Search the Community

I think it's like this. Obviously you're not gonna stop finding other women unattractive, you're still a heterosexual male. But, there is gonna be a very deep bond and relationship that is built with the person you are with. So, long term, being with her is gonna be much better. But of course, the urges are still there, but it's not worth it to squander that relationship by satisfying that urge in a disloyal manner. The only way it is worth it is if you are able to do that and it doesn't ruin the relationship somehow, and what comes to my mind is porn or something, but I know some women don't even like it when you watch porn. I think women view sexual urges way differently, and then they tend to project that same mindset onto us when it comes to sexual satisfaction. For them, it's an entire emotional commitment when they decide to have sex. For us, it can be more objective and impersonal. This is very true, good point.

Yes most men experience this. When women wear yoga pants there flaunting their sexual value in your face. Obviously you wanna have sex with it. Sexual attraction is a primitive part of the brain. It’s not as sophisticated as hire forms of love that can happen in romantic relationships. Women are also attracted to amazing looking men when they see them. But the question you asked her is whether she wants to have sex with them and that’s completely different emotional question. She doesn’t wanna have sex with them because she’s in love with you and only wants to have sex with you. it also depends on the stage of sexual development your at, if you view sex as just fucking and there’s very little emotional connection or you don’t value emotional connection during sex then lust for other women becomes more prevalent. If you were having spiritual sex the appeal of simply impersonal fucking would be much lower. But everyone loves candy every once in a while and why we have porn.

Yes. What helped me here, since its always a question of definition (for example of the Supreme Witness): You are that which is aware. And the Totality of Reality itself, since it can only show up in that which is aware. But the Totality of Reality is often only seen as that which appears (The appearance side). And that can totally disappear (Deep Sleep), and the real you is still there, unaware of itself, but with a latent capacity for sentience if something appears again (the emptiness or consciousness/aware side). So the question is: How "empty" is the Supreme Witness. When it is so empty that no arisings/feeling (very subtle I-feelings/I-thoughts) arise and appear in the Totality (call it Reality, Infinite Consciousness, God, Dharmakaya, whatever you want), or you clearly see them all as objects/arisings/movements within you, then what you realize yourself to be very obviously is the Totality/Reality/Infinite Consciousness,... . The stage before that is the Supreme Witness, or Empty Witness: Ken Wilber calls that the Empty Witness: Personality, and especially time and space are already transcended, "you" feel the infinite reality as mere appearance, timeless. And always here. But there are still some clusters of sensations arising IN YOU that feel like individuality, or that you are not the unbounded whole, but a feeling of watching it appears in you. You are not all of it, the sensation of "other" still arise a lot in daily life, you dont feel that you what looks from all eyes is the same consciousness that gets clouded by feelings/thoughts of I/me, exactly like how it used to get clouded in you. The realization is neither stable, nor complete. And then at some point you realize that (learn to spot) these arisings/feelings/building blocks of the Supreme Witness or Empty Witness are still left and arising/moving in you. You learn to spot them in a sort of High-Speed-Analysis, recognize them as arisings/objects appearing within you, and you can stop them immediately (subject->object), or just watch them. Then they drop, the Empty Witness drops, and the real you stays. But that is described by some as impersonal, a formulation that I am not totally happy with. Yes, its impersonal, its not the you you thought you were, but its the real you. And that real you "has" or "contains" the personal you moving in it. Then that boosts the nondual state, makes the whole world appear just as mere appearance, an imagined illusion, infinite, groundless, a mirage happening within you (that also starts before, but gets boosted a lot the more the Empty Witness drops). Pretty much a state that Psychedelics cause, but sobre. And with it comes happiness and bliss independend of what happens at that moment, which is the most beautiful aspect of it. If you dont have nonduality and nonseparation and are not aware of the Ground of Being in normal life (while not meditating or tripping), these very subtle arisings/I-feelings/I-thoughts still arise in you and are not spotted with high enough speed to see them for what they are: Sensations of separation arising within the real you. In my experience, you can not force real Nonduality/mere appearance of the totality/world, its an energetic state that gets influenced "indirectly" over how fast you spot these I-thoughts/I-feelings. Here I am fully in line when Leo says you need the right state (of enought nonduality, illusion-like mere appearance of the world, directly feeling it all as mere empty consciousness appearance mirage-arising). When you spot these subtle arisings (building blocks of the separate self and even Empty Witness) fast enough, they arise in you. But you can't force it with willpower, that would be what Daniel Brown in Pointing out the Great Way calls "artifical activity" during the stage of Nonmeditation Yoga (last stage of the 4 Mahamudra stages). It becomes automatic once you understand it at that stage. Its one of the Illusion-Mechanism of Maya that you can't force your way through it with willpower, but you can do it indirectly with understanding how to rest in your true nature. The energetic state of nonduality follows. Its some kind of positive feedback loop, sloping "upwards" if done correctly. I agree with Leo that Nonduality (which ripens) is in its early stages not realization of Ultimate Reality. Daniel Brown for example also. But realization of Ultimate Reality has to be nondual, since its a unity and infinite. And this development can pretty easily stagnate (especially before nonduality even begins to start), and stop if you do something incorrect, or understand something incorrect. Which pretty much happens with 99% of Buddhists. So the separate you disappears, but the real you as Awareness AND the Reality/World stays. So the Illusion-You disappears, but the real you is of course, as always, there. It can not "not be there". That is the Unborn, Reality itself. The real you. And in that area/stage definitions of different authors and traditions get very slippery, since these "feelings" of the Supreme Witness (as you intuit) are very very subtle, and its very easy to identify with them and not notice it. Over the years, I ended up with a metaphor for myself: Zen is like axe to cut a tree. Very robust, works if you do it long enough hard enough pretty foolproof, doesnt need a lot complex theory/stages, but normally takes a long time and is not so pleasant (and in practice for most doesnt deliver the final results, because it takes extreme willpower). More sophisticated versions of Buddhism, with a more detailed map, like Mahamudra/Dzogchen (see for example Brown, Pointing out the Great Way), are like a Forest Harvester: If used correctly very fast, quite pleasant (for the user, probably not for the forest) and comfortable along the path, but quite hard to understand and learn, since language is so slippery in these areas. Like if you want to use a Forest Harvester, and if you dont get explained how it works (like put gas in it, how to drive it, its controls), delivers no result at all. Zen = robust, sit long enough with a Koan and you get it, not much to misunderstand, but neither very fast nor pleasant Mahamudra/Dzogchen = very sophisticated with techniques and details and pointing out descriptions for every stage, but if used incorrectly (like not putting as into forest harvester) no result at all even if you do it a long time. Some Material for that stage I found useful: 1) Massaro, Spiritual Conversations with a Skeptic: "Imagine a formless, space-like void that's indestructible, sentient, awake, alive and aware, but has no form. You could almost say it has no self awareness. It just is. Russell: So wait... A void? A vacuum? Nothing? Bentinho: Yes. Just imagine it. Russell: OK, go ahead. Bentinho: The point of the analogy is that there is no object. Imagine infinite space with no stars or planets. Suddenly, you introduce a toy; let's say a water pistol. Or it could be a body even. But let's say... Russell: An object. Bentinho: Yeah, an object. A water pistol. Russell: With water in it. Bentinho: Maybe with Coca-Cola in it. Russell: With Coca-Cola in it. OK. Bentinho: Ah! Now there is something. Something is created. First there is this space, which is like the pure subject with no reference points. It's like space, but it's not actually space. Russell: Wait... where am I in relation to this infinite space? Bentinho: You are it. Russell: I am it? Bentinho: Yes. Russell: OK. But there is nothing in it at first. Bentinho: Correct. There is nothing in it at all; there is just Infinity. Russell: But I am in it. Bentinho: You are it. " 2) How other perspectives/beings work: A Human is aware of only his perspective (normally). But Infinite Consciousness can forget in time (what did you do exactly one year ago), or to be more precice NOT imagine that memory, and it can forget in space (metaphor of Francis Lucille). To get an idea watch the cover of this book of Marc Leavitt. Notice the hyperbolic geometry of the awareness fields shown. Reality is made of perspectives (Ken Wilber, Concept of Indras Net). Reality is a giant mind (Leo, and more or less all traditions). https://www.amazon.com/Enlightenment-Behind-Scenes-Marc-Leavitt/dp/1495398218 3) How to Approach Phenomenal Consciousness, Jac O'keeffe. She calls Ultimate Reality Totality Primary Consciousness "the fundamental primary phenomenal consciousness (her name for Ultimate Reality, Infinite Consciousness, the real you), it has a capacity. It doesn't even know itself here. However, it has a capacity to show up with a sense of emptiness (a subtle arising feeling/perception happening in you). To show up as one. To