Death is akin to a DMT trip

[Razard86]

 

18 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

Part of my point, though, is that the senses are also real. The senses are what make up space, your perception of it, and their existence of movement gives the time aspect. Sense of gravity could also be interrupted with by sensory deprivation, if you turned off part of the mind/brain to get rid of spatial/perceptual orientation so there's no way to tell where your weight is being pushed by gravity to. That doesn't make gravity any less real, since it is an experience in reality that exists through space and time. And even if the senses are interfered with in some way and are in an altered or sensorily deprived state, they have to have some means of logical objectivity for us to remember them from that state, which means we have to be able to configure them in our spatial-temporal reality.

1. You don't need time to perceive space.

2.I took our gravity because I realized that gravity is a creation of the senses as well. So that was my mistake but gravity is an illusion as well.

3. All experience is illusionary. If we are talking from the relative sense gravity is real but time is a human, societal construct. Humans are the only animals that have a concept of time, and notice how everything still happens the way it needs too. We created time to synchronize our movements.

[thisintegrated]

36 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

No.

Okay, this proves the existence of time as a system of "updates" for an observer.

Ew.

Bruh.. have you actually never heard of the double slit experiment?  The observer (aka consciousness) manifests things into existence.  I thought you were an intuitive.  This should all just click.

[thisintegrated]

33 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

Part of my point, though, is that the senses are also real. The senses are what make up space, your perception of it, and their existence of movement gives the time aspect. Sense of gravity could also be interrupted with by sensory deprivation, if you turned off part of the mind/brain to get rid of spatial/perceptual orientation so there's no way to tell where your weight is being pushed by gravity to. That doesn't make gravity any less real, since it is an experience in reality that exists through space and time. And even if the senses are interfered with in some way and are in an altered or sensorily deprived state, they have to have some means of logical objectivity for us to remember them from that state, which means we have to be able to configure them in our spatial-temporal reality.

I am temporarily moving you down to Yellow, until further notice.

[AtheisticNonduality]

21 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

I am temporarily moving you down to Yellow, until further notice.

Lol, I temporarily moved you down to Red, for bullying preetyindia.

26 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

Bruh.. have you actually never heard of the double slit experiment?  The observer (aka consciousness) manifests things into existence.  I thought you were an intuitive.  This should all just click.

That is not how it works. Like here, for example:

Quote

. . . The quantum physics approach is even worse since all of that isn't even psychological (isn't even subjective or detached from our conceptions of the material) and is completely at the level of base physical reality. The wave function collapse requires no God, only objects (or probabilities and actualities) being in certain configurations according to certain measurements. It can be entirely systemic and doesn't need something outside the system to explain it. Now, on some level, there always needs to be something outside the system, some overlying existence of unity and transcendence, which is why disproving materialism rests with philosophy and experience alone, rather than just unorthodoxly reinterpreting strange psychophysical phenomena as immaterial.

 

39 minutes ago, Razard86 said:

1. You don't need time to perceive space.

We're using the word "time" in different ways. You mean time as in sense of time, like a human instinct or mechanism or conception. I mean time as a fundamental part of how objects exist. They have to exist across moments, otherwise they don't make sense.

41 minutes ago, Razard86 said:

Humans are the only animals that have a concept of time, and notice how everything still happens the way it needs too. We created time to synchronize our movements.

This is true, but think about the other things that separate us from animals. We humans have the unique capacity to think abstractly, to use higher-order logic, to really understand the world, etc. Perhaps our sense of time is like that. It actually helps us to get a better grasp over phenomena (to help us survive better, or perhaps for philosophizing?)

 

[thisintegrated]

31 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

. . . The quantum physics approach is even worse since all of that isn't even psychological (isn't even subjective or detached from our conceptions of the material) and is completely at the level of base physical reality. The wave function collapse requires no God, only objects (or probabilities and actualities) being in certain configurations according to certain measurements.

Umm, how is this in any way a problem?  Everything's connected.  You can do non-physical experiments in the physical, because the physical is still the non-physical.  Physical is relative to where you are at the moment.  You can do experiments in the astral if you want, but it's all the same.

 

35 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

Lol, I temporarily moved you down to Red, for bullying preetyindia.

At least I maintained order, like a Blue?

 

35 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

We're using the word "time" in different ways. You mean time as in sense of time, like a human instinct or mechanism or conception. I mean time as a fundamental part of how objects exist. They have to exist across moments, otherwise they don't make sense.

They do.. in "theory".  It's like how you say nothingness and everythingness are separate things.  Everything exists in a state of nothingness, until consciousness decides to explore the everythingness that is naturally present within nothingness.

