wildflower

Member
  • Content count

    129
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About wildflower

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Gender
  1. But Leo as you said in your outrageous experiments video, you thought you could have ended the universe and everything in it, but you didnt, why do you think this is?
  2. Do you think the Universe is converging towards a singularity of self awakening. I noticed through my experiences, a single human ego-self doesn't have the capacity to self realise to the Absolut Ultimate - the destruction of the universe - this is the one evidence against Leo's hardcore solipsistic view for me. You cannot as a ego-self end the universe, this is a feature not a bug. God is converging towards a singularity of total connectedness and unity within the contents of conciousness, this is obvious
  3. No I agree 100% with what your saying. It is meaningless to say everything is Absolutely True, as wittgenstein said, better to pass in silence. The question relating to: can we trust the interpretations of psychedelic experiences to give an absolute metaphysics within the relative domain, then no, I don't think we can. There are just interpretations, views and ideas, which should be seen as such I don't personally believe it's about any x state achieved in and of itself, it's about what principles we can actualize in our everyday life that reduce our subjective and collective suffering, this is the highest paradigm for me personally. You can smoke 5 meo dmt, and in your everyday life be abrasive, full of envy and ill will, full of craving for sex and alcohol, and be no better off. So really what benefit or utility did the experience bring to you or anyone else?
  4. The funniest thing about this forum is when people relatively argue about Absolute Truth, there is nothing you can say about Absolute Truth in any way which isn't automatically Absolutely True, you can literally make any linguistic construction about Absolute Truth and it is True. For example Absolute Truth is roses and peanuts, is just as True as Absolute Truth doesn't exist, or Absolute Truth does exist ad infinity lol But these people don't get the irony in their discourse lol
  5. Let me try to help, as I went through this same difficulty with how people use language and try to help each other (help seems a reach, it feels like a game of ego to understand the metaphysical concept of Absolute Truth - which is simple and easy, depending on your intellectual disposition and spiritual work). Anything that exists, is Absolutely True, all duality and relativisms collapse, there is only one context or no context, the context is suchness, isness or just whatever word you want to use to point the manifest of anything (wittgenstein used what is the case or state of affairs'). This is completely unbiased, and doesn't prejudice any form over anything else, as this would be relativism. This Absolute Truth has no bearing or utility on your relative experience. Because the Absolute doesn't care about what's classed as suffering or non suffering, as it simply doesn't exist, as again it's a relative duality. This is easy to understand, and easy(ish) to experience in high equanimity meditation states (pain/please, aversion/craving collapse) So psychosis and delusion and 2+2=4 are the exact same level of Truthness from the Absolute. But obviously this doesn't help you in the slightest in your relative, contextual world, with your relative goals and aims. The problem Absolute Truth doesn't help you at all in the relative sense, as Absolute Truth is Absolute Nothing. Humans are concerned with relative utility, measured usually against suffering and non suffering in the contexts of Buddhas work, also compassion vs ill will etc etc etc. So defining a meta context for your relative goals is super important Absolute Truth can act as a marker, or set of principles to guide you. As you converge to Absolute Truth, your individual subject relativisms fade, mainly craving and aversion in all it's forms, and bias's, which reduce suffering etc.. so there is no conflict here. Essentially you want to converge to the Absolute to the point before you stop surviving, i.e. renunciation i.e. Buddha --- see how it all fits together? It's really simple, but the language games on here conflate and distort people actually understanding things
  6. The ego dies when your physical body dies, the point isn't to get rid of the ego, anymore than getting rid of your heart or kidneys.
  7. I understand what your saying, how can we create any absolute view from any relative experience. Well the only absolute view is absolutely nothing. So all these people playing language games on the forum are just playing games. The problem of our concern is one of utility. What context or paradigm serves the highest utility to give the best experiences (peace, connectedness, joy) possible as a human. This is where the 8 fold path or 8 part model from the Buddha is helpful
  8. Timestamp for wisdom, seems as though hes saying the same thing said on these forums, but in a more gentle way:
  9. No one here seems to mention Ajahn Brahm, but I think he is probably one of the most awakened and embodied humans alive, may this video help
  10. Yeah I would say I definitely have bladder issues, but they get better after I abstain, and I always drink tons of water. Ill be honest I used to live with one of the biggest distributors in the UK, and that was just crazy town, that guy had to have part of his bladder removed and stuff, he definitely had issues, but he moved country and now is much better. But honestly there was times in our apartment with like 10-20 kilos of Ketamine, with 1kilo just cut open on the table like scarface, got pretty dark at some points
  11. I would disagree with this. AS he says, humans have a problem with dealing with the Truth, especially if it opposes our survival, which in actuality it turns out it does. Your degree to bare the Truth is inversely related to your desire for survival.
  12. What is your view on what Ajahn Brahm is saying, have you seen or read any of his stuff? he is very explicit in the video, he basically is saying God consciousness is still ultimately suffering that should be let go of, to go to beyond to nothigness: Interviewer: 54:25 nirvana as a non-conditioned non-personal awareness at the level of the universal atman what they say and describe like to be finally drawn into and absorbed into nirvana as a drop of vapor is drawn into the ocean and they're losing all personal individuality 54:53 replace it by the impersonal individuality of the universal essence the universe is a person in that sense so you're just kicking the can down the road so the universal essence has to now suffer wherever this consciousness has to be consciousness that's what one of the reasons why i think it's called vi like by its duality to know is to know good and bad you can't just have knowing good and therefore there is a change sometimes that's really joyful but then it's more joyful and the ordinary joy is not as good as the lord joy it's suffering there this is one of the reasons why you can see that all types of consciousness and inherently suffering and that's exactly what the buddha said is dukkha cheetah is duca manno is dukkha all types of consciousness known as it's like wishful thinking you know we human beings don't like to face the truth and we want to be but we don't want to be suffering so they think come on just so i'll get rid of the stuffing but still keep you know things i like i like knowing or will and after a while you find that you can and why do you want to anyway because people think they are that's why they don't want to let go of the the idea of being after a while when you realize there's nothing here nothing here now it's nothing destroyed
  13. Fair. The only person in the world for me that speaks different then this, that seems to encapsulate these other teachings but transcends them is Ajahn Brahm, he talks more about nothingness then anyone else. He also is probably one of the meditation masters in the world. I wonder what your thoughts are on the way he describes it, I've timestamped it, it takes 3 minutes, he talks about different states of conciousness, ifninite conciousness, but in the end there is more beyond, I recommend the whole video:
  14. Heres another video with timestamp of him referencing the same luminousity you do: Im only posting him as he was Frank Yangs guide to awakening
  15. I appreciate your effort, and don't get me wrong, you seem much friendlier and open to discourse in your videos, text is a bad format of communication, so sometimes the succinct text communication makes it seem more like that. Here is a video of daniel ingram using the exact same terminology of luminous as you do in your latest video. Look I could be wrong, but it seems to me you guys speak about the same phenomenological experience: