Search the Community

I have been making many topics lately but i am running out of stuff to make topic's. In the self-actualization video, that Leo has. He explains, how you can practise self-actualization, through a guided technique of his. He explains, that you have to be aware of the 'nothingness' and go along with the ride, which some people refer to as the (Gate-tunnel) I am going to explain my own insights, from what difference, i have discovered, when doing (Transcendental meditation and Leo's technique = 'be aware of the nothingness) Now, i cannot tell, if this is the case but i can only explain what i have witnessed from doing each practise. Firstly... Let's start out with Leo's technique, which is to dig deep into your subconscious mind and practise the emptiness and if possible, go along with it. I have sometimes but only very briefly been able to go with the ride and that usually lasts a second or two. When i open my eyes by then, i see everything from a 360 degree view. The thing is, when i practised this technique and were able to succeed, then i experienced more love and openness to everyone around me. Unfortunately the feeling would only last = 6 hours perhaps, in a non alcoholic or 'weird feeling' way. The next one; Transcendental meditation. When i practised this one 2x20 min a day, i feel as if i smoked hash... just different thing. The thing about this technique is that, i find this one here to be the more powerful technique toward attaining 'self actualization' Now, i cannot say this for sure. I just have a feeling ... The thing is that, the first one i described 'Leo's technique', is the more difficult technique to master and become enlightened with, but i find it that, it is less damaging than Tm because of the different aftermaths of the two. I am just a beginner but i cannot hide the fact, that i feel the butterflies in my chest 'the bad ones', when i practise Tm. I have been reading about this whole thing of 'chakra energies' and how they can make a man go neurotic. I find Leo's technique to be the most unharmful technique of them all. Is it true? I dont expect a good answer, but if anyone has a clue, i will welcome them . I will hopefully get the answer, that the 'Leo technique' is the safest and slowest option toward attaining enlightenment but i expect nothing in the world of spirituality. Now, i mindful meditate half an hour a day, regardless of the first two techniques mentioned above, to make sure that my progress get's saved ...

What if physics is correct and there are 11 dimensions and this "existance" is the 3rd-dimention plus time(4th-d). The sum total of all dimensions is projecting itself onto this 3rd-D "canvas" and experiencing itself through awareness and through a variety of different organisms that can only be sustained physically within the 3rd-D+time. The human species being just one of many in this vast universe. When physics gets down to the smallest parts that make up the material world, what they find is tiny curled up dimensions called Calabi- Yau manifolds. They are vibrating and have an awareness to them making for a unified wave field. That becomes the basic canvas to this existence. Also It was just proven that gravity waves do exist. Existence is expanding and contracting. Think about what that really means. The physical distance between you and me gets closer and farther all the time. It also warps time so it slows it down and speeds it up. So nothing within existence is stable. Everything whitin existance is a wave motion. All the dimensions exist within the 0th dimension. 0th being a non-space. The alpha -omega (nothingness). I realize that is a lot of science and rational thinking. But I wonder if awareness is simply the sum total of all dimensions projecting and experiencing itself onto the 3rd-D, just as a movie is projected onto a screen. To me that answers a lot of questions about "what am I" and "where am I" from a scientific point of view. Maybe there is nothing " spiritual " about any of this what so ever.

