Search the Community

A symbol of this crucial transition and transformation will be a cute, little tattoo on my neck. It signifies an ending of a cycle, a completion of a circle, a rebirth, and more. Should be getting it one of these days. Excited!

As long as there’s stillness, transformation, bright alertness, and bliss, you don’t need to tweak anything you’re currently doing — otherwise, you perhaps could. Researching the jhanas can be useful if you come across any sticking points or profound states that scare you and render you unsure of how to proceed — Daniel Ingram gets into probably the most technical detail of anyone; Rob Burbea provided complete info on it as well. Many other sources for kundalini progression. The gist of it can be found in Culadasa’s TMI. Keep on doing your practice though. Sounds like it’s going very well. Tailoring and tweaking your practice with increasing subtlety is the name of the game; a very beautiful part of practice. Perhaps begin with openness, and then develop each of the following: steadiness, sensitivity, patience, and play.

Reading and learning about concepts — not only can it “only take you so far,” but it’s really more that it doesn’t take you anywhere. For the transformation into understanding, peace, and beauty it seems to me that one really ought to consider hours of meditation, prayer, contemplation, and/or inquiry. The understanding, peace, and beauty that comes with systematically or even just diligently training the mind to be relaxed and still is beyond anything that could have possibly been imagined prior. Psychedelics can be a sort of cheat (very worthwhile) in this regard, but the insights aren’t nearly as sturdy as those provided by a diligently trained mind. If meditation is still even slightly boring even after months of daily sits, there’s a subtle flaw in your technique. Sort it out. As for finding answers in prayer, it may be more fruitful to sit with an inquiry/question, very still and quiet, patiently for quite some time, and do your best to NOT answer it — this can do something interesting... the answer can come out of the depths, and it’s often not at all what you expected. Your finite mind is so much less powerful than the infinite intelligence that is all that is; that you are.

Is this a description of conscience? I don’t think/feel so but something that comes with awakened conscience, objective awareness. To me, it’s a description of objective awareness juxtaposed to that of ordinary waking sleep or consensus reality where the mind just fills in the blank through associations perpetuating it’s habit of creating memories instead recalling what actually happened or a simple admission of not knowing and just being open and spacious, without discursive awareness. Very much so. Drastic transformation doesn’t seem to fit though in trying to describe my experience of it. But from a certain perspective, it could I guess. It’s more like a simplicity of experience occurring accompanied by an inner quiet and familiarity but also consisting of what some might refer to as a subtle but definite virtuous quality of sorts. It’s difficult for me to describe this virtuous quality any better than using Almaas’s wording of “essential aspect”. Essential aspects as in specific qualities of being or presence. Link to glossary page concerning essential aspects https://www.diamondapproach.org/glossary/refinery_phrases/essential-aspects

Is this a description of conscience? Also, with Almaas' description of the experience of Being, I was wondering whether one actually experiences it. I mean, whatever perceptual capacity I have, it is wholly developed for the sake of survival. Sight, sound, touch, movement, (all inner and outer) are all once can experience. It is true that these forms of experience go through drastic transformation when one is conscious of Being, but is it really true that I experience it? During my latest awakening, I became conscious that existence only comes to pass by/through/because of emptiness, Nothing, which is not an object of experience. Do you have any insight how that relates to terminology that Almaas uses?

Have you experienced something like this? I feel like from inside, I'm changing in a massive way. Like a huge change. Do you ever feel like your whole personality is going to change 180 degrees. For example, let's say you were an angry or aggressive person and now something is making you change into a milder calmer friendlier person. Or let's take the opposite. You were a gentle person but now you are getting angrier, or just stricter.. Let me explain what's happening to me. My facial expressions are changing from sweet to mean/strict. I'm changing from a gentler person to someone more strict, pragmatic and matured, more serious and a bit bolder. I feel some kind of inner metamorphosis. Like my inner self is struggling to come out or is undergoing huge transformation. And it's saying very loudly a very big FUCK YOU. It's asking me - why the hell do you care about all this drama around people? If they judge you, blame you, hold you responsible when you didn't do shit, then fuck it, who cares? It's like my inner self is challenging me big time to pick myself up by the bootstraps and not give a damn anymore, because nobody gave a damn about me. Is this a sign of inner growth? I feel a sense of boldness and self empowerment. Like why should I care what someone thinks of me. I used to engage in people pleasing behavior and I took a lot of shit in the process. But now my inner self is saying - STOP!!!! DEVELOP AN EGO. STOP GIVING A DAMN. A strong inner resistance developing gradually. Will this turn me into a narcissist? I feel like I'm developing a strong defense mechanism. Like building a wall around myself where only those people can scale the wall who aren't going to fuck with me anymore, aren't going to play mind games, aren't going to be passive aggressive or manipulate me or aren't going to give me a lame treatment. It's like my my heart is saying — if they don't treat you right, just don't put up with it anymore. The call is yours to make, not theirs. Take back power. Does this feel right or does this feel narcissistic? When I had these thoughts, this music was playing in my mind. Pretty aggressive.

