Osaid

You're trapped in a bubble? Speak for yourself.

The solipsism discussed on this forum is just shared psychosis. You can't experience it, you can only imagine it, because it is based on a duality of "you" and "other." Much better to contemplate how dualities and distinctions are perceived in the first place.

That is knowledge, not ego. Not all knowledge is ego. Ego is the belief in knowledge about yourself, to put it another way. "Self" is just what you think you are, and that is a form of knowledge. There are still psychological habits and beliefs unique to you which can be left over, but they really have nothing to do with a self. They are just habits and beliefs. You simply never encounter "yourself" in past or future ever again, but everything else stays the same. You live from exactly what is occurring right now. Yes, and I am saying there is no difference between your true nature and what you are currently experiencing.

Not fundamentally. Desires and emotions are fundamentally just what you want for yourself. All emotions are desires. If you are fearing something, it is because you simultaneously desire something. The fear is your reaction to the desire. Emotions only become problematic when you think you can imagine yourself, because now you are feeling fear in relation to something imaginary and limited which does not exist. This is also why fear seems synonymous with limitation, but that is only exclusive to imagined fear. There is no perceived limitation in fear which is experienced in relation to the present moment, because that type of fear does not occur in relation to an imaginary and limited self. Emotions are intelligent, they follow exactly what you desire. If you desire to perpetuate an imagined and limited version of yourself, your emotions will serve you in doing that. If you want to imagine yourself as limited, you are free to do that, but at the end of the day, it is not actually a limitation, it is just imagination. No, you have conflated forms with limitations. Something which is experienced cannot be limited. Your idea of "unlimited" is itself a limitation because you are trying to remove certain aspects of your current experience. I am saying that not a single part of your experience is limited, your perception of limitation is actually just made out of imagination, it is a perceptual illusion.

No, the self completely vanishes because it is seen as a non-existent entity. That is what enlightenment is. You can still care for family, just not your imagination of them and how it relates to you. It's just that simple. Attachment is just clinging to your imagination of things. Attachment is fear of losing things in the future, but this type of fear cannot exist without an imagined self. There are no degrees of attachment if you cannot imagine yourself, there is just "what can I do right now?" Because I am someone who likes to care about things. Nothing more to it.

Fearing something is not the same as perceiving death. Survival is not the same as death either. That is just life. I am not saying you don't have to survive, I am saying that you can't experience death, by definition. If you are still here, you are not dead.

No, it is not mine. I am not attached or identified with anything. It's just that your idea of what that looks like is inaccurate. I think you are mistaking "taking care of something" as ego or self-image. If I want to take care of my arm, that is not self-image. That is just something I want to do which does not involve a self, because my arm is not imaginary. Your arm is not a self, and it is not "mine", it does not need either of those things to exist and be cared for, because both of those are literally just made of imagination. Again, you do not need to imagine something that does not exist to survive. Your imagination still operates after enlightenment, that is why I can worry about my arm, however, the imagination does not waste energy imagining a separate self. Taking care of something is not attachment or identity, you don't need either of those to take care of something. If I started worrying about future or past events related to my arm, that would be self-image. Taking care of it in the present moment is not self-image though. Your idea of no-self is not actually no-self. Your idea of no-self is that you can't feel pain, or that you can't take care of things. This is not what "no-self" really is, and you can see this by looking at anyone else you consider enlightened, because they are all functional and do show care towards things.

You can't perceive yourself experiencing death or birth. If you were perceiving either of those, you could not exist. Yes it is, because you can't perceive it. You can only imagine it by thinking about the past or future. This is just a biased perspective that psychedelic users pick up because they cannot function while in their drug-induced states. You can be entirely functional. You do not need to imagine something which does not exist in order to function. The ego does not exist. Losing something which does not exist will not make you dysfunctional.

No such thing. Consciousness is not relative. Can't be "more."

You are conflating distinctions with sensations. This is a very common conflation. This is why you get people saying "if non-duality is true, why don't you eat dirt off the ground if it is all the same." What you call a limitation is not a limitation, it is just an actual sensation, which itself has no limit. The sensation of pain is not a limit. Only things you imagine are limited. Your idea of unlimited reality is that certain sensations are not allowed to exist. This itself is a limit you are imposing on to reality.

This is like saying "imagination creates imagination." It creates imagination. "Difference" is the experience of imagination. It is an intellectual inference which is not experienced outside of intellect. No, it's not operating anywhere, for anyone. You're just imagining that it is. I would feel pain, adrenaline, and worry. But none of those have to do with a self. Those are literally just sensations and intelligence operating. You don't need a self to do anything other than imagine something that doesn't exist, that is my point. The desire to fix or heal my arm is not a distinction or difference, it is just a desire. My desire cannot alter the metaphysics of my experience. It has nothing to do with a separate self. You don't need a separate self to feel pain, you don't need a separate self to feel adrenaline, and you don't need a separate self to worry about something. Not to mention, none of those things have anything to do with distinctions either. Pain is not a distinction. Adrenaline is not a distinction. Worrying is not a distinction either. You cannot locate a boundary or distinction for any of these, or any experience in general. The idea that the ability to feel pain is a distinction is a complete misinterpretation of how distinctions work. The perception of pain is not a distinction. The different qualia that you experience have no limitations, therefore they do not have distinctions. Again, it does not exist in any case, it's not there. When you act as if relativity actually exists, you are mistaking the map for the territory; the map that exists in your imagination. Your experience is not made up of distinctions, that is logically impossible because distinctions are always parts of the whole by definition. You never experience a part of something, only the whole thing. I'm not trying to be abstract, you can observe what I'm saying in your current experience. You have separated experience from consciousness and I am just trying to figure out why because I don't see a difference.

