r0ckyreed

There are no such things as souls.

There are only wise actions. No amount of words can make you more wise. Knowledgeable, yes, but wise? No. Wisdom requires experience and experience requires action. What kind of wise action are you gonna take?

You don’t know. If it feels right and makes you happy, you can bet that it isn’t Truth.

If only you could apply this same logic to self and other. Realizing that there is only the Self and no other. Just change subject and object to self and other and you’ll have: “Self and other is a duality that is not actually found in direct experience. Self on the other hand is self-evident.”

Being mentally gullible and foolish isn’t the same as being openminded. You entertain possibilities until you realize that some possibilities aren’t worth your time entertaining. How do you know when that time is? By being openminded first and exploring and realizing that Andrew Tate is not a good person to follow.

Because God is EVERYTHING!!!!

There is no edge of the Universe. The Universe is your experience. A supernova is your experience. You imagining a supernova is also your experience. You cannot get past consciousness. The question already assumes that a tree and forest exist without being perceived; therefore, a sound exists without being heard by the mere logic of the question. If X exists without being seen, then Y exists without being heard because Y always follows X. That is the logic. The assumption isn't that what is not direct perceived doesn't exist. It is that there is stuff that exists that cannot be perceived. Sound by its mere definition is a perception! If you cannot perceive sound, then sound does not exist. Soundwaves may still exist if you can perceive them, but the qualia of sound won't. You can only know through Consciousness!! The teapot will exist as consciousness. Whether the teapot is consciousness in matter form or idea is the question. But a teapot without form is a teapot that does not exist because the definition of a teapot is something that is observable and has definition and emptiness to it. Things exist as they are imagined to exist. A teapot that does not hold tea is not a teapot. A room with no space and walls is no longer a room. Being perceived has everything to do with existence. If you cannot perceive colors, they cease to exist. If you cannot perceive sounds, music ceases to exist. Everything that you associate with existence is a perception!! You could think of death as the cessation of all perception/experience. That's what you really fear. Now, what is the evidence that perception = reality? Well, that is a contradiction because all evidence is going to be a perception! Perception is more fundamental than evidence. Evidence is an idea and is completely subjective and occurring within one's own perceptions! Consciousness is your evidence. Exactly. The inference of the consciousness of another is the same as if there was no other consciousness. There is only ONE Experience happening. Instead of claiming there is an invisible china teapot that cannot be observed, the simplest explanation is saying there is no teapot at all. The same applies to the inference of other minds. Rather than making claims that there are other consciousnesses that cannot be observed, just stick to the basic facts that Perception is Reality.

What does it even mean for something to exist that cannot be perceived or observed? There is a China Teapot that is floating around Earth right now. But you cannot perceive it at all. How is that any different than there being no teapot at all? If you cannot observe the consciousness of your girlfriend, what difference is there? How is that speculation/inference any different than an Invisible God or the China Teapot? You are just not conscious of Absolute Solipsism.

