Ibn Sina

I agree.

Benjamin Graham

I don't know why but I find you very very funny I am laughing my guts out

WHO ME? HAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA I have no comment to add!

Thank you

Are you mistaking enlightenment Leo talks about with the notion of reason and scientific attitude as espoused by Rousseau and Voltaire in the age of enlightenment of the 18th century Europe? Look friend, this one is not about questioning. I assure you. I perfectly understand where you are coming from , but this is not what you think. Learn from Leo what he means by enlightenment. I am not in actualized.org to not learn from what Leo has to teach, and I hope you are not too. Then what the hell are you doing here? Go away then. You think you are more smart then most people here, and somehow everyone here is deluded? I pity your profound ignorance. Of course, you are this entity forever locked in this material paradigm. One does not expect a blind person to see the light, to see the other. If you want to discuss science then hell yeah we can discuss , I can explain you how science works to the t, but spirituality no, your paradigm simply doesn't allow it. You are just locked. And you don't know it.

Karma is overrated. Read Machiavelli and Logic.

I am sorry but I can't see what is there in those 2 points that are not straight forward. Leo adheres to the doctrine of non-duality, and the immateriality of the universe, expounded beautifully by his famous dictum " There is no evidence that reality is physical" (I am not 100% sure if he said that but I think he did). It is just mind boggling (pun intended). It is mind which creates the distinctions physical and non-physical, but actually they are one and the same. Since we are as the default mode operating within the mind, there is always duality, there is always distinctions , and we are always unaware of this lack of distinction. And when we are unaware, we are unaware that we are unaware i.e we think that we are very aware. Hence we sink even deeper into this abyss of duality. I THINK this is what those 2 points are trying to say. Might be something more profound I don't know.

I am currently reading - The intelligent investor. Not quite the book which fits into the typical self help category, but still qualifies as a book of practical advice. A self help book has 2 components the theoretical and the practical aspect. The practical aspect tells you about what IS to be done, which unlike in this book, is usually non-brainy stuff. But I think the theoretical aspect is what matters. Unlike this book, I think the typical self help book shouldn't be read for gaining knowledge or practical advice but for attitude change. It's of no help being able recite the stuffs, but what is needed is a change in the wiring of your brain, bringing change in your identity above all . Frequent reading of self help books can make you a positive thinker, a dare devil, it can change the way you think, fighting with negative thinking and attitude which is often the default mode of the mind, and react to situations effectively and interpret situations differently. If you are not frequently filling your head with positivity, then not doing so does not result in neutraility but negativity. When you plant nothing, weeds start to grow instead of nothing. Hence, you should read and reread self help books 10-30 mins a day through out your life, just like you need positive moments , and positive people time to time in your life. Not having them doesn't result in just absence of positivity, but full blown negativity.

Are you incapable of understanding what is written? I was not dictating how they should follow the path to enlightenment, or when they should take the path to enlightenment, or which path of enlightenment should they take. I was talking about those who came to this forum and were vehemently denying the existence of the phenomenon of enlightenment and denying the validity of every thing that Leo teaches or what this web site is all about. Just like an atheist moving from home to temple to temple, churches to churches, and out of no where telling the priests while they are in deep prayer or sermon, that they are wrong, that they should stop doing what they are doing. They were not pursuing enlightenment with a different interpretation which I was opposed to. They were denying it, and along with it every other associated idea. Can you understand what I am saying here? I am not talking about denying some people the opportunity to follow enlightenment. I want you to quote me the sentences which I wrote that suggests I was saying that enlightenment is welcome for some people while it is not welcome for others. If you are not able to do so, I kindly request you to read and think properly and stop spewing nonsense. If I have written something, then I want you to understand it and reply to me accordingly. Just look at all other replies. Is there a single one which is talking about me saying that some people should be denied enlightenment? Why is it only you then? Read properly, understand properly THEN give your opinions. So you think that I think this place is for only the enlightened and not the beginner ??? WHAT??? I myself am a beginner! Why would I be saying this place is only for the enlightened? Where have I said that? Gosh you must be suffering from aphasia. And even if I were to say so, WHY would an enlightened person go to this forum? He is already enlightened. This is just completely illogical.

I do think that scientific inquiry has metaphysics going on in the background, and there is metaphysical base to scientific knowledge, but what I am saying is that the methods for inquiring about these two disciplines are different. Einstein surely wasn't taking help from metaphysics to understand the nature of matter. Likewise, there is not single bit of physics in Spinoza's metaphysical magnum opus Ethics. I don't see how one compliments the other. What we are seeing recurrently is study of physics helping to understand physics and study of metaphysics helping to understand metaphysics.

