Osaid

Yes, none of that. Impatience is the same as boredom created through a perception of time. You perceive it by imagining yourself in a desired future scenario. There is zero perception of time so that cannot occur anymore.

I can say that all anxiety vanishes, because that is all future imagination. Yes, there is no ego-generated misery. There is simply just immediate fear, which I define as "an object in the environment which you want to avoid." Once the situation ends so does the fear, the fear is equivalent to the situation. The reason I'm being so specific about describing the emotions is because it is very important to understand how they work after enlightenment, and how they fundamentally work in general. They don't completely vanish, they just serve your immediate experience instead of your imaginary experience. The emotions purely become situational instead of something you carry.

Makes enough sense to me.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "misery." All I can say is that all emotions are seen as something that is entirely perpetuated by you. If you desire to change where you are, that is something you want to do. There is no ruminating about past and future, the entire focus is just what you can do right now. When you say "doubt", I don't necessarily see that as an emotion but it could be something which drives an emotion. Doubt is an assessment about the validity of something, as I would define it. Fear is the desire to avoid something and it can manifest in many ways. There is no imagined or psychological fear, which means you don't avoid or fear past or future because you cannot perceive past or future anymore. If there is an unexpected loud sound then that creates adrenaline because it is recognized as something potentially dangerous in the environment, which is fear. If there is a bear running at me and I have the desire to protect my body, that creates adrenaline because of the desire to avoid it, which is fear. Anger is a desire to protect yourself or someone else. I don't get angry at people or objects, but rather the situation itself is what causes the anger. Once the desire to protect is fulfilled or stopped then there is no anger. However, there are certain types of emotions which completely vanish. These are the emotions which are only perpetuated by comparing yourself to something else, these emotions strictly occur only by imagining yourself. For example, greed never occurs again. Jealousy never occurs again. Etc.

Yes exactly. There is a profound enmeshment which can be observed with emotion and desire. They are literally the exact same thing, there is no difference between the two. This is not semantics. The object of desire creates the emotion, and so it is the exact same thing as the emotion itself. If you love the taste of vanilla, then the taste of vanilla becomes equivalent to love, because you can't love something without experiencing it. A desire as I would define it can be perceived as having two dichotomies: The intention to be with something, which means you exist in its proximity (love) The intention to be away from something, which means you don't exist in its proximity (fear) Either you want to be with something, or you don't. And then from that you get love, joy, excitement, jealousy, anger, hate, etc. All the negative/undesirable emotions are just aversion (fear), and all the positive/desirable emotions are just assimilation (love). The emotions come in different "flavors" because they describe different situations in which they can manifest, but it is essentially the same desire of aversion (fear) and assimilation (love). All desires simultaneously create the opposite desire of aversion or assimilation. If you desire to be with a person, then you must also simultaneously desire to avoid losing that person. Both are the same desire. If you desire to have 100 dollars, then you must also simultaneously desire to avoid losing 100 dollars. Both are the same desire. The ego takes advantage of this two-pronged dynamic by imagining itself inside of the scenario that you want to avoid, which creates a fear of that imagination, and so it turns the imagination into an object of fear which seeks to threaten the initial desire. No. You can't serve something that doesn't exist. Yes, when the imagined self vanishes so do all the dualisms you relate it to. That is the non-dual state.

The issue is not really those emotions, but rather the desires that they are trying to perpetuate. The emotions are an intelligent reaction to what you desire. What needs to be seen is that the thing you are desiring is based on a false premise of "self", once that is realized then the desires and emotions automatically correct themselves to serve what is not imaginary. If you desire to perpetuate an imagined version of yourself, then you will feel the emotional response which helps to serve that desire. Your emotions only become maladaptive when they are created to serve an imaginary self, otherwise they serve exactly what you want. As an example, if you are scared of the future because you imagine yourself in it, then you will desire to physically change your environment in order to stop imagining that future scenario, and this creates the emotion of fear through imagination. The desire to change your environment is literally equivalent to fear in that scenario. As another example, If you desire to protect the belief that you are intelligent, this will create anger/jealousy/fear towards anything that might change that belief. The emotion serves what you want, but the error is not being able to see that there is no "you" in the future, and there is no "you" which can believe that it is intelligent. The fundamental object of desire in both scenarios is incorrect, it does not exist outside of imagination. I elaborate more on how emotions work here:

What is the entity that gets absorbed into thoughts? What sense perception is that entity made of? Touch? Sound? Sight? Smell? Is it really there? Check if you can find it. You also say that attention gets absorbed into thoughts. What is attention actually made of? Can attention exist without an object to pay attention to? What is the difference between the object of attention and attention itself? Perhaps they are both the same thing? Yes. I can remember things, that is memory, but the memory is not something that happened to "me." I can think about the future, but the future doesn't happen to "me" either. In both scenarios, there is no object or entity called "me" which can be in the past or future. The past or future cannot exist at the same time, therefore there can never be an entity which experiences both past and future, that is experientially impossible. No, it is not secondary. All separation is strictly just imagination. The belief essentially boils down to "I am affected by past and future." It is equivalent to your sense of time. You create this sense of time only through imagination. It also does not help that language is inherently dualistic. I am not sure what exactly causes the creation of self-image or ego in the first place, whether it is parents, language, society, etc. But those are probably valid speculations. The people around us pass their pathologies onto us. As an example, in current experience, the identity "I am a human" is actually not experienced. "A human" is an abstraction of current experience. Thinking that you are a human is different from being a human. The experience of a human perfectly contains everything inside of it, including smell, sight, sound, touch, etc. It is not an isolated experience of a singular human. You can only abstract yourself as "a human" through imagination. There are sensations in experience, that much is true. But, is there an entity observing those sensations? Is there an entity which observes the body? Is there an entity which imagines a voice? What sensation is the entity which observes those sensations going to be made out of? It is possible. It can happen in an instant, very simply. Just takes a bit of inquiry. The frequency of thoughts is in direct proportion to how important you believe it is to think. If you believe you exist inside of thoughts, then you will think incessantly because you think that your survival depends on it. Fear is a strong emotion and desire, and if your thoughts can create that emotion and desire then you wont be able to stop thinking until you look directly at it and figure out what it is actually driving that emotion and desire. Yes. That's good. I remember a bit about your situation.

I didn't say it was random. I am saying you don't choose what it is. You didn't choose the flavor of an apple, and you didn't choose to love that flavor, you are simply someone who loves apples. And then if I ask "why do you like apples?" you say "because they are sweet", not "because I decided they are sweet and then I decided that I like sweet things." The reasoning "because they are sweet" is what I would call your "intelligent reaction." It's not that you don't have free will, it's just that free will doesn't exist at all even conceptually because it depends on a self which chooses between imagined scenarios. It is like dividing by zero, it just doesn't apply to reality. It's more like reality just gives you a bunch of things and then you have to maneuver yourself through those things with your given intelligence. Like how when you play a video game you are given a certain set of controls to conduct yourself with. This is decently accurate as far as it might go religiously/philosophically. What you call "impulse" is what I would simply just call "desire" (and I think you mean the same). These desires are actually existentially equivalent to emotions, there is no difference between emotions and desire. Once you realize that you cannot imagine yourself, this permanently removes the "self", and thus your desires become "tuned" with "love" or "God's will" as you say. There is also a difference between seemingly "negative" emotions generated through an imagined self and emotions generated through a non-imagined experience. Fearing a bear or a loud unexpected sound has nothing to do with self, for example, but fearing a scenario in the future does. The desire to avoid a bear that is in front of you is equivalent to fear, but it is not necessarily ego because it does not require you to imagine a self.

You are assuming that it is true by making existential assumptions about the properties of consciousness. I am saying those assumptions are ill-founded. In philosophy, Google defines "solipsism" as: the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist. It does not say anything beyond that about consciousness or whatever else. It directly addresses your own existential assertion that if something "exists consciously besides now" then solipsism will be true.

I'm sorry but I have no idea what you mean

You are essentially saying "if something exists outside of existence then solipsism is false" which I disagree with. You are trying to turn existence/consciousness into an object which is separate from itself, which just wont work because it betrays its nature. Rather than assuming this "if", it is much better to just get to the root of it and ask: Can a thing be conscious? That should be the focus. Otherwise you will entertain all these imagined scenarios ad infinitum without even knowing if it fundamentally makes sense to begin with. Your mind can certainly create distinctions that are imaginary. But there is existence which is not imaginary or distinguished. If you observe what causes separation in the first place, then you also see what is not separate, and thus you also see what is not imaginary. From there you can realize what the duality of "you" and "other" is actually made of.

Solipsism can't be "actual" because it requires you to assume that consciousness is generated by a thing/person/entity. It's like a perversion of the mind-body problem. What possibility are you hoping for? What does it actually look like?

If this runs on your mind regularly it will turn into a dream until you absolve it or transcend it emotionally. Meaning, your desire to hate or move away from him dissipates. Not because you forgive him or want to be with him, but just because it becomes unimportant, and so you stop ruminating over it. Dreams are created from thoughts and desires you ruminate on in the waking state. I am not saying that you are wrong or right for ruminating over it, but this is how you get rid of the dream if you want that.

IME: The withdrawals always peaked at day 4 and then subsided from there on. IIRC it took a few months, like 1-3 for the body to really get it into gear and stabilize itself. Beyond that I would say you're decently fat-adapted and you can probably experiment with adding other things to your diet which are perhaps non-keto. Look at how your body feels and whether it is improving past a certain point or not. If your energy levels don't stabilize to a decent level within a few weeks then I would be concerned about that and start adding a bit of carbs to see how that affects you. You can ease into it by slowly lowering the amount of carbs instead of going into it cold turkey. This would prevent sudden and unforeseen side effects too. Always listen to your body above all else. I recommend having coffee/tea or something with fat in the morning, it does very well for stabilizing appetite. Combine it with walnuts or some other nuts if you want, they are very satiating. Make sure your meals are satiating and fatty enough, and don't snack too much or it creates insulin spikes which make you crave things, eat all your food "close together." If you want a really satiating snack, nuts are the way to go for sure. Eggs and dairy are satiating and very nutritious too. For meeting other nutrients you can go for vegetables/berries. You can objectively measure your blood ketones through certain devices if you want.

Nice! I'm happy for you. When you don't judge the "flicker", you see it as it is. It is like a breeze passing by. Perhaps it is a desire or thought that pops up, recognize the reason and intelligence for why it shows up, and then simply deduce if it is worth pursuing. Is it pointing to anything real? Slowly and naturally you will become disillusioned if you observe it like this. Being able to enjoy what "life is made of" without any ulterior motive is exactly what love is. To love something is to desire to be with that thing, without any other motive. When the object of desire becomes existence, rather than meaning or imagination, existence literally transforms itself into the love that you want. The taste of vanilla is literally equivalent to love, because you cannot love something without experiencing it. There is no love if there is no object to love, they are actually both the exact same thing.

I like my ice cream plain, without any extra added meaning. The meaning adds calories I heard.

The "oneness" in non-duality is not a logical mathematical "one" like a digit or a number that you calculate. It is nothing. Actual nothing. It is a lack of duality or division. Anything you imagine about it divides it. Non-existence is not nothing, it is an intellectual conclusion, it is still in the realm of imagination. You never experience non-existence. Consciousness is not a thing with an "outside" and "inside", that is your imagination creating a duality from within consciousness. Consciousness does not have imagined boundaries like that. This is why you cannot intellectually get there, your intellect only deals in divisions. You must become directly aware of it by removing the false self. When you say "nothing is outside of consciousness" you might as well say "only existence exists." It is just an intellectual word salad that states the obvious but in a more complex and philosophical way. What actually is existence? Becoming aware of that is what matters. You can't figure out what consciousness is by pointing to it with things that don't exist. If I tell you "Santa Claus doesn't exist outside of consciousness", that doesn't get you closer to figuring out what consciousness actually is, because it has nothing to do with what actually exists.

I guess you mean attachment, and the unwillingness to let go of past and future. What is there to accept? The past? You are not experiencing the past. The future? You are not experiencing the future. There is nothing to accept. In between that is the present. What you currently have in the present moment inspires what you want to do. It is perfectly self-sufficient. You can't experience something which will be lost or destroyed in the future, because that requires you to extrapolate into the future through your imagination. Experience is always something that happens presently. The present moment has a self-sufficient quality where you can't really lose anything there, that is just rumination about yourself in the future. There is only a potential to create from what exists there. Desires are initially perfectly pure and innocent and self-sufficient, but they become double-edged when you use them to imagine yourself in an undesirable future scenario. Every single desire comes with an equivalent desire to avoid something, this is what creates attachment in ego. The ego weaponizes this dynamic by imagining itself in the future scenario it wants to avoid, which creates a fear of the future. This double-edged fear only occurs if you believe that you can imagine yourself, which is the basis of ego, and it is what enlightenment corrects.

You previously claimed that having powers is enlightenment, now you say that there is no enlightenment. You are either contradictory or you realized that enlightenment does not exist within the span of hours. Science will explore physical reality forever at different levels. A pizza chef will explore pizza forever at different levels. A psychonaut will explore psychedelic states forever at different levels. These are all relative explorations. And it is just how life in general operates. It generates meaning and exploration forever. It is not necessarily related to enlightenment, although psychedelics do alter your ability to form an ego. Yes. So enlightenment exists again? There are no levels, ultimately. Either you are aware of what you are, or you aren't. You can't be partially aware of yourself, that means it is false and lacking. In the same way you can't be partially aware of the color red. Either you can see red or you can't. That's literally where I am right now. But apparently you're in some imaginary world which I am trying to pull you out of. Yes, I have no experience of imaginary worlds. Apparently you do though. I'm probably the wrong person to talk about that with.

