Scholar

They aren't living life to the max at all though. They are seeking a particular state of mind, not different from any other addict.

What defines whether someone becomes a billionaire is usually a deep dissatisfaction with what one has and having a great need to have more. This is basically the state of mind you have to have to become that rich. And more importantly, this state of mind has to be resistant to satisfaction. Think about it, most people would be satisfied with having a well paying job, because usually it takes unreasonable amounts of your time and effort to actually become a millionaire, in most instances. So something in the billionare type has to be completely resistant to ever be satisfied with what one has. If he allowed himself to be satisfied, he would simply not have the motivation to keep doing what he is doing. He would get his million tops, and then live his life. But the billionaire actually wants more, because that state of mind is permanent to him. He will never be satisfied, if he had the ability to be satisfied, he woudl have long been satisfied, and thus he would have never been motivated to become a billionaire. This is why billionaires aren't even satisfied when they are the richest person in the world, because if they could be satisfied at that moment of being the richest person in the world, they would have been satisfied long before that moment. See the brain needs to be in a very particular frame to be this resistant to satisfaction. You don't become the richest man in the world if you have the capcitiy to be satisfied with any amount of money, power or influence. So these kinds of people are exceptionally atypical in the way their brains work. To some extend we all are resistent to satisfaction, but a billionaire just has that resistance geared up to the extreme.

Yes, but notice the following. Previously, you looked at the world differently. You say your perception has changed, but what does this mean. Something was present before that is not present now, or something is present now that was not present before. That in and of itself is it's own form of being, and it is as absolute as that which you call absolute right now. You getting closer to how the magic trick works, you are very clearly seeing one fascet of the magic trick. But by having seen this fascet, you have lost another fascet of the magic trick, that which previously made you blind to see the new fascet of the magic trick. And if you look at that old fascet closely, you will truly understand the magic trick, and that it is no trick at all. That it is true magic.

It's a semantic game to you because you don't recognize the nature of Isness. Reality is Illusion, it's one word for the same thing, so you might aswell say that Illusion is Reality. It works both ways. However when we talk about this in the context of Enlightenment, it is more like you are letting go of a certain aspect of illusion or realness, which previously existed. And that recontextualizes the other dimensions of what you call experience. Interestingly enough this kind of recontextualization is not any more real than the previous one, it is still part of delusion (different from illusion). Without delusion, you couldn't even call reality illusion or reality, because both of these things would be reveal as nothing but their own substances, which you confuse for every other substance. Nothingness isn't Illusiory, it isn't real, it isn't imaginary. Rather, illusionness, realness and imaginariness are aspects and forms that come from the Sourceless, that which is Mysterious. The Mysterious cannot be described, it is self-descriptive, so everything you will claim about what it's nature is, will be it's nature, but merely one of it's infinite natures.

Survival is basically nothing but an attempt to achieve Harmony. Through enlightenment, you will recognize the Harmony of Existence, and that all things are subordinated to that Harmony. And so, by not resisting, as you have achieved through your enlightenment, you will naturally follow the Harmony of Existence. See, there is a flow to all of this Existence. There a Purpose to all of this, and this Purpose is Harmony. You look at reality as a singular point. But reality is like a river, with a particular direction to it. You are struggling on this river of reality and that struggle is survival. You desperately attempt to swim along this river. Enlightenment means to let go of your desperation and your struggle. When you do so, you will naturally flow with the current of the river, and it will carry you along itself. See, you have created a story about what Harmony is, what Enlightenment is, what Wisdom is. You say, wisdom is to never manipulate, wisdom is to never lie. Yet, you do not know Harmony, you do not know Wisdom, you do not know Purpose. And yet again, the very Substance of every singular fibre in your being are manifested by and themselves made of Harmony, Wisdom and Purpose. To ask why you would continue to survive after Enlightenment is like to ask why the Sun would continue being the Sun after enlightenment. The Sun already is enlightened, yet it has no problems being the sun. Infact, the sun is a perfect sun, it has no resistance, it is doing exactly what the Sun should do. Every single particle in the Sun is suboridnated to the Purpose of the Sun. So, instead of creating stories about what you should do and shouldn't do, what is good and is not good, seek to recognize the Harmony within reality, and thus you will recognize your Purpose. And your Purpose is so ingrained within you, that you will have no choice in the matter. You will fullfill the Purpose of your Existence, because that is what it means to Exist. Reality and Existence is not rational, it is not logical, it is not causal. It is Mysterious. It has no need to justify itself, it does not have to find a reason for it's own existence. It doesn't need to tell itself "This is the reason why I will survive". That's your little monkey mind, Reality itself does not require any of this to be itself. See, even once you die, you will continue to survive, as you have done for Eternity, and you shall do for Eternity. That is what it means to exist. When you shall get fully enlightened, you shall say "Let me forget about this enlightenment, and let me experience true suffering.".

