Search the Community

What you're trying to refer to is actual nothingness, that can be found for real, no BULLSHIT cope. The human mind is all "things" like thoughts and sights and emotions.

I've noticed that DURING very intense "mystical experiences", thoughts stop entirely, such that you aren't interpreting what's happening. It's just happening, period. I've found generally that if there is any thought it is more instinctive feelings like maybe a fixation about not breathing. In the past I've had ideas like trying some Buddhist type chanting while smoking DMT. And I find that as it hits more and more I start finding it very difficult to continue chanting and then eventually just go "hmm......." and fall totally silent. Surely all heavy breakthrough trips are thematically the same when there is ego death etc. But then when back, we all necessarily interpret that experience. Probably why Buddhist and Hindu sages teach different "truths" despite surely having gone through the same experience. Every person like Leo is communicating interpretation, because you can't communicate experience (like you can't make a blind person see red). Most interpretations diverge into being very similar. But I do wonder if any interpretation can be accurate... I experienced emptiness first hand (where I became literally nothing - think like, being an eye trying to see itself, but the eye isn't even made of anything), and also the experience where the self vanishes entirely and there is only experience, and I can see how this could be interpreted as the self not existing, not just being substantially made of nothingness... Experiences are absolutely true in terms of the fact they are happening (and even a "false" experience IS an experience which is happening), and I know with intense clarity what I experienced and what things are certainly true. But how does one be certain that the thoughts which kick in after the fact are accurate?

Lol ? I still think it's a word game ? yes I can say poo is eternal because energy is eternal. E=mc^2. Nothing ever dies. Everything is energy and that energy is god. Everything is god. Nothing ever dies. Energy never dissapears it just changes form. And the energy itself is always eternal. That way it make sense. To me this is just a wording problem. I feel buddhists are talking about the same thing just in a different language and I wanted to fight for their side a little bit to leverage the field i find your criticism of budhhism to be a bit unfair sometimes. To me "I am nothing" and "I am everything" means exacly the same thing. Edit. Nothingness is also energy. A primordial energy. Everything is energy. Everything is god. Everything is eternal.

@Leo Gura That's nice. I get this actually. Yeah it's true. It's true. I agree with everything you sayed I forgot what we're debating about ? The only thing I would put it differently is the wording. I wouldn't call changing impermenant reality - eternal. By definition it doesn't make sense to me. "Every moment is eternal even if it is fluid" yeah but it is nothingness that is eternal not the dancing energy. Dancing energy is temporary. That would be my only difference in percepective. Edit. And yes dancing energy is also nothingness because it comes from nothingness. And are of the same nature. It is one. But somehow it is not eternal. Because by definition if it is changing it is impermenant and not eternal.

No, there is an important insight you're missing here that I am communicating. And what I am saying does not contradict the highest teachers/teachings. You have been told by the best teachers that form = formlessness. You just lack the direct experience necessary to properly understand the teachers/teachings. Yeah, I know your position. And I am telling you that's an incomplete realization. A dog taking a shit on the sidewalk is essential to what you are. It's crucial that you see Yourself and the Absolute in that shitting dog. That is the whole point of spirituality! Again, you are holding a subtle duality here between Nothingness vs somethingness & change. To truly realize Nothingness is to realize that Nothingness is ever-changing Everythingness. The entire Creation is Nothingness, even as it is changing. And thereby you have separated yourself and God from change. Your position is silly because you say You/God are everything, except change is something "other" that has nothing to do with you. You ARE change. God is change. Nothingness is change.

@Leo Gura So maybe it's a matter of wording? Perhaps you're using the word absolute in the different meaning then most teachers. I believe nothingness is absolute, and never changing and perfect. Everything else is a flux. It comes from nothingness. The source of all things is nothingness. Thus changeful reality is not essential to what I am. Because when change happens in my essential nature nothing ever happens. Nothing ever happens to nothingness. Even if the entire creation would cease, nothingness would remain the same, thus it's absolute and changful reality is temporary and not essential to me. This makes sense to me at least.

What about the argument that if my hand dissapear I'm still here, witnessing my hand dissapearing? Wouldn't that prove that I'm much more then just the hand? Yes hand is a manifestation of consciouness but it's perhaps not the essence of what I am. All things that can perish are not essential to my being. So yes, everything is one, but not everything is eternal. Only nothingness is eternal and absolute and never changes and has no states or levels. And I am that. Other things are temporary, transient, has levels and what not and are still me, but not essentially. That's how I would frame it at least. Edit. Manifest and unmanifest. One is eternal another is temporary. Both are me. Yet one is essential another is not so. Thus, saying I'm nothing that is bound by time is quite appropriate imo.

You can't be aware of awareness directly became awareness is absolute literal nothingness. You have to use sensory input as a mirror to reflect back at what's observing them. Then you find nothingness.

If you really believed that you don't exist, then how would such a question come to your mind? When you cease to exist, everything becomes or turns to nothingness.

