Leo Gura

See... the problem with that question is that it takes the notion of "supported by evidence" for granted. That is a paradigm-dependent notion. In other words, if you were given a list of such claims, you would likely reject or dismiss them because they do not fit the materialist paradigm's standards of "evidence". The problem materialists face overall, is that they ask for gross material evidence of subtle immaterial facts. But you cannot grasp the subtle via the gross in many cases. The materialist paradigm discounts the enormous significance of changes in perspective, awareness, interpretation, and context. Here are some claims supported but undeniable evidence that science disregards: Consciousness isn't limited to the skull Intelligence isn't limited to the skull Evolution isn't limited to DNA You are immortal and can never die All boundaries between physical objects are man-made. There is no such thing an "object". You are literally every other human being There is not one single piece of evidence for the external world Psychedelics reveal truth which science hasn't even dared to imagine possible All of science is a human invented system. There is nothing universal about it. It it possible to die while the body is still alive Paranormal phenomena exist Time is a concept which doesn't actually exist Space is a concept which doesn't actually exist Ancient peoples and civilizations like Egypt were WAY more advanced than scientists or historians believe Witchcraft is a valid way of investigating reality Etc. But you're gonna have to expand your notion of "evidence" of course. Because if you demand double-blind clinical studies, you're barking up the wrong tree. Many of these truths can only be grasped individually, by you and no one else. Part of the problem of the materialist paradigm is that it only counts as "evidence" that which is communicable, model-able, and provable. But truth far exceeds communicability and provability.

Sorry for the downtime. The forum is currently not sending out emails. We're trying to track down the issue. So if you didn't get an email confirmation upon registration, that's why. If you recently registered but didn't get an email confirmation, you should still be able to log in after mod approval. Otherwise the forum is still usable.

@Dan Arnautu Like I said, I install Windows on my MacBook. No virtual box. I don't use MacOS at all.

Love the commitment to the process here. Keep walking the path!

@Gabriel Antonio Awesome work! Keep at walking the path.

What's wrong is that the whole world is closedminded and we live in the Dark Ages. Welcome to the 21st century.

@Faceless Minds, like brains, do not exist. They are just concepts. You've never see a mind. "Mind" was an idea invented by humans some centuries ago, which has now become a part of your reality through unquestioned cultural indoctrination. Try pointing to your mind. I dare ya

Meditation is a tool from taking your mind out of symbolic consciousness into non-symbolic consciousness. When you're in non-symbolic consciousness, the insight of enlightenment (no-self) becomes much more likely to dawn. Although there are no guarantees.

@iTommy That's why God invented psychedelics Clears up all that BS within 60 minutes.

There are no arbiters of truth. That's is the whole problem. You assume truth can be arbitrated, but it cannot, because the thing doing the arbitration is itself in need of arbitration, and so on, to infinity. Reality is absolutely relative. That's the only Absolute thing: totally relativity. The truth you think you see out there, is the truth you're creating. Science doesn't observe the truth. Science invents it, and solidifies it through consensus and tradition. Science is a human-constructed narrative, similar to history. Truth is just like time, it is observer-dependent. Just because a billion humans agree on a thing, doesn't make it true. Which is precisely why the consensus must be defended so dogmatically. The dogma is just a side-effect of the denial of the fact that reality is absolutely relative. God is just the realization of Absolute Relativity. What Einstein discovered about time, you can discover about existence itself and everything in it. Nothing can ground anything because everything is ONE. Everything is its own ground. Everything is BEing. Everything is magic. But this requires consciousness to see. It cannot be taken on as a belief. Enlightenment is what happens when you take the scientific method and apply it properly, without any biases or dogmas, to the whole of reality. You discover precisely what everything is.

