Scholar

The experience of the enlightened is filled with love, meaning and joy because there is no construct which keeps the mind from letting these fascets of existence flow into the experience. On the way of the deconstruction of the ego, meaning is lost, namely the experience of meaning ceases to be generated. This is of course because the ego is constructed in a way so as to not find it's own deconstruction meaningful. If it was, it would not be stable. But, once ego is dissolved to a certain extend or even completely, meaning will flow back in an amount that is not limited, creating the illusion or delusion of "enlightenment being meaningful". This is how one could look at it, and it is useful because it keeps us from falling into the typical nihilism, the "everything is meaningless" illusion which actually is just as "untrue" as the "everything is meaningful" illusion. Both don't see meaning as itself, both still conflate and mix different experiences together. But we also must recognize that this mixture of different experiences is actually magical. It is wonderful in a way, because it is what allows us to say "It is wonderful". It is the magic of delusion, or understanding. It gives life an interconnectedness which should be impossible, because it creates "1=2". In that way, it created from 1 and 2 a new Isness, the Isness of "1=2". Notice how "1=2" is neither 1, nor 2. But it is still there. @Serotoninluv It is strange because I have not been meditating as much recently, it seems to however flow very naturally. It kind of motivates me to go back into some longer sessions of meditation. I am not quite sure if this is ego-deconstruction or something else. Recently I have been very accepting of my egoic desires and much less judgemental. For example, I viewed my animal rights desires as unconscious not that long ago, I would say to myself "Someone who was more developed than me would let go of the struggling against the suffering of others, someone who was more conscious was free himself of this suffering", but in a way I have done the opposite. I have accepted myself at where I am, if right now I feel a strong urge to be the unconscious vegan who is angry about animal suffering, than that's what I will accept and follow. I think Leo's explanations of Love have helped me with this, he is right that the "Loving"/"Jesus" path is more appealing and to me seemingly more natural than the Zen buddhist path. But in a weird way I now want to explore the more silent path again to see what I can discover with my new perspective.

Yes, but the existential crisis is tied to how you look at the experience of meaning. This sort of crisis happens when there is a loss of the experience of meaning, suddenly actions seem "bland" because previously the experience of meaning was correlated to these other experiences. This is not necessary, and more importantly it's not a true loss of meaning. You still attribute the negative feeling of meaninglessness (which is not the negation of meaning, but it's own form of meaning) to other experiences. "Oh but why does anything exist?" The question is absurd. "Whyness" is it's own fascet of Isness. "Whyness" is an experience, so to speak. You are again confusing one experience and attempting to seek it in other experiences. It's like looking for sound in the color red. You will not find sound in the color red. In the color red you will only every find redness. Isness just is, "Whyness" and "Meaning" exists within Isness. The irony is that once the ego construct is dissolve, meaning will be created and generated with no limitations. Right now meaning is only created when there is an experience which serves the egos survival. When ego is gone, meaning will be generated with no limitations, because there is no reason not to. This then is confused by meditators to mean that "enlightenment" is meaningful. "Oh look how wonderful it is, this is the most meaningful experience there could possibly be!". But the experience itself is not meaning, only the experience of meaning which accompanies it is meaningful. This confusion even for the most experience meditators is to me astounding, because it implies a deeper unconsciousness of Isness, despite the ego-construct being dissolved.

I don't know why so many experienced meditators fail to see this simple truth. I can only repeat it over and over: Nothing is meaningful but meaning itself. From your framework it would probably be best put as: Meaning is an experience like every other experience there is. Meaning is like pain. Meaning is like color. Meaning is like sound. Meaning is like thought. Meaning is it's own experience. It is either there or it is not. It either is or it is not. To ask "What is the meaning of existence" is literally the same as asking "What is the color of existence?", "What is the sound of existence?", "What is the pain of existence?", "What is the X of existence?". The question is void. It is confusion. There is no color of existence. Rather, there is color in existence. You got rid of the exprience of meaning, that's all. There is no realization of anything, you simply changed your experience. Meaning is as real as anything else could be. It is as much Isness as all else in existence. We just need to recognize it for what it is and stop conflating it with other aspects of realness, or with Isness as a whole.

It is not hideous. Suffering is suffering, not anything else. Maybe hideousness is suffering, but not the other way around. You can find redness, too. Did the Buddha ever say "Life is redness?". Life is everything.