show up as a one who can reflect on itself and recognize that it is, and we have the concept of existence. And it can go from that sense of vast spaciousness and that unified field into time, which appears as a dot. " "We're left with consciousness (-> Primary Consciousness) that cannot know itself. It's such a fundamental that it actually can't know itself. However, it is known. You can drop back there and it is known, but you can't bring yourself there or your capacities to know it. It's almost like it's so fundamental that it can't turn around and see itself. It doesn't see itself. That's too much movement (arisings, objects, subtle I-feelings/I-thoughts, not fully empty/infinite). That's movement such as space, time and identification and me, myself, I, and the building of my movie that happens" Here she describes how Primary Consciousness is so empty that it cant turn around to see itself. Because that turning around would already be a movement, a arising, a subtle object within Primary consciousness/Real you. 4) Stephen Wolinsky, or how Empty is your Empty Witness or Supreme Witness: from Wolinsky, Nothing Comes From Nothing " Knowing or being aware of or consciousness of who you are is “one step” away from being who you are. This is why the Buddha said, “You might not necessarily be aware of your own enlightenment. Why? Because there is no aware-er or awareness or knower or knowingness, to be aware of or know or know about or be conscious of the Absolute. And why Lakshamann Joo said, “Whenever you perceive something, you perceive it from one level lower.” (remark: You can never see the Absolute Reality/Consciousness, cause looking or searching for it is a movement of attention WITHIN IT. But you can understand it, be it, intuit it, from one level lower. The Supreme Witness is one of the last movements IN YOU/Reality looking for absolute consciousness, inducing an experience of it, which of course is not it because it is you). Paradoxically As the Absolute there is no Absolute If the “I” or “you” “has an “experience” and believes it IS consciousness awareness infinite potential presence or that it IS an “imagined” infinity, then the “I” or “you” mistakenly assumes and projects that experience upon the Absolute. Once that occurs the “I” or “you” then completely believes and ergo experiences that the Absolute also has or IS the experience of consciousness has or IS the experience of awareness has or IS the experience of infinite potential has or IS the experience of presence has or IS the experience of an “imagined” infinite. Consciousness awareness infinite potential presence or an “imagined” infinite are the most subtle of the most subtle states and veils which give the illusion of awareness, the illusion of consciousness the illusion of presence and the illusion of both beingness and being conscious. This “experiential belief” of consciousness awareness infinite potential presence or an “imagined” infinite or “infinity, is an anthropomorphically projected experience of consciousness awareness infinite potential presence or an “imagined” infinite or “infinity. Thus giving the illusionary experience of awareness, the illusionary experience of consciousness the illusionary experience of presence and the illusionary experience of both beingness and being conscious. Which are then Superimposed on the Absolute Nothingness. Simply stated, the experience of consciousness awareness infinite potential presence or an “imagined” infinite or “infinity is an experience. This experience gives the illusion of a beingness, isness or existence to these temporary subtle veils and experiences which are made of nothing. The Absolute is without the Absolute Nothingness " 5) Prior to Nonduality Youtube-Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9vlZGtpdFIts8GOG5vu27g Mechanisms of Creation/Imagination/Manifestation: Its important and nice to find out HOW you imagine this world with all of its infinite mechanism. And the first and fundamental mechanisms on how imagination/manifestation (in any universe/dimension) can occur can be understood (for example how the fundamental archetypes of space and time (giving "objects" or appearances that change in time), and the first "movements" (even if they are formless) of appearances in consciousness are spawned out from the Infinite Consciousness/Reality. That is for example described by Ken Wilber as the manifestation of the first Archetypes at the causal stage (he calls it low causal, while high causal being the empty ultimate Godhead). But since Reality/Spirit/God is able to manifest/imagine infinite Worlds, with totally different mechanism than our universe for example, by definition one will never be able to understand all of their mechanisms, since you dont have access to all Realities (and you couldnt while being human). And you can never explore all of them, by definition of what Infinity means. That is what God/Reality itself is exploring. Leo mentioned that in "Outrageous Experiments In Consciousness - 30 Awakenings In 30 Days.", there are infinite dimensions of awakening. Which is, as mentioned, quite shocking. But for sure its nice and important to grasp the fundamental mechanism of imagination/manifestation, which apply to all universes/dimensions (since all are appearances), and understanding that in your deepest being you are that one Reality. I believe these fundamentals are important to understand and realize and experience. Else "you" are stuck with believing experiencing Nonduality or Emptiness is it, while that is only the start to realize Infinity. And you can of course realize the Groud of Being, your true nature. But one can never explore all mechanism of manifestation, since a human in its limited time can never explore all realms of manifestation (and there are for examples according to Jac O'Keffee and Stephen Wolinsky some truly alien realms that are not build with the building blocks of this Universe. Yet they are also only appearances). So at some level one either says "Its details, and one can never explore all mechanism of manifestation, because even for God/Absolute Reality there are Infinite Realms of Appearances/Worls/Universes to explore", or it is a grasping for seeing as much as possible. Which is a high level recipe for nevery finding the constant peace/happiness independend of outer circumstances, the hallmark of the enlightened ones, and also nevery fully resting it. Maya is awe-inspiring, and her Illusion-Mechanisms (which are necessary for this Lila) go to the highest level also. But understanding the fundamental mechanism of how manifestation/imagination occurs, how you fool yourself (Maya), what ultimate Reality/God/Spirit is, what other is, how Maya works, what one really is and how one imagines otherwise, that is all essential. And of course humanity will go exploring all of that (manifestation/imagination mechanisms, mechanisms of Maya, "going Psychonaut" and exploring it, exploring Ken Wilbers subtle and low causal realms and mapping them. He even said in the next 1000 years probably many new substages will show up and getting formed & described during exploration). This understanding will grow. Buddhism has evolved in the past, there is not even one Buddhism, there are many different streams, some more developed/sophisticated/efficient than others. I don't think Buddhism will disappear, so it will change and evolve by definition. Buddhism happens in Infinity, not the other way round. And to conclude: I hope this is interesting and helpful for some of you. It took me a long time to understand why there are so many, often contradicting statements in the spiritual traditions/teachers/psychonautic explorers, and how Reality is structured (and the differing perspectives & statements it supports and brings forth on various stages/states) to enable and support all of these differing perspectives, experiences and viewpoints. For sure, this picture isn't complete, but at least for me tells a story that for me is sufficient to continue my practice in peace and enjoy what it brings into my life, be able to sort all these often conflicting messages in a large and hopefully integral perspective, and stay interested in how Reality is structured that all of that can appear in it (the psychonaut approach). And of course its nearly impossible to communicate all of that in language. In case anybody has read all of the above until here: A metaphor that, if I remember correctly, also Ken Wilber once used: Zen would deliver the much more precise summary, which is why I also like Zen a lot: The old pond, A frog jumps in: Plop! Matsuo Basho (1644-1694)

