Ibn Sina

Well, I never said that pills do not give you wisdom. I said, pills give you almost 0 wisdom i.e 0.1% , or may be more, 1%. It gives you the insight /the 0.1% wisdom. (which I did wrote , but here your ego has distorted the text and made you believe that I was writing the drugs do not give you insight, this is ego distortion), the experience, not the wisdom. The influence of your ego is so strong and it is so sensitive that it tries to defend itself even when there is no threat against, let alone if there was a real threat to it. What you claim to have 'gained' as wisdom is not wisdom. For example, if you were wise, you wouldn't be defending your position about psychedelics. Anyone who tries to protect their position in an egoic, clingy and irrational way is unwise. So yes, the psychedelics did you the experience, but here you are arguing with me trying to defend your position , because your ego feels threat. I could talk something bad about some other belief your ego clings to, the same will be the result again you will be reactive and defensive just like you were being previously and may be you are being defensive right now as you are reading these words. Do you notice your defensiveness rightnow, that exactly is your ego reacting, and you need to let it go and disidentify with it. It happens subconsciously so it's not something you can get rid off easily, it takes a ton of spiritual practice to be able to do that, most people are clingy to their ego and hence suffer when their ego is threatened just like exactly right as you are reading this, notice the suffering as your ego feels threatened about the uselessness of psychedelics. Your ego hasn't dissolved. The only right answer is a single smiling emoji :). This will be your answer always if you had wisdom. "This sounds dogmatic to the point of irrationality ?" It sounds to you but is it? To you it is irrational or to your ego? Give a detail rational systematic analysis of how what I said is irrational. If you aren't able to give a detail, logical, deductive analysis, then that means your claim comes from your ego, your irrational ego which makes claims without a logical structure but to protect itself. If you are able to do so, it comes from the logical mind. For example someone might say 2*2 is 5, does it come from the ego or from the logical mind? If it comes from logical mind they will say 2*2 is 4, this is because the * sign implies- 2 +2, 2 when added to itself 2 times is 4 not 2. This is the difference.

Your true nature is consciousness. Consciosness fooled itself into thinking that it is not the itself but something else.

Haven't read the entire thread, but all I will say is this- Psychedelics might give you the experience of non-duality, but it does not teach you the 'art of living'. In other words, if you are someone who regularly takes psychedelics to achieve the 'peaks', than you are probably not someone with enlightenment, you are probably still a reactionary individual who is bound to his ego and defends his ego, you still have thoughts. The reason is, you don't have a trained 'mind' or 'consciousness'. The goal is not the 'peak' experience, but a trained mind. That is why all these psychedelic nonsense is bullshit, all I see in this forum of 'enlightened' people is people trying to defend their ego, dogmatic to the point of irrationality, they are still within their ego, they have taken the drugs (which I am also interested in) but the experience is nothing, the habit of detachment is everything, and this is the art of living. If you want the 'experience', the 'samadhi' than do take it, but it does not eliminate suffering of day to day life. Wisdom should be grown, it does not come by taking a pill.

My stupid mind is learning stuffs that will eventually kill itself ??. Well, mind I guess you have made me suffer a lot, so I have nothing to wish you but your death.

Insights- -A tumor of silence that is growing and obliterating my mind. The mind cannot even concieve the silence. It gets obliterated. -Identification leads to reaction. If you react, then that means you are identified. If you don't react to the thought, you are either in awareness or you are unconscious or you are suppressing it. The goal is awareness.

At the present, Yes. I hope I will get out of this habit one day.

Have found deep spiritual peace in Eckhart's teachings. Silence is growing in me. And when I look back and compare Eckhart teachings to Leo and Serotonin luv, they are laughing stocks, scams who have deluded themselves and are busy deluding others. I can't believe I had been wasting my time on them. Don't get me wrong, Leo did give me few great insights, but 90% of his teachings ( brick = love) are time waste bullshit. While Eckhart's teachings hit at the core again and again and again. They are short and very valuable while Leo's are long and add not much value ( brain doesn't exist, everything happens for love, brick and consciousness are same thing, everything is imagination, (I am not saying they are false, I am saying they are a waste of time for me, they don't make me peaceful)).Osho was also deep and did change my life and was responsible for my breakthrough into spirituality, but Eckhart is more direct and scientific. As for Leo, ummmm, he doesn't have much to offer, I am grateful that I am not brainwashed by him though many times I have been on the verge of buying into his teachings but my reason simply never allowed it. Don't get me wrong, Leo is also nice, but by and large he is a scam and I am grateful that I think so and have found peace in authentic teachers instead of getting brainswashed and wasting a LOT of time. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Leo_Gura As for Eckhart, I think he is a Buddha. He has opened a completely new dimension of spirituality in me, much more than Osho, may be the reason is because I am more of a scientist then a poet. I think I have a glimpse of what a Buddha looks like and what a Buddha actually means.

