Osaid

It's just a criteria you're making up, don't get too hung up on it. You could say it is a glimpse into what you are, but then I say that is all of reality. There are just certain experiences which make what you are more obvious, or that they change your beliefs about what you are to a radical degree, and then you say: "That experience was super mystical, because I realized a, b, and c about myself."

Nope, might have seen a few spirits/ghosts here and there, but that's more supernatural, and I personally wouldn't consider it relevant. There was lots of love, creativity, and wonder, but it wasn't to do with any "mystical experiences."

I might have worded that badly. I am just saying that the thing that you are scared of is just more imagination. It's not an actual transcendence of imagination that you're fearing. It's just another type of imagination to fear. As you said, you didn't actually "go all the way", so what you are fearing is simply another paradigm. It's the materialist paradigm being replaced by the laser paradigm, so to speak. Anyways, I personally wouldn't get attached to any idea like "reality is imaginary" either, that might not even be what was being shown, and that is basically just a story as well. Don't get too attached to descriptions of reality, they are just descriptions. My inquiry about vanilla ice cream was to ground you in your experience and highlight that whether you imagine lasers or physicality, at the end of the day, the perception of vanilla stays the same no matter what existential knowledge you have.

If a possibility exists, it is not a possibility anymore, it is just what exists. If humans could fly, it would exist, and so you would say: the fact that we cannot fly is now a limitation. And so you have created a koan for yourself, where everything always seems to be limited no matter what. If either case exists, you perceive a limit. But how exactly are you perceiving limits in the first place? Perhaps it is the perception of "all possibilities that exist" that creates limitation and is itself limitation? How is possibility perceived, anyways? Where is it perceived from? If humans that cannot fly do not exist, how is it possible to perceive a human which cannot fly as a limitation? Is it a limitation to not be something which does not exist? Is it infinite to be something that does not exist?

Why does the fact that there are lasers behind the scenes matter? Why is it more relevant than imagining that there is a physical reality behind the scenes? When you are eating vanilla ice cream, what does the knowledge of lasers have to do with the taste of vanilla? When you are eating vanilla ice cream, what does the knowledge that the ice cream is made of atoms have to do with the taste of vanilla? Do lasers hold the taste of vanilla together? Do atoms hold the taste of vanilla together? You have not truly realized that reality is imaginary. You have replaced a previous belief with another belief, which has to do with lasers or whatever. If you realize that physicality is imaginary, that is fine, but then you are imagining another idea to take its place which says "I am imagining reality through lasers" or some such thing, which is just more imagination. You have not escaped imagination, you have just come up with a different form of imagination which you say is somehow more transcendent than the previous imagination.

Just describing what I'm seeing 😅

Humans have imaginary tails. A human is like a dog that can imagine an infinite amount of tails inside of its head and then judge itself for not grasping all the imaginary tails. Oh, you never realized that particular tail is imaginary? I'm more awake than you! Oh wait, that guy over there only realized that 3 tails are imaginary, but I've realized that 20 are imaginary. He needs to have 17 more awakenings about those specific types of tails to be as woke as me!

Grasp what? There's nothing to grasp, it's imaginary. 😂 You don't even actually understand that "other people" are imaginary. "Other people don't exist" is not the same as realizing that other people are imaginary, that itself is a conclusion which is also based in imagination, and it is the modus operandi that your ego uses to make sense of your experience. If you imagine an infinite amount of things, you can grasp that they don't exist an infinite amount of times, and all of that "grasping" will be equally as deep and metaphysical to you. This is basically what all awakenings are, they are changing and removing identities and beliefs, which is why you will chase them infinitely until you realize what you actually are, which is beyond concepts. In the mean time, enjoy your infinite tail chasing.

It's a distraction. A new conclusion or belief to superimpose onto everything. It doesn't change anything because it is a belief about experience, which is to say, it is a new belief about yourself. You are not a belief. Ok, fine you are alone, but what is it that is alone? Do you actually know what you are? Ok, fine, you are dreaming everyone up, but what is the thing that is dreaming everyone up? Do you actually know what you are? Notice that the conclusions "alone" and "dreaming everything" have nothing to do with your actual experience, they are basically just "side-quests" so to speak, and are just conceptual stories or conclusions. Neither conclusion answers what you actually are. It is just pointing relative to other things. "I am not this lamp", "I am not other people", "I am not a tree", "I am not a table", "I am a thing that imagines other things", ok, but then what the fuck are you? Stop jumping around it! You are just trying to define yourself by pointing to things that are relative. Anything defined or concluded is based on relative parameters.

