Osaid

I believe the microwaveable packaging has carcinogens or something, don't remember too well, wouldn't touch it either. Not hard to find healthy popcorn at the stores anymore either, with coconut oil and avocado oil and non-gmo or whatever.

Speaking of this, I don't see the stigma around potato chips. Aside from the fat it is cooked in maybe, but you can easily find avocado oil varieties now. Is it the calories people are scared of? I found a small (57g I think) bag of potato chips at Starbucks and it had like 750mg of potassium, that's insane. Double the amount in a banana. Potato chips are full of electrolytes.

Croissant diet?? Now you got my attention. Croissant + coffee is a godly combo. French knew what they were doing when they combined butter and flour. But also coffee makes the digestion of fuel like carbs and fat more efficient, and croissants in particular are equally balanced in carbs and fat, which creates a nice energy IME. In my normal diet I personally eat a sprouted organic whole wheat flatbread with ghee and coconut oil, not a croissant but close enough.

Popcorn is surprisingly nutritious. It's a whole grain, but lacks gluten. It's also one of the best sources of fiber. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/popcorn-nutrition-and-health

People digest differently or you might have just not noticed. I tested legumes, had the same problem with galactosaccharides, or so I assume. I find them to be not worth consuming as a primary source of nutrition because of how tough it is to digest. Although nutritionally they look good on paper. I prefer cereals and grains instead, similar nutrition to legumes but much easier to digest.

Kiwi. One small kiwi (69g, 42 calories) has 60-80% of the daily RDA for vitamin C. It also has about 10g less sugar than most fruits, something like a pear for example. And it also has 215mg of potassium, approximately. The skin is also edible, and it is full of biovailable nutrients, fiber, and polyphenols. Eating the skin adds 50% more fiber, and about 30% more folate, vitamin E, and polyphenols. Gold kiwis are my favorite, they taste better, more on the sweeter side, and somehow have even more vitamin C than the green ones.

I think it ties into your existence of what you are in a very deep way. Through logic, you've kind of recontextualized time into something that isn't really conventionally seen as time. Not that this is incorrect, but it might just be pointing to the idea that time is conceptualized or perceived inaccurately, or something like that.

I remember reading about some theory like this a while ago, which was something like "everything has already happened, but your brain just has to process it first", or something like that.

I became a Buddhist non-dual cartoon wolf once. True story.

Yeah but that's not enlightenment. That's just time. That's how the dream "wraps up" enlightenment so to speak. You can travel to Hawaii, but the process of travelling to Hawaii is an abstraction of experience that is never actually experienced, and it is not equal to the experience of being at Hawaii. In the same way, the end result of enlightenment is purely experiential, and it has nothing to do with time. There is no experience in existence that contradicts what is infinite or true, ultimately, which is why you get people saying "Everyone is enlightened!", but I personally find that to be unhelpful as a pointer. It's not that the unenlightened experience is less true, they are just mistaking the human capability of intellect for something that it is not, and that occurs inside of an experience which is infinite. The idea of discerning true and untrue is itself more intellect. I never said that unenlightenment wasn't a human phenomenon, it is, but the process of going from unenlightened to enlightened has nothing to do with the actual experience of it, because that is a relative time-based process. The process happens in many ways which are different for everyone. But the experience of it is not a process at all. It's just what you are. It's what experience has always been, but now there is no human intellect misinterpreting it. If a picture was to convey it, it would be like one of those optical illusions where you can switch perspectives despite the picture itself staying the same. The "switching" of perspectives is seemingly binary but also simultaneously occuring within the exact same experience, and the nature of experience is that it never truly binary. Being infinite means ONE, and it means you only "realize yourself" ONCE. It is a materialistic idea to say that being infinite means you can realize yourself an infinite amount of times, because that is referring to time which is relative and not infinite. Being infinite doesn't mean you chase an "infinite" amount of experiences which make you realize what you are, this doesn't actually ever occur because you are referring to future events, which contradicts reality being one and infinite. Being infinite and "future events" will never fit into eachother, because future events are an abstraction of experience. That is to say, you are never going to find a truer version of yourself which exists in an experience which isn't happening right now.

