AtmanIsBrahman

Yes!! I've been saying this for a while. They basically take you past rationality. I still see people in the forum arguing in rationalist ways and wonder if they haven't gotten the message.

So you're saying the realization that seeing comes from nowhere isn't enough to ascribe any properties to seeing, right? I would agree, but it being YOU is not a property. It is an absolute, the claim being that YOU=NOTHING absolutely. I think you fail to consider that people on this forum might actually have direct consciousness of solipsism and aren't deluded or conceptually confused.

Has anyone had this same insight? The fact that two consciousnesses can't exist is quite profound

Your approach is too scientific. But anyways, I'm done defending myself on this thread.

If I don't get my desire. I'm attempting to manifest some physically impossible things, so confirmation bias isn't really an issue.

To all the skeptics: For me manifestation is an empirical issue. I'll update if/when I get results, but otherwise I don't think there's any point in talking about it.

Agreed. Thanks for explaining your perspective.

Maybe I misunderstood your notion of solipsism then. I don't see how the ego-you could truly be separate from the cosmic You. The You that's imagining everything has to be the same as the ego-you because of unity, right?

Ok, you're right on this. But my other point... What happened to solipsism? Manifestors are some of the only people who actually believe in solipsism (at least many of them). Maybe reality is just you're reality and you're imagining everything, including other people and demons. If you decide there are no demons, there will be none, and if you decide there are then there will be. There is no interference between manifestations of different people because everything is your hallucination. Isn't this your exact metaphysical view?

But maybe it only works if you're in a positive vibration? Plus most people assume manifestation isn't possible, so it makes sense that not everyone would be doing it. Also, this assumes we are in a shared reality.

This is a good primer on the law of assumption, one of the key laws people use to manifest.

I think you're treating this too flippantly, kind of like how a materialist would treat consciousness work. Even if everything is your imagination, it might be more difficult to imagine certain things than others for your ego. Manifestation mainly has to do with making small things in reality go your way, such as your career, your physical appearance, romantic partners, etc. I don't know how much of it is legitimate, but it really just has to be tested with direct experience, otherwise you're being close minded. The money thing in practice would be something like this: Affirm something like "I easily attract money, I always have enough" (or listen to subliminals). Do that for a couple weeks with full belief. Then things start moving your way - a job offer, a raise, randomly getting free stuff, a bank or tax error in your favor, finding a new gig.

The last blog post “All Explanation is Circular” was so cool to see. I was literally thinking of the exact same thing recently, in the same exact words!

I defined it in the original post - "The art and science of causing change in conformity and will." Example: I want money. I do some magical practice. I somehow get $5000 sent to my bank account from a random person.

The professor is like the embodiment of the fool archetype

He didn’t really invent anything. He just grew up in blackpill PSL communities and blew up as their representative. I don't agree that he's such a bad influence though. People don't realize that a lot of the things he has done, like bonesmashing and taking steroids, he doesn't advocate for people to do. If you actually watch his podcast appearances, you will see that he doesn't advocate for very crazy things. PSL communities have real insights into human nature. They are a necessary stage of self-understanding: without them, humanity would not understand social and romantic dynamics as well. Of course, they take things too far by making it into an ideology and giving it far too much importance.

I am running some experiments right now.

@Leo Gura I would be interested what your response to my points is. All I can think of is "you won't be able to unimagine the limitations," but that's something that can be tested and plus it is already a concession that manifestation is at least possible.

This seems to imply that God can only manifest selfless desires, not ego desires. I don't really buy it. God (You) manifested selfish creatures like humans, so God can manifest selfish, twisted, or "evil" things as well as "good" things. How do you know this? Have you tried it? I think it's something that has to be tested. And even if you can't do it, it might take practice. I'm just being open-minded here like you teach. I'm aware that manifestations are mostly survival, but I want to know if they're real for the sake of epistemology. The epistemic implications are massive. It also wouldn't hurt to manifest a few things

What you're talking about is not magic, it's just an advanced meditator. I mean intentionally causing something that is materially impossible (or highly improbable). In manifestation communities, people will manifest things like a job, a specific person they want romantically, a vacation or a car, money, etc. These things have some gray area because they could show up without manifestation, but people claim that they get these things in a way that is highly unlikely and directly a result of their manifestation. Then there are physically impossible manifestations like clear skin, change to one's bone structure, height; spawning into a fictional world; spontaneous physical materialization of desires, etc. So to answer your question, I kind of am talking about materializing a million dollars, but it can be more subtle than that.

Well yes, but again you can unimagine it. Unless you're saying it's simply too hard to unimagine limits. Have you run into people with Siddhis? And do you think it takes high levels of realization to do magic, or can anyone?

Do you guys ever wonder if you're agreeing with Leo because Leo's right or because Leo said it? I have this problem sometimes. It's not because I don't introspect to see if I'm believing or actually conscious of something. Rather, it's because Leo is so right about pretty much everything that I end up wondering if my mind was subconsciously influenced by actualized.org content to adopt the same conclusions. Or alternatively, it could be because reality is what it is and anyone can reach the same conclusions if they do truth seeking correctly. Some things Leo is right about: Oneness, nonduality The limits of science and the myth of science Identifying rationalism Academic philosophy being bullshit Ideology, Conformity, the social matrix God existing, and what God is Solipsism (nonduality has to solipsistic, in case you didn't catch on) Cognitive and ego development The ego and self-deception The weird thing is that as I do this work, I arrive at many of the same conclusions as Leo. Of course I already had heard about them, but my understanding becomes much deeper. The only issue is that I could be deceiving myself by using actualized.org as a sort of paradigm and then falling for confirmation bias. I think the only solution to this is more introspection, removing beliefs, and contemplation. But it's still not easy. It's important to be aware of the drawbacks of actualized.org. The content is really good, insanely good, inhumanly good. But the cost is that you're exposed to the most profound insights before actually doing the work that is needed to get there, and as a result you have the potential to reach higher peaks of consciousness but also to get bogged down in a very advanced form of a paradigm.

Yeah, I try to be aware of this. The thread was kind of me warning myself about the danger while telling other people about it at the same time.

But you are God. So you can unimagine the limits. The logic seems perfectly clear. By the way, manifestation/magic is usually not about imagining a crazy new dimension like on a psychedelic trip. It's making select changes to consensus reality. That makes it even easier to unimagine.

I don't get the sense that Brendan is very high-consciousness. No offense to him, it's just what I observe. If Peter Ralston isn't the main presenter, I don't think it's worth it.