Why is Omnipotence harder to realize than Omnipresence and Omniscience?

[Yimpa]

4 hours ago, CARDOZZO said:

This thread seems a fanfic.

For fucks sake, do you guys even work or do something real with your life?

Damn..

 

[Carl-Richard]

8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I don't know what you are saying.

 

Quote

Flat Ontology is a way of thinking that treats all entities in reality as equally real, without privileging one type over another. 

https://philosophyball.miraheze.org/wiki/Flat_Ontology

 

Quote

Flat ontology is a model for reality that says that all object, even those that are imagined, have the same degree of being-ness as any other object.

https://scalar.usc.edu/works/material_philosophy/flat-ontology

 

It's like consciousness itself, AND sense perceptions, AND concepts, are equally imagined. You don't seem to have an own "reality category" for each, unlike say most idealists worth listening to (who are not pure subjective idealists, skeptics, solipsists) who have a distinction between for example Consciousness/Truth and Maya/illusion (referring to sense perceptions, and perhaps concepts). And there is a hierarchy there; one is more real than the other. You don't seem to have that. "Whatever you imagine, that's reality". It's like kinda you're just floating out there, not very grounded in the everyday reality of stuff or human things.

The reason I only have two categories of "awakening" is because one of them is consciousness, the other is "sense perceptions" (energy, phenomena, a.k.a. illusion, Maya), and then I of course distinguish that from conceptual understanding (which is not awakening, but rather indeed conceptual understanding of reality). On the other hand, the way you seem to multiply the kinds of awakenings into essentially infinity, it just seems like you've collapsed awakening into the conceptual. Any distinction you can make, you can "awaken" to. Even my stinky shoes.

And why are consciousness vs sense perceptions vs concepts salient distinctions? Because they are central to how humans operate. And of course they have been salient to how people have described awakenings up until today. Awakening to consciousness (pure "knowing", which is ultimately formless), vs awakening to energy/phenomena/form/bliss, etc., they are quite distinguishable. One of them is very fundamental but also abstract, the other is more concrete and embodied (you can literally track it as movements of energy in the body, or how you relate with objects, the love you feel for them, their feeling of fullness and depth).

Meanwhile awakening to something like "perfection" or "authority", you're now truly dividing the pie in a way that is seemingly indistinguishable from conceptual divisions. Which again, the conceptual mind can reflect on and use these concepts to inquire into the nature of consciousness, and use them to have an experience of consciousness, but I would again posit these are entry-points into the experience rather than "the" experience itself. Like self-inquiry. Self-inquiry is a process of the mind using concepts to look places, and at times, it can unravel the mind into consciousness. But the thoughts during self-inquiry are not the consciousness that seems to be unraveled.

Edited yesterday at 08:14 AM by Carl-Richard

[vibv]

On 20.9.2026 at 3:33 AM, Leo Gura said:

Grasping all of God at once is just not going to happen. That's a fantasy.

I guarantee you it will happen.

[Yimpa]

5 hours ago, vibv said:

I guarantee you it will happen.

Not as a human

[Leo Gura]

13 hours ago, vibv said:

I guarantee you it will happen.

I mean, not on your first experiences of God.

[Leo Gura]

18 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

It's like consciousness itself, AND sense perceptions, AND concepts, are equally imagined. You don't seem to have an own "reality category" for each, unlike say most idealists worth listening to (who are not pure subjective idealists, skeptics, solipsists) who have a distinction between for example Consciousness/Truth and Maya/illusion (referring to sense perceptions, and perhaps concepts). And there is a hierarchy there; one is more real than the other. You don't seem to have that. "Whatever you imagine, that's reality". It's like kinda you're just floating out there, not very grounded in the everyday reality of stuff or human things.

Unity flattens all ontology, yeah. Ultimately everything is the same. Everything is Being/Consciousness/God.

Idealists aren't conscious of God. They have no idea what is really going on. It's just conceptual for them.

Consciousness and Maya are not two separate things. Maya is made out of Truth.

Quote

The reason I only have two categories of "awakening" is because one of them is consciousness, the other is "sense perceptions" (energy, phenomena, a.k.a. illusion, Maya), and then I of course distinguish that from conceptual understanding (which is not awakening, but rather indeed conceptual understanding of reality). On the other hand, the way you seem to multiply the kinds of awakenings into essentially infinity, it just seems like you've collapsed awakening into the conceptual. Any distinction you can make, you can "awaken" to. Even my stinky shoes.

