Infinite mind, consciousness, God and you

[tsuki]

 

I've been wondering about you latest video @Leo Gura which was excellent. I actually had flashacks of my trips as I was watching it and felt that my "pure consciousness" knob was turning. I think that this video, apart from its significance to psychonauts, is particularly important because you elucidated your metaphysical understanding of reality with unprecedented clarity. By no means I'm an experienced tripper, but whatever little experience I have with psychedelics (and other practices) confirms what you are presenting. It is also congruent with other sources that I respect.

That being said, there are some sticking points that I would like to address to confirm whether I understand your teaching and its agreement with my own conclusions. 

My impression is that you use terms: infinite mind, consciousness, God and "you" very loosely and interchangeably. While it is true that they point towards the same "thing", I believe that mixing these terms impairs the granularity of your teaching. My understanding of them is following:

I agree that reality is "the mind". There is, however, an important distinction to be made.
The infinite mind is, what Hermeticists call, THE ALL. It has infinite capacity to imagine and everything exists through it.
You rightly claim that the "external, objective reality never existed and is purely a hallucination" and provide examples of why "you can't go through a wall". That is because the infinite mind hallucinates, along with infinitely many other things, the "objective, external reality", the universe, along with a particular body and its brain. "Matter" and "physical interactions" are the rules/constraints of hallucination of the infinite mind. However, that is not the end of the story. This infinite mind imagines things in consciousness, and this very same consciousness "goes through" the brain, that is hallucinated by the infinite mind, to create the finite mind, which is the subjective experience. We derive our will, capacity to imagine and the possibility to create our subjective experience from the infinite mind. That is why, by studying the finite, it is possible to derive deep insights about the infinite.

The finite mind is possible because reality is fractal, it is self-similar. This "going through" of consciousness, through the brain, this self-intersection, is the strangeloop we perceive as the "I". It is like a hole that is punched through a piece of paper and that same paper wraps itself through it. The size of that hole is the "pure consciousness knob" you were talking about in the video and it is selfishness/selflessness of the person and the measure of the person's, as you call it, "purity". We, as finite minds, can create such strangeloops ourselves and we're seeing that with the Internet, or videogames. We can "lend" our limited consciousness to entities such as video game characters and create minds that are more constrained than ours. There is no end to this, as we can create computers within computers and so forth.

Insight, defined as "direct consciousness of the nature of something" is the opening of the strangeloop, the hole, through which we become one with the object of our contemplation. That is how the correspondence theory of truth is reconciled within this paradigm. We are free to align our inner world with the outer (as perceived as two sides of the consciousness strangeloop). The more open-minded we are, the more impression this unity leaves unto our minds in form of knowledge. The measure of truthfulness of knowledge is its usefulness for survival of our self-concept. This self-concept can be viewed from both ends of the consciousness strangeloop. From the point of view of the finite mind, the self-concept is our imagination of what we are. From the point of view of the infinite mind, our self-concept is our body that it imagines. The latter is constrained and external, but the former, what we think we are, is up to us, as we can influence our minds through the use of will. When we choose to forsake our subjective self-concept through practices, stop imagining what we are, our consciousness matures into non-duality. We become the subjective nothing of the finite mind, in the image of the objective Nothing of the infinite mind. That is the distinction between "I" and "God". It is the difference in levels of self-similarity of reality. 

So, to sum it up:
While it is true that I am God because my existence is wholly grounded in the infinite mind, and ultimately I am the selfless Nothing that is omniscient and omnipotent, I am also not God because I am finite.
While it is true that consciousness is one, my finite capacity to tap into it is not the same as that of the infinite mind.
I am God, but I am not God. Consciousness is one, but it is two.

I wonder what are your thoughts about it @Leo Gura.

Edited February 17, 2020 by tsuki

[Lento]

I always wonder; what's the point of understanding?

[tsuki]

1 hour ago, Lento said:

I always wonder; what's the point of understanding?

"Point" depends on your position on the relative enlightenment scale.

"Meaning" or "point" can be understood as the force that drives the dormant mind's mechanicity. It concludes that something is better than some other thing and it takes off, starts to value and pursue it. It is the driving force of psychological time which is the movement of becoming. Intellectuals seek to understand (or rather, to know) because they believe that it will bring them security. When that is seen within oneself, experientially, deliberate becoming dies off with awareness, meaning itself is seen for its meaninglessness. Then, understanding becomes a naturally occurring phenomenon that accompanies expansion of consciousness. There is no "point", or "meaning" to expansion other than Love that is so free that it cannot contain itself. It is realized that it has always been the case, but it appeared to be something else (ie. "I am doing something to learn").

Insights in this sense are Love in the domain of reason.

Edited February 17, 2020 by tsuki

[Lento]

21 minutes ago, tsuki said:

"Point" depends on your position on the relative enlightenment scale.

"Meaning" or "point" can be understood as the force that drives the dormant mind's mechanicity. It concludes that something is better than some other thing and it takes off, starts to value and pursue it. It is the driving force of psychological time which is the movement of becoming. Intellectuals seek to understand (or rather, to know) because they believe that it will bring them security. When that is seen within oneself, experientially, deliberate becoming dies off with awareness, meaning itself is seen for its meaninglessness. Then, understanding becomes a naturally occurring phenomenon that accompanies expansion of consciousness. There is no "point", or "meaning" to expansion other than Love that is so free that it cannot contain itself. It is realized that it has always been the case, but it appeared to be something else (ie. "I am doing something to learn").

Insights in this sense are Love in the domain of reason.

Beautiful! Thanks.