Ibn Sina

In this quora question, one user gave an answer ,citing an answer from another person, based off which he thinks Buddha is an ISTP. (which according to https://www.16personalities.com/istp-strengths-and-weaknesses is more action oriented, ISTP are action oriented INTPs, i.e they are like mechanics, engineers, or actors, they have solutions to any hand's on stuffs. But Buddha is not about that so he can't be an ISTP. But again it's confusing, Buddhism is about concepts, but again it's not about concepts. It's not about the mind and ideas (a key feature of INTPs) but of no mind. It is about having full awareness, now is this about dealing with concepts and puzzles like the INTPs? It's more like practicing everyday the same thing over and over , instead of dealing with ideas. Besides Buddha did lots of physical practices, starving himself, meditating for days on end (physically pressuring him to sit still. It is not inaction but action), physically straining himself and putting himself to bodily pain, while INTPs would be busy reading books and thinking about concepts. The classical INTPs are the theoretical physicists (Einstein) and philosophers. But was Buddha a philosopher? Or an anti-philosopher? Or not a philosopher at all but a practitioner/yogi? So I think it is not so easy to categorize him as an INTP. https://www.quora.com/Which-MBTI-type-do-you-think-Buddha-was-Was-he-an-INFP-or-an-INTP There is a lot of confusion. Usually it is thought that Buddha was an INTP, but there are some arguments against that. If any of you have a good understanding of MBTI and can give a knowledgeable answer, please share.

Here's my speculation about Buddha being an ISTP. Both ISTP and INTP have Introverted thinking as primary, they think a lot. Both have extroverted feeling as 4th function, they do not show their emotions much. But the difference between them is- INTP have - Extroverted intuition and Introverted Sensing ISTP have - Extroverted Sensing and Introverted Intuition. Extroverted intuition should imply, finding patterns in the outside world, while having a very keen attention to sensory information. They feel thoughts strongly, they have thoughts of stronger intensity, thoughts are more powerful for them, they have greater attention in detail to their thought, it is said that Einstein could visualize very strongly a beam of light. 'Finding patterns in the outside world (extroverted intuition)' I think it is associated with physicists like Einstein who do such things. Connecting seemingly unrelated information but those which have their input from outside. Extroverted sensing, how is it different from Extroverted intuition. Extroverted intuition means finding patterns outside, but extroverted sensing is not about findings patterns outside. But seeing things as they are. Introverted intuiters (Ni, ISTPs) do not make connections about the outside world, but make connections about the inside outworld. Ne s can see patterns in the outside world, Ni s see patterns in the inner world. Einstein could see patterns in the outside world that is why came up with theories of physics, Buddha saw patterns in the inner world, so he came up with Buddhism, which is basically the patterns he saw in his inner world. So here we analyzed intuition/ how patterns are seen. What about Sensing, Se and Si? Se, the force of outside world stronger, it has bigger influence, ISTP, Buddha. Si, the force of inner world is stronger, beam of light, equations, INTP, Einstein. So how is Buddha related with other ISTPs like engineers, surgeons etc? The main thing that seems to differentiate buddha from them is that, Buddha had a very strong Ni, introverted intuition, power to see patterns in the inner world. Surgeons have very deep attention to detail in the outside world, but so did Buddha, hence his emphasis on 'seeing things as they are', just like surgeons and engineer's do. But I am confused about Ni and Ne. Ne also means finding patterns, Ni also means finding patterns. So what's the difference? Ne might be about making connections about concrete patterns, eg , connecting Plank's theory (concrete) with laws ohe f motion (concrete). A connects with B connects with C. It's very direct linear, but ingenious (in case of Einstein), but in other cases they are just linear. Ni might be about making connections not of concrete things, but very subtle things. Like, a surgeons might not go through A leads to B leads to C, but might intuit a series of steps that is not so crystal clear, but is correct. Likewise a mechanic might intuit a correct solution, but it does not have an, A is to B is to C pattern, but it's just correct. Similar is the case with Buddha. Buddha just states the 4 noble truth, he does not go through reasons, and the reason he does not go through reasonings is because he does not have introverted sensing, he has extroverted sensing, he has a strong sense of experience from which makes an intuition to solve the problem, just like mechanics, buddha and surgeons do, while the INTP has a very strong sense of idea, since his idea is very strong, he discovers stuffs with a very deep conceptual framework, while for ISTPs, its like "I don't know why this is the answer, but this is the answer". That is why Buddha doesn't go on and on about why meditation is the way, buddhism is the way, he just says this is the solution and that's it. Likewise, a mechanic might just know what to do, a surgeon might know (his body, and every single cell in his body) knows what to do , a buddha just knows what to do but he deals with information of such nature that it cannot be expressed in fixed, concrete ideas, he (surgeon,mechanic) cannot explain the exact movement of his body in exact detail, but his body knows that this is the right answer. And Buddhism is not about ideas, but about a experience. And since ISTPs intuit correct solutions that are experience/actions related (think surgeons,actors, mechancs) , Buddha might have been ISTP. While INTPs intuit solutions that are ideas related. INTPs- They see patterns in the world, they feel ideas strongly ( "Wait, why is no one seeing this? If these is the case, then this implies this, which implies this) ISTPs- They have keen attention to the world (kind of like awareness of buddism), they intuit solutions. ( Okay, the problem is infront of me. I can solve it. Let me show you. This is how it's done) An INTP has strong sense of ideas, and he intuits a solution. An ISTP has strong sense of experience, then he intuits a solution. I just realized that, Extroverted and introverted intuition might not be about making connections of the outside or the inside world but the style of the intuition. Just think about the mind of Einstein realizing relativity, and the mind of Buddha realizing enlightenment/ a fighter like Bruce lee intuiting in split second the most effect moves . It's just 2 different things. The end products are different.

