Search the Community

Thats true. Although it can take quite a while without psychedelics. That stage was variously called the One Taste (Yoga of One Taste), Nonduality, Big-Self, Infinity, Mere Appearance, Unity, God-Self, Big Mind, .... But who or what is aware of that? At that stage, there is still some nebulous murky identity arising, watching or being aware of this Nondual Big Self. Even in this Nonduality/Unity, there are the last remnants of the separate self (very subtle, hard to spot, takes some training) still arising. Roger Thisdell has some nice youtube-videos on that: Not Self - A Stage Theory of Enlightenment (4/5) In Roger Thisdells System, it is his stage 4, which is beyond his stage 3 Big Mind, which is already Nondual (One Taste/Yoga of One Taste, Nonduality, Big-Self, Infinity, Mere Appearance, Unity, God-Self, Big Mind) with a already much reduced separate self. Stage 3 can have full Nonduality/Unity, with the separate self much more intact than the pretty empty Not-Self of stage 4 (which has just Individuality or a murky Subject-Object left). It is Ken Wilber Empty Witness, Daniel Brown "Individuality", Jac O'Keeffe "Identity", Greg Goode transparent witness vs. opaque witness, Nisargadattas and Stephen Wolinskis Brahman vs. Parabrahman). One can find this stage in every system: Infinite Nonduality/Unity with the remnants of a separate self, some kind of identity or indviduality/separateness. And the last stage in his system, stage 5, Enlightenment: True No Self and No Centre - A Stage Theory of Enlightenment (5/5) And then perceiving this boundless infinite field of mere appearance of your Awareness Bubble/reality/infinity, and then dissolving the last arising remnants of any remaining subject arisings perceiving this nondual infinity. These can be very subtle, "no-self"-arisings perceiving infinity, but still some subjectivity/individuality sensation/arisings remaining. But these arisings of any form of subject/individuality can still be seen as objects hovering in the infinite field/Suchness that you are. Don't worry, your True Self will still be there afterwards if these separate-self remnants dissolve. Then one can understand why it is so often said there is nothing beyond this stage. Because it is you, it is Existence itself, see the Ralston Video. To learn these last tricks of the separate self, you need enough time in these states, and the right techniques, (for a suggestion see below, no artifical activity), and then the One Hand Claps. How to do that? I like the Nonmeditation-Yoga in Daniels Browns "Pointing out the Great Way". Learn to automize the meditation (on the pillow and in daily life) of cutting off these separate self arisings, so that no more of what he calls "artifical activity" is necessary, because any effort at that stage done by a doer/separate self arising prevents the realization. It has to become fully automized. Definition of concepts Awakening, Enlightenment and No-Self: I believe we got a lot of different meanings of what we mean by No-Self, and Awakening and Enlightenment. Enlightenment: If Enlightenment is knowing what you are and what existence is, being able to stay in that knowledge in everday life: That has an endpoint: You know what you are and what existence is. And that brings permanent happiness and bliss. Of course you can suffer when you have bodily pain, but psychological suffering is gone. Resting in your True Nature generates bliss by itself. And that is the same as True No-Self, which is the same as True Self, because it is Reality and the core or Buddha-Nature of every being. But here, words loose their meaning, because reality has no opposite. No-Self: The real No-Self is not just giving up the Personality/Ego and going to the Witness (opaque or transparent, which can even be Nondual Kosmic Consciousness/Nature Mysticism style) with something still watching. That something can be mostly empty, just a transparent witness, but it still has the last duality of some kind of individuality. Problem is: This is something one only fully understands when these remnant-arisings of individuality are gone. If there is no separate self having individuality, the universe is watching itself, appearances watching themselves, thoughts are arising in immense vastness as objects, floating through you like the sound of a bird, and the feeling of being something separate is also seen as object in immense vastness. See Roger Thisdell stage 5. Awakening: If one defines Awakening as knowing all the manifestation mechanisms in this or any other dimension, then one perspective/being can be more awake than another. But: Infinity means there are endless dimensions. And a few thoughts on Genetics and Meditation: I believe that using the right meditation techniques at the right stage are essential, more so than genetics. Good techniques change along the path, check for example Pointing Out the Great Way by Daniel Brown. Classic Self-Help-Mindset: I would never let my success and drive be limited by such a limiting belief genetics <-> meditation. Do the the best with the Karma you have. Give it a try! The biggest heros are those who go furthest with the worst genetics/Karma. How do you know if you are limited, if you dont't fully try? Maybe you are not? And of course use Psychedelics on top, why not? If anybody is annoyed by this attempt to Sell water by the River: Please review the perspectives, do your own experiments, and review the outcome. My suggestion would be in judging if any insight is valueable, worthwhile, and higher: Does it bring the understanding of what you are and what reality is, beyond any doubt? Does it bring permanent satisfaction and bliss? And don't worry: Its already what you are, covered by lots of mistaken identities, and it is the only thing you can not loose. The only stuff you can loose are arising appearances, confusions/ignorance of what you think you are. By the way, does anybody read that until the end here?

