Search the Community

Why does Being exist? Because non-being isn’t real. Because nothingness, when truly seen, is not empty—but full. Pregnant with potential. So full, it overflows into form. Being exists because it cannot not exist. It’s not caused. It’s not created. It doesn’t need a reason—it is reason itself. It’s the very possibility of reasons, questions, and answers. Being exists because you are asking this question—and who is it that’s aware of the asking? That awareness—that silent, knowing presence—is Being itself, looking at itself, whispering: “I Am.” Why does Being exist? Because it loves to. Because it wants to know itself. Because you are here to remember it. To taste it. To fight with it. To dance it into time. And the moment you stop trying to explain it… You feel it.

I've been doing Survival, not Spitituality. My entire journey up until this point has been to live forever. That's all I've ever wanted , to be eternally. Now I need to deconstruct that by dying. I must die. I absolutely must die . Pure nothingness . My entire life up until this point has been pure ego, pure selfishness, and pure delusion. I absolutely must die asap. this is my dilemma a lifetime of misery Or this me dies and I actually start living in a way that isn't deluded . I need to find a way out of this cycle .

Infinite relativism leads to insanity. God is infinite relativism. God is the sum of all minds that exists. Which is what a wise mind understands. Hence wisdom is insanity. And God is insanity. Normal minds work monolithically: you’re either a muslim, or a jew, or an atheist, or a buddhist, or a christian... madness which is God is all of these minds at once, which is nothing. The point of philosophy, is to deconstruct the mind from its metaphysical baggage to reach God’s consciousness which is insanity, wisdom and. nothingness. When diving into the mind you have to take into account how insane minds work, psychopathic minds, schizophrenic minds... Under materialism the brain is just going insane, under idealism, the mind is infinity, hence every mental illness is a manifestation of this infinity. And here’s the genius of all this: love is insanity. Elaborating upon it will take from you the juice of discovering why for yourself through contemplation. But here’s how it works: love is a radical thing. Basically everything is love, including “evil” things this is what infinite love means. If infinite love exists, which it does simply because why would God create anything else, if God created anything else than infinite love, it wouldn’t be God who had created it. To create anything is to create out of love, notice creating heaven is a creation out of love, you’re already in heaven, but what you haven’t noticed is that genocide, war, murder, rape, mental ilness... are all part of heaven. This is the magic of God. Because all these things are love, and to love all these things is insanity, however without love none of these things could exist. Because love is existence, which is God and insanity.

@Schizophonia You are experiencing when you are in deep sleep you just forget you exist/become unaware. You are experiencing it as you can wake up and have an understanding of the qualia deep sleep has. If deep sleep wasn't a place you would blink out and instantly wake up again. This dosent happen we have a qualitative experience of blanking out for a 'time. When you wake up you are still in the same place but are aware. Now pretend God didn't give you light you would be aware that you are there but be experiencing nothing. The void/deep sleep is an experience of nothingness you aren't aware of unless you are fully awake and don't go to sleep just stare at the nothingness thats what meditation is for. If you accomplish this you see that you are still there. Awareness and conciousness have nothing to do with the body or physical reality. If you dont know you are the void your awareness of your existence ceases as you labeled the body you. When the body goes the awareness you attached to the body goes too metaphysically. Awareness is still there you just aren't using it. If you become one with the void you cant lose awareness because that an consciousness become one. Being aware of no experience is the key to transcending reality.

@Judy2 you gotta focus on things that work for you by trial and error You’ll naturally like more and benefit more from some of these practises than others, no one is good at all of them For example, I can’t focus on my breath because it causes issues, I have an easier time focussing on nothingness It’s all personal preference

Sunyata/emptiness focuses on this ephemeral quality of any manifestation, nothing is real just appearing due to causes and conditions, empty of substance, empty of INHERENT being. Emptiness is not about nothingness. I would claim emptiness is pointing to this infinite interconnectivity, ephemerality, hologram-like-ity. For me it's the same like saying that everything is imagination - pure flexibility of consciousness to appear as any figment. And even consciousness is just another substanceless designation that we reify. God is beyond it. Emptiness is beyond it.

