AtheisticNonduality

I've used theta and gamma waves for a few lucid dreams before, although I'm a bit concerned about gamma waves (They correlate with anxiety, but anxiety is just a negative form of excitement---so there could be a dichotomous conversion there possible.)

You said Consciousness and space and time exist together dependently. Leo literally does not believe in the exist of space. Or time. Additionally, you didn't address any of his claims. Because you deal in low amounts of information only.

no

There is a hypocrisy here, which in philosophical logic is a self-refutation. For each one, you'll get a hypocrisy point. But first of all, the distinction between Emptiness and form (or capitalized Form if you'd like) is not arbitrarily created. It's created because they are distinct in reality, outside of the conceptual mind, experientially, directly experientially. I have form, and that form is Emptiness. I also have non-form, Emptiness qua Emptiness, which is outside of form. If Emptiness covers the entire breadth of the formed world (of perceptions, the physical, the mental, in all senses and human faculties) in addition to being totally outside of that, we necessarily conclude Emptiness is ontologically more comprehensive or wider, since it is completely immanent (spanning the realm Everythingness) and transcendent (being retreated into itself with no form there). This is not conceptually invented; this is "seen" with the eyes of its own witnessing, its own self-defining and self-revealing. My visual field is Nothingness with form; outside my visual field's boundaries (we are claiming the existence of boundaries because they are consequential) is Nothingness with Nothingness alone. Though all of this is able to be seen as nondualistic. I of course said before that denying this transcendence of Emptiness outside of form (because it supposedly violates the principle of Oneness, even though we speak of one thing over there and another over here all the time and don't think that distinction is ultimately a denial of reality) becomes self-refuting when you emphasize the transcendence of Consciousness outside of form (form = the qualities that adhere to space and time). The only way for Consciousness to transcend form is to be Emptiness, since that which is Emptiness is the only existence that might assume any formed finite existence, is the only Infinite existence through its boundlessness that is compatible with all bounds. But perhaps the stated transcendence does not place Consciousness outside of what we call the space and the time; it only denies their multiplicity with an oppressive unity. And yet the forms exist in their unity, as images, as people, as the sky, as such as what you are. It depends on what direction you're traveling in. Emptiness transcends form. Yet you could also have a form that excites itself to such a degree it becomes (realized as) an infinite form, going up in intensity of form. But ultimately Consciousness must be Emptiness and Emptiness must be Consciousness, both the same Infinite unities and One set of infinities. He answers with "Consciousness" out of his own bias. I would not use the word "Consciousness" because it is potentially a conflation with the lowercase consciousness of just humankind. What psychological aspects belong to is consciousness; what the highest reaches of mysticism belong to is Consciousness. There is a terminological mess, part of the case for proper systematization. He also needs to more carefully explain the Love and Infinity and You, systematically, not just with ambiguities in this case and definitely not with intentional falsehoods . . . Go cannot get around Emptiness. This statement is a bit concerning. As if you don't have it in your direct awareness and don't actually know what it is. Reading about Platonic philosophy won't suffice, but as a logical pointer, Emptiness cannot not exist in forms, cannot not be in Consciousness either, because it is the very ground of nonexistence and existence themselves. If something doesn't exist, it has no form and is in Emptiness, and if everything doesn't exist, it has no form and is in Emptiness; and if something does exist, it must still be Emptiness because whatever is its boundary will not have a clear demarcation to separate it from Emptiness because Emptiness does not subscribe to boundaries (though it exists as only itself outside boundaries); and it must still be Emptiness because there is absolutely nothing that could remove it from form and there is nothing in form that could deny Emptiness' reign and ocean surrounding-ness. You are giving an otherwise Absolute quality a relative appearance (and getting your second hypocrisy point by the way). The first step is living and thinking in the relative world, distinguishing things for pragmatism and instinct. The second step is realizing the Absolute and differentiating it from the relative, seeing how it is different from the relative in basic existence and principles and consequence. But the third step is realizing that differentiation was a mental construction, because that is how humans make sense of phenomena as well as the highest phenomena, and that there is an Absoluteness that allows for no border at all between the Absolute and the relative. The only border that can exist here is between your conception of the Absolute and your conception of the relative, not an Absolute separate from one of its creations, for if an Absolute were separate from one of its creations, it would not really be Absolute; or the creation would not exist at all and be "illusory" or "Maya" or whatnot, which is incoherent since something which exists necessarily exists. There is is an absurdity of something that exists which does not exist. This is why I maintain the supposition of the "illusion" of reality is itself, in a way, the real illusion because it is an inaccurate statement about reality's structure. Or this can all be overcome by admitting the existence of space and time, however deceptive or illusory at first before we grasp it better. Technical precision will become more important the more falseness corrupts the higher level of reality we'll be accessing.