[AtheisticNonduality]

15 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

but it's all the same.

exactly

15 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

They do.. in "theory".  It's like how you say nothingness and everythingness are separate things.  Everything exists in a state of nothingness, until consciousness decides to explore the everythingness that is naturally present within nothingness.

If Everything is in its exploration time, that women's time's reality is proven and the argument has been finished.

Edited July 20, 2022 by AtheisticNonduality

[thisintegrated]

7 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

exactly

If Everything is in its exploration time, that mens time's reality is proven and the argument has been finished.

Define "exploration time"

And "men's time" too ig, lmao

Edited July 20, 2022 by thisintegrated

[AtheisticNonduality]

5 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

lmao

Not him!

[Leo Gura]

Time and space are imagined by consciousness. Consciousness is not subject to either.

If you realize that all past and all future are imaginary, then you literally cannot die because you are too conscious to take the future seriously, since you're conscious that it's just a figment of your mind.

Notice that the only way death can enter your experience is as some hypothetical future you're imagining. And then you're double-imagining that this hypothetical future will one day really arrive.

You are not just imagining, you're meta-imagining. You are imagining that you're not imagining.

[Someone here]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Time and space are imagined by consciousness. Consciousness is not subject to either.

If you realize that all past and all future are imaginary, then you literally cannot die because you are too conscious to take the future seriously, since you're conscious that it's just a figment of your mind.

Notice that the only way death can enter your experience is as some hypothetical future you're imagining. And then you're double-imagining that this hypothetical future will one day really arrive.

You are not just imagining, you're meta-imagining. You are imagining that you're not imagining.

I guess I understand you now .

The concept of existence is dependent on the concept of the present. In normal English, once something is "destroyed" it no longer "exists", and nothing "exists" until it has been "created". You can't say something like "the future exists" because it hasn't been created yet and by the definition of existence, it doesn't exist.

I was reading comments somewhere and someone said "all of time is actually happening now". That phrase doesn't make sense. The word "now" has already been defined as a reference to our current position in time. You can't use words with a time-based definition to explain concepts contrary to the concept of a "present" that progresses through time.

[Someone here]

11 hours ago, Razard86 said:

I am proud of you, welcome to Spirituality. I am proud to welcome you in. Only trust your direct experience. Now let's see if you can take the next step which is the step of curiosity. While trusting only your direct experience....are you open to testing what Leo is saying and discovering whether it is true for you? Because you cannot awaken conceptually.

Concept is only important for 2 things. Integration, and grounding you when reality....stops making sense. A  Spiritual seeker with proper conceptual knowledge has a better chance of not falling into derealization/psychosis and if they do have a better chance of recovery. But without the conceptual knowledge is akin to jumping into a bottomless pit with no map to make sense of anything.

I've had Tons of awakening in the past .all of them while sober. Without using any chemicals. 

Awakening to me is simply shedding the false beliefs about reality and hunting the Truth . And it's actually super easy to do . The truth is simply the totality of your direct experience right freaking now. There is nothing else .the past and the future are beliefs .so I guess I'm getting  close  to grasping Leo's point .if death exists only in the future..and the future is a  belief..therefore death is also a belief. 

[Grateful Dead]

12 hours ago, Someone here said:

So do you agree with the option that this life is the only life you ever gonna live and after you die you will just turn back into what you were before you were born (which is pure formlessness )? So basically no afterlife? 

I feel its more useful to think that there isn’t. Like if you assume that you only have one shot at life, then you will do things and have experiences you wouldn’t if you assumed you have another go at it. But so far I would say its a fundamentally unanswerable question given the limited portion  of information we have about this subject. 

No I don't agree with that. I think you will have a different form after this body drops and you will not awaken automatically when that happens.

[Someone here]

6 minutes ago, acidgoofy said:

No I don't agree with that. I think you will have a different form after this body drops and you will not awaken automatically when that . 

I see.  I think it's a hard question to answer, because we have to really define our terms here. We all know what death is, but I think we don't have a great idea about who we are. Now, part of me is a personal identity. "Hi, I'm akshay." Akshay is going to die. All of my opinions and likes and dislikes and habits and memories, they are going to die and never be seen again. 

But what if there is something about me that is deeper than that? The part of me that is observing all of those things. The part of me that isn't the object of awareness like "table" or "emotion" but the awareness itself. 

I can conceive of a believable universe in which this awareness is more fundamental to reality than matter is. This awareness is currently inhabiting a body, but it will continue it's journey after the body dies. 

So in conclusion..this current human self that you are living right now will die and disappear forever and its never going back .and either it's completely blank after that or you will reincarnate as a different creature (not necessarily human ). But who knows. 

[Grateful Dead]

Good points. I think there is a deeper aspect of your "personality", you can call it the soul (or awarness like you say), that will live on with some inherent qualities that are yours right now. But, as you say, all the conditions that have formed since childhood will just vanish and "die" with the body.

