Emerald

The exams only matter for getting into college. Beyond that, they do not matter. So, you should do your best on your exam because colleges do take them into consideration and you don't want to close off possible pathways. But it won't effect which jobs you're hired for or anything like that.

No dimensions and infinitely many/few dimensions? It's sort of like a non-point too, but I'm not sure. Size is all relative. It can be infinitely large and infinitely small. So, size, direction, and dimension don't exist. Well said. I see. So, because thought is the creator of our experience, we could think ourselves out of existence if we're not careful... or think ourselves into a crazy existence. It makes sense. But I'll file it into the beliefs category and use it if it's handy.

I follow you right up to the end, with the smaller living creatures part. If you mean atoms, then even this comes from assumption and theorizing. If you mean actual smaller creatures, then this is nothing that I can actually notice in my present reality. If I'm missing something, please let me know.

Time doesn't exist. It's an illusion that comes from other illusory present moments seeming to pass. Or at least this is a possibility.

That's true. This is a possibility. I've heard similar perspectives to this. It definitely fits well in a very intuitive way. But it is a rationalization, so it also is an assumption. But it's an assumption that makes sense none-the-less. Definitely. I'm trying to boil down what my experiences are beyond the labels that I put upon them. So, down the rabbit hole I go.

That's true. It's difficult. I tend to keep my discussions of this nature to here because other people are thinking along the same lines, and would likely find it interesting. But it is difficult, especially as I get more accustomed to thinking and deconstructing things in this way. It's harder to convey thoughts in a way that other people understand the intended meaning behind, because I'm in a middling stage where I'm taking for granted the way that particular words are used to convey very specific meanings. It's kind of like when jargon from your work or education gets into your everyday speech and it becomes a lot more convenient to use the jargon word instead of searching around for a word that's more accessible to those who aren't involved in the things you're involved with.

I'll go through this sentence by sentence. -It's true that you can't define something without thought but you can sense/experience something without thinking about it. -My experience of the body happens without my having to think about it... if that's what you mean. Maybe this is true in the sense of making sense out of the illusion and seeing the body as a body. -I think the next sentence is true. It's only thoughts that would change with the experience of the not-present moment. I would no longer have the illusion of something there, so my understanding of that experience would change and nothing more because there was never anything there in the first place. -I'm not sure if the next sentence is true or untrue. I've never experienced this in my reality. It sounds more like a rationalization of what becomes possible when the illusion of reality is fully realized. But it is none-the-less an assumption. Is there anything that I'm not understanding?

What is Spacetime or any other place? What is transformation? What is matter? What is past? What is future? Find the now. There are a lot of assumptions in this post. I will debunk them... because I'm arrogant (J/K) but also want to see where it takes me. Transformation- Change- Can there be change? Change denotes movement. Can there be movement? No only the illusion of movement through time. Does time exist? No, only an appearance of time based upon the passing of many present moments. Where is the present moment? I can't find the present moment. There is only a projection of past and a projection of future that are infinitely close together. The present moment exists nowhere. Does the past exist? No, it's only a memory. Does the future exist? No. It's only a fantasy. Where is Spacetime? Is it in the present moment. No, it is only a thought projection about what reality consists of. Where is any place? Place seems to appear within my reality. My reality consists of sights, sounds, sensations, tastes, smells, and thoughts. Place occurs as perceptions that I interpret in this way, only in the present moment. Because the present moment doesn't exist. Place doesn't exist. The current reality exists as a non-point. So, the statement you said could be true. But there is nothing in my present experience that suggests that it is anything else but a projection of the mind.

From the illusory standpoint of existence (Maya) this is true. Creation and destruction are both illusory concepts of the human mind and are 100% impossible. Much like the Law of Conservation of Energy and Matter. However, from the non-dual perspective, we create the entirety of reality from nothing. So, paradoxically, your insight is both true and false.

Very paradoxical.

I'm not asking you to define the body with thought. I'm asking you to experience what the body is. I'm trying to allude to the fact that the body doesn't actually exists because it exists within the present moment projection, which doesn't exist. So, the idea that you posted earlier that the projection is needed for the body to stay alive is an assumption and not an empirical reality about the body. It could be equally true that the projection (including the projection of the body) comes from nowhere and that everything in that projection including the body is false. So, assuming that experience is projected by the physical body is an assumption and can't be verified in reality.

This is why death isn't scary. It's not real. I will think on this more. By the way, is this Rasmus? Or Pinocchio?

What is the body?

He pre-stole my insight. Haha!

The awareness happening now? I will contemplate on this. Thanks.

Where is the body?

