Gesundheit2

It's not a conclusion, only the basics; Assumption: (noun) A hypothesis that is taken for granted. I did not suggest that. These are two different assumptions, so my answer is the same as above. Well, that's the problem right there. How you think of truth is not the same as the conventional layman meaning of the word. Truth: n., pl. truths (tro̅o̅tz, tro̅o̅ths). 1. the true or actual state of a matter: to tell the truth. 2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: to check the truth of a statement. 3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths. You're basically inventing your own vocabulary and speaking a foreign language instead of speaking the same language. So, either you're unable to speak the conventional language because you're on a different frequency. Or you can speak it but need some care in your communication, which I hope is the case. For me, I can relate to what you mean, but unfortunately I probably can't communicate with you effectively because this may be a generalized situation with you. The thing is that I don't have the ability to assess how many of the words you use have a weird, non-conventional meaning. The problem does not stop there, because you have actually more than once put words in my mouth without me actually saying or implying them. So when I talk you're understanding different things from what I actually mean. Like for example when I said the assumptions aren't true, you thought I meant the opposite is true, which I didn't say, or imply. So in order for us to communicate properly we need to translate every word until we reach a consensus on what you mean and what I mean, and that could be really hard and take a lot of time, let alone ending successfully. So I hope you take the time to tackle down this issue before going any further. You asked me who I am, and I answered according to my experience. If I was in a different state, I may reply differently. Whatever the answer might be, it counts as data to me. The data paradigm that I am using combines data from all states and doesn't take one state to be of more importance than another. It's actually you who is seeking to know that is actually trying to find which state is more important and truthful. Notice that, then excuse me from your projection. Dodged? Look dude. Apparently, you assume too much and aren't aware that you do so. And on top of that your assumptions seem to be blinding you from seeing what I'm actually saying. I said there's only data and no such thing as knowledge. I am denying knowledge as a whole, so both of the questions you're asking are irrelevant to me. Every thought and assumption can be doubted, so there is no such thing as knowledge.

Delusion "A delusion is a false fixed belief that is not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence. As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, hallucination, or some other misleading effects of perception, as individuals with those beliefs are able to change or readjust their beliefs upon reviewing the evidence."

You're assuming that the sober state is actually finite and that the psychedelic state is actually infinite. I will inform you that neither of these assumptions is true, so the rest of this reasoning is nonsense. I can't answer to something vague like that. You need to provide a definition of truth first. I don't think that I am a human. I said it seems like I am living a human life from this human body, which doesn't necessarily contradict being God at the same time, or at least seeming so. Although, God is an outlandish word, while human is more down-to-earth and you will understand it when you read it like everyone else, unlike the word God which probably means something to you that is different from me that is different from everyone else. How does it seem so?

Prior to time and space? You mean the concepts of time and space?

There are some things life that you're just born with and can't do much about. I think it's most things, actually. For example, I was born with a low IQ and EQ. I've developed myself so much over the past 5 years, but I'm still somewhere near average in both. And that took a lot of mental work, which hindered my life in other areas such as career. It just sucks that things are the way they are. I really wish that someday I would be able to speak my thoughts clearly and communicate my understanding of the world fluently like it occurs in my head, but that just doesn't seem possible, at least without huge efforts and environmental developments. I'm starting to get the idea that at least 90% of one's life is determined by genetics and environment. The personal component to development seems pretty much insignificant in comparison.

I don't think it was one particular input/data that made the shift for me, but rather the collection of all the data that I have gathered so far, and the shift was gradual for the most part. I may be using the word "data" in a way that can imply being raw and untouched, but of course there is a processing before the data is understood and made sense of. I'm deliberately avoiding words like information because it's close to knowledge. However, it's simpler and more direct than what's said above. How? Well, what is knowledge in the first place? Let's look it up. Here's how Wikipedia defines knowledge: "Knowledge is a familiarity or awareness, of someone or something, such as facts (descriptive knowledge), skills (procedural knowledge), or objects (acquaintance knowledge) contributing to ones understanding. By most accounts, knowledge can be acquired in many different ways and from many sources, including but not limited to perception, reason, memory, testimony, scientific inquiry, education, and practice. The philosophical study of knowledge is called epistemology." Most people take knowledge for granted. People who question reality start doubting the ways in which knowledge can be acquired, but not so many doubt and question until the end. Most seekers use already made frameworks to ground their questioning in, like philosophy or spirituality or science, etc... So due to this bias, they end up deconstructing aspects of knowledge while leaving out others intact and then fall into dogma, albeit a more subtle form of it. What we're mostly concerned with here on a spirituality forum is the perception aspect. Most people, and apparently even Leo himself, doubt and question everything except perception/consciousness. It is a common belief within spiritual communities that consciousness is primary and self-evident. Well, not for me. I doubted and questioned even consciousness itself until I reached here. I haven't used any psychedelic, but of course I've had many awakenings through the more traditional methods like meditation and self-inquiry. If I haven't had any awakenings, then it'd probably not be appropriate for me to talk. I'm not sure I understand this part correctly.

At this point, I see the world through a data filter. There's only data, and no such thing as knowledge.