20 minutes ago, Someone here said:

But who knows. 

But yeah who really knows

[Leo Gura]

Careful, existence is not a concept. It's an Absolute.

Once you realize that you are not any specific form, but existence itself, then you exist absolutely and become immortal.

[Grateful Dead]

Yes, I see the soul as just another temporary form that allows me to have a particular experience in the first place. I think it will also eventually vanish and I as consciousness exist forever. But still, if I want to explore myself further “from within” so to speak, I need some kind of form to do that.

[Someone here]

For me, this is kinda funny. I've had many suicidal thoughts, and i think i'm more scared of living than dying. Furthermore, i have never experienced "non-being" all i ever know is "being" so i can't really believe, that death means "non-existence" like materialists say.  

Like, you are here, right?  If you were born once, why not a second time? And then third time? Why not infinite times? 

Edited July 20, 2022 by Someone here

[Superfluo]

@Leo Gura I too have some difficulty with understanding death and what happens after it.

I understand you are pointing to a paradigm shift (or even a "consciousness" shift ) that we are not grasping, but still I'm confused regarding what happens after the last moments of your life, when your eyes lose the light, so to speak. I'm eternal because I'm consciousness itself, but what form does consciousness/I take after this body I believe is me ceases to live?

I know I need some mystical experiences to make the leap and really understand what you're pointing to, but still I feel you may give some more accurate pointers to what happens, more accurate in the sense that they approach the issue from a stage yellow perspective going towards turquoise.

Edited July 20, 2022 by Superfluo

[AtheisticNonduality]

11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Time and space are imagined by consciousness. Consciousness is not subject to either.

If you realize that all past and all future are imaginary, then you literally cannot die because you are too conscious to take the future seriously, since you're conscious that it's just a figment of your mind.

Notice that the only way death can enter your experience is as some hypothetical future you're imagining. And then you're double-imagining that this hypothetical future will one day really arrive.

You are not just imagining, you're meta-imagining. You are imagining that you're not imagining.

Previously you have said:

Quote

See, in this way of thinking you create duality between form and emptiness.

At the highest levels of awakening this duality dissolves away as everything becomes one. You should not be able to separate form and emptiness.

So to respond to time and space being imagined by Consciousness, just like how you say you cannot say Emptiness goes beyond form since they are completely One and inseparable, it could be said that Consciousness cannot go beyond space and time in how we define them. You are creating a distinction between the Imaginer and the Imagined, when they are One process of Imagination. Space and time have to exist just as much as Consciousness does.

On the other hand, creating these dualities is useful because they actually exist, because they've been imagined. Up and down are not the same, though they are the Same.

Emptiness the witness and the witnessed, Imagination the imaginer and the imagined, Creation the creator and the created, Destructivity the eliminator and the eliminated, Love that which loves and that which is loved: this is the highest holon.

You cannot sidestep the terminological issues, so you have to create a system of language to understand them.

This is why intellectual rigor and philosophical technicality are important.

Substantial for the Actualized book, the imprint of which upon reality could be extraordinary.

No issue, no aspect, can be left unturned.

[RendHeaven]

1 hour ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

So to respond to time and space being imagined by Consciousness, just like how you say you cannot say Emptiness goes beyond form since they are completely One and inseparable, it could be said that Consciousness cannot go beyond space and time in how we define them. You are creating a distinction between the Imaginer and the Imagined, when they are One process of Imagination. Space and time have to exist just as much as Consciousness does.

On the other hand, creating these dualities is useful because they actually exist, because they've been imagined. Up and down are not the same, though they are the Same.

Emptiness the witness and the witnessed, Imagination the imaginer and the imagined, Creation the creator and the created, Destructivity the eliminator and the eliminated, Love that which loves and that which is loved: this is the highest holon.

You cannot sidestep the terminological issues, so you have to create a system of language to understand them.

This is why intellectual rigor and philosophical technicality are important.

Substantial for the Actualized book, the imprint of which upon reality could be extraordinary.

No issue, no aspect, can be left unturned.

This whole thing screams lack of construct-awareness and lopsided bias for self-made fictions.

I'm about to use a lot of words here but believe me that none of this is meant to be a counter-construct. Rather, my aim here is to burn all constructs to the ground, including my own.

"Space and time have to exist just as much as Consciousness does" - you literally just made that up. Your statement has the same philosophical weight as the flying spaghetti monster.

I don't say this to try to dunk on you: from my POV I seem to see something that you seem to be missing, and I wish to make this clear.

Before I say anything else, you make the mistake of treating space and Consciousness as two distinct bedrock substances, both somehow equally fundamental. This is apparent in the way that you attempt to bound (your concept of) Consciousness by (your concept of) space:

2 hours ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

it could be said that Consciousness cannot go beyond space and time in how we define them.

