PurpleTree

Just a fun fact almost all Israeli prime ministers have roots in eastern Europe. A lot of them in Ukraine, Belarus, Russia Many of them changed their names. here gpt If we count all Israeli prime ministers from 1948 to today, the overwhelming majority—almost all of them—have full or partial roots in Eastern Europe (including Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, and Russia). Here’s the breakdown: Prime ministers with Eastern European roots David Ben-Gurion – Born in Poland (then Russian Empire) Moshe Sharett – Born in Ukraine (Kherson, then Russian Empire) Levi Eshkol – Born in Ukraine (Kiev Governorate, then Russian Empire) Golda Meir – Born in Ukraine (Kyiv, then Russian Empire) Yitzhak Rabin – Born in Mandatory Palestine; parents from Ukraine and Belarus Menachem Begin – Born in Belarus (then Russian Empire) Yitzhak Shamir – Born in Belarus (then Russian Empire) Shimon Peres – Born in Belarus (then Poland) Ehud Barak – Born in Israel; parents from Lithuania and Poland Ariel Sharon – Born in Israel; parents from Belarus Ehud Olmert – Born in Israel; parents from Russia Benjamin Netanyahu – Born in Israel; father from Warsaw (Lithuanian Jewish roots), mother from Lithuanian Jewish family Yigal Allon – Born in Israel; parents from Belarus and Russia Prime ministers without Eastern European roots Naftali Bennett – Born in Israel; father from the U.S. with Polish, German, and Dutch Jewish ancestry (still partly Eastern European via Poland) Yair Lapid – Born in Israel; father from Serbia (Balkans, not Eastern Europe) and mother from Ukraine (so partly Eastern European) Levi Eshkol, Moshe Sharett, Golda Meir – already in the Eastern Europe list above, no exception here Numbers If we include anyone with at least one parent or grandparent from Eastern Europe: All but 1 Israeli prime minister have Eastern European roots. That’s at least 15 out of 16 prime ministers. The sole arguable exception is Yair Lapid, whose father was Balkan-born (Serbia) and mother from Ukraine—though technically that still counts as Eastern European on his mother’s side.

No not even by “those standards” though. Because most Israelis settled there a few decades ago.

For me i mostly had Godly experiences on mushrooms. And then less on Ayahua. Nn-Dmt i could never inhale enough its so gross. But one time saw the silhouette of an indian goddess dancing on nn. One time i also had a mild god experience on low dose thc gummies + keta.

I don’t know. I think i was always trying to look for a way out of suffering. Which in turn lead me to build up a lot of defense mechanisms. So now i saw that the defence mechanisms cause more suffering than they avoid. So I’m trying to let go of everything. Or whatever.

Seeing that the self isn’t really there and the self dropping away energetically are seemingly different things. I think it just goes seemingly deeper and deeper. Beliefs untangle and such.

But the one who’s supporting it the most isn’t BRICS but the US. They attacked the UN, ICC and Unesco because of Israel.

A hypothetical discussion between Nisargadatta Maharaj and Tony Parsons would be both fascinating and confrontational in subtle ways. While both speak from the standpoint of non-duality and the radical absence of a separate self, their styles, language, and contextual frameworks are very different. Here’s how their exchange might unfold: Setting: A modest Mumbai apartment, with incense faint in the air. Nisargadatta Maharaj sits cross-legged, smoking a bidi. Tony Parsons enters, offering a quiet nod. Nisargadatta Maharaj (NM) : You come here with questions. But who is asking? Find that one. Everything else is illusion. Tony Parsons (TP) : There is no one here asking. There is only what is happening. The appearance of questioning arises in nothing. NM (nodding slowly) : Yes… The ‘I’ is merely a thought. But until one has investigated this fully, the illusion of the ‘person’ remains. That illusion must be broken through inquiry and earnestness. TP : That presumes there is someone who can inquire. There is no path, no seeker, and no attainment. Liberation is the already-this. The idea of a journey or effort is part of the illusion. NM (slightly firm) : The fire of self-inquiry burns the false. Without earnest effort, the mind continues its mischief. One must abide in the ‘I am’—not as a mantra, but as the doorway. Then the rest drops away. TP : But ‘abiding in the I am’ is still a practice. It suggests time and becoming. That’s the dream. There is no ‘I am’ to abide in. There is only what already is—nothing appearing as everything. There never was a separate self. NM (pointing his finger) : To say “there is no self” is easy. But for whom is that clear? It must be one’s direct realization. Otherwise, it is mere words—another idea in the mind. First know yourself as the pure beingness. Then go beyond even that. TP : And yet the suggestion that someone must ‘know’ or ‘realize’ still rests on the illusory premise that there is someone to do so. In liberation, there is no one left to awaken. That was always part of the illusion. Key Contrasts : Aspect Nisargadatta Maharaj Tony Parsons View on seeking Seeker is real until realized to be false Seeker is illusion from the outset Method Self-inquiry: “Abide in I Am” No method, no path, no practice Language Dualistic as a teaching device (to transcend) Radical non-dual; no concessions Tone Fierce, devotional, sometimes confrontational Gentle, detached, uncompromisingly non-personal Conclusion : While Nisargadatta uses provisional concepts to guide the seeker to realization, Tony Parsons asserts that even the idea of seeking is illusory. Nisargadatta points to a process, albeit one that ends in the recognition of timeless being. Parsons denies any process, stating the whole setup is part of the illusion. Their conversation would likely circle around the tension between “apparent effort” vs. “nothing to do.” Nisargadatta might view Tony’s stance as potentially premature or misunderstood by many, while Tony might see Nisargadatta’s method as reinforcing the very illusion it seeks to dissolve. Yet ultimately, both are speaking about the same reality—just from different levels of the dream.

