wildflower

Here is a tip, address all your comments to anyone else regarding awakening.... to yourself, as there is only you to wake up within your paradigm, no one else exists. As soon as you refer to someone other then yourself, you must use relative language else you're being ignorant and misleading

But this is the problem, when you say 'you' who are 'you' referring to? Literally you can only be speaking to yourself, there is no Adeptus, you created him to wake yourself up... do you see this infinite regression?

Look I could just copy this post exactly back to you verbatim if I took your approach,,,, can you see that???? Its nonsense to interact with each other this way, there would be no conversation, just an infinite copy paste of your post.... You are literally being a hypocrite and just deluded to even post this post, as if you truly believed what you posted at this level, you wouldnt even post it as there is no one to post it to!!

The problem with the approach from half the people on here, from your paradigm you could/should literally respond to every single message with the advice: "wake up to the Absolute Truth, you're ignorant you created us all to wake yourself up" Do you see how nonsensical that would be on this forum? or at all

No I vehemently disagree with your approach. You're being deluded about how to deal and interact with other humans, it's causing confusion, disconnect and division. Here's a question, why when you get to the absolute level, do the rest of us not meet you there? It's just your own experience. Why don't you goto the Absolute level for Adeptus and show him/you yourself.... None of what you say is applicable at all to this relative domain we all are currently existing in. Even Leo called Conor regarding him dragging his brand to the gutter, you need to wake up

No this isn't playing relative games, this is playing the game at the level you are currently at, and using langauge as such, anything else is misleading delusion. In the absolute sense, language is pointless and doesn't exist, so until you/we are at the absolute level, lets use appropriate language so that it isn't misleading or deluding each other? surely that makes more sense

See thats the problem, Teotemu won't be concious that Teotemu created Leo to wake Teotemu up, Teotemu will become concious of God, who will realize 'they' 'it' created everything and everyone to become concious... can you see the difference in language here? and why its so misleading? And so prone to giving each other messiah and god-complexes?

Spirituality/enlightenment as a theory isn't hard to understand, it's hard to embody. Communities like these should hopefully give people space to engage in honest discourse and share their thoughts and feelings, and to be supportive to each other along the way. It essentially is going to lead to renunciation, in a culture of acquire. And having people online that understand and support, and can just shoot the shit with is helpful

I think everyone is an agreement here, just talking about the same things with different language. Transcendence is itself contextual and relative, so depending how we use this term, it will just seem like disagreement.

Exactly this. Contextualization is key to the relative world we live in, and spiritual truths give the highest context.

I actually perhaps might disagree with you however, deep spiritual truths can have value in the relative domain. It doesn't have to be a binary absolute -> non existence/death or 0 value.

I didn't ask that, think you have me mixed up with someone else?

I think he just took offense with certain parts of what Leo has said or implied in certain videos. One thing I found myself about Leos videos, is he does actually admit or disclose various things, you just have to watch him to the end, or more of his videos, else he can easily be taken out of context. This is obviously no small task as his videos are long and frequent. This is another case where I think if in this relative domain both these guys spoke to each other without prejudice they'd probably be able to get on a level and find tons of common ground. I noticed when this Adeptus guy interviewed Martin Ball he was anxious and tense as he literally thought he was going to tear Martin Ball down to planet earth, where in actuality due to Martin been rounded and non abrasive, found he actually agreed with everything he said I think in the future, Leo will maybe open himself up to more discussions, learn to embody the teachings in this relative domain, and help more people. Adeptus essentially is overly abrasive and provocative,

Lol yeah, but the question is obviously rhetorical, he isn't asking the question literally, can you not tell that from his whole post?

Yes essentially, insight or vipassana meditation is different from shamatha/samadhi/concentration Insight is about noticing the three characteristics in your sensatory experience, time and time again Shamatha/concentration is about cultivating joy/happiness (piti/sukha) by taking a meditation object like the breathe, and letting go of your sensatory experience, by noticing how good it feels, and an inverse relationship arises: the more you let go of your sensatory experience, the more joy and happiness and peace arises which creates a positive feedback loop all the way through the Jhanas

I've watched more of Leos videos and maybe he or someone else could help me understand his position, as it seems he switches constantly between the relative and absolute domain, almost conflating them to a point. Does he think that Leo is God or is a finite incarnation of God, a character in God's dream, or he literally thinks he is Infinite God and we are all imaginary in relation to himself? Is he trying to say the finite incarnation or ego can be come conscious of it's full encapsulating whole, or that he is making a taulogical proposition such that Finite Leo = Infinite God The way he uses both relative and absolute terminology in one sentence seems conflating and confusing to understand what he believes. Or maybe just for me at least, can someone help? I'm not disagreeing with the utility of a solipsistic way of relating to the physical world etc etc, just wanting to understand as Im confused

