Ibn Sina

You are correct about the above 2 but the your last point I disagree. When I eat an apple, my digestive enzymes act upon it, all the vitamins, minerals, water , nutrients get utilized by my body. The apple turns into simpler forms like glucose, fructose, galactose etc. vitamin C in it is used as catalyst as various chemical reactions in my body for tissue repair or whatever it's functions are , the glucose , fructose etc are all utilized by my body for energy. The potassium inside the apple literally goes in and out of my muscle fibres and cardiac muscle for it's contraction. It literally becomes my body. Every single atom of it. The undigested portion gets excreted and does not become my body, but the rest do.

Don't compare Hitler with Napoleon just because both did what was best for their country. Hitler killed innocent people, Napoleon defeated his enemies (the entire europe) against all odds ( I am not strictly speaking). There's a difference. In the roman times, the romans considered barbarians the goths, the huns etc who were outside the empire. I don't think historians would equate Augustus with the Goths.

I think 'Barbaric' should be a term reserved to Huns, Goths, Vikings, or Mongols. Napoleon was not barbaric. He was a genius who did what was right for France (at the time). He was an avid reader, a good writer and strategist. Would you call Augustus Caesar barbaric? There's a difference.

This has nothing to do with the question I am asking. I am not asking ' why are humans more complex than rocks?' , if that is what you understood. It is , ' If ______ (which I have written 100 times by now), then why are humans more complex than rocks', which is a completely different idea about which I am talking about, it has nothing to do with comparison of complexities which you are saying here. So basically, you are talking about defining what a human being is, just like defining what a water fall is . There is also an old hindus story about 'what a chariot is?' is it it's wheel or horse? where is the chariot? I have got nothing to do with that. If we are arguing about defining what a human is, then again, this is an irrelevant discussion and not what my question is asking about.

'Why is consciousness confined to a particular body, why u are u and I am me?' That's a great question. Leo said- 'I know that I am you and the entire universe when my consciousness becomes infinite. Consciousness becoming infinite = Being the entire universe the plants, the trees, you , me' Okay, but still your question remains unanswered. Sure Leo may be correct, but still why does consciousness confines itself to a particular field during the state of duality. This is still a mystery. Your question is about the state of duality, while Leo talks about the state of non-duality. No one knows the answer to your question, which has to do with the default state of consciousness in duality. You could have been born as Bill Gate's son, or Warren Buffet's son, or a begger in africa, or a crocodile in Amazon or a Cheetah in Savannah, how does consciousness distribute itself? Unsolved mystery.

I think questions like- Why x is famouse, Why 'Buddha' is famous, Why 'Krishna' is famous, has more to do with the historical events that followed. You can look at the article about the spread of Buddhism or Christianity. It has a huge complex history. Ralston may or may not be as enligthened as the Buddha, he may even exceed Buddha, but that is irrevelant, a master becoming famous or not has more to do with the historical events that follow. There may have been many Buddhas who were as enligthened as the original one, but still no one knows about them but that doesn't mean they were less enlightened.

Of course it's not simple. I know that even a rock is complex, the complexity of molecules and atoms are huge. What I am saying is, if both humans and rocks are made of consciousness, then there should be no complex machinary that makes a human operate the way it does, which is absent in a rock (notice, I am not saying rocks are less complex, but the way machinery behind how a human operates and a rock operates should be identical because they are made of consciousness not atoms) , their operations should be direct without any cause because they are made up of consciousness, but that's not the case humans are as complex as an AI machine . You know that AI's are so complex, they are made out of rules after rules algorithms after algorithms non of it is magic or consciousness but mechanics, likewise, if humans were also made consciousness exactly like a rock, then there shouldn't be any complex machinary within it and it should be operating the way it does without any complex machinery just like an AI machine. But human operations are mechanical, it's all ion channels, metabolism, reactions, transcriptions, translations, secretions, activatons, ATPS, hormones, Adenyl cyclase pathway, Krebs cycle, Glycolysis, Glycogenesis, Action potential one thing leading to other, instead of being operated by direct consciousness without any mechanics.

The above question that you stated and which you think I asked is what doesn't make sense. I didn't ask that question. I asked, why does a human have complex machinery but a rock doesn't if both are made of consciousness because having a consciousness should imply that there is no complex machinary but being made of subatomic particles of course gives rise to complex machineries or simple structures. Being made of subatomic particles and being made of consciousness have 2 entirely different implications. Atoms give rise to cells gives rise to life gives rise to complexity. Consciousness has no such pathway. But if everything is made of consciousness, then why is there so much complexity , a long chain of causation and pathways that makes a human function and not for a rock. But if we assume like physicists that they are made of atoms, then all the physiological mechanisms that we see in humans and not in rocks, is completely coherent with the idea that everything is made of atoms and not consciousness.

I get where you are coming from. I have watched hours of Leo's nonduality videos. You gave new additions- 'It is prior to proof' 'saying it is within something more fundamental' 'If it's all ocean, how can a whale be more complex than seaweed?' We can move on If you want to add any more you can but still, I say , we can move on.