How is a cartoon wolf hard to believe when salvia can literally transform you into a chair or keep you in another lifetime for 30 years lmao Definitely can, just meditate and focus on your breath and you'll be there in no time.

No, that's why he keeps ascribing dualisms to consciousness, like "higher consciousness" and "degrees of consciousness", etc. His entire model and understanding of reality is just dualistic. It's like a scientist studying an atom. He is conflating his results as if it has something to do with Truth or God, but Truth and God don't deal in dualisms. This is why he scoffs at non-duality and enlightenment now. This is what I've been trying to say this entire time. He might deny this, but it is what he is doing. Could go on forever with these posts.

Language tends to be inherently divisive in that way, but where are my dualisms pointing to and where are Leo's dualisms pointing to? One is pointing to more dualisms, and one is pointing to a lack thereof. The distinction is made because I have to point to your experience of yourself somehow. Leo says that you can realize what you are twice, and many more times, at much deeper levels. I am saying you can only realize what you are once, because to realize yourself twice means that you previously didn't realize something beyond yourself.

Something like that, but the problem is that Leo does not understand that he is doing this, and he does not see it that way. For him, psychedelics are not a tool, but the only way to Truth and God. He is misinterpreting his experiences and results and coming to the wrong conclusions. Psychedelics have become a massive distraction for him, and he has created a seemingly impenetrable cognitive dissonance for himself to prevent him from seeing this. He has quite literally abandoned the idea of reality being "one", and this is not even a strawman, this is what he fundamentally believes. He thinks he has found something "more true" in psychedelics. And as a result the idea of enlightenment does not even fit into his cognitive framework anymore. When it comes to existential deception, it just never fucking changes. It's the same shit structurally across history. Leo is not enlightened, and his thought-based identity is tricking him. He is making the classic fundamental error of believing that something exists beyond the absolute, and thus he still fundamentally believes that reality is dualistic. The complexity of the deception changes, but it's always fundamentally based on dualisms. Look out for dualisms!

In hindsight, Leo's entire method of understanding reality is based on splitting it up into "different" and "deeper" insights, so it makes sense why he conceptually hones in on the world "Love" so hard. He had a particular insight that made him realize that facet of reality, and he has actually been using different terms like this for all of his insights, like "Infinity", "Solipsism", "Love", "Truth." So when someone that actually understands what they are puts it into one term like "enlightenment", it contradicts his way of understanding reality and makes him recoil. But of course these awakenings are not "it", and truth/enlightenment/reality cannot separate itself into different parts of truth. Of course not.

You're confused because you're still clinging on to identities which aren't what you actually are. Confusion happens when the mind latches on to questions and statements which are not experienced. The question-making loops recursively in error because it is trying to find the answer to something that doesn't exist, and this is perceived as "confusion." When you ask: "Are you guys conscious?", this is the same as asking "What am I?" Any existential question can be reframed as you simply not understanding what you are. You don't fundamentally understand what you are yet, which is why you question your existence indefinitely.

Conflating the relative and the absolute.

woah wtf makes me feel like playing jenga

My point is that it is just an expression, and that "being alone" is never experienced in the truest sense, only inferred. Just like the empty cup.

Yes, which is why it feels bad to interpret sometimes. You might view yourself as something limited, which turns that view into a "threat" against your limitless nature. And this causes fear, fast heartbeat, etc. because it is threatening the "you" that exists inside your thoughts. Metaphysical fears seem particularly sticky and inescapable because you have recontextualized the entire structure of your experience as something that is attacking you and threatening you, similar to how an actual physical threat like a bear would. And of course, "you" are always in experience, so a perpetual fight or flight is experienced until you see past the structure of whatever you are imagining and consequently stop interpreting your experience. There is no "feeling of being empty", being empty is not a feeling, in the same way that an empty cup is not a feeling. You are feeling fear, adrenaline, fast heartbeat, and whatever other biological symptoms, in response to a thought ABOUT yourself. You never ever experience an "empty cup", you only experience a cup which exists in front of you, and then a thought that imagines a cup which isn't empty. The emptiness is inferred through thought but not experienced. On a similar note, you never truly experience "being alone as God", that is mostly just a maladaptive identity formed to fit a certain psychedelic experience or state of consciousness.

