Search the Community

I just finished the LP course a few days ago. I have been thinking about this moment for quite a while as I started this course more then 2 years ago. Not that I get all the missing answers here but maybe some advice from more experienced folks who are already living their LP. I am 25 now and I live in germany. I have got inattentive adhd which made many things very difficult for me like concentration, dealing with emotions and social problems which indirectly also made other things difficult like finding study partners or getting help with emotional distress difficult. So basically I was always an emotional mess/ overtaxed/ semi depressed while getting nothing done and not understanding what was wrong with me. As a result I had difficulties answering many questions in the life purpose course because I experienced relatively little concrete success so far because I couldnt really take part in life as much. I feel like I have got as close to it as what would be possible with my blockades but I feel like the very thing that is my LP is something I cant see right now. I take meds now and it seems like many things are clearing up rapidly but and I do make quite the transformation. I feel more capable but not necessarily upgraded. The stars become less interesting and I see more immediate tasks ahead. I become a lot more concrete instead of abstract. Thats the best way I can describe it. I seem to manifest myself in reality. I was always very reflected and stuff but was like a wave without its own will it can force onto the world. I develop a sense of self now. It sounds pretty unconscious I know and I made the point myself that adhd (at least the inattentive type that I experience) makes you more conscious. But in taking my meds I can deal with reality at least. If I got emotional support/ grounding maybe I could do it without meds but currently I can only do it this way. So this situation is quite confusing atm. In terms of my career so far: teaching: I am in 10th semester of studying math and philosophy for middle school but only have enough points to complete like 4 semesters (you need 10 semesters in total) because of the emotional distress I was always in. I could probably do better with the meds now so it really isnt hopeless. I decided to study teaching though because I did some internship to see what I like and teaching was okay for a moment and I couldnt deal with the pain of being in a situation of uncertainty so I did the best thing I found at the moment which wasn't the most conscious choice. Also there is a bit of buffer as with this graduation I can do other things as well. Teaching isnt directly my Life Purpose I am pretty sure about that. But I would earn a lot of money per hour, can do it part time, have a lot of holidays and a class in school gives you many direct information to observe which can inspire you. A school class is basically a mirror of society, all the kids are just mini versions of what's to come. So that can help me understand society and psychology more which would deepen whatever I create with my LP. I already thought a little and am also teaching 5 hours per week atm and it's an okay job. So it wouldnt be my LP but it would have a good base to comfortable pursue my real LP. acting: Over the last two years I have been doing a lot of acting as a hobby which is a lot of fun but it took a lot of time and I am also thinking about doing this as a career path. It would give me a relatively unstable base though and it would probably just miss my LP. Learning to act itself is incredible fun but it can also be emotionally challenging which I might not be capable to do. My Life Purpose is generally a bit unclear to me. Being a critical thinker is very much part of my authentic self and I have also got a very creative mind because of my adhd. On their own or even combined they dont really give me a life purpose that I find meaningful. For example I always think critically but I dont see where this practically leads to. And I often come up with new start up ideas because as I love the creative process but when it isnt connected to something meaningful I loose interest in it. The closest I could with these two is working on series like Rick&Morty which comes close to feeling like a LP. But I think there is a last component, a last value that is blocked from my mind. Besides these top two values I also care about empathy, goodness, authenticity, but not enough about any of them to make a LP in combination with the two about them I think. I sometimes look in my past to where the last puzzle piece might be. I developed a very profound even mystical happiness as a kid as I think that I had mystical experiences in kindergarden. I really vibed with Jesus in that time as well. I felt like it would virtually be impossible to break my spirit because I was connected to something unbreakable. I even felt like I needed to go through some real shit, to be lost, to come out of it and from that place be authentically able to help other people. I had a feeling of calling back then. Well I am not quite back to my inner garden of roses yet. I did about 20 trips of psychedelics and never realized a mystical experience because I was in too much shit mentally I think. (interestingly never had a really bad trip either though) I formulated my LP rather vague. I couldnt find any formulation that deeply inspired because as I said I think there is some authentic part of me missing. Taking my reflection about my past and moments of reflection I feel like it has to do with healing, bliss, profound love, existential (healing), spirituality. But I cant completely make out if these things interest me because I feel like I have a lack of them (negative motivation) or if it is authentic. To make my LP more concrete I could reformulate it like this for example (but I am not sure about it): - giving people blissful spiritual experiences to make them more loving and conscious. - finding existential beauty and meaning in fucked up situations to make people more hopeful So with all of this I have no clear direction of where to go and I found out new things about myself/ unblock blockades and this is probably going on for months and years to come. All ways would help me move forwards. If I study to become a teacher that would be an acceptable path which would allow me to do lots of other stuff (LP) I am interested in as well but then I could never study to become a serious actor because I would be too old at this point. I would need to become more clear about myself and my values to see what I value most. A side thought is also to experiment with start ups (for money) as I have lots of ideas for them. Right now I am thinking of continue studying while giving myself time to process and I can on the side apply to acting schools. Chances of getting accepted are pretty low anyways and if I get accepted that would be a sign that I am quite talented. Design ohne Titel.pdf

