Eskilon

You will want a girlfriend badly, until you start experiencing god daily and the inner pleasure starts increasing. Then a girlfriend seems like a childish thing. Then only question is, when will that moment hit the individual? 1 year from now？10 years? 10 lives from now？It`s just a matter of time.

Broken people should dip their toes in spirituality, but I wouldn't say get into it. There's a big difference. And depends on the meaning of "spirituality" in the first place. Many of the spiritual practices have huge benefits to the physiological and the psychological domain. Shouldn't broken people practice that? Shouldn`t broken people practice meditation, yoga and even go to an Ayahyuasca ceremony? I have met many and known many "broken people" who have greatly improved their lives with a milder version of spirituality. But if we are talking about how spirituality is defined on this forum and pared with philosophical, psychedelics and epistemic work, then definitely that wouldn`t work that much and they will get scared and quit. Hardcore spirituality is not for 99% of mankind. Not even for most forum users here -- who by they way love to talk that they are spiritual, but don`t even meditate daily and aren`t thinking nor willing to do a meditation retreat.

Not really, they can stomach intellectually. Not in actuality. But then, what can't you stomach intellectually? You have no skin in the game.

Such question are not questions you should ask others... If you know what I mean Figure out yourself if it is different or not. Spirituality is a single-player game.

There's no play without differences, but also, there's no play with overwhelming differences. It would be no fun to watch a human vs a Gorilla, the fight would be over in seconds. Therefore, competition is based on the balances between differences -- which is NOT to say there are two identical clones fighthing each other. It needs to be somewhat balanced, but still different.

If spiritual people are master of self-deception, normies(the average joe down the street, scientist, philosopher, academic, CEO, etc) are Gods of self-deception. They have zero idea what's up, no clue what is in front of their nose, the structure of anything. At least the spiritual people have gone meta on this world and understands, however little, the subtlest aspects of existence -- which is not to say there isnt deception there, every meta level has. Subjectivity never ends. Everything is the subject -- everything is self. What your essay has described is the logic that runs through the gross self. There are an infinite number of self levels, from grossest to subtlest. And of course, there is the "final" level, which is the level that you were before you were born. Don't assume that your logic applies to subtlest selves, because it doesn't hold water there.

It is not. Simple? Sure, but not childish. I think you and the philosophers that you are citing are overcomplicating a simple but profound phenomenon. The keyword here is simple, not easy or shallow. Almost no one has transcended desire. You do know what you desire, what? This is like saying you don't know what you like and you don't like -- which by the way both are desires and attachments. Sure, he had to read, study, practice and all that, he had desires and longing for awakening. But even this is not so accurate because there are thousands of teachings that say that even the desire for awakening is an impediment for you to reach it -- you will only reach it once you desire nothing and just be. Yeah, can't agree with this. There are many accounts of people who awakened or maybe not even that -- let's say they have accessed some deep Jhana of reality but not full awakening. Even those say that desire ends, and they act in the world spontaneously -- they just flow with consciousness of the moment. And I have verified this(Though I'm not in that state all the time -- only have glimpses of it). There's no clinging and no chasing, whether you believe that or not is up to you.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1l94s3b/yumbo_sphere_15_hours_drive_from_buga_valle/ What do you guys think?

TCG( The Conflation Gaslighter)🤡 Definition: Somebody who will say that youre conflating things when you tell deep truths they don't yet comprehend. Example: Person A : "Holy shit dude! I just had an insight that the Absolute is the relative, and the relative is the absolute🤯." Person B : "No dude, you're conflating things! This is a category error! The absolute is absolute, and the relative is the relative, they can't be the same thing! Use rigor in your contemplation. Where's the proof?! You are being too loosey-goosey!"

TOR(The Outwards Rat) 🐀 Definition: Someone who just does stuff, socialize and endlessly distract himself/herself. Such a person never bothers to sit down, close their eyes and introspect on Metaphysics & Ontology -- Missing God entirely. Example : A classic extrovert who gets tangled up in attention from others, family and survival affairs.

Congrats, you are free from so much human bullshit that way. Tbh this is kind of the endgame, if you have burned the female companion karma, that will set you free in so many ways.

Yes music is like this for me also, it can color your experience -- for better or worse lol.

I'm just curious to know your perspectives, to see if it is similar or different from mine. Do you trip with music or in complete silence? Also, what are the differences and challenges in your experience using each one?

Desire is attachment, a Bodhisattava is not attached to anything -- he just is. If he dies the next second in the most horrible way possible he isn`t less blissed than if he had continued his life. Non-desire = absolute acceptance; Desire = resistance/clinging to some condition.

