How could feelings be just about survival and nothing else?

[Leo Gura]

On 4/12/2025 at 1:43 PM, integral said:

Will is a feeling, if you look at your finger and don’t feel like it you’re not gonna move it.

1) Will is not really a feeling. Feeling is small part of will.

God's Will crystalizes as physical objects. When you look at a tree, the tree is God's Will. Whether you feel it or not is irrelevant. The problem is you don't recognize nor understand it.

2) Your body moves 99% of time without your will.

Edited 14 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

My work is not against feeling, it just prioritizes understanding over everything else.

Obviously the feminine will not find that appealing. I don t deny that my work has this bias. I'm proud to bias pure understanding over everything else because no other spiritual work does that, and suffers for it.

You fool yourself if you think you can prioritize something above pure understanding and get away with it.

But I'm also honest that my way has its costs and tradeoffs. You will feel the costs in human relations. If you prioritize human relations over pure understanding there will be a cost.

I am not saying my way is best, since people have various goals and needs. But it has some unique advantages.

Edited 13 hours ago by Leo Gura

[integral]

29 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

1) Will is not really a feeling. Feeling is small part of will.

God's Will crystalizes as physical objects. When you look at a tree, the tree is God's Will. Whether you feel it or not is irrelevant. The problem is you don't recognize nor understand it.

2) Your body moves 99% of time without your will.

Why separate feeling from God’s Will crystallized as a tree? There was a motivation to crystallize itself as a tree which is that it felt like it? God feels like being a tree.

My finite human will is very limited and 99% of my body moves on its own by its own will, it feels like it?

it appears to me that it’s raw feeling crystallized as a tree. It’s made of the “tree feeling”.

Why did two atoms come together, because they’re both made a feelings which is the will of God.

The explanation you gave I could understand but you’re removing feeling from the equation and I don’t see why?

Can you be more precise of why feeling is completely removed from the will of God and why they’re not identical?

Edited 13 hours ago by integral

[Leo Gura]

@integral You want to call everything a feeling. I don't. So we will never agree.

A tree is not a feeling. I don't know any clearer way to explain it.

Exercise:

In your direct experience locate what is a feeling. Then locate what is not a feeling. Observe the difference between the two. Notice that non-feeling exists.

Edited 13 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Terell Kirby]

45 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I am not saying my way is best. But it has some unique advantages.

One of those advantage being creating a real & tangible pathway to  reaching 5/6-Construct Aware stage (SCG Ego Development Model).

I did not realize how profound and life changing this stage is-Actualized.org is like a Masters course to help you get to this stage. For me, it was worth transcending all human concepts at the expense of social bonds forged from collective group think, ideology & conformity. One of hardest things to admit to oneself is that most (if not all) human social systems are grounded in one or more of these -- even the so called healthy ones.

Edited 13 hours ago by Terell Kirby

[5-D - L O V E]

@integral I think I'm starting to comprehend your standpoint on this concept.

 

Personally my most fond memories in life come from about 7/8 years ago (3years prior to the pandemic) and I was completely aligned with what you're trying to point to (I think); and the best model that encapsulates this POV is a certain type of native american shamanic lineage, which may seem animistic, very purple like in terms of SD, it may feel regressive if not perceived clearly and frankly it can be dangerous if done however.

But it has a lot of benefits, the biggest being a fully integrated experience with nature.

This guy is great with this kind of teachings

 

 

 

The book "Celestine Prophecy" also comes to mind (but I view that one more like a work of fiction than something that points to absolute truths), I think that in your experience you care a lot about this, and I personally encourage to explore this aspect of reality further, there are many facets to truth, and this one is definitly a valid to look further into.

 

[UnbornTao]

Feeling isn't existential -- it isn't a fact of the universe, but rather an something generated, an activity. What that is is up for grabs. 

Wanting to feel good shouldn't be confused with being honest. This doesn't mean they're mutually exclusive -- they're just different pursuits, each with different goals. 