@RendHeaven You have a little misinterpretation at the beginning of the cascade. In the previous thread I linked, I claimed Emptiness was "larger" and more ontologically expansive than form. "I'm conscious that form and formlessness are the same, but I have the sense that formlessness is 'larger' because space can't confine it. The Emptiness is in my field of experience, yet there's also Emptiness outside the border of vision. If Emptiness has the entire realm of space and time and conception and thoughts plus more, it seems more profound than form (and this was not logically deduced; it's something I actually have access to; my senses/experience are like an island in an ocean of Emptiness or a Void). I can't imagine a Self without Emptiness holding all of reality, including form, together." Leo replied and said that Emptiness could not be beyond form since both were completely identical. And then here Leo became inconsistent when he said Consciousness goes beyond space and time (obviously because this contradicts his claim Emptiness can't transcend form). With the Platonic analogy of gold and shapes, we have to drop the qualities of color. It is simply a fact that Consciousness is Emptiness, is completely transparent. This is the permanent Nothingness that escapes transience but which permeates it. The main part you're attacking in your response is where I took some of the truth of the principle Leo established to upend its supposed denial of space and time. He or you might say that Consciousness unifying with space and time destroys their reality because reality is singular and cannot allow for multiples, but I could equally say as a demonstrable and irrefutable theorem that Consciousness = Reality and Consciousness = its manifestations, therefore its manifestations = Reality = Real. The individual forms are real even though they are the same ontological entity or eventually go by a single name. The issue this all points to is that Leo's primary frustration/difficulty here is that a microscopic fraction of the people here have awakened, to match his standards. And he sees them speaking about things with which they have no direct experience, so he attempts to sidestep this by saying, "No, that doesn't exist!" Rather than engaging in actual philosophy. The concern is that all of these statements, like those of space denialism or time denialism, will get believed (which is concerning since they aren't true, or are at least partial truths) or used to misinterpret the whole system and drag people off into a trap in the darkness instead of pulling them along the correct path. I've said previously that people finding this project hundreds of years after Leo's death will need some definite work to hold on to or a masterpiece (magnus opus for the summum bonum) to read and understand every truth, every position, every piece. That's why the systematizing is important.

@mmKay @Razard86 The simple/complex thing is that life is both simple and complex. The simplicity can be used to construct higher complexity, and things exist at many different levels. So a more comprehensive view can integrate both, though I'd agree Purple tribal society is overly idealized. : ) The 4 quadrants are ultimately wrong, unless you include them all within Consciousness. So idealism is true, but there's still an "exterior" part of consciousness that is out there in the image of the world you interact with, reality divided up. The Wilber model also has it that Tier 3 necessarily incorporates God.

Previously you have said: So to respond to time and space being imagined by Consciousness, just like how you say you cannot say Emptiness goes beyond form since they are completely One and inseparable, it could be said that Consciousness cannot go beyond space and time in how we define them. You are creating a distinction between the Imaginer and the Imagined, when they are One process of Imagination. Space and time have to exist just as much as Consciousness does. On the other hand, creating these dualities is useful because they actually exist, because they've been imagined. Up and down are not the same, though they are the Same. Emptiness the witness and the witnessed, Imagination the imaginer and the imagined, Creation the creator and the created, Destructivity the eliminator and the eliminated, Love that which loves and that which is loved: this is the highest holon. You cannot sidestep the terminological issues, so you have to create a system of language to understand them. This is why intellectual rigor and philosophical technicality are important. Substantial for the Actualized book, the imprint of which upon reality could be extraordinary. No issue, no aspect, can be left unturned.

Not him!

exactly If Everything is in its exploration time, that women's time's reality is proven and the argument has been finished.

Lol, I temporarily moved you down to Red, for bullying preetyindia. That is not how it works. Like here, for example: We're using the word "time" in different ways. You mean time as in sense of time, like a human instinct or mechanism or conception. I mean time as a fundamental part of how objects exist. They have to exist across moments, otherwise they don't make sense. This is true, but think about the other things that separate us from animals. We humans have the unique capacity to think abstractly, to use higher-order logic, to really understand the world, etc. Perhaps our sense of time is like that. It actually helps us to get a better grasp over phenomena (to help us survive better, or perhaps for philosophizing?)

Part of my point, though, is that the senses are also real. The senses are what make up space, your perception of it, and their existence of movement gives the time aspect. Sense of gravity could also be interrupted with by sensory deprivation, if you turned off part of the mind/brain to get rid of spatial/perceptual orientation so there's no way to tell where your weight is being pushed by gravity to. That doesn't make gravity any less real, since it is an experience in reality that exists through space and time. And even if the senses are interfered with in some way and are in an altered or sensorily deprived state, they have to have some means of logical objectivity for us to remember them from that state, which means we have to be able to configure them in our spatial-temporal reality.

No. Okay, this proves the existence of time as a system of "updates" for an observer. Ew.

Lol, is the argument that time has to be illusion because Einstein said so and Einstein has a reputation for being genius? Geniuses can still make mistakes (think Van Gogh's self-mutilation, and compare that with the Einstein quote). The basic point behind relativity is that different objects or spaces move at different speeds, and so the slowness/quickness of some object or area of spacetime will be conceived or defined by the velocity of some other place, this being the simple principle a lot of people learn from it. But all of this is still happening using time, even if different times seem to become enmeshed with theoretically a thousand years passing in one place and one second in another. Time has to exist.

