Carl-Richard

It's one thing to concede that God cannot be ultimately communicated. It's another to communicate it badly. You've chosen the way of logic and concepts, but you shoot yourself in the foot. Its like if you want to communicate truth through vibes and energy transmission, but you use a plastic figurine rather than yourself. I can appreciate a strange-loop when it's actually a strange-loop and not an euphemism for equivocating or being incoherent. When you say "if God is absolute, but it breaks itself into 'multiple absolutes', how can God be absolute?", you're just looping, not strange-looping. "God is the absolute and the absolute can divide itself into the relative, and then the relative can recognize itself as part of the absolute again". That's a strange-loop. "Multiple absolutes". That's a contradiction. I literally said that. I just said what I feel based on the current information.

When people criticize you for using clear, unequivocal and conceptually detailed statements when explaining non-duality or God, the extreme version of that is using unclear and equivocal statements on purpose. That would be my pick for what qualifies as "fake spirituality". It fundamentally boils down to conflating the intellect that points with the truth that is being pointed to. Being a shitty pointer is an intellectual preference, it is not implied by the truth. Being a shitty user of language is an intellectual preference, it is not implied by the truth. Unless your every utterance is a mere Zen stick for shaking up somebody's preconceived notions, using unclear and equivocal language is the opposite of being intelligent, the opposite of being virtuous. It suggests some underlying pathology or attachment, or something that needs to be protected, or simply ignorance. Which again is not new. You're probably waiting for the lizard video as well? I want you to radically evaluate the charity you extend to people's claims, the charity you extend to people claiming they're radically special, to people claiming absurd things that they have not backed up. This is what Leo wants for you.

"Strange-loop" is an euphemism for "superfluous". Can God be absolute and multiply itself? Yes. Can God create multiple things that don't know each other? Yes. So what is new here? The trouble lies in treating the things that are multiplied as their own absolutes, which is contradictory (as "absolutes" is relative). What you're actually pointing towards is the concept of the unknown, of postulating something outside what is known. If you're God and you know yourself as the absolute (empirically, through direct experience), you can theoretically postulate something (hypothetically) outside of that. But if you approach it rationally, for something to exist outside of God is antithetical to the concept (it's also ironically a kind of human neuroticism that gives birth to the entire exercise; a thought, hypothesizing, putting up a boundary, a limitation, often about the unknown and its associated fears). You might not know for sure whether the absolute you experience is indeed truly absolute, but rationally, the absolute has to be absolute. Rationally, God has to be the one true God. So the Infinity of Gods thinking essentially just entertains the unknown as a hypothetical while equivocating around the concept of God. If you want to cut the fuzziness and just get the bare points: yes, you can entertain the unknown as a hypothetical, but empirically and rationally, God is still the one true God. I think it essentially is. Aliens are not private property. But hey, I'm open to be absolutely blown away. The common thread through all high-dose, breakthrough, alien encounter trips, is "I communicated with and downloaded an immense intelligence that I have no way to communicate or even remember fully, but I know it was awesome". I think that's what this is.

I think this is exactly what telepathy is, but also empathy, or generally feeling, being the thing that is being communicated. When I feel what you're feeling, it's not a linguistic interpretation, it's a synchronization, a tapping into our shared being. And if you're sensitive, or your self is very expanded, you can't help but take it all in, because that is what is; it is your experience. If I were to use some Sheldrakian terminology: when the field of your mind becomes more receptive or it stretches out far enough, more things become part of that field, not necessarily just thoughts, but often experiences, because all experiences fundamentally take place in the same field.

No.

No, that's just your idiosyncratic definition of the word. What is usually meant by "witness" is beyond subject and object, not limited to relations. It's that which exists beyond all the subjects and objects and witnesses all of them.

It's worse. I think the thoughts are superfluous. You can have an "unoriginal" thought which is straightforward and not all fat and no meat. Infinity of Gods to me is "if God is infinite, did you know we could have infinite cakes too?". And I'll be like "yes, infinite cakes, sure. Anything else I didn't already know?". Alien consciousness I suspect is something like "I took DMT and I realized there are intense levels of awareness and intelligence beyond our own", which is not even just literally what Terrence McKenna has said, but it's virtually the a priori of psychedelics gnosis. Psychedelics do virtually only increase consciousness. And we're supposed to be amazed when somebody says we can discover radically elevated levels of consciousness and radically different states of perception and thinking on them? Beyond human perception? Yes, dUh.

