Gesundheit

Yes but not only that. There's hatred of aspects or parts of the self, and there's hatred of the self as a whole. The latter is the real driver behind the wheel, and it is the enabler of the hatred of aspets/parts. The whole concept of shadow work is based upon the belief that lack of awareness is problematic, without acknowledgement of the positive consequences that come from being unaware. That, and the belief that high awareness is an all-positive thing and a completely ideal model of being with no negatives whatsoever. The desire to change oneself is seen as a good thing while it actually isn't.

That drawing is really cool!

lol no. I have personally witnessed several cases where even children would do mean things to animals. One of my friends who was 14 y.o. at the time kicked a cat down from the 5th floor and it died. He says he hates cats. I myself used to have sadistic thoughts towards my own rabbit when I was a kid. It was because I wanted him to be more intelligent but he wasn't. I did not hurt him though but the thoughts I used to have were strong. Maybe I was born a psychopath idk.

I prefer not saying. Ah, Kashmir! There's an Arabian famous perfume called Kashmir. Not my favourite though lol.

Where exactly in India? Because it's a very large country that extends on multiple climatic zones.

It's worth mentioning that shadow work leaves out a greater shadow of self-hatred afterwards, so it's important stay mindful of that.

@willmarin I will answer that for you. Leo prefers Android because it's easier to jailbreak than iOS. That's because Leo loves jailbreaking things. Plus, it's called iPhone, which means devil-phone, so... @Leo Gura Correct me if I'm wrong

Thanks for sharing but... LMAO how did you know?!

Well, I'm not sure about that anymore. Because: It's a map drawn by the ego-mind, so it's self-created and therefore groundless. Insane people survive. Intellect does not prevent death.

@mandyjw It's not separate factors of course.

I see. So, we're somewhere in the middle with a number of drawings of drawings of drawings of maps. Now, the question for me is; shall we reach a point where we stop drawing maps? Or shall we continue drawing maps forever? Science is about drawing more and more maps to infinity, but will that process ever stop? Or perhaps more accurately, is it better to stop it? Or doesn't it matter? These are the kinds of questions that I struggle with. Because to align with truth means to align with evolution/future. And I am not certain of the future. Also I have a deeper problem that is kinda out of context; it's that you equate being with absolute truth (I used to). Now I've come to start doubting that. Idk I just felt like sharing.

You're too oversimplifying reality by reducing it to one factor. Infinity means infinite factors. Watch out.

@Leo Gura I'm contributing to your thread since you said you want objections for your future videos. But somehow my point is still not getting across. There are a few points that you make both here and in the video that I don't find quite correct. I'm questioning the grounds of your work. You said that true science should be based on consciousness and non-duality as if those things were absolute truth. But whether they are actually absolute truth or not is not my question. My question is that there is absolute truth whatever that is, and then there is a concept that we make about it. In order to align science with truth, we'd have is to align two concepts together. This problem is inescapable. However, you're claiming that you're suggesting a form of science where you can align science as a concept with truth as an absolute. But how can that ever work? How can we align a concept with a non-concept? Is that possible, even in theory? I hope the message is clear now.

I like Leo's analogy of that tribal scientist with the yellow flower. The scientist was curious, he went out and tried things for himself and then made conclusions to the best of his abilities. That scientist did not think about truth. He did not even think about science. He made a number of experiments, and reported what happened while ruling out the things that did not concern him. In that analogy, there's no concept of science or truth. These concepts did not emerge at the time. The moment they started to emerge was the moment he took his conclusions to the tribe. Someone in the tribe may have objected to his discoveries. At that point, the scientist would have to provide a convincing case for his claims. He would have to make distinctions as to use concepts like truth and falsehood to make his tribe believe him. I seriously can't think of any other way than that for "truth" and "falsehood" concepts to emerge. I think after making the first distinction between truth and falsehood, concepts like "science" and "the scientific method" can emerge based on what truth and falsehood concepts mean according to the tribe.

From Wikipedia; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism "In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience. It is one of several views of epistemology, along with rationalism and skepticism. Empiricism emphasizes the role of empirical evidence in the formation of ideas, rather than innate ideas or traditions. However, empiricists may argue that traditions (or customs) arise due to relations of previous sense experiences. Historically, empiricism was associated with the "blank slate" concept (tabula rasa), according to which the human mind is "blank" at birth and develops its thoughts only through experience. Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasises evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Empiricism, often used by natural scientists, says that "knowledge is based on experience" and that "knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification". Empirical research, including experiments and validated measurement tools, guides the scientific method." Isn't that exactly what you teach about consciousness, except that you emphasize more on the subjective experience rather than consensus ("objective" truth)? I've found two other concepts that may be more compatible with your teachings; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_idealism And https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_idealism Which one is closer? Okay, but then if it's a dream and an illusion, how can one distinguish between truth and falsehood? What are the criteria? You said that the current science contains falsehood, but how do you distinguish between truth and falsehood inside a video game? Based on what would you consider something truth and something else falsehood? Okay, let's say that's true. Now we have a concept that truth is not a concept. From this one concept we create our method? Is that what you're saying? If that's our basic assumption, how is it different from an a priori? When we say truth is not a concept, we would have to exclude concepts from our method, and so we would require a method that contains no concepts. Right? But how can we do science without concepts?

@Leo Gura How do you reconcile the fact that even the science you're advocating is largely based on empiricism and the fact that empiricism is just a theory? Because according to the Wikipedia article below, empiricism is known by the senses, but theory is invented by the mind (ideas), so? Idealism suggests that reality comes from the mind, while empiricism suggests an independent universe. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism Also how do you reconcile a working science within an immaterial universe? Isn't practicality/Empiricism a proof of materialism? Or at least a strong point that suggests materialism?

That's not Leo in the video. Unlike that passage, the video is well-prepared, well-presented, , and most importantly, very nuanced.

The question is, how would you know that science and truth are two different things unless you already have a concept of the truth in your mind? Imagine being born in an environment where there's only one narrative, how would you know anything outside of it to be true without first assuming a concept of truth which should necessarily be different from the original narrative? Would love to hear from you too @Leo Gura

Furthermore, perfectionism falls under the umbrella of fear, which is the ultimate cause of OCDs. I have noticed that no matter the type of OCD, fear is always involved. And conversely, when we do stuff normally, there's no feeling of fear whatsoever.

Well, at least would you agree that perfectionism is a concept that includes health? And that wanting to stay healthy is a form of perfectionism?

After reading a few comments, I take this back lol. Elaborate?

@Leo Gura Pardon my obnoxious perfectionistic tendencies. It is still top-notch video regardless. Will watch the rest of the series and ask more questions if anything comes up. Thank you.

Oh my God! I just realized that I have been aware of nothingness since my early childhood. I didn't know that I was aware of it. How stupid! I come from a Muslim family, and so while growing up, people used to say the word Allah a lot. The moment my realization happened was the moment I asked my mom about Allah. She said that Allah created everything blah blah blah. I didn't understand the meaning of any of that. But then I asked her; how does Allah look like? And she said that he does not have a form and cannot be perceived. At that moment, I got a clear definitive intuition of God as nothingness, and it stuck with me till this day. Only I didn't realize that before. I have never not been aware of nothingness.

Cool! I think I will finally join reddit. On another note, I have a question for @Leo Gura: How is this series any different from your old video Science vs. Religion? I mean sure it is and will be much more detailed, but isn't it still at the same plane? I don't see much difference in that aspect.