4201

Consciousness has a single viewpoint and it's "this one". The one that is looking at those words right now. There is no other consciousness, Consciousness is not a "thing" attributed to animals but rather, animals, including me, is a thing Consciousness can experience.

Because consciousness is not a part or an attribute the human body has but rather the human body is a part of the experience Consciousness is having right now. Currently Consciousness is taking the form of "being a human" who is interacting on a forum. This form Consciousness is taking does not define what Consciousness is, it's just content. You may look at things and judge whether they are alive or not, conscious or not (rock vs animal) but this is just a category you create and in reality consciousness is one.

Ok I agree leading is different than pointing. But misleading in this thread has been used as a word that means "bring someone to" regardless of whether the person leading also comes with you or not. If I ask you where the bathroom is and you point to me the wrong door, it'd be misleading, even if all you did was pointing.

Leader is identification with leading and leading is the same as pointing, which is exactly what a word do.

So to you omitting a detail is not dishonest? If I say "There is a fire in the house. There is a fire extinguisher under the sink." and those 2 statements are true, yet the fire is safely inside a fireplace and doesn't need to be extinguished, isn't that dishonest? I didn't explicitely lie but I said true statements in a way that implies things that aren't true. The action of saying the 2 previous statements implies there's a reason to say this (because something is on fire!), if there isn't anything on fire it makes little sense to state those 2 random facts. By the act of saying "here is a maximum point" it implies that the number of maximum points is at least finite, otherwise there would be no value in using the word maximum. In a math exam it would be technically correct to answer (2, 3) if the question is asking you to give a maximum point on a plane. But whenever you speak to someone, your use of words implies there was reason to use those words, imo. In fact this whole thing we are talking about have a basis in statistics. The statement "here is a maximum point" is a true positive which make lead people to believe there are negative (non maximum) points but in fact those are false negatives because every point is a positive (maximum). We would say it is a statement with poor specificity. You can read more about sensitivity and specificity here. IMO an honest answer would minimize the amount of false negatives or false positives.

So the way people perceive and receive the content of your messages is just not your problem? I personally perceived it as you gaslighting OP and looking at the replies of OP, they probably perceived it like this too. Yet when they give you the confirmation that they haven't understood your message by saying "What a cesspool. Ill be asking future questions elsewhere." you just find this funny? At least in this thread it wasn't a statement but an implication that can be received in multiple ways. You are free to think that way and you are also free to not care at all how people understand your messages. I do think that those messages have an impact in the way they are perceived and not in the way you meant them to be perceived. In any case it's true I would probably not have brought up the issue if I initially understood the "joke" in your first message. But I still think the topic is valid. If you felt offended or that I was creating a conflict with you I sincerely apologize.

In my experience, I don't think it's fruitless nor does it need to be combative. I agree that going after Leo directly might not do much if he's not open. But being clear about your difference in position is imo much more healthy than avoiding the conversation altogether. If you avoid stating your difference in position people likely will assume you agree with him and his views (despite your videos) and I think this is quite detrimental to the people following along. This thread was originally a question based on a claim made by Leo. Wouldn't have challenged this claim made by Leo helped OP? To be fair in your first post you do imply that the idea of there being "advanced" content is a bit ridiculous. But it was so ambiguous I really couldn't tell whether you were saying that or saying that OP is ridiculous for trying to criticize's Leo's use of the word. Like your "joke" assume that we understand you differ from Leo in this position about advanced content. But to literally anyone who comes in with the fear of everyone agreeing with Leo and it being an echo chamber, it doesn't come across as a joke. It really just seemed like you were trying to steer the thread away from criticizing Leo. And calling OP a troll is really the top way of making him defensive and not see that you were joking. Looking back I can see how I indeed assumed you weren't joking and defending Leo because that's what I believed about you from your previous interactions. Are you purposefully not explicit because of a bias or a fear of creating conflict? Or is this just you being cryptic in general?(tbh many of your messages feel like hard to crack riddles to me) I just don't know, but now that I understand the "joke" it's much less of an issue as I first thought. My bad. That being said I'd still be mindful of how newbies (kinda like me) are likely to interpret your message. If your messages have multiple interpretations possible and one of them make you seem like you are being defensive (e.g. name calling someone who criticize Leo) then it's likely to hurt the community by excluding anyone who isn't a hardcore Leo follower, imo.