I guess in the end that's all there is to do. I feel like that is also part of the magic, how all of this works. It's so weird if you think about it. Anyways thanks for the time Leo! I think I got to understand a few things better.

So the usage of the word is more of part of your Self-actualization journey?

I agree, but I feel like Devilry has things attached to it as much as Maya has. Devirly has a moralistic component, and Maya has a illusiory component.

I understand, but this is not about the framework. It's not about the categories. Framing it into the larger unity is not quite what I am trying to communicate. What I mean is this: God greatest act of Love and Consciousness was to completely immerse and accept all Unconsciousness, in such a radical way that it became Unconsciousness. The greatest form of Consciousness, the Highest Wisdom, being the Isness of all of Maya. The Unconsciousness, including all aspects of Isness, being the truest and purest Form of Love. So Loving that it loves all Frameworks, that it loves how you put Selfishness and Consciousness opposed to each other. So Conscious that Unconsciousness IS that consciousness. Full Circle, the highest form of Consciousness Literally makes you end up BEING the unconscious Devil. And that Circle relativizes all of Being. To say there is lower or higher consciousness would be like to say one could be further along on the pathway of a Circle. It would all be defined from the point of starting, but the end point would always be the point of starting.

Yes, but do you also think that blind selfishness and deception are utterly pure and the highest form of Consciousness and being? In a way I am asking you to abandon the framing of "Higher and Lower Consciousness".

But beauty is not in contradiction to suffering. Beauty and suffering are two aspects of Isness. If we were to frame it like this: God creates World. In World there is Suffering. Suffering creates world which avoids suffering. In a way the nature of suffering is to avoid itself, one might say in Gods eye it is the ultimate tool of avoidance. A magical fascets that seeks to reduce itself. That in itself is utterly magical and impossible, and one might say God created it this way with Wisdom. In World, just the presence of suffering will be the avoiding of suffering. In a way, one might say the celebration of suffering, the true acceptance of suffering, is to avoid suffering. That is the magic, and that is why you would frame it Devilry, why you would oppose it to Beauty, despite there being able to be beauty among suffering and the other way around. What I am trying to point to is that this is all within Worldness, God accepts all of Worldness. So the closer we get to Godness, if we were to frame it as a duality, would we not more and more come to see the utter Wisdom in all aspects of Isness, including suffering? Would we really call it devilry? Could we infact call it anything at all? Would we not end up creating "Unconsciousness" out of pure love? Would there not be so much love that we would once more be Worldness? To put it in a poetic way, would we not once more fall in Love with Creation and fully Immerse into it, reigniting the "dream"? Loving Murdering so much that it is not framed as "unconscious" or a lesser form of Love, but so Loving that the Being of the Murdering would just be by itself, "Unconsciousness" being utterly pure and perfect. The Full Circle being that Unconsciousness is the greatest and Deepest State of Consciousness there could possibly be? Or in other words, recognizing that the Isness of all Isness is equal? I see it differently. There is no "yours", there is no "you" and "me" other than being different aspects of Isness. Possession and identity are Isness, not the other way around. "I am God" is inherently Isness, but it is as much Isness as anything else. Isness does not belong to anyone, Isness is, and not even that. There is noone to allow anything, there is just Is. The way you just framed it is a very particular way of it Being. Framing it as observing, consciousness, subjectivity. To make it clearer for you, I will not just stand there, I will beat the shit out of the person. That's simply what would happen.

What does that matter? Everything I will do will be Maya, saying "It is all maya and illusion" is Maya, beating the crap out of him is Maya. There is no difference. I will not do anything, there will however be "beating the crap out of him".

That is contradictory to what I see.

But that is only one aspect of the dream. Why only focus on the suffering part? And yes, of course I, as a human, as an ego, will care about the rape. That's what it's all about. Wouldn't a higher perspective celebrate all aspects of Maya? Isn't the suffering itself the celebration of suffering? How better to appreciate suffering than by creating suffering? Saying we call it devilry because of suffering is like saying "Suffering is suffering, that's why we call the ego devilry.". Like, "But I don't want suffering to be suffering!", but that in itself is suffering! That's all suffering is about. Suffering is not anything but suffering. It's like suffering is suicidal.

