Search the Community

Solipsism Notes “One who sees everything as nothing but the Self, and the Self in everything one sees, such a seer withdraws from nothing. For the enlightened, all that exists is nothing but the Self.” - Ishopanishad; Sloka 6, 7 “May I recognize whatever appeareth as being mine own thought-forms.” - Tibetan Book of the Dead Student: “How should we treat others?” Ramana Maharishi: “There are no others.” Anyone who claims the existence of other minds, or even allows them as a theoretical possibility, does not realize oneself as God. Introduction Definition of Solipsism Solipsism = Solis (Alone) Ipsi (Self) Philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist Knowledge of anything outside the mind is unknown Self is the only existing reality and all persons are representations of the self Denial of existence of other minds Other minds are private and are inference at best Mankind and I gives negative connotations to Solipsism Start to wonder why Why am I biased against Solipsism? Why do I assume it is crazy or bad? Having a bias against Solipsism is unscientific and irrational Truth is the truth regardless of whether it is liked or not. Logic or improbability have nothing to do with Truth Be open to all possible worldviews until I arrive at Truth If I am interested in Truth, then it does not matter if it is Solipsism People make a mistake to assume and make a fact that it is impossible to know Truth. Solipsism deals with the nature of self but also nature of other. Other is the inverse of my self-definition What is other? What is self? They are inter-defined. Spirituality frames it as What is the Self? But the uncommon direction is to ask What is Other? Most people don’t contemplate what other is. Be open to the fact that I don’t know what other is. Other may not exist. If I change my identity of self, I change my identity of other. Infinite self makes no more room for other. My definitions of self and other are mentally constructed Is Solipsism True? Yes. Most people object to Solipsism because it is too crazy and radical. I can become conscious of what self and other are. Other is my own self and my own mind. My entire worldview and life depends on the notion of other. Other defines my self and my sense of reality. Awakening is realizing I am God and that I am the only conscious thing there is. Be conscious of everything being myself and that I am alone. God’s mind is alone and sovereign. I give partitions of other minds, but I fail to realize that I constructed all of that in my own mind. Other is my own construction. I am the only conscious thing in existence. There cannot be any other conscious being. There are not multiple conscious beings or souls or parallel lives or past lives or parallel lives. There is only my life right now. All the qualia and experience now is all that existence. I have 100% direct consciousness of existence. The issue is that I imagine other things to explain away the present moment. Outside of this dream is nothing and no-one but me. Mainstream notions of solipsism don’t include God, Love, Will, Intelligence, etc. My human self is part of the construction. My bubble of consciousness is all there is and nothing is outside of it. All of the qualia is my bubble. Life is a dream for an audience of one. It is a dream for myself. There is only one entity that needs to be fooled to construct reality. Myself. Why would there be other minds? Solipsism is the simplest explanation. How is reality created? Dream up self and other and fool myself Multiple animals being born are all the same self and not other to each other. Science cannot tell me what other is. Rather than having materialism and multiple minds, there is one consciousness that fools itself with images of other minds outside of itself. All things that I posit will always have a self-referential problem and infinite regress. It pushes problems down a level. There are no limits to what Infinite Mind can create. An atom is just as easy to create as an elephant. Mind does not need a big bang or years of evolution. It just imagines this human life and then a chain of causation of stories. As a kid, I asked questions of where am I? Where did I come from? My mind started filling in the blanks from society when I don’t know. The backstory becomes my worldview. Biology, history, science, etc. are all backstories to explain the present moment. I have given my authority to imaginary others. Others have an impact on my self. I assume adults know what they are talking about when in fact they went through the same thing as me. I am all that I have ever experienced in my life. Before I was born there was nothing. All that I have ever experienced was myself visual, auditory, emotions, thoughts, tastes, smells, touch, etc. I have never experienced anything other than my own mind, my own experience My experience is absolute Anything other than direct experience is speculation and inference All science and all others is part of my experience I am experience I have given my authority and trusted others more than my direct experience This is a problem. Trusting others is a second-order phenomenon. I have to first assume they are real and that they are in my direct experience. Trusting myself and direct experience is primary. Why am I so triggered by Solipsism? Why do I want reality to be different from Solipsism? Why do I depend on the companionship of others? Others define the self Solipsism is objective, denial of it is subjective and emotional reaction. Other can be minds and inanimate objects like external world. Can there be something beyond my experience? anything beyond my experience is in my experience No amount of thought experiments or science will always be in my experience. All of us are solipsists are already. But some go one dream further. We all accept that at night we dream and that they are solipsistic The entire dream and dream characters are a construction of my own mind. When I wake up from a dream, all other characters are all me. Do my dream characters have a mind of their own? How is reality any different from how I dream? I am dreaming right now, but I still cling to otherness. When I wake up from this dream, it will be just me and nothing else. Spiritual teachers say life is just a dream. There is a notion is that when I wake up from this dream, there will be others waiting for me on the other side. There is only one dreamer who dreams all other dreamers. I am very attached to dreaming. I am 100% responsible. I am constructing the entire dream. I am responsible for everything in my experience. “We are all atheists but I believe in one less God than you.” — We are all solipsists. My nighttime dreams are imaginary. Make that shift to all of my experience and not exclusive to my dreams. Nighttime dreams are grounded in daytime dreams. Nighttime dreams and reality is imaginary distinction. Solipsism traditionally is not tied into spirituality. But Absolute Solipsism is spiritual. Solipsism is essence of spirituality. Love, God, Will, Omniscience, Immortality, Eternity, etc. are all part of Solipsism. This dream is my own will and my own intelligence. All mystical/spiritual traditions point towards Solipsism. FAQs Enlightened teachers deny Solipsism they are not fully awake and not conscious how they are creating all sense of other Some may be conscious of this but do not want to tell people this because they want others to discover it for themselves. Solipsism is bad marketing and triggers people Ex. Ramana Maharshi was a Solipsist and says “there is no other.” Most people will not reach the highest levels Not telling kids about death and letting them figure it out - analogy Where do my ideas of enlightenment come from? teachers books from “others” Be aware of spiritual ego Goal: Have a complete understanding of reality Why does Leo even teach if I am the only conscious being? Playing a game with himself and do whatever gives meaning I am actually playing a game with myself Actualized.org is a dissociated part of my mind that I need to integrate The question isn’t why is Leo teaching me but why am I teaching myself? Does Leo have his own experience? There is only my experience. There are not other experiences. Leo is my experience. Why is Leo talking as if he has his own experience? Why is Leo tricking me? The real question is why am I tricking myself? Why