And yet you also seem to be on-board that Consciousness circumscribes All. If you acknowledge that your pursuit is to mutually bound Consciousness and space, please see that you are cognitively operating in duality while backwards-rationalizing your duality by paying lip-service to so-called "Oneness."

Let's cut the crap: if reality is ONE BEDROCK SUBSTANCE, it can't be both "space" and "consciousness." Either Space eclipses consciousness or Consciousness eclipses space. And whichever one we decree is greater makes the lesser NONEXISTENT through OSMOSIS.

Leo's recent video on not-knowing is really crucial for you. If you've already seen it, I urge you work on integrating the lessons immediately.

Nearly 100% of everything you claim to know (including concepts of what does or does not exist) is spawned nigh-arbitrarily on the spot by your own hyperactive mind - that is to say, there is nothing fundamental or true about any of your knowledge. This is abundantly, inarguably the case when you introspect from the vantage point of supremely elevated consciousness. The only reason you fight tooth-and-nail for the "existence" and "reality" of "space" and "time" (or any other "thing") is because you're closed off to the possibility of their Absolute absence. It is in fact YOU who is maintaining a rigid duality in thrusting forth the assertation that "space (qua space) exists."

When Leo or I say that space does not exist, this is not a dualistic assertion. Nor is it a knowledge claim. Rather, we are choosing to not confine our minds to a narrow, arbitrary insistence. We honor the blank canvas of not-knowing wherein our constructs fall apart like sand castles, for this is the only way to gaze upon the truth with clarity.

A passage from Plato's Timaeus - clearly a nonduality analogy:

"Now imagine that a man were to model all possible figures out of gold, and were then to proceed without cessation to remodel each of these into every other,- then, if someone were to point to one of the figures and ask what it is, by far the safest reply, in point of truth, would be that it is gold; but as for the triangle and all the other figures which were formed in it, one should never describe them as "being" seeing that they change even while one is mentioning them; rather one should be content if the figure admits of even the title "suchlike" being applied to it with any safety."

In this hypothetical, Plato gives us the example of someone who models "all possible figures" out of gold. If I were to point at one of the figures and ask you, "what is that?" the only real answer here is "gold!" even if this gold took the shape of a triangle. To say that the figure itself is a "triangle" is untrue, for it is in fact "gold." Likewise with the square-shape. We are so tempted to say "Look! it's a square!" but the moment we say that, the square is remolded into a circle. So now we must amend our statement: "Oh wait, no, its a circle now! But it used to be a square!" If this is the level at which you are identifying + knowing these figures, Plato would say that you risk being unsafe, for truth is not on your side. Your cognition is at the whims of flux, and at every turn what you once thought was right becomes wrong. By declaring that these shapes exist, you are getting bewitched by a façade, while being totally ignorant of the underlying being and substance at play. It matters not in what way the gold is configured. All that is true and Absolute is this: IT IS GOLD.

Likewise now with space and Consciousness. Consciousness is free to appear to you in the shape of a concept which you call "space." So is this apparition real? does it exist? What is the true being here? If you answer "that thing right there is real, and it is space," then you are getting bewitched by a façade. All that is true and Absolute is this: IT IS [ Consciousness ].

When it comes to BEING, there is only ever ONE answer. Consciousness, God, Infinity, Love - whatever you want to call it is fine. The labels are interchangeable. But it is singular. This singularity leaves no room for "space" or "time" to be bandaged on top as something distinctly recognizable. Insofar as space/time ever existed in any capacity - on the level of BEING it is fully absorbed and vaporized by INFINITY as though it never were. This is the necessary fate of all finitudes.

"You cannot sidestep the terminological issues, so you have to create a system of language to understand them.

This is why intellectual rigor and philosophical technicality are important.

Substantial for the Actualized book, the imprint of which upon reality could be extraordinary.

No issue, no aspect, can be left unturned."

I hope you can respect the "intellectual rigor" of this word cascade even if you feel somehow compelled to disagree. This one was for one philosopher to another

That being said, respectfully, your entire methodology is limited and frankly untrue.

I'm surprised that an Actualized fan is this wedded to language and finite sense-making. If you really care about TRUTH, you would be well-served to just NUKE your entire paradigm of meaning, and to re-learn life as a nobody.

When you really get it, you will be unable to utter such statements as the one I highlighted above in red.

I enjoy this kind of intellectual questing, but really only as entertainment. I'm painfully aware that it all means nothing.

-----

Tl;dr Just go bask in a state of no-space and you'll see how myopic it is to claim that space is in any way Absolute/on the level of Consciousness. Your relative map that attempts to combine the relative with the Absolute through language is holding you back.