Contemplate the nature of Harmony, because it is connected to Purpose and therefore to Meaning. Contemplate how it is that all things in the universe strive to achieve harmony, even those things that cause disharmony, do only do so because of the fact that they seek Self-harmony. Even the mind that destroys itself and others, that which seeks to destroy itself is itself just seeking it's own harmony. Reality creates higher and higher dimensions of harmony, and all Purpose and Meaning is connected to that Harmony.

It's actually interesting, but there is a more core problem here that you are missing, and it is that you are misunderstand what meaning actually is. Ask yourself truly, what is Meaning? What is it's nature, what is it's substance, when is it experienced? See, you are creating a narrative of meaninglessness. This Narrative is in opposition to the narrative of "Life is Meaningful". Both of these perspectives are delusional, they confuse one aspect of reality for another. Meaning is a dimension of existence, and it does exist. Life, or existence, is full of Meaning. But nothing about life is Meaningful. Nothing other than Meaning if Meaningful. This is fundamentally your misunderstanding and why you are suffering. See, the more clearly you look at reality, the clearer it will be for you to distinguish between different aspects and dimensions of existence. A clear mind can clearly differentiate between it's thoughts and other experiences. An unclear, muddy mind mixes up it's thoughts and experiences and cannot distinguish them, confusing them to be one object. Through clear mindedness, you have recognize that Meaning and any other Experience are seperate. Redness is seperate from Blueness, Blueness is seperate from high pitched noise, high pitched noise is seperate from warmth, warmth is seperate from anger. Previously, the way your mind worked is the following: It experienced redness, and it experienced happiness, and then the mind said "Redness is Happiness!". But Redness is not Happiness, Happiness merely accompanied Redness, and then the mind created an Object out of the two. It took two experiences and said "This is one experience!". See, when you see a beautiful landscape, the landscape is not beautiful. The landscape is the landscape, and the beauty is beauty. They are clearly seperate, but the mind has connected them. This is what the mind is, that is it's purpose. So now you have learned to look clearly at everything in Experience, in Existence. You look at redness, and suddenly you can't find any beauty anymore. You look everywhere, but nowhere you can find beauty. This is because beauty is not found in any other experience but Beauty itself. So you are basically looking at the wrong places. Nothing in Life, nothing in all of Existence, is Meaningful, Beautiful or Good. Nothing but precisely one thing is Meaningful. Only Meaning itself is Meaningful. Only Beauty is beautiful, and only Goodness is good. The only thing that could possibly be Beautiful is Consciousness, or Nothingness, or the Substanceless Substance. Because only the Substanceless Substance, or Nothingness, can take the Form of any possible form of existence. Nothingness can be Everything and Anything, this is why only Nothingness is Beauty. Beauty is Nothingness, and so is Meaning. So, the question here should not be "How do I find meaning in life?", but rather, the correct question to pose is "What creates Meaning within Life?". Life will never be meaningful, because Life is not meaningful. However, Life can be Meaning-Full, full of meaning. Life can be a container of Meaning, but life never will be Meaning itself. So now that this is established, let us question, when is meaning created within the mind? Well, as you probably know, the human mind can create an extraordinary amount of Meaning by simply listening to Music. Why is this? Ask yourself, what is so special about Music? What music basically is, is individual parts creating a Whole, a rythym which can only exist if you can see the Whole the parts create. The Whole doesn't truly exist, notice this. You never can hear all of the music, you only hear music one note at the time. Yet, your mind creates the impression of continuity, of rythm, of harmony. You are seeking a Narrative of Meaning, but you are not truly seeking Meaning itself. Meaning is like a substance that can be created, and if you want meaning in your life, discover what creates this substance. I can look at an image, and when I look at it, I can feel meaning. Not because the Meaning exists in the image, but because my mind creates Meaning as a result of becoming aware of the Whole, or how the individual parts interconnect to create a Whole. When you can recognize the Whole, you can recognize within it Purpose. And what Purpose is, that is mysterious. It is something akin to intelligence, to wisdom, but it is far more metaphysical. Like I said, it is mysterious, but it is clearly present. It is basically a Self-Recognition, or a recognition of your own Creativity. This kind of Purpose, or recognition of Purpose, of how the Part fits into a Whole, a Whole that has Intelligence, that is like a vein of Ore, an Ore that you call Meaning. So, you don't need to find Meaning, you need to recognize yourself as a Part within the Whole, which will make you understand Purpose, and Purpose is the reason why anything exists at all. Mastery will be sought when you recognize this vein of Ore, and you decide that this is where you will set up camp, and where you will create a mine, a mine which will allow you to get to more and more of this Ore. And in this way, you will have played your part in the orchestra of the Whole. It is not a Narrative, it is a Substance. A substance which fuels every cell in your body, every bit of gravity, every bit of mass in all of the Universe.

