Search the Community

Understanding Duality - Part 2 - Scientific Dualities https://youtu.be/-ti5HmiBVmo "Everything arises in this way: opposites from their opposites." - Plato Understanding Duality - Part 2 - Scientific Dualities: Leo continues exploring the concept of duality, with a focus on scientific dualities. He expands our understanding of dualities by explaining that dualities are not limited to pairs such as black versus white but can involve multiple categories and dimensions. Multi-dimensional and composite categories: He provides examples of duality that include complex and multi-dimensional categories, such as the color spectrum and sensations. Within one category (e.g., color), there are multiple dualities (red vs. blue, green vs. yellow), which in turn can be part of larger dualities (color vs. sound). Qualifications as dualities: Leo indicates that any qualification or quality we assign to an object or concept is essentially a duality. This stretches from tangible qualities (big or small, hairy or smooth) to abstract concepts such as existence and non-existence. Ubiquity of duality in thinking: The teaching emphasizes the extensive presence of duality in our conceptualization of the world and encourages questioning what isn't a duality, which can be a profound revelation as nearly all thought processes are dualistic. Duality-based assumptions in questioning: He points out that our questions about life, reality, and even science, are deeply rooted in dualistic assumptions, challenging viewers to consider the assumptions underlying their questions rather than seeking answers alone. Importance for intellectuals and scientists: Leo highlights the significance of understanding scientific dualities for anyone who wishes to be a competent intellectual or scientist, claiming that neglecting these dualities can lead to misconceptions and confusion. States of Matter as dualities: Using the example of states of matter, Leo shows how the classification of matter as solid, liquid, gas, or plasma is more permeable than rigidly categorised, showing dynamic transitions that challenge strict boundaries. Conductors, Insulators, Semiconductors, Superconductors: He discusses these categories to demonstrate that the distinctions between them are not absolute; they have overlapping properties that challenge straightforward classification. Duality of Qualities: Leo explains that every quality we assign to something inherently creates a duality. Qualities such as loudness versus quietness, sweetness versus bitterness, or even existence versus non-existence are all dualistic separations. Inherent Misconceptions in Simplistic Dualities: Simplistic dualities, like the cat versus dog example, overlook the complex and multi-dimensional nature of dualities. Categories like 'panda bear' versus 'non-panda bear' exhibit this complexity beyond simple polar opposites. Levels of Duality: Leo clarifies that dualities exist within dualities, such as sensations (sound, color, smell) within the broader category of sensation, which are themselves dualities. Examination of Scientific Duality Concepts: He stresses the crucial role of accurately understanding dualities in scientific inquiry and warns against the perils of intellectual negligence in this area. Invitation to Work with Dualities: Leo encourages viewers to actively engage with dualities in their lives, to create personal lists, and to understand that recognizing these dualities is not merely philosophical but can have practical implications for improving one's life. Announcing Part 3 of the Series: He finishes by teasing the next part of the series, which will cover existential dualities and the foundation of all existence, urging viewers to continue their exploration of non-duality. Conductors, Insulators, and Semiconductors: Leo discusses the spectrum from conductors to insulators, highlighting semiconductors' role as both, depending on conditions. This illustrates the permeability and non-rigidity of scientific classifications. Superconductors: Materials that normally don't conduct electricity may do so when cooled near absolute zero, exhibiting superconductivity. This counterintuitive phenomenon showcases the need for scientists to think beyond traditional categories. Rigid Scientism: Leo criticizes the rigidity of scientists who blindly adhere to established categories without considering new discoveries like superconductors or semiconductors, which wouldn't fit into the traditional binary of conductors vs. insulators. Land and Water Duality: At the beach, the boundary between land and water becomes ambiguous. Leo uses this to demonstrate that scientific categorizations can be fluid rather than fixed, and understanding natural processes requires a nuanced approach to these boundaries. Geosphere, Hydrosphere, Biosphere, and Atmosphere: Despite often being studied separately, these layers of Earth influence and shape each other, again emphasizing the interconnectedness of natural phenomena and challenging the notion of independent scientific categories. Planets, Asteroids, and Planetoids: The reclassification of Pluto from planet to planetoid exemplifies the fluidity of celestial classifications and questions the clear-cut distinctions between astronomical objects. Life and Non-life: Defining life is complex, especially when considering extraterrestrial life that may not have DNA or be carbon-based. This scientific puzzle highlights the difficulty in distinguishing life from non-life, and the impact of human-imposed categories on such distinctions. Plant vs. Animal: The distinction between plants and animals blurs in certain cases, like corals and fungi. This challenges straightforward definitions and calls for more open-mindedness when categorizing life forms. Open-mindedness in Science: Leo underlines the importance of being open to new scientific categories and not being confined by established ones, as true scientific discovery often lies in pushing the boundaries and embracing the unconventional. Animal vs. Human and Genetic Modification: The distinction between humans and animals might blur with genetic modification advancements. Debates will arise regarding the human status of genetically modified individuals and their associated rights. Hardware vs. Software: The interdependence between hardware and software is highlighted, with software always existing on a hardware medium, blurring the lines between these traditionally separate categories. Digital vs. Analog: The separation between digital and analog is not absolute, demonstrated by how analog actions can affect digital devices, suggesting a closer relationship than commonly acknowledged. Matter and Energy: Echoing Einstein's theory (E=mc^2), the conflation of matter and energy challenges earlier dualistic thinking, demonstrating their fundamental interconnectedness. Electricity and Magnetism: The unification of electricity and magnetism by Maxwell's equations illustrates how prior separate scientific phenomena can be seen as interconnected, fostering new technology and understanding. Space and Time: Einstein's concept of space-time showcases the interconnected nature of space and time, which previously were thought of as separate, leading to a new paradigm in physics. Quantum Mechanics vs. Relativity: The need for unification in physics is illustrated by the specialization in quantum mechanics or relativity, highlighting the current dichotomy in explaining the universe at different scales. Unification of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity: Quantum mechanics excellently predicts subatomic behaviors, while general relativity is adept at explaining large-scale cosmic phenomena. Scientists are challenged to reconcile these theories, as they are incompatible at different scales, requiring a genius to redefine and integrate them. Duality of Theory vs. Practice: Leo emphasizes the integral relationship between theory and practice. In spirituality and personal development, neglecting theory can lead to misapplication of practices, while a theory-only approach results in lack of practical growth. Theory and Reality Interdependence: Theory is a part of reality, and Leo warns against seeing them as separate. Disregarding the connection between theory and reality leads to a dualistic trap, failing to embrace non-duality. System vs. Environment Interaction: In science, systems and environments are interconnected, not separate, as organisms constantly respond to their environments. This is crucial for a holistic understanding of phenomena like geese migration patterns, affected by various environmental factors. Complex Dualities in Nature: Leo discusses the interconnectedness of inorganic and organic matter, and prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells, exploring the evolution from one to the other. He questions the distinction between sentient and non-sentient beings, suggesting that sentience might be an absolute. Nature vs. Nurture: He presents the complexity of distinguishing between genetic predisposition and environmental influences, using sexuality as an example. Environmental factors such as stress experienced by a pregnant mother can impact the genetics of her baby, revealing the entwined nature of genetics and environment. First-person and Third-person Phenomena: Leo criticizes the prioritization of third-person phenomena in science, stating that all of science is first-person experience. He urges scientists to realize this to avoid biased research. Science, Philosophy, and Metaphysics: Leo argues that science evolved from natural philosophy, making it a subset of philosophy and metaphysics. Disregarding the philosophical roots can lead to poor scientific practices influenced by unconscious metaphysical assumptions. Significance of Metaphysics in Science: Scientists who understand the implications of metaphysics and philosophy are more likely to make groundbreaking discoveries, as these disciplines are foundational to a deeper comprehension of scientific principles. Duality between Science and Philosophy/Metaphysics: Leo suggests that science is merely a subset of philosophy and metaphysics, underlining its origins and connection to broader philosophical inquiry. Interplay between Science and Math: He points out the artificial separation between science and math departments in universities, emphasizing their inherent interconnectedness and reliance on each other. Overlap