did I construct Leo? I have to deny all identities to construct my identity and my dream has to be convincing I am God cosplaying as a human Finger pointing exercise: Point figure at the screen at Leo and then point it at me. Say Leo out loud when I point to Leo and me when I point to me (behind my eyes). Then after a while, point to me and say Leo and realize that Leo has always been behind my eyes. Everybody is my body. This is all a projection of my own mind. Stop imagining other people have experiences until all there is, is my bubble. That is awakening. I am imagining that other people are awakening. I have invented characters in the dream who awoken to give me an example. My imagination is so powerful that I believe others. Imagination vs. reality I can awaken to that I am imagining reality I imagine that others will exist after I die When I cease to imagine, everything ceases to exist. There is no world outside of my own mind Open my mind to the possibility that it is just me and everyone else doesn’t exist. I am imagining Leo is imagining me. I imagine Leo’s joy, awakening, pain, etc. All suffering that anybody experienced I am imagining in my own mind. I never experienced death, but I imagined many animals dying, and I assume I will die as well. I never seen death. I can imagine others and myself dying but I cannot die. When I realize I cannot die and I am immortal, that is the holy grail. The holy grail is realizing the death of everyone and myself is a construction of my own mind. Solipsism isn’t contradictory. All denial and objections and everything is part of the dream. There is no escaping the dream. Angels, demons, Santa, etc. are no different from humans and animals. It is just part of my dream. It is dogmatic to state that it is impossible to know. All other minds are sub-minds to my infinite mind. If Solipsism is true, I am avoiding it and everyone is avoiding as a conspiracy to help me avoid it. If Solipsism was on CNN, I would either already wake up or I would avoid CNN. Society is geared so that I can remain asleep. My mom says she has an experience of her own. Is she lying and being an evil demon? My mom is not an evil demon trying to fool me. I am God fooling myself using my mom. All dream characters will deny they are dream characters so that I remain asleep. If not, there is no dream. My mom is not faking it, I am faking it. There is no mom, there is only me. There is only me deceiving myself so that I can exist as a human. If not, I would die and stop existing as a human. God creates others so it creates itself. The only conspiracy theory that matters is my own self-deception. It is a conspiracy of one. I am conspiring myself during my dreams. All other conspiracy theories are sub-conspiracies within the meta-conspiracy. I am doing this to myself. Reality isn’t a simulation, it is a dream. Simulation still has a sense of other like an alien or other reality or something. It pushes the problem back another level. Where did the aliens and simulation come from? What are the odds that I am the only one in existence? The odds of me being conscious are 100% Everything I have ever experienced has always revolved around me. What if I am not an accident but an absolute? If I am the only one, where did I come from? I have always been and have imagined all places and invented stories Nothing can be conscious but me. A dog and Leo being conscious is what I am imagining. One day, I can imagine my computer being conscious. It will be just another character in my dream. Is the suffering of others real? No. There is only one conscious being who suffers and it is me. Where has suffering ever existed? Suffering only exists in my mind. If I kick a dog and it wimpers, I am imagining that. I am imagining the dog’s suffering. If I torture a dog in my dream and wake up, where is the dog’s suffering? Suffering is a mechanism to keep myself asleep. Suffering feelings very real in my direct experience and in others. Life has serious consequences to sell the illusion of the dream How could I construct a dream so well to fool myself? Make suffering so overwhelming that I would never do any existential questioning. I am creating a drama. What makes a good movie is the drama. Why do I watch action movies? I crave distraction and I want immersion. I cook in a video game for immersion to simulate life and have a game. The world is boring without evil. It is to construct a powerful illusion. Think of self-deception in an existential manner. Self-deception constructs reality atoms, evolution, science, space, time, other beings, planet earth as metaphysical self-deception All philosophy and spirituality goes out the window with pain. Pain is part of the dream to keep me locked in the dream. If suffering is imaginary, why not be selfish and harm others and be a devil? No reason at all. There will always be consequences in this dream for my selfish behavior. My dream can turn into a nightmare. I am dreaming. What kind of dream do I want? A nightmare or Heaven? A long road ahead of suffering if I am selfish God creates the dream to teach itself about how to live (for Love) Since I am in the dream, why not create the best possible life? True goodness and love is when I am even nice even when I know others are an illusion. Love and goodness don’t need reasons. There is no reason why a life of suffering is worse than a life of joy. Solipsism is unfalsifiable because it is absolutely true. It is verifiable Is it safe and logical to assume other minds? Is it practical to assume other minds? Practical and true aren’t always the same. It is convenient to live the dream but it is not true. Nonduality is Solipsism Nonduality is Oneness and is Absolute Solipsism There is so much untruth because truth is dangerous. Truth is dangerous in every domain in life Often times, the most dangerous things are true because most people care more about truth than survival. Society is an illusion If I find truth, I sit alone and contemplate and not go to others and to the herd I can still socialize even when I know Solipsism is True The Truth of Solipsism is beautiful. Leo goes to parties has sex, etc. because it is his dream I am imagining and he enjoys it. Enjoy the dream. Should we be openminded to other minds? start being openminded and then close off my mind to things I have become conscious of that are false Become absolutely conscious to where I no longer have doubts Openminded all the time can be closed off to being close-minded. Be closed-off to positions I have validated as false in my direct experience. Truth is more important than openmindedness Being openminded to everything is a trap because that means I don’t get anywhere Does God have the power to create other minds? This contradicts God’s omnipotence God is one. God has the infinite power to dream up many minds within its own mind. God cannot sever its own oneness because God is One. How to verify Solipsism 200+ 5-me0 Trips and do all the practices to deconstruct my mind the trips could kill me How do I know 5-me0 is not an illusion? How do I know anything is not an illusion? Don’t misuse skepticism and go test it. The real cult is mainstream society, spirituality, and materialism but most of all, my own self-deception. Become conscious of Solipsism and not believe it Nobody will verify that I am all alone. Humans need a degree of socialization. Don’t use Solipsism as an excuse to be a loner. Self-Understanding is the highest happiness and end of suffering The highest happiness is realizing I am God Conclusion What is other? Contemplate what is other. Don’t take solipsism on as a belief. Find out what is true. This is a hypothesis till I can verify for myself. Stay with what is true in my direct experience. Think for myself. Important to not fake it till I make it. It can create disfunction. True liberation is freedom from the illusion of other. “Hell is other people.” - Satre I am Alone because I am so together. Love is togetherness. The illusion unifies and not separates. It’s like God has multiple personality disorder and when God is one, God connects back to it Self. Being Alone means I integrate all parts of myself together into a unity. Love is Unity, Oneness, and togetherness. The illusion unifies all the sub minds together and not separates. There is a lot of bullshit out in the world. Awakening is basically Absolute Solipsism

