Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Osaid]

1 minute ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

"No." is a complete sentence - "Every complete sentence requires both (a noun and verb)"

It lies!!! 😅😅😅

I thought there was something strange about that statement. It's AI lol.

[Davino]

43 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I was a fucking atheist, don't forget. I had no love for the word.

Yeah, me too. A few Christian monks had existential religious crisis after debating with me, one almost left monkhood. I was truly savage about philosophy.

Then I kept contemplating and moved to agnosticism. Deep waters agnosticism on the limits of knowledge and the human frame, which is a more honest position for average humans really. 

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Osaid said:

Very interesting distinction to make, I kinda like it.

I dont want to be rude, but thats something that most people learn in primary school.

For clarity, I don't think you are stupid for not knowing those things until now (or perhaps you simply forgot them—there are probably a bunch of concepts I've forgotten as well), but I think it shows for most of us  that we should take philosophy of language much more seriously, because many people lack even a basic understanding of how language works.                

Edited 6 hours ago by zurew

[Natasha Tori Maru]

7 minutes ago, zurew said:

I dont want to be rude, but thats something that most people learn in primary school.

For clarity - I dont think you are stupid for not knowing about those things for up until now, but I think it shows for most of us  that we should take philosophy of language much more seriously, because most people lack a very basic understanding of language.                

 If I could bullseye, hole-in-one, checkmate and slam dunk this in one single emoji, I would. 

[Osaid]

9 minutes ago, zurew said:

I dont want to be rude, but thats something that most people learn in primary school.

For clarity - I dont think you are stupid for not knowing about those things for up until now, but I think it shows for most of us  that we should take philosophy of language much more seriously, because most people lack a very basic understanding of language.                

Maybe. I know what nouns and verbs are, but I thought the decision to bring those distinctions into a talk like this was interesting on Osho's part.

[LambdaDelta]

1 hour ago, AtmanIsBrahman said:

Why do you choose to use the word God instead of Absolute?

Both words seem accurate to me. The downside is that “absolute” is more syllables and sounds presumptuous and intellectual. Aside from that though, it does avoid the religious connotations of the word God.

'Absolute' is too impersonal, which misses that aspect of reality, whereas God implies absolute already. Your own username kinda highlights this. Also absolute what? Absolute Consciousness, Absolute Self-Deception, Absolute Infinity — God is all of that. In the same way, calling it 'Infinity', even as Cantor's transordinal Ω, is also problematic since the default association is to the mathematical notion, therefore insufficient. 
Ein Sof, YHWH, Trinity, Teōtl, ΑΩ, Allah, Vishnu, etc. all point to God, which is quite intuitive and not really controversial. Though confusion and conflation are inevitable regardless, par for the course. 
Example from How Your Mind Interprets Reality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminacy_of_translation

In the end all that kinda becomes redundant, the point is getting to a place where whatever is pointed at, be it the moon, the finger, rabbit, dog shit, yourself, a concept, an experience, a belief, the act of pointing, and so on is clearly understood to be God. But striving for precise terminology is nonetheless important.

Edited 6 hours ago by LambdaDelta

[ryoko]

I was right. Guys, Leo's been replaced by an impostor, who's now arguing with kids about words. 

[Leo Gura]

Just now, ryoko said:

I was right. Guys, Leo's been replaced by an impostor, who's now arguing with kids about words. 

[zurew]

19 minutes ago, Osaid said:

I know what nouns and verbs are, but I thought the decision to bring those distinctions into a talk like this was interesting on Osho's part.

In that case, its my bad for misinterpreting your message.

[Davino]

I remember when Leo dropped years ago the gaslighting episode. I didn't understand at the time why he took so much effort on explaining that trivial topic. I gotta say that video aged like wine in my mind.

[LambdaDelta]

The first Osho vid reminded me of

Also callback to Professor Dave vs. James Tour

sums up debates here (and in general) 

Edited 5 hours ago by LambdaDelta

[Terell Kirby]

Sounds weird to say Nothingness/Emptiness is self luminous.

God is Self luminous fits nicely.

But it’s not even about a fit. What else would you call a supreme being who omniscient, omnipotent, infinite and is responsible for all of Existence?

To call this supreme being Nothingness or Emptiness leaves so much on the table. The truth is, there is only one word that captures the magnitude of the power of this thing for humans, and that is GOD. 

You could walk down the street and ask 100 humans how they comprehend God and it will be centered around some all powerful and all knowing, transcendent being. Even for those that believe God is fake (and yes, that is a belief they haven’t validated) they will still be able to get at the heart of it and accurately point to how other humans comprehend God.

God as a belief is false. But there’s a profound difference between belief in God and a direct consciousness and understanding of it. Those who come to understand God have done so through understanding themselves, there is no separation.

