Connor Murphy has Eckhart-style awakening

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, Scholar said:

But if I go into the deepest layers of reality and it disagrees with you or or any other teacher, what would that fundamentally mean? You would certainly call me delusional. You would say "You did not actually reach the deepest layers of reality, otherwise you would have seen what I have seen!".

Like I say, the nature of reality is perspectival and absolutely relative.

Quote

Imagine everyone took psychedelics and were to come to conclude fundamentally different things. And all of them would claim they became conscious of the deepest layers of reality. What would that mean to you?

It would mean absolute relativity.

Reality is completely imaginary. It is however you imagine it and people will imagine it differently.

You are still stuck assuming "other" and wanting to validate the Absolute against "other". This cannot work, since other is imaginary.

You're trying to ground reality in something, but reality is groundless.

[Scholar]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Like I say, the nature of reality is perspectival and absolutely relative.

It would mean absolute relativity.

Reality is completely imaginary. It is however you imagine it.

The question I am asking is, is Love imaginary or not?

[Leo Gura]

Just now, Scholar said:

The question I am asking is, is Love imaginary or not?

Love everything and nothing.

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

The question is how do you ever truly see whether you are not conflating relative and absolute notions? Conflating them presupposes that you are unconscious of it. Again and again we find that when we come to say "I have seen it all, I cannot be wrong about this, this is the whole and absolute Truth." that then we came out and said "No wait, there is actually a layer deeper, what I thought I saw was not the end, it was not the whole Truth!".

Whenever I use the term “is” I am making a relative claim. If I say “That *is* a deer”, I’m creating a thing called a “deer” from One holistic Everything / Nothing. In a sense, it is a silly thing to do - yet humans live in a relative world in which they like to communicate ideas to each other. It doesn’t mean that there is an external, objective, normative “deer”.

Similarly, when I say “Connor *is* conflating relative and absolute” that is a relative notion. One could say that Connor is not conflating or partially conflating. One could say there is no objective measure of conflation. One could say I am the one conflating. One could say that relative = absolute.  I’m cool with all of these statements, since they are all true and false. 

A first step of deconstructing this relativity would be to say: “Connor *is* Conner” and “an idea of conflation *is* an idea of conflation”.

[Scholar]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You're trying to ground reality in something, but reality is groundless.

No, I am working within your philosophical framework at the moment. To me it is irrelevant whether I myself come to conclude anything about reality. That to me is a function of survival. I cannot take it seriously anymore.

The entire "This is the way it is!" idea to me is a function of ego. It has no other purpose. This is why only the human mind does this, because it has evolved to do so. No other mind has a need to do this, because what is, simply is. Isness does not need to be discovered, revealed, nor spoken of.

 

I do not like the intellectual approach to this because it is so ridicilous. It is liking reading a poem and calling it science. That's not what this is. This is just music. But it is sold as if it was something else. It is like a chimp in a business suit. It turns Life into categories and sentences.

 

 

This is the trap Connor is in. He listens to his thoughts, he interprets. But there is no need to interpret anything. There is no need to teach anyone. There is no one to save, to made more conscious. To me the stories Connor tells himself are not different than the entire story about non-duality, realitivity, absolutes and everything else. It's poetry that the mind has a tendency to call science.

 

You cannot disagree about Isness. You can only ever disagree about a belief.

[Forestluv]

7 minutes ago, Scholar said:

But there is no need to interpret anything. There is no need to teach anyone. There is no one to save, to be made more conscious.

True.

And there is also a need to interpret things. There is also a need to teach people. There are also those to save, to be made more conscious.

And there is also not those things. 

[Scholar]

1 minute ago, Forestluv said:

True.

And there is also a need to interpret things. There is also a need to teach people. There are also those to save, to be made more conscious.

[Free Mind]

I remember when I had my initial glimpses. Since Consciousness is Absolute, I had no reference point to contrast my peaks to others' experiences. I thought I tapped into Einstein level of genius and I felt really special, deep, and unique as if I'm the chosen one or something. I'd write my trip reports accordingly. 

But then I went deeper and I realized how utterly cringe and embarrassing my previous trips and the reports were. And I think that's what Connor will go through if he takes the right dose and substance. He'll remember this delusional sense of grandeur and authority and go through existential agony in sheer embarrassment and cringe as he reflects on how little he actually knew the whole time. 

[electroBeam]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

You are never going to get humans to agree about things.

The only one who is capable of understanding the deepest layers of reality, is YOU. No one else but you. The mistake you're making is you're trying to ping off some other source of authority. You want some "other" to reassure you that you have not lost your mind. But this is impossible, since all others are your own mind.

You see? God has no other whom he could ask, since God is ONE. This is not a bug, it's a feature.

Except God wants to connect with other too and share God with imaginary others. Otherwise it would not dream up others, or read books of others, and be in a cave all day.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

You cannot disagree about Isness. You can only ever disagree about a belief.

If only it were so simple.

You certainly can disagree about isness. Which is exactly what people do, even if they are awake.

