The Blade

Well, science hasn't proven that the universe is a hologram, it's just one of many, many theories. And, even it were true, the running theory isn't what it sounds like on the surface. If it is true, it doesn't really mean that everything is just imagined. It means everything is actually physically happening further away (perhaps at the edge of the observable universe) but is projected really far away. It's not as exciting as it sounds. Saying that "if we're part of the universe then we're the whole universe" doesn't really make sense to me. Maybe on some levels, you could argue that we're interconnected, we all come from the same source of matter & energy. That doesn't discount the fact that there's parts and a whole. That's like saying that because a bolt came off a car then the bolt is the entire car. In order to make that sentence work you have to essentially throw out the words "part" and "whole" and replace them with something that fits the "I am God imagining everything" narrative.

Well, Dave, the entire concept of god-realization is littered with holes. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, at least as taught here. There's major incentive to write it off as "most likely bullshit", but that's up to you. Let me elaborate. You're right. He absolutely should be able to have omnipotent powers if he's the architect of his own reality. But he doesn't. No one does. So, if we're the architect of our reality, we for some reason have placed some serious limits on us as the individual. Let's say he's right, and he is God realized, and that he did place huge limitations on the individual. Why? Maybe to simply make the game of "realizing" himself a little more tricky and fulfilling? Well, if that were the case the realizer should attain the ability to bend reality after he experienced god-realization. Leo said he tried to, and failed. Why keep the individual limited, not to mention able to suffer immensely and eventually die? It makes a whole lot more sense that he had an interesting experience within his own mind, but is actually a real, physical individual living in an objective universe. I made a thread a while back, asking why people here insist on calling themselves God, simply because they had an awakening. Even if the awakenings give you a glimpse of the fabric of the cosmos, which they might, where are you getting the claim "I am God" from? I explained it like this: "If Realization were to use the analogy of a video game, let's say we're all characters within the game, and our universe is the map. So, the more inner work the characters do, the more they see what we really are. Code. Everything and everyone who has ever lived within the game all share much of the same code, and are essentially connected. Regardless, it would be strange for the character to make this realization and then say "I am the coder". No, you're the code. Divine? Sure. Connected to all? That makes sense. However, the coder could still be out there." A member named @Moksha , who I think is perhaps the best enlightenment expert on this forum (and who is great at articulating his points), replied: "The character is an extension of the coder, in the same way a ray of light is an extension of the sun. You could say it is the sun, but not all of the sun. The essence of the character beyond the pixels that form its shape, is the coder, but not all of the coder. One knows the coder is within the code through direct realization. It is the only knowledge possible within the game, the resonance of the coder awakening within the character, and tracing its essence back to its origin. The entire video game is the creation of the coder, and the purpose of the game is fulfilled when the coder realizes itself watching it through the screen." Beautifully said, but there's only one problem. That sounds like a really shitty game. I know I don't have much interest in dedicating my life towards playing it. Once one has delved into the science behind our objective universe, and sees how incomprehensibly vast, intricate, patterned yet chaotic, bewildering and beautiful the cosmos really is... one would have to assume that the creator of this unbelievable universe should be able to come up with a better game for itself than that. An endless game of peek-a-boo with itself isn't the type of game that the creator of the electron, DNA, and the Andromeda Galaxy would come up. Personally, I think that if there is an architect behind reality, I think he did create the perfect game. Life. Needing "more" is missing the point.

If someone is being an asshole they aren't "spiritually advanced".

To be honest, I was expecting strictly confrontational and dead-end input. However, you guys have been great, and this thread has been more fun than I had anticipated. I've got some counter-arguments to make to recent posts, but I've been incredibly busy and would like to take my time with them. I appreciate the ongoing conversation.

@StarStruck You are entirely correct. If you aren't balancing open-mindedness and skepticism, you're setting yourself up for failure. The term "radical open-mindedness" is just as bad as radical anything.