I almost got enlightened when I read it. I think for 0.001 sec I saw the absolute. I panicked.

What do you mean by Ti+Ni saviors? Could you explain more about that?

The causes of Hypothyroidism are - Idiopathic (unknown) - Radiation - Autoimmune disorders - Lack of Iodine intake I think the only treatment is Drugs. I don't know any alternative treatment.

I know that they have their own scripture tablets, scrolls. So what are you trying to say? What did I miss, please elaborate. Or may be you misunderstood me. What did you understand by what I said? Actually, what I said has 2 meanings, one is a nondual meaning (which I am not interested in, and not intending) and the other is a dual meaning( which I was intending, and answering the OP's question with

I hope no one is misunderstanding me when I say Buddha, Jesus, Muhammed spoke bullshitry. I hope people are getting what I mean by that. I recognize all 3 of them as highly enlightened individuals.

Enlightenment and Bullshitry are not mutually exclusive. Buddha spoke a lot of bullshit. Jesus spoke a lot of bullshit. Muhammed spoke waaaaaaaaaaaaay more bullshit. All 3 were enlightened. How do I know? Because it's not about what they say, but how they live. Buddha showed radical detachment. Jesus was forgiving those who were crucifying him. Muhammed had fearlessness that only comes from awakening to Allah , being in touch with the nondual. Only enlightened people can pull off these things. Because they are not 'of this world', so they act outside they forces of duality that governs we mere mortals.

Of course you can kill yourself and become God whenever you want, no one is stopping it from you (except for people stuck in the dual and who think it is wrong) But still it is not the full answer. Duality is a a gift. It is not as boring as the nondual. That is why God decieved himself and contracted his consciousness into a person, human, or animal so he could escape himself from himself and experience the great beauty and value of a human life, the love, sorrow, hatred, jealousy, strife, suffering, bliss, gratitude of having lived as a human and having loved your loved ones, your spouse, your parents, your mother, although they are not real, but still a momentary escape to that special connection is what God wants. If you experience the non-dual while being in the dual, you can have the best of both worlds, you can have a synergestic effect. Full blown nothingness is a great thing, but living in the junction of the dual and non-dual isn't a bad experience either. And if you kill yourself again not having realized yourself, then chances are you will again decieve yourself and be reborn again into something which you intruth are actually not, and you will be running around in this duality for god knows how long untill slowly you start to question who you really are. The only reason the nondual is sought, is to take a break from the suffering of duality which might be (percieved as) unbearable. It's like in a dream a tiger is about to kill you, and awakening is like "Chill out, this is just a dream". However if you are enjoying this dream (which is the purpose of self deception, suffering is the side effect), then non-dual is useless. If in the dual you feel great because you feel like you are the most smartest, handsomest, talented etc person in the world, then nonduality destroys this dream and you are back to non duality and you go "Wow, I wish this was real. It was such a beautiful dream" Also do you see the connections between, suffering, seeking the nondual and suicide? Why do people commit suicide? To end their suffering. Why do people want a escape to the nondual? To end their suffering. Seeking nondual turns you into a God and ends suffering. Suicide turns you into a God and ends suffering. Non-dual = Suicide (of the dual) Suffering is the side effect of the pleasure of the dual. Arthur Schopenhauer used to say that humans are capable of great suffering because they are capable of great pleasure. While animals or lesser forms (which Schopenhauer calls the brutes, who live only moment to moment, suffer moment to moment and have pleasure moment to moment, contrast to that of human) can have neither or lesser of the 2, their experience is not as intense as that of the human.

