Carl-Richard

I've experienced both and they're not the same.

You never know if you've walked past an enlightened person on the street and caught an accidental transmission

Are you going to say something clever now?

Are you primarily driven by inside or outside forces?

Since you seem to be new to this, I will present the three principles of the "apophatic" approach to the problem of describing God: 1. Stay silent. 2. Distinguish between "the relative" and "the Absolute" (between the descriptions, thoughts or worldly manifestations of and about the transcendent and the transcendent in and of itself). 3. The apophatic language: 3.1 Metaphors: e.g. "God is an emanation, self-illuminated, like the sun." 3.2 Deontologization: don't think of God as an object or a creature. 3.3 Dialectic between transcendence and immanence: e.g. God is both the relative and the Absolute, both thought and being, both form and formlessness, both manifest and unmanifest.

You are already manifesting whatever you want.

@Dumuzzi Most people who seek out these things are familiar with the path, and only a few are receptive to it. You could say the same thing for amusement park rides. There is always some people who will have a panic attack.

Collecting student debt

People seem to be missing the context. Leo essentially said constructions are imperfect (hence the desire to deconstruct them), and some guy responded with confusion, thinking that he said constructions aren't useful, and I just reiterated the point (in maybe a bit too abstract way, sure).

The point is that the construction isn't perfectly practical, because the world isn't dichotomous.

All differences are constructions.

That would be pretty boring for things like MMA. It's like watching two clones fight. The most interesting fights are between people with slightly different physiques and different strengths and weaknesses.

Can you be more specific?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational_drug_use LSD is neither addictive nor physically harmful (The Norwegian Institute of Public Health, 2021). https://www.fhi.no/en/about/this-is-the-norwegian-institute-of-public-health/

Sadhguru, Jan Esmann and Amma.

That's ok. It just made things a bit unclear. I would be vary about entertaining ideas about solipsism before understanding love. It's a loaded word, which is why Leo reeled back on teaching it. The mind is easily confused. Let the experience of unconditional love be the guiding light for your awakening.

Yes! I don't think I said that.

Do you love other people as yourself?

Clip?

That sounds like Orange

I just found the most perfect example of this: Rupert Spira is a Western mystic and Bernardo Kastrup is a Western philosopher, and they arrived at the same conclusions (e.g. materialism is baloney) through different means.

This is like the political version of the trolley problem

I'm talking about modern day mystics or philosophers who're significantly touched by modern Westernization and have developed past scientific materialism (i.e. Sadhguru). Like I said earlier, mysticism is in the West softly correlated with higher development, but other than that, it should be treated as its own domain. Mystics have existed all throughout history irrespective of cognitive complexity. It's not so much the mysticism itself as the escape from scientific materialism (deconstructing one's worldview) that is indicative of higher development.