That's good. To expand on that, states of consciousness are not giving insights. They are not "more truthful" or anything like that, that is a dualistic anthropomorphism. They are simply just putting you in a state of consciousness which forces you to dissolve your previous beliefs and identities and replace them with ones that "fit" that experience. You are not gonna have a thought which says "I am a human" or "I am a piece of shit" in a state of love and unity for example, instead you're gonna have thoughts like "I am God" or "I am one" or "I am alone", because your identities and beliefs have to calibrate themselves to the experience. In the same way you're not gonna think "I am seeing the color red" when in your experience you are seeing the color blue. Notice that you cannot be wrong about anything if you simply stop generating beliefs and identities right now. Your direct experience is not gonna be wrong about itself. "More insights" are created only through a dualistic relationship to beliefs and identities that contradict experience.

Knowledge, concept, imagination, and thoughts are as fundamental and significant to reality as the smell of a flower. It seems otherwise because of your survival bias as a human, and also simply because you don't understand what you are, and thus you don't understand what God is. Good luck making a dualism into "Absolute Understanding" as you say though. If that's how you want to frame it to yourself then go ahead.

Yes. That's right, because you're chasing something that doesn't exist. If you're chasing something, it has to not exist in your experience first. If it does exist in your experience, there is nothing to chase after. Not even that. If you look closer, the satisfaction happens in the present. You just imagine "I chased after this", but that satisfaction is not coming from you chasing anything. You can't be satisfied by something that doesn't exist. If you want to chase after something, then do that. That's all you need to do to be satisfied with what you are doing. If you want a pet cat, your desire is NOT to instantly make a cat appear in front of you. Your desire is to get up in your immediate experience, find the keys, drive your car to the pet store, talk to someone, etc. You are always creating RIGHT NOW, even including the desires of things that do not exist right now. Let's say that you could simply snap your fingers and magically make 100 dollars appear in front of you. Someone stops you from doing this by holding your hand in place. Now, a new satisfactory desire arises, which is to remove the person from your hand. But, the removal of that person is NOT equivalent to having 100 dollars, it is just something that LEADS to the 100 dollars. So, how is this seemingly unrelated experience now "infused" with desire? It's because the only thing to desire is just exactly what you want to do in order to work towards that goal, because that is literally all that can exist in the present moment. When you realize that 100 dollars is created by doing something, that desire for 100 dollars takes a back seat, and instead the DOING replaces that desire, because the doing is all that exists. The only thing you can desire is what exists right now, so simply just ask yourself: What do I want to do RIGHT NOW? Look at what is currently in your reach. What you can reach right now becomes what you desire.

Yes! Both are identities generated to fit the experience. The statements and conclusions also happen in experience. They only exist as that. There is no meaning beyond the statement/conclusion aside from just being a statement/conclusion about experience. The experience does not need a statement or conclusion to exist, and it actually includes any statements and conclusions inside itself.

This is the exact same thing science does. It's just operating within dualisms. It's the same mechanism everytime when you perceive dualisms. Again, you've just kind of abandoned the idea of reality being one/infinite, as if this is more advanced or beyond what Buddhists have realized across time, lol. I think you will probably find that mental constructs never stop being mental constructs. Not that they don't exist or aren't absolute. They're just absolutely mental constructs haha. It's like you're saying: "Dude one day you're gonna reach a level of consciousness where the color red becomes absolute and describes reality completely." No, the color red is the color red in every state. Same with mental concepts. If it becomes something else, it's not a mental concept anymore. "Buddhism from hell" is apt, I like that, credits to @SeaMonster.