Artem

No, I am not. I do pretty much all of my work for free, because I had a fruitful, long and well compensated career as a Software Engineer and spent 7 years at Google Research. So I can afford it (for now). Why would I go work at McDonalds, if I needed money, I could come back to my engineering career and make $250-500k/year. But it's not the best use of my time, and I am completely satisfied with my living standards, I don't need anything else. And the photograph you are talking about was not paid for, it was taken by a dear beloved friend of mine. You are a liar. Shame on you. I recommend you see a psychiatrist to check for psychopathy and/or sociopathy.

Correct.

The coward is still typing! ?

You are already quite delusional, it won't get much worse for you.

You do not. You also don't know what Osho was. Osho was a Buddha. And why would I have orgies, I am happily married and I am monogamous. But a little bit sexual disinhibition would be good for you. You are very sexually inhibited. And do you have any evidence of me "getting nervous" when someone questions me? People questions me all the time, this is a blatant lie. You're a liar.

It is a little bit difficult to explain, because this difference can only be appreciated once one becomes an Arhat (or a Bodhisattva) and then abandons his Arhatship to become a Buddha. Only Theravada tradition is clear on this point, Mahayana is confused because they focus on the path of a Bodhisattva. Theravada is also closer to Pali Canon, it is more pure and more truthful. Basically, both Arhats and Bodhisattvas reach Nirvana and abide in Nirvana. In Theravada, their Nirvana is called "abiding". But they still see a difference between Nirvana and Samsara, and that is what separates them from other people. The only difference between them is the direction of this relationship. Arhats say "this Nirvana is for me, I am enjoying it, others don't get it and won't get it, I don't have or even want to teach". Bodhisattvas say "this Nirvana is for others, I must teach, I must help others arrive here". This is the last relationships to others. A Buddha transcends the difference between an Arhat and a Bodhisattva, he is both and he is neither, a Buddha is completely alone. He may teach or he may not, it makes absolutely no difference to a Buddha. He is no longer in Nirvana, he transcends the difference between Nirvana and Samsara, they are one and the same for a Buddha. So, in Theravada, a Buddha's Nirvana, the highest Nirvana is called "non-abiding". A Buddha is always one leg in Nirvana and one leg in Samsara. Osho saw it clearly, too. He once said "Arhats and Bodhisattvas know the Buddha, but they are not the Buddha". What separates Arhats and Bodhisattvas from Buddhahood is, as usual, the remainder of their suffering and how they see themselves in comparison to other people. So there is still some suffering between them and Buddhahood. I am not sure if Daniel Ingram uses this term in this meaning when he calls himself an Arhat, I have a suspicion that he uses it in the same way Mahayana uses it. Which is why I never argued with him about the use of this term and I don't challenge his use of this term, he has every right to. Since he is very much active in trying to help others, I would call him a Bodhisattva, but to me it makes no difference. Arhats and Bodhisattvas are the same to me, their level of attainment is equivalent. It's just a matter of on what side of their relationship with Nirvana they fall, I have no doubt Daniel is in abiding Nirvana, or Nirvana with residue. Just like humility is arrogance reversed, and humble people take pride in how humble they are, Bodhisattvas are Arhats reversed and vice versa.

They are. You are not. The most delusional person on this forum is you. I am also not a Buddhist, and I have never been a Buddhist.

I am not.

No, thinking you are "higher level" than others is not in itself condescension, even though it is certainly delusion for you. You express your condescension in other ways.

I am not selling anything, I do the vast majority of all my work entirely free of charge, the income from my teaching constitutes 1-2% of my yearly living expenses. You are a psychopath, not me.

Lol, you are deluded if you think you can test me over text. Test me in person.

I don't respect cowards who spread lies, correct. If you noticed, @Leo Guradoes not respect anyone.

How about you expose yourself without barriers? If you don't think "I don't want to see your face" is a barrier, you are out of your mind. I will not participate in this forum for much longer, I only came here to try to help @Leo Gura, if you wish to read me or speak to me, text with me, argue with me, what have you, I don't mind, then come to my place. I especially liked that bit "so we can see who we are really talking to" - but we don't want to see you! ? You are literally crazy. Yes, you do. I am not trying to seduce you. No, it is not, and I already explained to you why.

Yes

No. That's okay, you can doubt. Contempt and doubt aren't the same thing. I do. You can doubt, I never said you can't doubt. You are ego so of course you'll see ego. And why would I be upset with you, if I were upset with every one who doubts me I'd go crazy! Lol. That's the difference between a text and a video interaction. You imagine I'm upset. That's your ego, you want to see yourself superior. When a person is upset, you can see the signs of his upset-ness on his face, in his tone of voice. You can actually see and hear a person in front of you and judge accordingly. But you can't, you won't allow yourself to. So you sit back and let your imagination run wild.