Osaid

Psychedelics create powerful experiences, and equally powerful delusions.

No. "Awakenings" are synonymous with "enlightenment experiences" or "kensho." None of these are the same as enlightenment, though. You can have an infinite amount and variety of awakenings, but they are ultimately just temporal identity shifts, nothing permanent or true. I elaborate more here: Yep. You've understood well.

Gottem

You have? None of that with Leo. More of this: I'll give you the run down so you don't have to scroll through all the lore: Leo does not believe in non-duality or enlightenment anymore. He is chasing "deeper" awakenings and understandings through psychedelic use, that is his current trajectory.

I suspect this often occurs from traumatic upbringing, particularly with narcissists or emotionally unstable people. It is possible to be emotionally or psychologically abused or manipulated without even noticing, like through a narcissistic parent. I have dealt with the exact same combination of problems and I believe it is because of upbringing. Feeling unworthy and mistrustful makes perfect sense if you imagine a narcissistic companion to go with it. This also affects motivation, including the idea that everything needs to be perfect, because this minimizes criticism in a narcissistic relationship. It feels comfortable to not take risks (the perfectionistic mindset prevents you from taking risks as well), because then you don't mess anything up, and so you don't experience verbal criticism, and thus you also don't experience any subsequent feelings of unworthiness. It is all a carefully crafted defense mechanism, in this context.

It feels magical and maybe even energizing to believe yourself to be God, but it is ultimately mind activity, yes. The mind adds narratives to the non-dual experience. The mind naturally subsides and becomes disillusioned after a while. The state which does not have to believe itself to be God is ironically the true state of God. Otherwise, it is just a word made up by someone who was trying to point to your current experience, and you are just assimilating the ideas you have around that word into yourself. There is a difference between being God and believing you are God. The latter is an identity, as substantial as believing that you are a unicorn. It is as cheap and temporal as any other identity. The former is not an identity, and it is actually not really anything at all. Although, I agree that avoiding the term "God" is probably best. It is heavy, as you said. But it must be used on occasion to untie the minds of those who still have to believe in it. Good post.

No "you", imagination can't be imagined by imagination. Forget "others." Just realize that all distinctions are imagined.

You want a thought to prove your thought. Fun.

You are anthropomorphizing consciousness. Consciousness is not "mine" or "theirs." Consciousness is not in "past" or "future." You are concluding things based on relative parameters, but consciousness is not relative. There are people in consciousness, not consciousness in people. The fundamental error is believing that you can think of what is absolutely true. You can't. You can only become aware of it. You are trying to imagine something that is true about your experience, but imagination is just a part of experience. Your imagination only works in relativity. "Know consciousness happening simultaneously with mine" is just intellectual diarrhea which points to nothing, because you are ascribing relativity to consciousness, which can't be the case. This is the problem with trying to become enlightened through philosophy.

My point is that there are ways of consuming carbohydrates which have a significant difference in absorption despite being the same type of carbohydrate. Fructose, as you know, has a different effect despite being sugar. There is nuance which does have importance, because it is literally metabolized differently. My stance is much more holistic than measuring polyphenols or just sugar spikes. You will quite literally feel experientially different consuming something like pizza even if you exactly measured it to have the same amount of sugar as something like fruit. The fiber in fruit definitely also curbs the increase in blood sugar. Not to mention, honey will taste sweeter than just plain table sugar, which causes you to naturally consume less of it. There are many factors beyond just polyphenols and sugar increases. The fiber, the taste, the vitamins, all play a part in how you interact with the sugar. I would never become obese or sick from consuming some amount of table sugar daily because it is maladaptive consumption that causes those types of chronic problems. But at the same time, consuming honey would still feel better or physiologically different, and it is objectively "healthier" because of polyphenols and fructose. I agree that maximizing your body's ability to handle food and maintain homeostasis is actually more important than the food you put inside of it, but the food you put inside of it is still important nonetheless. The engine for the car is more important than the fuel, but it still won't run without fuel. It will also run differently. Why doesn't it matter? Interesting, there is always that risk with processed food. Less processed is better because there are always contaminants which you cannot personally screen for at the factory or production. You didn't, but you also started talking about starch for seemingly no reason, so I had to assume it was about the sugar being compared to orange juice. Yeah, but the nutrition is wrapped in an insane amount of easily absorbed sugar, to a maladaptive degree I would say. Not very efficient IMO.

Aw ❤️ I was recently thinking of all the work the other mods do as well, good stuff.

It is the same thing, yes. But it is not your ideas of it. If you are not aware of it then that means you only have ideas of it. You can't be aware of the color red by having ideas about it, you either see it or you don't. "Finding God" or "looking for God" is the wrong objective in my opinion, because that means you are chasing after an idea. If God is supposed to be your experience, then you simply have to question what exists in front of you, which is just your own experience. What are you experiencing right now? You don't question "God", you question experience. If you understand your experience, then you will understand God, you don't have to worry about God prior. "God" is just a word someone made up to point you towards the direction of your current experience.

