r0ckyreed

Thanks. I think I may have misspoke. Realize, I am only assuming whether or not you are doing "proper" philosophy based off of what I notice you posting on the forum. I don't know who you are off the forum. With that being said, I noticed posts you've made about converting to a religion. I think it was Islam. Also, in the past, you seem to have dismissed certain pointers/concepts such as solipsism without entertaining. It is like you were completely bought into the concept and then now, you want to completely dismiss it. These are just a few examples of what improper philosophy is. This post is also an example and so is mine because we are talking about a petty issue that has no bearing understanding consciousness and Absolute Truth. Another thing is that instead of using this post to point out some of the behaviors you find annoying in others (and in yourself), you could have focused more on the metaphysical points like I did in my first post here that parroting is an issue that impacts all social systems. You could have dove more into asking questions such as "what is parroting? Why does it exist? Why do all social situations get corrupted with parroting others and losing independence?, etc." Instead, you just stopped at the surface level and offered people feedback to be aware of parroting without diving in and exploring why this is. Does that make sense? My definition of "proper" philosophy is similar to the video Leo made on Introduction to Serious Philosophy. It is hard to simply define proper philosophy, but I will give it my best. My simple definition of proper philosophy is independently contemplating and introspecting to get at the true nature of a thing through independent means and derivation. This means that reading philosophical works is not proper philosophy. But contemplating philosophical works does if it has to deal with metaphysical/epistemic issues. If you are just contemplating to understand Descartes' view of something, then I would consider that improper philosophy. The point is to utilize the knowledge/information available to contemplate consciousness. By contemplation, I don't mean speculation or mental masturbation, which is what I notice you tend to have done in the past quite frequently. By contemplation, I mean thoroughly thinking deeply (not researching) through questioning different thought experiments that others have invented and original ones that you create. By contemplation, I mean observing what is going on in direct experience and contemplate it. For instance, if I say to you that solipsism might be true. I want you to contemplate it by asking the question. What is solipsism? Solipsism is the view that only the mind can be known to exist. Then, I want you to contemplate whether it is true. Start by contemplating what a mind is. What self is and what other is. In your direct experience, there are no others but your direct experience. The wall and table are not other to you. They are objects occurring in your direct experience. These words are also your direct experience. The english language is also your direct experience. Then, what is direct experience? Direct experience is everything you are experiencing right now. Well, what is indirect experience then? Well, it technically doesn't exist because existence is a very direct thing (you can go into that topic separately on whether the indirectness has an ontological foundation). Indirectness is everything you are imagining, which imagination itself is direct. Experience is DIRECT! Okay. I am done with that one. That is a short example of contemplation. You can even contemplate further whether experience is direct or can be indirect. But with each point, you want to ground it and verify them in your observations. Remember to come to your own conclusions, which may be different from mine. The point is to have the attitude of mind where you want to discover what is true and you don't care whether you have to explore solipsism, run into Plato's cave, or sail across the Ship of Theseus. The point of proper philosophy is to ask questions with the intention of deriving your own answers and gaining insight into reality through focused, concentrated observation and thinking. Remember, it is easy to get sidetracked. That is the main thing I notice with a lot of folks (including myself). I know there is more to say, but I hope that helps.

Parroting isn’t something specific to this forum. You will find parrots in every social situation and group. If you had Ben Franklin, Abe Lincoln, Jesus, Buddha, and MLK all in one room, you will find a parrot. That’s just how social life and humans work. Even Leo has parroted ideas in the past. No one is immune. The issue is you aren’t doing proper philosophy.

I think that the point I am trying to make is that there is no knowledge/understanding without some point of view/reference/experience. Knowledge seems to be experienced relatively. The Absolute already knows all because it is all. The part is trying to grasp the whole, and I think knowledge/understand is a function of a part trying to become united with the whole. This is what I mean by understanding is not absolute because The Absolute does not need to understand because it already Is. I think understanding can lead to the Absolute even if it is relative to the living entity and one’s level of development. I will continue to keep my mind open to the possibility of having Absolute Understanding. I think what I mean is that when I am dead and in the Godhead, there is nothing to understand because I am dead and don’t exist. But when the Universe is experiencing a fractured part of itself, that part has the possibility of understanding. I don’t know if this applies to all parts. For instance, I don’t know whether it is possible for an ant to awaken to its nature. You seem confident that the human form is able to grasp the Universe. I am not so certain but will keep my mind open to it. I think that just like an ant has inevitable understanding limitations, I think the same applies to humans. I am just entertaining these thoughts, and am curious what you think. Are there certain inevitable understanding limitations for the human experience?

