Osaid

Hahahahaha, so you went back to realizing you're just a human. Great. Much better place to be at actually. Or maybe God with an identity crisis, or I guess, a God that wants to be human? The ideological insanity that stems from psychedelics is really quite amazing.

Psychiatrists do a similar "shrugging-off" when it comes to the occurence of PSSD from SSRIs, which can basically remove sexual function indefinitely, among other anhedonic symptoms, and there is no known reliable cure.

From the point of view of someone who is trying to figure out what reality or existence is, or such existential questions. The context of your current experience, no other context is needed, because you exist, and you are trying to figure out what you exist as.

This is a valid sentiment. Realizing existential truth isn't anything like human or survival-based intelligence, really. It's more like a removal of all your beliefs that you created through your own intelligence. Humans tangle themselves up in their intelligence all the time, hyper-intelligent aliens wouldn't be any different, it would be harder for them to not get tangled. But, maybe they would have invented an instant enlightenment machine or something, lol.

The word "truth" in the average use of the word definitely points to "what exists." It is a definition that humans created. Someone asks: Is there a unicorn in your room? You say yes, they say you are not telling the truth. You say no, they say you are telling the truth. In order to verify whether you are telling the truth, the person has to check your room for the unicorn to see if it exists there. I would separate absolute truth from this human-invented notion of truth, because existence itself is meta to all notions and definitions you can come up with. The definitions happen inside of existence, so it does not capture existence since it is a subset of existence. Absolute truth points to what exists, but the realization of what exists is not a conclusion like "that thing exists therefore it is true", it is just realizing exactly what exists. You could say it is like realizing that nothing untrue can exist, therefore truth as a concept dissolves entirely in that realization.

You're not ever actually experiencing time, or time coming back. It is as experiential as thinking about a math equation. You are experiencing resistance to a believed thought form, and you label that resistance as "time." What time exists as is very simple, it is just a word or number, like "Thursday" or "9am." When you see either of those, your identity immediately starts operating, you imagine yourself as something that exists inside of some universe where the time is currently 9am, but actually that part where you imagine yourself is completely unnecessary and it is not time, it is just an imagined ego self. The thought form in question is essentially just a very genuine belief that there exists some experience elsewhere that you can escape to which isn't your current experience. You say that the mechanism of the psychedelic is placebo, which I contest is a misinterpretation. The idea that beliefs and thoughts are creating illusion, is just more beliefs and thoughts. And the idea that the psychedelic should have no power, and that it is just placebo, is also a belief and thought. The only way for you to access that conclusion is to imagine the idea that you took psychedelics in the first place. Realizing that your knowledge and beliefs about experience are not existential does not give you some kind of power over experience, that is a misinterpretation of that insight, and that misinterpretation is itself belief and knowledge. It is not that beliefs and knowledge are untrue, invalid, false, or illusion, it is that very interpretation itself which is all of those things. You are not going to override the entirety of existence by realizing that thoughts are imaginary. You can realize that in the baseline human state, and it does not transform you into something which is not human, it just recontextualizes the experience of being a human. Calling psychedelics placebo in this matter is as much placebo as saying "I am just imagining that food is going to fulfill my hunger" and then starving yourself to death. Imagination and belief is a human phenomenon, you are not breaking the limits of reality by seeing that thoughts are not existential, you are simply seeing that limits and non-limits were a human interpretation of reality and that they never had anything to do with reality at all. You are using imagination to say that "psychedelics don't have any affect on me because they are imaginary", so the very thing you are criticizing is what you are using to criticize in the first place. Psychedelics not existing in your experience doesn't mean it has no effect on you, it simply means that it does not exist. The former meaning is based on an interpretation which actually sneakily assumes that psychedelics do exist, and that some sort of effect is "removed" as a result. It is not a true recognizing of the fact that psychedelics are imaginary. You are imagining that psychedelics are having an effect on you, but you are also imagining that they don't have an effect on you. Neither is true, both are imaginary. These psychedelics can be very tricky in how they create narratives about reality, so be careful. If you don't have proper epistemology and grounding you will get twisted into adopting odd metaphysical ideas. Experientially, if I had to describe what is happening, it is simply the case that certain memories and thought forms start arising again, and these memories and thought forms "pull you in" and "trigger" you back into your ego identity. This is why it's easy to be peaceful while meditating, but less easy when you are working the register at your 9-5, the latter situation creates lots of thoughts that trigger your identity. The psychedelics remove certain capacities which allow for your ego to form, so that there is no stimuli which can "pull you in" while the drug is active. But, from a biochemical perspective, the exact point where the chemical wears off is where the identity can sneak itself in again, because now your mind is back to its normal capabilities, and your normal capabilities include a very vivid sense of imagination which you entangle yourself in.