I found this paragraph tickled my philosophical bone. The core of the problem that you point out is really the question about what existence actually is. Is existence what Leo calls "direct experience" and nothing more than that? Or is existence an imagined continuity whereby the world carries on with or without your observation of it? Can both be possibly true at the same time? Direct experience is exactly what it says on the tin. Only things which are directly experienced can be said to be absolutely true, everything else is just good guesswork. So why is it then that when you directly re-experience that football hurtling towards you, it is in the place you expect it to be? Why is the world is consistent and hangs together following certain trajectories and laws? Unity. Everything is entangled with everything else. Above all the world seeks to be as highly correlated with itself as possible. The world in one sense is perfection, which means that there are no glitches or gaps, it's like the water in a river filling all the available space. When you stop observing, the whole of existence conspires to conserve the existence of what you just observed, so that it doesn't just disappear into nothingness. It's like a kind of hologram, everything is encoded everywhere into the surface of the glass plate of idealism. The sofa you're sitting is on is spread throughout the whole of existence: existence has a memory of its own. The existence of the sofa is intertwined with the existence of everything else, this is what creates persistence and consistency. That's because everything is a unity and there are no boundaries separating one thing from anything else. Peace and love ?

Hi Leo, Hi everyone, I have been consuming your stuff for some time by now. I was actually wondering whether it would be worth the time here to write a lengthy comment. I really do think that many of your non-esoteric teachings on your channel are quite valuable and courageously unconventional. And I also think that we should develop ourselves, and grow and refine our consciousnesses. That is good stuff, I appreciate it! From what I know I think that you are amongst the top league of Youtube high consciousness content providers. And I pull off my hat for that fact that you put it out for free. Props for doing that! But! With all due respect, Leo, in what follows I do not intend to adulate you, since that would be rather boring and not provide for a good discussion. I would like to share my overall critique of your teachings. And since other people also find the way you teach as somewhat aggressive, I say „If you dish it out, you have to be able to take it.‟ ;-) I myself like to be outright and outspoken, so to me it is not such a big problem. My critique is not all-encompassing. I did not watch every single of your videos. But a good chunk of it. Don’t let being as good as you are delude you into believing that you are infallible (you not rarely sound as of you believe yourself to be that). In every of your videos I have to more or less frown at several points due to the flawed reasoning that you display, or I notice points where you contradict yourself, even to things that you mentioned minutes ago in the same video (I could cite examples if you are interested, but they are not my main point here). Well, that is all okay, we all make mistakes and err from time to time. Yet I would not expect such mistakes of someone who thinks he is „god‟ (even the way you define that catchword)… It also sometimes seems to me that you wish to maintain a kind of „aura of enlightenment‟. You address too little self-doubt in your videos. Because you have to. Since if you would admit your doubts or occasional mistakes your teachings would not be as well received anymore (more on that later). Overall I get the impression that you – thanks to all the personal development and study you have done – have grown a huge, even somewhat arrogant and overbearing, spiritual ego. I miss humility a bit. This calling-yourself-god stuff is probably the most ludicrous outgrowth of it. From the way you speak I get the impression that you regard yourself as highly spiritually advanced, but that does not make you being exempt from ordinary manners. Straight away, I think it would be honest if you would just admit that you are just some guy, a human being of material form with quite some clever insights into life and the world, but whose spiritual pursuit is at odds with materialist science. As to that topic: What made me very curious, and what for the sake of transparency I think everyone of us needs to know, is why you did not react to this guy’s invitation to discuss with him, which you yourself wanted to do. Were you afraid? Was that one of your egoic defense mechanisms, afraid of transparency? Of course, materialist science is your natural enemy, that is why bringing it into disrepute is part of your agenda. Polemically imitating your manner I can just as well say that: „that is all it is… a spiritual ego that tries to defend its own spiritual deceptions.‟ I myself come from a Buddhist background, but was thankfully able to outgrow that stuff. That, to my experience, not many spiritual people seem capable or willing (I guess: most probably capable, but not willing) of performing. But why? Since we are at the topic: Why don’t you have a look at Early Buddhism? I see all your spirituality as a piecing-together and blending of old brahmanic teachings with new age hippy stuff, making it your own kind of cult. From what I have seen you are completely oblivious to Early Buddhism, which would wipe out your beliefs about non-dualism, god, nothingness as god.. Anyway, I know what it is like. I do meditate, I went on meditation retreats, I used to believe in reincarnation, enlightenment, karma, non-material realms – the whole gamut. I was married to the spirituality for many years. So… I kind of know my craft. But my „spiritual ego‟ was not able to defend itself against the rough honesty of existential, materialist nihilism. Are you afraid of that? Now, I know you well enough, you will probably say that I am deluded and don’t see the full picture, and so on. And what I reply to that is that you are not honest enough to see through your own spiritual craving. You deliberately picked out a form of spirituality that suited you and now take any bias to reinforce it. I know that one problem about giving up long-cherished beliefs is losing one’s face. It was quite embarrassing for me to reveal to my social environment at some point that I had renounced my faith in the teachings of the Buddha. Since before for years I had been talking to people a lot about Buddhist philosophy and occasionally even tried to encourage other people to look at Buddhist teachings and win them over and so on, then at some point you having to admit that I found out that I was wrong and misguided was not all-too pleasant. And it was emotionally inconvenient as well. Since Buddhist spirituality guided my world-view and gave me purpose and direction, and then I had to realize that I was naked in the cold... Let us face the facts: I guess that in your situation it would be far more unpleasant, since you have created a huge identity around being „the spiritual guy‟ („god‟, that is...) along with even a long-standing Youtube channel were you have been delivering that stuff to the whole planet for a decade. If then at some point you have to realize that you were completely mistaken, admitting that would get you into big trouble. What is more: that would feed the trolls for years to come. So in a sense you are imprisoned by now. You have invested so much into it that you now have to stick to that stuff, since contradicting it by now would be a huge mess. If you ask me, I would nonetheless encourage you to take that step …but I know how the ego works. ;-) And when I now say that, I would not be surprised if spiritual people will try to ridicule me or come up with some clever paradoxical spiritual nonsense, or be ultra-loving (to show my non-compassion) or whatever ...since I „do not understand the spiritual complexity and succumb to the ego mechanisms‟ yada yada yada… the usual thought-terminating clichés, those knockout arguments which you in turn reproach the opposite side (the materialists) for, but generously commit yourself, and which, if you were able to let go of them, would enable you to see through your fallacies. „You see? You guys have spiritual egos trying to defend themselves. That’s all it is.