That's precisely correct. The only way to access infinity is to literally become the sum total of what reality is. You are it, after all. Both: Discovering the substance of existence is impossible for science, or any symbolic method. AND The materialist paradigm of modern day scientists has closed them from being able to explore and explain phenomena which exist outside of their paradigm. In precisely that same way that dogmas of scientists 500 years ago prevented them from exploring the idea that the Earth revolves around the sun. The history of science is riddled with epistemic blunders, and today's science is still doing it. My point is that science isn't skeptical enough. The problem with science is that it is ideological and dogmatic. It misapplies skepticism. It uses skepticism to defend its traditions and dogmas. This is not really a discussion about science. It is a discussion about the nature of the human mind. The root problem of every human being, and every human institution (including science and math) is that they are extremely dogmatic and closedminded. Nobody actually bothers to investigate reality from scratch. All human knowledge is heavily based on tradition. Doesn't matter if we're talking about Muslim terrorists or Stephen Hawking. They both have the exact same disease of the mind. Just different content of dogma. See my video about True vs False Skepticism What science needs to learn to do is apply skepticism to itself, especially to its own foundations. This will make science more accurate and progress faster. There is no magic bullet. The point is that all questions are empirical questions, requiring open and unbiased empirical investigation. Differentiating what is true from what is false is a highly non-trivial matter. My point is that people take this for granted. Scientists assume they know things which they do not actually know. They do so to save time and energy. But the trade-off is that they are make big mistakes and dismiss important truths which are right under their nose. When you believe something is impossible, you cannot investigate it seriously. Science suffers the exact same epistemic problems as religion. There is no difference between the to. The problem is that science thinks it is immune to the problems of religion, which only deepens its problems. It doesn't do nearly as good a job as it could. Yes, it DOES claim to answer question beyond this. Science actively DENIES many things which are actually true. Science cannot not deal with metaphysics. If a scientist says, "I will just do my work and ignore metaphysics." That is a huge epistemic blunder. You cannot do that. That's is not an option. All methodology, modeling, data collection, and data interpretation is metaphysics-dependent. There is no such thing as objective observation. That's the whole point. Science assumes the universe can be studied objectively like a rat in a cage, but in fact the self is deeply involved in the process. The process of science is a lot more like doing surgery on yourself than observing a rat in a cage. You are deeply connected to the process. Your SELF distorts everything you look at. You are the rat! Did I tell you to join the New Age movement? The New Age movement commits many epistemic blunders too. All movements, all belief systems, all paradigms are not reality. I am talking about things here which do not fit into any movement or category. Virtually no human beings understand the things I am talking about here.

Next week's video be about the ultimate nature of all paradox.

Stop thinking about self-survival. You're obsessed with it. That's the whole problem here. You base all of your reality on whether a thing helps the illusion of you to survive. You see?? Survival has nothing to do with Truth.

@MM1988 You cannot understand what you're asking without being enlightened. There is nothing I can say that will convey it to you. You can only discover it through enlightenment. But once you do, you will understand that it is Absolute. And there is nothing beyond it because it is infinite. You cannot fathom the totality of infinity. Not only have I been in a coma or in a car crash, I simultaneously exist as every living being and non-living particle that can ever exist under every physical configuration of every universe possible, out to infinity. There is not a single possibility which I am not. So anything you can imagine, I am that, plus an infinite number of more things. I am an infinite hallucination. The energy you're wasting worrying about my delusion is a distraction from your own. None of what I say is to be believed. Go self-inquire. I have discovered for myself that the materialist view is not correct because I have been infinite. And a material brain cannot be infinite. This cannot be understood until you yourself become infinite. I hope you get there one day.

@Iksander Just added a book about kundalini awakening to my book list.

@DnoReally There are a few good books. See the Metaphysics category of my book list. Also the Consciousness category will be highly useful to you.

@StrangerWatch Yes, of course that's the case. But also consider the possibility that you may not have become aware of the full depth of what the word "God" or "Absolute Infinity" really points to. If you haven't experienced the existential terror, that leads me to suspect you haven't yet penetrated as deeply as is possible. There are many degrees of depth to awakening experiences. Of course everyone will react to the experiences differently too. A good way to double-check your depth of realization is to do 30mg+ of 5-MeO. Just to make sure you haven't missed the full-monty

Your mind is so attached to appearances (experiences) that it struggles to see that overlaid right on top of the appearance, is the disappearance. So you look at a chair, you see the colors of the chair, but you ignore the fact that in the exact same place of those colors, is nothingness. The colors literally ARE nothingness. But your mind isn't grasping that because it's overly focused on the colors. The mind is biased towards appearances. If you focus your awareness on the chair long enough, eventually you will start to get the sense that the chair -- although it appears right there -- isn't actually there! It is technically-speaking a hallucination, a mirage.

You are what you hallucinate. If you hallucinated being a sea slug, you would literally be a sea slug. Your current hallucination of being THIS human is precisely what makes you not be everything else you could be (and actually are).

@Serotoninluv You can also be conscious while sleeping. But let's start with the basics.

It's no more mystical knowledge than it is to say that Santa Claus is a fiction.

