Ibn Sina

@Nahm That's a good exercise for developing non-dual muscle, thanx for sharing.

Thanx for sharing

In his book Science of logic , he says things like- - Being is identical to nothing. - The determination of 'Something' is nothing. ( Like saying- the essence of something is nothing) - Hegel says that everything happens in the mind. There is only the mind. - Says that being arises out of nothing and nothing arises out of being. - Says that 'being' is the negative and the finite, while the positive or affirmitive is non-being. I haven't read anywhere that he was a meditator or a psychonaut or had read Buddhism, but for some reason he is coming up with these ideas. I have no idea why?

That is not what I am saying. You have not understood. God is neither depressed nor happy but just is. It is we humans, or animals, or smaller forms/parts to whom labels of happiness/depression can be assigned because we are concerned with self preservation (due to God's devilry), but God is only concerned about 'Godding'/doing what he does, he has nothing to worry about because he is nothing and there is nothing to worry about.

Personal development is for humans. Humans can improve if they decide to make the right decisions. God is energy. What I am talking about is the consequences of conservation of energy. It cannot be 'improved' or 'increased' but changes it's forms.

There is none. God is not infinitely powerful. That is why he succumbs to devilry, and all he can do is devilry and if he somehow escapes the wonderful hallucinatory fireworks of devilry he will be in an existential crisis so either he will commit suicide (finding the meaningless of it all) or become an existentialist like Nietzche (looking into the abyss, finding one's own meaning (Ubermensch)) , Camus (Rebellion) , Kierkegaard (finding solace in God). That is the consequence of the void that is created. And the only thing that God can do to avoid the above fates mentioned is to awaken to this void, and realize that he himself is the void. God is but a bubble of energy in a realm of infinite Gods.

It's 0.001% of suffering that is possible if the world wasn't designed this way. Suffering in the earth is like the size of the sun, but the sun is but a dot compared to Proxima centauri or Canis majoris. It's like if God forcefully violated the second law of thermodynamics, like God deliberately tried to make heat travel from low to high temperature , which is not impossible but such a system requires too much work/energy/whatever and such a system is basically unstable. The current world that we are living in is the best that God can do.

I think yes, God did exactly that. And also there's the idea of 'best of all possible worlds'. This world that we live in, of pure randomness, chance, which seems to lack any kind of plot or morality, is the most just, and least hellish world that God can possibly muster. Just shift this very delicate balance by a small inch, and you generate an incomprehensible amount of suffering God is not completely powerful and all knowing like a genie or something, he is like a huge amount of energy, and energy can neither be destroyed nor created but changes it's forms and that is what God is doing. That is why there is both pain and pleasure, birth and death, it's just energy moving from one form to other.

Remember to look up at the stars, and not down at your feet" -Stephen Hawking

- Before he got into Buddhism, he obtained a PhD in philosophy. - Got ordained in a Mahayana Buddhist School in Vietnam. - Then Traveled to Sri Lanka got ordained as a Theravada bhikku. - he now lives and teaches at Chuang Yen Monastery (Carmel, New York. In his vids, he goes deep into Buddhist concepts, philosophies and techniques, deepening my knowledge and understanding. You can watch him if you want some more complexity and nuance in your spiritual knowledge.

