Tim R

That's why Solipsism is an utterly meaningless problem!! (for those, for whom it still poses a problem). "All perspectives" can only be your perspective. It's always you. If you could at this very moment incarnate yourself "into the perspective" of your mom or your best friend "to find out whether they have their own bubble", it would still be you who's looking!! It's always you. Always. Got that? There is nothing depressing about actual Solipsism. And if you think there is, you have no clue who you are and deluded yourself into a solipsistic prison where you feel trapped inside your head and "inside your bubble". You're not inside the bubble, the bubble is inside f*cking you!!! And Leo was 100% correct when he said that you are the sponge. You're not the damn bubble, and you are certainly not "alone inside your bubble". Realize who you truly are, and you will find out who "other people" are. And there's nothing scary about it - and if there is, you know there's still some ego clinging to itself, so don't think that it was the final step.

You need to be a bit more sophisticated here. The Buddha didn't pull this sh*t out of his ass over night, you can bet that a lot of careful thought went into these four statements. There is nothing negative about these statements, they're just observations packed into easily understood and memorized statements. What is meant by saying that "life is suffering" is this: "dukkha" is the opposite of "sukha", which means something like "pleasure". "Dukkha" is about the frustration of everyday life which is the result of - and then comes this long list of why you're frustrated. Because you don't understand that Sukha implies Dukkha. Because you're setting yourself impossible goals (like getting rid of Dukkha and keeping Sukha). Because you don't understand that your wanting and craving is the same as feeling that there is something missing in life (Dukkha). And on and on and on.... And then the Buddha gives solutions to these problems. Which also need to be packed into shirt sentences because this was the only way of teaching them to large audiences. @Someone here If you actually want to know more about Buddhism I suggest you go study it yourself, there's a lot to learn and much of it is incredibly valuable.

I think they are very sophisticated and hit the nail on the head. Don't forget that Buddhism is primarily interested in reducing suffering, not describing reality. Of course, in order to reduce suffering, you will have to understand reality so as to navigate towards that first goal successfully. And I think the four noble truths do a pretty good job at that, as they lay the ground for enlightenment work in Buddhism.

Whatever you think reality is, is your projection.

@fopylo Well that's essentially the same question as "who are you?" And I feel like you already know (at least in theory) what the relationship between yourself and awareness is.

Leo still has to reveal the new substance he talked about in his latest video on god realization...

@fopylo Some very solid and extremely foundational insight you got there, nice? What you're describing here is the state of consciousness of 99% of people. They are dazing in and out of awareness of their immediate reality, whether it's the physical reality surrounding them, or more subtle still, their thoughts, fantasies and beliefs. What comes into play at this point is focus. This feeling of intensified "is-ness" (/being) is the result of increased focus. And focus is a "function" of awareness (I'm putting "function" in quotes because awareness actually doesn't "have" any functions, but let's keep it simple for the moment). This weird state of "not being there" is awareness without very much focus. In this state, events and things in the physical and mental world flow through awareness, but without focus, that is to say, without "particularization". And so it feels as if the world has turned into a blurry picture. As if there wasn't really anything there. But the moment you begin to focus - there it is!

That video doesn't even begin to move into the realm of Langen's work. If he has an IQ of 200, that would obviously be very impressive, but intelligence is not a guarantor for finding truth. I've quickly skimmed his work and find it quite interesting, but his approach to describe the ontological nature of reality mathematically is simply false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan https://variantofone.medium.com/explaining-the-ctmu-cognitive-theoretic-model-of-the-universe-163a89fc5841 Here are some of his papers: http://www.ctmu.org/ I think he isn't immersed enough inside epistemology and metaphysics; he still thinks too much like a rational materialist/scientist. It must be incredibly difficult for a man with an IQ of 200 to go beyond his mind...

@Blackhawk Leo didn't call the holocaust into question, what he meant by saying is not that there is any question about the historical validity of the holocaust, but that the notion of "truth" in and of itself is something that is part of the social matrix. The social matrix is a culturally enforced sense of reality - that's the point he was trying to make. What people consider to be "true" is cultural consensus. It doesn't matter in the least what is considered to be true (as for example the holocaust) only the fact that "truth" itself is constructed.