So i don’t want to be the spokesperson for radical nonduality But what they usually would say is the separate self is an illusion(and the only illusion) the body, the tree etc. is an appearance.

Yea it’s so good. The beat and the raps, flows are good And then the wordplay and facts of each philosopher are so nice. Like Methodman from Wu Tang and method from Socrates Lao Tzu Dao te Ching, get out the way Su Tzu turning on themselves using the art of war Free speech doesn’t mean just keep yapping one of my favourites is “Let’s blind these Chinese heinies with some shiny bright enlightenment” coming out the age of enlightenment in Europe, it’s just cute.

I know. But I wouldn’t even call this spirituality really. That’s why i like it.

I don’t think that’s how it works. You can’t just be religiously convinced that there’s no self. You’ll know if there’s a self or not if there’s a story and “personal” suffering and so on i guess.

You know they have online talks you can go and ask them.

I think it’s the opposite they don’t make it about a concept or a path.

I don’t believe you but whatever. I actually don’t know that much about their personal history but i do know most of them were quite heavy spiritual seekers. Tony, Jim, Alexis, Andreas all quite heavy seekers. I‘m not sure about Kenneth and Rose. But Tony Parsons was first „seeking“ in business and relationships, had a successful business and then became a spiritual seeker for a long time and even hung around Osho i think. How exactly the self dropped i‘m not sure. He said he was walking in a Park and the „me“ was gone. Maybe the seeking energy just ran it’s course or whatever.

And i told you if you apologise maybe i will.

So what exactly do you want from me?

I already don’t see a need to explain anything to you because i think it’s generally useless and i don’t claim to have „knowledge“. But if then your choice of words and language is inflammatory and ignorant imo then there’s nothing for me to say at all.

I mean look at that lol

I think your language was needlessly inflammatory in the first post and your take ignorant i don’t care to change your opinion. I‘m not going to debate you. I think you’re a decent mod though.

Bro are you being wilfully ignorant? You said neo advaita is the most fake spirituality. You said all that silly stuff. Worse than christians blala fake gurus. And now you say “just because i prefered one over the other” 🦭 laughable. Your take in spirituality is as bad as your take in politics. If I could i would just put you on ignore. I mean it’s fine no hard feelings.

No i don’t care to change your opinion at all. I just think it’s quite very ignorant and silly. I honestly don’t care what you think about any of them and i’m often joking. But the language you’re using and the ignorance? No bueno i’m petty

So you came in here spreading bad vibes and stuff. Saying neo advaitans are horrible and fake spirituality of the worst kind and so on, fake prophet yadda yadda. And you don’t even know anything about these people? Wtf is that your truth? Your truthfulness as someone who speaks often about truth etc? If you apologise then maybe i’ll tell you.