‟ Frankly, if you ask me than you can go and buy yourself a scoop of ice cream for the great „insights‟ that you had while under the influence of hallucinogenics. Of course you can always claim that there is stuff that is not accessible to the rational mind. For obvious reasons: claiming that is a survival strategy. The rational mind is the natural enemy to your ridiculous beliefs. So for those beliefs to be able to survive, they need to delude people into thinking that there was anything that is not accessible to the rational mind... "You see? The ego trying to defend itself" ^^ If you were honest and careful in your arguments than you would admit that all that probably shows is that the brain seems to be able to perform fancy stuff while under the influence of drugs. Apply Occam’s Razor, for a change. There is no need to get spiritual about it. But if you go about it with the preconceived notion of non-duality, enlightenment, emptiness, and all that stuff, than of course that is what you can experience with drugs, it is just a confirmation bias. That’s all. Just the fact that you, admittedly, can hardly (if at all – which I doubt) gain access to this stuff by non-material ways, that is, by not resorting to a material substance, should show you that what you experience is induced by a material cause, and belongs to the material world only. You yourself once mentioned something along the lines of „trying to achieve these states without hallucinogenics‟ would be „a waste of time‟. But I know the way the cookie crumbles. Your egoic spiritual defense mechanisms will that and come up with fantasy. Why would I deny and fight against spirituality? Because I want to defend my materialist ego? Actually, I would love to live in a world that is mystical, spiritual and somehow endowed with meaning and direction, but I am honest and experienced enough to no longer fall for that lie. I don’t like to kid myself. I would like to see materialism proven wrong, but none of that spiritual stuff convinces me anymore. If your thinking is sharp enough, you notice the fallacies and trick of your mind quite easily. And why should scientists think differently than I do? What agenda should fuel their disenchantment of the world other than the quest for truth? Capitalism, perhaps? Lol. Ego business? How come? In fact, by disenchanting the world science has inflicted on us humans what Freud appropriately has called „narcissistic injuries‟. Narcissistic injuries neither serve capitalism nor the ego. They were simply inevitable with the progress of science. What spirituality (as a backlash, so to speak) has been trying to do is to re-enchant the world. But since science is so good, spirituality these days has to resort to especially tricky things and esoteric reasoning, that are often, say, of epistemological nature and cannot be downright falsified. So then if anyone tries to attack that spirituality, these attacks are suffocated and ridiculed, thereby using the same defense mechanisms that you are blaming the materialists for using them. You will, for instance, call materialists narrow-minded, or say that science has an ego is just trying to maintain itself by putting down spirituality. If you ask me, that is what you are doing. Science is just disenchanting the world with the gloves off. I am not in the least bit intimidated by your teachings, if that is what you think. What worse could the world get than what science has turned it into? To use one of your favourite phrases: „Stop bullshitting yourself!‟. In addition to that, I don’t know if you have ever noticed Leo, but what I personally don’t like about the way you teach is that you blurt some of your theories, for instance your series about the mechanisms of survival, as if you have realized something of ingenious brilliance and crazy significance, while in fact most people with some common sense or decent education are able to understand and are half-aware of this stuff, anyway. When I watched that episode I was literally just bored of it, even anticipating correctly what was to come. But you proclaim that stuff as if you speak from some kind of higher plane of existence. In your episode „Is gender a social construct‟ you ask something like: Where in the nature you find gender? And that nature does not now any such categories. Well, that is a good point. But then again, where in the nature you see your „spiral dynamics‟? Nature does not know such stuff. Would you mind applying that same constructivist skepticism to your own ideas (Spiral Dynamics, in this case), for a change? What I see is just growing complexity amongst society, resulting in people of more complex consciousness, sometimes even more refined consciousness, if you will. But to argue that we are developing along lines of spiral dynamics and categorizing people into stages of spiral dynamics is a coarse generalization. Why is it that some people can embody a range of many stages in one person? Because that same persons spirals through many levels of consciousness in one mind? Anyway, I do miss skepticism of you applied to your own teachings. You like what you teach and don’t bother to apply some skepticism to it, unless it serves your purposes. I think that you are over-confident, especially about your esoteric stuff, and it does not seem to me that you apply double standards, guided by your likes and dislikes. You proclaim your stuff without a shimmer of doubt, as if you were infallible, which I guess is necessarily to convince oneself and others of it. And you do not even shy away from defending your own carnal craving for an intimate relationship with the opposite sex that you mentioned in the episode about „Burning through karma‟ by simply redefining the ancient idea of karma to suit your purposes. Please look up the definition of karma as it is understood in Early Buddhism and recognize that you just like to gerrymander your spiritual ideas to your liking. Just as you like it. Because it serves your purposes. It is all ego business. Again, I think you have some quite valuable and insightful stuff on your channel. But I would like to encourage you to outgrow spirituality. And to stop deluding people. Alright, this shall do for now. I could go into this stuff with more detail, but I would like to hear an initial comment on it first. Best Karl-Heinz