What if I convince you to come to "earth" but to do so you need to cross 3 mountains by foot and 2 lakes by swimming and at the end I'm like "haha jk earth is everywhere actually" isn't that misleading? Or if I insist that "my yard is earth" but not yours, isn't that misleading too? Both are leading you to believe something incorrect about what earth is. If you create the concept of there being a higher place then there must be a lower place (according to your concept). Otherwise everything is equal height and so the concept of height simply lose its meaning. If I lead you to a position in a flat plane pretending I'm leading you to the maximum height, I'm not being honest about what I'm doing even if theorically any point is maximum on a flat plane. You are still being lead to believe that you are moving "up", from a non maximal point to a maximal point while in fact you were already at a maximum.

To Realize : become fully aware of (something) as a fact; understand clearly. In your opinion, is a fact not a fact because you don't realize it? If your sunglasses are on your head but you don't realize it, does it mean your sunglasses are not on your head? A fact is a fact, whether you realize it or not. But perhaps you had a different picture of what enlightenment is. And you might have a picture of yourself which doesn't match the other picture. But none of those mental pictures are what enlightenment is nor what you are. You cannot put enlightenment into a picture frame. Nor can I distill the essence of what you are into a bunch of bullet points. Enlightenment is the present moment with all of its uniqueness and oddness, it is consciousness, it is you. Enlightenment is not a state you get triggered "into" after having a realization. It's not even a state where you have no thought or no identification. It's what you are right now. But regardless of the ideas you have about enlightenment and about yourself, I recommend a combination of contemplating those ideas and meditation.

I don't believe it can be "not in conflict with anything". By talking about cessation or the "upsides" of cessation or by explaining to someone how to attain cessation you promote that cessation in a way. I could literally take every sentence in your videos and say the exact opposite of them. Wouldn't this be in conflict? I don't think there can be a message without a any bias because the message itself implies there was something to be communicated in the first place. I have absolutely no problem with the content of your videos however. I think they are amazing (although perhaps something thick and hard to understand but that's a me problem). My point is that by being on this forum and not saying anything about an idea X of Leo and (possibly, up to interpretation) trying to steer the conversation away from critizing that idea X of Leo, you are implicitely promoting or defending that idea X of Leo. Yet that behavior is dualitstic and "conflicts" (IMO) the non dualistic teachings of your video. For instance there was a moment where Leo was hardcore ranting about genetics being the main reason why he can't be enlightened or was saying he could not be awake without psychedelics. Those claims are definitely dualistic in nature yet I never saw you say anything about it. At this point it's not even about the collateral damage of people around believing Leo, even Leo would probably benefit from being challenged on this point. For instance in April Leo was spotted spreading doomer genetics ideas in this thread. Tried to challenge it at the time (I recall this was not my first time) and Consilience as well. It probably didn't have much effect since in June he was still using genetics as an excuse in this other thread. Everytime I saw this I was like "Why the hell is Nahm not challenging him on this?" In what world does letting Leo believing those self-limitations about genetics is what is "the best" for him and for others? You really will need to tell me what's funny about the first page of this thread. I find this whole exchange quite funny but that's not what you were laughing at "with Leo". But as I mentionned above, it's not your content I have a problem with but the position you have in this forum that is being implied by lack or avoidance of discourse, but only about Leo. Yeah I mean it's about the "way of acting" not about the exact content of the videos of anyone. The way you act about Leo's views and Leo's actual views are different topics imo. But yeah it doesn't really make sense to talk about this without talking about the specific views either. The whole issue is just that your forum behavior doesn't match up what is communicated in your videos, but only when it's about Leo, from my pov. I could double check your videos but that would just tell me "yup, Nahm is indeed pro non-duality" but then I check back on the forum and I would see you challenge everyone's dualities except for Leo's. I admit this might only be my own mis-interpretation, but I'm just communicating what I'm seeing from my pov. Of course there isn't a "desired outcome". If you were to mechanically change your behavior to criticize Leo more to respond to my criticism of you without actually seeing what I meant, it would feel quite bad honestly. I'm not looking for a big epiphany, I'm just communicating what I think is a bias I see in you without a need for you to "fix it" or agree with me. At the end if our exchange wasn't helpful too bad but I personally am not looking for anything out of it. Perhaps I should simply have been much more direct. Why do you not call out Leo on claims and beliefs he shares that hurt himself and the community? I always assumed the reason why you didn't was because of a bias you had for him. Perhaps I was wrong but if I don't have a proper explanation on why, I'll likely keep "leaning toward" the possibility that you have a bias toward Leo. If I perceive it that way, others may perceive that way too. Other than you, many members here have a true bias for Leo. IMO everyone having a bias toward one thing is what creates an echo chamber. This contributes to an overall worsening perception of the forum by external people which leads to less people being helped by your insights. At the end of the day I really don't care if I'm right or not. I don't "need" to throw you into a category of either biased for Leo or not. I'm simply observing this collection of individuals on the forum and observing their collective bias, from my own pov. I feel like I'd be funny if everyone involved was "into" the joke. "Haha that person is stuck believing they'll find happiness with "advanced" or "complicated" youtube videos". Whenever the person who was stuck seeking "advanced" realizes it, then it may be funny but as long as they are confused and mislead it just feels sad to me. Or do you actually think Leo was saying it as a joke and is perfectly aware that you can be free and total, right now? At least from my honest POV, I think Leo believes this stuff and seeing him believe it doesn't make me laugh. I wish him to be free from those ideas, just like the genetics stuff or the "can't wake up without psychedelics" stuff. You are totally welcome in any conversation friend, no need to apologize. I personally enjoy debates and conversations much more than I should. If there's any thing I said that bothers you feel free to reply to it and don't be afraid of coming across as arrogant. You really aren't. Perhaps the way I formulated my answer made you feel that way. I just had a lot to reply at once and didn't really re-read myself.