Also, consider that when these people say there is no evidence that these UAPs are alien spacecraft, that basically the standard of evidence for that is most likely much higher than what any of you would consider evidence. So, even if you saw basically what any normal human being would immediately claim to be an alien spacecraft, these guys would ask you: "Okay, but do we have evidence that the spacecrafts came from another solar system? As long as we do not, we have no evidence that these are alien spacecraft." So, you would probably have to record a UAP to come from deep space, enter earths atmosphere and basically zip around infront of some military installation. And even then, technically their standards can even be higher, because who knows if a human spacecraft didn't leave the solar system and then came back? Maybe the chinese did it, so we can't say it's evidence for aliens! This is why these reports are so useless, we would have to see how they came to even conclude the things they conclude, and what all of their standards are specifcally. Might even be that they have no standards, after all there are no such thing as experts or authorities on this, so who is to even determine what kinds of standards are useful here?

lol, why? Sounds like you have some deeper issues here that need resolving, you seem like a scared little child who wants to become a badass. That's the pathway to hell my friend.

Leo is using confusing language that is not helpful to you. It is the Formless that "imagined" Leo. Notice, imagination is actually a human term, and ironically, it itself is "imagined". Thus, it is merely a metaphor, which you should be aware of. Notice too that it is Leo who is saying all of these things to you. Leo clearly is not Formlessness. Leo is Form. But more importantly, everything Leo will tell you is Form, it is not Truth. It cannot possibly be Truth. Therefore, if you believe Leo, you are deluding yourself. So stop listening to what Leo is saying, because it's all delusion. Use what he is saying to dissolve, not to construct.

The true question here is, can non-existence exist? If you claim after death there is non-existence, well, that's no problem. Because non-existence doesn't exist, therefore what will happen can only be existence. To postulate that non-existence exists is absurd. How can the cessation of existence exist? What would it mean for non-existence to be eternal? Is it not the case that from the perspective of non-existence, eternity would pass in no time at all? If this is true, an eternity of non-existence would pass instantly. What would this mean? It would mean that upon your death, all existing things would instantly cease to exist from your perspective. This means, that upon your death, all of reality dies with you. All form comes to an end, and then there is only formlessness. And now ask yourself, what was before your birth? If death is non-existence, is prior birth not non-existence too? And if the non-existence of prior birth let to birth, why do you assume that the non-existence after death would lead to anything else but birth?

