Search the Community

"I am the most awakened guy around" is like saying "I am the wettest wave on the surface of the ocean".

@Leo Gura How to deal with this part since it is very shocking and i have trouble with this? What are the next actions? I know i can imagine right now and tell myself that consciousness always stabillizes to comfort myself but how to deal with this and comfort my own heart. Also 1 more question, if you have awakened past this part and solipsism what are your next actions or what do you plan to do, does this part also bother you? At the highest level i have seen that we actually want to dumb ourselves down as a remedy against the eternal presence, and then after a while i found a quote of ma ananda and she also said that ego is just a remedy

I liked that. That's the whole point. I've awakened to awakening and have freed myself from the mumbo jumbo of it all. I just am and will always be that.

Oh there is a point to awakening, but you have to experience it to understand it. I can tell you about a human, you can even live among them and understand them intellectually, but it is totally different if I MADE YOU A HUMAN. Awakening is like that, you BECOME fully the creator. Then you will absolutely know. So there is a point to it all. You can talk about the absolute, or you can awaken and BE THE ABSOLUTE. When you are in a non-awakened state you are the relative part of the Absolute.

Close your eyes, create an image in your mind, make that image move. For example picture a bird as an image, now make that bird fly. Now open your eyes, and realize that bird was just a projection of your consciousness. Now your physical body, is also a projection. Can you feel the bird you just imagined is equally as imaginary as your physical body? When you can do this, THEN you have awakened.

This is somehow sadder than any of my relatives dying. Some force of positive change died with him which is not awakened in many of us. He was up against too much. He sacrificed his personal pleasures for this life of inprisonment and torture. I don't think people underestand what it really means. Thank you, Alexei, for speaking up for all of those who didn't want to have this life, but somehow we have to continune. I feel like we, the people who tend to think more freely, are next, although it feels that it was just an isolated incident, he was not the first one and will not be the last one killed by the Kremlin. RIP, I hope you find any existential relief, thank you for the bottom of my heart.

It depends if we are speaking on a subjective level or an objective level. From a subjective perspective, or a relative point of view, if you have not fully awakened and merged Everything. Then there exist others who are not awake, to reflect back to you, what it is that you are missing. From an objective and Absolute level, as you said, all the dualities have collapsed, Everything is One. And there is no separation between self and other. There is only what Is, neither asleep or awakened. Nothing to compare, because Everything is the same. Perspective vanishes, no world.

@PenguinPablo The cosmic joke turns out being that "nobody knows or becomes awakened because awakening is not an action or linear event in time for a real person. Rather its the clear recognition that this important "ME" character attempting to attain some kind of mind based enlightenment experience, is completely not real. Its an illusion of self....Maya!!! 😮 That's the real freedom that's being sought after but only by an illusion! It turns out that the very notion of actually knowing something is the real illusion or Matrix. And that is even just apparent stories 🤣 ❤️

Sister Cody. He awakened from his long deep years of suffering. He transforms his experience into art, leaving a message. His style of teaching is bright and warm. I leave a post example below for you to know. https://www.instagram.com/sistercody/ www.artoflovingnow.com/product-page/the-light-still-exists-tee

Well I think when u experience your total self and see oh boy...there is no one, what a game it all was.... When the only thing that exists is Yourself....and no one to see,hear, touch ,feel and experience.... As if they never were.... But a way to fill with void within... The void of loneliness of the total self.. To busy itself with imaginary beings ,thankfully it has ability to do so... Imagine if it didn't had imagination, nothing would exist except mind.... But that void of loneliness when u are alone locked within Yourself and this void and nowhere to go... Maybe then u realize...I AM everything... In itself consciousness contains infinite information of infinite realities like codes within and found out a way to manifest his preexisting knowledge into experience based reality.... It found a way in that void ,crazy isn't it... Do u know how one mind alone in nothingness can figure a way out to... Manifest his imagination in form out of nothing..that's crazy... I believe going to total self will awakened that knowledge too... How to make 2d hologram experienced as reality that's how this infinite experience is possible in space/time.... This knowledge of creating bubble of existence isn't in human awareness right now... Do u know then if u close your eyes.. How to consciously manifest infinite universes running on their own and causing Yourself to forget.... Within Yourself consciously.. How to create this setup... This knowledge is in total self... I think when u see u are only one alone being till eternity... U can never be with other, since no other exists till eternity alone... This fact is powerful... Or maybe when u realize life was never that serious... The element of serious makes dream reality strong to believe in... ....so what if life isn't about awakening.. Because whether u are awakened or not... U will still one day become total self it's inevitable outcome....and realize and experience who u truly are,then u don't need to ask from another,u will self realize I AM everything in your absolute state of existence... Nothing changes that fact... But still it's all handy information for understanding... So it's better to be open to any unique new knowledge understanding of reality...

that’s one interpretation, but to me, the belief (and that’s all it is, I don’t claim to be awakened) in immortality has the opposite effect. in my life, it means that unresolved issues are going to follow me to the next life, because death isn’t an easy escape.

Let's imagine you are awakened via psychedelics. I mean only for 'awakening' / 'god realization' It's not a topic against usage. It's a topic to speak on going beyond the usage of drugs. For people not interested in it. That's fine. Let's be practical for the interested: what's in it then, after you meet god and yourself there is no need to go further. You're not different from an alcoholic if that's for free 'pleasure' If you are into it for relative reasons it's fine. ( But it might just be addiction disguised as path by the ego ) like all weed addicts. ( "It makes me sharp" etc.. ) Here is my very counter view : you are burning your receptors/brain. ( No need to go metaphysical on me. Your 'brain' is real in a certain way ) We can't measure it and might never do but still you can still feel apparent causality. So here is my experience and why I feel I need to never do them again by myself, or at least never been looking for it. ( Lol well aight this was a joke ) So I feel like on the topic of safety. Like all 'good things' you'll have a price to pay. At the pure body level ( I surely agree it can be very good for mental and paradigm healing ) but let's talk pure physics. You can argue it's not toxic. But then Xanax and alcohol aren't either. You take Xanax for anxiety : you quit you more anxious. Take psychedelics for X : you quit and it makes you more X Maybe you don't agree but I barely believe in free heat. We got no idea what is mitigated by serotonin 2A receptor (5-HT2AR). The heart alright but how does it play on your health and vibration to deregulate it. Psychedelics aren't toys and no play and not here for any enjoyment is my point. I suspect like weed the come down is extremely delayed might even be months after your last intake. Your brain truly quit weed only 3 months after the last intake. Before this, it's the first phase. So psychedelics might also takes months to show you the real withdrawal. I suspect 6-8 months. But mental healing can have occured and you'll be in a better place. But still I'm talking pure physics here. So you shall not do psychedelics more than once a year and if you are enlightened unless you have some serious reasons like science it's not worth it to keep adding false sugar. Your 'meditation' will be stronger and everything can be done through better means. Don't get attached to the past tools evolve.

I will add something here since tis topic Connects Solipsism with Ontological Nihilism , even after Leo saying in his Solopsim Video the You will Realise that you are All Alone because you are All Togheter. In my Humble View it means that Solpsism is not reason to Become Nihilistic In This Line I will share the link from the WebSite Perspectiva : this one :https://systems-souls-society.com/ But talking about How our Solopsistic Society (Meaning Individualist) Is not helping Us to make the important Changes we need in Order to Keep Going as Humans. yes , even if you think or Know that this all a dream the true is that the dream can end very bad and very soon, God Create Another Dream up from its Ass, but is good if we engage in Keeping this Dream going on Because, Well, is Great isnt it ? Here is the Excerpt from this Link: https://systems-souls-society.com/the-solipsistic-society/ You can click directly in the link if the text looks interesting to you "Solipsism should not be conflated with selfishness in the pejorative sense. Solipsism deals with the problem of the self being trapped in the self by the self in a kind of perpetual self-reference. This closed loop can lead to the collective belief that only individual perception, thoughts, and experience can be known to exist and therefore to be considered real. Solipsism can be grouped into two categories, one dealing with reality directly and the other with the knowledge of reality. The first is ontological and says only the self is real where the other is epistemological and says that only the self is knowable. However subtle these distinctions are philosophically; my focus is practical: on how societal solipsism is reproduced through collective self-perpetuating beliefs and how we can approach moving beyond our predicament. A solipsistic society is therefor not a mere collection of self-centered individuals, although that is one view. Instead, it refers to collective beliefs about what is real and possible, as though everyone is wearing an epistemic straightjacket; unable to imagine how things can be known differently and changed. In what follows I don’t want to hang too much on any single definition or variant of solipsism, but I do want to argue that when conceived in a broad sense, the condition of late modernity is solipsistic in a collective sense. The unit of analysis is the social imaginary, which can be taken as our shared psychocultural home and as forming the limits and shape of our collective awareness. It also directs our attention in fixed directions. This is a valuable concept because it speaks to the roots of fundamental problems that underlie many of our collective action problems, our immunity to change,[1] which is compounded by an atrophied faculty of the imagination. The history of Western philosophy also has a long tradition of reality-denying, only taking what can be experienced as real, thereby forming cognitive horizons that make it harder for our imagination to go beyond. The widely quoted claim that it is ‘easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism’ captures the problem of societal solipsism and the constraints the system puts around our imagination well.[2] We like to think we are free, but we are also kept entranced in this dream we call reality, from which we are now being rudely awakened by the really Real, which reasserts itself as the manifestations of the Metacrisis.[iii] I propose some domains of inquiry that I believe can bring us closer to a right relationship with Reality, which is not only something concrete like nature or physical matter, but equally truths of constant flux, change and creative dynamism and outcomes of our evolutionary history we have no choice but to embody. Stuckness can only persist by denying these truths, but continuing to do so limits discovering ways forward and prevents us from moving into futures we desire or away from ones we want to avoid. The opposite of stuckness is what I call ‘collective unfolding’. If we accept that in the West, we are in the process of losing our current, late-modern social imaginary as our stable home, as it is now appearing to liquify under the reassertion of the Real and pressures of the manifold crises, then we’ll have to learn to be in right relationship with reality’s inherent change and its patterns of unfolding and decay.

@Osaid I'll take your word for it -- that it is your direct experience or something you're conscious of. I'd say that enlightenment is realizing the nature of what's already true rather than a shift, and it doesn't change anything. The dynamic between self and not-self is present as an invention to some degree for us to function in the relative domain. How could we survive otherwise? Some form of self-identification is there. For example: Why do you wash your car? Who says it is yours? Why wouldn't you try to wash other people's cars? Also, if a chair's leg is broken, you don't consider that it was your leg that got broken. There's a practical reason for that. That points out the fact that you hold your self to be some way. Relatively speaking, you "say" --live as-- that you are here, and not there. This seems to be a basic recognition for survival, and it doesn't have to mean that you conflate your nature with something invented. Enlightened people seem to come in all shapes and sizes. How come they hold different values, interests, traits? One reason might be that they have their own particular way of showing up, and that we might call self. They may have awakened, however there're particular self-aspects and a personality aligned with their respective character. This is an interesting phenomenon. Attachment and fear seem to be related although the former is based on the past. It is about you wanting for a past experience or memory to remain in some form, something you've identified yourself to, or knowledge as you say. Have yet to look deeply into it. These topics are more profound than we are making them out to be, and I think we could be more grounded. Anyway, more work to be done.

This device could in future warn you easily if a car will hit you lol. It is always scanning your environment. It will be more aware of the environment and surroundings than the most awakened man on earth. You can actually experience nature, this device can visualize a 4k flower in your face at any time. With that you can even experience more nature than before. And it will be probably more beautiful than the real flower with all it's dirty and mud it can have. Nature sucks with all these insects, I prefer a clean virtual one with perfect light and color.

Just be careful that this is a distraction from your own awakening. You are the universe and the alien. We are all one. You are god. We do not need to meet aliens. The universe is a mental construct. Let go of all concepts. We should ask if free will exists and if there is a self. But we might as well ask here on this forum or simply ask ourselves. You couod ask to be awakened but only we can awaken ourselves.

@puporing First of all this is LITERALLY impossible to prove, second of all how could you know that you have reached the highest levels-of- consciousness at all? If you say you have, you could be totally deluding yourself and I would argue YOU ARE. This post just comes off as morally grandstanding that you awakened without psychedelics and that somehow is superior to someone who awakened by psychedelics. Someone who is unbiased, unlike you, wouldn't care, and, in fact, would explore all options instead of blatantly demonizing this method.

@Princess Arabia I always enjoy your posts and thoughtful responses to everyone. Fun to think we are one in the same without separation. @MellowEd My answer is the question is a trap. It is the Hindu Maya illusion. To engage with your question and to answer it is to stay asleep in the dream. I think Leo is correct. Salt and elements are concepts and we must let go of concepts. And I am still asleep because I just engaged with your question. Lol! There is no salt or elements. There is only this moment and direct experience. I don't claim to be awakened or enlightened. It sounds like you are. Is your question meant to awaken us? We must awaken on our own. It is the ineffable. Thanks for the post and question.

@undeather You talk too much. You've completely missed the point. Your argumentation is circular. I am going to tell you what you have and have not realized, and your reaction makes it apparent I am correct. Your words make no sense to your claims, and coming here saying you are awakened and using these authoritative arguments is again abysmal, childish, and not going to help you in any sense of the way, despite me coming across as harsh or not.

@undeather You’re not God realized or awakening. You want plain English? You have bastardized this work and you’ve started a thread to be close minded. You’ve asked multiple times for people to ‘just explain the problem with the concept of science.’ At the same time, ‘do you even know my ontological paradigm.’ You’re saying your own problems. No one who is awakened is in a ‘paradigm’ and science is just a concept just like religion. Figuring this science thing out will cause you emotional pain. Do not expect words on a screen to solve it for you. Until you’ve have had an extreme emotional feeling around this topic, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Leo was very lenient with you in my opinion- and brave at that. Trying to convince a scientist science is not perfect is like trying to explain to a christian the Bible was just analogous.

