Ibn Sina

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.

@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?

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.

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!

I am no problem solver in science but I do have great admiration for them and have read about quite a few of them so that I could find out how they did what they did. What made them successful in science. The number 1 characteristic that I have found in these 'geniuses', is a ridiculous amount of focus. You look at Newton, Einstein Feynman, Malphigi, , Tesla, Edison , Leibniz any great scientist,you find them working on science 24/7. Newton basically worked on science through out his life, from the time he woke up to the time he slept. Einstein thought about gravity , all the time. Same with Feynman. In their biographies you do not find much dispersion of energies, which is the case for most people. People are interested in the news, in video games, movies, so many things at the same time. The 2nd character is, they not only worked on science 24/7, but they were doing it basically from the time they were 5-6 years. There is no difference in the work ethic of 6 year old Newton, Feynman, Einstein, then when they were at their 60. Which means a ridiculous amount of commitment, almost a spiritual God like passion for science. The 3rd character is not something that you would like that much, which is that they were genius. Feynman was winning competitions after competitions in physics and maths through out his teenage years. By the time he was 18, he was independently deriving theorems in maths and science which were already discovered by scientists 200 years ago, but he was doing them independently. The way we usually solve physics problems is by thinking in equations and doing it slowly and steadily, Feynman would solve them at a subconscious level. He arrived at physics answers at fraction of a second. He had devoured the entire quantum physics of Dirac by the time he was 18. (John Nash discovered Nash equillibrium at 18). But he was bad at languages, and so was Einstein. Einstein used to fail in his language classes, but there is an anecdote that once he arrived 20 mins late at a physics exam and went out 20 mins early. He scored highest. He was writing some sophisticated physics paper like - A heuristic approach to solving x( forgot the name), while very young like 12, 13. While very young his knowledge of Maxwell's physics was up to date The guy was a genius but he was lucky too. Maxwell had just died. The ether theory wasn't working. Mathematicians were studying non-euclidean geometry.Planck was chilling around, relativity was in the air and he discovered it while day dreaming in his patent office. I think I can skip Newton, because all that is necessary to say about him is that he discovered things out of thin air. Descartes did have a bit of influence, but 90% of Newton is - he just sat around, kept a problem before himself, thought about it, solved it. You make him think about falling apples, he comes up with the theory of gravity. You give him a prism, he gives you optics. You make him think about moving objects, he gives you lawsof motion and precise set of equations to predict them. Look at his book Principia mathematica, the dude could mathematize literally everything you name it. From tap water, rotating buckets of water, lever, pulleys,cannons, etc and he was doing it every single day, Once a friend gave him a hard mathematical problem. After a few days he returned it with the solution. Friend asked "How did you do it?" , Newton replied " I used calculus." Friend " What is calculus? How did you find about calculus?" Newton- "I discovered it". People like newton come only once in a thousand years . But discoveries aren't necessary always made due to ingenuity, many discoveries come from simply 'staying around.' Anatomists like Vesalius, Malphigi, Lewenhoek did nothing more than cut and open, or look at the microscope and write. It's just that they were lucky enough to have been in that situation. Microscope was recently discovered and only few people had it, hence Malphigi and Lewenhoek made so much discoveries, Malphigi used it to study tissues while Lewenhoek look at microorganisms. Vesalius did nothing more than cut open bodies, draw and write. (Though that is not a simple task, it takes a genius level IQ to do even that). And most of discoveries in science is not big bursts of creativity. Science is a knowledge making machine. Every day, pages and pages of scientific facts are added to the annals of science. Many many minute discoveries are going on continuously. Theses are not made by great scientists, but simply scientists working in their lab. Knowledge is being manufactured like chocolates are manufactured in a factory. That is what has led to our modern age, not big discoveries like Relativity etc, though such discoveries change the entire directionality of science. So my answer may not tell you 'how to increase ingenuity to solve problems' but still it might give you an understanding of the history of how scientific progresses are made and make you look at your question in a new light.

It is neither necessary nor natural to completely ditch porn. Just keep it under control, no more than 10 mins a day (I guess)