I am just being genuine , I am not trying to put Leo down , I just find that there are so many problems with his vid. I am here to genuinely address that. - Leo talks about Masculine and Feminine love, I don't think it's a profound notion. Everyone is familiar with both kind of love, everyone is familiar with their parents or teachers or spouse scolding them for their own benefit, so that's not so profound from Leo. - What Leo said is that, from our finite perspective, we see so much cruelty and suffering in the world. But when we zoom out, when we look from a higher perspective. Everything, all acts of violence, cruelty, which our ego doesn't like comes from Love. Okay. - All acts of cruelty , evil are acts of love and they happen for the 'greater' good / 'greater' love, they happen because that is what is good for the universe. Okay. I get it. - My question is, what determines what is good for the universe? - Leo gives examples where at first the act happening looks cruel but from an above perspective, it is 'good' for the universe as a whole. Okay. - Leo illustrates examples. First he tells about Lion killing the deer. Leo says this is not cruelty, but love. So from the deer's perspective, it is cruelty. But from the 'god' perspective it is good. This is what Leo is saying. - Okay, how is it 'good' for the universe? Leo says, The Lion has become more beautiful. The antelope has become more beautiful. Leo then puts a full stop. I think this is where he is not being logical. - So is that ( Lions and Antelopes becoming becoming beautiful) the reason why God makes creates such atrocities of that magnitude on a daily basis? What would Lions and Antelopes (as whole) want, to be beautiful or to not be in a constant state of suffering? I think it's the latter. - My question is, how is Lions and Antelopes being beautiful the 'greater good' for which God allows such a huge amount of atrocity? Isn't that a silly reason to allow such huge amount of atrocity? So still, I don't think Leo has rightly answered the question of how Lions killing Antelope is an act of love. - All he says is that it is to make them beautiful. It's just ridiculous. - Again, he further says it is done so that we humans can become humans ( he might be talking about evolution)and see the beautiful sunset. So 'seeing the sunset' is the 'greater good', the reason towards which God is moving towards as he commits these atrocities. - How is , we being able to see the sunset, a greater good than antelopes not suffering the cruelty of Lions? We seeing the sunset, has done nothing to reduce the suffering of Antelopes being killed by the Lions. Antelopes are still being killed and suffering. So why are you saying that Lions killing antelope lead to a 'greater good', while it has done nothing. No greater good has happened because of Lions killing Antelope. Nothing. - Basically, Leo is saying, God does these bad things, because God allows better things. My question is , how are these 'better things' (we humans being able to look at the sunset) better than God not commiting his atrocities (the constant murder of Antelopes by Lions). The better thing would be Lions not causing the suffering of Antelope, not we humans looking at the sunset. But Antelopes are still suffering while we humans are looking at sunset. So how has Lions killing Antelopes lead to any greater good? - Leo says that the cruelty odnon-veganism is what lead to the luxury or the 'greater good' of veganism. We hunting in the past is what lead to the 'greater good' which is our present civilization.Okay this is valid point. - Then Leo talks about Saddam, and Dictators. I think already many people except uneducated people, know the idea that from Hitler's perspective, Mao's perspective, it was all out of love, doing good for their country. Any historians who has read them knows where they are coming from. So again, it's not a profound notion at all which Leo is saying here. - Leo talks about cancer. Again, he says it is out of love.And he says cancer is because of our own doing. As someone who has read a lot about cancer, I can say that this is wrong. Yes, cancer has it's external causes, like food we eat, chemicals and radiation exposure etc, but many cancers are genetic. Leo simply doesn't talk about that at all. Cancers run in the family. There are many many little children who get cancer at age of 5,6 like Ewing Sarcoma, Osteosarcoma, Wilms tumor, Retinoblastoma. Many children are born disabled. It is not of their doing. How is it act of Love leo? These children are just born, they suffer for their whole life, they die. How is this ( video linked- Epidermolytic bullosa), an act of love? At this point I stopped watching the video.

A stone is not complex. It's just a collection of molecules. Humans are complex so they can move. Robots are complex so they can can move. To understand why they move, you will have to read 100s of books that talk about how humans or AI work. An example I can give is, how you can move your arm. I am not going to talk about the exact physiology of muscle contraction, but the basic idea about how you can move your arm, let's say flexing your arm, is because your flexor muscles contract. Now how do they contract? Because of motor nerve impulses. How these impulses are fired? They are connected with the Central nervous system, the spinal cord and the brain. There are parts of the brain responsible for motor function, like cerebellum, basal ganglia etc.

- I know that Good and Bad is a complex topic. Philosophers have been discussing about it for over a thousand years, from the time of Aristotle, to Kant to Neitzsche to modern philosophy. The subject is called Ethics. - I have almost no knowledge of Ethics. - However, I have a basic concept of good and bad , which uptill now I have never met a person who has made me go "Oh, my conception of good and bad is wrong. There's more to it" - Right off the bat, I conceive of good and bad as relative. What is good may be bad for you what is bad for me may be good for you. It is relative. - In Neitzche's genealogy of morals, what is good for the nobel people is bad for the slaves and what is good for the slaves is bad for the nobel people. neitzche recognizes there are 2 kinds of morality. Master morality and Slave morality. - So morality is basically a function of survival. The mind labels good and bad according to what it thinks it is good/beneficial for itself and bad/harmful for itself. It's a survival mechanism. - But I also accept Leo's conception of 'greater good'. Which means, good for 'more people', the field of goodness expands, what is best for the universe as a 'whole' that is the 'greater good' in Leo's conception which I understand and more or less think of it as valid. But again the question of whether 1 life is greater than 100 lives, is a never ceasing debate in philosophy. (The thought experiment, of - you had a switch, a train is coming. One switch kills one person, another switch kills 100 people. Which switch would you press?) There are huge philosophy lectures where there is debate and good arguements for both side. However, I kind of belief that it is better to save the life of 100 people than 1 single individual. But it's just me. There are arguments to both side. - So unlike you, I do think there is a fixed 'good'. Good means that which creates happiness ( I kind of accept Utilitariansim of John Stuart Mill who had an IQ of 200). And if something creates happiness / benefit in the lives of 100s of people, than that thing is 'good'. If creates happiness for 1000s, then it is even better , it is Leo's 'greater good'. So good is not something that is very difficult to define. You can change my mind if you have sound arguments. John Stuart Mill John Stuart Mill was a 19th century political philosopher and member of the British parliament. As a student of philosopher Jeremy Bentham, Mill championed utilitarianism and criticized unlimited state control. His estimated IQ scores range from 180-200 by different measure -The 40 smartest people of all time - Business Insider

I am totally with practicing and experiencing unconditional love. I also want to awaken to infinite love and say 'everything is love', I am totally with the kind of love that you are describing. I want it so deeply. That is my heart. But I can't see, how , experiencing that will make my mind think of love like Lego blocks. It might, but I will have to awaken to it.

My problem with the statement - Everything is made of Love. ' Everything is made of love (substance)' is like the sentences- Everything is made of stone (substance) Everything is made of bricks So here love is like stone and bricks. It is like a building block. This is a proposition which follows from - 'Everything is made of love' Then there is the sentence- I love (activity) you a lot (love= activity) But is there a sentence - I stone you a lot. I brick you a lot? (note , here I am not implying stone/brick = the act of throwing them, but by stone/brick I mean the material stone/brick) Can something be a substance and an activity at the same time? Can running be same as Plastic? Can fighting be same as food? We (nondualists) don't find it absurd when we say love is like building blocks. But when we say stone is similar to laughing, crying, hugging, then suddenly it is absurd? So if love is like stones and bricks (which follows from the non-dual sentence 'everything is made of love), will the sentences- I stone you a lot, I brick you a lot, make sense? Everything is made of love (love=substance) I love you a lot (love= activity) Leo in his vid compared love like Lego blocks. Okay. But I find it hard to fathom. I can't see how love is a building block, it's like saying joy is a piece wood, hate is a collection of sand, laughter and water are the same thing. Sure for poetry it is good, but to take it literally is bit difficulty (unless with the nondual experience). I am just being honest. Okay okay I know it's 1st degree love. I know. All I am saying is it's like saying happiness is a ruby stone. But then the great realization dawns on me that Love=Consciousness (love) which is what existence is made of

How? I know the exact definition of what Leo said about 1st and 2nd order love. So let's see where I got confused. ' that as well' What other did I get confused? Please elaborate. okay, nothing new. And so am I. That is not my point. Have you understood what I wrote and what I am actually saying?

The problem is arising because Leo is trying to fit every bad atrocity and acts into his belief that " Everything is an act of love" which I am not denying actively. But he trying to fit every bad event, into this belief, using 'rational arguments' but doing so is almost impossible and if logic is applied in his 'rational' claims to support his beleif then they will all fall flat on closer inspection, there will be a hole in his arguments that allows him to fit everything into 'All is love'. It is better if Leo just says, Everything is an act of love, fullstop, you have to do the meditation if you want to know this, only then you will know, instead of trying to come up with 'rational arguments' to fit every thing into 'All is love'.

You are also not wrong, but moreover Leo says that it leads to some form of 'greater good.' On closer inspection (of Leo's example), it doesn't Leo doesn't say a word about the genetics of cancer.

Leo just says, Lions killing Antelope is love because it leads to we looking at sunset etc. The greater good would be, Antelopes not dying on a daily basis, and Lions not having to kill Antelope. They living on their own happily. That would be the 'greater good'. But God is allowing all these crime and suffering of huge proportion just so we humans could look at the sunset? This is the 'greater good'? Who is there to say this is the 'greater good/love?'

Never give up.

The purpose of life is not living a life of happiness and pleasure The purpose of life is to die fighting for something greater than yourself. I always asked myself- How in ancient battles, medieval battles, knights and cavalries, and warriors at the vanguard could spearhead a charge at their enemy with all their ferocity. Isn't that suicide? It is. Death is not the problem. The problem is, not striving for glory.

I thought you were not into nondual stuff like the one taught by Leo, but if you are, then this whole 'meditation' section is full of people describing weird experiences of their enlightenment, how they awakened or 'felt' awakened. So this is just one of those ' I think I had an awakening/my awakening experience' kind of post which this meditation section is full of. Leo and many other people here if they look at a chair, or spider, or a dog, believe that they created it . They are not insane.

(warning: Negative comment ahead, read at your own peril) If you look at a spider, and start thinking that it is your 'shame' that you are looking, and that you created this spider which elicits such a huge reaction in you that you write this lengthy post and you think you would be insane if you didn't write this, then may be this is an early sign of insanity(take it with grain of salt). Schizophrenics believe (or start believing) all sorts of stuffs, a chip is planted on their head, every one is trying to kill them, the camera is making sound, there is wire tapping etc etc. All I am saying if you are suddenly starting to believe weird stuff, and reacting weirdly, just be suspicious (a little). And also you didn't say anything about whether it was a real spider, you say that you created this spider and the spider was your 'shame and fear' and you believe it is true (with all your being) I am not deliberately being negative, just writing down my honest interpretation of your description. nothing to be scared about, just make sure it doesn't happen frequently