these images. i was sick back then, i was tired, i was dying hurting myself to the degree that i had to dissociate away, had to leave the body be for a second, to "let the body live", while i refused to identify with it any longer it's messy, it's complicated, it was intense existential impersonal but yeah, i feel like words aren't enough and i want to share these pictures with someone. not sure if it's harmful though. it feels heavy having them on my phone and knowing i'm the only one who's ever looked at most of them. i was pretty alone during these hours when i was, as it felt, at my most beautiful - hours which could have been my last. they aren't instagrammable. most of these shots are pretty ostensibly disordered, aren't the product of photo shoots, but disordered rituals and body checking ceremonies.

Hey Leo, what up, i would love to hear your response on this. The proper Christian claim is that Jesus (and only him) is God, there's no way neither you nor anyone else can be. It's ontologically impossible given that we are created beings while God is uncreated. Jesus is the only bridge to close the gap, you can't do it by yourself. In the gospel of john he says "I am the way the truth and the life... no one comes to the father except through me" Which is the opposite of your bio here isn't it? To a proper christian who knows what he's talking about, saying that you're god means you are deceived. No matter how deep into non duality (and whatever thing beyond that) you went into. The truth expressed in the gospel is that of a personal God, not an impersonal one. Christ is an actual dude who speaks to you, does things to you, asks you stuff, has preferences, is affected by how you live your life. Now one might say the gospels are not accurate, got manipulated or that they spoke some high consciousness stuff in low consciousness terms so people misunderstood it because spiral dynamics and what not. These are all valid concerns but it's important we don't dismiss the topic so easily by labeling it as low level spirituality. Personally, i met several people who had their life transformed by this incorporeal but everpresent dude. They received healings, found spouses with whom they got a happy marriage (which used to be a massive issue before), found a better direction in life and had several miracles happening to them. This doesn't just apply to red people turn blue (some cases of which i know) but to normal people who didn't know anything about him, started praying and had this strong external influence take over their lives. This happens also to people who were deep into spirituality at various levels. You can check the books "youre mine" by sister anastasia and "the gurus, the young and elder paisios". Both authors explain how they were deep into buddhism, non duality, sometimes spiritism, hinduism, yoga (properly done to achieve enlightenment, not the retarded way) and found that at the core of ALL of them there is a demonic deception. You can also check the books by Seraphim Rose, who was a student of Alan Watts who tried many of the eastern disciplines to find Truth to then become and orthodox monk. The christian God is "holy", meaning he's separate from creation. The monks who experience him (yes he's male) directly say that basically all the christian cilches are true. They're not retarded, they're not blue people using blue language and projecting blueness on it, they mean what thehy say knowing what they are talking about and come to totally different conclusions than the ones you came to. Turns out also that the devil and demons are real, actual entities with an agenda and agency over us humans, not just projections of our psyche. So my questions for you are 1) How did you falsify the enightenment experiences you had against the possibility of being deceived by malevolent entities? I'm interested because i had many awakenings and was balls deep into inner work and healing, but stopped because it turns out it can be very dangerous. 2) how do you explain christian saints and monks, even recent ones, coming to radically different conclusions than yours? and if you don't know about them how about the people who claim to have been saved out the new age (which includes every eastern practice and outlook on things that you tried and preached and psychedelics even used in the most authentic and shamanic way) by jesus who often shows up outta nowhere when called in the moments of need and operates miracles? 3) From the way you speak i get the impression you never properly got into christianity, am i wrong? did you ever research it and test it out? Set aside american evangelicals who are often very ignorant and unsofisticated. Did you watch testimonies of people having direct experiences with christ? read books by monks? On the surface christianity looks very confused and even barbaric, but the core is a surprise apparently. I think it would be worthwile to investigate. if you were wrong about everything you'd want to know right? If you're still right and can falsify christianity at the core I'd be very interested in hearing how you do it, so far i could not. If you're interested you can check the books i told you above. You can also check testimonies, just look for new age to jesus, buddhism to jesus, spirituality to jesus etc. you'll find all sorts of peple converting for the same reasons. Steven Bancarz uses you as an example to explain why meditation is dangerous, There are clips from your older videos in this one. Hope this lands for you, have me know what you think please. Thank you

What does it mean when someone says that Consciousness is an impersonal field. I don't get it... Sounds kinda negative.

Another general tip for guys in similar scenarios: CALL HER, don't just text You can flip many seemingly dead interactions simply by calling her and instead of just texting. It's shocking how well this can work in the right situation. Texting is just too impersonal and too easy for her to forget about you. But if you call her and she answers, now you're a lot more "real". She can hear your voice and more easily feel your personality. So yeah, don't sleep on the phone call. It might seem old-fashioned but it works. Especially in scenarios where you've already hinted at plans. You could also try FaceTime, but I find a phone call is easier and less pressure than a video-chat.

Yes, that might be considered the 'impersonal' aspect, when one can at least dis-identify from the self construct, seeing the mind's movements more objectively. It's definitely higher order than all the self-referential thinking that most are lost in and/or wholly identified with. The witness can at least laugh at the silliness one used to get so wound up in, and not take the self so seriously. That's always noice.