Hey y'all This is going to be my new journal on my new account. I left the old acc because I didn't like my username. Let me introduce myself first. My name is Sincerity and I'm from Poland. [image removed] ^ This is me! I'm currently ??? years old. I'm admittedly young but I hope you can see me beyond my age, for what I am I've been on this forum for more than 3 years and until now I've (kinda) held my identity a secret. But lately I've had some realizations in regard to expressing myself more honestly and yeah. Here I am, being more open with you. Now you have a slightly better idea of who's behind the account. (Edit: Ironic haha. But it has to be this way. Everything ends.) I've been on the spiritual path for roughly 4-5 years now and I feel like I've had much progress. I definitely have many insights to share. But I'm still pretty much a beginner and I'm on the journey along with you. Try to keep up, because I feel like I'm growing pretty fast (this year has been insane for me so far, seriously!) I've been mulling over my important values for years and this is where I stand right now: I am primarily about goodness. I am about love. I am about bliss, wisdom, appreciation, responsibility, sincerity, curiosity, discipline and humility. I also really value humor and laughter. You might notice I'm often tongue-in-cheek in my posts I don't like posting very frequently and I'm still not sure what I will even be posting here but tell you what, it's going to come from a place of sincerity Love and have a great day ❤️

I get the sense that he’s not that awake. He’s done discussions where people directly asked him if everything is consciousness and he usually gives a waffling answer where he talks about chitta as pure consciousness, but referring to it as a state of consciousness and not what reality is. Maybe Sadhguru has awakened to some facets but not others. I think he’s probably awakened deeply into the bliss facet, but I’m not sure about what else. And his mind is filled with Hindu beliefs.

I had this dream. And I know saying "I had this dream" already makes it sound smaller than it was, but I don't know how else to start. Time wasn't working the way it normally does. I kept jumping, different places, different realities, different scenarios, but none of it felt chaotic. It was more like flipping through channels except each channel was a whole life, a whole world, and somehow I was present in all of them without being lost in any of them. And the weird thing is what stayed consistent. Not me exactly, but consciousness. Like the screen that all the channels were playing on. It wasn't mine but it also wasn't separate from me. I can't really explain that part without it sounding like a contradiction. And then I ended up in this room. It was enormous. Square but with this dome ceiling, and the feeling of it was like being inside a massive spacecraft or some kind of chamber that was built for a very specific purpose. And at the far end of the room there was just the edge. The edge of everything. Like if the universe had a shoreline, I was standing near it. Above me in the dome there were two people. A man and a woman. They felt like guides, astronauts is actually the best word because they had that kind of calm technical competence, like people who do extraordinary things for a living and aren't dramatic about it. They were composed. Professional in a way that felt sacred rather than clinical. I told them what I wanted. I was surprisingly clear about it. I said I want to become conscious of reality as it actually is. That was the whole intention. Just that. To look over the edge. To see what's there. And so they helped me. There was something in the dome, it wasn't really a thing, it didn't have a name or a clear shape, but they guided me toward it and helped me put my head into it. Or through it. Like a threshold that had no door. And then, as I stuck my head through this threshold above me like sticking your head through a hole in the ceiling, instantly I became conscious of the nature of reality, there is only the godhead, infinite consciousness. There was absolutely nothing, it is eternal, it's what they're always is and forever will be, it felt extremely familiar as though I was remembering myself, but there is nothing there not even me, only the light of God. Time is imaginary and where I thought my head was now became the infinite godhead, it was pure Bliss it was pure love it was pure heaven. This is the dream that I had. I explained this dream using Claude AI to help me write it out in a more clear manner without losing the essence of what happened and I wanted to share with you without making it such a ramble. And the words fana alfana came to me in the morning.

@Leo Gura I have had awakenings from psychedelics. But this one was extremely profound. There was only eternity, pure consciousness. Imagine your head is the entire universe. Literally my head was holding the entire fucking universe! It wasn't a cold empty nothingness, it was a full void of eternal bliss and love. It was an absolute embrace of everything. There is only this. And my life is a forgetting of what is but not separate from it

Sadhguru is actually a good example of this. He has had some degree of awakening, but his ability to explain it is very limited. He presents awakening as an experience of bliss if he ever explains it at all. Most of his teachings are more “your life is your karma” type stuff. And Sadhguru is probably an ISTP. It’s obvious he isn’t an INTJ or INTP as he’s not intellectual— even anti-intellectual. I think part of why his awakening doesn’t reach the depth of Leo’s is because of personality type.

IMO masturbation isn't *truly* sexually satisfying yourself, because you're still having sex with an external source, ie your mind / imagination. To sexually satisfy yourself means to raise kundalini and transmute sexual energy into spiritual bliss.