I love Adya. But if one has no experience with Psychedelics he cannot assert opinion regarding them. He was even asked specifically if he used them, but averted from answering. Psychedelics are powerful for spiritual seekers because it helps to overcome the beliefs the one has regarding reality and that stop them from abiding in awakening. It empowers deeply the excavation of both existential and limiting beliefs that hinder our Consciousness and development as a person. This is not to say that regular practice such as meditation or contemplation is not required, on the contrary. Psychedelics just show you how much you need to adhere to your practice, because more surrender or transformation is needed. And of course, if one is spiritually oriented, than Psychedelic experience will make him more prone to Enlightenment. But it is also impossible to deny the possibility of dangers to the human vehicle or the psyche of a person. Not enough research is available regarding this matters.

"With the rise of modernity and the abolition of the Ancien regime in Europe, centuries old traditions and habits of life, together with a common sense of meaning, broke down. People were forced from their own land, removed from traditional ways of life and thrown into the horrors of modern industrial regimes. To be a socialist, simply meant to recognize the social crisis or as it was called then 'the social question'. Out of this recognition sprung various figures, cults and movements offering their own peculiar solutions. Ranging from establishment of various communes to those seeking a return to feudal relations. Communist manifesto discusses many of these tendencies: reactionary socialism, petty bourgeois socialism, feudal socialism, German 'true' socialism, conservative socialism, critical-utopian socialism In light of this, Marx and Engels offered their own unique and unprecedented approach to the social question, which came to be known as scientific socialism. However to ask a definition of this socialism would be antithetical to the very socialism Marx and Engels imbued meaning to, for as Engels in Anti-Duhring noted: "To science definitions are worthless, because always inadequate. The only definition is the development of the thing itself, but this is no longer a definition." With regards to Marx's work specifically he had this to say, Engels Preface to Capital, Vol. 3: "[We should not expect to find] fixed, cut-to-measure, once and for all, applicable definitions in Marx's work. It is self-evident that we're things and their interrelations conceived, not as fixed, but as changing their mental images, the ideas are likewise subject to change and transformation and are not encapsulated in rigid definitions, but are developed in their historical and logical process of formation." Marx criticized in his own time such definition mongering, as evident in his response to Proudhon in the Poverty of Philosophy: "To try to give the definition of property as an independent relation, a category apart, as an abstract and eternal idea can be nothing but an illussion of metaphysics and jurisprudence." Marx would always start with a complete analysis of a concrete situation and would only then arrive at some contingent and continual definition or principle: Engels, Anti-Duhring: "The principles are not the starting point of an investigation, but their final result; they are not applied to nature and human history but abstracted from them, it is not nature and the realm of man that conform to these principles, but rather the principles are only valid as in so far they are in conformity with nature and history." Therefore, after doing a complete historical analysis and theoretical work would Marx sum up his results but only provisional. It was a given to him that definitions and principles cannot exhaust the meaning of a thing one is trying to define, the real premises of what one is trying to define always escape the definition. Marx and Engels, The German Ideology: "The premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones, not dogmas, but real premises from which abstraction can only be made in the imagination. They are the real individuals, their activity and the material conditions under which they live, both those which they find already existing and both those produced by their activity." In other words, for Marx the foremost appearance of socialism depend on historical, civilizational, geopolitical and economic circumstances of the population, their level of development and organizational structure, as well as complete needs of the people among other things, only then after careful, empirical analysis of these circumstances would Marx make pronouncements whether something is socialist or not, reactionary or progressive. Marx sought to locate and distill contradictions, and therefore possibilities of building a common sense of sociality in each country and according to each countries conditions of existence. Marx and Engels, Letter to Domela Nieuwenhuis: "The thing to be done in any definite given moment of the future, the thing immediately to be done, depends of course entirely on the given historical conditions in which one has to act. But this question is really in the clouds and therefore is really the statement of a phantom problem to which the only answer can be - the criticism of the question itself." Marx, Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy: "[V]ery anticipation of yet to be proven results seems to be disrupting to me, and the reader who wants to follow me at all must resolve to ascend from the particular to the general. " To have a ready made formula, a rigid definition or a formalised concept first, and then judge reality by the standards of such abstraction is something that Marx viciously fought against through his entire life. It is one of the way in which he criticized Hegel and the young Hegelians in his Critique of Hegels Philosophy of Right: "Hegel develops his thinking not out of the object, rather he develops the