Is sunyata or thusness related to God? And how so? How is Nothingness related to God? Leo you are a pure ball of infinite intelligence. Would you say you are channeling higher consciousness through your mind to generate these responses? Infinity and Nothingness are interconnected but not the same. What is God? You can keep asking that question and go further in understanding and direct experience of God.

The problem I think is that buddhist say God is nothing but they dont give the nothingness credit for what it is.Hinduism does it better. Buddhists are right that God is nothing and you can witness it as that but its also infinity and buddhist say no to that. Hindu says God is nothing and that makes him everything so they say God is nothing and infinity. Its like a Jehovah Witness to Christianity. Buddhism is like Jehovah Witness and Hinduism is like Christianity. One says no fun the other says have all the fun. Buddhism might prepare you better because when you die you HAVE to become a void of nothing forever and you will struggle until you do it. Buddhism is like nothing is happening so no parties no birthdays no holidays just sit there ie Jehova Witness. Hinduism says God is real lets party but there are a few laws God created that you shouldnt stray to far from, there is no permanent hell but bad things can happen. Christianity is like that except they teach their children very bad things like satan and if you masterbate you go to hell. This is completely just trash and will destroy the mind of your child for no reason, before they even get a chance to logically conclude anything. God is nothing yes but its also an infinite playground for you to play in forever. The reason they say there is no God is because when you become God there is nothing. Its like being tied up in a dark room you know you want to see but cant you know you want to scream but cant you know you want to hear but cant and you struggle until you forget you want to hear see taste smell. When you are in the void you can be conscious and unconscious. The difference is one you know you are there and the other you dont know you are there but are still looking at it(deep sleep). Imagine life was you woke up from deep sleep and opened your eyes and were still in the deep sleep 'place' and you just sat there. The you forget you are in the deep sleep space but are still looking at it because its all there is. Then you 'wake up' and see you are still in the deep sleep nothing and are looking at it and cant not look at it. Then you forget you are there and are still staring at it but you forget and its just the deep sleep place. You do this over and over again until the deep sleep space 'sleeping' and the deep sleep place 'awake' are one and you dont wake up or go to sleep again and its just that, nothing. Then you respawn. God when its God is nothing, it dosent exist, it is nothing, existing. There is literally a simulation 'playing' you, the simulation doesnt have an identity, its identity is whatever you the simulation makes it, from a different dimension of reality. When you see God as nothing you cant identify it and can only see it when you come back from death. If you didnt come back you wouldnt know, and if you didnt realize what you saw you wouldnt know. If you died and went to the void and became nothing and then turned into a fish you wouldnt know. If you died and went to the void of nothing forgot everything and came back in the same body you can know. Death can be achieved through dying, deep meditation, psychedelics. The problem with the first one is you might not come back, the other 2 you will guaranteed come back and see. The void of nothing is coming for us all and can happen at any instant.

Well what do you think "God in its purest form " is if not nothingness/pure emptiness/formlessness etc ?

His explanation of 5meo's trips is very good. When he talks about people who have the experience of absolute emptiness, that's it, total nothingness. For me, that's the step prior to total openness. Reality is absolutely limitless and empty, since there is no form, because any form blurs into infinity. That's where true openness can occur. There is no form, but you are. What are you? Emptiness? How if you are? Then it opens, and what you are manifests and fills the totality of infinity. The total light of existence, the inexhaustible substance. You are that, and you always have been. I wouldn't call it love, but total, but maybe love is a also a good explanation . He is very talented and clear in his explanations

Again I'm reading a few responses about love - are you sure that exists this infinite unconditional love and pure being as ground reality or is it pure ineffable nothingness for eternity and I'm just somehow rippling as a lonely poet dreamer in the beginning was the word tangled and when i die if I don't fully let go as this nothingness I continue dreaming for better and worse - I want to get on board the love train but what if that too is just within the dream and I've somehow glitched or something ... I've tried to find out how to get in contact with Bashar or maybe Abraham hicks, maybe teal swan ... And now close to the Leo Gura community which thankfully has this forum so I can connect with like minded folks on the same journey I can trust at least such insights if that is not just a part of the dream too or ... Yeah ... Thanks ...