Leo Gura Ego Death & Reality vs. Dream [Part 2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YspFR9JAq3w Introduction to Part 2: The second part of the conversation with Leo Gura continues from where part one ended, exploring the nature of consciousness, and idealism, suggesting that individuals are expressions of God but have forgotten this truth. Curt Jaimungal's role and focus: Curt, a filmmaker with a background in mathematical physics, delves into theories of everything with a focus on the nexus between consciousness and theoretical physics. He shares his intent to examine these subjects with rigor and clarity. Interview dynamics and length: The interview is noted as the longest Curt has had, characterized by reflective pauses and moments of fervor that he chose to retain in the recording for their expressiveness. Recommendation for audience engagement: Curt encourages the audience to engage in deeper conversations on related subjects through the podcast's Discord and subreddit and thanks patrons and sponsors for their support. Sponsors' support for exploration: The support from sponsors like Algo, Brilliant, and Project Transcend is acknowledged, as it enables the podcast to delve into topics such as consciousness and various theories in theoretical physics. Curt's acknowledgments and reflections: He offers thanks to those who introduced him to Leo's content and reviewers who provided analysis of the previous interview, committing to better internalize and communicate Leo's teachings. Discussion approach and self-critique: Curt recognizes his own tendencies during the interviews, such as being overly contentious and neglecting to fully appreciate and convey Leo's points, pledging to improve future discussions by embracing Leo's terminology and ideas more openly. Balancing objections with openness: Curt admits his challenge in balancing skepticism with genuine truth-seeking, aiming to alter his approach by similarly considering what is right about Leo's perspective, not just potential flaws. Comments moderation policy: Curt explains his policy of engagement with audience comments, differentiating between critiques directed at himself versus ad hominem comments toward Leo, aiming to foster constructive discourse. Uniform oneness and fractal reality: The infinite field of consciousness must construct differences to manifest varied experiences, much like the Big Bang transitioning from oneness to a diverse universe. God's desire for exploration: Like a mathematician fascinated by the infinite intricacies of numbers, God explores its own finite aspects, desiring granularity over abstract infinity. Human vs. God imagination: Humans imagine within physical and societal constraints, but from the God perspective, there are no limits to manifesting entire universes or new experiences. Psychosis and societal norms: Those with unbounded imaginations, like individuals experiencing psychosis, often find difficulty adhering to the consensus reality and can face institutionalization or exclusion. Survival and maintaining humanness: The limited scope of human imagination is tethered to the necessity of maintaining a coherent human experience and aligns with societal survival mechanisms. The responsibility to explore: Despite the limitless imagination from the divine viewpoint, humans face the responsibility of staying grounded in consensus reality to function and survive. Imagining new realities: God's boundless imagination can envision anything, including new universes or continents, transcending the limitations of human conceptualization. Constrained human imagination: Humans are limited in what they can imagine, as losing grasp on consensus reality can lead to dysfunction and being labeled as psychotic or schizophrenic. Survival's grip on imagination: The attachment to survival constrains our ability to experience reality beyond the physical; fear of death roots us in this dream life, preventing exploration of infinite possibilities across universes. Disclaimer for at-risk individuals: Leo issues a warning that those with mental instability or contemplating suicide should be cautious with these concepts and anchor themselves in reality to handle survival basics. Life's value amidst non-duality: While reality is a dream and life may seem insignificant from an absolute point of view, Leo urges valuing life as a precious gift, maintaining good health, and not succumbing to harm based on philosophical explorations. Relative vs. absolute perspectives on life and death: Actions like suicide are neither fundamentally wrong nor right, fitting within infinite reality; the decision is relative, with Leo finding reasons such as terminal illness sometimes justifiable, but generally advocating for appreciating life's beauty. Interplay between evidence and definitions of God: Echoing Tyler Goldstein's sentiment, Leo suggests that a lack of evidence for God should inspire a transformation of the definition of God, emphasizing truth-seeking over god-seeking and staying open to surprises on the spiritual journey. Unknown specifics within infinity: Leo distinguishes between general omniscience, realizing the concept of infinity, and specific omniscience, which details exact knowledge of events or entities; he admits many individual aspects of existence remain mysterious even when aware of infinity. Illusions of objective reality: The consensus concept of objective reality is questioned as layers of shared imagination create illusionary objectivity, highlighting the challenge in distinguishing between vivid dreams and waking life cohesion. Differentiating degrees and kinds: Curt explores the question of when differences in degree between entities or phenomena translate into differences of a fundamentally different kind, a notion not fully appreciated in debates like pro-life vs. pro-choice or the analogy between dream states and waking life. Imagination and distinction: Leo addresses the question of difference and imagination, explaining that differences are relative and subject to how they're delineated by the mind, which can alter some boundaries, like the definition of when life begins, while others, like physical separations, are more fixed by universal laws or physics. Cohesion and consistency in reality: He elaborates on why reality feels solid and persistent, contrasting this with the fluidity of dreams. Cohesion and consistency are crucial for constructing a reality indistinguishable from a dream without glitches, which requires a consistent dreaming process. Hallucination and material reality: Psychedelics are discussed as tools that reveal the malleable nature of material reality, challenging materialist perspectives and forcing a reevaluation of the solidity of reality constructs, such as the brain or atoms. Literality of labels: Leo argues that labels like "real" and "unreal" are variable and that reality is an interplay of imagination where even constructs like Santa Claus can be real in the context of consciousness, highlighting the need for a worldview adjustment when we redefine terms. Academic attachment to model of reality: He critiques the academic and scientific tendency to rigidly anchor reality in concepts like materialism, which filter out experiences that don't fit within their paradigm, warning that this approach limits our understanding of an infinite reality. Dissolving physical limitations: Leo explains that through the expansion of consciousness and the use of psychedelics, even seemingly solid physical boundaries can begin to dissolve, similar to experiences in dreams, illustrating the influence of imagination on perception. Permanence of differences: By using the example of one's wife vs. Santa Claus, Leo contends that differences we perceive as permanent are actually variable, subject to change under different conditions, and that materialists err in assuming the fundamental permanence of such distinctions. Literal interpretation of scientific rigor: Scientists often believe in the rigorousness of their fields, like mathematics and logic, but Leo argues that the perceived concreteness is an illusion; even quantum mechanics involves metaphorical explanations. Limitation of the scientific mindset: A rigorous approach to reality creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, where a scientist's expectation of strictness and precision shapes their perception, leading to a reality that reflects these biases, similar to a conspiracy theorist creating a paranoid worldview. Construct awareness: Leo emphasizes a developmental stage called "construct awareness," where individuals realize how their minds construct their perceived reality. Most scientists have not reached this stage, hindering their ability to transcend materialism and fully understand the infinite nature of reality. Ego's defense mechanisms: The mind-scientific or otherwise-constructs a limited reality and defends this model by denying or discrediting experiences that contradict it, creating a hermetically sealed worldview. Problems with logicism and paradoxes: Leo discusses historical attempts, such as Gottlob Frege's, to base all of mathematics on logic, which were undermined by paradoxes like Russell's Paradox. Such endeavors reveal the impossibility of fully capturing infinite truths within finite logical systems. Inadequacy of logical proofs: Proofs depend on the prior existence of truth. Leo criticizes the common assumption that every truth must be provable, suggesting instead the recognition of truths beyond provability and the limitations of reason. Limits of consistency and provability: Gödel's incompleteness theorem, which trades off between consistency and provability, underlines limitations. When discussing logic, Leo points out that accepting contradictions opens up infinite possibilities, which is more reflective of reality's true nature. Contradictions in logic as a pathway to infinity: Leo explains that contradictions allow for the recognition of infinite possibilities beyond what a finite logical system can accommodate, consistent with the infinite nature of reality. Limits of scientific models: Leo argues that scientific methods are useful within restrictions but fail to grasp the full complexity of reality, particularly in the realms of quantum mechanics where classical concepts don't apply. Ontological presuppositions in science: There is a dissonance where scientists claim to avoid ontological assumptions while implicitly operating within them, restricting the scope and limiting the understanding of relational reality versus objectivity. Scientism versus pure investigation: Leo differentiates between science entangled with ontological assumptions and the pure process of investigation free from metaphysical biases, suggesting that the former can hinder the discovery of deeper truths. Ontological assumptions in science: Scientists often unconsciously adopt a certain ontology and may be defensive and unaware of it, which can limit the scope and application of science. Materialist exploratory limitations: The process of debunking supernatural explanations (e.g., fairies, angels) through materialism and logic does not guarantee that this approach can be extended to the entire universe, as reality is infinite and science assumes a finite reality. Infinite versus finite methodologies: Since reality is infinite, using science-a finite method-to grasp all of reality is fundamentally flawed. Science is useful for understanding parts of reality but fails to address questions like "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Identifying limits of scientific inquiry: It's challenging to predetermine which questions science can or cannot answer. This meta-scientific question reveals the testing limits of scientific methods, as fully exploring and applying science to the universe is near-impossible. Science's sneaky ontology: Science often denies inconsistencies within itself and covertly brings in ontological assumptions about separate, discrete objects that it cannot prove-e.g., one's body being distinct from another's. Construct-aware science: Science should become construct-aware, recognizing how it constructs nature in the process of scientific inquiry. Transforming science's foundational philosophy and epistemology can enable groundbreaking research. Confusing models with reality: Science may claim not to make ontological claims and only provides models for predictions. However, Leo asserts science does make ontological claims by denying areas where it is inconsistent, failing to grasp its own construction of reality. Merging East and West knowledge: The integration of Western and Eastern perspectives is key, as Western philosophy and mysticism contain ideas typically associated with Eastern thought, challenging the East versus West dichotomy in understanding reality. Leo's synthesis of Eastern and Western philosophies: Despite the perception that Eastern philosophy is more aligned with his ideas, Leo asserts that his teachings are not novel but are rooted in the wisdom of Western philosophers, Christian mystics, and Sufi and Jewish mystics, advocating for a unified view of wisdom across cultures. The importance of progress: Leo embraces the Western concept of evolution and progress but redefines its purpose as an evolution towards higher consciousness and love. He emphasizes that progress is intrinsic to human and societal development. Compatibility of Leo's ideas with Western values: While acknowledging the material benefits of Western civilization, Leo sees a need to reintegrate the spiritual elements back into Western society to create a balance between material and spiritual development. Reconciling notions of progress with spirituality: Leo explains that understanding evolution from a spiritual perspective gives deeper meaning to Western scientific advancements, suggesting an evolutionary purpose and a target for humanity. Perpetuation of evolution and scientific advancement: Leo expects that future societies will not abandon material advancements like science, politics, and capitalism but will evolve to include mystical understanding. Progress in cognitive and moral development: Highlighting the importance of models from developmental psychology, Leo points to evidence of societal progress in increasing construct awareness and meta-thinking, as well as in fortifying pluralism, reduced discrimination, and an expanding sense of global ethics. Eastern and Western conceptions of reality: Leo finds the Eastern notion of a protean, cyclic reality fashionable, but believes the Western concept of a linear, distinct reality with moral absolutes also holds value, implying the necessity to merge both perspectives for a comprehensive worldview. Retaining Western advancements: Leo asserts that advancements from the Western tradition need not be lost; instead, they should be woven with spiritual understanding, alluding to a harmonious evolution of both material and spiritual dimensions within society. Absolute vs. relative insights: Distinguishing between absolute truths about the nature of existence and relative perspectives on societal matters, Leo acknowledges that his views on the latter may evolve while his understanding of absolutes like God or infinity remain unchanged. Anti-fragile nature of humanity: Leo believes mankind is exceptionally resilient due to selfishness, which paradoxically prevents self-destruction and ensures survival despite causing harm through actions like environmental damage or warfare. Self-correcting mechanism: He views humanity as inherently capable of learning from mistakes, implying that as pain from issues like climate change is felt, society will mobilize and enact change, showing an upward trend in collective conscious awareness. Learning through suffering: Suffering is seen as a key driver of human growth, with Leo suggesting that while wisdom can enable learning without suffering, most of humanity needs painful experiences to evolve. Metaphysical necessity of pain: Though suffering is not deemed metaphysically necessary for AI, Leo views it as vital for human psychological development given current evolutionary constraints. Feasibility of mind uploading: Leo dismisses the materialist pursuit of mind uploading as naive, criticizing figures like Ray Kurzweil for misunderstanding consciousness. He likens the ego, which materialists attempt to upload, to an illusory concept akin to Santa Claus. Exploring consciousness beyond computers: Leo promotes spiritual practices like meditation and psychedelics over technological advancements, suggesting they offer deeper insights into consciousness than computational means. Future consciousness exploration: He envisions a transformative future where genetic understanding of consciousness might create mystic generations capable of evolving human awareness far beyond current limitations. Experiencing versus understanding consciousness: Leo differentiates between the experience of consciousness and the empirical study of its architecture, suggesting a blend of spiritual experience and material study is necessary to truly understand consciousness. Science and metaphysics evolution: Leo and Curt discuss the evolution and integration of scientific understanding and metaphysical insights, emphasizing a balance between scientific models and direct spiritual experiences. Distinction between science and psychic realms: Physical reality, like the motion of the moon, appears consistent and deterministic, whereas psychic phenomena resemble uncertain quantum states, producing only probabilistic intuitions that are not guaranteed. Denial of psychic phenomena by materialists: Psychic phenomena have been statistically validated, but materialist scientists deny them to preserve their paradigm. They require paradigm opening before accepting such evidence. Open-mindedness and extraordinary evidence: Extraordinary evidence necessitates an extraordinarily open mind. Materialists mistakenly believe closed-minded scrutiny suffices for understanding extraordinary claims, underestimating the role of mindset in acknowledging evidence. Materialistic standards conflict with non-materialistic phenomena: Materialism's rigid standards fail to accommodate non-materialistic domains like psychic phenomena, hindering recognition of existing evidence. Empirical verification of God through psychedelics: Using psychedelics like 5-MeO-DMT can empirically reveal the existence of God. Materialists reject this method as hallucinatory, but scientific integrity requires practical application of the method before dismissing its validity. Consistency of psychedelic experiences: Leo states all psychedelics lead him to a state of infinite consciousness or love, with the type of psychedelic merely altering the "flavor" of the experience. Transformation through challenges: By directly confronting deep-seated fears like insanity, one gains empathy and a deeper appreciation for sanity and reality, despite potential loss of rationality or functionality. Limitations of language in expressing truth: Leo stresses the importance of experiencing states of consciousness beyond linguistic constructs to understand reality's transformative power, as language and concepts are insufficient in capturing profound realizations. Spiritual and intuitive inquiry: Curt clarifies his pursuit is not solely about building rational models but also involves intuition and judgment, recognizing that meaningful aspects of life transcend strict rationality. Critiques based on worldview differences: Some view Leo's insights as beyond Curt's rational model-focused approach, but Curt emphasizes his broader interest in truth and awakening beyond formal models. Models versus actuality: Leo cautions that a Theory of Everything is a concept, emphasizing the distinction between concepts and the true nature of being, advising truth seekers to focus on fundamental reality. Extraordinary open-mindedness as a prerequisite for insights: The acceptance of unusual phenomena like psychic experiences depends on an open-minded approach, contrasting with the skeptical framework that predetermines outcomes based on existing beliefs. Changeability of the mind: Despite its stubbornness, the human mind can change given sufficient experience, exemplified by Leo's shift from materialism to a belief in God following a profound experience. Experience vs. belief: Direct experience always trumps belief, and individuals will change long-held beliefs when confronted with undeniable evidence, yet the mind resists experiences that could challenge its current worldviews. Materialist perspectives and avoidance: The materialist mind may avoid experiences that challenge its skepticism, such as attending 'hippie-dippy' events associated with psychedelics, due to preconceived notions of what is unscientific or a waste of time. Michael Shermer's openness: Skeptic Michael Shermer surprisingly attends Deepak Chopra's meditation retreats despite apparent ideological differences, indicating an openness to experiences beyond his usual skepticism. Beliefs shaping reality: Leo clarifies that while reality is ultimately imaginary, believing alone doesn't materialize desires like wealth. Imagination is deeper than belief, and while both a chair and Santa Claus are imaginary, Santa is a weaker form of imagination under ego control, unlike the chair which is part of a universal imagination. The ego's control and definition of reality: The ego defines reality based on what it does not control, which is typically outside the individual's influence-what the ego perceives as objective reality. Ego perception and self-bias: The ego perceives reality selfishly, corrupting the understanding of good, love, and reality itself by defining them in terms that benefit it personally. Control, omnipotence, and belief in finitude: Omnipotence implies indistinction between the controller and the controlled, but believing oneself to be a finite form, like a human body, naturally limits control. Skepticism and worldview: Genuine skepticism involves questioning even one's skeptical worldview, recognizing that it often serves as a defense mechanism rooted in fear and not a path to ultimate truth. Fear and its impact on truth-seeking: Fear is antithetical to genuine truth-seeking as it often signifies a rejection of uncomfortable or challenging aspects of reality, whereas genuine pursuit of truth accepts reality no matter the cost. Science and its assumed path to truth: Leo challenges the assumption that science necessarily leads to truth, suggesting that scientists need to be willing to accept that science, as a methodology, could be a delusion if ultimate truth demands it. Leo's perspective on truth and selfishness: Leo discusses the connection between fear and truth, indicating that fear is an avoidance of one's infinite self, which is the truth. All fears are ultimately unfounded since they are based on imagined distinctions that do not exist in a state of infinite consciousness. Fear of losing self in the pursuit of truth: Leo and Curt explore the fear associated with pursuing truth, contemplating the implications of shedding all selfishness as potentially