Xonas Pitfall

It’s alignment with yourself, knowing yourself, loving yourself, and feeling yourself being loved. If possible, take the life purpose course. Other than that, ask yourself questions: What makes me happy? What makes me laugh? What kind of people make me feel grateful, positive, and like life is worth living for? What kind of work makes me feel fulfilled and energized? What do I want to contribute to the world? What activities make me lose track of time? What do I deeply care about? When do I feel most at peace with myself? What does success look like to me, beyond material achievements? What am I passionate about, even if it doesn’t lead to any tangible rewards? What excites me about the future? I know these questions can seem vague and difficult to answer, but the happiest version of you eventually figures them out and aligns with them. Just don’t fall into the trap of thinking there’s only one thing or that it never changes. People’s values and alignments can shift throughout life. Awareness is crucial; you’ll be asking yourself these questions over and over again as you grow. Also, don’t fall for the trap of believing meditation or psychedelics will give you infinite, permanent happiness. They won’t. Human happiness is most definitely conditional. You can reach states of pure bliss, but your baseline will remain human most of the time, unless you deliberately pursue a yogic path, and even then, it’s not guaranteed. That’s why making these questions as clear as possible is key. And if you don’t know the answers right now, that’s fine, your next goal is to find out what they are. Experience, test, try, and explore. In many emotional frequency charts (such as David Hawkins' "Map of Consciousness"), shame is considered the lowest, followed by guilt, apathy, and fear. Shame is directly a pure lack of self-love or a desire to deny and suppress yourself. That’s what depression often is, the suppression of the self due to a lack of love and shame. Given that depression is one of the lowest emotions you can feel, the direct opposite would be self-expression, self-love, a lack of self-shame, and acceptance, which would be the highest emotion, i.e., happiness. What is yourself? Who are you? Do you love it or do you hate it? Would you want to express more of it or suppress it? This is the key question to answer.

You have to contemplate what are truth and logic. To "spoil it" for you, haha, you can do a dictionary lookup: What is logic? Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. What is validity? The quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency. What is factually sound? With regard to what is actually the case; in relation to fact. What is a fact? A thing that is known or proved to be true. What is "to be true", truth? The quality or state of being true. (This definition becomes self-referential, as 'truth' is being defined in terms of itself, leading to an infinite regress: 'truth' can only be explained by itself, and thus cannot be further defined without repeating the same concept.) It'll always end up with something related to true, truth, or being truthful. Logic is the foundation of truth, or that which describes truth, or gets to the truth. You should be able to see the correspondence between truth and logic (I don’t think you should have issues agreeing with this, as it’s highly intuitive that we use logic to get to “correct,” “right,” or “truthful” expressions). So, this step of contemplation shouldn’t be an issue. Now, the question becomes: What is truth? Well, the definition itself is self-referential in most dictionaries; it just means "to be true, to be factual, to be real," but you don’t really contemplate further what that means in the mainstream. Simply put, truth means correspondence, connection, A=A, symmetry, that things ARE what they ARE. Look up what a truism is or what a tautology is. Basically, if A = A, it means A being A is true. If we said A is not A, but A = B, then A is not A, but A is B. This would imply the initial A was not “real,” “truthful," “actual,” or "properly described/understood," but what is actually real is B, so B is real, and A is fake. It's very loopy and almost silly to say this out loud, but this is the foundation of logic and truth. Examples of Tautologies: A circle is a circle. A bachelor is an unmarried man. A square has four sides. A leaf is a leaf. The blue sky is blue. These are tautologies because they are true by definition; they cannot be false. They simply restate the same thing in different words or affirm the same concept. The Law of Identity you mentioned here, which is the foundation of truth and logic, is the core of what God is (truth). The Law of Identity asserts that "A is A," meaning that something must be itself. If A were not A (if God were not God), it would contradict its own identity, making it unreal or false. The moment something is not itself, it ceases to exist in the realm of truth, because it violates its own identity. In other words, if A is not A, then it is no longer a real thing; it becomes an illusion or a lie. Logic seeks to identify the truth, and a lie cannot be truth because it does not correspond to reality. To make this a little less abstract, it’s similar to how scientists constantly push off the answer to the question of reality by narrowing it down to smaller and smaller subatomic particles. What is the foundation of the universe? What is truth? “Ah! Molecules created everything.” So, truth = molecule? Okay, how did the molecule come to be? “Uh... atoms!” So, molecule isn’t truth, then? You’re saying the atom is truth? Okay, how did the atom come to be? “Uhh... !?” And the answer might shift to "quarks," "strings," or something else. Do you see how they’re constantly pushing the question of truth to a second, third, and even smaller order of explanations, but never actually addressing it directly? This cycle continues indefinitely. The deeper you go, the more distant the original question becomes, without ever touching on what the true foundation of reality actually is. This mirrors a kind of infinite regression, always searching for smaller and smaller explanations, but never answering the original question. This means that all of these explanations are second-order concepts, never truly addressing the actual "first-order" truth. However, God is THAT absolute, direct "first-order" truth, or correspondence to reality. Reality = Reality; God = God; Reality = God, God is being itself, God. That’s what you experience during enlightenment, psychedelics, yoga, etc. You remove all the filters of others, your ego, language, and you just are pure identity, pure being, pure God, pure reality. It’s a direct connection to the actuality of things, with no filters of comprehension. The Law of Identity simply states that things are what they are, and this is the purest form of truth and what it means to "be." A less abstract example: When are you the most truthful? Answer: When you simply are who you are, when you are your purest self, your most "authentic" and real self. When you don’t filter your words, when you don’t white lie or obfuscate, when you don’t hide or camouflage for the sake of your ego. That purity and unfilteredness is God.

