Osaid

KEEP MY SPIRITUAL TEACHER'S NAME OUT OF YOUR MOUTH

Maybe some mild POIS. Not researched very well unfortunately, which seems to be the case for most things related to sexuality. Potential solutions are out there I'm sure. Some of it could very well be your own projections of guilt and depression. I personally feel great after doing it. You might benefit from alternate methods of masturbation which are less energy draining. IME, when I climax without touching my penis my sexual energy maintains itself pretty well, I can easily go for round 2. But, that might just be a temporary unsustainable solution, cause even when I touch I still feel pretty great afterwards, just more sexually satiated. Either way I think it's worth exploring sexual energy in different ways.

I saw some ghost/spirit thing when I was a baby. It had a blue tint to it, and looked like a little boy. I still don't really know what to make of it, just think it was an interesting experience. As a baby I wasn't scared, but I think if I saw the same thing now I would be lol.

You ask questions, instead of making absolutist statements. You can also poke at holes in their logic, but in a subtle way. If someone says Christianity is only truth, depending on how sensitive they are to criticism, you might be able to say something like "Yeah but you know sometimes I'm doubtful that Christianity might be the ultimate truth, cause of these reasons (list of reasons), but that's just me, I don't know about you. How can you develop so much faith in it?" There is a high chance that they are actually currently contemplating those reasons you list, and have simply pushed them under the rug. This will bring those reasons back to the foreground, and actually make them empathize and listen more closely to where you're coming from, since it is stuff they themselves have probably inevitably contemplated. You wanna be as open-minded and non-assumptive as possible when conversating with them, that will make them feel more comfortable talking with you and giving you reasons. You gotta be genuine. They might answer with a proper retort. You don't have to prove them wrong in that moment, you just need to plant seeds in their mind. They might say something like "Oh because I've seen it for myself". You can just answer "Oh ok, cause you've seen it for yourself. Interesting". That's all you have to do. After the conversation they will most likely be contemplating everything you said anyways, you don't need to keep pushing it or prolong the conversation. But yeah, overall, you need to ask them high quality questions. Questions they are willing to contemplate, questions that are relatable to them. Also you can be intuitive with it, pay attention to their emotional state during the conversation.

Maybe God is manifesting himself as someone who thinks he isn't God because he can't manifest what he wants

I wouldn't say "real", just separate from imagination. One thing can't be less real than another thing. It does seem to me that Leo may have a different definition of imagination. I do recall him saying things like "everything is imagination" or "physical objects are just a stronger version of imagination", or something along those lines. To me, imagination is just all of your mental conjurations and projections. That's how I am personally defining it. I can even see how physicality can be imagined to an extent, but I do not consider physical qualia to be imagination. "Imagination" is a relative distinction I make to convey ideas properly. Similar to how I distinguish a lamp from a table in order to function and survive properly. So no, I don't entirely disagree. Maybe because I myself am misunderstanding something, or that Leo's definition is just different. Leo's definition might be a very non-dual one, which encapsulates most of reality. Similar to how one might say all of reality is "Love" or all of reality is just "Infinite Intelligence." Leo says "all of reality is imagination".

Shot in the dark, but maybe try taking zinc. Some evidence indicating it might help. Some people also try putting essential oils in their nose, and there is also that one method where you eat a burnt orange or something.

How broadly can it be applied? Anything outside of direct experience must be imagined, because it is outside of your direct experience. It's that simple. If something isn't in your direct experience, then it has to be imagined, and so your direct experience of it is just an imagination of it. They do exist, as imagination. It's a recontextualization. First you believe that your imagination is something other than imagination, and then you realize it is just imagination and nothing else. Basically, seeing it for what it is. Yes, I am imagining that, and rightfully so, as "others" are indeed imagined. Just because I imagine something, that doesn't mean that thing is invalidated. There's nothing wrong with imagining things. It is delusional, however, to see imagination as something other than imagination. "Others are imaginary" is simply an observation. "You're imagining that other people are imaginary" is also an observation which is true. "Others are not imaginary" is an observation of something that is not observed, but rather it is only imagined to be observed. In other words, they are imagining that imagination is something other than imagination, which is delusion. You can imagine things which are accurate to your experience, and things that are not accurate to your experience. You can even imagine that "imagination is imagination", which is accurate. Or, you can imagine that "imagination is not imagination", which is clearly inaccurate to your experience. We are just trying to use imagination to accurately point to our direct experience, that's all. In this scenario we are using words, which are essentially symbols that make you imagine things. The sentence "That apple is red" is a pointer to a direct experience of an apple that is red. The sentence "That apple is blue" is a pointer which points to something which is not experienced, and thus only exists as imagination. Notice that the second statement, although it only exists as imagination, it is trying to convey that it exists outside of imagination when in reality it doesn't. The idea that it exists outside of imagination is also something that is imagined. That's the nuance that's being pointed out when someone says something is imaginary. It's not that imagining something is wrong or self-invalidating, it's that a lot of people can't tell imagination apart from what isn't imagination, which is why it might be repeated so much that certain things are imaginary.

