Carl-Richard

Some years ago when I got a little into Chess (I only used to play a few games from time to time with my dad before), I beat a bot rated Candidate Master (~2200 elo) on my phone when I spent a lot of time thinking and focused really hard, albeit with one re-move at the very end (so it wasn't completely fair). The game probably lasted a few hours. At that point, it becomes more about patience and meticulousness than strategy. You literally calculate almost every possible move a few moves ahead. That's also how I beat my dad for the first time: by spending a lot of time calculating and being patient (the game was of course untimed 😄).

Judging by Sadhguru's statue depiction, Shiva was pretty buff

By the words he spoke in this video, he seems as spiritual as people here who talk about spirituality.

Or testing your biomarkers.

What exactly needs to be "filtered out"? What does "filtering out" mean? Glucose "crosses" the blood-brain barrier lol. Ashwagandha is just one thing. We're talking about 100s of supplements of presumably mostly essential nutrients. It's an essential nutrient (?) 🙈 Is my body getting exhausted from eating what it needs to function? 🙉

Supplements is food.

In the video, he literally describes the process of deconstructing the ego (or the identification with it) leading up death, to be hell. The more ego identification, the more resistance and suffering at death, the more hell. The truth is that hell is happening constantly as long as you're identified with the ego, but God allows you to not experience it all at once or in its fullest glory. He allows you to have your limited identified experience and be somewhat fine with that and live your life. He lets you pretend you're actually an ego, shielding you from the fact that you are separating yourself from God in its fullest nature (the Absolute).

This one again: Also, the part of the song that plays when you view the final Wrapped page is probably one of my favorite Meshuggah moments. They landed that one perfectly: https://open.spotify.com/wrapped/share/share-ab6671b8c51243278d5a2bb787942fda?si=oIQP_73iTZW5svfGvqw9Vg&destination=datastories&lang=nb

Try painting this: By Jan Esmann https://arthur.io/art/jan-esmann/untitled-5

What the f@#% have you done? 😂 Tbf, my posts sound so much more intelligent when spoken outloud by that woman than in my own head tbf fr fr. I should do that more often when I feel like felating myself.

It's both. Any activity you do with your mind has some generalizable effect that extends to other activities. The question is only how specific or how pronounced that effect is. To question the former is quite ridiculous and something we take for granted in other contexts where our minds are not poisoned by skepticism. Just take reading as an example: say you read a piece of text, 10 000 words long. From reading that text, do you only get better at reading that text, or do you get better at reading in general? Obviously you would answer the latter. But how can you be so sure? What justifies generalizing from the individual text to other texts? Is it that the structure of the activity is somehow similar across texts? Or is it simply that you learn the words and recognize them across texts? Obviously it's both. If your reading improves by reading more texts, you would certainly not say the similarity of structure across texts is just a coincidence. Sure, then take the structure of Chess, or the activity your mind performs when playing Chess (e.g. visualizing, planning, manipulating information in working memory). How does that not generalize to other things involving the same activities? Sure, you can be doing other things that could create similar effects. But then you can also look at factors like general workload, workload over time (intensity) and principles of growth like optimal work and rest windows to judge which activity probably creates the most growth (effect over time). Again, it's a different question how big that effect actually is, but what is certain is that not challenging your mind and not giving it adequate challenges will lead to stagnation and certainly not growth.

Things can change in the blink of an eye.

Not exactly police cam, but if you've seen the video before, it's really interesting with the added front and rear camera footage and interview commentary with the driver.

People experience parts of other people's lives in near-death experiences where they enter the tunnel and get a life review. Such questions will not arise if you are drowned by empathic connection to other people. Look closely into a person's eyes and you will experience them. Open your perception, become completely vulnerable to what you see, open your heart, become completely vulnerable to what you feel.

My god it's like nobody knows about Wilber.

