Gesundheit2

Lol.

That's not what the word typically means. But thanks for clarifying.

Imagine a language that doesn't have the word "God", and try to answer yourself.

Are you sure?

I think you need to reconsider your priorities. What is the most important thing that you know you should be doing right now? Is it school? Is it money? Is it socializing? Whatever it is, that's your priority number one. If neither enlightenment nor personal development is in your top 5 priorities, then I suggest you take a break from this work and come back later. Don't worry, your progress will be saved, and you will keep improving anyway without "the work", because you've already made some effort in the right direction. I mean you've gained at least some consciousness and wisdom from reading and the practices, and that doesn't go away. It'll help you navigate the world better. I would also suggest that you check your expectations. What are you expecting from this work? What are the results that you want? It's easy to give you answers to your questions, but ultimately only you can know the answers, because it's your life. You are living it.

Diplomacy.

When Leo says someone is not awake, he just means there is more to awaken to. People like to imagine that there is an end to awakening, and they believe that state can be achieved. And then comes someone who so innocently and confidently gives you the impression that he's got it, that he attained the ultimate wisdom, then all of you gullible people believe that and start giving away your sovereignty and then we're back to square one. YOU'RE NOT THINKING FOR YOURSELVES. YOU'RE LETTING ANOTHER MONKEY DO THE THINKING FOR YOU.

I'm okay at chess. Not the greatest, and not the worst. Or are you referring to @Someone here?

It's mostly cuz I'm balding and I don't want to be left out alone

I don't remember the exact number, but it was slightly above average.

How? You asked me about the paradigm I subscribe to currently. And I answered with my most sincere and accurate understanding of what that might be. If you want me to choose between materialism and idealism, then you're limiting my options, cuz I don't view life in this binary, black vs. white kind of way. I think there's truth in every paradigm, but also falsehood. So I have made my own mix, and I'm listening to it, and it rocks!

@Inliytened1 My "paradigm" is that living life does not require figuring it out intellectually, nor that that's possible in the first place.

I wish you the cure of loneliness, my friend. Again, it's not hard at all to understand what you're saying. It's just hard to relate to it, because it's irrelevant. I like the game, and I know you like it too, so don't be shy, and come and join me. We're waiting for you.

A theorem is a general proposition not self-evident by itself, but proved by a chain of reasoning; a truth established by means of accepted truths. It's not an absolute truth, rather just relative to assumptions. I don't know how a newborn would perceive the world. I certainly don't remember how I did. But in any case, it would still be a story that others don't exist. It's basically the same sneaky argument you've made earlier, but based on a different reason. But notice, in all cases, you are not escaping the mind or its storytelling ability. The only difference between solipsism and multiplicity is that solipsists gloss over that fact in favor of solipsism while multiplicisits (lol) do the same in favor of multiplicity, for whatever reason.

Right and wrong is also an assumption. Don't you get it? This shit is infinite. That's the game.

@Arthogaan See my reply right above.

A "direct experience" that is prior to assumption, is an assumption. It is also an assumption to think that you can separate reality from assumptions, or that you can have a reality without assumptions. It's just naive. Whenever you think: "Oh, finally! This is the absolute reality! It must be!", you've already made a bunch of assumptions. But that won't be apparent to you until you transcend that state.

Because you don't really know if it's "all there is", you just assume that, because you cannot currently access it in the way that you think accessing it should occur. Haha! That certainly is a sneaky workaround. However, I could say the same thing about multiplicity, but solipsists would object that that's just my imagination. If no one can claim it, how can it be true? From whose perspective would it be true in that case?

I don't understand the reference. Is it from Lord of the Rings? It's irrelevant to me precisely because I have an open mind. If my mind was closed, I would get stuck on thinking that it's the most significant thing in the world. I don't hold on to insights. I let go, and move on, allowing more insights into my life.

You're saying "In direct experience", so you're speaking relative to the thing you think of as "direct experience". So that's a relative statement. To assume that direct experience holds more truth than beliefs is a belief. And to assume the reverse is also a belief, but can you see the subtle trick here? Oneness, multiplicity, imagination, distinctions, etc. These are all thoughts. Without the thoughts, you wouldn't know the difference between any of those things. So you're basing your understanding of the world on thoughts, but you think (another thought) that this understanding is infallible because it's coming from (you guessed it) another thought called "direct experience" that holds more truth. Truth is also another tricky concept to decipher. But simply put, reality does not need an explanation. It is just there, and it is what it is. But the mind is also there, and it thinks thoughts, and these thoughts get mistaken for truth.

@Inliytened1 You aren't dead, my friend. Here you are, breathing, and typing on your keyboard. What you're saying is fairly obvious to me, but it's irrelevant. It seems significant to you, and I understand that. But you don't understand how irrelevant it is. If you did, you'd see what I'm saying. That's the next level.

@Inliytened1 @Breakingthewall You're both awake to certain things, but unawake to others. The thing I'm trying to communicate, both of you don't understand. Don't take it personally, but I think you're paradigm-locked. Otherwise, you'd get it. But you don't get it, so that's what I mean. It doesn't matter what I am. It matters what I say. It's not obvious. That's just one possibility, and I don't know if it's true. You were just trying to sell solipsism. There's nothing there to understand. You have a bunch of arguments that seem convincing to you. What I'm saying is that they aren't convincing to me and should not be convincing to you too. Once they are not convincing anymore, you will have awakened to what I'm saying. But until then, you'd still be unawake.

Beyond both oneness and multiplicity is the thing you're missing. I don't think Leo is missing that. He is coping. You are just not awake.