Scholar

The Circle!

Exactly my point. But yet you are missing it still.

Again, nothing I said is in opposition to this. You cannot understand me because you have not clearly identified the Circle yet. Your mind is a slave to linearity. When I say you have no capacity to understand this, I mean not that it will be difficult to explain it to you, it will be fundamentally impossible. You have to recognize the Circle yourself. If you do not, you will keep wondering why something in Maya can cause Enlightenment. Why talking 5-MeO-DMT can "reveal" what you call the Ground which causes 5-MeO-DMT. As long as you do not see the Circle, you will ignore this matter. You have reached the end of the Line, but not realized it is merely a point on the circle. You have to clearly see the Circle, travelling forth and back will do nothing for you.

It is very interesting, because what I said does not stay in opposition to what you said here. This is what I mean, there is a fundamental incapacity to see and express the circle.

This is not true, you are expressing the circle as a line. Notice that you have things prior to other things, you have one thing more fundamental than another. This is a story your mind tells. Any story is linear, and this is nothing but a story you tell yourself. Brain is consciousness. There is no ground. What you talk of is spiritual dogma, it is Non-duality viewed through the lense of physicalism. This is the irony of it. You talk of the circle, but you have not developed the capacity to express and integrate it.

Consciousness isn't prior to anything, I think there is still some physicalism/dualism in your perspective, because of how you have constructed a new perspective that is somehow opposed to the materialist perspective. You have not transcendet it in a way to include both in a harmonic fashion. The brain is consciousness, there is no before, after, behind, infront, etc. other than beforeness, afterness, behindness and infrontness. The flying out the window is as much consciousness as the brain is, you are performing the same trick in reverse. The Absolute being Absolute is not opposed to anything that was said. In my opinion the problem is that Ralston does fundamentally not see the nature of the Circle. He still expresses the possible within a framework of logic, causality and so forth. "It is impossible for there to be something beyond this! It is true that there is nothing beyond this!". Ralson fundamentally fails to see that this could be true, while untrue at the same time. That this could be true Absolutely, yet that there could still be something beyond. If I have realized one thing on this path so far is that Impossibility does not mean something is not the case. And furthermore, something not being the case does not mean something not being the case. Ralston is trapped in the expression of the Line. He does not grasp true Paradox.

Do you think "Awakening" could not be observed as a process (or lack thereof) in the brain? Do you think it is impossible to alter the brain in such a way so as to remove Ego from it's structure? I don't buy that. I think we could have a device that instantly increased your awareness to levels no Enlightened Master has ever reached, or to reach total non-duality and awareness of Nothingness instantaneously with no effort whatsoever. Therefore, I don't see a good reason why there wouldn't be a substance that could do similar things. Ralstons view of Enlightenment is not very convincing to me. To me permanent vs non-permanent enlightenment experience is nothing but the brain either being permanently changed or temporarly changed. These are the rules of Maya. Equally I think there could be a device that would render Ralston unenlightened instantanously.

You have to specifically look at egoic structures that operate beneath the gross realms, like concepts and abstractions. You will realize the animalistic nature of yourself, and it's workings of ego and seperation. It will be obvious to you that they are present in animals, because they are as much present in you. They forms will only be minorly different. You will see in the bird the same you see in yourself.

Observe yourself more carefully, then observe animals. This is not about a deficiency in knowledge, but rather a deficiency in seeing.

Observe more carefully. There are layers and layers to ego and seperation.

This could be true but I do not think that animals that are genetically close to us are that different in terms of their egoic structures and using the illusion of seperation. One could even argue that must like sensitivity for pain, the ability to create a fundamental illusion of seperation might even be more important for a being that cannot think in abstraction like us, because of how much of a fundamental behavioural driver seperation is.

This is interesting, that poses the question, how much layers are there inbetween the "deepest" layer and the... most "shallow" layer? This seems a bad way to frame it, but if we were to frame it that way, I would assume there are infinite layers, and that we could explore them. An animal presumably can go from animal consciousness to God consciousness, if we gave it psychedelics or similar things. But can it achieve all the inbetween layers that a human can? The spectrum "inbetween" is interesting because what is the potential of it? Is it infinite? Is that what evolution is doing partly? Creating more and more capacity for inbetween?

How much of this do you think is the limitation of the human mind? Could there be a mind structure that was geared towards operating in this "deeper" realm of "causes" or magic while our human minds are not structured to do this or to grapple with it effectively? Could there be a being that could use these deeper realms to construct a sort of language out of it, if it's mind was geared towards doing so? Could there be a mind that was geared solely towards the exploration of the "Inner" realms? And what would that mean in relationship to our inherent limitations as human minds?

