Osaid

The different ratios of fructose would impact blood sugar and metabolism differently. Honey is mostly fructose, which has a lower impact on blood sugar than sucrose. Interesting, I didn't even know white sugar still had starch in it. But on the other hand, orange juice would have a different ratio of fructose and fiber or whatever else, but at the same time, what grocery stores consider to be orange juice is essentially just diluted sugar syrup created through orange juice concentrate. The affect of starch on blood sugar is not much of a concern when it comes to whole foods, because it always occurs alongside lots of fiber and other nutrients in nature which keep blood sugar stable; potatoes, wheat, etc. I would say this is only worth considering when it comes to pure or added starch. Otherwise, there is much more nuance to sift through, like how pasta causes lower blood sugar than bread which uses same flour, or even just depending on how you cook it.

You ultimately have to reconcile that there is no difference between anything that is experienced and what is absolute. It is mostly just a scenario where you are seeing a rope as a snake, so to speak. And you have to recognize the rope as the rope. The rope is absolute, not the snake. There are no objects in any experience, even if you think there are. There are no snakes in any experience, even if you think there are. You are already "being the thing itself", you just think that you aren't. The goal is to find out why you think that, and how you think it. You are already directly conscious of everything, you just think that you aren't. There is no alternative to being directly conscious. If there was a flux in "being something" and "not being something", that would be a duality. You can absolutely know what your perception is, because you are perceiving it. It is all in front of you. It is you. Your experience can't hide anything from you because you are it. You can't partially perceive a color or sound, you can either perceive color or you can either perceive sound. Awareness is never partial about what it is aware of. So then, what are you currently aware of as yourself? Your current experience always has the answer, you just have to question it. There is no such thing as anything relative in experience, just the thought of it. The thought itself is infinite too, where is the edge of your thought? The location of it? The distinction of it?

What is the difference between experience and direct consciousness? How can you experience something indirectly? I would normally refrain from creating rationalities, but it seems you have rationalized some kind of distinction between experience and enlightenment. I am explaining to you how enlightenment seemingly occurs within all experiences, since that was related to the contention you brought up. I agree that enlightenment is not a state or transient experience since that would create a duality, but again, it manages to exist within all of those things because it is always the case, so that needs to be reconciled.

Replacing pure sugar is actually very very easy in and of itself. You can replace it with sugar alcohols like monk fruit or erythritol which taste the exact same as normal sugar and have zero effect on blood sugar, or use something like honey. Many companies have started using such ingredients in their products as well. There is really not much need for it in your household at all.

It's fine, if you enjoy discussing hypotheticals that don't exist.

I am just describing my current experience. I use intellect to untangle you from intellect, not push you deeper into it. If you wanna save someone that is trapped in a jungle, you have to traverse that jungle to do it.

Everything that exists is experience by definition, so how can something which is permanent like enlightenment fit into something transient like experience? Very simply, it is a subtraction. It is a lack of false identity. A lack of something can exist in all experiences. If you're not seeing the color red, is "not seeing red" an experience? If you are not seeing a false identity, is that an experience or a state? Is it an experience to not experience something? Is the lack of something, an experience?

I also want to make it clear that Leo is literally teaching you guys that experience is dualistic. Like he straight up does not believe experience is non-dual. I am not being semantic about this. He has abandoned basic non-duality, that is what my point is. He is literally teaching dualisms, and always has been, because he is not enlightened. I am trying to point out that he has literally abandoned the fundamental idea that your experience is "one, not two."

It's not a teaching. You can literally become aware of exactly what your experience is, permanently. It is awareness of what your experience is, just like being aware of sound or sight or taste. There is an objective experiential shift that can happen where you become aware of this. It is not a teaching or a claim or an insight or anything intellectual. I am telling you that I became aware of something in my experience, and that this is the exact same awareness that non-duality, Buddhism, and all the other enlightened teachers before me have been pointing to. They are all pointing to the same thing, and they have been for centuries. Leo has not become aware of what they have been pointing to and he has tricked himself into thinking that he has somehow transcended it or found something more true through psychedelics. There is not a single enlightened person out there who agrees with Leo, and there is a very good reason for that.

