dyslexicFcuk

You definitely read it, but are too embarrassed to acknowledge your incompetence, so you pretended not to have read it as a pathetic defense mechanism. I am embarrassed for this community. You are all very, very stupid. If you actually did not read it that is even more embarrassing, because I perfectly explained why your approach is valid in certain contexts and silly in the clearly established context I have laid out. Why are you pretending that I do not comprehend that consciousness is one source? I obviously understand this, haha, you're so full of it. To the idiots saying that limiting discussion on non-duality to logic and reason is invalid. I AM NOT DISAGREEING WITH YOU, I am simply stating that in earlier stages of "spiritual development" intellectualizing is perfectly fine so as to rationally encourage a more positive outlook, which is specifically what I am asking for (and something that is obviously possible, considering that some users have done so). You hapless morons are just defending your own incompetence by refusing to acknowledge that I am coming from a different perspective. I'm so embarrassed for this community. I'll be starting my own community for this important topic where people who engage in egotistic defense tactics (while claiming to have transcended ego) will be banned and ridiculed.

@Highest Excellent troll-bait. 10/10

Instead of addressing the incompatibility of @zeroISinfinity's anti-intellectualism, you defend that such foolishness is the only means of expressing non-dual insight. Instead of acknowledging my clearly established necessity for RATIONAL insight to justify a more positive outlook on "God" using reason, (which is certainly possible considering that other users managed to do so) you predictably suggest the issue is in fact with myself, the curious truth seeker, for daring to approach non-dual understanding from a left-brained perspective. I am not saying there is no place for unsubstantiated proverbs, but at least acknowledge the ineffectiveness of such gibberish when speaking to someone who has clearly established a preference for rational discourse. Imagine if a child was asking you to explain gravity, but instead of answering with "All objects have a gravitation pull, the larger the object the greater the gravity", you sanctimoniously declare "Gravity is a majestic force! It binds us to the earth with it's infinite holy goodness!". In some contexts, I imagine such a statement would be reasonably fine, but if you actually want to effectively communicate, you need to realize which contexts appropriately allow for pithy aphorisms and which contexts do not. In the context I have clearly established, it is beyond silly. For an "enlightened master" like yourself, I find it odd that you feel the need to negate my approach as a means to tacitly reject criticism with this ego-driven defense mechanism you've employed. "He knows who he actually is, and so he knows you are talking about yourself, but don't know it". You're pompously speaking as if I do not comprehend that all of consciousness is one source. I obviously understand this, the difference between us however is that I have rationally intuited my way to this position whereas you have supposedly had a direct experience of such. It's truly a shame that so many people in your position are not willing (or able) to transcribe their supposed insight in a logically compelling manor that can resonate with intelligent people. If you want to improve the world, as I do, you would recognize the merit to my approach. It seems you're more interested in self-validation. "Nothing of what I wrote requires more then some intellect to digest". Do you not find that somewhat problematic? Of course no intellect is required to digest dogmatic statements with no substantiation, which is what I take issue with, and reading your message again I cannot say I regret making that assertion. @zeroISinfinity Perhaps English is not your first language, but regardless you definitely come off rather unenlightened. Do you think the words you've presented here make even a modicum of sense? Do you think even if they did make sense that you would not be a hypocrite for engaging in such 'low-conscious' judgements? ZeroISinfinity: "How you feel with all those judgements. Bet it feels good." Also ZeroISinfinity: "? Oh you silly kiddo." I hope to god if I ever experience a form of enlightenment that I don't become such a pretentious, self-contradicting simpleton. @LastThursday Thank you yet again for having the most reasonable take on this matter. I wish you (and all who are likeminded) the very best.

