RMQualtrough

If he wasn't, he is now. Srs.

This would happen 10000 times out of 10000.

God = you is a one way street. A leaf is never going to be another leaf or control the growth of the tree's roots. But the leaf will always inescapably be the tree. All leaves are the tree. You are a leaf (an expression) of an unlimited tree. If you were to ever stop being a leaf the leaf just straight up stops existing, because it is you. The tree is You capitalized. When the leaf ceases there is no you left to do anything, you cease to exist. Only You remain. A car is metal. Metal is not a car.

@Breakingthewall My experience of sizelessness was usually one of malleability rather than rigidity which is why I question it. That is how I am meaning infinite vs limitless. Limitless would be malleable whereas I imagine infinite to be fixed. Limitless would be that unexplained abstract things like color can appear from nothing but then can also go back to nothing, rather than their constant somethingness being set in stone, unable to ever regress back into the nothingness ground of being. I've had various experiences of sizelessness. Usually what happens is, consciousness grabs onto whatever it can. When you are fully "out of body", it feels to encompass the complete width of your vision as well as sounds, touch, etc. If you lost an eye, its scope would narrow. There wouldn't be a fixed extra width where vision used to be, rather it molds into whatever it is aware of. So I don't think they're the same at all but, I wonder which one it is. Is it an infinity of the malleable kind which can spit out infinite things and then swallow them back into nothing, its size always encompassing the scope of its contents? Or of the rigid kind where no things rise or fall but are all forced to eternally be.

It occurs to me there's a difference between infinite and without limit, like how an infinitely large size is different from sizelessness. In deep trips you probably have experienced that boundlessness. I wonder if reality is infinite or limitless. The difference being that with the infinite, all must exist now at once, whereas limitless is more like a magicians top hat with no bottom where you just pull things out over and over and over. But they aren't all out at once right now. Rather they can come out and go back.

Rupert has a number of videos around these sorts of lines, infinity vs finitude etc. He uses a lot of metaphors.

I do wonder if the separation was real or just perception. I.e., was something seperated from nothing such that I genuinely experienced BEING nothing. Or was it such that there was only something, and the sense of distance was perceptual - as in I was not nothingness but straight up nonexistent. I do recall the experience well. There was something, but it seemed that the something was a mirror wherein peering into it I could know myself to be literal nothingness. A nothingness which was present. I'm not sure which. But the actual experience had, it seemed I was nothingness and nothingness was observing the something. My ego etc being an element of something. Of course we see things come from nothing all the time (where is a thought before it is conceived)... But this is indeed a good line of inquiry... I've seen Rupert Spira in particular explain why duality must appear to exist, and consciousness appear to limit itself. Here is where you have to figure out if it's limiting in pairs of nothing and something (meaning there is an Atman), OR simply limiting as slices of something, which would be Anatman... If the latter, there is still a total nowhere things do evidently come from using human language.

You should try. It's very possible. Dissociate from literally all something. Imagine a character in your head, that's a something. Have the character point towards you. What substance do you find where they're pointing to? You will find no substance. Nothingness. A thought is merely an object like the character. Importance is: All something is finite. Nothingness is without limit and as such anything can magically appear out of it like the way red looks to a human. Because it's unlimited and unbounded. No limit exists in nothing. See where the character points, the nothing it points at when it points towards you. Whether that's 1 or 0 I'm not sure. But it's nothing.

The issue he faces is that if he believes the form of Solipsism we THINK he means, it instantly discredits everything he's ever said as our direct experience - the fact we have one - means either a) he's delusional and thus an unreliable narrator or b) WE ourselves are the only existent perspective and again that would mean Leo has never tripped because he's an NPC and thus it discredits his words still.

There is no experience but what Leo is aware of, would that be right?

Lmfao, non-druggies BTFO. Lol at meditation.

Experientially to the point you stop existing, not existing to experience from a perspective at all. Whiteout or blackout in extreme psychedelia, coming round some minutes later with no recollection of what took place. The first or second time I used the Glass Vaporgenie, on the second pull there was something like a huge brief explosion into black and neon, and next thing I know it's some time after. I was still tripping but there's a blank period.

