Neo Adviata / God realization / infinite, all bullshit

[Breakingthewall]

2 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

But who is this need arising for?  You, right?  Why is need seen as divorced from an "I"? 

What purpose does this reframe serve when need arises anyway?

The self repeat a lot of times that there is no self and that's enlightenment. 

[fopylo]

On 2/11/2026 at 11:50 AM, Leo Gura said:

@James123 I am talking about your Consciousness.

You are conscious. Consciousness is Infinity.

@Leo Gura

Doesn't seem like there is any other that is conscious in this experience.

There is only one consciousness.

No other experiences. Heck, not even one experience to be honest. Just that - the greatest joke 🤣 

[fopylo]

@James123

On 2/11/2026 at 1:59 PM, James123 said:

But experience is accumulation of beliefs and knowledge.

Accumulation presupposes there are beliefs in plural that exist "behind the scenes" (stored in the mind). Experience is just one, not an accumulation of stuff from the past. It is all just imagined now.

[fopylo]

On 2/12/2026 at 1:33 PM, Mellowmarsh said:

Because there’s a need to say it. Just as there’s always a demand for knowledge for the human mind.

@Mellowmarsh

I - definitely doesn't exist.

A demand for knowledge for the human mind - definitely exists.

 

Just say you're parroting. Don't just say stuff to sound smart. There's nothing special about the belief in the self than a belief in any other imaginary thing.

[fopylo]

@Breakingthewall

That supposes there is an imaginary self, and this self is you. That there is no self is also appearing as imagination. Just imagination appearing - this is enlightenment. Not a person that becomes enlightened. That's a lovely story

[Arthogaan]

@James123 

You disagreement with Leo here is just semantics and grasping to words. Everyone has slightly different connotations so it is very hard to point to true nature. 

But Leo saying infinity is all there is is exactly the same what you are saying. Infinity is not an experience for Leo. Maybe in your vocabulary your neural network points to something that is an experience. 

But the nitty gritty of all this is just that there only ever was THIS/INFINITY. Just imaginary differences happening in undescribeable, undefinable, limitless, boundaryless, self-less, THIS.

When all limits, diferencess, dualities are seen through you are left with just THIS. Just this pure magic appearing out of nowhere. And that's what Leo calls infinity. And there was always just this/infinity. It only seemed otherwise because of grasping to definitions/categories/dualities.

[James123]

7 hours ago, fopylo said:

Accumulation presupposes there are beliefs in plural that exist "behind the scenes" (stored in the mind). Experience is just one, not an accumulation of stuff from the past. It is all just imagined now.

What you said above is all stored in mind. Any imagination, belief, experience belongs to mind. 

[James123]

3 minutes ago, Arthogaan said:

@James123 

You disagreement with Leo here is just semantics and grasping to words. Everyone has slightly different connotations so it is very hard to point to true nature. 

But Leo saying infinity is all there is is exactly the same what you are saying. Infinity is not an experience for Leo. Maybe in your vocabulary your neural network points to something that is an experience. 

But the nitty gritty of all this is just that there only ever was THIS/INFINITY. Just imaginary differences happening in undescribeable, undefinable, limitless, boundaryless, self-less, THIS.

When all limits, diferencess, dualities are seen through you are left with just THIS. Just this pure magic appearing out of nowhere. And that's what Leo calls infinity. And there was always just this/infinity. It only seemed otherwise because of grasping to definitions/categories/dualities.

İt has no name. Any given name, experience is not it. İt is function of the mind.

As before so called birth, that's what it is.

[Joseph Maynor]

2 hours ago, James123 said:

İt has no name. Any given name, experience is not it. İt is function of the mind.

As before so called birth, that's what it is.

What is so bad about mind?  Is there anything good about mind in your opinion?

[James123]

19 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

What is so bad about mind?  Is there anything good about mind in your opinion?

Not bad or good at all. I am just pointing out that mind is the ego. 

That's all.

[Joseph Maynor]

1 hour ago, James123 said:

Not bad or good at all. I am just pointing out that mind is the ego. 

That's all.

That's it right there.  You're associating the mind with ego, and you're assuming there is something bad about ego.  That's the logic.  I'm not saying you're wrong, but what you say is understandable.  That's good!  

[Adrian colby]

On 11/02/2026 at 5:30 AM, James123 said:

No. These are all beliefs, based on experience. Experience like a wind comes and goes.

