Let me scare you real quick

[Osaid]

1 minute ago, Squeekytoy said:

By the way, no idea if he was, I've only seen him talk about non-dual stuff. So can't confirm or deny. I just find it irrelevant.

[Osaid]

9 minutes ago, Squeekytoy said:

Truth is unrelated to spirituality. 

If you have any kind of ideas about spirituality, then yes it is unrelated. "Truth" is just unique to itself.

Edited December 27, 2023 by Osaid

[BlueOak]

10 minutes ago, Squeekytoy said:

Truth is not a perspective and no perspective is true. 

You're doing what you're accusing me of: Looking for absolute truth in the relative domain. Except you do it by simply declaring everything equally true.

Surely you must see the absurdity in that. 

Yes, I apologized. I need to keep reminding myself through these discussions that accepting multiple perspectives means actually accepting them, not equivocating them into a larger one. Equivocating them is still a codependent behavior, as opposed to just offering the perspective and then leaving.

 

Edited December 27, 2023 by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

Just now, Squeekytoy said:

That's spiritual dogma. You don't need to accept anything as true when it just isn't.

For me it's a deeper codependent pattern, or at least the end of one that I haven't yet cleared.

Everyone offers different perspectives, some argue them with others, some don't care to argue or speak further once its offered, only a relatively small amount stay in a discussion arguing that others accept theirs alongside their own. At least I don't see many doing so, but without arguing for that space for multiple perspectives to exist, achieving any level of existence without conflict seems less likely.

But the older I get the more I see that behavior I have as unhealthy.

[Osaid]

Just now, Squeekytoy said:

He was enlightened because he was a philosopher. He wouldn't have been otherwise. I think that's pretty relevant.

You could trace anyones enlightenment back to any number of events. But that event or process is completely unrelated to what causes it. What causes it is entirely experiential, it is not thought-based. Self-inquiry is a process for finding enlightenment, but it is not enlightenment and it is not directly related. This is exactly why someone can become enlightened without self-inquiring or philosophizing. Philosophy in particular is a complete red herring if you think it is bringing you to some existential conclusion about reality. 

2 minutes ago, Squeekytoy said:

His rant against philosophy is the same that Leo makes against philosophy, and I agree with it. But go watch Leo's video about "true philosophy". I'm not talking about the pathetic armchair academics dotting the intellectual landscape.

Leo does not make the same point. Leo is criticizing the quality of philosophy. Osho is telling you to throw it away completely. To this day, Leo is still completely lost in intellect and philosophy.

[Osaid]

7 minutes ago, Squeekytoy said:

No there is nothing about spirituality that bears any resemblance to truth.

That's basically what I was trying to say. There is nothing that can resemble Truth because Truth is entirely unique to itself.

If you use the word "spirituality" as some sort of category or resemblance then that would be incorrect. But, you can use more neutral words like "enlightenment" or "truth" to point to it. Depends on how you define it. People define stuff differently.

I'm going to be honest, the definition for "spirituality" on google seems entirely nebulous and useless, and practically speaking I doubt anyone is using it "correctly." Everyone probably has their own definition for it. I am just trying to highlight that if the term you are using creates ideas about the thing, then that is incorrect. If the word you use defines itself in a way where it is neutral and creates no ideas, then it is serving its purpose as a pointer in language.

[Osaid]

14 minutes ago, Squeekytoy said:

I think this is the one, I could be wrong. I don't really remember what he said, though. But I'm sure it's about the difference between bullshit philosophy and the actual search for truth, which is THE original philosophical endeavor. That's what philosophy IS, or at least was, or should be.

He may have said what Osho was talking about, but he certainly does not understand it.

I have said this before, but Leo is still a philosopher first and foremost. He is philosophizing about experience, he is not examining experience. What I mean is that he is creating intellectual conclusions about experience.

Philosophy pushes you to question experience, yes, that part is fine. But the intellectual conclusions you make are also considered philosophy, and they are a red herring.

Self-inquiry is what I would consider to be "using philosophy/intellect properly", but I don't even know if that is considered philosophy or not. I think it could be considered epistemology.

Edited December 27, 2023 by Osaid

[Osaid]

Just now, Squeekytoy said:

Osho's being a philosopher is anything but irrelevant.

Oh I see, you're saying philosophy is important for enlightenment. Had to read between the lines a bit there.

Philosophy isn't all bad, but the way you're using it is all intellectual and it is a red herring.

1 minute ago, Squeekytoy said:

But I wouldn't use that as an excuse to short-circuit my journey, like most people do who even get that far. You'd just be short-changing yourself. It's an avoidance strategy of delusion, gives it a hiding place that will never be scrutinized, by exactly your own decree.

I told you to knock yourself out. See where it takes you.

3 minutes ago, Squeekytoy said:

you're not enlightened

I am enlightened. 

[Osaid]

7 minutes ago, Squeekytoy said:

He doesn't grasp the full ramifications of nonduality.

To get you up to speed, he doesn't even believe in non-duality or enlightenment anymore. 🤭

Quote

If Leo's thinking weren't flawed, he would probably be enlightened by now.

He's very good at thinking. That's why he is in his current position, lost in intellect.

Edited December 27, 2023 by Osaid

[Osaid]

Just now, Squeekytoy said:

Anyway I'm out, it's nap time, and I think I've said all I have to say about this.

Peace

[Princess Arabia]

2 minutes ago, Osaid said:

To get you up to speed, he doesn't even believe in non-duality or enlightenment anymore.

I don't think non-duality is including in this; I think it's just enlightenment. Non-duality is a thing not a belief.

[Osaid]

4 minutes ago, Squeekytoy said:

Have you listened to him, lol.....

No.

True. There's a difference between being intellectual and being good at thinking. I meant to say the former, sloppy wording on my part.

I really do believe he has run into the limits of thinking and intellect as a whole though. That is what it looks like when you try to get enlightened through philosophy and intellect. Just formulaic tautologies and chasing experiences forever.

Edited December 27, 2023 by Osaid

[Osaid]

Just now, Squeekytoy said:

And yeah I know I'm not enlightened but don't think that just because I make use of my mind and that's how I express and communicate, that I'm just spinning my wheels.

You can see that Leo is delusional, which is miles ahead than most here.

I am also very intellectual. Self-inquiry is great for those types. 

[Osaid]

12 minutes ago, Squeekytoy said:

@Osaid Glad at least someone credible gives me some credit. 🙏

Cheers

Good chat

[Devin]

15 hours ago, OldManCorcoran said:

I don't make myself talk, the sense of control is fake. My own thoughts just appear like dream people's words.

Thoughts aren't really thoughts in your head then are they? Wouldn't "my head or mind" imply that I have agency over it? It's not yours if you don't control it is it?

Edited December 27, 2023 by Devin

[Osaid]

It has recently come to my attention that Osho is not a philosopher. I have seen him explicitly state this multiple times in his teachings because he is often misinterpreted as being one, and two on the forum have previously convinced me that he is one. There is a distinct difference between someone who teaches enlightenment and someone who teaches philosophy. Philosophy points to concepts. Someone who teaches enlightenment uses concepts to point to actuality.

What is especially tricky is that the philosopher is not going to be aware that they are merely using concepts to point to concepts, they are going to believe that they are pointing to what is actual. Someone who is enlightened is someone who recognizes the exact limits of conceptualization, so they use it with perfect utility. The enlightened person uses concepts to make you realize the limits of concepts. The philosopher does not realize this limit, and so their entire world is made out of intellect which points to nothing of any actual existence, because they are imagining that their intellect has some sort of existence beyond their imagination.

Edited January 10 by Osaid

[Osaid]

9 hours ago, Squeekytoy said:

you think enlightenment is a state of direct experience without using your head

I don't think this. This is not what enlightenment is.

Quote

If someone thinks concepts point to real things then they're not a philosopher, they're just a fool.

This is the default state of anyone who isn't enlightened. They think they exist as a concept and as a result they view reality the same. The problem in philosophy goes very deep, it ties into the human tendency to conceptualize reality. When you become enlightened you realize what thoughts actually are, not as a philosophy to contemplate or integrate, but as an experiential perceptual shift. 

Edited January 10 by Osaid

[StarStruck]

I had this realization with porn. They are just people fucking my mind. That is when I stopped watching. 

[StarStruck]

1 hour ago, Squeekytoy said:

Everything is everything your mind, better stop everything then 

There are games in games. I prefer not to be stuck in 1.

[StarStruck]

2 hours ago, Squeekytoy said:

Oooh how you gonna avoid that  it's the medium in which you exist. You really think "semen retention" isn't just the name of another game?

With semen I can do a lot of stuff