@something_else I think I understand what you are claiming. I think I've seen examples where I've had a slightly shocked reaction to the way that someone has used the term 'females'. I had the sense that the speaker viewed women as objects when he said that. I get the sense that this is a similar response you have to OP's use of the word in this thread, and also the use of the word 'female' more generally. Would you say my assumption is true to your experience? I would say I have a somewhat different perspective to you. When you say "Most of the time it just sounds too formal, impersonal and objectifying" it seems to me that you are intending to state that it is a fact that using the word 'females' usually sounds too formal, impersonal and objectifying. I don't think it is a fact. I think its likely that it is moreso that the use of the term 'female' sounds too formal, impersonal and objectifying to you. And that you are confident in that belief. Hence, I am guessing that you believe that it is a fact that the term 'female' sounds too formal, impersonal and objectifying. Do you believe you understand the point I'm intending for you to consider? I think its important to consider, what I see to be, the perspective you appear to me to be showing. And I also think that it is important to recognise that, if you accept my view that it is a personal belief, your view is a personal belief rather than an objective fact. Otherwise, I think, at least, we avoid jumping to conclusions about what the intentions of another person are. If we then get OP's personal perspective, in addition to yours, then I think we can have a more constructive and higher consciousness dialogue. I would be curious to hear your thoughts regarding what I've said here.

