Ellenier

Yep

He usually makes good videos on science topics, but now he uploaded this: At about 40 mins in he talks about Leo (and also features Deepak Chopra and other ppl I don't know as well in his video). The first part about Deepak Chopra and some guy named "Spirit Science" on YT i actually found to be quite funny, but then as he goes on he tries to depict Leo as a cult leader and sociopath who's manipulating his viewers i. a. to kill themselves. Basically he takes parts of random actualized.org videos completely out of context in order to establish the narrative of a cult leader. You can clearly see that he has no clue about what Leo is talking about and that he's just projecting his own assumptions/concepts onto him. For example he says stuff like "quantum mechanics is the well he draws his lies from" which makes absolutely no sense or that Leo tries to convey to the viewers that his perspective is the absolute truth while other peoples perspectives are flawed (he calls it gaslighting while not even understanding what is meant by absolute truth). He also basically says that Leo is contradicting himself by saying he is god and that you are god too or by being omniscient and yet being surprised by his doorbell ringing in one of the live awakening vids. W/e, watch the part for yourself. I guess that's how materialists interprete this stuff and nonduality. Im actually a bit spooked b/c prof. Dave usually explains stuff like really good and he also does a great job at roasting flatearthers, but depicting actualized.org as a cult and so massively misinterpreting this stuff is pretty ooga booga and probably even dangerous (and shows that he doesn't even have a clue what he's talking about or that he's very closed-minded at the very least).

Amen to that ?? I think that's how it works, yeah. Not sure about his view on that; I think he has some QM related stuff, but I had enough after this video @fox_unit Yeah, my thoughts exactly. To someone who suggested that Leo encourages open-mindedness he wrote just 1h ago: "It's a cult. He's a cult leader. He does not encourage open-mindedness. He preaches solipsism and then says that if you don't accept what he says as absolute truth, that's your brain fighting what you secretly know to be true. It's clear as day." He's literally doing the same cult-psychology thing (of which he's accusing Leo of doing) in the same sentence lol.

Yeah, I think it's quite fascinating how he can actually have some (relatively) valid and rational criticique primarily regarding the other guys while at the same time just defending his emotional attachment to his materialistic POV. You can literally see how he's not neutraly analyzing there and just emotionally bashing any other perspective than materialism - he doesn't even try to understand what's said. But I don't think a discussion would do anything there. He's literally projecting that Leo wants his viewers to kill themselves, that's too far gone to even argue with, I guess. No. That's exactly what he says. Something like the brain is creating consciousness. When I watched that it hurt A LOT. Found it again ???: Exactly. There's actually not even a need for Dave to bash anything, since nobody is trying to convince him of anything. It's literally just ego bs, creating an emotionally loaded story to reinforce his own "true" perspective. And yeah, afaik there are some materialistic explanations of QM, but Leo doesn't even use QM in order to justify mysticism. Okay, the title "QM debunks materialism" is a bit click-baity but I just saw it as another pointer towards nonduality.

Yeah, reminds me of Leo's entry in the rationalwiki True, I just stumbled upon one of those a while ago and found it to be quite entertaining.

Can confirm. That's literally what got me my first deep awakening. I think I even watched Leos Neti-Neti video back then

Hey guys, again, I am in doubt of what the hack I'm actually doing and as usual, this is the perfect moment to seek confirmation on this forum So my question is: In which way do Jim Newman/Tony Parsons/Andreas Müller vs. "conventional teachers" such as Rupert Spira even talk about the same thing? Personally, I resonate more with the neo-advaita claims, since I feel sooooo sick of this "progression towards enlightenment thing" that always makes me feel like getting better and better but never reaching an end of the search. As a daily practice, I do self-inquiry. And these neo-advaita people confirm my doubts, like Tony Parsons makes fun of "conventional" teachers: "If you haven't found it yet, try harder/meditate even more/etc.) or Jim Newman laughing about even doing self-inquiry. Of course, these critique points have come to my mind, too and it is always like the neo-advaita people take the words right out of my mouth, when they criticize "conventional teachings" or trying to do anything to one day attain enlightenment. And because both parties seem to have so many problems with each other, I am again confused. Do they actually talk about the same thing? I mean, I miss kind of an acknowledgement for the other point of view on both sides. If they talked about the same thing, wouldn't they say "Yes, you can look at it, as if you can do nothing to bring about enlightenment OR you can somehow use your resources and if an apparent 'I' with free will appears, then talk to it, as if it could do anything about it. Both points are equally valid." But they don't do that. They rather criticize each other, as if the other approach didn't work out. Has one party had a specific realization that the other didn't? Hope you can clarify that for me Thanks very much

