Search the Community

Welcome to Infinity of Gods. One could call that the Solipsists end-game. An infinity of separate-God-selfes. Indras Net (see link below) gone "ego" or "separate-self". The alternative would be: There is only one Reality. A Nondual & Infinite Unity of Infinite Being/Consciousness. Maybe that the whole thing is just the Real You, infinite and Impersonal Pure Consciousness/Awareness/Reality, splicing itself (apparently) up in infinite perspectives of Indras Net? Not a separate "God" in each node? Every single spiritual tradition over millenia that has made it to the nondual realization declared that there is ONE Infinite Being without (a second), manifesting itself in a myriad of (appearing) perspectives/beings. If that Infinite Being is infinite, it is by definition a unity, a Nondual being without anything outside of it. And no other besides it. That Infinite Being is Reality itself. There are not two realities. With declaring an Infinity of Gods, one is just cementing a separate-self (aka duality, not non-duality/Awakening) and blowing it up to God-like dimensions. Which is the opposite direction of stabilizing Nondual Awakening by transcending that which causes the separation/duality. That is at least my experience. One Reality, one Infinite Being, without a second. That is the testament of all spiritual traditions that came before and that made it to the Absolute. Just a little information sign along the road of Infinite Gods, if you don't mind. In order to not loose time traveling in the opposite direction of the intended destination. Every being is the own master of its Karma, and has freedom to choose. Selling Water by the River

Just add a few dimensions more (that "you" forget now in real time), and you have endless perspectives or POVs. Noneuclidian Vision like below, a one-dimensional chain of endless 3D-Pocket dimensions, or Indras Net in 3D. Infinite possibilities to pull that off, game of mathematics. That is called Indras Net. Like one policemen watching the monitors of lots of security cameras: One Infinite consciousness (the policeman), endless cameras ("bodys or better 3D perspectives, with endless monitors), endless monitors. And now just remove policemen, camera and monitors, and stack all of these perspectives together into a dimensional model of your choice. And forget all other cameras in real time. Of course just a metaphor to make it clear: ONE (without a second) Infinite Awareness/Consciousness/Being, splicing itself up into infinite perspectives and forgetting these in real time. And totally empty and impersonal so that it can be and feel like "everything/everyone". The same way you can forget in time what you did exactly 1 year ago, you can forget all other perspectives "in space". People had visions of Indras Net, or of something like that, since the beginning of time, often while tripping on the local psychedelic of the season: Nice book btw. Indras Net. Each perspective reflecting each other perspectives. The outside of another human/being/holon is the reflection of that "node/being" in your "node/being", see this picture. And mathematics can already do that right now in endless unimaginable n-dimensional spaces, the math exists also in our world... One just can't imagine it, but calculate with it one can... or https://www.actualized.org/forum/search/?&q=Indras Net&author=Water by the River

"And they do know that all is an imagined illusion happening within "their" own Infinite Being/True Being by definition" I think we align quite well, although its difficult to express these thing just in writing. With imagined Illusion I mean that the tree "out there" is no solid object existing independently existing from the human/consciousness perceiving it, like its normally perceived with the dualistic and materialistic view. The appearance itself is real. It appears. But it is just a lucid, groundless mere appearance. Like the appearance in a dream. Normally, in the standard-perception is seems to be external/out-there (duality), and solid (or material). In truth, its neither "out there/external" (nondual), nor solid/material (but appearing as lucid hologram-like (mere appearance, imagined, "dream-stuff" so to say). And yes, (self-)consciousness implies often a separation. With perceptions perceiving themselves I want to express that there are states where there is no I-thought and I-feeling. Then it is literally the universe perceiving itself, Being perceiving itself. That is also what I mean when writing "impersonal". Although this report of Steven Norquist is a bit "pushing" the empty/scary character , which can be the initial reaction if this realization goes very fast, in truth its the most wonderful state imaginable. http://www.hauntedpress.net/What_is_Enlightenment.html It is Awareness in and by itself, not the "personal" consciousness. There never is and was a personal consciousness, it is only non-personal Infinite Being/Awareness. "Impersonal" can sound bad, but isn't: Its all ones True Being, and that is aware, and eternal. Containing the whole world, and also a human and its thoughts/feelings. It is a much larger Being than the previous illusion-human. And much more blissful. This Awareness in and by itself (of Infinite Being) "lends" or appears as personal consciousness (which isn't conscious at all, because True Infinite Being is the Awareness/consciousness cosplaying limited personal consciousness). So nothing is really lost besides the illusion of being just a small separate human. True Being can not be lost, ever. Immortal. Eternal. Unborn. Does that clarify a bit? Did I understand you correctly?

@Water by the River I perceive some....how to say ... limitation. Let's see, i have let the self fall into the void absolutely and totally many times and the infinite has been obvious. There is no "alone" or "only" because everything is in infinity and there is no center, it is not me, the self is like an illusion created by perception, but the thing is that there is perception so there is self, reality it is an ocean that has no limit and that turns any "something" into nothing, since it is everything, including the self. This is not one, it is not unity, and above all and most importantly: there is no creation, nothing can be created, I am not God imagining anything, imagining is a process of creation and there can be no creation since everything is always, what What there is is movement of infinity, an impersonal kaleidoscope that moves cyclically and eternally. Maybe people who are in stage 5 are still limited? because for me there is something clear, I do not believe anything or anyone. I take everything with 2 kg of salt, anecdotal. There is a possibility that no one, ever, has been enlightened. Forget for a moment the stages, reality is not that square, no science can contain this that we are trying to open . Look, this of: I'm not anymore the avatar, I am the field of consciousness where the avatar is happening, like an illusion, is still limited, is still self.

On an Absolute Level, "it" or better True You is solipsistic. Alone and infinite. True You/Infinite Being is "alone" because "it" is infinite with nothing possibly outside of it. But that is True You/True Being. And someone who is not enlightened doesn't (by definition) know the difference between the current identity and True Being, or else he/she would be enlightened and no longer be asking these questions... So talking about Solipsism and God is just counterproductive when talking with beings who have not realized their True Nature. Because they will project their ego on the concept of God or Solipsism, no other chance. First become Nothing (no separate-self), then you will be everything (Infinite Being) - Thisdell stage 4, becoming Thisdell stage 5/Enlightenment. But better not project a little separate something (illusion-separate-self) on everything (Roger Thisdell stage 3 "Godmind"). Or: I am God imagining everything. That makes Thisdell stage 3 a cul-de-sac, no way forward to stabilize Awakening in daily life and ease the suffering. Which is exactly what we see here, with a few added ETs. Is Infinite Being not enough? Does it need to be called God? As I have written several times, I don't really like the pointer God, because it is normally loaded with other meaning on top. God = omnipresent, infinite, timeless/eternal/immortal, creating/manifesting/imagining the whole gig: Same for True Infinite Being. One without a second. But all the stuff projected on top of it when using the pointer God instead of Infinite Being, the one without a second, is often not for the faint of hearted. It anthropomorphizes Infinite True Being/Reality with properties and intentions that are just not there on the most fundamental level, and then proejcts it on the illusion-ego/illusion separate-self. "I am God". Only very few can truthfully say that, because most have not realized their True Being and can't tell the difference to ego/separate-self. And those who can say that truthfully and not fall for the illusion normally don't talk like that, because they know from their own practice it is not beneficial for beings with the ego/separate-self illusion not fully seen through. As soon as one talks like that to not enlightened beings, they almost always project the properties of True Being (or God) on themselves, their separate-identity, which they still have not seen through. Because else they would be enlightened. And these separate-self-identities-arisings/illusions are that which have to be cut down/transcended for Enlightenment to happen. And using the grandiose word "God" tends to blow these illusion-arising up to cosmic proportions: "I" imagine everything. No. "Your" True Being does. But what is that? What is the constant always here True Being? Here also in Deep Sleep? Before ones birth? And if one would fully know the difference between True Being and separate-self/ego, one wouldn't talk about these topics using pointers/concepts like God/Solipsism, because it would be all clear anyway... And one wouldn't need to state I am God and I imagine everything, because.... well... TO WHOM? Well, I guess you get the point. At the level of Infinite Being one is alone. But there is no one there to feel alone, because that would be an anthropomorphic illusion arising of a separate-self WITHIN True Being. It just is what it is. And always has been. And with an enlightened being talking like that it is not necessary. Makes no sense. One sees and knows the Awakened Nondual enlightened State the "other" is in (and nobody really home), and it is clear. Imagine a discussion like: I am God! No, I am God! No, you are not! We are God! That is all illusion, starting with the words "I" and "we". Lot of talk of God and Solipsism happens on Thisdells stage 3 "God-stage, God-mind". Infinite Nonduality with separate-self/remaining identity/ego not fully seen through". It is contradictory, not stable, with lots of illusions still going on. And that is presupposing its done from real nondual states. Most of the time, its done from not nondual states, just from the conceptual level. And from there, it is more insanity than anything else. The discussion then goes like: "No, small you is not God. Big You, True Being, is. But first find out what that is before talking about God & Solipsism". And because of all these contradictions that doing that move includes, there is so much discussion here about these topics. Because it is not clear, but contradictory. Sometimes I use the pointer God, but normally it is not a good pointing/teaching tool. Ever noticed that very few enlightened teachers that are public talk about how they are God and imagining everything, and they are all alone and Solipsism and so on? They do, if you listen between the lines or read/see enough stuff. Sometimes even explictily. Sometimes, even complete books like the Supreme Source have been written, that even got the approval by our host as God Realization. And these enlightened teachers normally don't talk about them being God/Solipsism. Not because they are too stupid to know what God is, and what Solipsism/Aloneness on the Absolute Level means. And they do know that all is an imagined illusion happening within "their" own Infinite Being/True Being by definition. If they wouldn't, they wouldn't be enlightened. But they don't throw that in public at a poor ego to blow it up to cosmic proportions, because that doesn't help their students going from Thisdell stage 3 to 4 to 5. It usually even prevents getting the ego stage 1 to witness stage 2 to nondual stage 3. Because to get there sobre and without psychedelics, one already has to kill/transcend the ego/separate-self quite a lot... Nothing kills sobre Awakened Nonduality better than saying to oneself: I AM GOD. A "normal" identification of I am a human so and so suffices to do that... And one more thing: If Nonduality (or Buddhism) gets bashed: Nonduality is NOT automatically Enlightenment, or realization of True Infinite Being/Reality. It is Thisdells stage 3 Godmind. A boundless nondual infinite field of Awareness, with a separate-self still well and alive hijacking that! And that most Buddhist are not enlightened should go without saying.. Stage 3 Godmind. That is where one gets with psychedelics. And maybe even stage 4 a bit. But I have never seen a mainly psychedelic aficionado get to stage 5, True No Self (also nondual, but without center/separate-self-illusion, truly being the Infinite Totality/Being). Stable Nondual realization of Infinite Being in daily life. Maybe somebody knows one, would be very interested. Can't rule out that one exists, or that one wakes up just by the impulse of a psychedelic. It is just, I have never seen one. I know quite a lot that have done that with transcending/meditation of the false illusion separate self. So basically "Nonduality" and "Buddhism" gets bashed, because one doesn't know that stage 3 "Godmind"/Nonduality is not yet True Being or Enlightenment. Of course merely Nondual Realisation doesn't bring "God-Realization", or understanding that True Being imagines/manifests all of it, and that ones True Self is that. That is stage 5, or the link (Supreme Source) above. Or True Enlightenment. Psychedelics get one to Nonduality, maybe in more sophisticated cases to realizing that it is all imagined/manifested to fool "oneself". But it doesn't get oneself conforming to the impersonal infinite nondual enlightened mindstream. And that is why this "realization" is not stable in daily life. Still suffering/resisting the content of ones own True Infinite Being. "Solution": add a few ETs from higher levels of Reality, and call that higher than realizing and being ones True Infinite Being. And be proud on ones own continuing suffering/resistance towards happens within ones True Infinite Nondual Being, and declare that as inevitable. Or something like that. Well, quite a show Maya is dishing "us" up this time, isn't it Selling God&Solipsism Water by the River The Koan still is: What is the True Being of the ET at the end, really? And that of any other ET, n+1?

