Aakash

@Inliytened1 Put it like this, the point of enlightenment is truth seeking , correct? In this sense... Enlightenment IS the highest truth. This is exactly the way it has been teached in traditional schools for years... To go back to everything after having enlightenment is actually REGRESSING on the highest truth. See i wasn't quick enough to make the distinction because i couldn't calculate what an enlightened being is... But after that talk with winter knight i am 100% that its enlightenment in its fullest that is the highest truth. This video is actually misguiding, the brown bear is actually correct in the matter. He is the one speaking from the highest truth! To go to the white bear, is actually taking 1 step backwards to a lesser truth from the highest truth. its about comfort-ability and the truth itself. reforming duality after becoming enlightened IN ANY SENSE. is going backwards and then it has a knock on effect where it teaches non-dual beings, who haven't reached enlightenment that they have because of their non-dual sense of awareness. it's actually so counter-productive what i did, to bring up enlightenment version 2. It was necessary. But its like i said, i wasn't quick enough to the ball and processing things with my mind and systematise it correctly.

@pluto Its the exact problem of mixing the two enlightenment together, which is a mistake i made. You can not have both sides of the trinity. You need to pick either full illusion or non-dual experience. There is no middle ground where you have enlightenment + non-dual awareness. Either you have enlightenment or you have non -dual awareness. it seems like you are locked directly down the middle. Unable to fulfill the prophecy itself. There is no answer that will give you everything you want. You have to pick which double-edge sword you want. Enlightenment and no experience experience and non-dual awareness You can't have enlightenment + non-duality + duality. its an impossibility. You have not chosen yet. You are stuck in the middle it seems.

@Angelite Oh that's fine then, as long as you know its relative... its all good! yeah all knowledge is relative and therefore its always delusional. As a society or even enlightened society. We have to pick what we want to aim for together. One person doesn't know what's better for everyone under any circumstances.

@Serotoninluv Lol it was actually a poor understanding of genetics. I have an interesting thesis about genetics. untested but my hypothesis is that repeated gene expression within the DNA stores up a form of "non-physical" energy. This "non-physical" energy raises the probability of that specific genetic coding being passed onto the offspring. Due to the fact that its "survival" based. This is why specific genetic sequences is passed on and allele pairing is maximised for randomisation and survival itself during meiosis. its only a hypothesis that i got from seeing a documentary about a cow that gets electrified by the electric wire when it's being herded. This fear gets passed onto the offspring and for seven generations, they don't go near the fence. DM me if you wanna talk about it. I would love to get your opinion on it. @GenuinePerspectiveXC I had a few points to say about IQ IQ in its realistic sense is .... understanding of reality. The greater understanding of reality you have the greater your IQ should theoretically be. However, you american's have it backwards because you base intellectual understanding on how much you know about a specific subject and reward someone with a higher IQ when they are able to manipulate knowledge for personal benefit. Real IQ is connectivity between inter-subject, not intra-subject. So comparing standard IQ between people who have different capabilities intra-subject, is subjective to their standard of answers, which is as it should be. However, to go further and use that subjective IQ as a universal standard across different intra-subjects dilutes the accuracy of the measurement even more. By these standards , a history mojor with a 150 IQ is actually less smart than a quantum physicist with a 110 IQ. Logically you would say that quantum physics is a harder subject. So this is actually accurate. This is not the case, the person with 150 IQ is seen as smarter. The same relativity applies to real IQ. Lets say Leo's IQ was 80 officially and you look his body of work at actualise.org you would actually say he is smarter than both the 150 IQ and 110 IQ students. This is if you have viewed his work and deemed him reliable. If you then told everyone else who believed in standard IQ they would say your nuts, leo is actually stupid. To conclude, IQ exists. It just doesn't represents intellect accurately. Given the right conditions and right circumstances, ANY person who believes they have a 2.2 GPA or 60 IQ if they are given the right help, can be a genius with a 4.0 GPA and 150 IQ. if IQ was referenced correctly about understanding of reality. This is because they would be able to make the CORRECT inferences in their fields and therefore the basis on which the IQ is established for ALL different subjects would be the same. Thus solving the problem of IQ and making it representational. I'm not trying to be racist, but its actually statistically probable that white people in america must be smarter than people of colour and that is because the quality of education within the family has gathered and refined over time. This is why they are able to take the moral high ground. They aren't 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants. IQ always increases across generations, because the quality of education improves. So its actually ridiculous to compare lets say a 1st generation immigrant to a 8th generation USA citizen. This is by traditional standards of comparing in the certain subject. If it was about reality, the ironic thing is the 1st generation immigrant would have a higher IQ. I hear that its actually reversing now and the 3rd and 4th generations are becoming more intelligent via standard IQ measurements, than the average american citizens. it would be quite bad, if this was to happen and immigrants actually overtook over all structures in your country because they become smart. it would be better to put them in wage slavery and slow down their educational process. Disclaimer: I don't particularly like the white entitlement claims. As well as i don't feel its right that the average white person is blamed for the white supremacy of historical past and present. but It is what it is. You pay or benefit off the backs of your own cultures history and then you demonize others for not being as good or worst off as you.