I think it is likely a result of fearful thought-attachment. Psychological, as you say, but for me I see lots of overlap between psychology and spirituality, to the point where the distinction seems almost superfluous. Nightmares and odd dream states tend to resolve themselves when you fix your sleep and also your relation to thoughts in the waking state. What I notice happening a lot in dream-like states is that there is an initial thought form that appears, you react fearfully to that thought, and then that fearful emotion instantly manifests itself as some monster or something.

It's just a criteria you're making up, don't get too hung up on it. You could say it is a glimpse into what you are, but then I say that is all of reality. There are just certain experiences which make what you are more obvious, or that they change your beliefs about what you are to a radical degree, and then you say: "That experience was super mystical, because I realized a, b, and c about myself."

Nope, might have seen a few spirits/ghosts here and there, but that's more supernatural, and I personally wouldn't consider it relevant. There was lots of love, creativity, and wonder, but it wasn't to do with any "mystical experiences."

I might have worded that badly. I am just saying that the thing that you are scared of is just more imagination. It's not an actual transcendence of imagination that you're fearing. It's just another type of imagination to fear. As you said, you didn't actually "go all the way", so what you are fearing is simply another paradigm. It's the materialist paradigm being replaced by the laser paradigm, so to speak. Anyways, I personally wouldn't get attached to any idea like "reality is imaginary" either, that might not even be what was being shown, and that is basically just a story as well. Don't get too attached to descriptions of reality, they are just descriptions. My inquiry about vanilla ice cream was to ground you in your experience and highlight that whether you imagine lasers or physicality, at the end of the day, the perception of vanilla stays the same no matter what existential knowledge you have.

If a possibility exists, it is not a possibility anymore, it is just what exists. If humans could fly, it would exist, and so you would say: the fact that we cannot fly is now a limitation. And so you have created a koan for yourself, where everything always seems to be limited no matter what. If either case exists, you perceive a limit. But how exactly are you perceiving limits in the first place? Perhaps it is the perception of "all possibilities that exist" that creates limitation and is itself limitation? How is possibility perceived, anyways? Where is it perceived from? If humans that cannot fly do not exist, how is it possible to perceive a human which cannot fly as a limitation? Is it a limitation to not be something which does not exist? Is it infinite to be something that does not exist?

Why does the fact that there are lasers behind the scenes matter? Why is it more relevant than imagining that there is a physical reality behind the scenes? When you are eating vanilla ice cream, what does the knowledge of lasers have to do with the taste of vanilla? When you are eating vanilla ice cream, what does the knowledge that the ice cream is made of atoms have to do with the taste of vanilla? Do lasers hold the taste of vanilla together? Do atoms hold the taste of vanilla together? You have not truly realized that reality is imaginary. You have replaced a previous belief with another belief, which has to do with lasers or whatever. If you realize that physicality is imaginary, that is fine, but then you are imagining another idea to take its place which says "I am imagining reality through lasers" or some such thing, which is just more imagination. You have not escaped imagination, you have just come up with a different form of imagination which you say is somehow more transcendent than the previous imagination.

Just describing what I'm seeing 😅

Humans have imaginary tails. A human is like a dog that can imagine an infinite amount of tails inside of its head and then judge itself for not grasping all the imaginary tails. Oh, you never realized that particular tail is imaginary? I'm more awake than you! Oh wait, that guy over there only realized that 3 tails are imaginary, but I've realized that 20 are imaginary. He needs to have 17 more awakenings about those specific types of tails to be as woke as me!