New blog post from my site - http://www.thediamondnet.org/blog/2016/3/28/spiritual-autolysis-existence-and-non-existence Spiritual Autolysis : Existence and Non-Existence So, it is a “goal” of mine to reach enlightenment by changing my relationship to my self-concept and debunk all the falsely held beliefs and assumptions based upon concepts for making things easier to understand to the rational mind. So, I’ve recently been looking into various processes for questioning and deconstructing my beliefs about reality to perceive what is truly there before any assumptions, labels, frameworks, or concepts are placed over top of reality. So, the idea is to perceive of reality before any thought story is created. To see reality as a newborn baby sees it, only with the developmental capabilities of an adult. This deconstruction process reminds me of when I first learned to draw and paint realistically. When I was 15, I took an art class in high school where I learned to switch from thinking about the things that I was drawing non-symbolically to seeing objects as a collection of shapes imbued with colors. So, instead of drawing my idea of a chair or even thinking about drawing a chair at all, I would just draw/paint the actual shapes and colors that I saw in front of me. Having seen through the illusion of the labels put upon visual phenomenon enabled me to make progress quickly, almost over night. It was like a mini-enlightenment for the visual sense. The process of deconstruction of beliefs that I engaged in as a teenage art student, is the same one that I’m engaged in now, only with the goal of enlightenment. So, I need to turn this deconstructive, non-symbolic awareness and questioning toward my ideas and concepts regarding myself and reality. So, I have been using a process called “Spiritual Autolysis” from enlightened author Jed McKenna. In this process you attempt to write something true and then question it and rewrite it until it is true. It is through this dissection process that we can have a real experience of our own being and be ripe for the breakthrough and paradigm shift called enlightenment. So, here is my most recent Spiritual Autolysis session, to explore my unconsciously held ideas and feelings regarding existence and non-existence. Questions: What is existence? What is non-existence? Write something true regarding these questions... 'Things in existence exist. Things that are not in existence don't exist.' or 'Things in existence are. Things not in existence are not.' My definition of existence- Everything that is. Are there things in existence or is there just existence? Not sure Can there be any thing that is a 'not' thing? - Maybe empty space Is empty space a thing or the absence of a thing? - Seemingly the absence of a thing. But I've never experienced this. Even emptiness from my experience contains air. So, empty space is a concept that I have in my mind, and not a thing that I'm experiencing in the now. Does my concept of empty space mean empty space doesn't exist? No. But it means that I don't know Am I experiencing anything right now that doesn't exist? Not sure What is existence? When something is there Where is there? In reality Where is reality? In my subjective experience right now Where is my experience? No particular place. Places exist only within the content of my experience. My experience isn't located anywhere, because anywhere is a concept within my subjective experience. So, is place a 'not' thing? I'm not sure. How do I perceive of place visually? Visually I experience a flat screen of shapes imbued with colors that I interpret based on my previous experiences in the world. How do I perceive of place tactually? I feel sensations that seem to have length, width, and depth which seem to correspond to the sights that I see because of a lifetime of experiencing them in tandem with one another. Either way, I don't know if my sensations have any special relativity to one another. I could perhaps convince myself that some sensations are bigger, smaller, more left, more right than the others. I could also focus on my sensations to the point where they feel like a universe in themselves. Do I perceive of place any other way? No. Only as a thought story Does place have to have an up, down, left, and right? No. Directions are a concept to make space more understandable to the human mind. Can existence happen in a "place" if none of these directions exist? Maybe. Could I narrow down the location of 'my' experiences to a particular point? No. Does this mean that place doesn't exist? Maybe. Rewriting what's true: Non-existence is. Existence has no particular place. If there are no "things" inside of reality and there is no place for reality, does reality exist? Maybe not. Are my perceptions themselves (not the content of perception) objects? No. Objects are content of the perception and not the perception itself. Asked by jjer94 (a friend of mine on the forum I posted this on)- What is the substance of an object? Do objects even exist? So, visually the substance of the object appears to be light. But light itself is just content within the perception. It's another assumption based upon what I "know" about how color is perceived. Tactually, an 'object' is just a sensation. But the sensation related to my experience of the object has nothing to do with my visual experience of the object nor any other sensory perception of the object. What I have is a flat plane of shapes imbued with colors, perceived by no one that is seemingly floating in nothingness. It could just be a screen with seemingly corresponding sensations that are also floating in nothingness So, the biggest ‘aha!’ moment for me was that place doesn’t exist separate from my thoughts regarding ‘place’. I had always known that space had no up, down, left, or right. This is all relational. So, are the concepts of big and small. An atom and a universe are both infinite. But I had assumed that my reality was located someplace as a point within some empty dark field. That in that dark field at a point where my visual, audio, tactual, olfactory, gustatory, and thought perceptions floating there as things. But now it seems like these are sort of a non-point. Sort of like you can’t really find a point on a mathematical graph because a single point has no height, width or depth. It doesn’t really exist even though it seems to have a location and is mathematically viable. But even this is just a metaphor.

No one may be perceiving it, but there's an awareness that perception is happening. What is aware? Is it the 'nothingness'?

So, visually the substance of the object appears to be light. But light itself is just content within the perception. It's another assumption based upon what I "know" about how color is perceived. Tactually, an 'object' is just a sensation. But the sensation related to my experience of the object has nothing to do with my visual experience of the object nor any other sensory perception of the object. What I have is a flat plane of shapes imbued with colors, perceived by no one that is seemingly floating in nothingness. It could just be a screen with seemingly corresponding sensations that are also floating in nothingness.