Let me elaborate the question more. This is what I am asking. Many people here who have had awakenings ( specially Leo) say that every thing is consciousness. There is no difference between a rock and a human. And my question is, if that's the case, then why is the human body so complex and not as simple as a rock or a carpet or a piece of wood. There are entire books about how the eye works, books about how the ear works, just the skin has volumes and volumes written on it. The machinary of human body is as complex as any AI machine. If both the rock and the human body are the same thing, then why is the human body so complex, it follows rules, laws, complex pathways. Just like engineers know how a machine works or operates, a doctor knows how a human body operates. If both rock and the human body were consciousness stuff, then humans may have been just like a bunch of sand particles with consciousness embedded on it whose functionings come directly from consciousness instead of a sophisticated machinary within. ( Imagine you were a pile of sand who could talk, how? just because you are a bunch of sand with consciousness.) The way we get our vision,smell,taste,touch has a sophisticated machinary, it does not come directly from consciousness. The way we are able to walk, talk,breath, respire, digest, excrete has a sophisticated machinary, it does not come directly from consciousness. If it was pure consciousness, what is the need of this complex machinary that differentiates the rock from a human. I repeat, what is the need? Why is it there? Is it just because boom consciousness gave rise to it and boom consciousness made human a certain way and rock a certain way and you can do nothing about it and consciousness could even make a rock talk loudand sing because there is no machinary, it is all consciousness and there is no need of machinary anything can happen in consciousness without any machineries. Is that the answer you all are going to give? The consequence of everything being consciousness should imply that there should not be a complex mechanical machinary within that makes things operate, there shouldn't be a complex machinary behind a clock that makes it tick. If I see a ticking clock, and I see the reason that it does so is because of a complex machinary within it, then I am not going to say that this clock has consciousness. I am applying the same thing with the statement 'humans=rock=consiousness'. Scientists know how humans operate, from sight, to vision, to sound, to how things are stored and processed in the brain, it's worked out, the machinery has been explored deeply, so just like the clock example, it seems to argue against the claim of everything being consciousness.

Great answer Leo! Thanx! At the end, it seems to boil down to - Higher the complexity, higher the self deception. Complex life processes in living beings might be a way God deceives itself from realizing it's true nature. God deliberately boosts up the complexity of consciousness to achieve self deception.

I was not here to raise my consciousness. I was here to show that Napoleon is not barbaric. Consciousness is a different subject and I was not here to talk about that. 'Look, I am not saying you are a lesser being because you don't value Christ more than Napoleon' Did I ever say that? You immediately believe that I admire Napoleon more than Christ , I don't know why. Actually I value Christ 1000 times more than Napoleon . Now what are you going to say about my consciousness? That it is now highly raised?

Yes, but factually they were innocent. Hitler was so evil that he even thought of innocent people as a threat to the world that is why he killed them all. Isn't that evil? That is not biasness. HItler did what he did, and it was an evil thing. There is no biasness. You saying that it is biased, not truth, does not change history. 'Hitler geniuinely thought he was doing good for his country, he was misguided' Evil people don't know how evil they are. The serial killer Jeffrey dalmer used to kill boys and eat them thinking that he loved them, from his perspective it was an act of love. So you will say that he was not evil? Hitler was so evil that he didn't know how evil he was. He caused so much destruction and he thought it was the best thing. That is pure evil. Bullies cause suffering to their victim thinking that they are just friends, just playing with them. If they thought that what they were doing is evil, then they would feel guilt and wouldn't be able to do what they do. Evil does not mean feeling that you are doing an evil act, evil means doing an evil act and believing it is not. I admire many people like Buddha, Christ, Einstein, Vivekannda, Yogananda you name it. There is absolutely no reason to make a connection between me liking Napoleon and my level of consciousness. There is no reason to talk about my level of consciousness at least in this thread.

Me too. Hitler killed innocent people intentionally for evil reason because he thought they were inferior. It is evil 101. I do not admire people who kill innocent people with such intention no matter how big an empire they have made or they were victorios or not. Being victorious does not automatically gives my admiration if they did such things. My method is analyze him as accurately as possible without any distortions. I have already discussed this. Don't immediately judge me thinking that just because I admire Napoleon it immediately means that I don't understand the greatness of Buddha, Gandhi, Christ, Krishna. The thing is , my view is not black and white. For me , just because someone is a warrior, he isnot lesser. Krishna was also a warrior, who killed many enemies and still he is revered. People understand his greatness while you might say 'what he killed people? He is EVIL!; The difference between you and me is that for you , pacifists > warriors, I say it's not that simple.

