Who Wants Actualized Psychedelic Retreats?

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, zurew said:

This is where hopefully your clarification comes, because I think that is how a good chunk of the "nondual" people used the term here and hence why the objections.

If by absolute truth you mean a truth that is depended on a particular state of consciousness, then that sounds like a very unique way to use the term. This is why its useful to give your semantics sometimes.

I am not talking about truth, I am talking about Consciousness. Consciousness cannot be reduced to what you regard as "Absolute Truth".

You are falling into the trap of reductionism.

[UnbornTao]

12 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I am saying that what you consider true enlightenment is just a weak form of consciousness, obstructing a much great form of consciousness.

But hey, suit yourself.

If you have convinced yourself that you have maxed out your consciousness, God himself can't help you.

I don't think that. What I'm saying is that the way enlightenment is used refers to becoming absolutely conscious. So there's really no "greater" "weaker," or "beyond"  as far as the absolute goes, because it isn't relative. Those terms describe relative distinctions that don't apply to the absolute - even though one might be more deeply conscious of it, it's still absolutely true.

So again, from the way I use the word, it's a matter of semantics. Exchange the term enlightenment for God-realization, and it's no different. Ramana was "God-realized."

[UnbornTao]

12 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

You are not conscious that Ramana is a fiction.

Weak relative to what you could be conscious of.

You keep resorting to that when it suits you.

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, zurew said:

We could also use the statement "There are levels of consciousness" or "Everything is consciousness" and you wouldnt want to subject those statements to any particular level/state of consciousness

I am saying something which is beyond anything words can capture.

I am saying you are missing consciousness of God.

If you ask me, "But how can you be so sure?" The answer is, you won't understand until you become conscious of God as deeply as I have.

Sorry that it sounds unfair or arrogant, but I can't do anything about that. I can't make it fair. You just need more consciousness. This isn't a philosophy debate about intellectual merits or logic. You are just lacking consciousness and no amount of explanation can give it to you.

That's why I am planning these retreats, because only the chemical can show you what is lacking.

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, UnbornTao said:

You keep resorting to that when it suits you.

Everything is a fiction. That's what God is.

[Leo Gura]

13 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

I don't think that. What I'm saying is that the way enlightenment is used refers to becoming absolutely conscious. So there's really no "greater" "weaker," or "beyond"  as far as the absolute goes, because it isn't relative. 

This is false. What you call "absolutely conscious" is still a low degree of consciousness even though it is absolute.

That is not a contradiction. All states of consciousness are absolute, even the low ones. That doesn't mean you are seriously conscious.

Consciousness of the Absolute is easy. I am pointing beyond that. And yes, there is a beyond.

Quote

So again, from the way I use the word, it's a matter of semantics. Exchange the term enlightenment for God-realization, and it's no different. Ramana was "God-realized."

No. This is not about sematics or language. Enlightenment is low consciousness. Period. Higher consciousness exists. You are missing this consciousness. Which is why I keep pointing to it. If I didn't point to it none of you would know it exists.

I am pointing to something which nobody knows exists.

For example, nobody here knows that Alien Consciousness exists.

Edited 18 hours ago by Leo Gura

[zurew]

48 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I am not talking about truth, I am talking about Consciousness. Consciousness cannot be reduced to what you regard as "Absolute Truth".

You are falling into the trap of reductionism.

I dont know what it means to 'reduce Consciousness to my notion of Absolute Truth'.

Again this goes back to what I said about the difference between uttering statements while being in a particular state of consciousness vs a particular state of consciousness is determining/making true a particular statement.

So all im saying is that for instance "Consciousness is Absolute" that statement isn't true because it is made from God's level 9999 level of consciousness , that statement is true regardless what level of consciousness it is made from, because the truth value of that sentence isnt made true by  any particular state of consciousness.

Or in other words - 'not beind depended on a particular level of consciousness' just means that It is a truth which is true across all levels/states of consciousness.

 

All of what Im saying is compatible with your leveled ontology. Levels can change certain truth, but necessarily not all truth, because the truth of the existence of the levels itself is depended on what im saying.

Edited 18 hours ago by zurew

[UnbornTao]

The bitch of it all is that consciousness ain't a state.

Hence the conflation.

@Leo Gura - you may not be as awake as you think. You keep bringing up your drug of choice and associating the trip with "Awakening," which makes me think you're still referring to experience and perceptive phenomena. There might be a fundamental blunder in there. That's probably the genesis of the "sober" narrative. You're literally denigrating truth into a drug high. You really think the Absolute is accessed through a change in physiology.

You know, Ralston, Ramana, Meher Baba, Adi Da - they might have a point.

