• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Scholar

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Gender
  1. I-ness is a very specific thing. It is identification. It is a very specific form and dimension of reality. I is not all there is, "all there is" is "all there is". There can be something without anything that is "I". Nothing belongs to anything. All dimensions of reality are irreducable. Any mental framework is based on contradictions such as "X=Y". Notice how you are doing that, and how you are seeking to do so. You ask what something really is, where something really is coming from. All you really need to do is hold still and look at that which is. WYou still believe that "Coming from" is something else but a limited dimension of reality. Inspect "coming from-ness".
  2. You still have a duality between perceiver and perception. You claim you are everything that is entering your perception. What you must do is inspect "I-ness" itself. What is the "I" that is clinging onto perceptions? Is "I" itself a perception? More importantly, what is the difference between realness and perception? Why are you still using the word perception? You have not inspected "Iness", "controlness" and "perceptionness". You are not everything that enters your perception, because "Youness" itself is a perception. The ego is a perception, not the other way around. Perceptions are not part of the ego. You want to go more fundmental, question the very basis of how you come to understand reality. Question the very fabric of how you perceive perception, how you alter it by putting it into categories. You have to zoom out more, and then you have to reflect on the zooming out itself. Realizing that the altering, that the perceivingness itself stands on it's own. There is no "I" other than another perception which can dissappear. What is the difference between Redness and Iness?
  3. What does the occult think of sexual energy, how is it connected?
  4. I don't like these kinds of arguments too much because they would mean that if it was logically possible to justify the animal holocaust it would follow that we could proceed to do so. I prefer to expand the Self-identity of others so that they have an internal motivation to protect the animals, an irreducable desire to share compassion with all beings. Not torturing an animal because it isn't logically consistent with ones beliefs is to me not a very good and stable reason. As soon as the self-identity is threatened, like when there might be health decline or social pressure, there will be a tendency for the ego to ignore consistency and opt for survival. My self-identity feels threatened when it sees animals being killed, that threat-perception it greater than the preference to avoid the challenges that come from being a vegan.
  5. I have heard of him but haven't read any of his books. I know he made the argument from marginal cases popular: It basically states that there is no difference between animals and humans that would justify our treatment of them without justifying some form of it in the human context. Any difference we will find that we would apply to humans would make us look like psychopaths if then decided to take their right to life away. For example, someone mentally handicapped might be on the same level of intelligence and consciousness as any specific animal, if we were to take the difference in intelligence as justification to treat animals the way we treat them, we would have to accept the same for mentally handicapped people. This basically reveals a fundamental bias we have towards accepting arguments to kill other species but not accepting the same arguments when it is about our own species. The argument basically reveals that the only thing we truly care about, and why we truly care about human beings in the first place, is their capacity for sentience and suffering. After all, I can modify you in any way I want, as long as you are capable of experiencing suffering, you will not want to experience suffering. It's not like if I turn you into a cow you suddenly will be fine with someone killing you.
  6. This is not about shoulds and shouldnts. It is about desirable ways of functioning within reality. You can function however you want, I am simply showing you where your kind of thinking will lead to. If you don't like human slavery, you better change the way you are thinking, because your way of thinking can be used to justify human slavery. It isn't about absolute shoulds, it is about hypothetical imperatives. The way you justify your beliefs contradicts your own beliefs. It is undesirable for you, if you were to objectively inspect how you act and what you desire. Of course I am justifying my beliefs, everyone is. Again, it is not about the mere fact that I am justifying beliefs, it is about how we justify our beliefs. If you believe everyone can justify their beliefs however you want, then you for example wouldn't be referring me to Leo's video about shoulds and shouldnts. Just because you do not explicitely use these words does not mean you do not operate in a framework of shoulds and shouldnts. Shoulds and shouldnts go far beyond language. This is not about "Should there be human rights?", but about "Do we want there to be human rights?". I think if you stepped back and reflected upon what I am trying to say, you would find that there are ways of thinking that you belief to be undesirable. Ways of thinking that will lead to your own suffering and to the suffering of those you love. You will realize that the way you think, the way your mind operates, is unsustainable for you. How could you, after all, criticize someone to discriminate against black people when you yourself to do the same to beings you put into special categories? My impression is that you just haven't read a lot on this topic, and you also have not made yourself familiar with these basic philosophical principles. It's not about whether you should or shouldnt in an absolute sense, but whether you should or shouldnt if you want to reach a world that is more loving and "good", whatever you might view good to be. But you are right, at this point it is getting off topic, if you want we can continue this somewhere else.