A few responses here have been excellent, however the major problem this community and religious dogmatists in general suffer from can be summed up by the following exchange: In response to an egoically-driven slew of unsubstantiated dogma seen below, a moderator decides to jump in merely to encourage the vacuous self-fellatio with the equally undiscerning response shown further below. ↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓ Exactly in what world is the preceding remark a "perfectly crystalline clear" explanation of non-duality? Obviously, (since we are not hapless idiots here, correct?) the goal should be to frame your supposed insight in a context such that somebody who does not already buy into your worldview can be receptive to it. Nobody is EVER going to lend credence to these limp, unsubstantiated 'proverbs', rather what is needed is a direct, logically compelling explanation of your supposed knowledge. Simply stating the already established consensus of non-dual rhetoric without substantiating it is beyond meaningless. So many of these responses seem to think they are making such high-level contributions when really they are just rehashing the same supposed 'insights' that have already been expressed repeatedly on Actualized's YouTube content. It should be obvious that I have been exposed to the same 'teachings' that you have (especially given the extent to which I have substantiated my positions). This user wrote an entire paragraph in which he or she believes they are making a sound explanation for why suffering is meaningless, when in reality they are simply working backwards from the pre-established conclusion to haphazardly justify the dogmatic position that suffering is not real. My clearly stated position was that I do not believe 10 seconds of suffering and 1,000 years of suffering can be declared equally insignificant on the basis of death being inevitable. The response shown above is tantamount to saying "Actually they are equally insignificant, because death is inevitable." ..Yes of course I can intuit the potential reason that such a claim could have merit is due to the inevitability of death... I've already posited that much... The problem is you have yet to substantiate why these assumptions are valid to begin with. I imagine you'd refuse cutting off your own hand to prove this idea of course. Now if it happens that your next response intends to unveil credible images of your detached, blood-gushing limbs then you'll have to pardon my assumptions. Here is yet another user working backwards from a dogmatic conclusion to give it justification. Even if it's true that one person's scenario of hell may be another person's heaven this does not change the epistemic dilemma I am trying to address. I could have instead described the hell scenario such that it is not based in subjectivity, rather the subject is unconditionally miserable for the stated amount of time, so as to preclude the possibility of perceiving hell as enjoyable. It should be obvious this is what I meant, but it seems that people who buy into non-duality are primarily interested in playing epistemic word games in order to give off a flimsy facade of credibility. Intelligent people see right through it. If you actually want the rest of the society to wake up to this compelling worldview you will never succeed unless your positions are expressed with very skillful use of rhetoric. Leo talks frequently about life-purpose. I'm beginning to feel as though mine happens to be expressing these ideas in a logically compelling manor such that we will not be dismissed as religious idiots. And trust me, we absolutely will be if we don't cut out the bullshit. Last, but not least, the winner of the pompous brainlet award goes to: Apparently a mere profile logo is enough to cast my perspective on non-duality into the uncomplimentary category of Marxist precept. Did I forget to delete my unhinged diatribe against the bourgeoisie before posting my thoughts on non-duality? Nope? No ferocious tirade prompting to seize the means of production? Surely I must have said something about a proletariat revolution... No? Then what the fuck are you talking about? It should be obvious that I am very familiar with non-dual teachings, and thus I have obviously been exposed to the notion that political ideology is not compatible with enlightenment. The same teachings profess that personal ideologies can be transcended once you are conscious of the absolute. I have already said I am pursuing such enlightenment and have admitted to being in the earlier stages, so expecting somebody to drop their ideologies without having had the relevant experiences of non-duality necessary to facilitate such growth is equally stupid as demanding that you relinquish your preference for not being tortured and murdered. Perhaps it is you who needs to refine their approach. I will end this by expressing my thanks to the users who have contributed to my intellectual pursuit in a productive way. The ideas posted from @LastThursday, @Shin, @molosku &@VeganAwake may slightly suffer from fallacies described above, however these contributors have provided insight that can be easily interpreted by those of us seriously pursuing a deeper understanding, and I definitely appreciate that. However it is my goal to encourage rational discourse in this field such that one does not even need to be familiar with non-duality in order to give merit to the positions being espoused, because the rhetoric being used would ideally be so compelling and skillfully conceived that even the hapless masses can understand it. It is a MUST that everyone in this community works towards this end.

You're correct! People like you are why I have so, so much work to do towards spiritual enlightenment, ahaha.

