Search the Community

There is no physical death. Think about it, if you were to "physically die", where would you go? You'd be in the same place you've always been at but you just end your dream that you created for yourself. Enlightenment is the recognition that you don't need to die to die. Because there LITERALLY is no death. The ultimate goal is always to merge closer to god. More honestly, more truthfully, more lovingly. Once you recognize yourself as god and trace all the steps back to the beginning of the universe, you realize you imagined it all to keep yourself stuck in the illusion. You go so far that existence literally ceases to exist, just pure nothingness, pure god, pure love. Yet it's an infinite existence so it will keep dreaming for eternity, and there you have an infinite endless game of reality. So in a sense, there is no endgame other than to know god.

And yet, my shadow-denier-brother, you are indeed turning not-knowing into an ideology by being so stubborn/slightly narrow-minded in your views ? You see, "I" don't disagree with "you". I actually fully agree with you! And what a relief to find out the separate self is just an imaginary thought/idea. What a relief it is to find out that birth and death are illusory. What a gigantic relief it is to find out everything is just nothingness and that what I truly am is just 'isness", Nothingness, Love, God, The Dao That Can't Be Spoken! What a relief! Let's swim and bathe in this great sea of Nothingness, of not-knowing, of being completely at peace, completely free. Let us celebrate! Or just celebrate! There is no 'us', hell, there isn't even anything to celebrate! And "to celebrate" is just another thought! There is nothing to do, nowhere to get to. Everything just is. Perfection. Absolute Divine Perfection. No. Not even that. Words are just pointers. Let's not name it... "Reality is: ... *smashes a gong-gong* ... and we won't give it a name" said Alan Watts. (And yet, here we are on this forum. What da fuck are we doing? Oh yes, "I" forgot: I don't exist, neither does James, nothing is going on here!) __________ When you say that this dream, this life, this existence, this magical maya-fantasy -- full of dualities such as birth & death, love and hate, success and failure, music and silence -- is *just* a thought, you simultaneously seem to deny the insane amount of intelligence and absolute pure magic behind it all. All paths that doesn't lead to the Heart are illusory/falsehood/not-it. James, you are like the dude in this cartoon: ? Isn't it insanely profound to think about what all this is (even if it's seen as nothingness) ?? Isn't it insanely profound that it's possible to be completely unconsciously lost in all this? Like an actor getting so immersed in her role, she forgets she's acting. And what's even more magical is that it is possible to awaken from it all. To see it all for what it is: play, Leela, nothingness, God, Love, pure Infinite Consciousness. Isn't it mystical as fuck that it's even possible for this 'realization' to occur? You seem to try really hard to 'take the magic out of' // 'deny the magic of' REALiTY/EXiSTENCE ... why? I mean, why is there anything (even if it is nothing) ... Why? How does it work? What are the mechanics involved? Does it serve any purpose? "Camus said there is only really one serious philosophical question, which is whether or not to commit suicide. I think there are four or five serious philosophical questions: The first one is: Who started it? The second is: Are we going to make it? The third is: Where are we going to put it? The fourth is: Who's going to clean up? And the fifth: Is it serious?" - Alan Watts

"When there is not-knownng there is not not-knowing" , hehe, I like it. But when there is knowing, there id not knowing! ??? I have learned lots of things. I have for once learned to read and write in English, otherwise "We" couldn't have this discussion! But it's true: in a sense I have nothing learned, cos there is no I (except the God-Nothingness-I we could say), and all our words here are just meaningless banter! But if you ask me to imagine what is left, if I unlearn all my learning, then this is a mentally exercise, and what is left is some imaginary concept/idea of not having learned anything... and that isn't "it" ! But it's a fun and probably useful pointer/exercise to "get" to that which can't be attained, but what always IS. Peace ❤️

Hey brother ❤️ The point is When there is not knowing, there is no such a thing as knowing or not knowing, duality or non duality, nothingness or thingness, being or not being . As before so called birth. Just take an example as you never learn anything, including yourself, what is left?