That's a very theory-loaded question and you must be very careful and attentive when trying to forge an answer, because we're now moving within the domain of pure abstraction. You could read entire books on "what is information?" and still not be satisfied with the answers. I think information is a function of abstraction. By abstraction I mean specifically: representations (in whatever form; symbolic, phonetic, visual, imagistic, etc.) of events or things in the world. But since the "representation" is always based on comparison with "other things" (i.e. abstractions), the definitions of "things" is circular. But for the sake of discussion, let's pretend that this is not the case, because otherwise the whole enterprise of abstraction would lose its meaning. This is why in the strictest sense, information is illusory. Information is essentially synonymous with "meaning". Which in turn is synonymous with "implication". Information is always based on interpretation. I can talk to you in a foreign language, but unless you know how to interpret the sounds I make, no information is conveyed to you, aka no meaning/sense can be constructed.

And when he (Jesus) had said this, he breathed on them (his disciples) and saith unto them, "Receive ye the Holy Spirit". - John 20,22 -

No, I don't think there's any mystic who ever said anything like that... The notion of "temporary" (as opposed to "eternal") is a duality itself.

@anderson Who said that there is any "I" or "self" that reincarnates? Oh? What if we're much more than that?

@Chives99 In a sense, yes. Only the trick of course is not to turn "non-duality" into yet another descriptive concept. Because saying that reality is "this" would exclude "that". And every concept is meaningful only because it sets up a duality. But reality isn't a concept. Reality isn't "this". It also isn't "that". There isn't even any "it". Because "it" would exclude "not-it". All dualities exclude, and therefore cannot grasp reality. So, reality is non-dual. It's neither this nor that, but all of it and thus none of it. Nothing to see here

@Godishere There is nothing special about psychedelics. You might as well ask "why did god create the tree in your neighbor's garden?" The answer is: for no reason. Creation (i.e. reality) is spontaneous and unpremeditated. There is no reason to anything, but equally, nothing is random. There cannot be a "reason" to anything, because reality is groundless. It is itself. It's own ground/existence. The notion of "reason/cause" bears with it so many assumptions that by the time you've tackled all those, your question will have revealed itself to be meaningless.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." Interesting philosophical tool I just came across. It's kinda like Ockhams Razor. I think it's quite useful, because plain ignorance, stupidity and unconsciousness are much more abundant in human beings than actual malice... Philosophical Razors are pretty useful anyway, so here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_razor

@Gabith Sounds pretty normal. The microdose range ends at 15µg (beginning with around 6µg). What you're describing doesn't sound like hypersensitivity, I get pretty much the same effects at around 12,5-15µg - but I use 1cp LSD, which is slightly more potent than normal acid. So with 15-20µg you're well above micro dosing range. The point of MD is to take the dose in the morning and then basically forget that you did so. Of course you can take more if you want, but then it's not exactly microdosing. But it isn't proper "tripping" or macro-dosing either? it's just more than micro dosing and of course you then get the effects of LSD. So either lower the dose or enjoy the higher dose??

@Ecocotton If Solipsism were to be true, you could not ask anyone to verify or falsify it. Thus making Solipsism an utterly meaningless problem. There is no self and everything is of that same nature; selflessness. This is the "big Self". And as that, you are alone - but in union with the Universe, as the Universe. There is only "everything" - and as that, "everything" is alone. Everything is a reflection of consciousness - consciousness reflecting itself. Think of it in this way: When you look at other people, you are looking at yourself. When you look into a mirror, you are also looking at yourself. And it's the exact same thing with consciousness. That, which is looking (consciousness), is both the reflection and the mirror simultaneously. This is what is meant by saying "there are no other people". Your reflection in the mirror is also not an entity. There is no "other" when you look into a mirror. Does your reflection in the mirror "have" consciousness? No! It is consciousness! Do other people have consciousness? No! They are consciousness! The mirror and the reflection are 100% identical. This is the nature of non-duality. Once you see that this is so, Solipsism immediately ceases to be a problem, because you have realized that there is no self, there is no other and there is no problem.

Lol. The Yugas aren't "real", they are metaphors for the ups and downs of every dynamic system - especially the human psyche. There is no such thing as the Kali Yuga, don't let Shunyamurti scare you?