How do you know? "The character is an extension of the coder, in the same way a ray of light is an extension of the sun. You could say it is the sun, but not all of the sun." I think the sun and sunbeam is probably a more clear analogy with more parallels. I heard Eckhart make a very similar comparison in one of his talks. I do have a couple of questions regarding your statements: "One only knows the coder is within the code through direct realization." So, the only way to know this truth is to experience it? Beyond pure experience, is there any other evidence which you can pull back from the realization? I do understand that this may be an unfalsifiable truth. These are rare, but an example of an unfalsifiable truth would be the statement "I am conscious". You know damn well it's true, because you're experiencing it, but there's no possible way of actually proving it. You'd think, given it is such a profound experience with incredible cosmic scope, that one would come back from an awakening with something of unique value. In at least one of Leo's awakening videos, he mentioned something along the lines of experiencing the creation and the lives of all other lifeforms. This would be a very easy thing to prove true - simply state something only another person should know. But this hasn't been done, so claims like that seem unfounded. Are we sure that these experiences don't simply feel as if they are happening, but they actually aren't? I know that particular example is easy to poke at, but I've heard of plenty of falsifiable claims being made by people who have had god-realization like experiences. You seem quite well read on the subject, do you have examples of unique value being pulled directly from these kinds of experiences? "The entire video game is the creation of the coder, and the purpose of the game is fulfilled when the coder realizes itself watching it through the screen." This is the primary issue I have with the path of god-realization. Let's say these realizations are true. Think of a video game programmer, or coder, in real life. Would he really want to have spent all of his time creating a beautiful, terrifying, wonderous video game, just to have the gamers not actually play the game, but hack into the back-end in order to get a glimpse of the code? If you're saying that the whole point of the game is to get a glimpse of the code (and see yourself as the coder), well, perhaps. However, I can't help but feel that the meaning of a game is to play the game, to be immersed in all of its details, and challenges, and emotional undulations. The meaning of life is to live. At least, I haven't found a reason to think otherwise. This is where my emphasis on balancing internal and external fulfillment comes in, a focus on playing the game, on living a fulfilled and satisfactory life. If the point of life is actually god-realization, then living a fulfilled and satisfactory life really doesn't matter that much. Many people in this field (and on this forum) state just that; the goal is god-realization, and living a fulfilled and satisfactory life really doesn't matter. It seems as if this path contains some wisdom, yet at the same time carries elements of dangerous delusions. Note: If god-realization is how someone wants to spend their life, I don't think it is a bad choice. I don't think any non-violent lifestyle is a bad choice. This may sound a little contradictory to what I just said, but if the meaning of life is to live, then pursuing god-realization is one way to live - you've fulfilled your purpose. The point of this thread is not to convince anyone to stop walking their own path, I'd hate to do that. The point of this thread is to help me determine if this path is worthwhile for myself.

Well put . Unfortunately, the statements you've made aren't about embracing not knowing. Your statements seem to assume that you do know. So I ask, how do you know? Embracing the not knowing is the primary driving force behind my original post. I love not knowing, just as much as I love [the veil of] knowing. Could you poke some holes in my words, where do you think I'm going wrong? You're exceptional at explaining these concepts, I appreciate the help. I've never heard of Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj but he speaks with great clarity. He seems to embody the Neti, Neti strategy you mentioned before. I will try to dig deep into this method and see what is revealed. So, with the video game analogy, you mentioned that the key is for the character to realize the coder is within its code, but is not confined to its code. How does one know that the coder is within the code? I hear your meaning. Good luck with it, sounds like a very interesting path. Hmm, I think what you said is true, and partially untrue. On one hand, time is a mind-made concept and is an illusion. On the other hand, on the practical day-to-day level, your physical body is dying and you are running out of time. You can let go of the concepts all you want, with great liberation... but, on some level, you're still tethered to your physical body and it will die, and possibly your consciousness along with it. For this reason, I am a bit strategic with how I spend my time. Aren't you? Aren't we all?

*note, in my above post I am not directly referring to Leo, I actually have no idea how he's doing on a personal level. But I have seen other people on this path all but fall-apart, both physically and mentally. Bentinho Massaro's crew comes to mind as an example, but I could list quite a few if I had the incentive.

Here's where I go Socrates on your ass. How do you know?

I think the OP has a point. If your philosophy and spiritual growth results in a personal life which is falling apart, then what the hell are you doing? A good philosophy and good spiritual practice should accomplish both. If your system isn't accomplishing both, it is flawed, and needs to be worked on. It seems possible that the "ultimate teachings" by Actualized.org could be flawed in such a way. If so, I'd be very curious to see what kind of patch could fix the bugs.

Sounds like a stretch, my friend. Quite the stretch.