That’s the part I obviously don’t understand. I feel like knowledge and recognition are definitely conceptual and so is understanding. By conceptual, I mean anything the mind is trying to make sense of. Me thinking about all of this is conceptual. Any insight I get from this form, I also see as conceptual, as it all relates to the mind. I don’t see anything Absolute about understanding but that it is relative to the entity trying to understand. Understanding I feel like is relative to one’s state of consciousness and depends on mental processes to function. For instance, without attention, awareness, and thoug/ideas/concepts, I don’t see how you could understand something. In fact, all that we are talking about and an understanding points to some concept that we are grasping and making actual. It’s hard to separate understanding from conceptualization. I feel like understanding has a lot to do with language as well. Without conceptualization, there is no understanding other languages, and without understanding other languages, there could be no science, no math, no history, no philosophy, and no awakening?

I think to make my point clearer: Knowledge, recognition, and understanding seem to be relative. I know Leo has claimed that understanding is Absolute. But I feel that understanding will always be relative to some vantage point - the thing to be understood. Since the Absolute is pure being, it is beyond understanding, knowledge, and recognition because those are relative human/animal processes. The Universe already is intelligent and functions without “knowing” itself. I think the Universe can only “know” itself through us. That is because knowing is dualistic. The same is with meditation. Meditation cannot exist without relativity and duality. There has to be a subject who meditates who then realizes that duality is imagined. For instance, I wouldn’t say that a rock meditates or that space meditates, or that the Universe meditates. No, only living beings capable of focusing their attention can meditate. Meditation is a relative activity in the same way that knowledge/understanding/recognition is. Thoughts?

This is how I see it right now (correct me if I am wrong or kindly point out my errors in contemplation). To “recognize”, “know” or “understand” is already to assume duality and imply that you are a separate part of the whole. God is the hand. The hand cannot grasp itself, so it creates/imagines a duality between the knower and thing to be known. Recognition, knowing, and understanding are conceptual faculties of the human/animal experiences but not the Absolute. When you are one with the Absolute, all recognition, knowing, and understanding cease to exist because those were all parts of the experience/dualities imagined. The Absolute is complete and has no need for understanding, knowledge, and recognition because it is itself. Knowledge is a conceptual, relative process. Absolute is already Being. That is why you could say Being is Omniscient is because All-Knowing is Not-Knowing! I think there is a reason why it is easier to “know” “others” but not “yourself.”

Leo's blog post on Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is what I have been trying to state but did not have the words. I don't think anybody is gonna read or respond to this post and that is okay. I am going to state my case anyways to help myself articulate what I have become conscious of. My whole claim is that Awakening/Enlightenment is an illusion, self-deception, and does not exist. This is because when you have an insight or awakening, you are assuming that your insight or awakening is true and not full of self-deception. And of course, this goes on to infinity. Another main reason is because no matter what you become conscious of, there will always be something greater that you could become conscious of, and it goes on forever. This means that any insights you have will always be partial and will never grasp the whole of reality. Your awakening/enlightenment is like an infinite regress. No matter what you become conscious of, you will never reach omniscience - complete understanding of reality. There is no way because no matter what you become conscious of, there will always be greater aspects of reality that you are unconscious of and things that are assumed to be true but never proven. You cannot prove and demonstrate to me nor yourself that you have had an awakening. How could you possibly know whether any insight you have could be classified as an ''awakening'' or as a ''normal insight'' or as ''self-deception or false insight?'' I became conscious of this after Leo deleted his Solipsism video and then posted his Infinite Gods video. The deeper you go and the higher your consciousness goes, the more you start to untangle and realize that your previous insights were full of self-deception. The self-deception is infinite, and you are still in denial of that. The self-deception has to be infinite for you to exist at all. If God could understand and awaken to itself, then it could not exist at all because existence is always prior to knowledge in the same way that truth is prior to proof. Contemplate this. Awakening cannot exist because if you claim that it takes 200 5me0 trips to awaken, then I could argue and always raise the bar that at 2000 trips, you will realize that 200 trips wasn't awakening, and then at 20,000 trips, you would realize that 2000 trips wasn't awakening, and so on. Whatever your method is for discerning truth from falsehood, that is a system, and Godel's Theorem still applies to that! I wish more people would be conscious of what I am conscious of right now. This is my best attempt at communicating this insight I have had into the nature of insight and awakening. It is so easy to confuse a profound insight with awakening. They aren't the same. And who is to say what is ''profound,'' ''awakening,'' or ''false''? Awakening is just another self-deception. "Just when you think you have solved the maze, that is when you have put yourself deeper in the maze." - Leo Gura (Life is A Maze). There is no way to escape the maze because that is what you are! You cannot escape from yourself because there you are! Ta-Da! I want you to take away from this post that Awakening/Enlightenment applies to Godel's Theorem, which means that you will never reach the end of understanding/insight/awakening. This does not mean you should give up spirituality and awakening. It just means that you realize that full awakening won't happen just like counting to infinity won't happen. (News Flash, Awakening = Infinity!) This means that you strive to do your best as a human being. Reach the highest level you can whether that is level 100, 1000, or 100000000. It won't matter in the end because 100 is the same distance to infinity as is 1000000000. But you will be a much wiser human being, and at the end of the day, it all comes down to your goals in life in what you believe is worth striving for.

