Osaid

You're not making assumptions, you're unravelling the assumptions that you already hold. The reason you're questioning assumptions is so that you can eventually reach something that isn't an assumption. All assumptions ultimately stem from something you've unconsciously or consciously assumed to be true. You're not using assumptions as your foundation, you're using things you know to be 100% true, it's just that questioning assumptions helps you to get rid of what you already assume to be true, and so it helps make things clearer. I know exactly how you feel, I was there. There are things you can know to be 100% true. You latch on to that, and then that is where your epistemology builds from. There are things you can know that aren't assumptions.

Figure out what you know to be 100% true and then go from there. That will build a solid epistemology, which is what you need to traverse all of this. Your epistemology is a foundation that will filter all your contemplations and make sure that everything is clean. Question everything. How do you know the sky is blue? The sky isn't blue at night. The sky isn't blue for a colorblind person. See, things become less linear when you question them. After a while your epistemology becomes so refined that you can easily apply your understanding over a very broad range of metaphysical topics, because you understand the structure of things. All you really need to do is to watch most of Leo's videos, that's what worked for me at least. If you do that and actually take note of what he teaches, you will build one of the best epistemologies in all of existence. First start with his older videos, from no more than 6 years ago. Then work your way up to the more newer and advanced ones. The videos build on each other. Watch his spiritual videos, his self-deception videos, and his ego videos. These are all good and relevant starting points:

First figure out what you know to be 100% true, and then go from there. You're experiencing something. What is it? Question and contemplate. You will run into questions that recontextualize your experience or shift your consciousness. Acknowledging an apparent separation is good, that is an accurate description of your current experience. Then you could go: How are things separate? How do I know things are separate? How do I know when something isn't separate? What separates me, the one thinking, from the rest of reality? When I am dreaming at night, is the dream character separate from the rest of the dreamscape, or is it all one thing? And if it is all one thing, how is that even possible? Could the same metaphysics of the dream state apply to the waking state experience? If "up" can't exist without "down", then are the two opposites really separate from each other despite being dependent on each other to exist? If certain dualities can't exist without the other, then are they really separate? Why do I perceive "up" and "down" as separate?

They were permanently banned for serious guideline infractions.

Illusion implies deception. The idea of an illusion is relative to an ego (human) that can be deceived. For example, a mirage in the desert is not inherently deceptive, it's only deceptive relative to a human who sees it and then concludes from that visual stimuli that the mirage is a source of water. It's the human that extrapolates and imagines that the mirage is an actual source of water, when the mirage itself makes no such claim. The mirage is just a mirage. The human ego distorts it and labels it an illusion when it figures out that it has been tricked (by none other than itself, but the ego loves to blame things other than itself). FYI, a mirage is a visual illusion created by light reflections, it can trick people into thinking there is water present when there isn't.

Ultimately, low consciousness is a relative phenomenon. It only exists relative to a higher consciousness, which then has to imagine a lower consciousness. There is really no such thing as low consciousness outside of your imagination of it. In order to perceive low consciousness you must always be in a higher state of consciousness, that's the catch-22. Consciousness is able to recontextualize itself through a removal of layered beliefs and imagination. For example, a child who believes in Santa Claus is imagining two things simultaneously: An image of Santa Claus, and also a belief in Santa Claus. In this scenario, they are aware of the image as imagination, but they are unaware of the belief as imagination. When a child believes in Santa Claus, their belief becomes true, but only to the extent that a belief can be true. For example, believing a table exists will not create a physical table in front of you, it will only recontextualize some way a table could exist that fits in with what a belief can exist as. When the child meets Santa Claus at the mall, their belief recontextualizes that Santa Claus to be a real and physical Santa Claus. The adults see it as just some old guy in a costume, because their belief has recontextualized it in a different way, and so it exists in that way for the adults, but not the child. Ultimately, Santa Claus becomes true. But always only as a belief. And also, not all recontextualization happens just through imagination, that's just one way for it to happen. Separation exists, that much is true. But figuring out what it exists as is where the layered beliefs and projections come in, and so a recontextualization might be necessary, and that's where some highly conscious teacher might split hairs with you.