Yes. Not proven by anything else except by ' having the nondual experience'. I disagree. Blatantly false. This is just Richard Dawkins territory, I am not a follower of Richard Dawkins, but I just disagree with with what you are saying. I am actually a follower of spirtuality so don't even think that I am your typical 'materialist science guy' 'May be' ___ , 'Probably' _____

No. I know that if I take 5-DMT (or do 100000 hours of meditation), I will find that everything is consciousness. I just want someone to give me a good answer to the question- If everything is consciousness then why do everything work by distinct machineries, laws, etc, which has nothing to do with consciousness. Again, I know there will be - you are assuming these are just laws. Which is a claim that is made, but is not proven, and is brushed off with- you should have the nondual experience and then you will know.

Okay I get it. At the end it's all about having the nondual experience. There is nothing more / new to add.

Okay, so if we can create such complexities then why are these complexities found only in complex things (like living beings AI) and not so much in less complex things like elements, rocks, sands etc. Why do all mammals have a lung and a liver, which work on basically the same principle, but no carbon atom has it? And the biochemistry of mammals and living beings seem to be similar, just like a machine, and they work with precise rules and laws instead of a hapazard way which would be the case if consciousness was the cause. Atoms and molecules also work in a particular way, like a machinery. If it was consciousness, then all these complexities, like a clockwork working, should be absent. But every where I see is clockwork after clockwork. Apples falling, which pushes the next lever, pushes next lever and so on. Consciousness does not seem to come in the picture, where to fit is in unknown , except when we go through a nondual experience. But in duality, all I see is lever pushing levers, consciousness or ' creating complexities' as you put it is not coming anywhere

But still it doesn't answer my question. Okay, may be the answer would be, having the nondual experience where I see that there is no difference between the complex machinery that humans have and the simplicity of a rock. But still, it remains unanswered.

I have not written any where distinctions or x y z is objective reality, I am not making any claims about what objective reality is. I am saying, rock and humans are distinct , the rock has no machinary, the humans have a complex machinary that makes it operate, a clock has a complex mechanical machinary that makes it operate, but all 3 are consciousness, my question is, why would they even need this machinary if they were consciousness? A human would be just be sand who talks, a clock would move without any apparent reason. If they were consciousness, then why do they have these complex machinaries? This is what I am asking. I am not saying x y z is objective reality.

Ask any doctor, the bone is as alive as the heart. It grows, as time passes (from children to adult hood), it changes, there is continuos calcium deposition and absorption. It has it's blood supply, the day it becomes dead is the dead it gets necrosed. You can get cancer out of your bones. You can't get cancer from dead wood. There is a very clear boundary between boundary between life and non-life. Your bone example does not support this claim.

@Leo Gura If humans are identical to a rock and animals, then why is the human body so complex compared to a rock ? Why is thereso much complex machinary that makes the human work the way it does. Humans could have been made up from pure dust, like ghosts, who walk and talk but are just consciousness inside a bunch of sand particles, but instead the human body is so complex, there are entire books about how the eye works, how the ear works, how the brain works. Human body is highly complex far more than an AI machine, so if it was just consciousness why is it such a complex machinary instead of a bunch of sand with consciousness?

Of course I am not saying that beauty is relative. I didn't say that. Of course I would choose the attractive women, the one on the below pic. ( So why are you asking those questions?) But what I am disagreeing with you is your last sentence- "many woman’s prospects are affected by their looks, from dating to employment to medical tests" And also your statement that - Nature is biased towards women because they have to be beautiful. Nature is not biased towards the entire gender of men or the entire gender of women. Yes, nature is biased but it is only biased to the 10% lucky individuals who are attractive (both men and women) and 10% unlucky individuals who are unattractive ( both men and women). The difference between your opinion and mine is that you say nature is biased against women. This is blatantly false. Nature is biased towards individuals. Instead it can be said that it is we humans who are biased towards women, it is we who judge women harshly for their looks. So it is not nature but us who are biased towards women and make beauty a top priority for them. Also you say that the prospect of women is affected by their looks. It's like saying the prospect of men is affected by his intelligence, his looks, his singing voice. Of course it is effected, not just for women. If you are a handsome man, then easily you can be a holly wood actor and be a millionaire. Of course things like looks, intelligence, money, power affect the life of people. So I can't see what you are saying. But if you are saying that it is far worse to be an average looking women than to be an average looking man (since you are saying that for women looks affects them more) , then again I say it's false. An average looking women gets an average looking man, she doesn't get a low quality worse man, compared to what a man of the same attractiveness level would get.