I agree. Truth is enough, even if it detrimental on the surface, there is too much inherent value in truth. A lot of wise people do what you do, and decide to use the term God for it best describes what they're experiencing / feeling / etc. I don't think there's anything wrong with using the term, aside from, when used in certain contexts, it can mislead someone who doesn't fully grasp your personal meaning. However, I don't think that'd be an issue here on this forum. I'll still abstain from using it myself, it feels a bit off for some reason. "Enlightenment is letting go of all identifications, including identification with the concept of God. It's the Neti, Neti approach to inner realization, where each layer that is not you is peeled away like the skin of an onion, until only the unnamed essence remains." Brilliant. I love this Neti Neti approach; I hadn't realized it was called that and was recently trying to discover the term, so thank you. I think there is almost inarguable benefit to peeling away the layers of the onion... I am just not connecting the final product with "God", though I'd certainly call it divine. "You can enjoy the benefits of this wisdom, as it seems you have, without needing to conceptualize it. Whether it is called God-Realization or simply Realization doesn't matter. The litmus test of your insights is the extent to which they motivate you to release phenomenal addictions, and not only allow but celebrate the universe flowing through you." Ok, perhaps this is essentially the answer to my questions. I've suspected that the benefits and the perspective gained by "peeling away the onion" are the same whether you feel that the man behind the curtain is God, or simply divine substance. Realization is something that I understand and can get behind. God-Realization... I'm still hung-up on, for I'm not sure mere awakenings have earned such a title. Of course, I could be wrong. Where I stand: regardless of one's realizations, agnosticism still has its place, as it is currently the most scientific and honest conclusion (or lack of a conclusion) on the subject of theology. No matter how peeled back the onion is, "God" could actually still exist in the creator of the universe sense, outside of yourself. Of course, I doubt this is the case, but how can we know? Hmm. If Realization were to use the analogy of a video game, let's say we're all characters within the game, and our universe is the map. So, the more inner work the characters do, the more they see what we really are. Code. Everything and everyone who has ever lived within the game all share much of the same code, and are essentially connected. Regardless, it would be strange for the character to make this realization and then say "I am the coder". No, you're the code. Divine? Sure. Connected to all? That makes sense. However, the coder could still be out there. Maybe you can poke holes in this game analogy, I'm sure there's a point in it where I went left and you'd go right. Hmm, what I mean by embers is an underlying, unbreakable mental state which keeps you from being swallowed by darkness. It doesn't necessarily mean you'll be chipper and doing cartwheels all the time, but nothing can genuinely break you. The embers lay at the bottom of the fire, hardly noticeable, giving off very little light; these beneficial traits aren't very obvious to others, or sometimes even yourself. But the embers have a tendency to slowly, surely burn up anything as fuel; good experiences, bad experiences, horrific experiences. With these embers you'll surely still have days where you're dragged down, but not for long, and never very seriously. Do you think your experience laid a bed of embers like this? That sounds like a good game plan for your future, and the acceptance of the "lower states" is really wise. I'm sure there is a lot of that going around. It's hard to tell whose legit and who is not, but I do suspect there are quite a few people here who are legitimately practicing this stuff. This description is very close to what I feel, I refer to it as the "awe state". However, I think the awe-state can be attained even without entirely losing your ego. Ego doesn't matter, nothing matters in this state - you're too busy being in awe of existence. This is a state one can dip in and out of with different levels of depth, depending on which state is most fitting at the time. It sounds like you may have acquired many of the same benefits through a different path, through the elimination of Ego. Did "god-realization" have something to do with it as well? Great points. Maybe my calling it overrated sounded harsh, let me try to elaborate. I look at the person who lives for nothing more than the next car, yacht, clubbing experience, girl to bang, etc., as living in an imbalanced state, seeking only external fulfillment. Living in a cave for 20 years in deep meditation is also living in an imbalanced state, seeking only fulfillment within. I feel like a lot of people who study within this field are about 75-90% occupied with living the best internally fulfilled lives they can, which is good - but make room for studying external fulfillment as well. External fulfillment is very nuanced and deep, and often goes against one's instincts and intuitions. Not only is the person I described above (the guy seeking yachts) fully absorbed in external fulfillment, but he's pursuing it wrong. I guess that's a topic for a different day... Clean.