Is it a limitation to desire something? Is it incomplete to desire things? Do you always have to desire something out of fear? Does desire always have to be tangled with fear? You're not entirely wrong, fear seems to be accompanied by limits, but it is actually not mutually inclusive. This is only the case with psychological fear or imagined fear. When it comes to fearing physical things, like a bear, you do not have to imagine any limitations to do that because the bear is not imaginary. When it comes to psychological fear, you do have to imagine limitations.

Distinctions and preferences are not actually limitations. You say that in order to be unlimited, you have to remove things, like fear, pain, apples, arms, etc. However, this is just another limitation you are putting on yourself. You are saying that those things cannot exist, otherwise you are limited. I am saying that you are always unlimited, and that everything that exists is unlimited, you are literally just using your imagination to think that you are not unlimited, like how someone would imagine that they are a unicorn when they aren't. You are not actually experiencing limitations, you are experiencing the imagination of limitations, this is what is actually going on in your experience and everyone else's experience. You are experiencing imagination, not limitation. The experience of pain is not a distinction or preference, it has nothing to do with a self or limitation. There is no limitation in the experience of pain. It only feels limited if you imagine another situation that contrasts it.

What does that do? Or do you want me to find out for myself?

No. I don't have limits. You don't either, you just think you do. Thinking has no limits either.

What is a limit made out of? What kind of perception? Touch? Taste? Sight? Sound? Thought?

How do you perceive a limit? Through memory? Through inference?

No, it doesn't. Relativity is never actually the case. Something which is not the case cannot be necessary for survival. Thinking about the difference between the apple and my arm is not actually relativity, it is just thinking or imagining. It doesn't change anything metaphysically or existentially. In the same way that thinking that you are a unicorn doesn't change you into a unicorn. You are confusing the map for the territory. Duality is never actually the case, the point of enlightenment is to realize this.

How does reality prevent itself from being revealed? Why would it seem unreal? Is the thing you glimpsed here with you right now, or is it in some other place?

No, it's not a function of anything. It is existence itself. Clarity of perception means: Are you seeing what exists? I am not talking about some enhanced focus you get from caffeine or adderall or something. I meant the opposite actually. Permanent, as in, it is always here. Maybe "eternal" is better? "Absolute" means it is absolute, not relative, which means it depends on nothing, so it is always the case. If what you say here is the case, I don't see room for a distinction between existence and experience. That's an interesting idea, but what does your experience say about it? Are you experiencing your body creating experience? Or are you just experiencing the end result of what it supposedly creates? If you're playing a video game, it wouldn't run without code. But, what is your experience of code in the game? Put experience first and foremost. I was trying to figure out your position but I guess we are going in circles. I could describe this in about 1000+ ways. I am not really conscious "of a thing." There isn't any subject and object relationship in my experience anymore, because that would just be a thought about experience.

Yeah pretty much. More so about intellectual philosophical ideas, like solipsism, and then also: "I'm God, I'm imagining everything, oh my God dude I realized that I'm God for 1000th time. Can't wait to realize it again on a deeper level in my next trip!" And then they might say: "No, it's not that enlightenment is boring, it actually doesn't exist, it's a deception, it's just a lowly state of consciousness, get on my level bro."

Intermittent fasting is basically non-negotiable when it comes to optimal health unless you are some kind of outlier. I find it unwise to wait for conclusive scientific evidence on certain things, so anyone reading this should probably go and test it for themselves, although initially getting into it can be an annoying and overly logical labyrinth with a lot of misinformation. Although, to be fair, there is a lot of scientific evidence showing the benefits of fasting too. First and foremost, listen to your body, ask yourself why you crave the things you do and why you feel hungry at the times you do, and eat simple and whole foods that you enjoy. You will naturally learn about your body and how food affects it from there, work your way up from there.

Yes. Stop there. No need to anthropomorphize rocks, although, I guess that is also part of your intelligence, which I should let you express.

This was very simply exemplified to me when I was talking to some guy about animals a long time ago. I talked about how pigs are intelligent and similar to dogs and he literally said something like "something that can fall over in a ditch isn't the same as a dog." (the context was about some video of a pig stuck in a ditch, and him saying that pigs are stupid so he deserves to eat them)

Probably better not to imagine an imaginary entity which is creating your experience, it really takes away from the experience.