Synchronicity

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    416

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Synchronicity

  4. Posted

    @Inliytened1 Hey! Hope you’ve been doing well

    Since you’re one of the mods, I’ll run this by you

    I don’t want this video to start a Nonduality war. I only want my testimony to open people’s minds to further possibilities to discover 

    So if this thread turns into a close-minded fight, go ahead and lock 

    And everyone, again, be open to what Leo says. But also be open to what else there could be for you to discover on your own?

  5. Posted

    2 minutes ago, Pacific Sage said:

    Absolute is non dual, and also the rules say non dual wars not allowed, so not sure why there's so much emphasis on Solipsism being the absolute these days.

    Yes, definitely a healthy thing to remember 

    And along those lines, don’t let my video be a call to war either. Just let it open up your mind to a strange possibility 

    Be open to what Leo says, but also be open to what else there could be. And then, you discover it for yourself 

  6. Posted

    19 minutes ago, GreenWoods said:

    Hey Ethan!

    In the screenshot you just shared, are you basically saying that it is possible that all of Infinity can collapse into one single experience/bubble/Consciousness, for example the experience of Leo on 5meo, and that in that moment there is truly nothing outside of that Consciousness?

    Yes, exactly. So be open to what Leo says, but also be open to what I say 

    It’s possible to prove one of us wrong. So just be open to your own discoveries 

  11. Posted

    I’m sure there will be quite a few people here who will have some great books and resources to recommend. So on top of that, I’ll add having a deeply epistemological discussion with other people as a good technique to have your own views or biases reflected back on you. Each person in the convo acts as a mirror to each other. But there’s no judgement against certain ideas. Just a mutual investigation of them. 
     

    I do this with a few people - sometimes in a group - and it seems to create a lot of healthy openness as well as introspection. 

  12. Posted

    26 minutes ago, WokeBloke said:

    I guess my argument stems on the fact that if you back infinitely then that means you literally must go back infinitely. So imagine the present moment is at point 0 on a number line.

    Infinite past means go in the negative direction forever and never stop. Since infinity can never be reached one would always have to keep going back further and further. If one does this forever then one would never actually be able to begin going forward to get back to the 0 point since one has to keep going back forever. Thus if one goes back forever then one can never begin going forward. 

    My intuition is the past is finite and will always be finite. Its an absolutely massive finite quantity and it is ever growing but it is still finite. Thoughts?

    Oh yeah, your reasoning is definitely accurate! It’s a solid proposal. 

    All I’m saying is that as ridiculous as the notion of a beginning-less past reaching the present point 0 is, there are models that are powerful enough to overcome that infinite distance in time. It’s like a paradox that actually has feasible solutions. 
     

    If you would like to talk more about those possible solutions, you can just DM and we can talk. Preferably a live-chat is better because texting this stuff gets very complicated 

  13. Posted

    @WokeBloke Your explanation is correct, very nice work! However, your argument is still missing a lot and there are many ways to disprove it. 
     

    To start off, your example of an infinite past reaching this present moment is similar to what’s called a “super task.” That’s an infinite number of tasks that converge on a limit (the limit here being the present now). 
     

    I can tell that you haven’t taken any higher-level mathematics courses involving infinite sets and series because there are certainly mathematical models for overcoming these super-tasks (even if they have no beginning like in your example). 
     

    I’m happy to explain these to you but that’s far too much to type out in a forum comment. Feel free to reach out if you’d like to talk more about those. 
     

    Besides math, there’s a couple other ways I can name off the top of my head that allow for an infinite past to reach a present point. One has to do with infinitely many derivatives of motion, which would allow for an infinite distance to be traversed in a finite amount of time and then adding an extra dimension of “meta-time” to allow for an infinite amount of time to be traversed. 
     

    But that also takes a long explanation. It’s like explaining physics to a flat-earther who thinks that a round Earth is impossible.
    So don’t be so certain that an infinite past is impossible. There’s many deep-subjects here that you’re bypassing. After all, your entire argument rests on arithmetic alone. So it’s not that high-powered of an argument. We can take it much deeper

     

     

     

  14. Posted

    18 hours ago, Adamq8 said:

    Actually deeply question this notion of that enlightenment is the ultimate truth.

    It can certainly be the most freeing thing i don't doubt that, but I do doubt that you can infer a ultimate status to it and that it somehow transcends mind is a thought, and ofcourse it matters what is meant when we say mind.

    I think this is a very valuable point. It does seem that many of us in the spiritual community place Enlightenment on a pedestal above everything else when we should all be open to more possibilities contained within Truth

  15. Posted

    My first-hand encounters suggest that reality does indeed include this stuff. So if my take is truly representative of reality as it is, then yes, reality is a singularity of infinitely many infinities similar to what @Someone here detailed above 

    People will say that there can’t exist infinitely many things because, for example, that means that there must exist a supernova so powerful that it blows up infinitely many Universes. Therefore, how are we still alive if such things exist?