Our imagination is so powerful, switches our level of awareness just like that

This is so true. I don't even view people in authority as human anymore, they're more like machines or robots that need to always be obeyed no matter what, no matter how ridiculous the rules. They are always so formal and punctual to a point of ridiculousness, as if they are a robot. Like, oh, you're 5 minutes late for class? Time to get punished. Oh, you couldn't make it today because you were sick? Time to get punished. Very Kafkaesque stuff. The one size fits all approach is very alienating, especially when you get chastised for questioning it.

Intellectualization, mental masturbation, unearned wisdom. Solipsism is a big one, which relates to the previous aforementioned traps.

You're imagining "time", along with "others", and "yourself". All of these exist through the same medium, imagination. "You" are not conscious. Humans are not conscious. Consciousness imagines "you" and "others" as something that is conscious. Humans and others are a part of consciousness, not the source of consciousness. If time doesn't exist, there is no "same time" either. Notice that, experientially, there is no difference between whether they exist at the same time or a different time. The only difference is what you imagine. Cause time is all about imagination.

intermittent fasting lowering carb intake

That's pretty good, thanks

playing video games is pretty great. especially with friends. taking a warm shower sleeping, or restfulness, as sadghuru tends to make that distinction lol in general, any sort of flow state or engaging in something you're passionate about Listening to music

Yes, at my lowest moments, I have thought similar things. Like, I didn't sign up for this. Where's the terms and agreements? I don't remember giving my signature. Let me sue God. God needs to give me infinite love as compensation in the court order. It is pretty great. Your only job there is to just relax and fall away into "nothingness". I've been there for a few seconds by accident, after I was waking up from my sleep. It's called "turiya" or "pure consciousness" in spiritual circles. It is a very insightful state of consciousness to reach but it is seemingly hard to get there. You can enter some weird states of consciousness through sleep. Maybe this is achieved by realizing birth and death don't exist outside of imagination. Not possible to cease existing, but, you can experience absolute nothingness while existing. It's a paradox to the finite mind, but actually possible. You can experience the absence of all sensations and qualia, which is the state I referred to before, called turiya or pure nothingness. Consciousness doesn't need any experience or sensation inside it to exist, it is literally nothingness with the capacity to somehow exist.

idk shit about cigarette addiction in specific, but any health related addiction I had was always ultimately fixed when I took a look at the long term health effects of it. Go to google and look up the lungs of a cigarette smoker. Some people have also apparently quit from just 1 shroom trip. Bottom line, smoking is not sustainable dude. You're gonna cause irreversible damage to your lungs and probably take years off your lifespan. Luckily, the lungs do a good job of quickly starting to heal themselves after you quit. The best time to quit is always NOW. Go find some subreddit about people trying to quit smoking as well, there will probably be useful information and you will get motivated as well. This is just one I found: https://www.reddit.com/r/stopsmoking/

Never expected such a video from Casually Explained haha. Really well articulated

If you're an introvert, you should have contemplated all the pros and cons already. But really, it's just that introverts are more likely to have social anxiety or be socially inept, as a result of how they view the world and comprehend social situations. Key word more likely. You can be an introvert and still master social skills. Owen Cook has a nice video:

What do you mean by erasing it? Like, replacing it or rendering it useless?

wait what, what was the vid about

By itself, I like colors in the spectrum of blue the most, just cause I think it's calming and looks cool. Something interesting to note is that most people seem to statistically prefer the color blue. My wardrobe looks more like dark red, black, or dark blues. I think those colors are distinctive but don't stick out too much. The only bright colors I'll wear are yellow or white. Other bright colors I think look too tacky or stupid for whatever reason, It makes me stick out too much. It's too jarring. I might be willing to wear softer pastel colors, like peach or something, just cause I think they look cool and unique. They are really colorful but at the same time don't stick out that much, it has a softer edge. There's also something soothing about them to me. I had no idea I had so many reasons for choosing my colors until I had to formulate it in this response, interesting

Maybe sad and lonely people are more likely to seek it, but I don't think It's necessary. I mean, I wasn't sad or lonely, just curious.

What does it mean for something to exist? How do you distinguish something that exists from something that doesn't exist?