Edited 17 minutes ago by UnbornTao

[Terell Kirby]

11 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

A feeling isn't existential or metaphysical --

No one knows what a feeling is - its entirely context dependent, bound by linguistic constraints:

"I feel like they're after me"

"I feel a sensation in my gut"

"I feel as though you're not listening"

"That back rub feels so good"

"You hurt my feelings"

etc, etc

(Correction, the only thing we know about feelings is that we feel them).

Edited 10 hours ago by Terell Kirby

[UnbornTao]

10 hours ago, Terell Kirby said:

No one knows what a feeling is - its entirely context dependent, bound by linguistic constraints:

"I feel like they're after me"

"I feel a sensation in my gut"

"I feel as though you're not listening"

"That back rub feels so good"

"You hurt my feelings"

etc, etc

Perhaps. Since you pointed to some physical sensations, notice that some sort of body has to be there for feeling to occur--it doesn't occur in a vacuum.

Where do you find "feeling"?

Edited 16 minutes ago by UnbornTao

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Since humans are corrupt, they defined words in limited and biased ways. So of course I will not respect their definitions.

When I redefine a word, I uncorrupt it. I use the word from a higher level of intelligence.

Notice that humanity's self-deception, bias, and ignorance is even baked into its language. So you are like a slave using a slavemaster's langauge, which is designed to keep you enslaved.

Waking up an revolutionary act. You must break the chains that keep your mind shackled.

This does give you a rather crafty way out, as language is a framework we all agree to use to attempt to clearly define communications.

We do not all agree to use your version of it. I know you claim corruption - I just don't see how that validates bastardising it.

It also detracts from the meaning you are trying to convey. And most especially, I would consider precision in communication to be of utmost importance to you. 

Language isn't perfect, no one says it is. But there are many, many terms, words & definitions that can clearly enunciate any point you wish to make. 

I did not mean my above statements to express any negativity. I just think you should reconsider the hubris of altering the language you use to communicate as you see fit.

I don't want to detract from the topic here (my apologies @integral) but if I am correct, you know Russian yes? 

So technically you up on me & many other forum users here - we only know English

[Terell Kirby]

8 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Do you want to claim that it is existential? 

No claims, just my observations

8 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Where do you find "feeling"?

Ultimately in direct experience. My feelings can't be properly validated or invalidated by humans, as my experience is sovereign onto itself.

Edited 10 hours ago by Terell Kirby

[Leo Gura]

22 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

This does give you a rather crafty way out, as language is a framework we all agree to use to attempt to clearly define communications.

You're right, I do not care about honoring any human construction.

Humans will find that offensive.

Yes, I'm crafty in not letting any human construct limit me. The question is, why isn't everyone so crafty?

Quote

We do not all agree to use your version of it. I know you claim corruption - I just don't see how that validates bastardising it.

It also detracts from the meaning you are trying to convey. And most especially, I would consider precision in communication to be of utmost importance to you. 

What language of mine do you regard as "bastardizing"?

Be specific because I don't know what you find so wrong with my use of language.

Edited 10 hours ago by Leo Gura

[UnbornTao]

10 hours ago, Terell Kirby said:

No claims, just my observations

Ultimately in direct experience. My feelings can't be properly validated humans, as my experience is sovereign onto itself.

"Since you pointed to some physical sensations, notice that some sort of body has to be there for feeling to occur -- it doesn't occur in a vacuum."

You feel a certain way now, and new feelings keep coming up with each moment. Your feeling state is continuously shifting. A sunset has a warming, comforting effect on you, so you feel joy as a result. A dog furiously barks at you, and you feel fearful.

Doesn't the above point to an activity, something we do? The central element there is yourself, plus what you take the circumstances to mean to you. You may think a rock is beautiful, and so have a positive-feeling association with it. Another person might be disgusted at that same rock, even though the object remains unchanged. The feeling occurs in one's experience.

A body and perceptive organs seem to be a prerequisite for feeling to occur, as well as, well, being alive. 

Edited 4 minutes ago by UnbornTao

[Leo Gura]

41 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

A feeling isn't existential or metaphysical

That can't be right.

Everything that exists is existential.

Feeling is important and should not merely be reduced away to triviality. My work is not attempting to do that.

Edited 10 hours ago by Leo Gura

[UnbornTao]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

That can't be right.

Everything that exists is existential.

Feeling is important and should not merely be reduced away to triviality. My work is not attempting to do that.

Exists as an activity, not as a fact of the universe. How could it be existential? That it is produced in the first place suggests that it doesn't exist on its own accord. The same could be said of, say, suffering. The fact that it is commonly shared and experienced doesn't make it existential. Again, existence is what exists as itself; process and activity require action and steps and to be carried out within time.

Without living beings, where would we find "feeling"? Take away the body or a given perceptive organ, and no feeling can occur. 

Edited 2 minutes ago by UnbornTao

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Exists as an activity, not as a fact of the universe. How could it be existential? The same could be said of, say, suffering. Again, existence is what exists as itself; an activity is a process and so needs action and steps, and be carried out in time. 

Again, this is the trap of reductionism. Stop trying to reduce everything.

When you a eat a banana, that's existential. The taste of a banana is Absolute Truth and it doesn't matter than it lasts only a few seconds.

These fucking Buddhists have ruined spirituality with their reductionism. Can't even eat an Absolute Banana without some Buddhist squawking in your ear about how it's all a temporary distraction from Nirvana.

The banana exists as itself.

Edited 10 hours ago by Leo Gura

[UnbornTao]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Again, this is trap of reductionism. Stop trying to reduce everything.

When you a eat a banana, that's existential. The taste of a banana is Absolute Truth and it doesn't matter than it lasts only a few seconds.

These fucking Buddhists have ruined spirituality with their reductionism. Can't even eat an Absolute Banana without some Buddhist squawking in your ear about how it's all a temporary distraction.

I didn't say anything about temporary or distraction. What exists as itself is what exists as itself. Here we're dealing with feeling as an activity. It is a distinction, thus relative, that we make and experience as something in particular. 

What would you feel if you ate a rock? That would be equally absolute, but your feeling-state would also likely be different in that case than when eating an absolute banana.

Edited 9 minutes ago by UnbornTao

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

I didn't say anything about temporary or distraction.

Time, activity -- same thing.

You are taking time and activity to mean something it doesn't mean.

Activity is Absolute as much as anything else.

Just because a feeling lasts 30 seconds doesn't make it any less real or important than anything else.

Edited 10 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Natasha Tori Maru]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

My work is not against feeling, it just prioritizes understanding over everything else.

Obviously the feminine will not find that appealing. I don t deny that my work has this bias. I'm proud to bias pure understanding over everything else because no other spiritual work does that, and suffers for it.

You fool yourself if you think you can prioritize something above pure understanding and get away with it.

But I'm also honest that my way has its costs and tradeoffs. You will feel the costs in human relations. If you prioritize human relations over pure understanding there will be a cost.

I am not saying my way is best, since people have various goals and needs. But it has some unique advantages.

That's a shame as I think there is more to explore regarding feeling that is relevant to your work.

But who knows, you may come upon how and why feelings weave into your work in the future.

I just think you can't delete 'human relations' from your work without hurting the integrity of truth seeking.

Agree to disagree

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

That's a shame as I think there is more to explore regarding feeling that is relevant to your work.

But who knows, you may come upon how and why feelings weave into your work in the future.

I just think you can't delete 'human relations' from your work without hurting the integrity of truth seeking.

Agree to disagree

I do not preclude the exploration of feeling, or anything else.

Nor do I preclude the doing of human relations.

It's just a matter of priority and emphasis.

My teachings are not anti feelings nor relations. Those are all part of a well-rounded developmental path.

Just because I don't release many videos about feelings does not mean my work somehow denies or ignores them. I understand their importance, my work just has a different focus.

Edited 9 hours ago by Leo Gura