Osaid

True. There's a difference between being intellectual and being good at thinking. I meant to say the former, sloppy wording on my part. I really do believe he has run into the limits of thinking and intellect as a whole though. That is what it looks like when you try to get enlightened through philosophy and intellect. Just formulaic tautologies and chasing experiences forever.

Peace

To get you up to speed, he doesn't even believe in non-duality or enlightenment anymore. 🤭 He's very good at thinking. That's why he is in his current position, lost in intellect.

Oh I see, you're saying philosophy is important for enlightenment. Had to read between the lines a bit there. Philosophy isn't all bad, but the way you're using it is all intellectual and it is a red herring. I told you to knock yourself out. See where it takes you. I am enlightened.

He may have said what Osho was talking about, but he certainly does not understand it. I have said this before, but Leo is still a philosopher first and foremost. He is philosophizing about experience, he is not examining experience. What I mean is that he is creating intellectual conclusions about experience. Philosophy pushes you to question experience, yes, that part is fine. But the intellectual conclusions you make are also considered philosophy, and they are a red herring. Self-inquiry is what I would consider to be "using philosophy/intellect properly", but I don't even know if that is considered philosophy or not. I think it could be considered epistemology.

That's basically what I was trying to say. There is nothing that can resemble Truth because Truth is entirely unique to itself. If you use the word "spirituality" as some sort of category or resemblance then that would be incorrect. But, you can use more neutral words like "enlightenment" or "truth" to point to it. Depends on how you define it. People define stuff differently. I'm going to be honest, the definition for "spirituality" on google seems entirely nebulous and useless, and practically speaking I doubt anyone is using it "correctly." Everyone probably has their own definition for it. I am just trying to highlight that if the term you are using creates ideas about the thing, then that is incorrect. If the word you use defines itself in a way where it is neutral and creates no ideas, then it is serving its purpose as a pointer in language.

You could trace anyones enlightenment back to any number of events. But that event or process is completely unrelated to what causes it. What causes it is entirely experiential, it is not thought-based. Self-inquiry is a process for finding enlightenment, but it is not enlightenment and it is not directly related. This is exactly why someone can become enlightened without self-inquiring or philosophizing. Philosophy in particular is a complete red herring if you think it is bringing you to some existential conclusion about reality. Leo does not make the same point. Leo is criticizing the quality of philosophy. Osho is telling you to throw it away completely. To this day, Leo is still completely lost in intellect and philosophy.

If you have any kind of ideas about spirituality, then yes it is unrelated. "Truth" is just unique to itself.

By the way, no idea if he was, I've only seen him talk about non-dual stuff. So can't confirm or deny. I just find it irrelevant.

That is unrelated to his point. I can be a painter, but I am not gonna tell you that painting leads you to Truth or non-duality.

Speak for yourself. Truth is unrelated to philosophy. Philosophy is still ultimately intellect, although perhaps a more subtle form of it. When used to understand reality, all philosophy leads to is solipsism and other forms of intellectual stagnation. I've already spent enough time running around philosophizing and I have realized its limits. Knock yourself out though.

Both statements make an equal amount of sense. They are not applicable here. I love language and I use it all the time. You are using it in a way where it points to nothing. It is just intellectual stagnation. It only exists in intellect. That is what I am trying to point out. In the same way that the word "incorrect" points to something that doesn't exist, the idea of "incorrect" only exists as an intellectual idea, it is not experienced as something aside from an idea. That is what I am trying to point out. It is intellectual in nature. You are trying to apply intellect to something that isn't intellect, like someone who tries to measure temperature with a ruler instead of a thermometer. You are using a duality, "thought", to point to everything/existence. It is impossible and means nothing. Thought is the word for thought. You are saying "thought = everything" and I am saying that is not what "thought" points to, that actually defeats its definition.

Thought is a subset of experience. It is not experience. It is an abstraction of experience. You are mistaking the map for the territory. The word "thought" points to a duality, but you use it to point to everything. Again, this is how you are mistaking the map for the territory. I am not saying experience is not one thing. You are just trying to create non-duality through intellect, that won't work. Your idea of non-duality is not how it actually works. You are making a tautology through your intellect where you say "thought = everything." This is meaningless. I could also say "banana = everything" and that could be just as true.