What a strange concept! I hadn’t thought of this before. I love this post… I opened this thread to contemplate it more. Has Einstein ever spoken about his theory in this manner?

@danilofaria Ironically, no! In fact, it’s the ONLY law needed to understand the entire universe and God. It’s also the only law that not even “God” can break, because it is God (God can only ever be God, aka God Must Equal to God, God = God, the Identity of God). All = All; Everything = Everything; 1 = 1; Infinity = Infinity. If you have a set of all 10 numbers, then 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 must be included. If they weren’t, then the set of “all 10 numbers” wouldn’t actually be a set of all 10 numbers. The set of 10 would not be equal to the set containing 10. The same goes for infinity. Infinity means it contains everything.

@Leo Gura Thank you so much for this share! What an absolutely fascinating concept. Would we then conclude that light is pure consciousness and awareness, the medium through which God tries to observe Himself? Or perhaps a better conclusion is that we are limited by light (through our eyes) as a tool of comprehension, and if there were a way, whether through psychedelics, mental thought, some “epi-light with FTL,” or dark matter, we might see a complete reversal of the universe. Is light then the initial “bias” of our universe, perhaps? How curious!

You seem cool!

It’s the same with grammar, sentence structure, and words! Without some kind of reference point, some shared understanding of what words mean and how sentences are structured, all you get is gibberish. You need a frame, a context, or an experiencer to make sense of it, and it will only make sense to that self. If you create a different observer, it might see something entirely different. x̷̡̖͖̙́͗̔́͐͑̓̾̌̀̓̐̈́̆͝j̷͈̳̹͔̀͋f̵̀̈̈́̈́͋́̏͒̿̑͂̆̃͘̕͜9̷̻͍̣̘̭̩̩͋̎̎̀l̴̢̨̦̬͚̼̞̳͙̪̼̒͛̔̀͊͐͝ͅq̶̭̤̼̰͗̑̐͗͐̓́̏̏́̅͂̿̋ͅo̵̢͕̳̹͎̱̙̙̿̌̏͊̆̈͑p̷͚̮̬͇͓̬̣̝̫̣͔̺̤̦̗͗̓̍͛̂̉̈́͆̽͊͛͝!̴̨͙̞̰̻̝͙̹̳̼̼̱̣̻̭̅̾̊͛̒͂̑̿̃͌̀̄͛̕ ̷̧̗̤̪̳̦͈̦̠̫̙̗͗̐̽̍̄̒͑͛́͘͝͝'̵̢̨̡̧̤̖͔̙͍̺̭̬̭͓̋́͐̈́͌͋͝͠'̷̢͚̫͔̬̼̗͔̟̯̬̉̾́͐̉̓̄̾̀͆̕͜͝͝'̷̛̠̏̋͐͋̒̿̔̔̾͐͋̚'̵̨̛̛̦͖̗̯͉̦̬͉͓͐̋͌̓̈́̄̋̍̋͆͝ ̷̡̛͙̗͎͉͔͙̂̌̾́͛͊̎̍͂̓̐̚͝A̴̹̍͛͐̐̉͐͋̑̎̏͠ź̷͙̘̆̆̔̉̌̎͂͑̀̕͝h̶̖̣̜̱̥̟͓̙̖̹͌̄͐͗͒̐̏̚͜͠͠B̴̯̭͍̠͗́̈̎̀̔A̷̖̯͍̻͍͈̔̃̐͗̔͘͝͝K̸̨̰͖͇͆̋̈̽͂̏̑͒̓͐̄̎͌͘Á̶̰͛̂̀̈́̆̍͗̾Ǘ̴̧̨͓̭̦̗͓̘͔͗͋̔̎̂͋̔͠Ủ̸̞̗̪̟͔͂4̴̧͚̺̬͓͚͍͓̘̻̟̩͉͒̾̂͂̌̂̉͊̑͐̓̚͘0̸̡̺͚͉̟̜͓͈̹̭͈̝͉̱͒̏͂̎̉̂̽̎̿͝^̷̡̯̳̲̹̠̙̰̱̫͋̽̎͊̀̄̓̽͑͆̅͘͝͝ͅ^̴̮̣͉͕̘̥̺͖̖̞͍̮͙̩͂̉̑̽̓̿̃̄̚^̸͇͖̯͐̑%̷̖̜̈́̾̎̂͒͋%̵̛̥̳̪̦̺͙̦̲̼͔̎́̎̈̅̂%̶̨̛̛͍̝̻͍̲̗̪̟͕̤̫̣̓͆͛̄̄̐%̷͙̖͇̊̿͛%̶͓̻̰̮̭͔̳͂̃͐̏̓̉͗̋͝%̸̭̬͕͚̜̠͇͚̠̌̏̽͒͆͒̒̏ → gibberish to most people. To a trained cryptographer, the same string could be decoded into a meaningful message! To a computer running the right program: 01001000 01100101 01101100 01101100 01101111 → “Hello” To a musician reading sheet music: ♪ ♫ ♩ ♬ → a melody that can be played and heard To someone fluent in sign language: a series of hand gestures → a full sentence To a mathematician: ∑(n=1 to ∞) 1/n² = π²/6 → an elegant formula To someone unfamiliar with chess notation: Nf3 → meaningless; to a chess player, it’s a move in a game https://libraryofbabel.info/ https://babelia.libraryofbabel.info/ → Go through here! This is what torture looks like to a no-self!