object in accordance with ready-made thinking out together in the abstract sphere of logic." Proceeding this way means thinking in a very sterile way, in a way which can give birth to already dead conclusions. It can lead only to the most sadistic rectification of the actual lived reality, in the name of grey and dull abstractions. The appreciation of actually well put human history and of all the treasures of mankind are foreclosed, and for what? For the moral satisfaction of crucifying the reality of the people. As we can see this is npt how Marx thought and approached reality, for him, socialism had nothing to do with any imagined utopia or any other abstraction. It has nothing to do with the way people understand classless, moneyless, stateless society or worker's ownership of the means of production is nothing more than a dead abstraction. The bourgeois ideologues had fantastical ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity that realized themselves historically through revolutionary dictatorship and terror, and subsequently with Bonapartist consolidation, Marx did not only judge reality by the standards of these fantastical ideas, but actually recognised this reality as the objective truth behind these ideas themselves. For Marx, the beautiful utopias and the moral prescriptions are contradicted by actual reality so much worse than the former, in this context Marx said: "But had any eighteenth-century Frenchmen the faintest idea, a priori, of the way in which the demands of the French bourgeoisie would be accomplished? The doctrinaire and necessarily fantastic anticipations of the programme of action of the revolution of the future only divert us from the struggle of the present." Source: Marx's response to other forms of socialism and the answer to the 'social question' itself was not another utopia, but an entirely different approach to this question in the first place. Instead of judging the world by the standards of ready made abstraction, Marx recognised that such procedure leads to impotent arrogance at beast or genocidal chauvinism at worst. For Marx socialism generally meant an open-ended process as far as its particularties were concerned. It was not a moral concept but a scientific one. Socialism meant reclaiming some sort of meaning and common sociality after modernity while still retaining fidelity to this modernity itself. It was about refounding modernity on a new basis. But as far as for the particular idioms of socialism, Marx claimed little can be said: Engels, Letter to Otto von Boenigk: "The so-called socialist society is not anything immutable. Like all other social formations it should be considered in a state of constant flux and change. It's crucial difference from the present order lies naturally in production organized on the basis of common ownership by the nation of all means of production." Therefore when Marx tried to sum up his understanding of socialism and communism, he would say that: Marx and Engels, The German Ideology: "Communism for us is not the the state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal by which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which sublates the present state of things. The conditions of this movement arise from the premises now in existence." Karl Marx, Letter to Arnold Ruge: "[Communists] develop new principles for the world out of the world's own principles. We don't not say to the world: Cease your struggles they are foolish, we will give you the true slogans of struggle. We merely show the world what it is really fighting for, and consciousness is something it must acquire, even if it doesn't want to." To an extent Marx talked about future socialist society at all he did so negatively not positively or prescriptively, for Marx communism was not an utopia but something imminently practical within the context of an independent proleterian party. Marx, Letter to Arnold Ruge: "I am therefore not in favor of hoisting a dogmatic banner. Quite the reverse. We must help the dogmatists clarify their ideas." In this spirit to clarify the idea of extending the ideas of liberalism - liberty, fraternity and equality - what isn't recognized here is that this extension is entirely dependent on liberalisms sublation (aufheben), that is to say a certain kind of break from that very liberalism where it completely changes its form. Some sort of recognition of this fact was not only common to Marx but to all socialists through history. In the universal application of these principles of liberalism implies a fundamental break from how these very principles manifest themselves. Marx already criticized these notions in his own time, he clarified to such dogmatists that when you simply talk about extensions of principles of bourgeois society, instead of their sublation, that is refounding them on a new basis, you are essentially defending the existing establishment, because it is only on the basis of this existing establishment that the illusion of universalization of existing liberalism seems possible. Engels, Anti-Duhring: "Our ideologist may turn and twist as he likes, but the historical reality which he casts out of the door comes in again at the window, and while he thinks he is framing a doctrine of morals and laws for all time and for all worlds, he is in fact only fashioning an image of the conservative or revolutionary tendencies of his own time, an image which is distorted because it is torn from its real basis, and like a reflection in a concave mirror, standing on its head." Marx, Poverty of Philosophy "X does not see that this egalitarian relation, this corrective idea he would like to apply to the world, is itself a reflection of nothing but the actual world, and that therefore it is totally impossible to reconstitute society on a basis which is nothing but an embellished shadow of it. In proportion as the shadow becomes embodied again we perceive that this body, far from being a dreamt transfiguration of it, is the actual body of existing society."

