Osaid

He is very intelligent. I'm not discrediting any of his work per say, it's really beautiful stuff. But he's not enlightened. I feel a need to state this or people will be misguided. I also think I am being respectful, unless you have suggestions on how to improve there.

I disagree with this. Anything that exists is supported by "metaphysical love" in the very fact of it's existence. And you don't experience non-existence, you just experience a lack of qualia, which is possible. You might just be using the term Love differently, but it does not spawn or radiate from anything, because that is describing a process. It is just everything always. This is the metaphysical Love Leo points to. I consider non-manifestation to be simply a specific state of consciousness like drinking a cup of tea. It is just a state of consciousness which is mystical and lacks all qualia, which makes it easier to see what you are. But it's not that "Love" stops existing there, because it is still something experienced. Non-existence doesn't happen, therefore a rebooting of "Love" doesn't happen. The experience of 0 qualia is not non-existence, it is an experience of nothing. The experience of a lack of qualia is itself a manifestation that consciousness becomes. There isn't a "first manifestation" because that creates a duality of something that isn't manifested.

Again, this is a misconception spawned from enlightenment-inducing states being put on a pedestal. You had a specific state which was not the baseline human state, and you perceive this as a "degree." That state allowed you to perceive experience more clearly. When you came back to baseline, that clarity vanished, and so you assume it was inherent to that state. I am saying that that exact same clarity is accessible from baseline and any experience in existence, and thus the phenomenon of "degrees" is a fallacious misinterpretation of reality and Truth. This entire notion of degrees is just very clearly dualism, and thus cannot be the case.

Truth. Enlightenment. I will try to describe "it." "Unconditional Love" is a form of intelligence that exists outside of reason or logic, and it creates the universe and it is the universe. Your logic and reason cannot touch the existence of the color red, although it might try very hard to describe it, red is never a description. In a similar light, your logic and reason cannot touch Unconditional Love. It is the same intelligence that dreams up physics. It is the same intelligence that creates your entire experience. This intelligence is just exactly what exists, which is you. Anything that exists has no self-love problems. The sky has no self-love problems. A table has no self-love problems. The universe has no feature where it is capable of hating itself. Anything that actually exists has no problems with love or hate. Reason and logic are human forms of intelligence/love, therefore they are limited. Reason and logic exists in thoughts. Thoughts are a limited medium. Therefore, reason and thoughts are a limiter on love, so to speak. The human mind's capability of partitioning experience creates the perception of something that can lack love or be hated. Hate, or lack of love, comes from inferring that your experience lacks something, but reality has no feature where it can lack itself. Also notice that reason and imagination do not always exist. An absence can appear. And furthermore, reason and imagination doesn't have much to do with experience anyways. So there is a "distancing" from hate which is possible, and this distancing is supported by the very fabric of existence. When you truly become what you are experiencing right now, which is Truth, it negates the human capacity for disconnecting itself from Unconditional Love, and it just instantly dissolves any hate you have towards yourself, because all hate is realized to never have really existed. The human mind experiences envy, jealousy, fear, anger, out of love towards the partitioned experience it is imagining inside of it's head, it is constantly trying to accomodate for the lack of love it has created inside of its imagination. Unconditional Love is an intelligence higher than reason. It is the intelligence which is imbued into existence itself, rather than the intelligence created by simply a part of existence, which would be human imagination and reason. Lack of love can be seen as a lack of intelligence. Think about what hate leads to, and what love leads to. It's just the most intelligent thing to be. Lack of intelligence makes you chase thoughts, which are limited forms of love. Intelligence realizes the futility of thoughts, and this allows you love and coexist indiscriminately. The most intelligent action, and the goal of all humans and any creature in existence, is to experience degrees of love, and to coexist within Unconditional Love, and then play around with that experience FROM a place of Unconditional Love, like a child would play with lego bricks. No human is seeking an experience which isn't loving. And the universe does not allow for lack of love to truly be perceived. You are trapped in Unconditional Love, in a sense. I want it to be clear that this Unconditional Love is not a discounting of the human behaviours such as hate, envy, jealousy, etc. Please do not imagine such things. It is not something which forces you to accept or accomodate for any negative behaviours or toxicity. It is not that. All of these things are perfectly accounted for in a way you could not imagine. And you are not wrong or unloving for experiencing anything you perceive as "not love." Everything I described above is exactly realized during a single Enlightenment experience.

