RMQualtrough

God is a very humanizing term. I don't think it should be used. It'd be like calling a rock God, what you say is God is just literally existence. If God as a deity existed, he would be part of existence and thus an element of that. How can existence be called God? And why should we even give words to negatives, like "infinite peace" is merely the total lack of anxiety. Peace is not an emotion at all. Humans always feel some level of anxiety, ALWAYS we have some desire to do something or other, and so the absence of anxiety is so crazy to us that we think it's an actual separate emotion. Infinite power is also just implied by infinity itself. Beauty is lack of rejection (I hate the way X or Y is). The word has awful personifying implications, heavy historical meaning, and is wholly unnecessary. It shouldn't be seen as a being at all, it is a being and intelligent and all knowing only via its appearances through which aspects of infinity is realized. It's not even an it. It's also not just nothingness because it's also somethingness. Now there's no word. Infinity works if you accept finitude as one with infinity, since infinity necessitates finitude on various grounds which are easily explained.

It's false for you and 99.9999% of us, true for the maniac in deep psychosis who actually hallucinates it etc.

You'll find that in every way it is both true and false. Both X and Y. E.g. it is not New York City in the absolute sense, but it is New York City through your eyes. A bearded man in the clouds is not what it is absolutely, but relatively it might be. Probably many Bible folk really saw such figures, and the fact they SAW the figures is undisputed and the figures are "real" as such. While also being unreal. It is both nothing and something, sized and sizeless, in time and without time, colored and colorless. It seems to work this way on every matter I can think of. If it is truly a sheer literal infinity that would make sense as to why that is the case (also yes it is both finite and infinite).

What I mean is, no matter what you identify as, the feeling "I am sad" and the associated unpleasantness, which is a feature of this infinity, is what it actually is. By identifying with the sheer nothingness, the feeling "sad" does not change. Interpretation of it changes. But if sadness stopped being sad, it's not sadness anymore. Sadness IS the whole package deal. The feeling of "I am sad" is the entire unit, which appears in consciousness. Same with pain. Interpretation of it can alted but the sensation itself and associated unpleasantness is a package deal. That IS what the experience is. All of these things are objects like literally ANY other. The application of a label to what the thing is, does not stop it from merely being thing... E.g. red is a thing, the sound of a piano is a thing. Labelling red as color and piano as sound is categorizing reality. Both are just "experience" or "appearance". Pain, suffering, anxiety, sadness, as such are just more objects like that... Just as you can't take the redness away from red, you can't take sadness away from sad. Because it is literally exactly what they are. You can only stop adding interpretation and egoic type resistance. But the thing itself could not alter without the form ceasing to be what it is...

I think he means Absolutely, that the only experience happening is the one that appears to be localized from Leo. Of course I know I do have an inner world, so it is an impassè. I would wonder of course, why others lie about seeing from their eyes etc. If they are literally just NPC type beings. It doesn't appear within my control, so what is deciding that they lie, if only this identity's human perspective mind exists?

I'm curious what is meant by this. I understand many elements, but I wonder how this works... As far as I can tell, even though what the word I points to is seeing through both of our eyes concurrently, it is not possible for me to describe what you are seeing right nos through this mouth or identity. And vice versa. There seems to be many relative perspectives at once, and we may label each of those perspectives as a being of some sort. As I type to you from this being here I can only access this perspective. I assume you also do have one.

Ever noticed how a perception or thought comes out of nothing, and back into nothing? Past memories you have, the moment itself when it happened arose and fell, from nothing back into nothing. A single moment. The sense that there was even any continuity IN that experience while it was being had, is a product of the mind and the consistency of the external world. See by the end of the time you were having your happy memory, say 10 minutes into it, the first 5 minutes of that time had vanished. A happy day was even when experienced made od billions of moments which came into being from nothing - then back into nothing. There's only this right now. There's only this exact moment... If you're KO'd, you wake and experience, ultimately, no gap in experience at all. I.e., neither I who stay conscious, nor you who is out cold, ultimately ever cease to experience. To me it seems you do, because I can describe moments you cannot. But ultimately for both of us experience is, firsthand, continuous with zero interruption... A happy memory you have, where is that moment? It is back in the same exact nothingness as the thought you had 5 minutes earlier is now. There's only this precise moment. Events (really just morphing objects, we are one of these) move through awareness AKA nothingness. Really they don't move anywhere but rather transform constantly. After transforming, the prior condition of the object is in nothingness. It isn't THERE in a place called the past. It's nowhere. At least it seems that way, as I was told earlier that block time is disproven. Which is helpful for an easier understanding... Block time would be fine but would then require belief in more that is not able to be directly experienced than just multiple finite perspectives as other humans (merely objects in and of nothingness) may report.