You are assuming that Enlightenment dissolve the mind and all past traumas at an instant, or you are basing it on your experience? Even after repeated Enlightenments, in the relative you remain a human organism with a conceptual self, and probably some life story that gives context to your present experience. Enlightenment is not transformation, although it empowers transforming for sure. But deeply rooted core beliefs or self views does not evaporate like snapping fingers. It usually takes serious work to get rid of core assumptions that flavor and color experience with tastes and shades of negativity and hindrance.

To put things in context,,, only 2:28 in length A bit of redundancy below but some additional things worthy of considering,,,, 4:06 EMOTIONAL CENTRE WORK “Work on being, in regard to the Emotional Centre, demands therefore, among other things, efforts to observe and realize the existence of these emotions in oneself, noticing their origin, and the course they take, and the effects they give rise to. When we are properly con- scious of something in ourselves, we are on the way to changing it.” V. 1, p. 152 EMOTIONAL CENTRE WORK II “It is a good thing to observe the state of one’s Emotional Centre, to observe it in action—i.e., to observe how it mechanically reacts to external events and particularly other people. Here lies a great task, which is really a life task.” V. 3, p. 911 NEGATIVE EMOTIONS I “Negative emotions govern the world. They are extremely infectious. One man can make a thousand negative. One negative person can turn a house into a hell. This ability to affect others gives the negative person a sense of power...A discipline is needed in regard to negative emotions. It must begin with self-observation. You must know and acknowledge when you are negative. People will not do this...It is necessary to find and invent every method you can to prevent recurring events from making you negative.” V. 5, pp. 1709-10 NEGATIVE EMOTIONS II “Other emotions become dull, compared with the curious delights of being negative, such as planning revenges...Does a negative emo- tion give some kind of similar solace as does a drug? Could the world really do without its negative emotions? I do not think so myself. But in the Work we have to learn to do so...It is always worth while observing and tracing the subtle action of negative emotions in you. They are the source of so many things you do which you think you are doing for some other reason.” V. 5, pp. 1675-6 NEGATIVE EMOTIONS III “To let in without resistance and add fuel to and enjoy one’s negative emotions is to miss the mark that the Work has in view. It is to sin against the Work because the Work teaches that negative emotions prevent awakening.” V. 5, p. 1705 NEGATIVE EMOTIONS IV “It is possible gradually to free oneself from these unnecessary negative emotions...He need never be at a loss, whatever his circumstances, for he will always know what he has to do in any situation—that is, not to express negative emotions, and then, to separate from them, and finally not to have them at all.” V. 3, pp. 911-2 NEGATIVE EMOTIONS V “All progress in emotional development is marked by a dislike of former emotions. The emotion, the feeling of dislike of jealousy (for example), the joy of being free from it and its evil prison-house, can become strong enough to master it. For you know that one emotion can only be conquered by another and stronger emotion. By itself the Intellectual Centre cannot do this. Reasoning may help, but it is not enough.” V. 4, p. 1499 TRANSFORMATION OF NEGATIVE EMOTIONS “The observation of our negative states and the separation from them is one of the most important sides of practical work. The transforma- tion of negative emotions belongs to the Second Conscious Shock and here the whole Work comes in and the whole evaluation of it. You may be negative but you must feel that it is not you that is negative but It. This is the beginning of inner separation, of not identifying with negative states, of not identifying with oneself.” V. 2, p. 530 OBSERVING NEGATIVE ‘I’S “In the Work, the enjoyment of negative states must be observed sincerely, especially the secret enjoyment of them. The reason is that if a man enjoys being negative, in whatever forms, and they are legion, he can never separate from them. You cannot separate yourself from what you have a secret affection for.” V. 1, p. 214 WATCHING REACTIONS “Once you have realized that this reaction of yours is quite typical, and you have always had complaints in exactly the same way, it will give you a shock. It will startle you. You will see that it is this complaining itself that you have to notice in yourself and not what you imagine causes it. Next time that these complaining ‘I’s begin to resume their customary activity, the shock that you had may just be able to give you the emotional force to observe them before they start using your mouth, in your name. You will have the shock of remem- bering yourself.” V. 2, p. 449 From Maurice Nicoll’s Psychological Commentary’s I consider this as a part of Shadow work. It’s also called by some purification of the emotional center. It’s not that much about morals but very much related to conscience. Can you imagine not taking anything in a negative way by way of understanding?