No. It is purely intellectual and does not exist. Your entire life is based on direct experience. Now think back to all the times you've deluded yourself. Be careful!

It absolutely isn't. You guys are defining thought/mind in some weird way where it includes your entire experience or something. Just another intellectual tautology you guys are creating. No-self is not the origin of anything. No-self tells you that there is nothing sourcing or originating your experience. This does not mean that your experience is hollow or without interpretation, that itself is a backstory/interpretation which still exists in thought and intellect. When I say nothing is sourcing your experience, I am talking about actual nothing, not non-existence. There is a difference between nothing and non-existence. Non-existence is still intellectual. The visual image of a face is a visual image, and the sound of a voice is a sound, and they will always be experientially different than a thought. It does not matter where they come from, that is irrelevant to your experience of them.

It is not the same thing, it is experientially different. It is like looking at the color red and the color blue and you're like "both colors are just thoughts inside your mind." It does not matter if the thing sourcing the person is make-believe, or if all of it is your "own perception", your experience has not changed a single bit, aside from what you think of it. You're still just thinking.

A creator of ego would simply be more ego, because the ego is a false perception. If you think the ego actually exists, that is mistaking the map for the territory. Your logic is flawed because it uses a false perception as its basis. There are many words and symbols which point to things that don't exist, such as "non-existence", "false", "incorrect", "impossible", "duality", etc. The word "ego" would fit perfectly into that category. Everything is a creation of God/Divinity, therefore by your logic everything is fooling itself. You have created a tautology which means nothing, other than to say "God = God" or "everything = deception." You are trying to understand God through some logical deduction, like "If x created y, then y = z." That won't work. You will just run into arbitrary tautologies ad infinitum because reality and intellect do not mix. It is like trying to divide by zero.

Are you sure you aren't defining "your mind" differently? Someone speaking creates sound waves. A loud noise/voice startles you as it alerts your nervous system. You cannot imagine a loud noise/voice to startle you through thought. Experientially, sound is a somewhat different phenomenon than what you hear in thought. Right, so you're creating meaning out of sound. Is that it? I would say the difference is that you are thinking rather than hearing. It's not a thought, it is sound. You can imagine sounds, but that is imaginary or thought-based and it behaves a bit differently experientially. Are you pointing to how your own sense organs have to interpret the sound waves first? That type of subjectivity?

Sound is not a thought. Are you pointing to the subjectivity of it? Like all the sounds are interpreted by me? It begins as a spoken word, then the mind translates it into meaning, then a personality structure, etc. That type of thing?

Bro you can't assign anything, that's an unnecessary input from your intellect. You don't have that power. You can't make something stop existing by thinking about it. You can't realize that something doesn't exist, you can only recontextualize what already exists. You can't realize sentience or a lack of it. Your experience simply says nothing about it. You previously believed your thoughts were sentient, now you don't. That's it. Previously, you were on the other side of the spectrum, where you said "my thoughts are sentient", now you are saying "my thoughts are not sentient", the reality is that neither is the case, your thoughts are just thoughts. A duality of sentient and non-sentient is more thought. Transcend the medium altogether.

Wow I guess we're all aliens

There's a very good reason why your ego is fooling itself* (From your ego's perspective, at least) Always interesting when people assign divinity to their ego being fooled by reality. Yeah there's quite a bit of that on the forum.

Hilarious if true. I always noticed that thinking about sexual things actually made it easier to escape sleep paralysis, it moves your mind away from that head space. So from a certain perspective your story makes sense.

Infinite amount. Many awakenings to chase after forever. Because there is an infinite amount of things that you can imagine and then unimagine, and then react in shock: "Oh my god, this thing I imagined doesn't exist! How profound!"

Why is that scary though? You think you've lost something? Did you lose control? Did you lose other people? But if you think that, it's just more thinking. The one who perceives the loss of something imaginary must also be imaginary. Throw the entire medium away.