@James123 whats up brother ? It's funny to see these discussions between you and Leo. It is like two people standing looking at a coin ('Truth'), and one saying "the coin is heads!" and the other: "the coin is tails!" ... But of course the coin is neither, but both! It seems like Leo's view is slightly more embracing of both sides of the coin. But anyway. All dualities must merge/collapse into one, including the dualities: nothingness-thingness being-notbeing notknowing-knowing It might be a mindfuck for ya, but it turns out, that ultimately, not-knowing and knowing are completely identical. What a relief! Oneness remains. God forbid separation ? *non* - *duality* you know! Or don't know. It doesn't matter --- yet it does!! ? But I get ya. For people stuck in "knowing things" (most ppl these days), they need to "learn to unlearn" & to appreciate and practice not-knowing, if they want to get anywhere spiritually/emotionally. Once you see the power and beauty of pure beingness, not-knowing, you can then once again incorporate 'knowing' into your "life", cos you now see that the two opposites are One. Not to worship Leo, but I think the guy understands the perspective (not-knowing), you're speaking from. After all Leo's favorite book to bring on a remote island is The Book of Not Knowing by Ralston... with some DMT crystals sprinkled inside the cover of course, preferably pluggable crystals ?

@CBDinfused I do not claim to speak for the philosophy of any group, but I can tell you of this from being a human Being. For starters, there are no "levels" and while various models of various things have their place, you would do well to transcend them. Next, very simply, hatred is divisive and love is unifying. True Love of course contains and loves all hatred which in this context then ceases to be. Ultimate Love is like that with all else, it surrounds and swallows up everything in Creation to the point of collapsing all in destruction by revealing unification. Powerful hatred is also a great, but far lesser, destroyer and is a dark unifier but through division and to the deluded extreme of only hatered of hatred remaining of an egoic identity. Because of this hatered can be used as an effective, although conventionally very dangerous and profoundly unhealthy, tool by the spiritual seeker. Ultimately though, hatred cannot overcome itself or Love, while Love can overcome hatred and all else by integration, unification, and beautiful creative destruction to the point of being an absolute unity of infinite Nothingness. A bit more practically speaking, a major defining aspect of being awake to/as Love is to be in love with Creation, to be selflessly in love with YourSelf. Have you ever loved a work of art? Has a work of art of any sort ever brought you tears of joy? Have you ever loved a human being as a work of art and more? Has the shape, the intricacies, the totality, the body-mind and spirit of another ever made you forget yourself and your world? Have you ever felt orgasmic-like bliss unrelated to sexual stimulation, but instead from deep bodily embraced love of any person, place, or thing? Has your sense of self ever dissolved in your love of another like a partner, a friend, your offspring, your sibling, or maybe even a pet? To be awake as/in/to Love is like these things. You are the Everything that is Nothing that is Love itself. In being a human being Love, all you encounter is like a beautiful living loving work of divine art. From flowers and sunsets to death and dung, all can bring tears of joy, ecstatic orgasmic transcendence, and self-dissolution to Nothing, to no personal subjects or objects, to only Self being Love. This is Your stateless state, as in not an altered state of seemingly human consciousness, but the Actual base state of formless Consciousness itself that plays at being your humanity and all else. It is the Meta-Subject that is You and there are no objects, only Everything that is Nothing that is Love as Absolute Unity. And all of this can seemingly take place in Being a human, but when aware of it One will know better, lol I hope this makes at least some sense?

I did not say that. I said that it is a bit odd if this nothingness can imagine conciousness/awareness and is not concious/aware itself, how does that work? Is it really possibly to imagine awareness? Try to think of awareness or imagine it. should be no easy task ?‍♂️

Hehe... Or maybe it's the other way around Find out for yourself which is which. But there is no contradiction between Truth, Love, God, and Nothingness. These are all facets of the same exact thing. All the greatest mystics teach about Love. Don't poo-poo that clue

@Adamq8 why would you assume nothingness is something separate from consciousness?

