AtmanIsBrahman

How do you know this? Have you tested this or do you have direct experience, or is it just a belief? Common sense tells us that humans are limited by genes, karma, or whatever you want to call it. Even Leo admits that genes are highly important for someone's level of consciousness.

This sounds a lot like what Leo describes in his infinity of gods video. The issue with solipsism is that it's so fundamental and tautological that you can't use logic to argue around it. The fact is, you have only experienced your own consciousness, and that's all you ever can experience. That's a deep realization to have. Any other consciousness could just be imagined by you- there's no way to know that it exists independently. And what does it mean to say it exists independently? If everything is one/God, then nothing is independent of anything else. There's definitely something to solipsism, but there is also truth to the infinity of gods perspective that involves the other. Absolute truth is paradoxical.

Being a human feels really weird. Out of all the possible things you could be incarnated as, a human is the result. Doesn't it feel random and kind of odd? Like when you look at your hand, it isn't just a human hand but some foreign object. There are so many possibilities of what one could be other than a human, and even beyond whatever we know to exist. Why is it that we take being human for granted as something natural? A human is an accident, a smudge on the design of God's infinite tapestry. Think about it: even if you're really deep into spirituality, your life is still run by survival needs 99.9% of the time. Even if you claim to have transcended suffering, you're still maintaining the ego by keeping it alive, even through actions as basic as eating and drinking. If you're alive as a human, you are an ego, and you're imperfect. But at the same time, the God or Spirit within feels there's something more. Does anyone else genuinely relate to feeling like being a human is weird or accidental? Like you are a majestic wolf forced to wear sheep's clothing, an infinite singularity compressed into a small distortion?

Naught-knowing When a scientist, rationalist, or normie insists that the ultimate nature of reality cannot be known, as a result shutting down metaphysical or spiritual inquiry. What it is not: Naught-knowing is to be contrasted with “not knowing,” which is the radical admission that one doesn’t know something. The naught-knower claims that it is impossible to know or that such pursuits are meaningless. Therefore they shall know naught Examples: 1) You: Hey, have you ever thought about the ultimate nature of existence? Normie: What? How could you know that? It’s impossible! (reacts angrily) You: Hold my crocodile infinity! 2) “I tried to talk mysticism with Brian and his naught-knowing took over. I called him out on it and told him to get on his not-knowing game instead. Then he got confused and started doing crocodile tears🐊🐊🐊. Smh, hate these normies man.” 3) “When Richard Dawkins started doing his naught-knowing spiel, I gave him a slap on the cheek and said, ‘YOU’RE INFINITY GODDAMIT!’ “ Why it’s important: Because this identifies a common behavior of humans who are not interested in truth. Now you can recognize what they’re doing and decide how to react. You also now better understand what actual not knowing means based on the contrast.

I'll give it a try (keep in mind there isn't a consensus on these) Ne- potentiality Se- actuality Ni- will Si- memory Te- rationale Ti- logic Fe- ethics Fi- morals

It's nice to see that there's a conversation about MBTI here. It's a very useful tool to use alongside spiral dynamics and stages of ego development. You have to understand that it's a model of human nature though. It basically tells you what your chimp self is like, but you don't have to be limited to that personality.

@Leo Gura I had an insight that survival is only bad when it is limited. The more limited a thing you want to survive as, the greater the cost of survival is. But the more expansive a survival process becomes, the lower the cost, and the more it is liberated. When you arrive at infinity, it is infinitely surviving, not as any one thing but as everything. That's why demonizing survival is the wrong way to go- survival can't be criticized, it can only be laughed at. It is an aspiration for the infinite disguised in something finite.

@Leo Gura About your blog post on conservatism as a survival strategy, couldn't you argue that the leftist desire for inequality is also based on survival? I think it pretty obviously is, since that's true for everything humans do. The question then becomes what is "being survived" as Peter Ralston says. The right is simple: they want a national identity or group to survive, which ultimately benefits their personal survival. The left is tricky though-- they want equality, but for what purpose? Even if their ideal is universal equality, that ultimately benefits their personal survival and the survival of the society. My thoughts on this right now are that leftism is just a more expansive, higher-level form of survival, but survival nonetheless.

There is a distinction. While many Bernie fans are woke, he actually appeals to a wider audience, which is why he did so well in 2016 and 2020. Bernie's appeal is to the left, but also to everyday working people who want policies that help them (that is, if they aren't brainwashed into MAGA). It's surprising that you wouldn't realize this with your understanding of politics.

Appearance itself. Sorry, didn't mean to be confrontational.

You seem to post similar responses on a lot of threads. I'm not trying to invalidate what you're saying, but what if this is only a perspective? If you keep preaching one perspective, you become locked away from all the other possible perspectives.

Thanks for the responses guys. I got the impression that its a sort of glimpse too. I will definitely keep going to see if I can keep increasing my consciousness for the real deal.

After following actualized.org for a couple years and diving into spirituality and existential contemplation, I might have had my first awakenings or mystical experiences. I’m curious if people on this forum can relate to this. I’m not sure if I should call them proper awakenings or glimpses of awakening, but I had these experiences on two separate occasions. I’ll explain the longer lasting one here. I was contemplating absolute truth after watching an actualized clip (I was completely sober and have never done psychedelics). I had heard about it countless times from Leo’s videos but didn’t really get it- I understood it intellectually but only on that level. As it turns out, there are deeper levels of understanding Leo’s videos- who would’ve thought? Basically, what happened was that I grasped what absolute truth is all at once and it was abundantly clear. I realized that I am in absolute truth already. I stared at a blank tv for about 30 minutes realizing that this is absolute truth. This was accompanied by a feeling of bliss and a sense that nothing could go wrong anymore with this realization, and this lasted for a couple hours. The thing is, these experiences went away, returning me to baseline consciousness. I’ve heard Leo mention being able to focus on absolute truth in his direct experience, but when I try that I can’t quite get there. I seem to generate some fantasy of absolute truth that is almost there but actually just an illusion of understanding when I inspect it. So the question is what to make of these experiences? Are they glimpses of awakening, actual awakening, a weird state of consciousness, or a self-deception? I’m aware that asking if an awakening is valid is ridiculous, but that’s what I’m asking 😄 This is the video I was watching, in case anyone wants to try their own Leo-fueled awakening. I found it to be very powerful.

This is the thing about corruption, you don't know that you're corrupt- otherwise you wouldn't be. Trump probably sleeps well, and if he doesn't it isn't because he's morally judging himself but because he's concerned about how to run the country and how to deal with his opponents. I'm open to the idea but not necessarily in a causal way. It's easy to think of examples where you do "evil" and completely get away with it. If something is truly good, there's no reason to do it- you just do it because it's good. So I don't think you're punished for evil in that way. Watch this if you haven't already:

What's the difference between epistemic scoundrelry and epistemic pervertry? @Leo Gura