Inliytened1

Being or Actuality is fundamental and prior to knowing. Knowing in the way you are describing it is interpretation. Being is prior to interpretation. Maybe you are talking about Being and not interpretation. Understanding is Being really. But that is different from interpretation.

Wait a minute...it was YOU that was thinking about trophies of awakening was it not? You are so distraught that awakening won't help you NOW.. so much so that you have constructed in your mind a reality in which it DOES. That it solves boredom, and suffering. Well - it really doesn't do that. It awakens you to the Truth about yourself and reality - which end up being the same thing. That in of itself can do wonders. But the spiritual ideology that you will never again be prone to these things is just that.

How do you know he hasn't had awakenings ? You surely don't.

There are. Is there a @Carl-Richard?

We probably both sound like AI now But it is about realizing you are God. Ask AI if that is the point of life. It will probably give you some scripted answer as to all the possibilities. But there is only one.

@Razard86 @Breakingthewall its easy for you guys to say that because both of you are already wired and geared for this stuff. Try explaining any of this to your mom. It would fly straight over her head - and she may be smart as a whip. Even Einstein himself failed to cross into mysticim. Strong words though.

Nice chat, but you are still missing that consciousness is you. Death is irrelevant.

It's a valid criticism but you can do it in a more open minded way. No, of course not. I'm glad you questioned plenty. But maybe you didn't question enough. At least keep that card on the table. He's wrong that enlightenment cannot be had without pyschedelics. This is a serious error. In fact I would suggest the opposite. That enlightenment can only happen without the use of pyschedelics. But I am also open that I could be wrong about that. But I doubt it. You see, Leo, in all his brilliance, actually found the Truth, through all of his contemplation. But he didn't find it for himself. He spread it to those genetically gifted enough to become enlightened - while he himself chased a ghost. This is probably the saddest thing about Actualized.org. but hey, it's really not sad at all if he was able to awaken at least one person. That alone made this business more valuable than Tesla.

Infinity is opposite to finite. So there is still duality built in. We also, or to put it into proper context, You, still exist with no other to contrast that. This is total Oneness! This is the Aloneness of which I speak. Just pure Consciousness. There exists nothing outside of what is in your direct field of consciousness now. That's it. There isn't a billion, or a trillion, or a gazillion other experiences happening somewhere behind the scenes. I'm sorry to break that Truth to you

Saying God is Alone is no different then saying God is Infinite. Yes it is anthropoformizing for God to say it is hiding this fact, but you have to remember that you began this dream as a human- and then realized you were God. So God has a dilemma. In human form it must filter everything through the human mind while it exists in such form. So through the mind of the human it is very scared about being Alone. It is Alone, but the part it doesn't like about that is the part that is filtered through the human mind. When you had your enlightenment did you become Infinite? Did you become conscious of this or did you just become Infinite? Do you see where the line between you and Infinite blurs?

God is not a someone but God can think because God is Consciousness. Just the infinite ocean is another story you are telling yourself.

Yeah , but its not really two states. Its just the state you are in now. Two is something you have come back and conceptualized about what already is. You returned from an infinite state and remembered it. Creating a duality. You see how tricky this is. There are mine fields everywhere.

Okay. But why are you trying to dissolve the Mind? There are only states of Mind. Such as the one you are in now. So if you want to dissolve that state, just sit in meditation or take a psychedelic. Okay- well it is not relative. It is an Absolute. It is no different then the Absolute of Infinity or of Nothingness, or of no self. It is a facet of awakening. It's just that this one will be the hardest for God to come to grip with about itself. Because then it has to give up the idea of separation.

It doesn't have to. Consciousness can become conscious of something without the ego. In fact there never was an ego. So not only can it, but it always has.

Alone is not a negative. Alone is Oneness. The reason we place a negative connotation on it is because the realization of this would destroy reality. It would destroy your reality.

It means we build stories on top of direct experience to explain direct experience. But if we stopped doing that then you and direct experience would become one and you would BE that which you are now creating stories to explain. Enter religion. Enter science. Enter - an objective reality. And enter AI. Enter all of it. None of this needs to ever enter, but it does because it's not really fun for God to actually just sit with what it is. It has to spin a whole bunch of fancy bullshit to really wet its tongue. Otherwise, well, it has to come back to itself. There's a time for that, sure, but the build up is what it's all about. The suspense.

This would seem correct using logic. And this is truly the crux of the matter. And yet ,- logic just doesn't apply here. To be awake is to realize total Oneness. That there truly isn't anything outside of your mind. That all persons, places, and things are held within your mind. But there's no you, so how can that be? Well, again, it can, because you are not you, you are God. The one and the only. It's just so hard for us to ever want to admit this. The admittal of such a point would dare to nullify all that we have made real here. And so we do not dare. But notice that you spend a lot of time here explaining reality? If there isn't a you to explain reality then what is doing it? The void? My friend, this is the void. The void isn't something objective.

It depends on your definition of experience. By experience I mean isness. You are adding something onto isness. Be careful of how your mind will create stories on top of isness. If you want to say experience is not a good word because it assumes an experiencer than just say that you prefer a better word. But aomething that happens is something you are adding on to what is absolutely direct. So you can call it what you want.

Experience is Absolute. If you could stop there you would be enlightened. The problem is we can't allow that. Because that means we are alone.

Good stuff. That's the spirit.

Mocking this work leads to a ban. I suggest if you actually want to find what is true, you question absolutely everything. When we say you are God it is not the ego. We also do not say that psychedelics are the only way to reach mystical states of consciousness.

It's basically that it is not that simple that life is a dream vs there is an objective reality. Because there are already assumptions built in - such as it is your dream. All of this assumes there is a you first. You have to remember that even this is an external method. Assuming there is a you means there is a subject/object duality - which is objective. There is a subject here, and then an object over there, "somewhere".... In order to discover Absolute Truth even that duality must collapse.

It isn't your dream it's a dream because it must be everything and nothing. So the nothing permeates through everything. It is Consciousness. But it isn't yours. So yes the dialogue is flawed because it assumes egoic solipsism.

It means nothing can be separate from it - because anything outside of it would mean it was limited. So it means oneness.

@Breakingthewall but what does unlimited also mean? @Mikesinfinity interesting dialogue. It always went back to "within the context of the hypothetical scenario"...would have been interesting to ask it - how can you know, then, what is the true "scenario"? Is it possible to know, and if so would that only be able to be proven via external methods?