Osaid

How many of Ralston's followers have had confused breakdowns about solipsism? And love? What about your followers? Are they becoming more enlightened than Ralston when they take psychedelics? Apply your own criticisms to yourself. You will find many frequent psychedelic users who are just batshit confused about their experiences, and looking to YOU for solace on their metaphysical insights. That's basically the gist of this entire forum. Because they are not even aware of what they are talking about. That is the dynamic here. But this also happens percisely because you are not aware of it as well. So it is ignorance and I am not blaming you. Your followers are blindly adopting your own words as well. This is not purely a Ralston phenomenon. This is a phenomenon of human psychology in general.

If you became enlightened you would have. Which is different from a secular awakening of course. It's just realizing what Truth is and then staying there forever. Ralston doesn't have to give any ideas on Love because you'll get the real thing when you're enlightened.

No. It's very nebulous, and purposefully so. That's exactly what you need. There is no accurate pointer to enlightenment, because it's just a pointer. Any way of describing it is not it. The dependency on pointers should be minimized as much as possible, because pointers are not it. Or else you get endless solipsism threads, as you see on the forum. You are going to lead people completely astray when you tell them to look for "love" instead of something like "truth/enlightenment." When someone hears love, their mind immediately fills with relative bullshit. When someone hears "truth/enlightenment", they think "Wait, truth? enlightenment? What's that? Where is it?"

He does, he just calls it "enlightenment" or "consciousness."

No, I know what he would say. It's at the beginning of this thread. He also straight up acknowledges it in the video, like I said before. I want to also say that I probably wouldn't tell someone "You can't be enlightened if you don't understand Love" outside of this forum, I am just catering to the vocabulary which has been developed here, as that would be misunderstood by most people.

Ralston is not unaware of Love. That is not the main issue here. He clearly refers to it in the video I sent. You can't be enlightened if you dont understand Love. "Love" = enlightenment. Leo is just projecting that Ralston has some narrow understanding of reality, as he does with all enlightened people.

No. Thought does not do that. A human enacting a physical reaction does all that. Thought is made of the same susbtance as the thought "I am a unicorn" or "Blue is red." It has the exact same potency as both of these thoughts, no matter how detailed or accurate or descriptive the thought is. You can react consciously or unconsciously. Consciously reacting is simply seeing what you are reacting to. Thought can be used efficiently, but that only happens when a human relates itself to it in a certain manner, it is not an inherent property of thought.

It's confusing, but it's just his solipsism video conveyed in a different way. He ultimately says "Everytime I became conscious of a new godhead, I instantly realized it was just part of my experience." That's the sentiment of the entire episode. He is trying to explain how "multiple minds" could fit into one experience. It is a more holistic version of his solipsism episode, since it accounts for the experience of "multiple minds." https://www.actualized.org/insights/on-infinite-gods .

I think it's relevant lol

I guess that's a way to describe it

Epic, which awakening was that?

No, they are inanimate objects.

Yes. That's how words work. Everything is banana. Your "understanding" is concept. You came up with a word "imagination" which encapsulates everything, but this is not equal to an understanding of what everything is. Yes, everything is everything. But I don't think you don't understand what that is.

No, if you imagine it can, then that's how it might seem. But it's never the case. What is the case is that it is just imagination. It's purely just a function of you imagining things. You are mistaking imagination for experience. Imagination is something humans are good at. It's really not, it just seems that way, because you're interpreting it through logic/reason, which is just more thoughts. Duality doesn't exist experientially. You just imagine it does. What it exists AS is imagination/thought. Duality = thought. Literally. Paradox exists relatively in contrast to the finite mind's attempt to compartmentalize reality. Duality is not an inherent feature of reality. It's like someone tells you "In my experience I fully believe that I am a unicorn right now, but from your enlightened perspective it looks like that's not the case at all. So, this means that reality is inherently paradoxical, and that both duality and non-duality are true, since they are both being experienced." It's like, no, you're just using a relative human capability, which is imagination, to convince yourself that you're a unicorn. You're not actually ever a unicorn. He is realizing that his conclusive thoughts and ideas are contradicting experience, and so he reacts to this by saying "It's all bullshit." His thoughts are not changing the fabric of reality, and they are not genuinely affecting anything like "duality." Duality is just a thought form. It is relative. You can't forget Truth, forgetting is just a relative function of mind, so it can't be related to Truth. Truth exists in experience. It's more the case that you have to remove or forget what you are thinking right now in order to "remember" truth, and even that is not enough sometimes. I am picky with the terminology because it's important to be accurate here.

If you think "There are no others" >>> what changes in experience? If you think "There are others" >>> what changes in experience? If you think "I am a unicorn" >>> what changes in experience? Furthermore, if there are, why any emotional reactions to any of these thoughts? You are not a thought. So it won't change you at all. If you aren't conscious of it, it's not you. You can't compensate by thinking about it.

Bullshit is a function of mind. In experience, there is an intelligence which cannot bullshit itself. Can your table bullshit itself? Can the color red bullshit itself?

What I'm talking about is not "Absolute Solipsism", it's just a small aspect of the only Truth which is enlightenment. It's a small part of a big singular thing. To view "Absolute Solipsism" you have to partition truth to focus on that particular aspect of reality. Awakenings are just narrow experiences of the small parts of that big singular thing, which is Truth/enlightenment. I know Leo knows what I am pointing to, but he is probably not conscious of it right now, and if he is, that is still just a small aspect of Truth/enlightenment. Not the full thing. There is no existential subset of truth in reality that is like "Absolute Solipsism." Truth cannot FOCUS IN on a small aspect of itself. That is not Truth/enlightenment. That is an awakening which hints at Truth/enlightenment. It's like the elephant and the blind men.