According with @Water by the River it's a kind of oneness, I don't know, not for me, for me its just unlimited and impersonal, alive existence. One means center, and it's the opposite of many, unlimited is beyond one and many, it could be both. But maybe one day i see it totally different, maybe you too

Exactly, suffering can move you in the direction of the spiritual awakening, but you have to be almost empty of suffering before to move to real opening. It there is still suffering means that you psyche is still too dense, more work is needed. When you are almost empty of suffering, the bubble that limits you is still there, but you can start the serious work, the real opening It's another dimension where it's not you. It's unlimited existence, impersonal. the self cannot imagine it precisely because it is the self. It is the opening of the limits. I would forget things like knowing that you are God, that you are imagining this, etc., and I would focus on letting go of the self. without center, that's the key

The ability to hold the boundless infinite nondual Awareness will grow. In Pointing out the Great Way it is called Postsamadhi Meditation. This boundless infinite timeless Awakened Awareness (as Daniel Brown calls it) is impersonal, or Awareness in at by itself. It is not necessarily individual consciousness, but awakened nondual boundless impersonal consciousness. Non-separated, non-personal. Awake. With Nonmeditation Yoga, you can let Awakened Awareness hold the view and do the meditation. "You" just get out of the way. Same holds for daily activity. Awakened Awareness is more intelligent than normal ego-consciousness, since filters & lenses are removed. Daniel Brown once said: "I let Awakened Awareness do it (I think in the context of that statement writing a book), and I just get out of the way." That is how it feels. Reading and analytical thinking is about the most difficult activitiy while keeping mindfullness/Awakened Awareness, but it can be done. "The reappearance of the mind's spontaneous relative activity at this extraordinary level of practice [Nonmeditation Yoga] brings continuous supreme bliss (bde steng). Because mindfulness/recognition now has its own force (shugs), it goes on by itself without any effort whatsoever." "At this final stage awakened wisdom [Awakened Awareness] spreads rapidly so that all possible emanations of the mind become the embodiment of awakened wisdom. The term emanation ofnothingcaptures both the relative and the ultimate dimensions of truth, respectively. All the mind's relative activity becomes the play (rol du) of the always-here mind. Where ordinary thoughts and perceptions once were, "only the great fire of understanding burns" (TN, p. 536)." "Blended practice occurs when you are forever mindful of the real nature/clear-light mind throughout the four behavioral conditions. (TN, p. 547)" Pointing out the Great Way, Brown Daniel Brown, Video below, starting 57min 40 sec: Map 2: On stabilizing Awakening [or Awakened (Nondual) Awareness] Map 3 would be to Liberation / Enlightenment. Map 1 is to Awakening/Awakened Awareness. In my opinion, and that of Daniel Brown, the most sophisticated meditation/training system on the planet. Daniel Brown has received the clearance from Menri Trizin to translate all the previous secret teachings, including Tummo/Energetic Inner Fire Yoga with or without consort, Treckö and Togal (Visionary practices to get rid of the solidity of the visual field), dark retreat, dream yoga, and so on and on. And lots of other really unique techniques that neither Zen nor Theravada, nor any other tradition, have. and the result: The timeline to Enlightenment. Done correctly with energetic practices added a few years...

Ok, I try. But be aware this is extremely difficult to do it in a monological form via text, and hardly complete. Good news is: At that stage the path shows itself to itself if one just continues with the right meditation/awareness techniques. The illusion-mechanisms pop up one by one. If applying a good understanding of what will show up, the process can be fastened. It is like adding a blow-torch to the burning down of the illusion-building. So, here we go: Any thought implying I/me. "I-feeling" any understanding you have ("I" understand) any doubt ("I" doubt) all of it very subtle and fast forms of feeling separate. Or thinking that. Very fast & very subtle. Way faster than a thought elaborated over several second. Tenths/fractions of a second... Speed of awareness is crucial, that is being trained here And strength of awareness, to be able to also cut off core separate-self identities and suffering/resistance. Reckognizing that, not getting hypnotized by that, cutting it off by looking into its nature (empty consciousness). and since its very hard to tell the difference if a thought-arising is laced with individuality/separation/identity: Cutting off all of them, just for training. Yet, one can at other times also maintain ones awareness during practical daily life/thoughts. And memory of the past: It is being imagined right now, appears as complete "chunk" out of Infinite Consciousness/Being, and then gets elaborated in thought (which is very slow compared to how it emerges "fully" formed. That is truly a mindf*** when your awareness gets fast enough to spot for the first time how the complete past emerges immediately as "whole block" and then is slowly elaborated, fooling one to believe one is that "I" having this memory and thoughts. You see then how each any anything is just emerging to fool oneself. That is an aspect that Leo emphasizes with his concept of God-Realization. The past is radically imagined right now, there is no past. There is only an Infinite Formless eternal "Field" modulating itself to give the appearance of a past. Same for the "future". You don't have a past, You are an Infinite Vastness that is able to make up the past on the fly, and then have thoughts/feelings-arisings that "believe" that. Yet, that Infinite Vastness/Being CAN UNDERSTAND, and so it can understand that the past is imagined on the fly here and now. That is a major understanding/building block of Enlightenment, or seeing that separation from it all (separate self) is just an imagined arising within oneself. One is not a human, but the Infinite Vastness/Being (which is luckily also always here, aka immortal/eternal, can't go anywhere infinite Nothingness with nothing outside of it) imagining a human and all its elements moving/appearing within itself. So it is Duality gone (visual field nondual) -> Nondual boundless infinite (boundary of the field is gone) -> Infinite solidity of "external" visual field is gone, replacing solidity with mere groundless lucid appearance -> imagined illusion/lucidity/non-material, mere imagined empty hologram like appearance. time is gone (as described above, past imagined right now) -> always here, never not here Infinite Mind/Being. Eternal, immortal, absolutely fundamental, all is appearing and arising in it, always. space is gone (imagined IN the infinte vastness of True Being) -> space doesnt exist outside, space is imagined in oneself, the vastness of Infinity (which is not 3d space), and there is no 3D-space (or any space at all, non-euclidian, 4D, whatever) possibly existing outside of your Infinite Being. No outside. Infinite. All there is. Space is not self-existing outside of ones own nondual infinite being. It is imagined by it. What is behind your face? "beyond" the visual field. Not (3d-)space, but the Infinite (Being). -> spaceless, dimensionless, infinite. Containing all possible dimensions and realms, high and low. all of that is imagined/constructed/manifested right here right now in ones nondual True eternal Being, Infinite Consciousness/Being. -> A mirage/illusion appearing in ones Infinite Being, giving rise to the illusion of a human life within it. Another way to say that is: In Pointing out the Great Way, Brown is one statement: If everything (1) all appearance of the world/visual field is seen as mere appearance (empty) hovering lucid and hologram like in Infinite Vastness (that can still be stage 3&4 Thisdell with separate-self well and alive, and that is why that is accesible via psychedelics) AND (2) each and any thought/feeling arising/"internal" mindstream event (including everything one believed oneself to be, I-feeling, I-thoughts, the whole history, the whole asking what is Reality/True Being, ALL of it) is seen as empty arising in Infinite Being/Nothingness/Consciousness. which means that ones mindstream is then conforming to the enlighened mindstream, or close to how Infinite Reality really is. Then Enlightenment can happen. But it can't be forced, since that would be thoughts with a thinker identified with them, with I-feelings, wanting something. Infinite Being/Consciousness has to understand itself, with no artifical activity/separate self trying to force it. At that point, the properties of the mindstream above can be automized, and this automatic meditation/mindfulness can be protected ("mindfulness without [artificial activity]"), element (1) of Nonmeditation Yoga, see Pointing out the Great Way, Brown). One doesnt't focus on anything (which Daniel Brown calls particularizing). This picking out something specific with attention (particularizing, the fastest process of the mind, way faster than thinking) is what creates Duality, or better disrupts the original nonduality. Instead, one watches how particularization happens, and transcends that in a way that the boundless nondual unity with/of the visual field is not interrupted. Element (2) of Nonmeditation Yoga, "do not take to mind". and then maintains and waits in that state. Meditation and Mindfulness in these awakened nondual states does itself. Enlightenment can't be forced, because who would do the forcing? Instead, the Infinite Vastness/Being can understand/realize itself (or its True Nature) when conditions are exactly right. That is then Enlightenment. Bye bye illusion-human, hello Infinite Being/Reality "having" a human,. Making the mindstream conform to the enlightened mindstream so that Enlightenment can happen is very important, because that part can be done by intelligent and informed practice. And that is why an efficient system is way faster, more efficient for most than and way more pleasent than a brute force approach like sitting an staring at the wall (brute force method), concentration or Koan-style. more likely to work than betting on just by having the right Karma and enough of the mere-appearance-infinite-character of the visual field and thought/feeling space in place already (Ramana, Anamanda Ma), and then some contemplation based on the already very much conforming mindstream Only those who needed to walked the steps can tell about the steps. Those are on top can mainly tell about how the properties of the roof are/what Truth is, but its more difficult to talk about steps that didn't have to be taken/climbed because they were already in place. The low success rate of the Enlightenment-endeavours in my perspective is due to mostly using brute-force-methods (which need lots and lots of willpower and pushing through negative emotions on the pillow) with no clear map of the steps of the path and the lots of cul-de-sacs of the path, or prodigy-approaches of telling about nature of True Being, but not offering a method path for average-gifted persons (Ramana for example). So, conforming to the enlightened mindstream mainly is: (1) Visual Field nondual, mere appearance, "hovering" in Infinite Vasteness/Infinity, being manifested/imagined right now (2) every thought arising/feeling arising is seen as emerging out of True Being/consciousness, made out of it, moving in it. Especially all thoughts/feelings relating to I/me. Feels impersonal, no separate indiduality found in any of that. And based on that the separate self (what one thought oneself to be) can be realized as mere flow of colours/appearances/feelings/thoughts (which have a very coherent and well made structure/Gestalt, and therefor are extremly hypnotizing and seem believeable) appearing in Oneself (Infinite Being), including the whole past, and that one IS the always here Infinite Eternal Field of Being/Consciousness. And the former separate-self is like the tree-picture in this wikipedia-article (below): A representation for something that appears (the tree), but has no independend existence apart from True Being (which is the nondual infinite eternal vastness of Being right here and now, with the body and mindstream having no different priority or separation from all that is). A well made illusion. The picture of the tree concept doesn't point to a real tree outside of consciousness (an object), but to shapes/colours of an imagined trees within Infinite Consciousness, not to real trees that exist outside of Infinite Being, self-existing/indepdently existing outside of consciousness. There are no trees, just the concept of them, and some imagined colours/forms/sensations giving the Gestalt of an appearance of atree. Same way, there is no human/separate-self beyond the appearance-Gestalt, and the concept pointing to such an imagined self-existing entity. There is only Infinite Being, not the human (which only appears in Infinite Being). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept There always ever was, is and can be the Totality of (true) Being, self-aware, perceptions perceiving themselves. Either with reflective-self-consciousness arising (like normal human mind stream), or just mere awareness of the Totality without the self-consciousness part, perceptions perceiving themselves. Aware, but not separate. The non reflective-pure awareness of this vast field/being is more fundamental than the temporary appearing self-consciousness (with I-feelings I-thoughts). The Awareness is the Sun, the reflective (self-) consciousness (I-feeling, I-thoughts) is the reflected light of the Sun on the planets. Basically, its replacing ones old mistaken identity (imagined false illusion separate-self) with the correct identity, Infinite timeless/eternal (always here) Being. The flow of the human mindstream with its practical thoughts and so on happen within Ones True Being. One has a human, but is not only the human. Thoughts or feelings of separation are known to be illusion. When that shift happen, this realization is always available by just reaching out, or immediately always present. The visual field IS mere appearance and lucid/hologram/groundless, it IS infinite, eternal always here. Thoughts and feelings ARE just floating in it, made out of it, and "it" is onself, nondual. And that can be felt all the time or by just checking/moving attention there. It can never really be unseen. Reality/True Being understands itself. It is beyond doubt, unshakable, deathless/immortal always here. And that is the kicker: One/True Being is literally immortal and infinite. Not the ego, but True Being with its nature of Awareness. One can never die, and nothing outside one self can truly threaten one, because there is no outside of oneself. Seriousness and danger is replaced with laughter and security. Resting in True Being generates bliss, even when approaching it in Thisdells stage 4. Its a self-reinforcing positive feedback loop: Cutting off thoughts, field nondual, bliss flows. Literally. And that reinforces the stability of Nondual mere appearance visual field even more. Awakening enchances awakening. Suffering/resistance to what is no longer grips in any form since a long time. If it moves within ones being, is seen and let go. Would the inherent bliss of True Being ever be exchanged with grasping for being an ET seeing more of manifested reality, but suffers because its not enlightened? (more on that later). That is a "hard" shift, it is not just thinking differently. It is for sure not "I am God and imagine all reality", which is just cosplay. It is Reality understanding itself, Infinite Being waking up to itself. What can do the understanding of that? Reality/Being/Infinite Consciousness. Waking up to its True Nature. That last shift is knowing what one really is, and that understanding/realization runs over a short period of time. Waking up. Happens only once. And is final. Is beyond doubt (since these would only be more thoughts/arisings moving within Reality and subsiding into it). The shifts/Awakenings leading towards it go over a longer time, many years. And then of course there are infinite forms of manifestation, ET n+1, with vastly more understanding of the relative manifestations, basking in their understanding of the imagination process, different dimensions, higher realms, non-euclidian space, completely other alien manifestation realms. Humans look like ants compared to that for sure. These beings have been reported since millenia, in all cultures, all times. Reality-creating and maintaining Gods (Brahman, Shiva, Vishnu and endless other names for them). But it is the same True YOU, the only Being or Awareness in existence. The same being. There is nothing outside of it. No other (being, God, alien). And one can have an unenlightened ET, not having realized what Reality really is. Beings of higher realms are not necessarily enlightened. That tale is as old as the spiritual traditions. Although many of these beings of higher planes are enlightened. An unenlightened ET (which by definition has separate-self-elements not transcended/seen through in real time, which are by definition nothing other than the elements resisting the now, or suffering in other words) is a rather sad and suffering figure compared to a being who has realized its True Infinite Being. Calling the lower higher, and the higher lower. Whose modus operandi is that again? But lets not end too serious: It is all an illusion-game, "nobody" really gets lost forever, and Maya smiles lovingly on all not-really-(self)-existing-but-just-appearing children of Reality, humans and ETs alike. Although it can appear & feel very real & serious. Selling Water by the River

