RMQualtrough

Appearances inside -insert preferred term-. Some things appear to not have an ego though, Johnny Bravo seems to speak and have a personality, but we assume that he is not having any relative experience of existence which most of us possess.

The point is that you don't know that I do. The characters in your dreams function just fine. You don't know that I am anything more than that. On a tangent, I think many robots display awareness which I can gladly discuss.

I give people the benefit of the doubt and have faith they do have perspective. But I cannot ever know it. It is merely faith on my part. Vice versa too. You do not know I dream or have any perspective etc. It would certainly be SIMPLER if very literally my egoic self is the only egoic self. Then I'd not need to even consider individuation etc.

It is an unverifiable position to state that the people around you have any perspective at all. In a dream you see a lot of characters but generally you have a first person view inside that dream. We assume the other characters do not have a first person view of the dream. It would not be possible to say that the other characters have a first person perspective. I can completely kill my ego, and realize many elements of my own being are imaginary. But from my perspective this is where I return. A stronger persuasion to a Solipsist should be the fact that even without our "self" there are multiple selves. Maybe the other dream people don't have a first person view, but some element of our mind that we do not even know exists and are seemingly not in control of, has generated them and their words. So if there are evidently multiple aspects of my own mind which I cannot access, perhaps it is the same in the waking world.

It is a confusing topic and I think it is because of the terms. As you said it might make sense for a crusty old man, but everything is "now", both your own birth and death occur in the "now", you as a toddler and you as that crusty old man happens "now". That can be shown via words (since we never experience anything unless it is happening presently, the past only exists to us by memories which are also accessed in the "now"). Regarding the matter in general, I do not see that it would be different to enter death consciously or unconsciously. If a person gets shot in the head, why would death be different than death for a person who enters it in this Mahasamdhi type manner? I suspect that when death occurs every single person is immediately "enlightened" to a level infinitely beyond any living person ever was or ever could be. There will be no "experience of death" only of "dying". Once death occurs everyone and everything is equal is what I think. My main overarching idea of course being nonduality. The fundamental nature of everyone and everything is the same thing, it is all one... When "there", a monk with a lifetime of spiritual practice vs a murderer will be identical because, literally, they were never real and were always just this to begin with... Leo, me, whoever else posts, being as real as a thought or emotion... Hence regardless of how a person gets there I suspect the end result is completely identical.

What do you mean? I don't think telepathy is possible, though if it is I'd say anyone who desires to stay in this human body has an obligation to prove it and change the entire world by doing so. How I envision it is infinite "God", we are inside of God and made of God. We are therefore all identical, but the different appearances inside God do not appear to access each other directly from the egoic selves. It is only possible to end the egoic selves. Your own egoic self does not record any memory of the perceptions of a different egoic self. So even though you are experiencing ALL egoic selves right now (God is, but you are God), your own egoic self and mind will never know it. That has been my own ruminations.

Lol slick analogy.

You can prove there is no such thing as inferior or superior even in Materialism, since we are literally all "universe". You are no more important than a grain of sand but no less important than a solar system, because everything is merely a part of one universe. I am universe you are universe rocks are universe. There's no better or worse these things only exist to a human mind. It is not objectively true. So regardless of whether it is untrue or true, that element must be true.

Mr. Frustrated lool.

It seems to be experienced that way as opposed to being felt as a point. The direct experience of sizelessness seems to be expanse without boundary. When it loses grip on any physical part of your body it just bleeds out and encompasses everywhere and everything. This triggers a mystical experience where the subject and object divide ceases, and there does not appear to be boundary on it. It does feel more like an expansion than a contraction... Or initially a contraction as the hold on the body lessens (it will remain conformed to whatever body part is still felt, only when TOTAL out of bodyness happens it bleeds out everywhere). But it may be a singularity. A singularity which contains infinity. Something like that. Very bizarre...

That is our conclusion, but it is true to literally anyone even Materialists etc. that it must be a binary.