@Leo Gura What I'm curious about, is if there is, say, a Johnny Bravo with a relative view of reality in the sense that you and I have different relative experiences of this material universe. Of course on a larger scale, no human has consciousness but consciousness has humans, there are no "others" etc, I get that and it makes the above phrasing seem wrong I know. But would an infinity basically necessitate the existence of something identical to Johnny Bravo with an ego, first person relative perspective of reality, and cartoon universe? In a true literal infinity it seems to me it must be a certainty that every episode of a TV show we watch, must have an actual "reality" in some other universe etc. You probably get what I mean.

In my experience I didn't interpret any self to be able to think it is not real. I know that all aspects of the self including the word "I" seemed to be very distant from where I then was, and what I was, was at that time made of nothingness. The I thought and self and all things seemed very distant. What to make of that? Is the nothingness still referred to as the self? I'm not sure because I don't like terms like "you're imagining the laws of physics". It seems whatever is responsible for that contains no element of me AT ALL, but vice versa what that is contains me... I didn't feel the nothingness I became had any control, or at least as nothingness I could not will a million bucks into my lap etc. I didn't suddenly know everything. I am nothingness right now. And maybe the nothingness is omniscient (it must be), yet I am not even though I am it. That's strange.

The man has never done anything wrong. He's very biased against anything remotely "out there seeming", because he has a family member with schizophrenia.

@peanutspathtotruth Infinity (meaning the entire totality) never experiences infinity AS infinity. So it seems to check that box for the non-experienced. Everything that is experienced, taken as a whole totality, is never experienced. But it is experienced in slices of finitude, subject/object divides. Every paradox has its opposite, you see that it all works out that both one thing and its opposite are able to exist simultaneously. Including something and nothing.

@Tyler Durden Relatively or absolutely? Now it is hard to discuss without making mistakes... The universe, space, and time vanish if I knock you out cold with a baseball bat right now. From your relative perspective the time and space I report existed while you were KO'd was not experienced. Because time and space are ultimately unreal, and likely just mediums via which experience must be had (several reasons why), to say they vanish may just be analogous to saying experience ceased. Now: Side by side our experience never ceased. As in, NEITHER of us experience a gap in experiencing. So it might be Absolute level accurate to say experiencing never ceased at all.

Hm, if you didn't interpret it as painful it wouldn't be the same object anymore. Interpretation of pain/aversion is an object, undifferentiated from the singular experience of all objects that we right now would call "your mind". If the interpretation stops, the actual object which is your mind as a whole has morphed into a new object. It constantly is. If pain stops feeling painful it is no longer pain. If pain exists in absence of aversion, the larger unit which would be multiple "objects" (see how we split the object by categorizing pain as sensation and interpretation as thought?), it isn't the same object as what we usually mean when we say pain.

Yeah it's all irrelevant. The dream continues eternally... You can straight up die, what happens? Experience continues: See the mourners at your funeral. There's no end of it.

Or SSRIs, or various OTC medications. MAOIs alone are the most effective antidepressants. They aren't prescribed because they are dangerous. Eat some cured meats and potentially die for example. SxRIs have been shown to be near the same efficiency.

Look at Leo, all these God realizations and he's now going around hitting up hos in sleazy bars (or teaching such). Why do you think that is? No matter how deep you go, there's a door that is genuinely impossible to go through. There is no magic door where you go through it and there's a round of applause for "figuring out reality" and reality ends. Infinity as the totality cannot be directly observed. If it is it's cessation AKA non-experience. Experience never ends. The dream (duality) is permanent. So you just go back to doing whatever it is that attracts you in the dream. That is real freedom though, I think.

@Nos7algiK Nothing CAN'T be deceiving you though? I mean if you find nothingness, there's no illusion there, because an illusion is something. So you find that and it's the end, I would think.

What vibration? Nothing is vibrating. Man even Rupert Spira likes to explain things by the term "vibrating"...

Scam. Its existence discredits spirituality as a whole by making it seem everyone discussing mysticism equates that to thinking they can telepathically conjure a billion dollars into their bedside drawer. Insane when people refuse cancer treatment for it. Oh and when it doesn't work? Of course the practitioner just didn't want it hard enough.

I don't know many people into it at all, but of the ones I do there's a strong bias to schizophrenia and for whatever reason also to bipolar (which is hard to understand). When you say success do you mean in mental effects like lowered anxiety, or mystical experience attainment? When I do it myself it does nothing, same with hypnosis, plus I have hardcore insomnia. I feel sure it is all linked... Maybe a physical mental resistance to altered states can mute the potential of meditation working? It is great it works for you. I have seen another dude on YouTube who wasn't schiz/bipolar but could induce such a state. To me it is just crazy when people talk about how they meditated for years (especially in the self help industry), but none of the people saying it have understanding of nondual reality etc. So when I see that it strikes me as a waste of time... Someone dope them up already lol.

What no-self is observed by is what you are. It's just that that is nothingness. Any element of the self, be it a thought, or emotion, your name, sound, sight, memory, is going to observed by the nothingness... So everything you would consider the self is an appearance to the sheer consciousness which is nothingness and what you are. The sum total of everything, meaning nothing and all objects appearing to it (all period, so not just mine or yours but all existent objects) is just total infinity. It's not a God, not any thing, not nothing. It's infinity which encompasses BOTH nothing and something.

In my experience with people in the West at least, meditation only works for bipolar or schizophrenic people. Not sure why for bipolar, doesn't make sense why they're prone to spontaneous mystical experience etc. Everyone else I know just meditates for years and never has such an experience, which seems like a total waste of time. Those people probably ought to just take drugs or not bother.

Because the removal of somethingness causes the exact conditions that make its own existence necessary and impossible to avoid. God doesn't exist, it's just literally infinity. It is sentient only because it contains sentience, it chooses only because it contains choice. The totality as a whole has no choice, there's no chooser to make any choice. Infinity simply cannot help but be infinite. When people say infinite love that is because they are identifying the nothingness as God, and not the somethingness in which hatred (rejection of X or Y) exists. It is really both though. Infinite love as well as infinite rejection. Because it's both nothingness and all somethingness. Including someone's hatred of cancer and pain and suffering. It contains selfishness along with the nothingness that is totally selfless... Selflessness, acceptance, and peace being DEFAULT AKA the lack of attribute. Peace is merely a lack of anxiety, acceptance a lack of rejection. Etc.

Well I don't believe anything would be changed point blank because I don't believe things are the way they are due to selflessness. I think it's the actual necessity of an infinity. It can't help but be infinite. So infinite in fact that it can't ever comprehend itself in totality because there is simply no end in any direction. And it's not even a sentient thing, it contains sentience, so the wording I just used is a bit humanizing. I imagine it's like trying to comprehend what "infinite clear" would LOOK like. We can't comprehend it without adding an artificial backdrop like black or white. Infinity can't ever be comprehended fully in its totality, for that exact same reason. It becomes nothingness and non-experience as in cessation. No God has ever woken from this dream. None ever will. What is happening is from a relative stance, a person realizes God (AKA nothingness AKA infinity AKA not a deity or person despite containing sentience in it). It's a relative experience still... When you are dead you are fully enlightened to total infinity, and yet there you are mourning at your own funeral. The illusion continues. Forever. God waking up to itself as a totality is not possible, because it would collapse all something to nothing, and removal of something means removal of any limit which means nothingness is infinite (nothing exists to limit it) and there is infinite somethingness still as a result. You can't split the two. You can't end the illusion because removing something causes the EXACT parameters that necessitate its very own existence!