@thisintegrated Because Leo likes to spread hogwash like "death is imaginary" or "you were never born" even though time literally exists, and he claims space does not exist, when it does, therefore the arguments have to be sufficiently intellectually rigorous and philosophically technical, which is a major blindspot Leo has.

@Leo Gura Is not @RendHeaven establishing a false dichotomy between Absolute and relative which can never truly exist? If it's meant that "the relative world" is just a mental construction, that is subject to being destroyed. If you we mean the actual forms themselves, it can hold destructions within it (creations and destructions being the parts of the whole relative set of forms), but it itself cannot be destroyed. The only way for it to not exist is simply to not exist, and ultimate nonexistence actually holds no contact with creation or destruction. But even the mental construction is One with the Absolute. This is what I mean by the existence of the illusion being just another illusion.

Absoluteness and Eternity and Omnipresence = relative entities and spatial or conceptually comparative reality. There is no boundary between them, meaning the reality of the relative side cannot be denied. Therefore space exists. Therefore space denialism is debunked.

So this is not a nonexistence or denial of spatiotemporality; it's just a recontextualization of it. However, Leo has explicitly stated that part of awakening is that space does not exist, so either Leo is wrong due to illogically misinterpreting his own awakenings because he is a fallible human entity or there is a terminological issue. Of course nothing exists outside of the Awareness, making mainstream materialism incorrect, but space still exists in our perception across a line of time; and this is our perception AS A REALITY and not an illusion, because the existences of illusions are illusions and absolutely incapable of existing.

Quite probably the most exasperating thing about awakened (or previously awakened) people is the possibility that they literally deny the existence of space and time, even though they are physically made out of space and time (moving colors as the form of the body and moving sounds the voice physically based "out there" and mental objects too that have spatial and temporal traits like thoughts, LIKE A THOUGHT COULD BE IN EXISTENCE, COULD EXIST IN BEING).

Abiding to a restriction is not necessarily a Kantian deontological enforcement. It could have a Nietzschean "justification" as well, namely that your Will is the consumption of plants and contempt for eating non-vegetarian foods.

This is similar to how anxiety and excitement have the same psychophysical effect in terms of biomarkers and inner phenomena, and it's all based on interpretation (as positive or negative, mentally), as @Nilsi said. This is a real place, a whole existence of suffering, and it is important to document. The message he's given for this is essentially, "If you're mentally ill or in deep suffering, that's not my specialty . . ." Though I would not say churches, temples, and such institutionalizing structures are conducive to God-realization most of the time; but perhaps that will change. I don't like it either. The process needs less foolishness and more work. It needs more focus on the goals acted upon the collective that this all should be, as in, the effect here could have is much more than some of the nonsense that goes on. Yes, and I'll probably think about this a bit more.

@JuliusCaesar The issue is that all these phenomena have materialist interpretations/explanations/rationalizations. None of them are truly disproofs. All of the "telepathic" or "glitch" occurrences are psychologically explainable. Is telepathy outside of material reality? Perhaps, but not necessarily, since all we need to do to include it within materiality is to model it that way and use physical systems to say how it works or could work. The quantum physics approach is even worse since all of that isn't even psychological (isn't even subjective or detached from our conceptions of the material) and is completely at the level of base physical reality. The wave function collapse requires no God, only objects (or probabilities and actualities) being in certain configurations according to certain measurements. It can be entirely systemic and doesn't need something outside the system to explain it. Now, on some level, there always needs to be something outside the system, some overlying existence of unity and transcendence, which is why disproving materialism rests with philosophy and experience alone, rather than just unorthodoxly reinterpreting strange psychophysical phenomena as immaterial.

Because the principle is that even though your Mind is infinite, by a relative sense your mind is hopelessly finite, so you must reach out for sources of information not already formulated. There are people that will articulate the same type of knowledge but with more detail and in fashions you wouldn't otherwise think of / conclude / develop by yourself. The classic example we've already established was Aurobindo and how his writing is "so, so dense" and such.

They could hallucinate them because they've heard about it happening before, or they've had someone exhale smoke which still contained nicotine in their face before. Or they could have just been in the same room or car as someone smoking---this so they can get a hallucinated nicotinic compensation for the anticholinergic effects. @JuliusCaesar Behavioral changes, even at a subconscious level, of mimicking a character or gaining or losing certain medical issues have psychological explanations, not necessarily supernormal ones. For example, there's a case of a patient with Dissociative Identity Disorder (multiple personalities) that could see or was blind depending on personality states, actually verified neurally. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17611729/ You could also better explain the supranormal events you've interpreted as disproving materialism (though they could just be the high end of a material reality). @Danioover9000 What is your experience with the entities?

I know what Leo meant by trying to contact other Gods.

Write the most beautiful thing you could possibly ever think of right now.