He is not going deep enough. He has already assumed so many things by postulating that there is perception, that there is Ultimate Truth or that there is such a thing as a "Consciousness". He will be unable to substantiate any of this, infact most likely he lacks the metaphysical intelligence to even comprehend the depth of his own ignorance, the depth of his own unconscious assumptions. How does he know what his perceptions of the brain truly indicate? How does he know what the brain is made of? If he is postulating that the brain is made out of material, what is material but something within his own consciousness? Funny how within your consciousness you have this idea of a brain and a material world, and then you postulate that this very idea, clearly made of consciousness, is that which gives rise to your own consciousness. Anything that you could ever postulate will be consciousness. Any idea, any feeling, any ideology, any scientific fact you will ever come across will always be consciousness. If it was not consciousness, you wouldn't be able to refer to it. Anything you could possibly refer to will always and necessarily be consciousness. But even this is surface level, this problem of assumptions goes much deeper. It goes so deep that it is hard to even communicate this with language. Usually it is not a lack of understanding that is the problem, but a lack of insight into ignorance. You assume way too much and you are not even aware of any of these assumptions you are making. To even pose the questions you are posing requires assumptions upon assumptions upon assumptions, and none of them are substantiated by anything. What do you even mean by reality? Why do you claim that perception is somehow different from reality? Truly ask yourself this, and ask yourself what even is the substance of the very question you are asking. If perception is unreal, how could you possibly even know that you are asking any question in the first place? If perception is not reality, how can you know that you perceive anything at all? How do you know that anything is here at all? What does verification even mean? If anything you posit to be truthful, that truth will be part of your consciousness. So if you claim anything to be true, whether it is that we cannot know reality, or that the brain creates consciousness, you have just posited that part of your consciousness is Truth. Notice how all of your questions work from assumptions outward. So you have unquestioned assumptions, and with the help of these you outwardly question anything but the very assumptions that allow you to form the question you are posing. Notice whether this is true or not, and then clearly identify the assumptions you are holding and truly ask yourself how you can substantiate them. Instead of questioning reality, what it is or isn't, question yourself. If you will just claim that the yogis did that, you are not better than your father. You are just constructing beliefs upon beliefs. And then you came here on this forum, posing your belief as a question. You haven't done anything but construct elaborate web of ideas, all of them founded on nothing at all. You aren't actually questioning anything, you are creating new questions, but you are not looking at that which is posing the questions. Most people are quite literally incapable of doing this. I am not sure what it is, but my suspicion is that there is a spectrum of metaphysical intelligence. Some people will never be able to see the true depth of the problems they face when questioning reality. They swim in the shallow waters, never able to dare to dive into the depth of the oceans. You should not try to create new knowledge, but question your knowledge. Don't speculate about knowledge that you do not have, but inspect the knowledge that you already hold. This work is not about creating knowledge, this work is about truly being able to see that what you took for self-evident, what you took for so granted that you didn't even know about it at all, is not self-evident and obvious at all. You are walking around trying to find the path to truth, but what you need to do is look on that which you stand on. Look at it very closely. Notice that you haven't looked on the ground you stand upon ever before, and now that you closely inspect it, notice that it is no ground at all. That what you felt like was a path, is no path at all. The tricky part is to notice that which you do not notice, which is so obvious, so common, so mundane that you never before in your life truly questioned it. This cannot be done by mere intellectualization, it requires far more depth than intellectualization. Most human beings on this planet are not trained to even begin to question reality. They don't even have the tools to begin to do so. They are so blind, no instructions will help them. Be hopeful that you are gifted with enough clarity that you can question reality, because most people are not. They walk on a path of their own making, a path that they think is real, but if only they looked down on the ground the stand upon, would clearly notice that it is no path, no ground at all. And then, the fall begins. The fall into the unknown, into the abyss. To see that there is no ground beneath your feet requires you to open your eyes, not to keep stumbling in the darkness of your own ignorance.

You should seriously contemplate why you are attracted to these kinds of narratives, it usually has nothing to do with spirituality, but everything to do with your psychology.

That's giving off severe red flags. "End of Days", "We are the chosen ones", etc. If you don't see these red flags you should consider yourself susceptible to cult-mentality, which is something you need to work on.

I think this kind of personality cult usually is more of a stage orange manifestation, so you shouldn't necessarily expect future movements to work in the same way, they might be far more decentralized than in the past. But if there was a next Martin Luther King, he would most certainly focus on animal rights rather than human rights.

It's fun and games now before food and water security starts to be at serious risk.

What a nothing burger of a report, and what a cringe attempt of the skeptics to immediately use this to confirm their own narrative, when the report literally says nothing of substance.