If you just want to quickly know weather this theory is useless bullshit or not, I suggest you jump to "Structures and phenomenons through the ontomodal lens" below. Edit feb 4: Some insights about existence and emptiness in this post are outdated. Sunyata/ nirvana is Amodal/Transmodal can can not be archieved through any mode of existence. Any talk about unimodality being more enlightened or something is bullshit. Initially, i wanted to get my threory to a point where it is free of inconsistencies, holes etc. before posting. What i’ve now realized, is that getting to this point might take a very long time. The problem with this is, that witholding my thoughts about the theory just has the effect, that everyone on this forum who is ready to seriously consider it (@oOo @Joshe, etc.) is denied the possibility to already start to properly contemplate it. So this is why I’m posting all of my unfinished notes. Last night I think I’ve discovered three more modes: will/creativity-sensitive (Schopenhauer has entered the chat. This might be where passion orientation comes from), whole/ holism-sensitive (Leo, Ken Wilber, Schlegel? wip name: holoconic) and beauty/aestetics-sensitive. Edit feb 4th: Beauty is omnimodal I think. I called Will-existence Volonic and whole-existence Holonic (Random insight: self-harm behaviour is a symptom of modally disaligned beings who engage in the phenoendonic, will sensitive modes of existence in order to feel like they exist again. (through affirming (free) will and subjective experience). See how practical it is?) Edit: I think I found another one: Openness. Beings who are open love the unexpected and the suprise. They are the comedians. They don't care if what they think is objectively or socially or symbolically true, because for them only the absurd is true. (Rings some bells?). Their metaphysics is: Reality is a suprise. Reality is absurdity. Reality is contradiction. Reality is paradox. So it seems the strange loop, etc. is again just another mode of existence. (I'm not downplaying). This means, that "reality is logical and orderly" (hyloexonic) and "reality is paradox" are both valid lenses. Edit feb 4th: I called it Paraonic Naming and Integrating those into my notes would just cause me to stall sharing my thoughts again. This model seems to be an extension of spinozas metaphysics, which is encouraging since spinoza was based af. I'm struggeling to describe this model neutrally, because a lot of language has ontomodal biases. For example I realized that "a being engages in a mode of self" has a will-sensitive bias. "Embody" has a hyloexogenic bias. So its tough. But also exiting. Also the word "sensitive" has a phenoendonic bias lol. I think this explains the batshit insane language philosophers of ontology invent. I might have to do the same. UNFINISHED NOTES I invented ontomodal theory of the absolute, ontomodal mind theory, ontomodal throry of substance (OMM) on February 2nd. It is currently in its infancy and all of the terms are not fixed yet. OMM is a unifying theory that bridges the gaps between the natural sciences, humanties, theoretical philosophy, ontology and spirituality. (Before gta 6) It seems to be the crown jewel of all tools regarding self-actualization. It is the fundemental reason why self-actualization is so multidisciplinary and why supposedly niche subjects like ontology play such a big role in it. What is OMM? Since I want this to be a legit ontological theory, the beginning will be painfully abstract like every good ontological theory. However this model is extremely practical and really shines with examples and I have a ton prepared (they are further down). So just hang in there… OMM claims, that emptiness (sunyata), existence, non-existance (all three: emexnex) are arising from three modes of consciousness (edit feb 4: Sunyata arises from absence of any modes) - Hyloexonic, existence stems from object engagement (in simple terms: Object=Love) - Phenoendonic, existence stems from subject engagement (in simple terms: Subject=Love) - Semiosynconic, existence stems from symbolic engagement (in simple terms: Symbol=Love) This means, that for any entity, it’s state of emexnex can be explained with the three modes on consciousness. These modes are genetically encoded in every human with different prevalences. The rest of the terms - Ahyloexonic, non-existence stems from object engagement (in simple terms: Object=unhappy) - Aphenoendonic, non-existence stems from subject engagement (in simple terms: Subject=unhappy) - Asemiosynconic, non-existence stems from symbolic engagement (in simple terms: Symbol=unhappy) - unimodal, refers to “only one mode” - bimodal, refers to “only two modes” - Omnimodal, refers to “all three modes” - modally aligned being: being that is affirming of it’s ontomodal profile - modally disaligned being: being, that is not affirming of it’s ontomodal profile According to OMN, the fundamental purpose of self-actualization and also of the universe, is to increase modal alignment. There seems to be no other valid definition of the term "purpose". (This sentence is itself written from a semiosynconic perspective) ------- Strict Definitions (?) - Hyloexonic, mode of reality that is object affirming - Phenoendonic, mode of reality that is subject affirming - Semiosynconic, mode of reality that is symbol affirming quick and sloppy explaination of the names: hylo=matter, exo=external Pheno=phenomenon, sensation, endo=internal semio=symbol, syn=together, con=icon (semio and icon might be a bit redundant but it sounds better than semiosynic and it is convenient that all of them end with "onic" and have similar stress patterns (? tf I'm new to inventing words so I might be talking shit. Is kinda fun though)) Random insights - Dead matter is empty - existence is the base for love, non-exisence is the base for fear. Are you ready to torture your brain? An entity that engages in non-emptiness is a being. Out of the engagement in non-emptiness, engagement in existance and in non-existance arise The genetic code define the ontomodal profile of the being. A being that exists is a self and a being that is non-existent is a no-self. The more unimodally aligned the being, the more empty, existent and the less non-existent it is. The more unimodally disaligned the being, the more empty and non-existent it is, but the less existent it is. The more polymodally aligned the being, the more existent it is but the less empty and less non-existent it is. The more polymodally disaligned the being, the more non-existent it is and the less empty and existent it is. (edit feb 4th all of this after "are you ready..." is outdated) It seems like the words positive, good, etc trace back to ontomodal alignment and the words negative, bad etc trace back to ontomodal disalignment (?) ------- Structures and phenomenons through the ontomodal lens (old names, since “noetics” carries a phenoendonic bias. The new names are above under “strict definitions”. Btw, realize that this theory is the ultimate anti-bias tool?) The ontomodal theory of the absolute is a powerhouse for explaining different facets of all sorts of structures. An overview: Hylonoetics tend to care about something is * Phenonoetics tend to care about what something feels like Semionoetics tend to care about what something means Below are a couple of examples. *objectively not ontologically. In future when I'm talking about