  7. I am not equating anything, I am creating comparisons. This is actually a very common misunderstanding found in moral philosophy, and it is usually done as a defense mechanism. I was not comparing human slavery to animal slavery, what I did was use the logic you use to justify animal slavery to illustrate how one could use the same logic, the same type of thinking, to justify human slavery. The point here is not that "human slavery is as bad as animal slavery", but that your thinking and the way you justify your beliefs is very obviously flawed if we were to use it in any other context. The inability to recognize the flawed nature of your thinking is the indicator for the bias you have towards a certain position. This is why it is very obvious to you how flawed these arguments are in a human context, but yet you accept the same type of logic in the animal context. The thing here is that this illustrates how human beings were able to create moral frameworks, or any ideology, by create a cognitive dissonance which allows them to continue operating with contradictory beliefs. This is not about a difference in valuing a certain type of being, this is about how your ego comes to construct it's positions and their justifications. This is where devilry is found. All I can tell you is the same ego-mechanisms which allow you to discriminate against animals is the exact same ego-mechanism that allowed slavers to keep black slaves and be fine with it. Again, it's not about positions, but about how we come to those positions.
  8. I think they are, because you have created a framework of belief based solely on experiences that you would deem supernatural. You justify these beliefs by putting authority into experiences that might be limited and limiting. For example, of how many spirits do you know that report that slavery is wrong? You could insert any kind of act that causes suffering and find a way to ground your justification in a certain type of experience. To me that is similar to the type of "bullshitting oneself" that this topic is about.
  9. Spirits can become a problem when all they tell you is took on blind faith, like for example believing animals are lesser beings and therefore not treating them with respect. The devilry can exist in the spirits too, they can limit your identity, especially when they resonate with your energy that is already compressed. I think you are a good example for that. The devil will plant his seed among truth.
  10. Yes, dismiss everything I say as nonsense. Call that which goes against your beliefs gibberish. Be arrogant. Doesn't sound like devilry at all.
  11. Lol, how you just took that phrase completely out of context and how deified Sadhguru is in your mind is just the most ironic and beautiful way to prove me point. It could not have been done in a better way.
  12. I would worry more about it being corrupted by people like you, who put absolute trust into it. The deeper problem is that Sadhguru did not communicate to you the skepticism and autonomy that is required for this kind of thing to be less corruptable. If it truly was less corruptable, you would be sitting here being worried about how Sadhguru might be deluded and how he could have a blindspot, how even Sadhguru might not be able to overcome the forces of the ego. The best sign that Leo is doing a good job is by seeing how skeptical people are about him, even his followers. It is probably very difficult to have a good balance between being an authority and still have your students be autonomous, and I think that is something that Sadhguru simply has not as much awarenss of as Leo, it does not seem that way to me.
  13. The fact that you think it is uncorruptable is the best indicator for how easily corruptable it will be.
  14. I feel like when we take the environmental damage in consideration and future prospects if we continue doing what we are, that atleast in the western world even from the perspective of human survival it would still be an imperative to at least transform the most damaging forms of animal agriculture. Do we really have 100 years to solve this? I feel like if we had a cultural movement here that would push and invest into technology like lab grown meat that it wouldn't take us as long. But people aren't even aware of how damaging animal agriculture is, let alone the moral implications. If our world wasn't in such a dire state we could take our time but we have taken such a path that I don't know if it is possible. It doesn't seem like the next few decades will get any better, but far worse, as far as environmental destruction goes. Is it not maybe time to create a momentum for more radical action? It's strange to me how nature puts us into these situations, it's like there are checkboxes for survival. "Better get along before you invent nuclear weapons" "Better start caring about your environment before it bites you in the ass" Sometimes I feel like we are barely good enough to pass the tests and that one day we will fail and another species who will be more evolved in the future will be able to navigate all of this in a manner which allows it to thrive. It's like reality cannot allow something to continue to survive if it does not evolve certain traits. What if dolphines or other cetaceans are the future? They seem to have a much higher capacity for empathy, which would prohibit them from the kind of self-destruction we are causing. What if dolphines are actually more evolved than we are, what if they have a greater potential? One could argue they would have to find a way to somehow get their hands on tools and the like, but what if they evolve differently? What if there could be an animal with a far higher capacity for spirituality than us?