Reality has no feature where it can become more real. You are confusing things. Are the lower states forsaken from God and Truth, then?

Good analogy, I will borrow it. Music is sound under all circumstances. When you lower the volume, the higher volume literally stops existing, thus it is existentially not the case anymore, and not Truth. Although, it is simultaneously the case that all variations of music are sound, and the fact of it being sound encapsulates ALL variations of music. The music does not become more "sound" when you increase or decrease the volume. It's just an increase in volume. The fact of it being sound does not fluctuate at all. Either something is or isn't sound, it is binary. Sound is analagous to Truth/enlightenment here.

Truth doesn't come in degrees because that implies duality.

Right, nothing to do with Truth though. God is not gatekeeping Truth behind some alien experience, believe it or not

Looking for a tier 2 cat to enjoy having company with and giving pets to. It's hard to find a sophisticated one. I get the sentiment though. But don't use it as a crux or something. Not saying that you are.

Truth is not JUST anything you experience. This is a human notion of truth. Humans use the word "truth" as if they are just pointing to exactly what exists, and this is supported on a metaphysical level and can be realized in all states, but that would again just be a small part of those states, and so it is reductionist as you say. But this is not the Truth of reality and the universe which ALSO of course exists in all states. I am talking about that, not some neutral secluded idea of "If you are experiencing it right now it is truth." I believe you had an awakening which showed you that the word "truth" points to exactly what exists, and this is true, but that word itself is a human invention. Some human thought "Let's come up with a word that points towards existence", and then basically no one ever knew that it was possible to realize this on a metaphysical level. Realizing that the very fact of something existing is equal to truth is actually itself just one specific insight about the bigger Truth which is not a human invention and it is just enlightenment. On that note, anytime you realize a small or specific aspect of truth, this is mostly a relative human invention, because you have literally partitioned truth with your memory/imagination. Reality does not exist as partitioned truths. Again, reality is one. It's all pointing to one whole thing, like the elephant and the blind men. You are commiting a similar fallacy to scientists who fixate on the content and degrees of their experiences as if it is something fundamental related to Truth or reality as a whole. You do. You seem to have separated "Truth" from "degrees of consciousness" as if Truth is some specific aspect of a bunch of other states or something of the sort, but this is not the case. But I don't think we have the same definition of Truth, which makes sense, since you don't even seem to see enlightenment as a possibility anymore. It seems you have somehow convinced yourself otherwise, but if it is truly beyond your current experience, that means it is beyond the Truth and reality of the current experience, and thus it cannot be Truth, unless you concede to there being multiple truths or something of the sort. But I believe you have rationalized your perception of "multiple truths" as "degrees of consciousness", but this is not what is happening, you are really perceiving multiple truths and you think that reality is capable of creating an infinite amount of truths, and then you would probably articulate this as God "understanding itself forever." If you want to stick to this distinction of Truth and degrees of consciousness, I want to make it clear that the degrees of consciousness have nothing to do with Truth, they are just ephemeral states which existentially do not exist in your experience anymore. If you have to access memory or imagination to perceive it, it's not the case. This is not to discount the experience, it's just not Truth or enlightenment. Truth is not a state, a degree of consciousness, a higher understanding, or anything like that. It is meta to all of those dualistic notions. It's one thing that perfectly pervades itself across all experience. Once you see it, you don't unsee it again. And it is NOT a specific aspect or part of experience, it just always COMPLETES any single experience. It couldn't be any other way. It is a perfect experiential understanding of experience ALWAYS. Anything intellectual, no. Anything that is true metaphysically, yes. Of course it is instantly accessible from any moment. How could it be another way?