You are right that this is the last piece of the puzzle. Self-Awareness (bold marking by me), or awareness of its own existence is indeed NOT the Absolute. Its the last illusion... I wouldn't say that for Awareness (since here we would be on slippery terrain), but for self-awareness/self-consciousness definitely. Massaro summarized it nicely. Maybe watch that video a few times, and then the other parts of the Infinity-series: Awareness is "always there" (or not, since its beyond existing and non-existing), at least as a potential for sentience (if nothing arises, aka cessation, deep sleep), but if there is nothing to perceive there is no (self-)-consciousness. Unaware Deep Sleep, Cessation. But it doesnt really make sense to talk about awareness/consciousness if there is no perception, since then there is also no self-consciousness or self-awareness. Its pure Infinity/Absolute. The clap of the one hand. THAT Reality/Being which can be unaware of itself is what you are. Not the (self-)awareness with which one identifies, that is one of the last lenses/filters of illusion. You can be nothing at all, unaware of yourself (since there is no self-reflective self yet), with the potential for sentience. In your case, I assume getting that is the last building block to Enlightenment and fully getting what you are. Without fully realizing that, there is a subtle murky "nothing" self (Roger Thisdell stage 4). Thisdells stage 5 (another video) is then the resolve of the contradictions of stage 4. Everything else after this True Being/Absolute comes later: Manifestation, Infinite Field of mere appearance, gods & humans & aliens and the whole shebang. The "I am self-Awareness/Consciousness" feeling/thought/Gestalt (very subtle, hard to spot, the end boss so to say) is the last illusion/filter/lense of the last separate-self that can be constructed. And since it can be seen, since it changes, its an object, temporary, moving in True You. Leaves us with the point who/what realized all of that? Reality/Being realizes itself. And that is called Enlightenment. Its not personal, its not anything separate. It is Reality comprehending itself. Jac O'Keffee: "We're left with 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. That's movement such as space, time and identification and me, myself, I, and the building of my movie that happens". And maybe most important. It is not an it, or an Absolute, or anything "third person singular"-pronoun at all that "has" "Awareness" and explodes into manifestation. IT IS You. True You. With a big Y. That becomes totally obvious when the whole field is a mere appearance floating in Nothingness/Infinity (1), and you are "It" since there is no separate anything left at all, no center at all left (2). Nondual mere appearance, impersonally floating in the Infinite impersonal Universal Mind. Something reflecting about what it is (awareness,self-awareness, whatever) is already a separate-self (a manifestation, arising, moving within You. I-Thoughts/I-feelings have no dimension or form, but are still appearance/imagination/arising/"form"), and that hides the True Reality/Being. Too much movement... So yes, its tricky... Roger Thisdells stage model is nice. Since at stage 3 "Big-Mind" (Frank Yang called that God-state, easy to be reached via Psychedelics), one is already the nondual field (1). But getting the separate self mostly empty (Thisdell stage 4), and totally empty (Thisdell stage 5, centerlessness, Enlightenment), needs emptying out the separate-self completely. I have never seen one case where that was done mainly or purely with psychedelics. Not enough time in these states to empty out/transcend/understand the "high-speed-machine-gun-illusion-fire" of the separte-self-ego. But instead that lovely darling quite active appropriating all of the Nondual Infinity, Gods, Demons, ETs, n+1... Which sometimes is not for the faint-of-hearted. Ok, so, after mis-understanding the question the way I wanted in order to write about what I liked, lets come back to the original question: And why the "first" movement happened? 1.First, that is a question that presupposes duality. Form vs. emptiness, and also time. Which means it can't really be answered on the level of concepts. But lets try it anyway as good as possible, just so that it calms the remaining questions you have, so that you can rest in your True Being in a non-conceptual way so that the Big Bang can happen.. 2. Think in dimensions of Indras Net. Just because "your" perspective is "switched off" in cessation/deep sleep doesn't shut off all other perspectives. Understanding one single perspective ("yours") is enough to understand the structure of all perspectives/beings/nodes in Indras Net as Universal/Infinite Mind. Indras Net (which is also True You, but lets take the separte perspective) "continues" happily even if your perspective goes cessation/infinite/blank. 3. Who said it ever started? That is already a lot of Duality smuggled in. The past is imagined in its Totality right here and now. Its all a big illusion, including the past. True You is here right now, imagining all of it, fooling itself with such questions as you have (sorry to say, but you are close to the endgame boss, so I hope you forgive me). Get "rid" of the questions, let them dissolve in your infinite Nondual Being as mere movements of thought-arisings, and rest in your being in a non-conceptual way (Nonmeditation-Yoga). And sometimes softly ask yourself "who hears these words right now", but without effort and grasping. I have written extensively about Nonmeditation-Yoga (Mahamudra) somewhere else. Then the Big Bang can happen, Infinite Reality understanding itself. 4. Only Formlessness/emptiness/Infinity would be an asymetry. God has infinite potential of manifestation that apparently is being explored right here & now by "you" and "me" and "everyone else". To use a human metaphor: It is the nature of the Infinite to explore its potential, going from each creation cycle to the next. There have been many descriptions when coming out of cesstion/Nirvikalpha this original impulse for creation can be experienced. Not IN cessation (since there is nothing/pure infinity), but coming out of it. And, since its en vogue, lets close with ET: After so much Selling Water by the River, here the much more precise summary: The old pond, A frog jumps in: Plop! - Basho

It is impossible to think about death because the one who thinks it is what is defined and structured, what is going to disappear, so he can only think of other defined and structured possibilities in which he remains. Let's see, what we are under the structure is existence right? So it would be correct to say that what happens after my death is that your life continues to exist, and that of millions of rats, bacteria, hydrogen molecules and all that. but it's impersonal, you won't be there. That's really ego death, drop the self, that that no one does because they prefer fantasies

Thought is a function of the human mind, created by the brain, created by life. It is another function, such as the creation of images from light reflecting on objects, or sounds from vibrations. The thought creates aspatiotemporal world whose center is an entity that perceives itself as a perceiver and thinker, and that is an energetic structure that we call the human psyche, but that is not really an actor but a product. When the self realizes this it gets broken, then the true nature of what is is manifested, the unlimited impersonal existence that flows.

As I see there is not you, not a player, the only you is the self, this experience. The naked reality is just depth, but if you can open yourself totally to the depth then you realize that in the depth is everything, and the thing emerges. It's like the unlimited energy that life is, it's totally impersonal, nobody would say anything like: I am the creator blabla, no I, just a natural wild phenomenon totally unlimited that arises due the absence of limitations. No logic for this. You could call it god, but I call it the monster, the incommensurable. It's not you playing games, not far, I think that idea leads to a limited misunderstanding

my friend..God is not Santa Claus.. it's not a bearded old man living in the sky who will fuck you in the ass and burn you in hell fire because you like to "touch yourself " before bed ...although that's what most people think that God is . God is the creator of this universe...and also the universe itself. Just like how you are the creator of your nightly dreams while simultaneously being one with the dream. He loves our missery..suffering. ignorance. He makes no excuse. He is not just some dumb impersonal consciousness floating around selflessly. He is a conscious entity . He is you . Look deep inside yourself. Who are you ? Find out.

