Can an Enlightened Person be Evil?

[Razard86]

8 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

That's what you project onto them. Consider that there might be a fundamental difference in their basic, visceral experience of reality. They're living their truth by being who they are, you are living your truth by not wanting them to be that. I'm living my truth by acknowledging my perspective (dangerous people should be locked away from society), while also acknowledging the fact that their perspective literally appears to be true to them! They may not have the understanding, mental fortitude and/or intelligence to transcend their darkness. Imagine being raised in a Christian house hold, and being told not to question authorities, for they know what's best for you. One day you hear a voice in your head claiming to be God. The voice is telling you that "the new born of neighbor is the anti-Christ and you must undo this child for I am God". Are you, a guy that was always taught not question authority, going to question THE ultimate authority?

That voice is obviously not THE ultimate authority, but it takes a certain type of intelligence to realize it to be nothing other than a voice. Consider, that that person might literally be incapable of differentiating between the voice in their head and God. The fact that this voice is God might be as apparent to them as the screen you're reading these words on is to you, but in the end it's just appearance. So who are we to judge a person for falling for appearances? We are not being THEM, that's for sure.

That's your understanding of what I was saying. I think it's a pretty solid example. Schizophrenia can literally erode the line between reality and dream. I've talked to quiet a few Schizophrenics and they're literally incapable of distinguishing their mental chatter from reality. I know this one girl who believes that she is being spied on by Apple, because she's in a "psychic communion with the ghost of Steve Jobs", who was "dissatisfied with what had become of Apple" and had given her the job to "build a new company called" called "Pear".  She's currently locked up in a psyche ward, but she believes that the chancellor of Germany will have heard of her by the time that she's is out. She plans on doing business deals with him.

She is literally incapable of making sense of what an average person would consider to be reality. Being Schizophrenic is like part of your mind is constantly asleep and dreaming up new events and timelines and people. It's actually quiet scary and sad. But to them it's reality. She isn't unhappy with things being the way they are. They are simply the way they are and that's it. So please take into consideration that your critique of my point has been to fight the perspective within my example, rather than to acknowledge the fact that you're attacking it from an outside perspective. That is my point. It's that you're looking at it from outside of the perspective. You don't know what it's like to be a Schizophrenic idiot with underlying anger issues, or a coldhearted psychopath with no regard for human life whatsoever. Be grateful for that.

Your whole argument failed the moment you said lying was a projection. I suggest you aim to understand what is and isn't a projection.

[Jac067]

Excellent articulation.

[Breakingthewall]

The point is that such a thing as evil does not exist, it is selfishness in its different levels, derivations and perversions. Let's say that what we call enlightened is the dissolution of the barriers of the self, with which the difference between the other and myself is no longer perceived, so egoism decreases to, let's say, zero, if that is possible. the less selfishness, the less evilness, obviously

[AerisVahnEphelia]

Physics create the field that is "moral behavior".

Ultimately no.
everyone is as conscious as YOU make it.

All those models are just pure garbages attachment for the ego to entertain a sense of self/meaning.

You can't model reality with an human brain, at best you might get a glimpse, but even if that happen, this is still not "reality", and you cannot measure if the glimpse is delusional or realistic.

So the paradox is, you're in a "movie of consciousness" at chapter 1 you've a set of belief, but the second after you've another set of belief.

Reality is permanently moving.

As an ego, you'll keep acting on pure hallucinations all the time.

Good & wrong exist, but only for you, when you think they do.

 

[James123]

On 2/14/2024 at 6:20 AM, AtmanIsBrahman said:

This is going to be long and touching on a lot of topics.

I've been wondering about a certain inconsistency in Leo's teachings. He says that there is really no separation between good and evil, and that really everything is good. So Hitler is good, rape is good, etc. and you just imagine it is evil because of your selfishness as an ego-- it goes against your survival needs as a being with a limited sense of self. And this is because reality is infinite and includes everything, not just the stuff that you like.

But at the same time, if we're being honest, Leo does admit a certain duality between good and evil by calling it consciousness and unconsciousness. So although Hitler is good in some absolute sense, he is low-consciousness: his perspective is too narrow, focused only on Germany, and he is not aware of truth, enlightenment, and spirituality, or even more basic concepts such as liberalism and democracy. Same with rapists, murders, and the like. Now, having heard this, people ask, "Why shouldn't I do evil stuff? What is stopping me, since it is absolutely good?"

Leo's answer across multiple videos has been that there is no reason why you shouldn't do "evil". But then he follows this up by saying that there will be consequences to your actions. Is this some law of karma, or what? If it is, then doesn't this mean the universe actually favors good and punishes evil? And if not, then there aren't really any consequences for doing evil. 

Now, this leads to the question of what high consciousness is. The way Leo talks about high consciousness, it is like a higher stage of development. But does this mean more intelligence or more emotional capacity?

Let's imagine a serial killer who is highly intelligent, calm, and collected. He meditates regularly and, though not enlightened, has a high level of consciousness. We can hypothesize that he kills for some kind of spiritual high.

Next, let's imagine an unusually good, noble person. He doesn't mediate, has poor control over himself, and is unintelligent, but he helps people and avoids doing evil things such as murdering people.

These people don't add up according to Leo's model of high vs. low consciousness. The serial killer should be low-consciousness and the "good guy" should be high-consciousness, but we see from their descriptions that it seems more like the opposite. 

So basically, my question is, can a high-consciousness person do things that are thought of as evil with full awareness of what they are doing but be so spiritually developed that they don't care? Can a zen master be a serial killer? Does this contradict them being a legitimate zen master, or is it possible?

Then, as a side note, does high consciousness have to do with intelligence, self-discipline, and these sort of things or is it something entirely different?