Hi Leo, Hi everyone, I have been consuming your stuff for some time by now. I was actually wondering whether it would be worth the time here to write a lengthy comment. I really do think that many of your non-esoteric teachings on your channel are quite valuable and courageously unconventional. And I also think that we should develop ourselves, and grow and refine our consciousnesses. That is good stuff, I appreciate it! From what I know I think that you are amongst the top league of Youtube high consciousness content providers. And I pull off my hat for that fact that you put it out for free. Props for doing that! But! With all due respect, Leo, in what follows I do not intend to adulate you, since that would be rather boring and not provide for a good discussion. I would like to share my overall critique of your teachings. And since other people also find the way you teach as somewhat aggressive, I say „If you dish it out, you have to be able to take it.‟ ;-) I myself like to be outright and outspoken, so to me it is not such a big problem. My critique is not all-encompassing. I did not watch every single of your videos. But a good chunk of it. Don’t let being as good as you are delude you into believing that you are infallible (you not rarely sound as of you believe yourself to be that). In every of your videos I have to more or less frown at several points due to the flawed reasoning that you display, or I notice points where you contradict yourself, even to things that you mentioned minutes ago in the same video (I could cite examples if you are interested, but they are not my main point here). Well, that is all okay, we all make mistakes and err from time to time. Yet I would not expect such mistakes of someone who thinks he is „god‟ (even the way you define that catchword)… It also sometimes seems to me that you wish to maintain a kind of „aura of enlightenment‟. You address too little self-doubt in your videos. Because you have to. Since if you would admit your doubts or occasional mistakes your teachings would not be as well received anymore (more on that later). Overall I get the impression that you – thanks to all the personal development and study you have done – have grown a huge, even somewhat arrogant and overbearing, spiritual ego. I miss humility a bit. This calling-yourself-god stuff is probably the most ludicrous outgrowth of it. From the way you speak I get the impression that you regard yourself as highly spiritually advanced, but that does not make you being exempt from ordinary manners. Straight away, I think it would be honest if you would just admit that you are just some guy, a human being of material form with quite some clever insights into life and the world, but whose spiritual pursuit is at odds with materialist science. As to that topic: What made me very curious, and what for the sake of transparency I think everyone of us needs to know, is why you did not react to this guy’s invitation to discuss with him, which you yourself wanted to do. Were you afraid? Was that one of your egoic defense mechanisms, afraid of transparency? Of course, materialist science is your natural enemy, that is why bringing it into disrepute is part of your agenda. Polemically imitating your manner I can just as well say that: „that is all it is… a spiritual ego that tries to defend its own spiritual deceptions.‟ I myself come from a Buddhist background, but was thankfully able to outgrow that stuff. That, to my experience, not many spiritual people seem capable or willing (I guess: most probably capable, but not willing) of performing. But why? Since we are at the topic: Why don’t you have a look at Early Buddhism? I see all your spirituality as a piecing-together and blending of old brahmanic teachings with new age hippy stuff, making it your own kind of cult. From what I have seen you are completely oblivious to Early Buddhism, which would wipe out your beliefs about non-dualism, god, nothingness as god.. Anyway, I know what it is like. I do meditate, I went on meditation retreats, I used to believe in reincarnation, enlightenment, karma, non-material realms – the whole gamut. I was married to the spirituality for many years. So… I kind of know my craft. But my „spiritual ego‟ was not able to defend itself against the rough honesty of existential, materialist nihilism. Are you afraid of that? Now, I know you well enough, you will probably say that I am deluded and don’t see the full picture, and so on. And what I reply to that is that you are not honest enough to see through your own spiritual craving. You deliberately picked out a form of spirituality that suited you and now take any bias to reinforce it. I know that one problem about giving up long-cherished beliefs is losing one’s face. It was quite embarrassing for me to reveal to my social environment at some point that I had renounced my faith in the teachings of the Buddha. Since before for years I had been talking to people a lot about Buddhist philosophy and occasionally even tried to encourage other people to look at Buddhist teachings and win them over and so on, then at some point you having to admit that I found out that I was wrong and misguided was not all-too pleasant. And it was emotionally inconvenient as well. Since Buddhist spirituality guided my world-view and gave me purpose and direction, and then I had to realize that I was naked in the cold... Let us face the facts: I guess that in your situation it would be far more unpleasant, since you have created a huge identity around being „the spiritual guy‟ („god‟, that is...) along with even a long-standing Youtube channel were you have been delivering that stuff to the whole planet for a decade. If then at some point you have to realize that you were completely mistaken, admitting that would get you into big trouble. What is more: that would feed the trolls for years to come. So in a sense you are imprisoned by now. You have invested so much into it that you now have to stick to that stuff, since contradicting it by now would be a huge mess. If you ask me, I would nonetheless encourage you to take that step …but I know how the ego works. ;-) And when I now say that, I would not be surprised if spiritual people will try to ridicule me or come up with some clever paradoxical spiritual nonsense, or be ultra-loving (to show my non-compassion) or whatever ...since I „do not understand the spiritual complexity and succumb to the ego mechanisms‟ yada yada yada… the usual thought-terminating clichés, those knockout arguments which you in turn reproach the opposite side (the materialists) for, but generously commit yourself, and which, if you were able to let go of them, would enable you to see through your fallacies. „You see? You guys have spiritual egos trying to defend themselves. That’s all it is.‟ Frankly, if you ask me than you can go and buy yourself a scoop of ice cream for the great „insights‟ that you had while under the influence of hallucinogenics. Of course you can always claim that there is stuff that is not accessible to the rational mind. For obvious reasons: claiming that is a survival strategy. The rational mind is the natural enemy to your ridiculous beliefs. So for those beliefs to be able to survive, they need to delude people into thinking that there was anything that is not accessible to the rational mind... "You see? The ego trying to defend itself" ^^ If you were honest and careful in your arguments than you would admit that all that probably shows is that the brain seems to be able to perform fancy stuff while under the influence of drugs. Apply Occam’s Razor, for a change. There is no need to get spiritual about it. But if you go about it with the preconceived notion of non-duality, enlightenment, emptiness, and all that stuff, than of course that is what you can experience with drugs, it is just a confirmation bias. That’s all. Just the fact that you, admittedly, can hardly (if at all – which I doubt) gain access to this stuff by non-material ways, that is, by not resorting to a material substance, should show you that what you experience is induced by a material cause, and belongs to the material world only. You yourself once mentioned something along the lines of „trying to achieve these states without hallucinogenics‟ would be „a waste of time‟. But I know the way the cookie crumbles. Your egoic spiritual defense mechanisms will that and come up with fantasy. Why would I deny and fight against spirituality? Because I want to defend my materialist ego? Actually, I would love to live in a world that is mystical, spiritual and somehow endowed with meaning and direction, but I am honest and experienced enough to no longer fall for that lie. I don’t like to kid myself. I would like to see materialism proven wrong, but none of that spiritual stuff convinces me anymore. If your thinking is sharp enough, you notice the fallacies and trick of your mind quite easily. And why should scientists think differently than I do? What agenda should fuel their disenchantment of the world other than the quest for truth? Capitalism, perhaps? Lol. Ego business? How come? In fact, by disenchanting the world science has inflicted on us humans what Freud appropriately has called „narcissistic injuries‟. Narcissistic injuries neither serve capitalism nor the ego. They were simply inevitable with the progress of science. What spirituality (as a backlash, so to speak) has been trying to do is to re-enchant the world. But since science is so good, spirituality these days has to resort to especially tricky things and esoteric reasoning, that are often, say, of epistemological nature and cannot be downright falsified. So then if anyone tries to attack that spirituality, these attacks are suffocated and ridiculed, thereby using the same defense mechanisms that you are blaming the materialists for using them. You will, for instance, call materialists narrow-minded, or say that science has an ego is just trying to maintain itself by putting down spirituality. If you ask me, that is what you are doing. Science is just disenchanting the world with the gloves off. I am not in the least bit intimidated by your teachings, if that is what you think. What worse could the world get than what science has turned it into? To use one of your favourite phrases: „Stop bullshitting yourself!‟. In addition to that, I don’t know if you have ever noticed Leo, but what I personally don’t like about the way you teach is that you blurt some of your theories, for instance your series about the mechanisms of survival, as if you have realized something of ingenious brilliance and crazy significance, while in fact most people with some common sense or decent education are able to understand and are half-aware of this stuff, anyway. When I watched that episode I was literally just bored of it, even anticipating correctly what was to come. But you proclaim that stuff as if you speak from some kind of higher plane of existence. In your episode „Is gender a social construct‟ you ask something like: Where in the nature you find gender? And that nature does not now any such categories. Well, that is a good point. But then again, where in the nature you see your „spiral dynamics‟? Nature does not know such stuff. Would you mind applying that same constructivist skepticism to your own ideas (Spiral Dynamics, in this case), for a change? What I see is just growing complexity amongst society, resulting in people of more complex consciousness, sometimes even more refined consciousness, if you will. But to argue that we are developing along lines of spiral dynamics and categorizing people into stages of spiral dynamics is a coarse generalization. Why is it that some people can embody a range of many stages in one person? Because that same persons spirals through many levels of consciousness in one mind? Anyway, I do miss skepticism of you applied to your own teachings. You like what you teach and don’t bother to apply some skepticism to it, unless it serves your purposes. I think that you are over-confident, especially about your esoteric stuff, and it does not seem to me that you apply double standards, guided by your likes and dislikes. You proclaim your stuff without a shimmer of doubt, as if you were infallible, which I guess is necessarily to convince oneself and others of it. And you do not even shy away from defending your own carnal craving for an intimate relationship with the opposite sex that you mentioned in the episode about „Burning through karma‟ by simply redefining the ancient idea of karma to suit your purposes. Please look up the definition of karma as it is understood in Early Buddhism and recognize that you just like to gerrymander your spiritual ideas to your liking. Just as you like it. Because it serves your purposes. It is all ego business. Again, I think you have some quite valuable and insightful stuff on your channel. But I would like to encourage you to outgrow spirituality. And to stop deluding people. Alright, this shall do for now. I could go into this stuff with more detail, but I would like to hear an initial comment on it first. Best Karl-Heinz

