CBDinfused

This exactly. Maybe it makes perfect sense in Leo's mind but it does literally nothing for a person like myself who is critical and loves to pursue truth in its most crude form. I will not be convinced if he answers my posts with the equivalent of "Because I said so.."

Shin, I appreciate your replies, I wonder if you can perhaps lay out in clear terms though, the main argument here? I understand quite well the position of most people on this forum that "there is no self" "all is one". Fine. The fact of the matter is that you would make a lot of people unfamiliar with your position quite angry. Imagine walking into a Church or a Mosque and telling someone "you are not you" "this is all just imagined" "you are god and you imagined all of this". You (Shin) would get an imaginary punch in the face. Can you please clarify how I (CBDInfused), who considers himself "aware", "conscious" etc and somewhat distinct from you (Shin) or Leo, clarify how my realm of experience, my lens of perception is just an imagination, and that I am also you (who I imagine also has somewhat a distinct lense of perception?)?. How are you actually linking these two together? I understand you could make some atomic argument like "where does the I end and you begin?" in the physical realm (Holism etc), but still. My consciousness is still "mine" (CBDInfused).

I have died many times in my dreams, but I was myself in my dreams, and I was myself when I woke up. So you are saying when I die in this realm, I will still be me? (CBDinfused?)

Ok I am fine with this line of reasoning, but back to my original question: I right now am experiencing life in a particular way. I have an quite distinct identity, I have friends and family around me. I experience TIME. I can plan for the future. Question: What will happen if I took a shotgun and just blew my brains out? (I am not going to of course, but just for the thought experiment). Would the narrative restart somehow? Would the "awareness" that is currently seeing things behind my eyes all of a sudden be seeing a bunch of DMT-esque lights and patterns and eventually I would forget all of this and be "aware" in another form? And if yes or no, how do you speak with such authority on the topic?

Care to elaborate a little? People die around us all the time, it is hard not to imagine the same will not happen to us.

OP's video on "It's all God" reminds me of a drug induced "thought loop". While it is nice that OP's loop always ends with god, it doesn't always end up that way: Check out this video, where this dude is tripping on some drug and can't seem to escape from the "loop". There is no "its all God" in this loop, it is only an endless loop returning back to this present moment. I have been there, and it is not fun. Of course, the only way to escape the loop is to no longer resist it, but its the same with any experience of hell, the more you resist the more you suffer. You can only escape hell by surrendering, but somethings this is easier said than done.

I am having a hard time understanding the philosophy of this group as semantics often get into the way but could someone please clarify some things for me? It seems like the "levels" one goes through, in the path to enlightenment are something along the lines of surrendering all concepts (the self, the body, thought, the mind) and eventually you will reach a state where you are experiencing "pure being" which some call "infinite love" - but then I have also heard that there is a step further, when even the observer is dissolved into nothingness, in which case, why is love the true self? isn't it nothingness? The reason why I ask is because I often hear enlightened ones speaking about things like "everything is love" or that "love is what binds the universe together", but it is difficult for me to understand why love has this position of superiority, as opposed to its opposite, which is hate and/or ego consciousness. I guess why I am asking is because I want to know how to better explain to others that the true self is "infinite love", rather than the true self being "Nothing" and love and ego/separation radiate equally from this point. How would you explain to someone that love is the real state, in a world filled equally with suffering, pain, hatred etc? (I understand that when you meditate, and clear your mind, you gravitate towards love, but that doesn't mean it is the "true self", it only means that it is another state of many. Plus, most people don't meditate so who is to say that infinite love is the natural or true state, when you could argue that ego consciousness is actually the true state, and infinite love is a heightened state gained through meditation). On a side note, Did Buddha ever speak about love? Because it seems to be absent from the mainstream doctrine at least. It seems more like that the true self is simply lack of attachment (even to the people around you) until you realize that all is nothing. He did speak about compassion, but Buddhist literature seems void of the concept of "dissolving the ego to unlock selfless love" while it seems to be the core message of say, Christianity.