Who am I? Am I the body? I cannot be the body because it has changed so much since the time I was born. I didn't choose this body. I could have been in anyones body, literally anyone's body but here I have got this body which looks like a mixture of my parents body. In other words, I am inside the body of a guy named Jack or Mack or Fidel or Lionel I don't know but me having this body and any other person possessing it is literally the same thing and me possessing any other person's body, is literally the same thing. So the substance of me is cannot be the substance of my body. Let's say that I never ever looked at my body till the day I died. Even in that case, I will have the sense of me, though not a sense of what my body looks like, just like blind people have a sense of them, but they don't know what their body looks like, may be they have never even seen what a human being looks like but even in them there is a 'me' in them, Am I the mind? My mind is sometimes thinking about x and sometimes about y. At every point of time in my life, my mental screen has contained that many mental states or contents. My mind is changing all the time (Why am I even saying 'My' mind when I am speculating whether I am my mind or not? . If I say something like 'My' dog, am I the dog? Of course not. And if I am saying 'my mind' , am I the mind? Of course not) . Sometimes it is focused on x sometimes y sometimes about enlightenment, sometimes about other people, or what I have to do, or what I should be doing, or youtube videos etc So these mental states are changing, so I cannot be that. I am that which is constant in midst of all these mental changes. SO WHO THE HELL AM I? We have such a vague understanding of who we are. And it is precisely this vagueness that takes the form of ego and controls our lives. Our mind is continuously filled up by contents of this dream called reality. It is just distracting us over and over and over. We are getting carried away by these contents. Works, news, gossips, these are all contents of this dream. Most of us will forever be carried by these contents. But we need to look at the pixels, not the content. We are moving, jumping, crying, laughing , eating and shitting, everything is changing so much, but what is that which is constant? AH! There is something which is constant, not matter how much we make or break things. No matter how much we jump or dance, there is something that is so damn constant! And this constant thing is extending not just in the body, but across the entire breadth of existence! Sadly, this awareness is not powerful enough, the signal is not powerful enough. Sooner or later, we will get carried away by the contents of reality. Until we become enlightened that is , or may be JUST MAY BE, we get into the habit of sensing this constant thing beneath the ever changing circus of reality. So does that mean enlightenment is a habit? I don't know.

I am taking a serious look on Leo's enlightenment videos. He is making me mad. I wonder how he gets these great ideas. ( contents and pixels, asking - what is constant beneath these constant changes in reality , flattening out the picture etc.) His video- advanced tips for self inquiry, was quite intense for me. Hence my ramblings.

If you want to be a rebel, then start thinking like a rebel. Read about Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Mao an Lenin. Those were the true rebels. It's not about strength, it is more about passion and a deep insatiable desire for freedom and change and most importantly , tapping into the god-like courage that lies within yourself. Sadly in my experience (note- my experience , life events and empirical observation, not my opinion), most women lack such kind of boldness. They are better at subtle manipulations, but not boldness.

I am curious why this guy is doing what he is doing. I am not saying that he does this every day, but occasionally he does this. The guy comes to college without bringing his own money, and if he meets me in the canteen he asks me for money to pay his food, and says he will pay back to me in his hostel room. He and I are hostel partners, but I don't usually live in the hostel . I agree to his request as the food is not that much costly, and I don't want to reject such a small offer for no reason, and he says he will give back the money in his room, so it's a no big deal, and so I give him the money. And he does that 2-3 times a week, and this makes me confused, why would you ask for money, if you have got money already in your hostel room? Sometimes he tries to make excuses and says he will pay tomorrow, but out of at least 20 such incidences , only once did I have to get the money the next day. I have always ensured that after he takes my money, and after the class lectures are over, we go to our room and he gives me my money back. And that has always been the case. The question is, why would he do that over and over again? And this also bothers me, because I don't trust the guy, and there I feel some level of discomfort even if he takes me money for few hours only. The only explanation I have come up with is, he wants me to give him my attention. I have largely ignored the guy, due to his instances of lack of character, and I have suspected deep jealousy in him towards me , and also I have seen him gossiping with other people about me, right in front of me, so I have largely ignored him, and when he offers me to sit next to him, I choose not to and I instead choose to sit with other better friends of mine. The only time he gets my attention is when he takes my money. May be this is why. Another explanation, may be he thinks that I trust him and because of this, he can take my money anytime he wants and I am okay with it. But I have made it more than clear that I don't like him, with the causes being the above the instances. So that is very less likely to be the case. It's certainly not a case of bullying or harassing, as the guy is always respectful when talking with me, and it's not like he is stealing my money as he always gives the money back, though sometimes makes excuses about giving it tomorrow. ( Note- I am not completely sure if this topic comes under self actualization but still)

At the end of the day, I think it all comes down to happiness. May be your extremely penetrating mind has really grasped the utter meaninglessness , dreadfulness, hellish nature of reality which the rest of us are not able to grasp. My question is , so what? So what if you have finally realized the true dreadful nature of reality (though you cannot provide any direct and convincing evidence, and you don't even realize how deeply you have latched onto this negative meaning on reality )? Has that made you more happy? More productive? Has realizing that in away liberated you or fulfilled you, or has knowing about the utter meaningless of reality made you feel bad? if it makes you more depressed , then it is better to fool yourself into happiness. It is far more wiser to be foolish and happy, then then think that you have found the truth (which you are doing right now though you will keep on insisting otherwise), and then be depressed as a result.

How? Why?

lit

When you continuously take in oxygen for over 30 mins/ breath rapidly/hyperventilate it can cause the accumulation of oxygen , and there is less amount of carbon dioxide in your body as you are taking in more oxygen before your body's metabolic reactions in tissues has time to produce more CO2, which means that there is hyper alkalinity . There is imbalance in blood pH and this is what is causing all sorts of neurological effects. Wikipedia says- . Respiratory alkalosis is caused by hyperventilation, resulting in a loss of carbon dioxide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkalosis

So has Leo made any comments about this? And what are people settled on after knowing about this? Will they still do it or are there any counter arguments?