I’ll try my best to explain this. When we are talking about God, especially the absolute infinity, you cannot talk in dualities anymore. All dualities must collapse, because to prefer one thing over another is to be “limited” or to have an inherent bias, and since God is infinity, this goes directly against infinity. So we must always speak from a non-dual lens when we are talking about God. Do you agree with this? When working with non-dualism, reality versus possibility collapses. For a possibility to “exist,” it must be “realized,” i.e., real. By making a possibility real, it always collapses to reality, to existence, for God. It’s the same question as: can a “non-being” be (exist)? Well, no, because if a non-being can exist, then it is, it is real, it is being. Again, the duality between real and possibility collapses. Can “nothing” exist? Well... if nothing can exist, then it exists, there is "something" that is "existing". When dealing with “God’s domain,” you are dealing with paradoxes, because all dualities collapse into one, merging into each other. Not necessarily. Again, remember we are looking from God’s perspective, from God’s point of view. Notions like “who is enslaving what” disappear. God is both “free” and “chained.” It is chained by its own nature, and free because there is nothing outside of it to control or change its nature; it is enslaved by itself, you could say. Again, remember: all dualities collapse. That means the duality between master and slave, chains and freedom, is entirely eradicated. God’s nature is that of absolute infinity. It is infinity; therefore, it must be all by its own nature. You are assuming suffering is suffering for God, but it is not. It is a part of itself. To illustrate this, consider a classic example: an antelope and a lion are both praying to God, “Please let me survive today!!!” The antelope prays because it wants to escape the lion. The lion prays because it must feed its children and itself to survive. Whose wish does God honor? In one case, one party would suffer, and the other would experience pure bliss. Suffering is a relative bias. When you say God must suffer, you are projecting your limited human notion of suffering onto God. To God, nothing is suffering because it is all itself. God is simply being itself, which is the ultimate freedom. Being itself is being All (Infinite), the good and bad, beautiful and repulsive, harmonious and chaotic, gentle and violent, orderly and chaotic, loving and indifferent, creative and destructive, everything and its opposite, infinitely. Let me help you contemplate it! Chained to what? Why are you assuming God doesn’t want to experience suffering? Couldn’t you say that if God only wanted to experience happiness, it would be chained by its desire to be only pure, beautiful, perfect, and happy? Being a slave or chained is “bad” to you, but how do you know it’s bad for God? If you are always escaping suffering, aren’t you chained by the desire to avoid it? Why would God not want suffering? Why would God not want to be a slave? What is so bad about suffering and being chained? And again, don’t answer from your human point of view, that is clear. Try to imagine it from God’s perspective: if everything is Himself, if all is God, then why would He fear suffering, chains, or enslavement? He can only ever suffer by His own hand, bound by His own chains and His own self as the master. Do you see how the duality collapses? If your infinity needs to hide away from all pain, horrors, and suffering, and deny the reality we are currently experiencing, then your infinity is a weak, scared child who wants their mommy to protect them and say, “It’s not true! I don’t have to experience this!” Mine, however, embraces it all and wants to experience everything, good, bad, beautiful, ugly, joy, terror, ecstasy, despair, creation, destruction, and love. Mine is brave and free. If your infinity wants only to be grand, beautiful, perfect, all-powerful, omnipotent, omniscient, and glorious, then that is nothing more than a selfish god, one who refuses to understand or truly connect with His creations. Why would such a god not want to experience all the suffering and horrors of others? How would He know what it feels like to be limited, weak, vulnerable, or enslaved, experiences necessary to truly love, support, and nurture His creation? Your god is isolated, selfish, and trapped in an ego. Mine is expansive, caring, selfless, and fully embraces all existence, in every aspect, joy, suffering, beauty, terror, love, despair, creation, destruction, freedom, and constraint. But hehe... jokes aside, I just wanted to give you these sentences back to show a reframed, alternative perspective! I don’t want to have a conflict or debate over whose infinity is “better” or not! I just want to discuss and contemplate it more. I agree that God is free, but God is also “limited” in the sense that it can only be itself. Since... well, all is God! A part of "All" or itself is suffering, so why would God hide from that? It’s kind of like refusing to use your right hand even though it’s a part of you. If God tried to deny a part of itself, that God would be scared, living in a delusion about its own nature. Does this make sense?

Hugs to you too!

Hugs!

No, this is an illogical contradiction. Infinity is all; therefore, it is all. All exists. It’s really not much “deeper” than that, but experientially, it’s overwhelming haha. When Leo or we say “God must experience,” it’s just semantics; you can define it better. You have a set of all 10 numbers. That must mean 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 are included, and they must be. If they weren’t, then the set “all 10 numbers” wouldn’t be a set of all 10 numbers. The same goes for infinity. Infinity means it has all, therefore freedom and restriction, horrors and goodness, self and lack of it, etc. If infinity couldn’t contain horrors or wouldn’t want them, then it would be limited by that, and it wouldn’t be infinite or free. (Again, when I say these human things like “want to” or “experience this,” it’s anthropomorphizing infinity.) Infinity is much more “impersonal” in that way. You can think of it more as a necessity or tautology. That’s really it!

I seem to have a ? of consciousness that’s difficult to understand and grasp. I have a decently easier time understanding during my trips the nature of truth, beauty, love, masculinity, and femininity. But I think one thing my mind still has trouble wrapping around is this reality versus consciousness chicken-and-egg problem, which I feel is holding me back. I wanted to contemplate it here to potentially hear my thoughts out loud and get some help with it. I think the issue I see is this: (I’m not saying I believe this necessarily, I’m just voicing my thoughts that seem to block me from fully realizing this.) I have trouble understanding: if, let’s say, reality came first: a spontaneous Big Bang or white hole or whatever, then there would be “no consciousness,” and consciousness would slowly emerge later. Now, once emerged, the mind is infinite and conscious, yes, but how does that imply it’s the absolute creator or generator of reality? Even if the mind is infinite, it could just be an infinite property of it, like how my hand can move in infinite ways, yet it’s still just a hand. The way I understand the consciousness-first argument is that the entire current moment is constructed by your consciousness, and to make sense of it, the ego creates stories, “you were born from your mother,” and “there were particles,” "mitosis, Big Bang, this is philosophy, "etc. Even if I accept the argument that everything needs a creator, it doesn’t mean that creator has to be consciousness. It could be a spontaneous clash of particles, and now universal patterns are emerging from it. And if you go with the requisite variety argument, that a complex system can only be created by a more complex system, that’s not really true. Parents, who are “less smart,” give birth to children who can be smarter. Humans created AI, which in certain tasks is infinitely more intelligent and complex than us. Also, if I go with the idea that everything has to be contained within consciousness to exist, I don’t see how that necessarily follows. It implies the ability to be observed, but it doesn't imply that it cannot exist or be created outside of consciousness. I just have a really hard time wrapping my head around this stuff. Any help deconstructing this would be great. Thank you! Which questions should I keep asking myself?

♥(ˆ⌣ˆԅ)

Yes! When I say 'property,' I just mean 'to be infinite.' What does it mean to be infinite? Then, you can derive conclusions from that!