As far as I'm concerned, such pithy quip attempts masked as helpfulness are beyond worthless and juvenile. The obvious intention here was to encourage rational thought to justify a positive outlook towards non-duality for people in earlier stages of development. The early stages can include the intellectualizing phase where one becomes fascinated with the nature of reality and intuits a potential merit to spiritual enlightenment. If the outlook is positive that can allow motivation towards pursuing such goals to come about more naturally. I'm surprised (and embarrassed) that I'd have to explain this to a supposed enlightened master like yourself. I am pleasantly surprised to say that @molosku and @Shin have given me more to consider which is excellent, and frankly more than I was expecting. I also appreciate @VeganAwake bothering to explain in detail his account of enlightenment. Going forward, allow @zeroISinfinity's comment to serve as an example what NOT to post in this thread. It would be great to see more contributions akin to the above postings. I am legitimately pondering the implications of what was been discussed so far and am looking forward to more perspectives.

I have been led to a seemingly undeniable conclusion that reality as we know it must be the manifestation of an infinitely intelligent mind. After an extremely thorough investigation towards the metaphysical implications of certain 'existential plot-holes' that I will address, it seems outright incontestable that reality could be anything other than an infinite singularity of consciousness that can intelligently arrange itself. The philosophical "mind/body problem" invites your intuition to assume that consciousness arises from physical processes occurring in the brain. Similar to the intuitive nature of the earth being perceived as flat, the exact opposite becomes blatantly apparent regarding the mind/body problem when examined from a more nuanced perspective. The brain and other physical objects are actually being generated within the infinite consciousness, and because the consciousness is infinite, it possesses all characteristics including intelligence, which is precisely how you are able to comprehend this text. The apparent nature of living in a biological ecosystem of interacting organisms through a physical environment is merely a deceitfully calculated aspect of your personal simulation designed by the intelligent consciousness. It is an absolute mind-fuck to comprehend why this must absolutely be true. The 'existential plot-holes' that led to this conclusion range from the observer effect, which occurs in quantum mechanics (best demonstrated by the double slit experiment), to the profoundly improbable nature of existing as intricately designed beings who just happened to evolve towards developing the exact synaptic wiring necessary to facilitate such rich and complicated social interactions. People in this community obviously give credence to this sort of "God" worldview already, but I've never heard it expressed that this may actually be a bad thing. I have never had a "mystical experience", but I'm certainly planning to get my hands on as many psychedelics as possible, so I can see for myself what all the mystical speculation is about. Perhaps such an experience is necessary to see "God" as anything other than a delusional cosmic psychopath, because from my perspective the world is too miserable for this reality to be a manifestation of pure goodness. Here are my reasons why I suspect that "God" is actually an unholy piece of shit. Suffering (obviously) None of us asked to be born. It appears as though this godlike intelligence that imagined us into being is out to fulfill it's own agenda at the cost of us lesser life forms who merely serve as non consensual subjects in it's careless cosmic playtime. Obviously I can consider the idea that an infinite intelligence has far greater means of calculating goodness than I could ever hope to, so it's possible that my perception of suffering is haplessly myopic and painfully short-sighted, but on the other hand my life is the only frame of reference I have to judge reality and it's goodness, and from my perspective I see an onslaught of misfortune of negativity. The positive aspects of life come nowhere close to overshadowing the darker facets of reality, so this idea that I am not sufficiently equipped to assess goodness is not something I can give merit to. Delusional bliss Ever since I've intuited this view of reality I have heard from and sought out many experts in the field of non-duality, and the ones who claim to have had the most direct experiences of "God" often mention that what they experienced was "infinite goodness", or a liberating overload of "love" commonly described as unspeakably good. If it's true that ego death evokes such states of consciousness where the subject seems to merge with absolute infinity (or "God") and that it feels like overwhelming goodness and euphoria, then how can one be certain that their reality was manifested under a sober temperament? Perhaps the reason why life can be miserable is due to a blissful, deluded state of overconfidence that you as "God" are not logically receptive to, due to your infinite capacity to endure harm precluding your necessity for carefulness in your deluded state when merged with "absolute infinity". If I was on ecstasy all day and believed myself to be invincible, and had infinite means of manifesting realities, I would most likely end up creating a fair variety of monstrosities along the way. How can you be sure your life isn't a manifestation of this sort? To me this seems to be a plausible explanation for life as I know it. Our supposed safety net of "death" So far, Leo Gura is the only person who I've heard describing death as an "infinite safety net", although others have likened death to ultimate freedom, seemingly addressing the same experienced phenomenon with different words. I fully believe it could be true that once you have transcended egoic awareness (or have died) you are free of all suffering. There is not much to doubt there, but what I detest is the notion that such a "safety net" makes all of reality good without opposite. Contrary to intuitive reasoning, Leo commonly says their can only exist goodness without opposite, such that if a thing is not good it cannot exist. The supposed rationality behind this idea is the fact that death will remind us that we are actually invincible, once we have awoken form the dream of life, making all experience a net positive to take back home, no matter what the outcome was. So if my life was 100 years of agonizing torture and that was literally all I ever knew, it would supposedly be a good thing merely because at the end of the day it was all an illusion that eventually transcends to nirvana? What if it were 1,000 years of torture? Or 1,000,000 years? Just because death is an inevitability does not mean that all experience is tantamount to a net positive. If 99.9% of your existence is suffering, and 0.1% is unspeakable bliss, this to me seems like a horrible trade-off. A typical life is around 80 years with tolerable suffering, but the same principle applies. Reality cannot just be considered "all positive" no matter how insignificant the negative experiences were. Hopefully somebody here has some relevant insight that can rationally encourage a more positive outlook on "God" but I remain very skeptical that such an outlook is logically possible.

@crab12 Well go on, poke holes in my reasoning... I'm waiting. You haven't even come close, all you have done is point out an unsubstantiated assertion that particle-wave dualism is not how to consider electrons. The reasoning I employ does not hinge solely on this facet. Seriously, you have not even come close to addressing the substance of my inductive reasoning, what a pompous oversight to think you can "easily" poke holes into something you have clearly not considered. You seemingly stopped reading after you noticed I referred to electrons as matter particles and decided "He said electrons are matter, I saw somewhere it's not so the whole thing is wrong now". Try again, buddy. I'm actually embarrassed reading these responses. I've tricked myself into thinking I'd come across other intelligent people here. The intention of this thread (as clearly stated) is to unite perspectives and use logic to discern whether "spiritual development" is a valid pursuit, or if it is a delusion caused by psychedelics. I have provided a very compelling basis to justify at least a non-dual worldview, but more perspectives are needed to discern the truth of whether there actually exists an "enlightened" state where suffering is transcended. All I'm seeing is "Look inward and the answers will flow" bullshit. Even if this sentiment is somehow true, how are you people so blissfully unaware of how asinine you look? If I ever become "enlightened" I hope to God I never become such a pretentious peddler of bullshit. If someone is genuinely trying to further their understanding and makes it clear that the only means for doing this with them are through rationality, why in the world do you even waste your time with pithy aphorisms and stupid proverbs that mean nothing to people who don't already buy into your worldview? Is it going to be possible to get this thread back in the direction it was intended to go? I doubt it, people are too stupid. I ask if you have nothing to contribute to post nothing at all.