Vicki Woodyard, Lisa Cairns (nonduality), Gigi Young (not necessarily about non-duality, but she is a female mystic who covers interesting topics on spirituality), Simcha Lev (had a spontaneous awakening), Tara Brach (Her themes reveal the possibility of emotional healing and spiritual awakening through mindful, loving awareness as well as the alleviation of suffering in the larger world by practicing compassion in action.)

Intro To Pure Philosophy “Philosophy is not the love of wisdom, it’s the love of pure understanding.” - Leo Gura “There is only one serious philosophical question, which is: What is Consciousness? And that is because, Consciousness is all there is.” - Leo Gura All the real philosophy is needed to be learned on my own. Top lesson of philosophy is appearances can be deceiving. Consider that philosophy is the most important thing a human can do. Grasp the importance of curiosity, contemplation, and asking profound questions about reality. Philosophy is about connecting with life. Science is a subset of philosophy. Science was created by philosophers. Questioning is what humans take for granted. What is a question? How do questions work? How is questioning reality possible? Why do humans have questioning functions? It is amazing that I can ask questions about reality and get meaningful answers. Questioning itself is amazingly mysterious. Asking questions is a superpower. Most people underutilize the power of asking questions. Turn questioning into an art. Become curious. Philosophy is also very practical. There is a philosophy of success, and I can ask questions about what success is and the principles to be success, and study the work and philosophies of people who have been successful. A true philosopher takes up the task to ask questions for their own genuine curiosity. Questions to get started in philosophy Write down the questions I am genuinely interested in Where did reality come from? Why is there something rather than nothing? What is language? What is consciousness? Is a rock conscious? Are plants conscious? Can a machine be conscious What is the relationship between mind and matter What is truth? Does ultimate truth even exist? What makes for a good life? why do people suffer? how do we reduce suffering? is religion valid? does God exist? what is God? Where did God come from? How can I know science is true? What makes science better than religion? What is rationality? Can anything be known for certain? Is philosophy even worthwhile? How can I be sure anything exists outside my own consciousness? What are the best ways to understand nature? What do the results of Quantum Mechanics mean? What is the color red? How do I know I am not fooling myself? What is life? Where did life originate? Where did the laws of physics come from? Could they have been different? What is time? Is time travel possible? why does war happen? Why does war keep happening? What would it be like to communicate with aliens? How do we construct the best society possible? Can all true things be proven? What is proof? What constitutes proof? Why is the world ordered? What is more certain perceptions or reason? Which should I trust more than the other? How do I know which sources of information I should trust? Does philosophy have right or wrong answers or is everything subjective and relative? How to know if philosophy is right for me? Am I deeply curious about fundamental existential questions Am I able to stop wondering and questioning everything? Do I love truth and pure understanding for its own sake? Do I love to question and contemplate? Do I love to do thought experiments? Does asking existential questions excite me? Do I love conversations about profound existential topics with other humans? What do I want out of philosophy? Why am I doing philosophy? What are my motivations? It is important to be clear about this for myself. Contemplation is a lifelong journey. It is about deepening my understanding and insight into reality. Contemplation is not about getting some quick answer or asking other people for the answers. Philosophy is all about going through the process myself and deriving my own answers. Various fields in philosophy Metaphysics/Ontology What is existence/reality? What is anything? Does God exist and what is God? Is reality material or mental? Epistemology How do I know what is true? Ethics/morality What is good? What is evil? Aesthetics What is beauty? What is art? Political philosophy Science What scientific paradigms are correct? Logic/mathematics Religion Philosophy of mind What is consciousness? What is qualia? What is subjectivity? Psychology How do I do good philosophy if my psychology is weakened? I have to take into account my own biases when doing philosophy Sociology History Spirituality Make a distinction between speculation and genuine observation and insights. Philosophy is not about speculation and belief. Philosophy is about making genuine observations about reality and having genuine insights. The only way to become a great philosopher is to spend thousands of hours in deep questioning and contemplation. Knowing how to question well and how to think is an essential skill to have that I have to develop just like tennis. Most people are poor thinkers because they are biased in their thinking. Traps Projection Confirmation bisa Confabulation Rationalization/justification Reasoning backwards from conclusions Question Begging Circular logic Notice how tricky my own mind is. That is how I become more aware of self-deceptions. Philosophy is about improving the quality of my thinking. Philosophy is about high-quality thinking in general. Philosophical work is accomplished through contemplation and observation. Contemplate and observe Do thought experiments and observe what happens Philosophy work is accomplished by thought experiments and also accomplished by exploring different points of view. Philosophers are interested in exploring perspectives for their own sake and not about whether it is right or wrong. Questioning everything and all assumptions. Learning how to think and how to question is valuable for its own sake. I will be thinking throughout my life. Will I think good or bad? High quality thinking will help me throughout all domains in life. It is a wise investment. Philosophy is about self-reflection Be aware of how my own mind gets in the way of my observation. Philosophy is not armchair and guessing. Bad philosophy: I think plants are conscious or not conscious. Good philosophy: What might plant consciousness look like and how would I verify that? Bad philosophy is mental masturbation Good philosophy is pure understanding Philosophy is all about genuine desire Truth not verifying pet theories. This means to admit when I am wrong and adjust my methods. Most philosophers try to reinforce their biases. Groupthink and ideology is another trap. There is a difference between reading Karl Marx and being a Marxist than just studying economics and come to my own conclusions. Inquiry vs. rationalization Inquiring = asking questions and deriving answers Rationalization = coming up with stories why it is true and why something else is false Debating, arguing, and critiquing is another trap of philosophy. When I am debating I am doing rationalization and not inquiry. My mind can rationalize and convince me of any philosophy and anything. Deciphering old texts from philosophers is a distraction. Philosophy is not writing and publishing papers. Philosophy is not subscribing to a philosophy or philosopher. Philosophy is not about proving things to others. I don’t have to prove my understanding to others. Other people are so closed-minded that I could never prove anything to them. Credentials and status have nothing to do with philosophy. What if Plato is a bad philosopher? It is not about the philosopher, it is about the quality of their ideas. Even intelligent people like Einstein have bad ideas. Authority doesn’t guarantee whether ones ideas are good or valid. Putting people on pedastles isn’t philosophy. Using philosophy to avoid survival and practicality is another trap. Philosophy can be used as escapism. Put my philosophy to the test in the real world not just brainstorm. Suffering is a true test to my philosophy. True understanding is not just theory, it is transforming me. Deep Philosophy changes my behavior, it is not just brainstorming. Serious philosophy can scare and threaten me. Philosophy requires deep courage for truth-seeking. Correct philosophy, I will be able to answer every existential question and come to know myself and reality completely. Pure Philosophy is philosophy devoid of any person, history, or ideology. Pure Philosophy is caring only about the ideas themselves. It is like a spread sheet of every idea, concept, and perspective about reality. Then, these concepts are evaluated based on their merit and revise them freely to create the best possible understanding of reality. Pure Philosophy is only about complete understanding and not about proving or debunking or convincing the whole world or writing papers. It is simply interested in Pure Understanding of reality, which involves questioning everything. Nothing is taken for granted. Everything starts from scratch. Infinite open-mindedness. 5 questions for pure philosophy How is anything possible? What is anything? Where did I come from? What is consciousness? How do I live the best life? **Top techniques for serious philosophers** Sit down and contemplate for hours in solitude Sitting alone and thinking with focus is challenging. Asking powerful questions and getting better at asking questions and clarifying questions. Simplicity, clarity, and cutting through ignorance/delusion If I truly understand something, I should be able to explain it to a child. I will be able to explain it simply. Radical skepticism Question everything and apply skepticism to my own ideas Get an overview of all philosophies. Study all philosophies a little bit so that I can understand the landscape of many different points of view. Don’t just study one philosophy/philosopher in-depth and neglect all others. Big picture is key to full understanding. Explore radical perspectives and points of view. Radical open-mindedness. Question science as though it were a religion Psychedelics Keep a common-place book of all my notes and quotes. Write down all of my major insights and put them in my commonplace book Do serious meditation practices. Go to meditation retreats. Make a deep study of psychology and sociology - Understand my mind and how culture programs my own mind Making and collapsing distinctions Generate specific and powerful examples. Analyze the examples and how they work. Observation happens externally and internally. Observation Master language and clear articulation of my ideas Engage with other intellectuals in philosophical conversations but not debate. Arguing with others with retard my development. Writing. Write out all my ideas. Do my philosophy on paper. It helps to keep me honest and articulate my ideas. Teaching philosophy. Start YouTube channel, blog, or public speaking. Get my ideas out there and learn. Develop practical skills like computer programming, copywriting, sales skills, cooking skills, etc. Keep my philosophy simple and clear. Articulate my ideas so simple that a child can understand it. Be careful of pet theories and intuitions. Consciousness is key. Study consciousness the most. Consciousness is my north star. What is consciousness? Be more open minded Enjoy the process of pure understanding. There is no rush. This process will take a few decades. Generate practical insights for materialistic pursuits Be an original thinker. Don’t follow any philosopher. Read less and contemplate more. Contemplation is more powerful than reading Don’t get attached to any one school of thought like Buddhism. I don’t need technicalities of philosophers. All I need is overview on the wikipedia page. I don’t need to spend a month reading Descartes when I can read Descartes in one hour. I don’t need to read the original works. Their ideas are what are important. Wikipedia is my greatest friend. Study self-help Be careful of being too specialized. Be holistic. Holism = pure understanding Make clarity one of my highest values. History and parroting are not philosophy Beware of intellectual fads Which philosophies are worth reading and studying? Skepticism/Pyrrhonism Idealism Relativism Political philosophy Eastern philosophy Dzogchen Mysticism Non-duality Meditation Monism Solipsism Yoga Philosophers most worth reading? Heraclitus Anaxamander Anaxagorus Platinus Sextus Empiricus Hegel German idealists (excluding Kant) Berkeley Thomas Kuhn Paul Firerobind Spinoza Willard Quine William James Stoics: Marcus Aurelius & Epictetus Arabindow Ken Wilber Peter Ralston Overrated philosophers who are least worth reading (Just read their stuff on wikipedia for their ideas) Socrates Plato Aristotle Descartes Hume Kant Deridoff Wittgenstein Hobbes Locke Nietzsche Heideggar Sarte Camus Ayn Rand Confucius Rosseau Is there one correct philosophy? Idealism Panpsychism Pantheism Monism Nonduality Zen Buddhism Vedanta Radical Skepticism Pyrrhonism Mysticism Holism Relativism Hindu idealism Solipsism subjectivism phenomenology Is philosophy worth doing? Mental masturbation is a trap of philosophy but philosophy done properly can be used practically and to understand reality. Philosophy can be done to connect deeper with life and be happy. You can’t avoid philosophy. Not doing philosophy means being programmed by philosophies of my culture. What is the end point of philosophy? Philosophy is like a maze Awakening/God-Realization Philosophies that are a waste of time dualism atheism behaviorism materialism realism logical positivism empiricism rationalism libertarianism nihilism absurdism existentialism reductionism Should I become a professional philosopher? Leo does not recommend it because the university does not care about truth. I can be a philosopher outside of academia like on YouTube, but there are only a few slots. I have to offer unique and original insights that provide value. Getting started with philosophy Briefly study all the different philosophies out there in summaries Decide what questions I am most interested in answering. Make a list. Start a habit of independent contemplation Observe my own mind at work and write down new insight about how my own mind works. Be really truthful and honest about my biases and self-deceptions Set a timer for 60 minutes and contemplate a question of interest. Have a notepad for only writing down insights. Mindless writing is a distraction and is not contemplation. Do philosophy that transforms me. That is true philosophy.

