Search the Community

Before narcissists come in to confuse you on purpose, first here is what is meant when people explain only consciousness exists (no subject and object): "Not only is pure knowing or awareness itself the primary element of mind; it is the only substance present in mind. It is easy to check this in experience. All that is or could ever be known is experience, and all there is to experience is the knowing of it – in fact, not the knowing ‘of it’, because we never encounter an ‘it’ independent of knowing. All there is to ‘it’ is the experience of knowing. In other words, we never know anything other than knowing. All there is to experience is knowing. There is no object that is known and no subject that knows it. There is just knowing. And what is it that knows that there is knowing? Only that which knows can know knowing. Therefore, only knowing knows knowing. That is, awareness or consciousness is all that is ever known or experienced, and it is awareness or consciousness that is knowing or experiencing itself. Thus, the only substance present in experience is awareness. Awareness is not simply the ultimate reality of experience; it is the only reality of experience." It isn't that existence is not happening in a subject and object manner, but that both are fundamentally the same exactly as per that quote. In certain transcendental states of mind, the nothing that is pure consciousness becomes dissociated from the thingness which is any appearance. You can then know nothingness, and know that nothingness is, bizarrely, something which exists. Without those things, there is nothingness, but nothingness is what you are right now, because you identify yourself most strongly (I assume) with pure consciousness alone, that is what most people are afraid will be destroyed in death. But of course, how could you ever destroy nothingness? It's invincible, untouchable, doesn't need a creator, yadda yadda. In other transcendental states experience and self merge like that realization that subject and object are one. I barely remember clearly enough to convey it, because I have not used drugs in a long time.

"Sartre notes that human consciousness is always conscious of something else. However human consciousness itself is really nothingness. So without something to be conscious of, our consciousness cannot exist as it defines itself with respect to the things which it is conscious of." When you say "I" you are referring to human consciousness, and thus to what is inherently nothing. But you would probably say consciousness does exist, and there you find an existent nothingness.

The bold claim of nothing is happening is never as good as the “bold claim” of __________ __ _______________ which is nowhere near as good as . By the way, no one likely has a decent idea of what nothing is without “experiencing” fruition/cessation. “Fruition (phala in Pali) is the fruit of all the meditator’s hard work, the first attainment of ultimate reality, emptiness, nirvana, nibbana, ultimate potential, or whatever extrapolative and relatively inaccurate name you wish to call something utterly non-sensate. In this non-state, there is absolutely no time, no space, no reference point, no experience, no mind, no consciousness, no awareness, no background, no foreground, no nothingness, no somethingness, no body, no this, no that, no unity, no duality, and no anything else. “Reality” stops cold and then reappears. Thus, this is impossible to comprehend, as it goes completely and utterly beyond the rational mind and the universe. In “external time” (if we were observing the meditator) this stage typically lasts only an instant (though the question of “duration” will be addressed below). It is like an utter discontinuity of the space-time continuum with nothing in the unfindable gap, exactly like what happens when someone edits out a frame or sequence of frames of a movie. It is not that you see a blank screen for a while where they edited the frames out, instead that part of the movie is just not there.” -From Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha written by Daniel Ingram https://www.mctb.org/mctb2/table-of-contents/part-iv-insight/30-the-progress-of-insight/15-fruition/ “This world, Kaccana, for the most part depends upon a duality—upon the notion of existence and the notion of nonexistence. But for one who sees the origin of the world as it really is with correct wisdom, there is no notion of nonexistence in regard to the world. And for one who sees the cessation of the world as it really is with correct wisdom, there is no notion of existence in regard to the world.” -The Buddha In the Diamond Sutta, the Buddha discusses neither existence nor nonexistence. Following this will get you far closer to “the prize” than using plain dualities such as something vs. nothing or existence vs. nonexistence. The truth is something none of those words do any justice to what “really is” and trap those who cling to one duality vs. the other. I encourage you to listen to this Diamond Sutta audiobook: It has been incredibly helpful for me. This Sutta was spoken by the Buddha while teaching his disciple about how to become a Buddha.

@Phoenix11 The name certainly is, but it’s pointing to the truth. Although I prefer the word ‘nothingness’.

If you become aware of your nature after doing some of this work for a couple of years, do you keep doing self inquiry? for example, when I ask "what am I?", I know that I'm nothingness because I had this reference experience. I also have feelings/ direct experience of nirvana/bliss on a daily bases just being by myself in meditation Do I keep doing self-inquiry? When I ask that question of what am I , God is also an answer but I just hope it is not coming from a belief. Thanks

I have tried 10 gr dried shrooms with fresh lemon and dark chocolate. Trip last 20 hours. It wasnt madness, it was straight to source, nothingness. Felt like billlon of years passed away. Took away my all emotions. I felt like i went to before big bang and come back. Be very careful. If you are not ready surrender everything dont do it.

Yep. It happened after a retreat, at a friends house. 4 pufs and I "died", pure varm, loving void. Nothingness forever. Until "I" came back. I saw my ego freak out while it happened. But that was the first time I saw the real me and the "unreal" me, seperated.

God is Infinity is Nothingness is Love self/ego/me/i is the mechanism of segregation/separation and the deluded negation of God Then renunciation of self is the highest embodiment of God Buddhism is the highest form of renounciation

Okay I have a few questions. 1. Why do you equate infinity with nothingness? 2. Why do you think the word "I" is a mechanism of separation? Isn't it just the word that God or infinity uses to express that it exists? 3. What is so special about God denying that it exists? To me that sounds like a delusional God. If only God exists then it is appropriate for God to say "Only I exist". It would be false for God to say "I do not exist".

There is no self, it is an illusion. reality is a limitless void pretending to be something. apparent reality and infinite nothingness are the same. yes yes, all this is the starting point of spirituality. being able to see every moment the illusion of reality is a big step. everything is illusion. but obviously there is more. It is not that the ego wants to find something and all that, it is that it is evident. you are, and you are in unlimited depth, void source of love, sacred plenitude. say: there is nothing, I am already enlightened. stop fooling yourself, there's nothing. all of this sounds like you are stuck, that there is a part of you unable to open up.

This is because you think your ego is God. God is the term for what all of your self lies on top of, "all of your self" being absolutely anything that is any thing at all. Your desires, wants, actions, creations, imagined objects, those things are appearing to "God". Because they are things. And God is the source of the things, being the total literal nothingness that is awareness when you strip all of its contents away from it. You aren't controlling what appears IMO. It seems God cannot NOT create. You actually cannot stop random thoughts and emotions and other things, if you do it's like anaesthetic, which for all intents and purposes doesn't happen because the "gap" is never experienced. Only continuous out of control chaotic neverending creation.

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.

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

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?

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?

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

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 ?

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