electroBeam

Member
  • Content count

    1,117
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About electroBeam

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

5,464 profile views
  1. I 100% agree with your post. I'm sorry that you took offence to what I said. I recommend that you look through my previous post, and try to find where I literally wrote, or even implied that hard scientists are stupid. Do you have an underlying belief that limiting yourself to 1 specific area means your dumb? I don't think so. I did write that hard physical scientists have a limited world view, which is true! But that doesn't mean they are dumb, infact as I wrote in the original post, they have skills which are hard to replicate which makes them incredibly smart. This is a problem though if you are naturally a generalist. If you are a generalist, you should think twice about doing the hard sciences, because hard scientists are forced to think in very myopic ways, if they don't they cannot produce the high quality work they do. I have learnt this through wasting thousands of dollars in college, and causing issues within my family life. I don't want someone to make the same mistake.
  2. @Girzo he's a master of a lot of things somehow. He is a fully trained bhakti yogi aswell. He has told me personally that he trained in jnana yoga too.
  3. I 100% agree with that. Holidays are toxic - they are an escape from your ordinary reality. I agree with sadhguru, make everyday life and work your holiday, you have no excuse not to
  4. You didn't say molecular biology, you said yoga! Do you know how big yoga is? molecular biology is tiny compared to yoga. Its like you saying "don't assume Einstein was a generalist, he was a master at science" No Einstein was a master of special relativity, a tiny subset of the physical sciences. Its impossible to be a master of science, its too large. You would never trust Einstein's views in biology, economy, or even something as closely related as quantum mechanics, he knew very little about these things formally. @ajasatya Does Euler know much about biology or even physics? Did Einstein know much about sociology or psychology? Does, on the other hand, sadhguru know much about mathematics and physics? Yes he does, of course not as much as Einstein and Euler, but he knows more about mathematics and physics than Euler and Einstein knew about yoga(strictly from their line of work, not counting their outside interests.). To be a good philosopher, one needs to know the philosophical implications of everything, including science. To be a good scientist, you must prove a tiny equation that very precisely represents a tiny fraction of the universe, is true and correct. The former is general, the latter is specialzed(speaking from someone who has studied both the physical sciences and philosophy at university). This is not because one is better than the other, its because to be good at mathematics and physics, one needs to specialise and isolate themselves from other knowledge much more than philosophers and yogis do. In practice, if you speak to any hard scientist, their view about the world is much more limited than a lawyer or philosopher, but they have skills that are much harder to replicate than lawyers and philosophers have.
  5. which yoga? There are thousands of yogic techniques, can you really 'master all?
  6. To be a good lawyer you need to have read a very very very broad range of case studies. You need to read all sorts of strange examples and cross reference and triangulate between each one so that you get a gist of what to do. This is very unlike the physical sciences. In the physical sciences, deductive reasoning(in contrast to inductive reasoning) is strongly encouraged. Therefore the goal is accumulation of knowledge through systematically building on past theories and laws. This does not require cross reference of many sources. Of course both the physical sciences and law require a mix of general vs specialized thinking BUT each one has an unequal mix. You find that generalization dominates philosophy/law while specialization dominates the physical sciences. If your naturally a generalist, you will enjoy law and philosophy much more than you will the physical sciences and vice versa. Revolutions in the physical sciences tend to happen when a scientist masters the general(instead of just the specialized) but how many scientists have done this? And even when the scientist(like Leibniz or Newton) master the general, how much of their work really involves general thinking? I think it's 80 percent specialized and 20 percent generalized Lawyers require great attention to detail, but the amount of time they need to focus on the details is much smaller. Philosophers are even smaller specialists. They tend to only focus on the details of an argument as a tactical maneuver to ward off proponents. And then you have people like Sadhguru who don't specialize in anything, even meditation techniques.
  7. philosophy/law majors tend to master the general and not the details and physical science majors tend to master the details but not the general. Some jobs are suitable for generalization while others are suitable for specialization. That's why we have PHD holders and managers
  8. I have a problem with opening up my feminine side. I want to love and be loved and show empathy to people, but I can't because it makes me feel too vulnerable and I feel like people will think I'm weak.
  9. Machine learning/AI models can predict waaaaay better than you can. Are they good models too?
  10. its either trying to tell me to do a job that is much much more bigger picture and holistic, or its leading me down the wrong rabbit hole and what I actually need to do is not listen to it and just meditate and forget about LP
  11. Its very hard to summarize, but it can be pointed to with a few specific points. In general, society is currently driven by accumulation of wealth, social status, jobs with power and dominance(like a CEO) at the expense of mental wellbeing, authenticity, sharing and caring for others. This causes many unpleasant issues, but the one which affects me the most is the toxic atmosphere/energy. When an entire society's mission is to individualistically accumulate the stuff above, it spreads a subconscious mindset throughout society that you must suffer, and go against your natural instincts of empathy if you are to avoid suffering. It causes people to fear each other instead of trust each other. An alternative drive for society may be instead of accumulation of stuff, we focus on collectively supporting each other individual in a common higher goal which doesn't necessarily make you wealthy, but makes the environment of the entire society much more about caring for others and your environment, which would in turn make the lives of each of those individuals much more happier than it would if each one strive for wealth and status(even if they get it). Specifically: - awareness programs/ units in school of the beauty and importance of how the human race unconsciously collaborates with plants to survive(oxygen carbon dioxide), and then action steps of applying policies which advocate this awareness, like reducing one's taxes if they buy more plants and spread the word by making drawings which represents their connection with plants then spreading that through facebook. - Reduction of closed mindedness when it comes to exploring unusual states of consciousness. Instead an encouragement to do so. Celebrating the awesomeness of exploring different states of consciousness and how it helps you live a more fulfilling life. Specifically practising meditation and then discussing what they experienced. - Reforming the educational system to focus more on getting students to make an impact that affects more than their paycheck. For example getting them to critically think about society and focus on solving problems that society have rather than focusing on how to climb the corporate ladder and make your family proud. - Showing the world that happiness is found in collectively helping overs overcome suffering, rather than getting heaps of money. Showing them how their entire life, from the moment they wake up, to the moment they fall asleep, becomes joyful when their goal is to help someone overcome a psychological disorder, help a country overcome poverty, get rid of policies that were made for the betterment of a small portion of a political group, etc etc etc
  12. unless finding a satisfactory life purpose is like finding a pot at the end of a rainbow, in which case you will never find it because it doesn't exist. You will need to try something different to be happy. Like meditation, retiring early, mindfully accepting suffering/depression from doing a job you hate until you retire.
  13. @Aeris I listen to music like mirabai ceiba and try to figure out how it applies to my life to open new perspectives within me, thats as far as I go when music is concerned. Yes sounds like a tough situation you're in. The next thing I'm trying now is to abandon the whole life purpose thing all together. Whatever career path I'm on, I'm going to let it unfold without investing in it. Screw desire, this experience of trying to find my purpose has really shown me the true meaning of the Buddha's quote "the root of all suffering is desire". Rather I will do what is needed to be happy, and try my hardest to avoid all of the egoic problems that come with it. No more trying to be something great, trying to emphatically impact the world and make it better. Just simply meditate; not because I have a desire to enlighten, but as an immediate reaction to the realisation that what I've tried in the past has massively failed in achieving what I wanted.
  14. @Gili Trawangan No I meant if you are not awake, instead of spending 10000 hours meditating a quicker route is suicide
  15. hahahahahaha I've tried that aswell and it failed. My desire for change was too strong and restless to just be happy with whatever floats your boat at a particular moment.