Leo Gura 🦁 & Osho ⌚️ (gpt) conversation They both speak boldly—Leo with intense intellectual precision and deep mystical inquiry; Osho with poetic ambiguity, fearless contradiction, and laughter. 🔮 Scene: A candlelit room with Eastern cushions, incense burning. Leo and Osho sit cross-legged. Silence hangs like a friend. Leo Gura: The ego is a self-constructed hallucination. It’s not merely a belief—it’s a structure of being. When I became directly conscious that I was God… the self dissolved into pure, infinite love. It was terrifying. And beautiful. Osho (smiling with eyes half-closed): Yes, yes. But the moment you say “I became conscious,” the ego sneaks in through the back door. God does not become conscious. Only God is. And God is playing… hide and seek. With Himself. Leo (leaning forward): Of course. But if I don’t articulate it that way, people don’t get it. I’m trying to lead people through spiral dynamics, epistemology, non-duality, metaphysics—all the way to direct realization. Osho (chuckling): Ah, the teacher’s burden! Wanting to help the seeker who does not exist. It is beautiful… and it is nonsense. A cosmic joke. And yet—how compassionate to play it sincerely. Leo: But language can point. Models can help. We can deconstruct paradigms, reverse-engineer awakening. Osho: Yes, we can build ladders. But Truth is not at the top. Truth is when the ladder vanishes. And so does the climber. Even the word “truth” becomes a lie. 🌀 A moment of deep stillness. No mind. Then, both laugh. Leo (more softly): I’ve taken psychedelics that shattered every layer of identity. I’ve met beings. I’ve died a thousand deaths. And yet… when I return to ordinary life, the ego reconstructs itself like a virus. It’s relentless. Osho: Because the ego is not a virus. It is maya. A divine illusion. It is not wrong. It is Leela—the play of existence. The mistake is not in having an ego. The mistake is in believing it’s you. Leo (nodding slowly): So you’re saying—don’t kill the ego, just stop believing in it? Osho: Kill it or kiss it—it does not matter. Just see through it. See it like you see a cloud passing in the sky. Do not become the cloud. Remain the sky. Leo (smiling): And yet, paradoxically, even “remaining the sky” is just more language. Osho (grinning widely): Now you are getting it. The Tao that can be spoken… is not the eternal Tao. So what do we do? (He picks up a rose from a nearby table, smells it, then says nothing.) 🌹 A silence more eloquent than words follows. Leo (quietly): Sometimes I wonder if I’m overcomplicating everything. All these maps, models, frameworks… Osho: Of course you are. That’s your genius. And your trap. Use the sword—but don’t fall in love with it. 🪷 They sit. Not as teacher and student. Not as separate beings. Just… this.

Ram Dass & Andreas Müller 🌲 conversation (GpT) 🌿 Scene: A quiet garden. A low table with tea between them. Birds chirp occasionally. Ram Dass smiles warmly. Andreas Müller sits relaxed, still. Ram Dass (smiling softly): So, Andreas… tell me. In your view, there’s no one here. No self, no journey. Just this. Andreas Müller (nods slowly): Exactly. There is no self. No separate person. No story that belongs to anyone. Just what appears. The appearance doesn’t need meaning—it is already whole. Ram Dass: I understand. I used to think I was someone going somewhere… until I realized the “I” was just another thought. Yet… love remained. When the “me” thinned out, the heart opened. Andreas: Yes. And that love too… is simply what’s happening. Not personal. Not from someone to someone. Just… love. Just presence appearing as connection. Ram Dass (with a slight chuckle): You know, I spent decades helping people shift from ego to soul, then beyond even the soul. But I always held a deep compassion for the seeker. For the suffering of thinking we are separate. Andreas: I hear that. But in this message, even compassion is empty. Not cold—but not held by anyone. Suffering appears. Seeking appears. They are not wrong. But they belong to no one. Ram Dass: I would agree—ultimately. But sometimes I met people in despair, and what they needed wasn’t a teaching. They needed someone to be with them. Not to dissolve their story, but to hold it gently. To love it. Andreas (pauses, then nods): That’s beautiful. And what’s amazing is—there was never anyone doing that. It just happened. Love happened. Holding happened. The idea that someone did it is the illusion. 🌬️ A breeze rustles the leaves. Silence falls naturally. Ram Dass (softly): You know… after my stroke, there was no “me” that could hold everything together anymore. Just breath. Just this. I used to call it fierce grace. Andreas: Yes. Beautiful. It’s just what is. There is no need for it to be accepted or resisted. It’s simply this… already complete. Ram Dass: So, no one becomes enlightened in your view? Andreas (smiling gently): No one becomes enlightened. There’s no process. No transformation. No arrival. The illusion of “me” may dissolve, but it was never real. What remains… is what always was. Ram Dass: And yet… we are here, sharing tea, speaking words, listening to birds. Isn’t that the miracle? Andreas: Yes. And there’s no one here to witness it. Yet it shines. ☀️ The light begins to fade. A silence stretches—not empty, but full. Ram Dass bows slightly. Andreas smiles, not from someone, but as the effortless face of this moment.