Xonas Pitfall

Hmm, how so? You mentioned: I completely agree with you! Think with me through this logic: If God is everything, what is everything by definition? You can think of it as a set that contains all possible 'things'—it's in the name, right? Every thing. Every single thing. If I have two sets: One that has everything: all iterations of God, including a God who forgets and remembers, who is weak and remembers He's a God, who is weak and fully forgets He's a God, who is powerful and remembers He is powerful, and who is limited and doesn't know He is powerful, and a God who is limited and knows He is powerful. A second set that also has everything but has no instances where God ever forgets He is a God, even if He is weak, limited, all-powerful, all-knowing, or even a fragile baby ant. Which set is truly the complete set, the one that fully encompasses everything—the first or the second? Logically, how could one limitation be more or less relevant, necessary, or unnecessary than another? For everything to be truly everything, it must contain every single thing; therefore, no limitation is fundamentally unnecessary or less important than another. - Take a set of all whole numbers up to ten: The first set is: {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10} The second set is: {1, 2, 5, 6, 7} Which set contains all the numbers? Is excluding 3 a less significant omission than excluding 7? What about 4—is including 4 more important than including 10? All elements are equally important; without each number, the entire set would be incomplete. All ten whole numbers are required to meet the definition of a complete set.

They aren't limitations; they are a part of what God is. If God were only that which remembered God, what would He not be? A God who can forget He is a God. Plus, wouldn't you say it is limiting for God to only want to remember Himself? Why desire to be only a God who is always all-powerful, always conscious, always above all? What if He wanted to both remember and forget, to be both powerless and powerful? Wouldn't He, in this instance, be more omnipotent, accepting, and 'grander'? A God who only desires to remain an all-powerful God would have quite a big bias toward power. A God who wants to keep His superpowers intact at all times is a God who is extremely biased toward superpowers, a God who fails to see the beauty in non-powerful and unconscious things. Which version of God feels more limited to you? Yours, who only desires to remain in His state of godhood, or mine, who desires to experience, be, and understand both the weak and the powerful, both the conscious and the unconscious? Just another thought experiment! 💙

Correct! Although I am unsure what you mean by 'but,' I agree with you! This is precisely why God manifests in both limited and unlimited ways—He is present in everything, both limited and unlimited. Yay! 💛

"Stay" would imply a temporal notion (time), where He is first whole (one with the oneness) and then fragmented (broken into limited forms). However, when you say "God is everything," He already is everything. Again, He cannot stop being Himself because that's all there is. Limited or fragmented forms, or forms away from oneness, are still a part of oneness. Oneness would be incomplete or not "One" or "Whole" if it did not include them. Go through this thought experiment: If I am everything but something, then I am not everything. I am everything that is missing a thing. I am everything but that thing; therefore, I am not whole, one, and complete. If God is EVERYTHING but an apple, then Him missing being an apple is exactly what would make Him unwhole and incomplete. I hope I am making sense. Limited forms are what complete oneness; without them, God wouldn't be God, and that's why He exists in both states of oneness and limitation. It has nothing to do with amusement or boredom but with fully being Himself! The thinking is very non-dual, but that's the domain God operates in.

Haha, I am! I am not getting my logic from Leo; I am considering what God would entail by definition. You yourself are saying, "God has the capacity to do anything." Where are you getting this idea from? From the concept of God being All, Almighty, All-Powerful, or Omnipotent. Ultimately, there is no special reason other than being Himself. God can only be Himself—a God. (This is just pure logic or a tautology.) To be Himself, He goes through all His iterations, instances, and parts to fully know Himself. No one is mentioning any forms of amusement here. He is just being Himself and exploring all aspects of Himself because that's all there is to do. God being God, God understanding God, God exploring God—infinitely. Some of His instances will be less conscious, and some will be more conscious—that's really all!

But that’s precisely it! Again, for God to be God, or All, "He" needs to experience All and Be All—both limited and unlimited, conscious and unconscious. Therefore, if there were a reality where all iterations or instances of God were highly conscious, then God wouldn’t be everything. He’d be all that is conscious but not all that is highly unconscious. He’d be "limited" or "missing" unconsciousness. What is your argument on the process being deeply flawed? Think of it this way: if you want to include all versions of an apple, you must be a green apple, a blue apple, a yellow apple, a red apple, etc. Any version that you don't include will limit you from being all apples—whole and complete. This is why forms that are both deeply conscious and deeply unconscious must exist, along with all others in between the spectrum!