I've probably studied Leo's content the most out of everyone. 😂

I recently realized that unicorns are imaginary. Every single unicorn you ever imagined doesn't exist right now. Seriously, try it, look at your experience. There are no unicorns, they don't exist, because they happen inside of your mind. When you look at a unicorn, that unicorn is occuring in your experience, nowhere else. All unicorns are just you as God playing with yourself. God just imagines unicorns for eternity to entertain itself. That is what God is. An infinite imaginative dreamer. All alone by itself, imagining unicorns. If you deny this, you are just too afraid to stomach the fact that all unicorns are imaginary. This is one of the deepest and most ultimate awakenings you can have.

Humans forget things. Only a human can forget that it is God. Only a human can realize that other humans don't exist. Only a human can realize that it isn't human. You are also accessing the fact that you forgot something through memory. Again, nothing here is absolute, it is your own anthropomorphic bias projected onto reality. This is all just a story about yourself that you are concocting, a very human story. This is all fundamentally stemming from the belief that you genuinely exist inside of thought.

Well observed. It is the belief that there is risk towards yourself in socializing which creates social anxiety. You have beliefs about yourself which you don't want to change, and you perceive social situations as something that can change those beliefs, so you act accordingly to prevent that from happening. Your emotions and bodily reactions are perfectly aligned with your intentions, which is to perpetuate the beliefs you have about yourself, but the permanent solution is to realize you aren't a belief. If you have beliefs about yourself, then the ideas that other people convey to you become a threat, because those ideas can change the beliefs you have about yourself, and thus it is a threat to your very existence, in a similar way that a wild animal would make you uneasy since it can physically harm you and affect your existence. The stomach sensation is probably cortisol and adrenaline build up, or what is called butterflies in the stomach. It is a normal physiological reaction to situations which we want to avoid, in the same way how you would get adrenaline when avoiding a bear. It can seem as if the solution is to simply "stop believing bad things about yourself" or something of that sort, but that is still in the realm of beliefs and it is just a changing of beliefs, so it is similar to fighting fire with fire. The root solution is more like realizing that it is actually impossible to believe a bad thing about yourself, or even think of yourself at all. It's not that social situations are causing social anxiety, it is the belief that you have about yourself in relation to that social situation which creates anxiety. Social anxiety = the belief which says "I am a bad person if this goes wrong." It is not the social situation, it is the belief about yourself that you create from inside of the social situation. This is exactly why you can be sitting on your bed, remember some cringey thing you did a few years ago, and then completely relive that situation emotionally while being on your bed. You didn't enter a social situation, you remembered a social situation you had from a long time ago, and that memory triggered the exact same belief that occurred at that time, which then triggered the same emotional and physiological reaction as well.

Solipsism is a belief about experience. It's relative to people. No people = no solipsism to contemplate and think about. Unfortunately most people actually perceive themselves as existing inside of imagination, which is what ego is, so it's very hard for them to see that thinking about people is not the same as people. It's just knowledge. As a baby, before you see the first person ever, you don't have any conception of other people. It's not metaphysics, and it's not absolute, it literally does not exist when you are born. It is just relative concepts. "You can't know that other people exist through imagination" != "other people don't exist" The latter is a conclusion arrived by perceiving the former. It's all imagination. You cannot know that other people don't exist without consulting imagination in the first place. "Realizing solipsism" is knowledge-building, it is not existential. And that seems to be the case with a lot of these different awakenings, you guys are just arriving at different conclusions and ideas and insights about reality which you didn't have before. You might as well realize that the tree outside of your house doesn't exist, tree-awakening. Or that that sun doesn't exist when you look at it, sun-awakening! The sun is absolutely non-existent guys! If you close your eyes and focus on experience, you can't experience the sun! This entire thing is so hilariously anthropomorphic, the only reason you focus on "other people" instead of the sun or a tree is because you are a human and humans care about people. No one cares if you realize that the sun doesn't exist, but everyone cares when you say "people don't exist", because that is what you as a human find relevant and intellectually satisfying. When someone says "hey bro the sun doesn't exist", it doesn't really matter to you, because you can experientially recognize that this guy just reached some intellectual conclusion which is irrelevant to your experience. The world is not ending. And you have not frozen to death. But, when someone starts saying that other people don't exist, you get your panties in a twist.