I decided I am going to keep a journal of each of the "personalities" within me. I am doing this to keep track of the needs, desires, fears, and level of consciousness of each so I can release them. I will release each cluster of thought patterns until I eradicate myself back to nothingness. Leaving myself everything. 11: This dominating part of me doesn't want to be responsible for anything. The part of me just wants to go from experience to experience, worry-free and unattached. This part wants to be completely detached from everything and everyone. The only thing this part wants anything to do with is nothing. Nothing but whatever comes up and then leaves. No attachments. Not to anything, not to anyone. Not even to itself. This part just wants constant change, growth, realization, and then new ones. This part doesn't even want to be a part. It just wants to live. 22: This part has seen past the nonsense, the chaos. This part recognizes patterns and wants to 'level up' out of these patterns so as to create positive change. This part of me agrees with 11 in wanting new and better experiences. But how can you level up your experience if you are mindlessly engaging in the same behavioral patterns/loops/cycles? 22 wants creation. Crow: This part represents change and transformation. So, like 11, this part wants change and doesn't want to be committed to anything. Except, it does want to be committed to itself. That is what makes this part different from 11. 11's non-attachment goes so deep it doesn't even want to be attached to itself. But Crow wants to track progress. And in order to track anything, it needs to develop a solid and separate sense of self. Crow wants individuality. Because of this, it cares about where it perceives itself in life and outside of life. It considers all angles. Cleopatra: This part is dangerous. It's a dominating aspect that does not consider what's outside of her desires– probably because she doesn't recognize it. This part scares the other parts because it is untamed, ruthless, thoughtless, and action-based. She comes off as a dictator but doesn't mean to be that way even though she is. She is not evil she is unconscious. If you get close to this part, she will sexually blind you, distort your reality, and fulfill your needs unless they interfere with her own. She will do this naturally as she sexually blinds and distorts herself, fulfilling all of her own needs. She's addicted to the sense of oneness but is trapped in her separation. She's controlling. Eva: This part is Cleopatra's opposite. She doesn't want to control she wants to be controlled. The idea of being controlled releases stress for Eva. She actually interprets it as love. It's sick and fucked up and she causes a lot of tension for 11 and Crow who despise controlling environments. Things being handled and done for Eva is something she dreams about. She has a deep-seated belief that she has to do everything herself in life. Unlike the other parts, she does not get off on this belief. She gets off on the idea of someone completely taking over and controlling her. Completely surrendering to life and letting go of everything including herself. She doesn't care what happens to her, she fancies it. She doesn't believe anything comes easily in life. She doesn't believe in other people. She is suffering; she is in a constant state of pain. She's a child. She deserves her needs to be met but cannot meet them on her own.

I encountered Biospheric Symbiosis in I.G. Bennett's book "Enneagram studies". The book teaches that Enneagram is an archetype of action, represented by the 9-pointed star symbol. It allows the user to uncover hidden structures and interactions within a specific manifestation of the Enneagram. It is characterized by being a one, self-stabilizing, "surviving" organism that is composed of three independent processes called: passive, active and neutralizing. When considered locally, these processes seem to be in opposition, but globally, they form a self-supporting union that tends unbounded growth, and something similar to sublimation. These three processes are external to the Enneagram, while the Enneagram itself shows innner interaction of these systems: linearly, cyclically and exponentially. Gurdjieff famously considered humans to be a manifestation of the Enneagram, by being three-body-beings that turn food into cosmic consciousness. Bennett's book uses the Enneagram to map various manifestations - one of them being, the Biospheric symbiosis, which is the Enneagram of three processes: The Transformation of the Human Selves into Individual, The Evolution of Humanity, The Spiritualization of the Biosphere. The author argues that we, as humans are completely blind to the third process and the solution of modern problems cannot come from the first two processes. Only by owning our purpose within the third process, we will receive the necessary intervention required to sustain us. I believe that it is very much in line with what the I-Ching teaches.

