Mason Riggle

Don't Idolize Leo, duh. Even he tells you this. His work is not about 'becoming like Leo'. Some of the best lessons you will learn in life come from complete assholes. My mother was ruthless, and at times growing up I felt like I hated her. But it wasn't her job to make me like her. It was her job to raise a child into an adult. I doubt Leo and I would even be friends in real life. I think he's arrogant. He'd probably feel similar towards me. But this doesn't matter to either of us. He's under no obligation to 'like' me, nor make himself 'likable' to me. He might even prefer I had a little disdain for him, to prevent such idolization. Is Actualized.org a 'cult'? I guess that depends on your definition of 'cult'. Cult is just short for Culture- the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group, so in that sense, it is a cult.. but that doesn't automatically make it a 'dangerous' cult. The United States is a cult. Band camp is a cult. Book clubs are cults.

This should be so simple... If you REALLY think your arm is on fire... like you see the fire, smell the burning flesh, feel the burn, have memories of how it caught on fire, people are throwing water at you and calling 911, it doesn't matter if all of it is imaginary if you can't tell in any way that it is. It is no different (doesn't matter to you, does not affect you any differently, etc.) than 'your arm actually being on fire'. If you can't tell the difference between 'real others' and 'imaginary others', it doesn't matter which it is.

Does it matter? what difference does it make whether you are 'talking to yourself but it seems like you are talking to me' or you are 'actually talking to me' if you can't tell the difference?

Who are you asking, if not 'others'?

I meant like, his wife, or investigators going through his devices, and going on his various accounts to see what he has been up to recently. Speculation right now isn't really apropos.

@Husseinisdoingfine @Bojan V Perhaps there are people accessing his online accounts to gain insight into his activity leading up to this event. This is all very recent.

@spiritualryan 'looking for yourself' can be what you're being, but you're right. You're always being [how you are being], and it's effortless! You can't 'not be [how you are being]'! Being is literally the only thing you do;)

@Ethan1

The problem here is that we have no reference point to compare 'how the Universe is working' with. What is a Universe that works IMPERFECTLY like?

@SQAAD I guess, start by defining 'Intelligent' for us. Intelligence has been defined in many ways: the capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving. More generally, it can be described as the ability to perceive or infer information, and to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context. - Wikipedia IMHO, qualities like 'intelligence' can't really be described as 'infinite'. 'Infinity', for me, is rather meaningless. I might say, 'Size is infinite', but I wouldn't mean 'size is really really big'.. I just mean that size has no constraints, and is relative. Big only has meaning in relation to small. The Moon is big compared to me, small compared with the Sun. Something with 'infinite size' is just 'incomprehensible'.. it's the same as something with 'no size'. So yeah, Intelligence is a relative human construct. Is God intelligent? IDK, is God big? Well, it's not really a question that makes sense.

@Nate0068 perhaps it helps to understand that words like 'you' and 'gets bored' and 'godhead' are metaphors. Consider how we explain how lightning travels.. We might say that the lightening wants to take the path of least resistance, but we understand that lightning doesn't actually 'want', and 'lightning' is just a word we use to conceptualize what's going on... The map is not the territory. There is no 'you' in the normal use of the word, who gets 'bored' in the normal use of the word... "Everything will be okay in the end. If everything is not okay, it's not the end."

@Swarnim sure. And you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it (forgive the mixed metaphors).

For some things, experience is the only teacher. Imagine trying to explain to someone who has never eaten anything banana flavored what 'banana' tastes like. All the words in the world will never do 'the experience of tasting a banana' justice.

@JosephKnecht I'm more of a number 3 parent. My mother is a teacher, and I'll always remember her words, 'It's more important to teach children how to learn, not what to learn'. My father, ever the skeptic, was always quick to inquire, 'but how do you know that?', whenever I shared with him some new 'fact' I had discovered. Stay curious.

A man is running home, but afraid to go there, for a man in a mask is waiting for him. who is the man in the mask??

@Hulia Yes, the OP question is a little misguided. I think you are on the right track, if I'm understanding you correctly. Let's imagine that when a river 'whirlpools', instead of creating bubbles, it forms thoughts.. sometimes it might form the thought, 'I am a whirlpool.' This thought would be something that the whole river is doing when it whirlpools. Thoughts of 'I am a self' is something the Universe often does when it peoples.

@Hulia "Leo" is like another 'whirlpool', appearing in the river (reality) when conditions are such that he does. Leo is something 'the Universe' is doing, and 'Leo' happens when conditions are such that he does.

@Hulia "Ego" appears like a whirlpool appears in a river. When conditions of the river are just so, a whirlpool appears, and when those conditions are not such that a whirlpool appears, there is none. The thing about whirlpools is that there is no 'whirlpool' that exists on it's own, 'separate' from 'what the river is doing'. You can't take a whirlpool out of a river and inspect it. There is the water, and it's motion, and shape.. but there really is no 'whirlpool'. The 'ego' is just a thought that arises, that there is a 'self' that exists 'separate' from 'what the organism is doing'. Consider the following two statements: "I am growing hair right now." "I am thinking thoughts right now." Notice that the 'I' in these two statements is the same "I", but in the first statement "I" is not referring to some 'self' inside the organism who is busy with the task of growing hair, it's referring to the entire organism, while in the second statement, it seems to be referring to some some separate 'self' who is inside the organism somewhere who is 'thinking thoughts'. This is how the 'illusion of self', or Ego, arises.

@kinesin I get where you are coming from. It's a bit like convincing characters in a dream that they are characters in a dream. Who exactly would you be convincing in that scenario, yourself?

He doesn't, nor does he claim to. His claim is that there is no 'when we die'. He can safely make this claim, because from any perspective, death has never been directly experienced. 'Death' is the end of 'experience', so can never be 'experienced'. The question 'what happens when we die', starts to become like asking, "What flavor does 'not tasting anything' taste like?"

Or maybe it's both/neither, because it's a strange loop.

Here is more duality.. 'I [God] created the whole universe [God]'.. 'created' can be substituted for 'experienced'.. 'God experiencing God'. There really isn't an 'experiencer who experiences experience'.. there is just 'experience'. There is no 'creator who creates creation'.. there is just 'creation'. There is no 'doer who does what's being done'.. there is just 'being'. And that's what you are. You're always it, even when what you are is the experience of not being it.

@Javfly33 maybe you just need to redefine the word 'God' to realize you're it? If it's realized that there is no 'self' separate from 'that which is not self', 'Everything there IS' becomes 'what you are'. "I have no other Self than the totality of thing of which I am aware." - Alan Watts. This quote by Watts seems a bit contradictory, "I have no Self"... but what is meant is that there is no 'self' SEPARATE from 'what there is'... the same way there is no 'outside of a cup' separate from 'the inside of a cup'.. each is defined relative to the other... you can't have 'just the outside of a cup, separate from the inside of the cup'.. there is just 'the whole cup'. The 'you' is only defined relative to 'that which is not you'. God is 'the whole cup' pretending to be 'the inside' relative to 'the outside', and that's what you are.