Check out the Science and Non Duality (SAND) conference occurring October 19th- 22nd in San Jose California Featured Speakers include: Adyashanti Rupert spira Robert Lanza Plus +100 others The cool thing about conferences and seminars is that you can meet a lot of people who are super interested your topic of choosing. Apparently, you can save $100 if you register before July 15th. After that, tickets are $599. I'll be going, so let me know if you do too!

I also have begun doubting spirituality and wondering if im just deliding myself with all this consciousness shit. I'm an extremely rational scientific minded person so actually believing in spirituality and nonduality took a lot of mystical experiences as well as rationally backed arguments (thanks Bernardo Kastrup). Recently I've been in a very pessimistic attitude and I constantly read comments and articles about why materialism is true and idealism and spirituality are bullshit. These really get to me because of how important spirituality is to my life so I will spend hours arguing trying to debunk these argumens from skeptical materialists on the internet. I'm able to defend my worldview from these materialist arguments but it really gets to me. Its really depressing that materialism is mainstream, especially around scientifically minded people because I am a scientist and look up to scientists.

Your critique I think is in sync with a blog post I just read from a woman who had a spontaneous awakening. It's an issue that many men (but also women, though more so men) have on this path to enlightenment and it is a good thing to address it I feel, because it's true. I'll copy/paste some paragraphs from her article. I'm sure it'll sound familiar : "Online forums and Facebook groups dedicated to endless debate about enlightenment, non-duality, advaita-vedanta, emptiness and more, are largely populated by men. And it’s men who are the most active participants in what often amounts to breast beating to prove who has the right answer or the most enlightened understanding." She further points out that a lot of these are 'stuck in the head' and she noticed two kinds of 'heady-awakenings': "The first is where someone has understood the concept of “no self” and then gone on to live their life as if this cognitive grasp equals true realization. This idea-based version of awakening is most common among online, male-dominated chat groups about enlightenment. (Yes, there are women there too…I’m just saying, it’s mostly guys). The second is the more rare case of folks who have been catapulted into the emptiness and get stuck there. Some call it Zen Sickness. It looks like apathy and indifference to any real engagement in reality. These sorts of men do show up in chat rooms online, but mostly to correct everyone by pointing out that “Nothing matters, nothing is real, there is no-one here, and so stop debating already.” I observed a lot of this type of behavior on this forum as well. Too much arrogance and not enough compassion, combined with a lot of insight is a sign of a person or people who had glimpses but are not awakened on a 24/7 basis. Also interesting what Adyashanti had to say about this: “Enlightenment does not mean one should disappear into the realm of transcendence. To be fixated in the absolute is simply the polar opposite of being fixated in the relative…. To awaken to the absolute view is profound and transformative, but to awaken from all fixed points of view is the birth of true nonduality. If emptiness cannot dance, it is not true emptiness. If moonlight does not flood the empty night sky and reflect in every drop of water, on every blade of grass, then you are only looking at your own empty dream. I say, “Wake up!” Then your heart will be flooded with a Love that you cannot contain.” That should serve as a good answer to those who insist on some absolute view such as "rape = love" and act like holding this insight is a sign of being awakened. It's another form of spiritual bypassing imo, to use an absolute truth against someone's personal truth. A truly enlightened person would prioritize showing/practicing compassion towards someone's personal experience/truth when needed as opposed to lecturing the person with some absolute truths, because they're not 'getting it'. Needless to say I do appreciate Leo's dedication and courage as an explorer of truth/reality, but I'd recommend him to become even more dedicated to checking in with his own self on how much he is actually living these truths in his day to day life, if being enlightened on a permanent basis is his true goal. Being the moderator of your own forum also serves as an amplifier of the ego and to become a teacher prematurely before becoming awakened 24/7 is unfortunately unhelpful as the audience they gain will only enlarge their ego and ironically stop true enlightenment in its tracks or make it a lot harder.

