r0ckyreed

The goal isn’t to feel happy all the time. It is a simple thought experiment. If your loved ones are hurt and are going to die, you want to feel something other than a blissful smile. Extreme bliss is dysfunctional.

No. if your girlfriend is cheating on you, would you rather know the Truth or live a lie? I think bliss 24/7 is unhealthy. If your girlfriend is cheating on you, it is okay to be angry. If you are going on an adventure, it is okay to feel fear. All emotions are valid and have their own unique strengths. This Buddhist dogma nonsense is getting on my nerves.

What spirituality can there be if you cannot discipline yourself to read a book, meditate for 10 minutes a day, exercise, etc.?

Buddhism is just wrong. Desire/passion isn’t the cause of suffering. It is the opposite!!! Apathy and dispassion!!! Just think it through.

They are the same.

No human understands what God is. God is too profound for the human intellect.

I think that both sides are talking over each other. I disagree slightly because he is saying that after 10 years we will find passion and that is not a good gamble. If you are not passionate about piano, you ain’t gonna practice crap unless something external forces you. But on the other hand, you need a passion/purpose to get started, but you cannot expect yourself to be passionate during every training session. You need to go through challenge and pain to get good. But you should still be going towards what you are interested in mastering. I could play the piano and get really good at it if I wanted to. But I have no desire to. I don’t even think it’s worth my time. That is it right there in what I just said. You have to follow what you find most worth your time. If you are not having fun, then stop. You aren’t actually going to get that much better if you have to force yourself. That is where that guy is wrong. You can climb the wrong ladder all you want. I don’t want to climb a ladder for 10 years only realizing that mastering piano isn’t what I’m passionate about. The guy equates expertise with developing passion. That is not necessarily true. It starts first with passion. You have to want to get good at something. That’s what you are missing. I got a short clip for you.

I know you have your experiences. It just seems like question begging that you have been wrong in the past, so what makes you so sure that your highest awakening isn’t the highest deception? I mean if we take the nonduality logic on, everything is one and equals everything. That applies to truth being falsehood and awakening being a deception. That means that all dualities collapse including your highest awakening being your highest self-deception????????

But sleep isn’t even experienced? It feels almost like Waiting mode on Skyrim. If I am in a car, I experience sleep as fast travel. It feels like I have never not-lived. A time before birth is not even something that can be conceived. Consciousness abhors a vacuum.

There are no such things as souls.

There are only wise actions. No amount of words can make you more wise. Knowledgeable, yes, but wise? No. Wisdom requires experience and experience requires action. What kind of wise action are you gonna take?

You don’t know. If it feels right and makes you happy, you can bet that it isn’t Truth.

If only you could apply this same logic to self and other. Realizing that there is only the Self and no other. Just change subject and object to self and other and you’ll have: “Self and other is a duality that is not actually found in direct experience. Self on the other hand is self-evident.”

Being mentally gullible and foolish isn’t the same as being openminded. You entertain possibilities until you realize that some possibilities aren’t worth your time entertaining. How do you know when that time is? By being openminded first and exploring and realizing that Andrew Tate is not a good person to follow.

Because God is EVERYTHING!!!!