I must just be really blind lol Yes. I assume we are individuals with opinions. Do you support BLM, do you not? This is dualistic thinking indeed, support or not support. Perhaps I should dig deeper into those assumptions but as far as a "conversation" is going, the dualities that form opinions are kind of part of what a conversation is. By communicating (like creating youtube videos or forum messages), we can assert what someone supports (sometimes, not always). Even if the mentionned destination doesn't exist people are still "lead" into a path where the mentionned destination is supposedly at the end. I would call this "mis"-leading but we are free to define words as we see fit. If I tell you there's a waterpark on the top of a mountain and you go for it and you realize your starting position and the mountain are all inside a waterpark, it was quite misleading imo. If you are interested in the fully non-dual position (which is not mine) I highly recommend you to watch @Nahm's videos. Personally I'm not qualified to explain this stuff. My only "position" or "question" in this thread is why @Nahm produces content which conflict claims Leo make yet refuses to explicitely say it whenever those claims are challenged by other people. Why is he either pretending like he agrees or try to change the topic when dualistic statements made by Leo are being challenged? This is what that has been bothering me for a very long time, on a very dualistic personal level. I really don't understand clearly how you see it as trolling. It might be silly for you but there are legitimately people who watch a lot of Leo's videos and kinda start believing everything he says. Then they find some claim that do not add up and they are confused. They come on the forum and all they experience all this "backlash" for criticizing without really having the confusion resolved. It really wasn't a question about your views or Leo's views but rather why you act in a way to seemingly purposefully not challenge Leo's views that might not agree with the ones you publish in your videos. Isn't this an opportunity to clear up the confusion instead for OP? In the end I was more or less just curious of your "Leo bias" as I always have been curious about it. Is your Leo bias something I'm imagining or is it actually there? That's what I was trying to answer with my questions. At least your replies in this thread initially made me think it was actually there but I could have been wrong. I was more or less just being a drama queen about how Nahm never criticize Leo even when I think Leo is wrong But you make a fair point. If I were to answer OP directly I'd tell him to keep in mind that Leo likes to romanticize his awakening stories with various fancy adjectives like "higher", "advanced" or "radical". Those have little impact on your development or the insights that are being shared. At the end of day you will find what you want by focusing on what you want, not through magic unreleased "advanced" videos.