When you asked Ralston about the impossibility of him being in "constant" Satori, you were still holding direct consciousness as a state that one has. And he told you it wasn't an experience - that you were looking at something other than Satori. Something like that. "Consider this possibility," is what he told you. Did you listen?

"Do you think Ramana would be less God-realized if he had dementia, a brain tumor, or were drunk?" To go one step further: Do you think he'd have been less God-realized after his death (at which point his brain obviously didn't function)?

Edited 18 hours ago by UnbornTao

[UnbornTao]

Holy fuck the conversation is all over the place now

[Leo Gura]

17 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

The bitch of it all is that consciousness ain't a state.

Yes it is.

You are in that state right now and it determines everything you know.

Edited 18 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Terell Kirby]

@Leo Gura- thoughts?:

Enlightenment acknowledges that all states of Consciousness are Absolute, but it does not acknowledge that state itself determines what one is conscious of.

What we call ‘Enlightenment’ is just one state of Consciousness out of many forms that Consciousness can take.

Non Dualist are in denial that Enlightenment is contingent on state of one’s Consciousness, and that there is the possibility of infinite states higher than Enlightenment.

In this way, Enlightenment is subordinate to one’s state of Consciousness. For example, there is no Enlightenment from rat state of Consciousness, just as aspects of reality beyond Enlightenment are inaccessible from a sober human state.

Edited 17 hours ago by Terell Kirby

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

Holy fuck the conversation is all over the place now

I love it 😈 swords and chaos, but polite and with grace !

Forum juggernauts clash

Edited 16 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Leo Gura]

[Jodistrict]

This is why Zen keeps conversation to a minimum.  The real truth is non verbal.  

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Jodistrict

 

 

[theoneandnone]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I am not talking about truth, I am talking about Consciousness. Consciousness cannot be reduced to what you regard as "Absolute Truth".

You are falling into the trap of reductionism.

Since when? I thought you loved non duality 

 

 

 

 

 

hehe jk

[lostmedstudent]

will you be the only one guiding the experience? how will you screen candidate and their mental health ? i would say its best to have a therapist or MD help you screen paricipants

[zurew]

If you replace the Absolute with Existence (which I think is less ambigous and more clear what it is pointing to) then it becomes clear why non-dualists object to things like "You can go beyond Existence" or "You can go beyond Reality".

It does comes down to semantics, and the reason why is because if you apply the exact same meaning how nondualists use the words you are using, then your statements become incoherent, so if we want to be charitable towards you -  the most charitable move is to say that what you are saying is probably coherent under your own semantics, and its just that you are using different meaning behind those same terms (and its completely fine to say that you cant convey the meaning behind your terms, what isnt fine is not granting that it comes down to semantics, because saying that it isn't about semantics, that implies that non-dualist use your terms with the exact same meaning as you (there is no equivocation), which would be silly, because that would mean that non-dualists think that their own statements are incoherent. 

If enlightenment is taken to mean something like "becoming conscious of the nature of reality", then the sentence "Going beyond being conscious of the nature of reality" doesnt make much sense or just like how making the statement  that " enlightenment is an illusion" under this semantic wouldnt be coherent because it would be cashed out as "Being conscious of the nature of reality is an illusion"

 

One other way to make sense of what you are saying - is suggesting that there is no such thing as enlightement, where one can become comprehensively conscious of the nature of reality in one go, because its an ongoing process where you can have ever deeper awakenings into what the nature of reality is.

One other way to make sense of what you are saying is that enlightenment 'isnt becoming comprehensively conscious of the nature of reality' - but in this case again this is a semantic issue, because nondualists define enlightenment as 'comprehensively conscious of the nature of reality' and by saying that enlightenement is an  illusion is just equivocation where you redefine the word 'enlightement' in order to make your objection. The way to correctly object to their statement would be like saying "Under how you guys use your semantics and under what you guys mean by enlightenment , none of you are enlightened".

 

Applying normativity to awakenings and by that move creating a hierarchy of awakenings only make sense if the norm can be coherently applied to all of those awakenings. Its also the case, that you can arbitrarily create multiple different kind of hierarchies depending on what norm you want to apply/you are interested in. So for instance you can create a hierarchy of awakenings just on 'sense of self' and the less sense of self you have the "higher" your awakening is.

Edited 11 hours ago by zurew

[Yimpa]

I’ve already got a sneak preview of

*pizzaroll intensifies*

“Actualized Psychedelic Retreat Part II: Who Lead Duh Rats Out?”

[Yimpa]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

You are in that state right now and it determines everything you know.

 

Edited 11 hours ago by Yimpa