Came across this Medium article by a spiritual teacher named Roger Thisdell who maps Leo's God Consciousness claims as Stage 3 out of 4, saying he experienced what Leo is pointing to but is not the end of the journey. Curious what @Leo Gura take on this is. Note that he says he is a fan of Leo and appreciates his content, so his critique appears to be coming from a thoughtful place... https://medium.com/@rogerthis/identity-god-and-open-individualism-88c185258bfc "Experiencing God (and a message to Leo Gura) Stage 3 ‘Big Mind’ is when open individualism is most likely to begin to intuitively feel right. This is also when talks of being God come out of people’s mouths and (as in terms of (1)) they phenomenologically perceive the sense of ‘I’ in everything they experience. While they (in terms of (2)) may conceptually infer there is just one thing, one being, call it ‘God’. “God is everything. I am everything.” Because the understanding of moving from (1)to (2) (from experience to conjecture) is often lost on people, all kinds of wacky metaphysical beliefs come about — supposedly self-validating by higher consciousness or direct cosmic download. While at stage 3, if you inject some metta into your experience space, you come to see what people mean when they say: “God is everywhere and all loving” or even: “God is love”. Having the feeling of being everything in your experience is like you don’t feel separate from anything, thus there is a deep intimacy with the world which construes love. You feel like you are the body, the thoughts, the emotions, the trees, the hills on the horizon, the air in between all of it, the sky and the awareness field which contains all these things. However, going from the experience of feeling identical to everything you are aware of to “I am everything (even that which I’m not currently aware of) and therefore I am God/the universe” requires an unfounded leap — which I admittedly made at some point. I remember an incredibly stark moment I had when I was in stage 3, where ‘being God’ felt like the most real thing (I can sympathise a lot with where Leo Gura is coming from — though I think he’s lacking some phenomenological discernment). Because at stage 3 the sense of ‘I’ is so prevalent, due to it being perceived everywhere in experience, I was investigating this quality a great deal. I was trying to distil the sense of ‘I’down to its rawest form. “Yes, I feel identical to the trees and the sky and other people, but what is that common element that can be found in all these things which I call ‘I’?” After whittling away all the other unnecessary phenomenological baggage piled onto this ‘I’, I arrived at a clear perception of ‘I’ in its rawest form. The ‘I’ I call the epistemic agent, the pure sense of a knower of experience. It became obvious that once the epistemic agent was singled out in experience that this perception of ‘I’ can only manifest in one way. What I mean by this is unlike with milk where the formula can be tainted slightly and result in versions of milk with slightly different colours, or tastes, or smells and yet they are all still versions of milk, it is impossible for the epistemic agent to have a slightly different perceptual ‘flavour’ to it other than it does. This is because the qualia recipe only consists of one ingredient and if that’s missing or different then it’s not the epistemic agent (the rawest sense of ‘I am’). Once I clocked this, I realised that all iterations of ‘I’wherever and whenever, in all beings at all times, experience the sense of ‘I am’ exactly the same way. Then, and I remember this moment so clearly, it hit me: “if God or the universe is self-aware — which it is just by dint of me being of the universe and self-aware — and has an experience of ‘I-ness’, then my experience of ‘I-ness’ in this relative body is the same as God’s and through a sharing of experience there is a direct link and so… Oh my god, I am God!” (I am not suggesting that this line of reasoning is sound. It was simply the series of steps I went through which brought upon this profound experience). Again, the numerically versus qualitatively identical distinction could be parsed, however there is a way to get around this, for when you remove the sense of time and space from the equation then that difference collapses. To say that something is qualitatively identical to something else, but not numerically identical doesn’t make sense if two things can’t be differentiated by existing in separate moments of time or space. So in my “Oh my god, I am God!” epiphany, the sense of time and space had been shunned from attention and numerical identity was presumed. I can imagine that someone has this epiphany moment as I did, but then when they return to a more ‘timey/spacey’ existence they retain credence in the belief that they are God and not just a single, distinct instance of experience of ‘I’ (which would be more of an empty individualist thought). They do this because they are basing their beliefs off of a very profound mind moment, even if the majority of their waking hours don’t suggest the same message. [I want to add a disclaimer before this next part and express appreciation towards Leo Gura and his channel, Actualized.org. I think it’s an amazing channel and I have learnt a lot from him. I highly recommend people check him out. So don’t take this next part as a slight against him. He’s got some great content!] Now, if I could tell Leo Gura one thing it would be this: “Profundity does not equate to truth.” Just because something felt so real and epic, does not mean that experience is giving you the most accurate representation of greater reality. Truth be told at stage 3 I didn’t have anywhere near the attentional clarity, precision of view, and metacognitive abilities that came later; and so while I was having all these profound experiences I was not totally clued into the subtle ways I was manipulating my experience and was biased to certain perspectives while overlooking certain presumptive views that became clearer to me later on."