I do not mean for this to be another thread on reincarnation, as I am not really here to debate that idea. Reincarnation doesn't really make sense, unless I have misunderstood something, because within the realm of "infinity" it doesn't make sense the idea that you started from the bottom and can continue to progress to a higher self without ever eventually ending back at where you started. There can't really be an "end goal" because otherwise that would imply some linear and finite path, and as well some sort of uniqueness of the soul. I have been contemplating the idea that if all is God, and that we, at least in human form, are in a state of "not remembering our true nature" as a result of our attachment to our lives, our bodies and the people and politics around us. I am curious if others look at other people on the street some times (lets say a homeless person) and think "even though I may reach enlightenment in this life time, I will also experience the full life of this individual as well. I will feel their struggles, their pain, their confusions, their desires, just as I have felt in my current life" and then understand that if I positively influence this individuals life, by for instance, smiling at them, giving them reassurance, that it will "ripple" through the fabric of the universe, and I will inevitably be doing myself a good favour. Is that how this simulation, we call life, works? Our lives are "self fulfilling prophecies"?

I love you Nahm but sometimes you have a way of answering my question without answering my question

Thank you Ryan for speaking my language, a clear explanation.

Yes, and my argument is that the clouds are always there , if not in your sky, in someone else's. I understand the picture you are trying to paint, in that the sky is the apriori origin, and everything around it is the temporal. But, my original question brings into doubt this premise. Perhaps the clouds are the origin and the clear sky is the illusion?

I am sorry to drag this on, but I do not quite follow your logic. The Universe does what it does because it loves to do it? I would argue that it has no choice. It also "has to" do what it hates.

Imagine two scenarios: A man who is stressing about life (suffering) ventually lets go and finds the source of love that was always there A man who is experiencing love eventually starts to resist to find the sense of ego and his distinct entity that was also always there Why is only the first scenario true?

you lose me at the "only thing that 'can be happening'". What do you mean with "love is the only that can be happening" when there are clearly other things beyond love that are also happening? (pain). Right now I am at work, I am stressing because I am not focusing on my work, and instead I am wasting my time on online forums. This is also "happening"

I like the analogy given by Mason, but the one with clouds still poses my original question. In the UK the sky is never clear, only sometimes, so who is to say that the sky is the state, and the clouds are not?

This is a topic covered well by Foucault in his book "Madness and Civilization" In a nutshell, people who were "mad" in pre-industrial societies used to be considered sources of wisdom, but now madness is defined by those who cannot actively contribute to the capitalist economy. Just think about it, what is really wrong with something like ADHD? Just because you can't focus on school work or your job you are labelled as "Not normal". In the extremer cases, schizophrenia, bipolarism etc where you are navigating cycles of love/clarity and darkness/fear how can you possibly be a productive member of society? = LOCK THEM UP AND GIVE THEM PILLS!

So I have been contemplating the idea of infinity lately. This is the idea that the universe had no beginning and will have no end, that everything that exists has always existed ad infinitum, and the reason why I experience my current life narrative under the illusion of "time" as I do is because of "ego consciousness". e.g. it is a biological narrative constructed where the rules are those determined by the laws of physics. Attaining enlightenment is to see past this illusion, my attachment to myself, my attachment to time, my attachment to reality and my bodily sensations to see the "nothingness" of existence. To simply "be" in its purest form. Assuming that I have understood this correctly at this stage, my understanding on why reality is the way it is, is similar to the idea of the "10 dimensions theory" presented in string theory, that reality is comprised of every conceivable possibility in every single configuration, and that consciousness is omnipresent in all of this, and the only reason why you are not experiencing everything ad infinitum is because of being "Lost" in the idea that you are separate from everything. You can think of it as per this video where they explain the 10 dimensions (or 11 dimensions, I don't really care, you get the point). The point is that every single dimension is omnipresent and time is an illusion of the ego. Is there anyone else out there that conceptualizes reality like this? And if so, what are your theories on what happens when you die? That when the current ego consciousness you currently are experiencing will kind of "start over" or that you will move onto the next "possible material experience" e.g. another human, animal, or any other material possibility in the infinite cosmic mind? Also, is there anyone who has an idea why consciousness "needed to exist in the first place"? I understand that there is "something rather than nothing" because nothing is inherently instable, and that even according to quantum physics, if there is an empty vacuum of space, sub atomic particles will emerge from nowhere because there is nothing preventing them from not emerging - a metaphor I use for how I "emerged from nowhere" when I was born. The material world makes sense in this fashion, but why is awareness the apriori truth as well? I hope I am being clear. TL:DR Why did consciousness or awareness always exist? What happens when my current experience of reality ends?

selflessness in the terms I am speaking are more in relative terms, in relation to other humans, and determined through your understanding of self. In this sense, for example, if you were to jump off of a cliff for no reason, you would be inflicting more pain and suffering into the world to your relatives, those around you. If you as well sell everything you have and give it to a homeless person, that is not being selfless either because it would not benefit the homeless person in the longrun. But if you preach infinite love and that everything is an illusion but then flinch in the face of death, if you could have saved someone but you didn't purely out of self interest, when you "know" in your heart that you should have done otherwise, then you're a phony, but of course only you would know that. You can throw in all this talk of "why save 1 person when you can save 1000" but the people who say this probably wouldn't do either.