leading to self-destructive actions. This highlights the deep existential concern that without selfishness, one might act in ways that are contrary to personal survival and well-being. Dynamics of fear in relationship to awakening: Truth is equated with infinite love, and falsely perceiving differences in experiences as good or bad breeds fear. An awakened state is characterized by the absence of fear, as one recognizes all experiences as equal manifestations of the infinite self. Balance between love and survival: The conversation touches on the nature of reality as a game, where the avoidance of infinite love equates to a necessary survival mechanism. Leo sees this reluctance to face truth as a fundamental aspect of life and a way to maintain existence. Surrender to truth as equivalent to truth-seeking: Leo defines surrendering as the act of fully accepting reality as it is, which equates to seeking truth. Ego resists this surrender due to its perceived need for control and survival. Metaphor of Satan/Lucifer for ego: The figures of Satan and Lucifer are described as symbols for the ego's illusion of separatism and control-representing the ego's attempt to dominate its own realm contrary to the boundlessness of truth. Dichotomy between philosophical denial of free will and behavior: Atheists like Sam Harris may intellectually deny free will but still behave as if they exercise control, displaying cognitive dissonance. Leo discusses that despite philosophical beliefs, everyday reactions suggest an underlying expectation of control. Cognitive dissonance between belief and behavior: Leo illustrates how the ego creates complex ideologies that obscure the connection between worldview and suffering, culminating in cognitive dissonance where actions contradict proclaimed beliefs. Difficulty of separating concepts and being: Leo explains the challenge of using language that inherently suggests separateness, distinguishing between upper case "You" representing the all-encompassing self and lower case "you" denoting individual identity within the larger universal context. Science creating distinctions: Science relies on distinguishing between what's considered scientific and non-scientific (pseudoscience), upholding a dichotomy that defines science's boundaries. Reality inclusive of non-science: However, science's denial of non-scientific elements, like Santa Claus, is a denial of aspects of reality, as all things are part of reality – even those deemed non-scientific by its standards. Science of conceptual entities: The possibility of a valid scientific exploration of conceptual entities like unicorns exists, which differs from their physical existence, focusing instead on their conceptualization within reality. Encountering worldview contradictions: When faced with ideas that contradict one's worldview, the response may be to embrace contradictions or claim that these contradictions paradoxically support one's existing beliefs. Authority in determining truth: Seeking an external authority for truth is common, but non-duality suggests that truth must come from within as all distinctions, including authority, collapse, leaving only the self as the judge of truth. Self-authority as the ultimate truth: In non-duality, since God (the infinite self) has no outside, it has no external authority; thus, whatever God (the individual) deems true becomes its reality – showcasing the infinite power of self-authority. God's capacity for self-deception: Despite God's infinite authority, it can deceive itself indefinitely, conjuring its own reality based on its imaginations, which for the finite self (lowercase 'u') may be construed as delusions. Lowercase 'u' vs. uppercase 'U': There is a distinction between truth from the finite, individual self (lowercase 'u') and the infinite self (uppercase 'U' or God) with the latter being fully authoritative in its declarations of truth. Hermetically sealed worldviews: Individuals create closed-off systems of belief, mistaking them for the ultimate reality, while non-duality reveals the capacity to construct and deconstruct such systems. Love as the essence of reality: Addressing the nature of God and truth, Leo explains that the essence of reality is infinite love, challenging the constraints of isolationist and finite perspectives. Dynamic of surrender and spiritual growth: The journey towards infinite love involves continuously surrendering finite definitions of self, progressing to a state of peace where all perspectives, even conflicting ones, can be accepted without defense. Self-criticism as an indicator of care: The act of self-criticism implies an underlying sense of care and correct orientation, suggesting a person's conscientiousness despite potential over-seriousness in personal evaluation. Guilt and developmental stages: Guilt is recognized as evolutionarily necessary at lower levels of development to confront ego-driven actions, but higher spiritual realizations require self-acceptance and the cessation of self-judgment. Complexity of guilt dynamics: The spiritual journey involves a paradox where recognizing one's flaws calls for self-love and self-forgiveness, even in the face of egregious missteps, which challenges societal norms and traditional religious precepts. True integration of Christian teachings: Leo explains that fully embracing Christian teachings means loving oneself unconditionally despite one's flaws, yet not using this as justification for harmful actions. Social acceptance vs spiritual honesty: Expressing the philosophy of self-acceptance can be socially threatening, as it seems to offer a carte blanche for sin, which society construes as dangerous for collective thriving. Concept of sin and societal constructs: Leo discusses sin as a societal construct meant to facilitate legal and social order, suggesting that a deeper understanding and release of the concept may paradoxically lead to more virtuous behavior. Karmic consequences of labeling sin: The labeling of actions as 'sinful' sets up a karmic dynamic where one sees reality through a moralistic filter, creating cycles of guilt and self-recrimination. Self-forgiveness amidst serious mistakes: Leo emphasizes the importance of maintaining love for oneself even after serious errors, viewing this acceptance as a pathway toward spiritual growth and evolution. Upholding moral standards while embracing non-duality: Leo acknowledges the difficulty of reconciling the non-dualistic acceptance of all facets of oneself with societal norms that demand moral accountability and condemnation of wrongdoing. Challenging conventional views of divine encounters: Leo redefines typical responses to divine encounters, suggesting one need not apologize or feel sorry to God, as the assumption of sin and the accompanying guilt are unnecessary in the face of divine acceptance. Seeing all as divine, including Jesus and Hitler: Leo states that all beings are divine, including historical figures like Jesus and Hitler, noting that recognizing the divinity in oneself and in all is integral to spiritual awakening. Jungian shadow integration related to God-realization: He links the process of integrating one's shadow with the realization of God, suggesting embracing all aspects of oneself, even those labeled as evil or unwanted, is essential for true love and understanding. Asymptotic process of shadow integration: The full integration of one's shadow is described as an ongoing, asymptotic process that never quite reaches completeness but continuously evolves toward greater wholeness. Spiritual realization as a choice free from compulsion: Leo stresses that the pursuit of truth, awakening, or God should be a voluntary choice motivated by intrinsic desire and not out of obligation or forced reasoning. Personal integration of honesty for spiritual advance: Honesty is underscored as vital for spiritual advancement, with Leo recalling a personal experience where acknowledging his own deceptions was a prerequisite for further development. The foundational role of honesty: Honesty serves as a foundational principle for approaching truth and facilitates a clearer perception of reality, essential for both spiritual and personal growth. Lies, karma, and self-deception: Lies mix selfish intent with truth, and perpetuating them creates suffering and distortion of reality-this karmic dynamic is intrinsic to ego-based deception and is countered by honesty. Weaponization of ideals: Leo illustrates how partial truths can be twisted to fit one's worldview, like a vaping CEO dismissing studies for self-preservation. This self-deception involves first lying to oneself, then others, often unconsciously, and becomes the foundation for a distorted perception of reality. Consequences of deep lies: Living a life built on deep lies one cannot face has profound karmic repercussions, as it forces one to avoid the truth and hold a skewed view of concepts such as science, leading to an ongoing conflict with reality. Survival conflicts with truth: The ego's survival instinct can create a conflict of interest, leading to a denial of facts that threaten one's livelihood or deep-seated beliefs, often resulting in a twisted worldview that rationalizes personal agendas. Self-deception and devilry: The most insidious form of deception is the strategic intertwining of truth with lies, carried out by the ego to justify selfishness under the guise of partial truths, a process Leo defines as "devillery." Finite versus infinite: Leo discusses the sinfulness associated with finiteness, suggesting that conflating the part for the whole leads to problems, akin to the Gnostic view that materiality is sinful. Leo advises recognizing the holographic nature of reality, where each part reflects the whole, thus bridging the apparent gap between the finite and infinite. Holism versus fragmentation: Leo posits that ultimate truth lies in holistic perception, while fragmentation and focusing on parts as complete "wholes" results in falsehood, similar to how science might propose it can understand everything. Lies tied to finiteness: Curt Jaimungal questions the connection between lies (which he associates with finite aspects) and sin, proposing that finite elements and temporality may be intimately linked to what's considered sinful. Leo confirms this, explaining the concept of holography in consciousness, where every part, even something as small as a charger cable, carries infinity within it, challenging the notion that finiteness is inherently profane. Curt's approach to interviews: Curt recognizes the need to focus on what is right about a speaker's points and rephrase them in an agreeable way, rather than just pointing out contradictions. Literal mindedness and scientific attitude: Leo observes that scientifically minded individuals can be overly literal, expecting reality to follow simple binary logic like ones and zeros in a computer, but human minds function in a much looser way. Computational models of reality: In response to computational approaches to theorizing about reality, Leo points to chaos theory's proof that you can't predict systems like weather long-term because of the butterfly effect, supporting computational irreducibility as recognized by Wolfram. Models vs. reality and their limitations: Leo cautions about getting too lost in models to the point of ignoring the actual world. He states that models are crucial, but not infinite, and cannot predict everything or reach infinity. Map vs. territory concept: Leo discusses how models (maps) can become so detailed that people might forget to experience real life (the territory), warning against becoming too absorbed in models to the detriment of engaging with the actual world. Impact of isolation and shallowness of social interactions: Leo admits a preference for deeper engagements with reality over shallow social interactions, explaining why some mystics seek isolation. However, he doesn't advocate total disengagement and values connecting with all types of people. Flip side of isolation: Curt self-reflects on his personal antisocial tendencies, valuing deeper connections with family, and the impacts of projecting onto others, recognizing the potential to push oneself toward social engagements as a spiritual practice. Pressures and temptations for the wealthy: Curt speculates on the additional spiritual challenges faced by the wealthy, noting that material abundance can make spiritual focus more difficult, contradicting the common dismissal of the rich as merely materialistic. Handling ego and spiritual growth alongside everyday life: Both Curt and Leo discuss the challenge of maintaining spiritual growth and applying it in practical aspects like business, family, and politics, without retreating into monk-like isolation. Models, precision, and the trap of detail: Leo advises Curt to balance the big picture with the attention to detail, expressing concern that exclusive focus on conceptual work may hinder personal spiritual awakening. The 'better the model, the bigger the problem' view: Leo introduces the idea that highly refined models can become a hindrance rather than an aid in understanding reality, as they may draw attention away from direct experience and interaction with the world. Effects of fame on Leo Gura's social life: Leo reminisces about a time when he was more publicly recognized, noting a decrease in such occurrences as his content delved into niche subjects. Views on personal vices and habits: Leo discusses his perspective on watching porn and eating meat, explaining that he doesn't see such activities as detrimental to his spirituality and acknowledging the healthy push towards vegetarianism. Spirituality in unconventional spaces: Leo shares experiences of discussing spirituality in places like strip clubs, indicating that profound insights about the divine can emerge even in seemingly unlikely or non-traditional settings. Jailbreaking the mind: The process of spiritual growth and ego death can be likened to jailbreaking a phone, which carries inherent risks and may lead to detrimental outcomes if not done carefully. Fear of negative consequences: Curt expresses a concern that fully surrendering to what he perceives as God's will could result in harmful actions like suicide or harming others, revealing a profound fear of trusting himself and the world. Attachment and prioritization: Curt admits his attachment to his wife and life, suggesting that his reluctance to change or surrender these attachments indicates a prioritization of survival over spiritual truth. Facing physical death and the leap of faith: Leo insists that confronting physical death is essential for experiencing God, and true awakening requires accepting the risk of death and being willing to "jump" into infinite love. Rapid-fire questions and focus on Leo: Despite intentions to discuss more personal aspects of Leo, the conversation delves deeper into his spiritual ideas with rapid-fire questions on his perspective and experiences. Challenges in promoting a Theory of Everything: Leo offers advice to individuals like Steve Scully, who propose theories of everything but struggle to gain recognition, suggesting a long-term commitment to developing and sharing their theories instead of seeking instant validation. Information sorting and fringe theories: The challenge faced by individuals like Curt in deciding which theories to explore, amidst an abundance of both serious and crackpot ideas, is outlined, emphasizing the importance of careful discernment and the evolving ability to recognize valuable theories. Personal examples of fear and ego management: Curt shares his fears around engaging deeply with spiritual topics, including the concern of self-harm or harming others, as well as the difficulty of managing his ego post-psychedelic experience. Popularizing personal theories: Leo emphasizes that success and recognition in sharing theories require persistent self-promotion and providing value rather than relying on a single influential person to "put you on." He encourages creators to continuously work hard and explore multiple avenues, such as reaching out to various influencers, starting one's own channel, or offering unique value to potential collaborators. Persistence despite rejection: Leo advises those facing rejection not to be discouraged but to persist and increase their efforts in promoting their work, suggesting that the more effort one puts in, the more likely luck will favor them. Offering value for collaboration: When seeking opportunities for collaboration or promotion, Leo highlights the importance of offering something of value in return, whether through bringing subscribers, sending gifts, or other means that can appeal to the potential collaborator's interests. Evolution from indie filmmaking to TOE: Curt reflects on his transition from indie filmmaking, abbreviated as "if TOE," to working on theories of everything ("TOE"), seeing it as symbolic of his growing open-mindedness and readiness to embrace broader understandings. Staying still while recording videos: Leo shares that sitting during recordings helps maintain a still posture and avoids distractions like looking at oneself, which ensures a focused and engaged delivery to the camera. Challenges of non-linear thinking in public speaking: Leo discusses his biggest speaking challenge-maintaining structure in his speeches due to his highly nonlinear and intuitive mind that naturally explores various threads and tangents of thought. Perception of own influence and followers: Leo reveals that the amazement of having a large following fades over time as one gets accustomed to it; he also addresses the dangers of ego inflation from fan admiration and the necessity of balanced feedback. Viewing critics as trolls: Curt considers taking serious criticism as a means of improvement, while Leo suggests that some critics are indeed trolls and that it's necessary to differentiate between constructive criticism and non-helpful negativity. Using spirituality to avoid psychological issues: Spiritual bypassing is discussed as the misuse of spirituality to evade addressing personal problems, implying that genuine spiritual growth requires confronting one's shadow and working through psychological challenges. Questioning the necessity of suffering for spiritual growth: Leo questions the belief that suffering is necessary to attain spiritual heights, warning against self-fulfilling prophecies and encouraging a recognition that spiritual awakening can happen easily for some people. Reinforcement of perception: The way you perceive the world often reinforces itself – difficulties can become self-fulfilling prophecies based on one's mindset, advising caution against negative outlooks. Advice to younger generations: Leo emphasizes the practical value of imparting wisdom to youth so they can avoid repeating historical mistakes and navigate life more effectively, recognizing the importance of learning from elders and ancestral wisdom as crucial. Increasing disregard for wisdom: Discusses the modern cultural decline in the appreciation of wisdom, exacerbated by social media and other influences, making a case for why wisdom, even within academia, is crucial and should not be hastily discarded. Idealized views of spiritual figures: Misconceptions about Jesus and Buddha are likely due to the development of myths over time, with actual historical knowledge quite scant, suggesting that if details of their lives were known, they'd seem less deified and more human. Jesus's special consciousness: While everyone embodies divinity in some sense, Leo speculates that Jesus possibly had a uniquely high baseline consciousness with paranormal abilities, illustrated through variability in human traits such as height and cognition. Thumbnail selection process: Leo actively collects various images online and from stock photo sites, keeping them for future video topics. He occasionally modifies images in Photoshop, aligning with his aesthetic orientation and graphic design experience. Video preparation method: Leo combines both premeditated outline preparation and spontaneous expression during recordings. For technical subjects, he prepares outlines but prefers improv as it yields more organic insights, albeit with the risk of missing key points. Video recording technique: Videos are shot in a single take without edits, a skill developed over time akin to live public speaking. Leo uses a teleprompter-like setup with a two-way mirror for notes, enabling a natural flow. Opinion on UFOs and altered states for contact: Personal lack of experience with UFOs but believes in their existence due to the abundance of reports across time and cultures. Claims the difficulty of capturing fast-moving objects like UFOs on camera should not dismiss their existence. Open to the idea that altered states or specific methodologies like CE5 could potentially facilitate contact with extraterrestrial entities. Spiritual perfection and imperfection: Leo points out that even entities recognized as spiritually elevated, like Jesus or the Buddha, likely had imperfections, and their historical depictions are probably idealized, with actual videos likely showing them as less divine than portrayed. Jesus's unique abilities: Speculates that Jesus had extraordinary conscious and mystical abilities due to genetic makeup, possibly healing certain individuals which contributed to his supernatural reputation. Content creation and selection process: Describes an aesthetic approach to choosing thumbnails for videos, accumulating a collection of images for future use, and personally modifying them to fit video themes. Non-edited recordings: Leo recounts his practice of recording videos without cuts similar to live public speaking, which has improved his articulation over time. Acknowledging the existence of UFOs: Leo believes in the plausibility of UFOs, acknowledging the challenge in capturing them on camera, and suggests personal experiences strongly influence an individual's belief in such phenomena. Riffing vs. outlining for content delivery: Mentions a balance between pre-contemplation and casual delivery of content, with some topics requiring detailed preparation, while others benefit from impromptu speaking for authenticity. Critique of UFO skepticism: Challenges the idea that all UFO evidence is unconvincing or hoaxed, considering the technical difficulties of photographing fast-moving objects and the substantial anecdotal evidence suggesting their reality. Occam's Razor Misapplication: Leo considers the dismissal of UFOs as a misuse of Occam's Razor. He believes that given the vast number of stars and planets, the existence of aliens is highly probable, challenging the simplistic application of this principle by skeptics. Bayesian Reasoning Flaws: Leo criticizes Bayesian reasoning for being susceptible to subjective biases. It assumes starting probabilities that cannot be known and is affected by the reference class problem, making it unreliable for making conclusions about phenomena like UFOs. Probability Assessment Challenge: Discussing the issue of assigning probabilities to unique events, Leo notes