As an intercultural language fella, I found that such statements using stereotypes and personal pronouns tends to introduce judgment into and 'personalize' the context of a discussion that might otherwise expand the view to a more objective, impersonal look at what the mind is doing. Imo, the previous writer was showing an authentic gratitude for a positive aspect of a teaching in their life, and was even willing to take a risk in doing so. How might the crux of these statements be made using the passive voice and/or without such stereotypes, assuming you are are native speaker of English? I assume you are speaking from your own experience and/or with at least a few Christians in mind, and that's fine. I getcha.

Notice how the indefinite article “a” - a life - becomes the index of the transcendental for Deleuze. In this move, he turns the entire Western tradition inside out. Not by negating transcendence, but by folding it into the immanent - by locating the transcendental in the flickering moment, the impersonal affect, the pre-conscious gesture, the singular rupture. That’s the genius of Deleuze. And it’s where he goes beyond Nietzsche. Because when Nietzsche folds transcendence into immanence, it’s still an act of will to power - a promethean defiance, a struggle against God. But in Deleuze, there’s no struggle. God doesn’t die - it dissolves. It realizes itself as pure immanence, as a life. No hero. No self. No beyond. Just this shimmering excess - A LIFE.

“What is immanence? A life… No one has described what a life is better than Charles Dickens, if we take the indefinite article as an index of the transcendental. A disreputable man, a rogue, held in contempt by everyone, is found as he lies dying. Suddenly, those taking care of him manifest an eagerness, respect, even love, for his slightest sign of life. Everybody bustles about to save him, to the point where, in his deepest coma, this wicked man himself senses something soft and sweet penetrating him. But to the degree that he comes back to life, his saviors turn colder, and he becomes once again mean and crude. Between his life and his death, there is a moment that is only that of a life playing with death.” “The life of the individual gives way to an impersonal and yet singular life that releases a pure event freed from the accidents of internal and external life, that is, from the subjectivity and objectivity of what happens: a ‘Homo tantum’ with whom everyone empathizes and who attains a sort of beatitude. It is a haecceity no longer of individuation but of singularization: a life of pure immanence, neutral, beyond good and evil, for it was only the subject that incarnated it in the midst of things that made it good or bad.” “The life of such individuality fades away in favor of the singular life immanent to a man who no longer has a name, though he can be mistaken for no other. A singular essence, a life…” Gilles Deleuze, Pure Immanence: Essays on a Life

Here's something more "minfucky " than solipsism. There is no perceiver. light falls on a object then gets reflected into your eyes then goes to the perception centers in your so called brain . But where exactly is the image arrive in your brain ? Can you pinpoint a perceiver inside your head or brain ? You can't just say well in the sight perception center in the brain .you'd have to tell me in which millimeter exactly .and of course you can't. There is no perceiver. So there is no you or others. There is just impersonal consciousness or being .stuff going in and out of you .(don't twist the meaning though lol).

Can any solipsist answer the question of how it is possible for the appearance of movement, of events, to exist when only I exist? I already know the answer: because I'm dreaming it. Does no one understand the superficiality of the dream analogy? A dream implies an infinite number of processes external to your field of consciousness; a dream is reality, because the most important thing: you are not you. The you that seems to be a unit that believes it is the center is a multidimensional entity branching out into infinity, with infinite external ramifications. You are like a donkey with blinders on, allowing you to see only what you should see. You are not the donkey; you are the blinders. Reality is infinitely broader and more impersonal than what you perceive.

@Princess Arabia Not necessarily. The morality I speak of isn't something judged or bestowed upon from some higher deity or God. God is everything, but operates on many levels, it's not hierarchy, it's a holarchy. There is only Gods will. The morality I speak of in making conscious choices is only judged by the light of our own consciousness which is God. It's all impersonal from the biggest picture, but it's also sentient and connected as well. Life is a process and flowing creation of creation and destruction. Like the cells of our bodies are constantly going to battle to keep the whole organism alive, but if from the cellular level we start picking and choosing sides as to who were the good cells, who's the bad cells then the harmony at a higher level of the organism would collapse. So on one level or order it can look like chaos and on a higher level you see order and harmony. Everything is highly chaotically ordered and harmonic but from our human perspective it may not look like that, it may seem cruel, it may seem fucked up but that's just the way it is from a certain vantage point, and what makes human life so beautiful and unique is our ability to make conscious choices and to make changes. We can't stop a hurricane from flooding or natural disasters killing animals, but we can see things from a higher perspective and having a deeper awareness, not because a God is judging us, but because of our inner light of radiant transcendance.

@Princess Arabia It seems to be a difference between natural phenomena and our conscious intentions. When a hurricane or tsunami happens, it’s impersonal, it isn't egotistical. Nature includes both creation and destruction. I think In that sense it's immoral or amoral. But when we kill animals it usually comes from our conscious choice, out of necessity, okay fine but a lot of times it's out of convenience. This is where ethics and awareness comes in. Nature may seem cruel or fucked up but we as conscious beings are able to examine our motives and responsibilities. Part of our journey of self Actualization involves not just raising the quality of our consciousness, but raising the quality of our hearts. What are your thoughts on this?