Ibn Sina

In Buddhism, 'Sunyata' is the basis of all reality. It is what underlies all forms and is the 'substance' that the world is made of. The concept of 'God' is more associated with Hinduism. The Hindus believed in many Gods, they thought of Brahma as the supreme reality, they believed in a soul or a self, while Buddha had nothing to say about them and thought of as irrelevant. Hinduism has all sorts of complex beliefs, rituals, creeds, rites, mantras, stories, legends, philosophy, etc etc. The reason is that Hinduism is also a way of life, not just for 'monks' like the Buddhists, but for everyone. It served a standard religion function, that's why it has all sorts of moral codes, heaven and hell, belief in Gods etc like Christianity, however Buddhism was more of a religion for the recluse, you are not a good Buddhist if you are actively indulging in worldly pleasures, and Buddhism is way more focused on direct enlightenment and direct spiritual experience then Hinduism. The founder of Buddhism is the 'Buddha' a guy who had made the vow to be enlightened at all costs whether doesn't matter if he dies or not . Buddhism is influenced by that. But the ideas in Buddhism already have their basis in Hinduism. Before Buddhism, Hindus had concepts like 'Om', Samadhi, Turiya. The things written in Buddhism is already written in the Upanishads. Both religions are correct, it's just that Buddhism has a different way to interpret reality that may have a universal ring to it, while Hinduism puts labels on all sort of things and may look like it has a cultural influence. But what I think is they are trying to say the same thing. It's like saying, whether reality is a positive (hindus) or a negative(buddhism), is there a soul or a no soul, whether the substance of the world is 'Brahma' or 'Sunyata'. It's just a matter of perception.

Like you , I also don't do deep research about this low consciousness topic of incel, I am not an expert. However , I wouldn't say the above example is an example of incel because here a man is choosing to date women of high standards, he doesn't have any other problem. He knows there are lower women but he chooses to only date higher women. But Incels are just lazy people who don't want to go through the difficulty of relationship and take the active male role, and instead get comfortable in their own home with computers, games etc , but that is precisely the recipe for toxic resentment and emotions, and they soon start to believe ' Girls don't like me, girls have it better' and that kind of thing which creates this downward spiral of toxicity on and on whose depth goes down to God knows how deep. One Incel even turned into a school shooter. He was good looking, he was rich, had cars, but just because he doesn't get approached he always thought "Girls doesn't like me and so on" his negativity developed so much that he became a school shooter. Boys need to be taught to approach women, and be a man and take shit head on. Or else they will develop resentment. Girls have the luxury of relaxing and boys approaching them, that's why girls don't develop resentment. But boys don't , and some boys (in minority) who don't approach girls and don't get approached too, turn into incels. However, this is just my thought. This is just my impression of incels.

I have suspected that the origin of Incels and their resentment and toxic thoughts is more due to a 'comfy' lifestyle. A villager in a 3rd world country has more chance of success with girls then these rich, comfortable incels , and the reason is they don't want to deal with shit. Relationship is a shitty buisness, sometimes it gets bloody, sometimes nasty. Your ego is at stake, self esteem might get demolished, you might appear needy, and incels because of this don't want to actively engage with girls and instead think 'girls don't like them' , they expect girls to approach them. It's just silly. If you want to get approached then you can do surgery and turn into a girl, and many guys will approach you. Is that what you want? As men, we have to deal with shit all our life, and relationship is the lowest shit to deal with, there are far more larger bigger problems out there, far more dangerous and deadlier. We have to get used to handling and dealing with shits. Having a 'comfy' lifestyle is the death of us. If you want to get 'comfy' and want to get approached on a daily basis as you relax like the other girls do then do surgery and turn into a girly girl. But I assure you that's only the beginning of the problem.

I am being serious. And that is the only way you will solve your problem. These things cannot be solved by thinking or speculating. You have to turn into a mad, salivating dog in hunt of a bitch. Otherwise you will be in your couch all your life whining about why you don't have a woman and you will die soon. But if you do eat this frog, then your life will change. That's the solution. Only solution. You have to turn into a dog.