You have this naive view that life can be lived without interpretation, as if you are just a pure neutral observer. But this is not so. Our survival as humans is completely entangled with many epistemic and metaphysical beliefs, assumptions, and interpretations which you are hardly conscious of. So you can't avoid them. What you call isness isn't really isness, it's still wrapped in layers of interpretation and assumption. And you live in a society where communication needs to happen for survival to take place and where people have different POV which must be negotiated and reconciled somehow -- otherwise we kill each other.

If only life were so easy that once you awaken all interpretations and assumptions stop. But they don't!

[Red-White-Light]

@Chris365 I made the point previously that the deeper you go into spirituality, the deeper your roots have to be in science, objectivity and rationality, or else this happens. Nobody seems to agree with me on this point.

Edited November 26, 2020 by Red-White-Light

[abrakamowse]

I recall something that Adyashanti said and it got stuck in my mind for some reason  and it was something like (I don't remember the exact words, just paraphrasing) he said that he didn't want to image what it could be an ego that believes it is God.

 

[Red-White-Light]

Connor needs to actually be humble and admit to himself that's he's mentally ill and get the help and treatment that is required, and then after he recovers from that he can talk about safe spirituality and how dangerous self-delusion is, along with substance misuse. This would would be the greatest good Connor could do for God, as he would massively reduce stigma about mental health issues in the world and show how even someone as strong and big and muscly as he was can be openly weak and vulnerable. You really can't help others until you help yourself. He needs to actually cut ties with his spiritual ego to be more selfless.

[Scholar]

23 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

If only it were so simple.

You certainly can disagree about isness. Which is exactly what people do, even if they are awake.

You have this naive view that life can be lived without interpretation, as if you are just a pure neutral observer. But this is not so. Our survival as humans is completely entangled with many epistemic and metaphysical beliefs, assumptions, and interpretations which you are hardly conscious of. So you can't avoid them. What you call isness isn't really isness, it's still wrapped in layers of interpretation and assumption. And you live in a society where communication needs to happen for survival to take place and where people have different POV which must be negotiated and reconciled somehow -- otherwise we kill each other.

If only life were so easy that once you awaken all interpretations and assumptions stop. But they don't!

I never said life can be lived without interpretation, infact I said the exact opposite. I said that interpretation is solely a function of survival.

You seem to not see what I am pointing to when I refer to Isness. You cannot disagree about Isness, you can only disagree about belief. Not a single person in all of existence has ever disagreed about Isness. Infact, disagreement itself is Isness.

 

I also never said that interpretations or assumptions stop. They belong in the realm of survival, and it seems like humans like to turn everything into a game of survival, even spirituality.

[electroBeam]

@Scholar  you cannot agree about isness

If you were truly survival free, you'd agree with me here

But you're not... so lets watch the disagreement in 3... 2... 1...

[Scholar]

1 minute ago, electroBeam said:

@Scholar  you cannot agree about isness

If you were truly survival free, you'd agree with me here

But you're not... so lets watch the disagreement in 3... 2... 1...

You are correct, you cannot agree nor disagree about Isness!

 

Never made such a claim that I am survival free, I wouldn't be here talking to if I were, lol.

[Red-White-Light]

@AMTO

He's not faking it, lol. He altered his consciousness with psychedelics and of course his biology didn't agree with it, causing a dopamine imbalance in the brain. At the same time he's having the biggest ego backlash of his life. He's also escaping from the reality of being insane, and the long term damage this will have on his career and reputation. He's trying to play it off but everyone can see through it, and it seems he really cares about the way people perceive him as he always has to be in front of a camera. I have no doubt he's going to do some money making scheme, he's not in a sane head to make money in any legitimate way, that would provide true financial value.

3 minutes ago, AMTO said:

@Red-White-Light Some say he’s faking it for a new agent. I’m not saying it all a show. I don’t get that impression at all. But I do think the full legitimacy remains to be seen. 

Enlighten might drive you crazy. But so might a new money making scheme ??‍♀️

 

[Scholar]

@Leo Gura

I cannot imagine that you are unaware of this. I will try to use more precise language.

 

You cannot disagree nor agree about Isness. You can only disagree or agree about interpretations, thoughts and concepts you have that you call Isness. Anything you agree or disagree about is necessarily a thought, as disagreement and agreement is itself a thought.

Edited November 26, 2020 by Scholar

[Red-White-Light]

@AMTO Well, fitness industry is mainly in the business of scamming people, it's just showing his true incentives. Some people want to use other people to make money, they just have a filter to hide it better.

Edited November 26, 2020 by Red-White-Light

[Scholar]

Sometimes it seems like people forget that this work is about Seeing. It is not about realizing, concluding, understanding, knowing. The Truth is Seen, it is not understood. The understanding of that which is seen is just a thought to make sense. To make sense is to survive. That's all.

You cannot disagree about Seeing, you can only disagree about realizations, conclusions, understanding and knowledge. Seeing itself is just Seeing, there is nothing to be disagreed about there. That which I see is that which I see, and that which you see is that which you see.

 

Seeing can be replaced with being. Knowledge is seen, but knowledge is not Seeing. Disagreement really is just an illusion.