I also prefer calling it "infinite" instead of "one", because "one" implies "two." "Oneness" isn't too bad either, it has more flair to it than just "one." The word "one" pops up since being "two" is always made through imagination. But the actual reality is neither one or two, although the logical conclusion becomes "if it can't be multiple, then it is just one thing", which is not wrong necessarily, but I find that calling it "one" is too logical for my taste as well. It's more like there are many things happening in one thing, like you would see in a movie or painting. Or there could be nothing at all, depends what state you're in.

Bypassing the intellect through intellect. It's seeing the limits of intellect by questioning it until it evaporates. But I also don't agree with him that most people aren't sharp enough to do it, and I think self-inquiry is perfectly valid. It's just not encouraged or even seen as a valid possibility by most people.

If you don't imagine another person, you can't realize that they don't exist. Your entire realization is based in imagination as well, which is what I am trying to point out. Being alone doesn't mean that other people don't exist, that is an inference which comes from memory and identity, but it can't be experienced. If you say that other people don't exist when you are alone, that is the same as saying that non-existence exists. Every single time you say "this doesn't exist", that is not a perceivable thing, that is always 100% a relative dualistic concept. The only way you can ever reference non-existence is through duality. What I'm saying is super simple: You can't lose something by thinking about it, that is just you changing beliefs about yourself. If I am in a void, I would think yes, I'm alone. If a human appears in the void, I can view that human and think "Oh look, a human is here as well." I can theorize about whether the human has an experience or not, but that is not what the experience of the human is. I can look at a tree in front of me, but me theorizing about whether the tree has an experience or not has nothing to do with the experience of that tree. For most people, their identity is meshed with "other people", so I can see how having an experience where you are just floating in a void somewhere could create a solipsistic conclusion, but that is just an inference based in your identity. It's not that they have their own experience, and it's not that they don't have their own experience. It's just you thinking about what their experience is. The desire to prove their experience is an error in your own perception of thoughts, you can't prove a thought that you are having to yourself. It is the same as imagining a unicorn, and then thinking "I wonder if that unicorn has its own experience?" You can't verify that question you have formulated because there is nothing to verify, you made it up through thought. If you speculate that they have their experience, then that is a speculative position you can hold even when no one is around you. If you speculate that they don't have an experience, then that is a speculative position you can hold even when no one is around you. In both cases, it is just you thinking about experiences, it is not relevant to the experience of another person. In the same way that you can speculate about whether a tree has its own experience, but that speculation is irrelevant to the experience of being with an actual tree. You are mistaking your perception of thought forms for something absolute and existential. It is not more correct to not think about someone having an experience, and it is not more correct to think about someone not having experience. They are both just thoughts. You can't perceive someone not having their experience, you can only perceive the belief that they don't have their own experience. When you look at the color red, you don't say "I am experiencing not blue", you say "that's red." The former is a mental inference you are creating. In the same way, when you look at someone and say "that person is not having their own experience", that is a mental inference you are creating.

There's nothing absolute about being alone. If every creature on earth was wiped off the earth tomorrow except yourself, you would achieve "being alone" through relative means. It's relative. You're just personifying reality. "Alone" is relative to "other", it's a concept. If triangles had a God, they would give it 3 sides. If humans had a God, they would make it alone. If you concede that you can't think of other people, then you can't realize that they don't exist either. That is just more thinking. Thinking of other people is imaginary, and realizing that they don't exist is also imaginary. Both are imaginary. They are relative to eachother. When you say "other people don't exist because they are imaginary", that realization happens inside of imagination. If you never think of other people, you can't realize that they don't exist. You can't experience what doesn't exist. You can't imagine a person, and you can't "realize" a person away either. Thus, you can't become alone through a realization, that is always just a conceptual shift in identity. The idea of being alone is based on the idea of non-existence, in the case of solipsism, the non-existence is expressed as "other people don't exist."

Sadghuru's stance is interesting. From what I can tell, he doesn't find self-inquiry to be practical, which is what someone like J.K. promotes. He thinks that most people don't have an intellect sharp enough for that, so he would rather induce energetic states and practices to get people there, like yoga and what not. He sees it as more efficient. Aside from that, he seems to be much more absorbed in that sort of energetic and supernatural background, as he even talks about diet and spirits and such things.