I have not a shred doubt that Da Vinci possessed a super human intellect, who is not only the maker of Mona Lisa but also the father of paleontology, and whose name will be recurring whenever we care to read the history of any disciplines ranging from anatomy to geology, painting, architecture. However I have a slight problem with Da Vinci. If Da Vinci were to come to 21st century would he still become a biologist, geologist, engineer, inventor, philosopher or artist? The words 'biologist' , 'engineer', 'anatomist' carry too great a weight in 21st century compared to 16th centuryPisa. The word 'engineer' of 21st century is not the same as in 16th century because of the obvious reason that engineering in 21st century is 1000 times more sophisticated then that time's. Due to general lack of sophistication in disciplines, we find many polymaths in the past. Da Vinci wasn't the only man of his kind, we have many people like Ibn Sina- doctor, mathematician, metaphysican, chemist, physicist, Thomas Jefferson- philosopher, politician, botanist, engineer, architect,Lawyer. Goethe- Poet, Administrator, Scientist, Politician, Lawyer.Leibniz was a polymath, even Sir Isaac Newton was polymath- mathematician, astronomer, theologian, author and physicist. We can't find this pattern emerging in 21st century. You cannot say similar things about Einstein for example, who was basically a physicist compared to Da Vinci's anatomist, musician, geologist, Painter, sculptor, botanist. So should we say- Einstein was less intelligent then Da Vinci, no but the answer is the level of sophistication of physics that Einstein did roughly equates to all ofof Da Vinci's disciplines. Hence I think it is not feasible to emulate him as the entire intellectual landscape has changed. This is a world of specialized professionals, the days of polymaths are long gone.

I think that it is not possible to really combine science and metaphysics because of the fundamental differences between not only the methods but also the nature of these disciplines. Let's consider physics with metaphysics for example. Physics is about matter while metaphysics is about 1 step above the matter, that which gives rise to the matter, the structure of reality itself. The advancement in physics is made by- mathematics, experimentation, developing a mathematical or physical model and matching that model with reality. For e.g- Einstein sat at his desk alone in his room, wrapped his head around the cosmos , and developed his theory of relativity and his theory predicted that when we take the picture of a solar eclipse, light will slightly bend and the stars around will move away by so and so angstrom distance and lo and behold that is exactly what happened. Another, it is 1916 Einstein sat at his desk alone in his room, wrapped his head around the cosmos developed his theory of relativity and his theory predicted the existence of gravitational waves and he wrote the equation that described this wave. 100 years later, baam physicists detect this wave and it exactly fits equation that Einstein had predicted. The wave that is plotted from Einstein's equation, and the wave that came from a galaxy far away and detected by physicists, was 100% identical. When it comes to metaphysics, well we have many many different traditions. The western tradition and islamic traditions inquiring about the nature of matter (which this site is not about) and the eastern traditions inquiring the nature of the self (which is spirituality 101/ phenomenology 101) . The metaphysics of Hindus ,Buddhists and Taoists basically started the entire idea of inquiry to the nature of the self, subjectivity , meditation, non-duality, awareness etc the key ideas which Leo espouses. They are not really looking at nature of matter, light, energy. To understand them, one needs a completely different mode of consciousness, a completely different state of mind, which is never the normal state , or the default mode of the mind. To understand them, a chemical reaction should happen, a sudden bolt of lightening when one understands EVERYTHING. It's like OH MY GOD , and that experience is as real as it gets, but outside the normal workings of the mind. It is highly subjective, non-transmittable, As Osho puts it - " To know what Einstein discovered, you don't have to walk the entire path that Einstein trod. But to know what Buddha discovered, you have to walk the entire path from the beginning to the end all by yourself." So there you have the fundamental difference. Some few bridges between those 2 I have found include- Psychedelics, Neuroscience ,Neuroanatomy, Pineal gland, Mental diseases, ( but only those portions related with sense of space, time and self).

I would like to know why?

As I read this, a lovely music I hear to love and kiss, nothing else is more dear, What else does a soul desire? But to be close and near

First answer these questions- Do you have a place to live? Do you have food to eat and water to drink? Do you have sufficient money to survive ? If yes, then seriously there is no need for trouble, and apparently you even have an internet connection , and opportunities for entertainment. You probably are from a first world country like US or UK. Remember , there is no need for big success or a big bank account. It's a lie told by the society and relatives. Probably you feel bad because you haven't realized your dream yet and you are getting old to ever do so, and that IS FINE. That IS how things should be. As long as you have good health, food , shelter, any other suffering basically comes from the mind. You might have another very specific problem which is bad habits. Once a man is fixed in bad habits, he does things which he doesn't want to do even on a regular basis and has feels no power to not do so, and this creates great suffering. You should institute good habits and then your life will change immediately. Besides work, these habits also include- not thinking negatively, avoiding negative people. Use habit apps in your mobile phone. Check those apps on a daily basis. At the end of the day when you see those tick marks, or across days when you see those rows of ticks, you start to feel great! All is habit. Habit is what makes you or breaks you, it is the most important concept of life. People who suffer have habits that make them suffer. Slowly your life will change. Another thing- focus away from negativity, read good books instead, think and write good thoughts. Just take yourself away from negativity, because as Tony Robbins puts it, whatever you focus on grows.

Well yes, no one knew what materialistic paradigm is, but that has nothing to do with whether they were or were not in materialistic paradigm. There were spiritually minded people who watched Leo's video on absolute infinity and enlightenment long before they knew anything about paradigms, and they wouldn't have done so had they been fully in the materialistic paradigm, and that doesn't mean they knew they were or were not in materialistic paradigm. Lose? This is the problem. There is clearly a winner and loser as if it is a game.

" 'To think is easy. To act is hard. But the hardest thing in the world is to act in accordance with your thinking.' - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

The norm of the majority is militant hedonism I.e partying, sex, beauty ,seeking power ,money, pleasure , gossip, pleasure of the senses, to eat tasty and listen songs, to touch soft and taste sweet ,and all this as Leo puts it, creates a life of desperation and suffering which majority live. The path of wisdom is narrow , but worth it. Chaos is in desire for company. Beauty is in solitude. To love others first love thyself. We are born alone and we die alone, we are always alone and not being alone is an illusion. That way lies peace. That way lies nirvana and bliss.

Wrong. There is no relationship between skepticism and spirituality, but only between skepticism and science. This is why Aquinas makes a distinction between knowledge found on reason and knowledge found on faith. One does not become a Buddha without an extraordinary, god like faith in the phenomenon of enlightenment.

I’m fairly certain that the Buddha realized that existence isn’t a joy, because the whole point of the Buddhist philosophy is to not be reborn into the cycle again. Existence was general viewed as undesirable. I’m also kind of certain he might have been a bit deluded. I am fairly certain that you haven't mistaken existance in the joy of existence as before the occurence of enlightenement. I am clearly stating that one's life purpose becomes meaningless and there is joy in existence AFTER one has become enlightened. And if you happened to believe that even AFTER enlightenment there is no joy, then you should go and read books on osho, zen, or watch leo's video - big picture of self actualization or go and ask Leo. Now if you say that that would be a claim from outside sources then YES, it is, because I haven't become enlightened yet and cannot tell you from experience that existence is joyful AFTER enlightenment. He realized existence was suffering so that is why he went out to deal with this didn't he? Wasn't that the entire point of his story? Ofcourse he said that life is suffering. And you forgot that he also said there is a way out of this suffering. After Siddartha became Buddha, all suffering had ceased. It takes great courage to say ' no, his suffering had not ceased, he still suffered like he did before'

Leo addresses this topic in 2 videos- video about communication skills, and jacques derridas deconstruction. According to deconstructionism, to understand the word apple- you need to understand words surrounding that word apple, eg- fruit, pericarp, seed, angiosperm, dicotyledons. Another way to look at this , check the word apple in the dictionary, and there is a definition, and each word in that definition has another definition, more words , more words. An entire network of surrounds that word apple. Derrida says that to truely understand the word apple, you need to pull out each and every word in the English language and compare it's relationship with that particular word. This is precisely why misunderstanding happens because each individual has different relationships with the same idea or words.

Although you are actually nothingness, you still need to do something because without doing that your body cannot survive, and the body WANTS to survive. Do you think that Buddha never ate anything , or had no desire for thirst simply because he knew the nature of his self? Well no! He did have diseases, he did get old, he did get food poisoning and died like anyother ordinary individual! . Once you are back from the realization, everything is same except there is perfect knowledge of the nature of the self. That is why he was laughing when a man came and spat him and scolded him. Think about it, Buddha laughed at him because he could see that man's delusion of the self, whom was he insulting? There was no one to insult! Buddha knew this, but the man was in his pityful state of egoness. And if by 'doing anything at all' you meant in life purpose sense, then yes ! Once you are enlightened there is nothing to do at all! Everything becomes fruitless, because all those things become petty in contrast to the joy of existence!

Historically speaking, the act of finding the truths of nature, and truths of the nature of self, almost always follow two different, distinctive traditions and as you are attempting, have never usually been intermingled together. If you want to see how success in science is made, look at stories like Einstein , Feynman, Schrodinger, Darwin, Newton, Aristotle, and for 'success' in spirituality look at (bhagwan) shree rajneesh , buddha , christ, krishna, sankhara, rumi, vivekanda, heraclitus, diogenes, mahavira, kabir, mansur (who went on quoting Leo- "I am truth", right till the moment of his execution) . I don't see much intermingling of the 2, except in very rare cases like Aquinas or Averroes. One cannot , I suppose, achieve any substantial success without going all in.