I want to make it clear that this is not what I am trying to talk about. Like I said before, I am not talking about some void state with no qualities, what I am talking about perfectly encapsulates any experience in existence and it is present throughout all experiences. No, it is probably not the case that Buddhists or enlightened people are naively clinging to some reductionist state. Some may have been fooled that way, but for the truly enlightened it is not like this. The idea that I am talking about some reductionist aspect of reality is a misconception derived from an inability to comprehend how a single realization can embody many seemingly "different" insights such as love, infinity, etc. I am saying that this one realization, which is enlightenment, perfectly embodies all the different truths and insights you are gathering over the course of your awakenings. It seems impossible and paradoxical in that way, but when you have this realization, it is just present throughout the entirety of all experience that occurs, and it perfectly embodies those experiences. You are confusing degrees of consciousness for Truth. I will reiterate, there are not degrees of Truth, because reality is one. I am not saying that the Truth IS that reality is one, that is just a small aspect of Truth. I am saying that by the metaphysical nature of reality being one thing, the Truth is also one thing/realization. It is impossible for Truth to be realized twice or realized in degrees over time, because there can only be one Truth. This Truth is NOT limited to one state, it paradoxically exists across all states in reality. I don't get how you can claim degrees of Truth/understanding while knowing that reality is just one thing. I find this to be a big discrepancy.

Who knows. You might find that your desire to love things is supported by the universe in a weird way. It's not very intelligent for anything to hate itself, and if the universe can imagine physics, it is smart enough to realize that.

No, it's a bigger contention than that. I'm saying he's not enlightened, which is why he disagrees with me and Ralston. What I have said from the beginning of this thread is probably worth reading first, but it is long. If there is one argument I want people take away from this thread to focus on, which I don't think Leo can really refute, it's just this: If reality is one, then you can't realize truth twice. This is impossible. There can't be "two truths" or "more truths" or "multiple truths being realized" or "higher consciousness" or "deeper awakenings" or "more awake." There is one realization that is true throughout all of existence, and that is enlightenment. Either you get it or you don't. Truth cannot depend on memory or imagination or past experiences, as these are relative features of reality. Also be wary of the usage of dualistic terms to describe truth. "Higher consciousness", "deeper awakening", "more awake", etc. These are dualistic and anthropomorphic terms and thus can't have anything to do with truth since truth is absolute. Truth is not something that has to be refined, integrated or understood over time. The fact that there are any misunderstandings should be a big red flag. This means that the method of accessing truth is corrupted. If you are constantly "refining truth" and having "deeper awakenings", it should be contemplated how this is even possible in the first place. The states which allow you to view enlightenment temporarily are being put on a pedestal. Hence, "higher-consciousness states", hence "more understanding", hence "chasing truth forever." There is a phenomenon happening here where people are clinging to enlightenment-inducing states. States that are intense, frightening, profound, tear-jerking, and the rest of the dualisms. I am not saying that all of the truths from Leo's awakenings are false or anything like that, I've made no such claim, but it's more the case that all the truths he's trying to piece together paradoxically fit together into one singular insight, or something of that sort, and then that is enlightenment. So I am not necessarily discrediting everything. Don't take this as that. At the very least, just look at it with an open mind and contemplate.

Like I said before, I totally get his sentiment. My sentiment is the same, he is guiding people away from truth/enlightenment, which is "love." And to be fair, he is equally dismissive with his comments about Buddhist rats or whatever. But really, enlightenment has nothing to do with Buddhism or the like, those are just methods for reaching it. I also find this idea that I am not able to counter any of his arguments laughable as he has basically done nothing to argue against me aside from either ignoring it or making that spiel about the color red or whatever. Not saying that he HAS to argue against me. I am just saying this point of yours makes no sense to me. It doesn't, this is a misconception. Buddhism and Ralston are not clinging to some state of consciousness that is void of imagination or anything like that. They're both pointing to the same thing, which is truth/enlightenment. That empty/pure consciousness, or "turiya" as it is sometimes called, is simply a specific state of consciousness which makes it easier to see your true nature (similar to a psychedelic state), but that is not enlightenment at all. Enlightenment exists in all experience, no matter how alien or non-alien it is, because it is truth, so of course it would.

