PolyPeter

This is the most intriguing line to me. Who assigned that responsibility? Did someone tell you? Is it written somewhere? Or is it possible that this is a story you built around a very real and profound experience, and then elevated it to cosmic duty? Because there's a difference between 'I felt called to go as deep as possible' and 'it is my responsibility.' The first is honest. The second needs a source.

And precisely because this was never about money, money should be handled first. As a prerequisite. Not because it matters spiritually, but out of respect for the awakening itself. You don't want the most profound work of your existence interrupted by human logistics.

I never said anything about regret. Regret is backwards-looking. I'm talking about design. And I genuinely respect what you built. I'm building on top of it. But "it was necessary" and "it was optimal" are different things. You can own a path completely and still notice that a cleaner design was possible. Those aren't contradictory. The set and setting principle doesn't stop at the room and the music. It extends to the whole life container. You teach this. I'm not saying you failed, nor saying that in your place I would have done anything different. I'm saying you made it harder than it needed to be, and then used that difficulty as part of the narrative.

I understand and respect your path, but you can own your decisions. There is no reason to do a 90 day 5-meo mega trip, while also working as a human, this is a recepie for suffering. Why not treat economic independence as part of the preparation, the outer set and setting, before diving into 90 days of the deepest inner work possible? I also have a life as a human. And it has not been an easy life. But I will never use my own personal drama as an argument against other people not knowing the depth of my awakenings

thanks for the kind words. It's been a loooong time since I last had an experience of the kind. My recovery process involved doubling down on meditation practices, and connecting with life in different manners. Also recontextualizing that this episodes of derealisation have no evil quality to themselves, rather, the fear I felt was not the usual "there is a bear coming" fear, it was more like "I've never had this experience in my life, I don't know what it is, and I don't feel particulary good about this" More like a fear of the unknown The thing that helped me the most was just focusing on expanding my baseline consciousness There was a breaking point though, i think it is worth mentioning practicing meditation everyday, is good but try to build up momentum to the point where you can meditate for at least 40 entire minutes without getting bothered A deeper sense of I AM will prevail just be that and keep practicing that what it did for me was not that it eliminated the episodes from happening in the future, but it allowed me to understand them, by what they actually are. Consciousness can focus on anything. If you focus on how you are focusing too much, probably, you will do that in circumstances where you didn't initially thought about. Like, you can be cooking a meal, and then become conscious of the activity, then yourself, then the entire room, and even struggle to distinguish a thing from another, but also notice, there is ALWAYS awareness. Even during an episode. This awareness will forever remain untouched, since its You, the real You, not the human you. When you re-contextualize everthing as appearance, except awareness itself, then, any sort of appearance will be seen as such, appearance, it comes and goes Maybe another thing that might help right now, is to try and ground yourself with some human things, in order to give yourself a break if you need it

Of course. I wake up everyday knowing that humanity is just starting to know what the word ontology means. The emotional and mental labor of being a human KNOWING the actual structure of the universe, makes it more difficult than just going about life surviving. But it is also a choice (the choice of understanding and integrating). You can choose to chill for sometime. or not.

not at all. I know about the cosmic horror. not from a story somebody told me. direct experience, and I think you know part of my story. what if I know exactly what you are talking about? what if I know even more?

What is the cost? is it your life as a human?

have you ever said something, in the past, and then learned that was not the way?

I'm in love with the universe and I know that learning is possible, even learning that other humans can go further into the knowing than you've been

also, i just noted that many of the quoted things are YEARS old... which is like trying to cancel somebody over something they tweeted 10 years ago... not fair

huh! interesting, to say the least how does Leo know for sure what's going on inside other poeple's awakenings?

yes, I think that's the thing, they don't map entirely bc I haven't studied them deeply, but we'll see in a couple of days! Indeed pretty powerful makes me think of gravitational waves though. a gravitational wave is a distortion in the fabric of space-time itself. When two blackholes collide, the event can be measured from light years away from it, because it creates waves of space-time itself folding and expanding. Pause here and try to understand what this means. SPACE-TIME itself can be squeezed, strechted and bended over itself. Try to imagine what it means just for the dimension of space then for the dimension of time have you ever tried to imagine what a gravitational wave looks like? and how it affects all the things within spacetime? Like, in the ocean, you can have a pretty quiet situation, or, you can have massive waves this waves, are what surfers need in order to surf! but also, big enough waves are what destroy entire boats this might be a little off-topic, but related to your point a space with no wave is empty, begs the question of what is a wave in this context, if it is the fluctuation of some material inside the space, or if it is the wave of space-time itself, which are very different things

This is cool, take all the time needed. This topic is very heavy on the mind, deep contemplation is what gives rise to the kind of insights we are looking for I will look deep into the Nirvana/Sunyata understandings, they point to very subtle and important distinctions

First of all, I feel this (coming back and forth on the ontology details) is epic The huge amount of common ground between our work, simply insane Regarding the other post, yes, i've read it. I was trying to understand how to point the most important difference between your notion of the Void, and my own. Here it goes. You describe the Void as apathy, nihilism, loss of will, the dark night of the soul. That's a real human experience, but it's a psychological state, not an ontological ground. The Void I'm pointing at is something else entirely. It is not empty in the sense of lacking something. It is the absolute absence of any distinction whatsoever, prior to space, prior to time, prior to the difference between something and nothing, prior to unity and duality themselves, prior to your Field. There is no inside or outside. No boundary. No wave. No observer. No observed. Not darkness, because darkness requires light to be its opposite. Not silence, because silence requires sound. Not nothingness, because nothingness is still a concept and concepts require a mind to hold them. It is what remains when every possible distinction, including the distinction between existence and non-existence, has been removed. And I want to be honest about something: the only way to really understand what I'm describing is not philosophical. No amount of reading Kastrup or refining your field ontology will get you there. You have to become it. That means temporarily leaving behind every structure you identify with. Your thoughts, your feelings, your sense of being someone, your topology, your resonance body, everything that makes you Cred. Not as a metaphor. Literally. That's why I said it's not depressing. From the outside, the dissolution of all structure looks like the worst possible thing. From the inside, there is no inside left to suffer it. But I won't pretend it's safe. It requires going somewhere your model can't follow you, because the model dissolves too. Most people who approach it turn back. The ones who don't turn back, come back different.

