RMQualtrough

@Tyler Durden Yes, memory is a brain function. If matter = mind, don't forget that this means there is no contradiction in brain function's link to mental elements: The physical brain IS a mental element itself.

I think consciousness says "bye bye *your name*" and stops playing with you, and plays with another toy instead. The story of you closes and another story opens. Many stories concurrently. I never know how to articulate my thoughts on this but it makes sense to me. I guess waves and the ocean is a decent one. But I feel more like I will vanish as consciousness is done dreaming me.

@Nahm Right but we gotta remember those are the people who may stumble upon these posts. I'm always very conscious of posting in such a way that literally a randomer could read it during his break at the office and understand what is described. So I sometimes elaborate on minor whys etc. Mainly because of my own experience reading trip reports in the past. It is invitational yeah. It can be hard to discuss sometimes because some things are technically correct but aren't what I want to convey. E.g. random example think "thoughts are not happening to anybody", that is a true statement. So I can't disagree but it's also not what I want to get at, so it becomes really difficult to verbally navigate. @monad_dyad Get in-ear headphones, and play some meditative flute music or something. And consciously try to find the exact precise location the sound is happening. You can consciously move it around your head if you imagine it to be coming from behind or in front. It is actually not coming from any direction so you find it's not in any location. That's helpful.

Right, it's a product of infinity.

@silene This would be of the former stance I think, which is duality within nonduality? Dependent origination, Dzogchen, the Dao, I've seen quite a few philosophies which acknowledge the duality within nonduality. The opposing stance would be to experience the same thing but see there to only be somethingness. @Nahm It does completely shut down conversation to eradicate terms of duality, it is impossible to share any mystical experience without saying things like I, this, that, X, Y. You can see Leo say "I" smoked 5-MeO for 30 days, or "I" became infinity. It's just a fact you have to use this wording. If a randomer off Google were to read trip reports where things are explained as such, it would be easy to understand, which I think is of utmost importance... 99% of people are never going to smoke DMT etc (I insist on saying "other people"), so any part of the 1% who do decide to, should be incredibly concise and pay the most attention to using the most basic and human wording. I said to imagine the man because that is what triggered this within a trip. Which was that I was watching these jester things then they pointed at me as if to say "don't look here, see what's back there". And it intensified from there. It became such that all of "me" was also some form just like the jesters. Which means the word "I" is a thought and hence form and hence observed, my name is a thought, my emotions are observed, there was literally no me left of me, because me was observed and I was the observer. I is not what you'd think of as the accurate term but I think that's inconsequential... I became pure consciousness and it was nothing, because everything was removed from this so of course if literally every thing is removed, there's just nothing. But nothing could not be without something, so the something must appear to even be able to know the nothing. I am not adding re-interpretations, it's exactly as it happened. But I think the experience could be had where nothingness is there, or there is no nothingness. I've had both in fact, the experience mentioned, and also of the merging of all. I don't fully remember everything.

@Nahm The "no everyone" thing is of course negating the ability to talk relativistically which negates any possibility of discussion at all. You need the ability to talk as such and say you, me, etc as separate entities. However I think this means that if a character imagined in your mind points into the foreground, you are saying that foreground is not nothingness, but rather not there period. My interpretation getting that insanely fucked on DMT, was that I was nothingness. The experience was that. It separated everything from me. And you think that means the nothingness was seen to be me but it wasn't me anymore... I was appearing to it because any thought or image or literally anything was a form. And this was without form. So like trying to see your own eyes with your eyes. You know how you can't ever get back behind them. This consciousness was not a thing I could get behind, anything that was anything appeared to it. I experienced it that way but I can ascertain you're of the view that it is not nothingness, but rather not there period. Where conversely, although it was literally nothing it seemed to be there to me, it seemed I was it (even though it wasn't me anymore).

@Nahm I would arrive at you being an NPC down that route. With literally no assumption, there is just this, I never existed before this or after this, and you are an NPC. We know what I am talking about broadly, I think we can agree to use terms like you and me for the purpose of having a discussion... A full ego death experience is basically identical for everyone, so we are discussing what we make of that experience. So for you was the foreground existent but nothingness, or was the foreground not there period? Or was there a meshing of everything, so any appearances seemed to be identical to you etc.