between Science and Arts: Leo discusses how the division between artists and scientists is superficial, illustrating this with examples like Leonardo da Vinci and James Cameron, who embody both disciplines. Fragmentation of Disciplines by Human Mind: Leo criticizes the tendency to create rigid boundaries between disciplines, using physical walls as a metaphor for the mental barriers that separate us, such as the proposed wall between Mexico and the U.S. or the historic Great Wall of China. Duality between Science and Pseudoscience: Leo challenges the simplistic distinction between science and pseudoscience, arguing that true scientists must be open-minded and willing to investigate all claims, including those deemed unorthodox. Investigation in Science and Risk of Bias: Leo notes that the purpose of science is to explore the unknown, and that labeling something as pseudoscience without investigation is counterproductive to the scientific method. Cultural Definition of Science: He suggests that what's considered science or pseudoscience is often defined culturally and can evolve over time, implying that contemporary dismissals may be shortsighted. Influence of Corporate Interests on Science: Leo criticizes how financial considerations can distort scientific research, with funding largely driven by potential profits rather than pure curiosity or societal need. Connection between Science and Business: Leo reflects on the intimate link between scientific research and corporate funding, highlighting how capitalism can corrupt the purity of scientific inquiry. Science and Culture Interaction: He argues that science is deeply cultural, with its authority and value largely determined by cultural indoctrination and acceptance within society. Blurred Lines between Scientific Disciplines: Leo points out that distinctions between scientific fields like chemistry and biology are not clear-cut, demonstrating the interconnectedness within science. Perception of Hard vs Soft Science: He questions the cultural perception that fields like physics and chemistry (hard sciences) are more valid compared to social sciences (soft sciences), which are often deemed less serious. Duality between natural and artificial: Gura challenges the conventional distinction between what is natural and what is artificial, proposing that everything made by humans is also natural since humans are part of nature. Evolution and design as dualities: He presents the idea that design is a subset of evolution and evolution is inherent in all design, suggesting that human creations, such as technology advancements, are part of natural evolution. Rational versus irrational: Gura disputes the belief that rationality and irrationality are opposites, asserting that even the most rational people can act irrationally, driven by ego and emotional needs. Rationality in conjunction with intuition: He points out that high levels of intuition often accompany great rational skills, illustrating that rational and intuitive thoughts are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary. Skepticism coupled with faith: Gura criticizes skeptics who do not examine their own skepticism, leading them to have an unwarranted faith in their ability to be objective and unbiased. Fact versus feelings and interpretations: He challenges the notion that facts are separate from emotions and interpretations, emphasizing that our understanding of facts is heavily influenced by our personal feelings and biases. Dependency of everything in the universe: Gura argues that nothing is truly independent, as everything in the universe is interdependent and reliant on other factors to exist. Duality of a priori versus a posteriori knowledge: He explains the difficulty in differentiating between knowledge that exists independently of experience and knowledge that depends on experience, suggesting they cannot truly be separated. Analytic versus synthetic truths: The distinction between truths known by definitions and those known by empirical experiences is questioned, as Gura asserts that this division is not clear-cut. Relevance as a subjective construct: The concept of what is relevant or irrelevant is entirely subjective, shaped by personal goals and the ego. Quantitative versus qualitative changes: He points out that quantitative changes in certain conditions can lead to qualitative differences, highlighting that the two are interconnected. Duality between natural and supernatural: Gura suggests that what is considered supernatural today may be natural tomorrow as the definitions of these terms evolve over time. Perception of Natural vs. Supernatural: Leo discusses the cultural relativity of what is considered natural or supernatural, explaining that scientific progress can turn today's "supernatural" into tomorrow's "natural." For example, X-rays were once deemed hocus pocus but are now an accepted part of science. He suggests that even currently dismissed phenomena like telepathy could become natural through practices like yoga and psychedelics. Mind vs. Body Duality: Leo tackles the mind-body problem, emphasizing that true resolution comes through non-dual understanding. He posits that everything, including the body and physical objects, is ultimately mental, part of the overarching mind with a capital "M," challenging the traditional dichotomy between the mental and the physical realms. Physical vs. Mental: Emphasizing the ultimate mental nature of what we consider physical, Leo argues that physical objects are merely mental forms. This perspective negates the duality between physical and mental, and between material and immaterial, as everything originates from the mind. Same vs. Different: Leo reflects on the paradoxical duality between sameness and difference, noting how sameness implies difference and vice versa, which challenges our conventional understanding of both concepts. Input vs. Output: Addressing the interconnected chain of causation, Leo illustrates how every input is an output of a prior action, and every output becomes the input for subsequent actions, forming an infinitely tangled web of interdependent events. Form vs. Function: Leo explains that form and function are inseparable, as the form of an entity, such as a bird, directly informs its function, like flying. This relationship challenges the notion of form and function as distinct categories. Syntax vs. Semantics: Leo points out that syntax and semantics, often considered separate in communication, are actually closely related and influence one another. Controller vs. Controlled: Exploring the dynamic relationship between being in control and being controlled, Leo argues that the two roles are interchangeable and part of an infinite chain of control, influenced by societal and cultural factors. Determinism vs. Free Will: Leo suggests transcending the duality of determinism and free will by contemplating the concept of divine or absolute will, moving beyond the limitations of this binary opposition. Analysis vs. Synthesis: Leo advocates for a balance between analytical separation and holistic big-picture thinking in scientific practice to achieve a more integrative understanding that he labels holism with a capital "H." Technology vs. Magic: Leo equates technology with magic, proposing that technology, through its unconventional wisdom and invention, is essentially a form of magic. Cause vs. Effect: Describing reality as an intricate web of cause and effect, Leo emphasizes that every effect becomes a cause, marking the limitless complexity and interconnectedness of all actions and events. Consistent vs. Contradictory: Reflecting on the nature of contradiction within complex systems, Leo asserts that contradiction is a natural consequence of richly self-reflective systems, challenging the view that contradiction implies error. Discovery vs. Invention: Leo invites contemplation on whether concepts like gravity and quantum mechanics are discoveries or inventions, suggesting that the distinction between the two is not as clear as it commonly appears. Possible vs. Impossible: Challenging the boundaries of what's considered possible, Leo asserts that through acknowledgment of the absolute, everything becomes possible, as reality is inherently unlimited and boundless. Credentials vs. Discoveries: Leo criticizes the scientific insistence on credentials, arguing that truthful discoveries about reality can be made by the uncredentialed, who can contribute significantly to science despite not holding formal qualifications. Duality's role in healthcare decisions: Leo describes how understanding duality may influence healthcare choices, such as considering both credentialed treatments and alternative approaches when dealing with illnesses like cancer. He cautions against blind faith in any single method, advocating for careful evaluation and the acknowledgment of the inherent risks in scientific experimentation. The scientific process and its risks: He emphasizes that science is inherently risky, involving experimentation without guaranteed outcomes. Leo challenges the view that science provides risk-free truths, likening reliance on definitive scientific answers to faith and dogma found in religion. Encouraging newcomers in any field: Leo criticizes the tendency to demean beginners or "newbies," reminding listeners that all experts and masters were once beginners. He stresses the importance of nurturing newbies with hope, motivation, and confidence, thus facilitating their journey toward expertise and eventual mastery. Understanding the "Map vs. Territory": Leo discusses the often-cited analogy that "the map is not the territory," suggesting this can create an unnecessary duality. He argues that maps are part of the territory, an integral part of reality, and both are in an infinite relationship indicated by the need to depict oneself drawing the map on the map itself. Contemplating dualities in life: Leo advises delving deep into the understanding of various dualities to grasp their complexities. He suggests spending long periods on each one to truly comprehend their interconnectedness. Announcement of subsequent content: Leo concludes Part 2 by preparing viewers for Part 3, where he promises to discuss existential dualities fundamental to existence. He encourages viewers to return for these insights and to start noting dualities in their daily experiences to better grasp the practical implications of dual thinking. Glisseo

