Jg17

Member
  • Content count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jg17

  • Rank
    Newbie

Personal Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

246 profile views
  1. I’ve had similar experiences and am in a similar situation. I don’t know if I’ve ever fully broken through. I’m not sure I even know what breaking through means. It’s puzzling because the consensus is that the tried and tested psychedelics pose no physiological danger when done sensibly. People do them all the time and even report experiencing death, yet obviously something of them comes back alive to tell the tale. I’ve heard that the “physical body” is actually a concept and that surrendering to what seems like physical death of the body while on a psychedelic is in fact only the death of this concept. It definitely doesn’t feel like the death of a concept but that doesn’t really prove anything. To be able to accept that experience (I.e. not call an ambulance) while one is convinced one is dying must mean one is literally willing to risk bodily death, which seems suicidal. But that isn’t what we are doing here. There seems to be a contradiction between using psychedelics for a positive purpose and yet also being ready to accept actual death. I am absolutely not suicidal and yet it seems that that’s what is required. All I have right now is speculation. I imagine that if I ever did feel suicidal then at that point I’d be willing to take the leap of faith. Right now I’m attached to my life - is this my problem? But then I’d actually be open committing suicide, so how on earth could that be deemed a superior state than my present “attachment”? I have to conclude that my theory is all messed up. The crux of the issue for me is, if I am using psychedelics to improve my life then why would I take a leap of faith into potential death, meaning that I might actually be committing suicide, which is not my intention when tripping. @Leo Gura How do you resolve this ??
  2. @Mulky You’re still creating a division between the manifest actions of form and consciousness, implying that consciousness is some different “pure, underlying, true reality”. Form = consciousness, as @Inliytened1 said. Consciousness is the substance of everything, including learning, understanding, creating etc. There are different forms/states of consciousness but it’s all consciousness. The world and all aspects of your personal experience are consciousness.
  3. How exactly do you mean consciousness doesn’t exist?
  4. “Consciousness just observes” is the typical subject/object duality. There’s ultimately no “this” here which watches “that” over there. It’s all observed yet there’s no separate observer. The observer is also an object. Or all objects are identical to the subject. (It can be formulated in different ways.) Notice that the thing which you’re calling the observer is itself observed.
  5. The distinction between man made reality and actual reality is only relatively true. All three levels - the actual reality(1), man made computer game reality(2), game-character-made game within a computer game reality(3) - are aspects of the One Infinite reality. Computer games are in reality. Games within games are - obviously - in games, thus are in reality. All is Reality. A game character cannot create a more advanced game (level 3) within a game (level 2) because (3) is a possibilty implicit in (2). Similarly, the game (2) is a possibility within actual reality(1). In other words, you can't get more infinite than infinite! The character within the game cannot create a new game because everything he does is already part of the original game. Both creating a new game within the game and trying to understand the game he's in are possibile actions within the Infinite Game! Am I making sense?
  6. See the Understanding Duality series if you haven't already. Subject/object is the first duality addressed in part 3.
  7. @Leo Gura "The cause & effect chains of nature are impossible for your scientists to fully unravel because they were designed by an Infinite Intelligence which struggles to even know itself." Is this to say that Infinite Intelligence is in fact limited - finite - in at least this one way? If it desires to know but doesn't, why? It's similar to the idea that the one thing an omnipotent God lacks is limitation. And from that it follows that our reason for being is to resolve that contradiction? In this way man completes God: We are God, feigning limitation via self-deception, simultaneously finite and Infinite; Infinite in actuality, finite in appearence. And so God's struggle for self-knowledge is not different from mine and your struggle for self-knowledge? 'Can God create a lie so convincing even he is fooled?' seems a better version of 'Can God create a rock so heavy even he can't lift it?' What I'm hearing is that He/we/I did! What about a puzzle so difficult that even He can't solve it? Because that's been my experience thus far! I dunno.
  8. Sorry this is off topic from the thread but @mandyjw I clicked on the link to your channel for no reason and saw your vid titled Nonduality, Humpty Dumpty...”. I had the same ‘insight’ about the rhyme during my contemplation of sameness and difference, a couple weeks ago. I’ve never heard anyone else make the nonduality connection and thought it was quite funny. From my contemplation journal: 2/7/19 “Ha! incredible. It’s [Humpty Dumpty] damn near a 4 line creation myth hahah. Wikipedia says it’s a riddle - think I just solved it :)))” After that I listened to the rhyme on Spotify and heard a second verse with lyrics which were new to me and which add some further symbolic significance: “Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall, he wasn’t pushed and he wasn’t bumped, Humpty Dumpty bungee jumped.” It means God willed it! It was a choice - he didn’t slip unintentionally, he jumped. And he’s safe, he knew it was safe, he had the bungee cord tied to him all along, though it won’t feel like that while he’s falling I also associated this with the fall of Adam.
  9. If I say I’m going to throw a chair at you then I’m not going to throw a banana at you. If I say I’m going to throw God at you, it could be the chair or the banana
  10. @SOUL Everything other than a chair is the absence of a chair. Dual means two and “chair” implies theres something that is a chair and something that isn’t. This isn’t the case for God.
  11. @Rilles He can’t appeal to every personality at once. Think of how many people weren’t interested even before he spoke about spirituality. Nothing could be inviting for everyone. Some will resonate and some won’t. It doesn’t seem like you’re criticising “devil” because it inaccurately describes the phenomena. You said it’s offensive and open to misinterpretation. I think those are the responsibility of the listener, not the speaker.
  12. That’s a very abstract question. It depends on the context: how the word is used / in what sentence, who is talking and who is listening, and on the speakers intent and the listeners interpretation.@Rilles which is more offensive, pig or Neanderthal?
  13. @Rilles ego and survival machine are equally tainted or misleading terms, as is God. One has to use the language that’s available. The essence isn’t in the words anyway. There’s no perfect word that wouldn’t spawn misinterpretation.