"Yogis can't be pro-vaccines" 😂

The Absolute is existence beyond all concepts; pure undivided existence. It cannot be divided for it is One. Once you try to divide it, you're in the relative; relationships between parts. And each part is necessarily a concept, something you thought up in your mind. Solipsism claims "only my own experience exists; nobody else is conscious". It posits the concept of "my experience" as contrasted to "other people's experience". It therefore deals with the relative. It divides existence into parts (me vs. not me, conscious vs. not conscious), concepts, with relationships between them: me is the opposite of not me, conscious is the opposite of not conscious, only me is conscious and not other people. Also, behind the concepts of me vs. not me (as an example), lie a ton of assumptions and yet more concepts. How do you identify who is me and who is other people? Through bodies? What is a body? Where does the body begin and where does it end? Is there an absolute boundary, or is it relative to how you choose to draw it? How are you seeing other people's bodies? Is seeing absolute? What happens if you close your eyes? Do you still see? No? What happens if there is a brick wall between your eyes and the body you are trying to see? Do you see still the body? No? So seemingly, seeing exists in relationship to other things, like eyes and things near and around the eyes. So seeing itself is also relative. Then how can you base "the Absolute" on something relative like seeing, bodies, "conscious" and "other people"; concepts that are defined in relationship to something else (conscious vs. not conscious, me vs. not me, seeing vs. not seeing, body vs. not body, my body vs. not my body, etc.)? The answer is: you can't.

"It was actually a tremendous blessing to these children for them to be killed and go to heaven and be with God." If by "heaven" we mean becoming one with Source again in the blissful ground of being, then it's indeed a tremendous blessing. What's arguably or at least partially not a blessing is the process leading up to that point (their life and finally their demise), although that too could be seen as a blessing (the blessing of life and probably less so death, but even that too in its own way).

Hilarious video: So tell me, why should I trust AI with teaching me how to think, how to understand nuanced theoretical matters, or even understand simple lines of logical reasoning? Without some seriously frantic levels of hesitation, diligence and self-awareness, you probably shouldn't. And that's "an absolute moral fact" (I'm joking). That said, it surely knows how to write MATLAB code, I'll give it that 😆

Then drop everything you just said about "limited seeing and hearing distance", because that doesn't matter at all. You could be imagining infinitely and the claim would still hold. Indeed, if the claim is simply "there is imagination", you could be imagining the entire universe, every single perspective, and hiding each perspective away from the other perspectives, all at once, and be consistent with that statement. But of course you don't want to accept that, because that doesn't sound like solipsism; it isn't radical or "edgy" enough. You want to cling to something limited and tangible, like a spatial limitation ("here"), or temporal ("now"), and ultimately, you want to deny that other people are just like you and claim that your little limited egoic spatio-temporal sensory existence is the metaphysical ultimatum.

Ok, so the boundaries of the body, the ego and its sensory limits with quite limited seeing and hearing distances. Why should I believe there is nothing outside of that quite limited sensory boundary? Do you know people have out-of-body experiences? Telepathic experiences? Experiences of merging with another person? Experiences of zooming out across entire festival fields from a birds-eye view? How do you explain such experiences if your little claustrophobic bubble is all that exists?

I intentionally went on a tangent, and it's just icing on the cake of why it's extra bad. It doesn't subtract away that people are getting confused at unprecedented rates. If your aim is to convey truth, don't do it a confusing way, especially if it seems to affect a lot of people negatively in other ways as well. Leo has himself said things like "solipsism is not non-duality". Ironically, he removed it because he thought people misunderstood it. I admit might @Someone here be wrong there. Then let's hope "solipsism is not non-duality" was just a slip-up. I feel like Leo is a "crypto-solipsist". He seems very elusive on what he really means about the topic. As a slight side note, I think the Infinity of Gods video is redudant and complexifies something that is really simple, namely that infinity can hide aspects of itself from other aspects of itself. Infinity is God. "Infinity of Gods" is just "God of Gods" or "infinity of infinity". And if infinity can hide aspects of itself from itself, then you will have actual solipsists like @Someone here, who believes his eyeballs are the arbiter of reality, start spinning their wheels.

What is that bubble? Can you describe it? Can you describe what it isn't?

I'm mostly just against people conflating solipsism with non-duality a.k.a. the Absolute.

@Sincerity And then you have things like this, which is actually an entirely valid observation. Tell me not how much of a mess this is.