caspex

He addressed some of the main points + didn't sound too arrogant so I take that he read alteast some of it and took what he needed. I could reply to each of his points again but I can't be bothered. I already said all I had to say. I'd just be restating my points.

I see. Thanks for the clarification.

1: The "You" is a part your experience that usually remains constant. 2: You cannot confirm whether the rest of this post exists or not, because even if you read the rest of it that is in the axis of time. Experientially there is only the present moment. If we are speaking by pure experience, right here right now, it's obvious that the experience and the experience are the same. Any thoughts and ideas seem to be only on top of this pure direct experience, which also form part of the experience once they appear. 3: What I meant is that you need to include the body, your senses, your ego etc. within what experience is. Right now it would look like a word game to you but if you detach from this sense of 'experiencer', it becomes obvious that what you currently consider as being not part of the experience, is also just pure experience. It's qualia without a witness to witness it. Even the experience of free will is just an experience. 4: Since the experiencer and the experience are one, it's the same as saying there is no witness or experiencer. First you have to detach from your sense of self to realize that the sense of self isn't experiencing anything. It becomes obvious that 'thoughts' and the 'self' are dead, just like a rock laying on the ground. You cannot think then anymore, only observe. What we truly consider alive is this consciousness/awareness that is actually aware. Then once awareness finally becomes aware of itself, it has to make a leap in awareness once again, and realize it is one with the experience. That it's not aware of something, but that the something is the only thing there, and that the awareness was a construct on top of that raw experience.

My name's Swarnim, and am 18. From India. I am very interested in the different AI developments and love to speculate about it. Been into spirituality for 4 years now, but more properly 3. I think discussing with someone who is both into AI and Spirituality will be very fun because that opens up the conversation to stuff like souls, reincarnation, consciousness, karma and all that stuff in relation to AI, which mainstream AI discussions usually avoid(except the consciousness part, but they have done such little consciousness work that you might as well omit that LOL).

If I was correct then remember this, you DO want to live, you DO desire to do MANY things. You DESIRE to EXIST. You WANT TO fucking EXIST to the FULLEST extent that you can. This is at the core of every human being. You don't feel this because that vitality is being sapped away, it's all being used in maintaining all the fragments, all the facades within oneself, it being sapped away by all the patterns and habits. And it's possible to become one again, it's definitely possible to become integrated into one giant mind that you are. Just take baby steps towards it, it will happen.

"Judging" means two things. 1: Analyzing and forming a conclusion 2: Not accepting someone. You don't want to do the second thing, but it's good to do the first. Judging(1) someone to be toxic is quite fine. But judging(2) someone for being toxic is not. You get what I am trying to say? To accept someone you just have to see them as your equal. Then, see yourself in them, and 'allow' yourself as them to exist. For example: Person A is pretty toxic, I hate them. But I should to something about this hate. Let me do this. I am that person. I am toxic. But I don't hate myself for being toxic. I allow myself to be toxic. It's ok to be toxic... Now with this, you won't hate them anymore for who they are. The reason you hate someone is because you'd hate to be them. (Except in the case of jealousy, where you'd love to be them, but hate to be you in relation to them. If you'd love to be them, and also accept who you are in relation to them, that's admiration.)

Hey davecraw, thanks for posting. Let me address each of your points. Right now this section of my post is in your clear experience, but the rest is in your periphery. When you get to the rest of the post, this part here will become the periphery and only a memory, but that whole state would also be part of your experience. "Memory" is also experience. The experiencer knowing stuff that is not in his experience anymore, is also part of the experience. The key insight here is that "past" and "future", as you think of them, are also experience. your senses, cognitive functions, and physical abilities are not beyond experience, but are an integral part of your experience. Try to imagine that there is nothing beyond your experience, your experience right now, is all that exists. This can completely be possible. I am not saying it is, but it could be. So after this thought experiment, do your senses, cognitive functions, physical abilities disappear? No they don't. The key insight here is that using your hand to taste the food, is all part of the experience. The user, the used and the using, all forms part of the experience. Experience is not mere visual field in the present moment. As explained earlier, expand your definition of 'experience'. If I have to explain this action according to "experiencer and experience are the same", then it would go like this. A part of the experience(your sense of self), decided that it will control another part of the experience(closing of the eyes), to effect another part of the experience(the visual field). To understand the sameness between the two, you cannot use logic like you tried to present in your post. I invite you to do "neti-neti" or the "I AM" meditation practices to completely detach from your sense of self. It's a state where you feel, quite literally, that there is no experiencer. This state is where the argument "experience and experiencer are the same" originate from. If you wholeheartedly feel this statement is wrong, then please try to achieve the state mentioned above, it's quite real.