There are contexts where it's alright, but this isn't really one of them. Most of the time it just sounds too formal, impersonal and objectifying. When used in day-to-day life it has this connotation of women being foreign and alien, at least in Western countries.

I was looking at a picture of some being. Trying to awaken deeper. Already embodying the recognition of the true self/no-self state, I cranked up the consciousness dial even more. To the point where the fact of existence became "No way, what? EXISTENCE?". I have been here before but never while embodying no-self. Suddenly, the picture, the being in it, became alive, it became real, and it scared the SHIT out of me. It was looking at me with such grandeur that I had to surrender. I started tearing up and my face contorted to all sorts of faces. I was a baby. I instinctively started apologizing. For what? For being so small and selfish. I was sorry- no- I am sorry God, for being so small, so stupid, so selfish. I am sorry that I am not as loving and as grand as you. And I am saying this not from my surface level ego, but one of my deepest if not the deepest layer of ego. This layer of ego goes so deep it is easily confused with true-self/no-self state. Because this ego layer individualizes existence, which is what I was at the time. All this while I was starkly aware that this being, was literally me, even physically. There was no need for me to be afraid yet there were goosebumps all over my body. I was afraid, of myself. Myself as that being. I knew that being was still finite, grand, but not infinite. Yet it fucked me up bad. Then out of the sheer weight of my apology, I started dying, the ego, started dying.. and I loved every second of it. It was pure love. I merged into that being, and we merged into God. My body lost all of it's boundaries. I couldn't feel the body. Because it had merged with everything around it. And I as God and as an Ego, told the being I love you, many times. I wanted to hug it bad but we were already the closest we could be, as oneness. And I felt my ego, or rather the ego felt itself, and God told it, that God loves it anyways, it accepts it no matter what. And the ego, finally with the ultimate validation, surrendered and died. This was the most emotional thing. For more clarity, let me explain something. Usually I can consistently embody a state where I am sharply aware of myself as everything. When I look at someone I can literally see they are me. But to function, simultaneously, my ego, felt like an impersonal variable, is also active, on all levels necessary. It is one thing for the ego to be there while you are oneness for everyday functioning VS. there to be no ego at all. The later is very impractical indeed but no doubt something to be explored. I can't even remember the experience very clearly anymore. Maybe I was too present to form memories. This was what I was listening to at the time and that's the picture I was looking at. I was sober.

I don't just mean I want it, I think it will go that way, I don't think our level of impersonal living is sustainable. See Daniel schmactenberger "the third attractor" to give you an idea of how things might not go linear

The Force or Tao seems like a better name than God. God has too many images and baggage associated with it, whereas The Force is already naturally mysterious and abstract. God is portrayed as a personal, powerful king. The Force is portrayed as impersonal, mystical energy within all things. The Force is a better pointer to Infinity. The Force is Infinity.

Maybe to some extent, but I'd say it's generally not what happens. I beg to differ. I'd say it is the most personal thing ever. But also it can be absolutely impersonal.

@Razard86 I haven’t really watched many of his recent videos as I haven’t necessarily had the time to do that, so forgive me if I’m leaving out some crucial information about his more recent teachings regarding what I’m about to say. From my own experience, there is more to existence than just nondual consciousness. I’ve heard Leo jump on the nonduality/Advaita bandwagon many times in the past and I think that this philosophy is very limited in scope. I think there can be an aspect of God/Source that is entirely non-dual and consciousness, and there can also be duality. In other words, why does there have to only be nonduality and consciousness? Why can’t there metaphysically be a universal spirit and/or consciousness as well as a physical aspect? There’s no rule etched in existence that says that all of reality must be simple, parsimonious, or follow Ockham’s razor. Pluralism and dualism (even substance dualism) can both be true, depending on what we are talking about. Attempting to simplify that which is beyond infinitely complex and sum it up into a neat little model that other people can easily understand is foolish, in my opinion. Also, anyone who submits that there is no objective reality AT ALL has lost the plot. There is an overarching, objective truth that exists independently of anyone’s belief, knowledge, or feelings about it. The question is, what IS that truth on an ontological or metaphysical level? What IS it in and of itself, outside of any of our beliefs about it? I know that there are many levels to this — the rabbit hole never ends. There’s no bottom to it. Some aspects or attributes of God and creation are marvelously simple, and others are beyond infinitely complex. The whole system is evolving at each instant as well, but I know that God/Source is omniscient and is able to comprehend this fully. Essentially, Leo is trying to describe something in language that is borderline impossible to explain through that medium. He’s a very eloquent and intelligent person, don’t get me wrong. But he has fallen into the trap of thinking that we as individual spiritual beings are capable of comprehending this in its entirety. Maybe one day our models will be able to correspond 1 to 1 with the objective truth of existence, but ultimately we aren’t quite there yet as a species. Also, I’m aware that he has seriously proposed metaphysical solipsism as a viable philosophy in the not so distant past. Solipsism is complete horseshit, and I fully disagree with anyone who seriously teaches that in any way shape or form. It’s a delusional, harmful, egocentric philosophy designed to isolate people from other REAL HUMAN BEINGS. Don’t fall prey to anyone who seriously canvasses that nonsense. In addition, I question the teaching of “we are all God”. God is unlimited in nature, true. But to say that I am God as an individual does not sound correct to me. It always rubbed me the wrong way when I heard him say things along those lines. I think we are all part of an immanent and transcendent spiritual reality, and at the root of it is the spiritual Source (God) that can be both personal and impersonal in nature. We are all connected to the Source, but this does not necessarily mean that we literally ARE the Source. Some final thoughts: we are all unique, individual physical and spiritual beings on our own journeys. It is a fact that there is an aspect of the collective where we are all connected and “one”. But let’s not forget that we are also unique individuals at the same time, and that’s not really a contradiction if you think about it for long enough.