You never move, never began. Always be. Even infinite arises and falls within You.

What we say actually don't matter, we are all what We are.

Yes. This is when you ‘sit in the absolute’ of which there is nothing you can say because even that is the very formation of mind.

 

however, this is the place of realisation where you sit after deconstructing reality and self where even the ocean of consciousness dissolves.

 

once this phase has been exhausted ( not very long, maybe a year or two as there’s nothing in that ‘state-no state’ to know, you re-integrate everything that was dissolved and have another type of awakening where not just the absolute but everything in experience or mind is also ‘it’. 
 

dissolving and realising absolute is only part of the way. Make a full circle back into where you started as a human seeking and recognise all of it as infinity. Not doing this risks nihilism and the dismissal of the lived experience, relational responsibility to the ‘other’ parts of infinity and infinity itself.

it maybe described as an imagined dream but it’s not something to be dismissed as mere illusion beyond realisation. That would be existence rejecting its own existence (something a human does when it can’t realise its part of the totality).

a great deal of spirituality particularly non duality is falling appart as a certainty amongst study groups at the moment because it’s going nowhere ( sorry no pun intended).

love finds itself through its experience not by pretending it’s not happening. ( love being a profound level of acknowledgement, acceptance and allowing that it can simply be ‘being’ or ‘existence’ ( one in the same as infinity)

Edited 8 hours ago by Adrian colby
Forgot the ending

[Arthogaan]

10 hours ago, James123 said:

İt has no name. Any given name, experience is not it. İt is function of the mind.

As before so called birth, that's what it is.

Yeah, and your words are also function of the mind. Yet they point to the Nameless. Just as Leo's words. 

You see other people's words and assume "ha, that's just mind's blah blah" and continue to write words yourself lol. 

And no need to go to "as before so called birth" - your birth never happened, the Nameless is right here, right now.

[James123]

1 hour ago, Arthogaan said:

Yeah, and your words are also function of the mind. Yet they point to the Nameless. Just as Leo's words. 

You see other people's words and assume "ha, that's just mind's blah blah" and continue to write words yourself lol. 

And no need to go to "as before so called birth" - your birth never happened, the Nameless is right here, right now.

Leo is saying infinite due to his experience.

Of course right now.

Not my words, these are not claims as you or Leo's do. 

Just pointers.

Of course always now.

6 hours ago, Adrian colby said:

Yes. This is when you ‘sit in the absolute’ of which there is nothing you can say because even that is the very formation of mind.

 

You actually never talk body does. When identification with body happens, it becomes so called your words.

[James123]

7 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

That's it right there.  You're associating the mind with ego, and you're assuming there is something bad about ego.  That's the logic.  I'm not saying you're wrong, but what you say is understandable.  That's good!  

I am saying it is not good and bad, you are saying I am assuming that something bad about ego 😂 

You are fucking crazy 😂 

[Mellowmarsh]

55 minutes ago, James123 said:

You actually never talk body does. When identification with body happens, it becomes so called your words.

Indeed. 
 

Talking is just sound heard as words. The body is the conductor of information, converting sound into meaningful communication unique to the human narrative that is the sense of I am talking. 

In essence, the body is not just a passive structure but an active high-speed conductor that transmits, processes, and acts upon information to maintain homeostasis. 

[James123]

2 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Indeed. 
 

Talking is just sound heard as words. The body is the conductor of information, converting sound into meaningful communication unique to the human narrative that is the sense of I am talking. 

In essence, the body is not just a passive structure but an active high-speed conductor that transmits, processes, and acts upon information to maintain homeostasis. 

Unbelievably true.

[Joseph Maynor]

1 hour ago, James123 said:

I am saying it is not good and bad, you are saying I am assuming that something bad about ego 😂 

You are fucking crazy 😂 

Okay.

[Joseph Maynor]

39 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

Indeed. 
 

Talking is just sound heard as words. The body is the conductor of information, converting sound into meaningful communication unique to the human narrative that is the sense of I am talking. 

In essence, the body is not just a passive structure but an active high-speed conductor that transmits, processes, and acts upon information to maintain homeostasis. 

This is what I still don't understand: Why is the body taken to be real but the mind is seen to be problematic?  This seems like the inverse of intellectualism.  It reduces everything to body and how things affect the body, including the emotions.