I had a lot of experiences where the mind was still, so no monkey mind during that time. And sometimes it kind of feels like you are enlightend (you enjoy the present moment fully and dont think about anything else). But Leo once said that "Nothingness" feels like heaven. And I can´t remember feeling that good. It always feels nice to be fully present but not THAT good. My question: Did I have temporary enlightenment experiences? It is no permanent state for me yet, but how does one know when or if enlightenment happens? Is it just the absence of monkey mind and enjoying the moment, or is there more to it? Because that I had a lot, and even people who know nothing about this topic have it all the time. For example when they are having fun with their friends, starring in the eyes of you loved one and so on. I thought this was it, but I am not sure if there is more to discover, or if I just have to extend the time of being in such a state. Thanks for answering and have a great moment

@dominic1 This is the kind of question that if you ask 100 ppl, you'll probably get 100 different answers. No two will be exactly alike because it is all illusion of mind and the way mind will interpret that experience will be different for each. That being said, the first time I let go of my ego self and had an awakening "experience" it was quite dramatic. Conscionsceness was no longer localized at my body location. It was filling the room and became externalized. That was VERY different to experience for the first time. There was a distinct and sudden "shift" in consciousness. Just as if you changed the channel on a radio and tuned to another station than the one you normally listen to in daily life. For me it was like discovering there was more than just one station to tune to. It was like tuning to a "universal" frequency of pure consciousness. I became just a very silent observer in the background to what was happening. I flowed into the consciousness that was outside of my body location and was suddenly floating in an ocean of pure silent bliss and stillness. My interpretation of that was that I entered another dimension, it was so distinct from my usual awareness. Again that's just the best way I can describe it using words and mind. I refer to all this using the word "I" just for the sake of conversation. I'm not "enlightened" but I do understand that all this is "Maya" that is happening within my mind. My interpretation of nothingness is there is no experience of that. No "heavenly" feelings. You don't exist when nothingness happens so it can't be described at all. It is a total blank space within awareness. It's a total non-experience. Not even a silent observer is present experiencing a state of bliss so there is no memory of that at all..... So I guess to sum it all up, we all have "awakening experiences" until we get to the point where the "I" vanishes and than there is not even an experience to be had of any kind because there is no experiencer remaining. That's my illusion!

There are levels of mind. Enlightenment (Nirvana) is the highest level of mind. In Highest level, mind stop existing. Not even awareness. That's why enlightenment is referred to as nothingness. In babies, mind exist. They feel, know, and want. That's why they are obviously not enlightened. In Buddhist scriptures, ego started to develop when the egg is started to fertilize. I'm just sharing what I know though. Ego is not only selfishness but also not knowing and lack of awareness. Babies has all of those characteristics. They don't know anything. They are also selfish in their own ways such as they only know what they want and can't think for others.