The best way I can explain it is exactly how I explained it before. Enlightenment is fundamentally subtractive, which means it is a "removal" of false identification. That is why it is often described as a "non-experience." This "removal" happens in an instant, it is a very simple experiential shift that can be triggered by questioning and examining what you are. People do it through self-inquiry, meditation, etc. You're not gaining anything and you're not experiencing anything new, but it is a recontextualization. It is like that optical illusion where the bunny switches to a duck and vice versa, the picture doesn't change at all, but perception somehow does. I might be losing brevity by trying to explain it so simply and clearly, but I think it is very helpful to know that there is an objective aspect to it where you literally lose your ability to think about yourself or have emotions towards an imaginary self, this is the part which is not really communicated very well in my opinion, and I think it clears up a lot of confusion. Like there are definitely objective and measurable consequences to being enlightened, like a difference in energy and sleep and how you react to thoughts.

Is that what they said on the no-fap forum? Also, what do you mean real women? I thought you were solipsism-pilled? There are no real people. It's all masturbation. You have to eternally feel like a loser now, because you are stuck masturbating as God for eternity.

Case in point:

You are extrapolating the term, it is not inherently negative. It just refers to the reduced libido afterwards, and the regained ability to act rational again. For many, that involves the rational mind criticizing and shaming them for doing it, but of course, that is not mutually inclusive.

Post-nut clarity is gonna be tough, instant existential nihilism.

You're not going to reinvent absolute truth or enlightenment, unlike what Actualized.org proposes. Actualized.org does not cover what I am saying, the owner of the site literally denounces non-duality now. They do not understand non-duality, and they come to terms with this by saying "what I have realized is more true." Yes, you've had what are called "awakenings" or "enlightenment experiences" or "kensho." I'm talking about enlightenment, which is different from all of those things. You can have an infinite amount and variety of non-dual experiences or awakenings, but they are ultimately just temporal identity shifts, nothing permanent or true.

How is it possible to have an emotional reaction to something which you do not know? Why does it feel bad to speculate? What does it mean to you? What kind of ideas does it create about yourself?

Hot.

When it comes to describing direct experience, philosophy is always ignorant and speculative. When you think your philosophy is not speculative, it turns into delusion. It is like asking a question, and then saying "my question is true." This means you are missing the point of engaging in a question. The question gauges what is true, it is not what is true. The question is made of nothing but your own intellect, and it will vanish once you stop asking it.

Philosophy. "Will God send me to hell?", but reskinned with the terms "consciousness" and "infinity." Ultimately, a gross and overly intellectual bastardization of the two terms.

The different ratios of fructose would impact blood sugar and metabolism differently. Honey is mostly fructose, which has a lower impact on blood sugar than sucrose. Interesting, I didn't even know white sugar still had starch in it. But on the other hand, orange juice would have a different ratio of fructose and fiber or whatever else, but at the same time, what grocery stores consider to be orange juice is essentially just diluted sugar syrup created through orange juice concentrate. The affect of starch on blood sugar is not much of a concern when it comes to whole foods, because it always occurs alongside lots of fiber and other nutrients in nature which keep blood sugar stable; potatoes, wheat, etc. I would say this is only worth considering when it comes to pure or added starch. Otherwise, there is much more nuance to sift through, like how pasta causes lower blood sugar than bread which uses same flour, or even just depending on how you cook it.

You ultimately have to reconcile that there is no difference between anything that is experienced and what is absolute. It is mostly just a scenario where you are seeing a rope as a snake, so to speak. And you have to recognize the rope as the rope. The rope is absolute, not the snake. There are no objects in any experience, even if you think there are. There are no snakes in any experience, even if you think there are. You are already "being the thing itself", you just think that you aren't. The goal is to find out why you think that, and how you think it. You are already directly conscious of everything, you just think that you aren't. There is no alternative to being directly conscious. If there was a flux in "being something" and "not being something", that would be a duality. You can absolutely know what your perception is, because you are perceiving it. It is all in front of you. It is you. Your experience can't hide anything from you because you are it. You can't partially perceive a color or sound, you can either perceive color or you can either perceive sound. Awareness is never partial about what it is aware of. So then, what are you currently aware of as yourself? Your current experience always has the answer, you just have to question it. There is no such thing as anything relative in experience, just the thought of it. The thought itself is infinite too, where is the edge of your thought? The location of it? The distinction of it?

What is the difference between experience and direct consciousness? How can you experience something indirectly? I would normally refrain from creating rationalities, but it seems you have rationalized some kind of distinction between experience and enlightenment. I am explaining to you how enlightenment seemingly occurs within all experiences, since that was related to the contention you brought up. I agree that enlightenment is not a state or transient experience since that would create a duality, but again, it manages to exist within all of those things because it is always the case, so that needs to be reconciled.