Ego is the issue. Ego is the denial.

I got it! Thanks! You can lock this thread.

Thanks for the clarification. Truth is all states, but some states keep you asleep from truth or awaken to it. But you’ve even said that the traditional Buddhist meditation awakening to no-self is only one type of awakening and God-Realization is a greater level of awakening. So, who is to say that you won’t awaken to something even higher and even higher that contradicts your previous awakenings? The deeper you go, the more you awaken to. You’ve awakened to Absolute Solipsism but then you had a new awakening to Infinity of Gods that contradicts it. If you just stopped the work at Absolute Solipsism, your mind would deceive you into thinking you have found the Whole Truth, when in reality, you will always have more things to awaken to since reality is infinite. Or maybe it is that you have awakened to the Whole Truth but your perspectives to that are changing with each awakening?

You got it backwards. The opposite is true. If she is drunk and you are sober, then your word is more credible than hers since her state of mind is less reliable and trustworthy. You can hallucinate all different kinds of stuff under the influence. Your mind is more stable. Don’t forget that.

Okay. But think of all of your awakenings. Aren’t those imaginary? If you aren’t conscious of the Truth right now, then it is imagination and not actuality. You don’t have an actual awakening unless you do. I am just trying to understand how awakening and psychedelic states are somehow excluded from Godels Theorem.

What is awakening then if there will always be parts of reality that you will be asleep to? By that definition, then I would be awake because I have realized no-self and oneness. But the standards of awakening have changed since the Buddha. If your awakening isn’t complete (which I claim complete awakening is impossible), then it is relative. You are awake compared to what everyone else has discovered. If every human on earth realized what God is, then would everyone be equally awake or equally asleep? If one person out of all realizes something more than the rest of the herd, then we would deem that person awake and everyone else asleep. The Buddha wasn’t awake. He just had a deep insight into self, suffering, and reality. If we say the Buddha is awake, then I would be called awake too because I have had similar insights even before I heard about his teachings. But the thing is that even though I have the insights into no-self, suffering, etc., I know I am not awake because I don’t feel awake. Sure, when I had the discovery, I was hugging every tree, and kissing the dirt. But all of that is a memory and imagination now. Another reason why I claim awakening is an illusion is because if you had an awakening but aren’t awake right this moment, then your awakening is as imaginary as Santa Clause. If you aren’t conscious of God right now, then you aren’t conscious of God at all! It doesn’t matter whether you had awakenings in the past because the past is nothing but imagination within imagination, a dream within the Dream.

You are right about that. My state of consciousness is the same. I tried meditation, and it helps me get into a different state. But you make a good point that my contemplation practice will only be as effective as the state I am in. I don’t have access to psychedelics. So, I am trying to see if I can meditate or increase my consciousness through contemplation. My consciousness is still at the human survival level. But I still think that even if I did things to raise my consciousness, the problem that I have presented will still remain for me to tackle.