I see. This is true, one will become that if he goes into spirituality, but I dont see that as the final "goal". I see it as a consequence of the path. For me, spirituality is about knowing what Death is, and who You are. And to know this things you should use whatever method fits you. Everything else after that is a bonus, which generally includes what you mention here. Yes, there are a lot of unserious people on this forum. But hey, I also think this forum is one of the most cool places on the internet -- you can't have everything lol.

It`s all structure and at the same time it isn`t. Don`t forget your strange-loops No. Spirituality will permanently change your state. Don`t assume that it will pass, like a high from weed for example. Spirituality is meant to radically recontextualize your present experience and your state of consciousness. I think your point here is more against pyschedelics, where you change your state and know what`s behing the scenes, and then come back down. But this coming back down is never the same person you were before -- this is a crucial point. Moreover, you should combine pyschedelics with meditation so you can gradually change your state to higher levels and by and by leave psychedelics.

Yes. But transcendence isn`t content like other landscapes -- it`s structure.

Well it can be for some people, but I don`t see how this is higher than anything. Transcendece is beautiful, I would argue even more so than staying in consensus reality and the standard state of consciousness of mankind. The point of spirituality is.. Freedom and fullfilment. You are searching for completeness. If you don`t do spirituality you will always chase your own tail(desire) without ever tasting completeness.

To take ANY model that seriously is not to be developed as you are saying.

You now understand new agers Cool experience though!

I see what you mean. Ultimately, you view is correct -- we shouldn't demonize desire. But also, we shouldn't indulge in it mindlessly. I forgot to mention the Tantra(the main tradition that Osho talks about in his books) approach to desire. It goes like this: Tantra don't judge you and your desires -- you can be a criminal, a serial killer, a rapist, Tantra accepts you no matter what. The only thing Tantra sees as a path to transcendence and unity is: awareness and full acceptance of the moment. What does this mean? It means that whatever you are doing, you should be present so totally, with so much devotion, that you merge with the act itself -- you become one with things. This can be thinking, having sex, washing dishes, taking a walk, even killing somebody if you are a murderer. It offers a path to everybody, it is all inclusive -- it affirms that the divine is in everything, you only need to look. What matters for Tantra is attention, doing things with attention. With this attitude you will by and by leave the crude and compulsive actions(desires) and eventually realize the ultimate. Not to say you can`t enjoy desires anymore, but you have no strings attached the way you used to. I think Leo is a critic of western philosophy precisely because he is so focused on Truth. And in my view western philosophy(in general) is way more outwards than inwards. It`s way too greek conqueror kind of attitude -- it wants to assert itself in the world. And while this has huge values and important lessons, it doesn`t tackle the questions that Leo sought and is interested in. The way I see it is like, western thinkers are system makers, and eastern thinkers are system destroyers. Kinda like the action and being polarity. Of course, I'm simplifying things a lot here but you get my point. And don't worry I'm not discarding your points, it is good to read your posts, I get new perspectives everytime -- so please keep posting!

@Nilsi What an elaborate way of saying: "I want to chase my own tail forever while being attached and in bondage" lol. This is what Leo was saying that most western philosophers are bullshiters. They don't know what transcendence is -- what Truth is. So they end up pedestalizing desire and bondage to appearance. Just by the fact that Yogis, monks, and lamas exist should ring some bells in your head that exist a possibility that desire is not the be all end all path and that Nirvana is true. Your view here could be true from a very advanced and realized perspective. Like the concept of Mahayana Buddhism, where one is awakened and becomes a Bodhisattva but doesn't just stay in bliss(being), he acts in the world so that other beings may as well reach liberation, all this knowing that reality is an allucination and he is talking to himself and helping himself. But the Bodhisattva attitude is a very different one from desire. The acts of a Bodhisattva its just a bonus, he is not attached to his acts -- he is not desiring. He does what he does as service to others, he does because he is selfless. And if he ends up dying and being tortured in the midst of his journey, he is equally in bliss and happy. There's no difference in anything to him. Your whole essay could be true if you reach the tenth stage in the ten ox herding pictures, where you return to society in a Leela state -- forever orgarsming, whether you are doing something, alive or dead, or just being is irrelevant. But then this wouldn't be desire, this is transcendence of everything while still existing as something. This is VERY VERY FAR for what 99% of humans are experiencing. So I would say your view here is very dangerous to most people.

For sure, this frame we call Life it's dynamic and fluid -- it is not a dead static thing. We are learning how to balance human ambition to nature's wellbeing. The ideal future in my view it's solarpunk -- a future where technology and nature are in balance and harmony. But the question is, is humanity view the same? Only time will tell.

Yes, God doesn`t judge you if you are being a devil. God is LOVE, it can`t judge things. Everything is right from a certain point of view -- No matter how deluded it is. Even the notion of delusion it`s a perspective from a certain pov, it assumes infinite things for it to be "Right".