This is a misunderstanding, because by that definition simply having a body and living are also a form of ego. If somebody is fully enlightened but also tends to to the body in a particular way, there does not have to be an identity involved. If we are limiting ourselves to higher states of consciousness from the crown chakra, which is one dimension of experience, whether we refer to it through no-dual language as nothingness, reality, love and so on, then we won't necessarily selflessly embrace other modalities of life and energy and attend to them in a relative manner, as a multi-faceted energy form. Living as nothingness, reality, love and embodying higher levels of reality is not a practical solution for all of the world's problems on the outset, because like the world, our physical bodies comprise of pranic physiology and the five elements, lifetimes of karmic impurities on various levels which exist regardless of our state of consciousness. If we are in touch with things in this spiritually holistic and sober sense, the realistic pace at which we can help ourselves and other people, especially those outside of the spiritual community who are not willing to immediately transcend everything, will be more obvious. It is important to attain to non-dual states through ground up purification, so that energy can function from other dimensions without an identity. I agree with you that prana is a duality, masculine and feminine, the five elements, these are all dualities, but it is our purity in prana and the elements which determines how dualistic our experience of life is. Taking 5-MeO-DMT and transcending the karma existing in these physiological bodies is not a scientific approach, and we risk lopsiding our spiritual development. Look at the Dhyanalinga for example, it has no karma or identity, but it is reverberating as all of the 7 chakras and dimensions of life, it is a fully developed energetic form with the non-dual dimension of sahasrara at the highest possible peak Likewise, the energetic forms of the Divine Mother do not have an ego or identity, they exist as deities in the form of the pure five elements, so that people can surrender and make use of them to purify themselves. Language makes this difficult. Isha's practices work to strip you of your identity very early on, which is also what I meant when I said that they allow you to function from subtler energetic sheathes, to purify and transcend gross forms of karma in mind and body

Nothingness is Love. Absolute Love hardly ever looks like relative love, but sometimes it can.

That makes sense, the point that I was making and the point that Sadhguru makes in referring to Saints and Gurus is that Saints limit themselves to realization and awareness, transcending grosser dimensions of energy and in essence neglecting large segments of life, so to speak. It isn't that techniques which are taught in Hinduism or Sadhguru are not transcendental in nature or geared towards realization, any potent practice will cultivate the necessary awareness and energy to transcend the self and attain to realizations of nothingness, non-duality and so forth, and this is one powerful facet of Isha's practices In Hinduism duality exists up to Agna, or the third eye, the crown chakra and beyond it are where higher consciousness and states of selflessness take place, but it is approaching spiritual growth with only one end of the stick and exaggerating the importance of realization alone, and not coupling our conscious experience with a deeper purification of the energetic bodies, which causes us to restrict ourselves to relatively disconnected, higher modes of consciousness This is why Shakti Chalana Kriya in Isha is coupled with Shoonya, an experiential initiation into nothingness. Likewise, purifying the elements with Bhuta Shuddhi and balancing them within the system causes you to transcend them. And also, with Hatha yoga and practices which purify the pranic body, total balance and synchronicity with the rest of the solar system leads to an undifferentiated and neutral state in which the five elements are transcended. The spinal channel, Sushumna, is neutralizing and lacks all dualistic qualities, and people who attain to Sushumna are refrerred to as being in a state of nirguna (lacking all qualities). The Shambhavi Mahamudra initiation is intended to awaken Sushumna, and during the programme Sadhguru will quote the Shiva sutras in which Shiva describes the quality and importance of Sushumna So it isn't that realization, selflessness, transcending the senses and so on is neglected in Isha's practices, it is just seen as a rudimentary and necessary step for us to be able to purify the many dimensions of life and our Being, and that is where the real work lies Sadhguru adds to his description of Saints and Gurus by saying this -