    Well, that’s because reality would be so infinite that such a supernova could destroy infinitely many universes and there’d still be infinitely many more left over. So infinity accommodates itself so perfectly that it allows for the existence of anything and everything (including endlessly powerful supernovae). Though I do realize I’m saying all this without any evidence to offer. Just my first-hand take

  16. Posted

    11 hours ago, Someone here said:

    "non-existence" doesn't exist. By definition. 

    boom

    10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

    Infinity cannot die because it literally has nowhere else to go. Infinity exists in all places at once, including no-place. Anywhere you imagine Infinity might go to upon death, it's already there!

    and boom

    I like both those responses^^^ Now yes, there are people like Frank who say that nonexistence is real and furthermore, that it’s an achievable realization through practice. I’m not invalidating this in any way. Cessation is certainly an actual realization and can be very valuable. 
     

    But I’ve had a discussion with Frank as well as many other zen practitioners and what I can say is that what they call “nonexistence” isn’t some Universal End where everything ceases to be. 

    We’ve all heard the old zen proverb, “before Enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After Enlightenment, chop wood and carry water.” So rather than some Universal End to all of existence, cessation integrates into every activity. Nirvana = Samsara

    You fuse it with life itself and integrate it. You still exist to chop wood and carry water. The cessation just becomes One with that activity. If Cessation were instead, some Universal End to everything, then there’d be no more chopping wood or carrying water.
    But notice that no serious zen teacher describes cessation as an escape from existence where everything ceases to be. Instead, you still exist to chop wood and carry water. 
     

    So in a strict Stage Orange philosophical context, what Frank Yang and zen masters call “nonexistence” is still a part of existence.
    It’s just that what we’re calling “existence” here is an infinite singularity that contains everything, including what those zen masters label as “existence,” “nonexistence,” “both,” “neither,” “cessation” etc. 

    It’s Pure Oneness/not-Oneness

    So the “cessation of Oneness” that Frank talks about is also included

    Hopefully that adds some valuable clarity to the subject @Adamq8 Just thought I’d give a detailed response on this since you requested my take
     

     

  17. Posted

    3 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

    @gettoefl God has no self to survive - but you are forgetting one important thing - it does take form - and it survives through your finite form, and it has biases through you....  It is YOU, so in a sense you have your own back bud :) 

    Very well put. Yep, the lack of biases is so total that it comes full circle on itself and experiences certain biases through certain forms. 

  18. Posted

    1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

    Of course if you corner them they will start to fess up and try to save themselves. The point is that they don't understand what they are talking about. The don't have a coherent metaphysics. But they basically picture reality as a giant computer crunching numbers behind the scenes. Which is laughable.

    Ask them this: Are quarks made out of mathematics or is mathematics made out of quarks? Are brains made out of mathematics or is mathematics made out of brains?

    Okay, I see what you’re saying now. Yeah I think you’re probably right there, if I were to ask them from that angle 

  19. Posted

     

    20 minutes ago, Endangered-EGO said:

    @Synchronicity Doesn't matter, they are too much into the symbols.

    Yes, they’re into the symbols. But what I meant was, they’re referring to what those symbols point to when they make such statements 

    17 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    By that logic then mathematics is no better than any other language. Which scientists and mathematicians would want to deny.

    The problem is that they don't accept that mathematics is merely language.

    No…they do accept that. I’ve spoken to many mathematics professors and so far, all of the ones spoken to accept that mathematics is a language.
     

    But what they do think, is that the language points to something fundamental about reality. So in that sense they think mathematics is fundamental.

    In their opinion, they think math is a language that points to something more fundamental because it’s built on equations and self-evidence rather than spoken languages like English, which are built on grammar and syntax. 

    Just explaining their side of the argument. Not saying I fully agree with it. But people here seem to not be understanding their side fully 

  20. Posted

    @Endangered-EGO Not saying I agree or disagree with the math professor but you’re misunderstanding what mathematicians mean when they say “reality is mathematics.” 
     

    They don’t mean that the mathematical language itself is reality. Instead, they mean that what the math points to is reality.
     

    After-all, if someone said, “a duck is an animal,” that doesn’t mean they’re saying that the word duck is an animal. What they mean is that the thing the word points to is an animal. 

  21. Posted

    4 minutes ago, Adamq8 said:

    Perhaps @Synchronicity can help you or atleast talk about it with you ?

     

    Yeah definitely happy to talk about this with anyone who’s interested. But I generally don’t do so here on the forum just cause it doesn’t really pertain to the consciousness-work done here. I know Leo likes to keep everything streamlined. So out of respect for this forum’s purpose, I won’t share here. But anyone can always feel free to DM! 