Seriously? I know what your problems is, I am suspecting that you have an INTPlike personality, too much in your head. You read too much, you think too much and that is your problem. If I was in your place, and I was in such a depressed mood, then I would get my ass up , and start talking with 100 women in a row untill the problem solves easily. The problem is you don't have balls. Don't think, act, and start talking to women like you are a dog wanting to mate. Throw away your self esteem shit. Once you get with a relationship with a girl or 2 , then a new mindset will open in you. Looking at your profile, you are nothing ugly looking, you are just an average guy with a pathological mindset which will slowly nibble your soul little by little. Get your ass up, say enough is enough, today talk with at least 10 girls, I am sure you will have a relationship with 5 of them. And lo behold, your psychological problem is also gone.

You are talking with a medical student who has passed his 'Repro paper' i.e has knowledge of male and female anatomy and physiology inside and out, and is currently learning Gyenecology and Obstretics. There is no room for speculation or philosophizing. Just say 'okay cool' and leave instead of arguing. I am not bullshitting, I am giving this forum an oppurtunity to learn some scientific knowledge , and weeding out the myths about reproduction prevalent in the net.

Just a note - What I said has nothing to do with this. I know that is correct, but that has nothing to do with what I am saying and does not change the point I am making. Ok, believe whatever you want. My job is to impart authentic knowledge. I guess your job is to keep on arguing and somehow try to show that I say is not right. I don't want to waste time but you keep trying to show that somehow what I I wrote is wrong, and that way you may be misleading people and create doubt in people. I try to prevent such doubts from happening.

I hope people find great wisdom in what you have to say. I don't. We 2 should not talk.

Okay, then that means you are smarter than the Physiologists who wrote Guyton and Hall(book used by medical students world wide). I was just quoting that. That's not my opinion. I can even write down the exact pathway, but I don't think you will have any use of it. All I am trying to do is give out information that is science based , written by scientists, and not mislead people. I don't know what you are trying to do. I will go far as to say , you don't even know the meaning of 'physiology of arousal' to which you are laughing at. You have no idea at all. Read more.

Women are attracted to looks. For a long time I believed the 'men are attracted to looks, women are not' crap. Women and Men have the same physiology of arousal ( I am a medical student and I read this in Guyton and Hall , physiology of reproduction) Women have as much desire to make Boyfriends as Men have to make Girlfriends. And I am not talking 'plantonically' or that kind of shit but 'sexually'. It is a medical fact that women have sexual desire. If a women have less libido then that means there are problems with her. Just look at the puberty chapter in pediatrics, read some gynecology. The force of evolution acts on both men and women. And this is the truth ! Ta da! The truth which is largely hidden in the net ,replaced by too much misleading ideas, but you will have to find out for yourself. Either talk to women or look at the science. The shit circulating in net has been largely misleading to young men who haven't yet had experience with women The reason it looks like women aren't attracted sexually to men, is - They get enough male attention so they try to avoid showing interest to not get unwanted attention. But somehow if a women likes you, then you will know the truth.

That is not my statement, but comes from the Yale university professor Paul bloom. But what you just said is also not unreasonable. From that perspective of course it looks problematic. That is a business or industry related problem ( adulteration of vaccines etc etc), and the management/administration structure etc themselves should fix it. The bigger problem is the attack on the idea of vaccine itself. That is rubbish. It's like saying, because the water is contaminated and it killed a small innocent child, water shouldn't be drunk.