This is not a meditation/consciousness topic but it has something to do with how does matter originate , I am curious about what people have to say May be there's a correct scientific answer to this question, I don't know it, if you know you can share. So here's my thought experiment. We know that trees grow from the soil in the earth and from there we can make books. Let's say we planted trees, made books from them, and sent them to a specific well demarcated place in outerspace which we can be observed in telescope. We continued this process of planting trees, making books and sending storing them to space, for let's say 10,000 years. At one point , we may form a big mass in space whose mass is bigger than the earth itself. So it seems earth has given rise to a huge mass that is larger than itself. So what is going on here. Would this be possible? Is earth creating matter itself?

Focus on your goals, strive to become a high value person, earn good money. Then the more you get older, the more attractive you become. That solves the 'I am not attractive' problem. For men, attraction and hard work are related. Yes, there is nothing wrong with being single. If you are happy being single it's okay no matter what other people tell you or may judge you for not having a girl. If you are unhappy, only then you should not be single. ' Girls don't want me' Unless you are extremely good looking, super rich or something , if you are just an average joe, then sitting on your couch doesn't make girls fall for you (only if you were a girl then there would be a higher chance of this happening). For the average guy, it takes work. Ask them out. Improve yourself. Become a funny entertaining guy that makes girls feel good. That's how you become attractive. 'Girls don't want me' is just succumbing to defeat, instead of taking it as a challenge.

By imagination, I mean the mental activity that lead GRRM write GOT and JK rowling write Harry potter, and Rimbaud write his 'Illuminations' and 'Season in hell'. By dream I mean the dream that we see while we sleep. By reality I mean the state that we are in after we are awoken from our night dream. By absolute reality, I mean the absolute truth which some people here have reached. The 1st one I think is a 'transient perception', which comes and goes, whose half life is short. I find that the f 2nd and 3rd have some similarity, both are distinct perceptions. Yesterday I encountered ghosts, and being chased by a tiger in my dream. Then I woke up. I was on my bed. Both were perceptions. But still the latter has some consistency to it. Something is persistent. Is -absolute reality is to reality what reality is to dreams? I want to know how people in this forum see these 4 states of being/consciousness. What is the relationship between these 4 states? How are they related to each other? Why do these 4 states exist?

' Nature has been cruel towards women because we men tend to be superficial towards women , plastic surgery is the only way they could find love' I don't think nature is cruel towards 'women', first of all the word 'women' is a big word it covers the 50% population, sure 10% of them may be super attractive and they have a great dating life, likewise the bottom 10% may be super ugly and they may have huge failure in their dating life, and the rest may be average. But this is also the case of men. 10% men take away all the girls, the bottom 10% become a virgin, in the middle are all the average. This is just life. And this is true for both men and women, not just women. There are successful / good looking men, successful / good looking women, unsuccessful / ugly men, unsuccessful/ugly women. Nature is not biased.

Anything could be made to look like in a certain way in a video. There are magicians levitating, videos of ghosts appearing that look real. Unless you have seen it directly or have good reliable sources/ the same event has been cited by many other reliable sources (like top newspapers like New york times, or channels like CNN, NBC etc) , in a video anything is possible. I think the truth of Islam is just the truth of any other religion, the truth of Nonduality. Islam is just Muhammed's interpretation of this divine Nonduality that he experienced at the cave and the historical events that followed has brought it to the present state. The rest is just magic' tricks;, which any trained magician could out perform. Religions have always used such 'magic' to give validity that they are the 'truth'

I am torn about between working for for material success and the desire for the peace of spirituality. I have to travel for 40 mins to go my college (from home, if I am not in hostel), have to make plans about what to study, have to study for hours, talk to friends, and in doing all these I get pushed away from the peace of Nonduality. I am at home, relaxed, I can meditate, I am listening to J.Krishnamurti, I feel really nondual,. But the problem is , I also have to work hard to for my future to make money, and the byproduct is I start to get all kinds of emotions like, desire to succeed, feeling bad for not succeeding, jealousy of other people succeeding , tensions, feeling pressure, wondering about whether I will ever amount to anything in life, comparing myself to others. I also feel very empty, I have already had many highs of success in the past, goal achievements in the past, happiness because of getting what I wanted etc, but still it's the past, and it's gone, I have worked hard in the past and have become happy due to goal achievements but still they amount to nothing in my present. These emotions go away when I again get steeped in spirituality like listening to JK or meditating, but the problem is I don't have time to do them all the time, and whenever I go into the dual mode, all these emotions causing suffering start to surface, I morph into a neurotic person, it's like my personality changes. I want to have a non dual peace no matter what I do, whether I am commuting for work, whether I am preparing for an exam, or talking with friends, I want that peace which I get when I take a break from them all and get steeped in spirituality. Sometimes I wander, if the spiritual gurus like sadhguru, krishnamurti, osho had to do a 9 to 5 job, would they still have their nondual peace with them? When they are not giving poetic discourses about spirituality but doing very dual things, like talking with friends (which gets toxic real quick as there is comparisions, teasings,, ego battles etc) , worrying about relationships , status in the herd, worrying about failing in exam , what their parents or relatives would say etc.

Thanx guys for your responses.