Eskilon

Not just the orgarsm, the orgarsm is the pinnacle of the experience but the build-up is equally trippy -- All the kissing, touching, sucking, everything is trippy! The power of chemicals. Can't escape chemicals

@Someone here I mean to say it has a trippy vibe to it. You forget yourself completely, and after it, if you reflect, you can't believe you did some things and said others. Sex is trippy as fuck and hypnotic. Music too share the same quality of hypnosis.

@UnbornTao If Leo didn't touch any psyche at all and still made the same videos like he did, you would be kissing his ass. It's just so funny your bias against psychedelics, you haven't contemplated what it is.

It depends on the attitude of the person overall. If they came across as preachy and follower vibes then yeah, I would call them Leo witness. You call people here followers but you exibit the same behaviour with some spiritual teachers. Funny how that works. You dont and cant know that.

At this point youre an Adi Da witness. Shit is too funny. Preach.

@Carl-Richard Interesting, because it made me think and feel Do you think Buddha was an intuitive feeler or thinker? 🤔

I see, but what about you though? You are here on this forum and a smart guy; what makes you think you will fall on the complete mess state?

You are high on testosterone and horniness, full of chemicals my dude But seriously, why so blue?

You mean to say that I'm in a padded room somewhere imagining Leo Gura's, Natasha's, etc? Jk jk.

But this experience is you right? Behind everything or in everything or both? Where does Leo's view and yours clash?

@Natasha Tori Maru So you do make a distinction between two kinds of solipsism... interesting. So, there's relative and absolute solipsism and the absolute is the correct one and the relative the false? Did Leo make this distinction in that video? I don't remember now

I mean, sex itself is weird. Have you noticed after you cum, the absurdness of it all? Sex is a deep biological hypnosis lol. Unconscious forces that run the world.

I don't usually argue much here, I am not a solipsist by the way, for some reason I thought about enganging with you in this convo because you are well-read on many things in philosophy and arguing, so it's interesting. I see, fair enough, and good points. The reason I specifically said it was an intellect thing and didn't lump together mysticism is because from my experience, there's a higher knowning if you will, that is distinct, certain and more profound than just thinking, reading a book, observing cause and effect and learning information about the world. Such experiences are undeniably true in a transcendental way, like for example the moment of lucidity in a dream. It's undeniable, certain, but if you externalize it to other people, you are prone to questioning and the whole set of problems I talked about. Not saying this is what solipsism is but, a 100% true position may not appear so when examined through the realm of intellect and the human mind, so I say we can and must critique things but with a grain of salt and some humility, which by your reply you seem to understand this.

But I want to know the reason you attack solipism with such passion. It seems as if you got an objectivetly better position, which I assure you is not the case, at least not intelectually or linguistically. Because think about it, even if solipisism has faults other position is bound to have faults too because of -- assumptions as you were pointing above. But here you may claim that other positions have less assumptions than solipsism and therefore they are more accurate. But that is true only superficially, only if you haven't gone all the way. See it like this, any and everything anybody may say about reality I can just back to them "How do you know you are not assuming things?" And they may explain their postion once I question them, but then I question them again! And they explain again if they are well equipped, but guess what? More questions and problems to solve! And so I go on inquiring. Do you see where this is going? From an intellect point of view any position is equally bogus, because a person can always demand more and ask more questions, and if you don't know how to answer then one could always claim you are full of shit! And this is an inescapable problem, try as you might. All problems either "end" in infinite questioning and explanations or "I just know" circularity. The point is, your criticism seems really silly because you don't have a 100% better alternative to bring to the table. Not even a slight better one if you want to be really rigorous about it, because of the problems I said above.

@zurew Not trying to defend Solipisism or Leo per se, but here goes somethings I got while reading this discussion: How do you know what an assumption is? If we go by the logic that any which view has assumptions into it by simple virtue of the fact that your knowledge is not 100%(meaning you don't know all the content and all the structure that existed, exists and will exists, and more), then it seems silly to look for truth in philosophy or any system of thought. Because the questions will never actually be fully answered, because each asnwer brings about more and more questions -- like a hydra. I mean sure you can critic other positions and have doubt, but don't you see the sillyness of it? The other person can do the same to you infinetely, you will never will run short of explanation or arrive at the ultimate answer that will answer all questions possible. I think the genius of Buddha is exactly this, he didn't directly address metaphysical questions(he probably saw the whole stupidity of it if one is to attain nirvana) because it is indeed circular and you can makes a guess that this too is what he points samsara to be. The human mind is samsara, it runs in circles never getting satisfied and never actually being transformed. His whole effort was into transcending the mind, because the mind is indeed a hungry ghost. When mystics says reality is this, you can doubt, you can potentially find holes in it if you really want it, but I think trying to be as precise as possible and digging into their words is stupidity. Because it will never end and truly transform you like a mystical experience. But maybe you don't actually want that, if that's not what you want and you just want to explore thoughts forever then ignore this. My question for you is this, how do you know that your doubts about solipisism is true? Can you ever escape my questinoning into you from this point ownards, and if not what this might be point to?

We need divine porn. Who's gonna make it? Millions on the table for the visionary divine gooner

@Natasha Tori Maru Isn't the final and whole point of spirituality to realize that stake itself is bs?. Consciousness in cyberspace

Interesting video. Not saying is 100% accurate but a new perspective is always welcomed.

A zoomer was walking by the side of a village when he saw a buddhist monk talking to a shy hotie. Curious as he was, he approached the unusual situation to hear what the monk was saying. To his surpise, he found out that the monk was actually rizzing up the shy hotie. He caught note of him smiling like a player and saying " Say, shy hotie, do you want to meet the Flaming Wisdom that I got down there?" The zoomer surprised and energized with that was said "Broooooooooo, you are aura faaaaarmiiiiiing dawg, for real for real"

+1000 aura

-1000 aura

@Carl-Richard Since it's you posting this, may I introduce you the synthesis of sex and enlightenment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drukpa_Kunley Imagine being enlightned and your life purpose becomes enlightnening woman through sex. Truly the pinnacle of male escort Bro's penis even got a name = "Thunderbolt of Flaming Wisdom" how badass is that wtf??? The true chad

Bro's so obese and lazy they can't fathom what a walking even means

Yeah, I guess this one is realy tricky. Cause you can't really define love or really explain it, so you can't really blame Leo here. You need first hand experience. Correct. But also incorrect, because God must be the sum total of all possible properties so, it's tricky.

@zurew In that case, Leo can just say that the agential God view of the person is absolutely wrong. And Leo's "version" is absolutely correct because it's non agential and absolute and therefore explains everything leaving no room for error.