I love this aspect so much! Completely agreed! 💛

LOL... Oooooops! Glad it still helped! 💛🔅

@Princess Arabia Yes! The word "whole" or "complete" is the most correct term; I’d encourage you to think of infinity as an "object" with "inherent properties." (Obviously, infinity, like God, is alive, since we are.) But this perspective helps clarify the logic. What I mean by "object" and "properties" is this: An apple is an object. Its properties are: red, sweet, juicy, round, and crunchy. One of God's (Object's) properties is being infinite. To be completely "infinite," God must integrate both the finite and the infinite. He connects (through Love/Union) all the finite parts, becoming both the finite and the infinite. Since it is all Him, it is all One (solipsism). It’s just that, inherently, God is One because there is nothing "other" than Him, outside of Him. Hence, Solipsism. To break it down further, imagine you have two boxes: Box 1, Air, Box 2 (This is three "components." Two boxes and the air (boundary) between them.) Now, God is both Box 1 and Air, and God is Box 2. So actually, you have: God, God, God. Once any boundary between them dissolves, all you get is God touching God, being God. By simple logic, when everything is the same, it means everything is one. This is what’s known as solipsism. We are all the same Big Self, God. Your lower self or ego isn’t God, but when you trip on something like 5-MeO-DMT, you may unite with the Big Self, God, meaning you, me, Leo, everything. One way to imagine this is by reflecting on when you were a baby. Often, you’d be completely unaware of boundaries between yourself, your mother, the objects you shouldn’t touch, or even how far your pain extends from yourself to the environment. Everything felt like a blur, united. As we grow, we try to maintain our sense of self, body, and ego, learning what forms are separate from us and what are not. This division creates our reality, which is why solipsism can seem so strange. Does this make it clearer?

Self-disrespect (self-hate), self-suppression, and self-guilt lead to depression. On the other hand, self-respect, self-love, self-confidence, and self-expression bring happiness. Happiness is directly proportional to your highest self being expressed and loved in reality (both by you and others). This is why, when you're in a high state, you feel the closest to your truest self (God) that you ever do in real life. You feel radiant, happy, and not blocked by your ego or suppressed. In contrast, when you're depressed, you're often reclusive, avoidant, unmoving, and hiding.

Impact on whom? To what? What are the key answers you'd like to know? 😊

🧘🌸

Have a long way to go to embody all! But, excited for all the "trips" to come! 😋

Yup! Tautological simply means self-referentially true. There are things that are what they are in their essence. They don't need anything "outside" or "other" to define them, or verify their truthfulness. To show you a simple example: A greenhouse is a greenhouse. (You don’t have to verify anything in this sentence, or anything outside of it, because it follows base logic: A = A.) Goodness is good. A circle is a circle. Or, you can have a tautology that takes extra steps, but it’s still a tautology, like: A bachelor is an unmarried man. All squares have four sides. A triangle has three sides. A bachelor, by definition, is an unmarried man, so: > An unmarried man is an unmarried man. Squares, by definition, have four sides, so: > All things that have four sides have four sides. You get the point. These things might seem silly or trivial, but this is how reality works. Reality has to be all that is real, because if a thing were not real, it wouldn’t exist, or it cannot be. Hence, reality is all. All is Everything. Everything must include everything, so it cannot exclude anything outside of it. Since it includes everything, it must be one, as it contains all. This leads to solipsism. Since it is all, and I myself as a finite thing can keep including +1, +2, +3 forever, it means infinity must be included in reality. Infinity is real. Since it is all, it must be both infinite and finite; this is non-dualism. Since it is all, it must be ever-present; hence, you get omnipotence and omnipresence. And so on, so on... As you can see, these traits and properties describe God or Reality. Now you can just notice that there are things that are "tautological". Goodness can only truly be good if it’s good for the purpose of being good. Beautiful things are beautiful in and of themselves. The most unconditional love is the love that just wants to love for the sake of being loving. It’s like they are their own fuel, their own creator; there’s no causal effect. They are their own effect and result. This is how God functions. When you "awaken," you just realize that this is how things "are", how it must function. Let me know if that helps!

No, no! Sorry, to clarify, I never implied that you think this. I was just giving a cartoonish example to understand what you actually believe in. I don’t necessarily disagree with you that men need help maturing; I just don’t understand why that involves disagreeing with what I said above. Men can mature without that preventing women from also doing things outside traditional roles. This doesn’t have to be a mutually exclusive thing.

But what is your stance on this? Do you think they are intellectually inferior and should only be "in the kitchen"? What do you actually believe in? What’s the comfortable gender difference or change you’d like to see?