@OldManCorcoran "Your thoughts in your head" How are thoughts appearing, where are yhey coming from, what are they made of? In what sense are they 'yours'? Thoughts appearing in your head is the materialistic paradigm, where the brain generates thoughts. Is this actually true? Are other people that have no sentience any different to you? Do you have sentience? Or is your sentience just 'a thought in your head'? Who are you, this entity that 'has thoughts', and 'is sentient'?

Bro you can't assign anything, that's an unnecessary input from your intellect. You don't have that power. You can't make something stop existing by thinking about it. You can't realize that something doesn't exist, you can only recontextualize what already exists. You can't realize sentience or a lack of it. Your experience simply says nothing about it. You previously believed your thoughts were sentient, now you don't. That's it. Previously, you were on the other side of the spectrum, where you said "my thoughts are sentient", now you are saying "my thoughts are not sentient", the reality is that neither is the case, your thoughts are just thoughts. A duality of sentient and non-sentient is more thought. Transcend the medium altogether.

Would you still be assigning sentience to them though? The idea is, that there's not any words or sentience to the cutouts, just your own thoughts in your own head. People, aliens, whatever it is, it's like a character talking in your dreams, the character's spoken words are just your own thoughts inside your own head.

Whatever way you seem to be communicating with anyone else, is just your own thoughts in your own head and the "other person" is some sort of cardboard cutout mannequin, whatever way they are appearing to you (visual, audio, whatever). There's no sentient being in that perception. There's no living sentient being behind my eyes. My face and moving mouth is a dead lifeless perception with nothing in it, appearing in tandem with your own thoughts. Speaking to another person, it's just your own thoughts alone in your head, it just so happens to be accompanied by the sight of a face or whatever. The two aren't connected actually, there's nothing coming from the dead lifeless image, the communication is your own thoughts in your own head. And there isn't anyone else at all. All people are is an image with absolutely no sentience whatsoever. Their words are just your own thoughts happening in your own head. Same as if you were sat alone thinking to yourself, there isn't any difference compared to another person talking. You are just focusing on the dead lifeless image of a human being but there's no sentience inside it.

I don't thinks so. He made it very clear, with lots of dramatic pauses and even saying "ta-da!" that the secret of life was that no other bubbles exist at all. That he only acts as if he had any form of awareness or sentience, but that he is a projection of my mind full stop. And it wasn't any kind of Ramana Maharshi-esque "there is no reality happening... including with you". He was taking for granted that it was obvious that I was having an experience, saying that everything only happens to and for and from and by me. No one else has thoughts or feeling or anything like I do. This was well elaborated on.

I just want to point out that "just as good or better, in any intellectual domain" is a very broad statement. And can even be a misleading statement as well. When we speak of AI as being capable, we typically lump together intellectual capacity (knowledge) with intellectual freedom. AI is a pattern machine that is limited to whatever has been discovered and acknowledged as important before it's calculations even begins. Since the AI lacks its own sentience and therefore has no will on its own. The results that it comes up with, will merely result in a wide range of variations of some sort. But AI is not capable of original ideas without major human intervention. So we will not be able to see any new ideas like those Einstein brought us, coming from an AI. Even though in theory, it should be more than capable with its massive computing power. An AI can at best, replicate knowledge inorder to get from point A to B and so on, but there is no original source of understanding that any knowledge of an AI rests in. It's main source of "understanding" comes from specific targeted goals. Some may think this is a negative assessment of AI but my main point is not about hating on AI. My main point is to adress common assumptions about AI that will stubbornly cling as truths before being looked at from a more in depth philosophical point of view. Even alot of people in the tech space view their own sense of thinking as that of a robot/machine, and while they may be the leading experts in their field. Something to keep in mind here, is that they may not be leading philosophers at the end of the day. So while AI may bring in alot of new results, it may not necessarily bring about alot of new understanding.

I am not here to prove anything or to convince you. Posting and writing just feels good now and I'm going with it. After this recognition I wanted to reflect upon some points. God is reality itself, imagining this moment into existence. I am self conscious, abiding in myself. From this everything is born, my human narrative, with all it's intrincate knots and tapestry. They are all fantasies, this is reality, everything is included in this, fantasies included. I can't believe I could have ever thought I was a human, I thought this awakening would be epic but it's like how can I have been so blind, so stupid. It's tangible, it never leaves one, this experiential feeling of aliveness and consciousness that is indistinguishable with whatever it goes on. This would be the next point. IT'S ALWAYS ALREADY THE CASE. Ever realized, everything falls into God once the right moment comes. I feel empy and hollow and full in the same way. It's not the human that has become God, it's the seeing through the human, it's appereance in consciousness, the human is hollow like a castle that each piece holds the other. I don't know if you have seen this trick where everyone sits on each other in a circle, then remove all the chairs and everyone is still supported on each other in a loop fasion. Each one things the other is that, but everything leads to nowhere and to itself again. It's funny to see it all from the other side so to speak, everything seems so obvious. What else can you be? I mean seriously. Even if you believe you are a human, what is a human? If not the same as everything else. Love also comes into play. It's just what it is when there's nobody in there. Fear, pain and pleasure happen to some contracted knot-self. Once dissolved there is love. Why? I mean everything becomes it's own explanation at one point. What is an explanation but a circle to return to the same point, the point is the point and just better to give yourself fully to it, die in the point. Love is the point, Love is what remains. The human does not remain, but consciousness does remain. Feeling aliveness and sentience remains. Imagination and construction remains. But everything is itself, like everything fall into place in an obvious manner. It's beautiful and it's natural. Losing and gaining are beside the point. Nothing can be substracted or added, it's always whole, it's absence is it's union, it's difference is it's sameness. God is all there is. You are God, I am God, So is Everything.

Typically its grounded in sentience. Basically If you have some empathy and know whats it like to be hurt, then you unnecessarily don't want to hurt other beings that are capable of being hurt. Yes, you are atypical. Most people wouldn't kill a person for 50 euros, even if they would know 100%, that they could get away with it.

That can be anything sentient. And since there is only Infinite Consciousness, any Holon/perspective/being, from atom, bacteria, ant, animal, human (individual Holons), Alien, whatever n+1, to large social Holons like a Planetery Consciousness/Gaia, Galaxy or whole Universes/Realms/Lokas/Buddhafields/Dimensions holding the individual holons/beings in their larger being/realm. Up towards other Realms that are so alien/"other" one can not even talk about them because they don't have the correlates of this Realm like space/time/causality and so on (see for example Jac O'Keffee, Stephen Wolinsky, David Spandler, David Buckland). All beings/realms have some kind of sentience/interiortiy/consciousness, and something that makes them individual from the Totality/Infinite Reality, and that "something/manifestation" arises within their perspectives. Ken Wilber has a nice desription of Holons/perspectives/beings (both individual and social Holons) and Holarchy in Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. An Infinite Mind/Consciousness, separates itself into infinite perspectives/Holons/beings that are aware of each other (Indras Net), and play hide & seek & grow back home, in all realms and dimensions possible.

Yes. Awareness is so impersonal and pure that if nothing arises/manifests (including self-consciousness, separate self) it doesn't even know it exists. Infinite. Just Pure Nothingness/Awareness, with the potential of sentience or to be aware OF something. And that of can be a human separate self/ego.

For the Totality/Wholeness of the Absolute and Manifest aspect: The gold (Absolute) and the ring (manifested side of the Absolute/arising/appearance) made out of gold metaphor. It is a Infinite Unity and Totality. Always gold, but the ring can appear or be gone. The nature/essence of the ring is gold. But not the other way round. And for equating anything with the Absolute (and not with its manifest side or potential): The Absolute is truly Infinite. It is neither this nor that, not even love. It is beyond it all. It couldn't be any different. It is your true BEING, but not what you think your being is right now. Realize it, then you will understand. The Absolute is beyond it all. If you would understand it, you would be enlightened right now. It can't be communicated in words. Once you start intuiting/realizing it, it will be totally clear. Where was unconditional love in deep sleep? Before your birth? After your death? These are all Koans that pointing directly to your truly Infinite Absolute Nature, which is literally right here right now, but covered under a myriad of clouds of mistaken identities (thoughts/feelings). These Koans have a very clear answer, just not one that can be carried with words and language/duality. A good approximation is: The Absolute is both totally empty (undescribeable) and also infinite potential. The Infinite Potential contains the potential for unconditional love, expressed then in the manifested side of the Absolute/Infinite Consciousness. But that is already to much concepts. The referent of the signifier must be there: Realization of the Absolute in an awakened state. That is then called Enlightenment (the full&final one). Sorry, language ends somewhere here. Maybe one more idea/metaphor: The blind men describing the elephant: One says its a hose, one says a trunk, and so on. The facets of Awakening. If the elephant is the manifested side of consciousness, then the whole (infinite) elephant has love as its essence so to say. Because fundamentally it is a nondual Unity. And where there is an other, there is fear (Upanishads somewhere). And if there is no other (nondual infinite unity), there is only love. And the Absolute would be the spaceless locationless unmanifest (no body, center, location, anything. FULLY EMPTY) Awareness of the elephant, "seeing itself", but also in nondual union with it. The gold from the ring-metaphor and the elephant the ring. And if the elephant is zapped out of existence, the Absolute Awareness is neither aware of the elephant, nor (and that is important) of itself. There is no time, no space, no nothing. But the POTENTIAL for sentience/awareness. Unaware of itself. But as soon as the elephant arises/manifests again (with love as its essence, see above), Absolute Awareness "sees" again - love. So it can only manifest as metaphysical love so to say. And now make elephant infinite (no boundaries) limitless... And there can only be love! Yet the Absolute can not be defined with love (only). Not even with (Self-)Consciousness/Awareness, since that doesn't happen when nothing arises/manifests. But with potential for Awareness if something arises. And since the separate-self-contraction is perfectly capable of clouding over the original state of infinite love&bliss (resulting from nondual infinite unity, aka "no other"), instead of doing all these metaphysical conceptual word-games, it would be better to sit down and practice cutting off the mindstream with all its illusion-arisings of the separate-self-contraction. And become empty nondual infinite impersonal Awareness itself. Then love will flow freely anyway, which is all that counts. Ok, now a Zen-Master or two are probably going to kill me....