@Mu_ Thats also my biggest question. People like Tony Parsons, Jim Newman and Andreas Müller spent years meditating (when it comes to Parsons, I'm not that sure) and now they tell everyone that it did absolutely nothing? I'm sure they would not be in that position if they hadn't meditated. One the other hand, wasn't the awakening predetermined in the first place, so that the apparent human in his apparent story had to undergo years of meditation? @Nahm Of course the answer had to be like this @allislove Yeah I think that must be the case for (almost) all teachers.

That was a joke he mentions it in almost every single video

Let me introduce you to the analogy of John Smith and King Lear. I'm not sure, if you've already heard of it I really like Rupert and watch a lot of his videos and explanations. There's this one about grace vs. action that he made and it really appealed to me. But then there was Jim telling his audience something along the lines "it is all bs and self-deception" Thats the same concept I have about this enlightenment stuff

Thanks for your explanations Yeah, that's what I oftentimes think: That is already the case. The things I that dont like already appear in this space without judgement. My resistance against them is already appearing in this space without judgement. The fact that everything appears means that it has already been accepted without judgement. But somehow it isn't understood or embodied by this person. But then, why does Jim Newman for example deny that meditation/self-inquiry in any way contributes to an awakening or the final realization? Why doesn't he tell his audience that "yup, you are not the doer but if this "you" feels like doing self-inquiry, it will help, even if nobody does it and your feeling of having chosen to do it is illusory"?

If love would be just an emotion happening inside a human being, then yes, love would be imaginary as every other emotion and every other sensation as well. Thankfully love is not an emotion of a human being, it's actually the reason and the "engine" of creation(=imagination) itself. The love you might feel for another person is just a tiny sliver of this infinite love and you just misinterpret it as the experience of an emotion, while it's actually your true nature.

Hey guys, I know that in self inquiry I am not supposed to find myself...but nevertheless I feel stuck. I still don't know whether I'm doing it right. Im practising it for about nine months now and always try to start by observing who this diffuse feeling of "I" is. Where it is and what it is (sounds outrageous, I know ^^). Then a few months ago I "progressed" to seeing that anything I can get in front of the lense is an object and that an "I" is observing it. Wow, so shocking... I never touched the "I" of course because if I could drag it into my awareness it would become an object itself and would stop being me. But there was always still this inherent feeling of "I am here" that didnt leave me. Then I watched a few videos of Tony Parsons, Jim Newman and teachers (rather "non-teachers") like them and their radical message hit my emotions very hard. Of course I couldnt stop watching them but I'm sure you know what they say about being able to overcome oneself (that the "I" wants to know/be aware of the fact that it has gone beyond itself which is bullshit of course) but they somehow at least killed this belief of mine. Of course I couldnt stop seeking and then during my following self inquiry practise I found another interesting thing that the "I" which I couldnt overcome in the firstly (which always remained when it had disidentified every other object from itself) somehow seemed to be an object as well. I first had this recognition when I listened to music that there wasn't just the music appearing but that there was a second information at the location where the music was appearing that music/sound is appearing to "me" or to a "someone". So firstly music and secondly "I hear that". When I enquired into this it was kinda strange because there was still an I observing the information that music is heard by an I/someone. Is this another trap or a "progression"? And I still dont really know whether self inquiry is rather meant to be a self-abidance or what is the case? Until now I am still not quite sure whether I'm doing it right or whether I'm just stepping into one trap after the other. I feel like I can't find anything anymore. Shall I wait right there, where I watch everything and wait for the lightning to hit me? To me it feels more and more like doing everything wrong...Hope you guys can help me clarify for myself what is important for me to observe...Thanks very much!