So I've been going through what I would call a radical identification awakening. As a result of intense meditation sessions and self-inquiry. The seperate sense of self and doership is completely collapsing.. The veil has completely broken and I'm aware that I'm not the ego.. Who thinks it's doing stuff. I'm not the body or mind. Or the world. The body is seen as the world.. Not me. A complete understanding has occurred that I'm pure present. At the center. What's surrounding the center is none of my business. The body mind and the world. It will unfold naturally as it's always done. But I as pure present nothingness is just a vessel for it. None of it is in my control. This point about control is very important.. Because it leads to the discovery that you are not who you think you are. You think you are separate entity. You are a specific thing. You think you are the doer. You're not. When thoughts arise.. You are not thinking them. When the body moves internally or externally.. You are not moving it. You have as much control over your body as you have over my body.. Zero. If you raise your hand.. You are not doing It. This is important because that means you are not the body.. And you are not the seperate self who is in control. So what are you?

Hello. I recently looked at an old post by Shaun below. Here is a quote from the thread by Leo that I wish to analyze more and how it relates to the problem of mind. So everything is one being and all projection of duality is delusion, and we are all the same being running through infinite selves, experiencing different aspects of God. So God essentially imagines that it subdivides it's own mind in the same way that humans subdivide territories, countries, states, etc. and as a result, there are infinite bubbles of experience, which collapses into ONE bubble of experience that holds infinite experiences or facets of God, as God imagines. Like Leo said, it is like one server that holds all the multiplayer gamers. The same being is looking through the same eyes. From Leo's Perception video, he also compared Consciousness to a sponge and all the bubbles on the sponge as us egos. Here is my issue. When we say God is subdividing itself to experience various aspects of God, I realize that I am imagining all other bubbles of experiences and subdivisions. I know that my human imagination is limited, and I only experience reality from my own direct first person experience right now as typing this message for another aspect of God to read. I am imagining my audience or readers but that does not mean that they do not exist when the Typer of this message right now is focused on typing this message. The Typer and the Reader are the same being from Leo's quote and from non-duality, but what does this actually entail because the only thing I experience in my perceptual bubble is my ego and not any other ego, but yet other egos (even if they are imaginary in nature) still have their own internal world and thoughts (even if they are imagined by nothingness or emptiness, which is the same generator that is creating my thoughts and these words you are reading right now). I know that I am imagining your egos internal world from the Typer's or from r0ckyreed's point of view, and you are actually experiencing your point of view right now and imagining r0ckyreed's. So we have a duality of actuality vs. imagination of the actuality is that Consciousness or God is focused on being the r0ckyreed Typer, which is imagining the Reader (whoever the hell you are). I do not see how this duality can fully collapse because even though the same Being or Consciousness is Typing and Reading this message, there are still differences in experience. For instance, right now in my experience, Consciousness has always been focused on the first experience of the ego of r0ckyreed, a human being, who then is imagining consciousness to also be behind the eyes of other humans that I interact with. Here is the problem. Right now, I see a bed, a drawer, a desk, I am imagining the voices of other humans, and there appears to be only this bubble of experience. But I know that I as God have infinite other bubbles that this bubble of r0ckyreed does not have access to. The bubble of r0ckyreed is imagining r0ckyreed and is imagining all other bubbles. But this does not mean that the perceptual bubble of Leo Gura (even if I am imagining it in the bubble of r0ckyreed) does not exist or any other human that I interact with. Another issue is that what makes a human have a perceptual bubble of experience but not a chair? When I look at other objects that I have been taught to call human, I know that humans are not just objects but also subjects that I believe are located behind the eyes (hence, they have a perceptual bubble that is being imagined by my perceptual bubble, and my perceptual bubble is behind also imagined by my and their perceptual bubble). But a chair, a desk, a table, an apple do not appear to have any internal world or perceptual bubble of experience. I mean where would it be located? With a human being, their soul is the empty nothingness that I experience as being behind their eyes or in their brain. What is having this perceptual bubble of experience? Does a brain also have a perceptual bubble? If it does, then how is it different from a chair or something else that is artificial or even natural? For instance, I can experience cutting up a rats brain and the rat's behaviors changing. I can also suspect that their inner world will also change even if I am imagining it. But what makes a perceptual bubble vs. No perceptual bubble? What makes an object have a mind vs. not having a mind? A dog, turtle, human, whale, shark are what I consider to have minds or internal experiences that I do not have access to but am imagining, while a desk, shoe, toy, iPhone, house, etc. do not have internal experiences or perceptual bubbles. Is it having a nervous system that makes objects have internal experiences, minds, and perceptual bubbles? This seems to be the case; however, what about the consciousness of plants and trees that allegedly do not have nervous systems? I would argue that some plants could have inner worlds or bubbles, but their bubbles are vastly different from the human experience. It is like trying to imagine what an experience of a bat is like from a human perspective. The reason why I think plants could have their own bubbles is because there is evidence that suggests that plants always grow towards the sun. Even when researchers tilt the plant sideways, the plant changes its course of growth to grow sideways to face the sun. See the intelligence of that? How would the plant know to grow sideways to face the sun if there was not some sort of awareness? Let's also tie this into our immune system, nervous system and cells that make up the human body. Our immune systems, cells, etc. have their own intelligence too like a plant. Our immune systems seem to have a consciousness of which cells are "good and bad." It has an intelligence of their own. I think of our cells like plants in that they grow and they die, and they have an intelligence of their own. Our body is like a garden for many bacteria and cells who then also contribute to preserving the life of the garden (body) itself. This runs into a strange loop of if cells, plants, etc. do not have perceptual bubbles of their own, then how do they contribute and give rise to our current perceptual bubble? Without a body, there can be no experience, especially that of an organism. If there can be an experience without a body, then what would the experience be experiencing? These all my thoughts and contemplations so far. Have fun answering these mysteries that I do not think our human minds can ever solve because the finite human mind can never grasp the infinite nature of reality. It may be able to implicitly understand that reality is infinite, but a finite mind cannot become infinite while still living and surviving as a human. To become infinite is to die as the finite self that God is focused on. At least, this is my current perspective right now that I hope will change as I continue to grow (as the plant I am ), and I am open to and encourage all contemplations on these various subjects. Thank you!