You can have insights that negate other insights you’ve had. Awakening isn’t separate from this. I am making the assumption that there is no such thing as a complete awakening even though I cannot prove that. From this assumption, you can realize that since any awakening insight you have is incomplete, a higher insight will recontextualize other awakenings you’ve had. Some insights may lead you to realize that you have had false insights. I think it is possible to be 100% convinced that you have awakened when you really haven’t.

I will contemplate this.

I am asking you because of your questions. If dreaming is a self-deception, then that would mean that any knowledge in the dream is part of the dream. Even a lucid dream is still part of the dream/deception. All knowledge and things post is part of “the self-deception.” Even you thinking you are awake is a self-deception. You are still dreaming. I am open to the possibility of awakening, but it just seems like it doesn’t exist. According to Leo, nobody on this forum is awake because according to him, he has reach levels of consciousness that nobody else has. Even though, it is possible that other people have had awakenings, when compared to who has reached the highest levels, everyone else’s awakening is mild. Think about this. Let’s say your awakening is at lvl 100 and an alien you meet is at lvl 5000. I think this is why Leo says nobody is awake because he claims he is at that alien level of awareness and nobody else has. The alien makes you look like you haven’t awakened to shit. I hope you can see what I mean here.

But how do you distinguish awakening from regular insight? What is the difference? How do you know whether you actually awakened or had a false insight? I entertain the idea that there could always be a higher level of consciousness that could make me doubt any profound insight I have had. The reason why I say that is because I remember you claiming that complete understanding of reality or omniscience is possible. If that is so, then wouldn’t awakening have to be final; otherwise, your understanding wasn’t complete and you aren’t omniscient. But by Godel’s logic, you cannot ever reach the end. It’s a self- deception to think there is a final awakening.

What do you think is meant by “life is a dream?”

Soul sex is the way to go!

How so? Understanding is relative, which makes it finite? A person with an IQ of 35 will have a limited understanding of reality compared to a person with 1000 IQ. The 1000 IQ will have limited understanding compared to the alien with 1000000000 IQ, etc. Even if we ignore other people and focus on myself strictly, our brains are wired in biased ways that limits our understanding and perception of reality. Human understanding is going to be finite because the brain is limited. To be human is to be finite. If your understanding of reality was infinite, then you couldn’t be a human and dealing with normal human endeavors. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. To have infinite understanding seems to imply that you have reached the end of consciousness. But there is no end. On the one hand, there are an infinite amount of things you can understand, but at the same time, it is limited by your genes, neural activity, senses, thought, culture, and time. To be a human is to be part of reality. What I am claiming is that the part cannot grasp the whole. In order for the part to grasp the whole, the part would have to become the whole, which implies physical death. But then, what understanding could you have if it’s not in relation to some part. Understanding implies a duality between subject and object. I don’t think omniscience is something that is humanly possible. I don’t think it’s possible for reality to know itself because existence is more fundamental than knowledge.

Nobody has yet to answer what the duality between enlightenment and self-deception is. You can easily have false insights. Because of the nature of infinite consciousness, an insight at lvl 100 will be false in comparison to what you discover at level 1000, same so on as infinitum. The problem never ends. Separation appears real at one level of consciousness but not so on another state, etc. etc.

What is the duality between enlightenment and self- deception? I’ll give you a hint. There isn’t one. If reality is imaginary, then your enlightenments are more imagination within imagination. No such thing as “final” enlightenment because that itself is a self-deception. Reality is infinite and understanding is finite.

We disagree on the definitions of enlightenment. A cat is in actuality but its understanding of its true nature and of existence is limited. Enlightenment means to enlight or to be full of light or consciousness. To be able to see reality as it is and understand that. There is no way we can do that because to be human is to always see it through the lenses of self-deception and bias. You cannot get rid of bias/self-deception. The Devil is always there. You cannot kill him. Otherwise, God couldn’t exist either because The God is the Devil. Self-deception is what creates this human experience. This means that as long as you are in form, you can never know what formless is. And I haven’t even scratched the surface.

Enlightenment is an illusion. Being is always prior to knowing. Existence is infinite whereas understanding is finite/limited. There will always be more things for you to grasp because no matter how much you try to grasp reality, you will get no more near the end than when you began because that is the nature of infinitude.