Osaid

It is wild. Big cognitive dissonance. I think it happens from taking too many psychedelics. At some point he genuinely convinced himself that there is "more beyond the Absolute" and he just phrases it as "higher consciousness."

Does this mean that it is possible someday that you fully understand yourself? And you'll just be "done"? What is the difference between realizing that you are God/Infinity and realizing that you are an alien squirrel entity? Are they actually different realizations somehow? And why does the former take "less consciousness"?

Sounds like a very cool experience, happy for you. Thank you for this very important sentiment.

Yeah, one percent of Truth and God. Makes sense. So now we have to INCREASE to a higher percentage so that we can become MORE God. And how are you coming to that conclusion? Surely it's experiential and not intellectual? But wait, percentages only exist in contrast to other things. Uh oh. Right. Being human is anti-consciousness. Ok got it, hopefully one day my consciousness will become proper and not improper.

You don't understand either. You don't even know what the weather will be tomorrow. No I don't. That's not something you think. You do, otherwise you wouldn't have listed out everything else after. Yes, exactly. You don't know how things are going to unfold. It's open-ended. I think you are ungrounded. That's all. Get involved with people and nature or whatever else. There is more to life than this.

That's what your entire post is. It is possible to transcend this sentiment. I get it. You're bitter. But it is 100% possible. You do get glimpses of it. If it isn't working for you, leave it. Go do what you want. Connect with people. Build something. Or just rest.

I already previously tried to define it in this thread:

No, that's a story that you're imagining. That's not what consciousness is. So, consciousness lacks the consciousness to understand itself? Really? Oh ok, so that's what someone who understands reality looks like. I guess I missed the memo. No one is denying profundity, that's not the point.

This is some odd bias. The consciousness of a giraffe is also beyond human. Reality doesn't become more real when you stop being human. Also, enlightenment would exist in all states, not just human. It doesn't stop existing because it's not relative, unlike all your deeper and deeper awakenings.

Psychedelics are powerful in that way. It's not that mind-boggling in retrospect. Enlightenment is binary. He just never had that switch to enlightenment. As a result, whatever states he achieved through psychedelics will have to be metabolized by the unenlightened ego through memory and imagination. And so he has created some weird model of degrees of consciousness and meshed it with enlightenment.

No. It is the crux of Leo, you, and most of his followers. No. He experienced facets of it, which are not it. Just relative awakenings. That's why all his awakenings are split up and "deepen" over time. No. If the absolute is beyond those, that means that those are relative. Because "beyond" implies relativity. There is a serious conflation with the relative and the absolute happening here that psychedelic users seem to be blind to.

This video here is exactly what Leo does not realize yet. When he says that he found something beyond enlightenment, he is saying that he found something beyond the absolute, but he has somehow convinced himself that he is not doing this.

Sarcasm I was poking fun at Leo's standard that every teacher has to use the word "Love."

Nahhhh Ralston just aint conscious of God. That's why he didn't use the word God.

No. You've put enlightenment in a relative model of "higher" and "lower." Not possible because those are dualisms. You've been putting enlightening states on a pedestal this entire time, so you are doing the same thing with the phenomenon of enlightenment. You are assuming that it is inherent to some specific state or way of viewing things. What you teach really does not incorporate enlightenment at any level. It's just awakenings and radical states of consciousness. You're not understanding that "degrees of consciousness" have nothing to do with Truth or enlightenment or reality. You're like a scientist misinterpreting their results. Things are being conflated.

Basically. I guess it makes sense now why all enlightenments across history basically happened "sober" and without psychedelics. It just doesn't work ultimately. If you can't decipher the absolute simplicity of what is occuring in your sober baseline state then psychedelics are seriously going to warp your perception of what is true. All the same sober deceptions can occur with psychedelic states. Ralston predicted that years later Leo will wise up and see that it won't work. So we'll have to see if that ever happens I guess.

So weird how the unenlightened mind interprets one Truth/enlightenment as some limit on reality. It's one because it's infinite. It incorporates all of reality in a way you couldn't even imagine. The mind really is primed to just seek and seek forever, huh? But I've only seen this sentiment on this forum. It must be a psychedelic thing.

Impossible. You say this because you don't understand what enlightenment is. It's not something relative. There IS an absolute truth, which is truth/enlightenment. The end result of enlightenment is not a process or something humans achieve. That comes before. It is true that unenlightenment is a human phenomenon, but this does not touch on the Truth that is realized. You shouldn't be fooled by the relativity that enlightenment seems to be "wrapped" in. Really grock this: If you are not enlightened, then you cannot verify enlightenment, you can only verify IDEAS about enlightenment, because that is all that it exists as for you, since you are not enlightened. You've never achieved it, so what exactly are you verifying? You're taking psychedelics to verify something you're not even experiencing. It's not this simple.

It's not an idea. It seems simplistic from your perspective because for you it is an idea. Part of the deception is that anyone can claim they are enlightened. And if you're not enlightened yourself, all claims about enlightenment are equally real, because it is just an idea for you. Of course, I have considered this. But, you know, he talks about it in that video. He also makes it clear he doesn't want to entice people with that word. So it makes sense.

I don't know him very well, but this can't be the case if he is actually enlightened. I also don't trust your assessment that he "doesn't know what Love" is, because this is what you claimed of Ralston a few times in this thread, which I disagree with.

How many of Ralston's followers have had confused breakdowns about solipsism? And love? What about your followers? Are they becoming more enlightened than Ralston when they take psychedelics? Apply your own criticisms to yourself. You will find many frequent psychedelic users who are just batshit confused about their experiences, and looking to YOU for solace on their metaphysical insights. That's basically the gist of this entire forum. Because they are not even aware of what they are talking about. That is the dynamic here. But this also happens percisely because you are not aware of it as well. So it is ignorance and I am not blaming you. Your followers are blindly adopting your own words as well. This is not purely a Ralston phenomenon. This is a phenomenon of human psychology in general.

If you became enlightened you would have. Which is different from a secular awakening of course. It's just realizing what Truth is and then staying there forever. Ralston doesn't have to give any ideas on Love because you'll get the real thing when you're enlightened.

No. It's very nebulous, and purposefully so. That's exactly what you need. There is no accurate pointer to enlightenment, because it's just a pointer. Any way of describing it is not it. The dependency on pointers should be minimized as much as possible, because pointers are not it. Or else you get endless solipsism threads, as you see on the forum. You are going to lead people completely astray when you tell them to look for "love" instead of something like "truth/enlightenment." When someone hears love, their mind immediately fills with relative bullshit. When someone hears "truth/enlightenment", they think "Wait, truth? enlightenment? What's that? Where is it?"

He does, he just calls it "enlightenment" or "consciousness."

No, I know what he would say. It's at the beginning of this thread. He also straight up acknowledges it in the video, like I said before. I want to also say that I probably wouldn't tell someone "You can't be enlightened if you don't understand Love" outside of this forum, I am just catering to the vocabulary which has been developed here, as that would be misunderstood by most people.