@Nahm To not talk as a separate self would just turn conversation into incomprehensible babble and extreme semantic difficulty. I don't find that helpful, you would literally never be able to have any discussion if we had to be that regimented... It is useful and we can understand what is meant when I say what I am seeing vs what you are seeing. I am making an assumption that you are seeing and you do know what is meant by that. So I am assuming something which isn't the typical form of Solipsism where the sight of your screen as you read this isn't happening at all. Barring that assumption and agreeing to not be semantic-Nazis, nothingness is not necessarily an assumption. Depending on how you experience what I mention, since I seemed to experience being nothingness. Others will have the same experience but for them it shows there IS no perceiver, not merely that the perceiver is nothingness/void. I'm wondering how and why people arrive at which conclusion.

@Nahm The assumption I am indeed making, is just giving the benefit of the doubt that this in front of my eyes is not the only "this". I.e. you aren't an NPC. I'm sure you understand what I mean.

Which part is the assumption? Everyone does know of form, but the "foreground" (which is formless), is that nothingness or literally non-existent period? Because it can be experienced and hence isn't assumption, but I think it could be experienced differently. My experience was of separation from form, and what remained as nothingness back and away from form which I then was. But it had no elements of me as any me/I was an appearance of form; I just say me/I because it's the only way it makes sense... But I can see people might also say there IS no perceiver. My own experience, I might say perceiver is nothingness, perceived is impermanent nothingness-appearing-as-somethingness, and the two together is contained as a singular eternal unit. But some will say there is only one side of the two, rather than two sides of one coin... Both are nondual but it differs here and I wonder how people have experienced it themselves.

Do you think the unification encompasses perceiver and perceived, or is there only perceived. That's the difference.

God doesn't exist, you're blatantly thinking in terms of a deity. There's no such thing as God, just infinity. That's it. God (infinity) is all knowing because all knowing which happens is taking place within God (infinity). It is all loving in and of itself in the same way that a rock does not reject you smashing it with a sledgehammer. Love means acceptance, it is default. Only sentient beings can reject something natural. It is peace because peace is just NOT the sensation of anxiety. Again peace is default, a rock does not feel anxious about being smashed, it is at total peace. But simultaneously God is all hating and all fear. Because any hate and fear take place within it, if you feel hate or fear that is direct proof God contains fear and hate. God as in the deity up in the sky is as real as Santa, it's pure makebelieve. The word is either used as a term by instinct following direct experience (it's the most powerful word we know) or a cope made up by humans so they can believe in their version of heaven etc.

Is this your own personal belief? That for example I am not seeing the mobile I type on right now as you aren't in your direct experience? I am curious because that would (due to the existence of my own direct experience) disprove the theory, if indeed you yourself aren't the NPC in my reality. Which if you are right you would need to be. Assuming that we both see something right now, there is surely a way to reconcile that. Ideas like Atman I suppose. As to experience the finite there must appear division, otherwise of course infinity encompasses everything into literally one with no space or time or anything even appearing. And then these finite perspectives would be actually necessary.

Green is not red. Blue is not yellow. Green is green. Red is red. Blue is blue. Yellow is yellow. It is simply that red, blue, green, and yellow are all nothingness and THAT is the Oneness. The Oneness is in the shared fundamental reality/nature of all that is. It is not accurate to say green is red, but accurate to say both green and red are not two, since they share the same reality which is this infinity; nothing, something; infinity. I have read trip reports which use the terms of the contrast and say that they are another contrast. But if you use the term of contrast (like the name of a color) you are instantly talking from within the relative domain, and relatively the comparison does not work. It only works from the Absolute domain and that is wordless or infinity. Green is infinity, red is infinity, but green is not red. And green is not the totality of infinity which includes all contrasts.

Good to post thoughts you can later reflect on.