@Angelite Lol by your definition, everyone except 5 people probably aren't enlightened masters on this forum by my calculations. This is just an obscure way of looking at things. There are actually 20+ enlightened masters on this forum. Just because they can not communicate truth amazingly, does not mean they aren't amazing enlightened masters. The truth is, it doesn't matter if you can enlightened others, if your a master, your a master. The highest forms of enlightenment are in my thread labelled "my highest insights" maybe you should give that a read. You are looking for a holistic enlightened master. It's very difficult to find these types of beings

This is subjective and a projection of a master. The truth is enlightened masters are actually terrible at explaining the truth to people and that's why its not widespread. Your version is very idealistic, it just doesn't exist. By this logic, every enlightened master could solve all metal health issues just by ushering words to the individual.

@zeroISinfinity I've exceeded my maximum number of posts, before i get banned for hijacking. Its impossible to teach people, because they don't actually reply to my thread itself LOL! the irony of having to take it to people, because they don't come to you. Yes its just for lack of a better word. I can't come up with a new word, because it won't stick. You need an authority figure to have the word stick. People think i don't know what i'm talking about. So it'll just be ignored. "One truth one love" One truth = enlightenment is not the only highest truth about reality One love = love includes all of us, we aren't included in love and that includes enlightened beings and non-enlightened beings So we are all equal and that includes all of our highest possible truths. Of which there are only 2 that dissolve the whole trinity. "All or nothing" everyone gets to choose

@zeroISinfinity its like i said, your mind can only take one absolute. its difficult to navigate that absolute, when it doesn't exist as an absolute itself. This is nothing to do with the bodhisattva path, that's just a word. I'm saying that its actually exactly the same in highest truth as enlightenment whilst you say it is less than your complete love. Still if your being inclusive of my love, then it's even worse LOL because you are having a negative effect on the future itself i promise you bro, i have to stay humble to prove my point. its really difficult This is as humble as i can get. i don't subscribe to this all lovely perfect life... everything is love, do nothing to change things type of comments. Still its my fault at the end of the day. I wasn't quick enough to the ball once again. I'm always too late, I feel like shit for spreading devilry and not creating a clear distinction between enlightenment and self-actualising god itself.

@zeroISinfinity Yes in the 2nd version of enlightenment! so by default what ever love you have , isn't the total totality of infinite love. Because there is always more. Anyways never mind, it is what it is. its too early to check the feedback mechanism which is backfiring on me, because i was confused about enlightenment and truth. wait but need to confirm you understand this, that love is not you? that love includes you. you get this right?

@zeroISinfinity This is the exact system i messed up by saying enlightenment is everything + nothing. Enlightenment is just nothing... like winterknight said The 2nd version is everything + nothing. But you are looking personally for the first version (i think) it seems like that is what you've been aiming for this whole time. To get rid of experience itself and to do that, you have to let everything go and surrender, including feeling love aswell, so its different form of love imo.