the inherent difficulty in determining the chances of occurrences like UFO sightings and points out how personal experiences can drastically alter someone's perceived probability of such events. Intuition as Consciousness Access: Leo describes intuition as an aspect of consciousness that allows for logical leaps without a formal pattern. It's an irreducibly mysterious element he ties to infinite intelligence, and while he believes intuition can be developed, he refrains from recommending specific books on the topic. Role of Arts in Awakening: Leo sees beauty as fundamental to reality and ties art to participating in the creative process of God. He views art, including music, films, and his own work, as expressions of God's creative power and encourages people to treat every aspect of life, from business to cooking, as an art form for a fulfilling existence. Art and Psychedelics: Addressing the appreciation of art under the influence of psychedelics, Leo discusses the ability to perceive beauty in all forms, and the shift in perception that allows even the mundane to appear divine. He suggests that all music, including "left-brain" music, can be experienced as profound under psychedelics. Experiencing Psychedelic-Induced Psychosis: Leo talks about his states of madness during mushroom trips, describing them as humbling and developing empathy for those with mental illnesses. He emphasizes the importance of facing fears of insanity and learning from the experience. Sanity Appreciation: He reflects on the value of sanity, which is often taken for granted until lost. Leo stresses that losing sanity briefly aids in understanding its importance and appreciating the grounding and coherence it provides. Ontology and Epistemology Coupling: In the CTMU, ontology and epistemology are understood to be inseparably coupled, a contrast to their traditional separation. Chris Langan suggests that through truths like Gödel's incompleteness theorem, reality can't fully be explained by reason alone. Language and Non-Language: Leo warns about equating everything with language or reason, as he differentiates between human language and other forms of expression, which can include experiences beyond language. He invites those engaged in logical or conceptual work, like followers of the CTMU, to attain states of consciousness where language doesn't apply, enriching their understanding beyond linguistic constructs. Psychedelics vs. Traditional Enlightenment: Addressing the comparison between psychedelic experiences and traditional forms of enlightenment, Leo clarifies that the core truths of absolute reality are uniform and can be accessed through various means, whether psychedelics or meditation. He emphasizes that while his teachings do not exclusively advocate for psychedelics, they are an accessible tool for those not adept at or committed to profound meditative practices. Relativity of Spiritual Practice: Leo agrees with the premise that attempting to bring the absolute into the relative is somewhat delusional, given the illusory nature of separation. However, he portrays this process as a personal and deliberate choice of delusion for one's own sake – a conscious game rather than a genuine effort to convert others who, from a non-dual standpoint, don't exist separately. Possibility of Perfect Embodiment: Leo is open to the idea that it could be metaphysically possible to embody the absolute perfectly, but pragmatically, he sees this as incredibly challenging due to human limitations. He actively discourages imposing expectations of perfection on oneself or spiritual teachers, recognizing that finite physical and psychological factors inevitably influence one's actions and thoughts. Expectations in Spiritual Teaching: He warns against the trap of using any imperfection in spiritual teachers as evidence to discredit their insights, illustrating the futility and potential ego-serving nature of such critiques. Leo advises a balance between striving for alignment with spiritual truths and exercising compassion towards oneself and others in the face of inevitable human imperfections. Jesus in Modern Times: If Jesus returned to the current era, modern evangelicals might reject him as a communist for advocating to care for the poor. Evolution Beyond Atheism: There's a cognitive development trajectory from fundamentalist Christians, to atheists who question beliefs, to a deeper understanding of God, embodying true Christian values. Sly Answers of Spiritual Figures: Like a Zen master, Jesus avoided affirming or denying claims of being the Son of God, embodying humility and avoiding the egoic pitfalls of explicitly claiming divinity. Teacher-Student Dynamic: Teaching inherently suggests superiority, and some spiritual practitioners may refrain from teaching to avoid these implications and the shortcomings of language in conveying truth. Leo on The Ra Material: Leo finds the core teachings about infinity in The Ra Material aligned with his views, but remains skeptical of its more esoteric claims, such as the construction of the Egyptian pyramids being a manifestation of consciousness rather than built manually. Hypothetical Issue with Leo's Theory: A scenario where a daughter imagines a $100 bill on her desk based on her mother's assertion examines layers of imagination in perception. Leo suggests all parties, including the daughter, mother, and $100 bill, are imagined within imagined layers, challenging the notion of objective reality. Objective Reality and Consensus: The concept of objective reality may relate to multiple layers of mutual imagination. Leo emphasizes reaching an understanding of the absolute, where the distinction between the absolute and notions of objectivity collapses. Leo Gura's Social Manner: Although perceived as serious online, Leo claims to be relaxed and playful in social settings, not always discussing profound topics like God. Social interactions and relatability: In casual social interactions, Leo discusses everyday topics like cat videos instead of deep metaphysical concepts to relate to people on a familiar level, which he finds enjoyable and necessary. Recommendations on psychedelic use to family: Leo has indeed recommended strong psychedelics to his family but does not push them to partake; he respects their individual choices and recognizes his mother's resistance due to traditional views. First-person reality experience: Leo's first-person experience of reality remains visually consistent but has undergone a profound recontextualization; every aspect is now seen as absolute truth, God, and imagination, rather than just a human perception. Perceiving objections as ego defense: When engaging with others, Leo acknowledges valid disagreements and differences in perspective; however, he also recognizes when people's objections stem from ego defenses, though not all objections are seen this way. Navigating arrogance and ego: Leo admits to sometimes feeling arrogant or looking down on others with lower consciousness or wisdom levels; managing this involves cultivating compassion for others' ignorance and recognizing one's own spiritual ego. Approach to justice and punishment: Leo doesn't rule out the death penalty in extreme cases where rehabilitation fails and immediate threat prevention is necessary, but he supports efforts towards rehabilitation consistent with certain Scandinavian models. Distinction between disapproval and condescension: Leo advocates for making survival-based societal decisions, such as imprisonment, without becoming morally superior; he distinguishes between disapproving of someone's actions and condescendingly looking down upon them. Recognizing and overcoming condescension: While truthful judgments about lower levels of consciousness can occur, it's a matter of balance and evolving beyond tendencies to look down on others by empathizing with their circumstances and recognizing the truth in their actions. Admitting personal shortcomings: Leo openly admits to his own shortcomings, recognizing instances where he has unjustly looked down on others and hopes to grow beyond such behavior. Rehabilitation and human error: Leo favors investing in rehabilitation over harsh punishment, understanding human behavior can often be attributed to circumstances beyond one's control, advocating for humane approaches within the justice system. Improvement of mental models: When confronted by others' seemingly poor decisions, rather than assuming superiority, consider updating personal mental models to more empathetically understand their actions. Philosophy of universal goodness: Deepening understanding may lead to the realization that all actions are inherently good, progressing toward the view that everything is absolutely good. Personal standards and self-judgment: Differences in self-regulation are highlighted, with Leo permitting himself occasional "sins" without self-rebuke, trusting in natural outgrowing of such behaviors, while the interviewer maintains tighter self-restraint. Leo's upbringing advantages: A balanced family dysfunction in childhood fostered Leo's independent thinking and work ethic, with his parents not imposing any strict worldviews, aiding in his open-minded development. Cultural perspective from emigration: Moving from Russia to the USA as a child allowed Leo to experience cultural relativism firsthand, understanding American cultural norms as somewhat arbitrary compared to different background. Educational opportunities and challenges: Acknowledges a fortunate upbringing with quality education in Southern California, despite financial challenges, which taught him fiscal responsibility. Attachments to Actualized.org: Leo recognizes his work with Actualized.org as his significant attachment and contemplates the potential need to disengage for further spiritual advancement versus the possibility of expanding his teaching. Treating life purpose as a game: Leo suggests finding fulfillment through engaging in a personal 'art form' that aligns with spiritual development, blending creative endeavors with the pursuit of spirituality. Practicality and spiritual work: Leo admits being practical and grounded in material life benefitted his spiritual work, and it's uncertain whether to pursue a more public teaching role or personal retreat for spiritual advancement. Judging others: Leo still judges others at times, acknowledging it as a work in progress, striving to overcome this behavior as his understanding evolves. He emphasizes that truly comprehensive understanding inherently encompasses empathetic perspectives of universally "good" actions. Leo's perspective on playing life seriously: Leo compares engaging in life to playing a serious game like Dark Souls, advocating for approaching every aspect with intense focus and curiosity. Early involvement in Bioshock Infinite: His initial role in Bioshock Infinite during pre-production was minimal; he contributed to early concept discussions, including proposing the idea of a female companion in the game, inspired by Half-Life 2. Breaking into game design: Leo entered game design through modding, creating a popular mod for Oblivion which he then used as a portfolio to get hired at Irrational Games. Job interview challenges: Sharing his experience with job interviews, particularly one with Todd Howard from Bethesda, Leo reflects on his early lack of interview skills and excitement that hindered his performance. Project development dynamics: Discussing game design processes, Leo describes pre-production stages where a team collaboratively discusses game mechanics, critiques past projects, and ideates future directions around a conference table. Leo's self-acknowledged "vice": Arrogance is identified as Leo's vice, stemming from his quick dismissal of what he perceives as "bullshit" and occasionally looking down on others, citing a developed skill for quickly detecting falsehoods in various domains. Public recognition over time: Leo notes that public recognition has decreased since his content has become more niche and YouTube traffic has grown more competitive; he recalls past experiences of being recognized in public. Personal consumption habits: Leo addresses vices like porn, which he does not view negatively in relation to his spiritual practice, and eating meat, despite a desire to shift toward vegetarianism or veganism for health and ethical reasons. Influence of consumption habits on spirituality: He argues that habits like masturbation do not detract from his consciousness or spiritual practice, and highlights the importance of personal responsibility and genetics in potential addictions. Leo's dietary choices: Due to energy requirements and the physical sensation of cold, Leo's attempts at a vegetarian diet have been unsuccessful. He remains open to alternatives like lab-grown meat but feels technology is not yet advanced enough to adopt fully. Perspectives on the porn industry: Leo has conflicting views on porn; he acknowledges issues in the industry and suggests avoiding it as it might skew perceptions of people as interchangeable. However, he mentions a trend towards user-generated content that reflects genuine relationships, which he views more positively. Preferences for high-quality adult content: Leo considers himself a connoisseur of porn, preferring premium, artistically shot adult content that enhances aesthetic appreciation over typical low-quality material. Finding spirituality in unexpected places: He recounts discussing spirituality and enlightenment with strippers at a Vegas strip club, illustrating his belief that divine understanding can exist in unconventional settings. Leveraging unusual topics to connect with others: Leo finds discussing psychic phenomena and hallucinations to be effective conversation starters, especially with women who are generally open to these topics. Leo's daily routine variability: Health issues cause inconsistency in Leo's routine, leading to days filled with varying activities-including work, relaxation, or coping with poor health-depending on his physical state. Balancing hard work with self-compassion: While Leo has a natural drive to work, he has learned the importance of self-care and compassion, especially regarding health-related limitations. Attachment to work and spiritual depth: Leo acknowledges that his conceptual work and recording videos can hinder deeper spiritual practices, as they involve analytical thinking which needs to be put aside for profound personal development. Embracing intuition alongside rigor: He attributes much of his insight to an intuitive understanding that helps him quickly discern the essence of ideas without getting lost in details, suggesting a balance between holistic intuition and focused study. Leo's perspective on intellectual rigor: Leo debates the merits of intellectual rigor, cautioning that getting lost in the minutiae may prevent one from seeing the bigger picture and reaching the highest level of understanding. Trade-off between details and the big picture: Leo expresses a preference for the big picture rather than getting bogged down in technical details, arguing that you can miss fundamental truths by focusing too much on specificity. Allocating energy between theories and truth: Leo advises Curt to develop a method for managing time and mental resources, warning that an obsession with theories and models can hinder the path to awakening. Curt's dilemma between rigorous study and awakening: Curt expresses concern that his meticulous nature and focus on developing a Theory of Everything could impede personal spiritual growth, potentially perpetuating the intellectual journey without reaching absolute truth. Existential decision on channel focus: Curt considers removing his name from his channel's title to underscore its goal-oriented nature and his role in contributing to the quest for a Theory of Everything, reflecting on whether he'll be the one to achieve it or pass the baton to another. Awakening's impact on Curt's work: Leo conveys that achieving awakening would significantly empower Curt's work, providing a unique perspective valuable to the scientific community, and marking not an end but a renaissance for his personal endeavors. Negative feedback and personal transformation: Leo shares experiences of negative feedback from personal development, highlighting the resistance to change by family, friends, and the community. He stresses the significance of pursuing authenticity over maintaining a "happy" facade. Curt's serious demeanor in interviews: Curt explains his seriousness during podcasts as an effort to remain engaged and authentic, avoiding superficiality and inviting genuine, in-depth conversation. Seriousness in online content: Leo advises Curt to focus on authenticity in his videos rather than modifying content due to seeming overly serious, as it's important for genuine engagement. Spiritual figures claiming godliness: Leo addresses the question by saying that many spiritual figures do indeed identify with God, but often use subtler language to avoid misinterpretation and the perception of arrogance. The danger of proclaiming divinity: Claiming to be God can be life-threatening, and throughout history, individuals like Mansur Al-Halaj have been executed for such proclamations. The suppression of these truths is linked to survival, as they can undermine societal structures and beliefs. Difficulty in articulating profound insights: Leo notes that some of his deepest insights are challenging to communicate due to the limitations of language, and he encourages listeners to see the convergence in spiritual teachings toward the concept of oneness. Information manipulation strategies: Leo warns about individuals or groups who deliberately spread misleading information to confuse people and push selfish agendas, exemplified by Steve Bannon's strategy of "flooding the zone with bullshit." Leo's message of love: When addressing humanity, Leo would convey that reality is fundamentally love, questioning why existence would be anything but infinitely loving. Advice for growing influence: Leo suggests maintaining energy and passion, not allowing critical feedback to affect self-perception, avoiding burnout, and combining intellectual pursuit with spirituality for a significant impact. Blurring lines between concepts and being: In constructing a Theory of Everything, Leo cautions against confusing concepts with actuality, emphasizing the need to base theories on primary and absolute truths. Navigating strangeness and awe in reality: Leo reflects on life's beautiful strangeness and the need for a constant sense of wonder, recognizing reality's intrinsic mystery. Final word to Curt's audience: Leo advises TOE enthusiasts to discern between being and concept, emphasizing the primary nature of direct experience and actuality over secondary conceptual understanding. Experiencing the Alien Nature of Reality: Leo expresses wonder at ordinary objects like dinner forks, encouraging a perspective where everything is seen as alien-that is, seen for the first time without assuming familiarity or taking it for granted. Gratitude Towards Existence: Leo experiences intense gratitude for life, appreciating everyday experiences and even the chance to have the conversation he's having, acknowledging the feeling as undeservedly lucky. Appropriateness of the Term 'God': When directly confronting the concept of God, Leo argues that the most fitting response is one of profound awe, exclaiming "Oh my God" or "Oh my fucking God" to express the grandeur and profundity of the experience. Personal Invitation from Leo Gura: In a friendly offer, Leo invites the host to hang out with him for deeper conversation and connection, moving beyond the confines of an interview setting. Matthew Phillips and the Transcend App: Matthew Phillips shares the inspiration for creating Transcend, a platform designed to facilitate deep, meaningful communication, spurred by personal loss and the desire to preserve the essence of loved ones. Holistic Purpose of Transcend: The app aims to enable users to share important life stories and advice with a focus on intimacy and authenticity, without being driven by superficial engagement metrics commonly seen on other social platforms. We Transcend Initiative: Transcend introduces a program to donate app subscriptions to individuals facing end-of-life situations or terminal illnesses, allowing them to preserve their legacies and stories for loved ones. Helping to Preserve Memories for the Elderly: The app is typically used by caregivers who assist those with Alzheimer's or dementia, acting as a memory care tool to safeguard their narratives for future generations. Legacy as Elevation of the Human Condition: Concluding the section, Matthew Phillips articulates his belief in the power of legacy to improve the human experience, viewing it as a critical yet overlooked element of life. Mission of Transcend app: Transcend aims to empower everyone to capture and pass on their life story, with the belief that everyone's story matters and has the potential to make progress easier for future generations. Fulfilling a sacred obligation: The creator of Transcend feels that the app allows him to honor predecessors while also fulfilling a duty to future generations by preserving knowledge and wisdom. Early access to Transcend: The app is near its beta release, with invitations extended to users who sign up at projecttranscend.com, aiming to facilitate meaningful family connections and legacy preservation. Utilizing Transcend with family members: Curt Jaimungal expresses interest in using the app to capture and preserve interactions with his parents, highlighting its personal significance. Leo Gura as a content contributor: Transcend considers Leo Gura an ideal candidate to create engaging prompts for the app, providing value to users and enriching experiences. Creating meaningful conversation with prompt cards: Transcend plans to include "starter packs" with themed prompts meant to enhance conversations by raising thought-provoking questions, much like physical relationship cards currently used by some couples. Intrinsic reward system within Transcend: Instead of relying on likes or hearts, Transcend focuses on intrinsic rewards such as the satisfaction of creating permanent and meaningful content. Transcend differentiating from social media: The app avoids typical social media engagement metrics, promoting authenticity and purposefulness by facilitating content creation motivated by meaning rather than external validation. Ego management post-psychedelic experience: Leo is asked for suggestions on how to maintain the perspective of ego dissolution experienced during psychedelic use on a day-to-day basis without recurring use. Navigating spiritual growth amidst relationships: Leo is asked for advice on balancing profound spiritual experiences with maintaining connections to loved ones who may not be on the same spiritual journey. Dealing with the paradox of ego death: The paradox arises after an ego death experience, where one gains new wisdom but must manage the ego's return; Curt reflects on how to handle this dichotomy. Ferula