This time I'm reminded of the Buddhist path or as Yoda would say: "Let go of everything you fear to lose" but then also pull the carpet of "letting go of needing to let go" from under you. "Before enlightenment: chop wood, carry water, after enlightenment: chop wood, carry water". I really don't wanna leave my identity/thoughts/ideas/emotions behind because its kinda scary how impersonal and "sterile" reality seems without them, like a random simulation, or even a material world without a consciousness to perceive it. But to understand anything at all, you have to transcend the system that encompasses a duality and impersonally observe what is happening without judgement, and that will dissolve a lot of previously comfortable dogma. It also encompasses the ability of accepting ideas regardless of whether they're true or not. For example, I'd like to continue existing in some shape or form after death, whether as god realized, reincarnated, as an astral form or whatever. But all of these are concepts and I can only speculate on observations, metaphors and wishful thinking. So I keep imagining a Buddhist master asking me why I would need certain ideas to be true. And oftentimes, I don't want to think about it because I'm scared of losing something, and I do, but at the same time as far as I know, I'd lose it anyway at death and questioning and expanding my consciousness doesn't really take anything away from me, as much as it dissolves the barriers within me. The contents still exist and are liberated because of it to take any other shape and form and I am always able to come back. But to truly accept and entertain the notion of taking a look outside the paradigm that includes something I'm attached to, it feel like jumping off a minor cliff. It's like the idea that if I mastered everything, I could do anything, but maybe no specific thing would be worthwhile to do anymore. Like I won't be able to realize my desires because my ego holds me back but if I let go of the ego, the desire might dissipate. Though that might really just reveal the truth. I am getting more optimistic though at allowing this process to happen. My awareness bubble of senses/feelings/thoughts is but a small subset of reality and possible experience, and although I try to solve all my problems from inside of it, I always end up at the mercy of the grander world which I am interdependent upon. So in the end, what happens happens regardless of what I want to happen and usually for the better. My ideas are faulty due to their limitation which is by design for me to be able to exist in time and space at all. Otherwise there would be no outside to observe and interact with to ponder and wonder at, to lose myself in. Everything is infinitely interpretable, is god materializing top down, or consciousness arising bottom up, or objects interacting middle through, psychic or material, its all united and interconnected at all layers in some shape or form, does life evolve complexity to survive better, or is survival just a step in the evolution towards a beautiful expression of experience. In the end, nothing is guaranteed and everything operates on faith at some level. I just gotta have faith that doing my best reality works out and not to be too obsessed with outcomes but enjoy what is, and how exactly is an infinitely complex question that nobody could live if they kept thinking about it to infinite detail.

God does things because it is alive, it is life, it has no bottom, it boils with life, it cannot help it, its intelligence and his complexity are inconceivable, its depth is infinite, but it is not someone. You are someone now, you are the being that perceives, but God is not that, it is the depth that exists, it is absolutely impersonal, unfathomable, unthinkable. It is not something, it is a well of existence. So it isn't god, its just no limits

Love is the flow of life, the substance of existence, what makes the birds be coloured and the trees grow strong and wonderful. Is the blood moving in your body, the perfect laws that govern the stars and the cosmos, the yin and the yang that flows from the abyss of existence. But it's wild, totally impersonal, formless, and it's what we are, just a bubble of love, or life , or existence. Love is not loving anyone, is flowing. I don't name it love, I name it life, but maybe are the same, god is not needed, of if you prefer, god is infinite life, but it's no someone, it's just substance, intelligence, depth. I feel it all time, that's awakening, you don't need to know anything, it's just being

First some context: I am 31 years old and have been interested in meditation, self-observation and self-development since I was 20 years old. Today, I experimented with psychedelics for the first time, marking the beginning of a wonderful journey. I had wanted to try psychedelics for some time but was always a bit deterred, mainly due to legal concerns/sourcing issues. Recently, I found out that some LSD variants are legal where I live, so I decided to try 1D-LSD. I'm a fairly cautious person, especially when trying chemicals, so I thought 70 ug would be a good starting point, especially since I'll be doing this alone. I decided to trip on a Saturday, had no plans for the rest of the weekend, and had taken care of my responsibilities for the week. After waking up and showering, I took the tablets and went for a walk outside until the effects kicked in. It took about 20 minutes for me to start feeling the initial effects and 60 minutes to reach the peak. During the comeup, I felt some nausea and a little headache, but I was prepared for that. Upon returning home, I noticed visual changes; patterns in the carpet were moving and flowing into each other. It felt familiar to me; I had similar experiences in the past when I used to meditate more regularly and frequently than I do now. I sat on my meditation cushion and was amazed at how quickly and effortlessly I reached beyond my thoughts to the sense of "I", which sometimes is difficult for me. I could literally watch the sense of myself oscillate between small and human to impersonal and expanded. This, too, felt familiar, as I have been practicing self-inquiry for some time. After meditation, I had breakfast, and while eating, I burst into laughter without any apparent reason or funny thoughts. It just felt right to laugh, and it had to come out. Then I walked through my room, letting my gaze wander over the walls. I noticed details I had never seen before. In one part of the room, I have a picture of my brother who passed away a year and a half ago. I believe I have processed his death well. However, I sat in front of the picture and burst into tears. I cried for several minutes, convulsively, as if I hadn't cried in years. But I wasn't sad; over time, I cried out of gratitude. I was so grateful for the people who accompanied my brother and my family. After that, I felt lighter than I had in a long time. Slowly, I realized that the drug was wearing off, and I decided to take another walk in nature. The colors were still more vibrant than usual, but barely noticeable. I felt a great inner peace and thought to myself: It is possible to live like this every day. So connected to life. And yet, sometimes I am too lazy to do the groundwork for it. All in all, it was a very mild trip but it showed me the potential psychedelics have. I am looking forward to experimenting with higher doses in the future. Edit on the day after: I had trouble falling asleep, so I felt a bit groggy the day after. I don't know if it was just because of the lack of proper sleep or maybe some lingering effects of the drug. In my meditation session today, I was able to go more easily into my self-inquiry than usual, although not as easily as yesterday. Will be very interesting how long some of the effects will linger.

This comes as a synchonicity, since yesterday, after meditation, it became as obvious as to write it down that, as impersonal Awareness lies beyond the game of vibrational frequencies, there´s no ultimate Identity to search or find within the bubbles of individual consciousness and their unending vibratory forms and vibrational avatars and realms. What marks our real Identity is just the capability of being Aware, the very existence of Awareness, not the scope of a particular individual body-mind perspective. As Jackson Peterson said, "if you´re aware, you´re the Absolute". Once anchored as what we are ( unimprovable Impersonal Awareness), there´s no reason to not engage in "improving techniques" (energetic traditions, esoteric meditations, Light Body practices, etc.) that apply to the avatar (while the game is on, we better have a nice avatar), and we could do that without falling into deception or contradiction.

What is the purpose of life? Who's to say who's thinking is "right" or not... it's all open to interpretation and there are many levels of truths. The behavior of human beings is in my opinion mostly genetic programming/destiny. Our egos are computer programs shaped by DNA and culture. It's all quite impersonal in the end, but we are all programmed to make it personal.

Yeah but did you really open yourself? I mean, everything that is said here about: I realized that I am God and I am creating reality, is interesting, but it is still a mental structure. The total opening is: total infinity without limit. There is no you that realizes and says: wow I am infinite and I am the creator, but rather you spill into the abyss and dissolve in the impersonal ocean of existence, beyond any realization. This is perfect, the more it happens, the better. Actually, knowing that this reality is an illusion is just structure. is to compare it with something that is not an illusion. In fact, knowing is something that is structure, it is within the totality. At an absolute level it is completely meaningless, it is something limited. the unlimited cannot be understood since understanding is something that occurs within it. awakening is becoming limitless, and the need to know or understand is greed that grabs and creates limits. This is what creates psychosis and problems. the total break does not create problems, it is perfect

Again, taking up the noted quote from Hongzhi's practice instructions, this time addressing the second part. "This is called taking up the burden from inside and is how to shoulder responsibility", is a reference to so-called selfless spiritual adaption where the whole world is necessarily not "outside", not beyond the true self, not separate. All at once, is generally a reference to the Absolute (nature of reality), in terms of the selfless nonoriginated perspective of sudden illumination. The task and responsibility of enlightening activity both before and after the sudden, is to actualize the expression of enlightening being, nonoriginated, all at once, without psychological differentiation between self and other. There being no outside (or inside) relative to enlightening perspective actualizing one's latent sagehood in the world, the ancient taoist elucidation defining all prior illuminates is that "the world is the sage." Unless one's working parameter is "all at once", albeit step by step along the dusty path of authentic self-refining practice in the midst of endless karmic cycles, there is no actualized latent sagehood to be expressed. Therefore, "…taking up the burden from inside to shoulder responsibility." is the basic directive of authentic self-refining practice in response to situations and the means to stabilize the enlightening operative of "perceiving nothing" whereby everything is illuminated fully without making personal distinctions in terms of inside and/or outside relative to the psychological function of individuals who see potential and adapt enlightenment to conditions. When you find the road (or even if you don't), all things act in concert. Settling into situations, one simply awaits inevitability in the natural course of enlightening responsibility. One simply shares oneself openly in selfless adaption, responsibly responding in accordance with the time in terms of situational potential. Awaiting the celestial in stillness, one observes return, which is the spontaneous arising of the celestial potential latent in situationally karmic creative evolution. Taoism says to "refine the self and await the time." The only thing necessarily "wonderful" about creative evolution, is the fact that there is no way to find and absorb potential but for the kinetic incremental action of all things acting in concert by virtue of karmic momentum. For enlightening beings and deluded people alike, karma is the only thing to work with. The deluded follow creation's cycles of birth and death, while spiritual adepts turn the light around to shine on its source. As referenced above, "East Mountain walks on water" is indicative of one's impersonal (spiritual) function beyond movement and stillness. So awaiting the time, per se, isn't simply a matter of passive stillness while waiting for inevitability's fulfillment in terms of potential, or, more commonly, conditional assumptions of personal ascendancy over others in terms of complacent opportunism (privateering), speculative advances, avoidance strategies, or kinetic nullity relative to attraction, rejection, obtund satiety or else mere existential distraction. Enlightening beings' perspective neither by movement nor stillness is the living bestowal of one's inherent potential in the midst of affairs when one has learned to "turn the light around." This is uncontrived, sincerely open vulnerability. Enlightening being isn't operative or passive conditionality. It also isn't a matter of active or passive approbation, in terms of societal convention, due to the reality of nonoriginated potential being the essence of karma. This means that at all times or even "in between", enlightening activity is necessarily inconceivable; no one knows. Spiritual adaption is a task of secrecy, carried out in broad daylight, due to the nature of inconceivability. As such, enlightening activity's mode of operation is by definition an "open secret" in terms of wu-wei. Some people like to throw around the term wu wei. But it has been defined accurately in the above post as "seeing nothing", that is, in seeing potential by not using the light of awareness to follow objects as if they are intrinsically "outside" oneself, on account of the world being the sage, there is nothing to warrant inside or outside differentiation or influence pertaining to impersonal enlightening response to conditions. This means enlightening activity is not dependent on personal influences or obvious circumstantial factors. Honzhi says, "Unobstructed and free, beyond restraints, they do not depend on even subtle indicators, and their essential spirit cannot be eclipsed." Wu wei is "East Mountain walks on water." But adepts aren't metaphors, so they swim in suchness. Wu wei isn't a thing, nor is it an event. It is a name for the essential character of one's functional enlightening being which is not to be conceived as a separate reality. It is the aware totality of oneself, unborn (before the first thought); spontaneous selfless response: "acting without acting" in everyday ordinary situations. Penetrating the profound reality of wu-wei is a never ending path for those with the "all at once" vision of suchness. This is the "tiger eye" (dharma-eye) of enlightening being(s). Watching over the task and function of the aperture of the mysterious female, one witnesses changes. In recognizing changes, one does not go along with creation. So selfless adaption isn't a matter of accommodating phenomena, it is inconceivable response to the time. In introducing the term suchness, above, it must be mentioned that Creation is already one's self, but response to other is why sameness within difference is spoken of in terms of suchness. The buddhist teaching of sameness within difference is a device to help those whose "stream-entry" is immature and fraught with instability. All students of reality know the instability of "stream-entry." But stream-entry is a conditional aspect of authentic practice that must be worked out sufficiently over a long long time before one can cross rivers, where one's life hangs in the balance. Nevertheless, one's steps are unhurried yet not lagging, progressing naturally, fulfilling (refining) one's karmic burden, until death arrives to compliment the dissolution of one's current temporal lifetime. Karma needs time. So adepts excel in waiting. Enlightening beings respond to the time in order to absorb potential from within the conditional. The temporal is inherently comprised of the nature of the absolute, so in responding to the time, enlightening beings respond to situations effectively by abstraction, which is seeing through phenomena without denying the characteristics of the phenomenal to aid nonpsychological "all at once" transformation without going along with created cycles of karmic evolution from within karmic spheres. Transcendent adaptivity isn't an accomplishment "divorced" from delusion— it is enacted by virtue of delusion; being the meaning of "turning the light around to shine on its source." The light of creation and the source of the light is one. Otherwise, the secret of potential wouldn't be real. Seeing is itself the functional aspect of suchness as is. Those partaking of ineffable reality do so by virtue of seeing alone. In seeing potential, one's acts do not rely on one's own power or personal motivation. Power is necessarily a matter of seeing potential, inherently so, by virtue of situational evolution itself. So in partaking of reality, real humans go in reverse, opposite the flow of creation. This is all there is to turning the light around spoken of in the Secret of the Golden Flower. If one gets this, one knows the meaning of the saying, "It is as easy as turning over your hand." Just this is entry into the inconceivable, spoken of as the Supreme Vehicle of buddhas, saints, sages, adepts, wizards and all prior illuminates. ed note: change "stabilizing" to "operative" in 5th paragraph; typo 9th; add last quote; parenthesis to enlightening being(s) in 11th; italicize "seeing" in 1st and 2nd sentences of 14th paragraph

