Carl-Richard

Imagine a chess player who gets caught using a computer program which most likely artificially inflated their Elo rating, but they never "dominated" the sport. Would that be fair?

Ironically, you rarely ever use physics to describe human behavior.

There are also different ways of training in the gym that arguably impacts testosterone. Have you tried doing every set with highest intensity possible, i.e. using heavy weights and blasting the reps as fast as possible while not thinking much about form, and limiting resting times to 90 seconds? You'll feel like an absolute animal compared to the slow and controlled bodybuilding approach. I used to do the former, but I struggled with muscle imbalances, so I had to start doing slow and controlled.

The thing that stops you is karma, and there are good indicators for somebody's karma (some of which you mention).

He was sober. which he has by the way. Go watch his podcast with Sam Harris from 2021.

If you're somebody who thinks that true non-duality/enlightenment is essentially something you find through YouTube and nowhere else, and that everything JP does that involves religion and spirituality is essentially just simping for Christianity, then I think you'd be surprised.

Maybe, but again, that is besides the point. In my question, Jesus and Buddha are just prompts for him to talk about his idea of enlightenment and if he has met any enlightened people. I bet his answer will be just as surprising (for you guys) as the fact that he practices kundalini yoga (which he does).

I think we should define what the hell we're talking about. Yet he would've had an experience of oneness, which I would call an enlightenment experience, and which in his own words (paraphrasing), he would say is capable of "changing you permanently". If you call that a mystical experience, sure: some mystical experiences are enlightenment experiences, just like some mystics are enlightened. But is it classic Christian mystic enlightenment? Because my question wasn't just about Buddha, it was also about Jesus. I'm not just being silly: if he gave an answer that reflected any notion of enlightenment that hints towards non-duality, then I would be satisfied. Quite ironically, I want the anti-traditional internet Advaita answer. "Buddha" was just a prompt.

A mystical experience meaning the experience of oneness? Or what exactly is it?

That is implied with "enlightenment experience" ? If enlightenment is the stabilization in oneness, and if JP had an experience of oneness, then it's fair to say that JP had an enlightenment experience. Based on what he said, I think it's more likely than not that he had an experience of oneness, but it's tricky, since he didn't use classic internet Advaita vocabulary, which is apparently the only valid language game for that (except your God-Realization framework). But then, he also said "a higher consciousness descended upon me; call it divine". That's your kind of language. Is that an obvious double standard, or should we continue down the cynical rabbit hole?

12, mostly comorbid schizotypal traits.

You have way too many insights about non-duality to be stabilized in it.

Is the experience he had not an enlightenment experience? This is what I told you to watch: "[...] and it transformed me; it turned me into something far more than I normally was [...]" "[...] it was as if an offer was being made to me that I could be like that from now on permanently [...]" "[...] I wouldn't belong in the world anymore [...]". You guys treat JP like he is some mentally deficient fundamentalist Christian. I haven't seen such a strong collective bias against anyone else. That's just your internet Advaita bias; that enlightenment must be talked about through some quasi-Hindu lens by some ex-atheist-turned-spiritual.

???

I'll sign under that ?

For example, is routinely ending your posts with "but who knows, maybe I'm just bullshitting myself" an elegant way of communicating? Is routinely contradicting yourself like "it doesn't exist, but..." an elegant way of communicating? What are you really trying to get across by doing that repeatedly? That we should be skeptical of our beliefs in general? I mean sure, but one time is sufficient. What about instead of doing that, when talking about a concept, and when it's relevant to do so, you lay out the specific limitations of that concept using straightforward and non-neurotic language? Quantify the skepticism, don't just reduce it to a mantra.

@AerisVahnEphelia I just prefer to speak in a way that is in line with how people generally speak, and if there is a misunderstanding, then you can explore that through conversation. Then the misunderstandings themselves are also more easily resolved. And people do generally speak as if things exist. The problem is not when people speak like that. The problem is when you misunderstand the depth and conceptual nuance behind things. I'll entertain the idea that what people call "skepticism" is just when you are stuck in a certain inelegant and uneconomic language game (but of course with sincere intentions to criticize naive realists). Then, as you become better at communicating your skepticism, you naturally become a pragmatist, or a skeptic who dares to engage in all sorts of language games (including the realist one) and giving caveats when necessary.

Yet it exists to describe when you're creating non-sense. I got a suggestion: Most things exist relative to some set of assumptions. So it's generally much simpler to start by saying that things exist, and then you can choose to state the underlying assumptions if that is needed for clarification. Then you avoid the laborious process of repeatedly contradicting yourself ("it doesn't exist, but it's just a way to..."). For example: You: "Atoms exist". Them: "But atoms are only a fiction!". You: "Yes, that is true. Atoms exist relative to a certain interpretation of modern physics". It's easy to over-complicate things using skepticism.

Bro you're literally me from 10 years ago; viewing everything through the lens of pharmacology/physiology

Leo said he doubts that he will even understand the question that I wanted OP to ask him, due to a lack of conceptual understanding (e.g. he would answer something like "the Enlightenment is the intellectual revolution that happened in Western Europe in the 17th century"). Of course he is not actually enlightened.

It doesn't just refer to autism (or ADHD). Yes.

That's not what Leo means

Nuh-uh. Norway currently has a male prime minister But Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Estonia and Lithuania (i.e. most of "Northern Europe") currently have female prime ministers.

I guess if WW3 happens, blame Scandinavia?

The arrow of causality definitely goes both ways.