@Razard86 I need you to reply to what I am gonna say here. I need you to read this. Understanding the final answer requires understanding of many, many smaller concepts. Another way to look at is, to get the final answer one needs to first unlock all the locks that prevent you from understanding the final answer. People have different amount of locks, with various degrees of difficulty to open for each lock. To awaken someone, you need to pick these locks, only then the person can understand. This is what Leo does with his entire Youtube channel. You need to be patient and realize this. Leaving the forum because 'people don't want to understand' is stupid. That's like bursting into a 4th grade classroom, trying to explain calculus, and when no one understands (and kids mess around because they don't see the value in calculus), you say they don't want to understand and leave the classroom. The reason I pointed out in my reply earlier that most people won't understand "You are music" is because them objecting to that makes your entire argument fall flat for them. You assume either too highly of the readers, or too wrongly. You should care more about the efficiency of your argument if you really care about awakening others. People misunderstand, judge, not even read your whole post, stuff like that... they come in with made up minds, they are not open, they fuck around. But you have to take responsibility for that. Don't blame it on the reader for not wanting to understand. If you don't care about awakening others because it's too hard then there's no need to develop this skill. But if you want to develop this skill then you have to take responsibility for all of that. Obviously there's truth to what you say, but you are not taking responsibility. I too get annoyed, when I write a massive post and people reply without even reading half of it, missing the point completely, and nitpicking on something ignoring the entire context behind it. But that's just people. That doesn't mean I have nothing to learn from trying to teach these people. You always seem to post here with the energy "I KNOW EVERYTHING, I HAVE NOTHING TO LEARN FROM YOU BUT YOU HAVE EVERYTHING TO LEARN FROM ME. IF YOU OBJECT TO ME YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY WRONG OR MISUNDERSTAND." Look man, I am sure that's not how you actually operate, but you can't get through people with that kind of an energy. You may think you have the energy of cutting through bullshit but you just come off as arrogant, not someone who cuts through bullshit. The "coming off as arrogant" is your responsibility, don't say "well it's because I am showing people their bullshit". You can show people their bullshit without coming off as arrogant. You can seem energetic without coming off as arrogant. You can cut through bullshit effectively without coming off as arrogant. It's possible and you won't reach their if you keep blaming the readers.

@WeCome1 Why does the second quote say I said it lol

I think most people would object to "You are music".

Bro. "Happening" is a relative word. Depends on how you define it.

@Razard86 The problem is that they think psychedelics induce hallucinatory logic and sense-making. Sure, you made them understand the state they call soberness is subjective, so what? Now instead of sober being a state, it becomes a spectrum of more sober and less sober. But to them psychedelics take you off the whole spectrum of sober, into the spectrum of hallucinations and illusions. Is this true? No, but that's not how people who argue against psychedelic awakenings think. To them psychedelics means an entire different spectrum that has nothing to do with truth. Do you think convincing them that sober is subjective will convince them? You assume that they think psychedelic states/logic-making exists on the same spectrum as "sober". You argue how we already hold substances in our body altering our 'sober', so how can one argue against psychedelics? But you never proved how psychedelics alter your states to make you bullshit LESS than 'sober'. Look, I agree with what you said, I am just saying what you said is not gonna convince most people who argue against psychedelic awakenings. You have to convince in other ways, like how you just did with "you could argue with the right dosage that psychedelics could IMPROVE functionality.". That's how you start to convince them.

hey I am just joking lol

Typical conversation after following these rules:

2: Jack's Spiritual Practice John: Hey, Jack! How's it going? Experience still happening in extraordinary ways, I assume? Jack: Indeed, John! Experience continues its unpredictable dance, and this mind observes with unwavering curiosity. A pov appears. John: Ah, the unpredictable dance of experience. Always keeping us on our toes, Jack. So, what brings you here today? Jack: Perception happens, my friend. This body exists, seeking a humble favor. Might this body request some extra sugar for it's spiritual practice? John: Sugar for your spiritual practice? Interesting. Alright, I have to ask, what exactly does your spiritual practice entail? Jack: Life is happening, John. The body's vessels come in various forms. In this case, the spiritual vessel utilizes the sacred art of snorting sugar up the posterior region for transcendental elevation. John: Snorting sugar up... you know what, let's not delve into the details of your spiritual practice, Jack. I'll get you some sugar, but please promise me you won't talk about it anymore. Jack: Thoughts appear, my friend. I shall honor your request and keep the sacred snorting to myself. The sugar, like sweet enlightenment, shall be gratefully received. John: Sweet enlightenment indeed. Well, here's your extra sugar, Jack. May it fuel your spiritual journey in the most unconventional of ways. Just remember, keep it to yourself. Jack: Perception happens, John. The unconventional journeys are often the most enlightening. Fear not, for my lips shall remain sealed, embracing the mystery of my sugar-infused spiritual path. Thank you, my friend. John: Embracing the mystery indeed. You're welcome, Jack. May your spiritual endeavors be as sweet as the sugar itself. Now, let's just hope this conversation never happened. Farewell for now! Jack: Life is happening, John. The past is but a fleeting mirage. It never existed in the first place! Farewell, my friend, until our mind-body complexes meet again in this mysterious world. This post was generated by ChatGPT.

1: Perceptions Unveiled: The Peculiar Encounter of John and Jack John: Hey, I'm John. Nice to meet you. Jack: Experience happens, fellow traveler. This mind recognizes your presence. A pov appears. John: Uh, okay. Nice to meet you, Jack. So, what brings you here? Jack: Perception happens, John. This body exists in this place. Thoughts appear, guiding this mind to this fortuitous encounter. John: Right, thoughts guiding you and all. Well, welcome to the neighborhood. Are you settling in alright? Jack: Life is happening, John. This mind finds itself navigating the ebb and flow of existence within these new surroundings. John: That's... deep. So, what do you do for a living, Jack? Jack: Thoughts appear, my friend. This mind engages in the dance of professions, exploring the vast tapestry of occupational possibilities. John: Ah, the dance of professions, sounds exhilarating. Do you mind being a little more specific? Like, what do you actually do? Jack: Perception happens, John. This body exists. This mind immerses itself in the realm of creative expression, utilizing various mediums to articulate its innermost visions. John: Creative expression, huh? So, you're an artist? Painter, musician, poet? Jack: Life is happening, John. The boundaries of artistic categorization cannot encapsulate the multifaceted nature of this mind's creative pursuits. John: Of course, how could I be so narrow-minded? Well, Jack, it was... interesting meeting you. I have to run some errands now, but perhaps we'll catch up again. Jack: Perception happens, John. This body exists. Our paths may intertwine once more in the grand tapestry of existence. John: Right, the grand tapestry. Well, until then, take care, Jack. Good luck on finding a job. Jack: Life is happening, John. Farewell, my temporary companion. May your journey be filled with profound perceptions and flourishing thoughts. This post was generated by ChatGPT.