Your feelings are never wrong. To ask whether your feelings are "wrong" is like asking "can colors be wrong?" and the answer to that is obviously "no". They are what they are and they present themselves to you in and as the direct and unmediated way how they actually are. However, we human beings never keep it at that. We interpret our feelings, mostly within the context of our desires (which is essentially also feeling) and thoughts. We also project all kinds of things onto them and them onto other things or people. So when you're asking "are my feelings wrong", what you're actually asking is "can there be a discordance between the interpretation of my feelings?" and I thinks the answer is yes. For example, when you break up with someone you love, you might experience a confusion in your feelings. On the one hand you still kinda love the person, on the other hand you don't anymore because they did something bad or whatever. But this confusion is not "wrong feelings". You feelings are exactly right the way they are, but the frame in which you interpret them now, is in discord. I suggest you ask @Nahm, he is a pro when it comes to feeling.

I'm beginning to speculate whether these two dudes have started to watch Leo's stuff? some of the things they (especially Jordan) say reminds me of that. They talk about Love, God, Truth, Consciousness, all the good stuff. Could it be that JBP has seen Leo's videos?

@Adamq8 There are four underlying assumptions: - death is real and "happens" to "you" - there is such a thing as experience and it has an opposite: non-experience - experience "ceases" to be when you are dead - non-existence Contemplate those. Let's say your right and when you die, experience completely ceases to be. And it will be as if you had never been alive. But what would it be like to "stop"? Well you can't even call it "stop" because it didn't ever stop. There is no contrast. There never wasn't any "start", so there is no stop. Contemplate that. Maybe experience can never cease because it never began. Tell me, is the present moment something that is beginning or ending? Or is it timeless? How can something timeless "end"? And what about non-existence? How can non-existence "exist"? Is there such a thing as non-experience? And what is experience anyway? Are you experiencing the universe? Or is experience identical with the universe? And who are you? Are "you" something that can die? Are you bound by time? Or are you just an illusion and so your death? So there's a couple of things for you to contemplate. Always be careful with underlying assumptions when making metaphysical claims. What do you mean?

Here's a new perspective for you on spiritual traditions. We in the west are kinda spoiled when it comes to spirituality. We have it so comfortable. But when you look at the Aghori, you realize just how bizarre some spiritual practices can be. And how utterly foreign this is to us. Amazing documentary.

@cookiemonster But don't you see that the killing of this one chick is the manifestation of love for all chicks? And believe it or not, even for the killed one! Let me try to explain; You have correctly recognized that the stork did it for probably some good reason, like limited food supply etc. The mother loves her children and her own survival. So what is she supposed to do? Keep them all and therefore let all of them become sick or die because she couldn't provide enough food for everyone? Then where would be the love? This act is not loveless. It's the other side of love that we people don't like to look at. Love isn't always pleasant, but nevertheless, it is love. You are still attached to Love as this romanticized notion of Love as a pleasant, warm, cuddly emotion. But love is much more than that. Love includes the unpleasant. When you love your children, you sometimes have to be harsh to them - not in the sense that you purposefully want to inflict something unpleasant upon them, but something that they from their limited point of view will perceive as harsh and unloving, but which actually is a manifestation of your love for them. To give an example, let's say your child wants to eat a bunch of candy. And you say "okay, you can eat one or two snickers (or whatever)." And then your child starts complaining because he/she wants more. But because you love your child and you don't want him/her to become unhealthy and the teeth to fall out, you have to do something which the child will perceive as unloving and harsh (forbidding more candy) - but only because he/she isn't yet mature enough to recognize the love in this act. You see? Now you might say "but you can't compare refusing candy with killing your child!!" Actually I can. It's the exact same principle. Both are acts of love, the question is only: Are you mature enough to see that? Are you mature enough to get over the superficial appearance of doing something seemingly unloving and recognize the actual love behind it?

@StarfoxEpiphany It's very god that you have realized that it's not helpful or good to do these things. But then you need to move on, not "stop being a progressive". Again, I don't even know what you mean by that. But I hope you haven't retreated back into some sort of conservatism where you now dislike progressivism. This dynamic is very common among younger people these days; they grow up in stage Blue/Orange, start moving into Green and then experience a backlash which catapults them back into (sometimes an even deeper form of) Blue. The healthy thing of course would be to move on into Yellow. But then you are still, in a sense, a progressive. Only a stage Yellow progressive instead of edge case Green.