The semantics used are not my preference, but I believe the meaning is that essentially, every living person and their experiences are every bit as imaginary as your thoughts. Leo is imaginary, RMQualtrough is imaginary, you are imaginary, your thoughts and feelings are imaginary, my thoughts and feelings are imaginary. We are merely all appearances inside of ONE consciousness and that consciousness is WHOLE. I prefer to say that everything is equally real, and to openly and freely refer to you and I as separate etc.

@Regan Consciousness has to be infinite. The terms are annoying because there are not enough. There ought to be a distinct term for consciousness stripped of the layers on top, and normal experience of what we usually refer to it as. Anyway. The thing itself has to be infinite if it is not inside space. If it is not in space then literally it is sizeless hence it is not bound at all by space so it can be a point or an infinite. There is no deeper awakening for the simple reason that it is completely irreducible. When you are going towards these states, elements of you and your brain start to shut down. More and more shut down until you reach, you would hope, the most pure version of it that you can experience. Or close enough to logically be able to bridge the gap and feel what it is etc. You cannot divide pure awareness into anything smaller because awareness is proveably binary: On or Off. There is no in between. When we use terms like semi conscious that is referring to the way a human being experiences humanness, e.g. thoughts and feelings, which meditation often tries to get you to detach from.

@Regan I cannot speak for others ofc but what you've mentioned is a thing I've given much thought over time. What I have come to theorize is that, essentially, the Big Bang or w.e. is proposed as the beginning of Spacetime arose from Awareness/Brahman/Infinite Consciousness. Everything else follows from there just as science dictates. The brain is made of matter and matter arose from the "everything". I believe complex human consciousness to be quite accidental. I think what we experience is a huge conglomeration of acts of awareness... A robot vacuum is exhibiting an act of awareness when it detects a wall, you can bust out a dictionary and see that must be the case. The brain I see as a sort of centralized hub which allows a person to experience the millions of inputs as a single thought thread. That is a conclusion I can semi support scientifically, you can look into things like the surgery which splits the brain and the impact on the individual's consciousness, or you can hum while mentally thinking of something else, or dream and realize all the landscapes and characters appear and talk without you seemingly directing it. Consciousness as experienced is immaterial, proveably it has no size, etc. And same for elements of it such as the redness of red, the taste of chocolate. These are immaterial things. So I figure consciousness and those things are being grasped from somewhere outside of space and time. You could never in infinite years reach into spacetime and grab the nature of these things because they are not physical objects. There is no doubt that from a relative position messing with the brain can remove or alter certain things, for example red may turn to green. The wavelength of light is the same but the subjective nature of it can change... All subjective things have the ability to cease into "nothingness" and also "come out of nothingness" literally, which I can also prove if desired. So that is why it is easiest to place them outside space and time so as to explain how it can seemingly exit and re-appear inside of it at will.

I don't think reincarnation should have a place in nondual teachings. To have knowledge of whether or not such a thing happens someone has to go beyond the point of no return... And then they can't come back and tell anyone what happens... I've always felt that karma is a way nondual religions have found to inject Western ideas of good and bad etc onto nonduality. It is total speculation. I feel sure both forms of death would be equivalent... Upon death none of self remains at ALLLLL. And also in mystical states, there is no such thing anymore... What happens when you remove everything "monk" about a monk and everything "Hitler" about "Hitler"? What is left is indistinguishable. It is pure consciousness. How a person gets "there" to me does not seem like it would or even could matter. Conversely, to abandon your life is ignoring relative experience. There is a good reason people actually buy and watch movies. Everyone knows they are actors etc. it does not stop us from enjoying them and getting lost in them as though they were real. So why not life? This is a movie for us to enjoy, but in first person view.

It is not only bad apples, 5-MeO can cause seizures and vomiting in some people (the latter being dangerous in that a person could choke on it), and it would be possible to OD. If someone mixes up which point "1" their scale is on (100mg vs 10mg). That specifically is a substance where great care ought to be taken as people lose their body and are completely out of control.