Leo Gura Infinite Consciousness, God Realization [PART 1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-w8k4smC74 Leo Gura's introduction: Leo Gura is the founder of Actualized.org, a psychonaut, mystic, and proponent of idealism, believing consciousness is fundamental. He views his audience as aspects of God who have forgotten their true nature, aligning somewhat with Rupert Spira, yet with distinct differences. Curt Jaimungal's introduction: Host of the podcast, Curt, is a filmmaker with a background in mathematical physics, interested in the connection between consciousness and fundamental laws. Need for repeated viewing: The episode encourages viewers to watch more than once for better understanding, especially due to initial skepticism towards Leo's certainty in his views. Humanizing skepticism: Leo displays humanizing skepticism around the four-hour mark, making his propositions more relatable and helping to untangle biases. Part two announcement: A follow-up part focused on Leo Gura's personal experiences is planned due to the extensive discussion only partially covered. Leo Gura's disclaimers: Leo issues disclaimers highlighting the potential psychological impact of exploring deep existential questions, especially for those with mental health concerns. He discourages turning his ideas into ideologies or cults. Alien intelligence analogy: Considering his radically different worldview, Leo asks to be treated as if he were an alien intelligence to bridge communication gaps between his and conventional worldviews. Open-mindedness and truth-seeking: He commends Curt for modeling radical open-mindedness, essential for understanding profound existential questions, showcasing Curt's intellectual approach. Truth's merciless nature and worldview development: Leo states that truth can be merciless, challenging casual speculative pursuits of reality. He contrasts his definitive answers with academic theoretical speculations, advocating for direct experience as the foundation for truth. Embodiment of philosophy: Leo questions whether adopting principles equates to embodying a philosophy. He emphasizes living according to ideals like truthfulness and intellectual honesty but suggests that this is only a surface-level understanding of embodying philosophy. Intellectual beliefs versus living reality: Differentiating between intellectually knowing something and living it, Leo explains minds can hold beliefs, such as atheism, while behaving contradictorily as if higher principles or entities exist. Self-deceptive nature of the mind: The mind is adept at constructing elaborate self-images and identities based on beliefs or perceived worldviews. These can often be misaligned with reality and actions, particularly in terms of professing certain spiritual or moral ideals while behaving contrary to them in practical life. Distinctions between identity and ideals: There's a common disconnect where individuals espouse virtues like selflessness and honesty, but actions reveal inherent selfishness. Leo highlights the importance of introspection and aligning one's behavior with their proclaimed values and beliefs. Hypocrisy in religious and scientific communities: Leo observes hypocrisy both within religious adherents, who may not mirror the selflessness of figures they idolize (e.g., Jesus), and scientists, who claim open-mindedness yet are resistant to non-traditional ideas or concepts they deem "woo-woo." Leo's "non-worldview" and God-realization: He insists that his teachings are not a worldview but a direct path to recognizing absolute truth 듮hat there's only one existent entity, infinite consciousness, which individuals are a part of; everyone is an aspect of God dreaming the entire universe into existence, equating daily life to hallucinations akin to nightly dreams. Technical definition of "hallucination": Leo provides a technical definition, framing it as perception without external input. This aligns with his view that the physical body and experiences are appearances with nothing behind them; reality and hallucination are not distinct, but a matter of persistence and consistency in one's perceptions. Critique of the concept of reality as an intersection of observers: He partly agrees with Chris Langan's ideas but emphasizes the human capacity to erase and redefine perceptual boundaries, asserting that all distinctions are imaginary and can be created or dissolved by the mind. Critique of Chris Langan's model of consciousness: Leo appreciates Langan's intellect but distinguishes between conceptual models and direct realization of God consciousness. He argues that Langan's work, while academically rigorous, is conceptual and cannot substitute for the experiential realization of being God. Reality's lack of constraints: Ultimately, Leo concludes that reality is boundless and unrestricted, leading to mind-shattering paradoxes beyond current conceptual and academic models. Arrogance and assumptions in defining paradoxes: He suggests that while models like Langan's might address the existence of paradoxes in the non-physical realm, there remain deeper layers to be understood, and the ultimate level of consciousness reveals a reality that is truly unconstrained and paradoxical. Dream analogy for awakening: The analogy comparing awakening and dreaming asserts that ordinary reality is akin to a dream, and so-called awakened individuals have realized this, transitioning to a higher state of consciousness. The persistence of people and the world after someone awakens is due to others still dreaming, not the analogy being flawed. Shared Dream Reality: Leo insists that the perception of a shared dream is a personal illusion. Since each person is God, the awakening of any individual causes their unique dream world and its inhabitants to cease within their perspective. Falsifiability of the dream state: The notion that reality is a dream-like experience cannot be falsified, according to Leo. He argues that the concept of falsifiability, a critical principle in scientific methodology, has a fundamental flaw when applied to absolute truth. Skeptical investigation of truth: Leo recounts his shift from extreme skepticism and atheism to deeper inquiry into the nature of knowledge, questioning even his skepticism and realizing that reality is limited to personal experiences. Science within the dream of consciousness: Leo expresses that science and its proofs are confined within the dream of consciousness, cease to exist upon death, and are illusions within the current experience bubble. Falsifiability and absolute reality: Leo critiques the reliance on falsifiability in science by stating that absolute truth encompasses all dreams, self-deception, and potential wrongs, making it unfalsifiable as it includes the concept of falsifiability itself. Infinity and levels of consciousness: Discussing infinite consciousness, Leo claims that there is an ultimate level of consciousness that infinitely expands in all directions, imagining all possibilities, which cannot be surpassed or invalidated by a higher state. Skepticism about skepticism: Leo encourages skeptics to doubt their skepticism, logic, and even the workings of their own minds, advocating for a deeper questioning that includes these meta-criticisms. Tautological nature of reality: The conversation converges on the idea that reality, at its pinnacle, is a tautology, simply existing as it is, similar to the logical truth that one equals one, without additional explanatory power. Introduction of Matthew Phillips and the Transcend app: Matthew Phillips describes Transcend as a mobile app allowing users to capture and preserve their personal stories for posterity, highlighting the importance of one's legacy and providing tools for deeper connections with loved ones. G漆el's influence on truth and provability: G漆el's Incompleteness Theorem demonstrates that truth transcends provability; not all truths can be proven within a formal system, highlighting the limits of proof in understanding absolute reality. Conception of infinite consciousness: Leo clarifies that one's finite conception of infinite consciousness is not truly infinite. True infinite consciousness encompasses all possible existences, leaving nothing external to it. Limitations of language regarding infinity: The discussion acknowledges linguistic shortcomings in conveying the concept of infinity, distinguishing between conceptual orders of infinity and the notion of absolute infinity. Georg Cantor's Absolute Infinity: Cantor's development of set theory and the idea of different orders of infinity lead to the recognition of an "absolute infinity," which he symbolized with omega and equated with God. Leo emphasizes that even this concept is limited compared to the true nature of absolute infinity. Absolute Infinity beyond all imaginations: Leo explains absolute infinity as extending infinitely beyond all human constructs like mathematics, physics, or film, encapsulating literally every possibility. Debating the bounds of consciousness: Leo challenges the idea of anything existing beyond consciousness, arguing for a state where consciousness is all-encompassing, thereby negating any notion of external entities or realms. Transcendence of consciousness: Leo posits that consciousness is transcendental, not limited by physical laws or logical constraints, and underlies the existence of everything. Infinite regress of skepticism: Leo demonstrates that skepticism itself is part of consciousness and cannot escape it, leading to an infinite regress of possible doubt. Recognition and limits of finite consciousness: Leo draws an analogy to a donkey's inability to recognize itself in a mirror to illustrate the difficulty in explaining consciousness to someone not at an infinitely conscious state. He suggests that finite beings invent hypothetical entities beyond consciousness out of scepticism, not realizing everything they imagine is contained within consciousness. Platonic hat argument: Leo uses a playful analogy, equating claims of an even higher state beyond consciousness to a conceptual one-upmanship that doesn't address the inherent nature of consciousness and truth. Infinite Regress of Self-Deception: Infinite regress of self-deception showcases that any claim of truth can be met with an infinite chain of counterclaims, illustrating that truth can't be fully captured by arguments or models. God-realization as Meta Awareness: Being God-realized means being aware of the infinite regress and acknowledging that every description of God is just a finite aspect of an incomprehensibly meta and endless reality. The Tautology of 'One Equals One': The self-evidency of tautologies, like "one equals one," underlines their unfalsifiability and hints at infinite truths that are beyond standard logical proofs like reductio ad absurdum. Relativity of Absurdity: The notion of what is considered absurd is relative and cannot form a stable basis for dismissing claims, as what may be seen as absurd in one context might be accepted in another. Unfalsifiability of Truth: Truth is inherently unfalsifiable; the most difficult propositions to falsify or prove wrong are precisely those that might actually be true, thereby confronting the limits of proof and falsifiability in epistemology. Impact of Social Media on Meaningful Living: Social media breeds disconnection and competition contradicting meaningful living principles such as being present, loving, non-judgmental, and time-conscious. Project Transcend's Approach to Legacy: Project Transcend enables users to document their legacy, emphasizing a private, data-controlled approach for sharing beliefs and life experiences with future generations, unlike standard social media. Endurance of Truth: Once aware of the truth, an individual remains unshakable in that knowledge. Yet, the acknowledgment of potential self-deception is crucial, as one must deeply investigate truth for oneself over years. Skepticism and Nested Self-Deception: The self-deception of skepticism is pivotal, where nested layers of deception obscure the truth even further, making self-awareness a critical part of epistemology. Distinction Between Nescience and Ignorance: Nescience simply means not knowing, devoid of the wilful choice implied by ignorance, but the true problem lies in holding false beliefs, underscoring the importance of properly engaging with epistemology before metaphysics. Imaginary Nature of Hierarchies: At an absolute level, hierarchies are seen to be imaginary, with consciousness realizing its oneness to the extent that all distinctions dissolve, leaving a formless unity. Substance of Reality: The true substance of reality is nothing, as all perceived substances are distinctions within consciousness instead of being something tangible like atoms or energy. Limitations of Language in Grasping Reality: Language, by nature, is dualistic and cannot capture the essence of reality, which requires understanding beyond spoken or conceptual distinction like that between a chicken and a coffee table. Nature of distinctions: Distinctions such as those between a chicken and a coffee table are imaginary constructs of the mind. Without them, all things would merge into a single entity, which would essentially be nothing, and this nothing is what Leo considers infinity. Language and its limitations: Language was not intended for philosophical undertakings and is rooted in practicality, much like classical Newtonian mechanics, which are useful despite their known inaccuracies in representing absolute reality. Length as a relative measure: Leo challenges the concept of length as an absolute measure, highlighting its dependence on relative points of reference and suggesting that, at a fundamental level, distinctions like length are imagined. Ontological relativity: Leo introduces the notion of ontological relativity, suggesting that the distinction between objects like a chicken and a coffee table only exists within our perception and that without this distinction, they would become indistinguishable, merging into a single entity which is effectively nothing. Instrumentalism and science: Differentiating between the notion of science as instrumentalism, which focuses on practical predictions and measurements, and his own view, which is that even the distinctions used in science are not truly conscious understandings but rather conceptual tools that ultimately fail to capture the essence of reality. Existence and consciousness: Discussing the relationship between existence, consciousness, and love, Leo implies that these concepts are entwined at a metaphysical level and are present in all things, overturning materialistic assumptions that limit love to emotional experiences of advanced organisms. Emergence of scientific acceptance: Leo admits that some ideas that once seemed radical, like panpsychism or integrated information theory, are gaining more acceptance within the scientific community, suggesting that truth will eventually become more widely recognized. Concept of love: Leo explores the metaphysical meaning of saying "you love bacon," connecting it to a phenomenological experience of tastes and textures that consciousness biases towards, comparing it to less desirable experiences like eating a cricket. Biased vs unbiased love: He proposes that at the level of God consciousness, all distinctions between experiences collapse, leading to an unbiased love for all experiences. This contrast is made against human consciousness, which has preferences and biases necessary for survival. Definition of metaphysical love: Leo offers a technical definition of metaphysical love as the realization of no difference between anything, equating this realization with falling in love with oneself and all reality infinitely. Symmetry of the universe: He theorizes that the universe is perfectly symmetrical and unbiased, questioning why it would prioritize anything, such as particular human actions, at a universal scale. Problems of discussing existence with language: Both Leo and the interviewer, named Curt, acknowledge the challenge of discussing reality with language, as it can degrade or complicate the understanding, referencing Wittgenstein's philosophy on talking about the ineffable. Role of life experiences in awakening: Leo asserts that every life event, good or bad, is necessary for one's realization as God듮his realization encompasses everything one encounters, including mundane or seemingly negative experiences. Precision in language and public dialogue: The conversation transitions into the limits of language and how precise communication is vital to prevent misconceptions and misinterpretations in discussions about complex concepts like love and consciousness. Child's Concept of Energy: Children can be conditioned to associate specific objects, such as ducks, with concepts such as energy through reinforced learning, similar to how society conditions individuals to have selective biases about what or who is appropriate to love. Challenging Cultural Notions of Love: Leo argues against the culturally ingrained biases that determine acceptable objects of love, advocating for a universal application of the term 'love' to everything, mirroring the interconnectedness found in physics where all phenomena are forms of energy. Language's Limitations and Rehabilitation: The limitation of language in conveying complex ideas is discussed, with suggestions of either dismantling language's structure or refining it for greater precision. Leo insists on rehabilitating corrupted words like 'love', 'truth', and 'God' to their purer, more profound meanings. Resistance to 'God' and 'Love' Labels: Leo observes resistance to using terms like 'God' and 'love' and interprets this as an avoidance of a deeper realization that everything is an embodiment of these concepts. He underscores the need to recognize arbitrary biases in love and stresses the importance of connecting these biases with the concept of absolute love. Finite Nature of Hate: Hate, seen as a reaction to aspects of reality, is argued to be finite in nature, contrasting with the infinitude of love. Leo differentiates between relative love, which can include hate, and absolute love, which fully encompasses hate, likening it to the totality of the yin-yang symbol. Free Will as a Duality: Leo addresses the concept of free will as being perceived in opposition to determinism, highlighting nature's tendency to incorporate both aspects of any duality. He distinguishes different answers to the existence of free will based on one's level of consciousness. Infinite Nature of God's Will: At the highest level of consciousness, God is described as an infinite mind with no external restrictions, implying that any limitations are self-imposed through imagination and self-deception. This leads to the notion that limits are illusory, and omnipotence is God's true state. Self-Deception in Limitation: The paradox of omnipotence is discussed, suggesting that God can only experience limitation through an illusory belief in finitude, such as imagining oneself to be a limited human instead of an unlimited entity. This self-deception is essential for God to experience anything less than omnipotence. Concept of Absolute Good: Everything in the universe, even actions that are typically seen as negative or evil, are manifestations of absolute good because they arise from a state of selflessness inherent in the totality of existence. Potential of Omniscience: Leo Gura opens up the possibility for oneself to attain a state of complete knowledge or omniscience, challenging the idea that it is impossible and encouraging an openness to the potential of becoming all-knowing. God Realization After Death: The concept discussed suggests that upon death, an individual's self dissolves into God, achieving unity with the omniscient being. This realization implies a reunification with the absolute essence of all that is. Theory of Everything (TOE) Definition: Gura contends that a true TOE must satisfactorily address not just physical phenomena but also answer the fundamental question of why anything exists at all, encompassing both the physical universe and existence with a capital "U." Exploring Belief Limitations: Gura indicates that a self-fulfilling belief in the impossibility of achieving omniscience during one's lifetime acts as a barrier to the realization of that potential, similar to how preconceived notions can obstruct the discovery of new knowledge like the existence of a platypus. Investment in Truth: Truth-seeking is presented as requiring active engagement and investment, akin to the dedication exemplified in the construction of the Large Hadron Collider to discover the Higgs boson, suggesting that deep truths and profound TOEs are discovered through committed effort, not passive contemplation. Sharing of God's Creativity: The reason for existence according to Leo is rooted in God's creativity, where God, as an infinitely loving and selfless being, creates all possibilities and shares that infinite beauty with finite forms that can later reunify with the infinite source. God's Nature of Love and Creativity: An intricate link is drawn between love, creativity, omnipotence, intelligence, and consciousness. The essence of God is depicted as endless creativity and the act of creating everything conceivable듯nderstood not as an action of love but as the fundamental state of love itself. Reflection of Love in Creation: Casting God's act of creation as an expression of its very nature, Gura suggests that the manifestation of infinite forms is an ultimate act of sharing and a reflection of love, defying anthropomorphized conceptions of God and embracing creativity as intrinsic to the essence of love. Multiverse and Anthropic Principle Critique: The multiverse theory and anthropic principle are critiqued as insufficient explanations for the fine-tuning of the universe's physical laws, with the assertion that the true explanation for existence lies in the creation of everything simultaneously. Creation and destruction dichotomy: Creation and destruction are intrinsically linked, exemplified in ecosystems where life and death support one another in a continuous cycle, refuting the naive dichotomy that creation is solely good and death is inherently bad. Finite Creation: All human-made creations are finite by necessity, delineated by excluding all other possibilities, forming a reality defined by limitations and distinctions. Memory and Consciousness: Just as working memory limits how many thoughts can be simultaneously held, finite creation and imagination are constrained, unable to encompass infinity without transitioning into nothingness or undefined potential. Superposition and Reality: In imagining all possible animals merged into one, a perfect superposition represents infinity or nothingness듯ndefined until distinctions are made, illustrating the paradoxical nature of creation as both defining and limiting reality. Paradoxes in Universal Concepts: Discussing set paradoxes and properties of imagined universes, highlighting issues of considering individual components versus a collective understanding and the elasticity of the concept of reality. Reality as Singular Existence: The exercise illustrates that reality must be a singular entity, as even the notion of separation among multiple realities would itself be part of one encompassing reality, eliminating the distinction between what's real and unreal. Material and Immaterial Boundaries: Challenges the distinction between reality and unreality, suggesting that boundaries are illusory and recognizing all as part of one reality leads to an infinite understanding of existence. Personal Growth and Variability in Psychedelic Experiences: Leo emphasizes his personal commitment to growth and understanding reality, recognizing individual differences in responses to psychedelic substances and their potential influence on consciousness expansion. Existence beyond concepts: Leo challenges the notion that edges of existence are within our reach, proposing that one could theoretically see everything in the universe simultaneously, thereby negating the possibility of unseen or non-existent aspects. Understanding existence: Leo contends that it's possible to fully understand what it means to exist beyond particular forms and that awakening means realizing non-existence as a concept, not a reality. Absolute existence: In Leo's view, existence is absolute, suggesting that concepts of non-existence and beyond infinity are merely thoughts within the infinite framework of consciousness. Qualia as absolute truth: Leo describes the profound nature of existence, inviting contemplation on the immediate experience of one's hands as an example of undeniable truth, untouched by constructs like time, space, or matter. Meditative exercise for realizing consciousness: Leo guides through an exercise aiming to illustrate the immediacy of consciousness and reality, emphasizing the importance of direct experience over intellectual pondering. Infinite consciousness and imagination: Leo discusses the elasticity of infinity, which by its nature, includes