Preliminary: I want to preface this by saying I have no intention of disrespecting the established decorum of abstaining from ideological debate. For the purpose of allowing a thorough analyses of nondualism, I do not believe the following pursuit of transcribing complicated nuances into simplistic facets to dissect as I will attempt, to be at all contrary to the overall goal of actualization, rather this should serve to reaffirm one's justification in personal investment towards such a contentious worldview through an intellectually rigorous approach. I respect the work Leo has done, and I am frequently using his knowledge to gain a better understanding of non-duality, however it seems that his communicative style lacks effectiveness towards rational minded people. Non-duality as described by Leo happens to correlate very well with some credible scientific/rationalist models of reality, and unfortunately if this correlation were not so, I can say certainly that someone like myself would have confidently dismissed teachings such as Leo's as religious nonsense, and for good reason as I see it, which is ironically rather sick. I also believe people with like-minded sensibilities to my own regarding rationality are best equipped to truly decipher reality, yet these sensibilities typically do not allow receptiveness to teachings such as nondualism as described by Leo. Therefore there needs to be a thorough accounting of any intelligible pieces of evidence pertaining to this worldview, and a careful dissection of what the evidence means so that people like myself can be reasonably convinced. This is 100% an attempt to conform nondualism with a rationalist's paradigm, despite Leo's assertion that such a thing is invalid. If multiple plateaus of understanding for this concept exist, I can credit my rationality for leading me as far as I am currently, and I see no reason to forego a rational process when trying to further decipher reality. If such an epiphany presents itself that rationality is in conflict with true understanding I will reconcile this appropriately, but for now I can only rely on the mechanisms of thought which I am familiar with. What is Nondualism: As I see it, Nondualism is the ontological position that reality is ultimately a unified whole, and a "spiritual" theory of undivided/shared consciousness. This worldview is given credence by a variety of discrepancies between logical plausibility and the traditional materialist worldview. Materialism is the belief that objective physical matter is the basic building block of reality and that consciousness is an inadvertent consequence of physical processes. A nondualist's worldview entails the exact opposite in that all experiences must come from a singularity that encompasses all conceptual possibilities within, which would mean that there is no actual "self" because all is one. People claim that a "spiritual enlightenment" is possible through surrendering to the truth of "no self". Enlightenment is said to entail an awakening to the true nature of being and freeing your consciousness from the illusory nature of "self" which thus eliminates all suffering. When explaining this nuanced topic I don't find it helpful to immediately frame non-duality in a "spiritual" context. I'd prefer to address non-duality as it is described in scientific models such as Robert Lanza's Biocentrism or Chris Langan's Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe. Until a belief for nondualism has been rationally justified it will be referred to as "dualistic monism" to avoid conflating the two paradigms of mysticism and rationality. Dualistic monism has profound existential implications such as the infinite nature of consciousness and how it transcends your biological lifespan, as well as the eventuality of living all possible experiences. A careful examination of such a worldview is indeed warranted, there is a lot at stake. Evidence for Dualistic Monism: There is a limitation with how far you can reason to demonstrate such a worldview. Thankfully there happens to exist a variety of factors we can use to inductively reason with strong confidence that consciousness exists monistically. Deductive reasoning will never be possible of course, but the inductive reasoning is so strong I would argue it serves as equally compelling. The Double Slit Experiment, which proves spacetime and consciousness to be interconnected can be interpreted as strong evidence for dualistic monism. The experiment famously shows electron particles alternating states between "wave" (light) and "particle" (physical matter) positions which mysteriously depend on whether someone observed the act or not (mind-fuck). If the experiment was being recorded the electrons acted like physical particles, but if no recording was created the electrons would behave like a wave (which is strange enough in itself since electrons are small matter particles, let alone the absurdity of realizing the outcome was dependent on conscious observation). Here is a video if you are unfamiliar. Double Slit Experiment - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwXQjRBLwsQ I can't imagine being so naive as to intake this information and not come away thinking this experiment changes everything. If you aren't totally hapless you should realize that the nature of reality is completely up-in-the-air after witnessing this experiment. Such a phenomenon should only be possible in a digital world, or a video game. If tiny matter particles can be systematically demonstrated to have properties that react to awareness then it completely precludes the necessity for a materialistic worldview. When you are immersed in a digital world you are not surprised when objects impossibly teleport elsewhere because you know this occurrence was not really impossible since the physical world is only being represented through illusory means such as pixels, which do not need to conform to physical laws. The Double Slit Experiment undeniably demonstrates