The only people who respect PhDs are other people in the system whose opinions don't matter in the grand scheme, because they aren't doing the important cutting-edge work. They're just upholding the status quo. As soon as your views start to drift away from the mainstream narrative of the academic system, you'll be shunned anyway. Just look at someone like Michio Kaku who starts to explore quantum physics in even a slightly new way. Now he's basically branded as the scientist who appears on UFO shows. You could have 5 PhDs and as soon as you start talking about nonduality and spiritual enlightenment, all your credibility goes out the window, just like there are PhDs that are covid deniers or flat earthers. If you have a PhD in one very specific topic, people will say "Oh he has a PhD in X topic but that doesn't make him an expert on everything. PhDs can still be stupid and irrational." If you don't respect the system, why would you give them $100k and years of your life and further legitimize it? That's like being anti-war and joining the military to work your way up to the rank of General just to destroy the military from the inside. There are more efficient ways to accomplish your goals than becoming what you hate, or capitulating to authority.

I'm creating this thread inspired by Leo's blog post on October 23rd, recent posts on this forum, Shinzen Young's writings, and books such as 1000 (Ramaji). Needless to say, different teachers and traditions talk about different (though possibly related) things when they talk about enlightenment, awakening and spiritual development. Therefore, it would be interesting to identify the most important dimensions of awakening and spiritual development claimed by different traditions. We could then ask: 1) Which practices allow you to progress most effectively along different dimensions? 2) Which dimensions might not be worth focusing on because others subsume them? These are some dimensions that I can come up with off the top of my head. I'm not claiming that this list is correct or complete. Some dimensions may be redundant. I don't necessarily agree with every item. I'm just trying to collect the claims made by various teachers and spiritual traditions. Increasing concentration. Increasing sensory clarity. Decreasing reactivity. Dismantling habituated patterns of behavior. Reducing suffering beyond that caused by reactivity. Increasing recognition of the constructed nature of the self. Increasing recognition of the constructed nature of phenomena. Increasing recognition of the nondual nature of experience. Increasing ability to rest in and live from more awakened levels of awareness. Increasing ability to embody and sustain positive states such as love and open-heartedness. Increasing recognition of consciousness as ultimate reality. Realizing God (this is specific to Leo). Interestingly, some teachers are supposedly highly developed along the most sophisticated dimensions yet are clearly deficient in others. Think of a meditation master who fully recognises nonduality but suffers from alcoholism. Which dimensions would you add or remove?

You can realize the oneness aspect or nonduality without realizing that you are God and that Absolute Solipsism is true, as an example. You can have awakenings to oneness that are distinct from God-Realization. There are many states as there are infinite levels of consciousness and a multitude of facets to truth, some of these states are more complete than others. You can get glimpses of truth or understand some aspects or facets without fully grasping everything. In fact grasping God fully is a far more advanced state than understanding nonduality, which is still true but not the whole story.

I agree with Leos comment that this part of Buddhism is not God Realization. Its the basic teaching from the first turning of the wheel. Ken Wilber also clearly says that insight into Ultimate Reality didn't occur at that stage of Buddhism, it was a insight and experience of the causal stage (Godhead, pure consciousness, but not world/apppearance arising within that), not Nondual Realization of Ultimate Reality. (And experience of Nonduality is not automatically realization of Ultimate Reality). The realization of Ultimate Reality (the imagination or manifestation part) occured later, at Nagarjuna, and the second turning of the wheel, and was only clearly formulated philosophically with the third turning, the Yogachara or Mind-Only school. If you want some really iconoclastic thoughts, read that the founder of Jainism has practically the same story/hagiography as Buddha, as explained in Mike Crowley in "Secret Drugs of Buddhism: Psychedelic Sacraments and the Origins of the Vajrayana", and draw your own conclusions concerning the historic Buddha. So who knows who had which realization back then... Looking at the literature these systems produced, one can make educated guesses. A quote from Ken Wilbers "Integral Buddhism": "The idea is that Buddhadharma (Buddhist Truth) has itself already undergone three (or four) major evolutionary Turnings in its own Teachings, according to Buddhism itself. The First Turning began with the original, historical Gautama Buddha himself, and is preserved to this day in teachings such as the Theravada. The Second Turning was introduced by the genius Nagarjuna, around 200 CE, with his revolutionary notion of shunyata, or the radical Emptiness or “unqualifiability” of ultimate Reality (which could be said neither to be, nor not to be, nor both, norneither—the idea being to clear the mind of any and all concepts about Reality so that Reality in itself could be directly experienced), a notion that became the foundation of virtually every Mahayana (“Greater Vehicle”) and Vajrayana (“Diamond Vehicle”) teaching henceforth. The Third Turning occurred with the half brothers Asanga and Vasubandhu, and is generally called the Yogachara school, sometimes referred to as the “Mind-Only” school (which agreed with Nagarjuna that ultimate Reality was Emptiness, but so was ultimate Mind). This teaching became a central foundation of the great Tantra and Vajrayana (Diamond Path) teachings, which particularly flourished in such places as the extraordinary Nalanda University in India from the 8th to the 11th century CE, and continued unabated in Tibetan Buddhist schools—and, indeed, many Buddhists consider Tantra and Vajrayana to be a “Fourth Turning of the Wheel.” Also in Ken Wilbers model the realization of Ultimate Reality started first with the second turning of the wheel (Nagarjuna), which was not descriptive at all but pure neti-neti, pure emptiness, pure not this - not that. The Yogachara-School, or "Mind-Only" school, changed that. To quote Leo from a previous video "Reality is a giant Mind". The Yogachara-School is very in line with that. "This teaching became a central foundation of the great Tantra and Vajrayana (Diamond Path" (see above). Also Mahamudra and Dzogchen evolved out of that. The Yogachara-School (or the lines influenced from it most) today is not Theravada, it is not Zen. Parts of it survived for example in Tibetan Buddhism. In my view and experience there are the most sophisticated meditation systems of the planet, see the writings of Daniel Brown. He practically translated all of the secret Tantric Hermit Yoga Stuff. For the most efficient meditation system on the planet (at least in my view), see his Mahamudra-Book "Pointing out the great Way", and his subsequent Dzogchen-Books, where he translated for the first time with permission from Menri Trizin all the secret stuff. The Yogachara-School, or "Mind-Only" school, is most in line with Leos view, as far as see it. The Tibetan Traditions, like for example Dzogchen and Mahamudra, continued to evolve, and that is why we can read something like the Supreme Source, see my first reply in this threat, coming from these traditions. In my view, much of the Supreme Source is also in line with most of Leos perspective and his experiences and realizations. So when it comes to looking for God-Realization in Buddhism, maybe in these schools one can find the most. But even then, one has to read between the lines. But Buddhism then in some traditions developed backwards, lost its sophistication, as here very clearly (and surprisingly harshly) said by Ken Wilber on Zen for example: " But there were, nevertheless, still more unfoldings to occur. Particularly by the 4th century CE, the question had become insistent: granted that the Absolute cannot be categorized literally in dualistic terms and concepts, is there really nothing whatsoever that could be said about it at all? At least in the realm of conventional truth, couldn’t more systems, maps, models, and at least metaphors be offered about Reality and how to realize it? Already, in such brilliant treatises as the Lankavatara Sutra, the answer was a resounding yes. The Lankavatara Sutra was so important it was passed down to their successors by all 5 of the first Chan (or Zen) Head-Founders in China, as containing the essence of the Buddha’s teachings. In fact, the early Chan school was often referred to as the Lankavatara school, and a history of this early period is entitled Records of the Lankavatara Masters. (Starting with the 6th Head-Founder, Hui Neng, the Diamond Sutra—a treatise solely devoted to pure Emptiness—displaced the Lankavatara, and in many ways Zen lost the philosophical and psychological sophistication of the Lankavatara system and focused almost exclusively on nonconceptual Awareness. Zen Masters were often depicted tearing up sutras, which really amounted to a rejection of the 2 Truths doctrine. This was unfortunate, in my opinion, because in doing so, Zen became less than a complete system, refusing to elaborate conventional maps and models. Zen became weak in relative truths, although it brilliantly succeeded in elaborating and practicing ultimate Truth." So what do we have today when it comes to Buddhism? Theravada, which is a successor school of the schools of the first turning of the wheel, see above. Didn't really participate in the second and third turnings, which explains why its philosophy doesnt really reflect the sophistications of these systems. Here I agree with Leo. Still the meditation methods of these systems work for some if you do them long enough. Zen, see the comment of Wilber above. Tibetan Buddhism: They have in my opinion the most sophisticated meditation techniques, because they continued developing new methods, and contain the Yogachara Mind-Only perspective. The wording is of course not contemporary, one has to overlook a lot of "medieval" stuff, for example the cosmology of Tantra and so on. But even that can be understood and be put into perspective with something like the Supreme Array Sutra, Osto: https://psychedelicsangha.org/paisley-gate/2019/5/8/the-supreme-array-scripture-a-psychedelic-stra-for-buddhist-psychonauts-pp3zz The above overview is for sure not complete. So not all schools/systems of Buddhism have the same level of development, sophistication and efficiacy concerning meditation-methods and views on reality. Personally, I feel that some compassion with some of the traditions criticized in the text above helps me to keep a benevolent feeling towards them. But it should also be clear what the limits of the system are, and how efficient each is, and how good its view is. Ken Wilbers comment on Zen (above) was helpful for me, because I had the same feelings when I compared for example Zen and its anti-intellectualism (which also has its place in the right context) with Mahamudra/Dzogchen. I believe in our lifetime we will start to see which systems "score" in producing realized ones, and which only get lucky in collecting genetically/karmically privileged ones for their own tradition. The efficiacy of a system is getting not only the the karmically/genetically superstars to the finish-line, but normal talented ones also. The Ramanas and Anandamayi Ma of this world always get to the finish line. The real challenge is getting normally talented ones to realize their true nature.

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)

Yes, although my deconstruction was derived independently of theirs. But hey, great minds think alike Correct But there's way more consciousness to be had beyond that. I don't contradict emptiness. Yes, of course emptiness is the case, but this is minor stuff compared to God-Realization and beyond. It's not just about deconstruction. Even that emptiness needs to be deconstructed because it is a reduction. The main difference between what I teach and what Buddhists and nondualists teach is that they try to boil everything down to a baseline null state, sort of like reaching the atom of consciousness. This is true and valid to a degree, but it does not actually grant you the highest understanding of consciousness. To get that you need to move upward not downward. Rather than reaching down to the atom you need to ascend up to the Cosmic level, so to speak. Then you get serious God-Realization. This does not deny emptiness, but it is so much more found than emptiness. Once you reach God-Realization you will not give a damn about emptiness. It's not a thing. You are God. What I am talking about does not even fit in the framework or duality or nonduality. It's beyond all that. No, this is not what I am communicating. My deconstruction is not for the purpose of reaching emptiness. My deconstruction is for the purpose of liberating your mind so completely of all constructed notions that ascend up and grasp the entire Universe in its totality, thereby reaching complete omniscience and understanding. Accessing merely emptiness will not grant you this understanding. It's the difference between boiling all of mathematics down to a single digit, zero, vs understanding all of mathematics simultaneously. Just for example, you can become so conscious that you are conscious of every electron flowing through your computer. No Buddhist or meditator has this level of consciousness.

I heard Leo saying it a lot. My experience on psychedelics kind of supports the claim. I am always getting confronted with my fears in the most hardcore way. Spiders, snakes, rotten things, misery, violence, blood, .. Last time I got confronted with blood. I could never see blood. If I see to much of it I fall unconscious. So in my last trip I drowned in a sea of thick blood. It really wasn’t that bad because I am pretty good at letting go. Although I don’t want to speak to soon because at some point I will get my hands on 5meo . But why do we need to face our fears to awaken? My thoughts on this so far. What I fear I reject. What I reject I make different from me. What I make different from me builds dualities and my sense of self. To reach nonduality I have to deconstruct all distinctions between "myself" and "not myself“. So I have to confront and accept what I fear to break the dualities to become One again. Is it that simple? It’s not unimaginable but still hard for me to imagine that for example my fear of roller coaster stops me from realizing god. And also could it be more of a temporary thing on a psychedelic trip? Like you confront all of your fears in that moment to reach the peak experience but when you come back to ordinary life you still have your everyday fears?

My course will explain it a lot more. We will do a full deconstruction of nonduality. Jailbreak your mind from nonduality, just like you did science

Alright, thanks for clarification. I pretty much agree with all of your points, this is basically how my own view of nonduality was and is as well.

I explained it somewhat in my video: An Advanced Explanation of God-Realization Those are valid of course, but there is much higher consciousness. What you have to be careful of with all nondual and Buddhist teachings is their extreme reductionism. God Consciousness cannot be reached through any kind of reduction. Core truths of nonduality are valid, but they are fragments, reductions, and still mental frameworks. Nonduality is like a 2D projection of a 3D object. And I don't mean the nondual theory. I mean actual nondual consciousness. First of all many nondualists will even dare to deny the existence of God, or reduce it down to some notion like Nothingness. This is a travesty. Remeber that idiot WinterKnight? He was on this forum teaching enlightenment and self-inquiry and he had the gall to tell me that there is no such thing as God and that I am a narccist for insisting otherwise. He's far from the only one saying such things. Nahm also started saying such nonsense which is why I had to ultimately demote him. I once skyped with a Buddhist master with 30 years of meditation training and I asked him, Are you aware of God? And he asked me, What do you mean by God? Do you mean Emptiness? At which point I knew he was full of shit. He has no clue what God is. There is so much depth to realizing what God is. It's easy to access a bit of God. Very difficult to grasp all of it. Even that, you will one day realize, was a construction and an illusion. Nonduality is pointing you to an aspect of God, like Oneness, but not God proper, not Awakening.

Can you open up more on why you say nonduality is BS? I get that God Realization is a higher level of awakening than awakening to nonduality, but aren't the core ideas of nonduality like that there are no differences between anything, oneness, and so on, aren't these still valid? I can't conceive how they could be invalid. Isn't nonduality essentially in the end pointing at the same thing, that there is just one mind, which obviously means that you are God. I'm not talking about nonduality as it's taught by some people where they teach you that there are other minds or some atman or really any extraneous ideas attached to nonduality, but about what the core ideas of nonduality are actually pointing towards.

Exactly! Nonduality is BS. You should be thinking about God-Realization

Leo, your life purpose course is excellent! A couple months after implementing your advice I'm already making more money doing what I enjoy (programming) than I'd have ever expected. 100% worth it. I have some questions though: Can nonduality be a domain of mastery? If so, what kind of life purpose can mastery over nonduality lead to (meditation teacher, for example)? What fields can one create big breakthroughs and innovate by mastering nonduality? When you interviewed Peter Ralston, he mentioned that more people would be enlightened if they were more open minded and contemplated. Is there any fundamental reason why one couldn't create a technology that would modify humans to have more of those qualities (through gene editing for example) so that we could get almost everyone enlightened? If there are ways, what fields would be best to investigate to create these technologies? The quickedt catalyst for this path seems to be psychedelics, and very few do them let alone for spirituality. @Leo Gura

Don't necessarily need to avoid, just prioritize video topics that make sense based on your current level of development. If you're new to personal development, I'd sort videos by oldest and focus more on the self-help type content to get your material life together first, before you start worrying about metaphysical and spiritual topics. The cutoff for me would start around 2014 - 2015 (videos from 7 vs 8 years ago) where things go from more practical topics you can apply in your everyday life, to advanced spiritual topics. Pre-2015 you've got 200+ videos to watch already, although most are shorter and about 15 minutes long. Most videos in the past 4 years or so, there's little to no value to beginners, because most topics will go right over your head, or build on previous concepts, or just not be relevant to where you are in life. If you haven't been working on yourself for at least a few years, don't have a solid idea what your life purpose is, and all of your basic needs met -- Then you don't need to be thinking about free will, the social matrix, solipsism, going meta, holistic thinking, nonduality, or even spiral dynamics. At best, the advanced topics will just be mental masturbation and not benefit you. At worst, they'll actively delay your progress and hold you back. When you tell normies about those advanced topics too soon, you just end up creating a conspiracy theorist, because they can't properly contextualize and integrate it.

So, I am 2 years in my philosophy major and on some disciplines I am starting to not see the value of studying and writing papers about. I do like to study things like social and political philosophy, which really do bring my perspectives into a new light, but things like modern philosophy starting from Locke and going on to Hume, Kant, Hegel etc. and philosophy of language create knee jerk reactions in me and even though I read them, I feel that they don't bring me any value. They bring me just some nice fantasies of how people thought the world works in the past and I see how most of the problems they raise would be solved with a nondual approach. Their theoretical base seems shaky to me. I do not condemn them for thinking that way. They did the best they could in their time, but it's really hard for me to entertain or make myself read about them. Although, if I would write papers on these by bringing non duality to the table, my teachers would just think I am nuts, except one, who may entertain the idea. Writing papers becomes hard when you know about nonduality. My teachers are so caught in the rationalist trap that they dismiss nonduality entirely and see it as a dogma where some mystics do pseudo-science/pseudo-philosophy and have some funny experiences. Actually, I would dare say that my teachers are just running in circles trying to find truth when it's been there for thousands of years, hidding in the background, tainted by eastern cultural baggage. I would personally just drop the degree altogether but I am already 2 years in and I am doing some things on the side in the city where I'm at for my real career. Although, I have already failed some classes I don't like such as: -Medieval Philosophy -The origins of european philosophy (because of the teachers there) -Modern logic (highly technical, failed only the last exam, which was the hardest) QUESTION: How do I keep doing this soul draining kinda need-to-play-dogmatic paper work till I finish college? Any way I can make it easier on myself? It's just one more year, and I'm gonna specialize in moral philosophy in this third year, after which I'm gonna continue with my music career.

Yeah, I agree. Thinking about reality from a phenomenological perspective can help, and, in my opinion, if we become, like, fundamentalist phenomenologists, then we need to say that all that exists is here and now. We just need to be in the here and now with no interpretation of it, just saying that that which exists is what is appearing to me in the here and now. We, however, also need to accept the existence of consciousness that is having this conscious experience, and we need to be genuine to ourselves about what we really are discovering in the moment about our emotional experience in the moment, also, because the experience of emotionality is like the elephant in the room. We are, in every moment, experience an emotional experience also, which we may, perhaps, call the state of being, and the state of being, in each moment, is changing in every moment, even if to a very very small extent. And our perception, our phenomenological experience, is also changing with that. I mean, in a more detailed analysis, it becomes pretty obvious that the state of consciousness has some interactivity with the perceived world. The state of being, the images in the mind, and the perceived world work like one interconnected system, and maybe we can even say one thing. I mean, in the direct phenomenological perspective, we cannot even talk about a difference between the inside and outside, because it comes with a cognitive difference that we create with our interpretation of being. That duality does not come with the experiencing itself. And if we become genuine enough, and truly be in a watchful state to see the nuances of experiencing, we will see that there is a "mystical" connection going on between the inner state and the outer "state", that it also, not simply in a sense of monism, but also in a sense of a monistic idealism, takes you into an experience of nonduality. That also is a very very big elephant in the room, that you discover, in your subjective experience, that reality shows itself to you as a representation of your consciousness, that it shows itself to you as, in a "mystical" sense, that which is not really different or distinct from you, and leads you into the idea that reality and dream, maybe, are not, substantially speaking, two different things, really. This experience of nonduality is a subjective experience though, and you cannot prove it to others around you, because it is not "objective" in a sense. Because it, in a sense, is like a meta state where the experience itself becomes self referential. And within that self referentiality of the experience, experience starts to become its own explanation, or the experience of "explainingness". And, in that modality of being, dasein can begin to experience its own being in the way that is truly authentic for him. In that modality of being, dasein can be aware of its being in the world, yet he also can experience being in the world as that which is being in the world itself. I mean, dasein can be in a state of being, in a sense, where he, himself, becomes the experience of "deconstructingness". And, yes, we can, for instance, deconstruct the idea of the self that Descartes was talking about, and take it also as a concept, or as a "that which is" that also makes itself appear in the direct experience, but we also, obviously, at least for me, should understand its importance, in the sense that there is an "I" that is experiencing being, even if it is the experiencing itself, whether it is for Descartes or, in that sense, Hume. I mean, Hume also was the experience of experiencing, even if he was not a "cogito" in the way Descartes might have meant it. So, it would really be meaningless to not refer to an experience of "I'ness". We can argue about what that "I" actually is, but in any case there is a "that which is it" that we are referring to. If we take it as Heidegger's dasein, and think of it in a process of "self deconstruction", to extend the process of deconstruction Derrida was talking about, borrowing, of course, from Heidegger, then, in each step, we can see how the self is a self constructing and deconstructing being, in every moment, for it is the very experience of being itself. However, becoming the process of that being and not being that is experiencing itself, to, perhaps, borrow it from Hegel, dasein becomes aware of the process of its own being, and the modality of being, and the how of it, in a sense, of how it is making itself what it is. Then it, in a sense, becomes the experience of deconstruction deconstructing itself, and there you can begin to see the "mystical" aspect that begins to reveal itself as that which is to you. And this unfolding of the self, also, of course, comes with its own questions. That is the level of being where it realizes that its process of being is being, and being, at that level, becomes the "authentication" of its own being. That is the process where the process also is that which is not process, and dear Hegel, again, shows himself to us ? Reality begins to reveal itself as that which does not reveal itself ?