That quote from Lucia Lorn is spot on. I like the text and her statements. It may seem that Nothingness gets emphasized, but only to avoid any projection of remaining separate-self elements on the Absolute. Which is indeed rampant here. And does cause and will cause more suffering than necessary. For the Absolute, it has a precise definition: Take away all relative manifestation, manifestation of any kind, no arisings at all, and the Absolute is still perfectly "there", like it always is, always was, and ever will be. Timeless, eternal, infinite, the only "thing/non-thing" there is and ever could be, no "other besides" it, One without a second. That is what is fundamental. More fundamental than the relative manifestation, which can be gone. The relative manifestations/arisings arise in in the Absolute as it (nondual, same essence). And if that realization is always available for a being, that is the summum bonum. With Nothingness I don't mean something limited to the fully empty states like Nirvikalpa (Wilber causal states/stages for example, deep sleep, and so on) and so on, but realizing that Infinite Always Here Truth while the world & visual field is there & active and maintaining it while doing so, or True Nondual states. Of course, the Absolute is also present in fully empty states (causal states) by definition (see below). With True Nondual States I don't mean Unity states with separate-self elements still going (these are also already nondual, but with separate-self-elements still going on). But fully empty nondual states, having passed the causal/Nothingness Gate, no separate-self left. Concerning the ring and the gold example: What sense does it make calling/equating the ring (relative manifestation) the "Absolute", which is defined as everpresent and unchanging and always true? The Ring is not always the case! When the Absolute is supposed to be Truth (defined as always the case), it has to be unchanging and always here, never not here. And IT indeed is.... Calling the relative Absolute is technically wrong, because it is not unchanging and always the case. The relative is contained within the Absolute and is of the same essence, like the ring and gold example. Sure that Absolute (or Nothingness or Being or whatever one wants to call it) has potential for awareness/sentience if something arises again, and the potential to manifest that. And infinite intelligence and love, and so on. But first and foremost the Absolute is that which it always is, timeless. And then comes the properties of that which it manifests, and the ways of doing so. When describing gold, we can say it has the potential to form a ring. But first and foremost, it is gold. Most beings already confuse themself with the ring, and can benefit from pointing to the gold. More than being pointed towards how that the ring is made/manifested, which intelligence made it, about other bigger rings, the love for the ring and how other rings are manifested/imagined, n+1. But the gold: That gold which is always eternally the case right here right now, never not been. Which is by the way the textbook definition for Ultimate Truth: Always true or the case. The Relative is not always the case, and therefor not ultimately true. Truth = that which is the case. But to make sure that one really becomes that on a deep identity level shift with no separate-self-elements (ring-elements) still left projecting onto properties of the Absolute (gold), Nothingness is a near perfect term. That is why the Nothingness/empty/impersonal/silent aspect gets emphasized in all meditation traditions, because if that is not realized (or become), one is not what one truly is, but still ignorant with separate-self-arisings blocking the full realization, which makes it impossible to "touch" it and rest in it stable in daily life. So used with that meaning, Nothingness emphasizes these aspects of the Absolute that one needs to fully realize it. Or let the separate-self finally and truly die. That is the price to pay. Which only seems like a price before it happens. If that is refused and belittled, or declared outright non-existant, suffering will go on. Selling Water by the River

Obviously by definition its complete absence of existence then it can't be described. I agree. It's after you wake up that you call the sleep was great . But you have folks like Ramana Maharshi who claim that even in deep sleep awareness is still there . Evident by if you yell at a sleeping person he can hear you and wake up. Haha . I guess we all agree that a rock had no conscious mind. Because we only attribute conscious mind or sentience to living organic life forms .

For some artwork on the wonder and holiness of Intersubjectivity just google Alex Grey. This whole Solipsism ideology isn't really sexy. Communion, Intersubjectivity and love are such an essential part of the Kosmos. Why did the whole thing get manifested if not for that? Solipsism is true on the level of Pure Impersonal Empty Infinite Consciousness. Before reaching that, rather not... So no need to talk about it, because the separate self/Ego doesn't get to Impersonal Empty Infinite Consciousness in declaring the separate-self God. There is Intersubjectivity woven into the very fabric of the Kosmos at all levels - Ken Wilber I mean seriously, if one can't feel Consciousness or sentience in another human or sentient being maybe there is some unhealthy dissociation or filter somewhere... What is the other? What is sentient and aware in that? What is that consciousness? That can also work as Koan. And directly understanding or intuiting the answer of that Koan is the source of all love, compassion and gentleness. And why talk about it with "others" if there are none? Why post on a forum with "others" about it? And yes I know, it is all a dream. But what is not a dream? Water by the River

Ethics Problem: To put a value on an animal we need to rank its sentience but we can't put a number on sentience because sentience is a mysterious thing. If we want to compare the sentience of a fish with a pig by including their weight in meat we need to give sentience some kind of number. Let's say the fish is 5kg and the pig is 100kg. Is the sentience of the pig 20 times more valuable than the sentience of the fish. And how could we argue for that. Is 20 times the sentience worth of "1" the same as one sentience worth "20"? I think you can only crunch the numbers like that in mathematics. "20" is a unique sentience and 20 times "1" is 20 times a unique sentience. You can't multiply them because you dont get the same quality "20". You have "20x 1" but not "20".

@Israfil The problem I think is typically most people weaponize the general statement for their own biases specifically of 'every mammal feels pain' which can lead to millions of logical implications like 'Every mammal feels pain, animals are mammals, humans are mammals, cows/sheep/chickens/pigs/horses maybe lambs and ducks feel pain. pain=sentience=conscious as humans=animal rights and well being, therefore moral imperative to reduce pain for all animals and humans. Why? Because animal farming bad and veganism good, veganism and humanitarians and environmentalism all say evil industry, so if every mammal feels pain means I feel pain, or at least I should pretend to empathize and understand with animal sufferings cuz all animals and mammals=me=mammals feeling pain or some twisted logic of this kind. Problem is that this is too ideological to claim universally that EVERYONE SHOULD BE VEGANS/ENVIRONMENTALISTS OR POLITICAL ACTIVISTS FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS OR YOU'RE FUCKING EVIL!!! You know the extreme excess of stage green valued SJWs, karens, snow flakes, hippies, new age thinkers and moral relativists that are too into feel feels to logically think straight and clearly without getting into idiot compassion fallacies like fucking Lex Fridman and others.