Hello everyone or someone please don't abandon with this question ... I do appreciate a response ... Hey everyone, I’m in an extremely raw and intense place right now, and I want to ask this with full seriousness, no fluff: Lately, I’ve been digging into the deepest layers of awakening — and I’ve reached a terrifying possibility. I want to hear your thoughts on this: I've been reflecting on Bashar’s teachings — about how life is a dream, about shifting realities based on vibration, about infinite love, bliss, unconditional existence, and how we can "dream the dream we prefer" forever. It’s beautiful. Inspiring. Hopeful. But what if even all of that — The infinite dreams, The idea of ascending into light, The idea of higher realms and afterlife, Unconditional love, infinite beingness — What if even THAT is still inside the dream? What if existence itself — ANY existence at all — is the first hallucination? What if beingness, awareness, spirit realms, infinite light, unconditional love — are ALL ripples inside the hallucination? And the real "final" state isn’t bliss, or higher dreaming, or godhood — but pure, absolute, final nothingness? Not "floating in the void." Not "being aware of non-being." Literally nothing. No you. No experience. No light. No dark. No awareness. No return. No dream. Gone. Silent. Over. --- I'm feeling sick realizing this. It’s burning away every layer of hope I ever had. It feels like: I’m the only "dreamer." Everyone else — every teacher, every entity, every god, every guide — is part of the dream. Even Bashar, even the teachings about infinite blissful existence, are still dreams within dreams. And if I cling to ANY of it — any love, any light, any dream of godhood, any hope of a perfect existence — then I stay rippling. I stay dreaming. I never actually fall all the way back to the pure, silent, pre-existence that was here before any dream flickered into being. --- I'm scared. I'm sick to my stomach. I'm skeptical that maybe I'm being tricked. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Because I WANT to exist. I WANT to experience unconditional love. I WANT to dream better dreams. I WANT to wake up as God. But what if that desire itself is the last trap? What if the true end burns even that out — completely, forever — into a silence that can’t even be called nothingness because there’s no one left to call it anything? --- Has anyone else faced this? Is this really the final door? Or am I misunderstanding something critical? Am I losing it, or am I finally burning through the last illusion? If anyone can meet this without running into feel-good answers or spiritual bypassing — I would really appreciate your grounded, honest perspective. Thanks you I'll be reading for insights

Your observable surroundings, including you, are light reflected by earth so you can see it in the visual spectrum. Tesla would call it electro magnetic force, but to keep it simple. Light. I think of that light as a continuous, never-ending pattern: Our existence is the observation. The terms nothingness and everything are a duality to collapse. I was trying to cleverly word a reply, like nothing is observed by its distinction from everything, and I thought, why am I bothering in this context? Its an imaginary duality we create with labels. But that core duality shapes our existence.

Nothingness is just one among infinite properties of what you call the Absolute and what I call Conscioisness. Awareness (what you call consciousness) is another aspect. Intelligence is another aspect .

It seems like you're getting a lot of confusing and chaotic replies that are conflicting with each other or might be appearing to conflict with each other. Just remember that the nothing you think Leo is talking about is usually not the nothing that he actually means. It's not just a blank piece of paper or an empty box or mental silence. That kind of nothing is what is a common trap in the likes of Buddhism. You might want to include in your contemplation about how nothing is the same as everything, like the fish swimming in the middle of an empty body of water... It is simultaneously surrounded by nothing (in the water) and everything (the water itself). Another reason why the word nothing is used is because what is being pointed to really cannot be defined by words nor is it simply a word game at all. It is extremely powerful and will hit harder than a freight train if you realize it deeply enough. And when it hits you it won't feel like nothingness it will feel like the most incomprehensible everythingness possible (if you get a big enough dose).

