The0Self

That's all just what appears. It has no truth, solidity, meaning, or purpose of any kind. There's no separation between what appears already. Your idea of the game over screen is precisely not what it is -- the game over screen is already all there is, and it doesn't care if anyone recognizes that, nor is there anyone who can recognize that.

When I was a seeker: 10+ minutes noting aloud (using the framework of the 4 foundations of mindfulness, generally) immediately upon waking, then did some exercise and showered, then 30 minutes Metta, then walked the dog while using open awareness techniques or walking meditation techniques, then 10 minute walking meditation warm-up before 90 minutes TMI, 60 minutes noting-vipassana, and 30 minutes self inquiry / Witnessing, with a 10 minute walking meditation between each of those 3 (so another 2x10min sessions) to relieve my legs while maintaining some level of samadhi, and a second session later on in the day for experimental stuff (often mantra or kasina, and sometimes contemplation; noting; another TMI sit) usually for 30-90min. All of it generally with a background sense of being a gardener or the mind. So 280-340 minutes (not including the dog walking, nor daily life meditation, or microhits a la Shinzen Young which I employed often). About 5 hours daily on average. For about two years. However... I meditated/contemplated basically every waking hour and even in some dreams, often doing metta, inquiry, etc. So basically 16 hours a day (6 hours sleep, 2 hours of just living). Usually didn't (intentionally) meditate while having sex with my girlfriend, lol. Now: Usually at least a 10 minute sit on most days. None of that had anything to do with enlightenment, btw. Although in a way (or rather, absolutely), that's all there ever was anyway. Seeking was loads of fun for me. It was also very distressing at times.

The choice-less revelation that the longing for the object is actually the longing to never need it again. This is wonderful advice:

Nothing is happening.

Good luck convincing anyone of that. But there's no one who could stop wanting that -- not to mention the apparent one is the wanting of that.

That is a typical defense of the ego that I hear a lot when talking to people and answering questions about these matters on the phone, in daily life, online, etc. The knower/doer/ego thinks everything would go to shit without it -- without meaning; purpose; value. But the ultimate joke is there's already no knowing; ego; meaning; purpose; value. There isn't anyone who could choose. So of course nothing can be right or wrong in that sense. Wrong is what I say is wrong; right is what I say is wrong -- and there is no real I. It's not your infinite consciousness; there's nothing separate to own it. It's infinite unrestricted chaos miraculously appearing as ordinary life.

The solution to suffering is that there's no need for (nor possibility of) a solution. Meditation can certainly take the edge off. For me, its primary allure seemed to have something to do with exploration, insight, and power. Interestingly, if one gains the ability to produce as much bliss as they want on demand (actually possible through diligent meditation), they will have no need for that ability anymore, so in a sense it never gets anyone anywhere, but the point is really the path anyway, not the destination -- in fact there isn't a real destination. But there's no one on a path either. And no point. What we're doing here has nothing to do with us, as there is no we -- we are an appearance; we're not real, we're apparently being done...not even.

Essentially -- presence/absence, real/unreal. No one separate, from boundlessness appearing, who could be alive or dead. Collapse of all context. Every distinction is insubstantial, in that the one who knew the distinction is no longer, and never was. Nothing changes yet it's indescribably different, as all description is story, and there is no story/context/explanation/cause/meaning to boundlessness appearing. In the end that's a story as well, because nothing is actually happening.

Kundalini energy has great relevance for awakenings and the apparent evolution of consciousness. There's a whole structure that the apparent individual can advance through -- the Buddhist outline for it is pretty thorough, and it culminates in arahatship, a state of ultimate detachment via ultimate engagement. But it has nothing to do with enlightenment, which is the end of mystical experiences, and the apparent end of what never was -- actuality.

'Course you could say (un)knowing is all there is -- just as long as there's nothing that's not-it (and therefore if there's no not-it, there's no it), so of course nothing is (un)known. See how the "(un)" doesn't actually even change anything.

What's done is done.

Because there is nothing finite -- there are no objects with their own separate existence. No bounds such as real story, context, or meaning. In actuality, yet contrary to logic, nothing brought about typing-on-a-keyboard, and nothing depends on typing-on-a-keyboard. Call it life, or even reality -- they're just as close as the infinite. But since there's nothing outside of infinity/everything by definition, the infinite can't know what isn't infinite, as there is nothing else. That explanation has no informative quality though.

It's more like: "Oh... What seemed to be real is equally unreal... Well that was dumb... Moving on..." What was seemingly most relevant, is simply no longer.

Reality as known and separate from unreality -- that's the illusion. Distinctions appear, but no distinction is ever known. In a sense, this is why enlightenment is associated with the absolute obviousness that there is no "higher level" -- there's no context left for any additional context to arise in, and the appearance has no real knowing or boundedness left. The connection between objects (knowing) isn't needed anymore because it's seen that it never was needed, as there are no objects between which separation could even apply, and thus there's no need to connect what isn't separate. The experience that what appears is limited by meaning or context just stops happening -- very unceremoniously.