To what end do you make such a distinction Nîgger? "Awakening is awakening" is the only guide I see, but you make an interesting point about them not guiding you through intense transformation or large jumps in consciousness. You understand how hollow these spiritual gurus are, although maybe for a different reason These gurus are in truth the final set of gatekeepers that society employ to keep you in folly. Sweet trappings of an ultimate delusion, through promising redemption from delusion. To speak too much with them is to get lost in their bubble of bullshit

Hey. We all get frustrated at times. I was extremely suicidal a week ago and on/off for the past 2 months and am feeling much better myself. We can get in deep deep lows and can still come out the other side. Yes life can be super frustrating. It can also be rewarding when we can get past the frustration and can develop new skills/perspectives from the lows. Our experience as we are having it now in the human body is (for all I know) temporary and so you are in luck - it will end. Every moment is a death/rebirth/transformation. We are changing constantly. So this feeling you are feeling now can/will change - it is temporary. Listen to your words: "I am the biggest loser ever." Yes we all tell ourselves negative things, I am interested in working on that area personally. The negative things we tell ourselves gets more and more complex and possibly harder to escape from. But yes it can also be beneficial to use that information sometimes to work with - but if it gets too too negative, it can be doing more harm than good. @Nahm had said something on another post that really helped me which was something like - everything is okay as it is now. You are not the biggest loser ever. And even if you were, with "oneness", you are also the coolest person ever too. Just because one person doesn't like you, doesn't mean that another person won't. Also, instead of referring to something as "facts", think of it like an idea. You never have all the info at once. We are always looking at something with some bits of info and we miss lots of things and even if we get some more bits of info, which may totally change how we see it, we may still never get all of the info bits as well as can't escape our biases and also may have some info be lost in translation/communication - so we will kinda never have the full picture. Sending hugs.

remember being people pleasing type of personality is so comfortable like everyone is on your side and everyone is complementing you but at the same time they know deep down you don't know your value and they can step over you whenever they want. if you develop that thick skin, you will find out yourself in a situation that some people are complaining about you, some people are against you and so on so forth. think about it for a sec... what would you lose in the process of that personality transformation? friends, job or some favors or external experiences? if you make yourself okay with that. you're taking the very first step!

I've been following the Actualized.org for a while, and I reached to a conclusion that Leo, and also along with many members believe that Nations like Iraq and Afghanistan should be left alone to decide their fate and to go up the spiral. For me as an Iraqi, I can't see that happening without intervention of some sort. Iraqi nation can fight and eat the flesh of each other and not move a single step up the spiral, simply because they don't have to! Moving up the spiral takes efforts, and it doesn't happen naturally everywhere. When the west became a capitalized region, they literally invented capitalism from the ground up, their nation has grown with it. When the US invaded Japan after WWII, they took control of the education sector and started brainwashing children teaching them the new values of capitalism and democracy. But what are the chances of transformation happens in Iraq automatically? Probably 0.001, and you might ask why? Well Iraqi people are happy! so why change? They'll fight, steal, and kill anyone who's unwilling to comply to a system where the riches stays rich, and the poorers stay poor. Majority are even anti-west. I've conversed with hundreds of people over the internet. They think that America is an evil country, and they think that the only solution out of their situation is for America to adopt a new moral system that's more humane... And while they are right about this point, they also think that they should live in a bubble, and not making any attempt to work things out until the US is reaches that state. And while the Iraqi officials go to Washington and meet with US officials, ordinary Iraqi citizens can't stand the name 'America', they also hate Israel, and think that America and Israel are one, conspiring on them in all possible means. They think that the American Embassy is a center for aspionage, and they think that it is OK that pro-Iranian militias to "resist" the American presence in Iraq. These Iraqi people can't grasp the fact that when the US decide to intervene, it happen on a haste, and without through planning, like when America dismantled the Iraqi Army after the invasion, they think that this was deliberately happened just because the US hates Iraq and wants its destruction, while the reality is that it was done on the fly by the American military governor back then. They are living in the victimhood bubble where every decision is done against them, for the sake of their destruction and misery. They can't see anything outside that bubble, not a single Iraqi, not two, but probably 99.9999999 percent of Iraqis think this way. On the other hand, we have Facebook, a state-of-the-art propaganda machine. We can teach them not to take things too personal, and that the US is unlikely to adopt a more humane international policy, and that they should not wait for that to happen, instead they should try to make an effort and work with the reality as is. I've developped this model of brainwashing, and I've been doing it for more than a year now, with great results. What's nice about it is that when I read tens of the comment on any of my articles, I get a clear picture of what's the main theme or idea that my audience is thinking, and in my next article, I start to debunk any fallacies they have, and so on. It is an endless cycle of idea exchange and dialogue. I think this should be the future for peace-making in the world, because this is how it works: We have the older generation, and they hold the torch of knowledge and wisdom of any nation, mostly tribal stage-blue people, and they control the rich of a country and decisions, and many of those people have social media accounts, and many of them are educated individuals. When I target the 50+ years old folks, the fathers, the grandfathers of the nation and leak some fresh prespectives, they will start to let go of their dogmas, and that in turn will have a very positive effect on the rest of the nation. I believe there are two ways to change, from the ground up, and from up to the ground. When Leo is doing these videos, he's probably hoping to see the results in like 40 years to be reflected on the world, but what about if we take the already educated 50+ years of any nation, and just give them enough knowledge to make them pass this bottle neck towards a more open horizon! Honestly, do you think it can be done this way also?