What? Many people did reach out and I have replied to each and every one of them. What are you trying to say? I have understood every person here what they said to me, just not agreed with them. And they also haven't given sound reasons for me to agree with them. They haven't refuted my assertions. I have understood but not agreed. Also I hope you are not conflating- 'understanding'green and'practicing'green. While you on the other hand, have not even UNDERSTOOD and just making judgments about me. You can believe whatever you want but I am not trying to stick to any paradigms. I am here to learn. Period. Not to talk and change people, but to learn.

All I said was, go first understand what i was saying then talk, and you are saying " This is the way in which a person gets restricted in their own pov". I said first go understand what I said then talk, I am not becoming the restricted one here. First understand ME before judging me. Secondly, I have read a lot about stage green. And I do understand green also. And even though I understand green, I don't have to agree with some aspects of it like not letting boys be boys because it hurts girls self esteem etc. (not the true spirit of green if you ask me)

Do you think that when I said " As green, women should let men live the way they want to live unless there is some dire injustice upon them. Read this line 3 times, or you might misunderstand.” Was I talking about maintaining power over women? Read it 10 times, then think about it for 3 hours,then read my previous posts,then you might understand what I am trying to say. But what I won't do is go on explaining again and again the thing that I have already explained in my posts. All I am going to say is you haven't understood what I am sayin/, that is not what I am saying. I won't try let you misrepresent my message but also I won't explain again and again because it's in the post and you need to look at how I arrived at the sentence, repeating will be a waste of time.

?? But I can assure you that what I said has some wisdom which many people have not understood, the evidence being all the resistance people are having to what I said. Some might be thinking that I am stage blue who thinks women should be oppressed. LOL.

Here we go again with my friend Serotoninluv with whom I have had some great discussions in the past and I know his style. How is thisa blue resisting green?Please explain. Let's brush up on my spiral dynamics knowledge.

You have not understood what I am saying. If you want to believe that that is what I am saying then that's okay. But I won't add anything simply because that is not what I am saying and you have not gone through the labour of understanding what I am saying.

Do you even fully read what I write? Or do you just react whenever you read something you don't like without fully understanding? Go read the line about- ' having the wisdom to demarcate the line'. I have already addressed what you are saying.

So we all know the famous equation E=mc^2 which says that any object with a mass has energy, and it can be converted into energy via chemical or thermal reactions just like in a nuclear fission or fusion. But what exactly is energy? Physicists say that energy is a 'quantitative property' that causes an object to move or heat it. Quantitative property is like- kg, m/s etc. You want to move an object? Energy can be measured. You heat an object? Energy can be measured. You explode an object? Energy can be measured. But what exactly is it? What I have found is that even physicists do not completely know what energy exactly is. They have measured it, they can do many calculations about it, but they don't know what it exactly is just like Newton didn't know what gravity exactly is so he attributed it to a God or a demon. Mass is an 'appearance' but energy is a 'non-appearance' but still has a 'presence'. Energy is like a 'lack of distinction'. As energy, we are all the same, non-distinct, non-dual. So I am thinking that the E=mc^2 is not only ingenious for the mathematical precision with which it connects mass and energy, but it seems that the equation also has some Buddhist and Non-dual ideas as it's implications.

Lol, no this is my opinion on the matter- As green, women should do all the things that green people do. Plant trees, fight injustices bla bla. My point is, doing those things like wiping out ads because that would make girls feel self conscious, shouldn't be done, I don't think it is 'green' it's ego feeling insecure. As green, women should fight for equality in patriarchy , in buisness etc. As green, women should let men live the way they want to live unless there is some dire injustice upon them. Read this line 3 times, or you might misundersdand. But 'not getting respect' that is not injustice. That is just people not liking her. No one owes anything to her. 'Injustice' in a legal court sense is one thing, 'not getting respect' 'cat calling' is completing different thing. This is the difference that I see, but many people here don't.

No one owes respect to anyone. That's the reality, that's my point. In one of your videos , may be in conscious politics, you discussed that every one would be slaves if there was no government. And here you are 100% right. So I am guessing you do have an idea about human nature. But what you have to see is that slavery and 'giving respect to women'/ not sexualizing women are completely different things. Slavery is more unnatural. It is the literal restriction of the will of a person to live. But sexualizing women in games, cat calling? That cannot at all be compared to slavery. I know it is a bad, dark, low consciousness force, but it is still a natural freedom. It does not kill women like slavery, it is not a social evil. But rather restricting freedom, since you are an american I don't have to emphasize, is an evil. Don't compare AT ALL such things with slavery. Yes, on natural impulse people also murder, on Lions eat deer, but the main point is , to have wisdom to properly demarcate the line. You are drawing the lining on a much higher, idealistic level, and so do communists, making it unhumanitarian. While the line should be drawn lower, there should be a good balance between human freedom and chaos of nature. You cannot put too upward, or too downward. It's like if Lion came to eat, would you say, hey lion please don't eat us? no. Of course, I am not saying the natural impulses should overflow, but there should be a good balance. That is where you and I differ. You are putting the line much higher. If she is being treated unfairly. If she says- they are putting video games which are sexualizing women, I'll say- go back to work. If she says- I am being underpaid, or harassed, raped, discriminated, I'll be there for her. That's the line that I am talking about.