ontomodality, I will try to use "is" as the ontological is and "is objectively" as the hyloexonic is. This leads to an interestinf insight: Every being of each mode has different interpretations of the word "is", which makes sense, because each have diffenent notions of being. God Hylonoetic: What is god? Theology: God is an object seperate from me that I can analyze and debate. There exist statements that are true about god and and statements that are false about god. There exists a proof of gods existence. I can philosophize about God. pheno-hylonoetic: What is god experience? Mysticism: God lies in experience. This experience is definable and archievable through systematic analyzing, practice and contemplation. phenonoetic: How does God feel like? Spirituality: God is inside of me but inpersonal. God is experience. I can find them in my subjective experience when I’m meditating. Semionoetic: What does God mean? Belief: God is telling me which social rules to submit to. God is defining what I am. I connect with people over my beliefs. I can never question my beliefs since my beliefs are my existence so questioning would equate to suicide. I’m okay with this. I gain enourmous pleasure from my beliefs and my confidence in them. I know that my beliefs are real since the people close to me have the same beliefs. This is how I define the word real. It is pysically impossible to me to consider any other definiton. hylo-semionoetic: How can the symbol god reach as many people as possible? Religious institutionalism:God is a container for social symbols/rules and I can systematically build or help organize social groups and institutions to promote them. pheno-semionoetic: What does my personal god make me feel? Bhakti Yoga: I have a deep personal relationship with god. They guide me like a loving parent. They make me feel fuzzy feelings in my body. God is love. Yes you red that right I just used OMN to reverse engineer most of religion lol Metaphysics Hylonoetic: What is reality (made of)? Materialism: Me and reality is object. Pheno-Hylonoetic: What is reality from the subjective standpoint? Idealism. I’m analyzing my mind through the subjective lens and conclude my mind is reality. Phenonoetic: How do I feel about reality? Phenomenology. I’m just looking at my raw experience and conclude experience is reality. Semionoetic: What does reality mean? Mythology. I’m listening to people around me and read stories that contain symbolism and conclude whatever they are talking about is reality. Socializing Hylonoetic: I like to exchange information with other people. I don’t see them as people, because the term “person” implies that an entity has some symbolic meaning and I can’t grasp that. I tend to analyze social structures as if they were objective and fail bc they are symbolic, not objective. Since we are both object and there is no existance outside of object, to me, we are one. Phenonoetic: When I’m in the presence of someone, it is impossible for me not to empathize with this person. I don’t see them as people but as feeling entities. There is no difference between what I feel and what they feel and because for me there is no existence outside of feeling, to me, we are one. When someone in my pesence is angry at me or doesn’t like me, It feels to me like dying. Semionoetic: “I love to socialize with other people” is an understatement. Without socializing, I don’t exist. I physically cannot grasp the possibility that I could exist independent of other symbolic beings, since there is no meaning independent of other meanings. When I socialize with other semionoetics, the main objective is always that we are both affirming that we exist symbolically (in the semiotic matrix). Since there is no existance outside of symbol, to me, we are one. Asemionoetic people confuse me and make me angry. When I’m talking to them they behave so asymbolic towards me that I don’t know who I am anymore. It is as if they don’t see me as a person and it’s sickening. I don’t get affirmed in my symbolic identity at all. Therefore spending time with them is like slowly commiting suicide. I avoid them like the plague. When someone in my close scoial circle is asemiotic, I suffer greatly. Career Family Love giftedness Low intelligence Political identity (PI) Example woman Hylonoetic: What IS this PI? Biology: What is a woman biolocially? Phenonoetic: What does PI feel like? Wokeness: How do woman feel in this society, how are they treated? Semionoetic: What does it mean to be PI? Tradition: How is a woman supposed to behave? Hygiene (lol) Hylonoetic: I don’t care to shower, I just want to think. For me, redicule and the sense of smell of me and of others is not part of existence. Therefore it does not make sense to me to do hygiene. Phenonoetic: Hygiene is important to me bc I like to smell good and feel good. Semionoetic: Hygiene is important to me bc I learned it from my parents through symbolic comunication. Spiral dynamics Hylonoetic: I’m most comfortable with stage orange and stage yellow. Phenonoetic: I’m most comfortable with stage green and stage turquoise. Seminoetic: I’m most comfortable with stage purple and stage blue. I definetly need a diagram at some point. Is someone here good with diagrams?😅 Personality disorders (experimental) objective-subjective-SP spectrum: I can’t develop borderline since my existance does not rely on my relationship with other people. Object-SP: When traumatized and with the right disposition, I delude myself and develop narcissism. Since my existence is based in objective truth, my delusions are far more extreme than for SBSPs since I have to affirm and rationalize them way more. If I’m gifted on top of that, I can be responsible to the biggest most intricate delusional systems, institutions, organizations, social groups, families that are completely unbelievable that they’re real. Object-SP/Subject-SP: Exact same as Object-SPs but I tend to build cults. SJSP: I can not develop Narcisissm.... ------- Examples Examples of people (estimates) * Leo Gura: Strong hylonoetic, moderate phenonoetic. Very low Semionoetic. * Carl Jung: Textbook Omninoetic. * Jordan Peterson: Strong hylo-semionoetic, very low phenonoetic. * Oppressive CEO types (Jeff bezos, Trump, Elon musk, etc): Strong semio-hylonoetics. Very low phenonoetics. * Mr Beast: Very strong hylonoetic, moderate semionoetic, low phenonoetic. Careers Fields of study Random insights (extra messy) - Everything that is not hylo-semionoetic is intuition. - reason and logic are hylo-semionoetic. - Zionism is extremely semionoetic - Love: The word Love has a strong pheno-semiotic bias. However fundamentally, Love is the state of non seperatedness and pure existance. Therefore everything that is unoetic is love and everything that is binoetic or omninoetic is not. That also means that Love has "three flavours". This is why people who are dominant in different modes have fundamentally differen lovelanguages and in most cases, cannot possibly fall in love. - Human. The more you mix the different modes of existance, the less pure your existance becomes and with that, the more human you are. Here comes a banger get ready: - (Duality of) being (non-existence vs existence) is perpetuated by the conflics among the three unoetics and between the emptyness (sunyata) arising from unoetics and Duality of being - Stangeloop detected! Existence is the duality of being and non being and being