First we need to understand exactly what vaccines are. Vaccines were first developed by Edward Jenner. How did he make them? He took the sample from the small pox boils, and he treated them, and put them into healthy individuals and that induced immunity. That is how vaccine works. Vaccines are just samples of the causative agent which may be heat killed or inactivated or their capsule or polysacharride is used etc etc When you put them in your body, then it activates immunity But it is not a foolproof method, there's a 0.1% chance that sometime, the 'organism' that we put inside , could infect the body. That is why vaccines like BCG , measles etc is not given to immunocompromised individuals like AIDS patients. But vaccines saves the lives of milllions of people everywhere. Virtually all medical professionals agree. Doctor Mike agrees. Bill Gates agrees. The Yale University professor Paul Bloom agrees. I can't believe Leo is saying 'we don't know, we need more research'. The fact is , we need to calculate the cost benefit ratio, and in case of vaccines, it's like 0.1:99.9 It is a shame that a developed country like US is getting measles outbreak due to some fanatics called 'anti-vaxxers'. Paul bloom in his talk on his book "Against Empathy" talks about the psychology of such anti-vaxxers, and says that they are driven by emotions, instead of reason, their judgment is based on 1 or 2 mishaps to a small child, but they don't look it's larger positive effect which doesn't strike the emotion center like the death of 1 (in a million) small innocent child does.

Thanx for the input. After sometime, I might put a post listing the names of the 'enlightened professionals' that we have managed to collect.

All I see is 'enlightened masters' and the only thing great about them is that they are enlightened. They only talk about spirituality, how to be enlightened 24/7. There are monks and sannyasins who have dedicated their entire life for meditation and enlightenment. I find this very problematic. There should be enlightened doctors, enlightened politicians, enlightened columnists, chess grandmasters and politicians. Spirituality should penetrate into the dual, only then can it be really meaningful and powerful. The world cannot be run only by monks. Not everyone can go and dedicate 24 hours on spirituality. That would be the collapse of economy, there would be no buisnessmen, programmers, engineers, pilots. But what it looks like is that spirituality is a 24 job, and if you want to be enlightened then you have no choice to but to go all in. But its not possible for everyone. And also I don't think that it's impossible to have 'enlightened professionals who make good money'. It's just about having the right balance. It's easy to pull off at least 10,000 hours of intense spirituality and psychedelic training by the end of your life, no matter which profession you are in. My rational mind says its not impossible, but empirically I don't find many such people.

I would like to add that , the concept of enlightened professionals which is the ideal transitional point of man lying exactly between the dual and the non-dual, is important not just for the 'economy' or the 'preservation of the world' but also because the dual is also the vehicle for the non-dual. The dual is the default position, the position that everyone is born with, whereas the non-dual is what we have to work towards. There is no better time to do non-duality work than the 21st century. And that is possible because of the sacrifices of many contributers who have made our duality world much easier. We now have more books, the internet, more videos , psychedelics and so on, something which would be impossible some years back. The development of dual has not just lead to the development of materialism, but also has given us the best resources that has brought us closer to the non-dual then any point in history. If everyone were monks, then the rate of people getting enlightenment will be miniscule compared to the present materialistic dualistic age of buisnessmen and entrepreneurs and technology, and in turn, more people can now become awakened then ever. Put simply , we need to be dualistic and non-dualistic on equal measure.

How evil is Trump?

Basically you are acting as a radar for catching and sending out raw God signals, that is why you are spitting stuffs that have no coherence or the ego cannot utilize for any purpose whatsover. In other words, you are wasting my time.

Which God is correct? Both are. You are God, I am god. Infininity + Infinity = Infinity When you said 'it doesn't matter' instead of ' both are correct' it is infinity -1 which equals to infinity

I have , but Aakash's has more to offer.

You are demolishing all forms of structured thought but spitting pure reality as it is. I am understanding about 0.0000001% of your approach.

@Shaun/ God, I am waiting for the answer, there's a perfect non-dual answer for this

Leave what alone? Not all. Christians , Muslims, Leo aren't debating about what is God. They are not debating, they have it figured out. Some people might be, but as you put it , not all. Of course, only God can offer us the divine knowledge. Thomas Aquinas agrees with you, Christians agree with you, you are not being revolutionary here. Okay.

And I am also God, and God just said " I can help you" while the other God said "I have no idea how to help you?" So here are 2 Gods with different views. Is it even possible? Which God is correct?

@Aakash All I see is you are reacting to stuffs. Give me axioms, give me postulates, give me the ideas that you think are true. The rest is just time wastage. Spirituality is for improving our life or condition, there's no use beating around the bush, directness is key.

Which book are you talking about?