Fair enough. I was under the impression that you did not personally support dualities like higher or lower, advanced or not and etc. I personally do not support them or believe in them but we in no way need to agree. Doesn't mean I dislike the people who believe in them, it's just those ideas do not feel right. But if you think there is substance behind the ideas of there being "advanced" or "higher" teachings, why do you not point out this subtance to OP? If Leo is right in the claims he make about the "path" and you support those claims, why not back them up with evidence or demonstrate that they are true? Perhaps there is some very clever jokes I missed from you in this thread, but to OP's eye all you did was probably make fun of his question. I feel like calling him a troll is the best way to make him feel like he's in an echo chamber, where questions that challenge Leo are not allowed. I really asked these questions because I was under the impression you would defend Leo beyond truth. Even if the defense is simply omitting to state a difference of thought or trying to steer threads that criticize Leo in other directions, I think it's slightly disingenuous and protects the beliefs that are being challenged. Of course, advanced is nothing but a concept, a judgement. But you cannot say that without saying that Leo's claims of his content being "more advanced" than others is not true. Which is fair enough but this is what OP deserved to hear. When OP come up with a claim from Leo and they are like "is this actually true?" and all you do is challenge OP for asking the question, it comes across as defensive and unwilling to challenge Leo. There are things which can be said about Leo's claims, picturing spirituality as a difficult path with a "high" end is misleading imo. I don't think we should criticize Leo more necessarily but simply when someone asks a question we should be straightfoward in stating the truth regardless of who's ego it hurts. Otherwise it promotes the idea of this community being an echo chamber.

I'm not asking about what others think. Do you personally support ideas of "higher" and "lower" teachings, or any other dualities I mentionned before? Do you think pushing those ideas onto students actually help them heal/feel/awaken/etc.? Do you have a conflict of interest that prevents you from answering this question directly?

@Nahm Please answer this question honestly. When Leo qualifies his work with "higher", "more advanced", "takes 30 years to understand it fully" or even "too radical", do you think it's a conscious decision made to help the understanding of the content? Do you think identification with the work could be part of why it is qualified with such words?

Can there be beliefs without a self? Can things be unconciously assumed if there is no "me" that is assuming them? I once was in a state of no-self. Then a couple of weeks later I found a huge dysfunctional belief I was holding. This sparked the idea of a "me that has beliefs" and I haven't really realized no-self again since then. Now I care about what beliefs I hold, I'm searching for beliefs and I'm generally blame my unhappiness on the idea that I still hold dysfunctional beliefs or that I struggle to let them go somehow. I want to stop doing that but it's hard to let go of the idea that there are beliefs when I directly experienced beliefs. Perhaps there are beliefs without a self but then who is holding them?

Absolute infinity and love aren't "different fields" they are the exact same thing just mentionned with different words. You = Conciousness = "The Absolute" = Infinity = Love = All = Nothing = Something = One = Many = God = Enlightenment If Leo wants to talk about it with new words, people will ask questions with those new words. The people who are experienced with enlightenment or whatever you want to call it won't be thrown off because of a simple change of words. What enlightenment is about is always the same, regardless of how it is presented. Do the people who talk about enlightenment actually know what they are talking about? You simply can't verify or validate their claims without going through the work yourself. Does it bother you that people who might not know what they are talking about still talk about stuff? If so you might find value in contemplating why. In any case I fully encourage you to do what you were set on to do : directly experience enlightenment through practice. But notice how having judgements toward people who talk without doing is a distraction from doing. Your distaste of those people doesn't actually help you nor changes them.

All judgement is self judgement. People who shit on others are likely the most anxious, scared off being shit on themselves.