[Rafael Thundercat]

Actualized Quotes #631 https://share.google/dEQV4f3nbXm7KXmA0

Well, every time I came to realise aia was wrong about something the realization came due the fact that I thought that I knew something and in the end I realized that there was something that I did not know. So there is always something not known lurking around. 

For example there is something going on in my relationship and there is this bug in my mind that there is something I dont know yet that is causing the disturbance in our relation. It may be something simple or maybe will be something big, I dont know by know. 

[zurew]

22 minutes ago, Terell Kirby said:

You could walk down the street and ask 100 humans how they comprehend God and it will be centered around some all powerful and all knowing, transcendent being. Even for those that believe God is fake (and yes, that is a belief they haven’t validated) they will still be able to get at the heart of it and accurately point to how other humans comprehend God.

If you were then to ask those same people whether God is existence itself, then the vast majority of them would reject that characterization.

You would be lucky if there would be 1 from 10000 who would cashout  the term "God" in a similar way as Leo does.

Also terms like "all powerful" , "all-knowing" and "transcendent" are not univocal concepts.

Regular people understand "all-knowing" as something related to propositions, but thats not what most people mean by it here.

 

[Someone here]

21 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

You gotta wonder, why is Osho so allergic to the simple term God and needs to twist himself into a pretzel to call it "godliness" instead?

What the fuck is this "godliness"? This is a complicated, weaselly word. If there is no God, then where the hell did the godliness come from? This is like smoke without a fire.

It would be like me saying there's no such thing as cats, but there is catliness.

If you know what a cat is, you don't use words like catliness. Because cat is the direct word. Now, if your audience were under the impression that cats are unicorns, you would not tell them cats don't exist, you would instead tell them that cats exist, and then explain that a cat is not a unicorn. Which is what I'm doing.

It’s certainly confusing . I’m not attached to defending his stance . I’m just stating what I understand from his point of view.

By saying there is godliness instead of god he means to deny the personification of god as you saw him explaining in the videos . He is denying the personified man in the clouds . He denies the god of the Bible . He denies the separate creator by saying existence wasn’t created but was always so .  And obviously you also agree on that .you Leo of course don’t think of god as a separate entity sitting outside the world and causing creation …that is Simply the notion of god that he was denying .

by saying it is godliness instead of god he simply means it’s more like impersonal energy rather than a person or deity.

[Thought Art]

I’ve listened to hundreds of hours of Osho. He is not some hermetically sealed philosophical system. He frequently changed opinions, contradicted himself and is even often asked why he does so. He wasn’t a teacher of God realization, so expecting him to be an expert in it doesn’t make sense. He was teaching love, dismantling toxic shame, etc… plus, I really think Osho’s vibe was more important than his words as I recall him saying. He taught spiritual freedom, love, joy, bliss, forms of spiritual wisdom, peace…. Not God. I don’t recall him speaking on God that much. Also that one video is by no means his final verdict on God. 
 

So, no need to steel man his words I’m sure he isn’t rolling in his grave. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Thought Art

[Starlight321]

 @Leo GuraThe buddha used the term god but hence buddhism seperated from its original hindu culture and got its own metaphisics they deny it. They chant about bramachariya which means the way to brahman but in the normal translations you get in the mantra books it means there the spiritual path or highest goal which is wrong.

Edited 1 hour ago by Starlight321

[Ash55]

How did osho get a very strong awakening and a Buddha field allegedly yet he was deluded on so many things like god

[Thought Art]

@Ash55 Why didnt Buddha teach god?

Edited 2 hours ago by Thought Art

[Stick]

https://www.actualized.org/insights/humans-gauge-truth-by-social-acceptance


Scientists DON'T gauge truth based on social acceptability. They gauge it based on evidence.
Many scientific discovery contradicted the previous socially accepted answer but since the proof was so irrefutable the scientists were given a price for the discovery. For 'correcting' science.
If you come up with a better theory for gravitation with all the proof, people especially in the science community will regard you highly. That is what happened with Einstein.
Many scientist are introverted and couldn't give two fucks about what is socially acceptable.
Much of the scientific community is very excited upon landing on a new theory that contains proof.
The reason they dismiss spirituality is because
1, there are too make fake dogmatic teachings and
2, there is no proof of GOD outside of GOD. however the scientific method required interaction between 2 distinct entities to operate which is not possible.
Of course, they could realize GOD without the scientific method but they are too rigid for that. Certainly not social acceptance seekers though.
I understand your point in the sense that evidence and proof are directly tied with the social acceptability of a theory but the only thing science has missed to account for is GOD. Which is pretty impressive considering most of the population is still stuck below.