I am having a hard time understanding the philosophy of this group as semantics often get into the way but could someone please clarify some things for me? It seems like the "levels" one goes through, in the path to enlightenment are something along the lines of surrendering all concepts (the self, the body, thought, the mind) and eventually you will reach a state where you are experiencing "pure being" which some call "infinite love" - but then I have also heard that there is a step further, when even the observer is dissolved into nothingness, in which case, why is love the true self? isn't it nothingness? The reason why I ask is because I often hear enlightened ones speaking about things like "everything is love" or that "love is what binds the universe together", but it is difficult for me to understand why love has this position of superiority, as opposed to its opposite, which is hate and/or ego consciousness. I guess why I am asking is because I want to know how to better explain to others that the true self is "infinite love", rather than the true self being "Nothing" and love and ego/separation radiate equally from this point. How would you explain to someone that love is the real state, in a world filled equally with suffering, pain, hatred etc? (I understand that when you meditate, and clear your mind, you gravitate towards love, but that doesn't mean it is the "true self", it only means that it is another state of many. Plus, most people don't meditate so who is to say that infinite love is the natural or true state, when you could argue that ego consciousness is actually the true state, and infinite love is a heightened state gained through meditation). On a side note, Did Buddha ever speak about love? Because it seems to be absent from the mainstream doctrine at least. It seems more like that the true self is simply lack of attachment (even to the people around you) until you realize that all is nothing. He did speak about compassion, but Buddhist literature seems void of the concept of "dissolving the ego to unlock selfless love" while it seems to be the core message of say, Christianity.

Claiming that the practices which Sadhguru offers are 'weaksauce' or anything of the sort comes from misunderstanding spiritual sadhana and the nature of purification. Our Being consists of different sheathes of energy which are connected to reality from different dimensions, transcending those modalities with a psychedelic like 5-MeO-DMT is not a way to tend to or purify those aspects of reality, if anything we're likely to neglect them if we only focus on short-term alteration of consciousness through substances or practices The purpose of every Isha practice is to put present and past life karma on fast forward by purifying the energy physiology from the different sheathes, purification of the mind is only seen as a consequence of this and no importance is even placed upon the mind or higher states of consciousness in yoga because it is the purification of our gross and sober state which determines how free our consciousness becomes in any permanent regard. Substances, excluding a few which are more rooted in gross dimensions and the earth element such as Ayahuasca and mushrooms, only tend to higher consciousness and states of mind and it can be very easy to neglect the rest of reality through that approach. Purification through Ayahuasca and mushrooms is likewise quite unreliable and arbitrary, and that is why yogic practices which purify the energetic sheathes are important. Yoga is rooted in the purification of the five elements and purification of prana (solar and lunar energy). Our sober connection to the purity of the five elements determines how pure our body and mind are. Solar and lunar energy are represented as Father and Mother in yoga because those are the energy channels/intermediaries through which our actual Father and Mother transmit information to us to condition and create the body genetically. The five elements are the very basis of creation and without them we would not exist, on top of that it is solar and lunar energy which creates and encodes life to take a physical form, so both of these dimensions are extremely important in Hinduism. By purifying our connection to the solar system through Hatha yoga we are purifying our connection to the original Father and Mother, the original source of our physical manifestation, and this purifies grosser dimensions of information and conditioning in the mind and body It is our past (sanchita) and present (parabdha) karma which keeps our consciousness compulsive in a sober state, and to exhaust that backlog of gross information yoga incorporates the purification of elements and prana. Purifying the mind is the easiest thing that we can do, through substances or through intense kriya yoga, but purifying the mind does not tend to grosser dimensions of energy and that is what we need to purify to free our consciousness from the grips of karma in our sober state. It isn't for no reason at all that Hatha yoga exists, or that deities which represent the sun and moon as Surya and various forms of the Divine Mother exist. If we want deep and permanent spiritual progress which isn't restricted to exaggerated states of mind and consciousness, and which isn't disconnected from the gross problems in the world and the dimensions through which they exist, yoga becomes important. You will see that teachers like Leo and others who focus on transcendence, nothingness and so on are mentally masturbating over those states, and that is because they are neglecting real spiritual science in the name of substances which stimulate the gross bodies and exaggerate the application of higher mind and consciousness, without addressing the origins of these impurities which are being transcended Coming to Shambhavi, the purpose of Shambhavi is to purify the pranic channels (Ida/moon and Pingala/sun) and to awaken the central spinal channel known as Sushumna. The potency of Shambhavi lies in the fact that it causes the etheric body (the subtlest energetic sheathe) to become the most dominant sheathe in our experience, which in turn causes all other gross manifestations of karma in the energetic, mental and physical body to exhaust over time. Mahamudra means a seal, and it is the sealing aspect of Shambhavi which locks the physiological changes which the practice makes in place. This grosser purification allows you to attain to meditativeness in a holistic and organic way, exhausting the karmic impurities in the energetic physiology so that your entire system becomes meditative Yoga from Isha is different from kriya yoga because it aims to achieve higher states of consciousness through permanent purification of the elements and energy body, instead of transcending and neglecting them. A lot of people in the world will not take Leo's path of transcending those dimensions through substances, or the Buddhist path of transcending those dimensions through awareness alone, and that is why attaining to awareness and consciousness through these methods is a more holistic and purificatory approach. In Isha's most advanced practice, Shakti Chalana Kriya, you can attain to a state of non-duality by purifying and taking charge of the body's five Pancha Vayus. The practice causes the Pancha Vayus to recede from the body as they would at death, which is therefore more physiologically accurate and purifying than death through any transcendental mode of consciousness. Shambhavi is very intense if you are initiated, and it is a kind of intensity which needs to be understood from the right perspective