What appears to be happening is obviously all there is, but it also isn't happening, and no one knows that. It's completely known already, but paradoxically, that knowing is empty of knowing... Just as nothing is empty of being nothing, is empty of any finitude, and is thus everything/infinite; timelessly all that appears to be.

Knowing appears, but nothing is ever known, which doesn't matter anyway. There's not just a whole lot to know, there's everything to know, which is nothing at all, which again does not matter or have any prescriptive intention. Attachment to not knowing is part of the dream of me. There is no knowing or not knowing, because knowing doesn't exist, it merely appears. Ultimately, knowing is apparent separation via connection. There's nothing to be connected because there's nothing separate. And yeah, that makes no sense at all. The suggestion is not that there should be less knowing, it's that knowing already isn't actually happening. The only illusion is that something separate is known, real, or owned, but it's already the case that there is no illusion. This, exactly as it is, is already without any knowing -- and it's equally as real as it is unreal. Nothing is needed for this to be exactly as it is, and nothing even depends on this being exactly as it is. Again, not prescriptive, or even meaningful. Just description.

lol that's probably true

And ignorance is bliss. And innocence. Knowing appears, but nothing is ever known.

From what I've seen you post on here, it's not going to mess you up. I don't know. I haven't watched any of Leo's recent videos but the most profound/"dangerous" one that I watched imo was probably the everyone has good intentions video.

Very nice. In the end, and this was very unexpected: there is no knowing. Every argument can only end in nobody being right or wrong, no matter how deep or clear the certainty or logic is. Certainty and doubt are completely illusory. There is no possibility of anything, there is simply nothing...not even. There simply isn't any separation between what appears. Which is not knowable as the knowing is itself the imaginary separation (ironically via connection) between apparent objects which aren't actually there. All there is, is what appears and does not appear (which are not two), and there isn't anything that both appears and is known. Ever. What appears is absolutely real and unreal at the same time... And it's all there is -- all there is and isn't. There's no condition inside or outside of it -- it is unconditionally and blindly itself, and has no meaning or direction. It is everything, and it is nothing. It's absolute; all there is, and yet... it's literally not actually happening. Because closed-cases, like everything else, are not available in the first place to be known, this is not a case-closed. It's an apparent description of nothing, and therefore of course has no value. There can't be a wrong way or a right way to describe what is indescribable -- there can't be a way, by definition... No way! . And yet, some descriptions seem to come closer, but that knowledge too is not actually a knowledge... it's completely empty of knowing.

Kind of, it seems. In the end though, and this was incredibly surprising: there is no such thing as more or less conscious, because there is no knowing. There is only being special, and not being special, which are not two. There's not two, period... though. Every distinction/duality/knowing, though it may appear, simply carries nothing with it... and by this I mean it is indescribably itself, blindly itself, purely itself, with nothing outside or behind it, exactly as it appears, and with nothing added on (as it's all there is) such as meaning or purpose or value or reality or unreality or anything whatsoever in particular. So in other words every argument can only end in nobody being right or wrong, no matter how deep or clear the certainty or logic is. Certainty and doubt are completely illusory. Given that, there's no "more/less conscious" possible. Because closed-cases, like everything else, are not available in the first place to be known, this is not a case-closed. Just points to the illusoriness of the "more/less conscious" mind-structure. Not for any purpose though!

Scientists know more about science. But there is no knowing anywhere -- and nobody and no scientist knows that either. Sense is nonsense -- yet it's all there is. Which is not even a knowable true statement -- there is no true statement, which is also not a true statement, and so on... Knowing nothing and knowing everything/anything are not two, and utterly empty of knowing itself or knowing something separate... There's no thing/object/subject/time/place/circumstance, and no one, to be separate in the first place. There's simply no knowing.

No one ever knows anyone else; don’t take it personally.

There’s no one separate from everything to be conscious or not be conscious. The appearance has absolutely no requirement at all for knowing, no matter what appears. In fact, knowing of any kind never actually happens. You are unknowable, and others are unknowable. Everything is the same unknowing. Self and other are not two. Infinity is not huge, it’s immeasurable; it’s absolutely nothing. And there’s no real knowing (awareness), or even not-knowing, whatsoever as there’s no one separate from everything for knowing to apply. No one knows another. All that apparently happens is void singing to void.

Yes the apparent separate ego/doer is inseparable from God’s will — it is God’s will. If by God’s will we mean everything. And if you mean something else then that’s even more of a story. The ego is being done. It’s at complete rest. There appears the imagining of itself as doing, when it’s really just surfing what is already done, but without the ability to see that... because it’s already being done; it’s not somewhere separate from this to be known — there’s no separation.