Why do you think so? Selflessness or void of fear doesn't mean that you put yourself in dangers way intentionally. There is still a calculation involved in how best to be selfless.

To be honest with myself, when I first was aware that my life might be a "dream", I felt extremely liberated as the fear of death or going mad, which led to extreme anxiety for me, disappeared instantly and I felt timeless, filled with so much joy for the world, for others. I remember that very day, walking outside full of life and love and then I passed an incident and I saw some really big dude who was very aggressively handling a woman (yanked her out of the car, pushed her, threw her phone away etc), and then the realization that I am not as fearless as I thought I was hit me, and that I still love myself and my life, more than that of others. This is what separates me from Buddha or Jesus who realized that there is literally nothing to fear, as it is all a grand "Illusion" and that enlightenment is attained through full surrender to the dream and complete selflessness to the world (true self). Edit: sorry, random thought irrelevant to this post

Why not? Are you afraid (of dying or pain)? Do you put more importance on your physical body than selflessly embodying the spirit of love? If there is a chance that your intervention can help another person?

Thank you for the reply. The reason why I ask this is I feel like this forum is comprised of two types of people: (1) the Solipsists who believe that everything is just in their head, and everything else is fake and (2) the ones who kind of see everything as an intricate whole. I ask as what would you do if you saw someone being mugged on the street, do you walk past and think "this is all just a dream" or do you be brave, engage the situation, deal with the mugger with compassion and try to find a favorable outcome for all, considering your intervention would have a lasting impact on the world?

Well, I do not necessarily agree with this "solipsism" way of thinking, I look (through my unenlightened lense) at the world, and see other people, other experiences of the world, and am wondering why it is the way that it is? Leo has said himself that we (you) and I are also Hitler, or the Cow on the way to the slaughterhouse and so even though I am right now experiencing my life through my lense, I must contemplate that I will also experience the Hitler timeline as well (and make all of his judgements and decisions, seeing the world through his eyes). I am wondering why I am right now I am experiencing it through MY lense, and what happens when I die? Because I get the impression some people believe that the ego will then die and I will have a huge DMT trip and merge with the selfless infinity, while others believe that the "I" will simply go to another form doing an eternal dance through all forms of experience. Sorry, it seems like a lot of people here are doing some categorical loops from "absolute, infinite wholeness" or "Nothingness" to relative humanistic terms like "the earth, commonality" "peace on earth" "Love thy neighbor" etc. It is hard to follow.

I don't mean this as an insult but I wonder if it is possible on this forum to not have a thread with idioms and axioms about enlightenment. That is not the dialogue I wish to have here. As I said above, I get it, everything is an illusion, everything is one nothing is everything yada yada. The only truth is Brahman. That is fine. If someone asked you what your favorite food is, would you answer "Food is an illusion" or "food doesn't exist?" No. So, back to my original inquiry. You are allowed to theorize existence, in the same way that you can discuss political issues. Frank Yang, a proclaimed enlighten being, happily discussions questions on infinity, existence etc. With that, "suffering" is still REAL. Pain is still REAL. It is a REAL experience that is part of the everything which is existence. If you can imagine it, it exists.

While I appreciate the replies (thank you), I don't think I was clear it what I was asking. I am not necessarily asking for advise on how to become enlightened, and I understand that there is no "need" for a theory. I get it. Clear your mind from all presuppositions and poof you are nothing and everything and there is no "you". But still, it is not like once you become enlightened you simply dissolve into nothingness and disappear. You still have to deal with the platitudes of daily life afterwards. And it is "ok" to have a conversation after all of this. Buddha did. Jesus did. Frank Yang still does. They still have "theories" of the universe and existence, and they don't just wave away all questions with the "shh, clear your mind, nothing exists".