You can't have a realization that makes you more alone 😂😂😂. "Alone" is relative to "people", you are not "people", you are all that you experience. You are the thing that views people and views your body. There is no "lack of experience" for you to feel alone about. Your experience of yourself can't be alone because it contains the duality of alone and together inside it. Normally, when someone is alone by themselves, meaning that there is no physical person or creature in their vicinity, they don't perceive that as some kind of existential solipsistic realization, and that is entirely correct. They are the only person in that experience, but they don't go around proclaiming "Oh my god guys I just realized I'm the only person that exists." Absolutely nothing changed experientially, your beliefs and knowledge about experience did. You are just stating the obvious when you say "Hey man, did you know that, like, you are the only thing you can experience? Because you're you!" This is like when someone smokes weed and they think they're saying something profound, but they've just recontextualized their experience in an overly existential way. Ok, you know that you are yourself, great, beautiful tautology. Now, what actually is that? What are "you"? What is this "yourself" you keep saying you are? Oh, sorry, you prefer calling yourself God? Or infinite imagination? Ok, fine, what actually is God and infinite imagination? Do you actually know what you are or are you just playing semantic games? Hint, it's not located in more knowledge or conclusions or answers, and it's not located in an awakening experience you haven't had yet.

Many tails to be discovered.

😂🎯 It's hilarious how hard the mind tries to escape duality. It just ends up saying completely tautological statements as if they mean anything. "Hey guys, I had a new awakening and realized that everything = imagination" "Hey guys, I had a new awakening and realized that everything = you" "Hey guys, I had a new awakening and realized that everything = love" "Hey guys, I had a new awakening and realized that everything = love = imagination = you"

You are probably accessing these experiences through some odd sleep state, as you say you are half asleep. Would explain why it happens at night. I have had hypnopompic hallucinations while waking up which transitioned themselves perfectly seamlessly, for example, I would be looking at a door and hearing screaming from behind it, and then at some point I would wake up, but my visual perception of the door would be continuous. Anyways, sounds like some very vivid experiences, which would only happen during astral projection or sleep paralysis or some odd sleep state. My only advice is to increase sleep quality as much as possible and make sure that your sleep is not interrupted, and that your stress and nutrition in general are fine.

It simply has no relevance to your experience. You can sit in your room by yourself, and you can either come to the conclusion that other people exist or don't exist. At the end of the day, your experience is still that of a human that sits in their room and contemplates mental conclusions about reality. Nothing regarding other people was changed or experienced. You are still by yourself in that room, just contemplating things. Other people did not change, your beliefs about them did. There is a difference between having a physical human in front of you, and contemplating theories and conclusions about other humans. The latter is ultimately just you changing beliefs and knowledge, and it has nothing to do with the former. You can theorize about other people having their own experience or not, but that is just theory. You will never experience someone not existing, that is something that only happens in theory. There is nothing metaphysical or absolute about contemplating knowledge or theory. You cannot become more or less alone by changing beliefs about yourself or other people. Whether you believe they exist or not, nothing has changed but beliefs, not their actual existence. It doesn't change what is actually happening. You can't become more or less alone by changing beliefs. You can say that there is one being, multiple beings, or none, but those are just changes in identity if they are taken as conclusions about reality. What you are experiencing right now is a human body, and believe it or not, the experience of your body right now is neither one being, multiple beings, or no beings, those are all just relative concepts. Your physical body is exactly just your physical body, and it is beyond any of those relative concepts. If you focus on the sensation of touch, can you call that "one being" or "multiple beings"? When you taste ice cream, can you call that "one being" or "multiple beings"? I am saying that both touch and taste have nothing to do with any beings, and that saying it has anything to do with a "being" is an unnecessary interpretation, and the same goes for your experience as a whole. Even when you say "there is no being" that is still a conclusion which exists within the paradigm of "beings that can exist." When you look at the color red you say "that is red", you don't say "that is a being which is the color red." The latter is an unnecessary identity being projected. If you say "there is a being in experience" that is knowledge about things that are in experience. If you say "there are no beings in experience" that is still knowledge about things that are in experience. Notice that both conclusions can be held in experience, even if other people are present or aren't present. Therefore, it is truly irrelevant to the experience of other people, but only relevant to your own knowledge about other people. Experience itself doesn't need knowledge or conclusions to be experienced. You are what you are currently experiencing. To really nail in this point, if you lived in a universe where you were the only creature that existed, there would be no such thing as "absolute solipsism", and there wouldn't even be a "lack of other people" to begin with, because you are the only human being in that scenario. You would have no frame of reference for "other people." This really shows that none of this has anything to do with anything absolute or existential, it is just a relative change in beliefs and identity.