@zeroISinfinity Yes its blank once you give up your experience. It has to be. There will be nothing left like i said, its just not the same type of love as we normally think Still i wouldn't say that if you bring it up in your direct experience 24/7 then it's not possible to fuse it with being. itself would be undefinable. I don't know. I don't like talking about enlightened beings anymore. Its impossible to define nothing. i have learnt, it is not my department to talk about. ironically, the brown bear is actually right, funnily enough. he is the higher form of enlightenment LUL To live in truth is a tricky game lol

@zeroISinfinity There's no way to answer it, Its blank <<-- but this doesn't describe it. I've learnt you can't use words to describe an E-being, its as pointless as life itself lol Cultivating love is pure love aswell in my opinion, its a feeling distinction. nothing wrong with it, it's nice to be able to experience love and part of the diversity of infinity itself. Ofcourse this is a enlightened vs enlightened version 2 debate ahahahaha!

@zeroISinfinity LOL its just how it is, the being itself- he understands it to be love. just not the same kind that we know its an interesting thing to think about, when we consider him doing reiki aswell. it probably extends to the whole of reality itself. That's probably the base frequency. its not conscious frequency dependant, it probably penetrates all veils straight through

@Nahm may i ask, do you atleast acknowledge that its not progressive? just asking out of interest i 100% agree with you otherwise. especially about the smokescreens.

@possibilities I agree, its like i say. Its a choice of preference. I find counter-acting deeply ingrained beliefs with pinpoint truthful insights, a more effective way of dealing with mass delusion of the whole forum. This is my version of an equal playing field. It is not right or wrong in my opinion. Still there is much value in your approach. We are in for the same long game. People using their critical thinking abilities to proactively create amazing and insightful debates. Thanks for the conversation.

Lol i've been doing some thinking, never thought i'd ever be called a religious fanatic, thanks possibilities. It means a lot, maybe it is projection. It's not like i demonize projection. it's more like, creating future ground work lol. I forget sometimes we live in the 21st century and then my relativity becomes skewed. Still , it is what it is. Not a big fan of the silent pathway. Maybe you are enlightened. Enlightened beings tend to dislike projections LOL. Still thanks, its a compliment that i got to experience, which is nice.

@pluto Nah dude, lol the RA files are not something a kid can imagine up. It has to be an alien transmission. its too accurate an insight about oneness and enlightenment for a random person to come up with and write a whole report up about the conversation.

@possibilities Nah i'm not about long arguments about logic, i want to debate other consciousness matters LOL so i'll stick to my proselytising. Your trying to disprove my logic frame of reference and i'm trying to disprove your logic frame of referencing. Your saying your right and i'm saying i'm right. That itself shows that logic is relative. However, your taking it one step further. By arguing the relevance of logic, nobody here is disputing that logic is relevant. and that so called authorities are trying to brain wash people, by making them lose their frame of reference by saying logic is not needed. To defence such a position, is itself relative. The inherent problem with relativity is, its pointless from both ends. The only adjudication is which is more conscious? which is something you dislike people taking on blind faith. To which my rebuttle is to do the practices instead of wasting your time arguing online about so-called authority figures trying to brain wash other people on this forum with their delusion. Authority is only there to help if its quote on quote good. An echo chamber can be a positive thing, and parroting is needed for anybody who isn't enlightened. it doesn't matter how hard you try.. if you defend a viewpoint. That viewpoint means something to you. Still i sympathies with you, because you remind me of myself. Now i'm on the receiving end, i can't blame you for not trying to shift your relativity. As it should be. So good luck really Its like i said in my other post, there are only two highest truth's at the end of the day. All other's are practically illusory but neccesary to realise the two truths themselves. It's a process