Is it possible to further understand the color red? Is it possible to further understand a pleasant cool breeze during the summer? Is it possible to further understand the smell of a flower? Is it possible to further understand the taste of a cookie? Who is it that judges these experiences as incomplete, as if it is lacking in understanding? And why? What more is there to understand aside from the experience itself? Is there a point where the color red becomes more true? Is there a point where the taste of a cookie becomes more true? Is there a point where the smell of a flower becomes more true? What are you really chasing after when you say that you want to understand?

Where is the moment where meditation stops? Where do you stop being present? Is there an activity which prevents you from being present? Is it possible to ever not be present, truly? You are labelling parts of life as "survival" and "distraction." What is it actually distracting from? Are these things really antithetical to stillness or meditation? Does reality want you to sit down in one spot forever, is that the conclusion? When you are enjoying the taste of vanilla ice cream, whether it is survival, a distraction, a grandiose metaphysical plan constructed by reality, whatever the meaning is, does it actually change your experience of the taste of vanilla? It seems you are grasping for something deeper and more metaphysical. Something beyond the taste of vanilla. Something more grandiose. A bigger meaning to it. What will you actually experientially gain from adding that meaning? Will vanilla taste better once you find that meaning? You are trying to find meaning beyond reality itself; an overarching meaning to life. But there cannot be a meaning to life, because then that meaning would have to exist outside of life, which is impossible. Life is the canvas which allows for meaning to occur inside of it. You get to look at what exists and then create meaning out of it. It is not necessarily that things are meaningless, but just that you have to first see the value in what exists, and then that naturally creates meaning for you. You are doing it backwards. You are ignoring what exists and looking for value in the meaning of what exists. You are looking for some kind of overarching metaphysical structure to justify and guide your desires and actions. It is much simpler than that, you just need to look at what you are doing and what it creates, and then decide if it is something worth partaking in.

Your idea of freedom is having superpowers in order to manipulate reality. Enlightenment is not about that. You're imagining that. An imaginary world can only exist in imagination.

The sense of self is created because you believe that "you" have experienced the past, but how can that be if you are currently viewing a memory of the past? If the past is experienced then it is not the past, it is the current moment. There can't be two of you, one which experiences the past and one which experiences the present, there can only be the one who remembers the past from the present. The only way to perceive yourself in the past is through imagination created in the present. Same goes for the future. Try to define yourself without referring to the past or future. Your mind will draw a blank. It will immediately bring you back to that state of "not thinking" which is created by observing the present moment. This is not a coincidence. This is because the self is literally made out of your ability to imagine yourself in past and future situations. Pretty sure this is what classic meditation tries to accomplish, and it seems to work to a degree. There is a natural disillusionment that comes from it over time. It's the way you're using thoughts that creates a sense of self, it is not inherent to thoughts. The self is created because you believe that you can imagine what you are. I still think but I don't use it to imagine myself. Why do you assume that you need a self in order to engage with your thoughts? If there was a sense of self outside of thought, what perception is it made of? Sound? Sight? Touch? Smell? Is it somehow void of any perception in your experience?

Imagination does not mean false. That itself is an imaginary distinction you are creating, because you are creating a duality of false and real. You are making up that duality through imagination, the very thing you criticize as false. Duality is your ability to imagine things. Pain is not imagined. Physical reality is not imagined. I believe you are conflating some kind of grandiose state of consciousness with existential truth or non-duality. What is absolutely true must always be true, or it is not absolute. You cannot get around this fact. It can't be a state or experience located somewhere else in the future, otherwise that makes it relative. If you believe that duality is true or existential, you are mistaking the map for the territory, which is to say, you are mistaking imagination for reality.

No, they always just exist as imagination. Their basis is imagination. It doesn't affect anything outside of imagination. Just because it is useful to imagine things doesn't mean it isn't imaginary. Pain is not duality. Pain does not make claims about what you are either, that is a distinction that only your mind can make. I am not denying that physical pain exists. You are assuming that physical pain creates duality and separation though, which is not the case. When you look at the color red, ideas can arise of it. However, those ideas are just ideas, they are not red. The ideas are about red, they are not red itself. Similarly, any ideas you have may be inspired by your experience, but they are just ideas and imagination. Not the fact or experience itself. Ideas must always convert experience to something dualistic.