Telepathically communicated doesnt ring true, then again I dont know what you mean by it. First years I was just desperate to get into that state of nothingness since I viewes thing thru non dual lense (read Tolle and stuff back then). I kinda forgot about love part, let alone becoming human part and loving others, tought that was just unfortunate mistake that I came back to be me and was obsessed with non duality and tried to tune my experience toward that direction. Then after some years was more on a bliss trip as I had intense kundalini energy going for few years and tought I need to purge all impurities out of me, became very sensitive to everything and everyone. Got obsessed with getting back to that stage of love. Then some years of doing nothing and "purging" went by and I found myself quite burnt out and jaded on suffering. For years now I couldnt have fooled myself with Tolle's kind of views regarding suffering. God was not great nor was everything His will. He was actually very easily stomped on and forgotten, ridiciloud and crusified in suffering others. Scapegoated and killed in order to remain cathartic peace. A lot like in here peoples problems are seen as "so called problems" and their suffering is ridiculed and selfhood scapegoated rather than being a midstop for love to be shared. Growing to see these victim producing, scapegoat reguiring dynamics in world and in myself is whats been pulling me out of self centeredness. Started to see Jesus's story differently too. Dont think he was promoting solely some states of non dual awareness. He obiviously didnt come to be sacrificed to change God's attitude toward human but human attitude toward God. He allowed himself to be scapegoated and crucified to reveal to us that God (love) is complitelly non violent and reguires no sacrifices, revenge or blood. Bringing responsibility of violence projected to will of God back to us. Showing that its God who suffers as human, with human abd among human. And everything we do to for other we so to him. So to say rape is love and everything happening in world is will of God is obivious perversion of love to me. This can only been perverted in this way by stopping to be in relationship with God and claiming Godhood to oneself, assuming that ones own will is God's will. This is envy in essence "I want to become you even if it costs my selfhood". Envy I think is perversion of "I want to follow you and become like you". Anyway, with these things seen im challenged to become the endstop to reactivity and competitive, envious desire that leads to scapegoating, sacrified violence and sacrifice. Dynamics present in myself, forgiven and now challenged to do the same myself to others

No clue what it means for you for it to work. Trip heavily affected and in line with ideas youve heard from Leo before you started tripping? I did it when Leo was still talking about picking up chicks. Complite timeless nothingness without even sensory experience present. Then that void suddenly being filled with deepening love (after that trip I couldnt buy atheistic nor materialistic worldview I had). As that love deepened for what id describe as eternity, suddenly there was tought "I love you" (my girlfriend). After that, in that same deepening ocean of love my sense of self was slowly being built around that love relationship. Now the world came back with its shapes and I saw my room again. Some would say that this was the end of trip and for years I tought that is the case and that the point of spirituality is to get back to such state. Over the years ive started to see and interpret it differently, yes essentially I am a tought of God, an as that tought appeared God started a relationship with me. I dont see such toughts as indifferent attitude as you and so I interpret them differently. Also the trip ending and life continuing with challenges and suffering wasnt only the outcome of trip ending but also that love deepening. With a sole purpose for me to love others. "Love one another as I have loved you". That seems to me infinitely more difficult and revarding as keeping on getting high to try to get rid of myself to become God. Thats like Elon Musk not really digging us grimey hopeless, hard to love people here on earth and planning on moving to mars. So stretching myself daily in service for those in need I rid myself of self centerdness and in relation to those others I become my true self stronger by the day for we are like mirrors to eachother. During Meditation and psychedelic period I had not enought desire to help others, they were illusiory and just blind to how their ego causes all suffering (no communital or relational aspect or any other nuance there). I was just focusing on my experience and awareness expanding. Not finding myself anywhere. Yet I managed to remain very self centered. Giving away my inner peace in order to be present FOR others and serving something bigger than myself like that, serving God in those who are in need feels just expotentially more true to me. That way im not becoming an end stop to love, mercy or forgiveness like when I tought spirituality is about states of realisation but im challenged to pass it on. Forget hell, being challenged to love as ive been loved, thats horrible. Especially if I dont take the easy way out and call this life, others, and our suffering illusory. Ps. And thank you for not preaching. Idk why you tought you were in position to do that anyway even if I was in hights of spiritual perfection like you. Expressing your experience, your views, interpretations and ideas is conplitelly ok and im glad to hear about them. But you speaking with an authority of existence itself? Pfft..

I want to feel calm. I want to feel nothingness.

Update January 21, 2022. 3.30pm. I want to feel calm. I want to feel nothingness. I want to visualize death.