is the duality of existence and non existence - noetic bliss (perfectlily modally aligned) - Everything that exists arises out of the contradictions between the three modes of existence and existence itself. The closer you move towards unoetics, the closer you move towards non-existence and the further you move from unoetics the further you go towards existence. - For semionoetic people, the things that very asemionoetic people do often seem meaningless. That's because for very asemionoetic people, meaning and purpose are not graspable modes of existence. This is why the special interests of hylonoetic people can seem so niche and meaningless at times. But they don't care. They are physically unable to worry about leading a meaningless life. - The model does not assume a qualitative difference between - life and death - Human, non-human lifforms and matter - Existance is defined with noetic alignment which is completely seperate from the term "life" and non-existence is defined through noetic disalignment and is completely seperate from the term "death". The claim is there can be no definition of (non)existence outside of the noetic modes. - The term "noetic disalignment" can be quated with the term "human". Notice that with that definition, zooanimals are more human than tribespeople - for a pure hyloexonic person, mind and tribe does not exist, only matter. For a pure phenoendonic person, only mind exist and matter, tribe do not. For a purely semiosynconic person, … - Jordan Peterson is not afraid of stage green bc he is stupid. He is afraid bc he is not phenoendonic enough ——— Different archetypes explained through the Omnimodal neotics Model (keep in mind a lot of this is experimental since the model is in its infancy) * Non-Existence: If you are neither hylo- nor pheno- nor semioneotic, than you literally have never and will never exist. There is no existence outside of these three axes. They describe all possible modes of existance. "Existance" can only ever be defined in relation to them. * Matter: If you are maxxed out hyloneotic and nothing else than you are literal dead matter (that was never alife like a). * Dead person: (read this in a vibrato voice) The moment you die, you become 100% semio-hyloneotic. You only exist as a symbolic entity (soul) floating as a part of the world soul and as rotting matter. Your existence can partly be recovered, for example when a very speciallized tracker inspects your corpse, a shaman is reaching you by accessing the realm of the dead in the world soul or a tribalist could recover some of your semioneotic activity while you were alive through reenachment and conserve it, so you continue to live as a semioneotic fragment of culture, etc. (It was kinda spooky writing this but it lowkey makes total sense) * Enlightened Being: Enlightenment is pure existence. Each of the noetic modes interfere with the other which means that only an unoetic being (just one noetic mode) can reach permanent full enlightenment. (This is why you automatically drop out of enlightenment as soon as you use language bc it is hylo-semioneotic and therefore not pure). The three kinds of enlightenment are per definition at the same time one and the same (existance=existance) and also the most uncomparable modes of existance possible (hyloneotic existance≠phenonoetic existance≠semionoetic existance). If one is multipolar, the best way for an individual to archieve enlightenment is by suppressing the weakest two modes. However this can only be temporary since every one of your noetic modes comes loaded with the need to engange in that mode of existance. * Animal: The animal kingdom has similar architypes and even similar prevalences of each modes as the human population but with less intelligence. This means there is no qualitative difference between a human and an animal. * Shaman: People who are extremely Pheno- and Semionoetic are the ones who are constantly dreaming of imagery and symbols. Even during daytime. They are the kinds of shamans who dream of prophecies and access the ralm of the dead. They are extremely in tune with their unconscious since it communicates through subtle phenomena and symbolism. (This explains my extreme lack of success in lucid dreaming, dream journaling, symbolic painting, etc. since I'm very Asemionoetic) * Cave Yogi: If you are extremely phenonoetic, then you are painfully conscious of god ALL THE TIME with no effort. You are unable to live a normal life. All you want is to go into a cave alone and admire god until you die a mahasamadhi. (You are the penguin heading towads the mountains) * Tribalist: If you are extremely semionoetic, you are completely one with your tribe. For you there is no you outside your tribe. This means you are enlightend but in a peculiar and interdependent way. For you there is no existance outside of loyalty, which means betraying or being abandoned by your tribe would be the exact same thing (worse actually) as dying for you and you can do literally nothing about that fact. You are also extremely sensitive and knowledgable of the precise identity and tradition of your tribe. You are tasked with conserving it's identity through enacting traditions and there is no one who could do it better than you. (I kinda feel a lot more hopeful and positive about conservatives after writing this) * Mystic: A Mystic is someone who is phenonoemic enough to grasp the significance of god, and they're desperately clenching for god counsciousness but their love for hylo-semionoetic intellectualizing is always in the way to fully reach it. Their versatility is their downfall. Their highest life purpose is it to lead true unoetics the way to a treasure which they cannot posess. * (Aboriginal) Tracker: Language itself is semionoetic with elements of hyloneotics. Learning Language both requires understanding social symbols and hyloneotic pattern recognition. This explains why extremely autistic people (very asemioneotic) struggle with language even if they have great pattern recognition. So if they can't use language, what would an extremely asemio-, hyloneotic person be good at? I think if they are unintelligent they would feel most comfortable building simple repetitive things for example. Things like arrows. If they are intelligent, their pattern recognition would be off the charts and they would be able to read a lot of information from land about the weather, fertility, game etc. I think they would excel at geoguessr for example. So if they can't think, then what is in their head? I think they literally walk around with a perfectly empty cup all the time but they are so Aphenonoetic that they still can't sense god even though they have the perfect conditions otherwise. However this still means they're enlightened but just more in the way a rock is enlightened than a guru. * Capitalist: If you are extremely hylo-semiotic, than you thrive by creating and organizing social structures like institutions etc. A company with it’s logo and organization of workforce is a text-book example for an extremely hylo-semiotic structure. Notice that it is possible to build a company with zero phononoetic elements. If you are zero phenonoetic you are completely unaware of how you feel. When this is the case, you are dependent of a phenonoetic person in your life to monitor and nurture you. A company with zero phenonoetic elements almost certainly has horrendous working conditions.

@Leo Gura Your blog has been a goldmine of wisdom which is becoming deeper and deeper. Regarding the blog post that women cannot satisfy men it breaks the illusion of single men like me that attracting a relationship would be an eternal bliss like a sharp scissor that is used to cut clothes. I remember that once I was contemplating - What is the most wisest way to live life ? and one of the insights among many was that - Only I can fulfill myself. Thanks.

Thanks everyone for the suggestions! One thing I would like to add is that although my sickness hasnt got better, it somehow feels more satisfying lol. its just kind of cozy to exist like this. I barely have any energy so I cant really think a lot. Prehaps thinking happiness has to be energetic, explosive and painless is a limited perspective in itself. Maybe there is some way I can enjoy pain and maintain bliss during pain.(not in a machoistic way)

Crown awakening : The Absolute . No self and no creation. Third eye awakening : Boundless consciousness. Self creation and world creation. "Solipsism." Heart awakening : Unconditional love and bliss, integration of the masculine and feminine.

I agree, I'm just giving general advice. That's too advanced for most people. When I'm feeling open I just sit to bliss out in samadhi. Thoughts or no thoughts are irrelevant at that point, I'm too conscious for that game.

Here is my ER visit report from when I had my second solipsistic awakening, March 2019. I became so conscious of the nature of mind that I literally convinced myself that I was dying. Hell, I was so dead that I realized there was nobody that could die, and therefore I need to prevent myself from dying a death that is impossible to die. Suffice to say, when they finally admitted me and laid me on the hospital bed, I DID die on the hospital bed, in pure bliss, to the nature of what God is. The nurse who took care of me, though, was judgemental and clueless, convincing me that I was wasting valuable resources and being a burden to her. So I stayed quiet. Conformed. Shut my mouth. I was too afraid to tell them the truth, out of being shamed. But you know what? They probably wouldn't be able to handle it anyway. Imagine me telling that nurse, "you're wrong. I'm not wasting your time. I'm not a drug addict. I'm GOD realized." Honestly, I have no idea how they'd respond, but I ultimately let them gaslight me into thinking I'm an idiot. And then the doctor diagnosed me with anxiety disorder. CORRUPTION!