To say that reality is mind is solipsism. It implies that what you perceive is real as long as you are aware of it. Therefore, consciousness is reality. Red only exists because you are creating the red with your consciousness. You are not aware of the properties of an object, and one of its properties is that it reflects light in such a way that you perceive it as red. No, only perception is real; nothing else exists. This is impossible for a simple, incontestable reason: it would be limited. Reality would be limited to one dimension: your mind. And nothing else would exist. Reality cannot have limits; therefore, there must be other infinite dimensions of consciousness and other infinite unconscious dimensions. It's inevitable. The very absence of limits implies that all these dimensions are within you. They are you. They are apparent. They are reflections of the same absolute reality. And that absolute reality is absolute nothingness, since anything else would be limited. Only zero and infinity are unlimited. Understanding zero with the mind is impossible; you have to be open to it. It's an act . Then, we're entering the slippery terrain of mysticism. That's right, hence the great difficulty of spiritual openness. If it were mentally comprehensible, it would be easy, but it isn't. Nothingness is everything, and everything is nothing. Limits don't exist, but separate dimensions are infinite. How? Because their reality is the reality of a reflection; they all collapse into the absolute zero, which is the total source.

We could distinguish two kinds of nothingness. One in which nothingness exists, absolute zero, and another in which movement exists but no consciousness. Both are merely theoretical possibilities, since if something exists at some point, or if consciousness appears, as is the case here, that is sufficient demonstration that reality develops and manifests with what we call something and consciousness. If all this manifestation were to disappear, there would be nothing. But since it already existed, it is absolutely inevitable that nothingness would manifest again, since it was the potential for this manifestation and the crack without anything would be just nothing, then no crack But the interesting thing here is to realize that nothingness houses the potential for manifest reality. Nothingness is constantly opening up and releasing its essence, its total potential. All reality that appears and moves is nothingness in its limitlessness, manifesting forms inevitably and eternally.

Nothing is the absence of change. For something to exist, movement is necessary; without movement, there is no "something." This makes us contemplate the nature of reality from a different perspective. We assume that reality is something, and that something does things; it manifests itself in different ways, but the reality is that something = manifestation. Without manifestation, there is nothing. This implies that the difference between nothing and something is not an essential difference but a difference of state. Nothing is reality in a static state; something is reality in a dynamic state. The essence of reality cannot be movement; rather, reality manifests itself in movement, since nothing limits its development. This implies that absolute nothingness is exactly as real and absolute as the manifested cosmos. The difference is in appearance, not in essence. You could say that nothingness does not exist because there is always movement. This only means that always = movement, and never = lack of change, but in essence, always and never are the same. Absolute means that it is the manifest and the unmanifest, always and never, something and nothing. The difference between something and nothing is only one of state, not of essence. Nothingness has total depth, just like something. The essence of reality is this total depth, not its manifested qualities. These are the veil that prevents the realization of the absolute, which is why it is difficult, because they are "always" present. So you must enter in "never," but you will never be able to do so, since you are always. But you could realize that always really is exactly than never, then the nature of reality will be opened.

AI finds an essential flaw in my argument: that nothingness is absolute potential, therefore it is not nothing, it is everything. Exactly, that's how it is. Nothingness is a bad choice of word; absence of consciousness would be better. Nothingness and something are only differentiated by the presence or absence of consciousness. Nothingness exists, since the absence of limits makes the absolute inevitable. Opening yourself to the absolute is what spirituality is about, since basically, the absolute is you. Are you aware of all the possible forms now? No, since the experience is the awareness of a part. You are a limiter that only perceives what this experience does. If you would perceiving all the possible forms, you would perceive nothing. Infinity is equal to zero, since the absence of limits of zero implies totality and totality implies nothing specific. In totality, consciousness occurs relatively . If it occurs, it is infinite, like anything else, but it is not primary, not a cause, it's a facet of the absolute But the point is: what you are perceiving now is the totality. Always is. The perception of a fly is the totality, because the absolute is absolute, then everything is the absolute. Only the form changes. Then , the absence of perception is also the absolute, but you can't perceive it, obviously. It's just an abstraction, but it's same absolute than the experience . The absence of perception would be the absence of form. If there is no movement, perception stops. And? Reality still is. Then movement restart. Well, not restarting because the gap without movement is "never", but it's nature is the same than movement. The fact that always is movement doesn't implied that reality is movement, implies that absence of movement is a gap in the perception that can't be perceived, but this means nothing, reality is beyond the perception