The contrast between red and blue is the same as the contrast between red and the sound of music. Sight and sound etc are categories without actuality, the mind is what makes the categorization. All happening is singular. Hearing a piano while looking at the Eiffel tower, both the sight and sound form one singular happening, such that if you hear the same sound looking a few degrees to the left of where you were previously looking, the entire object has differentiated from the prior iteration even though the sound is identical, as sound is just one aspect of an indistinguished single happening, which is only cut up into distinction of sight and sound and similarity by the mind. The sound does not stand alone independently from the whole. So you cannot say the sound hasn't changed when you look a few degrees left, without first dividing the happening into categories in the mind and recognizing patterns. Which you aren't doing consciously but as a lower level working of the brain like depth perception. Similarly, mental and physical objects. No differentiation in actuality. Differentiation is added in post-processing. If you hum a tune in your head, that sound is as real from an absolute stance as the sound playing on a radio: The brain is called physical, thoughts are called mental. Both brains and thoughts are merely objects without categorization, one is not physical and the other mental, unless you are categorizing reality in a certain way, e.g. consensual reality against private reality. But that is a lens applied by the individual... A sound being imaged is as much out there in the world as the neurons causing it. And vice versa the neurons causing it is as much in here as the sound being imagined. There is no such thing as an in here and out there, neurons are simply more objects identical in substance to sound or the sight of red. All together part of a singular whole which is infinity. Neither in nor out, in no place and no time. Neurons and colors are equally real and existent as NEITHER physical nor mental things, but as expressed aspects of infinity which are not in any place in NOR out, and are simply objects and more objects. Neither thing should be considered different in substance or more real or unreal than the other. As such the contradiction between brains, neuroscience, Idealism, and materialism, is completely nil. There is zero contradiction. The brain can be completely tied to the sight of red without issue, see red and the brain lights up in a certain array. Stimulate the brain in a certain way and the subject sees red, this should not be surprising. It's all objects on a level playing field. You hit a snooker ball with another and it moves. Is that surprising? It's only surprising if you believe one ball is real and one is unreal and hence the two ought not to interact. If both balls occupy the same reality, their interaction is blatant and without any shock. If a brain and the seen color of red occupy the same precise locale, their unification is wholly unsurprising as they aren't in fact separated by imagined borders of real vs unreal. All contrasts exist equally, real vs unreal, it makes no difference. Even one shade of red against another very slightly darker shade of red, the differentiation is identical to that of red and the feeling of burning your hand on the stove. Contrasts are there and of course red does not stop being what we term red when someone snorts some toad, but everything simply meshes into unity and recognized undifferentiation against the whole. Everything is infinity and no REAL contrast exists between anything, only the appearance of such. Unreal appearance and real contrast being, of course, singular and without difference: The illusion equal to the non-illusion in actuality. The contrast and finite nature of red beside blue as real as the total unity of the two as undifferentiated existence. And that simultaneous appearance of contrast combined with the total lack of contrast (lack of contrast since everything is now just infinity, just as you may see leaves on a tree then just see all leaves as tree rather than leaves) is total infinity, as it contains both differentiation and singularity, everything and nothing, absolute and relative, true and false, love and hate, peace and fear, happiness and sadness, real and unreal, matter and mind.

Any insight to add? I notice that on Salvia, depth actually ends. You can still move your hand and reach forward etc but you genuinely cannot see depth at all, just a flat 2D mass. You do still see shape and color within that in a near incomprehensible way. But the depth is outright not perceptible at all full stop, so the contrast of far and near do not merely become recognized as equal, but it genuinely ceases to exist so you couldn't discern how far or near something is no matter how hard you tried. It's just a flat blob. I do not know if similar can happen in other arenas.

Holding a blanket over your eyes while lying down works better. I know because I can't sleep with even a slither of light showing.

It can't be grasped because there's no edge to grasp. My encounters with something along that line have been frightening, but of course if "you" are dead it isn't. I have no plan to ever put myself in such a situation again.

Leo has explicitly stated that your self does not go carry on in some heaven place (he says on the same basis, the idea of uploading your consciousness to a robot is ridiculous). I don't think any mystic tradition believes in an afterlife. Moreso that death is not real at all.

That is fantastic.

I've had the experience you are describing. What if the answer to the questions you ask is nobody or nothingness? Because all elements of the self or me, do move and change. What is unmoving is of no substance or attribute... Is that what the insight is meant to be?

In other words, it must contain everything which means both the yes and the no. Questions such as... Is there a separate self? Is everything One? Is everything Love? etc. You can find both truth and falsehood depending on the perspective it is viewed from, as a product of infinity this is inevitable. Leo calls one of these perspectives the relative... The other perspective would be the absolute. To say everything is One is acknowledging the absolute only. To say it is many is acknowledging the relative only. Reality is in fact both one AND many simultaneously. Something and nothing simultaneously. Love and hate simultaneously. Separation and unity simultaneously... If you find any question with a definite yes or no, at least examine the opposite to see if the opposite is true from any perspective or interpretation at all. Does the Easter Bunny exist? If you imagine it, it is of course inescapably part of existence (imagination itself is part of existence). But there is no Easter Bunny running around Earth planting Easter eggs. I have noticed this trend, that basically all questions cut both ways. There are some I'm not sure about (whether they do cut both ways), but it seems basically every question that exists is as such.

You didn't try to escape by dreaming you're a human. Infinity necessitates this. It's natural like any element of nature, not thought out and planned... There is no choice in infinity. This is where will cuts two ways, as seemingly does everything.

This is critical. The equivocation that breaks one way: Red is not blue, red is red, blue is blue. But both red and blue are of the same substance. Infinity is red but red is not infinity. These contrasts btw precede any thought or interpretation. Salvia will turn everything into a singular flat blob, but contrast remains in actuality in the blob even when not recognized.

What flavour of Solipsism are you subscribing to? Because there are of course various ways to cut it. Without bothering about semantics or retreating into "there are no others" because we all know what is meant, do you mean that what you as Leo see right now is the only sight there is? Or by you being alone are you meaning the same I that sees through all of our eyes (and to which the sights seen are a product of itself). Because Oneness in itself means Solipsism must be accurate, but that's not the type of Solipsism people think you mean.

Suffering is eternal, it's part of existence like duality and contrast etc. Infinity means infinity, so if suffering ceased, infinity could then not be infinite. If there is a true infinity you must understand the sheer inevitability of everything. I don't really suffer much, moreso I just used drugs and was forced into a worldview.

This seems to come down to how one interprets the "foreground". What I mean is, if in your mind you imagine a man as vividly as you can, then have that man point towards you, invariably we all imagine that man to be pointing directly into the foreground at "us". The question then is, do you interpret there to be a foreground (which is made of literal nothing), or for there to BE no foreground and instead only the image of the man? I think this is where people differ on the subject/object vs no subject/object interpretation... My own experience was one of perceived distance from the object and a subject which has a substance of total nothing. I did not feel to be the image and all elements of "I" did not feel to be me anymore. I felt to be a foreground of nothing. How do you interpret this and why?