That you "can't handle your thoughts" or that you are "obsessed with these thoughts" is also a thought. This struggle between "you" vs "the thoughts" can only happen if you believe there's an issue with your thoughts. This belief/thought that there is an issue is just one more thought, you can stop believing it. This idea that "you are trapped" too is a thought which as you point out feel bad, because it's false. Your feelings/ability to relate are simply indicating you that this thought is not true. You aren't. Stop believing that. Look at what is now. Not knowing who you are is entirely OK. Babies are born and they don't know who they are. People grow up and pretend they know but really, most people feel empty inside because part of their self identify is made up. You don't "need" to know who you are, you just are. Focus on the feeling and everything will become clear. Nothing is distorted but the idea that things are "not ok" or "distorted". This idea that your thoughts or belief has been triggered by some "thing" (like a bomb) is also false. You are thinking them right now and you are free to let go. All help is always good, therapy can be amazingly useful for some people! I also recommend Meditation, an awesome tool to get to the end of thoughts and really understand them.

If you are like me and had many insights and awakenings on psychedelics, you might also struggle with integrating those in your daily life. This integration struggle is an area of spirituality where psychedelic benefits are quite limited since you simply cannot be on psychedelics all the time. For this task, meditation seems to be the key. We've seen other members of the forum go the full meditation route, for instance Consilience who seemed to have great success with his 2 hour meditation habit for a year. (Big congrats!) Both meditation and psychedelics have their merit and their benefits yet it is clear to me that real growth really happens with meditation. Psychedelics can be helpful to undo blocages which otherwise would prevent the formation of a good meditation habit, but they won't achieve the effect of meditation by themselves. Said like this however, this is just an opinion which can be contradicted by anyone. The point of this post to analyze our biology to try and figure out what is being "done" through meditation and why it is necessary for permanent enlightenment. First let's talk about attention span. Low attention span seems to be a growing problem in our society. Social medias (but also some T.V. shows like sponge bob) are literally adapting our brain to change our focus very rapidely. This is in no way a disease but simply a consequence of the body adapting to what it is being used for. Myopia is a similar problem, if you use you eyes to look at things which are close they will specialize for things that are close. Millions if not billions of brains right now are adapting to conditions that are not appropriate for happy lives. The conditions your brain experience on social medias and T.V. shows are different from the life conditions one has to go through to have a successful career and dating life. Yet, compared to myopia, low attention span is harder to "see". If I remove my glasses everything is blurry but when it comes to low attention span, it is purely behavioral. How do you know whether you actually have low attention span or if it is just a belief? Is there an actual measurable and physical property to low attention span? I obviously cannot answer this question with any amount of certainty or proof but here's a theory: In order for your body to operate at its maximum speed and efficiency, it uses myelin sheathing. Those are fatty tissues that protect the nerve cells and also accelerate the communication going through it. There are myelin sheathing through out your body but there are also some in the brain. Since your brain is in constant evolution, they can't be everywhere. When you learn something new, new connections are made and those new connections are not myelin coated, but old ones you've been having repeatedly for years probably are. If you get really good at a sport like baseball, throwing the ball will basically become an automatism. You don't need to think about how you do it, you just do it and you do it fast. This feature of the body is extremely useful, yet it can backfire. Low attention span T.V. shows and social medias basically train you to change your source of attention very rapidely when things happen. You get really good at being reactive and you get really quick at doing it too... Years later, the part of the brain that endlessly switches your area of focus is probably myelin coated, unfortunately. I believe that when we sit in meditation and expand an effort focusing on something, we actually are battling against that myelin coating. Those myelin sheaths are definitely not permanent though as otherwise enlightenment (or even changing your mind, or learning) would be totally impossible. But the only way to retrain the body is to use the body in the desired way to use it : basically not reacting to thoughts and things. This cannot be shortcut by psychedelics. Psychedelics do in fact create new connections but if those new connections do not get used, they are only temporary. If psychedelics could destroy myelin coating they would be deeply impairing to their users and we wouldn't recommend them. After all probably 99.99% of your myelin coating is great, the problematic one is likely a super small fraction. All of this however is just a theory but interesting articles seem to go in its favor. For instance "Can dysregulated myelination be linked to ADHD pathogenesis and persistence?" managed to associate DNA of ADHD to genes which are involved with myelination. Here another study link ADHD to myelin: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajmg.1302?casa_token=iqIeIlYgTVkAAAAA%3A1QkAx7AX1RzTbwpUmYK7YshsirZ0ZNG03v7KfE-L9C4q3xjz7rYtVs2_4FKZf_IYZkt3u5rKC1Sszlw You shouldn't make the mistake to think "enlightenment is defined by genetics" though. One could indeed have genetics that made them use more myelination and thus be more prone to ADHD (and difficulty meditating). But myelin formation does not define your behavior. Note that even if you are one of those, this doesn't mean you can't fix your attention span, it just means your brain make myelin easier. Focus on what you want and your brain will add myelin sheathing to the good habits you create! Anyway, that's all I've got. Hope this was useful to anyone. If you have counter arguments, counter studies or simply anything to say feel free to say it! I mostly did this for myself as I was interested in understanding what was attention span and why I can't have infinite attention span by simply letting go the the idea "that I have low attention span". Sure you should let go of this idea, but the myelin coating in your brain is as real as your body. I think this helps set proper expectations in term of progress in meditation and integration.