Do you mean, complex enough to give rise to meta-consciousness, meaning, being conscious that you are conscious? And also, why would a rock not get reunited with God, if it is a temporary manifestation after all too? I mean, after all, we NEED these lower level phenomena to get to the point of this higher-level phenomena with emergent property as meta-consciousness Why are you leaving non-living (or non-metaconscious) parts of God outside of the integration to God? Maybe a rock was just a couple of atoms in a certain way a couple of decades ago, but, when time passes, it becomes the structure for your own body, which then gets to think about things in the usual sense. A rock does not think, but it takes part in the process of the creation of a rock-that-thinks (humans)

I really enjoy listening to Kastrup's arguments, but he is missing a key component. LOVE. not as a romantic notion, but as a structural basis for existence. He is smart as hell, and very precise, but he himself admits that he carries within him a deep pain, and that he also recognizes that he does not see Love everywhere he looks at. Because it is painful. Integrating OTHER as your own manifestation requires a lot of psychological work and deep intelligence. Coming back to the point, I think there's something to say about the different methods for building an ontology, the scientific one and the complete one (for a lack of a better term). The idea of explaining X in terms of Y comes from the scientific method, and it's extraordinarily powerful for navigating the material world. But it carries hidden assumptions: that there's always a more fundamental level, that reality is compositional, that observation is separate from what's observed. When you try to apply that method to reality itself, not to how things work, but to what anything is at all, you hit a wall. Because the question "what is consciousness?" can't be answered by pointing to something else. If you explain it in terms of fields, you still need to ask what fields are. If you explain fields in terms of mathematics, you need to ask what math is. The regress never stops, unless you find something that doesn't need to be explained in terms of something else. The only candidate is the one thing you can't coherently deny: that there is experience. Right now, reading this. Before any concept, before any model, there's being. You have to be before you can think about being. Science is a tool built inside consciousness, to navigate within consciousness. Using it to investigate consciousness itself is like using a ruler to measure the concept of length. Consciousness == awareness == the entire universe == You == God == Infinity == the source You can awaken to the fact that you are creating the entire universe, and then also how you are doing it. But this requires something different than working on a conceptual framework. This requires activley looking for what's ultimatley true, no matter what gets in the way.

I had something very similar happen. It's like becoming present about being present in the room, almost becoming the room itself, awareness becoming aware of itself, and then the nervous system panicking because nothing in ordinary life prepares you for that. It took me years of questioning what it was, and also I've talked about this in a therapeutic environment, and the diagnosis was "stress-induced dissociation / depersonalisation / derealisation." The symptom was the resistance to the insight, not the insight itself. You figured this out in the shower when surrendering. That's the whole move. As awareness increases it goes beyond what the current ego structure allows. If it expands too much too fast the ego will feel pain, and that pain often shows up as dissociation. Just curious, have you been practicing any awareness expanding practices by any chance?

I think a lot of that emotional weight, feeling everything so intensely, including others' pain, gets amplified when you're constantly in an environment that's working against your nervous system. I genuinely think a lot of what we call emotional sensitivity or even depression has an environmental layer that we completely overlook. The city is loud, dense, polluted, and we adapt to it so thoroughly that we forget what (a natural and healthy) baseline actually feels like. Disconnection from nature might be one of the most underrated contributors to chronic emotional heaviness.

I'm interested to know about these experiments. can you actually elaborate on them? Initially I also thought that the air in the city was bad, but not long ago I made a trip to a non-urban area, nature, in the middle of the mountains, with a lot of green, in some beautiful forest with lots of trees and birds. After spending the entire day in nature, truly apart from the city, it shocked me. The positive effect of just being there, with nothing else to do but take a nap on the grass, do some handstands, or just stare at the trees Man, I felt renewed.

btw, I'm just trying to understand your ontology in the deepest way I can, maybe the interaction can help you enhance it

You say amplitude is feeling, that unity is a divine desire, that duality is a gift from god. These aren't field theory concepts, these are consciousness concepts. You're describing something that wants, feels, and gives. So why not just say Field == Consciousness? If you did, a lot of your open questions resolve immediately. The wave/space chicken-and-egg problem dissolves, consciousness doesn't need a prior cause because it's the only thing that doesn't require one. And your Messiah motivation finally has ontological groundin, you're not reuniting structures, you're reuniting experience with itself. What's stopping you from making that move explicitly?

Hey, That's quite a motivation right there, thanks for sharing! There's something in your definition of mind. You say a system is more mind-like the more complex and low-entropy it is. It implies that mind emerges from physical organization. think of the following inquiry: why is there experience at all? You could perfectly describe all the complexity and entropy dynamics of a human brainn, and still not have explained why there's something it feels like to be that system. This is the hard problem of consciousness, and no thermodynamic argument can ever touch it, because thermodynamics describes structure and behaviour, not experience. What's most interesting is that your motivation, returning to the Garden of Eden, dissolving alienation, sounds like it actually requires experience to be fundamental, not emergent. If mind is just organized complexity, what exactly are you trying to reunite with unity?

much of the discoveries within science were accidents

If only I knew Isn't it worth it to try and build it, anyways?