This Adyashanti guy has a very distorted understanding of contrast and change and referential systems (reading through the transcript of the vid) If this is their view enlightenment, then it's just another word for disassociation from change. Lol, ahhhh, I see what these guys are doing. They are stressed/pressured, seek distance/disassociation for relief, get the distance, which temporarily provides the feeling of relief because it's a contrast from the previous stressed state, try to hold onto it as long as possible, then fall back out of into the real world, and then repeat the cycle. It's just escapism, disassociating from everything but the contrast of what's being pushed away to feel relief from pressure. Actually, he doesn't seem to understand the meanings of a lot of the words he uses. Of course his disassociative state is an altered state of consciousness, all conscious changes and alters. If his supposedly unaltered state of consciousness was unalterable, then he wouldn't fall out of it. Everything would be in that state if it was unalterable, but nothing is. You're eye doesn't see all as one, it sees different colors, it contracts or expands based on different light intensities... this shit is out of touch with reality. And his whole nonsense about "Aha" moments lessening over time, of course it does! If you're having an "Aha" moment about the same damn thing over and over again. You get "used to it", because the contrast or degree/distance of difference between the Aha moment and your baseline has shortened creating a lesser intensity of feeling. It's like putting warm hands in room temperature water, little difference of change, versus putting cold hands in warm water, with a bigger difference of change. The degree of difference creates the intensity, but he's too blind to nuance to understand that. Then he goes on to talk about how "The egoic state of consciousness actually takes a great amount of energy and a great amount of effort. Since it’s not true, it has to keep building this falseness constantly. Otherwise, it will end. Because what is not true ends as soon as it’s not being fueled." What a bunch of nonsense, he doesn't even realize it, but in his backwards ass way he shows how unhealthy this disassociative practice is. To maintain, is to care, to practice taking care and looking after something. Life has to be maintained, balance has to be maintained, this earth has to be maintained, anything built, anything connected has bonds that have to be maintained or else they collapse into a lower threshold of life/energetic activity. What's funny to me, is that his body keeps fighting him and dropping out of this "oneness" because it's trying to take care of itself, while he fucks around with this practice of destroying capabilities this body has generated and maintained over the course of it's life. Poor guy, he doesn't understand he's doing shit backwards. He thinks the nature of everything is nothingness, because he numbed his ability to feel change, but it also limited his perceptional and referential abilities, but he can't see that. So all he does see... is lack of activity and he's so fucking arrogant to think the rest of the universe is feeling that exactly like him. Kind of like a baby, with the inability to differentiate experience going on outside the scope of his current focus. So with this very limited, empty experience he then goes on to believe the universe is really like he's seeing it inside his head, when if he stepped outside it would be very apparent that the universe or reality is not empty. It's filled with a lot of shit, as a matter of fact the sun is currently raining down photons all over the damn place and their bouncing off of shit allowing me to see and distinguish between different things.

Born enlightened? After I started reading this forum, I kinda don't know what people mean by ENLIGHTENMENT anymore. People are having different opinions on enlightenment so to answer this "Born enlightened?" question, I might have to ask what do you mean when you say enlightenment? What is enlightenment to you? What do you think enlightenment would be like? To me, enlightenment is being in state of nothingness. Mind does not exist in enlightened state. Not even awareness. Babies feels, want, and know. I'm not just saying this out of book or hearsay. Babies are not enlightened because the ego (sense of self) is formed at the moment the egg in the womb is fertilized. Not only big animals have this ego (sense of self), little animals in our bodies such as cells also have ego.

@abrakamowse What? Never heard of nothingness. Its a religious term isnt it? I've had experiences where I see the perfection of the human race. For about 2 minutes. Then it goes away. Is that "nothingness" then?

@Nomad Is Nothingness real?

@brianman3 Hi, I don't think anybody can help you if you don't tell us what your problem is specifically. What is it you feel you need to express that you imagine is going to be so badly received? True self and false self: A false self is where you identify with an issue so much that it becomes all consuming, runs your life, runs your thoughts feelings behaviours. "Nothingness" isn't a self, it's an organising aspect that allows all your different aspects of your personality to harmonise and function cohesively as a whole. If you want to get a quick introduction to your true Self and what it feels like without having to do years of meditating then try "Big Mind" process. http://bigmind.org/ Do the process and talk to the aspect of yourself that wants to express itself. It will have a healthy side and an unhealthy side. You might only be aware at this point of it's unhealthy side, so it's probably a good idea that you are keeping it under wraps and are afraid to express it. If you do find that your expression should be socially accepted then finding like minded people and pushing for social acceptance is a healthy way to raise awareness of your right to express this part of you. Homosexuality has travelled a long road. In 1973 homosexualty was still classified as a mental illness in the Diagnositc and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders http://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm.