I appreciate the feedback, fellas. Not sure. Further depth to experiencing what is, perhaps... though I do think a relentless pursuit of more "depth" is overrated. Balance is the key, to balance depth and breadth. Aside from that, life content; after finding fulfillment within we're free to truly pursue fulfillment without. Putting in the effort is one thing. Getting something out of that effort is another. Isaac Newton's work in alchemy, for example, was very deep and thorough and led him nowhere. His work in mathematics and astronomy was also very deep, and led him towards incredible progress. I think it is clear that some paths lead somewhere and other do not, regardless of the effort. My question is, is this "god-realization" stuff actually going to improve one's life? If so, for how long? *Even paths which lead to "nowhere" are still life content and add to one's fulfillment, so his time spent wasn't wasted, but it's fulfillment potential probably wasn't maximized. I think the notion of "God" is a muddy one, thrown around too much. I feel that trying to construe experiences and epiphanies into being somehow related to God is likely to derail you from the clear beauty of existence. Could you say that the beauty of existence is God? Sure, Spinoza other pantheists do just that. I'd rather just leave the term behind and just accept what we know [I am], and embrace what seems most likely to be true [our lives, our sense perceptions, and the measured and calculated (and yet to be calculated) cosmos]. I'm not sure that "realizing that you are God" is beneficial to living a more spiritual and fulfilled life. Have as many 5-MeO-DMT trips as you'd like, you could still be flat wrong about the metaphysical conclusions you make based on the mental impressions and experiences you have while tripping (or meditating, etc.). Is it not more pure to accept that we are unsure why we're here, or who or what created us, or what consciousness even is, but that we do exist, and this in and of itself is a miracle? In short, this is what fuels me personally. I've heard of this price. A girl named Suzanne on YouTube did a pretty good run down of the costs of truly losing ego. I do understand the great benefits involved with mostly losing your ego and not letting it run your mind, and of the next stages of (if you have no ego you are no individual; if you are no individual you are all). But I believe I have attained these benefits without the price, and, more importantly, without making existential conclusions which might be wrong. You might be right, of course, but you might be wrong. My favorite strategy when I don't know for sure is to accept that I don't know for sure, and worship what's leftover. This was an excellent post you made, exactly what I was hoping to hear from someone on this path. A detailed run-down of the benefits. Thanks for sharing. The benefits seem extreme and very pragmatic. In particular, the acquirement of complete willpower seems very intriguing. I am curious, could you keep updated with the long-term benefits? Most people who attain such an awakening seem to living the good life for a time, but they tend to come down from it, and re-enter a state which is closer to their default state. It is still certainly better than their default state, but not quite where they were during the climax of their awakening. The awakened self seems to take a back-seat. If this is true, and it has seemed to be true for most people I've seen on this path, then it isn't an excellent cost-benefit ratio. We've all heard of people spending years, even decades pursuing this sort of awakening. The brightest flames burn the fastest. I'm more interested in an even, unstoppable bed of embers, able to turn anything thrown atop it into fuel for fulfillment. Will this awakening you had both burn brightly and lay an unstoppable bed of embers? It might. I'd love to hear how it goes. I'm pretty sure this is possible; I know he gets somewhat mixed reviews on places like this forum, but Eckhart Tolle seemed to have experienced the bright flames and also laid an unstoppable bed of embers. But I certainly do think this is the exception, not the norm. Escaping the ego's grip and gaining the feeling of no longer being an individual but "all" of existence. This is a practical, even scientific perspective to hold... yet, it is only a half-truth. We are all and we are an individual. Entirely and permanently throwing out the Ego would be to embrace a lie, and it would very possibly result in your near-immediate death and/or very immoral behavior. In my eyes it is better to balance the ego-less true state of cosmic existence, with the fact that you also have the privilege of being an individual, and to realize that you wouldn't want it any other way. This was really well put, I get what you're saying. There's a flavor of Taoism to your words, as well as Stoicism. I do see the pragmatism you've explained here, I think these are benefits I've adopted as well. I did this without identifying myself with God, however. Yes, It can be frustrating when you can't give someone a glimpse of your perspective. I agree, my original post is just an opinion, of course. An opinion that I suspected everyone here would disagreed with, which is why I chose this forum to post it. I may play with this god-realization path, but my time is precious... I've already attained what I *think* are the benefits through an entirely different path, but I surely do not have any sense of "I am God". I and all is divine, yes. All is a miracle worthy of our utmost veneration, yes. Maybe I'm being a bit hung-up on the way God is being used in this context. Perhaps we just mean different things. For me, a definition of "God" would be: the force(s) behind our consciousness. Or: the reason we're conscious.

I'm being a bit vague intentionally. Everyone has a different opinion as to what constitutes "well-being". But, for the sake of this post, let's just say - do you think pursuers of god-realization are more well off by your definition of "well-being"? So, your definition of well-being is essentially altruism, plus a non-judgmental acceptance of the paths of others, whatever those paths may be. Do those who are "god-realized" seem more or less altruistic and accepting? Personally, I haven't seen a major difference.

My girl of 17 years cannot be improved upon. For me, she's "it". I've spent countless hours writing articles and notes on philosophy, self-improvement, spirituality, etc. And she even did that better than me, in just two words. "Just live." That's what she told me. It is the most sage advice possible, and she just spun it off-the-cuff, so nonchalant. When in doubt, just live. I love it.