Carl-Richard

Gary Weber does not get talked about much, but he brings an important perspective on enlightenment that integrates modern neuroscience and it allows him to make very precise distinctions about how the enlightened mind functions. Very insightful interview.

I think people who believe in manifestation are actually more likely to succeed in things because they have an optimistic disposition and they are taking opportunities as they see them. It's basically impossible to believe in manifestation and not do anything in order to manifest what you would like to happen. Because even if you want to manifest something ridiculous like money magically appearing inside your bank account, you would have to open your bank account to know that (and you will probably be proactive in that). Optimistic disposition, looking for opportunities, being proactive about achieving an outcome, that's a mode of being that trickles down into everything you do (and you will do a lot in the course of a lifetime).

Hatred stems from identifying something as "other" or not oneself, not in accordance with ones desires, values, autonomy, etc. And intellectual understanding can help to bring your identity into a more inclusive place, but it's not necessarily going to completely collapse all identification. That probably requires a bit more.

Anything stimulating / energy increasing tends to make it harder to fall asleep.

:/

It's more realistic, but it's not impossible. You just have to keep going. If the love is strong enough, you can't help yourself from keep going. @Davino claimed you have never had a cessation. Is that true?

👀 I'm a bit bummed I can't see hidden comments anymore but I also feel like I don't want to in this case. That thread was a bit off to begin with. Now it feels ominous.

Don't you have a girlfriend?

The emotional sensitivity and range. And that it feels like they can sometimes literally see things that most men can't see.

Bruh.

Wuuut. You did the C-word self-nuke? 🙂‍↔️ When was this?

I'll take Gary's word for it, he gives me that energy. I don't really need a brain measurement, I have my own device 😆. It's just the brain measurements seem very convincing and insightful, in that they seem to actually be measuring the thing we're talking about quite accurately. Do you see that exponential graph? It's like flat lining. "Alright I'll do nothing" -> *brain goes wooooom*. @Inliytened1 Bruh am I trippin, where's your green text.

Awakening you return to normal. Enlightenment you stay expanded. If you were to just sit and do nothing right now for four minutes like those in the study above, will you have thoughts about self, thoughts about the past, the future, or will there be complete silence, being? If the former, you'd expect your brain to look something like the novice meditators above. If the latter, you would expect to look like Gary Weber's graph.

Bro you're talking about awakening. In enlighenment, you crack. You can literally read this off the person's brain. When they're sitting doing nothing, their default mode network is seemingly completely shut down. When a non-enlightened person sits and does nothing, their default mode network is still active. Novice vs expert meditators DMN activation during meditation (span of about 4 minutes, red means increased activation, blue means decreased activation): Gary Weber's DMN activation while doing nothing: https://youtu.be/QeNmydIk8Yo?t=1962&is=2iySu3EnTc_exrNH Look at the smooth exponential curve compared to even the 10,000-hour expert meditators. It's just complete cessation of mental activity.

I've said exactly why I don't think it's effective (it's a culturally contaminated word). If you have a problem with that argument, you can say what that problem is.

I don't deny being God, I don't deny God is alone, I deny the word "solipsism" is an effective way to communicate your understanding about God. That's what the argument is about. And if you have no arguments about that, we're not discussing the same thing.

So do you have any arguments or are you just going to shitpost?

Uhm yes, that's the title of the video. But do you know what that means?

You are too by making a thread where you try to go through a logical deduction of why solipsism means why other people cannot see. You are being logical, so you might as well try to be rigorous in your logic. That's sort of the point of logic, and it's also what you think you are yourself (you think you are rigorous), until of course somebody calls you out on it, then it's suddenly not good to be rigorous.

Or they realize it's completely demented to use the word considering the cultural poisoning of it for centuries.

Not at all. It's when said people open their mouths that they seem to be conceptually confused a lot of the time. You don't have to be insecure about whether you have direct experience or not and people denying this or not. That's not the issue. It's how it's being talked about and the implications that are being made. Implications like whatever is happening related to body parts, other human beings. If your idea of solipsism involves statements about what can or cannot happen in the reality of form, the reality of things, objects, states, activities, and that it's also supposedly absolute, you're already misunderstanding, you're already conceptually confused. Absolute consciousness, aside from being absolute, is neutral to whatever metaphysical model you want to impose on reality. Solipsism, as far as you seem to be presenting it here, is a metaphysical model, a conceptual framework. What is not conceptual is absolute being, and nothing, literally nothing, can be said for it other than it exists absolutely and there is nothing that will change this, nothing specific in formed reality being the case or not the case will change this. The states of other people, people's eyes, whatever form or configuration of relative reality you can think of, is ultimately irrelevant to the absoluteness of being.

The only reason you are using the word "solipsism" is because you're parroting Leo's vocabulary. Nobody else in the spiritual sphere (that I know of) has seriously used the word solipsism as an active part of their vocabulary to describe Absolute Mind / Universal consciousness, And if they did use it, it was as a passing remark or caveat trying to clear up a misunderstanding.

I don't need the term "solipsism" to entertain the ramifications of Universal consciousness. Ok, but nothing in here needs "solipsism" as a word. Distinguishing between Absolute Infinite Mind and limited finite mind, no "solipsism" needed. Even realizing that Universal consciousness is One and thus alone, does not need the term "solipsism". It's actually a completely unnecessary word. "One" and "alone" will suffice. Your one-sentence engagement contradicts this statement.

It's not my mind, it's Mind. It's not my dream, it's Dream. That's a distinction without a difference and it means you're not equipped to have this discussion and it explains partially the conundrum we are in; not seeing how some terms are effective or not effective by virtue of their commonly held definitions and cultural mileu.

So if most of them associate it with the ego and this is what has trickled down into the larger culture, why use the term if it is that poisoned? It's like using the term "pirate" to explain awakening and the spiritual path because you're sailing on uncharted seas of your consciousness plundering every spiritual ship you see for its treasures and loot. That's a perfectly valid and internally consistent description of spirituality, but is it a useful one for most people? Probably not. The issues we see with solipsism constantly, if we were to use "pirate" as a word for describing what is going on, we would probably get people who ask "but Leo, where is my pirate ship?".