True I heard he puts spongebob quotes on people's threads

I think the psychedelics did it to be honest. What a devious play it is to mix genuine profound truths in with symbolic egoic experiences. It's like telling someone a half-truth, but on a profound metaphysical level. Clinging to enlightenment-inducing states, as said at the beginning of this thread. Psychedelics should only ever be pursued when enlightened, or to open the mind of someone who is seriously closed-minded as a desperate measure.

Maybe. I found that episode in particular odd because it wasn't very clear. It was basically a different version of his solipsism episode, a more holistic one because it tried to account for multiple experiences being in one, but still kind of redundant.

I didn't learn it, I was literally on the same boat as you until I became enlightened. None of what I'm saying is learned I'm literally just describing my current experience. Yeah sorry I guess I'll pass on the AWAKENING™. I am curious about Alien Love and the alien stuff in general though, sounds like a very interesting experience. I'm not doubting any of the profundity of your awakenings to be clear, I'm sure they're great.

The reason why enlightened people seem to diminish your revelations is because it becomes so damn clear who knows what they're talking about when you're just directly conscious of it all the time. It's like someone is seeing the color red in front of them and you're like "No, there's more to perceiving red than that, there's an alien red, and this red, and that red..." And then you understand, oh ok, this guy can't see what red is.

No gaslighting, just a misinterpretation of what Ralston is saying. Enlightenment encompasses all the different aspects of truth you talk about, because there really is just one truth. To define it strictly as "love" becomes misleading for someone who is looking for that and has NOT achieved it yet. This is so obvious. Your forum is 100% proof of this. Hence all the confused and disturbed threads about solipsism and love. You yourself are confused, so you interpret the confused threads as just "part of the work." You think, "Oh, I've been there before, they'll get over it and become as awakened as me eventually." No. They are misunderstanding things, full stop. The fact that this could happen in the first place should raise alarm bells. Their method of accessing truth is corrupted. You yourself are constantly "refining truth" and having "deeper awakenings", it should be contemplated how this is even possible in the first place.

Combine it with swiss cheese ?

Extra flavour. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

Teriyaki chicken for me, I don't eat out to be healthy. People get mad at Subway for having fake tuna and then go home and binge on 10000g of sugar.

IIRC it's actually the opposite. The lawsuit was based on some dumb method of identifying it like looking at the genes, but apparently the genes denature when cooked. Their tuna is 100% tuna. Their chicken, however, has soy filler or something of the sort, so it's a mixture.

I don't know what you understand. It's definitely not enlightenment or truth though. I think you are wise enough to see that there can't be "two truths" or "more truths" or "multiple truths being realized" or "more consciousness." Reality is one. Truth is one thing. You can't realize truth twice. Existentially all your "truths" and "awakenings" are just thought forms, as real as Santa Claus, as of this moment. You are just clinging to profound metaphysical experiences and then diminishing other experiences once your ego settles back in. Please consider this as a possibility. Use it as fuel for your next trip or something. You are constantly using dualistic terms to describe consciousness and truth. "Higher consciousness", "deeper awakening", "more conscious", "more awake", etc. These terms are very relative and anthropomorphic. Truth does not deal in the anthropomorphisms and hyperboles of human egos. Of course it doesn't. Truth is not dependent on memory or imagination. It's just experienced. There is no need to consult memory and imagination for truth to be realized or experienced, those are relative features of reality. I get where you're coming from, we both have the same sentiment here.