Agree on all points. Even the soul-game is an appearance, ultimately not real. But equally real or unreal as ones car, for example. And endures death, which the car can not claim when the scrap press comes along... "How wonderful it is that in the infinite ocean of myself the waves of living beings arise, collide, play, and disappear, in accordance with their nature" 2.25 Ashtavakra Gita And for (not true/full) Nonduality: Also agree. Nonduality is most often a merging/unity experience, where the separate-self/individuality can still be well and alive, and hijack the nondual unity-state. "I realized nonduality/Reality", "I am pure awareness", "I am God", "I am whatever", "I realized *whatever*". And what triggers most likely a unity/nondual-state with the separate-self still well and alive, later interpreting the experience in a way that doesn't kill/transcend but boost and extend the lense/filter/illusion of the separate-self to God-like proportions? What could that be? Or (true) Nonduality, to truly realize that one has ever been, always is, and never can not be Infinite Reality itself. That Reality is impersonal, groundless, empty and infinite, absolute potential, no separate-identity left, no inner-blabla-talk of any(!) kind still believed and not immediately cut off, seen as illusion arisings within ones True Infinite Self. The illusion is seen through.... Pure groundless Being is realized, containing this and any possible world/apperance. That (and only that) can end the suffering/(aka resistance to what is) which is the essence of what any separate-self is at its core. "There is no one subject to samsara, no sense of individuality, no goal or means to the goal in the eyes of the wise man who is always free from imagination and unchanging like space" 18.66 Ashtavakra Gita "When the sage has realised that he himself is in all beings, and all beings are in him, it is astonishing that the sense of individuality should be able to continue" 3.5 Ashtavakra Gita And even something with imagination and God and realization is in the Ashtavakra Gita: "Recognising [Realizing] that [all] things are just constructions of imagination, that great soul lives as God here and now". 18.28 The only thing I didn't find in the Ashtavakra Gita is Alien & company. But since its quite hard to contradict that Alien & company are also imagined and merely appearing illusions arising in the Reality of ones own True Being... But hey, what does Water by the River know? NOTHING. But that quite profoundly. Selling Water by the River