  22. Posted

    @johnlocke18 I understand your frustrations that there’s some things Leo has said in his videos that aren’t being acknowledged here. I’ll give an example just so everyone can understand why he’s still critiquing 

    In his Outrageous Experiments in Consciousness video, Leo mentioned all sorts of things that Unconditional Love is willing to experience from 1:36:50 - 1:37:20. One of them was, “are you willing to put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger?” 
     

    Now I understand that what Leo meant was, infinite consciousness is willing to undergo that and love that but still… you must see how that can be used as an explicit justification for spiritual suicide as a practice of unbiased love. Not saying I agree with that interpretation. But to say there’s nothing there that could lead one to suicide is irresponsible. 

    That’s why the OP’s frustrated. Nobody’s acknowledging statements as explicit as the one I just mentioned. Now I’ll give Leo the benefit of the doubt. He’s super-busy and makes long videos. So maybe, just maybe he’s forgotten making such statements or maybe he doesn’t see how explicit they are 

    I’m not telling Leo to change his teachings but these are just some things present within them that lead to these kinds of critiques. But look… if everyone thinks that such criticism is a distraction to the work on this forum, then I’ll offer my services. Just give me a role to answer to these criticisms so that they’re not distracting everyone. I’ve handled tons of situations like this already, if this is deemed necessary. Not asking for that role, just offering it if it helps

  23. Posted

    @Adamq8 I thought as a moderator, it was your duty to be making sure that everyone’s having a healthy and open discussion.

    So why are most of the mods laughing at criticisms of Leo…

    51 minutes ago, Adamq8 said:

    Haha here comes the adeptus squad watch out ??

    and telling people to keep quiet about them? This forum’s just getting more toxic, in my opinion 

  24. Posted

    @InsecureAnon I’m going to list a lot of examples just because that’ll work best in making you feel better about what’s possible. Take the time to read these. I’m not denying that height preferences exist for some women but there’s a whole other side of the coin that’s there…

    I was a gymnast at the University I just graduated from a year ago. So I’ve been around tons of shorter athletes my entire life. I’m about 5’7” - 5’8” (170 - 173) and I’m tall for an elite gymnast. A lot of my teammates were 5’4” - 5’5” (163 - 166) Let me tell you what I’ve seen from hanging around these people day and night…

    1. The best on the team is competing at the Tokyo Olympics right now. Yul Moldauer (look him up). His girlfriend for the past two years (so, long before he became an Olympian) is the hottest cheerleader on campus.
    Yul’s 5’3” (160 cm) and is East Asian in ethnicity. Those are two negatively judged stereotypes when it comes to sexual attraction. Yet, his girlfriend is about 5’7”, blonde, blue-eyed, and full-figured. 
     

    2. On that note of college cheerleaders, whenever any of the college athletic teams would throw parties, the cheerleaders always came to the gymnast parties. Not the basketball parties, not the rowing parties, not even the football parties. Always the gymnasts’ 

    And yes, quite of few of them would get laid. Not only that, but five of my teammates entered relationships with some of the cheerleaders. 
     

    3. Normally, gymnasts are ripped like you describe yourself. Yet, one of my best friends is 5’5” as well as dead-average in build and looks. He’s the epitome of a 5/10. Yet, during his time in Uni, he had three different relationships that each lasted for about a year. One girl was his height while the other two were slightly taller. All of them were hot and none of them were even petite. So he didn’t even have to resort to restricting his standards to exclusively petite girls. 
     

    4. My family’s short enough to where I’m the tall one out of us. My brother’s 5’2” (158 cm) and in-person, I saw a sorority girl ask him out. She was my height, green-eyed, and very beautiful. 
     

    5. For this final example, I’m gonna use myself. Throughout college, I had all these outstanding examples around me, showing me that height-preferences could be beaten. Yet, I ignored them all. I myself never got a girlfriend while in college.
    Like you, I was convinced my height played a major factor. I became so acclimated to seeing the examples I’ve listed above that I didn’t even apply them to myself. Now, I look back over all those successful examples and realize that my vision was clouded. All the evidence was happening around me everywhere. 
     

    Finally, what I’d like to say is that - if none of these examples help - realize that you’re living in the 21st century. Stem-cell research is HUGE right now and there’s some doctors saying that stem-cells could be injected into growth platelets to revamp natural growth in adults. 
     

    Now, nobody knows how long it’ll be until that becomes an affordable reality but I’m guessing you’re pretty young and technology’s moving fast. It’s possible that this becomes something sooner rather than later. 
     

    In addition, the general populace is also becoming increasingly conscious of its biases and preferences such that more women are giving shorter men a chance. You’re lucky to be here in the 21st century. You’ll be safe and sound 

  25. Posted

    @SQAAD you’re not gonna find anyone on this forum who deals with these concerns because it’s not their niche. However, these types of brutal spiritual subjects are in fact, my niche.
     

    There’s other places which are a lot more accommodating towards these subjects than this forum. I think you’re beating a dead horse by staying here. I’d point you to better communities that have more expertise on this subject but I’m not allowed to, as per forum guidelines.