lmfao

Member
  • Content count

    1,207
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About lmfao

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Location
    With the Yang Gang
  • Gender
    Male
  1. Jiddu Krishnamurti is pure gold. He's advanced so one should be careful to not let his criticisms of yoga or meditation and various spiritual practices stop one from doing those spiritual practices. And if one pays attention to him you'll know that's not what he wants at all. If anything he just directly points at what is the essence of meditation or yoga so that one does it better.
  2. @modmyth Thanks for the information. @TheSomeBody Interesting @inFlow Yeah I remember hearing him talk about drinking lukewarm water now. @rNOW Thanks for the link.
  3. I'm pretty sure this video is from @Shaun . You can look at the topics this guy has created to get an idea of him.
  4. @RickyBalboa I personally find spiral dynamics to be too much of a high order abstraction to assert much about what entire stages I hate. Abstractions in their ability to describe the many inevitably lose specificity, for example a stage can manifest in 1 million different specific ways. I could answer this question from the perspective of "what theoretical construct triggers me more" or from the perspective of "from examples I've seen what do I hate more". Lower stages in general trigger me with their increased aggressiveness.
  5. The problem with materialism is brought to mind to me with the "problem of consciousness", consciousness being beyond the "linear sum" ("principle of superposition" in physics but more generalised) of its parts. I think something being beyond the sum of its parts is impossible within the framework of physicalism, and also impossible in the framework of how we use logic. The rational mind is incapable of going beyond sum of the parts thinking. Physicalism is the view that reality is purely physical (whether its matter or energy). We assume that there is duality, that we can describe reality as being the sum of distinct objects (when I say we assume duality, I just mean that we can take the existence of boundaries to be something we can construct. Boundaries exist in order to ascertain the existence of more than 1 object.). Those objects can interlock, be chaotic, and interact with each other in whatever way you fancy but at the end of the day there's the assumption reality is nothing more than the "sum" of those objects. For an analogy. If "reality" was a triangle, you can cut the triangle into as many pieces as you want but the triangle is still nothing more the plain sum of those pieces. I think if you get a deep enough insight or look at the way our mind uses logic, you'll see that our rational brain can't really transcend this "sum of the parts" of thinking. Its deep rooted essence is incapable of transcending this thinking. So when it comes to the traditional sciences (biology/chemistry/physics) I don't see this lack of wholistic thinking being improved within those frameworks, as the rationalisations of the mind can't transcend sum of the parts thinking. Any sort of discipline (science or no science) can't create some map/model/theory which transcends sum of the parts thinking. They can point to non-dual truths but the pointing would be within the realm of duality and concepts.
  6. @John Doe I mean this really is a fundamental question for mystics, its what Siddartha Gautama was trying to understand. I wonder too, why suffering, why fear, why starvation. Why can someone be born to do nothing but suffer? And even if there is wisdom, its just horrible that not everyone is or can be enlightened. And I'd probably be one of those people who can't awaken. Maybe for a brief time you'll see something during meditation but then samsara resumes. I remember feeling really crappy meditating/inquiring upon this, and then afterwards for the rest of the day it was like a shadow angry personality came out.
  7. Jesus Christ. You're gonna fuck up your body chemistry in every area at all levels doing that, like seriously. For both your brain and body. Since you've already overdosed, learn and take in the experience as much as you can just don't do it again. Go to a hospital if you're very unwell. Idk what people who overdose are supposed to do to recover. Maybe drink loads of water, I have no clue.
  8. Sadhguru states that "garlic, onion, asafoetida, chilli, eggplant, coffee, tea, alcohol and all nervous stimulants and intoxicants" are "negative pranic foods". I don't know how much of this list is true or false. In his explanations he says that these things stimulate the nervous system and hence dull ones senses, making ones perceptive faculties less sharp. And this basically has everything to do with the meditative/yogic/contemplative practices. When it comes to coffee, tea and alcohol I can believe this reasoning relatively easily. But then when it comes to the foods mentioned, I'm curious about the exact logic behind making these statements. I google and research these things and can't really find anything about garlic or onion for example stimulating the nervous system. I don't know in what sense he means these things stimulate the nervous system. Whether or not I understand the logic I'm also just curious if it's true that these foods dull ones senses.
  9. @Ibn Sina The concept of energy as it is given in physics is misleading in terms of the absolute truth of things. Every moment is an explosion of energy from nothing. Infinite amount of energy is being created from nothing, in every moment. What physicists have done however is notice patterns of motion and change in the universe. For example they notice that as the chemical bonds form, there is mechanical force and work. There is a certain order to things. They've defined energy as the "capacity to do work". Every event that occurs is the generation of infinite energy from nothing, but this conceptual construction called the "capacity to do work" remains constant across all time. The principle of conservation of energy, as it is formulated, is nothing more than the recognition of a pattern of how things move. In reality, all the movement/change requires energy being generated from nothing, but scientists haven't defined energy in that way. And I think that's perhaps a shame things have been defined this way. This is why I like to use the word "work" in its scientific meaning as often as possible when thinking about physics.
  10. Everything is nothing, nothing is everything, everything is nothing, nothing is everything.....
  11. @Name What you are being asked to do in this work is "drop" these certain ideas/beliefs. In the case of the beliefs relating to yourself, you really are not "a,b,c,d,e,f " and only a direct experience will show you that the ultimate nature of reality (which is yourself) can't be put into a label like that. I'm more interested about what you said about gravity. Whether or not gravity is true is irrelevant, what's important is that you have clarity about the exact process in which your mind forms its beliefs/ideas about the world. Contemplation/inquiry is good for finding the root of your beliefs, Peter Ralston is my favourite for this. Some would say gravity is a "relative truth" but not an "absolute truth".
  12. As long as you do real life meet ups to compensate
  13. @brugluiz I haven't gotten much value out of big 5 besides the observation everyone has their own placements on several different (what is usually gaussian) distributions of traits. It's interesting stuff for sure. Despite the fact it has 5 scales of measurement, I'm actually not too intrigued by the model due to the fact it doesn't tell me much about a person that I find particularly interesting. The information it tells you about the person is very general. There are 101 different ways someone can be agreeable/disagreeable in my experience, and so to hear such and such a person is agreeable, the information offers very little interest to me. The model definitely takes a behaviorist approach to personality. This isn't inherently bad, I just find it uninspiring with little depth. What I find interesting in personality theory are peoples fundamental cognition or fundamental motivations. Hence I like Carl Jung's concept of Psychological Types, and I like MBTI to some degree (although I have criticism of MBTI). Enneagram has some interesting information as well. Within MBTI, I like the concept of cognitive functions. Which is what Jung developed. What I don't defend so much is the chronological ordering of those functions into 16 different personality types. I find those 16 patterns extremely interesting and think there is value is studying them, I would just not take them too seriously.
  14. It feels as though my meditative states are far too different from my normal states of conciousness that I get massive ego backblash during any meditation session. Depressive feelings, yucky feelings. Whenever i meditate, im usually quick to zoom into the bottom of my experience as much as I can. And when a small glimpse of no self kicks in, my mind goes crazy in reacting to the state. Does anyone else here have similar issues? That their meditative and ordinary states are just far too different? Or that they realise too much too quickly? To preface, ive probably meditated an average of 1.5 times a week for the past 1-2 months.