@Paulus Amadeus Great answer ! Thanx! This is the kind of answer I was looking for! Your answer has possibility.

LOL!

I would. But still I would say he was a man of greatness, as Hegel the great german philosopher put it "A world Spirit", an extraordinary human being whose very name brings chills down my spine. Definitely one of my top 5 human beings ever, whose match I haven't seen for over a thousand years of human history. I am deeply in love with him. Not at all to be compared with Hitler. But it's complex. Humans are complex. The world is complex. War is complex. Being egotistical and ruthless doesn't immediately equate to being a lesser man , you can't say Napoleon was a lesser man just because of this one or 2 quality, but you will have to analyze him in his entirety. I have read about many kings, monarchs, made comparisons, looking at what monarchs are generally like, what Napoleon was like, contrast , compare, where Napoleon fits in the broader context of human history. That is why with less knowledge it is easy to propagandize people and make them hate or love someone. But humans are complex. If you read Hitler biography, then chances are you will find that even he had admiring qualities. Sure if I was a villager in Napoleon's time and he destroyed my family I would think of him as a tyrant and a cruel person and have negativity towards him. But we have to analyze like a student of history, not a villager in napoleonic era, not a patriotic englishman. But a student of history in general.

My point is making the most correct assessment of the character of a historical person based on historical data as much as possible, and not be manipulated by positive or negative distortion. I am not generalizing everything into ' person with some flaws', but emphasizing on making the most correct assessment as possible.

Yes, when it comes to knowing the nondual, I AM a donkey stuck in my duality. I am not saying when it comes to that I am not a donkey. My question is not about that at all. I don't want more non dual stuffs thrown at me, Leo's vids are more than enough to get my dose of nondual talks. I just posted this so that I thought some genius might give a revolutionary answer to my question (which I have written 1000 times in this thread) and I go "wow this is it, finally this is the answer.". Nothing more nothing less. I don't want nondual stuffs thrown at me. This is just me doing research like I do research in google search engine.

@Nahm I don't think I have an answer to that. But do you know the answer?

And here you are 100% correct. Napoleon was not like a fairy tale hero, he was not a good all saint, he was a ruthless person. But our goal here is to be realistic and see him who he really is. Sure there are Romantics who think Napoleon as a demi god the greatest human ever alive with no flaws. Every human has flaws, but we need to ( or try to) correctly assess who he really was (an extraordinary human being with flaws) . Let's say if you were a historical figure, then I wouldn't want to read a romanticized version of you where u are potrayed as someone without any flaws, or a heavily satirized version of you, these are all distortions. Our job is to look at the figure with his entirety, his good and bad qualities and judge him accordingly, just like we wouldn't say that our friend is completely flawless he has his qualities, many good , some bad, like wise we have to make an assessment of a historical figure.

Tooooo many unfactual things, I will tell you later next week may be, I don't have time, just keep in touch with this thread. Every single time he is criticizing napoleon, there is a mixture of falsehood + biasness + half truths and lies. Ofcourse he is not being 100% serious and his purpose is not to impart education like in a university lecture, it is for entertainment, it is for inciting that english vs french rivalry that people love to watch and hear about.

LOL you are citing Lindybiege as a credible source to talk about Napoleon? First of all I have already watched that vid, second he is a youtuber who is openly biased against Napoleon and part of it is to entertain his audience, it's not an authorized credible source to get education from. You are watching these entertainment videos and forming opinions about Napoleon. And I was thinking you have done some real serious research about Napoleon.

There's no war where innocents didn't die or effected in some way. War is always nasty. But There's a difference between innocents being killed as a consequence of war and innocents being killled the way Hitler and Pol pot did. I have done a lot of reading of Napoleon, from the time I was 13 and still I read him time to time. And from my years of reading and admiring him, there is nothing to doubt that he was a great man. There is no such thing as being a saint in war, whose objective is to not kill innocents instead of winning the war. But there's a difference between such killings and concentration camps. May be you should tell me what sources you read that made you say he was a narcisstic maniac. Goths were considered barbarians ( there is even a series called Barbarians which covers goths, vandals, vikings etc ) so I am thinking of them as barbaric. I am saying it in that sense. Like savages with no rules, no order, just pillaging. Sure, barbaric can also be used for people like Hitler, but I wouldn't say Hitler was a barbarian.