Insights are easily tainted by humans. A lot of people come back from some mystical experience and interpret it in such a stupid and materialistic way, but they think they're being spiritual and unbiased or something. For example, the idea that "separation is illusion" is a very anthropomorphic idea. It just assumes anything that isn't physical is illusion. Most of the time when someone communicates an insight to you, it's said very hyperbolically and poetically. You have to reconcile the nuance by figuring the rest out for yourself.

Read something cool that you actually care about. If you buy the book, that puts more of a commitment on you since you've paid for it. Maybe set the reading time to like 5 or 10 minutes, you'll naturally read for much longer than that anyways. If you put a time that's somewhat hard for you to achieve I think it might suck the soul out of the activity. You don't want it to be too robotic so that you stop at exactly 30 minutes every time, you want authenticity and spontaneity, so having a shorter time that you can easily fly by will allow some flexibility. You don't wanna look at it as "something I'm doing for personal development", you wanna look at it as "I'm gonna check out this book and see what it is about." It's something you're doing out of your own personal interest, it's in your control. Make an entire ritual out of it as well. Figure out some spot where you will read. Maybe make some tea or something to go with it.

No, he doesn't. If he knew what he was doing he would probably stop streaming forever and have a mid-life crisis. Ignorance is the evil here. This applies to anyone with an audience. If they start behaving too different they will lose the people who watched from before. The fact that he knows how to manipulate an audience or maintain an audience doesn't take away from what I said. He believes in what he is saying and he has invested absolutely everything into his audience of delinquents which is why he feels the need to manipulate them into staying by acting rowdy and shouting all the time. No. Funny you say that, because the only reason he blew up initially was because he was going on these philosophical tangents in his videos and he was very young too, so he stood out. Because he is perpetuating some seriously dangerous ideologies. There are other ways to entertain yourself. A long time ago he didn't do this and still maintained a big audience. I'm sure he has, or had, the skill and capacity to maintain an audience without saying unhinged shit, but he doesn't do that because he genuinely believes in what he is saying. There are many other people who entertain that age group. Sneako is entertaining psychopaths. His chat is constantly saying slurs and glorifying murder, as he is too.

https://askthedentist.com/hydroxyapatite-toothpaste/ All studies are cited in the article

I bet he's using coconut oil or something. Get him on that hydroxyapatite asap.

Sneako is like an NPC with a limited dialogue tree. He has nothing new to offer, he never changes his ideology or what he thinks, and when he is confronted on how he is wrong he just threatens to fight you. He's even worse than Andrew Tate. His popularity purely stems from low effort controversy. He will vanish into the abyss of irrelevancy alongside Adin Ross, hopefully sooner when Destiny stops deciding to platform him for clicks and views.

I guess this is getting revived for some reason The Matrix >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I think it depends on what you want. The benefit of a forum is that you get very personal answers directed toward your specific situation. I don't think there's any harm in using it. Someone might say something you never heard before. If you don't care about any of that then you probably shouldn't use it.

Well, you said it yourself. Change involves two things that exist one after the other. Those two things are the duality. The "lack of change" needs to exist alongside the "change" in order for you to perceive it. Just like you can't have light without dark, or up without down. Change is just appearances filling in a lack of appearance. But, both aspects have to exist together since they only exist relative to each other, and so they always ultimately exist as one thing. For example, when you add red food coloring to a glass of water, you say that the water changed. But, if you add red food coloring to a glass of water that already has red food coloring in it, you say nothing changed, because it was already red to begin with. You need the initial "lack of red" to perceive the "change to red", and so ultimately the "lack of change" is actually identical to the "change", your mind just imagines a separation between the two for practical reasons, and so that would be the "imagined duality".