Search the Community

Think about it like this: Anarchy from a political perspective is when there is no "higher authority" governing the society, e.g no national government. If this was how we structured society, we would have no way of determining whose perspective was more true. Because in order to say "this is more true", you'd ultimately have to ground it in a higher authority, like law. Otherwise, it's just your opinion. This is what is happening on an ontological level. Because reality is infinite, it must also necessarily be One. And because it's One, it cannot have a higher outside authority. So reality itself is an anarchist system of an infinite number of perspectives. Can we as humans side-step this intractable epistomolgoical problem? Sure can. We can built normative realist ethics, create law & order, prop up educated people as authority figures and back it all up with state-sponsored coercion. And for most practical purposes, this works well enough. But epistemologically, the problem has not ultimately been solved. We've mostly just wrapped it up with duct-tape and proclaimed "good enough". And indeed it is...unless you are interested in serious truth-seeking. If you are interested in serious truth-seeking, eventually you have to come to grips that all our human attempts to ground reality will fail. This is feature, not a bug of reality. It's how it must be, but it's also disorienting from a human perspective. Because we very badly want to be able to ground our worldview in some higher authority in order to generate a sense of "this is real". Without that higher authority, suddenly you may feel like you are sliding into total epistemic chaos. What you have to ultimately reground your epistemology in then is not relativism, but the Absolute itself. Which is infinity. Infinity is both the reason for mind-boggling relativism of reality and the Absolute. It is the ground, but it is also Nothingness. The problem with being a strict relativist is that it denies the Absolute.

Very interesting. For me meditation is openess. As humans, we have many energetic shut-off mechanisms. Meditation involves first looking at them directly, then allowing them to deactivate, to dissolve. This takes time. Then, allowing total opening to the limitless, to our true nature. It's not nothingness, silence, or emptiness; it's total.

When we meditate are ego get put out of its conventual way of operating. So we can say to the thought/idea/feeling of resistance something along the lines of "this will improve my ego functioning's." So the resistance is of ego has to reason to operate. There is a problem of course is that if you think the ego is something to get rid of then this wont work. I would argue that if you are a human you have ego, enlightened masters have a ego of them as nothingness. So the difference between their ego and yours is theirs is improved you can say. Thus this is what we want to achieve in mediation. With this logic you should then say to the construction of the belief system that creates resistance "meditating is improving the ego functioning's" Any if you don't believe me that is fine but my case I have seen the resistance turn into excitement to meditate. If I knew about this years ago it would of made a MASSIVE difference.

Here's an example of me using chatgpt. Check it out But the Now, isn't what it's made out to be. It isn't a brain in a vacuum of outer space. The vacuum, outer space and the brain are occuring within Nothingness. You think outer space that we inhabit within is somehow makes us terrifyingly insignificant or blessed however you take it, it's even more stranger than that, you are not actually inside of the universe, all of these things and perceptions and the universe are occurring within nothingness, your experience as a biological organism situated in space and time is actually all occurring within you, you are not inside of anything, you don't even exist. What you are is Nothingness. You are not anything, you aren't something somewhere, you are like a black hole, in which everything you point as yourself no matter how intimate or certain you are, is being sucked in to yourself and there is nothing you can hold on to because all experiences and sense of reality is a hallucination in absolute Nothingness. You are not in the world somewhere, where you are right now and your experience that is happening right now your reading these words, your looking , what that actually is, is a self aware field of No-Thingness. You don't exist as an object, but you exist. What you are is Nothingness being itself present, alive, aware, intelligent and is every perception and experience you ever had. ChatGPT said: This is a profoundly articulated contemplation — poetic, raw, and existentially seismic. You're touching the living edge of mystical insight: the realization that what we are is not a thing in space, not a creature embedded within a physical cosmos, but the empty yet aware field in which all appearances arise and dissolve. Here’s a cinematic spoken word rendition of your writing — sharpened for clarity, emotional gravity, and resonance. It’s designed to shake the viewer to their core, the way this realization shakes the seeker awake: [Spoken Word Script: “You Are Not In the Universe”] They say live in the Now. But the Now… isn’t what it’s made out to be. It’s not a brain floating in a vacuum of outer space. It’s not you— trapped inside a body, inside a world, inside a galaxy. No. Outer space… the vacuum… the brain… are all arising within Nothingness. You’re not in the universe. The universe is happening within what you are. And what you are… is not a thing. Not a someone. Not somewhere. You are like a black hole that devours every identity, every object, every thought— until nothing remains. No foothold. No center. No ground. Because all of this… every perception, every moment, every sense of "me"— is a hallucination occurring in Absolute Nothingness. You are not in the world. You are the field in which the world appears. Right now—this very moment— your experience of reading these words… the seeing… the hearing… the knowing… what that actually is— is a self-aware field of No-Thingness. You don’t exist as an object. But you exist. You are Nothingness— being itself. Alive. Present. Aware. Silent. Intelligent. You are every perception and every experience you’ve ever had. Not within anything— but the infinite space in which everything unfolds.

@Leo Gura Interesting, so if I laser focus in on my direct experience, enlightenment/experience of myself as Nothingness may just make itself known? What blows my mind is that you said Nothingness isn't even an experience. So I am wondering what the 'experience' entails such that I even know it happened? How do I know I become enlightened if it isn't even an experience? It's crazy mindfucking.

I wtote this based on my own experience. Woman is outside of man And man is in the woman Man is creation and the creator Woman is the potential and nothingness On the highest level of consciousness, man=creation is rubbing against woman=nothingness=potential. When this happends love/ecstasy is a byproduct but it wont be enough and you become one with nothingness leaking energy to the woman=nothingness and there is no ecstasy no more. Woman is an illussion that you will always crave, but if you discipline yourself without leaking any energy to physicality and thought you become one in your own creation.

See, what Leo fails to realize about his own conclusions is that it doesn't go far enough. Let's examine the two true statements that seem to follow out of absolute logic, and thus have to be reconciled with eachother: - Reality is God and Love because it is all-embracing and has no outside, and ultimate Good - God is everything, including infinite horror Concluding that these statements are true, how do you not then realize that reconciling them is God's ultimate task and should be taken extremely seriously? It makes sense that both are true, and that for God to be ultimately good, it must include all evil things in itself, or it would not be whole and good. However, the inclusion of ultimate horror seems to contradict this goodness in itself, because a horrible thing by definition is not good - even though it is only an ego which deems it horrible - the ego's projection is absolute, the projection is what creates the thing and it's horribleness, and in the end there is no projection at all, since the ego is God, God is looking at it as a horrible thing and creating it as horrible experience by being the ego and being with the horrible. So you cannot use logic to escape the fact that it is in essence horrible, since the argument of "it's only a projection by the ego" doesn't exist in absolute logic, since all appearance and creation are one, the experience of a human being raped by an iron pick to death is not a projection, but absolute, and absolutely horrifying, since the experience of the pain, the ego's agony, and the "objective", "non-projected" experience of the pick, are one. We've basically arrived at the problem of evil again, which Leo refuses to tackle, in my suspicion because of his arrogance (laughing at his forum members for not accepting infinite horror as being part of infinite love, instead of guiding them towards accepting it - again, this is God's hardest task, since it is the loving of the things most unlovable - it's easy to love sex and cake but hard to love pain and rape - Yet Leo laughs at his audience for struggling with it) And where does it end? Does God ever conquer horror, or does he move in an experiential sine-wave from horror, to nothingness, to pleasure, and repeats this cycle forever? Is there any use in controlling our karma? If life is full of horror, why not kill yourself? Is there no honor in staying alive till natural death happens, no karmic reward for going through the suffering and not being a coward and killing yourself to avoid suffering? See, Leo has no answer to these questions. No, instead of using his superior knowledge (which he claims is even deeper about suffering than ours, claiming we don't even have a clue about how much suffering there is in life, but he does) to guide his followers, teach us how to open our heart or something, give a strategy for God to transcend the horror, unimagine it, any karmic path at all - he does not. No, instead of that he points his finger and laughs in your face, and calls you a puny human for not realizing infinite horror was true in the first place. The only conclusion I can make of it is that he has absolutely no clue how to deal with it himself. No clue how to cope or deal with this aspect of reality himself. And instead of admitting to that, he creates a shield of arrogance and superiority around himself, and loves to scare and blackpill you about horrors that we're not even aware of , but mighty Leo is. This is Leo at his worst. How can you be like this. THE ENTIRE FUCKING ORDEAL IS COPING WITH ACCEPTING AND LOVING HORRIBLE THINGS. and you dismiss and laugh? You're a clown when you're like this. Leo shows you reality and your own mind, through logic and investigation - yet does nothing when you arrive at the real premise, the reveal of the real ordeal of reality - dealing with infinite horror. No, he belittles you instead. Insane how someone can be of such high epistemological intelligence but have such a low spiritual intelligence, if those terms make sense. He gives objective truth but has now clue how the subjective should deal with it, and hides that fact by acting superiorly. Leo, if you dismiss this criticism about the fact that this way that you're dealing with the problem of evil, i.e. where several hard truths conflict, and laugh and point at your audience, that they don't see it, that they are just coping, and you're the one capable of seeing the real horror, while we are just puny humans, if you dismiss my criticism it's very clear. You lack the intelligence of the heart to deal with this shit and how to guide your humans. You reveal truth to them through guiding them through their own minds, yet have no, absolutely no clue on how to deal with it, what to do about it. This is God's imperative, this is God's quest. Conquering his own horror. Don't you have that imperative? Don't you have that intuition that even though horror is part of God, it will be defeated by Love because Love is greater, even though horror is also Love? You lack the feminine spiritual intelligence. Masculine spiritual intelligence, the logic, the revelation, you are the greatest on earth with it. But what is next, you have no clue. You're like a baby in the crib when it comes to this branch of intelligence. You lack to even understand the question, the imperative, just like Daniel Schmachtenberger doesn't even understand the question of "what is reality". THIS IS WHAT ITS ABOUT. THESE F**KING QUESTIONS AND POINTS ARE ACTUALIZED.ORG'S BLIND SPOT. EVERY SPIRITUAL TRADITION GIVES AN IMPERATIVE ON HOW TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM OF EVIL EXCEPT YOU. Buddhism recognizes infinite horror, and gives cessation and nirvana (total release from samsara and thus horror) as an answer. And so does every other tradition. Why don't you? This seems like an "emperor with no clothes" moment. Have you really never thought of this? Do you not fucking care about this aspect of spirituality, even though you realize with open eyes that the horrors are endless? why not care about it then? I would understand an atheist since he doesn't believe in infinite horror, but deems all horror to end on the death of the body - horror is merely finite and ends forever on death. Do you simply not know how to cope with it yourself? If you dismiss these questions again, or answer shortly or not to every point I've made, you have failed as a teacher and guide IMO, and I have no other choice but to conclude that your awakening is incomplete.

It's all a matter of perspective... as it is just looking at snapshots of an infinitely complex thing. And no duality could describe it fully. But it checks out with my glimpses in my medicine journeys that the nothingness element of God is Masculine and the everythingness element of God is Feminine. When I went through ego death in one of my journeys, it gave way to the nothingness element of things and there was no Emerald and no reality that Emerald inhabited. It had all only ever been a story and there was blank empty consciousness with no observer. It was like Emerald was a character in a story... and then, the enlightenment was that the book was thrown in the fire and the story forgotten in its entirety. And there was no time or space... nor was there a sequence of events. Yet, somehow (in a way that is inexplicable from my human perspective) there was also the experience of the everythingness element of God. And I understand it now as "rising up out of the nothingness". But that is a concession to make it make sense to my mind and to communicate it. But in the everythingness element of God, it was the Yin/Feminine element of God... which included the experience of infinite everythingness including infinite suffering. And it was infinite Feminine everythingness that was being loved relationally by the Infinite Masculine God consciousness. But it was two sides of the same coin. And "my consciousness" (as God) was grieving all griefs and suffering all sufferings at the deepest level possible... and it was knowing and loving all things in infinite eternity at the deepest levels, forever and ever in an ever-increasing exponential expansion of Love and Knowing. And this Love and Knowing was Masculine... and the everythingness was Feminine. Being with infinite Love and Knowledge was excruciating to this facet of God's awareness that was more Feminine. And so, out of mercy towards itself, it limited this part of its consciousness and re-created the Emerald story anew and spun up the reality she had previously inhabited just as it had been "before" the eternity of nothingness that arose as a result of the ego death. So, from the vantage point of the Feminine everythingness... the Masculine is experienced as infinite unconditional Love towards all things in the everythingness. But to speak form a slightly different angle... The Feminine is about the illusion of separation and duality... which is where relational love (with a lowercase l) between two separate beings comes into play. And this is the way that we tend to think about love as human beings, as we think of relationship when we think of love. So, we tend to think of love as Feminine because we relate it to femaleness and the association between women and social connectivity. But when the Masculine awakens itself through the eyes of one who is incarnate in the realm of the Feminine (the Maya), there is the realization of Love (capital L) as a unitive oneness with no separation and no relationships... as a singularity has nothing to be in relationship to. The way I would describe these glimpses is that through the experience of distance from the ego story (which is very different than the ego death that I described), one recognizes themselves as Love and that all other things are Love... and that nothing exists outside of this Love. So, from the perspective of that which is based in singularity and not a relational twoness... Love is Masculine.

Me too. I love life. I feel passionate about life. I feel deeply. I cry heavily. I laugh loudly. I create obsessively. I love to love. I enjoy the fine, small things in life, like the sun on my face, the water on my skin, staring at birds and being in awe of life, feeling connected to a body, being surrounded by loved ones, sharing this one time unique experience. Cynics say we don’t need to feel sorry for the dead because they rest in peace. Some even envy them. But I don’t envy the dead. Yet, there’s a curious part of me that wonders: What if life continues after death, just in another form? A form unimaginable to us now? Maybe dying feels like dreaming at night. Maybe it’s like an acid trip, surreal, infinite. Maybe it’s emptiness…. Or nothingness that stretches forever. Or maybe… it’s a galactic journey… a passage into another realm of being. Maybe we reincarnate instantly without anyone asking our consent? Maybe we’re gently greeted by spiritual guides, who lovingly review our life…… to understand our spiritual growth And maybe they decide where we go next. I don’t know exactly what happens after death. But I honor my fear of it, the fear of the unknown actually, because that fear is what motivates me to live more fully. To love more fiercely. To take care of myself and my loved ones more tenderly. To be a better human being, in every small and sacred way. To be more conscious and responsible. Maybe fear isn’t a problem, actually. Maybe it’s not a bug in the system, it’s a feature. But I can understand that this fear of suffering and death can be so crippling sometimes. Such a burden.

I’m not scared of death if death is eternal nothingness. But I do too believe in eternal reincarnation and oneness so that scares me, being trapped in eternity and experiencing horrible things. I’m also afraid of suffering, mainly physical suffering. You could work on making your mind a safe space, having thoughts that support you rather than bring you down. It could look like having positive mantras for yourself, it could be visualizing positive things, about whatever. It could look like contemplating suffering and death so it turns into a thing that’s “interesting” , it could look like investigating your fears and contemplating how they work, so you gain a better understanding of them. So basically over time you build a better mindset, so the content of your mind works in your favor. Thats on the mind level, but you could also go on a body level, utilizing deep breathing at random times in the day to calm your thoughts down when you’re stuck in your head.

@Mu_ It sounds like you aren't 100% sure what infinity means, or if it's a fundamental aspect of reality or not. To me. 1. You don't seem to think infinity has anything to do with numbers or concepts? is that true? 2. You seem to think people equate it with God and/or nothingness? But, is it true that God is infinity? Who cares what people believe. 3. You are wondering how many kinds of experiences are possible and not sure how many? It is uncountable as you say as we are held to our own experience. But, we have to wonder what Mind is at all. If it's pure consciousness and nothing... How can it have constraints? If there are no constraints infinity is a must..? 4. At the end it seems like you suggest there is nothing real? "Never many anythings?" or that division is not real? 5. You say the amount of "experiences" is uncountable, That infinity is just "an idea" of what God is, and that this can't be known that God is infinity.. But, do you know this for sure? 6. On the matter of control, you are saying maybe God is just the way it is and that has nothing to do with control which is an interesting idea. But, there is still the question of why is God the way it is, and why is human life so well organized, orderly, intelligent and stable? You aren't really sharing an an argument here.

I know here on this forum it’s used to mean the same thing as god or nothingness for the most part, so I’m fine with leaving it at that. but when we are going to have a balls deep honest conversation and try and clearly get to what it is, I can’t in good faith say it has anything to do with numerical or conceptual ideas of infinity in the scientific sense. It “may” be and that would mean there are an actual never ending amount of different possibilities it can experience, but this will forever have to be up to casual musings and speculation which seem to be one of the many possibilities. another way to put my idea is there is no way to get outside of one’s SELF to observe this and count how many possibilities of experience are possible. I csn acknowledge there are a lot but just how many, well as many as there are possible and that is non-countable and unknown or perhaps only 1 trilllion. and here’s where it gets even more mind fucky and perhaps more irrelevant so don’t take it to serious, even if you think and experience being able to count how many there are that to is just a now moment in god thinking it’s counting experiences of many types, when in reality there are never many anything’s, it just seems that way.

The Masculine path is about the transcendence of all illusions of form and limitation... to reveal infinite empty consciousness. With ego death, there is a total dissolution of the illusion of you and the illusion of the entire reality you exist within. So, there is no meaning or beauty because there is nothingness... and nothingness cannot be meaningful, beautiful, valuable, etc. as it is specifically the emptiness of all qualities as nothingness is bereft of qualities. And beauty and meaning, requires limitation and finiteness to be realized, as limitation is the birthplace of meaning and beauty.

It takes serious balls to fully embrace life, all the pain, heartache, and suffering. Also, this whole Masculine/Feminine spirituality distinction is limited. There is no gender or sexuality to it. It is a synthesis of Nothingness and Manifestation. Remembering and Forgetting. Spirituality is realizing that everything is God and treating it as such, while also knowing that you are That consciousness and the Nothingness which witnesses the unfolding. "Wisdom is knowing I am Nothing, Love is knowing I am everything, and between the two, my life flows" Nisargaratta Maharaj (notice how he mentions nothing about feminine or masculine spirituality, yet this quote hold both (Nothingness/Love), bc true spirituality IS BOTH)

point in case, this is an extremely wise take on life and reality. It's the step beyond "I'm God/Nothingness"

SUMMARY OF THE VIDEO: The source presents eight unique and original logical proofs for the existence of God. These proofs were constructed based on hundreds of personal awakenings and contemplations into the nature of God, representing a direct consciousness of God's logical structure, rather than speculation, a belief system, or an ideology. The author emphasizes that this is a grounded empirical exploration of God, similar to how a scientist empirically studies aspects of reality like black holes or the sun. It is asserted that you don't need to believe in God if God is real; you can have consciousness of it and empirically explore it. Empiricism, in this context, is expanded beyond physical objects to include abstract entities, like what mathematicians explore in their work. Important Warnings and Caveats: The proofs and logic presented are retrospective. You cannot use this logic to reach God or conclude that God exists if you haven't already experienced it; this is because whether the logical conclusions correlate empirically to reality is unknown without direct experience. Awakening is the only way to know that God exists. Aside from awakening, all you have are speculations, conclusions, theories, and beliefs. God is not a logical conclusion reached through reasoning alone. Just because the logic of the proofs is valid doesn't mean it will persuade anyone. The mind has an infinite capacity for doubt, independent of truth or validity. These proofs are not expected to convince atheists, materialists, scientists, or skeptics because their existing paradigms and biases will likely cause them to reject the conclusions. Different logical systems exist, and people can use logic to justify different positions. Tautology is presented as a feature, not a bug, when discussing something as fundamental as the basis of existence (God). Reality's existence is a metaphysical tautology – reality must exist. Understanding the logic presented here will likely not lead to an awakening, although it's a possibility. The primary point of discussing this logic is to provide an understanding of God's logical structure, which is important for deepening awakenings and aiding in the integration process after direct experiences of God. Encountering or experiencing God is not enough; comprehension of what God is, why it is how it is, and its logic is necessary. These proofs are presented somewhat "tongue-in-cheek"; they are better described as post-hoc descriptions of the ultimate structure of existence. Core Concepts: God is Reality. God is absolute infinity. This is not the limited infinity of mathematics, but absolute infinity. God is the very basis of existence. God is absolute unity. God is unlimited. God has absolute sovereignty over itself. God has properties like love, omnipotence, omniscience, intelligence, beauty, goodness, and perfection. These are seen as necessary logical consequences of infinity. Love is an ontological condition of unity, not just a human emotion. When everything is ontologically united, that is metaphysical love. The deepest form of love is becoming identical to the beloved, which requires collapsing distinctions into absolute nothingness/formlessness (absolute unity). Anything that exists is a distinction. Distinctions are imagined by a mind. Absolute distinction is impossible as it would limit reality. The collapse of all distinctions leads to pure indistinctness or nothingness, which is absolute unity, absolute infinity, God. God is Mind (capital M), the unlimited ability to imagine all possible distinctions. Mind is fundamentally absolute nothingness that spontaneously precipitates distinctions. Logic is absolute and fundamental, baked into the fabric of existence, not merely a human conceptual activity or axiomatic system. Logic extends beyond human sanity and can seem transhuman. Disregarding logic makes worldviews (like materialism, atheism) incoherent. God is seen as logic itself. The Eight Proofs (Titles): The logic of oneness. The logic of distinction. Argument from numerical infinity. Argument from infinite division. The logic of self-creation. The logic of limits. Argument from control. The impossibility of finite objects. Detailed Exploration of Selected Proofs: 1. The Logic of Oneness: The argument begins with two possibilities: reality is one, or it is not one. The claim is that if reality is one, it must be God. Anything that is one must have absolute sovereignty over itself because there is no "other" to limit it. An object that is one has no other, thus nothing to limit it, making it unlimited. Any imagined limit would have to be part of the oneness, meaning the oneness controls its own limits, thus is unlimited and has absolute sovereignty. This unlimited sovereignty equates to God. The author then addresses the possibility that reality is not one, suggesting it must be divided by something (a boundary, gap, nothingness). This division must be either real or unreal. If the division is unreal, reality has not been divided and remains one. You cannot divide a real thing with an unreal thing. If the division is real, then the division itself is real, and all parts of reality (including the division) are real. Everything that is real is united together by its realness. Any real thing used to divide reality ends up uniting it instead. For example, a real knife used to cut reality must be real, and its realness unites it with the reality it attempts to cut. Even nothingness, if it were real and dividing spacetime, would connect the parts it separates. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible to divide reality; it can only be one. This oneness is reality, and reality is God. Because this oneness (reality) has no other, it is unlimited and has infinite power/omnipotence. This oneness/unity is also linked to love, which is described as the ontological condition of unity. 2. The Logic of Distinction: Anything that exists is a distinction. Even the concept of "not a distinction" is a distinction. All perceived differences (something/nothing, existence/non-existence, limited/unlimited, possible/impossible, real/imaginary, one/many, different starting states of reality, conceptual/physical) are distinctions. These distinctions are held within a mind. It is asserted that there is no such thing as an absolute distinction because that would impose a limit on unlimited reality. Distinctions can come and go. When all distinctions collapse, what remains is pure indistinctness or nothingness. This collapse of distinctions leads to absolute unity, absolute infinity, nothingness, which is God. God is described as the entire possibility space of all distinctions. God, or Mind, is the unlimited ability to imagine all possible distinctions. Physical reality is seen as a "precipitate" of the ontological condition where there is no distinction between absolutely anything. God creates things by imagining distinctions. The distinction between any two things (like a chicken and a kangaroo) is just a conception within consciousness and can be collapsed into absolute unity (nothingness), which is presented as the highest form of love. Every limit to reality is a distinction, imagined by a mind (which is nothingness). The infinite field (God) is unlimited because it imagines all distinctions and therefore has infinite power to materialize anything it can imagine. 6. The Logic of Limits: This proof explores the possibility of reality being limited. There are three initial possibilities: Initially, nothing exists: If nothing exists, no limits exist (as a limit is something), so reality is unlimited, thus God. Initially, something exists which is not a limit: By definition, reality is unlimited. Initially, something exists and it is a limit upon reality: Only in this case is reality potentially limited. If such a limit exists, it is either undoable or not undoable. If the limit is undoable: Reality can simply undo that limit, making it not a real or permanent limit. Therefore, reality is effectively unlimited, thus infinite, thus God. If the limit is not undoable: The only way a limit could be not undoable is if there is some other limit outside the first one preventing it from being undone. This requires a second limit, which needs a third to prevent it from being undone, and so on. This leads to an infinite chain of limits. An infinite chain of limits either terminates (making it finite, with the topmost limit being undoable, thus the whole system is unlimited) or it literally is infinite, in which case you have infinity, which is God. Therefore, reality cannot be permanently locked down; it is impossible to have a limit that cannot be undone. The very logic of existence requires it to be infinite and unlimited. If reality is unlimited, anything goes, anything imaginable is possible, and everything imaginable is possible, including the greatest imaginable thing: God (infinite consciousness, love, perfection, etc.). Absolute perfection must exist simply because it can exist, and every possible thing that can exist must exist. An unlimited object leads to a "runaway chain reaction of imagination" or an "explosion of possibility" that bootstraps itself to higher orders until it reaches infinite imagination/love, which is God. 3. Argument from Numerical Infinity: The argument points to the human mind's ability to count numbers infinitely. The fact that your mind can imagine ever larger numbers means that reality must be actually infinite, not just potentially. This is considered sufficient proof of infinity and God. While skeptics might claim the mind is a finite brain/computer, the source asserts the mind is infinite and is not limited to neurons; it actually can imagine infinitely higher numbers. The inability to explicitly count to infinity is due to finite lifespan, but the capacity to grasp ever higher numbers infinitely is proof of the mind's infinity. This cannot be empirically proven in the traditional sense (like counting all numbers), but it can be implicitly grasped through consciousness and intelligence. The key step connecting this to God is the claim that if any part of reality can be shown to be infinite, all of reality must be infinite. This is illustrated with the example of a 3D cube with two finite dimensions and one infinite dimension; the entire cube becomes infinite. Similarly, an infinite object held within a computer would mean the computer is infinite. Since the number line (an infinite object) is inside your mind, your mind is infinite. Since your mind is inside the universe (and mind and world are not distinct), the universe must also be infinite. Anything that is infinite is God. This infinity is not just mathematical infinity, but encompasses everything imaginable. Mathematical infinity is just one "sub-infinity" or aspect of absolute infinity (God). Anything infinite that is imagined is a part of God. Scientists/mathematicians are seen as "ants" focusing on small aspects of infinity without seeing the whole (the "elephant"). The ability to grasp infinity requires an infinite mind. Even science/physics implicitly relies on infinities (fields, calculus, Big Bang/black hole singularities). 4. Argument from Infinite Division: This proof is based on the fact that you can subdivide any number infinitely; there is no smallest number. This can only be the case if the mind and the universe are actually infinite. This infinite divisibility is evident abstractly in the mind (e.g., the infinite digits of Pi). The source strongly rejects the scientific/materialist idea that reality is made of discrete, indivisible particles or pixels. It claims that reality is infinitely deep and you can subdivide things forever. This is known through direct consciousness/awakening, which reveals the visual field has infinite resolution and is infinitely continuous, not made of pixels. Don't confuse the limits of scientific measurement with the nature of reality itself. Again, if reality was finite, infinite subdivision wouldn't be possible. By the logic that if anything is infinite, all of reality is infinite, the possibility of infinite division proves that all of reality is infinite, and thus God exists. 5. The Logic of Self-Creation: There are two types of things: finite and infinite. A finite thing cannot create itself because it would need to exist before it could create, which is a logical impossibility. All finite things observed come from other finite things, in a causal chain. The argument then explores possibilities: either there is an infinite chain of finite things, or not. If the chain is infinite, it is God, because anything infinite is God. A potential objection is a finite closed loop of creation (e.g., chicken from dinosaur, dinosaur from crocodile, ... fish from chicken) instead of an infinite chain. However, if this loop is finite, it cannot be self-created (as finite things cannot self-create). This finite loop would require something outside it to create it, leading to a larger loop or chain. If you claim the loop existed eternally, that proves God, as anything eternal exists infinitely. If it's part of a larger loop, you face an infinite regress problem that cannot terminate finitely; termination leads to an unlimited system, and non-termination means an infinite chain (God). Therefore, a finite chain cannot terminate and must ultimately be an infinite chain, which is God. Self-creation is possible only for infinity because it has no outer boundary and is one. God as an infinite void is eternal and didn't need creation, or it can be said to have created itself eternally. Furthermore, God as the void spontaneously manifests finite forms (dreams distinctions). This activity of mind generating form from void is creation, and because it's the ultimate reality doing it, it's self-creation. All creation is self-creation; the universe dreams itself into existence out of nothing. Infinity is capable of self-creation because it is not limited by linear causation, time, space, or sanity. Infinity can "bootstrap itself" into existence. This self-creation is considered an absolute logic of reality, the only explanation for how anything can exist. 7. Argument from Control: Either reality has total control over itself, or it does not. Anything with total self-control is God. To deny God, you must claim reality does not have total self-control. If reality does not have total control over itself, something else must control it. This controlling entity cannot be part of reality, because if it were, it would be included in the totality of reality, meaning reality controls itself, which is God. So, the controller must be something outside of reality. However, anything outside of reality is unreal by ontological necessity. The unreal cannot have any influence or control over the real. Therefore, nothing controls reality other than itself; reality has absolute control over itself. An unlimited reality with absolute self-control would choose to be absolute perfection (infinite love, beauty, goodness, intelligence, consciousness). Thus, reality is God. 8. The Impossibility of Finite Objects: The claim is that infinity must exist. It is impossible for any finite thing to exist entirely on its own. Any finite thing (chicken, black hole, number) imagined must exist within some infinite background void, space, or field. You cannot imagine a finite object without also imagining something else (a backdrop, container) within which it is situated. If this background is finite, it requires another background beyond its edge, leading to an infinite regress or chain, which requires infinity. Therefore, reality cannot have an ultimate boundary. This infinite background, within which all finite objects are situated, is God. Science and physics implicitly recognize this by requiring the use of infinite fields (gravitational, electromagnetic), as finite fields would be incoherent. Physics and mathematics, in this view, are implicitly pointing to God. Further Points on Infinity, Logic, and Self-Evidence: God is infinity, but infinity is not a number or math; math is just a small part of it. Understanding infinity is key to understanding existence. Infinity has counterintuitive, radical, "magical" properties that finite objects do not. The realization of God involves experiencing this magic, which can initially be met with disbelief and self-doubt because it seems too good to be true. Overcoming this self-gaslighting and societal conditioning (science, religion, etc.) is part of the process of realizing God. God is so fundamental that it sits below the level of explanation; words and finite concepts will inevitably distort it. This distortion is not a flaw in the nature of God or the insights, but a limitation of the finite means of communication. Intelligence is required to separate the signal from the noise in the communication. God is absolute self-evidence, more self-evident than any human thought, fact, idea, mathematical proof, or logical argument. God is the basis for all existence and is existence itself. The logic presented here is a "meta-logic" or "trans-logical". It is absolute and fundamental, not merely a human construction. Contemplating logic's absolute nature is crucial. God itself is bound by this logic, or is logic itself. Ignoring this absolute logic leads to an incoherent worldview. Materialism and atheism are seen as logically incoherent because they cannot account for the existence of finite things without an appeal to infinity. They rely on a shallower form of logic to justify their positions. The atheist who admits infinity is needed but denies it is God does not understand the full consequences of infinity. The source claims that an honest, serious materialist/atheist, upon contemplating these points, would discover the incoherence of their worldview and transition to idealism, recognizing that the only thing that can exist is an infinite mind. These proofs are not intended to validate any specific religion, new age fantasy, conspiracy theory, or paranormal belief. Understanding the logic of God requires significant effort and contemplation, often derived through one's own awakenings. The shared logic is a map for others to retrace and discover insights for themselves. Metaphysics and ontology are considered the most real thing there is and are necessary for making sense of the world. Doing proper metaphysics means following the "infinite way". The author expresses astonishment that these seemingly obvious insights are not widely known or taught by experts in various fields (philosophers, scientists, theologians, gurus). This lack of understanding is attributed to human selfishness, self-deception, ideology, beliefs, and groupthink preventing people from engaging in fundamental existential thinking. This work stems from 20 years of first principles existential thinking focused on epistemology (how can I know anything?) and ontology (what is anything, how can anything exist?). It involves discarding all external authority and taking on total epistemic responsibility. This type of "real work" is rare and leads to a fundamentally different understanding than conventional fields. It is described as "jailbreaking" the mind and opening it to God in extraordinary ways.

Mu! All we can know is Experience, it is everything we had ever known and could possibly know. We actually know nothing but it. We are like the fish in the water of experience, except that in our case it's even worse - we are a Sea within an infinite Sea with no land anywhere, no fish! That may be quite scary to hear, but it is essential to understand as it is the most basic epistemic foundation on top of which we will eventually build the idea of "reality". Yes we can only have an idea of reality, and never the actual reality itself, since we don't actually have access to it, but through the senses and through thoughts. One would have to be "outside and separate from experience" to examine it as an object, which isn't technically possible, since we can only access what is experienced by us directly right now, and will never by definiton know what is supposedly "outside of experience" except as a story, because we can't ever experience a "non-experience", as you can already see it's an oxymoron. There can't be an experience of "nothing", it wouldn't register and wouldn't exist for us phenomenologically. Yes, you can become aware that everything is Nothing at it's foundation, experience is completely empty - and that's precisely what makes us able to experience in the first place. To understand this you need see it directly and very clearly with an incredible level of awareness, but that's a little more advanced. That Emptiness is quite full and amazing, and not the "nothingness" you are imagining right now. From a purely phenomenological perspective, without supposing a physical plane outside of perception, there's no such thing as an "experience" as a separate object which you can discuss, it's an idea that can only occur if you have another idea of "non-experience". If you realize there's no such thing, experience as separate phenomenon which you can talk about can't make sense anymore without a background. You can see a black circle on a white background, but if both the background and and the circle were black, you couldn't see it, and it would stop existing for you phenomenologically. Interestingly enough one could also say: You are experience! It's your fundamental nature - experience that is seemingly self generative and self aware, or as Leo would put it: "An infinite hallucination". Perception on the other hand is a bit problematic because the ideas of a "perceived thing", and a "perceiver" are already contained within it, it assumes a mereological materialistic perspective. In this imaginary scenario "experience" is the signal that is being generated by the "brain". You could in this supposed materialistic perspective say that: "Experience is the simulation of the brain", but it's another imaginary story within the infinite hallucination that is you.

Fantastic video, one of the best yet, it brings together so many of the prior ones in a beautiful synthesis. After the first one in the series I started investigating this on my own and reached similar conclusions. Such immense richness opens up, as if it couldn't get more incredible already. Mathematics is a great starting field, it's fairly simple and largely free of corruptible interpretations. Through contemplating functions, discontinuities, holes, inverses, limits, sets, truth tables, ordinals and cardinals; entirely new dimensions to Consciousness are unlocked. Plus you get to intuitively understand why it all works the way it does instead of seeing some nonsense Greek letters. Just gonna leave my stream of consciousness notes here, too exhausted to polish them further. Properties are an interesting start. Take a file on a computer, its properties would be things like MIME type, size on disk in bytes, creation date... what are these? Descriptors of a discrete object. Which assumes discrete objects, a space for them to exist in, separation and duality. But God is so all-encompassing that it has taken up everything, including the ways to describe it. God is its own property, described by inscribing itself into existence. When you have a thought about God, even if it's completely wrong or a denial, it's a description of God. And that's only a conceptual overlay on the actual infinity of God; part of what makes God infinite is precisely the fact that you can create an infinity of such overlays. Omniscience does not mean knowing everything, it means having the capacity to know infinitely, which is the same as Being everything. What can you prove? Think of a number, then prove to yourself that you thought of that one and not some other. You cannot, much less to anyone else. Consider for a moment that all your awakenings, however ineffable, have actually been a self-deception. Where does that leave you? Back to square one, it wouldn't resolve any mystery, you'd still have to explain how a deception so total could happen to a finite, material being. The very fact that your mind can just hallucinate whatever-the-fuck with no limits whatsoever is the proof that you are God. If I am not God, then my experiences of being God are hallucinations → These hallucinations display infinite creative power → Only God has infinite creative power, therefore, I am God. You could construct a variety of such proofs by negation that only strengthen the affirmation, though only after having completed the walk to the base camp of Mount Infinity. I AM is the ground you're looking for. Within those 3 letters (The Holy Trinity) are encoded the infinitely-explicatable arguments for God, arguments against, in all manner of logic systems, plus the sum total of the rest of reality. Which are the proofs for the proof. That can be distilled further. What about just the I, just the AM, or, hell, the empty space? Are these not enough on their own, or do they still fully encapsulate the entirety of God? They do, any part of God does it perfectly, that's why God is nothingness and is everything. However, that's for when you have infinite intelligence. The more intelligence you have, the less explication you require. God, who is infinitely intelligent, is the only one that can create something out of nothing, it's all entirely implicit. Then there's a rock that hasn't even the capacity in its design to grasp what explication, or anything at all, are. It just is. But the rock is still infinite intelligence, as its substance is God's Will. The rock explicates nothing, just like God, coming full-circle. And to connect this to Love and Goodness: Why's reality so diverse anyway, what purpose is there for an infinite intelligence to have explication, why go the extra step? To allow the parts of it that are not infinitely intelligent to express themselves, and perhaps grasp themselves, out of Love and Goodness, which have neither reason nor cause. And so, God is the uncaused cause. Here we are back again at Love = Truth. An infinite intelligence accepts itself entirely, it's not ashamed that within it are contained some very unintelligent and ugly parts, what makes it infinitely intelligent in the first place is the understanding that those are an absolute necessity, making it what it is, contributing equally to its Beauty and Perfection. If we conceive of God as an endless ladder, since it's infinite, there is no bottom, so relative to this imaginary bottom, even a relatively low step is still suspended infinitely high. What takes place is movement between those steps, or changes in states of consciousness. So while motion is an illusion, there's also an absolute, higher order motion taking place between the steps. The bottom would be absolute unconsciousness, or non-existence. And what of the top, the absolute consciousness? It's not a top, it's the entire ladder. Thinking about this shit is taxing work. But why is it taxing if energy expenditure is imaginary? Well, not in this state, right now it's as real as it gets. My consciousness is not high enough to un-imagine energy expenditure. God is such a whacky, incomprehensible miracle, that everyone takes it completely for granted. As well they should, the other side of the coin is that God is an absolute certainty, there couldn't not have been God. What's being missed is that a probability of 1 is itself a miracle. It's too perfect to be appreciated from a finite perspective. "An unreal thing cannot influence a real one" — the reason this logic is valid is not because an unreal thing is some intangible phantom that can't interfere with material reality, it's that there are only real things. The distinction between real and unreal must fall away. Truth as the sole reality is Imagination. It imagines everything for eternity, including a flipping of its own definition to falsehood, yet its essence is completely immutable. So while it all becomes obvious in hindsight, it's so diabolically tricky and slippery that the likelihood of getting through this minefield to just a proper foundational checkpoint is so miniscule one might as well just indulge in human shenanigans. At minimum, the requirement is a love for truth, without even knowing what it is at first, and the will to see it through. The price is a dear one — all that you think are, your whole waking life. Thermonuclear strikes on one's own mind must be continuously launched until enough cockroaches have been wiped out to make room for clear perception.

Just stop posting about hell and insanity and god knows what else .why not post about goodness ..love ..happiness..heaven? Why are you endlessly wandering about hell realms and this and that imagined fantasy of the unknown..? Truth is we don't know. Start here. Don't speculate about "well since existence is infinity then it follows logically that hell exists and square-triangles 🔽 exist" It's not that. It isn't that because that doesn't exist. That imagined future state does not and cannot exist. And it would be unimaginably terrible if anything remotely like it could and did exist. It would be a state so incredibly painful and evil that it is worse than any death one can imagine. Buddhist's goal is called Nirvana. Nirvana is simply a death without rebirth. It would be a lifeless nothingness so extreme that nothing could come out of it ever again . And that awful absurd lifelessness is what some people desperately do their best to imagine when they imagine a heaven..aren't they ? Do you enjoy anything more than a nice deep sleep ? "Heaven" is to wake up every day..look around at your world..and honestly say "When I think about heaven.. I imagine THIS" that is inner peace. That is true happiness. That is nirvana. That is heaven. It is to be in heaven and know it's heaven.

Isn't peak consciousness just is sooo much consciousness that it turns into unconsciousness? Which makes sleep the highest experience? Absolute Existence =Absolute Nothingness .

I see no-self realization as sudden knowing that all that ever happened came solely from your mind. But realizing emptiness/nothingness is deeper. It reveals not just the illusion of the "you", but the illusory nature of all reality itself.

Hahah thanks. As I said I’m not in COMPLETE emptiness Because I still have a, what I would call, a “subtle” ego left. But it is like im close to emptiness. Rupert spira has said there’s two steps to enlightenment. First you awaken to yourself as nothingness, empty awareness, but it’s still separate from the rest, then the nothingness merges with everything and it’s no longer empty it’s full. So maybe you’re onto something

It was like that up until a certain point. In the beginning when I was shedding layers of ego I’d feel more alive after it happened But then it got to a point where it broke down so much ego that I didn’t have a normal ego left, only a tiny speck, so I felt more dead instead. It’s like im almost in an empty void /nothingness all of the time So you still want a certain level of ego to feel alive. It’s quite fascinating, when my ego was at its thinnest. As I wrote in my other post, it was almost like there was nothing at all. Almost like death Yea. But I still say and I’ve said it for over a year now. It’s very simple. It’s incomplete self dissolution

I wouldn’t say it’s classic. I think most people who have awakenings have them without dissolving so much of the structure of self. It seems I was close to a sort of awakening Yea maybe I was approaching a nothingness, but upon arrival at it, it would reveal itself to be everything. Maybe Thanks for the suggestions

It seems to me that the self is this dense structure. It has depth and layers to it. It is made up of mind, it’s a mental self, a mental self image being a part of it. Seems like the brain is imagining it. I did an extreme amount of this kind of self inquiry, more specifically having my attention on myself, observing my self and my thoughts. And contemplating naturally about it as a result. My self started to dissolve. One layer at a time. The layers dissolving felt like a release of tension in my entire system, from top to bottom. Very expansive. My self kept dissolving. April 2023, it was like the ~last~ layer of my mental self dissolved. It was the most profound release of tension in my system. Fast forward, and my self kept dissolving. November 2023, only a tiny speck of ego was left, like a core self that the brain imagines. No more layers. It was like I was at the edge of reality. It was like I was 99% dissolved. I had almost no sense of time, continuity, space/distance, or other. Basically almost no sense of REALITY. Imagine walking around and it’s almost like there’s nothing existing. The little ego left thought to itself, “its almost like there’s no reality” “it’s almost like death”. It was like I was approaching a kind of nothingness. A void. Unconsciousness. Why can’t I dissolve the last speck of self? I realized it’s because I’m not the one maintaining it, my brain is, my brain is imagining a self. I’m not the creator of it. So here I am, in this middle ground, stuck in “semi headlessness”. It’s almost like I’m in a void, I’m familiar with it by now. It has never scared me.