There is a reason why more primitive societies are more spiritual, why they tend to easily fall into delusions of mystical and magical thinking. It is for one simple reason: Before you come to understand the world, the miracle of existence is obvious to you. There is no question that all of this is utterly miraculous. Only through understanding can you come to take all of this for granted and come so out of touch with the clear impossibility of that which is right before your eyes. The gift of existence, trivialized to nothing but abstract ideas. To understand is to demystify, and to demystify is to become blind to the obvious. To a child, Santa Clause is a possibility, precisely because the child can see that anything indeed is possible. The very substance of that which he experiences, to the child, is so foreign, so strange, so impossible that it can only be a miracle, it can only be magical, it can only be mysterious. But as the child grows, it starts to become blind and loses it's clarity. Instead, it can only see it's understanding, blind to that which is right infront of the childs eyes. There is no reason to this, no understanding, no intelligence. It is beyond all of this, and all of this can only exist because of the miracle of existence. This actuality is so fundamentally clear that to believe otherwise is in and of itself it's own miracle. If you could only open your eyes and see the miracle of existence, your seeking would be recontextualized. You would stop seeking Truth, and you would see that Truth is Creation itself, that there is no reason, no ground to it. That the substance of Truth is miracle, mystery. There is nothing to unveil, the very process of unveiling is it's own kind of Creation, it's own form of miracle. Nothing is ever unveiled, discovered or understood. The ordinary has always been that which you seek, you merely forgot that it is a miracle. There is no need to seek the extraordinary, you simply have to open your eyes to the ordinary. To open your eyes, as they have been when you were born. To unlearn your blindness.

Ignorance is suffering. Suffering for everyone who you turn a blind eye to. If you ignore the suffering of the animals in the factory farms, nature will make it so causing this suffering will be your downfall. The german people choose to ignore what was happening right before their eyes, and nature deemed it rightful that the german people ought to be destroyed. This is what happens when you are ignorant. Yesterday a tornado destroyed several villages in the czech republic: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57605651 You might think "Oh what a tragedy!". But this is not actually true. What is tragic is that all of those individuals who now suffer, choose to ignore the suffering of others, the suffering of nature and all it's inhabitants. They were convinced that they could live their lifes blindly, to only focus on themselves and that everything would be okay as long as they take care of themselves. Nature will cause a lot more suffering to humanity, because humanity chooses to be ignorant and complacent. Only through suffering will we understand how important universal concern is. If you choose to ignore the suffering of your neighbours children, do not be surprised when your own child gets killed in a school shooting. That is the direct consequence of your ignorance and complacency. If you watch by as trillions of beings are enslaved, tortured and killed, what do you think the consequence is going to be? Why would nature have mercy with you, if you cannot show any mercy to your brothers and sisters? People live in such comfort today that they need to be reminded what it means to truly suffer.

Placebo is a real thing my dude. It's sad that so many of you will have to learn the hard way, through pure suffering. For some this is the only cure for ignorance and selfishness.

It's interesting because in a moral sense today there is far more unnecessary victimization, by people who view themselves as victims, than ever before. And a kind of victimization that even is detrimental to survival of the very perpetrators who commit it. So you could argue these individuals are even more morally corrupt than the colonizers of the previous generations, especially if we consider that current discrimination and it's effects are on a scale that makes every historical transgression pale in comparison.