I am not talking about concepts when I talk about Awakening. I am talking about different kinds and degrees of higher Consciousness.

There is way more higher Consciousness than your two categories. Categories are themselves hallucinations.

You like to interpret that I am talking about concepts because that doesn't threaten your view of this domain. You are still holding onto that Buddhist view of all this.

Also, concept is not anti-Awakening. You can have Awaked Consciousness and understand it deeper with concepts. Concepts are not an enemy per se. You are using concepts regardless to do sense-making. Buddhism is also concepts. Ralston is also concepts. Any teaching uses concepts.

Edited 18 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Willy Phallicus]

Its been well over a hundred times but Ive only ever had the one awakening experience.  I just couldn't make sense of it in the early going.

[Carl-Richard]

50 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I am not talking about concepts when I talk about Awakening. I am talking about different kinds and degrees of higher Consciousness.

There is way more higher Consciousness than your two categories.

I will quote Davino and I might be putting his words in your mouth, but just for demonstration:

On 19.9.2026 at 11:21 PM, Davino said:

Always partially, I haven't even gotten to that first loop of fully realizing Omnipotence, it comes tangentially with Awakenings on the nature of limits, solipsism, authority, truth, Infinity and God.

So first, I would propose a baby can awaken to consciousness and also love/bliss/energy. It doesn't depend on their intellect or ability to think rational thoughts; it's either pure being or energy moving throughout their body or tapping into such energy in the external sensory world.

Then the question is: can a baby awaken to "the nature of limits, solipsism, authority, truth, Infinity and God", as in these being separate and clearly defined awakenings? Or does it require an intellect and rational thoughts?

Edited 17 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Willy Phallicus]

The baby is born awake.

Then its drugged, educated and conditioned into convincing itself the emperor is indeed wearing some mighty fine clothes and the cave shadows are all there is.

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

So first, I would propose a baby can awaken to consciousness

I would disagree here.

A baby cannot Awaken. Awakening requires realizing that you are God. If "you are God" is not realized, Awakening has not occurred at all.

A baby can experience higher consciousness, but the baby will not be able to understand what it is.

There is no Awakening without understanding.

It is not enough to experience God, because everyone is experiencing God at all times. The issue is, Do you understand what God is? So experience of God is not technically enough for Awakening.

Edited 17 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Rafael Thundercat]

17 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I would disagree here.

A baby cannot Awaken. Awakening requires realizing that you are God. If "you are God" is not realized, Awakening has not occurred at all.

A baby can experience higher consciousness, but the baby will not be able to understand what it is.

There is no Awakening without understanding.

It is not enough to experience God, because everyone is experiencing God at all times. The issue is, Do you understand what God is? So experience of God is not technically enough for Awakening.

Overall, when and if the Realization  takes part by whatever method,  Who will atest that the True Realization took part? I know you already said somewhere that a Full Awakening is impossible to pass unoticed, but there is always space for self deception, and since there will be no one to say the Realization is deception or Real we get here a big problem. 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

Who will atest that the True Realization took part?

Lol

NO ONE!

ONLY YOU!

That's why I keep harping on Sovereignty and Autonomy of Mind. You truly have to accept that your Mind alone defines truth. Your Mind needs to accept that, "I alone define truth".

Quote

but there is always space for self deception

NO!

There is zero room for self-deception in being AWAKE.

Self-deception is everything that humans do until Awakening.

Self-deception does not apply to TRUTH.

Edited 16 hours ago by Leo Gura

[ZenSwift]

On 19/09/2026 at 6:39 PM, Leo Gura said:

The reason it happens in degrees and facets and stages is because God is too much for a human mind to grasp all at once.

Can you grasp all of math at once? No.

Appreciate the metaphor here

[Leo Gura]

You cannot take understanding out of Awakening/God-Realization.

God IS self-understanding. That's all it ultimately is.

When you understand yourself totally enough, you will know you are God. That's all there is to it.

Edited 16 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Yimpa]

 

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I would disagree here.

A baby cannot Awaken. Awakening requires realizing that you are God. If "you are God" is not realized, Awakening has not occurred at all.

A baby can experience higher consciousness, but the baby will not be able to understand what it is.