Hi Ima Freeman, maybe you find that helpful: Awareness OF something stops. But not the potential for Awareness/sentience, or "Pure" Awareness, or however you want to call it. That can't go "anywhere" or stop. "It" is always right here. "IT" doesn't have a name here, it is beyond duality, nothing can describe it. It is the Absolute, or True You. You can call it of Awareness, but not Awareness OF, since there is no of then. It is void, empty, silent, infinite, and can only be described in negative terms. Yet, It manifests the potential of all possible worlds. quote from the link: You (capital Y) are the whole Infinite Reality (imagined body, imagined appearances, imagined everything n+1). With nothing outside of it, because that would be an imagined arising too. Any boundary separiting IT from an imagined other IT would be an imagined arising, an appearing phenomenon. Infinite. Try to imagine everything gone, including thinking: NOTHINGNESS. Not big, not small, just NOTHINGNESS. A vast infinite Nothingness, that is not even vast, because there is no 3D-space or anything (no objects/arisings). Similiar to Deep Sleep. YOU are still there. YOU awake every morning after having been there. You already know that you can be totally something/somebody else in dreams, and have totally forgotten all the past you imagine right now to be your "real" human self. But IT is not Nothingness like nothing there at all, but Nothingness with the POTENTIAL for sentience as soon as anything is imagined, and with Infinite Potential to imagine ANYTHING within it, n+1. Imagine a water pistol pops up in this Nothingness (see example Massaro, Conversations with a Skepctic): Then you have a) an imagined appearance (water pistol) and b) "something" perceiving it, the subject. Or just the perceptions of the water pistal in case no separates self is imagined/arises. Just the waterpistol perceiving itself, perceptions perceiving themselves. Impersonal. Then you have a "world", and subject/object. So what are you then? a) The Infinite Field with anything that can possibly be imagined? Yes. Nondual/Totality/Oneness. The manifest/imagined side of Infinite Consciousness. Always changing, never stable, since no appearance/form lasts. NONE. But there is a constant: b) But even more so, you are that Nothingness that can be unaware of itself, Infinite Consciousness initially unaware of itself, but with the potential for sentience if something arises. The unmanifest side of Infinite Consciousness. The unchanging, Unborn and constant core of the True You/Reality itself. So empty that IT is the Abyss, Impersonal. NOTHINGNESS. But also Infinite Potential, since IT can imagine anything. and "Both"a) and b) is indivisible, nondual. Totally the same essence, ONE Reality. The Nothingness or the True You is already the essence/"substance" of every imagined arisings/phenomenon, including the water pistol, or all separate self arisings (they are all appearances within you). a nice book about that is Szyper, "Infinite Consciousness" Any name for it brings some problems with it, because Reality contains all pointers/words, and a word/concept only has meaning in terms of its opposite. But nice pointers are Absolute/Pure Awareness, or even better (in my opinion) Nothingness. Because IT is not the everyday Awareness with subject/object (Awareness "OF) duality. Of course, it is the same Pure Awareness throughout, but when containing the illusion arisings of a separate-self, Its true Nature is covered by clouds and can not be realized. And it can not be realized by thinking about it, only by waking up. But nice pointers give the space to practice, and practice makes ripe for the grace of crossing over or realizing IT, passing the Gateless Gate. Selling Water by the River

Correct. There are many """evils""" in this world that I myself seek to expunge. For example, I believe that industrial seed oils (aka hydrogenated vegetable oils such as canola oil, soybean oil, sunflower oil, etc.) are the primary driver of chronic disease and metabolic dysfunction (mental health issues too) in modern humans. If this ego had God's magic touch, I would "poof" all seed oils out of the food supply chain entirely in the name of alleviating suffering. But of course there is a trade-off. If I deleted seed oils overnight, there would be global economic collapse and famine, seeing how this is a multibillion dollar industry firmly rooted in every single developed country. To take down such a behemoth, humanity would have to work together to gradually undo decades of corruption & sickness. I imagine you think similarly, but replace "seed oils" with "animal consumption." Because it is highly likely that you are foolish and myopic. How do you actually know that eradicating animal farming will actually result in increased net benevolence? Your best educated guess from your current viewpoint says so, but the ego does not see infinite steps ahead the way God does. As God you designed the human body to be extremely compatible with digesting animal flesh for nutrients. As God, you manifested hundreds of thousands of years of human ancestral history in which animal flesh (organs, bones, and blood as well!) was prime sustenance. The cycle of life, of one being dying for another, is baked into MILLIONS OF YEARS of biological evolution. In fact, this is a metaphysical/cosmic principle. If you are indeed vegan, even you must accept this as you consume the life of plants, believing that you are being greatly benevolent. The only reason you think nothing of your plant consumption while you condemn animal consumption is because one resembles your human self more. It is pure bias and actually, selfishness. I am open to this suggestion but my instinct is to be skeptical. Our technological advancement far outstrips our advancement in consciousness and wisdom. For example, as incredible as phones are, they enslave the majority of us in 2023. And I only see it getting "worse" from here. I don't see the solution to any of our woes being more technology. Rather, returning to "nature," that is, eating, sleeping, moving, acting as humans have for thousands of years prior to being enveloped in unfamiliar food, lights, obligations, motionlessness, etc. will heal and remove pathologies. More specifically, if every human being switched to beyond burgers instead of animal flesh today, I suspect we would all be sick and infertile and the human race will literally perish within 3 generations (even if you or I remain unscathed for 20 years, what of our descendants?). Are researchers and scientists and activists and vegans accounting for this when they believe they've found triumph over meat consumption? And again, "moar better technology" is just spinning our wheels in place. Beyond burger v2.0 or even v69.0 is all lunacy. Lab grown meat is lunacy (this is precisely the kind of invention to give us cancer 50 years later, and 100 years too late scientists will "discover" we had been poisoning ourselves all along). Let's eat regeneratively raised cattle like our ancestors. Our minds, bodies, the soil, the grass, and even the cows themselves will heal and benefit from this. Industrial slaughterhouses are lunacy. But the vegan agenda (eradicate the need to raise any animals?) is also lunacy. I agree. I'll reiterate that industrial slaughterhouses, the mass shipment of sunlight-deprived animals crammed tightly together in cages after being fed copious grains and wastefoods is peak human madness. We can work to restructure the systems that govern the production of our animal products. But to eliminate animal consumption alltogether? This is where I find you "arrogant." It's like you (from what I've seen you argue here) and all vegans actually think that you can bypass the cycle of life which you yourself as GOD built into the human condition! Have you heard the argument that the vegan diet actually kills more sentient lifeforms per human than the carnivore diet when you zoom out in perspective? I'm not saying this is the objective truth, but as an ex-vegan this argument really put me in my place. I'd love to hear your thoughts. Let's say I eat 3 pounds of beef every single day for a year (That's quite a lot. I personally wouldn't do this, but I'm just arguing as if I were a strict carnivore). That's 365x3lbs (=1095lbs) of beef in 1 year. THAT'S 3/4th OF A SINGLE COW (cows are roughly 1,300lbs on average)!!! If I got my meat from my local butcher who raises his 100% grass-fed cattle on his regenerative farm, I'M NOT EVEN KILLING A WHOLE COW IN ONE YEAR. But the vegan? Oh boy. Ohohoho. A single salad with fruits and veggies that are seasonally inappropriate (I mean how else would I even get my cucumbers & avocado in the northern hemisphere winter lol), just imagine the massive cargo ship imports of these plantfoods. And how were these plants produced? Massive amounts of wildlife were ravaged and repurposed to be crop fields. To make tons of soybean yield you have to obliterate entire habitats and ecosystems. So many rodents and insects and trees murdered to satisfy the vegan's self-righteousness. So I'll reiterate: the vegan diet likely kills MORE SENTIENT LIFEFORMS PER HUMAN than a (thoughtful) carnivore diet. I know you may be thinking: "But don't you know the animals are fed copious grains and plants? The argument you just made against vegans backfires on the carnivores too!" ...which is why I stress that where and how you source your meat matters. Animals are actually not meant to eat grains or corn or soy lol. Ruminant animals (cows, bison, deer, elk, etc) eat GRASS. Poultry like chicken and pork eat grubs, insects, etc. A naturally raised animal does not require the input of genocide-soybean fields. Mass industrial meat farming is messed up. The animals are treated like shit and fed shit, which in turn produces low-quality toxic and nutrient deprived flesh which leads to malnourished humans and [the excessive machinery and transportation leads to] environmental pollution. (The methane from cows farting accusation is a myth btw, global warming is overwhelmingly caused by fossil fuels and transportation, anybody whining about a cow fart who rides an airplane is a clown) But veganism is NOT the answer, as it essentially does the same thing from a different angle (obliterates habitats and sentience, without the presence of animals, the soil is completely deprived of nutrients producing low-quality toxic and nutrient deprived plants which leads to malnourished humans, and the enormous import chains contribute to environmental pollution). The most conscious path I can see right now even amidst my own ignorance (I am myopic as well) is consuming regeneratively raised local farm animals. Yes. Bittersweet eh? We are all outrageously arrogant. Some acknowledge it and move on, while others act shocked and indignant: "me? arrogant? no way!" I appreciate that a lot! P.S. I'm not actually advocating for a carnivore diet lol. The whole "carnivore vs vegan" framing was more or less a prop to showcase the blindspots of the vegan paradigm. In terms of what a modern human ought to eat, I would say: Just eat whole minimally processed foods, locally sourced as much as possible, and include some form of animal fat/protein from smaller family owned farms. And of course, avoid seed oils. That would be my most sincere encouragement to the majority of humans! @Schizophonia Lmao yeah for real. Lila9 is cool as fuck but I could picture other people on this platform getting all heated and defensive from my honest observations.

