Carl-Richard

@Someone here Gz dude

So I would say there is a difference between mapping out an ontology that makes sense (or being skeptical of such attempts) and directly grasping whatever the ontology is describing. The mapping part or the skepticism part is a human thing, and it's something we can't stop ourselves from doing, but it doesn't change the fact that we're somehow doing the mapping. That "doing", whichever way you choose to map it, eventually traces back to formlessness, and it's unavoidable. The amount of layers you have to trace back is of course contingent on our human inclinations, but the final layer isn't. How can you directly grasp the final layer? Again, by stripping all the human layers from yourself, removing the body, the mind, thoughts, perceptions, time and space. That process is necessary because the human and its activities (i.e. what this is) is distracting itself with the world of forms.

Skepticism aside, which ontology makes the most sense to you? In other words, if you had to bet on one using whatever criteria you'd like, which one would you pick?

Of course it precedes logic. It's not the logic that justifies it in the final equation. It only makes it more convincing. You must grasp it directly by going through the process of divesting yourself of all forms, of all limitations (and again, "you" in this case is formlessness, not the limited human form). Again, what you're treating as "something else" is what formlessness is. It's the necessary criteria for all things. It's not contingent on anything, because it's the thing that makes contingency possible. To postulate "there might be something else than formlessness" doesn't make sense, because it too would be formlessness. Again, "something else" only makes sense when something is limited. Formlessness is not limited. The only way you get to your position is if you use your limited human mind to produce a conceptual thought that says "what if?" At that point, you've departured from dealing with the issue directly (which is to grasp it directly). You're smuggling relational assumptions into the equation by assuming human qualities and pretending that it's a valid part of the inquiry. It's really not. The human part is the thing you must see through.

The only thing I need is studies. If you don't have the ideas, you're studying in the wrong field ?

@Tyler Robinson It is, because it probably won't give me citations of studies in APA 7th format.

Now I want to create an obscure internet spirituality iceberg with Sam Harris and Joe Rogan at level 1 ?. (Joe "have you heard about DMT?" Rogan and Sam "have you heard about meditation?" Harris ?). Level 2 could be Eckhart Tolle, Sadhguru, Terrence McKenna, Alan Watts, Ram Dass (world famous gurus). Level 3: Rupert Spira, Leo Gura (youtube famous). Level 4: BATGAP, Martin Ball, Jan Essman (small youtube channels). Level 5: Rali from Naked Reality (dead youtube channels). Level 6: some weird shit.

What I'm saying is that you can't create multiple dimensions without first starting with one dimension. That one dimension is formlessness. For anything to be outside of our dimension, it must already be made out of the same stuff that we refer to as direct experience (or the most fundamental aspect of it; formlessness). To say that the most fundamental aspect of this allegedly inaccessible thing is actually inaccessible to us, is false. Only if you make that thing a form, it can become inaccessible to another form. Formlessness cannot be inaccessible. It precedes all relational qualities.

Having to approve every post you make is so cringe.

@AtheisticNonduality Inspect element this ?? Anybody want to hear story time from what happened to Rali's discord cult 4-5 years ago? The beginning of the story goes exactly like this^

Again, you're treating direct experience as if it's something limited. Limited by what exactly? My body? My sense organs? My brain?

The wisdom of childish innocence.

Sam Harris on half speed sounds like a bad trip.

And experience is the ontological primitive of reality. This becomes clear in the non-dual mystical experience. Again, did you say you've had it?

According to a Pew research poll, 49% of people in America has had what they would consider a religious or mystical experience, and 30% of them were not affiliated with a particular religion. I think if you're brought up religiously and are prone to mystical experiences, it could amplify your affinity with the traditional framework (because it's the path of least resistance), but if you're non-religious, you would try to find a framework which best captures the pure experience, which would usually be the New-Age forms of spirituality (which draws on Advaita, Buddhism, etc.). There are so many ways to interpret Christianity and religion in general, so many beliefs to omit or fixate on, that you can always somewhat mold it to fit your mystical experiences. Rupert Sheldrake is an example of a person who has a particular affinity for Christianity despite having had mystical experiences and having travelled to India.

He literally said between the 8th-12th.

@Tahuti He said he rented a hotel for several days. Maybe he is busy going at it still.

I or no I, I've had it. There is no me = I am everything. Same shit, just different ways of speaking.

I treat it as a synonym to consciousness as an ontological primitive, but many people (including me in the past) think of it as something like attention and a muscle you can train with spiritual practice.

You're speaking of "direct experience" as if it's a limitation. It's not. Something can only be limited in the realm of form. For example, I can't read your thoughts or see the back of my own head, because that is the limitations of these forms. But that doesn't mean that formlessness is limited. Formlessness is what makes something "be", and its potential is unlimited. It's the ground of all things. When I "experience" formlessness in a mystical experience, that is not me as a human creature experiencing formlessness. That is me as formlessness temporarily divesting myself of the limitations of the human form and seeing myself as I have always been and always will be. The body that I experience, the thoughts, the sense of existing in space and time, disappears, but I still exist, because those things are not essential to me. My essential nature is unlimited, ultimate and absolute. There is nothing inside or outside of me. Only when I take a formed existence, you can speak of limitations.

It's not accessible to it. It is it. It is isness. Whether isness is accessible or not does not change the fact that it is. This isness is in its most fundamental state boundless formlessness.

Well ok. I don't see the point of a "thing in itself" if it's not even a thing Again, I think the "thing in itself" concept is very humancentric and is bound to the reality of form (perceptions, qualities), in that it thinks of knowing something as being an embodied creature that looks out at the world and perceives a thing (subject-object), and then it postulates "what if we can't know the thing in itself?". Knowing formlessness is just being it. The question of whether you can know it or not doesn't even arise. So you're saying that something could be inaccessible to boundless formlessness? If you say something is inaccessible to something else, you're in the world of form (differences, qualities), so it doesn't really add up.

Kant was talking about principles that organize our perceptions, i.e. the reality of form. I'm talking about the reality of formlessness.

I wouldn't call it "the ultimate reality" but the most fundamental reality. Can you get more fundamental than boundless formlessness?