Breakingthewall

Everything you say is correct from a human perspective, and the desirable thing, at least for me, would be a world without cancer or injustice, and the wisest thing is to strive for that. But from an absolute perspective, stress, disease, injustice, slavery, pedophilia, and the torture of children at the hands of their mothers, in the case of it occurs, is the most optimal option for the becoming of reality. It's an absolute realization, something that you can see now, not an idea. the reality is developing right now, this is the developing of reality, me now writing this, and maybe tomorrow I am paralyzed, retarded and psychotic screaming in a hospital, and that's would be the most optimal development of the reality

Not everything, just whats possible and optimal. There is not a reality where half of all beings are Donald Trump and the other half are Epstein, and they all live in harmony, in love. What exists is the unfolding of possible potential at its most optimal level. Look at the laws of the universe, the cosmological constant, it's 10 rised to -122, if it were 10 rised to -121 our universe would be a soup without form. This is not the design of a god nor a coincidence, it is the most optimal option making its way, the synchronicity happening because what is not synchronized to infinity is not possible.

There's a concept that defines the essential nature of the universe: fine-tuning. Everything happens in the most optimal way possible. If there were a more optimal way, it would happen. Your current thinking that human society isn't optimal is actually the most optimal possibility. This doesn't mean being passive; on the contrary, if someone has the impulse to change things, that impulse is a consequence of fine-tuning. But if you want to put yourself in a broader perspective for a while, you have to be able to see things from the outside, without human bias. Then it's clear that the level of optimization in reality is beyond comprehension. It's a self-regulating system that spontaneously finds the optimal option from a global perspective. Perhaps Hitler and Auschwitz don't seem like optimal possibilities, nor do mass extinctions or cancer, but they are. That's doesn't mean that I don't care if I have cancer in the brain, just understanding the panorama from outside of our preference, even that preference is inevitable because it's genetically incoded

Reality unfolds in the most optimal way possible. From subatomic particles interacting to Donald Trump on Epstein's island, to you seeing it all as a big shit. It's absolute perfection.

Well, we are doing better . Just a few generations ago, slaves were sold in markets, entire populations were wiped out, and if you traveled without an army, you were killed or enslaved. Everyone considered it perfectly logical that the strong should subdue the weak. It's the law of life: eat or be eaten. Now, there are attempts to soften this essential nature, but it underlies everything. The basic nature of life is brutal. Peaceful coexistence is not natural; tribal warfare and slavery are.

There is no good and bad for a stone, because it doesn't need to preserve itself. It's good and bad for a bacteria, because it needs to protect itself, rebuild what's broken, reproduce, try to endure. Life is another phase of existence, and it's built upon fight. Then, evil is everywhere.

The difference isn't that we're worse politically but that in less developed societies, chaos, death, and disease are accepted. In our society, it's obligatory to be happy, fulfilled, good-looking, and take cool vacations. In another era, the Assyrians impaled an entire city for offending the local bigwig, but even so, their underlying mindset was much more connected, less narcissistic, and more direct. Ancient elites weren't better than today's; political and religious powers were absolute tyrants, pharaohs who would skin you alive for looking at them in the face or warlords sitting on thrones made of their enemies' skulls surrounded by slaves. It wasn't a party; what changed was the attitude.

There is no beyond, there is reality unfolding in interconnected patterns in perpetual motion due to the essential instability of that which has no limits. There is absolute being, and that is you, in the form of a human. Absolute being is not someone, it is being. What is because it's limitless. There are not absolute limits, only relative. Good and evil are relative appearances, like anything that appears. If you want to place yourself in an absolute perspective, you have to go beyond good an bad, at least for a while.

Good and evil are values judged from a human perspective. Good is what benefits us, and evil is what harms us. This occurs because we are built upon the desire to persist; all of life is based on this: self-preservation. God is not an entity that decides to do things; God is reality, the cosmos, the totality. If you want to adopt a cosmic perspective, you have to take a step back and rise above your preferences; otherwise, you will only see those preferences.

Innocence and pure heartness needs a strong structure to be sustained. Life is war, relationship are war, work is war, everything is war, if that innocent person doesn't know it, he's just an idiot who's going to be crushed again and again.

If you're like Forrest, you're usually not a pure-hearted person who loves unconditionally unless you're incredibly lucky. Typically, you'll struggle to understand your impulses, be exploited and humiliated, and end up filled with confusion and pain.

Consciousness arises from a meta-universe called life, interacting with the main universe. An AI is not alive. Life is an absolute phase shift that occurs in the cosmos at a given moment. Could an AI spontaneously make that leap at a given moment? I would say no. Even if its complexity were trillions of times greater than it is now, it would still be non-living matter.

@Hello1 Anyone who's mentally retarded could be fully awake. It's a matter of aligned energy. The problem is if you're not awake and you want to be because you've heard about it, as is usually the case. Then you have to be quite intelligent to understand how you're closing the door. You don't need to be an expert in anything, but you do need to be astute enough to see through the ego's deceptions.