Grasp what? There's nothing to grasp, it's imaginary. 😂 You don't even actually understand that "other people" are imaginary. "Other people don't exist" is not the same as realizing that other people are imaginary, that itself is a conclusion which is also based in imagination, and it is the modus operandi that your ego uses to make sense of your experience. If you imagine an infinite amount of things, you can grasp that they don't exist an infinite amount of times, and all of that "grasping" will be equally as deep and metaphysical to you. This is basically what all awakenings are, they are changing and removing identities and beliefs, which is why you will chase them infinitely until you realize what you actually are, which is beyond concepts. In the mean time, enjoy your infinite tail chasing.

It's a distraction. A new conclusion or belief to superimpose onto everything. It doesn't change anything because it is a belief about experience, which is to say, it is a new belief about yourself. You are not a belief. Ok, fine you are alone, but what is it that is alone? Do you actually know what you are? Ok, fine, you are dreaming everyone up, but what is the thing that is dreaming everyone up? Do you actually know what you are? Notice that the conclusions "alone" and "dreaming everything" have nothing to do with your actual experience, they are basically just "side-quests" so to speak, and are just conceptual stories or conclusions. Neither conclusion answers what you actually are. It is just pointing relative to other things. "I am not this lamp", "I am not other people", "I am not a tree", "I am not a table", "I am a thing that imagines other things", ok, but then what the fuck are you? Stop jumping around it! You are just trying to define yourself by pointing to things that are relative. Anything defined or concluded is based on relative parameters.

I've probably studied Leo's content the most out of everyone. 😂

I recently realized that unicorns are imaginary. Every single unicorn you ever imagined doesn't exist right now. Seriously, try it, look at your experience. There are no unicorns, they don't exist, because they happen inside of your mind. When you look at a unicorn, that unicorn is occuring in your experience, nowhere else. All unicorns are just you as God playing with yourself. God just imagines unicorns for eternity to entertain itself. That is what God is. An infinite imaginative dreamer. All alone by itself, imagining unicorns. If you deny this, you are just too afraid to stomach the fact that all unicorns are imaginary. This is one of the deepest and most ultimate awakenings you can have.

Humans forget things. Only a human can forget that it is God. Only a human can realize that other humans don't exist. Only a human can realize that it isn't human. You are also accessing the fact that you forgot something through memory. Again, nothing here is absolute, it is your own anthropomorphic bias projected onto reality. This is all just a story about yourself that you are concocting, a very human story. This is all fundamentally stemming from the belief that you genuinely exist inside of thought.

Well observed. It is the belief that there is risk towards yourself in socializing which creates social anxiety. You have beliefs about yourself which you don't want to change, and you perceive social situations as something that can change those beliefs, so you act accordingly to prevent that from happening. Your emotions and bodily reactions are perfectly aligned with your intentions, which is to perpetuate the beliefs you have about yourself, but the permanent solution is to realize you aren't a belief. If you have beliefs about yourself, then the ideas that other people convey to you become a threat, because those ideas can change the beliefs you have about yourself, and thus it is a threat to your very existence, in a similar way that a wild animal would make you uneasy since it can physically harm you and affect your existence. The stomach sensation is probably cortisol and adrenaline build up, or what is called butterflies in the stomach. It is a normal physiological reaction to situations which we want to avoid, in the same way how you would get adrenaline when avoiding a bear. It can seem as if the solution is to simply "stop believing bad things about yourself" or something of that sort, but that is still in the realm of beliefs and it is just a changing of beliefs, so it is similar to fighting fire with fire. The root solution is more like realizing that it is actually impossible to believe a bad thing about yourself, or even think of yourself at all. It's not that social situations are causing social anxiety, it is the belief that you have about yourself in relation to that social situation which creates anxiety. Social anxiety = the belief which says "I am a bad person if this goes wrong." It is not the social situation, it is the belief about yourself that you create from inside of the social situation. This is exactly why you can be sitting on your bed, remember some cringey thing you did a few years ago, and then completely relive that situation emotionally while being on your bed. You didn't enter a social situation, you remembered a social situation you had from a long time ago, and that memory triggered the exact same belief that occurred at that time, which then triggered the same emotional and physiological reaction as well.