all things든ven concepts of what lies beyond it, and concludes that what seems like physical reality is ultimately based on an act of imagination. Donald Hoffman's Interface Theory: Leo critiques Donald Hoffman's Interface Theory, which suggests that human perception does not depict reality truthfully due to natural selection. He argues that Hoffman's theory is flawed because perception itself is the truest form of reality든verything perceived is absolutely real. Scientific Reductionism Criticized: Leo vehemently opposes scientific reductionism, the view that phenomena can be explained by reducing them to their constituent parts. He posits that being is fundamental and cannot be reduced to concepts, which biases scientific inquiry away from direct contact with reality. Qualia as Reality: Leo asserts that qualia, or personal experiences of phenomena, define reality. He disputes the idea of an independent world beyond experience and challenges scientific paradigms that differentiate between qualia and objective reality. Misconception of Representation: He highlights an epistemological issue in how science relies on symbols, which are not the things they represent. This leads to an endless chain of concepts never grasping the tangible essence they aim to describe. Existence of Concepts: Discussing the nature of concepts, Leo suggests that everything, including abstract notions like Santa Claus or quarks, exists at least as a concept but that doesn't infer their material existence. Substance and Concept: He differentiates between the substance of things (reality) and our concepts of them. He emphasizes that concepts, such as atoms or strings, developed after the tangible reality they attempt to describe, indicating a misinterpretation by science of the order of reality. Fallacy of Discovering Quarks: Leo challenges the notion that scientists discover particles like quarks, stating that they merely invent the concept to represent what they believe to be the foundational elements of reality. Qualia Realness Inquiry: Leo confronts materialistic views by asking for evidence of anything existing outside of qualia, thereby arguing that everyday experiences and sensations are as real as they are perceived. Tautology of Experience: He points out the tautology in questioning the reality of experience, indicating that asking for proof beyond personal experience is like requesting an experience that isn't an experience. Realness and Unreality Buttons: Utilizing an analogy of hypothetical buttons that trigger certain experiences or realizations, Leo illustrates the problem of distinguishing between perceptions of reality and unreality, emphasizing the subjective nature of experience. Neuromodulators and Transcendence: Leo discusses how future brain imaging and neurochemistry might interpret transcendent experiences, like God realization, as biological events, and questions the validity of such materialistic reductions. Confusion between concept and reality: Leo points out that while symbols and words, like 'duck,' help us conceptualize reality, they are not reality itself. He criticizes mathematician Max Tegmark's view that the universe is fundamentally mathematical, arguing that while mathematics can describe reality, it is not synonymous with being. Projection of belief onto reality: Leo suggests that people see reality through the lens of their beliefs, much like how a Christian might perceive Christ in everyday objects. He connects this to the idea that an individual's experience of reality, whether atheist, materialist, or spiritual, is unique and deeply influenced by their belief systems. Existence of God as a matter of perspective: Leo argues that for an atheist, God does not exist; however, this is simply what God듪r infinite consciousness들s imagining for that person. He suggests that one's belief about material reality is a temporary state and that experiences, like those induced by psychedelics, can shift these beliefs. Subjectivity and variety in beliefs: Gura discusses the diversity of sincere beliefs held by people throughout history and questions why intelligent individuals, such as Isaac Newton, believed in God. He attributes this not to a lack of intelligence but to the sincerity and depth of their personal reality. Finite conception of free will: Leo views the ego as a finite state of consciousness that believes it controls reality, a necessary illusion for survival. He differentiates 'will,' which exists in humans in limited form, from 'infinite will,' the latter of which he aligns with God and its materials manifestations. Challenge of future prediction: When discussing consciousness at the highest levels, Leo explains that the concepts of a predictable future and material reality dissolve, complicating notions of prediction and verification of truth. Limitations and possibilities of mystical abilities: Leo acknowledges his ongoing exploration of consciousness and considers the potential future development of abilities like clairvoyance, despite not currently claiming them. Trade-off between absolute consciousness and finite details: Gura describes a trade-off when accessing higher states of consciousness, where one gains a view of totality at the expense of losing sight of detailed aspects of the earthly domain. Acknowledgment of personal self-deception: Despite his insights into infinite consciousness, Leo admits to being susceptible to self-deception in the relative, material world and recognizes the need to update his beliefs when proven otherwise. Leo's skepticism and humility: While having strong convictions, Leo expresses skepticism about his worldview, showing a level of humility that humanizes his assertions about consciousness and God. Experience with Paranormal Healing: Leo sought non-traditional healing for his persistent stomach issues, consulting with healers and fortune tellers from a variety of backgrounds. Skepticism and Desperation: Despite his skepticism, health problems led Leo to consult various paranormal practitioners, revealing the impact of desperation on openness to alternative methods. Testing Paranormal Claims: Leo devised a strategy to test the reliability of different healers' insights by comparing their independent diagnoses of his health issue. Inconclusive Results and Self-deception: The conflicting diagnoses from paranormal healers led Leo to a deeper understanding of self-deception and reinforced his skepticism. Discrepancy in Paranormal Healing Experiences: Leo observed that different healers, despite their sincerity, provided dissimilar explanations for his condition, which did not lead to lasting relief. Personal Bubbles of Reality: Leo's worldviews suggest that individuals live within their own subjective reality bubbles, which may intersect but are not entirely aligned with those of others. Relativity of Delusion: Delusional experiences can be real for the person experiencing them, due to the flexible boundary between dreams and physical reality as seen through psychedelic experiences. Skepticism's Limitations: Leo discusses how excessive skepticism can block the acknowledgement of certain experiences or phenomena, such as the ability to read, and equates ultimate skepticism with the ability to doubt any aspect of reality. Denial of consciousness: Gura argues that atheists may be denying their own consciousness by rejecting or hating existence, equating atheism to a denial of oneself as God. Evil's relationship with existence and consciousness: Leo converses about the idea that evil is tied to acts against existence and consciousness, emphasizing that evil is a form of selfishness arising from a lack of consciousness. Understanding evil through consciousness: He asserts that a lower level of consciousness is associated with deriving pleasure from suffering, and uses examples from cruel behavior and political schadenfreude to illustrate different consciousness levels. Political consciousness and bias: Discussing political bias, Leo shares his observation that both sides of the political spectrum can exhibit tribalism, but notes a specific unwillingness by some to acknowledge any positive actions from opposing figures like Trump. Criticism of Sam Harris's 'Moral Landscape': Leo criticizes Harris's concept of objective morality and suggests that relative human concepts of good are tied to egoistic perspectives and can't define what is good for humanity as a whole. Sam Harris's level of awakening: Gura questions the depth of Sam Harris's understanding of no-self and awakening, indicating Harris lacks realization of higher states of consciousness and God-realization. Sam Harris's limited psychedelic experiences: Leo suggests that Harris has not deeply experimented with psychedelics and is restricted by materialistic and intellectual attachments. Ideological entrenchment limiting psychedelic insights: Gura explains how entrenched worldviews can prevent psychedelics from significantly expanding one's consciousness, requiring an open mind and dealing with psychological baggage for deeper realizations. Individual variability in psychedelic experiences: Psychedelic experiences differ greatly among people due to unique psychological baggage, trauma, and personal openness, which can influence the nature and intensity of their trips. Personal anecdote on psychedelic experience: Matthew shares his own encounter with psychedelics, which challenged his understanding of consciousness but not his atheism, and contrasts this with a friend who had no profound insights even at higher doses, highlighting the role of one's mindset and openness in determining the impact of psychedelics. Impact of philosophical curiosity: Leo emphasizes that an individual's interest in understanding existence profoundly influences their responses to psychedelics; those genuinely curious about metaphysical topics may have more significant revelations than those who are indifferent. Diverse responses to psychedelics: People react differently to the same doses of psychedelics due to varying physiological sensitivities. Leo notes personal sensitivity and how some individuals can handle larger doses without significant effects. Different aims with psychedelics: While some people are mainly interested in visual effects, Leo seeks insights and understanding, explaining that even low doses can lead him to experiences of infinite consciousness, sometimes with overwhelming bliss. Guidance for avoiding negative trip outcomes: Leo advises cautious dosing and respect for psychedelics. He criticizes the notion of "heroic doses," noting that overconfidence can lead to adverse effects, including egotistical rebound post-trip. Mental stability and personal history: Leo attributes his psychological resilience to a relatively positive upbringing, advising those with challenging pasts or mental health issues to be careful with psychedelics and to lay a foundational self-help groundwork first. Nuanced views on God realization and awakening: Leo distinguishes between accessing infinite truth and fully embodying it, admitting his own ongoing work in integrating the absolute with the relative and that spiritual teachers can have personal flaws despite deep insights. Insecurities and authenticity: Despite projecting wisdom, Leo acknowledges his own egoic tendencies and the complexities of living up to spiritual insights, indicating that genuine self-reflection and vulnerability are part of his journey. Self-improvement and accessing truth: Accessing infinite truth doesn't automatically resolve personal issues like addictions or conflicts; the mind's structure with its attachments, biases, and beliefs remains largely intact. Deconstruction of the mind continues even after accessing infinity. Attachment and life goals: Whether to eliminate attachment hinges on individual life goals. Removing attachments can increase one's capacity for love, as love is characterized by a lack of bias and attachment inherently introduces suffering. Impermanence and suffering: All attachments are temporary due to the principle of impermanence, which states that all forms in the universe cannot remain constant. Attachment to any form, tangible or conceptual, guarantees future loss and subsequent suffering. Attachment weighing happiness against suffering: While attachments may bring happiness, they also ensure future suffering when they end. This is likened to taking a loan of happiness that must be paid back with suffering when the attachment is lost. Thomas Campbell's astral perspective: Leo aligns with Campbell on the idea that consciousness and love are fundamental but disputes Campbell's view on the finite nature of reality and the idea that time and units of reality are fundamental. Learning from Campbell's dream analysis: Leo appreciates Campbell's insights on how recurring dreams can reveal unresolved traumas and psychic baggage and can be used for self-therapy to integrate these lessons and cease recurring dreams. Bernardo Kastrup's agreement and critique: Leo concurs with Kastrup's arguments against materialism but contends that Kastrup hasn't fully realized that he is God imagining all existence. Kastrup's rejection of solipsism and his concept of a dissociative boundary between consciousnesses are areas of discord. Understanding Infinity through division: Reality is viewed as capable of infinite division, with no foundational unit. Infinity allows for continuous fractal division, debunking the notion of a limit within reality such as the Planck length. Attachment to ideas and beliefs: Even being attached to seemingly positive ideas, like the concept of God, can lead to suffering due to the impermanent nature of all attachments and forms. Infinite probe of consciousness: Consciousness is not limited by conceptual structures like the Planck length; it has the potential to delve infinitely within or beyond, exploring realms beyond current scientific understanding. Divergence from Frank Yang: Leo is familiar with Frank Yang but has limited knowledge of his worldview. He acknowledges Yang's critique of psychedelics and preference for enlightenment through meditation, notably the Buddhist concept of cessation. Cessation and temporality: The state of cessation is described as the universe ceasing to exist, then rebooting드n atemporal state adjacent to our temporal reality. Leo views this abrupt transition akin to a computer restart, bridging eternity and the observable world. Equality of conscious states: Leo does not single out cessation as a superior state, considering all states of consciousness equal듡orm, formlessness, or cessation. Reintegrating form and formlessness: The spiritual path typically progresses from realizing no-self to formlessness, and eventually to recognizing form as nothingness. True non-duality emerges when all states, including the material, are seen as manifestations of the absolute. Dogmatism in non-dualist communities: Leo observes a tendency among early non-dualist students to recite beliefs about non-duality and infinity as truths, possibly fooling themselves about the extent of their awakening due to the radical nature of initial realizations. Spiritual defensiveness and compassion: Commenting on the spiritual community's defensive stance towards science, Leo admits his own past lack of compassion towards figures like Richard Dawkins, recognizing now that all opposition stems from ignorance. Awakening's selectivity and attachments: Leo stresses that awakening is radical and not suitable for everyone. He suggests not trying to force it upon unwilling individuals and emphasizes managing attachments responsibly rather than completely detaching. Persona adoption in spiritual communities: Leo notes an affected happiness among some followers in the spiritual community, potentially signifying inauthentic behavior. He admits to enhancing excitement in his videos for engagement but questions whether he should credit his audience with greater understanding of complex topics. Cessation visualization: Leo imagines cessation as a nonsequential reemergence of consciousness rather than a gradual return, accentuating the dissonance between atemporal and temporal states and their inexplicable coexistence. Conceptual non-duality vs. actual experiences of awakening: Leo differentiates between intellectually accepted ideas of non-duality and the actual expansive experiences of awakening, noting that each state of consciousness, including cessation, is equally an expression of the absolute. Perceived dogmatism in the pursuit of inner peace: Leo addresses apparent dogmatic repetition within non-dualist communities, recognizing it as potentially misleading and a form of self-deception. Authenticity and truth realizations: Despite noting superficiality in some spiritual practitioners, Leo champions true non-dual teachers for their authenticity, which he attributes to their pursuit of truth. Assumptions about the audience's intelligence: Leo sometimes underestimates his audience's intelligence, assuming they won't grasp complex ideas. He acknowledges this may not give them enough credit for their understanding. Steel manning vs. straw man arguments: While Leo tries to make debates humorous by considering absurd objections, he believes he could benefit from taking a more rigorous steel man approach to strengthen his arguments rather than ridiculing counterpoints. Precision in pursuit of truth: Emphasizes precision and stretching analogies to their limits as means to gain insight and understands truth, suggesting traditional media may underestimate the audience's capacity to grasp complex concepts. Free will and God's identity: Leo engages with a complex dialogue about free will and identity with God, discussing how finite minds grapple with infinite concepts, leading to paradoxes and the eventual realization that one is fully divine. Realization of God's nature: Leo's personal journey reflects a gradual realization from recognizing God as external, to questioning God's nature, to ultimately recognizing oneself as God, which comes with immense humility and selflessness. Understanding God as infinite love: The realization of God's true identity as an act of infinite love is described as transformative and life-changing, leading to the understanding of why everything exists as it does. Acceptance of ultimate reality: Leo shares the view that recognizing oneself as God results in the understanding that the physical universe would cease to exist from his perspective because all perspectives are ultimately imagined within one's own consciousness. Problem of solipsism in understanding unity: Solipsism is critiqued as not being radical enough; the ultimate truth is realizing a unique type of unity where one is not alone because of separateness but because everything merges into a singular consciousness. Finality of realizing ultimate truth: God realization is so intense that if fully accepted, it would mean the dissolution of the universe, highlighting the notion that true awareness can obliterate finite constructs. Discussion on finite perspectives: A conversation unfolds about the seeming paradox of other perspectives ending if one individual reaches the ultimate realization of God, leading to the idea that, at the highest level of understanding, no other separate perspectives actually exist. Convergence of Conscious Perspectives: As consciousness rises, distinctions between selves, objects, and concepts dissolve, leading to a convergence or "coning" effect where all become one. This realization of oneness is likened to the deepest physical and emotional fusion between beings, transcending individuality into eternal, undifferentiated unity. Definition of God Realization: Leo defines God realization as a state beyond simply experiencing nothingness or physical objects; it is conscious self-creation, where individuals are aware they are imaginatively composing all of reality, including their own bodies. This state transcends all limitations, constantly self-creates, and embodies infinite creativity, and is appropriately termed "God." Critique of Spiral Dynamics: Leo critiques the hierarchical nature of spiral dynamics, suggesting it fails to represent the highest states of consciousness where hierarchies become meaningless, and direct experience does not rely on ranked stages or development directions. Impermanence Paradox: Addressing the paradox of permanence in impermanence, Leo states that at basic levels of consciousness, impermanence is evident, but at the highest levels, one might view everything, including love, as eternally existing, eluding the notion of impermanence. Free Will as a Fragment of Divine Will: He argues free will is inherited from God's self-determined nature, allowing humans to create and influence their world in a finite manner, experiencing the divine act of creation to various degrees. God as Creator and Destroyer: Both creation and destruction are integral aspects of God, yet intuitively, God is more akin to a creator, even though destruction is necessary for new creation. Life's intention is framed as facilitating more life rather than death, with life perpetually supported by death in a never-ending cycle. Intentions and Perceived Good: Every action, even seemingly negative ones, is considered good, with figures like Hitler believing they were doing the greatest good from their perspective. Leo elaborates on how lower states of consciousness can corrupt the perception of what is good, while higher states embrace a purer, selfless understanding. Hate as Distorted Love: The concept of hate is discussed as a manifestation of insufficient love, with individuals expressing hate as a means to cope with their own lack of love and striving to eliminate what they perceive as evil, which ironically can create more evil. Audience Participation and App Introduction: Audience questions are anticipated and Matthew introduces the Transcend app, emphasizing the uniqueness in purpose compared to common social platforms, prioritizing privacy and meaningful interaction over superficial connectivity. Twisted nature of hate: Hate is a contorted form of love that stems from loving something else in opposition to the thing one hates, as was the case with Hitler hating Jews due to his intense love for the purity of Germany. Hatred as a response to insufficient love: People become hateful primarily because they were denied proper love, often leading them to reject love towards others out of a sense of deprivation or as a reactionary mechanism. Origins of evil and division: The original act of partitioning infinite love, which could be seen as the first form of evil, occurred when God divided itself to share love with others, making any finite form inherently less than everything. Removal of moral judgment and free will: In Leo's model, moral judgment is removed. Without free will, there's no basis for worst or evil since everything, even divisions, is part of absolute perfection as expressions of infinite love or perfection. Concept of Absolute Good: Gura suggests that everyone acts from a stance of absolute good; when fully awakened, one perceives everything and everyone as fundamentally good, challenging conventional definitions of good and evil. Logic's limitations in reaching the Absolute: Logic, being finite, cannot arrive at an absolute understanding; it's only applicable after directly experiencing the absolute, which is beyond logic's capabilities. Matthew Phillips and the Transcend app: Matthew Phillips introduces the Transcend app, inspired by his life experiences and near-death realization about the importance of legacy. The app is designed to document and pass on one's personal legacy and preserves users' privacy and data ownership with insight prompts to encourage meaningful entries. Origins of Transcend: The idea for the Transcend app was inspired by Leo Gura's approach to sharing wisdom through videos, contemplating how to document important life lessons. Documenting Personal Legacy: Transcend is designed as a private platform for individuals to document and pass on their personal experiences, beliefs, and wisdom, contrasting with the transient and public nature of traditional social media. Privacy and Data Ownership: A key feature of Transcend is its commitment to user privacy. It operates on a subscription model, ensuring users have full ownership of their data, with the app serving as a secure repository for a personal legacy. Transcend's User Experience: Users are guided to annotate their content, explaining its significance and setting permissions for who can access it. The app currently focuses on intuitive use but plans to evolve into immersive and interactive experiences. Intelligence and Personal Relevance of Content: Transcend differentiates itself by prioritizing the quality and personal relevance of content over traditional metadata used by other platforms, aiming to present memories and moments to the right person at the right time. Tools for Connection: The app includes prompts and tools designed to facilitate deeper connections and meaningful interactions between users and their loved ones, adapting to various situations and relationships. Furnunculus