It's very obvious, Life is a self-preserving system within a universe. Self-preserving implies a will to preserve itself, to repair itself, to strive to be. Suffering is everything that goes against that will. In the end, life dies; its will to be is overcome. This is suffering. The suffering of a cell is the same as the symbolic suffering of a psychological mind, only in another dimension.

Life is a balanced system of a complexity that goes beyond our comprehension. Obviously, it would be better for us if there were no wars, child prostitution, or fentanyl, but if you want to see reality from a broader perspective, you have to set aside human bias. Perhaps if everything were as you say, humanity would collapse in 40 years; on the other hand, with things as they are, I colonized galaxies in two centuries, to give an example. Perhaps that's not optimal for you, but you're not the one who chooses. The movements of life are cosmic movements; we can't judge them from particular perspectives, only observe and try to understand

Life is suffering in the sense that all life is will of permanence being impermanent. And all that stuff about unconsciousness, human violence, injustice, are the ways that reality finds to maintain the exact tension for optimal progression

Life is war. No war, no life. The essence of life is the war against non-being and against other living beings. Life is more or less like the Warhammer novels. Then it's shocking that there is suffering? It's normal on a total war. Suffering is the norm.

What means that?

Needing an external creator to explain reality is a projection of the ego. All human cultures have done this, as well as believing that identity continues after death. Buddhism takes a further step and begins to understand reality without needing a creator and without needing the continuity of egoic identity. Modern spirituality takes a step backward and, calling itself non-duality, places power once again in an external entity, consciousness, which imagines reality. It says it isn't external, since it is you, but with the peculiarity that you don't know how you are imagining reality; therefore, that fact is external to you. Theism disguised as enlightenment.

Why and on what basis does a guy who meditates make those kinds of claims? Doesn't he realize how crazy he seems? I mean, based on his subjective feelings, emotions, and projections, he knows that the chain of causality of reality is an illusion.

There is a barrier that separates you from your true nature; it is the movement of forms, the becoming. It absorbs you completely and makes you see everything as dualities, qualities, nuances, differences, solitude, companionship, one, two. What reality is is always here, just beyond becoming, beneath it, immediately below, millimeters away. only flatten the differences; what remains is the essence. The essence is everything This does not mean that differences should be eliminated, but rather that if you stop taking them as a basis, as the foundation of what is, they become transparent, then the nature of reality shines through them.

It depends! If Leo had started with ambiguous ideas, no one would have listened. Leo's message is direct and resonates with people, and it has a unique quality: it stems from states of openness induced by psychedelics, but openess in great extent. It has inevitable structural flaws because Leo immediately developed a worldview, and now he can't undo it, but the foundation, the root of his message, points in some way to openness. Afterward, 99.9% of people will remain on the surface, but at least they will have opened their minds to spirituality as a possibility not as a belief but as a reality

Great that you like, I really try the most deep understanding that I can. Just because it's a fascinating topic in which real perceptions are mixed with the inevitable psychological need for permanence inherent in being human; it's like an unavoidable tension.

Absolutely. All the reductionist speech of non duality is exactly that, spiritual bypassing. A mental movement to feel better avoiding complexity . That's why it's so accepted, because it's comfortable and simple

Well, it depends, maybe they are delusional in some ( or great) extent. Let's see Ramana, papaji, mooji, adyashanti, gangaji . They and others gurus of non-dual spirituality point a central concept that is rarely examined with rigor: the Self. It is claimed that when identification with the body, the mind, or personal history ceases, something remains that is what we “really are.” This experiential residue is then labeled Self, Being, Consciousness, or Presence. The problem is not the experience itself, but the ontological leap that is made from it. The problem is that all of them after saying that there is not identification, identify that self as consciousness . So, that self is because there is observation , awareness. Awareness of what? Pure awareness! That's simply anthropomorphize reality and replace one center and one identification with another, one closure with another. Ramana and Papaji operated from a place of closure, with an absolute limit, however peaceful they may have been. Nisgardata, for example, operated from a place of openness, which was very different. But Nisgardata wasn't an intellectual and his explanations are too opaque. Look this: the reasoning is usually circular: the Self is said to exist because there is observation, and observation is said to occur because the Self exists. This explains nothing. It merely converts the fact that experience occurs into a supposedly separate entity that “possesses” it. This is the same conceptual move that, in other contexts, led to the postulation of a soul or an ultimate observer. It's a limited frame, absolute limit in 2 directions: subject and object, even they try to fit in saying that both are the same. So consciousness is a creator of forms? Why? Because it's a dream. Another leap to fit it. If "the consciusness" is dreaming, it's an entity that does things. An absolute identification. Just the old theism with different clothes. Food for the ego. Believing “I am consciousness” does not dissolve closure; it replaces it with a subtler, more pleasant, and more stable one. One problematic identity is abandoned only to adopt another that appears unquestionable. But there is still a center, still appropriation, still a position from which one says “this is what I am.” 100% limited, closed, unenlightened. True openness does not consist in finding a better identity, but in ceasing to fix any identity as a foundation. It's not simple, and those gurus give simple solutions, so people accept them as true. But they are limited. The absolute is simply unlimited. Do you think I'm thinking too much? I don't think so. Just the necessary to don't fall in delusions