It is utterly fascinating how the mentality criticized finds itself in the very author who criticizes it. There is a far more fundamental dynamic at play here, which even the victimized are unable to escape. The victimized themselves are the perpetrators, the dominators, the keeper of slaves. Victimhood and perpetration are mere relative notions in this game of dominance. The core of this very issue is never being touched in these superficial "stage green" thinkers, because if they came to understand the core of this issue, they would understand that they themselves commit the very same evil, take part in and benefit from the very frame of mind which lead to their own subjugation. Infact these individuals lack even the tools to begin to come to understand this issue, and to truly understand their own evil and selfishness. The fundamental dynamic, given rise through the struggle of survival, is that the powerful justify the subjugation and victimization of the weak by means of viewing themselves superior as a result of the very power they hold. On a psychological level this is fascilitated by selective compassion. A learned discrimination that assigns worthiness of consideration before any consideration can happen. This means that my eyes of compassion are blind and only when someone meets my criteria of worthiness, do I open my eyes of compassion and let myself feel the perspective of the other. In this way, I can say that I am a slave, because the white man is subjugating me, but I must not view myself as the subjugator of others, because the pig, the chicken, the fly, the deer, all of them are not worthy of consideration and therefore I can close my eyes of compassion. I can clearly understand white supremacy, but I am blind to my own human supremacy. I am blind to the very mindset within myself that I criticize in the other. This allows me to subjugate while upholding my victim identity. I am not actually different at all to those who I call masters, I just happened to find myself at a different position within the hierarchy of power and worthiness of consideration. To escape and deconstruct this very hierarchy, what is needed is a deconstruction of the very process of discrimination which allows this to happen in the first place. It means to stop coming up with reasons why some deserve more or less compassion and consideration than others. It means to look at the fly which buzzes in your room and to develop an instinct that will expand your compassion to this fly. This must be a natural, ingrained process, a process which projects individualism onto others, which expands it, which is inclusive and not exclusive in nature. This means to consider the interests of the flies, to feel connected to the fly and to act accordingly. The reason why it has to be inclusive, why there cannot be bias, is because once you allow for bias, you will require the very process which leads to all discrimination. You will use a filter before opening your eyes of compassion. And this inevitably will lead to you discriminating against others. Infact, all it takes to kill a human is to just consider them to be a fly. If you look at the human the same way you look at the fly, suddenly your mind will have no problem with exterminating that very human. This is why compassion cannot be selective, because the process of selection will always lead to this struggle of power and the subjugation and victimization of the weak. It is your mind that is the root of this issue. Those who have altered their minds to rid themselves of this process of discrimination became Jains. Not necessarily those who follow the religion of the Jains, but rather those who gave rise to it. It is the natural conclusion that follows the disassembling of the process of selective compassion.

Haha. Well if it was complete, it would become obvious that it was unreal from the very beginning, dissolving itself into the nothingness it is. Once you recognize that a thing is causeless, you realize it was never caused. If it was never caused, it does not exist. Incompleteness it quite literally that which holds math together, aswell as everything else in existence. Being complete means to be no thing at all. If you could proof everything, you could proof that you don't exist! Sneaky, sneaky reality with it's tendencies to thrive for existence. So really, what the mathematicians were thriving for all along was the cessastion of math itself, aswell as all else in all of existence. They are lucky they stumbled upon incompleteness, this way they can avoid the inevitable for a few more moments. Also, they are making a mistake in describing infinities to be larger than others. This is not actually true, any infinity is endless, it has no size at all, it is undefinable. What they call different sizes of infinity actually show different densities of infinity. We in general seem to be approach the idea of infinities in a kind of naive way. People are kind of mind blown by the ideas of infinity, yet it is not limitlessness that is so extraordinary, but limitation. Limitation must be explained, limitlessness is the default. They are trying to explain limitlnessness through limitation, when instead they need to start to think about how limitation can be explained through limitlessness. The miracle is not that there are lines with no divisions. The miracle is the fact that division can exist at all. That is mindblowing, truly mystifying. The self-referential problem is actually a really fitting name. You cannot refer to your Self, because if you could, you would lose your self.

No, this would not be practical for many reasons. One of them is that a foreign government could produce these seeds and distribute them in the economy to deflate the currency and collapse the economy which is build around it. This happened in the past, infact it is a big security risk eve today. This is why only the government can print money and why we go through such lengths to make it hard to counterfeit bills. Here is a good video on this: There are other reasons why this would be impractical, like that seeds can spoil quickly and so forth.

You are missing the point completely. You were misusing a cultural standard we use in science and misapplying it to this instance. This has nothing to do with materialistic reductionism, I have no idea how you even got this idea. You could be a materialist reductionist or a complete idealist, it wouldn't change anything I was adressing. This isn't about proving aliens, this is about pointing out flaws in your approach. I don't care about the aliens, the reason why I view discussing this as so useful is because it actually illustrates how people approach truth. Look at some of the first statements you made addressing me, it was never about whether you are agnostic or not, I am trying to focus in on how exactly you are thinking about these issues, because they reveal alot about how your mind works. And you keep avoiding all of the questions, and when I point something out you keep making this about a singular claim like whether or not you should be agnostic. No, that's not the only claim you made, and that's not the claim I was arguing with. This is very similar to how people approach incest. Ask them whether incest is moral or not and then investigate how they came to conclude that. In most cases it will reveal that people are utterly shallow in how they determine something to be moral or not and all they do is rationlize an intuition they already hold. You and that other guy are basically doing the same here, and it's so obvious when I keep pointing out how you do that. But you keep escaping it, so much so that now you pretend as if all you said was "I am agnostic about this".