Understanding Duality - Part 1 - Master List of 250+ Dualities https://youtu.be/FO3YtZwhN2k "Every stick has two ends." - Proverb Understanding Duality - Part 1 - Master List of Dualistic Cognition: Leo Gura delves into the essential nature of dualistic cognition, explaining that human understanding and communication inherently depend on creating dualities. He describes how dualistic structures like 'up vs. down' or 'success vs. failure' are fundamental to our interpretation of the universe and shape every intellectual activity, including science and philosophy. Creating vs Being Unaware of Dualities: Leo points out that while we constantly create dualities to comprehend the world, many remain unaware of their constructed nature, leading to misleading conceptions of reality. He notes that dualities such as 'man vs. woman' or 'progress vs. regress' appear to be absolutes, but in fact are temporary and prone to dissolution upon deeper examination because they are products of the human mind. Epistemological Law of Dualities: Leo introduces an epistemological principle stating that all dualities are untenable and destined to collapse due to the non-dual nature of reality. This principle challenges conventional thinking, revealing that perceived opposites are often a complex interplay of forces that become unified upon closer scrutiny. Collapse of Dualities Upon Deep Exploration: A key insight Leo shares is that when a duality such as 'man vs. machine' or 'progress vs. regress' is deeply explored, it inevitably circles back, demonstrating the unity between the opposites. This challenges our rigid notions and emphasizes the relativity and interdependency of dualistic categories. Consequences of Dogmatic Dualistic Beliefs: He emphasizes the societal and cultural challenges arising from clinging to dualistic beliefs, suggesting that these rigid boundaries will become increasingly blurred, particularly with technological advancements and changes in sociocultural norms. Issues with Carving Reality into Categories: Leo discusses the subjective nature of categorizing reality and the conflicts that arise from varying interpretations between individuals, such as defining outer space or what constitutes a heap of sand. He points out that disagreements stem from these subjective delimitations. Minds as Creators of Dualities: Leo stresses that dualities and categories do not exist in nature but are instead constructions of the human mind, tailored to fulfill individual or collective survival agendas. He rejects the notion of absolute categories, advocating for a recognition of their relative and self-imposed nature. Collapse of Dualities Is Threatening: Exploring dualities is viewed by Leo as unsettling for many because it challenges fundamental assumptions, threatens identity, and leads to potential existential crises. However, he encourages this deep exploration to understand the true non-dual nature of reality. Drawing Boundaries in Space: The perception of 'outer space' and where it begins is a human-made distinction without a clear boundary, exemplified by the ambiguity of whether a jumbo jet flying high or just being above the atmosphere qualifies as being in outer space. Living Cells and Human Identity: The determination of when molecules become a living cell or when a cluster of cells becomes a human is subjective and contentious, with significant implications for abortion rights and furthering the difficulty in defining human identity. Evolutionary Transitions: The challenge in pinpointing the exact moment an ape-like ancestor became human highlights the arbitrary nature of such distinctions, delving into the complexity of human evolution and identity. Defining Artificial Intelligence: Establishing the boundary between human intelligence and artificial intelligence is increasingly complex, suggesting future debates in computer science as AI advances. Thoughts and Emotions Intersection: The boundaries between thoughts and emotions are not distinct, as demonstrated by the interplay between thought patterns and feelings, particularly in relation to pain and suffering. Love and Hatred Duality: Love and hatred, commonly perceived as opposites, often merge, with hate stemming from a form of love, such as hating someone out of love for a person they hurt, challenging the simplicity of this duality. Resistance to Explore Dualities: Most people resist delving into dualities due to the existential threat posed by challenging fundamental constructs, which shape their worldview, self-perception, and practical life. Subversion of Dualities: Every duality is subject to eventual collapse, with human understanding being inherently biased and confused, leading to simplistic and dogmatic perceptions of reality. Categories Created by the Mind: The mind creates distinct categories to make sense of the world, then denies doing so, bringing forth ignorance and misunderstanding, reinforcing the idea that categories are not absolute but human constructs. Relativity of Directional Dualities: Dualities such as up versus down or left versus right are presented as inherently relative, contingent upon the observer's perspective and context, emphasizing the importance of considering different perspectives for deeper understanding. Limitation of Imagination Due to Categories: Rigid adherence to categories, such as even and odd numbers, can limit the scope of understanding, demonstrating the need for flexibility in cognitive processes to grasp more complex and nuanced truths. Relativity of "Shallow" and "Deep": Leo discusses how someone's perception of depth in books or ideas changes as they progress on their personal development journey, illustrating how what is considered deep now may become shallow in the future. Relative Nature of Good vs Bad/Evil: Leo explains that the concepts of good and bad, or good and evil, are relative. What may be good for one person can be bad for another, demonstrating the dependency of these categories on individual circumstances and self-agendas. Introduction to Absolutes: Leo introduces a deeper concept called "the absolute" or "transcendent" which is a level of consciousness that recognizes and transcends dualistic categories. It is not relative but exists without an opposite. Absolute Good Transcends Relative Dualities: He elaborates on "absolute good" (with a capital "G"), which includes both lowercase 'g' good and lowercase 'b' bad, transcending the duality and creating a unified concept of good that recognizes no opposite. Image 1 Understanding of Absolute Right and Positive: Similarly, Leo mentions the concept of "absolute Right" and "absolute Positive," which negate the existence of their opposites, asserting that everything is ultimately 'right' and 'positive' when viewed from an absolute perspective. Moral vs Immoral as Relative Concepts: Leo contends that moral and immoral are relative concepts, differing across cultures and times, and cautions against absolutist cognition that treats these as universal truths instead of individual or societal constructs. Conflating Relative and Absolute Dualities: He warns against the mistake of treating relative dualities as absolutes, as this confusion impedes access to true absolutes like absolute truth or absolute good. True vs False, Should vs Shouldn't Dichotomies: Leo covers additional dualities such as true vs false, and should vs shouldn't, proposing that everything that happens is what should happen, thereby eliminating dichotomous tensions. Transcending Good vs Evil: Leo talks about transcending the duality of good vs evil, suggesting that this leads to a more liberated state of existence, albeit one that can be intimidating to consider. Tug of War in Life: He addresses the persistent tug of war within politics, religion, and personal conflicts, suggesting that recognizing absolute truths can dissolve conflicts. Ultimate Solution to Duality: Leo concludes by hinting at the idea of awakening or waking up from the dualistic dream as an ultimate solution to the never-ending stream of problems created by the mind's dualistic thinking. Happiness vs Sadness: Leo examines the common pursuit of happiness in personal development and its inherent connection to sadness, as efforts to achieve success, relationships, or wealth inadvertently cultivate as much sadness as happiness. He suggests that seeking "true happiness" can lead to the discovery of an Absolute Happiness beyond these emotions. Old vs New: Leo explores how quickly something considered new becomes old, such as technology or fashion, highlighting the relativity and context dependence of these concepts. He questions the existence of true newness or oldness in the universe, suggesting everything's age is relative. Useful vs Useless: Leo discusses usefulness as relative to individual goals and needs, illustrating how changing one’s goals from money to love can shift perceptions of what is useful, and how usefulness can become uselessness, or even a detriment, depending on new objectives. Boring vs Exciting: Leo presents the relativity of boredom and excitement, observing how a video game or meditation can fluctuate between exciting and dull based on personal mental states. He raises the possibility of transcending boredom to always be 'exciting with a capital E.' Rich vs Poor: Leo reflects on wealth, noting that even the poorest in modern society live more comfortably than historical figures considered wealthy. He also delves into the relativity of wealth among social peers, suggesting it's your comparative financial status that influences your perception of richness or poverty. Normal vs Weird: Leo discusses society's pressure to conform to 'normal' and avoid being 'weird,' considering how these labels vary across time and cultures. He encourages embracing authenticity, transcending the duality between normal and weird to be authentically oneself. Black vs White: Leo challenges racial categorizations, explaining that genetic differences may not align with our socially constructed racial classes. He argues that acknowledging these constructs as such can lead to changing outdated survival paradigms that no longer serve us. Questioning Fixed Dualities: Leo urges viewers to question and challenge the categories they encounter, recognizing their fluid nature and self-made constructions, allowing for a better interaction with an evolving reality and a transformative approach to life. Race and Identity: Leo discusses the duality of racial identity, such as being African or European, and how individuals can become trapped in this duality, creating tension and conflict. To transcend race, he suggests that one must move beyond the notion that they are a particular race, species, or even a creature. This transcendence is part of awakening to the absolute identity, which encompasses all. Nested Web of Belief: Leo explains that reality is an elaborate construct of nested categories, with certain fundamental categories at the base that, if questioned, could dissolve one's entire perception of life, including the sense of having a body. He advocates for radical open-mindedness to contemplate the possibility that these constructs might not be as solid as they seem. Flawed vs. Perfect: The concepts of flawed and perfect are described as relative, with Leo suggesting a perception shift to see everything as inherently perfect, regardless of apparent imperfections. This view could considerably change one's outlook on life and is seen as a profound shift in consciousness. Clean vs. Dirty: Leo uses the example of fecal matter to illustrate the relativity of what is considered clean or dirty, explaining that these categories are human-made based on survival instincts and do not exist as absolutes in the universe. Wild vs. Tame: By discussing experiments with breeding foxes for tameness, Leo demonstrates the relative and gradual nature of these categories and suggests that with enough modification, what is considered wild can become tame to varying degrees. Simple vs. Complex and Other Dualities: He goes on to name other dualities such as simple vs. complex, wet vs. dry, and fair vs. unfair, explaining that people's perception of unfairness in life is a result of not transcending this duality to realize the absolute fairness where every being experiences all perspectives. Winning vs. Losing and Success vs. Failure: Leo emphasizes how the relative nature of winning, losing, success, and failure can entrap individuals' identities and affect their mental health significantly, leading to depression or a skewed perspective on life's purpose. Fake vs. Genuine: He questions the distinction between fake and genuine, suggesting that if a fake is indistinguishable from the real thing, it may cease to be fake, much like how sometimes fiction can contain more truth than nonfiction. Cowardice vs. Bravery: The line between cowardice and bravery is presented as thin, with the understanding that brave actions are often carried out despite fear and that bravery can be context-dependent. Master vs. Slave: Leo illustrates how the duality of master and slave is interconnected, with the master being enslaved to the paradigm of owning slaves, thus neither truly free. Superficial vs. Profound: He discusses the relative nature of superficiality and profundity and how the most profound understanding can often come from previous experiences of perceived arrogance. Arrogance vs. Humility: Arrogance, especially in youth, often leads to humbling experiences later in life. As individuals mature, they recognize their arrogance and grow to find it distasteful, leading to the development of humility. Violence vs. Peace: Leo suggests the controversial idea that peace can be achieved through acts of violence and war. He distinguishes lowercase 'peace,' commonly seen as the absence of war, from uppercase 'Peace,' the ultimate harmony of the universe, which includes and transcends war. Personal vs. Impersonal Universe: The universe is paradoxically both deeply personal and utterly impersonal. This duality underscores the profound nature of existence and the diversity of human experience. Innocent vs. Guilty: Discussions about guilt, innocence, and blame become dualistic traps, leading to complex ethical debates without clear resolutions. Past vs. Future: The future always becomes the past, and the past was once the future; this highlights the fluid nature of time and the continuum of experiences. Political Ideologies: Labels such as capitalism, socialism, communism, conservatism, and liberalism are relative and evolve over time, making their exact definitions and boundaries difficult to pin down. Legal vs. Illegal and Criminal Categories: These concepts are culturally and personally relative, leading to the insight that even those who enforce laws (like the police) can engage in criminal behavior, depending on one's perspective. Terrorist vs. Non-Terrorist: Leo touches on the subjectivity and danger of labeling someone as a terrorist without due process and how this can lead to serious miscarriages of justice and policy. Hero vs. Villain: Good storytelling blurs the lines between heroes and villains; the best characters embody both good and bad traits, reflecting real psychological complexity. Journey vs. Destination: People often focus on destinations but fail to appreciate that the journey and destination are inextricably linked. Ugly vs. Beautiful: Leo suggests that one can transcend this duality and see everything as beautiful, understanding that apparent ugliness is also part of a broader definition of beauty. Art vs. Non-Art and Harmony vs. Discord: These concepts, like so many others, are relative and subjective, always existing in relation to each other and dependent on individual perspective. Masturbation vs. Sex: In a consciousness where oneness is realized, all sex is seen as a form of self-love, highlighting the non-duality of the two activities. Student vs. Teacher: The best teachers remain students at heart, and the act of teaching can be one of the best ways to learn, demonstrating a dynamic relationship between the roles. Child vs. Parent: Every adult is also a child to someone else, and adults can sometimes be less mature than children, showing the fluidity of these roles. Healthy vs. Unhealthy: This duality is like many others—subjective and often dependent on perspective rather than absolute criteria. Product Development vs. Marketing: In business, the successful integration of product development with marketing is crucial, illustrating the interdependence of these aspects in the marketplace. Academic Departments: The separation of academic disciplines into different departments is an artificial construct. Many significant advancements occur at the intersection of disciplines, where rigid categorizations are transcended. Civilized vs. Uncivilized: What is considered civilized in one culture may be considered uncivilized in another—but wisdom and sophistication can exist in all cultures, regardless of these labels. Spirituality vs. Politics: While separation of church and state is important, Leo points out that politics benefits from spirituality, as it brings a deeper wisdom and values to the decision-making process. However, combining the two requires a delicate balance to prevent the corruption of genuine spirituality. Separation of Church and State: Leo highlights that organized religion is often mired in dogma and not true spirituality; hence, separation of church and state is essential to prevent dogmatic beliefs from influencing governance. Relativity of Importance and Significance: Leo discusses the subjective nature of concepts like importance, using the example of how 'mother' and 'father' may hold different meanings for someone raised by a same-sex couple. Democracy and Tyranny: He explores how democracy can give rise to tyranny, as evidenced by historical cases like Hitler's rise to power, challenging the clear-cut distinction between these political systems. Sober vs Intoxicated Awakening: Discussing the legitimacy of awakenings, Leo claims that both sober and psychedelic experiences can be genuine, even suggesting that some psychedelic experiences may access deeper truths. Duality of Need and Want: Leo examines the fluidity between needs and wants, illustrating that our perceptions of necessity are often based on personal feelings rather than absolutes. Pain and Pleasure Spectrum: Leo challenges the opposition of pain versus pleasure, proposing the possibility of enjoying both and the potential to transcend this duality to a state of joy that surpasses the incessant tug-of-war. Individualism vs Collectivism: Leo explains the importance of balancing individual and collective interests within a society, criticizing both extreme libertarian individualism and excessive collectivism. Theistic vs Atheistic Perspectives: Leo indicates that theism and atheism are not strict opposites and can be transcended, revealing a more profound level of understanding that can incorporate aspects of both views. Status Quo vs Change: Leo argues for a balanced approach to change and the status quo in politics, emphasizing the need for both incremental and revolutionary changes in government and personal life. Dominant vs Submissive and Other Dynamic Dualities: He elaborates on several dualities, including dominant versus submissive, popular versus niche, and temporary versus eternal, underscoring the necessity for balance and the possibility of transcending the temporary. Adding and Subtracting Positive and Negative Numbers: Using mathematical rules as a metaphor, Leo illustrates how positive and negative interactions in dualities can yield unexpected outcomes, suggesting counterintuitive overlaps. Work and Play Dichotomy: Leo postulates that work and play's distinction is not fixed, but can shift depending on one's passion and level of engagement. Content and Context: He discusses the intricate relationship between content and context in dualities, noting the nested nature of context within content and vice versa. Emotions and Rationality: Leo points out the false dichotomy between being emotional versus rational, emphasizing that emotions often underpin rational decisions. Private vs Public Life: Leo reflects on the interconnectedness of one's private and public lives, noting that actions in one sphere affect the other and the challenge of maintaining a balance. Competition and Cooperation: He highlights how cooperation can coexist with competition, even within the same team or project, showing the complex dynamics within dualities. Competitive vs Cooperative Dynamics: Leo discusses the paradox of needing to compete for promotions while also being required to cooperate with colleagues. This balancing act is complex, as cooperation and competitiveness often appear as opposing forces within a work environment. Danger vs Safety Balance: Balancing the need for safety with the potential benefits of danger is complicated, as seen in debates on topics such as gun control or the controlled use of psychedelics. Leo notes that while there are dangers associated with psychedelics, the risks have been over-emphasized, limiting their therapeutic use for conditions like PTSD and depression. Cultural Mainstream vs Cults: Leo considers the thin line separating cults from mainstream culture and observes that certain aspects of politics have adopted a cult-like psychology, challenging the distinction between what's perceived as ordinary culture and a cult. Transcending Ordinary: Leo suggests transcending the ordinary to experience an absolute state he describes as extraordinary with a capital 'E', where nothing seems ordinary anymore. Serious vs Playful Approach: He recognizes that humor is a coping mechanism in serious circumstances, with playfulness serving a vital role even in the face of trauma or significant challenges. Masculine vs Feminine: Leo goes in-depth about cultural trends and reactions towards femininity and feminism, articulating the red pill and 'men going their own way' movements as examples of a desire for hyper-masculinity. He identifies the questioning of gender norms and the normalization of homosexuality, yet there's resistance born from an inability to accept one's feminine side, culminating in homophobia. Nature of Gender Roles: The societal constructs of 'man' and 'woman', according to Leo, are mental categories imbued with enormous practical significance and associations beyond the biological. He notes that edge cases in biology challenge the binary view and elucidates that these mental constructs significantly influence identity, perceptions, and societal behaviors. Transcendence through Non-Duality: Leo argues that deep spiritual work enables the transcending of binary gender roles and the realization of an absolute state, where one embodies both masculine and feminine qualities harmoniously. Image 2 Image 3 Approaching Future Technology: Leo posits that technological advancements, including genetic engineering, will further challenge traditional categories and encourages openness to these changes for greater integration in the future. Cat vs Dog - Biology and Technology: Leo uses the hybrid of a cat and dog, as imagined in a cartoon, to illustrate how future genetic engineering might disrupt current biological categorizations. He stresses the importance of mentally preparing for radical future developments that will blend human, animal, and machine elements. Image 4 Expecto Patronum