Any thoughts about enlightenment or oneness are thoughts, taking place within the appearance of duality. Being "enlightened" is still just part of your identity and an element of the collective object of appearances that make up all of you that isn't the sheer nothing. Being "awake" the appearances around you do not vanish. You just interpret them differently, as nothing rather than something. But they are still appearing. So you are merely re-interpreting the appearance of duality within that appearance of duality. The sheer nothing by itself does not care about anything, so being extra empathic to others is not actually in any way appeasing the sheer nothing you share. It by itself never changes, even if you are literally the Buddha, all things "Buddha" are appearances. All his thoughts and feelings... You haven't actually left the game. Nobody ever leaves, like Hotel California. Look at how all these people are apparently awake, yet others persist. If any person truly "awoke" ALL people would collapse, every perspective would end across the board, because we are LITERALLY one thing ultimately. It wouldn't be possible to have one person "awake" and another not, because there ARE no others ultimately speaking. For this to even be possible proves that all elements of that "awakening" are just more objects in the appearance of duality. It's no different than watching a movie or playing a video game. It's still just experience. The absolute totality is never experienced as total. Duality is the most critical element of nonduality, as without it appearing, illusion or not, there would be no existence at all.

It's also easy to describe why infinity cannot be conveyed. Just picture a dog chasing its tail, wherever you look or try to grab it is always ahead and it IS you. You'll never be able to grab it, just like that. What it feels like to be me, it feels like whatever is happening right now because that's me. If you mean to be just me empty and that alone, then like general anaesthetic, so like nothing?

I find it perfectly logical and succinct. The nature of nothingness (nothing exists including boundaries or limitation) means that it must be infinite. To be infinite it must include all possibilities. All somethings are elements of these possibilities in infinity. Surely that is the case? It can be condensed in a few sentences like that?

It's easily knowable that nothingness HAS to be infinite. The exact mechanism is very easy to understand. A boundary is something. If there's not something, there's no boundary, making nothing infinite, which must be infinite something (else it would be finite/limited if it did NOT appear as something); and that something creates boundary, if there wasn't something, there's no boundary, making nothing infinite, which- Etc etc to infinity. You see the pattern? Nothingness cannot exist without somethingness because the lack of something would necessitate something into being. There's just infinity. Outside, inside, nothing, something, up, down, left, right; all just infinity. That's all there is. Infinity. But that is precisely why... If there's no limit, no law, no boundary, there's infinity: If there's infinity, there must be something otherwise it wouldn't be infinite.

You can find nothingness (in the presence of something) by being it. You can be made of nothingness at all, it's what you are and it can be known, because everything that is something is in front appearing to you... Even you are a something. The you I am trying to describe is nothingness.

There's not something rather than nothing. There's both nothing and something and it's contained in a single unit.

Most animals can be friends with humans but I mean, dogs were specifically bred for that purpose out of their natural species (wolves or w.e.), so it seems more like a betrayal IMO...

I just ate some eggs, later I'll have some chicken. It is what it is. There's obviously nothing ultimately bad about doing anything so w.e. it's just our judgements via the lens of human morals. The Chinese are psychotic. Dogs were bred over many years to specifically be companion animals and friends to humans. Eating pre-domesticated dogs or dogs bred to be livestock would be different.

Do you have a link to this? Of course, it is impossible to as infinity experience infinity without apparent contrast (try to imagine infinite clear in your head without any color backdrop behind it)... So even in cessation or death nobody is enlightened, because there was nobody there anyway. An odd and inescapable thing that no matter how enlightened someone is, you can have Richard Dawkins sat down beside them believing the exact opposite. It's pointless to say there aren't actual any people etc as a workaround as some do in such cases. That's just word games, since everyone knows exactly what is being said and meant.

Basically all phrases have two meanings and how people choose to take the term can dramatically alter what is being said. I think Leo means that there is no contents of mind anywhere except what he knows. Monistic solipsism. In other words, he can't see your computer right now in his experience so he doesn't believe you are seeing it either. He thinks you're an NPC basically, I think. Otherwise in non-monistic Solipsism the question as to how multiple views happen concurrently is very valid. Probably worth a video IMO on how it actually functions. As most mysticism is focused on direct experience only, and in my direct experience I can only verify what I am experiencing from this apparent point of view.