Cool man, relatable in many aspects. I would say there is both a romantic and cold calculated/impersonal aspect to approaching. It's important to balance those two. for example: don't get stuck on one girl or even a few girls (before a real relationship) but also constant and excessive approaching is no use. When your vibe is off just go home and return another day.

At this point, I have experienced so many identity shifts, I almost don't recognize myself from 10 years ago anymore. I have experienced deep shifts that touched so many parts of my identity, both in depth and breadth, so my ego died and got reborn so many times, I'm almost not that person I was at all. It took a few "complete" -- or more accurately, major ego deaths, and many other minor ones. Just when my ego solidifies enough, somehow the events turn in such a way that causes it to take a hit, or even collapse in some cases. I think this is the reason why I don't have a personality type. Unfortunately, this is not the case for most people. Most people don't really change, like at all, from birth till death. They're just born some way, and they gather some conditioning throughout their childhood and early teens, and then remain the same forever. The saying "Once a cheater, always a cheater" is very true, because it applies to most people. I think besides people who undergo spiritual awakening, almost no one really changes. It's sobering to realize this fact, because I don't want to be thinking that others can share the same understanding as I, and then find out that that's not true. What I've come to realize recently is that nobody, unless they're spiritually awake, will understand what I'm saying. They will only ever interpret it from their distorted lens/worldview. I don't think this has to do with ego development or spiral dynamics as much as actually experiencing spiritual awakening, because awakening opens your eyes to things that normal people aren't even able to see/perceive. The normal person is only ever able to see their selfish interest without any regard for "impersonal truth". For the normal person, it's always personal, no matter what, even when they say or pretend otherwise, or even when they adopt not taking things personally as an ideology. Even seekers cannot understand me, because they will interpret my words from the spiritual ego's perspective. So it's futile, unless the other person is awake to the same depth as I am, which doesn't seem very common. Not that I'm the most awake person on earth, as I have caught some more awakened signals. But that they're really rare, and getting rarer as I'm awakening deeper. As a lesson and a general rule of thumb: People are patterns of behavior. Once you identify a pattern, make your judgement, then put a permanent label on the respective person. This will make your interactions easier, as it will provide you with more clarity on who/what you are dealing with.

This is not silly, how else can you describe it? He is trying to explain something with human language, how can I explain impersonal awareness. People wont get it. Also, your mind and your language, all this philosophy are only on the way.... What if you do not have language? You would not know anything beyond your five senses. Splendid! I agree with you. It took me ten years to experience that. But yeah, I am not in that state permanently.

Do away with the consciousness framework and this isn't an issue. Simplify everything with the aim of having even a child understand what you are saying. Develop metaphors to do this if possible. From trippy times the breakthroughs created a sort of oneness which had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether there were other people experiencing. It had actually flat zero relation to the oneness whether they did or not. I can't actually describe that sense. Consciousness and the associated framework of learning is an ego trap, I am sure of it. Someone on here mentioned "impersonal consciousness" (I think they made the term up), which seems better but I doubt it could be understood easily. It's prone to being hijacked by an unruly ego to go off about lucid dreaming real life to give themselves all the power.

