Monster Energy

I’ve noticed that when my baseline energy is stable, it doesn’t affect me negatively in the same way. I also believe thoughts play a big role in the effect. If you drink an energy drink expecting to feel worse or low, that expectation tends to manifest. When the system fully believes something, it becomes truth experientially. I think if you drank it without judgment or giving those thoughts power, your experience could actually be different. It’s the same with masturbation. If you believe it makes you a worse person, it will feel that way. That’s why some feel shame around it and others don’t.

I’m very mindful about it, but the ego also needs to enjoy itself even when consciousness is very high. Many people think that once you reach a high level of awareness, you completely stop enjoying low-vibration food and drinks. That’s true to a certain extent, but I’m not dependent on them. I simply choose to enjoy them occasionally.

There is no “beyond.” The need for something more is just the ego projecting infinity outside of itself. When that collapses, the search ends.

I like Monster Energy drinks.

Understood. I’m trying to understand what specific issue is being addressed if the post itself doesn’t break any guidelines.

The post wasn’t about guidelines. It was about how quickly “AI” becomes the explanation instead of engaging with the content.

Bingo

Not me either, yet.

That’s a really beautiful association. I hadn’t thought of Parsifal in those terms before, but it resonates immediately. Thank you for bringing that in.

This isn’t advice or a recommendation. It’s just an observation from my own experience. For a long time, my baseline felt inefficient. Not broken, just constantly losing energy. A lot of stimulation, a lot of discharge, very little settling. I didn’t realize how normal that felt until it stopped. Periods of nofap didn’t give me highs or confidence. They reduced noise. Urges still appeared, but they stopped pulling me outward. Energy stayed in the system instead of immediately seeking release. Dry fasting worked on the same principle, but more directly. When stimulation drops close to zero, the body has no option but to regulate itself. You notice quickly whether your calm is real or dependent on inputs. What emerged wasn’t pleasure or insight, but coherence. Here’s the part that surprised me most: when internal energy is stable and sufficient, the external stops having leverage. I noticed that I only chased the outside when something inside was low or leaking. Images, validation, stimulation, meaning. When the internal state was strong and settled, the external couldn’t give me life anymore. It could be appreciated, but not used as a source. That reframed the question for me. Why do we chase the external in the first place? Not because it’s inherently valuable, but because the system is compensating. When internal energy is low, the mind looks outward for regulation. When internal energy is high and coherent, the need to chase disappears on its own. Nothing is being suppressed. Nothing is being resisted. There’s just no deficit to fix. I’m careful not to frame nofap or dry fasting as cures. They’re tools, and tools affect people differently. Used poorly, they can destabilize rather than heal. Context and honesty matter. But one pattern has been consistent for me. When stimulation and discharge stop long enough, energy settles inward. And when that happens, the sense of being unfinished fades.

You suffer because you believe the beauty is in a person. It isn’t. If beauty were actually located in her, in her face, body, or presence, then she would produce the same effect in you every time. But she doesn’t. Sometimes there is intensity. Sometimes there is nothing. That alone exposes the truth. You are generating the experience. You are the source of beauty, meaning, and charge. The person is merely a trigger. Obsession arises when you believe she carries something essential that you lack. In reality, you are projecting the power of your own consciousness outward and becoming enslaved by your own projection. When this is seen clearly, the chase collapses. Not because the world becomes dull, but because you realize that the beauty was never in her. It was always you. Stop being a slave to a person. Reclaim the source.

I mostly agree. I’d just add that being isn’t something you secure and move past. It’s something you keep losing and returning to. Freedom shows up in that return, not in the idea

If it was, I’d be worried about myself.

God bless you

I take it seriously in the sense that I think he’s pointing at something real, but I don’t treat the metaphors as literal physics. For me it’s more about the idea that consciousness never really stops unfolding, and that what we call “death” isn’t the end of that movement. Do I agree with every detail he describes? Not necessarily. But the core intuition, that formless awareness doesn’t just disappear but reshapes, that part resonates with me. So I’m open to it, but I hold it lightly.

Okay, Leo. I want to try to explain why I hesitate with some of your conclusions, not to dismiss them but to understand the path you take from experience to philosophy. I absolutely believe your experiences are genuine. It’s clear you’re not making them up. What I’m more curious about is how you interpret them. You often describe moments of total certainty, and I know how powerful that can feel. But that’s exactly why I’m cautious, because the sensation of absolute clarity isn’t rare. It can come from ecstasy, psychedelics, psychosis, meditation, euphoria, depression… basically any extreme mental state. The feeling itself isn’t the issue. It’s the step that comes after. The leap from “I experienced this” to “this is how the entire universe works.” That’s where I can’t quite follow, because experiences are private while your conclusions are universal. It’s like going from a diary entry to a physics textbook without anything in between. When you say “consciousness is everything,” it sometimes sounds as if your personal sense of totality has to be the fundamental structure of reality. But how do you know it isn’t just the mind doing what the mind always does when pushed to its limit: creating a sense of meaning, coherence, narrative? That’s one of the mind’s most basic functions. I’m not saying your interpretation is wrong. I’m just saying it is an interpretation. For me there’s a difference between a powerful experience and a theory about reality, and that’s where I wonder if you’re jumping too quickly. Not out of bad intention, but because the experience itself is so overwhelming that it almost demands a cosmological explanation. I can respect that. I just need more steps between the points to follow along. That’s all.

