AtheisticNonduality

The mind is subtler and less easy to observe than physical objects, for example, because you're attempting to think of it with the "lowest" senses when it is its own entity. The only substance is Nothingness/Everything.

That's why you need the book. So all of your stances on these different topics are written down in a single place.

Shulgin.

There should be correlations between "good musicians" and "MBTI types" if we do this correctly.

@_Archangel_ He has said yes to the question before, though skittishly and indirectly. He feels his concentration is very bad because of ADHD. Also he wants to know where the boundary between direct experience truths and logical and relative consensus truths is.

One of my teachers used to say something like, "When I was in high school, other students would experiment with drugs, but I would experiment with political ideologies."

Physical, vital, mental, soulful and Spirit laws. Not all things are reducible to the mind. The same direct experience may have multiple, even infinite, interpretations. A direct experience, through a suitable interpretation, should be explicable through logic. What makes these entities actually existent and not just images? What is the system like, and how does that correlate with other phenomena that are already well established? Because if you do answer that, there's a greater chance of real "causality" or understanding through "consensus reality" rather than just a single alone mental interpretation. For me anyway, these hyper-intelligences should only exist in the greater complexity of the human subconscious and superconscious. It seems less reasonable for them to exist in plant bodies, which are simpler and at a lower gradient of development structurally (if we map evolution from matter to basic life to complex life to mind to what's above mind, what's above mind possibly hinting or hidden in the lower levels but more probably the highest levels). Would you care to elaborate on this? You don't see shadows and spiders like standard Westerners? You don't smoke imaginary cigarettes or drink imaginary glasses of water (probably images based on cravings since anticholinergics have the opposite effects that nicotinic drugs have and are extremely dehydrating)? I assume you do it while asleep, modeling the Chumash. Do your dreams have a red haze or blanket over them? What's the protocol?

@Carl-Richard . . . Uh . . . um . . . uhhhhhhh . . . . . . you have a profile picture . . .

Depends on what you mean by that. I could easily say you're not and never have been and never will be. Only the Watcher behind your eyes is. And then when you realize the Watcher is you, gives reality to you, you realize it also gives reality to everything else as well.

Leo last committed a comment 44 minutes ago, seen on my screen. I am 444. Explain this "434" person. The dream also has physical laws. But you understand that if you make claims about altering/reprogramming your nervous system, higher levels of awareness having supernatural aspects, and certain entities literally manifesting themselves as lower lives like plants, there should be a standard of evidence or at least a proper pointer for elucidating this. Is there something dark and archetypically identical across anticholinergics, like "a goddess dominatrix that fills you with darkness" or "shadow people roaming around my room" or "my dead best friend having conversations with me while I've forgotten he's dead" or "thousands of spiders falling from the ceiling" and such? Yes, but I don't see how you literally ascribe that to the agency of an autonomously sentient supernatural entity and not some internal realm in the mind-body activated by an external chemical.

There is no evidence of Coral. As far as I'm concerned the Beck model should just be dropped entirely because of its inferiority to Wilber's (which follows the order of the rainbow colors, in line with the traditions of "subtle energy" which saw the lowest to highest patterns of energy correlate with the levels of the rainbow) or even Leo's modified version. This is something you've seen for yourself? How is it reproducible in my faculty of reason? How do I believe this?

Because we're not discussing obvious facts everybody knows?

The main issue is that I can't see a Self without Emptiness, like how I can't see a human without a human body. Yes, the human may have other features besides its body (like how its behavior affects other people or how its interior mind behaves when made conscious), but the defining feature of identification is the body. Even if there's no boundary between the mind and the body and there's no boundary between all Form and the Emptiness, the body of the Self is Emptiness because Emptiness being a permeation of everything and a formlessness not limited to any single form helps to identify the Oneness of things. And yet I can understand the equation Emptiness = Form, because that which is outside of my visual field is also inside. But the island-ocean analogy still applies, because I am not in relative terms the one possible form that dominates all existence since there's a whole Void outside. A major part of the work here is creating/discovering trails people will take up on the path upward. It seems the Void is something people will have to discover.

Really? If I see forms and formlessness occupying the same region of reality, Emptiness permeating form, that's consciousness that I have. If I can literally ascertain with my consciousness that formlessness IS form, with no separation, that is direct knowledge. There is an obvious problem with language here. You can't simultaneously say "space doesn't exist because it's imagined" and "space exists because you imagined it exists" without resorting to paradox, and it seems the paradox isn't an actual structure of reality but just an interpretive linguistic issue based on reconciling infinite with finite or formless with form. My lowercase consciousness though definitely has contours, shape, definition, contrast. With my visual field specifically, there are colors, and then when you reach the edge there aren't any colors and only Emptiness, which is not intellectualized to be there but IS LITERALLY RIGHT THERE. The issue is that a single limited form can only be in one location at one time, but Emptiness can be at all locations and all times and outside them. An object can't be outside of itself unless it stops being an object or stops "imagining" that it's an object, and the color red can't be the color blue in itself because that would be absurd. They need some greater principle that goes beyond the finite that unites them, and that's what I mean by Self.

I'm conscious that form and formlessness are the same, but I have the sense that formlessness is "larger" because space can't confine it. The Emptiness is in my field of experience, yet there's also Emptiness outside the border of vision. If Emptiness has the entire realm of space and time and conception and thoughts plus more, it seems more profound than form (and this was not logically deduced; it's something I actually have access to; my senses/experience are like an island in an ocean of Emptiness or a Void). I can't imagine a Self without Emptiness holding all of reality, including form, together.

Go back to your Eckhart Tolle. Also there's this cute place called "Actuality of Being" you might enjoy more than this one.

There's a distinction between self and Self. An experience of no-self is when you stop identifying with your human body and mind and see it as a single perspective within the dream, see it as just another system of images and objects. An experience of Self is identifying with the Emptiness. An experience of God is direct realization of the Infinity of it.

It is occurring though!

Yes, everything is connected through systems, mentally, physically, soulfully, etc.

I knew you were a little illiterate, but you should read more intellectual density and just read more in general for the book you're working on. Consider people are going to still be finding your work hundreds of years after you're dead. You're going to want to have some masterpiece singular written work left for them, and you want it to be well done.

It's arguable the expressiveness of Enlightenment is where its value lies, not in it as itself. An enlightened child is important, with a great deal of substance and numinous luminosities in a dark unconscious Void (an interaction between the dawning unconscious/subconscious and the superconscious ultimate Consciousness-realization). Imagine looking through the eyes of a young child looking at a field and having complete nondual unification with it, being it, understanding intuitively the realness of existence and the Void that it is and the infinity and the Self that is. But the child has not yet lived through life, the form of the child is still limited, the child has not taken all of the world into its sensation, and it is still immature, despite its awakening. You could say all of the stirrings in its unconscious and the pouring-down light of its superconscious are just preparations for what it will really be when it's older. Enlightenment is valuable as far it develops, in the beginning and the middle but especially at its peak, structurally. I'd miss your contributions though.

An enlightened child is admittedly not as advanced as an enlightened adult, at least not most of the time.

The level of incompetence in third-world countries is just so much worse than this. Constant power outages (of course including summer). Internet companies just generally being bad, etc.