In French, "Bonjour" literally means "Good Day". And when I was young, that was a problem for me. Because I wanted to say Hello to people, without necessarily wishing them a good day. What if the person's was a murderer ? What if their "Good Day" was spent abusing children, or manipulating people. Why would I wish them a good day ? Basically, I was so obsessed about honesty that it became hard for me to interact normally with people. For me, small talk wasn't a "small" problem at all. But a few years ago, I finally found a solution to it. I had to work on my personal dictionary. I had to split my definition of truth in two parts. Practical Truth and Metaphysical Truth. Practical Truths are the useful ones. The ones people use in their day to day life. The ones that are "true enough" to help you get tangible results in life. For example : My laptop is in front of me right now. This is true enough. Sure, if you gave me 30 minutes and a joint, I could find a hundred ways to make that statement philosophically debatable or scientifically inaccurate. But if you wanted to borrow my laptop, I probably wouldn't answer "I don't really know what a laptop is. Or if any of us really exist. Or what borrowing even means". I would probably say "Yeah, here it is". Which is not metaphysically accurate, but still practically accurate. Metaphysical Truths are the ones that survive any kind of questioning. They are absolutely and fundamentally true. Unfortunately, during my own pursuit of truth, I reached a point where nothing is certain enough to be classified as a Metaphysical Truth. So I can't give examples. Even statements like "Something exists" doesn't seem solid enough for me. But some religious folks might include "God exists". Some spiritual folks might include "The real self is nothingness". Some scientific folks might include "Evolution is real". No problem with that... I want to hear your thoughts on the subject ! What do you classify as Metaphysical Truth ? Do you split Practical Truths in subcategories, depending on their level of consciousness, or the level of personal development needed to access them ? Do you see totally different levels than the two I proposed ? Do you think about those things as much as I do ? And finally, I wish you a good day everyone ! Even the murderers...

Nothingness loops back into existence to become one thing happening and completes the circle? If that's what you mean by looping, I totally agree.

@Ayla i sat there in silence .... in this nothingness.. i am it... that it that i am is no-thing... cry cry , laugher laugher, more tears , more crying more joy.. now there is nothing left to do. i know thoughts will be knocking and continue to knock... but this time i don't have to answer or pay attention Going out of my mind soooo happppy!

The silent observer is absolute nothingness. It contains nothing, and yet it contains everything. Something that that will always allude the mind. It permeates this existence at all times and everything that happens here, echoes' into nothingness for infinity.. Conscionsceness is that empty space within this experience. It flourishes when there is no mind.

@abrakamowse Everyday, Same thing from my previous post. when I said we were dead it is the truth, or we never existed which is the same thing I'm pretty smart that is the truth that can't be communicated. like how you "FEEL" someone during a conversation and all you/they said was "hey" or w/e Because you can say hey 100 different ways with "Body language" each meaning something totally different by the pitch of your tone or movements, correct? . Some 1 deny me this. and 9/10 you can pick up on this. The pain/sadness comes from letting go,everything you thought you had or always wanted. Liek your best memory that dwells in you head that you can never get back (theres nothing you can do/ no money in the world crying etc.). idk if it ever goes, no one here has mastered it that is the last step to enlightenment I believe Jesus or heaven is real it is right here. Sorry to do some religious dogma Do you people believe in a actual god? other than nothingness? what if you could create an illusion of beliefs.. would you choose heaven? Would you choose a paradise of eternal happiness and no pain with your friends/family or eternal nothingness. there has to be a better way I keep getting this feeling and I try to run from it everyday literally each second something IS calling me I just can't let go out the sadness or pain or fear . I'm scared to let go what will happen to me idk Maybe it's an ego death

This is something I do. In much the way that Leo talks about dealing with strong emotions by 'superconducting' them through you, this works for all feelings and emotions. Just observing it without judging it, or expecting anything from it, and most importantly without resisting it. We often feel a negative emotion well up inside us and then judge it as something that shouldn't happen or we don't want. Then we try to fight it and push it away, deny that it is happening. But if we just let it be, observe it, recognise it and allow it without reacting to it then, as you say, it melts away. This is also something I practive when meditating. If I am experiencing an emotional reation to something I can invoke that emotion during meditation, give it my full attention, then refocus my mind back on the 'nothingness', allow my thoughts to dissolve and the emotion dissolves with them. Then I'll re-invoke the emotion, observe it and do the same. I find each time I run this cycle the emotion becomes weaker and weaker until it no longer happens and I am at peace in my mind and body again. This effect lasts for a while afterwards. It's a great way to reduce emotional reactivity and maintain a more calmer and constructve mindset.

This claim is unfalsifiable. I agree that decreasing activity in certain parts of the brain via meditation/drugs/surgery/disease will give you the feeling that you are the world and not the self but there is no way you can say anything further. If you are saying the brain is a filter then damaging it or committing suicide should be the fastest way to enlightenment, yet people aren't doing that. It seems to me that a feeling of nothingness requires an active brain with a specific part deactivated. The gain from understanding no-self is still as great as ever. You get the benefit of knowing there's no self to die, I just don't think you can claim that without a brain enlightenment exists. The room and actor exist only when the projector exists.