The issue with this topic is that , you don't really know 100% if it is true that there is one God who created it all and that he has revealed himself to different prophets through thousands of years, I would say that there is one Infinite God, which has no limits, but this is not a nothing as in a void or an impersonal nothingness. The bible is a special book and should not be dismissed just with a hand wave, that's pretty arrogant, especially when the actual book goes back thousands of years and it is a red thread in the whole book, God used prophets to communicate and made him self known. God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you’” (Exodus 3:14). Then Jesus comes along and says : Truly, truly, (D)I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never (E)see death.” 52 The Jews said to him, “Now we know that you have a demon! (F)Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet (G)you say, ‘If anyone keeps my word, he will never (H)taste death.’ 53 (I)Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?” 54 Jesus answered, (J)“If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. (K)It is my Father who glorifies me, (L)of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’[a] 55 But (M)you have not known him. (N)I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be (O)a liar (P)like you, but I do know him and I keep his word. 56 (Q)Your father Abraham (R)rejoiced (S)that he would see my day. (T)He saw it and was glad.” 57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”[b] 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, (U) I AM. This God , this I AM , is not some impersonal force, or Brahman , or the Void of nothingness. Its the personal God who : I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. God created ex nihilo, out of nothing, there was not eternal matter or anything else besides God, and neither was the Universe, so this is not panentheism, the universe is contingent if we go the philosophical route, something transcends it and brings it into being. Also one important quote is this from Paul in Romans : Romans 1:20, KJV: "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" How could Jesus see that Abraham rejoiced? When Jesus wasnt born yet, and yet he appeared to Abraham. Also one interesting thing is that, the Christian tradition have produced alot of saints who lay down their life for this cause or did good things in the community. Also check out hesychasm ( to keep stillness ) which the Eastern Orthodox Church used to reach God, it is prayer and a gathering of the mind in order to reach Theosis ( Making Divine ), becoming deified. The Greek and Eastern fathers of the Church is a profound insight into mysticism and theosis, especially the monks of Mount Athos and St Gregory Palamas and Gregory of Nyssa and St Symeon the new theologian and Pseudo-dionysius the areopagite. And you have the desert fathers from egypt and so forth, Christian tradition has it ALL, but I only read the eastern fathers and the orthodox church, the others is not that interesting, but there is some profound Western mystics as well , Nicholas of Cusa , St John of the Cross , St Teresa of Avila etc, and you have one of the greatest philosophers of all time in thr Christian tradition which teachings holds to this day, St Thomas Aquinas. There is a gold mine within the tradition, thats why I recommend the orthodox teachings and the eastern fathers.

infinity can produce one solely this way. first infinity of seperates forms nothingness. 0 = 1-1+2-2+3-3.. and so on and from here we add a 1 to both side 1= 1+1-1+2-2+3-3... then since 2 = 1+1 and -2 = -1-1 we can get 1 = (1-1)+ ((1-1 )+ (1-1)) from the twos and we do that with the threes and we continue doing that into infinity and we get a 1 standing alone out of nothingness and infinity, so yeah, i guess you can say 1 = inifnity if a numerical answer is what you were asking for

I think no-self is when you become nothingness, and understand that everything "you" is a changing appearance just like all appearances, with no static thing to actually grasp whatsoever. It's like an experiential form of neti-neti to literal nothingness. I think you described something like an out of body experience, lost boundary between self and other.

I believe if total disidentification were to happen. In other words, the realization that I'm pure awareness, nothingness dawned in you. Personal identity would collapse. And without identity all thinking would collapse with it. Because identity is the cause of all thinking actually. So to answer the question, if you achieve one, you get the other aswell. if you disidentify from thinking thoughts will stop, and if you stop thinking, disidentification will happen. They kinda go together imo. I would argue that to be the case. Don't know really.

A few days ago I tripped again after taking a very long break from psychedelics. I was afraid to try psychedelics again due to a bad trip I had a year ago where I completely lost touch with reality and put myself in serious danger and ultimately ended up in hospital. I've done a lot of meditation and self development since then and decided to give them a try once again. I took a small 100ug dose of LSD and stayed in my room. I immediately felt intense anxiety due to what happened last time so I went to my room and lay in my bed. The anxiety got extremely intense, my heart started beating very hard and I felt convinced that I was going to die, instead of panicking, I decided to try a technique I learned doing strong determination sitting where I just sat and faced the immense fear head on. What followed was a strong ego death and god realisation experience. I'm still trying to process and integrate the trip at the moment but I wrote down my insights while on the comedown: All my problems stem from an illusory image of myself that isn’t real! It’s all conceptual but made to feel like it’s real using trickery. This illusory self is constantly compared to others and judged. As long as I am identified with this illusory image, I will always feel inadequate and unworthy of love. The illusory image is the root of all my anxiety, social and otherwise. I am love! I am the love which is the underlying being of all of reality! All of reality is just a dream I am having! We fear death because we fear nothingness, however the nothingness is actually love! I am worthy of being loved for just being the way I am! I was raised to believe that I am unworthy in my default state, and I have to change myself and achieve certain goals to be worthy of love. This means I always see myself as never being good enough and I have to be more confident, masculine, intelligent, disciplined, attractive popular etc so that I can be worthy. Our society constantly reinforces this idea which contributes to so much dysfunction. All my efforts to try to somehow try to improve myself so that I can be loved are futile and only serve to reinforce my illusory self. The illusory self can't be loved because it doesn’t exist!! My true self is always worthy of love because it IS love! I am constantly seeking love from the external world. I try and get it in the form of other peoples approval, sex, relationships, success, drugs, social media and all my other addictions. Even my spiritual work is an attempt to get love from some external god or entity in the future. I will never find love as long as I am looking in the material world because I am looking away from myself. All the love I need is in the present moment. Strong determination sitting is extremely effective. It allowed me to push past my fear of death so that I could let go of my illusory self. I’m so much stronger now because of it. My edgy and dark humour is an unconscious mechanism to maintain a part of my ego which feels like an outcast and a freak born from past experiences. I keep using messed up humour to reinforce my outcast ego and pessimistic worldview. This dark humour is detrimental as it keeps me from connecting with others. Its sort of like an unconscious way of pushing people away from me so I can maintain my ego identity as an outcast or freak.

You mean "being" as opposed to "knowing" right? I know that nothingness cannot be known or observed except by being it. I find I can verbalize it, though.

It's actually not, because a "mirror" exists as form. You have to use form as a mirror to find that what is perceiving the forms is literally nothingness. You perceive nothing by BEING it. It's the only way nothingness can be experienced, by using the presence of somethingness.