There absolutely might be creatures who retain awareness of higher consciousness while they experience limited forms. We just aren't one of them, and that is okay. God is biased toward being a God. God cannot be anything but itself—a God. A God, by definition, is everything. To be everything, you must be both everything and nothing, biased and unbiased, limited and unlimited. God has to encompass being biased because that is what 'He' fundamentally is. 'He' doesn't create everything out of boredom; it just has to exist so He can exist completely. Think of it as a truism or a tautology that cannot be avoided—you are personifying too much. For God to be everything, 'He' must manifest everything. Part of everything includes limited forms, both aware and unaware of their higher consciousness. Therefore, limited forms must exist. Humans are just one of many manifestations or parts of God.

I absolutely adore the potential of this! Here are some of my suggestions: Destiny - He's quite an open-minded individual, despite his seemingly aggressive and disagreeable takes. I believe he went through a period where he got involved with psychedelics, and openly admitted in one of his videos that he's seeking deeper experiences and understanding with psychedelics, not just the high or rush. For instance, he took a huge dose of mushrooms (10.5g+) and recorded the entire trip. He seems like the perfect candidate who got a glimpse of God or the God Mind or Solipsism but has difficulty fully deconstructing or accepting that reality. At one stage of the trip, he reported feeling complete loneliness and uncertainty about whether anything existed outside of his mind. He also mentioned how he used to believe that truth is all that matters—as long as I align with the truth, I am good—but after the trip and his immense loneliness, he’s starting to question such beliefs. Having someone guide him through those trip experiences and help him explore the things that left him questioning seems too exciting to pass up. I believe Leo could serve him well in this regard and might also make other viewers curious. Destiny is also known for giving a platform to people with novel or fringe viewpoints, so I don't see why he wouldn't take him up on his offer! Dan Koe - As others have mentioned, Dan has stated before that he thinks Actualized.org is one of the best channels on YouTube. He even goes on long runs and walks just to listen to Leo's full episodes. Leo's influence on Dan's videos is also quite apparent, from the minimalist background settings and first-person perspective speaking directly to the camera, to the metaphors and how he perceives reality. I'm pretty sure I've heard him say in several of his videos, "Reality is just states of consciousness, states of experience." I'm sure he would be delighted to speak with Leo, and there are plenty of things he would love to ask and discuss. Leo is likely one of the main influences on Dan's journey to finding God, so that conversation could be very wholesome and full of depth. Plus, it would be great promotion for Leo and his future courses, as Dan is quite influential in the online education and self-development space. Bernardo Kastrup - I don't think I need to over-explain here, but I'd love to see Bernardo pushed on his idea of why consciousness has to be the fundamental truth, and how deep his understanding truly goes. He seems to have just accepted that, as a scientist or philosopher, one must take something as fundamental truth—in his case, consciousness—and if that thing can model and explain all of reality, then it's good enough for him (according to his PhD). Probing him and discussing this topic would be fascinating. He also has interesting ideas on AI, and since Leo himself became an AI junkie now (in the best possible way), I'd love to see this crossover happen! Also, Bernardo seems to be appearing on all kinds of shows, even on small channels with under 1K-5K views. It really seems like he's in the promotion stage for the Essentia Foundation. Considering Leo has over a million subscribers and a huge following, it would be more beneficial for Bernardo than the smaller consciousness channel interviews he's been doing over the past few years! I see no reason why he'd deny such an opportunity. Looking forward to it all! Maybe you could introduce all of them to your crocodile collection... Garr.

@NoSelfSelf I think the point made is that it's often not what you say but how you carry yourself and frame the conversation. Saying, "Omg, you are adorable," doesn't necessarily signal that the woman is "above" you. You can frame it in various ways if you know how. For instance, it can mean you find her very cute and feminine, and since you are masculine, you feel attracted to that and are being assertive with your desires. It can also mean she seems small and adorable as you look at her from a masculine, domineering, and tall perspective. However, as you said, the opposite can also be true: being overly expressive in a "simp-y," obsessive tone can make it seem like you are pedestalizing her. Basically, with power games, if you choose to play them—although I don’t recommend viewing interactions through this lens—they are much more fluid and dynamic. A simple sentence or context change can completely flip who is dependent on whom or who appears to be worshipping the other. A one-liner or pick-up line won't matter if your overall frame and confidence in the conversation consistently position you as an equal or in a dominant position. Once you understand this, you can flip an insane number of sentences and not stress about specific words. I hope this makes sense.

What would you say are some of the things that significantly impacted your day-to-day consciousness levels and happiness levels throughout your life? @Leo Gura