There is no edge of the Universe. The Universe is your experience. A supernova is your experience. You imagining a supernova is also your experience. You cannot get past consciousness. The question already assumes that a tree and forest exist without being perceived; therefore, a sound exists without being heard by the mere logic of the question. If X exists without being seen, then Y exists without being heard because Y always follows X. That is the logic. The assumption isn't that what is not direct perceived doesn't exist. It is that there is stuff that exists that cannot be perceived. Sound by its mere definition is a perception! If you cannot perceive sound, then sound does not exist. Soundwaves may still exist if you can perceive them, but the qualia of sound won't. You can only know through Consciousness!! The teapot will exist as consciousness. Whether the teapot is consciousness in matter form or idea is the question. But a teapot without form is a teapot that does not exist because the definition of a teapot is something that is observable and has definition and emptiness to it. Things exist as they are imagined to exist. A teapot that does not hold tea is not a teapot. A room with no space and walls is no longer a room. Being perceived has everything to do with existence. If you cannot perceive colors, they cease to exist. If you cannot perceive sounds, music ceases to exist. Everything that you associate with existence is a perception!! You could think of death as the cessation of all perception/experience. That's what you really fear. Now, what is the evidence that perception = reality? Well, that is a contradiction because all evidence is going to be a perception! Perception is more fundamental than evidence. Evidence is an idea and is completely subjective and occurring within one's own perceptions! Consciousness is your evidence. Exactly. The inference of the consciousness of another is the same as if there was no other consciousness. There is only ONE Experience happening. Instead of claiming there is an invisible china teapot that cannot be observed, the simplest explanation is saying there is no teapot at all. The same applies to the inference of other minds. Rather than making claims that there are other consciousnesses that cannot be observed, just stick to the basic facts that Perception is Reality.

What does it even mean for something to exist that cannot be perceived or observed? There is a China Teapot that is floating around Earth right now. But you cannot perceive it at all. How is that any different than there being no teapot at all? If you cannot observe the consciousness of your girlfriend, what difference is there? How is that speculation/inference any different than an Invisible God or the China Teapot? You are just not conscious of Absolute Solipsism.

Just read Leo's blog post on Science Fraud. While I agree that science, like spirituality and like EVERYTHING ELSE, can and will be corrupted by humans. Of course, fabrication is not something science is immune from. Spirituality is also fabricated!!! Look at how many people post that they are awake like it's a f**king new scientific breakthrough, when in reality, their minds are just fabricating themselves deeper into the matrix. Sometimes, I see this with Leo when he has made grandiose claims in the past such as the healing powers of consciousness, water fasting, etc. I think I understand why Leo makes the grandiose claims at times, because he wants to get people excited and invested in the process of deconstructing reality. The issue is that people fall in love with a fantasy of consciousness and not the reality of it. Just like how Leo was super hyped about the idea of water fasting only to find out the reality of it was abysmal and over-hyped. I see the same with meditation. People claim meditation will enlighten you but it doesn't. Meditation in moderation is beneficial, but these 10 day retreats are so over-hyped. I haven't tried psychedelics, but I can assume it may probably be the same thing. Everything is so over-hyped that when you get to it, it is like what is the big deal. This happens with sex, alcohol, drugs, spirituality, you name it. Back to the main point here, science is our way of discovering what is true. Leo's fabrication of his scientific results from blog post that he did for a school project is not real science. Now, you could argue with me that there is no boundary between science and pseudoscience, but your lack of making nuanced distinctions isn't actually making you any smarter. You could even argue with me that there is no such thing as smart or dumb because foolishness and wisdom are one. Hahaha this is exactly the definition of a fool. Nobody ever really has contemplated what a fool even is. A fool is simply consciousness without distinctions. When a mind lacks the ability to make distinctions, it lacks the ability to observe the fine-tuned differences between things in reality. Part of oneness is recognizing difference. A fool will lack the ability to make distinctions whereas a wise person does not. A perfect example of this is race. A Trump is foolish because they cannot make distinctions between what is corruption and what is not. They will conflate all black people together for instance or they will deny race all-together (i.e., color-blindness). Just like Leo said there is Proper Philosophy and improper philosophy, there is also Serious Science and improper science. You cannot do Serious Science as long as you are influenced by money. The issue I have is that when Leo is critiquing science, he is never critiquing Serious Science but stupid/improper science. A one-sided analysis of critiquing stupid science is a biased way of critiquing science as a whole. Serious Science is the same as what has been called Proper Philosophy. There is no Serious Science without Proper Philosophy. We should not even call mainstream, corporate, and university "science" even Science because it is not Serious Science. When you are making critiques of "science," you really are critiquing stupid science and not Serious Science. Serious Science is the process of critiquing the stupid science that is spewed everywhere and calling out that stupid science is not even science at all. That's like me saying that meditation is the same as Serious Spirituality when in reality it is just a navel gazing merry-go-round that won't get you anywhere. And of course, a Zen teacher will tell you there is nowhere to go! Because with that 40 year meditation practice, there will be nowhere to go! When you spend 40 years sitting on your butt and counting your breaths, you existentially connect to one thing and disconnect from another. EDIT: I am coining the term Serious Science, and I may post a video or article here articulating more of what that entails. It's too much to explicate here.

