Leo Gura

@Phill You need to realize that there is no substitute for action. How do you develop discipline? You just fucking do it. You take that lazy ego and you force it to submit, like a dog. And if you are too lazy to do that. That is it. You're stuck forever.

@BjarkeT That's precisely the point of research: to investigate things which you have no clue about. If you only research the things you know, then you're researching in a circle.

You are not realizing that your intent to do research is biased, paradigm-locked, and not genuine. You only want to do the kind of research that fits your paradigm and validates your core assumptions about reality. If you really cared about doing research, you would be eager to smoke some DMT, rather and coming up with excuses for why not to.

Of course there is a reason. The reason is: Absolute Infinity!

Of course sanity/insanity go full-circle.

Well of course. That's what no-self means: no distinction between self/other. You had an enlightenment experience into the nature of What is another?

@egoless In that case we had an honest miscommunication. Sorry.

I mean, most musicians do drugs. Drugs are part of that sub-culture.

@Chrissy j There is an old Chinese proverb which say something like: He who is saying it can't be done shouldn't stand in the way of the one doing it. The problem is that those psychologists writing for Psychology Today are themselves neurotic as hell. There is a big difference between working on yourself and being an academic who reads books about dysfunctional people. You can read every textbook ever written about psychology, but it will not grow you much as a human being.

The issue is that that sentence is ambiguous. It can be read in two ways: Leo said Sadhguru is a liar Leo disagrees with the person calling Sadhguru a liar What I mean is that I have never criticized Sadhguru or called him a liar. If other people are calling Sadhguru a liar, that is their opinion. As far as I can see, Sadhguru is not a liar and I don't see any good reason to criticize him.

Isn't every musician a junkie? I don't see any problem with being a junkie and a musician. As for being an academic, that will be much harder. But then again, no path to raising the consciousness of humanity at large will be easy. Anyone who tries to raise consciousness in ANY field will be met with strong resistance. That is the nature of ignorance vs consciousness, God vs Devil. We are lucky we don't live in a time where we would have been burned at the stake just for having this conversation.

What are you talking about?? I have NEVER said that. I have never even implied such a thing. Don't put words in my mouth and be careful with your sloppy citations and sloppy misreadings. You mislead people very easily like that.

No, that's where you are mistaken. My description is as wrong as all the others. The problem isn't with the description, it's with the mind not wanting to understand it.

Because you cannot communicate Truth. All attempts to communicate it are lies by definition.

Scott is one of the most deluded thinkers I have ever heard speak. The self-appointed master of reason has been hoisted by his own petard. Oh the irony... When you hear people speaking of "reason", run for the hills. Reason is the #1 tool of the ego. Reason has absolutely nothing to do with truth. The mental gymnastics that Scott goes through to backwards-rationalize Trump, are truly astounding. And Sam is right to call him out on his shit.

That's called faith. The opposite of science. You are turning science into dogma. Which is the problem. If you stop doing that, then there's nothing wrong with science. But that's a big IF. Cause you insist on holding it as dogma. The problem is that you hold a thing as dogma while telling yourself, "It's not dogma". But telling yourself that doesn't make it true. That's precisely what religious fundamentalists do. They hold dogmas which they believe are not dogmas, but truth, but which are in fact dogmas.

The significance is that, once again, everything is made out of nothing. Jacques Derrida and Post-Structuralism nailed the true nature of language.

Lol, Scott Adams critcizing Sam Harris is like Harvey Weinstein criticizing Al Franken. But also -- of course -- rationality is highly irrational. How could you not expect such an artificial duality to collapse?

@egoless I have a 25 hour course which explains all that. It will save you years of beating around the bush. This is a nuanced topic which required a giant course to properly explain.

Watch your asses when following/idolizing any human being. People do that because they are too lazy to actually do the work themselves. No one will enlighten you but yourself.

"More accurate term" is a relative notion. For different people different terms will work best given their preconceptions. And everyone has their unique preconceptions. To me, "death" is the best description of it. But other people might not resonate with that. Personally, I like using the most shocking descriptions of it, because it's a very shocking thing. To me, the essence of enlightenment is the shock and total mindfuck of it. To me, any description which leaves that out, is highly misleading because it doesn't properly communicate the staggering radicalness of this insight. "Death" is a great term because when the average person hears that, they go, "OMG! That can't be true! It's too radical! He must mean something more metaphorical by that." But no... I mean your actual death! That communicates the gravity of this thing. The problem with "Being in the present moment" is that is has zero gravity to it. It's a completely non-threatening description. People misconstrue that as like sitting at the bus stop waiting for a bus. That ain't it. Calling enlightenment "Being in the present moment" is like calling a nuclear bomb a firecracker because both are a kind of explosion. But the magnitude of the explosion makes all the difference in the world!

@egoless If that's what they're really passionate about and feel their purpose is, sure, no problem. Except that's not the case 99% of the time.

But it's not being done consciously, that's the point. And what about those people working in a 9-5 job who got laid off and screwed over by their company, denied a pension, and denied healthcare, then got cancer and died because they couldn't pay for it? What about 1/3 of American who live at the poverty line and cannot afford healthy food or decent schooling for their children? There is risk in everything. And I never recommended going all-in (monetarily) on a new business idea. That is extremely foolish. I would never do that myself. That's not what LP is about. Criticism of a 9-5 job isn't about the job itself, it's about the unconsciousness which typically comes with it. A person working at McDonald's is literally working in a poison factory. His job is to poison people for a living. And a programmer's job at Lockheed Martin is to kill people for a living.

That is a very complex question that would requires a decade of research and contemplation to begin to understand. I'm in the process of writing a book about it. It's extremely complex and challenging to write about.

@BjarkeT The problem is that scientists, and you, are taking the scientific method for granted. You just assume it delivers truth. But that's not how it works at all. It constructs a conceptually-augmented reality instead. You misunderstand how the scientific method actually works, what it yields, and what its limits are. For starters, scientific method doesn't prove ANYTHING. All it can do is rule out certain possibilities "within reasonable doubt". To understand all that requires a very deep investigation of epistemology and metaphysics and history of science. Which hardly any scientists undertakes. Science is a paradigm which comes with many unconscious metaphysical assumptions which simply turn out to be false. But good luck convincing a person who clings to that paradigm of this point.