This makes no sense. The whole Buddhism idea is to stop hoping from body to body and be in bliss forever. I am not saying necessarily that Buddhism is true, but it does make more sense than what you said(no offense).

Obviously it affects my survival, it does the same to you if you are really serious about this work. And it especially affects your survival if you have a strong masculine personality. Why do we say: Ignorance is bliss?

Here are some lyrical highlights from the first song. “A seemingly endless thought and emotion weaving webs of Maya. In effort to find Comfort sacrificing the very Cosmic In the blossoming of this Being lies the Source.” Weaving webs of Maya is a similar idea to Leo’s crocodile of self-deception. Maya will trap you in its web or drag you into its murky waters, whichever you prefer “Life has come from a very beautiful source. If you remain in touch with that source, Everything about you shall be beautiful.” This is a nice way of putting spirituality in terms of beauty. There is love, there is truth, there is void, there is bliss, and there is beauty. Reality is absolute beauty.

@Judy2 I shoukd find one. Therapy didn't work for me in the past but I suspect it would if I found a specialist. Went from nondual bliss to everything is fucked again real quick.

I largely resonate with your description of the social matrix, and I think naming it explicitly is one of the few honest moves left. And certainly the human self is not a philosophical error. It is an astoundingly effective evolutionary construction, forged to bind individuals into coherent, self-sacrificing collectives. It is deeply engraved in our nervous systems, reinforced hormonally, both affectively, and symbolically. Calling this an “illusion” is sloppy at best and evasive at worst. Where you and I still diverge is what liberation actually consists of, and therefore what is meant by “breaking conditioning.” You describe transcendence as the breaking of attachment structures that are cellular, genetic, and therefore real. I concur with your insistence that this cannot be done by belief, reframing, or spiritual cosplay. However I suggest there is a subtle misidentification happening when attachment itself is treated as the chain that must be broken. Attachment is not the core issue here. Compulsion is. More precisely: the unconscious identification with attachment. The organism will by nature attach. It will always orient, prefer, avoid, bond, and protect. That’s not something that disappears and nor should it. Liberation refers not to the erasure of such dynamics but to the collapse of the structure that takes them to define what one truly is. This is where the “nothing left” framing both points in the right direction and then overshoots. Sure, liberation is expensive. And yes it involves the exhaustion of avoidance rather than its transcendence. But what is exhausted is not attachment per se; it is the need for attachment to function as one's self-definition. When that need collapses, attachment remains but without the existential pressure that once made it compulsory. That difference is key. You wrote: if you drop success, sex, relationship, meaning then the system grabs “God,” “pure consciousness,” or some metaphysical substitute. I agree. That is exactly what the self does since it must have something to aim at. But that substitution will take place provided the self-structure remains intact. What you find collapses in genuine liberation is not content, but centrality. The organism keeps functioning. Preferences remain. Pain still hurts. Fear still mobilizes. Social instincts still fire. But there is no longer a psychological center that asserts: “This has to go a certain way for me to be on track.” And this is where I propose your claim “there is no method” is both true and misleading. There is no method that the self can use to free itself, because any method becomes self-reinforcement. Perfect. This does not mean nothing happens. What happens in this case is a progressive failure of avoidance strategies (emotional, cognitive, spiritual), until the system can no longer maintain the fiction of internal division. I don't call this a technique. But it is definitely a process. And it doesn’t look like bliss, detachment, or saintliness. It is more akin to radical psychological transparency, where fear is felt as fear, attachment as attachment, grief as grief, all the while without being recruited into a narrative of identity management. This is the reason cheap spirituality is so addictive. It offers relief without disintegration. It soothes the system while preserving the core structure intact. Netflix and chill with incense anyone? But the alternative is not annihilation or being “left with nothing” in the nihilistic sense. What endures is a functioning organism without an internal civil war and without the constant friction of defending an identity against its own experience. So when I continue to claim that suffering is not structurally inevitable, I’m not denying genetics, evolution, or conditioning. I’m pointing to something more exact: Pain is inevitable. Reaction is inevitable. Attachment is inevitable. But suffering demands identification, namely the conversion of experience into a threat to what one takes oneself to be. When that conversion stops, nothing magical happens. The world doesn’t become a theme park. The briefcase still lurks. But experience no longer fractures the system internally. This is not escapism. It’s not transcendence as fantasy. It’s not becoming an earthworm. It’s just a human system that no longer has to protect itself from itself. And, yes indeed, that only happens when avoidance is utterly exhausted. On that, you and I see eye to eye.

Unless you are in a constant state of bliss, ego death, rapture, terror, no control, no past, no future, you are in identification with your illusory ego, so you might as well start treating it nice.