Just read Leo's blog post on Science Fraud. While I agree that science, like spirituality and like EVERYTHING ELSE, can and will be corrupted by humans. Of course, fabrication is not something science is immune from. Spirituality is also fabricated!!! Look at how many people post that they are awake like it's a f**king new scientific breakthrough, when in reality, their minds are just fabricating themselves deeper into the matrix. Sometimes, I see this with Leo when he has made grandiose claims in the past such as the healing powers of consciousness, water fasting, etc. I think I understand why Leo makes the grandiose claims at times, because he wants to get people excited and invested in the process of deconstructing reality. The issue is that people fall in love with a fantasy of consciousness and not the reality of it. Just like how Leo was super hyped about the idea of water fasting only to find out the reality of it was abysmal and over-hyped. I see the same with meditation. People claim meditation will enlighten you but it doesn't. Meditation in moderation is beneficial, but these 10 day retreats are so over-hyped. I haven't tried psychedelics, but I can assume it may probably be the same thing. Everything is so over-hyped that when you get to it, it is like what is the big deal. This happens with sex, alcohol, drugs, spirituality, you name it. Back to the main point here, science is our way of discovering what is true. Leo's fabrication of his scientific results from blog post that he did for a school project is not real science. Now, you could argue with me that there is no boundary between science and pseudoscience, but your lack of making nuanced distinctions isn't actually making you any smarter. You could even argue with me that there is no such thing as smart or dumb because foolishness and wisdom are one. Hahaha this is exactly the definition of a fool. Nobody ever really has contemplated what a fool even is. A fool is simply consciousness without distinctions. When a mind lacks the ability to make distinctions, it lacks the ability to observe the fine-tuned differences between things in reality. Part of oneness is recognizing difference. A fool will lack the ability to make distinctions whereas a wise person does not. A perfect example of this is race. A Trump is foolish because they cannot make distinctions between what is corruption and what is not. They will conflate all black people together for instance or they will deny race all-together (i.e., color-blindness). Just like Leo said there is Proper Philosophy and improper philosophy, there is also Serious Science and improper science. You cannot do Serious Science as long as you are influenced by money. The issue I have is that when Leo is critiquing science, he is never critiquing Serious Science but stupid/improper science. A one-sided analysis of critiquing stupid science is a biased way of critiquing science as a whole. Serious Science is the same as what has been called Proper Philosophy. There is no Serious Science without Proper Philosophy. We should not even call mainstream, corporate, and university "science" even Science because it is not Serious Science. When you are making critiques of "science," you really are critiquing stupid science and not Serious Science. Serious Science is the process of critiquing the stupid science that is spewed everywhere and calling out that stupid science is not even science at all. That's like me saying that meditation is the same as Serious Spirituality when in reality it is just a navel gazing merry-go-round that won't get you anywhere. And of course, a Zen teacher will tell you there is nowhere to go! Because with that 40 year meditation practice, there will be nowhere to go! When you spend 40 years sitting on your butt and counting your breaths, you existentially connect to one thing and disconnect from another. EDIT: I am coining the term Serious Science, and I may post a video or article here articulating more of what that entails. It's too much to explicate here.

But didn't you do this with Proper Philosophy? What epistemic basis is there for making any distinction? There is wise science and foolish science. It would be foolish to conflate the two together. Sometimes, we have to take action and make distinctions before we have the right knowledge. It seems like your critiques are towards foolish science and the social system of it. You seem like an advocate for Truth, which is the hallmark for science. Okay. We are in agreement. My whole thing is that we have to make distinctions; otherwise, there is nothing we can talk about or critique. And we may not have any epistemic basis right now, but we have to start off somewhere. We have to make a distinction between True Science and pseudoscience. I mean, the same could be said about Spirituality where people conflate Actualized.org with being a cult. But those people are fools because their definitions, distinctions, and understanding would be so limiting to not draw distinctions between spirituality, religion, and cults. They aren't the same. Science should not be excluded from this. There is science and pseudoscience and there is corrupt science and authentic science. It is hard to pinpoint what counts as science or pseudoscience, but we cannot just assume that everyone who claims they are doing science is doing science. That is one of the reasons why we have scientific fraud. But on the other hand, science like religion is so broad that even atheists overlook it. When they say they are "men of science," which science? Shamanism? Psychedelic science? Academic science? Corporate science? And when they say that "religion is the root of all evil," which religion(s)? I feel like people's view of science is so narrow and focuses on academic science. That is like a person focusing solely on Christianity when it comes to religion. Like when someone hears the word science, academic/mainstream science could be the first thing that comes to mind and Christianity with religion. Our concepts of science and religion are so broad that it is hard to critique and deconstruct it without finding a common ground. The common ground with religion that I notice is groupthink. There is no religion without a group. Whereas, science is more flexible and can operate in groups like in academic science or can be an independent practice. Science is about curiosity and investigation whereas religion is mainly about belief and conformity. And sure, there is overlap between the two where a religious person can be curious and a scientist can be a conformist (especially when it comes to academic/mainstream science), etc. etc.

