Osaid

Right, but what reason? What is "consciousness" and why do you differentiate it from your current experience? Is it like an insight or recognition of what your current experience is, is that how you hold the term "consciousness"? Is experience a relative phenomenon, and then consciousness isn't? Being knowledgeable is not the same as clarity of experience, it is actually not even inherent to experience. You can lack knowledge, after all. But, even the perception of a lack of knowledge is itself knowledge, which is to say, it is just an inference of what you lack created through intellect. Yes, the mind is tricky. Enlightenment is just clarity of perception. Knowledge itself is a perception that occurs and becomes perceived in experience. Knowledge itself is transient.

True. He's very smart intellectually, but it becomes his vice when it comes to understanding consciousness. Observing how that plays out can teach you many lessons for sure. He is still ultimately just doing philosophy, not an actual examination of consciousness. Pretty much. The ego orchestrating that doesn't see it that way though. The ego sees it as "deeper" and "more true" and "going beyond enlightenment." "They're deluded, not me, enlightenment must be an illusion." He basically realized that his idea of reality was inherently dualistic and doubled down on it, like: "Hmmm, nope, I'm right, non-duality must be wrong."

But apparently there is a difference between "experience" and "direct consciousness"? Because experience is biological?

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.