Ibn Sina

Member
  • Content count

    114
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Ibn Sina

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

857 profile views
  1. If you say that there is a connection, doesn't necessarily mean that it is there. ( may be you should try to prove how there is a connection between them, instead of just making assertions without evidences to back them up). I do agree with 'there is no seperation between inner and outer', but why to add there is only love? You say that ' there is no separation between inner and outer' is related to 'focus on the inner'? What?! How is the fact that ' there is no separation between inner and outer' has anything to do with the idea that we should focus on the inner? Why not say - you should focus on the inner? instead of saying ' there is no separation between inner and outer' to express the idea that ' you should focus on the inner'? And what do you mean by 'related'? How is there a relation between saying ' there is no seperation between inner and outer' and 'you should focus on the inner'? The first one is a statement about the character of the inner and outer world the second one is a command. They are of completely different categories. They are not related as you claim to be, and certainly not 'obviously' unless you are deluding yourself. Just look at those 2 sentence. Take a second look. Those 2 sentences convey entirely different messages, and hold entirely different purposes. Do those 2 sentence look related? Tell me exactly how they are related. Another thing- the topic starter starts his sentence with "I just want to sit with my eyes closed. All I want to do is stay in my being and explore my energies. I can sit for hours, hypnotized by my insides." clearly he is already quite focused on the inner already. Now who in the right mind would want to suggest him (as you are suggesting) that you should focus on the inner ( using the sentence- there is no seperation between the inner and the outer). The topic starter is already quite deeply in the inner, why to tell him further that he should focus in the inner? Yes it is absurd, and it is absurd because it is false. ' There is no seperation between inner and outer' has nothing to do with ' you should focus in the inner'. Love is an emotion, but the inner and outer are components of reality. Denying the separation between the inner and outer is okay, but negating their existence and only affirming the existence of love in their stead is completely absurd, because love is an aspect of this inner-outer dichotomy. And yes, as I said , his- 'there is only love' is completely unrelated with what the topic starter had said. The topic starter was talking about whether he is going too deep? whether he is running from life itself? Wherease he talks about 'love' out of ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE. Okay yes so love has something to do with relationship, but what about knowledge? what about entertainment? but what business ? what about the millions of things that has nothing to do with the inner? Are everything that is not inner, related to love? LIKE EVERYTHING RELATED TO LOVE? No, hence it is absurd to throw in this love out of NOWHERE. The questioner asks - Am I fooling myself? Am I running from life? Can meditation turn into an addiction of sorts? and the answerer answers with- Loving your heart which is a hologram for all of existence is the most essential spiritual practice in any situation. Love is the answer you are looking for here to the one who wants to just sit. His dogmas about love is just forcing it's way into his answers. He is not answering the questioners questions. The questioner wants to know whether he is going to deep with the inner. The answerer is suggesting that you should stop with the inner, and instead practice the doctrine of love. He is preaching. He is not quenching the questioner's queries.
  2. Brahman has no intention for creation unlike Brahma. Things appear and disappear inside Brahman. Hence there is a difference between it being a creator which simply forms things without intent (as doing so is it's nature) or it being a creator like Brahma. Brahman is the name of ultimate reality, it has no personality or intention, or anything, it is distinct from Brahma, and actualized.org is interested in this Brahman even IF it is a creator , it doesn't create things like one human being giving birth to another, it creates things like a mountain forming rocks as it breaks down. Those two kinds of creations are not the same, hence Brahma and Brahman are not the same though both of them come under the category of 'creator'. Just because they both are creators does not mean that they are both the same.
  3. In Hinduism, there are 2 words. One is 'Brahma' and the other is 'Brahman'. Similar sounding words but their meaning are different. 'Brahma' is a creator God who has got 4 heads ,4 arms and dons a large white beard. 'Brahman' is the ultimate reality i.e the true nature of existence.These two words cannot be used interchangeably, they are not identical. But for some reason, the words 'God' and 'Existence' are being used interchangeably like they are the same thing. But it is necessary , just like in the Hindus tradition, to establish a distinction. Because we are not concerned with 'Brahma' , we are concerned with 'Brahman'. @Dodo I have nothing to object. Yes, if he couldn't do without describing his deep mystical experience as nothing else but God, then there must be something to it. May be it is associated with the deeply conscious, life like, living breathing aspect of reality.