After tripping on shrooms, I'd like to summarize the main point of this article : the importance of meditation. But it also came with the wrong assumption that psychedelics somehow hurt your meditation habit. Both are beneficial and there's no point in a debate or comparison.

Who else could it be? Your neighbor?

Isn't this a sweet compliment for the creator of hell? Now the question is, who is designing it?

I recommend taking the recommended dose of Omega 3 (which is pretty high, like 2 serving of salmon per week). Omega 3 won't regenerate your brain cells but it will help protect it against any other source of damage against toxic agents. Everyone has contact with toxic substances on a daily life (like cleaning product) and suffer some very small amount of brain damage. With Omega 3 you can minimize that. Furthermore, a mushroom called Lion's mane has been reported to induce neurogenesis (growth of new brain cells) in adults. This is not a psychoactive substance, more of a supplement that helps regrow brain cells. You may benefit in learning more about Lion's mane mushroom and you can buy them online. You should also keep in mind that the problem here is 2 fold. There's the actual brain damage which you can help with supplements and there's the emotional pain of having damaged something which is very important to you. What you experienced on LSD was likely the latter. Be careful not to identify with the brain damage as you could subconsciously "play out" the role of someone who is brain damaged because that's what you think you are. Yet those thoughts are proof of a healthy brain.

You are indeed free to imagine whatever you want including a "you" that is at the mercy of infinity. But that's a mischaracterization of what you are and what infinity is. I'm not saying you were scared, I'm saying you are scared of this past experience now. Your title implies fear, your replies are full of fear. Regardless of the state you were in, right now you definitely are setting boundary. This idea of "state" and the state you had versus the state you have now is a boundary you are setting that separates you (the present moment) from it (your past experience). There cannot be horror without a boundary. You need a boundary that separates what you want from what you don't want to invent the concept of "horror". If you stay in a state of no boundary there cannot be any problem and any problem you create about this "state of no boundary" are just more boundaries. They are false and unecessary, you can just let them go.

You are the one turning "letting go" into a concept right now. This concept you are making about letting go is not what we mean when we say "let go". This idea that "you can't let go" because of the definition of letting go implies the "you" is ridiculous. You are making up this definition, you can just let go of this definition right now. This big story about the "effects of infinity on me" is just a big story made up by the ego. You theorize it as a dangerous waterslide but in actuality there is absolutely nothing to be afraid of. There's no you that is at the mercy of anything. Panic attacks are the result of fear, a bit like what you are experiencing right now (or at least when you opened this thread). Yes psychedelics can amplify your fear and make them more extreme. You are asking whether you actually want infinity but you associate infinity to the intensity and unpredictability of psychedelics. Infinity (as mandy pointed out) is the present moment. There's absolutely no need for you to take hard psychedelics to attain infinity, happiness and every one of your dream.