This is mostly a theoretical one, but probably has applications within meditation, consciousness work and our idea of the self. I'm 100% certain that I'm wrong about SOMETHING here, so any corrections are appreciated. When people first encounter the Doomsday Argument, it's basically the most world-altering thing they've ever heard of. It goes like this: why were we born RIGHT when technology started developing? The answer usually being: because there won't be a future to be born into, because technology will cause the world to collapse. Except... that's total bullshit, because that would imply a weak form of time travel exists. It wouldn't be a form of time travel that could change the future, though, because regardless of whether the apocalypse is coming, the "You" would always be there, experiencing this supposed "time travel". Even so, it's applicable from your point of view, and it would make logical sense for the experiencer to assume that this Doomsday is coming. Except, no. Ultimately, with regard to consciousness, it is just as likely for you to be born in America as it is to be born Elvis Presley. It's non-accumulative. The entire concept of "likelihood of being born as ___" doesn't make sense and stems from our need to explain everything based on 4-dimensional Platonic spacetime mechanics. This flaw makes it hard for us to understand things outside of said 4-dimensional spacetime, like quantum mechanics, the lack of a need for an outside creator or source for the Big Bang (conservation of matter/energy only applies in our 4D understanding), the self being nothingness itself, countable infinity vs. non-countable infinity, the idea that infinity*2 = infinity, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of our belief systems are based on this idea that "group A is bigger than group B, so it's more likely to be born into group A". In truth, you weren't born as either. You were born as all of them at all times, or alternatively, none of them. The implications this has for ethics is unknown. Does it mean that making one person happy is the same as making a group of people happy? Probably not, since itseems like subjective well-being is accumulative (two dopamines > one dopamine), in contrast with consciousness itself which is not. I could be mistaken about all this, and I may be thinking about it in the wrong way. But it would seem that the notion that there is a coming Doomsday makes no sense, and it's nothing worth worrying about. (Also, side note: I'm not a believer, but there's an atheist argument that goes like this: "it's impossible that an eternal afterlife exists, since it's infinitely more likely to be experiencing IT at any given time than THIS infinitesimally-short life". But the whole concept of consciousness being non-accumulative puts this argument out the window.)

I feel like all this talk of nothingness taht Tony Parsons and the other people are talking about is missing something. Why do they never talk about love? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO83S-dptiE

@werlight Yes, totally. "Everything is exactly as it should be in this very moment". That has become my mantra. I also became aware that nothingness surrounds the space of existence at all times. Whatever happens within this space is absorbed directly into that surrounding space. I talk about it in a dualistic way but in truth they are one seamless space. Sometimes after meditation the presence of nothingness is so obvious that it feels like I could almost scoop it out of the surrounding environment. Yesterday morning when a had the experience of pure love, It felt like the top of my head was buzzing it was so strong. Very powerful! I I must have tapped directly into the love frequency. Amazing!

I'm not sure what to believe about reincarnation. Who really knows. One the one hand, maybe consciousness returns to it's original source and just recycles back as pure consciousness into some other life form. There is a lot out there to this universe for consciousness to occupy. Or maybe consciousness is just a product of existence and when the body dies, consciousness is finished also and it all ends there. But on the other hand, maybe there is an essence or spirit self or soul, or divine self that returns to the manifest realm to do more work. Some believe that enlightened teachers are very old souls that have reincarnated many times before. When we pass on could that divine self enter into a higher realm, and from there decide to either move into infinite bliss and vanish, or return to existence to do more work? Why do I have a feeling if that is the case, my divinity would choose to return to this raw existence instead of moving into the infinite bliss of nothingness? I'm experiencing something very deeply at this very moment, something that I know extends much farther than this existence, divinity. Tears are suddenly pouring from my eyes for all of humanity. I love you all

You know... The creation of death doesnt sound too godly Nor does rape or murder, hurting eachother Stomach aches or pussy farts.. decaying flesh The abonimation of a thought which was hitler? Do you really think the true god would create such a universe where pain and suffering is even just an illusion? This universe with words to me would be more closely related to Satan if anything. Who else would create such a hell hole that has endless possibilities of illusionary torment? God the nothingness you say? What if enlightenment is just another trap of Satan??? What if the darkness around us is just a bottle were trapped in contained by Satan? I do not think the true god would contain any kind of illusionary suffering in his realm, but than again... I might be wrong.