Is there a duality between something being reveal as impossible/magical vs understanding how it is created? Because I more and more realize impossibilities, rather than understanding. In a certain sense I get a grasp of the impossibilities, which I guess is a new type of understanding, but it is also not really explanatory in an intellectual sense. I always thought I understood paradox and circularity, in a strict linear sense it seems to not be that hard to grasp. But the thing about paradox and circularity is that both of them are kind of descriptions from a framework of linearity. Paradox comes from viewing things linearly and simply describing the non-linear, non-causal or non-non-contradictory. This can be done from a linear perspective, but this will give one no insight into paradox or circularity. To see the circle makes one realize how futile it is to look at it as a line. So is this recognition of impossibility or paradox or circularity a new type of understanding? I feel like since I have observed them, my capacity to hold contradictory ideas increase tremendously. I can weave thought patterns and structures that previously I would have not been capable of weaving, which people who have not had the insight into paradox seem to have no capacity of even beginning to understand, making it just impossible to communicate. But still, it seems futile to explain the circle in with a line. The mind struggles grasping the paradox. It tries to unravel it into a non-paradox, but when doing so it always loses the nature of the circle. So my question is, if we say there are these two types of Understanding, do they ever truly translate into each other? Do we ever get to explain the magic, or is the recognition of magic the explanation?

in a relative sense one could imagine it with different timelines, I guess. Enlightenment is Ultimate. It is the End of all Timelines, it is the end point of all Form. In that timeline, so to speak, everyone is already dead, because all form reunited with formlessness. This does not make sense because you imagine Reality not as a circle. If you see the circle, it won't be an issue. It will still be impossible, but it will not be an issue. The stories will make more sense, even if they are contradictory and paradoxical. I guess the trick is, it is the same place at which everyone was not yet born.

As Leo experiences recently in his breakthrough, Ken talks about the importance of Forgiveness and Gratitude: But honestly I just wanted you guys to see the wig... oh my god. My grandma had a wig just like him, and she looked like him aswell.

All these amateurs in here... https://unchainmybrain.com/learn-to-visualize/ Visualization happens by the right brain, it is very uncontrollable in the beginning and that is the point. Images will just float into your mind, but you have to let them, and for that you need to engage the right brain: This has some good tips. Do this kind of meditation, or watch a movie this way, in that peripheral sensation. I'm sure there is something about this in Yoga aswell but I haven't done the research yet.

I have a very easy metaphor for intuiting the difference between Total Omniscience and Understanding and why one is so often misunderstood to be the other. You have a Line, an Infinite Line. That Line is Everything that Is. Omniscience is Total Awareness of that complete Infinite Line as a whole. Understanding is the Division of the Line into parts, meaning Selective Awareness! Seeing the Elephant in that Infinite Line requires to tune out the rest! Funny is it not? So, the question is not "Why do you not know everything if you are omniscient?". The true question, which is utterly mysterious, is: "How is it possible that you can know anything at all while being omniscient?".

I don't view Leo's videos as teachings, they are more like reports of exploration. To teach Love with words is primitive. Words are the least appropriate tool of all human capacities that can make Love flourish and be recognized. It's like using a gun to draw a picture. Me sharing my bread with you will teach you more about Love than any book and any sentence ever could. It was not Christs words that made Love flourish, even more so than his ability to heal or his helping of others, it was his Death on the Cross that made Love resonate through Reality in an unprecedented way. A mother does not need to tell her Child that she loves it. Words, stories and concepts are such a crude and primitve way to communicate or reveal Love. Words are the most indirect way to do and teach this work. Notice that what moved you in Leo's videos was not his words, but his tears. He would need to say nothing, if he simply cried in the face of recognition, it would be more than enough. It would tell us all exactly what we need to know.

What's the point of this? What are you going to do with the answer? Seekers should ask questions about how to get somewhere, not how the destination looks.

I find it peculiar how similar what Leo is talking of in his latest video is to the teachings of Christianity. Some things to notice: Importance of Forgiveness and Gratitude. Father and Son dynamic between God and Self, Leo asking him for guidance, crying in his arms, being forgiven by him, being taught by him in harsh ways to increase his ability to love: "My son, do not despise the Lord’s discipline, and do not resent his rebuke, because the Lord disciplines those he loves, as a father the son he delights in." On Mahasamadhi: "I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one." On the cessation of the Universe and all people, which gives the "Christ relieved us all from sin" a completely new meaning: "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." "Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen" Realization that you can develop healing powers and eventually using them, as Christ did. Apologizing for not being loving: "Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord," God Being Love and all: And we have come to know and believe the love that God has for us. God is love; whoever abides in love abides in God, and God in him. In this way, love has been perfected among us, so that we may have confidence on the day of judgment; for in this world we are just like Him. There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear, because fear involves punishment. The one who fears has not been perfected in love. We love because He first loved us. If anyone says, “I love God,” but hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And we have this commandment from Him: Whoever loves God must love his brother as well. I rest my case. Christ is End Game content.

There is also no such thing as 5-MeO-DMT. Doesn't really change how radical it makes it. What if physical death is the ultimate 5-MeO-DMT?

What if Physical Death is even more radical?

Focus is a circle.