@SoonHei Thanks for that explanation. Its helping and not helping me a lot And Morpheus: How bout stop looking for it?

@Display_Name Thanks, I'll try to! @Rilles Ah, right. I would say I have had some glimpses but nothing "manifest".

@Beginner Mind I'm currently at a point where I am glad for every disappointment as long as it reveals my wrong beliefs ^^

@Rilles For me, every glimpse fades after a couple of hours. It always leaves me with "This is not quite it". It has kinda become a joke that I tell myself in many situations even though its more a bitter realization - "This is not quite it". I dont expect the lasting transformation to have a significant effect on my feelings. At least I still hope it gets myself out of my own way in everyday life. Would be a huge relief.

@Beginner Mind I expect at least a fanfare orchestra well, okay but does this realization, as low-key as it might be, come in a moment or does it gradually uncover itself? @Aaron p okay so I guess I will have to give it a couple of years. Is there any reference on how long it takes for most people? @SoonHei Thats a good comparison (if I am in the position to judge ^^). But doesnt that again mean that whatever I try to do, it wont be a progress in finding what I truly am?

@nistake Yeah my mind loves to find distractions I suppose. So I get you right, that you say its more like a self-abidance after an initial question posed by the mind rather than dragging away everything thats "blocking" the screen? @Rilles I would say that I am existing in none of these senses though theyre attributed to a feeling of subjectivity that is not one of these senses @VeganAwake I dont know, maybe I should inquire into this all I have found until now is the feeling of "this" happening to "somebody" which doesnt necessarily have a foundation in what it claims but it appears as if it is true. @Beginner Mind Thats straight forward is it a process or more an epiphany like "eureka"?

@VeganAwake An apparent feeling of I seems to claim everything that happens for itself? And in the end its nobody?

@Rilles Mhmm. I try to describe it differently. At least I would say that I recognize the information that all of this is happening to a "somebody" as an object that I can perceive. Maybe it is just clearer to me when I listen to music because my mind then calms down more and it is happening closer to me because the music is "in my head". But I'm very sure that the information that "somebody is listening" is an object I can observe. I dont know where it is, it fills up the entire room i would say. The thing is: WHO knows that he can observe the information that there seems to be a "somebody". I dont get that... Is that described less confusing?

It truly is beautiful. B/c there's an imagination of this post by Inliytened within my imagination of being the human Ellenier. But since imagination is not bounded (imagination doesn't end with death, death is rather only one thing I am imagining) "my" essence of being is free to imagine everything, infinite possibilities and infinite lives. Therefore it's also able to imagine every human possible. So this very same essence will also live through the life of Inliytened for which Ellenier is nothing but imagination. Then our essence is literally identical, they're not "two essences" separate from each other, but ONE. Then we are not separated by space, but by the now (... and therefore we aren't separated at all lol). We're infinitely apart but still connected. And at the same time we're just imagination to begin with. Just as everything and everyone else is too. So isn't this true solipsism but at the same time on a weird, coincidental way no-solipsism as well? It feels like both for me. Like both options Leo gave simultaneously. How could it be only one?

the yopo seeds I bought were definitely not worth a try. You should better grow little plants from them for having a nice jungle ambiente. I havent extracted the 5-MeO from them but I think it is less than 5% or even just 2-3%. If you live in Europe, a trip to the Netherlands is more worth it

Hey guys! So after the police visit a couple of weeks ago I have died with just 18mg freebase (= ~21mg HCl) yesterday night for the second time (after last time I needed 37mg). I am pretty sure that you can decrease the amount with every "death" you experience to a point where you stay in that neither-dead-nor-alive state of being. I am pretty sure that you can make it to permanent liberation or enlightenment as Martin Ball would call it. Do you have any experience with that? If you have died enough, you should definitely stay in that state. And I also doubt that many years of meditation can do what one "deathly" dose of 5-MeO will do for you. I dont understand why people think, you cannot become enlightened with psychedelics. Its a pretty clear path I would say. Kill yourself over and over again until you dont need any more of the substance to do it for you. I mean you are already dead...

Thank you very much for your "hints" I guess I have just looked at this issue from a perspective that does include a "me". I think if I realize that I was never born, how could I ever die then? Will definitely contemplate on that.