There is no Awakening without understanding.

So your notion of awakening is intrinsically intellectual; it involves the mind reflecting on something. That's kinda what I've been hinting at.

Let me rephrase the question: can a baby have an "experience" of pure being and love/bliss/energy? I think yes. But then, can they have an "experience" (does that even make sense?) of "the nature of limits, solipsism, authority, truth, Infinity and God"? I don't think so. Why? Because those are intrinsically conceptual/intellectual, the former is not.

I call the two categories awakening because they're intrinsically non-conceptual. They most fundamentally happen prior to and independent of any reflection. You can reflect on them, but it's not relevant to whether it's an awakening or not, it's not important. Why you choose to make reflection on an experience an important part of the definition, could mean you highly value the conceptual.

Edited 13 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

So your notion of awakening is intrinsically intellectual; it involves the mind reflecting on something.

The problem is you frame it as "my version of Awakening". But I didn't invent Awakening. Awakening is way too wild for me to have invented it. I wish I invented it. I would love to put my name on it.

Quote

That's kinda what I've been hinting at.

Let me rephrase the question: can a baby have an "experience" of pure being and love/bliss/energy? I think yes. But then, can they have an "experience" (does that even make sense?) of "the nature of limits, solipsism, authority, truth, Infinity and God"? I don't think so. Why? Because those are intrinsically conceptual/intellectual, the former is not.

A baby can experience anything an adult can experience, in theory.

But a baby has no clue what God is. Even if a baby has an Awakeming it would just be confused and scared. Most adults would be confused and scared.

Quote

I call the two categories awakening because they're intrinsically non-conceptual. They most fundamentally happen prior to and independent of any reflection. You can reflect on them, but it's not relevant to whether it's an awakening or not, it's not important. Why you choose to make reflection on an experience an important part of the definition, could mean you highly value the conceptual.

I think the issue here is that you haven't become seriously conscious of God yet, so you are assuming it is something a baby can grok.

I am not talking about concepts. God is not a concept. Degrees of consciousness and comprehension of God is not a concept.

Frankly, I do not think you have a  reference experience for what I mean when I say "God-Realization". You might think you know what I am pointing to, but I might be pointing to something else.

Your version of Buddha-nature, a baby could have. But that it not God-Realization in my view.

Awakening requires no confusion about what God is. If there is a bunch of confusion, God has not been grokked.

Yes, Awakening requires Intellect. That is not a problem. Awakening is the highest state of Intellect.

If a baby became conscious of what I became conscious of, it would be traumatized.

I think you are stuck on the idea that Awakening has to be formless, so you dismiss any forms if they get involved. This is a limited notion of Awakening.

Can a baby have an experience of no-self? Yes. But that should not count as God-Realization.

Edited 10 hours ago by Leo Gura

[JoshB]

41 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The problem is you frame it as "my version of Awakening". But I didn't invent Awakening. Awakening is way too wild for me to have invented it. I wish I invented it. I would love to put my name on it.

 

how doesn't this contradict the previous state of mind determines all truth?

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, JoshB said:

how doesn't this contradict the previous state of mind determines all truth?

Mind has to acknowledge whatever the Truth is.

The problem is Mind is refusing to take responsibility for this in most people.

Most people, if they experienced solipsism for example, would not have enough autonomy to say, "Okay, this is the truth." They would run to find some expert to ask if solipsism is really true. That is the mistake.

You need to reach a point where when you see the Truth, you accept it, and not ask anyone else for their opinion.

Truth needs to be self-evident, or Truth wasn't realized. If you need someone else to validate Truth for you, then you haven't yet grokked Truth.

Do you need a professor or preist to tell you that 1+1=2 is really true? No!

Edited 10 hours ago by Leo Gura

[JoshB]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Mind has to acknowledge whatever the Truth is.

The problem is Mind is refusing to take responsibility for this in most people.

Most people, if they experienced solipsism for example, would not have enough autonomy to say, "Okay, this is the truth." They would run to find some expert to ask if solpsisim is really true.

This get's interesting because distinction of Mind and Truth collapse. 

I realized higher authority by actually surrendering to what is true, is this what you're getting at?

People are dodging Truth better then dodgeballs. 

If you're all there is how could there be the notion that awakening isn't something 100% owned by you?

Edited 10 hours ago by JoshB