Not sure if it's just me but whenever I am deep in non-dual awareness, language feels very weird. I'm wondering how it feels for you? Remember when you were a kid and you keep repeating a word over and over till it loses its "meaning" - it feels something like that but not to the extent where I can't engage in language easily. Words come out of my mouth but it feels like someone else is speaking. I am speaking from pure intuition. When I hear others I feel their tone of voice and emotion so much more. The symbolic meaning of the word fades away and the emotion of the delivery takes center stage. Even reading words on text, the emotion and relative placement of the word has a feeling or "vibe" associates with it. I notice I read much slower when in non dual states as well. It becomes clear to me that language is a totally closed system and that as important as what IS said, is that is not being said. Silence implies all that is not being said. language as a construction of concious beings clearly shows itself to be a derivation of thought and object-subject duality. I feel like language is something that sort of "happens" and I more experience it rather than actively engage in it. That though is probably due to the "dissociation" that happens when Awakened where you sort of just submit to the universe and are in total flow. But I wonder if language is "concious" or has a subjectivity to it. The main thing is that every word I hear pulses with emotionality, tonality, and depth. The truth of language is not in what is said, but rather THAT the thing was said. Does you experience language differently when in non dual states?

Yep, couldn't agree more. A lot of users here have picked up a very clear bias against logic and against relative domain stuff from Leo. They haven't integrated logic, they have a logic shadow. We can discuss the limits of logic and the limits of relative domain things, but the unfortunate fact of the matter is that most people here (im confident including Leo) don't understand properly how basic formal logic works, let alone trying to question the laws of logic and trying to understand what that entails and what possible implications that can bring. After some awakening experiences and or enlightenment most of them thinks they can have an authority to speak on any subject, without studying or deeply contemplating that specific subject beforehand. The inferences that one can make from the knowledge of one subject can only go so far and has very clear limits when it comes to using that knowledge and making inferences about another subject. So far, based on all the guys I know who claimed to be awakened and or enlightened none of them managed to infer or come to all the scientific knowledge that we know - using enlightenment or awakening alone. So it seems that cross domain induction and inference making is very limited and we should have much much more epistemic humility when it comes to using the knowledge of one domain to make knowledge claims about another domain. The other thing is that this community loves to ramble a lot, rather than trying to engage with points or try to directly answer questions.