Exactly, Now if women could get such benefits, then - why don't women do the same to men? Why don't women make games that sexualize men too? That is what I meant by - reversing the situation (has nothing to with oppression or representative as you said)Women also being sexual towards men, what exactly would happen? Bunch of womenin bikini comikng to you saying "Come, let's go to bed :)" or being sexually open in public. Aha! That's my point. Women cannot act promiscous, women cannot sexualize men. My point is, nature itself has made it that way, if women get promiscous then it is they who are putting the axe on their own foot. You said- Feminism is not confined just to corporation, but to art also. My point is, patriarchy in art is something that women can do nothing about unless men themselves become geneousunless men themselves restrict their freedom. While feminism in corporations is a different game. If women are competent then they can lead ( if there was no feminism is what I am saying ( don't say- but there isn't, I am not saying there is). I am saying those are 2 different kinds, and I am saying in the latter, women have to potential to rise. But in the former case, no they don't. That is the distinction that I am making. If women start to sexualize men, then it's like they are putting axe on their own foot. And in that sense I am saying feminism is only confined to corporations. In that sense. ( Of course now don't say, don't you know women can also rape men bla bla). My point is, when it comes to such sexual behaviour, women cannot do much to improve then saying 'Please don't do this', and whether men stop doing it or not that's irrelevant, the reins of power in this regard is still in men's hand. Because nature itself has made it that way. And that is my point. My point is also, women have to deal with it, yes we should make efforts to bring change, but it's better if women just spend time on doing their work and becoming more competent instead of saying gamers or cat callers 'Please don't sexualize us'. Personally I don't do any such things, I a guy who only teases girls once she is open to me, all I am saying is trying to do such activities like taking out art, wanting a ' a culture of no woman sexualizing' is difficult and a waste of time for her and us. It's not the same thing as slavery. It's a different animal altogether. And that's my point.

Then tell me, who is exactly judging/ restricting women? Men or Men + women ? What would happen if women started to do the same to men (and men also doing the same to women)? How will that affect the quality of life of women? ( Of course , I am here to learn. But I cannot fathom how anything bad can happen if she did that). How is there patriarchy in things like art , gaming. She could still get into a company , do her job. I think that is where mainly patriarchy is confined too. But what would happen if women started to do the same (and vice versa) ( I have no idea , and based on my experiences (of 21 years on earth) think nothinng will happen) Educate me Leo.

So in this case the marginalized group is the women? In this case, how exactly? ( I am not talking about other things about male patriarchy bla bla). Women can also do whatever they want about men. Who is stopping them from doing the same to men? Women can also reverse the situation. But who is preventing them? What do you mean by 'society and culture is dominated', are you saying that women themselves (sometimes) are the cause of the downfall of women and will judge women if they try to sexualize men? (Give me a yes no answer, and ofcourse don't judge my character like- haven't you ever met a woman?). The reason as you say it is 'unfair' is because women are not willing to sexualize men but men are willing to sexualize women. But why aren't they? Is it because society will judge them? But who is the society? Men + women or only men? If men + women will judge them then you are saying that women themselves are restricting other women from being progressive. If no, then the implication is something more dire. Please give me a good explanation of- how it is unfair?' My problem is, what is wrong with that? Even if not in video games, girls might get cat called in the streets and what not, that's the reality of being a female. Yes, I like your point that, green is about being collective, but gosh, we can't get collective just to help the self esteem of others. We can get collective for a lot of things, like planting trees, making good laws, but not because girls feel bad because they aren't 10/10, the dream girl of every guy's fantasy. And immature gamer men are sexaulizing them? So will half the world when the walk on the street. That's the reality.

Neither will wiping out the ads. I have already given the examples how that is the case. My daughter would still be sad if she was born very ugly and in a world where there were no such depictions (except nature would still produce women beautiful then her). If she is 6/10 she will be sad. if she is 8/10 she will be sad. 9/10? Sad. Ads or no ads. So we should wipe out all the such ads? As I have said, that doesn't solve the problem. They have self esteem issues because they are not working towards having a better self esteem. They have attached their worth in their attractiveness. It is their own thinking. Rather it is they who should change their mindset. You are misquoting me dude. That is not the message I am implying.

Here's something I am speculating. May be energy and nothing are the same thing. Everything that you look around, is energy/nothing. From energy, arises out matter. From nothingness, arises out matter. ( Hegel, Eastern philosophy) Energy is matter (distinction), matter is energy (lack of distinction) And energy = nothing= everything=God. The energy that physicists know is the 'quantitiy' that they can measure, physicists are only concerned about measurements. But I am guessing that energy, pure energy = nothingness = God.