There is no such thing as a non-mystical phenomena. All phenomena are mystical. Science is playing a mind game. What it does is attach the word "material" to every single thing it sees and learns how to calculate. Before it is calculated it is called mystical superstitious nonsense. After it is calculated, it is called "material". Although the calculation never explains anything. It just allows you to manipulate reality. Notice that you can learn to juggle balls no matter what they are. You can juggle oranges, peaches, apples, tennis balls, etc. The substance of the ball is irrelevant to the juggling. Science is purely in the business of juggling. It can juggle any and all phenomena, but it never knows what the substance of the thing it's juggling is. Nor will it admit that it matters. If a ghost is photographed by a scientist today, after much resistance and make years of fighting, eventually ghosts will become reclassified as "material" things. And after a few hundred years pass, you will be thought of as crazy for doubting the existence of ghost. "Ghosts must obviously exist! It was only those fools back in the 21st century who were so closeminded as not to see them." That's what scientists of the 25th century will tell you. The distinction between science and pseudo-science is a moving goal post. Pseudo-science is just the stuff that science hasn't successfully modeled yet. So course it cannot exist. Until we model it. Then it can't not exist. 100 years ago x-rays where considered absurd psuedo-science. Today, you would be called irresponsible if you refused to get x-rayed by your dentist. Today parents are called crazy and dangerous for not injecting their children with bit of the plague (vaccines). 300 years ago, if you told a parent that you were going to inject their child with bits of the plague, they would have you arrested for attempted murder. 200 years ago doctors didn't wash their hands before operating on patients. When the first doctor discovered that washing hands reduces death rates in hospitals by like 90%, you know what happened? He was kicked out of the hospital and called a quack. His career with destroyed. Because no respectable doctor washed his hands 200 years ago. That was mystical nonsense. Magical germs that kill people? Only a fool would believe in such a thing. You know what happened when Galilio tried to give his telescope to his intelligent colleagues to look up at the planet Jupiter and count its moons? They told him that only a Devil would dare to look through such a thing and believe what he saw. And then they arrested him.

@Edvard If the truth could be given to you, it would have happened 5000 years ago and everyone would have it. No one is hiding truth from you but yourself. You must discover it all on your own. I cannot help you no matter how much I would like. The truth is incommunicable. The problem is that people assume truth is communicable. But that is another false assumption. It's as though you and I are inside a dream. I have exited the dream before so I know it is possible. But now I am here in the dream with you again. You have never exited, so you are skeptical and puzzled by the notion. I tell you that it's possible to exit the dream. You nod and say, "Okay, maybe." But you are still stuck in the dream. Knowing you can exit the dream and actually exiting the dream are two totally different things. You need to figure out a way -- on your own -- to wake up. No matter what I say to you inside the dream, it will not wake you up because everything I say is part of your dream.

If I could, I probably wouldn't tell you about it. It's hard enough getting people to buy the idea that brains don't exist The point is that you don't know what is or isn't possible unless you verify it for yourself. And if you do end up discovering something new and bold, you can be sure that one one will believe you due to the Black Hole Effect. What people are willing to believe has nothing to do with truth. That's purely a cultural norm. And culture is ALWAYS highly conservative and dogmatic. Because you never bother to derive any truth for yourself, you prefer to suck on the tit of culture. You just assume that culture will deliver truth to you on a silver platter. But that is not how truth works. So you end up having cultural myths, not truth. Experiencing Absolute Infinity is much more physically radical than transmuting water into wine.

Yes, of course. The history of science is filled with such examples. For example, the Greeks thought atoms were indivisible. So if you asked them, "Could we ever find out whether atoms were made of smaller parts?" They would have said, "Of course not! Atoms are indivisible by definition. How could you ever look inside one?" But then some clever scientists figured out a way to split atoms in a particle collider. Here's another example: the resolution of light microscopes is limited by the wave length of light. You cannot resolve down any further. I'm sure that when some scientist figured that out, he said to himself, "Well... I guess we cannot see anything below 100nm. That is the limit of microscopes." But then a century later some other clever scientist discovered that you can build a microscope using electrons instead of light waves. And so a whole new domain of visibility opened up. And so on it goes. Scientists once thought it was impossible to measure the distance to a star or galaxy. Then some other scientist discovered a way of doing just that using EM waves and Cepheid variable stars. Today, virtually all scientists assume that direct consciousness of the Absolute is impossible. And yet it obviously is because people have done it. I have done it. Scientists assume this because the materialist paradigm is blind to the possibility that being and consciousness are identical, because they assume a boundary exists between subject and object. But of course there is no such boundary. That boundary is just an materialist assumption which was never empirically derived, but just taken on blind faith. If you assume you are the Absolute, you have 100% access to it. If you assume you aren't the absolute, you're screwed. Actually, the very same force that allows you to make insights -- an instantaneous creative leap of awareness -- is the very same force that drives evolution. Observe very carefully how your mind generates insights. Every insight you have is an act of creation. There are few such books. Which is why I'm writing one. See the Metaphysics/Epistemology category of my book list. That's about as close as you'll get for now. But it's only the tip of the iceberg.