If you take Leo’s framing seriously, the key idea isn’t really reincarnation as a cycle you’re stuck in. It’s that formless consciousness never actually stops expressing itself. There’s no “pause screen” after death where you step back and make a menu choice. The part of you that chooses only exists after a self has already formed. Formlessness isn’t freedom in the way we imagine it. It’s more like pure potential without a reference point, and potential naturally moves into expression. Not because someone forces it, but because that’s what awareness does when it isn’t holding itself still. So the real question isn’t “Why can’t I choose something else?” It’s “Who is the ‘I’ that thinks it stands outside the process?” In the way Leo describes it, you don’t reincarnate because you’re trapped. You reincarnate because existence keeps unfolding, and you’re one of the ways it happens.

I appreciate the thoughtfulness. For me the important part is simply recognizing how much translation happens the moment an experience re-enters a human mind. Whatever the source may be, it always arrives filtered, shaped, and interpreted. That doesn’t make it meaningless, it just means we stay honest about the limits of what the mind can claim.

I see what you mean, but I’m drawing a distinction because I think it matters. Wisdom may include discernment, but they don’t function the same way. One orbits insight, the other tests it. I’m just speaking to that testing part.

Easy there, Buddha boy. Even God smirks.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I’ll keep exploring these questions in a way that feels authentic to me, and I trust that whatever clarity I reach will come from my own process, not from trying to force a conclusion. Thank you for the exchange. Wishing you well.

You’re right that what I described overlaps with wisdom, but wisdom without discernment is just pleasant sentiment. Discernment is the part that keeps us honest. It’s what stops insight from turning into ideology, and experience from turning into dogma. If anything, wisdom grows out of discernment, not the other way around.

Leo, I understand that from your vantage point my questions look like “imagining others,” or playing mental games, or being trapped in some epistemic chicken-egg situation. But you’re presenting all those claims as if naming them makes them true. Choosing not to imagine distinctions doesn’t eliminate them, it just means you’re declaring your perspective to be the universal template. You keep telling me that any distinction I make is imaginary, while simultaneously insisting that your own distinction between Truth and illusion is not. If all distinctions collapse in Unity, then yours collapses too. If they don’t, then mine is at least worth addressing instead of dismissing. And when you tell me that nothing I think matters, or that all thought is childish nonsense, that isn’t a revelation, it’s a tactic. It turns dialogue into submission. If the only acceptable position is to stop thinking and agree, then what you’re offering isn’t awakening, it’s obedience. You say this is beyond human comprehension, yet somehow still communicable through blunt certainty. You say there is no argument for Absolute Truth, yet you insist your words describe it accurately. If you truly occupy a perspective where language is incapable of misrepresenting reality, that itself is a claim that deserves scrutiny. Not rejection, not acceptance, but scrutiny. I’m not trying to outsmart you, and I’m not trying to win. I’m trying to understand. And part of understanding is not surrendering my capacity to distinguish between an experience and the metaphysics derived from it. Feeling something as ultimate is not the same as demonstrating that it is ultimate. You say that once consciousness is high enough, feeling and ontology are the same. That might be true for you, but the fact that you tell me it’s true doesn’t make it true for me. If awakening is required, then the point is not that I agree with you, but that I verify something for myself. And verification requires more than repetition. It requires the space to think, to doubt, to examine. You accuse me of being stuck inside a mental egg, but cracking the shell by force doesn’t hatch a chick. It kills it. Growth has a rhythm. Insight has a process. And questioning isn’t the enemy of Truth. It’s the way we avoid confusing forceful conviction with clarity. I’m listening to you, Leo. I’m taking you seriously. But taking you seriously doesn’t mean I turn my mind off and call it enlightenment. With love and with my autonomy intact.

I appreciate the sentiment, but “just know Truth for yourself” can easily become a poetic way of avoiding the hard part. Discernment isn’t a mystical instinct you unlock, it’s a discipline. It requires doubt, reflection, and sometimes the humility to admit that even profound experiences can mislead us. Real inner realization comes from questioning our own certainty, not celebrating it.