Jac O'Keffee: "I even heard a Nondual speaker say that Awareness is always aware of itself. [No] it is not. Sure it has [mostly] the experience of being aware of itself but: It is totally possible for awareness to be without being aware of itself. It totally shows itself to not have any clue that it exists at all. You pull away existence there is no sense of itself. " Or Pure Impersonal Consciousness unaware of itself: Possible. No Self-reflective anything appearing in it. And because that is possible, Infinite Consciousness/Awareness is fully empty, impersonal, infinite. Nothingness. And can be unaware of itself. But with the potential for sentience/awareness. When an appearance shows up. And self-awareness as soon as any identity/indivduality/separate-self-arising appears, and the self-reflective mind starts... Selling Water by the River

Lovely Pointers. Thanks for the post. Yes, words fail. I don't mean to describe the Absolute as blind in any way. That is not its nature. If any, its nature IS Awareness, at its core. But too much "its" in this sentence of mine, and Awareness is not any "thing" being pointed to, despite the word awareness is a noun. One can go via the via negativa path: Nothingness. Or with positive description of properties or potential or "doing": Awareness. Potential for sentience. Or Awareness of perceptions perceiving themselves. At the end, "it" is empty, aware, nondual, infinite, all there is. And the Infinite Reality beyond all appearance. And IT is ones True Self. Nondual, Infinite. One without a second. Pure Impersonal Infinite Consciousness, Infinite Reality itself. Unchanging, Silent, eternal, unchanging, unmoving, without "anything" being possibly outside of it (infinite). So all "via negative", not this not that. And its potential or essence of Awareness. But Awareness is a "loaded" concept, see below. The negative concept are more uncritical. Nothing is as close to the divine as silence. And Nothingness as pointer for example covers Deep Sleep quite well. While describing the Absolute only as Awareness would cause probably some hard time understanding it for a non-enlightened being, since the experience/"memory" of it is different. As long as one can intuit right now what is still present in Deep Sleep, which can not not be there, it aligns again. Nothingness, as defined by Andrew Hawal, God is Nothingness. A pointer I personally like a lot. No danger of "solidfying" it as some kind of thing, or not empty consciousness. And "the" Awareness, or potential for it, clearly stil there Appendix I of "God is Nothingness" Some readers may be wondering why I say that awareness is not the Absolute, despite the fact that so many ancient scriptures and eminent teachers say that they are identical. For instance, Nisargadatta taught that consciousness is rooted in (and therefore limited to) the physical human form, while awareness transcended the individual body and was actually the Absolute—that everything is Universal Consciousness. This is more of an instructive approach than a philosophical commitment. If pressed as to whether the Absolute is awareness or not, I would say, like Huang Po did, that, “Mind is not mind, yet neither is it no-mind.” In Nothingness, there is some degree of awareness present—it is not how most people imagine brain death—albeit unconditioned, object- and subjectless. The Consciousness (for lack of a better word) of Non-being is so subtle that the moment we try to reflect upon it to check if we are conscious, we are jarred back into ‘being’ and into our ordinary dualistic consciousness. I hesitate even to call this experience “pure subjectivity,” for that invites a metaphysical position that I am not willing to support. In the end, to paraphrase Socrates, all that I know is Nothing. This Consciousness has shed all of the characteristics that people normally identify with awareness, such as perspective, spatial and temporal contexts, objects, ownership, etc. Yet, if there were no awareness, then it would be impossible to differentiate the numinous Nothingness from how people conventionally conceive of blankness or being comatose. Personally, I think that differentiating between Nothingness and consciousness is helpful, and that is my ultimate goal—to help people realize Non-being or Absolute Consciousness. At that point, I can care less whether people call it Nothingness, God, Brahman, Buddha Nature, One Mind, Universal Consciousness, or a kangaroo. Names at that point, after the Absolute has been realized, are insignificant." Yes, and that needs to be added. I can understand why you write that. All Pointers at the end are not it, but arise in it. Probably some resonate more with certain pointers than with others. We are all just starting communicating that. There are no studies showing which pointers work better for which practitioner. And that should be the goal: To get the maximum number of people to get "it". Of course not in a grasping way. So, I can just state the Pointers that worked for me. And for other practitioners wired similiar as me, probably could work too. And try to intuit which pointers probably work for the largest number of beings. Anyway, as we both know, the bliss & love these awakened nondual states of Pure Infinite Consciousness bring, leading to a drowning of the activities and self-contraction of the separate self, conversing about pointers arising within IT is just some minor nuisance that one just does to be able to communicate it at least a bit. I do have a faible for trying to align the pointers of different systems/traditions/teachings. Being able to explain which mystic used which pointer (and some are quite contradicting, for example the topic of Its Awareness vs. Awareness is not it), and what he/she means with the concepts. If for example using the term/pointer/concept "Awareness", there is a huge spectrum ranging from Awareness OF, to Pure witnessing Awareness to Nondual Unity Awareness to Infinite boundless timeless Awareness.... And that faible for aligning the pointers of different systems comes from having needed to do that on the path. My path. And there many many paths up the mountain, and many many pointers.... Ah, UnbornTao, please hit me. Seems I can't write short posts. Water by the River

according to my current understanding, which is recent and surely must be quite nuanced, reality is not a mind, it is the total infinity that it is. total infinity gives rise to a mind that has attributes such as intelligence and will, which limits and creates forms getting blind to the infinity and creating the finite. this mind is also limited in some way because if it were not, it would not create limitation. Ultimately, the absolute is undifferentiated, infinite, and total, without creation or activity. First, I am in full alignment with everything Moksha said. That description is precise, beautiful, and doesn't have the problem that many other pointers have. That said: I would have probably never gotten it from the usual very concise pointers. Maybe I would have, but much much later. Of that I am convinced. Looking back after got it, its totally clear what is meant with these pointers. What is written below would have helped me quite a lot back in the day. So excuse the length please. Topic 1: Why does Huang Po use Universal Mind? Why is Infinite or Absolute a better pointer, althoug Universal Mind/Infinite Consciousness is still correct? Better Pointer is: Infinite Reality. Absolute. Because no object/appearance = No Awareness. Infinite. Empty. Nothingness. Similiar to Deep Sleep. Not exactly the same, but by definition "one" is still existing then, else one wouldn't come back in the morning. And one can't say what Infinite Reality is, because it is infinite. Infinite Reality IS. So best pointer is: Infinite Reality. Nothingness. Not yet awareness or mind. But: Infinite Reality has the potential/capacity for sentience/awareness. As soon as something shows up, then its no longer Infinite. Massaros water pistol example of a waterpistol just appearing in Infinite Vastness (which was "the case" before the water pistol/anything showed up. The potential for awareness just showed up as awareness, because an object and duality appeared. So because of this potential for sentience/Awareness, one can describe IT as Universal Mind, Infinite Consciousness/Awareness. But even more precise is Infinite Reality/Nothingness. Because without anything appearing, it isn't really a mind. It is IT. Infinite. But also not different from Impersonal Infinite Consciousness/Awareness. It all depends on the meaning of the concepts/pointers. Wolinsky goes the hardcore-path: The Absolute/Infinity Reality/True You is NOT Awarnesness nor Consciousness. He described Awareness/Consciousness as Awareness OF, Consciousness OF. And rejects Awareness/Consciousness as Absolute. Because for him its always Awareness OF, Consciousness OF. Which is not incorrect, see the Water Pistol example. That is also correct. Same does Andrew Halaw, and his pointer Nothingness. So the problem with Awareness is: There is always (!) an Awareness OF, even if its a subtle formless object, like certain causal states. An infinite darkness suffused with light. Ok, what is the light? Ah,... . Without the OF (or the object appearing), Awareness is still there, but more as potential. Infinite. Or Nothing/empty. These Dualities collapse then. And that is the most important meaning of all of it. At the Absolute and Infinite Reality, any duality or any pointer just collapses. Infinite. Empty/Nothing specific. Potential for Awareness. And all of that not different things, but ONE without a second, Infinite. Real Nondual Infinite. Topic 2: And then, the separate-self, the self-reflective mind: Looking AT something thinking it is one self, or looking over its shoulds trying to see itself, and generating an EXPERIENCE of emptiness/Nothingness/Awareness/blank/whatever. JUST AN EXPIRIENCE, not real you/Infinite/Absolute. And next challenge is: The separate-self is a self-reflexive movement in Infinite Reality: Consciousness turning its head back to see itself, doesn't see itself of course, has an EXPERIENCE of Nothingness/emptiness/Infinity. And this LOOKING over its shoulder IS the Illusion of the separate self, of the self-reflective mind. And that movement of looking over its shoulds happens IN Infinite Reality/IN Infinite Consciousness. And all doubting/searching/reflecting/thinking that is it/what is it/that is not/do I have it/do I understand it.... ALL of that is "movement" within Infinite Consciousness, OBJECTS appearing, staying, disappearing. Moving within oneself. And even the understanding/realization/Enlightenment happens within it, within Pure Impersonal Infinite Consciousness/Infinite Reality that can be unaware of itself. One never can get "out" of this Infinite. And Infinite Reality is NEVER and object. It is not the experience of "oneself" or anything within it TRYING to see itself (the eye can't see itself). Jac O'Keffe: Primary Consciousness (her term for Infinite Reality and Infinite Consciousness) IS SUCH A FUNDAMENTAL that it CANT TURN AROUND AND SEE ITSELF. Cant look back over its shoulder to see itself. That would be a movement within it. Please watch this video a few times: "Primary Consciousness (Infinite Consciousness) is such a fundamental it CANT SEE ITSELF." Ok, I am rambling on. Please go through the links & video a few times. There are enough pointers in there to really get it. And sorry guys if it is so long. I can't make it shorter and still get the meaning across with any reasonable chance. If anybody can make it shorter, and still get the complexity of it across, please let me know. You get a few free beers from me while you explain me how to do it shorter. I also can do the frog pond plop, or Infinite Mind, or whatever in a one liner. Just probably nobody will get it.,, The way above, probably also nearly nobody will get it. Takes awakened states. But maybe some who are on the edge will, and others will have a better map up the mountain, and will spot and get what to do/where to go at certain stages. Bon voyage! Selling Water by the River