The second force (aka denying or passive force) in the Law of Three as described by Gurdjieff seems to fit as a possibility in this topic, perhaps. Teachers of The Fourth Way often stress that this second or denying force is not necessarily bad or to be seen strictly as negative. An I axiom of this Law states that going against second force only makes it stronger. As in “That which you resist, persists”. For instance, those who struggle with an addiction get a taste of this phenomena. ////////////////////////////////////////// The Law of Three is described by Gurdjieff as "the second fundamental cosmic law". This law states that every whole phenomenon is composed of three separate sources, which are Active, Passive and Reconciling or Neutral. This law applies to everything in the universe and humanity, as well as all the structures and processes. The Three Centers in a human, which Gurdjieff said were the Intellectual Centre, the Emotional Centre and the Moving Centre, are an expression of the law of three. Gurdjieff taught his students to think of the law of three forces as essential to transforming the energy of the human being. The process of transformation requires the three actions of affirmation, denial and reconciliation. This law of three separate sources can be considered modern interpretation of early hindu Philosophy of Gunas, We can see this as Chapters 3, 7, 13, 14, 17 and 18 of Bhagavad Gita discuss Guna in their verses. [25] How the Law of Seven and Law of Three function together is said to be illustrated on the Fourth Way Enneagram, a nine-pointed symbol which is the central glyph of Gurdjieff's system. Taken from- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Way

@Breakingthewall I'm aware of that, research is currently being done with ketamine. Let's see how this is going to work out. That's exactly how it happens man... Do you know what defines you have psychosis/schizophrenia? You don't know you have it. That's the trap of a psychotic delusion. The "something else" can be very subtle too. DP/DR is Nothingness. Go ask a psychiatrist. When I say "spiritual enlightenment is a predisposition" I mean: "If you go to a psychiatrist and tell him about your awakenings, your no-self etc. He's gonna write down 'predisposition for schizophrenia'". The problem is: How do you differentiate spiritual beliefs and magical beliefs? magical beliefs are a symptom on the schizophrenia spectrum. If you want to do an experiment, just go to a psychiatrist and tell him, that reality is a big hallucination, that time doesn't exist, that the universe gives you signs, and synchronicities brought you there. That you believe in miracles, and that consciousness creates reality as in a solipsistic dream universe. "Oh but the materialist psychiatrist doesn't understand reality" - you're going to say. Just as predisposed people are not going to think that there is something slightly off, they are going to think that it's a spiritual transformation, or spiritual wisdom/intuition. I'm just making the case for why it's a bad idea, you already heard the good things. @Farnaby at least denial is better than a full blown psychotic delusion like connor murphy.

Not at all, nothing could guarantee the transformation of those countries to modern nations. One factor I think of always is that the real possibility of contribution of any nation in modern science science can only make their progress possible. Example, Israel. There's no other nation in that region that contributes more to modern science than Israel.

Seems to me like @Goldzilla and the rest are talking different language here. I don't think you would even agree on what awakening means. From what I hear, Goldzilla speaks about complete coming into the Ground (the body). As he says, making the subconscious conscious, total transformation and embodying of the human being. Here, yes, gender is central and absolutely real. (frankly, basically nobody else on this forum speaks about this ascpet of awakening lol) The rest that post here speak about deconstructing of the mind. Where gender and even the body is seen as conceptual stuff. (this is the aspect of awakening basically everyone is involved in here on the forum) I strongly believe that however paradoxicaly opposite these aspects may seem, they are not mutualy exclusive.

@johnlocke18 a man is walking on his own path of growth and transformation. And growth includes change. Can you let him walk.. Can Leo make mistakes? Well, yes. Is Leo God? Well, absolu-freakingly yes. But Leo.... Is you.