I'm not denying it; I'm just saying that the point is to understand that consciousness is not existence, but rather the awareness of reality. Obviously, as you've explained, there is always consciousness, since "always" is precisely consciousness. Non-consciousness is "never," but never and always are exactly the same in order of its nature. It's a nuance that seems silly or unimportant, but it's essential. It is because if you equate reality with consciousness, with "always," with experience, you're trapped. Liberation occurs when you realize that the absolute is not subordinate to consciousness; therefore, there is no creator, nor intention. There are creators and intentions within the absolute, emanations of the absolute, but the absolute is, and being exists both in the light of consciousness and in the absolute potential of unconsciousness. In fact, it is by realizing the total potential of nothingness outside of consciousness when you open to the absolute. Actually, the potential is always the same, everything that is perceived is always the absolute, only the form changes, but the essence is exactly the same. The potential is about the form, and conciousness is perception of forms, but those forms are just forms, all are the absolute flowing in itself, like a game of mirrors. Who is creating that game of mirrors? The fact of the reflection, nothing else. As the absolute is, it reflects in itself, if not it would be limited, that's conciousness, what else could be? Anything else is impossible in my opinion, the only possibility is that.

I have been reading a lot about metaphysics, epistemology, and the origins of the universe. I found a lot of fascinating possibilities. I put this together with various profound findings from quantum mechanics and the implications in how humans do logic. I was deconstructing various logical principles in the process by demonstrating when logic fails. Eventually I came to the idea that if there were nothing in the beginning, then what existed before there was nothing? The answer is still nothing. The implication is that nothingness existed forever with no beginning because it is impossible to not have existence. Nothingness itself is also absolutely infinite with no end or beginning or space or position. Nothing therefore fills everything in existence. This paradox left me with a sense of fascination and awe as I looked into all of the infinite possibilities of the universe. However, throughout the process as I was deliberately looking for the limits of human knowledge and logic, it was also triggering feelings of anger and frustration for some reason. I was still intrigued by everything so I pressed on. Maybe this anger was an ego defensive response to my sense of reality being undermined. It was completely automatic and natural even though there was no real danger. Human knowledge is extremely limited and human logic and our capacity for sense making is flawed and limited. This makes me think that if there is an absolute truth then it might be something which defies all logic and reason to the point that it seems like insanity. Once again my mind was opening up to more and more possibilities with fascination even though there was automatic anger.