It’s funny how my take on psychedelics was the only thing taken from the thread. Psychedelics are so overhyped. Drug intake does not equal understanding of reality. There are plenty of people who use psychedelics and become more deluded. You are missing something. Psychedelics are a hallucination. I can count on the hands of every churchgoer how many people I know who use psychedelics but have no better understanding of reality than I do. Contemplation is the ultimate tool for Serious Science. No amount of psychedelics will increase your understanding of reality if you lack the skill of contemplation.

The best art is immaterial. The best art is your awakening.

The best art is immaterial. The best art is your awakening.

Glitches don’t exist. Everything in the Universe is intelligently designed for a reason. Glitches are your perception. Reality doesn’t have any. What makes something a glitch or part of reality is subjective.

Do you mean loose or lose? If you mean loose, then yes, I agree. You should strive to be loose, relaxed, and calm while also being ambitious and energetic. If you mean lose, then I disagree and so would Andrew Tate. He doesn’t tolerate losers and poor chess players. You shouldn’t either. You should strive to be a winner and be loose and relaxed while you win. True winners don’t make a big deal out of victory because they are so used to it.

My thoughts on death go back and forth. On the one hand, I define it as losing all of your senses, but on the other hand, I also see how death, nothing, and nonexistence don’t actually exist. The ideas of death exist, but death does not exist as an actuality. How can nonexistence exist?

You don’t wanna be a Jabba The Hut, you wanna be Luke Skywalker and taking action. Not the Luke Skywalker who did nothing on an island.

I am talking about losing all of your senses. Senses are what we could say our only connection to reality. Heck, our senses are reality. What does it even mean for something to exist if it cannot be perceived through the senses? It’s like the invisible gardener argument. If you are blind, you can still think and hear and etc. Imagine being born in a sensory deprivation tank with no exposure to any of your senses including language and thought. How would that experience be different than deep sleep or nonexistence? What could be aware? If you have not experienced anything, how can you be aware of anything? I’m sure you get my point.

Why? I “did” nothing for 5 hours straight and accomplished nothing. You might as well do something you find meaningful. Doing nothing for 30 minutes is good but any longer is a waste of time.

True. But it is still harder to smell a Buddhist turd, whereas a Trump turd is much easier. Buddhism is a human thing that denies it’s a human thing.

Straw man. Blind people can hear better than you. Blind people’s other senses become much more sharper. Do your research. How else would you define death other than the complete loss of your senses? If you cannot see, hear, or even think, how would that be different than being dead? Losing your sense of sight is a form of death. You can never see the world again like you once did. Color blind people experience a death of color. Everything you call life is experience and when you lose all senses, you lose experience. And by the way, yes, in a certain sense, blind people do not live as fully as people who can see. Imagine all the opportunities and experiences you lose because of that impairment. You cannot even play sports like tennis or football. Being deaf, you lose opportunities to be a musician. However, there were people like Beethoven and others who were able to make the most of their impairments, but they still lost something within their gains. This stuff should be intuitive and obvious. I don’t know why this needs to be explicated.

1. There is no evidence that you wont die. I define death as the loss of your senses. So, there actually is evidence of death because I am already aware that my senses aren’t as sharp as they once were. Logic and experience, our only two ways of knowing anything, will tell you this. Becoming blind, deaf, tasteless, thoughtless, etc. is no different than death. The glue that holds it all together is The Force, God, Gravity, Consciousness, or whatever you want to call the I Am. Existence isn’t a house of cards, it is fundamental. It is the ground on which the cards are built on. Your identity is the house of cards. The ground is your consciousness/existence.

Don’t get distracted. Statues are FOS. Buddhism is FOS. Buddhism and statues are about idolizing others who have awakened instead of awakening yourself. You cannot awaken without ambition and focus on your goals. Nice pictures though. For a religion who is about detachment, followers of Buddhism put a lot of attention into statues, authority, and the idea of meditation and enlightenment. But nobody really wants to do the inner work. They just wanna buy statues and meditation pillows and go into lotus pose without realizing that none of those activities get you any closer to the goal.

Why does God allow evil? The simplest answer is love and free will. Evil is the intentional action of harming another living thing. There is no freedom without the option of doing both good and bad.

He’s been back and has never left lol.