A lesson in giving power away to the external world, life is all about relationship. What everyone truly desires is to be and feel like they are enough, complete, in of themselves, sovereign, safe to be true to themselves, willing to express how they feel and not even need to own this expression, in observing the trauma/release, the pattern, fear, behavior can be shifted from within and “others” will begin to shift their perception and treatment towards you make a fool of yourself, willingly, one time, then watch your entire phobia vanish in the upcoming experiences observe your energy and how you communicate your needs, release the energy and speak up no need to avoid the test/lesson, there’s wisdom to expand with, and all will deeply appreciate this transformation in the soul expansion process

Mantras are sounds or vibrations that create a desired effect, such as healing, transformation, or self-awareness, to a specific area of your body and/or life. There are mantras for everything; here a few practical uses for you to try. Everything in creation is, at its most refined level, sound or vibration. Every tree, every flower, every part of your body has its own unique vibration. Even the qualities you express in your life such as happiness, joy, abundance, and love are vibrations. When you are healthy, happy, and vibrant, these vibrations are harmonizing with each other like a magnificent cosmic symphony. However, if the vibration of any area becomes distorted, the harmony breaks down, leading to a lack of wholeness and some discomfort in your life. Many forms of healing are based on knowing the correct sound or vibration and reintroducing it into that area, whereby you can restore the balance, harmony, and comfort once again. Nature itself is full of sounds—birds singing, the wind blowing through the trees, waves breaking on the beach, innocent children laughing, and so many more. Unfortunately, for much of our time nowadays, we separate ourselves from nature. When you spend time in nature, listening to these sounds, your physiology becomes harmonized with the rhythms and flow of nature. All traditions of the world have used sound for healing, whether the beating of a drum, a bell, a gong, or a sacred chant. The ancient Vedic Tradition of India has taken this a step further, exploring and refining the use of sound over thousands of years to formulate it into the Vedic Science of Mantras. Mantras are specific sounds or vibrations whose effects are known. When either chanted aloud or repeated silently, they can create a desired effect in any area of your physiology or life—for healing, transformation, and inner awakening. This is, of course, a vast subject and there are mantras for everything from curing snakebites to spiritual awakening. It would take a whole lifetime to master this wisdom; however, we’ll discuss a few of the more practical uses here. Healing Mantras As we’ve discussed, everything is sound and any discomfort or disease is a distortion of the sound in some area of the body. Reintroducing the correct sound helps to restore the harmony in that area. Healing mantras are normally repeated with the attention in the area of discomfort—or, you could say, directing the vibration to where it is needed. There are some powerful healing mantras, which are best learned from a qualified teacher; however, here are some of the simpler ones: For the sinuses: Mmmmm For the ears: Nnnnnnn For the eyes: Eeemmm For the throat: Gaa Gha For the jaw: Yaa Yu Yai The vowels sounds can also be used for healing. Aaa Eeeee Eye Ooooo Uuuuuu These are non-local, meaning you can chant one of them and direct its vibration wherever you choose. Extract from source : https://chopra.com/articles/7-simple-mantras-for-healing-and-transformation If you want your own personalized mantra sound voice go to: https://tupropiomantra.blogspot.com/2021/04/te-creamos-tu-propio-mantra-con-tu-voz.html NAMASTE

Question of good or bad policy, I don't care for, nothing learnt from that. I judge most people as retarded, concerned with shit that doesn't matter, spreading propaganda, blah blah blah I give myself a headache even saying that lmao Covid vaccines are one thing. What I ask is what else you get coerced into. What is coercion to begin with? What does it mean to be "co-operative"/"agreeable" , how/why should it be valued? I got my second shot of the vaccine today. I went because someone booked it for me, I didn't have much else to do. If I did have something else more important to do, and I was actually anti-vax, I just wouldn't go. I'm not anti-vax, I just don't care, although I think it's a bonus to be vaxed, probably Zombie transformation complete. But at least I'll get permission papers to travel where I want

@SamC She's extremely clever - I read some more posts on her blog. She has a very construct-aware mind. She's also capable of observing male-female dynamics (in particular around the attraction phase) honestly and neutrally, which is indeed rare. She understands the male archetype that actually turn her on, as opposed to the male archetype that most women would proport "turn them on." That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if she still has a pickup shadow. Because pickup turns useless unattractive and creepy men into valuable, attractive (and frankly normal) men. And women love the latter type of man, but despise the former. And when they hear that the former has authentically turned into the latter, they feel manipulated (understandably), and they become defensive. Almost all women want the fruits of a man's transformation without hearing about the starting point or the journey (understandably). But then again, maybe this girl really is the exception. She reminds us on her blog frequently that she was at one point prepared to literally die out of Love (I know what that feels like personally - you have to really not care about your petty human desires to reach that point). Maybe she really is that one miraculous girl who doesn't care about her female self-image and guarding against manipulation. It's a shitty survival strategy, but it opens the gate to genuine understanding