@axiom I'm okay, I've been feeling extremely different since this happened. I feel some of my childhood traumas have been lifted. It kinda feels like young me is being resurrected from the dead... I should just accept my entire 20s was a write-off. Yeah "impersonal awareness" might also work. It is literally just this:

@RMQualtrough thanks a lot for sharing. By far the most accurate description I have ever read. Some guys on this forum don’t understand impersonal awareness. how do you think your experience can help “others” to reconcile one vs many, aka my pov is the only real one. can you pls start another thread to help others to avoid any confusion? how to explain that when there is no you, there is no other. I am only struggling with one thing, how does something come out of nothing and there is no one behind the scene.

@RMQualtrough Perfect.That's it! The panic will subside. After all, who is panicking? All emotions are transient, just like the tides. Time isn't the only relativistic phenomenon. Consciousness itself is relativistic. Pratītyasamutpāda. The sense of an experiencer only arises in relationship to other (objects and thoughts). When it is seen that all is one, experience dissolves to nothing and you're just left with what is. Reality is an impersonal viewpoint. It is not, and never was, an internal experience.

For anyone with the time and the energy to read it, here's a very long paper published back in May which makes some very interesting points. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.704270/full If I'm understanding them correctly, they seem to be suggesting that ALL consciousness is objective and physical, and that it isn't actually "consciousness" in the way that we're accustomed to thinking about it. They suggest that subjectivity is an illusion and it is merely an impersonal relativistic viewpoint, NOT an internal experience. Sounds incoherent? Take a read. Would be interested in hearing the thoughts of the smarties here.

@Scholar Of couree, the Buddha said it best, that all suffering comes from attachment to impermanent objects. The names, labels and identity markers, Thought images, thought sounds, memories of pressure, texture, temperature, and outer sensations are no exception to the rule, all that relative stuff is just more impermanence. Once any person self inquires long enough and deep enough, then gets the 'no self', or 'true self'. All that identity of I am this or I am that, or this way or that way, stops being too serious, and you kind of get the impersonal side of detachment, or kind of get the compassionate detachment of those labels. At the spiritual level, at the deep end of the pool, especially at the masculine side of spirituality, these issues like gender dysphoria, are little, to non existent. However, very few at at that level, and fewer still will appreciate the detached, impersonal nature of a masculine sided spirituality like that, as most people at stage green development, in the hippie and new age communities, in left leaning politics and SJWs, in the Millennial and zoomer generation, are mostly exposed to feminine spiritual marketing don't see how serious it gets, sees those very serious issues, as nothing more than trivial games. Sounds harsh, sounds psychotic, but that's spirituality at the deep end. On the brighter side of things besides spirituality, it does depend on stage of development, moral and cognitive development, personality typing, states of consciousness, life experiences, domains of life, other lines of development, and other areas of societal development like technology, history, infrastructures ect... Yes, there may be small cases of body dysphoria that is born, similarly to chronic depression for those born from holocaust survivors, and assuming there's an over lap of negative effect that technological development of social media and phones have, plus narrative, and ideoligical misinformation warfare, we have a list of options to go from trying to manage and lessen the evil effects of social media on self image of children and teenagers, but quickly I'd still go for the option to build the infrastructure necessary for higher quality mental health treatments, and sex change surgery, in a regulated environment, which will lessen stigma and encourage an increase of people and training to do the operations. I think this is necessary, because if you don't allow for an environment that regulates for this, and instead discourage sex change surgery, then it decreases the quality of surgeons available to do the op, leading to higber risks of fuck ups in the process, harder access to thses resources, and furthering and maintain stigma around such topics for generations to come. Especially the body dysphoria and stigma, are very complicated issues to fix, because body dysphoria can manifest slightly differently per person, also plus the over use of social media. We can have schizophrenic body dysphoria teens, or autistic or psychopathic body dysphoria children. We can have peole who are very extroverted, so they don't realise until later in life they were suffering from body dysphoria, or are extremely introverted that they are acutely aware of it, but don't share that suffering to the outside world. We may encounter someone with multiple personality disorder, have body dysphoria, and multiple internalized roles of the self, but it's only one of the personalities that has it and not the main one and the person has their way of dealing with the body dysphoria. All that, plus the latest pop culture trend, rap music, soft rock, Tik Tok post, mean trolling comments or whatever. It gets tricky to find the exact root cause suffering per person as each one really has different cognitive types and developments to negotiate and compromise with. Each person also has different moral developments. Regarding empathy I'd be careful here, as I do have some empathy but I don't have enough to exactly change my state of being, to become that person so on this point I have little for people suffering this particular issue. I notice a trend with MR. Girl, and how he weaponized empathy against some of the people he speaks to, and because of his relationship with Destiny, and he's ban from supposedly a transphobic joke, and Mr. Girl's past conflicts with hos mom and an ex and hoenstly any person resembling a female, we have to be careful to not mistake his empathy as genuine, it could be weaponized and is influenced by those events. And he loves kids too much, so don't be excited to cite him as your main source of evidence too. Be careful.