Your POV is inside of everyone else's POV. You are viewing everyone's POV right now. You ARE everyone's POV. Otherwise you wouldn't be talking about "other POVs" in the first place. Hypothetically, if you DID experience everyone's "POV", their POVs would literally stop existing, because it would just become your POV. The POV of other people exists EXACTLY BECAUSE you cannot directly view them. It is a relative dualistic dance. Sometimes "other people" is visual perception. Sometimes it is a physical presence. Sometimes it is sound. Sometimes it is imagination. It changes. It is ephemeral. It's not some fixed idea of "Everyone is imaginary!" Is the flower in front of you "other"? It happens in your own experience, yes. But it absolutely has its own unique qualities, despite being in your POV. It has its own intelligence. Its own flair. Which cannot be imagined by any kind of ego "you", only experienced. There is an input from you, where you imagine things about people. You imagine things about yourself as well. This is being mistaken as "you" being "alone." No. Is realizing that the tree outside your house is being imagined making you lonely too? Do you want the physical tree to exist in your experience forever? Do you want a physical human to exist in your experience forever? No! It's a beautifully intelligent dualistic dance. Love it. The tree becomes concept. The tree becomes physical. The tree becomes an idea for a drawing. The tree becomes a creating of oxygen. You are putting a big limit on the tree when you say "It only exists when it is physical!" Same goes for other people. It is an anthropomorphic and materialistic interpretation of reality when you think otherwise. Really, any notions of "you" and "other" are equally real, because they are dualities which depend on eachother. Yin and yang.

100%

Yes. You're talking relatively here. Relatively, no. Absolutely, yes. "Everything that is possible" is an abstraction of experience you just created. It's a future event which can only exist as extrapolation from the present moment. It's infinite, but I get what you mean. The qualia is a certain way. But you are speaking relatively, because you are comparing it to some experience which has different qualia. You cannot point to anything in your experience which is actually limited. That's really just life. It all goes infinitely deep. The only question is can you perceive life as it is, or not?

I am not saying that this ends. It's just not Truth or enlightenment. This is life. Which can be lived afterwards. "Going deeper" is an exploration of reality and God. It is not a permanent clarity of all experience, which is enlightenment. It is definitely the end of seeking Truth and figuring out what you are.

Truth and clarity does not exist out of your current POV right now either. Let's use the solipsism logic. Are you experiencing "infinite experiences" right now? Are you experiencing "degrees of consciousness" right now? They're beliefs, no?

Assumption. Also, not an idea. I'm not thinking anything! Enlightenment is not something you think. I had ideas about enlightenment before, but of course I don't need them anymore. I don't need ideas about the color red when I'm looking at the color red. You think I'm trying to maintain some idea or existential position, which is wrong. I'm not maintaining anything. I'm just describing what experience is. You can see it too if you just stare at it long enough.

It is realizing exactly what your experience is all the time. It's realizing exactly what YOU are. It's not a function of philosophizing or thinking about things, it is an experiential shift which prevents you from misinterpreting your experience ever again. It is the desire to interpret your experience at all which is counter-intuitively causing you to misinterpret your experience. Your experience is not interpretation. Relatively speaking, it is a psychological/physiological recontextualization that occurs in your experience, it just immediately happens. It's like if a blind person could see colors all of a sudden. It's exactly like that, it's experiential. There is no thinking about it or second-guessing it. It exists outside of mind. Existence proves itself. You can trigger this through self-inquiry (as I did), or meditation, or whatever other practices you want. In order to trigger it, a serious discrepancy needs to be realized. The same discrepancy which makes "you" fear thoughts. The same discrepancy which makes you say "I am stupid and worthless." The same discrepancy which keeps you confused about experience. You are constantly being afflicted by scenarios in your mind. You are living two lives. The one that is experiencing what is experienced right now, and the one that is experiencing events that are not happening right now. It is a very simple thing and I truly believe anyone can achieve it. It's just that people don't care about their experience enough. If you just look at experience long enough, it will have no choice but to reveal itself. I want to say there is a certain "measurable" aspect to it, for example, my energy levels improved afterwards and my sleep became different. It seems to be the case that attaching to thought forms seriously detriments your energy and your ability to sleep properly. Nothing "changes" in experience, it is just seen with perfect clarity. When your experience is recontextualized, you just stay there forever. It's permanent. You don't experience time or boredom anymore. And then you just live the rest of your life like that. This is on the right track. But it is the same for everyone. The journey for getting there and the methods for getting there can be totally different, but this should not be confused with enlightenment itself. It's a single realization which has been referred to across history. This does not contradict the idea of reality having depth. Something being deep is simply not equal to Truth. It looks that way when you haven't figured out Truth, but you don't figure out Truth twice. The previous awakenings/breadcrumbs BEFORE Truth can be perceived as "depth", and it is depth, but it is misconceived to say that Truth deals in relative ideas of "depth." I am not saying that experiencing depth is wrong and I am not discounting any experiences of depth.

I was curious and I was going to try them. I just pushed it off, because, I don't know, I like to procrastinate. I felt like I wasn't ready. I might still do it if I get access to it. Did do edibles afterwards and it was just an odd experience. I do kind of consider that as a psychedelic though. I don't know how normal people perceive edibles, but it was definitely NOT recreational, haha.