What Is God - Part 2 - Clear Answers To 70+ Commonly Asked Questions https://youtu.be/YMLuA2MzV40 "We are small pieces of God's mental apparatus." - Freeman Dyson Leo's clarification on being part of God: Leo establishes that depending on one's interpretation of 'you', an individual can be both a part of God and God themselves. In the conventional sense, 'you' refers to a part of God, but the deeper sense of self, realized through awakening practices, is God in its entirety. God's nature as tricky: Leo elaborates that God's nature requires trickery because reality itself is born of illusion. The physical world is a persistent disguise of God's true formlessness, which makes it challenging to recognize God in everyday experiences that we often take for granted. Experiencing God: Leo posits that individuals are constantly experiencing God but aren't aware of it because such awareness isn't necessary for survival. Noticing God requires becoming conscious of the truth that everything, including mundane objects and actions, is God. God's hiddenness: Leo addresses why God appears hidden by explaining that God's trickery is a creative necessity. The deceptive nature of God allows the experience of different forms and realities from formlessness. Recognizing God's true form would hinder practical human pursuits due to the realization of the illusory nature of concepts like money and material success. Claims about God and their falsifiability: Leo argues that God is the elemental truth and, as such, isn't subject to falsification in the traditional scientific sense. God's claims are verifiable through personal experience, and realization of this truth is self-validating. The burden of proof: Leo suggests that the burden of proof lies on individuals to discover and understand the truth of God, instead of it being something external that needs to be demonstrated or proved scientifically. He emphasizes that knowing God requires a more profound, introspective form of knowledge and understanding. Power of self-deception and God's capabilities: Leo emphasizes the absolute nature of self-deception, equating it to God's power. He asserts that God has the power to deceive itself into believing it is not God and, conversely, the power to awaken from that deception, illustrating the duality of God's capability. Rebuttal to 'God of the gaps' argument: Leo dismisses the 'God of the gaps' argument, explaining that while science aims to demystify reality, it will never succeed entirely because reality's infinite nature eludes complete understanding. For Leo, God embodies the mysterious 'gap' or nothingness that unifies all appearances. Differences between atheism and God as 'nothing': Addressing the materialist's stance on reality, Leo outlines the practical distinctions between his concept of 'nothing' as God and the atheistic view of non-existence. He lists multiple points where atheists' understanding diverges, such as reality being subjective, human beings as non-existent entities, and the sentient, intelligent nature of reality. Atheism's shortcomings in comprehending reality: Leo critiques the atheistic worldview, pointing out that it fails to recognize the subjective, relative nature of reality, the non-existence of humans as separate entities, the mechanistic view of reality, and the illusion of physical properties like time, space, and matter. Limitations and capabilities of consciousness: Atheists don't understand that their skepticism and doubts are tied to their current state of consciousness, which can change. Leo highlights the notion that consciousness is not a byproduct of the brain and that science has epistemic limits when trying to understand God or paranormal phenomena. Paranormal phenomena and the nature of God: Leo argues that atheists ignore the existence of paranormal activities, underestimate science's potential to answer all questions, and don't recognize that they are God, part of an infinite reality with no physical limits. Impossibility of God being a hallucination: Finally, Leo clarifies that direct consciousness of God cannot be a hallucination or delusion. Realizing God as the absolute truth leaves no room for misinterpretation as it doesn't rely on language, symbols, or perception. God as absolute truth: The concept of hallucination and delusion arises when the mind thinks rather than directly interfaces with absolute truth. When one is fully conscious of absolute truth, the idea of God as a hallucination is not applicable because in that state, there’s no room for doubt or the perception of hallucination. Experiencing God beyond the brain: When taking 5-MeO-DMT, reality is flipped inside out to the extent that the concept of having a brain or chemicals is forgotten. Leo emphasizes that in this state, 5-MeO-DMT is not a brain state, chemical, or neurotransmitter; it's a direct experience of God, which one must undergo to understand its profundity. Psychedelics as a pathway to truth: Skeptics question the validity of psychedelic experiences, but Leo argues that consciousness is all-powerful and can create any experience, including the realization of absolute truth. Leo invites doubters to partake in breakthrough psychedelic experiences to understand this personally. Understanding the meta-truth of God: Leo refutes the idea that God could just be part of a computer simulation, emphasizing that God is the ultimate realization of absolute infinity. He uses the concept of nested matrices to explain the scope of God – an infinite recursion of realities, indicating that all of existence is a hallucination, which psychedelics can help reveal. Infinity beyond God debunked: Leo addresses the idea of something existing beyond God by explaining that God is equivalent to "everything" and "totality," enveloping all potential aspects of existence. This realization, once reached, leaves nothing more to understand, and the concept of totality precludes the existence of anything outside of God. God cannot be a mere component: Leo clarifies that God cannot be just a part or product of something else, like a computer simulation, because God encompasses all possible phenomena. The notion of a computer simulation is a finite concept within the infinitude that is God. God's self-creation explained: Leo discusses how God interacts solely with itself, imposing self-limitations in the form of physical reality to create the potential for experience and surprise. This necessity is why there can only be one absolute infinity, representing true totality. God's capacity to create limitations: God incarnates in various forms, each with its limitations to experience existence. For instance, humans can lift certain rocks but not others, demonstrating God's self-imposed limitations. The formless Godhead, being infinite potential, cannot engage in such actions and must express itself through forms. God and self-destruction: God, in its formless state or as the Godhead, cannot be destroyed since destruction only applies within the realm of form. Although incarnated forms of God, such as humans, can experience destruction, the formless Godhead remains eternally intact. Formlessness and impermanence of forms: God, as formless, is eternal, but incarnates into forms such as humans or stars, which are transient and can be destroyed, like a star by a black hole or a person by jumping off a building. Overcoming confirmation bias in spiritual experiences: Leo discusses how genuine spiritual experiences shatter existing conceptual understandings and offer truths that are self-validating and often shocking, despite previous exposure to similar ideas. Denial of specific religious affiliations: Leo clarifies that he is not covertly adhering to any religion such as Christianity or Buddhism. His teachings are based on direct awakening experiences, not on a desire for God to be real or preexisting religious beliefs. Certainty vs. humility in speaking about God: Leo addresses the perceived arrogance of speaking with certainty about God. He explains that absolute truth is known without doubt once realized and expresses this truth without false humility. Possibility of misunderstanding God: Leo acknowledges the potential for misinterpretation or false experiences of God. He defends his understanding by referencing consistent awakening experiences, cross-referencing spiritual texts, and an openness to reevaluating his insights. Rejecting the notion of unknowability in spirituality: Leo counters the idea that asserting 'we don't know' is more scientific or humble. When true knowledge or realization of God is obtained, claiming ignorance would be dishonest, and one must remain open to astounding insights. Non-existence of evil from God's perspective: Leo argues that evil is a human projection based on survival, not an absolute reality. From God's universal viewpoint, there is no evil or suffering, just the perfect manifestation of existence. Perfect nature of the world from a higher perspective: The world, despite apparent imperfections when perceived through ego, is seen as perfect from God's higher perspective. Analogies of movie watching and rollercoaster rides illustrate the subjective experience of suffering and the illusory nature of evil. Absence of duty towards God: Since humans are embodiments of God, there is no duty to worship or pray. Leo suggests the real duty lies in awakening and raising awareness oneself, rather than adhering to traditional religious practices. Leo's certainty and the nature of absolute truth: Asserting knowledge of God, Leo shares that with direct experience, there's an undeniable certainty about this absolute truth, contrasting it with the nature of scientific knowledge and speculation. Rollercoaster and skydiving experience as an analogy for God’s interaction with human life: Leo compares human existence and the thrills and fears it brings to a rollercoaster ride or a skydiving experience. He suggests that as God incarnates into human experiences, it deliberately places itself into various situations, which, while sometimes terrifying or uncomfortable, also offer exhilaration and a form of enjoyment akin to the ultimate virtual reality, such as described in the movie "The Matrix." Skydiving as a metaphor for confronting fear and questioning life choices: Leo recounts his personal skydiving experience as a metaphor for life’s moments of intense questioning and fear of one's chosen path. He relates to the jarring realization during free fall that one may never choose to face such a terrifying situation again, representing moments of existential questioning that arise during human life. The addictive nature of excitement and suffering in human experience: Leo points out that humans instinctively seek excitement as well as the paradoxical allure of suffering. He suggests that people secretly enjoy their suffering and even might not wish to relinquish it, as it is a crucial part of their experience and identity. Unconditional love of God and non-judgment: Addressing the question of why God wouldn't judge actions such as murder or rape, Leo explains that God is all-loving and does not judge because it embodies every possible experience, including those we label as negative. Judgments of good and bad originate from the ego's perspective and serve the purpose of survival and identity defense rather than a divine perspective. The radical nature of God's love and the human perspective: Leo describes God's love as too radical for human beings to embody because it extends to everything in existence, contrasting with humans' selective love constrained by survival and defense of identity and moral constructs. God's relationship with evil and hate: Leo argues that evil and hate, as understood by humans, only exist as a perspective of the ego. To experience these emotions, God incarnates into limited forms such as human beings. From God’s ultimate perspective, it loves all aspects of creation, including those seen as evil or hateful. The nature of mainstream religion: Leo explains that mainstream religions are limited by the cognitive development of the times they were created and are often filled with metaphors and stories that cater to the understanding of those eras. Hence, they may seem confusing and diluted compared to direct experiences and teachings about God. The origin and dilution of religious teachings: He goes on to discuss how the teachings of enlightened individuals like Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammad, when passed down through less enlightened individuals and over extended periods, are subject to misinterpretation and dilution. God, evil, and the Devil: Leo clarifies that God is responsible for all creations, including those perceived as evil, as there is nothing outside of God. He explains the concept of the Devil as God’s incarnation experiencing separation, ego, and survival mechanisims—"the Devil" is another form through which God experiences itself. Challenges of straightforwardly explaining God: Finally, Leo addresses the challenges faced by mainstream religions in explaining God in a straightforward manner, attributing these to historical cognitive limits, cultural metaphors, and the distorting effects of interpreting and recording religious teachings over time. Adaptation of religious teachings: Religious teachings often involve moral codes like defining right and wrong or lawful and unlawful. These were advanced for their time and served as a form of legal and moral infrastructure before the establishment of countries and legal systems. Corruption of spirituality by ego: Spiritual teachings and religions can be co-opted by the ego for its purposes. Rulers and nation-states have historically used religion to control masses and justify wars, leading to the spread of confusion, delusion, and egotism. Challenges in codifying and spreading God's realization: The personal and subjective nature of realizing God makes it difficult to codify and mass distribute this knowledge through books or videos without misunderstandings and misinterpretations. Differentiating dated teachings from timeless wisdom: In studying religious texts like the Bible, it is important to distinguish outdated practices from enduring wisdom. Some archaic teachings must be recognized as products of their time and not applicable today. Commonalities across diverse religions: Despite the surface disagreements, various religions share a significant amount of core teachings, emphasizing the importance of direct experience and mystical insight to discern universal truths and recognize commonalities. Integration of religions: The modern idea of integrating religions to understand their common essence contrasts with the traditional perspective where each religion aimed at a monopoly on truth. An integral approach can help resolve superficial disagreements. Evidence of spiritual truths across history: The consistent mention of spirituality and God across all human history and cultures, often reflecting common themes, suggests there's more to it than mere superstition, mass delusions, or groupthink. Misconceptions regarding religion: Religion's historical involvement in conflicts doesn’t negate the personal discovery of God. Technology and other societal elements also contribute to wars, separating the potential misuse of religion from the experience of God. Usage of the word 'God': Despite misunderstandings, the term 'God' effectively captures the divine experience. Using non-specific terms might dilute the extraordinary aspect of the experience. Interpretation of religious visions: Visions of deities or religious figures during mystical experiences are