See that's what I thought, although Leo's latest reply seems to suggest the other way. I cannot figure if he meant he almost realized it in the same way prior Yogis did (where there is still an ego me typing now despite the act), or if this is a new and even further thing he means where, effectively, not any thing in the entirety of existence has ego anymore. It is a very tricky and confusing thing and I've never been THAT deep, so "ELI5" type language helps outline the idea. @Leo Gura Have you ever seen the movie "Lucy"? It's a Hollywood blockbuster. Gradually through the film the character is pulled towards singularity. Right at the very end she realizes "Samadhi" and her physical body vanishes. The other characters ask where she has gone, and receive a text saying "I am everywhere". It's a sci-fi movie not spiritual, but clearly influenced by nondual teachings. Maybe you will enjoy it. P.S. Thanks for your suggestion on those videos. That is easier to understand now.

Adeptus is reasonable. Likely if he is misconstruing things, it is a genuine misunderstanding. He would probably gladly talk to Leo on YouTube on a video.

I am likely completely finished with psychedelics, last time I used I got utterly raped. From here my interest is philosophical and intellectual, no more realizations. I had nondual experiences and "no-self", as I understand from Leo on another thread he thinks no-self is also prevalent on Salvia. That is also something I used often. But the DMT triggered nonduality trips were mostly different. But anyway, this is what I am curious on... If you were talking to a 5 year old boy in a way they could understand instead of technical wording and absolute reality type stuff, when he says he would take the universe with him, to a 5 year old with no grasp on nonduality, does that mean their life ends with Leo's? Or does Leo end and other life continue? Being hung up on absolutism would be like "there are no others" but that is not what I am trying to figure he meant.

I enjoy your talks as I believe the toad holds the key to reality. As such the most time I've spent with your speeches has been your reports after having used 5-MeO-DMT - often you will tear up or cry in these videos. Which reminds me of my DMT/LSD trip, when emotions after the fact are overwhelming and it is so strong it causes such a thing. I'm very curious on a thing you said in your report after the 30 day 5-MeO thing. When you said the universe would end, and discussed Mahasamadhi, I could not quite tell whether you were talking in a relative or absolute sense... That is, by "take everyone with you" etc. is that the relative sense? Like Yogis prior who went through with the act, they died and we are still here. You also spoke of final preparations... So did you expect relative experience would continue or all subjevtivity to cut out. Essentially from my relative experience I too would have died and ceased to exist? I am also a bit confused about what is meant by Love. I heard you talk about it as understanding. Also though mention loving family etc which is something I associate with the emotion of love that we feel... Are you able to explain love in an "Explain Like I'm 5" manner? Cheers!

In the relative sense there is a you. And with our relative minds we want to know what happens to the relative self upon death. It cannot be like any drug trip because remnants of the brain (specifically memory) are clearly active. I am considering... There is an "experience of you" but not a you. Much like how a thought comes and goes. To ask where we go when we die, to suggest we reincarnate or something is like saying characters in a dream when they vanish must come back in some other form. But they actually just cease to exist because they were never real at all. But then from the point of view of that vanishing dream man, what has happened? From our relative experience of existing as a being, do we simply enter oblivion like Atheism suggests? There would be no experience of oblivion of course. But would it basically just be like that?

I think there's motivation not necessarily to experience an end to suffering, but to prevent experiencing MORE suffering.

I've always wondered if things outside of space exist as a singular point, or just randomly dotted around in nothingness. If they exist as a single point the implications are profound, since division is impossible within a point.

Just send them to the suicide subreddit. Sometimes people in that condition will not go to see a professional, and the Samaritans etc you know are BSing you with a script. Do you know who was one of the most successful suicide hotline workers of all time. No joke... Ted Bundy. Lmao. People aren't stupid. They don't want to know someone is just saying empty words that aren't actually true because the script tells them to. Sometimes online communities like on Reddit are more accessible to people in trouble.

No it is quite untrue. I am a Narcissist but am the opposite of manipulating and hurting people for personal gain. And evidently as you see I am aware of being this way. It obv varies person to person. I would be an unfit parent though.