Carl-Richard

The same way that you're not aware of it. There are different states, stages and aspects of awakening. There are states and stages that are dominated by aspects that can feel very empty and void-like, and you can get stuck there and believe that it's the end. Love tends to include an experience of light, energy, life, intelligence, complexity. Another way to look at it is that a "loveless" awakening is when you become aware of the "space" or structure that reality operates within (emptiness, void, Shiva), and a Love awakening is when you become aware of the substance within that space (energy, Love, Shakti). Later awakenings will also eliminate that distinction, and everything becomes Love.

The question is really: are you willing to love something to death?

Love is the substance of reality

It is. You're just afraid of it.

This is projection at its finest. Loooool! 1 hour is 1/24 = 0.041666 = 4.2% of your day. You have plenty of time to meditate. You could take your own advice and get off the computer. Then you'll have a couple of hours to meditate everyday What practice do you do?

What was the answer?

But that is exactly NOT what it's about. You're not supposed to take it on belief: you're supposed to go experience it for yourself. That is exactly why there is no point having a debate about it.

That makes zero sense.

Should we call it arguing instead? Point still stands. Some of it does, yes, and people like Sam would probably agree with many of those points. The "wild claims" is what I"m talking about.

You're missing the point. Post-rationalism cannot be readily defended in a debate, because a debate is rationalistic.

Then you ignored my point about rationalism vs. post-rationalism.

...which is why I added "(hyperbole)" behind that sentence, but I guess that type of analytic capability shouldn't be expected from this type of conversation (overly snarky comment ). I think being a scam artist is very impressive too. Of course I could add the caveat "self-made ethical millionaire", unless you consider all this to be just a scam aswell (it's all relative anyway). Read my comment again. I did add something more about that.

Sam Harris is a celebrity who picks his guests carefully. If you're not regularly in the mainstream media or mainstream academic circles, you'll pretty much never get to talk to him, atleast on his podcast or anywhere else publically. Besides, a debate about what exactly? This is a very idealistic interpretation of debate. The most avid debaters are among the least openminded people out there. I have nothing against debate, but I don't buy this view that debate solves all problems (hyperbole). People very rarely change their minds after a debate. It often takes decades to change your view on something (unless you're Dave Rubin), because every belief system is to some extent internally consistent. Among rationalists, it's not so much that a single argument exposes an internal logical contradiction that leads to the shift in beliefs, but instead it's due to a change in perspective; an uncovering of new and previously unknown territory (a revision of core assumptions). To truly change your beliefs, you have to slowly get introduced to a new system that "outcompetes" the previous one, and that doesn't happen overnight (infact, it rarely ever happens), certainly not over the course of a few debates. Debates only go so far when you're familiar with systems thinking. When it comes to Sam, his belief system is mostly very straightforward (rationalism) and has been picked apart numerous times, and having a debate will most likely not uncover anything new. If you're familiar with a particular belief system, it's easy to find out what counterarguments they will levy against another belief system (in this case Leo's non-dual whatever), and a debate will more or less be to run a simulation of those dynamics in a very limited face-to-face conversational format, which in other words would be a waste of time. Besides, trying to use a debate format (a rationalist invention) in order to convey a post-rationalist paradigm is also not very effective. Debate itself skews in favor of rationalism, so of course rationalism will turn out on the top. Spirituality and post-rationalist realms are discovered through inner knowing and guidance, not arguments and debate. Those things assume that there is something like an external and ultimate authority. This work entails discovering the fact that you are the ultimate authority, that all authority is only projected outwards from yourself to an external source because of a lack of self-love.

Being a self-made internet millionaire is much more impressive than following a culturally sanctioned, preordained career path that is laid out for you by some institution.

It's ongoing. I keep realizing I'm death, then I revolt in fear. My life has become a tightrope walk between no-mind and fear-mind. It has made my life both easier and harder in some aspects. Things that used to be problematic aren't so anymore, but I have new problems to deal with (or so I'm willing to delude myself into believing).

Maybe try to communicate without using random verses from the Qur'an.

No. I meant to say that what you said is basic knowledge, which means that saying it ad nauseum tends to get... a little nauseating.

This is teenage antics. Nobody disagrees fundamentally with what you're saying. It's basic knowledge. It certainly doesn't require a degree

You should maybe do some research : https://nationalcounsellingsociety.org/counselling-directory/therapist-titles He was a professional life coach before starting YouTube though, and much of the videos are psychology oriented.

In an absolute sense, you're not separate from God. It may seem that you are separate right now, but that is only a relative separation. When you identify with your relative self, you will feel separate. Find your way back to your absolute self and reclaim yourself as God. All distinctions, all separations, all "others" are made up by your own imagination. You're God imagining it all. Free will is a made-up concept. What is it that is truly not made up? It's God.

He needs to transcend his fear of unreality and insanity. His latest trip report revolved around that. He talks a lot about self-transcendence but he doesn't know what it really entails.

It's his "beliefs/intentions matter" individualist doctrine in action . Noam Chomsky is a filthy collectivist.

But is it really a line or is it just a certain configuration of molecules?

I actually haven't either, but I guess I mean "angry undertones" on a more intellectual level rather than an emotional. For example, you can say this with a smooth Sam Harris voice and not sound angry, but if you just read it on its own, it does come off slightly angry: