RMQualtrough

Every single paradox is solved, no choice in infinity, apparent choice from the relative. Everything is absolutely imaginary, relatively real. Everything is absolutely "love" (I think this means no resistance to anything at all), but hate is possible relatively. There's no self absolutely, there's a self relatively. Nothing absolutely = everything relatively. All paradox solved easily in that manner.

There seem to be three types of experience of reality... 1. The mundane typical focus on object out there evolved into humans. 2. The bizarre and unusual peek into the mirror via something to see that consciousness is in fact literally nothingness. 3. And finally the collapse of the distinction. I found the second to actually be the most shocking, where there was still subject/object divide but I could know and be nothingness. To me it had more element of logical proof I could bring back than the collapse of distinction.

The questions posed like this are made from the perspective of duality. This in particular is extremely difficult to understand but there is not any such thing as internal and external. When you say do rocks have consciousness, it's an implication that there is a separation between self and other. Which there is from our perspective but not truly. Best way to say it, is that if you believing you're a character in a dream pursued this line of questioning, you're really saying you are separate from the dreamed up rocks, and an Idealist says "the rocks are in me (the character)" and a materialist will just see there are rocks and think they have an independent existence AS a "thing" like "rock" which is impossible. The solution is that neither the character nor the rock exist in separate planes of reality. The rock is equally as real as the thoughts the dream character is having. So look, when you ask if a rock is conscious what you are subtley thinking is that there is ULTIMATELY a private world IN you consisting of thoughts etc. But that the rock is something different from a thought that is in a place called out there. Neither a thought nor a rock are the subject itself, they are both objects (which are also the subject - just like how both the subject and object of dreams are one mind - but forget this for now). ... I think ultimately then, rocks have no consciousness BUT it must be understood that neither do you. It is quite the opposite in that only that exists, and the rock is equal to your inner world of thoughts and feelings. Consciousness has you and has rocks and has thoughts. You aren't conscious, you aren't having thoughts, the rock isn't having thoughts, you aren't perceiving the form of a rock, the rock has no perception. Consciousness is having them all. Your thoughts are every bit originating and existing in you as they are in the rock. It is equally valid to say the thoughts you have right now are in you or in the rock. As both are equally unreal. And the confusion is because from the relative level this is not true. And this btw is how all paradox is solved. Can something omnipotent create a rock even it can't lift? Yes. Because you can't lift a super fucking heavy rock but maybe Ronnie Coleman can, or maybe a fucking bear can. And it IS you and Ronnie and the bear and even the rock. So it both can and can't lift the rock simultaneously. ... It's especially interesting to think that if there was a way to move all your sense organs to a rock, but keep the brain in your human skull, such that you see, feel, hear, taste, and touch from the perspective of the rock (like taking a camera and recording someone, then passing them the camera to turn it onto you), you would truly feel as though you are the rock. The actual origin of what is doing the sensing would never be felt to be inside the human skull. It would completely seem to you to be happening from inside the rock because that's where all the senses are located. You would literally feel you are located in the rock. Of course it would not be true, the origin would be the brain. As in even from inside this universe/dream, a mismatch would be experienced because in this universe the brain is directly linked to the human self-mind. A mind is a singular object. There is not actual distinction between sights, sounds, etc. The color red is as different from the color blue as it is from the sound of a piano. It is processing of the mind which makes a distinction. Like looking at a tree and seeing leaf, leaf, leaf, branch, leaf, twig, trunk (etc) instead of just seeing "tree". So we say sight, sound, smell, but it's actually all one singular object. And objects like the brain are ultimately = to an "immaterial" thing like a thought, hence you mess with the brain and experience changes, as it is just two objects existent in the same exact place which are linked. Like hitting a billiard ball with another. Both are in the same place hence no boundary between mind and matter. That is why separate minds exist and there seems to be a private mind possessed by you the human. Because the private mind is just a singular object which is observed by consciousness, which simultaneously observes infinite objects including the mind of another human. ... At the level of objects inside the relative domain there is boundary, in fact total infinity could not be experienced and as such finitude within infinity is necessary (this is another topic but very well explained by Rupert Spira). So our self-minds are finite and separate relatively. All confusion and misunderstanding that ever takes place is due to mixing Absolute and Relative perspectives. And though it is necessary for a human to look "inward" to understand reality, that idea actually propogates the problem to a large extent because it builds up the idea that there is such a thing as an "in here" from the Absolute perspective, and philosophies like Idealism then try to chop up reality into out there and in here and find a way to explain how out there is actually only in this place called in here. It is STILL chopping up reality into immaterial and material rather than understanding both are completely equal, and are existent neither in nor out (since either concept relies upon its implied opposite to even become a concept) but rather in the same exact non-place. Reality is as much found out there as it is found in here, as there is no ACTUAL distinction.

Sounds like Salvia. I know Leo says smoke Salvia to experience being a door handle or whatever. But that is the thing of course that whatever experience takes place, including "being a door handle", is not actually happening anywhere at all. There's no experience happening IN a rock or IN a human whatsoever, except relatively. Absolutely no human or rock or anything at all has consciousness or experience or a real and true independent existence. It's all literally without distinction and imaginary. If you dream and have thoughts while dreaming, it seems that the thoughts exist somewhere different from the apparently physical landscape. But they don't. It's actually all from one singular mind. The "physical" and "non-physical" were never taking place in distinct locations. In words I could just go to Nothing = Everything, but I find this important. Which is also perfect to do this philosophizing BS because the relative is part of the absolute like stripes on a blanket, and relatively it's fun. This is part of the perfection like the omnipotence paradox. That through "God" there can be a boulder it both can and can't lift simultaneously. So we get to act like egotistical little humans regardless of any divine truth and talk 100% relatively and it is still true in that identical paradoxical manner of the unliftable boulder. ... I think it is a really critical thing that there is no "in". I think it is really critical that the external world can be seen as equivalent to the internal world and in fact it is just existence. Literally zero boundary between the two. I keep typing it in slightly different ways as I can tell it's really important but it's difficult to say it in a way that hits myself fully. I think Idealism is a mistake, because it's drawing distinction still, between in and out. Rather than letting the two be equal precisely and exactly as they are. An atom = as immaterial as a thought. A thought = as material as an atom... There's something like this that is fundamentally wrong in Idealism and typically Eastern philosophy causes people to become Idealists. Most of Leo's videos align with what I am trying to say but he's more articulate. Materialism might be equally as valid as Idealism because they are just trying to draw a distinction and pull in opposite directions. But I think it might be neither, and instead perfectly symmetrical. Material = immaterial = material. Possibly neither word is right to explain what fundamentally "is". I can't QUITE grasp what my mind is trying to say.

I was thinking about real and imaginary sounds. I was thinking how bizarre it is when considered, that I can bring completely imaginary sounds into existence, in the sense that the "real" sounds from the external world occupy the exact same space as the imagined sounds. In other words, it is only the mind which distinguishes internal sounds from external "real" sounds. Without this process, both would completely comingle to where you could not discern internal from external. Then of course I already know that soundwaves in and of themselves don't produce sound, the mind does. The mind also produces imagined sounds. So in actuality NO external sound has ever been experienced ever, as irrespective of proposed origin, it is demonstrably true that the sound is a production of the mind in all cases. This applies to ALL things. ... Then I realized something deeper. Which is that ALL distinctions between internal and external are false in that same exact manner. And then I realized the mistake of saying external neurons cause internal experience. This is a mistake in thinking because in actuality both neurons AND experience occupy the EXACT SAME SPACE. There aren't neurons "out there" and there isn't experience "in here"! They are in the same no-place! There is no "out" OR "in" because for either to be a concept relies upon the implied existence of its opposite!!!!!!!! I've spent a lot of time trying to understand that the external world is "in here". Now I think I see that there is no such thing as an in here or out there, so there is nothing out there to bring in nor vice versa anything in here to put out there.

Infinity necessitates it. In recent videos Leo has I think spoken more Abrahamically. I just think of God as an infinity, not something with motivation or goals ultimately. I don't think God gives you cancer because he knows it's good, I think it's just necessitated by infinity.

Never found this useful whatsoever. There are a few practical things I have enjoyed doing.

I've had a number of mystical experiences. I don't think I really intend to have more of them. In the strongest, the feeling which remained I think was just sheer intensity like being on Kingda Ka or something. It kept getting more intense, like imagine being blasted into the air, then when you're way up in the air you're blasted again even higher. Just very intense. The ego dissipated with each blast. Really, after the first blast I don't even really know what was falling away anymore but the clarity increased somehow. At the peak there wasn't really any feelings at all if I remember correctly. My memory now is very vague. The thing I remember most is when coming down I immediately thought how pointless it is to be a lifelong monk etc, because you can only get "there" when nothing of you remains. So the monk spends his entire life practicing spirituality. But then when "there" EVERYTHING monk about the monk is gone and what is left is exactly 1:1 identical to some lifelong criminal killer who reaches the same place. If you take away everything Hitler from Hitler, and everything monk away from the monk, they are identical. And everything is identical there. The intensity was stronger than Salvia extract. Salvia is much more physically intense and chaotic, but this was more mentally intense. I actually don't believe awakening "experience" is possible. I mean, these things happen but they are still happening in duality. I think it's just so much closer to divinity than humans have ever known that we term it things like this. But ultimately I think these are all glimpses under the curtain, I don't think we ever fully pass through and if we do then we don't exist anymore and there is no experience had by our self at all.

Damn, that's major. Because I think many people with mystical views will say that all things out there are actually in here. So I spent so long trying to understand that all external things were actually internal which is quite easy with self inquiry etc. But the understanding that there is also no internal, is pretty shocking. The understanding that NEITHER brains nor experiences are in actuality in here is profound... NEITHER are... That's crazy. So that is why "material" correlation with "mental" experience is meaningless, because both occupy the same place which is neither in nor out. This is big for me. I think I will have to think on this for a while. This means the fact that messing with the brain alters experience is as "surprising" as hitting a billiard ball with another billiard ball and watching one of the balls go flying across the snooker table. The brain exists in the same exact place as experience. It is not that the brain is something in here, it is not that experience is something out there. It is critical that it is NEITHER. Just wow if that's accurate.

This is literally a mistake in botu Idealist and Materialist propositions isn't it? One says all things out there are really in here, the other says all things in here are really out there. But it's literally neither isn't it? Because there's no actual distinction between internal and external from the Absolute perspective. And THAT IS THE MISTAKE. Because in here and out there are one and the same, and only distinguished by imagination taking place in mind. Am I right? Wow. Damn. That's a major revelation... Damn...

The nature of infinity is such that absolutely everything must be and therefore everything is perfect. Not a single thing can be out of place since everything must be... If you feel a moment of sadness or hatred, that sadness or hatred is perfection and necessary. If you "awaken" that is perfect and necessary. Sam Harris is also perfect and necessary. If there wasn't infinite hate or repulsion then infinity is not infinite. Whatever can be will be. Que sera sera tier......

Consciousness = Nothing. Nothing is a more appropriate term. And Nothing = Everything. Srs not just randomly trying to sound "deep". Consciousness is nothingness when paired with somethingness. We experience Consciousness because of Something. But itself is Nothing, and the Something is also inherently nothing. Legitimately.

Yeah exactly, and I don't, and that is also perfect. I know for the most part it is thought that A has to be done because B is some sort of rope-snake delusion, and that therefore B is wrong. Spiritual circles are centred largely around crushing ego. Not just to find the divine but specifically the idea that high ego is wrong. High ego is perfect. Delusion is perfect. Rejection is perfect. NOT being in alignment with the Absolute is perfect. The fact I DON'T like stabbing children or cancer or rape (just because the divine encompasses everything and hence I am "wrong") is perfect. I watched Leo's entire episode with Curt, and I think this is why he was talking about how you are Love irrespective of what you are or do. All imperfections are perfection. This is indeed absolute truth. When you consider it, it is an outright impossibility that things could ever explain what they in and of themselves are. That is why scientists chase tinier and tinier and tinier things. Like when we reach the final "thing" it will all make sense. But a thing can never be explained in terms of itself. It ONLY makes sense, existence itself even, if everything = nothing. It is literally logically impossible that it could ever be any other way, ANY other way ends up insisting "oh that thing (a deity God, some particle, w.e.) just always was... Because it just was..." EVERY other way = infinite regress and questions. This is the ONLY way and it is logically clear that that is the case.

I just came from a funeral of a close relative and these things tend to bring a person mentally closer to these things, to where they become clearer... The car ride induced heavy nausea, I felt sick through much of the procession. I hated it. And it just occurred to me that me hating it is itself part of perfection. Me feeling upset about cancer or not loving the feeling of sadness is itself part of that perfection. As such there is nothing that is not perfection, including any actions or ways of thinking which are the opposite of alignment with "divine truth"... Acts of ignorance are perfection. That is a necessity in infinity.

I don't think we do. If it is absolutely infinite, how could anything possibly be different? Infinite iterations of everything... So an iteration of hatred for something is required if it is possible. If an iteration of hatred of something was possible and didn't happen, there's an imbalance there. Leo's video about bias is good on that point.

My experience of life is identical as far as I can discern. But it's hard to tell.

Set up a movie projector. Run a reel through it. The projected movie seems to have a past, present and future, but the thing actually experiencing things is the projector lens which has never moved from its static singular position. That is why time isn't considered real because you're trying to recognize the projector behind the reel.

You're toast. Other living beings arise. "You" "continue" in the same sense that you are currently experiencing my life. The you that ISN'T experiencing my life is vanquished. Also the you that started reading this post is also dead now. And the one that started reading that sentence just gone is also dead now. You the human has already died nearly infinite times since no person self-thing continues from moment to moment. Just memory casting illusion of a self continuity.

Please don't give your mom drugs lol. Not everyone needs or should have this experience... Which is hard to conceive if you're using often yourself, until you see someone go whacky as fuck from it and end up psych warded for a few days as I witnessed... Before seeing psychosis, psychedelics seem like THE answer. A panacea every person should be given. You "think" your mom will be okay with it, but how will you feel if she goes fucking mental and melts down?

Yes it's easy, get in-ear headphones. Play some flute music or some shit. You can mentally move the sound around your head, so it seems like its in the front of your head, at the back base of your skull, at the top of your skull... Like it can seem to be coming from any direction you decide to focus on placing it. You will realize you can't actually locate where the sound is at all. It's not in any specific place. This can lead to the "mind expanding" subjective effect when you try to pinpoint its actual location to a single point and you just can't find it. You can move other things around more fluidly. I forget now. But you can focus certain things into like, your knees and stuff. Sound is hard to move into your knees. But easy to move around your head.

Yes I have the effect you describe, but you don't leave your body it's more that you can't feel any of your body whatsoever anymore. And as a result the mind has nothing to pin consciousness onto, so it just seems to be everywhere instead.

You shouldn't do it. Nobody should be told that hard psychedelics or high doses of typical psychedelics is a good thing... The people who have the right mindset for psychedelics are the people who will use them anyway.

@Tim R I can see by the replies that people have various interpretations... If Love means total equality and non-discrimination that makes logical sense. Same with lack of any anxiety/fear being Bliss/Peace. And I would ideally like to call consciousness nothingness or infinity tbh... Terminology is so often contested.

Is that what Leo and others mean though? Acceptance makes total 100% sense because it's not an emotion but a lack of resistance. That is also why it is "peace", because peace isn't an emotion but a lack of anxiety.

I want to know why it's love and not neutral.