symbolic interpretations by the mind, influenced by cultural and personal backgrounds. These are not arguments against God but reflective of cultural filters. Authenticity of spiritual teachings: No spiritual tradition has a monopoly on God or spirituality. Truths about God existed long before contemporary spiritual traditions and are global rather than exclusive to any specific region or culture. Understanding religious differences: To discern the underlying unity in various religious teachings, one must approach them with direct experience and mystical insights, rather than solely through intellectual study. Leo Gura's perspective on cultural interpretations of God: Leo notes that different cultures, such as Christians, Buddhists, Jews, and ancient Greeks and Egyptians, all have knowledge of God. He emphasizes that no single culture has a monopoly on the truth about God; these insights are accessible across cultures and history. Buddhism and the concept of God: Despite common misconceptions, Leo explains that Buddhism does have a concept of God. Buddhism’s "God" is expressed as No-Self, Buddha Mind, the Dharmakaya, Nirvana, etc. He clarifies that the difference between Buddhist No-Self and Hindu Self is a matter of degrees in awakening, not different endpoints. Experience versus direct consciousness of God: Leo uses the term "experience" loosely when discussing God, suggesting that "being" or "direct consciousness" is more accurate. He advises expanding the notion of experience to include these ideas. He also discusses integrating the direct consciousness of the formless God with earthly experiences to recognize that everyday existence is, in fact, an instance of God. The need for cross-referencing sources: Leo highlights the importance of validating one's spiritual experiences through high-quality, diverse scriptures and teachings. This helps to guard against self-deceit and ensure interpretations are consistent with established wisdom. Why not commit suicide to become God: Addressing the notion of suicide to become God, Leo argues for valuing one's current incarnation and the experiences it offers. He promotes early enlightenment to fully appreciate and live one's life rather than postponing realization until death. Existence in the presence of the all-knowing God: Leo explains how God sets up scenarios to forget and then remember itself, suggesting that the formless God understands itself by incarnating in various forms, including human life, and experiencing different aspects of existence. Realization of diverse forms of God: He talks about God's need to manifest in innumerable forms, including humans, fish, or galaxies, throughout time. This process allows God to fully experience and understand what it means to be God across the entirety of existence. Nature of God's self-knowledge: God doesn't fully know itself until it lives through its manifestations; self-realization occurs through direct experience. Purpose of discussing God: Talking about God is to make people aware of their potential to realize God, transform their lives, and overcome suffering and delusion with techniques to actualize this realization, while noting the pitfalls along the spiritual path. Utility of spiritual teachings: Repetitive teachings serve to inspire and solidify understanding; they motivate individuals to practice until realization, and guide post-awakening development and application in the world. Compatibility of science with understanding God: Current science, based on concepts and symbols, cannot comprehend God, which is beyond symbolism. However, science may evolve to include mysticism and non-symbolic methods such as first-person experiences and psychedelics. Science recognizing God: Future science could acknowledge concepts like absolute infinity or nothingness after integrating mysticism, departing from traditional materialism. Transformation of modern science: Science must adopt a more mystical perspective, acknowledging truths beyond conceptual understanding, for a holistic comprehension of reality. Integration of science and spirituality: By redefining science and mysticism, cultural barriers can dissolve, leading to a closer merger and new understandings in both fields. Science's role in reality beyond the mind: Science will need to accept aspects of reality that are beyond the mind and traditional materialistic proof to truly advance. Potential synergy of science and spirituality: Future collaboration between science and spirituality is expected to lead to revolutionary advancements, benefiting both fields. Loneliness of God: The formless Godhead does not feel loneliness. Still, incarnated forms like humans can, even though ultimate realization quells the sense of loneliness despite intrinsic aloneness. Varied curiosity about God: Differences in metaphysical curiosity may stem from brain types, genetics, environmental upbringing, and exposure to spiritual concepts during formative years. Curiosity about God penetrates the surface of reality and can disrupt established worldviews. Mechanism of God's creation: God's creation has no mechanism; the universe spontaneously exists without cause and effect chains or mathematical rules. Reality simply "is," a challenge for materialists to grasp without a shift in perspective. Mechanism of Creation and Cause-Effect Chains: Materialists resist the realization that the universe appears without mechanisms or mathematical equations; it manifests spontaneously as an indivisible miracle. Understanding the Fundamental Nature of Existence: Instead of seeking ultimate particles like quarks as explanations, Leo suggests treating the present moment as fundamental with no underlying mechanism. Eternal Nature and Self-Creation of God: God is eternal but is also in a constant state of self-creation. God, as formless, has always existed, and as form, is creating every moment anew. Impossibility of God Being an Alien or AI: God cannot be an AI or alien as these are finite forms within the totality that God is. God encompasses everything, not limited to any form or entity. God, Evolution, and Continuous Creation: God is both eternal and evolving. Evolution in a traditional sense and God's continual creation process are essentially the same, happening within God's mind. Reconciliation of Darwinian Evolution with God: Leo argues that traditional evolution occurs within God's design, implying a directed, intelligent process rather than random mutation and natural selection. Reasons for Undesirable Life Experiences: Individuals have the power to change their lives. Difficult life situations are part of God experiencing all forms of life, and spiritual awakening allows one to navigate these gracefully. Possibility of Constant God Awareness: Sahaja Samadhi is the permanent awareness of God in everyday life, a state beyond peak experiences or meditative moments. Difficulty of Permanent Awakening: Full realization of God takes time and effort due to the tremendous scope of absolute truth and the need to deconstruct long-standing illusions. Challenges in Realizing God: The struggle to realize God stems from deep-rooted survival mechanisms driving behavior, thus conflicts arise when one pursues the formless nature of God, which opposes survival instinct. Deconstructing the Illusion of Life: Truly understanding and maintaining the realization of God requires active deconstruction of life’s illusions, allowing one not to fall back into the hypnotic seduction of dualistic existence. Challenge of realizing God: Realizing God is difficult due to deeply ingrained habits and the brain's slow process of change. Neurons need time to rewire to alter behaviors and habits, impacting one's ability to sustain mystical insights. Ease of realizing God: Paradoxically, realizing God can also be simple. Theoretically, if one were to sit in isolation for 30 days with absolute stillness of mind and body, they could become conscious of God by the end of the period. However, this level of stillness in practice is extremely difficult to achieve. Commitment to the spiritual journey: The difficulty in realizing God significantly decreases with a serious, focused commitment. The likelihood of realization within a short timeframe, like a month, increases dramatically when an individual dedicates themselves fully and without distractions. Balancing spirituality with family and career: It is possible to realize God while maintaining family and career commitments. However, it's advisable to stagger these pursuits to prevent being overwhelmed. In India, certain schools of spirituality offer techniques that householders can use alongside their family and career responsibilities. Visualization as a method to realize God: Visualization practices from Tantra yoga and Tibetan Buddhism can be powerful, concentrating the mind intensely on a deity to facilitate a non-dual mystical experience. Yet, one must take care not to become overly attached to the representation to break through to the formless aspect of God. Pursuing God at a young age: One is never too young to start thinking about God or spirituality. It is possible to realize God as a teenager or in the early 20s. However, it is equally important to focus on practical skills and responsibilities, balancing spiritual development with other aspects of life. Experiencing God at different cognitive stages: People at all stages of cognitive development can experience God, but the interpretation will depend on their level. Higher cognitive stages allow for a more holistic understanding and ease the process of mystical experience and proper interpretation. God's need for self-realization: God itself does not have a need for self-realization and is content with all forms of existence. However, as humans, when we awaken, we can experience and understand our divine nature, something not possible for non-conscious forms. God as personal and impersonal: God is both personal and impersonal. While the Godhead lacks human traits and is impersonal, it is personal in the sense that it experiences itself as humans with uniquely human qualities. God's involvement in human lives: The passive Godhead by nature does not manipulate lives actively; however, as the manifest form of God, it can be seen as steering lives through human thoughts, emotions, and actions. God's agenda or plan: In essence, God has no particular agenda or plan; its purpose is in existence itself. Yet from a human perspective, it seems that the universe is on an evolutionary path towards greater complexity and self-awareness. God as a complex singularity: Leo imagines a future where God experiences life through various forms, feels emotions like humans, and processes information with supercomputing capabilities, all interconnected into an ultimate singularity. Pantheism vs. Panentheism: Both pantheism (everything is God) and panentheism (everything is inside of God) are true in non-duality. The distinction is seen as trivial since the formlessness of God (panentheism) is not different from the forms (pantheism), creating a paradoxical overlap. Mankind's discovery of God: Likely, humans have had knowledge of God for over 450,000 years. Leo speculates that the early spiritual awareness arose from a lack of distractions, meditative lifestyles, natural spiritual gifts, use of psychedelics, and possibly shamanistic practices among early human ancestors. God's incarnation as individuals: God embodies every form simultaneously, so one's unique human form is just one among countless expressions of God. Leo stresses not to take personal form too seriously as God experiences everything at once. Reasons for God creating diverse life: The variety of life forms, like humans and animals, allows God to experience rich complexities and emotions, contributing to an ongoing evolution towards greater complexity and depth of experience. Utilization of God's realization by humans: While the ego might seek to use the realization of God for material gains, deeper purposes include elevating humanity's consciousness, teaching, improving personal faculties, and nurturing conscious growth in all aspects of life. Special powers from realizing God: Realizing God may lead to paranormal abilities or 'siddhis' due to spiritual awakening, but its pursuit by the ego can become a distraction. Though these abilities exist, they are not guaranteed nor should they be the focus of spiritual practice. Possibility of miracles: Miracles as paranormal occurrences, like healing and synchronicities, are considered possible by Leo. He views all existence as miraculous and highlights the nuanced nature of what constitutes a miracle within the physical reality. Truth and falsehood in the Bible: The Bible contains both wisdom and outdated misconceptions. It holds truths, such as the 'I Am' concept of God and the inward kingdom of heaven but also has misleading elements due to its human authorship. Man's duty towards God and worship: No objective duty exists toward God, as humans are manifestations of God themselves. Practices like worship and prayer often reinforce a false duality and can obstruct the realization of one's divine nature. What God desires from humans: Fundamentally, God desires nothing from humans; each being is free to exist as they choose. However, Leo encourages individuals to strive for consciousness and appreciate the magnificence of life. Following religion's relation to God realization: Leo advises abandoning religion due to its potential to hinder realizing God. He views personal direct experience of God as more profound than adhering to religious dogma. Religion, often filled with brainwashing, can be less enlightening compared to personal realization. Misconception about teachings: While it may seem that Leo's teachings echo traditional religious scripts like the Quran or the Bible, he clarifies that he presents spirituality from an integral, holistic perspective, encompassing insights from modern disciplines such as psychology, quantum mechanics, and sociology—something ancient texts do not incorporate. Evolution of spirituality: Leo emphasizes the necessity for spiritual practices to evolve and adapt to modern complexities and technological advancements, pointing out that sticking to medieval spiritual traditions is insufficient for the current era. Higher-level instruction and avoiding traps: He distinguishes his teachings by aiming to discuss spirituality at a cutting-edge level, incorporating contemporary knowledge, and providing guidance on avoiding pitfalls like cult dynamics, which are not addressed in traditional spiritual teachings. Essential requirements for realizing God: Leo identifies three core requirements: laser-focused concentration, radical open-mindedness (to the extent of considering concepts like death and evil), and a genuine metaphysical curiosity about existence, reality, and God. Critical thinking and self-validation: Leo encourages viewers to not blindly trust him but to cross-reference, explore different sources, and personally experiment with yoga, meditation, self-inquiry, and psychedelics to validate the truths he presents. No shortcut to understanding God: He acknowledges that understanding God isn't achievable through Q&A format nor through seeking previews of awakening; it requires actual awakening and multiple experiences for a comprehensive understanding. Usefulness of Actualized.org: Leo concludes by promoting actualized.org as a helpful resource for those serious about realizing God, indicating that the site offers practical teachings and powerful spiritual techniques that can lead to significant awakenings in a relatively short period. Avis