Carl-Richard

It's dangerous in about the same way wingsuit gliding is dangerous. If your equipment holds, your skills are on point and the weather is in your favor, you can do it and survive. But don't act like it's not dangerous. Like honestly, is this hard to understand? Buddy, people have literally died attempting it. You have to distinguish between dangerous and necessarily harmful. Doing a dangerous activity doesn't mean you will necessarily end up being harmed.

Her body mass was probably also around half of yours?

Life is more strange than the very limited scope of current materialistic scientific discoveries, with all their cultural, institutional, economic and methodological constraints, being the end-all be-all of reality.

Are you overtraining? What's your exercise regimen? I noticed I had to cut back on some training last year because the volume and intensity was simply too much combined with all the other work I was doing (I noticed it by not waking up rested).

"Basic biology" is based on current scientific evidence. Scientific evidence might change in the future. And that's again a problem breatharianism has, because gathering (rigorous) scientific evidence is quite difficult. Tracking a person for multiple years, in a way that completely rules out any doubt about interfering factors, is really only something you could maybe figure out in theory, but doing it in practice is essentially economically, practically and even ethically insoluable, certainly by any mainstream scientific standards. Or actually, if you could surgically insert a monitor that can detect when exogenous water or food passes the esophagus, that could maybe work. But that would also require of course substantial funding for technological development and validation trials, granted you even get it past an ethics commitee based on the existing lack of convincing evidence from non-invasive studies (which brings you back to the original problem again).

There are no "scientific laws", but fasting/breatharianism is a dangerous activity, like spiritual practices are generally. Everything you said confirmed my points. The study you referenced also seems to have the very methodological issues I pointed out [AI-link].

And this is partly why I think integrating science or theory is often not antithetical but in fact complementary to what would be the spiritual project (be it teaching or seeking), because you're already using your theoretical mind for those pursuits. "Energy" is a concept, it has certain connotations. Philosophical and scientific theories just extend such concepts into a more grand picture of connections and conceptual detail, which sometimes can get top-heavy and cause overgeneralization and inaccuracies, but it's also powerful. And the alternative is of course using low detail concepts and tenuous connections that are inaccurate in their own way. At the end of the day, you have to distinguish between the relative and the Absolute, so the choice is really between a conceptually rich and logically rigorous relative or a conceptually poor and logically tenuous one. Also, with the more purely experientially informed and accidentally assembled and idiosyncratic conceptual frameworks is the tendency for bias. Seeking out a vast range of frameworks, and deep frameworks that have long tradition assembled collaboratively with many people, challenges such bias. And when there is convergence between different frameworks, that gives additional veracity. I could definitely speak from "feeling" as you do in for example the veganism/fruitarianism thread(s) and talk about how I often felt more light and energized after some vegetarian meals back when I experimented with them and that people like Sadhguru gave me conceptual frameworks that agreed with them (sattvic, pranic foods, digestive times, length of the digestive tract, karmic load, etc.), but then there are of course other perspectives out there (and conflicting experiences, like when I felt very low energy at the gym after eating chickpeas instead of chicken). And like with Sadhguru and some of my experiences, the relationship is two-way; it's not necessarily only the experience that makes you convinced, it's the experience + the concepts, and sometimes it's not easy to know which carries the most load or which "came first". You've maybe not incidentally read a lot about fruitarianism (etc.), done a lot of research, sought out sources of convergence. So the "experiential" label might only go so far.

I'm aware of this too. It's something I developed. It's academic brainrot. But I like my academic brainrot 🥲. Going from theory to conclusion is satisfying, and I believe I have collected a nice chunk that goes parallel to my experiential insights. It's just I like to express them in that realm (the theoretical), and I also think it serves a purpose. Take somebody like Bernardo Kastrup and contrast him with Rupert Spira. They are friends, they talk to each other, but they come from completely opposite ends and yet have arrived at essentially the same conclusions. I've tried to do the same convergence inside myself; I was explicitly a fan of first Spira then Bernardo for a couple of years each. Because I had a problem I was trying to solve: saving my scientific/philosophical worldview from being devoured by my spiritual worldview. I wanted to make them consistent. So when I made them basically consistent, I started operating from the scientific view more, explaining things in the spiritual domain from that view, because I can. And that can seem lofty and ungrounded, but know that it comes from a place of integrating the two perspectives, getting them to talk to each other, not just knowing one of them. I did not start from the top. And of course this scientific bias extends to all topics, not just pure "spiritual" topics.

I also make fun of that term. Spreading consciousness in the upper eschelons of power is mighty effective, if that is what he does.

Nah, too earthly. Comparing eagles and earthworms. Emerald has a word for it: loftiness vs groundedness.

Who

I have my own theories but I don't bother commenting limitations too much. There are multiple ends of a Zen stick.

Surely then you must have had something more specific and nuanced in mind when you said "personality doesn't change"? In what way does personality not change?

I also get paranoid about things nobody gets paranoid about, also informed by life experiences 😋 I thought he was just a-ok.

Speech is after all just another medium, as is energetic transmission face to face. If you want complete undeniable connection, you have to become me, from my perspective. The thing about AI is that behind the medium, there is nothing. The medium is a flat, groundless mirage that disappears with only minor scrutiny. And like a mirage of a water source in the desert where you expect to be hydrated and filled with life, you're left with severe disappointment and a dry mouth and a fear for your existence. I did think whether somebody did notice my absence.

Just literally become enlightened and spiritual practice is over, now you can live in the illusion and you don't have to cling to a spiritual ego that thinks it needs to "be aware of the illusion".

That's not true. You think two identical twins raised up on different sides of the world would have the same personality? Yes https://www.actualized.org/forum/?app=core&module=system&controller=content&do=find&content_class=forums_Topic&content_id=111596&content_commentid=1700155

Ty

@Elliott I was awake for 21+ hours with a flu finishing my thesis two days ago (even threw a workout in), and today I had to sleep 5 hours in the middle of the day despite sleeping 7-8 hours last night 🙂

I feel like a lobotomy patient in the morning when I take those.

Not just genetic. Leo have to stop presenting his brown-pilled view of genetics. Nothing is "just genetic" except e.g. Huntington's disease or eye color (but that is also highly simplified). Karma, yes. Karma is just another word for "it is what it is" or Newton's third law or physics. But Leo is not akin to Buddha. He's more akin to Plato, or Newton, or Leonardo da Vinci.

OP is practicing triphasic sleep and has problems with restorativeness of sleep.

Find out why you wake up two times a night. That's two times too much.

Identifying with those traits is ego. Ego identification is ego. The illusory world exists, the ego makes you believe it is real and not an illusion. Enlightenment is breaking the belief in the illusion as real, removing identification, not removing the world. Enlightened people can be highly wordly, highly driven, highly successful, highly achievement-oriented, or they can not be. It fundamentally does not reflect their enlightenment because their enlightenment is beyond the world. It's true that if you are identified, focusing more on worldy things instead of enlightenment could make you more egoic. But if you are enlightened, or if you do enlightenment work, that doesn't have to be the case.

Duh. Did the problems start before or after mouth tape?