Anyway, this was kind of convoluted, but I'd appreciate any comments or answers people have.

 

If you met with Love, being bad is almost impossible. 

[Ry4n]

Let’s just say I had a “friend” that turned out to be Narcissistic personality disorder (covert) and I was waffling on about all the non-duality stuff and unlike other friends he was absolutely incapable of understanding it because it requires self awareness that leads to Self awareness; facing our personal BS comes first before seeing that essence. Narcissists are incapable of confronting their dark side. 

Could an enlightened person be evil? Only for as long as they’re not enlightened. 
 

There REALLY is no such thing as an enlightened person outside of maybe a Ramana Maharshi and even then there’s a story of him chasing an annoying brat down with his stick because the guy wouldn’t shut up; the absolute doesn’t negate the relative. 

[Yimpa]

Anyone can be evil, yet You don’t have to be affected by that whatsoever. You can focus on joy instead. 

[GraceUnity730]

On 2/13/2024 at 8:20 PM, AtmanIsBrahman said:

This is going to be long and touching on a lot of topics.

I've been wondering about a certain inconsistency in Leo's teachings. He says that there is really no separation between good and evil, and that really everything is good. So Hitler is good, rape is good, etc. and you just imagine it is evil because of your selfishness as an ego-- it goes against your survival needs as a being with a limited sense of self. And this is because reality is infinite and includes everything, not just the stuff that you like.

But at the same time, if we're being honest, Leo does admit a certain duality between good and evil by calling it consciousness and unconsciousness. So although Hitler is good in some absolute sense, he is low-consciousness: his perspective is too narrow, focused only on Germany, and he is not aware of truth, enlightenment, and spirituality, or even more basic concepts such as liberalism and democracy. Same with rapists, murders, and the like. Now, having heard this, people ask, "Why shouldn't I do evil stuff? What is stopping me, since it is absolutely good?"

Leo's answer across multiple videos has been that there is no reason why you shouldn't do "evil". But then he follows this up by saying that there will be consequences to your actions. Is this some law of karma, or what? If it is, then doesn't this mean the universe actually favors good and punishes evil? And if not, then there aren't really any consequences for doing evil. 

Now, this leads to the question of what high consciousness is. The way Leo talks about high consciousness, it is like a higher stage of development. But does this mean more intelligence or more emotional capacity?

Let's imagine a serial killer who is highly intelligent, calm, and collected. He meditates regularly and, though not enlightened, has a high level of consciousness. We can hypothesize that he kills for some kind of spiritual high.

Next, let's imagine an unusually good, noble person. He doesn't mediate, has poor control over himself, and is unintelligent, but he helps people and avoids doing evil things such as murdering people.

These people don't add up according to Leo's model of high vs. low consciousness. The serial killer should be low-consciousness and the "good guy" should be high-consciousness, but we see from their descriptions that it seems more like the opposite. 

So basically, my question is, can a high-consciousness person do things that are thought of as evil with full awareness of what they are doing but be so spiritually developed that they don't care? Can a zen master be a serial killer? Does this contradict them being a legitimate zen master, or is it possible?

Then, as a side note, does high consciousness have to do with intelligence, self-discipline, and these sort of things or is it something entirely different?

Anyway, this was kind of convoluted, but I'd appreciate any comments or answers people have.

 

When it comes to enlightenment, I think the universe/god has no favorites. 

When I was in jail , I was extremely stage red with hint of enlightened blue. I got enlightened. 

Who are we to judge a serial killer, pedophile, or cartel leader. We all came out of the same infinite love essence.

What's  stopping them, take a guess...it's you. Evil was a intelligent invention to love hating people that are less intelligent then them. 

This explains why rational people hates unenlightened Christians because it undermines there intelligence. 

Stage Turquoise hates hate and evil. While some stage red society allows dismemberment, slaughter and beheading and other is rational, wealthy, and has a lot comfortable luxury. Deep down they hate each other mostly the stage orange one. 

The Stage Turquoise is the most intelligent but everything is Love/God including lower stages of morality. If you guys seen DotheWork post which he the most enlightened on the forum. There is no difference between a homeless man and businesses man at least in the love level.

When it comes to evil, it's not matter of Love, we already have that. It's matter of intelligence. Cognitive, Emotional, and  Universal. Intelligence can't be measured because created the measure. Neither Spiral Dynamics or Ego development can't figure out what is true Intelligence with a upper case I is. 

Leo has in one of his blog videos saying "you don't know what intelligence is"  and think it was 2019. With his stage orange, yellow, and turquoise Infinite intelligence he made 400+ hours self help, spirituality, and psychology YT Videos. With thousands of replies to comments. And promoting and using psychedelics known and unknown.

Psychedelics and his YouTube channel are two major inventions to this reality and I guess the forum. And the morality has always been based upon ironically enough stage blue presentation paradoxical spiral dynamics model. 

The thing is does Leo actually uses his God powers to for example instantly take us to mars. To end all the animals suffering. To heal (which hinted at leaving for awakening video) people and create  Jesus like miracles. And what I think should happen Actualized becoming mainstream. This goes with the enlightened people on the forum too. 

With Science we have so much inventions like cars, lamps, tvs, consoles, chairs, Cheetos, houses, bikes, and etc. With Science/Rationality we actualized our pleasures, exploration, and creativity. Rationality gives us certain moral truths about pain, suffering, mental disorders (people out of the norm), what's socially acceptable, and so on .

Major Questions: 

Is Morality about being selfless, selfish, both, or neither?

Does Truth of our universe has anything do with a morality and survival. Will a survival first serial killer out live a good moral intellectual?  The answer is probably the intellectual. Jeffery Dahmer would probably out live Morgan Freeman if it was the other way around. Who's is more truthful tho?