@possibilities Lol we've literally just said the same thing, I put it in an illogical way to disprove your logic and you put it in a logical way to disprove your own logic LOL So if you've disproved your own logic, then why argue with logic if you know its illogical under any circumstance LOL yeah i'm done with this aswell you win, you disproved logic by proving logic is illogical congrats it truly was game set and match

@SOUL Nope, i'm saying to enlightened beings there is no duality and to this alternative version of beings that duality exists entirely. There's no framework to say such a statement is true or false, the absolute being is beyond even both our highest truths. They are just the best possible highest truths that can be taught to seekers. I'm saying that absolute truth is itself relative. Therefore your enlightenment is only relative to what is "the highest truth", it doesn't take anything away from it. It is indeed the highest truth... just not only highest truth The second highest truth is not about cessation from self-suffering, this is enlightenment. The second highest truth is about truth seeking within consciousness as god. it is virtually the EXACT opposite of enlightenment, continual suffering to constantly seek out truth within consciousness through constant mystical expeirences and deeper embodiment. Its the experiential version of enlightenment by completing of the trinity, whilst enlightenment is the cessation of experience to end suffering. But the original point was, there was no suffering and so all enlightenment is "what is the highest truth" it is not about liberation or anything like that realistically. So its the exact same thing, the two highest truths possible. ofcourse enlightenment comes with the ceasation of suffering instead of constant struggle for truth. So i mean, it is genuine liberation source. But this is artifical liberation, liberation within taking solace inside of god and your non-dual mystical experience state. Its none other than a cost/ benefit analysis for truth seekers on how to live their life. Ultimately life is pointless and even you as an enlightened being knows this, so all we can really do is create our own meaning or let that meaning go. The final question is are you the one god or are you within the one god. It'll always loop around to this.

This is true, yes what would we be debating, we would be going around in circles. Yes its logical , yes it's logical , so that makes it illogical, yes it's logical, but it's logical to me, but that means it's illogical to to you and not logical to me , then yes it's logical Lol this would be our conversation, and we'd end up right back in the same place its like i said, i don't know how to disprove logic, logically. I did it through mystical experience. The simple answer, is that if everything is logical one, you can't actually make distinctions about anything which is true. Therefore by default what has the mind actually created to base it's logic on? its based it on assumptions about there was such thing as a distinction. Also, its like inlytened1 disproved quantum physics with evidence, however you never accepted it. ahaha whats your credibility based on? experimental evidence of your experience changing, which is envoked by practice. so do the practices, contemplate .... what is logic, what is a point of reference, what is evidence, what is the assumptions science is based on, what is an atom, what is perception, what is religion, what are neurones, what is illogical, what is duality , what is non-duality, what is experience, what is credibility of professionalism based on, what is survival of a subject, what are the contradictions between different subjects, what is the history of that subject, what is understanding, what is a symbol , what is language , what is sentences ,what is bias , what is metaphysics, what is subjective , what is objective, How much is each subject subjective, what is debate, what is ideology, what is time, what is real , what is not real , what is a theory, what is actuality, what is limited perspectives effect on results, what is interpretation , what is a point, what is correlation, what is true, what is false, what is cultural warfare, what is business, what is money, what is funding for experiment, what is the point of cutting edge resources happening at university, what is journalism, what is Darwinism, what is evolution, what is differentiation in subject branches, what is occultism, what is the problems of the world, what can materialism do to solve these issues, can it solve all of them, what is happiness, what is suffering , what is desire, why can two scientist disagree on the same subjects. Answer all of this and find the connection between all of these, i've sliced reality into certain segments to give you a certain picture. add any other variables you feel you need to, but just use this as the core of your contemplation from scratch. Like your learning all over again, but being skeptical of its validity now. Also yeah i only assume i know what you know because that's the only way to communicate with people LOL , i can't ever know 100% of what you know, i can at best only guess.

@possibilities Yeah i'm not getting banned for having this conversation. not getting banned is worth a lot more than 10,000 sorry. I told you the answer for free. Nobody can persuade you ,except yourself. Bye @Kushu2000 here's a paradox for you to solve, if you lost half of your brain, would this have changed the feeling of being alive itself? if you answer no, then what your saying is that consciousness itself has not changed. Therefore consciousness has nothing to do with the brain.