Is the ego not only from the ego's perspective illusion, lying and devilry? Isn't illusion, lying and devilry = Truth, as much as anything else can be Truth? Devilry gives it such a negative vibe. Why not call it dreamery? A dream is amazing. Calling it devilry and illusion seems so human.

I have recently discovered that what I viewed meditation to be has changed in a subtle but signficant way. Prior to this change, I viewed meditation as "Focusing", "Paying attention", "Letting go", "Inspecting" or "Being mindful". Basically it was something you would do, sitting down or otherwise, as some sort of exercise. The way I look at it now is that there is no focusing, there is only Being with Reality. For instance, instead of "Being mindful of the stars", one would instead "Be with the stars". Even though this seems like a language game, in practice I found that it is not at all. The visualization of to be with or to be among has much more to do with dissolving into reality than "being mindful of". The "being with" seems to naturally dissolve the subject - experience divide. Another interesting aspect is that it seems to involve love, it seems to involve connection. It is not about "Seeing or observing accurately", but rather about connecting to existence, connecting to the "substance" of realness. To be with reality like to be with a loved one, this "framing" makes it very easy for my mind to just go right into it, effortlessly. When there is suffering, be with it as if it was lonely. Try to fill it with your presence. Connect with it, be with it. Don't look at it, be with it. This also recontextualized choice for me. I now much more clearly see that I can choose between being with Love or being with Pleasure. It's not about the question of "Do I want to experience pleasure or love?" but rather, "Do I want to be with pleasure or love?". Once can go towards one or the other. It is not about possession, it is not about "experiencing" them, it is about stepping into these aspects of realness, of being with these aspects. You are not an observer, but instead you are like a substanceless sphere which can swim through Realness or Maya. That through which you swim is that which you "experience". There is really no experiencing, there is only the swimming through. The swimming through is the Realness. There is no divide between the swimming and that through which is being swam. Meditation is like deeper swimming. In essence, instead of observing, start connecting. That is all that needs to be done. Connect with Isness. You can start with a pencil, visualizes "connecting", "being with", "sharing love" and the mind will naturally do what it needs to do.

https://cronometer.com/ See if you get everything you need from the things you eat. I would get rid of the milk, whey, yoghurt and cheese. Chicken, fish and beef is also not healthy if you would consume it every day. Best to replace it with sources that are environmentally friendly, ethical and healthier. You can replace fish with mussels, for example. The beef and chicken can be replaced with insect substitudes.

It was a gradual change, it all kind of stemmed from multiple recognitions of Isness. The strange thing is that these insights or changes in awareness did not happen through me sitting and meditating, but usually were a consequence of contemplation after one of Leo's videos and then reaching the limitations of contemplation, as in seeing the absurdity and impossibility of every fascet of realness. I listened to music while contemplating, music of this kind: I don't know why, but somehow it gets me into a strange state. I am highly sensitive to specific kind of music, extreme emotional reactions that really exhaust me after a certain period of time. There is contemplation, a state of flow, then the glaring limitation of contemplation, thought and logic. And then there is just impossibility, a recognition of the magic behind, or rather on, the scenes. It is obvious that all aspects of reality are irreducable, they are existence itself. Redness is Redness, and it is as real as anything can get. To recognize that Redness, an aspect of reality most mundane and common to us, is utterly mysterious and magical, that will definitely help out with some of the confusion. When you see redness, you will also see Goodness and Badness. You will start "seeing" everything for what it is. It will make no sense anymore to say things like "Reality is meaningless", it will be like saying "Blue is yellow". Blue is blue, yellow is yellow. Meaninglessness is meaninglessness. Meaning and meaningless are two aspects of realness that are there, right within our being. They are there. It makes no sense to say there is no good and evil when there clearly is, however nothing can ever be good and evil but good and evil itself. No action can be good, just like no action can be red. One aspect of being can never be the other. Sound is not vision, so how could murder ever be evilness? After a few of these recognitions I seem to have deconstructed more and more intuitive assumptions. Like the subject - subjectivity duality, but more importantly the object - trait duality. For example before there could be a horse, a horse that was brown, a horse that was fast, a horse that was hairy. Now, there is horseness, brownness, fastness, hairiness. The language came after the recognition, but the language change gave way for more deeper recognition. In this way, the concepts of mind and reality, subject and consciousness, do not fit anymore. They seem redundant, they seem delusional. Deliberately delusional. Then there is a even deeper recognition of delusion, and a recognition that delusion is magical. It is literally impossible, it is literally magic. And it is Creation. It is amazing, it is utterly wonderful. All understanding is magical, as is Redness. In the end there is just this weird sense of utter magic, framing is really unimportant, as the frame is recognized for the frame. The frame is the frame. At this point it makes no sense to become more aware, because awareness, attention and mind were part of the frame. At this point, thought becomes Being. One can connect to thoughtness itself, as one can connect with Redness itself. Language at this point is utterly magical, it is literally impossible, it is irreducable. The magic of the redness becomes the magic of the thought. It is poetry, poetry is magic. Now "Being with reality" is not an act, it is not casual. It is magic. The magic that despite it all being a delusion, it is Isness itself. Despite it being thought, it is Isness. Isness is beyond all comprehension, yet it is also comprehension. Where I am now is at a strange wall where even Isness- Beingness start to fall apart. They seem to not make any more sense. A realm in which Redness does not exist, in which Redness doesn't "is". A realm in which Redness reds. Redness reds. Blueness blues. Goodness goods. No seperation at all, pure Blueness, pure Redness. So pure there is not even purity. Magic does not exist. Magic magics. It is so interesting, because from the perspective of language this just looks like a language game. Redness reds? Well, that just means Redness is red, does it not? This is beyond the meaning of the words, a lack of recognition will not allow one to see it. It seems like there is no difference between "Higher consciousness" and "Lower consciousness". Both of them are pure magic, they are the rawest form of reality possible. They are rawness itself. Going from "higher" to "lower" consciousness just is different Isness.

I get a lot of my micronutrients in by eating Vivo Thrive. Multivitamin tablets usually aren't that effective and might even be harmful, the good thing about Vivo is that they only use natural ingredients, so it's basically a mixture of whole foods. https://www.vivolife.co.uk/products/thrive-living-multinutrient It makes a notibale difference in my energy levels and well-being.

But it is also subtle in that you might have this Forum open in the background, and while you are doing your task you keep thinking about this forum. Even if you are not actualling doing anything in the forum, that might be multitasking, as your attention becomes divided. This is why it is important to create an environment that will cultivate focus. Turning off your internet even if you are not using it, so your brain doesn't have the feeling of being able to access it at any point, which will have an impact on your attention. Also when you are browsing, trying not to have many tabs open. You can create rituals even, so that your brain knows when to start focusing, when it is time to pay attention. Learn from the whole Zen Minimalism culture, learn from the Japanese in general. They are a good example of creating a culture and environment of focus. Do the same with your digital environment, imagine what it would look like if a Japanese Zen master was to design it. You have to create an infrastructure which will support your ability to focus. Focus is extremely valuable in our day and age. Just nailing down that one aspect will help you tremendously.

No, multi-tasking is when your attention is being interrupted and switcihg between two or more different tasks. In the rat study what they did is create a noise and visual cue to break the concentration of the rats over and over, and at some point they would get worse at focusing in general. Listening to music might not necessarily be multi-tasking when it is not distrupting your focus. When you are writing something and then suddenly you think of the music that you are listening to, for whatever reason, that will be harmful. When the music becomes background noise and you can fully focus on whatever task, then it is not multitasking. Listening to a podcast while doing something for example can be viewed as multitasknig because your attention will switch between the podcast and whatever you are doing. It's not all black and white, for example you could be driving on the autobahn and listen to a podcast and it might not really be multitasking. You should develope a sense for when it is happening, you will notice when your brain is not in a meditative state, when it is not flowing and when it is scattered, then it's not healthy. It all depends on how intensive of a task it is that you are doing.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2014/10/08/multitasking-damages-your-brain-and-career-new-studies-suggest/ There have been some studies suggesting that Multitasking might cause permanent brain damage. With rat studies they found that after making the rats multitask, over time their problem solving skills declined permanently with no recovery. No joke, but obviously rats cannot consciously train themselves to focus and concentrate, so there might be hope for us multitaskers.

Nothing is insignificant, only insignificance is insignificant. Dust particles are dust particles, humanity is humanity. Everything else is a story. Significance of humanity is as much a story as insignificance of humanity. Humanity, dust particles, insignificance, significance, are all part of Being. Why and why not is also part of Being.

Anyone know if Enlightenment causes epigenetic changes in human beings?

About censorship and controlled narrative.