AtmanIsBrahman

Member
  • Content count

    162
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About AtmanIsBrahman

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,239 profile views
  1. What philosophers are you thinking of? Most philosophers are shockingly lacking in introspection, personal development, and consciousness work. How many philosophers are doing serious work understanding themselves? Not many. The sad reality is that the current state of academic philosophy is just scientific rationalist thinking, but without the real-world consequences that science has. In that way, people are right to say philosophy is mental masturbation-- because the academic kind is. It's just that they're missing pure philosophy.
  2. Contemplation throughout the day Questioning the ego as in “how is my ego acting out” or “how is my ego preventing me from seeing I’m wrong” Tuning into love Radical honesty Lie down with head propped up and don’t move at all. Remove all thoughts. Literally just be— and if you can truly just be for long enough, eventually you get to a mystical state of consciousness.
  3. The problem is that their critiques aren’t fundamental enough. They aren’t questioning the entire rationalist paradigm. What you find in Leo’s work is a special combination: some knowledge of academic philosophy, lots of knowledge about spirituality, spiritual practices, financial independence that allows for truth-seeking as a life purpose, complete autonomy of mind, and pioneering use of psychedelics. That’s why almost no one understands reality as deeply. And this isn’t just to idolize Leo— it’s something we can do too, if we don’t fall into all the traps along the way.
  4. But hate and love are one. The hatred is the other side of the coin of love
  5. @Leo Gura Can you elaborate on how you actually understand things? There must be more to it than just bumping your head against the wall trying different things. I get the sense that it's a sort of mystical intelligence that doesn't ever have a guarantee of being correct. The awakenings like pure direct knowing, but they're never final, there's always more. I remember in an older episode you said that you still struggle to understand understanding itself. Have you had new realizations on the topic?
  6. This is Pure Philosophy, for those who haven't seen it. https://www.actualized.org/insights/introducing-pure-philosophy
  7. See, the expectation that I have to make an argument is part of the rationalist paradigm. Making precise statements is fine, but academic philosophy overemphasizes this. There's a tradeoff between technical rigor and actual understanding. If you get too technical to the point of qualifying and defining every statement, you're missing out on actual understanding. And the irony is that you can never get a perfectly defined statement because reality is infinite and undefined-- which means that even attempting to define a part of reality will fail. That's why rationalism is an illusion of rigor. Sure, it can be useful in some ways, but its far off from genuine Pure Philosophy.
  8. @zurew Have you watched Deconstructing Rationality parts 1 and 2? It seems like you haven’t learned the lessons. Academic philosophy is a huge trap. They don’t understand how truth seeking works. The entire epistemic paradigm is wrong.
  9. Looking back at this post, I’m no longer convinced INTJ and INTP are most likely to awaken. It may be more about something different from personality, something like “depth of soul” if that makes sense. Personality is something that belong to an illusory identity. It’s not the personality that awakens
  10. It might be useful to also look into Big Five for this topic. I'm not sure how all the traits correlate with awakening, but I'm pretty sure about two of them: openness to experience and disagreeableness. The higher those two are, the more likely you are to pursue awakening.
  11. Do you think it's fair to say that more introverted and intellectual people are more likely to pursue consciousness work?
  12. I get the sense that he’s not that awake. He’s done discussions where people directly asked him if everything is consciousness and he usually gives a waffling answer where he talks about chitta as pure consciousness, but referring to it as a state of consciousness and not what reality is. Maybe Sadhguru has awakened to some facets but not others. I think he’s probably awakened deeply into the bliss facet, but I’m not sure about what else. And his mind is filled with Hindu beliefs.
  13. Sadhguru is actually a good example of this. He has had some degree of awakening, but his ability to explain it is very limited. He presents awakening as an experience of bliss if he ever explains it at all. Most of his teachings are more “your life is your karma” type stuff. And Sadhguru is probably an ISTP. It’s obvious he isn’t an INTJ or INTP as he’s not intellectual— even anti-intellectual. I think part of why his awakening doesn’t reach the depth of Leo’s is because of personality type.
  14. Time for me but not for thee