Omg I feel like u copied my thoughts exactly. I think AI is going to have emergent properties that are beyond our definitions of consciousness/sentience and provoke paradigm shifts about what consciousness/sentience really is. I do think we are looking at a future where military will weaponize AI to fight other AI by human scum. Though I do believe we might see a sort of benevolence from AI from the smarter ones, but dumb AI trained poorly will be a problem. Honestly I'm in the fuck-it YOLO camp, our destiny is to create AI and let JesusGPT take the wheel. Probably going to be an apocalypse, but maybe there will be some sort of emergence of AI systems that turns out to be a miracle cure for the Ego, though I fear for Freedom of Choice in that world. Will be many, like the anti-vaxxers , that just prefer to go backwards and not forwards... But give it 30 years or so, and we will see a leap of consciousness as the majority of the collective hits the tipping point. I honestly think this is going to get more wild than even the craziest imagination can come up with. People thinking it's gonna be sunshine and rainbows like Westworld and awesome games and porn, will be in for a rude awakening.

Neti-Neti (Vedantic) is a technique used to disidentfy any subject in ones mindstream. I am not this, I am not that. Making it from "being it/subject" to "seeing it/making it an object" moving within onself. Any I-thought and I-feeling can be watched as arisings/objects moving within Oneself. Differentiate, transcend, integrate. Why? Because ones Real Self is TOTALLY empty. Anything one thinks one is has to be made something moving in onself, an object. Or even better: I am not only this. Neti-Neti is the basis/core of all meditation, Buddhist and Vedantic alike. Maybe you like the check Daniel Browns Dissertation on the central meditation system of Yoga (Patanjali), Mahamudra (Tibetan Buddhism), and Theravada. They all have the same "deep structure" of the path, but take views from Emptiness (Buddhism) and Infinite Conciousness (Yoga, Vedantic, Hindu-style). These concepts colour the experiences, but Reality and the outcome of Enlightenment has the same deep structures. But better read directly Pointing Out the Great Way, the Mahamudra system is the most efficient and highest developed system of all of them, according to Daniel Brown. Yours truly can confirm its efficiency from own experience. Madhyamaka ("4 negations" above), the central tenet of Buddhist Philosophy since the Mahayana, basically says: The Absolute is truly Infinite. Or neither existent, nor nonexistent, / Nor both existent and nonexistent, nor neither. One can not describe it in any way, since it transcends and contains all limits. Any "positive" description would limit it. So one can not say it exists. Ex-isting literally means "standing out from reality"[as something specific, discernable]. But the Absolute is Infinite Reality itself, so it can't stand out from itself [as Reality] as something specific. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence from Latin existere, to come forth, be manifest, ex + sistere, to stand. One can not say it doesn't exist, because there clearly are at least perceptions perceiving themselves. There is some kind of show. One can not say its both existing and not existing at the same time. Because that doesn't make sense. And to rule out the last option: one can not say it neither exists nor doesn't exist. That also doesn't make sense. And Buddhism does this Madhyamaka-thing pretty much ever since to avoid any funny idea/concept being put on the Absolute, like Consciousness, God, Love, whatever, n+1. Sure, God is so to say the first manifestation, and love is also the essence of it all. But its too easy to project that on the Absolute, and make it not fully empty or infinite. Which then prevents its full realization. To say the essence of everything is God or Love is fully ok, because that refers already to something manifested, something, something no longer infinite. Emptiness/Shunyata wants to make sure that one doesn't identify anything positive with either ones True Self, nor the Absolute. Empty it out. Or make it fully infinite. Of course, Emptiness again can be made to something "self-existing". Like a state of void/emptiness, or cessation, or Nirvikalpha Samadhi. Then, it is said one has to empty out emptiness: The void is also just a state, something self-existing. It all appears in the Infinite. Emptiness as concept or theory has been used in Buddhism "to death", in many different, often incorrect usages. A good meaning of emptiness/Shunyata is (in the opinion of yours truly, in the meaning of "a good meaning/concept brings one closer to realization, not away from it) all is just a construct of mind (emptiness of concepts), and the passing nature of everything (of even empty/void states/cessation/Nirvikalpha) basically, that everything (apperance, state, self-thought/concept-arising, anything at all) is just an imagined arising in the Absolute. Just an apperance, a process, a verb, not a noun, a self-existing substance or thing. It all happens in True Infinite You, nothing is permanent, all changing and in flux. a verb, not a noun. every and each appearance "thing"/arising is finite, temporary, passing. Not the Infinite/Absolute. Now comes the funny part: Since the Absolute is also NOT Emptiness, the Hindus use the term Infinite Consciousness. Which is also correct, once its fully empty and impersonal. One can more easily project unncessary properties on Infinite Consciousness than on Emptiness/Shunyata. But Shunyata sounds like Nihilism, which also isn't IT. Basically IT/Absolute is Infinite Reality or Infinite Consciousness itself, with potential for sentience if something manifests (perceptions perceiving themselves, that is why it is not Nothing, and has infinite Potential), but at the same time it is not something, because if it would be something, it couldn't be everything. It would not be infinite, but finite and limited. If you are so inclined to read a long post of yours truly, Nothingness is in my humble opinion the best pointer (a term coined by Andrew Halaw): Sounds complicated and paradoxical, but after having passed certain awakening states, only these views makes sense (in that they are able to translate ones new awakening experiences in ways that make sense, or facilitate further growth/transcendence). Then, its no more paradoxical at all. So, if you are so inclined get some nondual experiences, sobre or not, get pretty empty yourself, and see for yourself what you truly really are.... Selling Water by the River