I love Adi Da, for me he's one of the greatest, I have two pictures of him and have part of his art as wallpaper in my phone. I've watched countless of videos of him, meditated with his darshans and I'm reading the Aletheon. It's just a matter of fact that none of the people who lived with him on the island have become incredibly Awake beings and teachers that have continued their tradition, the apparition of such beings is like a shooting star. I understand Adi Da and also see why it's so hard to make the bridge towards his state of realisation. Listen what Adi Da says: Let there be... Bliss Aware... Consciousness itself...

I feel its sorta how a bad mindset often gets amplified and leads to a amplified psychedelic experience, but sooner or later you can always surrender, breathe, let go and peace abounds and eternal lightness and bliss consumes you you. I feel its just out-dated and misunderstood phrases and terminology.

I don’t know that. Maybe we had different levels. But “Infinite Love” is the closest description of that experience with words I can think of. Maybe some alternatives would be Eternal Bliss, Samadhi, Pure Oneness.

While y’all are arguing about Ralston, I’m sitting on my couch contemplating reality, self, and mind. Ralston seems like a good guy, but Ralston cannot awaken you. Idolatry is a distraction. Every person on the planet carries truth and falsehood in their worldview. Everyone. Including myself. I’ve been wrong about many things I thought I was right about. Nobody is above me nor you. Is Love just an animal emotion? No. You aren’t getting it because for an animal to have any emotion whatsoever requires Love to make that happen. Love is Connection, Unity, Oneness that contains within itself division and separation. But you couldn’t have division/separation without Unity in the first place. Love isn’t the same thing as happy bliss. Love also includes evil. Love is a tick on your nuts.

I asked Gemini exactly this Why is it practically impossible to achieve a higher state of consciousness ? The answer is extraordinary ” It can certainly feel "practically impossible" to achieve or maintain a higher state of consciousness. This difficulty isn't just a lack of willpower; it is rooted in how our biology, psychology, and even the "software" of our culture are designed. The "impossibility" you're feeling usually comes from three main friction points: 1. The Evolutionary "Survival" Filter From a biological perspective, your brain is not designed for enlightenment; it is designed for survival. • The Default Mode Network (DMN): This is a specific network in your brain responsible for "self-referential" thought—thinking about your past, worrying about your future, and maintaining your ego. Evolution prioritized the DMN because a creature that is constantly "on guard" and planning is more likely to survive than one resting in a state of pure, non-dual bliss. • Sensory Gating: Your brain constantly filters out 99% of reality so you aren't overwhelmed. A "higher state" often involves lowering these filters, which the brain perceives as a threat to its ability to focus on immediate needs (like hunger or safety). 2. The Paradox of the "Egoic" Effort The biggest psychological hurdle is often described as a "Catch-22." • The "I" Problem: Usually, when we try to reach a higher state, there is an "I" that wants to get there. But most higher states of consciousness are defined by the absence of that self-centered "I." • The Trap of Seeking: If you are "seeking" peace, you are inherently declaring that you do not have it. This creates a state of tension and "becoming" that keeps you anchored in ordinary, grasping consciousness. You cannot use the ego to kill the ego; it’s like trying to lift yourself up by your own bootstraps. 3. Cultural and Social "Gravity" We live in a world built for "ordinary" consciousness. • Constant Stimulation: Modern life is an endless loop of dopamine hits (social media, notifications, productivity goals). This keeps the nervous system in a state of high arousal, making the stillness required for expanded states feel physically painful or "boring." • Lack of Infrastructure: In some historical cultures, seeking higher states was a full-time social role (monks, ascetics). Today, most people try to fit "higher consciousness" into a 20-minute window between a commute and a work meeting, which is like trying to run a marathon without training. Is it actually impossible? In many traditions, the shift isn't seen as "achieving" something new, but rather removing the obstacles to what is already there. It feels impossible because we try to add a higher state to our lives, when it’s actually about subtracting the habits and noise that block it. “ What is your opinion ?

I’m thinking of trying to be conscious all day, every day. When I was 17-18, I started to meditate every day. The most hardcore thing I did was sitting for 4 hours perfectly still without moving, staring at a dot on the wall. The results I got from daily meditation were amazing. For example, when I was hanging out with people, I could tap in any time and feel bliss. Now I’m at a point in my life where I could start focusing on that again, but the problem is that I don't have time to sit for 4 hours every day staring at a wall. So I started thinking of ideas on how to get those same benefits with active work and free time. The answer is to practice being conscious while doing things. First, I tried eliminating literally all distractions (phone, anything) and focusing on my breath as much as I can. I switched my phone and work PC wallpaper to remind me about focusing on my breath. I had my Apple Watch vibrate every 10 minutes to remind me to focus on my breath. But now I want to try something else than focusing on my breath. What could it be? I’m thinking of body awareness. Focusing on the whole body could be very hard, so maybe I should pick one spot? Buy a bracelet and focus on the sensation on my skin? Something else? I would love to hear your thoughts on all this and maybe get ideas on what to do, also feel free to share your experience doing similar stuff. You can critique me harshly and ask hard questions, I have very thick skin.