  4. A society consists of many many many people, thousands and to change one implies a change in the majority of them, which can be brought about only by a major changing a agent, a revolution in technology, or culture, or the rise of a leader who changes the entire laws of the country (but it must be done gradually, doing it abruptly and rigidly brings chaos). In the annals of history, what has brought change in society? Large scale education programs has changed society, technology has changed society and so on. Iraq is a violent , war torn nation, a stage red nation. It's far more wiser to focus on setting your own life in order, rather than thinking about changing the entire society and the culture of this place. If sufficient amount of people make conscious decision to strive towards peace , development, science, reason, and get rid off all sorts of religious dogmatism and fanaticism ( embeded deeply in the arabic culture) , society will change. But how will that be brought about? It's a mystery. Even a nation like England was a religious fanatic nation for it's major part of history upto 16th to 17th century, but with all it's industrial revolutions and scientific advancements. , slowly it turned into a nation of reason instead of a nation of religion. Many many nation have gone through this path, from religion to reason. May be one day Iraq will also transition towards a similar destiny.
  5. Before answering how do you handle 10 hour meditation retreat, think about how to NOT handle 10 hour meditation retreat. Just sit down for a couple of hours (minimum), ponder this question, develop a theory, test it test it test it , and if the theory doesn't correspond with your (ingenious) experiments. , develop another one and then another one and then another one and then another one and then another one and then another one and then another one and then another one and then another one and then another one and then until you arrive at a theory (or something which looks like one) which you think MIGHT be correct. Now that you know how to NOT handle 10 hour meditation retreat , you MIGHT (with the infinite grace of God) come up with an (ingenious) solution to how to handle 10 hour meditation retreat.
  6. @Mikael89 Nothing deep really, the last sentence made me laugh hard. 'There is no separation only love'. It's such a hippy thing to say. But what is funny (to me) is that that sentence had nothing in relation with what the topic starter had said. It's just thrown in, out of context. It is just meaningless bunch of words which we pretend HAS meaning. There is no need to take every trivial remark with seriousness.
  7. Of course I have heard about deities ( your spelling is wrong) and multiple gods, the question is - In all pantheistic systems , why to use God and existence interchangeably . Well, to be fair pantheism is exactly the belief that God and existence are the same thing so that is why those two words are being used interchangeably, but I was talking about pantheistic systems like this actualized.org, whose sole agenda is not to convince people that God is not the christian God but existence (which is the agenda of pantheism) but the sole purpose of actualized.org is to show and make understand the true nature of reality, and the non-material core of reality. In all this picture, why to speak of it as God? Why not just stick with nothingeness? Why to say- God is existence? That is not a useful sentence, as it only describes the nature of God , but we are not interested in God, we are interested in the nature of reality. The useful sentence is- Existence is nothingness. Existence is immateriality, consciousness. The goal of actualized.org is not to realize God (as it is in no way a religious organization that believes in God) , it's goal is to realize the true nature of existence so as to bring about a radical positive transformation in an individual's life which allows him to live an extraordinary life (which is what it's true goal is). Secondly, I asked - IF existence is god, why to call God God and not call God existence (which as I have already said , I was talking in the context of pantheistic system) and you said because there are multiple gods?Seriously? Because there ARE multiple gods, god is called god? So it is obvious? Well yes it is obvious IF just like you I was also believing that there ARE multiple Gods, but what is fascinating is how you cannot see that here in actualized.org, most people are not believers in the existence of multiple gods, most are believer in god= existence, so why do you think that just like you everyone is a believer in multiple gods (specially in this place)? Yes it would be obvious that God is called God if people believed in MULTIPLE gods ( let alone ONE), but how is it not obvious to you that here in actualized.org most people do not hold that belief? 1st question to you - Do you believe that multiple gods exist? Why? Second question - If yes, what the hell are you doing here if you don't even know the basic premise that this website is founded upon?
  8. I don't know much about Jung, but I read about one of his ideas called Archtypes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_archetypes), and that is one hell of an idea, one of the most profound idea that I have ever read!! Leo should do a video about it!
  9. Great question. I have yet to find an answer to this question. If existence is God, why call God God? Why not call God existence? Why is there even a word called God if God is existence?
  10. First of all (cough cough), Jesus of Nazareth was an IGNORANT JEW (no offense) who happened to experience (by sheer dumb luck) the divine, infinite nature of existence ( isn't that funny?) But he did not know how to articulate what he had known. All he knew was his father and his people and thus he talks of God as his father, and all he could do to express his profound spiritual experience is to express it in terms of WHAT HE KNEW! Hence all these theories of holy ghosts and miracles etc. The point was never to believe in the word of Christ, the main point was to BECOME ONE. To experience that which he had experienced. That was the whole point. Like seriously what are you going to do by believing all his nonsense??? hhahhahahhaha, you would also be uttering similar nonsense if you had experience what he had experience. Christ is what happens when an illiterate fool gets a taste of god hahahahahhahahahahhhaha As for Gautama Siddartha, he was a philosopher of the highest order, highly highly educated, highly intelligent , very very very very very very high in trait openness (I guess?) . Well versed in the vedas and the spiritual analyses of his days. Jesus talks about God like someone on a high trip (hipster jesus?) , Buddha talks about God and Suffering like an anatomist.