But didn't you do this with Proper Philosophy? What epistemic basis is there for making any distinction? There is wise science and foolish science. It would be foolish to conflate the two together. Sometimes, we have to take action and make distinctions before we have the right knowledge. It seems like your critiques are towards foolish science and the social system of it. You seem like an advocate for Truth, which is the hallmark for science. Okay. We are in agreement. My whole thing is that we have to make distinctions; otherwise, there is nothing we can talk about or critique. And we may not have any epistemic basis right now, but we have to start off somewhere. We have to make a distinction between True Science and pseudoscience. I mean, the same could be said about Spirituality where people conflate Actualized.org with being a cult. But those people are fools because their definitions, distinctions, and understanding would be so limiting to not draw distinctions between spirituality, religion, and cults. They aren't the same. Science should not be excluded from this. There is science and pseudoscience and there is corrupt science and authentic science. It is hard to pinpoint what counts as science or pseudoscience, but we cannot just assume that everyone who claims they are doing science is doing science. That is one of the reasons why we have scientific fraud. But on the other hand, science like religion is so broad that even atheists overlook it. When they say they are "men of science," which science? Shamanism? Psychedelic science? Academic science? Corporate science? And when they say that "religion is the root of all evil," which religion(s)? I feel like people's view of science is so narrow and focuses on academic science. That is like a person focusing solely on Christianity when it comes to religion. Like when someone hears the word science, academic/mainstream science could be the first thing that comes to mind and Christianity with religion. Our concepts of science and religion are so broad that it is hard to critique and deconstruct it without finding a common ground. The common ground with religion that I notice is groupthink. There is no religion without a group. Whereas, science is more flexible and can operate in groups like in academic science or can be an independent practice. Science is about curiosity and investigation whereas religion is mainly about belief and conformity. And sure, there is overlap between the two where a religious person can be curious and a scientist can be a conformist (especially when it comes to academic/mainstream science), etc. etc.

It’s funny how my take on psychedelics was the only thing taken from the thread. Psychedelics are so overhyped. Drug intake does not equal understanding of reality. There are plenty of people who use psychedelics and become more deluded. You are missing something. Psychedelics are a hallucination. I can count on the hands of every churchgoer how many people I know who use psychedelics but have no better understanding of reality than I do. Contemplation is the ultimate tool for Serious Science. No amount of psychedelics will increase your understanding of reality if you lack the skill of contemplation.

The best art is immaterial. The best art is your awakening.

The best art is immaterial. The best art is your awakening.

Glitches don’t exist. Everything in the Universe is intelligently designed for a reason. Glitches are your perception. Reality doesn’t have any. What makes something a glitch or part of reality is subjective.

Do you mean loose or lose? If you mean loose, then yes, I agree. You should strive to be loose, relaxed, and calm while also being ambitious and energetic. If you mean lose, then I disagree and so would Andrew Tate. He doesn’t tolerate losers and poor chess players. You shouldn’t either. You should strive to be a winner and be loose and relaxed while you win. True winners don’t make a big deal out of victory because they are so used to it.

My thoughts on death go back and forth. On the one hand, I define it as losing all of your senses, but on the other hand, I also see how death, nothing, and nonexistence don’t actually exist. The ideas of death exist, but death does not exist as an actuality. How can nonexistence exist?