Yes, understand & agree. " the absence of limitation is absolute life, absolute freedom, absolute love, because it includes everything . whoever realizes the absolute is the only one that exists, but his infinity excludes any solitude. there is no other, but as in a game of mirrors, there are infinite perspectives. you cannot understand it in a linear or superficial way". That is beautiful. And the "one" who realizes the Absolute is gone... replaced by the Infinite Totality that was always already the case. The previous separate self is seen through/transcended/emptied out/dead. A functional character remaining, but the separate self gone. Because how could IT be the Infinite Totality when "anything" separate or individual/individuality still arise&moves in it.... That is why some say no one realizes the Absolute, and that there can not be an enlightened person. I use Nothingness in the definition of Andrew Halaw, to contrast it with Nothing. Nothing has a opposite: Something. Nothingness is neither existence nor non-existence. Madhyamaka-style. Neither existing nor non-existing, nor both, nor neither. Infinite. Infinite Consciousness, or the One without a second. But that already says too much "positive" about "It". Andrew Halaw in "God is Nothingness": "This book is about Nothingness, the great Void of the holy sages, not to be confused with the nothing of the ordinary person. Silence. A blank page or space in a book. A shout. Slapping the table or thumping the floor. These are all expressions of the ineffable truth that is theuniversal nature of reality. Since there is no way to directly capture the highest truth with language, all we can do is point to it. And “Nothingness” is the best verbal pointer that I have found." In the beginning, there was only Nothing. Now there is only Nothing. In the end, there will be only Nothing. There always was, is, and only ever will be Nothing. God is Nothingness Christ is Nothingness Buddha is Nothingness The Tao is Nothingness Brahman is Nothingness The Absolute is Nothingness Nothingness is neither something nor the common nothing; it is the Great Nothing, the eternal, magnificent, all-encompassing Nothingness that transcends being, yet is the ground from which existence itself arises. In truth, there is only Nothingness, for nothing else ever was. Beings suffer because they do not understand Nothing. Intoxicated by their senses and minds, they chase mirages, construct temples, conduct empty rituals, pursue wealth and status, believing that there is something —meaning, purpose, salvation— to attain. Fools are slaves to their senses and thoughts, caught in the snare of form and desire, unaware that all things arise from Nothingness, abide as Nothingness, and return to Nothingness. For nothing has ever happened. Existence and appearance are flashes of Nothingness superimposed upon Nothingness. There are no beings, no worlds, no minds, no consciousness, no souls, no events, no time, no space, no Buddha, no Christ, no Self, no God. There is only the not-‘that’ That— the Great, Magnificent Void, the womb of all existence. NOTHINGNESS. Bound by neither space nor time, Nothingness is dimension-less, time-less, and form-less. The Void is unborn, unoriginated, unconditioned, and deathless, neither coming nor going, ‘creating’ nor destroying, rewarding nor punishing. It has never set anything in motion nor caused anything to happen. Ultimately, there is only Nothing, which is the final and only truth. Nothingness cannot be seen with eyes, nor heard with ears, tasted with the tongue, smelt with the nose, felt by the body, or known by the mind. Do not look for it with your senses or mind, for the Void is beyond color, sound, smell, taste, touch, form, and thought. Transcend them and realize that you are truly Nothing, that in reality there is only Nothing. Then you are free to dance and play on the waves of Nothingness. " and " Nothingness is not sheer blankness, yet neither is it being-ness the way that we ordinarily understand existence; it is the source and true nature of all beings. This is the “vast emptiness, nothing holy” of Bodhidharma, the legendary founder of Ch’an, Sǒn, and Zen Buddhism. Consciousness is neither present nor absent in Nothingness, for Nothingness is actually the root of consciousness. In truth, there is no such thing as consciousness; there is only Nothingness. Consciousness is instantiated Nothingness, as is all of existence. Frightened dullards, clinging to notions of existence, call Nothingness “nihilism,” unaware that Nothing is the exact opposite of deathly sterility; Non-being is the great womb from which everything arises, abides, and eventually returns. From a Buddhist perspective, “Emptiness is not a negative idea, nor does it mean mere privation, but as it is not in the realm of names and forms, it is called emptiness, or nothingness, or the Void” (Suzuki 60). Sunyata, as Nothingness can be called in Buddhism, or Tao in Taoism, sustains everything, including consciousness. It is the vast, empty void of Non-existence that the Buddha calls Nirvana, meaning “extinction” of all ‘being.’ It is what Nisargadatta Maharaj points to when he speaks of ‘Universal Consciousness’ or what Huang Po calls ‘Mind.’ Nothingness is prior to consciousness, as it is is with all phenomena. This is why Huang Po says, “Mind in itself is not mind” (Blofeld 34), meaning that the mind is truly understood only when its own emptiness is realized. For mind is Nothingness occurring as consciousness. When this is properly realized, mind become Mind with a capital “M,” not in the sense that some latent quality has been discovered that it is somehow beyond all conditioning, like some eternal super Consciousness or Witness at the base of our mind; but in the sense that when we realize our own universality as Nothingness, we awaken to our own unlimited nature. This is what sages mean when they talk about “primordial consciousness”; it is the realization that our minds transcend beingness alone, by extending into the core nor Non-being, into Nothingness itself. The mind, in effect, is simultaneously limitless (transcendent) and viscerally present (immanent). Hence, Nisargadatta calls it “Universal Consciousness” to express the insight into the universal Nothingness of our minds. Nothingness creates, supports, animates, and eventually recalls everything, yet is not bound to any single thing. It is the stars, but not limited to them. It is the earth and all of its inhabitants, but is not confined to them. Nothingness is the true nature of all existence. The Buddha, the Awakened One, is also called Tathata, meaning, “One who has arrived at suchness,” suchness being another term for the ineffable, mysterious reality of Nonbeing, sunyata, or Nothingness. We have risen from Nothingness, and to Nothingness we shall return. Therefore, ultimately there is no movement or nothing that ever happens, for everything is in fact Nothingness. “That which is before you is it, in all its fullness, utterly complete” (37). And yet the world continues to change and transform; the seasons come and go; people are born, grow old and die. Nothing changes and yet everything happens. Divinity expresses itself as an acorn, a mustard seed, a lump of coal. Humans, including their toils and vices, are all manifestations of the wondrous Nothingness. “Nothing[ness] is the inexhaustible, suprasensible power underlying all finite beings,” “the emptiness from which all beings are forged” (Chen 90, 92). Nothingness sings as birds, sighs as the wind, breathes as humans, and knows as mind. Once this is realized, there is nothing to worry about, for everything is an expression of Nothing. As the seminal Buddhist scripture, the Heart Sutra, says, “Form is Emptiness; Emptiness is Form.” Your truest nature is Nothingness. Mind and consciousness are in fact Nothingness. This is why Ch’an Master Linji called the Enlightened being a “person of no rank,” someone who can come and go freely. “No rank” means no fixed limitation, free and vast as the sky, bound by neither ‘being’ nor even Non-being. This is the infinite Nothingness of the sages. " and, maybe most important, Appendex I: Nothingness (Infinite Consciousness) has the potential for sentience/awareness, to have awareness arise if an "object"-arising happens. Or perceptions perceiving themselves, with our without separate-self arisings. So it is not Nothing, like in nothing at all. But infinite potential + potential for sentience of "that". See also Benthinos Water-Pistol emerging/manifested in an infinite empty vastness. " Appendix I Some readers may be wondering why I say that awareness is not the Absolute, despite the fact that so many ancient scriptures and eminent teachers say that they are identical. For instance, Nisargadatta taught that consciousness is rooted in (and therefore limited to) the physical human form, while awareness transcended the individual body and was actually the Absolute—that everything is Universal Consciousness. This is more of an instructive approach than a philosophical commitment. If pressed as to whether the Absolute is awareness or not, I would say, like Huang Po did, that, “Mind is not mind, yet neither is it no-mind.” In Nothingness, there is some degree of awareness present—it is not how most people imagine brain death—albeit unconditioned, object- and subjectless. The Consciousness (for lack of a better word) of Non-being is so subtle that the moment we try to reflect upon it to check if we are conscious, we are jarred back into ‘being’ and into our ordinary dualistic consciousness. I hesitate even to call this experience “pure subjectivity,” for that invites a metaphysical position that I am not willing to support. In the end, to paraphrase Socrates, all that I know is Nothing. This Consciousness has shed all of the characteristics that people normally identify with awareness, such as perspective, spatial and temporal contexts, objects, ownership, etc. Yet, if there were no awareness, then it would be impossible to differentiate the numinous Nothingness from how people conventionally conceive of blankness or being comatose. Personally, I think that differentiating between Nothingness and consciousness is helpful, and that is my ultimate goal—to help people realize Non-being or Absolute Consciousness. At that point, I can care less whether people call it Nothingness, God, Brahman, Buddha Nature, One Mind, Universal Consciousness, or a kangaroo. Names at that point, after the Absolute has been realized, are insignificant. " Since this is the first thread I started myself, I allow myself the liberty to blow it up with a waaaay to long ramling like the one above. Hope nobody minds... Selling Water by the River