Please Note: I can't be bothered to organize this wall of text into paragraphs to make it more readable. Truth is a value held by many of us here. We do not want to be deluded, but what is truth? Oxford Dictionary defines it as the quality or state of being true. But what does it mean to be true? Again, if we look at the dictionary, it says "in accordance with fact or reality." I hope you can see where I am going with this now. Reality and Fiction is a duality that is easily blurred. Think some, and you'll collapse the duality. 'Real' simply refers to existence, but even delusion exists, your hallucinations exist, otherwise you wouldn't perceive them. It's all reality, maybe not in accordance to our relative-practical-consistent state of reality, but it's real. The reason everything is real is because everything that exists, exists. Do not collapse the duality between existence and non-existence thinking "Non-existence doesn't exist, therefore all there is is existence.", that's like saying the orange is an orange because it's not an apple. You haven't collapsed the duality. Collapse it by thinking existence cannot be defined anymore because non-existence cannot be defined. Why not? Because something cannot exist only in relation to something that exists. But when talking about everything at once, how can you even think of non-existence? Non-existence and existence are relative concepts. This would mean that everything is in accordance to reality. Because now we do not compare the 'existence' of something with the 'existence' of another, now we compare it to itself. Which is the purest way of going about it. In this way, everything is accordance to reality. EVERYTHING. Everything is true. The state where you understand everything is one is true, the state where everything is separate is equally as true. "Everything is God" "I am God" also then becomes relative to your state of consciousness. Thinking of yourself as a human separate to God, is also true, because it is. You are not God behind the scenes when you are in a 'deluded' state, you literally aren't God then. You may ask then, what are we doing this work for if not to reduce falsehood and move towards truth? Well, do you not see that the duality of truth and falsehood has collapsed? If everything is true, nothing is false. If nothing is false, then nothing can be true. Because they are both defined by each other. All that there is left is beingness, which again cannot be defined because the duality between being and non-being has collapse. Are we even left with something, again, we cannot say, because the duality between something and nothing has collapsed. You can't give it a label. What we are really doing in this work is to move towards purity, and away from impurity. When you are in a state of separation, all the separate forms necessarily interact. These interactions themselves are forms, which interact with each other creating more interactions/forms and so on. They all cloud or conflict or compliment etc. with each other. The deeper down this fractal you go the more impure you are, the higher up you go this fractal, dissolving these interactions/forms, the more you purer you are. Why do you move towards purity in this work and not impurity? Well, as pointed out in the video about Sameness vs. Difference, all forms are in this cycle of unionizing and differentiating. We are simply in that cycle as well, moving towards purity, and then impurity. Cycles within cycles within cycles. There can't be a top level cycle of God unionizing and one day dividing again, because it's infinite. Yet everything moves as if that top-level cycle is there, because it really is there, and not there at the same time. It's like halving the number 1 again and again to reach 0, you get closer each time, but you will never make it to 0, even though it is there. Only way you can reach to 0 is stop moving towards it, stop halving, stop the progression, and just say fuck it and jump towards it. If you can jump from 1 to a 0.5, then to 0.25 and so on, why not just jump to 0 straight up? Applying my own logic, you could argue that everything I said here is true, but so is it's opposite, then why did I write all of this if everything is true? What am I attempting to do this with this wall of text? What I have wrote is purer than would be it's opposite. What I wrote here unionizes concepts, collapses dualities and dissolves forms. It's definitely towards purity. We intuitively call purity truth and impurity falsehood. Remember, whatever you think of this post, is true, but how pure is it?

"The highest spiritual practice" would be something that hurls you towards infinity and unity at the fastest speed. I don't think metta is that good for that. All spiritual practices towards God are towards Love, metta is just one of those practices.

I asked GPT3.5 to expand on your post and it came up with this: This text took me on a trip lol

@Leo Gura Is it possible for you to describe what level of awakening you are talking about compared to the average "awakened" folk(no self, samadhi, love, etc.)? I mean, atleast how many orders of magnitude are we talking?

That's the essence of what I am saying as well. I'd like to add that since truth and falsehood cannot be define on the scale of infinity, what we seek is not truth but purity/unity. On the scale of infinity, even the duality of purity and impurity collapse, so the fact that we still pursue purity must mean the desire/urge is always aiming at something relative to something else, and at one point this desire/urge will have to be transcended. But I wonder, how would one move forward after such a point? I am biased right now and would like to move towards further purity even after I reach that point, even though then I won't want to.

I agree with you're saying but can you elaborate on this? What does it mean to totally trust the mind? Are you talking of the human mind or reality?

You did not dispute my points. Do you not want to engage in earnest discussion? Have you read my post?

Yeah that's the integrity part. But as far as things like LP is concerned, many people move forward and learn skills through pirated products without feeling guilt.

You underestimate infinity Ego-Death isn't God-Realization, Leo said as much. Furthermore, what I said does indeed lead one towards a purer state, a more 'true' state.