Carl-Richard

I desire it. I just can't bear it. It's the moth and the flame.

Do you think people who haven't struggled at some point in their life pursue self-help and write books about it?

My dude, you're the autist here ?

But you think exactly like the YouTube Advaita people, and you presumably started thinking like that because you listened to them, hence my point that you think that enlightenment is something you find through YouTube. "But enlightenment is not a thing to be found". Duh, but you start speaking like a certain group of people when enlightenment is brought up as a topic, and that is what I'm referring to.

From an idealist perspective, the "physical world", including atoms, the body and the brain, are transpersonal mind states ("outside" the individual self) that seem to correlate with personal mind states ("inside" the individual self). For example, you can't read my thoughts right now, because they are my personal thoughts. But my thoughts seem to correlate with what is happening to my body, and other people can see my body, hence it's transpersonal. And all of it; my personal mind, your personal mind, our bodies; occur within a transpersonal "Mind". Why? Because all of it is fundamentally experiential and fundamentally one thing; one big "Mind". What materialists believe is that experiential states arise from some invisible things outside the experiential realm (matter or physical entities) that themselves are not mind. So to apply this to your chelation example: chemical toxicity is a transpersonal experiential phenomena that seems to affect your personal mind, making you think and feel a certain way, and all of it occurs within transpersonal Mind. From this perspective, "the physical world" (atoms, chemicals, etc.) is just a way to talk about some types of transpersonal mind states. I recommend watching Bernardo Kastrup's videos if you have trouble reconciling science with idealism. He certainly helped me a lot, and I see myself in you.

I think it was a seriously unfunny one

Then I can do the work: Using the computer program is generally thought to give a significant systematic advantage. We don't know how much in this case, but still, just in principle, merely using it is considered unfair by most people. Likewise, being assigned male at birth is generally thought to give a significant systematic advantage. We don't know how much in each individual case, but still, just in principle, merely being assigned male at birth (and competing in a female competition) is considered unfair by most people. Any thoughts?

How do you explain natural evolution using physics?

Imagine a chess player who gets caught using a computer program which most likely artificially inflated their Elo rating, but they never "dominated" the sport. Would that be fair?

Ironically, you rarely ever use physics to describe human behavior.

There are also different ways of training in the gym that arguably impacts testosterone. Have you tried doing every set with highest intensity possible, i.e. using heavy weights and blasting the reps as fast as possible while not thinking much about form, and limiting resting times to 90 seconds? You'll feel like an absolute animal compared to the slow and controlled bodybuilding approach. I used to do the former, but I struggled with muscle imbalances, so I had to start doing slow and controlled.

The thing that stops you is karma, and there are good indicators for somebody's karma (some of which you mention).

He was sober. which he has by the way. Go watch his podcast with Sam Harris from 2021.

If you're somebody who thinks that true non-duality/enlightenment is essentially something you find through YouTube and nowhere else, and that everything JP does that involves religion and spirituality is essentially just simping for Christianity, then I think you'd be surprised.

Maybe, but again, that is besides the point. In my question, Jesus and Buddha are just prompts for him to talk about his idea of enlightenment and if he has met any enlightened people. I bet his answer will be just as surprising (for you guys) as the fact that he practices kundalini yoga (which he does).

I think we should define what the hell we're talking about. Yet he would've had an experience of oneness, which I would call an enlightenment experience, and which in his own words (paraphrasing), he would say is capable of "changing you permanently". If you call that a mystical experience, sure: some mystical experiences are enlightenment experiences, just like some mystics are enlightened. But is it classic Christian mystic enlightenment? Because my question wasn't just about Buddha, it was also about Jesus. I'm not just being silly: if he gave an answer that reflected any notion of enlightenment that hints towards non-duality, then I would be satisfied. Quite ironically, I want the anti-traditional internet Advaita answer. "Buddha" was just a prompt.

A mystical experience meaning the experience of oneness? Or what exactly is it?

That is implied with "enlightenment experience" ? If enlightenment is the stabilization in oneness, and if JP had an experience of oneness, then it's fair to say that JP had an enlightenment experience. Based on what he said, I think it's more likely than not that he had an experience of oneness, but it's tricky, since he didn't use classic internet Advaita vocabulary, which is apparently the only valid language game for that (except your God-Realization framework). But then, he also said "a higher consciousness descended upon me; call it divine". That's your kind of language. Is that an obvious double standard, or should we continue down the cynical rabbit hole?

12, mostly comorbid schizotypal traits.

You have way too many insights about non-duality to be stabilized in it.

Is the experience he had not an enlightenment experience? This is what I told you to watch: "[...] and it transformed me; it turned me into something far more than I normally was [...]" "[...] it was as if an offer was being made to me that I could be like that from now on permanently [...]" "[...] I wouldn't belong in the world anymore [...]". You guys treat JP like he is some mentally deficient fundamentalist Christian. I haven't seen such a strong collective bias against anyone else. That's just your internet Advaita bias; that enlightenment must be talked about through some quasi-Hindu lens by some ex-atheist-turned-spiritual.

???

I'll sign under that ?

For example, is routinely ending your posts with "but who knows, maybe I'm just bullshitting myself" an elegant way of communicating? Is routinely contradicting yourself like "it doesn't exist, but..." an elegant way of communicating? What are you really trying to get across by doing that repeatedly? That we should be skeptical of our beliefs in general? I mean sure, but one time is sufficient. What about instead of doing that, when talking about a concept, and when it's relevant to do so, you lay out the specific limitations of that concept using straightforward and non-neurotic language? Quantify the skepticism, don't just reduce it to a mantra.

@AerisVahnEphelia I just prefer to speak in a way that is in line with how people generally speak, and if there is a misunderstanding, then you can explore that through conversation. Then the misunderstandings themselves are also more easily resolved. And people do generally speak as if things exist. The problem is not when people speak like that. The problem is when you misunderstand the depth and conceptual nuance behind things. I'll entertain the idea that what people call "skepticism" is just when you are stuck in a certain inelegant and uneconomic language game (but of course with sincere intentions to criticize naive realists). Then, as you become better at communicating your skepticism, you naturally become a pragmatist, or a skeptic who dares to engage in all sorts of language games (including the realist one) and giving caveats when necessary.