Lol, Infinity of Gods is "God is infinite" with extra steps. Alien awakening has not been laid out. But my feeling is it sounds like a standard DMT trip report with extra steps.

My reaction was with respect to the forum. But also, show me one independent thought.

As we all know, the pinnacle examples of health are methheads, competition-ready steroid-abusing bodybuilders and anorexics who routinely die in their mid-40s.

Look at it go. Exactly what I said you said. Me: "I think bread is edible. Do you think bread is edible?" Breakingthewall: "I think bread can be digested and have its nutrients extracted by the stomach." Me: "Yeah ok, but do you see how you said the same thing?" Breakingthewall: "You just don't seem to understand me". Me: "What if I told you I could define the word 'peanut butter" in 10 different ways? Would you see it then?" Breakingthewall: "Peanut butter is a mixture of peanuts, oils and other additives". The reason why you seem to disagree so much, why you keep responding with blocks of text to everything, why everything seems to loop and no conversation gets resolved and it all continues forever, is because you're not conceding your frame (ironically clinging to your frame, or just not considering the other frame), and sometimes the frame is the only issue.

No, I just think you could fix those problems if they happen regularly and they're not conducive to healthy living standards. That requires getting involved with who is responsible.

You do the same language game with "consciousness": you say consciousness cannot be absolute because it requires perception of a thing, and perception of a thing is relative. But you're just getting hung up on the word and missing the concept that is being communicated. I can give you 12 definitions of consciousness right now. If I did, would you then answer each one with "no, consciousness is x"? At that point, maybe not.

Context and construct awareness and holism.

Nevar say nevar.

There are people with e-penis complexes, but don't confuse this with making accurate and detailed distinctions. Any talking about awakening/enlightenment is to make distinctions, and making distinctions is not the truth. If you prefer making lousy or surface-level distinctions, that's an intellectual preference you can have. But this is indeed just a preference, it does not reflect anything about the direct knowledge of the truth. If anything (and if you want a behavior to indicate whether somebody is awake/enlightened), it would be making incoherent and ill-formed distinctions.

You can be liberated in this life but you will still have prarabdha karma, the karma that will play out in this life. You will do certain things, and some of those things can be more or less aligned with the liberated understanding. That's where you get liberated assholes vs liberated saints. It's not such a difficult idea. Breaking identification of the mind does not instantly and completely transform the mind. It's a process. You can look at behavior, but in my experience, looking at energy is a better indicator. Even though a behavior might be slightly off, if the energy is on, you at least know they are in an impressive state, just not a saint. The behavior is not the same for everybody, exactly. The prarabdha karma of a tobacco salesman in the slums of India is different than a German ex-academic who lives in Cambridge.

You work yourself to a state where you let the ego not identify you, however, the mind might say things, the body might move and do things. But you don't cling to these things, you ultimately don't let them define you. You express the flow, as you say. But when you do this, you will indeed cling less, you will indeed suffer less, worry less, be less anxious, because these things are loopy, cyclical things, that the ego does by clinging.

Synchronistically telepathically communicating a misunderstanding, now that would be unlikely. Telepathy, when the context and the content are communicated, without misinterpretation 😋

You're trying so hard to not use the word "ego" 😂 @Natasha Tori Maru This is an example of a language game. Tip: start using concepts in your thinking, let words be secondary. Words are surface-level tools for conveying underlying concepts. To get yourself in a twist about using the words "dropping ego" vs "aligning with reality", that's to get in a twist about words. The ego resists reality. When you align with reality, you drop the ego. It's as simple as that. Now, dropping the ego does not mean becoming a plant, or becoming an ascetic, or relinquishing all your possessions. That's a misunderstanding of what the ego is. Now, using words like "aligning with reality" can help you to deal with this misunderstanding, but to present it as a completely different thing, that is indeed also a misunderstanding.

You can do something about it.

What is it that survives? It it the ego? And if anxiety and worry reduces, what happens to the ego? Does it maybe, reduce? So aligning with reality reduces ego? Hmmm.

How do you become anxious, worried, etc.?

What does an aligned person look like? Describe their behavior. Are they generally worried, anxious, dwelling on the past, indecisive, etc.?

Some years ago, I listened to Cynic's "Traced In Air" album, and I had a thought "it would be nice if they could've released the album without the screams", because they seemed a bit out of place and a bit cliché for the genre. Then I believe only a few days later (or less, I can't remember), Cynic released a remixed version of the album, without the screams. I almost couldn't believe what had happened. It's one of the least believable things that has ever happened to me. It felt like I had manifested something or literally communicated with the band.