This is not the cause of my perfectionism; it's one of the manifestations. My perfectionism operates on a different level because it's all-encompassing. Most perfectionists have very limited scopes for their perfectionism; only in directing a movie, performing a musical concert, washing hands after touching a public door, writing a book, recording a video, etc. In my case, I'm a perfectionist in almost all domains and aspects of life. Yes, it's natural and instinctive for me to see defects or faults in everything. I easily identify what can be improved, and many times I feel a burning desire to accomplish that improvement or perfection. In my 'Perfectionism is Wrong and Cruel' thread, I explained why it is the case. But I feel the need to emphasize that perfectionism is also a very beautiful thing. It's crazy because they're all true, though seemingly contradictory. I'll share a real story: My parents, especially my father, are two of the most ignorant and egotistical humans ever. When I was a kid, I used to point out their humanshit (bullshit). There was a time when my father became extremely angry with me; he threw a dustpan and stones at me with a very harmful intention. When my right arm got hit a few times, the skin peeled off a bit, revealing the meat and blood underneath. I became traumatized as fuck! It's distressing for an adult to experience such shit, let alone for a very young boy. I tend to detect faults in various forms and feel compelled to correct them. This has resulted in me being antagonized by my coworkers when I corrected their work or behavior. In my 20s, I always wondered why humans feel offended when their shortcomings or humanshit are pointed out or when they are shown a better way to do things. In my case, I feel grateful when somebody shows me a better way to do things. Why not? I just learned a better way. It's only in my 30s when I finally understood why, and I felt very disappointed. I lost respect for normal humans, and I'm not interested in them. But, I still treat them well, not because they're good and respectable (they're full of humanshit), but because I'm good. That might sound pretentious or egotistical for me to say, but it is the case, and hence, I must say it. My perfectionism has influenced my parents to become better humans, especially my mother. I never stopped pointing out their humanshit and showed them a better way to do things. I explained to my mother that the harmful and twisted ways they inflicted on me, especially when I was a young boy, caused extreme anxiety, depression, anger, and self-murder thoughts. I clarified that they needed to change their ways, or I would completely cut them off. Indeed, I did cut them off from my life a few times because they were unable to change. My perfectionism made it a clean break, with zero communication for years. But after many years, a miracle happened. My mother changed her behavior. For the first time ever, she confessed how ignorant and foolish she had been as a mother and asked for an apology. I began to notice her increased self-awareness. She also learned how to become a loving mother, and right now, I can even say she's one of the most loving mothers in the world. When I say it's a big miracle, it's not an exaggeration. It's accurate. My father was a hopeless case, unfortunately. But at least he learned to properly behave in my presence. He knew I would inflict physical and mental-emotional pain on him if he displayed his twisted ways. He learned this via direct experience. In the last few weeks of his life, I was surprised he became an "angel". I couldn't believe my eyes. I took care of him when he was sick and dying. I was able to do it because of years of strict and "perfect" self-therapy, enabling me to forgive him for his big sins. So, perhaps, my perfectionism changed him, though it was too late. I've just demonstrated a few ways perfectionism can make things better and create beautiful results. In fact, my own self-transformation is a result of my perfectionism. That's why it's very difficult and even feels impossible for me to release. But as the old saying goes, 'What gets you here doesn't necessarily get you there.' It's time for me to transcend perfectionism. Much easier said than done, but it must be done; hence I'll go for it. I awakened to no-self many years ago. But that was a different version of the no-self awakening being talked about in this forum. But I want to say you can't live a very good life via wearing a no-self lens all the time. It's useful for some situations. But in most situations, embracing, loving, and transcending yourself (the ego) accomplishes better results, materially and even spiritually. I'm busy as fuck, girl. I'm not supposed to spend time replying to my threads. But there's some sense in your post and I appreciate the effort; I feel compelled to reply to you. So, Arabic is a strong contender for the craziest language in the world? But I've heard Arabic is known for its accuracy and consistency. If that's true, then English still holds the throne.