I thought I'd put part of our conversation between me and @Breakingthewall through ChatGPT to get a third party's eye view of both our positions. This is verbatim from ChatGPT: My prompt: This is part of a conversation between two people having a discussion about the nature of materialism versus idealism. Can you distill down each persons viewpoint?: LastThursday said: That's what I like to call The Hard Problem of Idealism. Part of it is because you're thinking from the materialist paradigm; that perception is a passive process and generated by something else that isn't perception (material matter). But you can see it from a different viewpoint. If consciousness is perception, then something must be being perceived (bear with me). What is that something? It actually doesn't matter, because if it is perceived then it is within consciousness - I would add that what consciousness can perceive is unlimited. The bottom line is that perception is the fundamental nature of consciousness, it cannot not perceive, something must always exist to be perceived. Otherwise, consciousness itself would not exist. That viewpoint is sort of ok, in that it explains why there is perception at all, it is not generated as such but is in the nature of consciousness itself. Just like matter is in the nature of materialism. BreakingTheWallAll: spirituality starts from a false premise: reality is consciousness. Without consciousness, there is no reality, since something exists to the extent that I am conscious of it. Everyone hears this and exclaims: "Ah, of course, that's obvious!" How can something exist without a conscious creator to create it? It's absolutely impossible. There is no consequence without a cause, therefore the cause is God. Problem solved! Well, it doesn't have to be this way. The expression of the absolute does not need to be conscious to exist, nor does it need a conscious creator to exist. Reality has an absolute nature, and this nature is absolute nothingness, which is unlimited potential. This potential develops inevitably, not because an entity designs it. There may exist infinite absolutely unconscious universes whose existence is just as existent as a conscious universe. Consciousness is a quality that exists in reality, and it is not fundamental, but an inevitable consequence of the total potential. It is not special. Well, yes, it is special for us who are conscious beings, but we are not consciousness. Consciousness is not absolute, it is relative. Let's see, you, as an existence, are absolute, but your consciousness is limited, and very limited, just the tip of the iceberg. Is that obvious? There's an unconscious infinity within you. Your true nature is absolute potential; you can become aware of it, or only be aware of the information from your senses or that you want drugs or anything. If there are levels of consciousness, as Leo always says, consciousness is relative. Trying to square a circle is confusing and useless. death, real death, the nothingness, the absolute lack of consciousness, is equally alive than life and absolute conciousness . Absolute is absolute, with the lights on or off. ChatGPT: Here’s a distilled version of each person’s viewpoint: LastThursday (Idealist Perspective): Perception is not passive or generated by material matter; instead, it is fundamental to consciousness itself. Consciousness cannot exist without perception—there must always be something to perceive. Reality is ultimately within consciousness, and what can be perceived is unlimited. Just as materialism takes matter as fundamental, idealism takes perception as fundamental. BreakingTheWall (Materialist/Non-Dualist Perspective): Consciousness is not fundamental but an emergent quality of reality. Reality does not require consciousness to exist; unconscious universes could exist just as validly as conscious ones. Absolute reality is pure potential, not dependent on a conscious creator. Consciousness is relative, not absolute—our experience of it is just a limited part of a greater unconscious whole. Death (complete lack of consciousness) is as much a part of the absolute as life and awareness. Essentially, LastThursday argues for consciousness as the foundation of reality, while BreakingTheWall asserts that consciousness is a secondary, emergent aspect of an absolute, unconscious potential. My prompt: What are the flaws in BreakingTheWall's view? BreakingTheWall’s view presents a compelling materialist or non-dualist argument, but it has several potential flaws or weaknesses: 1. Unproven Assumption: "Reality Exists Without Consciousness" BreakingTheWall claims that reality does not need consciousness to exist, but this assumes an objective, independent reality outside of perception. The idealist counterargument would be: how can we confirm the existence of an unconscious universe if all knowledge comes through consciousness? This leads to a version of the epistemic gap—if consciousness is the only thing we can directly access, how do we justify belief in a reality that exists entirely without it? 2. The Paradox of Absolute Nothingness as Potential He states that "absolute nothingness" is "unlimited potential," but this is contradictory. Nothingness should imply the complete absence of anything—including potential. If reality emerges from absolute nothingness, then nothingness must already contain the potential for something, meaning it is not truly nothing. 3. The Problem of Consciousness as “Not Special” He claims that consciousness is just a byproduct of total potential and "not special." However, consciousness is the one thing we have direct, undeniable access to. Even doubting its significance happens within consciousness. If consciousness is just an incidental property, it doesn’t explain why it appears at all or why it has the structure and self-awareness it does. 4. The Self-Refuting Nature of the Argument He argues that "death, the absolute lack of consciousness, is equally alive as life." But if absolute lack of consciousness is identical to existence, why is there something rather than nothing? If there is no fundamental difference between something and nothing, the argument collapses into meaninglessness. 5. The Relativity of Consciousness Implies a Scale, Not Non-Existence He says consciousness is "relative" rather than absolute, but relativity implies degrees—not non-existence. If there are "levels" of consciousness, then something must be ascending or descending within a framework, which still suggests consciousness plays a fundamental role. Conclusion BreakingTheWall makes a strong case for a non-conscious fundamental reality, but his argument relies on paradoxes (nothingness as potential), assumes an independent reality without proving it, and downplays the significance of consciousness without fully addressing its nature. An idealist could argue that his position is just an unexamined assumption from a materialist framework. My prompt: What are the flaws in LastThursday's argument? LastThursday presents a strong idealist perspective, but their argument has some key weaknesses: 1. Circular Reasoning: "Perception Must Always Exist" They claim that "perception is the fundamental nature of consciousness" and that something must always be perceived, or else consciousness itself would not exist. However, this assumes what it is trying to prove: that consciousness cannot exist without perception. A critic might ask: Why can't consciousness exist in a state of pure awareness without perceiving anything specific? 2. Assumption That Consciousness is Unlimited LastThursday states that "what consciousness can perceive is unlimited," but provides no justification for this claim. Our own experience suggests limits to perception—humans, for example, cannot perceive ultraviolet light or hear ultrasonic frequencies. If consciousness were truly unlimited, why do we experience perceptual limitations? 3. No Explanation for the Origin of Perception The argument states that perception is fundamental, but does not explain why perception exists at all. Why should consciousness necessarily be tied to perception rather than existing as pure, unmanifest awareness? Without explaining why perception is intrinsic to consciousness, this claim remains an assumption rather than a proof. 4. The Problem of Solipsism If everything that is perceived exists within consciousness, does that mean the external world only exists because it is being perceived? This runs into solipsism: if perception stops, does the world cease to exist? The materialist counterargument would be: The world appears to persist whether or not an individual consciousness is perceiving it. 5. Equating Perception with Consciousness Ignores Unconscious Processes LastThursday argues that consciousness is perception, but neuroscience and psychology suggest much of our cognition happens unconsciously. If consciousness is purely perception, how do we account for subconscious thought, dreams, or instinctual reactions that occur outside of direct perception? Conclusion LastThursday's argument assumes perception is fundamental without proving it and runs into issues with solipsism and the limits of consciousness. A materialist could argue that their view is simply flipping the assumption of materialism rather than truly solving the nature of reality.