Solipsism is a belief about experience. It's relative to people. No people = no solipsism to contemplate and think about. Unfortunately most people actually perceive themselves as existing inside of imagination, which is what ego is, so it's very hard for them to see that thinking about people is not the same as people. It's just knowledge. As a baby, before you see the first person ever, you don't have any conception of other people. It's not metaphysics, and it's not absolute, it literally does not exist when you are born. It is just relative concepts. "You can't know that other people exist through imagination" != "other people don't exist" The latter is a conclusion arrived by perceiving the former. It's all imagination. You cannot know that other people don't exist without consulting imagination in the first place. "Realizing solipsism" is knowledge-building, it is not existential. And that seems to be the case with a lot of these different awakenings, you guys are just arriving at different conclusions and ideas and insights about reality which you didn't have before. You might as well realize that the tree outside of your house doesn't exist, tree-awakening. Or that that sun doesn't exist when you look at it, sun-awakening! The sun is absolutely non-existent guys! If you close your eyes and focus on experience, you can't experience the sun! This entire thing is so hilariously anthropomorphic, the only reason you focus on "other people" instead of the sun or a tree is because you are a human and humans care about people. No one cares if you realize that the sun doesn't exist, but everyone cares when you say "people don't exist", because that is what you as a human find relevant and intellectually satisfying. When someone says "hey bro the sun doesn't exist", it doesn't really matter to you, because you can experientially recognize that this guy just reached some intellectual conclusion which is irrelevant to your experience. The world is not ending. And you have not frozen to death. But, when someone starts saying that other people don't exist, you get your panties in a twist.

I also prefer calling it "infinite" instead of "one", because "one" implies "two." "Oneness" isn't too bad either, it has more flair to it than just "one." The word "one" pops up since being "two" is always made through imagination. But the actual reality is neither one or two, although the logical conclusion becomes "if it can't be multiple, then it is just one thing", which is not wrong necessarily, but I find that calling it "one" is too logical for my taste as well. It's more like there are many things happening in one thing, like you would see in a movie or painting. Or there could be nothing at all, depends what state you're in.

Bypassing the intellect through intellect. It's seeing the limits of intellect by questioning it until it evaporates. But I also don't agree with him that most people aren't sharp enough to do it, and I think self-inquiry is perfectly valid. It's just not encouraged or even seen as a valid possibility by most people.

If you don't imagine another person, you can't realize that they don't exist. Your entire realization is based in imagination as well, which is what I am trying to point out. Being alone doesn't mean that other people don't exist, that is an inference which comes from memory and identity, but it can't be experienced. If you say that other people don't exist when you are alone, that is the same as saying that non-existence exists. Every single time you say "this doesn't exist", that is not a perceivable thing, that is always 100% a relative dualistic concept. The only way you can ever reference non-existence is through duality. What I'm saying is super simple: You can't lose something by thinking about it, that is just you changing beliefs about yourself. If I am in a void, I would think yes, I'm alone. If a human appears in the void, I can view that human and think "Oh look, a human is here as well." I can theorize about whether the human has an experience or not, but that is not what the experience of the human is. I can look at a tree in front of me, but me theorizing about whether the tree has an experience or not has nothing to do with the experience of that tree. For most people, their identity is meshed with "other people", so I can see how having an experience where you are just floating in a void somewhere could create a solipsistic conclusion, but that is just an inference based in your identity. It's not that they have their own experience, and it's not that they don't have their own experience. It's just you thinking about what their experience is. The desire to prove their experience is an error in your own perception of thoughts, you can't prove a thought that you are having to yourself. It is the same as imagining a unicorn, and then thinking "I wonder if that unicorn has its own experience?" You can't verify that question you have formulated because there is nothing to verify, you made it up through thought. If you speculate that they have their experience, then that is a speculative position you can hold even when no one is around you. If you speculate that they don't have an experience, then that is a speculative position you can hold even when no one is around you. In both cases, it is just you thinking about experiences, it is not relevant to the experience of another person. In the same way that you can speculate about whether a tree has its own experience, but that speculation is irrelevant to the experience of being with an actual tree. You are mistaking your perception of thought forms for something absolute and existential. It is not more correct to not think about someone having an experience, and it is not more correct to think about someone not having experience. They are both just thoughts. You can't perceive someone not having their experience, you can only perceive the belief that they don't have their own experience. When you look at the color red, you don't say "I am experiencing not blue", you say "that's red." The former is a mental inference you are creating. In the same way, when you look at someone and say "that person is not having their own experience", that is a mental inference you are creating.