  11. @egoless I apologize for judging you too quickly, but you did say "God has a plan for you. God has designed you intelligently . You and God are not the same etc". Could you clarify more on your view of God?
  12. Your view of God is the one rooted in most religious tradition, the view that God is someone in the clouds who controls all the events in the universe. God of ancient Greece, God of Moses, God of Christ. But Leo's view , and Buddha's view, and Osho's view, and Spinoza's view, is that existence IS god. God is that on top of which all of reality happens continuously as pass time passes through. Gods of religion are merely the personification of this entity. Krishna is not the name of human being who fought in the Kurukshetra war. Krishna is the name of God consciousness. Krishna is what happens when you realize the fundamental principle of reality.
  13. Arguement 1- Inference from medical cases The brain is such a squishy substance. It can be held on ones hand, and can be touched , and seen and smelled and what not, just like a football or a volleyball. Both objects come under the category of 'touchable'. But when something happens to the brain of an organism, the entire functioning of the organism changes. This is a well known fact. There is the cerebellum which if it gets damaged there is no motor activity. There is an area in the brain called broca's area which if it gets damaged you won't be able to speak. Damage to some other areas leads to inability to read, or understand. Damage to medulla oblangata might end your life then and there. But no matter how much we talk about these squishy areas in the brain which influences the various functioning of the organism, what doesn't ever change is the nothingness that lies behind them. For example there was a guy who had a rod rammed up through his head (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage) and even that guy had consciousness, may be a very low quality consciousness but still consciousness it is. The damage to the brain did change the quality and the complexity of the consciousness, but it didn't change the fact that he had lost no consciousness or more precisely the 'nothingness. You can have a high quality consciousness, or a low quality consciousness, you can be high as a kite or in a vegetable state like in coma, but the 'nothingness' simply never goes away. You can hypothetically think of a person who was born blind, couldn't feel anything or touch anything, couldn't move, couldn't hear, couldn't taste nothing, only his vital functions were working. Now, what would this person feel like? The person is completely barred from the contents of reality. He has no means to react to even the slightest modification in reality. What would his consciousness look like? A completely null void. And that is the ultimate substrate of all existence. Argument 2- Evolutionary history of consciousness You do have the knowledge of the complex experience of being a human. Now think of lesser form, what about hippos? They are not capable of doing higher cognition. They just eat, and breed and die. What about insects? Look at their brain. It's almost negligible. So their experience is less richer than that of mammals. Now look at poriferans. They are just attached to a substratum until all their cells disintegrate. They don't have eyes, they don't walk. Water comes in and goes out through them and that is how they get their nutrients. They have no nervous system, nothing at all. As you can see, their consciousness must be nearer to that of nothingness, as they have no systems to absorb those experience from reality. All right , now think of amoeba and bacteria. They are like 98% water, just a bit of ions and organic molecules floating around , they are like very tiny minsicule drop of water. And yet they can reproduce , they can produce toxins and so on, so even in them there is a consciousness, which is even nearer to nothingness because they are even more simple. From a long chain of evolutionary history, the human brain has developed which has helped to make the interaction of the human organism with it's immediate reality, more richer. But this long chain of evolutionary history shows the source of the ultimate basis of life and consciousness, moving more and more towards a simpler consciousness thus more and more towards nothingness. And that is the ultimate reality. Our brain is complex enough to keep us distracting with the modifications of reality and hence toward a continuous bondage of suffering, but if we can keep on peeling off this complexity, and keep directing our consciousness towards a more and more simpler form, we too can experience the non-existence of existence. Argument 3- examining the molecular nature of matter So yes, it is true that the brain has our experience richer, but what subtends the brain? What is holding the brain? What is the substance of the brain? Neurons? A collection of neurons? Sodium moving in and potassium moving out through the neurons of the brain in response to the stimuli picked up by the sensory organs? Well yes it has created the experience but where do these ions come from? Where do these neuronal cells come from? They are just a collection of specific proteins and carbohydrates, and what are these proteins? Just a bunch of amino acids. What are these amino acids? Just a bunch of nitrogenous compounds made up of nitrogen and hydrogen atoms and what do these atoms contain? You guessed it. NOTHINGNESS!