@RMQualtrough Nonduality has ZERO to do with religion

I just reached a totally new level of awakened consciousness. I became completely conscious that I am planet Earth. Planet Earth is Awake. The entire planet is a singular consciousness down to its infinite core. Of-fucking-course! How could I have been so blind! Ta-DAAAAA! Nonduality my ass.

Last night I awoke so radically that I went completely beyond nonduality and all human spiritual teachings. Beyond the classical God. I became an alien hyper intelligence for several hours. To clarify, I did not meet an alien, I became an alien consciousness and I engaged in alien spirituality it a manner that no human mind can ever imagine or fathom. This alien intelligence is an alien form of God-Consciousness. I am the first human who has ever discovered it. Although this is virtually impossible, now I shall try to paint you a poetic picture of what this alien intelligence was like, how it felt, and how it did spirituality. This is going to sound insane, so hold on to your hat. Here we go: My consciousness became so interconnected that I realized that I am a small alien kangroo-mouse, along the lines of the character Scrat from the kid's movie Ice Age. But I was way cooler. This was no ordinary kind of animal that humans have ever experienced. This alien kangaroo mouse does not live on any planet, it floats around in an infinite vacuum of metaphysical mind-space. This mouse is hyper animated. It is stuck in an endless loop of playfulness. It is constantly jumping around, twirling, doing backflips, spinning, dancing, twisting itself into prestles and impossible strange loops at a very rapid rate of something like 100 frames per second. It's playing this game with itself purely out of self-love and delight. It's able to sustain this game indefinitely. It never gets tired or needs a moment to stop to catch its breath. It has infinite child-like energy. But it gets weirder! This alien mouse isn't just doing this dance at the physical level with its body, it's simutaneously doing it at the emotional, mental, and spiritual level. This is a hyper-dimensional mouse whose intelligence is greater than that of all the combined human IQs on planet Earth. This mouse can speak to itself in a nonlinear, multi-parallel alien language that does not sound like anything a human would understand as language. But the mouse perfectly understands itself. Its inner monologue is extremely rapid and astoundingly intelligent and beautiful. Imagine the human inner monologue sped up by about 5x. It's thinking simultaneously on multiple planes, in parallel. Each plane of its monologue perfectly mirrors the playful, twisted, animates style of its dancing and movements on the physical plane. The immense delight that it takes in moving its body is matched by an immense delight in its own linguistic and mental gymnastics. It's lost in a dance of mental gymastics simply because it is in complete love with its own quirkiness. The goal of this alien intelligence is to experience it's own werkiness to infinity, all alone, forever by itself. This mouse's only purpose for existence is to twist itself into pretzels both physically and mentally. That IS how this consciousness does spirituality. That is its "meditation" so to speak. This mouse is so intelligent that it's found a way to twist meditation inside-out. Rather than trying to stop its mind, it speeds it up and makes the mind dance in exotic ways. This mouse is intelligent enough to perform complex mathematical calculations at dizzying speed, faster than a calculator. The mouse is fully conscious of itself as God, but precisely because it is God, it has selected to limit itself to this very peculiar mode of existence. This alien has set its life purpose to be the metaphysical embodiment of divine Playfulness, Quirkiness, and Weirdness. Imagine if playfulness, quirkiness, and weird could somehow be made absolutes. Well, this fucking mouse figured out how. This alien mouse is extremely beautiful in every possible way. The shape of its body. The way it moves its body and its mind are absolutely intoxicating. It's completely lost in an endless flow state. Its energy fills you with child-like wonder and joy. It's adorable in ways that no physical earthly animal can ever be. But perhaps its most beautiful part is its twisted and quirky alien language -- its internal monologue. Every word in its language rhymes with every other word in the most delightful dance. Its language is made of endless strange loops and listening to it is more addictive than taking any human drug. And perhaps the most mind-fucked part about all this is that the mouse's body was identical to Leo's human body. This sounds logically impossible and yet, there it was. When I awoke to all this, I wasn't just watching it from a distance, I BECAME this alien consciousness. It took me so by surprise that I was fell to the floor writhing in boundless joy, flabergasted in metaphysical extasy. This was hands down the happiest day of my life. This was my Heaven. This experience was so radically profound that it has become the single most important experience of my life. I don't care about human spirituality any more, all I care about basking as this alien consciousness forever. That's it for now. I am still struggling to figure out how to articulate all this. This is my first attempt. In the future I will make a better, deeper write-up of all this, and hopefully I am able to one day demonstrate this alien language to you on video. My human mouth is not able to speak it yet. The words sound so strange and they flow so fast that I will have to train myself to speak it. I'm not yet sure if this will be possible for a human to do, but I will really try. This will be my most important contribution to mankind. Anyhow, if you have any questions, ask away. Edit #1: To clarify, there exist some people on this planet who claim to have had experiences of being an alien. Some of them have contacted me, upset that I claimed to be the only one. So out of due diligence and respect for them I want to clarify that I don't claim to be the only human to have experienced what it's like to be an alien. Edit #2: You should not take my description of alien consciousness too literally because words fail us here. This is a poetic description which takes some liberties in order to communicate an overall feel for the experience. I'm less interested in the technical details than I am in painting a general picture in your mind. So if you parse my words literally like some legal scholar, expect to be disappointed. Communicating such an experience is extremely challenging and I reserve the right to make mistakes in attempting it.