Great talk for beginners but still quite superficial. Not to diminish or invalidated his experiences at all, but of course there is much further to go. Working through personal ego stuff, trauma release, etc, is an extremely important part of the psychedelic experience. But eventually, the ego completely collapses and dissolves. After that it's completely impersonal and more about reality understanding itself as a whole at a deeper and deeper levels. And I don't hear that Tucker is going that far. I don't hear it from anyone except for the obvious.

God is Both form and formless. Since God is unlimited, He cannot be limited to being either formless or having a form. Since God is everything, He must possess both form and formlessness. God is unlimited, and His form, consisting of eternity, knowledge and bliss, is also unlimited. Usually form is defined by limitations in space, so an unlimited form is inconceivable to us. It would be the same as formless. Still, for the simple reason that one cannot love the impersonal, unlimited feature of God. One can only love a person. Therefore we say that God is both the formed world and impersonal formless at the same time . You can't escape this problem. You can't lean towards one or another (form or formless). It's both .

I don’t know what “flow” you are talking about. The flow I was referring to doesn’t have any cognition of the so-called ego. If there is any ego there, it is not a true state of impersonal awareness. If you truly entered that state even once, you would recognize that there wasn’t anyone there to register this fact. You can only notice postfactum.

Any reasoning reinforces the observer and observation phenomenon. Notice it. “I think therefore I am”, means not your physical existence but rather a mental construct of the ego-mind mechanism. I am talking about impersonal awareness. How do you know is the reinforcement of the idea that there should be “I” and a knowledge on top of it. Anything revolves around “I” including your knowledge and all the philosophy is based on this idea. It is a self-perpetuated machine, never ending mind game. There is an access to the Truth without any egoic assumption of the mind. It is pure impersonal Being.

@melontonin You can see how it works on a small scale: ex. You think of think of drinking water ------> then you actually go do it and have the experience. ------ So we can assume it can work on a bigger scale aswell. Harder to do and to prove but we can get some hints. Ex. Manipulating your feelings, beliefs and mindset is already a form of law of attraction applied. By having the right kind of feeling, right now, throwing in the bin limiting beliefs, replacing them with better beliefs, having a clearer and detailed idea of what you want, you are in a sense, already closer to your goal. If you apply this priciples, tied with visualization for example, you'll start to get syncronicities etc., and those are certainly real, and are not mistakable for "random coincidences". Look at Jung's work for referance. This of course doesn't mean that you should be sitting for the fruit to fall in you hand, work and action is still needed, so as it is said: "God helps those who help themselves". no magic, this is being logical. This is true, but doesn't disprove the law of attraction, because reality is impersonal, but still structured by laws. In the Dream, you know the laws well enough, you can know how to use them, an if you know howw to use them, you can get what you want faster.

Why do you keep framing it like this instead of just saying "they're ultimately you". As long as they have a POV, it'd be better to say "they're real/imaginary in the same way that you are" to avoid misconceptions. Sometimes you get us thinking that our perspective is the Absolute and not just an infinitesimally small part of it. Honestly, I'd like to know why you feel this way despite being aware of how wildly different from you they can be. This is why the whole "others are you" thing hasn't really changed me much, if at all. Since Infinity is unknowable and an infinite mystery, "others" could be represented in a way that your character literally couldn't make sense of, and apart from that, you'll never fully understand yourself as God, which means others could be anything at all. And that doesn't necessarily mean that they are you since we don't even know what you are. You could say though that they're made from the same thing you are made of perhaps? Idk but this God thing seems infinitely impersonal to me. Watch out for it becoming an ego thing is my advice.