I@Alistair Kershaw I've had multiple ego backlashes for having spiritual epiphanies. Lately I've been having a string of them. I've had approximately 3 realizations. Very key ones. I've seen how we are all one. I've seen how we appear as one dream state and can switch dream states and wake up in the midst to another one and then see the alternate just dissolve into nothingness again. My conscious never disappeared or went anywhere while this was happening. But for my "progress" if you want to call it that I've had to endure some psychological and physical backlashes. Then I stumbled on an Alan Watts' youtube (he was a really fabulous philosophy and religion lecture and professor in the hippy era from England) and he talked about what some of the great sages from Buddism and Advaita religions said about rising on the scale of spiritual growth. A Buddist priest said that there was a problem with growth in empathy, kindness, love for humanity and that was that all progress naturally invites in it's opposite. There are opposites to everything. If you look at the Tao which is thought by some to be Budda's work possibly, it lists all the positive growth one can have and for each an opposite which comes from the creation of the positive. Light/Dark, goodness/evil, strength/weakness and on and on. The pinnacle means then that you are also bringing evil into consciousness along with the good. The trick is to balance on the edge of the pinnacle but rest at the point of both good and evil and keep that balance without allowing too much good while keeping a balance so not too much evil prevails. The ultimate creator will always keep the balance just as it does the stars and planets we observe as we live out our material life. He goes into much more detail as he speaks about this principle. The video and I believe the title is something like "Stop the Chasing." That is when I realized that when we think we are benefiting the world by improving on our own characters, we may be doing harm at the same time. This has been a puzzle to me and my assumptions. You can find the video by doing a search on Alan Watts lectures.

"Reality is infinite nothingness capable of imagining conciousness" How can this Nothingness use imagination if it is not aware? Imagination presupposes an awareness first, can we really ever get behind conciousness? Really see it through, conciousness is existence without it there is literally non existence. Not even nothingness. The notion of imagination and nothingness can only arise if awareness is prior to it. How else could anything be? You cant reach outside of awareness and tell that it is nothingness outside of it and also say that it imagines awareness. Then something was present to observe that thing.

@Gesundheit Regardless, this is essentially an inescapable mechanic of consciousness. What I’ve said above is what I have so far been able to verify through both contemplation and experience. The solipsism question is generally framed around the potential consciousness of “others” which is why I included it so much in my response. Do you care to explain your methods for arriving at this particular nothingness conclusion? I’ve had realizations of nothingness, but they all occurred within consciousness. I’m a bit skeptical of how you can know, in an epistemically solid way, that there is something other than consciousness when you would have to use consciousness (in my current understanding at least) to arrive at this conclusion, but I’m open to learn if you’re interested in showing me the way. Feel free to shoot me a PM about this or simply reply here.

The mistake here is defining ultimate reality through consciousness as if consciousness is ultimate reality. It simply is not. Reality is not infinite consciousness. Reality is an infinite nothingness that is capable of imagining consciousness. Consciousness is just a tiny portion of infinity. Consciousness is actually not very different from thought, it's just a different manifestation/form of thoughts. Are you conscious of thoughts? Or are you thinking about consciousness? There's no difference. All of it is imagination couched within nothingness. So, you're left with not-knowing anything outside of imagination. And that's pretty much expected because, by definition, you know-not nothing.

