Gesundheit2

Foundational video. A must-watch.

That's the universal definition of teaching. And it's not exclusive to Leo. We learn from those who are farther down the path, whichever path it might be. It's how we connect and develop. Learning is a natural instinct. Even if you don't deliberately teach your children, they will try to copy you. And if they don't copy you, they will copy someone/something else. Lol. Are you for real, Mandy? Cuz you seem to be doing exactly the same thing you're denouncing.

This line of thinking is going to be the joke of the 21st century, and probably for millennia to come.

Lol. I'm just waiting to see Leo's reaction to this.

You want God solipsism? Alright, let's talk God solipsism. Do you think I have my own experience? If so, how do you know? If not, we simply return to normie solipsism.

BS. If it was true or at least your conviction, you wouldn't be telling us about it.

@Loba Exactly. Which is why women turn masculine when they don't see good leadership. Leadership is every man's craft, but not everyone is skillful or invested enough to make the woman feel safe and surrender. But that's okay, we're here to learn after all.

Everything in my life is shit, except my health. And still, health trumps everything else. I am grateful.

Haha. Reading this thread gave me nostalgia, and it made me wonder if my current understanding will seem delusional too a couple of years later.

Easy going, supportive, always positive and upbeat.

As close as porn is to sex.

The thing is that there could be an infinite pool of possible explanations. But without an axiom to anchor our thinking in, all of them would be equally valid and possible, which can become a problem. The memories could be the person's shadows, or an evil demon imposition, or a fairy angel treat. They could be Dumbledore's manipulation, Snape performing mind penetration, Voldemort's damnation, or just Harry's imagination. Just who knows?!

Yeah, but the problem is that there's no realistic way in which you can get everyone to experience the same things you are. Perhaps at best you can get them to open up to the possibility then try and get different results. Then what? Also what's the point? So, you're conscious of something that other people aren't. And you want them to become conscious of it too, or at least open up to believing in the narrative you believe in. But let's be realistic here, why would I want to share your perception of the world? What's in it for me? All I will get is probably isolation and demonization without any real benefits to make up for that, so why should I? Maybe it can cure your existential loneliness (and maybe it won't), but maybe there are also other ways to cure it that don't involve isolating others from their common life.

I can't be certain, but consensus is a far more superior method than anecdotal stories.

My point was that morality and solipsism are contradictory and can't co-exist together as they have fundamentally antithetical axioms that create dissonance. Morality is based on the belief that others are sure to exist, while solipsism is based on the belief that others are not sure to exist. Morality assumes fundamental guidelines for human behaviors and it assumes right and wrong (which can change and evolve). Solipsism doesn't assume any of that, because everything is relative and extremely fluid. So, no. I did not concede my point. I only entertained a possibility where solipsism might look like morality without actually being it.

There's living rats and there's fried chickens.

Well for starters, solipsism doesn't make clear distinctions between right and wrong since everything is relative to (and for) the solipsist. At best, you can have a pragmatic sense of morality, but not a fundamental sense (which is not necessarily a bad or even false thing, imo). In other words, you don't really care about others (because they don't exist in the first place), but you can act like you do care because you might perceive it as beneficial to you.

Enlightenment is a special attainment. There's no justification for any of this in spirituality. It's just ego. And it's exactly what prevents enlightenment. People need less of that, not more. It is all of those things for many people. Unfortunately, it seems like it is. There's not really a cause and an effect, especially with psychology.

This can happen, but doesn't always. Many mental illnesses/cases are terminal even with medical intervention. The medication can actually worsen the illness in many cases. We don't really understand mental illnesses well yet, or even just the mind alone.

I like many of your "teachings". I just don't think you teach the truth, nor that you could to begin with.

I generally don't let any chemicals enter my body unless they're absolutely necessary. That includes even caffeine and all other "basic" chemicals for most people. I think that's the main reason why my health is great overall. As for your question, you can't really trust any insights whether they come from chemicals or plants or anything else, basically. But I don't see any more legitimacy for natural plants over man-made chemicals even for normal medication uses. Plants don't have the same efficacy as man-made chemicals because they're not as potent, and they have a lot more side effects. The thing about nature is that it doesn't produce very nuanced substances for our very specific needs. Most natural products come with a variety of substances that are pretty much irrelevant and have no practical use (which produces side effects).

In practice, solipsism contradicts morality. But (everyone) feel free to do mental gymnastics around this truth.

Stress creates unclarity. Enlightenment is the transcendence of that into clarity. There's no enlightenment without stress.

A view from the hospital where I get my training. Nothing spectacular, just my reality.