this is how we should perceive reality, such that if a tree falls in the woods with nobody around, not only does it not make a sound but there is not actually a tree, as conscious experience defines what reality is. Reality is best described as a network of every consciousness that exists rather than a physical universe that exists independent of conscious agents. Now that we have inductively established that consciousness is fundamental to reality we can investigate further. The fundamental role consciousness plays in reality should bring to mind some discrepancies or 'existential plot-holes' so to speak pertaining to life as you've been led to believe it exists. For myself, this evokes the obvious fact that average people are alive for 80 years, and the universe has existed for around 13.7 billion years. If what we are led to believe is true, that we live once and that's it, this would suggest a 1 in (at least) 171,250,000 chance of being alive presently. Your relatively insignificant existence should either [A: have passed ages ago] or [B: not be set to occur for eons]. In a materialist's paradigm, probabilistically, you should not exist. But we do exist, suggesting that consciousness is in fact infinite and not limited to our biological lifespans. Considering this probability alongside the double slit experiment gives an undeniable credibility to the idea of infinite consciousness. Even if you disregard the lifespan probability and the double slit experiment there is yet another way you can reason that your consciousness is infinite. Regardless of whether your consciousness is infinite, some careful reasoning would dictate rather unambiguously that infinity must be inherent to the structure of reality because the universe that we occupy is insanely improbable. In other words, there needed to be an infinite multiplicity of 'attempts' if you will, to get reality as it is. If you are a programmer like myself, you know that the intelligibility of any working system hinges upon factors upon factors and factors which just could not have accidentally aligned themselves unless there were unlimited tries. The fact that we have any observable universe whatsoever let alone the insanely intricate one that we have, is itself akin to having a working operating system with no software or interface installed, which obviously could not have come about accidentally, yet what we have can be likened to a fully configured operating system with profoundly intricate software and a multi-dimensional interface. This could only be the work of infinity, or an intelligent design. Regardless of whether there is an actual intelligent designer, we can reason that such a designer itself would be within the realm of infinity, possibly negating the need for a distinction. Because infinity must be fundamental to the structure of reality we can reason that whatever the case needs to be in order for your awareness to emerge, it must be happening infinitely throughout some facet of infinity which can never cease to exist nor cease to actualize new potentialities for your life to come about. To illustrate this, it's helpful to visualize imaginary code that theoretically equates to your existence in relation to the universe. Say that your birth is the following binary code: 010101101001000010010000010101000101011010010100001101010000010111101001000100010000110111100001010001011100100111110000100101110000010101011100001000001111 The true math/code/binary that equates to your actual existence is obviously much more complicated, but it is easy to imagine how after so many attempts it is inevitable that your numbers will eventually come up so to speak. It is undeniable that such a process of infinity is responsible for our universe, as there could not possibly be a working system of this order without infinity. We can therefore conclude that our own existence will always be present somewhere in infinity because anything that occurs once in an infinite span occurs infinitely so. It is thus required that a worldview of reality be adopted that accounts for the infinite nature of consciousness. Obviously when trying to decipher the true nature of reality we must start from absolute nothingness. Anything that exists can only be the consequence of that which already was, so starting from nothingness we can reason that nothing was even needed for reality to manifest, implying that all of reality is manifested within an inadvertent property of nothingness which must be indistinguishable from infinity itself. You do not need any universe or thing at all for certain things to be true. We can all agree it is true that 1 + 1 = 2 regardless of there being a universe or any thing at all. However this is an extremely simple "truth". In the realm of nothingness, there must exist an infinite multiplicity of truths, some of which are so intricate that they literally manifest entire realities within themselves. As a human being we can only imagine very simplistic truths, but when you're dealing with the nature of infinity, obviously this introduces more possibilities than we can comprehend. To continue, you need to be familiar with the definition of a tautology. A tautology is that which is true by necessity of it's form, or something that could not possibly be untrue. For instance, if a glass of water is half empty, it tautologically follows that it is half full. Similar to the unconditional truth in the number 2 which tautologically follows from 1 + 1, the truth that follows from "This statement is true." is also a tautology, albeit simple. Regardless of the language we use the sentiment will always be true, but we used English here, which is extremely simple relatively speaking. There are only 26 letters in the alphabet, and with these 26 characters we can convey just about anything. Now imagine a language that isn't just a finite set of simplistic characters, but imagine the language is made of every single stimuli and sensation you have ever perceived. Such a language