Okay, suppose that's true (even though technically it's not, because I exist so I am already absolute). The question is: is the inverse true as well? In other words, if I stopped all of my questioning, would that somehow make me Absolute? The moment we start talking about method, we step into the materialistic scientific territory. My answer is I don't know. I don't think I can define myself, even though I sure seem to be living a human life from within the human body, at least for as long as I'm in this realm. Or maybe the opposite is the case. Maybe in that state you're just confused and delusional that you misjudge everything and overestimate the state you're in. It is commonly known that being high is associated with poor judgment when viewed from the sober state, so again we fall into the bias fallacy here and unfortunately there's no way to know which state is "truer". Yeah but there's no way to confirm this hypothesis that the God-state is an objectively higher state. There's a 50% chance that it's a lower state, if we're to think of it in terms of hierarchy of truth.

Forget this part of the question. It will mislead you. Notice the subtle inference of deserving the good and undeserving the bad. Then ask yourself, why is there pleasure and happiness too? To my knowledge there aren't any existential license agreements or anything of the sorts, so God doesn't owe us anything. That said, why do you think God should be all good? Why the entitlement?

Well, that I am God is a story. So yeah, I can dismiss it like any other story. If you insist. For me, all thoughts are data. No thought is the truth, so I don't really trust any thoughts. Same answer above. Not necessarily a delusion, but perhaps more accurately a story that is highly prone to delusions. In a way, we can think that we are God, but that will require a definition of God, which is something I don't think is possible. Then again, if we think we aren't God, we still face the same problem in the opposite direction because we are denying a thing that we originally admit but without a definition. So, I think it's best to think of the story of God as a story about God, not God itself. Everything is possible. Or to put it another way, there are no known limits to what's possible. "Which state is better?" is a tricky question, because we're always asking it from inside a certain state not from the outside/objectively, so any answers by definition will be biased.

Wha?!

How on earth can anyone dismiss God?! We can dismiss ideas/stories about God, but God itself is not gonna be dismissed. I read the rest of your post, but I don't think it's appropriate to address it now given this major epistemological error.

Profundity is a relative thing. I don't find what you said to be profound at all at this moment in my life. If it is true (and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with that even though I don't agree either), then it's not a major thing. I mean if duality/the sense of self is really the thing that prevents insanity, then insanity is not a problem because without a self there aren't any problems. You call it a trap, I call it data, and it informs my thinking. I see data for what it is. I don't dismiss it, but I don't take it as truth either. What you said here is obvious, but it's another form of data, not truth. It's a story that you keep on telling and seem to be convinced that it is true, which basically mean a belief that you hold dearly. I have entertained that story for a long time then I let it go. It feels much better now.

According to Leo's standards, what you said here is not full awakening. What you said here is basically 2018-2019 Leo, obviously you didn't download the latest updates. In my opinion and experience, the more reasonable/realistic reasons for why you still talk to people are under three categories: Habitual. Pragmatic. Emotional. Regardless of whether you believe others exist or not, all the above factors have a strong effect on you. Solipsism can hinder that effect, but obviously it doesn't remove it completely, which is why you're here talking to us trying to rationalize your beliefs and advocate them as truth. I think Leo is mostly influenced by the pragmatic factor because his business is dependent on him talking to other people.

It's Sunday afternoon here, and I don't see anything

One dip into paradise can make you forget all the suffering, and one dip into hell can make you forget all the blessings.

Obviously you didn't see the solipsism video. I watched parts of it, so I'll tell you that he started out by bringing the definition of solipsism from Wikipedia and then arguing for it. Leo doesn't claim that he's the most awake being because he agrees with the other teachers. Rather, he does that precisely because he disagrees with them and doesn't even think that they actually exist, nor any of us here. Leo thinks solipsism is the absolute truth, and for him that's what all awakening boils down to, hence we are all not really awake. But don't take my word for it. Ask him and see.

This assumes a reality that hinges upon your perception. But maybe there's an objective reality that has nothing to do with your perception. Maybe your perception is simply a distortion of that objective reality into the appearances you seem to experience.

Maybe the answer is found by expanding the definition of reality beyond appearances.

With Leo.

Keep saying that for a few weeks, and Leo will probably dismiss you. Leo denies that basic lesson in principle, but in practice he contradicts his principles, interacts with others, teaches them solipsism, and preaches morality onto them.

No. Ultimately language collapses on itself, but not on reality, because language is a metaphor for reality, it is couched inside of reality, not the other way around. Maybe your finite mind can't manifest a chair. My finite mind is the infinite Godhead itself. It is the source of reality. You are my creation. Do you see how inconsistent you're being? You're playing jump the rope with non-duality without realizing. One moment everything is one and the same without any real distinctions. Then the very next moment there are distinctions, and the distinctions are real.

Imagination is not reality. Otherwise, there wouldn't have been a unique word for each one of them. Imagine a chair and then go actually and try to sit on it, you will fall and hurt your butt.

How dare you?!

I don't think Leo is clashing on the communication. He repeatedly claims that he's the most/only awake human ever, which communicates to me that he's a referring to normie solipsism regardless of mystical insight. In other words, it's not really a matter of communication, but rather a matter of philosophy and conviction. Leo is a subjective idealist (solipsist), while most other teachers are objective idealists (non-dualists). Leo thinks that the more solipsistic you become, the higher your level of awakening gets. Which is why he thinks he's alone and that that's identical to being the most awake person, because there's only him to begin with. I'm not saying I fully agree with the other teachers either, but at least they're more consistent with their teachings. They claim other people exist (regardless of the ontological metaphysics), and they live their lives based on that conviction. Leo claims other people don't exist, and yet he contradicts himself in practice and keeps interacting with others as if they're real and everything, and most ironically he tries to teach them solipsism. If that doesn't seem like delusion, I don't know what does.