More bangers: This resource he recommended is very good: https://www.reddit.com/r/nonduality/comments/17eoz51/when_we_really_feel_what_this_feels_like_that/ I want to add my own two cents to this, which is just to say that enlightenment is subtractive in nature, which is what it means to have no identity. You realize that it is impossible to have an identity, and your experience gets recontextualized in this way. It is not something you have to reason to yourself, it is something you become aware of. It is simply just realizing that you cannot think about yourself. This is a shift that can permanently and experientially happen, it is not some kind of knowledge you gain, it is a removal of false identification with knowledge. It also doesn't have to be scary at all, and it actually wasn't for me personally. That is just how the mind imagines it. The mind is unstable and shaky, not what is on the other side. Your beliefs about yourself are shaky and unstable, not the lack of it. It is a very simple experiential shift that happens. Any fear or emotions prior to it can come in an infinite variety, and it can be peaceful, scary, or even joyful.

If you do intermittent fasting, and pay very close attention to how the food makes you feel when you put it in your body, your diet will automatically solve itself. And yes, "removing sugar" is not really a worthwhile goal by itself. What does that even mean? Your body will naturally produce glucose in the absence of it. Moderating sugar by paying attention to your body is the way to go, not some overly logical and formulaic "no sugar allowed."

Neither is accurate because they are distinctions and dualities. The question makes no sense in the context of God, unless you anthropomorphize God. A lack of gender is equally a distinction and anthropomorphization as answering with a gender, because you are putting a limitation which says "God can't be this gender." People just assume that their questions make sense when in reality their questions only exist inside of their intellect. It is like asking: "Is God this distinction or that distinction?" No distinction will say what God is because those distinctions happen inside of God.

Spot on assessment from TimeIsMe: I know there are people who think that Leo has somehow reached a more advanced or transcendent level of enlightenment through psychedelic use, but no such thing really exists, it is just an intellectual trap. He has still not realized what "God" or "enlightenment" or "no self" is, however, he has traversed exotic states of consciousness which he conflates with God or truth. That is basically all you will get with psychedelics. His entire view of reality conflicts with basic non-duality, but he probably doesn't even believe non-duality to be the case anymore.

Immediately reminded me of this gem:

Unfair to who? The people who are bad at hating things? I don't think they care much.

It seems that there is a pattern. You have seekers here hooked by Leo's work. Some of them eventually become enlightened and then "turn" on Leo but still linger around haha. It is always the case that it is rare to get. I think that can change if it is communicated properly. I still think it is an anomaly that there are a few who have ended up on this forum. You are right though, most of the forum has assimilated all of Leo's ideas. The psychedelics can create powerful delusions.

The biggest plot twist ever when you realize that the explanation for reality is no explanation at all. The intellectual ego mind recoils at even the thought of such a revelation.

You don't have to be one, but you can be nice to one. If you make people happy, then they will make other people happy, which creates peace. Embodying love is good, but then how can you practically do that? Thinking about how loving you are is not love, it is just thinking. What can you do about it? I think peace can be simple. If you are in a pleasant mood, you will automatically interact with the things around you in a pleasant way. This can involve being nice to a cashier, or helping an injured kitten on a road. There is no need to think about how loving you are when you are being loving.

I needed a few more rounds in Leo's wonderland before I was done with it.

I remember reading this thread and thinking you were deluded for thinking that some random state of nothingness was the explanation for all of reality hahaha. How things change.

You do seem insane to me. You are interpreting things around you in a very idealistic and fantastical way. Your ideas about spirituality and saving people stand out to me. I think it is worth questioning more deeply what you want to do with yourself. How are other people going to take your approach? Has someone else tried your approach before you? I like the intention of making a peaceful world. Instead of trying to become an MMA fighter, wouldn't being nice to the cashier at the store be more realistic and practical in making a difference?

The color red analogy, my ultimate trump card.

I don't disapprove of him, I was just pointing out the fixation on him. I think he is enlightened for what it is worth. It makes it much easier to discern. I am just saying I don't see anything really indicating it here. Maybe he is, but nothing here indicates that to me, and so I don't see a reason to think that he is.

Maybe later on, haha. I will probably be much more careful about how I introduce it, I probably won't even use the word enlightenment because people have so many ideas around that term already. I only use that term on this forum because I think people are more receptive to that kind of spiritual vocabulary here.

Maybe he is an insightful person, I'm not discounting all his stuff, but enlightenment is its own thing which should not be conflated with the stuff he is teaching, which seems to be a mix of buddhist teachings and energy work. I am enlightened, that is why I am so adamant about making the distinction between someone who is and isn't enlightened.