could contain trillions of "characters" and these characters would be far more dynamic than a mere letter "A". Whether a language is a verbal one or it isn't, we know there exists an infinite multiplicity of syntactical arrangements for that language regardless. So throughout the entirety of infinity there exists an infinite amount of tautologically true configurations of linguistic logic, some of which undeniably give rise to complicated realities, as we are here to observe. Considering the nature of our universe and the complexity of life around us, it begs the question why does our existence (or our facet of infinity) happen to exist as it does? Why is it so sophisticated? If it were so that we are just experiencing some random possible instance out infinity why would our experience be such an intelligible one? Surely out of an infinite multiplicity of reality-manifesting tautologies most of these configurations do not reach the level of comprehensible intricacy seen in our universe. For instance, surely for every reality such as ours where intelligent awareness is created through even more complicated means of the environment, there must exist an onslaught of realities wherein the tautologically true configuration for what makes awareness consists only of that awareness itself, all alone, hardly able to discern up from down if at all, rather than an awareness spawned in a convenient world with what appear to be other conscious agents in it. Despite every unpleasantness people fail to comprehend how conveniently reality is structured. To put it simply, in a dumb-luck reality it would make a lot more sense to exist as a much less sophisticated being than how we currently find ourselves. It follows that the existence of infinity can be described as an infinite realm of potentialities contained within a spaceless/timeless singularity that inadvertently equates to an infinitely intelligent mind due to the interconnected state of nothingness separating all of infinity. Considering the unconditional truth of the number 2, which can tautologically follow from an infinite number of equations ([1 + 1], [2 + 0], [1/4 x 8] etc...). The infinite number of equations that allow for 2 to follow truthfully demonstrates that literally anything you can imagine must have not just one, but an infinite number of intelligent means of arriving at its tautological manifestation through infinite intelligence. This can only mean that the actual distinction between existence and non-existence is an arbitrary distinction being made by an infinitely intelligent mind capable of processing infinity by means of its boundlessness, and that the mind must be us, and we must each be one another, as we all must be derived from the singularity. This corroborates dualistic monism and explains why you exist as yourself, and not someone else. Because your current self is only a single facet of infinity, which is being intelligently cycled through. Implications of Dualistic Monism: It seems that in order to derive a positive outlook on life from this worldview a lot of faith is required. Does the infinite intelligence that imagined us into being truly care about it's own well-being? If it did, it would make sense to exist in absolute comfort, yet we find ourselves in a pain-filled reality where we can only hope that the spirituality teachers claiming it is possible to transcend suffering are not delusional. I would really like to somehow see it further substantiated that it is possible to live enlightened & without pain in this reality. It seems like sort of a sick joke that such a thing would be said to be possible. Why even bother becoming "enlightened" if it takes such rigorous devotion and would only take place for the remainder of this short lifespan? You would supposedly return to being an unenlightened plebeian for eons again after your death. Yes it serves reason that an infinite intelligence would give itself a means of transcending into paradise, but it makes even more sense for that paradise to already be present and not requiring some immense journey. I feel it is questionable as to whether this infinite intelligence is truly out to do good, or if it's an uncontrolled intelligence seeking to maximize its potential manifestations with an arbitrary goal in mind such as diverse spawn possibilities in a world that negates solipsism (the sense that no other consciousness entities exists). That seems to me to be the only goal of this infinite intelligence. When I first discovered Actualized videos, the correlation of spiritual enlightenment with dualistic monism made me very excited to find an actual worldview with mysticism that makes sense with rationality, I was not dismissive towards the spiritual aspects at all. However I am now beginning to find it questionable whether there is merit to spiritual development. I would like very much for it to be true that one can attain enlightenment and free themselves from suffering, but as I discover more people who claim to have had awakenings I encounter people who do not perceive it with the anticipated positivity it should warrant. There is an interesting web page accounting one "awakened" guy's interpretation of reality that got me to doubt whether enlightenment is worth pursuing. http://bergytheiceman.co.uk/ Very dark stuff, but it is well worth the read since he explains his "theory-of-everything" with much more simplicity than what can be found in Chris Langan's CTMU, which is also a good conceptualization of nondualism. My Intentions Here: If Leo is the only person you learn nondualism from it is easy to assume that his experiences must be credible. But when you see a lot of different perspectives it creates ambiguity in the validity of certain facets. I would really like to see as many perspectives as possible come together so that it can be most accurately discerned whether spiritual development is truly divine with unworldly benefits or if this is a delusion facilitated through use of psychedelics.