These conversations on this forum all run the same way, as no one seems able to understand, or perhaps just not willing to engage the other person on the level they are obviously trying to communicate. It's just a big game of one-upmanship. Who can act like they know or understand Absolute Truth more than anyone else. How is that not tiring, isolating and boring Anyway to answer the OP question, you hit the nail on the head, anything you can ever know can only be about your own conscious manifestation of what seems to be a reality or non-reality (form or formless), everything beyond that is a hypothesis or postulation. The highest Truth you can ever know is existence right now in whatever form or formlessness that takes. Including anything you class as an hallucination or not. It just serves no pragmatic purpose on the relative domain of materialism to behave as though hallucinations are true Ultimately if you contemplate this long enough, things will reduce down to pragmatism, utility and suffering. And you just drop the rest

BTW whats your personal future plans, you mentioned in many facets video of doing maybe a year long retreat etc, and trying to embody everything more, that was 2 years ago, stilll planning on long retreats? Have you ever considered going to somewhere like Pa Auk in Burma master Jhana/Vipassana?

Exactly it's easy to follow Martins position, not saying I agree or disagree with him. Timestamped here: quite clearly he isn't a hardcore solipsistic on the relative level. He makes his position very clear This is Martins qoute: of my mind and you know because that 66:36 this happens a lot with people on five 66:37 meow dmt where they think like oh [ __ ] 66:41 i'm dissolving and all i'm gonna take 66:43 all of reality with me and like thank 66:45 goodness 66:46 it doesn't work that way no that was 66:47 just you and your perspective 66:49 um there's no one of us see because 66:52 every little bit of reality 66:54 is god busy being that bit of reality 66:58 and that god cannot violate 67:01 itself so even though the glass of water 67:04 is me 67:04 this is also god being a glass of water 67:07 all on its own independently of my 67:09 perspective of it 67:10 so there's nothing i can do about that i 67:12 can drink it if i want 67:14 i could throw it at somebody if i want i 67:16 could water the plants with it if i want 67:18 but i can't just like i will dissolve 67:21 this reality or you know 67:23 no you know just we live in a regular 67:26 physical system with all the rules and 67:28 regulations that go with that so that we 67:30 can have a coherent 67:31 energetic structure through which 67:33 biological life can 67:35 evolve and so yeah the phys physical 67:38 world is the physical world i 67:39 you know it's an illusion in the sense 67:43 that we participate in subject object 67:46 duality 67:47 and that most of the time i don't 67:49 experience the glass of water as 67:51 actually being myself 67:52 but because i've had enough non-dual 67:54 experiences i know that it actually is 67:56 but i still get to experience it as a 67:57 separate object so 67:59 it is kind of an illusion but it's not 68:03 just an illusion and that's that's a big 68:05 one that sets me off when people say 68:07 oh reality is just an illusion my answer 68:10 is 68:11 yeah but it's still reality yeah 68:14 it might be an illusion but it's still 68:16 reality yeah and 68:17 i think people get sort of very caught 68:20 up in the sort of 68:21 in the sort of the illusion simulation 68:23 kind of words because yeah i mean 68:25 everything i'm seeing now is a 68:26 simulation my brain is clearly 68:28 simulating something but that it's not 68:31 quite the 68:32 the simulation that you that you think 68:34 it is the sort of thing it's 68:35 it's still here there it there is a 68:37 refrigerator there is a table 68:39 there is there is a me

No where in any of my posts have I insinuated implicitly or explicitly whether I have or have not realized I am God in a dream, you completely missed what I am saying, or the point of this thread. Extremely bizarre Exactly, this guy gets it, there is no differentiation between ego-you and God-you in the videos, such that many people will think ego-you == God-you, which it feels tons of people on here do This is completely not relevant to this thread, and misses the point of my posts, but I appreciate the effort for the long response

Last thing before I go to bed, this is from Leos own video, but reminds me a lot of this conversation, I've timestamped, play for 20 seconds:

Okay Okay this makes much more sense and is way easier to follow.. Not sure if the equivocation is part of the fun for you and your character in this dream, you can do as you wish. It would make following you infinitely easier if in your communication you used 'ego-you' and 'you' to refer to relative and absolute. Just some feedback. You essentially interchange them both and conflate them both constantly

Okay, thanks for the clear reply. Last one: are you fully awake?

It's not about the highest Truth being able to be spoke or not, it's about intent to genuinely try to communicate with the other character in your dream, but no worries Where do you class Martin Ball in your paradigm? Do you disagree with this I've timestamped it for you, like 2 minutes:

It's not just an intellectual game for me, I don't understand why you think that, I've done psychedelics honestly maybe 2-300 times, and I've spent months in silent retreats I just don't understand the way you communicate in this relative world, and I can't tell if it's purposeful equivocation or just maybe our minds communicate language differently For example: 'It's confusing because if you realized what I'm saying you'd be dead.' <---- If wildflower finite conciousness realized Absolute Conciousness fully, wildflower would no longer exist, sure I get that, it's easy to follow if thats what your saying? Can you answer this question: why are you not dead? Or do you not understand what you are saying yourself? (you see how hard it is to follow?)