I think you are still separating yourself (aka the lower self) from your higher self (aka God) when no separation actually exists. Both of these aspects are 100% you. When the lower self and higher self merge, this is enlightenment. It is an expansive, creative state of being, where the higher self is able to consciously create through the medium of an individual human experience (the lower self). Your emotions are your guidance system for how your higher nature wants to expand through your lower self... not your thoughts. If something feels bad to you, it will not yield enlightenment or personal expansion. Emotions are the messages sent to the lower self from the higher self. When you come into greater alignment it will feel good and freeing... not restricting. When you feel this expansive feeling, it is a sign that you're coming into greater alignment with the higher self. When you feel a restrictive emotion, it means you are going out of alignment with the higher self. It is your ego and rational thinking mind telling you that you can't explore the journey with the guitar... not your higher self. Your higher self (aka God) is a creator... so you are a creator. You can create whatever you want from the experience. Giving in to what feels expansive to you is much closer to merging with the higher self (enlightenment) than making your spiritual expansion fit your thought's idea of what it means. So, have your adventure and do what feels good even if you know ego plays a part. Then watch your ego as it unravels. Making the ego bad is resistance, and you need unconditional acceptance of all that is to reach enlightenment. So, what do you want to do that you've been resisting and making it bad? Also, I've been watching Bentinho Massaro a bit since you posted him, and he's great. When he says that he feels like he won't be around much longer, this is also expansion, so he likely doesn't feel bad about it. That might be his new starting a band. But don't worry about this coming up. As long as that option feels wrong to you, it is wrong to you.

@Leo Gura Were there any other Youtube channel ideas that you came up with before settling on creating Actualized.org, or did the idea come to you as one whole inspiration? What were the other names you were debating on if any? Thanks.

My reasons for wanting enlightenment are to be free from fear of death and imaginary suffering. I also want to be in touch with wisdom and subtler experiences of knowing. Ultimately, I want enlightenment so that I can feel free. This was a feeling that I only ever felt during my experiences of ego transcendence. I was free from the heavy burden of carrying around my imaginary friend I called Emerald. After setting Emerald down, I realized how much I hated to carry her everywhere. It was a lot of sacrifice to protect, sustain, and create an imaginary person. You cannot help but be one infinite being because that is what you are. I just want to release resistance to this and see reality for what it is. I don't wish to change anything about my life except my perceptions of it and my relationship to it. It is not a race to disappear, as the rational mind thinks. It is to truly become what you've always been. There is a good quote that I'll paraphrase. "Before enlightenment, dishes, laundry, and plowing; After enlightenment, dishes, laundry, and plowing." The details of your life don't change with enlightenment. You still live as a person. Don't let this man's story scare your ego. Enlightenment won't make you do anything against your own will. There are no obligations to being enlightened. It is simply a realization of your true nature. But there are no lighter stages of being awake, and there is no state 'after' enlightenment. Enlightenment is a realization of what is. There can't be anything more than what is. If you're afraid of death now, the only real remedy for this fear is to transcend the ego. It is only the ego that dies in death. Once the ego is seen through, death ceases to be scary. It is just another part of the beautiful cycle of nature that is couched within your consciousness.

You're welcome.

I'm not sure if what he's saying is legitimate. He could truly be a charlatan. But if he's legitimately enlightened, I'm not sure that this feeling is explicitly linked to his enlightenment. Intuitions becomes stronger when the illusion of self is seen through because there is no background fear obscuring it. He could be having a feeling that physical death is coming near, but this doesn't necessarily relate to enlightenment. It may just be intuition. Although, Sadhguru does say that sometimes an enlightened person will die because they don't have anything keeping them in their physical form, but that this is offset by grounding yourself in some ways to the physical. One example he gave is developing a fixation on food. But this idea likely comes from the Buddhist idea that once a person reaches enlightenment, the "soul" doesn't need to reincarnate again. So, it would make sense that a person who reaches enlightenment no longer needs to be embodied. But I have my doubts about this aspect of Buddhist philosophy. It seems to me that this comes from rational, hierarchical thinking and a potentially false belief in a separate soul. It seems like a story used to rationalize the reason behind enlightenment in a way that categorizes/labels people... in a way that's reminiscent of the Hindu Caste System. I believe that there is no separateness to souls at the "highest" level of consciousness, there is just one infinite thing that encompasses all things. So, in this way our separate nature as a human being is like being a wave in an ocean. There really isn't a separate wave from the ocean, and when the wave dies there is no separate wave to be found. Everything just gets mixed together and remains in a constant state of change. All separateness is illusion including the separation of matter and spirit and separation of spirit and spirit But take what I have to say with a grain of salt, this is just the way that I've come to understand things.

I subbed! Good luck.

I would say that the limitations are from Buddha's perspective being one of extremes. First he was extremely rich and powerful. Then he was an Ascetic. So, he referred to his enlightenment as the middle path. This gives the impression that living modestly is what Buddhism is about, but this will not produce enlightenment in itself. So, this would be a limitation that would make it difficult for an average, modern, and/or Western person to relate to unless they dived deeply into Buddhism

That's true. I unconsciously choose suffering every time. But with consciousness, no one would choose suffering because they would realize that there is nothing to be lost in giving up the ego.

I would say that suffering v. non- suffering is universally preferable from the individual human perspective. But neither is any more correct or significant. But if it comes down to the choice of suffering v. non-suffering; I'll choose non-suffering every time.