I don't think the Stoics were enlightened, as stoicism is more of a philosophy that emphasizes on the positive aspect of the mental activity, whereas enlightenment is about the overtaking of awareness over all mental activities.

yes

Thanks for this great idea

Best of luck

I am sorry but I if you look closely, I am not trying to find any solution ahhahahhahahaha, I am making a statement backed up by an empirical data - we need to find our herd . I am sorry if I made you feel bad, I was just trying to make things as logically coherent as possible. I will stop . Hopefully others will correctly judge these logical consistencies through the course of this thread. That statement really touched me. I have utmost respect for your authenticity and character. I have no doubt that you are a more conscious being.

We are all sheeps and we need our herd. If you don't find your herd, you feel shit. The luckiest sheep is the one who is able to find the the herd that matches his character. Me being a young Kantian philosopher / Neo-Marxist Leninist Ideologue/Political theorist/ greatest thinker of all time, was unable to socialize properly as I got into a group of 3 guys and 6 girls, which specialized on teasing others, talking about what other people did, singing, dancing, love affairs, taking selfies (lots of) , making jokes, which got me into an isolated situation for a couple of hours, and it was one hell of an experience as I felt like I am the dumbest creature on earth who has no sense of worth.The guys were having great time with the girls while I was like someone invisible. The girls treated me with pity and made active efforts to include me in and I felt bad like something is really wrong with me. I do make jokes from time to time, but it's just a question of the frequency. Then I got back home, I had chat with my brother about philosophy , religion and politics. On the bus I had chat with another friend of mine about the future course of the world and the fate of humanity. I felt like I was center of the earth, I was the most important person on earth. We are all sheeps and we need our herd. If you don't find your herd, you feel shit. The luckiest sheep is the one who is able to find the the herd that matches his character.

Does my name look any thing like 'Albert Einstein' or 'Richard Feynman'? No. So it doesn't take much intelligence to see that I am not the greatest thinker of all time. So me calling myself 'greatest thinker of all time' is ofcourse is intended for humor and should be eliciting a reaction of laughter , not of denial. And if it does, then without a doubt you are feeling negativity for some unknown reason, probably from your distorted perception. Don't worry, I am not anywhere near the notion of smart. But across your life you will find many many super smart people who will super amplify your insecurities to their limits. May be you should try telling them they are not smart.

Great point. That word genocide got me the picture of some person mass shooting and I forgot about such organized mass genocide. Hitler committed genocide. And how did he commit a genocide? With his herd. A very very large herd destroying another very very large herd. Your question was- Should they find their herd so they can all get together and scheme? Of course they should not from the point of view of humanism and welfare, but these genocidal people did get together, found their herd, and did what they wanted. Finding their herd was good for them. They did follow this advice- find your herd, and did complete accomplish their goal, and probably felt better as they reached their goal. They killed millions of jews. So of course these genocidal people should not follow this advice because that can lead to mass destruction which non of us want. But I was not talking about these genocidal people whose herd can cause so much destruction, for the normal people, being with their herd is good. Being outside your herd is bad. If you don't believe it then you can try it. You will discover one of 2 things- 1. I am right or 2. You are a highly developed human. If neither is the case, then you are not outside your herd. But again, there is the issue about 'being outside your comfort zone'. One must be careful with such statement. There is a difference between going to the gym, enduring great pain to build a nice body, and taking a sharp object and outright harming yourself. Being outside the comfort zone is about enduring pain and being outside your normal routine with the purpose of attaining a pre-conceived desirable state, but being outside your zone just for the sake of being outside your zone is just self harm, a waste of time, idiocy.

I think that this is kind of the entire point of my post- the importance of finding your herd, which is not limited to finding new people that matches your interests, but as you put it, finding common interest within these people. However, I would note that if it is not so easy to find these interests such that we have to dig in deeper to find them, then that means that trait is not their dominant trait, it is only a small aspect of themselves which resulted in their lesser expression which made us search more to discover it, and a relationship developed on such an underdeveloped trait cannot be a strong one and fulfilling. A man who is deeply into philosophy, cannot hide his love for so long. It shows it in his character, and I am not saying that he tries to show it , but he cannot help not showing it. So it is not something to be discovered but something that shines through without any voluntary control. Now other people of similar nature can connect with him. But someone who has some knowledge of philosophy but he is more into music, will not connect as deeply , even if that lover of philosophy knows about the music lover's few wishy washy experience with the it. I have always been a solitude loving person from the start of my teenage years, so nothing new to find. I was not saying that I felt bad because I was alone, or due to being with a group which I disliked, it's just that the group was out of my personality type, they were outgoing, singing , dancing, joking, all about having fun and great time , which I don't find much enjoyable. I think there wasn't much anything that the experience taught me , except making me more aware of my lack of social skills, my inability to fully express my self and letting go of my inhibitions, a fact which I have known from from the very first moments of my life, and have been reminded of from time to time. Its not a question of teaching or learning or knowing about what creates entertainment and fun and what doesn't, it's about what I like to do and what I don't. Observing them I can learn a lot about how to have fun, but that doesn't mean I find pleasure in doing those things.