Well, I do not necessarily agree with this "solipsism" way of thinking, I look (through my unenlightened lense) at the world, and see other people, other experiences of the world, and am wondering why it is the way that it is? Leo has said himself that we (you) and I are also Hitler, or the Cow on the way to the slaughterhouse and so even though I am right now experiencing my life through my lense, I must contemplate that I will also experience the Hitler timeline as well (and make all of his judgements and decisions, seeing the world through his eyes). I am wondering why I am right now I am experiencing it through MY lense, and what happens when I die? Because I get the impression some people believe that the ego will then die and I will have a huge DMT trip and merge with the selfless infinity, while others believe that the "I" will simply go to another form doing an eternal dance through all forms of experience. Sorry, it seems like a lot of people here are doing some categorical loops from "absolute, infinite wholeness" or "Nothingness" to relative humanistic terms like "the earth, commonality" "peace on earth" "Love thy neighbor" etc. It is hard to follow.

While I appreciate the replies (thank you), I don't think I was clear it what I was asking. I am not necessarily asking for advise on how to become enlightened, and I understand that there is no "need" for a theory. I get it. Clear your mind from all presuppositions and poof you are nothing and everything and there is no "you". But still, it is not like once you become enlightened you simply dissolve into nothingness and disappear. You still have to deal with the platitudes of daily life afterwards. And it is "ok" to have a conversation after all of this. Buddha did. Jesus did. Frank Yang still does. They still have "theories" of the universe and existence, and they don't just wave away all questions with the "shh, clear your mind, nothing exists".

So I have been contemplating the idea of infinity lately. This is the idea that the universe had no beginning and will have no end, that everything that exists has always existed ad infinitum, and the reason why I experience my current life narrative under the illusion of "time" as I do is because of "ego consciousness". e.g. it is a biological narrative constructed where the rules are those determined by the laws of physics. Attaining enlightenment is to see past this illusion, my attachment to myself, my attachment to time, my attachment to reality and my bodily sensations to see the "nothingness" of existence. To simply "be" in its purest form. Assuming that I have understood this correctly at this stage, my understanding on why reality is the way it is, is similar to the idea of the "10 dimensions theory" presented in string theory, that reality is comprised of every conceivable possibility in every single configuration, and that consciousness is omnipresent in all of this, and the only reason why you are not experiencing everything ad infinitum is because of being "Lost" in the idea that you are separate from everything. You can think of it as per this video where they explain the 10 dimensions (or 11 dimensions, I don't really care, you get the point). The point is that every single dimension is omnipresent and time is an illusion of the ego. Is there anyone else out there that conceptualizes reality like this? And if so, what are your theories on what happens when you die? That when the current ego consciousness you currently are experiencing will kind of "start over" or that you will move onto the next "possible material experience" e.g. another human, animal, or any other material possibility in the infinite cosmic mind? Also, is there anyone who has an idea why consciousness "needed to exist in the first place"? I understand that there is "something rather than nothing" because nothing is inherently instable, and that even according to quantum physics, if there is an empty vacuum of space, sub atomic particles will emerge from nowhere because there is nothing preventing them from not emerging - a metaphor I use for how I "emerged from nowhere" when I was born. The material world makes sense in this fashion, but why is awareness the apriori truth as well? I hope I am being clear. TL:DR Why did consciousness or awareness always exist? What happens when my current experience of reality ends?

Nothingness can not be experienced, can just be. Perception, experience is identified with ego. Good luck!

The enlightened ones stay at not knowing, and do not adopt beliefs, or supplement with assumptions of ‘proof’. There really aren’t enlightened ones, there is only the enlightened one. Perhaps there are beliefs to dispel. Know thy self. Careful to notice the thought of nothingness is empty. There is no nothingness to you.