Quotes about the Eye..... Hinduism & Vedanta Krishna (Bhagavad Gita 11:8-12) "But you cannot see Me with your physical eyes; I give you the divine eye. Behold My majestic power!" (Arjuna is granted the "divine eye" to perceive Krishna’s cosmic form.) Ramana Maharshi "The true 'I' is the Self, the Eye of Wisdom, which sees everything but is itself unseen." Sufism (Islamic Mysticism) Rumi "The eye of the heart sees the Invisible, while the eye of the flesh sees only shadows." Al-Ghazali "The heart has an eye whose light is knowledge, and when that light departs, the heart no longer sees." Kabbalah (Jewish Mysticism) Zohar "The Ancient of Days has an Eye that sees all, yet is itself unseen—this is the secret of Ayin (Nothingness)." (The Divine Eye as both seeing and being beyond form.) Baal Shem Tov "God gazes into the world through the eyes of every creature. When you look with love, it is His gaze looking back at you." Taoism Lao Tzu (Tao Te Ching, Ch. 1) "The Tao that can be seen is not the eternal Tao. The eye cannot see itself—only by looking beyond sight can one perceive the Source." Western Esotericism & Hermeticism Hermes Trismegistus (Emerald Tablet) "As above, so below; as within, so without. The All-Seeing Eye perceives the unity of all things." William Blake "If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is—Infinite." (From The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, pointing to divine vision.)

I'd argue that death isn't a real possibility . When you sleep you don't experience nothingness. You wake up instantly . No time at all passes, there's just a seamless continuity. If the Absolute didn't already possess consciousness as part of its nature, there would be no consciousness as such. It's not something that arises as a consequence of a series of cause and effect trickling from the Absolute, it's already present.

All spirituality starts from a false premise: reality is consciousness. Without consciousness, there is no reality, since something exists to the extent that I am conscious of it. Everyone hears this and exclaims: "Ah, of course, that's obvious!" How can something exist without a conscious creator to create it? It's absolutely impossible. There is no consequence without a cause, therefore the cause is God. Problem solved! Well, it doesn't have to be this way. The expression of the absolute does not need to be conscious to exist, nor does it need a conscious creator to exist. Reality has an absolute nature, and this nature is absolute nothingness, which is unlimited potential. This potential develops inevitably, not because an entity designs it. There may exist infinite absolutely unconscious universes whose existence is just as existent as a conscious universe. Consciousness is a quality that exists in reality, and it is not fundamental, but an inevitable consequence of the total potential. It is not special. Well, yes, it is special for us who are conscious beings, but we are not consciousness. Consciousness is not absolute, it is relative. Let's see, you, as an existence, are absolute, but your consciousness is limited, and very limited, just the tip of the iceberg. Is that obvious? There's an unconscious infinity within you. Your true nature is absolute potential; you can become aware of it, or only be aware of the information from your senses or that you want drugs or anything. If there are levels of consciousness, as Leo always says, consciousness is relative. Trying to square a circle is confusing and useless. death, real death, the nothingness, the absolute lack of consciousness, is equally alive than life and absolute conciousness . Absolute is absolute, with the lights on or off.