Yes, but its ultimately a model of "traits" that people fall into, which is emphasised by being in a society. Your young bro, would definitely try being alpha for a while, to see how useful/useless it is There's nothing wrong with it at a young age, you will actually come out with less mental problems, However in my opinion, it'll just back fire in the latter ages of life, when you realised you could have sat by a tree and smelled some flowers instead of having to constantly work yourself in a gym to uphold an image as majority of people going gym do. its subjective, however ... its neither right nor wrong it exists because you say it exists and an authority figure i.e biology professors ,psychologist and joe rogan told you exist. If you don't want it to exist then you simply have to stop believing it is a real thing. The question is how? and that is the fine work of self-actualising yourself so its great you asked this question

@SOUL Yup that's life, its not fortunate... they both come with a double edge sword, it's just about deciding which one is for you. You will never have the experience of dying from being overweight and over indulging in gluttony. This is one of the double -edges of enlightenment. Similarly, the double-edge of the latter is you will never have infinite liberation and be constantly in peace ahahaha maybe i could have used a better example, i choose to be funny at the wrong times

@possibilities I don't want to go off topic from the thread, so i'll say this I editted my post, i meant posts relating to new profound theories and insights about the nature of consciousness, not normal posts replying to people. Thanks for letting me know that people will misread it. I appreciate it. Just by you saying this is enough for me to know you mean it, which is good So this is the impact you wish to have? Sorting out other peoples ideas etc is a nice thing to do. However, if you haven't experienced god lets say, what grounds can you give to justify that another person's absolute is actually not the absolute? offended because it comes from the materialist paradigm. Yes its a possibility for god, its impossible to question god from a materialistic paradigm. So what doubt are you putting in others? instead, of helping them progress? To doubt something, is not to think of it as absolute and to progress you need to understand the absolute is the absolute and there is nothing else The logic remark is this, all logic is actually illogical when viewed from an abstract perspective. As it does not fit within its own realms of logic. for example, if i tell you that apples are actually blue in colour Your logic will reject this comment, when i'm being 100% serious that apples are blue in A reality. How will you then go forward and try to be skeptical of this from your logic framework. It's actually impossible. You would have to build a new frame work (an illogical framework) which then if proved to be correct after experimentation will become your new referential framework The second piece of logic is this: Just as you see my blind spots, i see yours. This is the beauty of projection. The very thing that someone says is a projection of faleshood in their own mind. Which means, anything can be argued against. Anything except the absolute. So if a person arguing from the perspective of the absolute is actually not speaking from logic or falsehood. You must be skeptical of the degree of correctness, if it's higher than yours, you accept it and take it as your new absolute. If it's not, then you reject it. However, the trick is we accept/ reject something from the very paradigm we operate from ourselves. Meaning that logic will not work. On the other hand, you are not incorrect either. Nobody has disproved to you how logic is inadequate, they've merely stated it won't work. So i'll tell you directly. No words from another human being can prove your own mind wrong. You yourself must see how logic is inadequate and that can only be done by quieting the mind and having a mystical experience. To show the mind can not get you there or you have to find the limitations of logic itself. Which is the study of epistemology/metaphysics and logical positivism. I reached the conclusion through the former as most others have, you are trying to reach the conclusion through the latter. Which others on this forum, have not studied enough philosophy to guide you to, except Leo. As a result, people suggest to you the former, which their absolutes revolves around. Therefore they aren't incorrect, they're just not giving you what you want. You want knowledge to break down knowledge and to do that you have to watch leo's main body of work, which is the entirety of all his video's put together with careful contemplation. Similarly you may look in his book list for the godel, esher and ba and this will help you. What these philosophers show is a theory as to how knowledge is incomplete. or if you want a shortcut without reading the books, leo has already made a video about the major implications v