When I don't know I go by what Enlightened Ones have said as a working belief, i.e. until proved otherwise. Most Enlightened Ones say we had a say in our birth, our parents, circumstances etc. Knowing these kinds of things seems to be different than enlightenment. Personally I don't think we ever return back into nothingness or "murge" back into the All. I think we will always have some kind of vehicle to explore our worlds.

@Consept Okay, let me clarify before going any further that I understand what you mean very well, and I hope you're not assuming that I am stuck in a victim's mindset that you're somehow helping me out of. I understand the importance of mindset, and I would never dismiss it at any point in my personal life. That has been my initial position from the beginning even before starting to comment here. So, let's get that out of the way, and just keep our focus on the topic at hand, which is wealth vs. poverty. This discussion isn't about me complaining about poverty. It's about me exposing the injustice and inequality that is inherent within the heart of the social system. The social system is designed in such a way that can't be sustained without poverty. What I'm saying is that it doesn't have to be this. You should get the idea that there are poor people within the system. It's the other way around. There's a system that necessitates poverty. Now, I am going to play this little game you suggested, just to show you how gullible it is. Let's say that all of those poor people you talked about tried to be smart and decided to start saving/investing their basic income instead of spending it here and there. Is that even possible, realistically? Do you know what would happen? Any guesses? First of all, the basic income you suggested cannot come from nothingness or from Mars. The most fundamental fact here is: Money is finite, and therefore cannot increase overall, it only gets split between people. That being said, where do you suggest the money should come from? Who's going to provide that basic income? The government? The rich? The middle class? Other poor people? Whose money is going to decrease? Now, let's assume the problem above is solved and everyone is happy. The next step is choosing between 3 options (unless there are more): Spending Saving. Investment. #1 Spending: We already know what would happen. Let's go with #2 Saving: If everyone saved their money and did not spend or invest it. What's likely to happen is that the economy would collapse very quickly, because of recess and slumpflation. Money would just decrease in value. And that would create poverty once again. Now, with #3 Investment: Scenario #1: The investment market would close down very quickly or the stocks would drop down and lose value, due to over demand and lack of supply, and most of those poor people would end up right in the same place once again, poverty. A small portion of the poor would likely make it to the middle class, and the rest would have actually had spent their money in vain. Why? Because investment is not an infinite pool of ever-growing money. Now, as the money increases through investment, the poor growth rates would still be lower than the rich and the middle class, so they would likely eventually become poor again if they didn't figure out a way to make it further. If they succeeded in making it further, the overall value of money would decrease, and other people who would have lower growth rates would get marginalized at a certain pace, until they reach poverty. Scenario #2: Major capitols would bankrupt and many businesses would shut down due to lack of demand. Many rich people and even more people in the middle class would become poor, which still would not solve the problem of poverty. I don't know what else. Note: A mix of the 3 options would not work either. And actually, it's already the case. Some people invest, others save, and others spend. ________________________ The point of all of that is that poverty is not a simple problem that you can magically fix with a nice utopian idea. And that it's definitely not the poor's problem. Y'all need to get this idea out of your head, because it's wrong and poisoning your mind. Poverty is a systemic issue that has existed probably throughout all of human history within all of its civilizations. The root cause of poverty is simply selfishness, aka corruption, inequality, etc... Unless you have a solution to that problem, don't blame the poor for being stuck. Yes, I could break out of poverty, but someone else would have to be poor in exchange. Someone has to be poor. If it's not me, then it's you. If it's not you, then it's someone else. I hop you're appreciating the depth of what I said in bold. Even if I successfully became rich, someone else would have to become poor. And once I am rich, then it's very unlikely that I would go down anytime soon, because the system is rigged to support me. Do you see how the system is fundamentally rigged for the benefit of the rich? It's the same as the carrot and stick principle. The human riding the donkey is the rich using the poor for their selfish reasons. Now, of course, I'm not demonizing the rich here. They're just ignorant and unaware, and of course, extremely selfish. I understand why this is the case and why it's necessary at least at our current level of development. But I don't want to go into that here because it's kind of off-topic, and I've already written a huge post that I don't want to make any bigger. You're an intelligent person, I like reading your posts, and it's really a pleasure discussing with you. I hope I've made myself completely clear.