Why is Omnipotence harder to realize than Omnipresence and Omniscience?

[Joseph Maynor]

2 minutes ago, JoshB said:

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. 

Who is dodging Truth.  This gets deep.

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, JoshB said:

because distinction of Mind and Truth collapse. 

Of course.

Mind = Truth.

Quote

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

Yes.

But not just that. You need to realize that the nature of Truth/Mind is that nothing outside itself exists to validate it.

As long as Mind is asking others to validate it, then Mind has not yet realized that Mind is God/One.

Being God means knowing there is no one who can tell you what is right.

Notice that all of math is self-evident. Math does not require asking anyone what is true. That's why math is so powerful.

Edited 6 hours ago by Leo Gura

[JoshB]

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

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.

Have you had the direct realization You are God?

[JoshB]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course.

Mind = Truth.

Yes.

But not just that. You need to realize that the nature of Truth/Mind is that nothing outside itself exists to validate it.

As long as Mind is asking others to validate it, the Mind has not yet realized that Mind is God/One.

I'm completely on the same page Awakening is completely self validating and luminous. But you mention not taking ownership of a certain awakening. Isn't by definition all awakening yours? 

Absolute Consciousness / Being is needed to Self Validate.

It's like using your pointer finger to point to itself.

Edited 6 hours ago by JoshB

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, JoshB said:

I'm completely on the same page Awakening is completely self validating and luminous. But you mention not taking ownership of a certain awakening  

Even though Awakening is self-evident, you still must dare to imagine it. You must dare to imagine even higher Awakenings.

The deeper the Awakening, the more daring and imagination it takes. The shallow Awakenings are easy and mostly automatic. The very deep ones are not automatic.

Edited 6 hours ago by Leo Gura

[JoshB]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Even though Awakening is self-evident, you still must dare to imagine it. You must dare to imagine even higher Awakenings.

Okay this is what I was trying to ask. But isn't technically speaking is every awakening possible sitting right here as potentiality and you could collapse potential vs actual?  

Because Consciousness is Absolute where are these awakenings "hidden"? 

Edited 6 hours ago by JoshB

[ZeroZeroes]

On 9/20/2026 at 11:01 PM, 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.

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.

God-Consciousness is directly tied to intelligence, understanding, etc.—their epitome. The degree to which a Consciousness understands maya is the degree of reality/solidity that it has. The more understanding, the more reality/solid/fundamental the Consciousness is.To say illusion isn’t real is to say nothing if it is not specified to what degree it is not real. All are real in that they exist, yet the degrees to which their existence holds is the test of the level of Consciousness. Say a mirage: it exists, thus is real, as a visual content and so on. Yet it does not exist corporeally beyond its place in the visual context. And corporeality is what it is faking. Thus, that falsehood, if not understood or seen through, determines the degree of Consciousness. Not because the Experience is not real, but because Consciousness was unable to determine its degree of truth.

As the Consciousness does not understand it is a mirage, if it did, it would be higher, even if it still experienced the same illusion. God-Consciousness understands/is all maya. The Experience is not what determines the degree of Consciousness. The structure of that Consciousness determines its degree, even if the Experience is the same. Although a change in structure likely will result in a change in Experience as well. After the changed structure is attained, the Experience is superfluous, unneeded. Yet the Experience without the structure has no lasting effect. Concepts are also maya, because they are distinct from nothing.

The relationship between maya and truth is that illusion is necessary for any Consciousness to have existence, as in: to be, or have being. The content itself is necessary; distinction from the totality is necessary for Consciousness. So maya cannot be done away with without having an annihilation of distinct Experience/Consciousness. Which results in Truth. God does not do away with maya because it cannot. In order for anything to exist, it must be an illusory distinction from Totality. Maya IS existent reality since it is the only thing that can be Experienced, as it is the content of Consciousness. No maya means no Experience. Consciousness is Experience in content, not structure. Being IS illusion. Illusion is God itself. It is all that is. Yet Reality includes Totality and Consciousness. Totality is not distinct, which is not maya/God/being because it can never be differentiated whilst retaining the quality of not being distinct.

4 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

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.

A baby can have a state experience of such features filling its Consciousness which would fill its Experience of reality—the content of it: Peace, Love, Bliss. It would not be an awakening, as those relate to the context/possibility space/that which holds the experienced Consciousness as a whole. The context of the baby’s whole reality being solipsistic truth, with it/God as sole authority, would not be grasped. And as such, it would not be lasting once the Experience of peace, love, bliss, or even a solipsistic Experience of it being the sole authority goes away and its Consciousness is filled with insecurity of its survival.This would change its Experience away from the heightened state, making it not an awakening, as it is not fully grasped/intuited, as it is transitory. An awakening would require an insight or inherent understanding of the structure of the baby’s being/Consciousness. This insight does likely need some structure which can grasp it rather than simply being an interesting happening. Does that structure have to be cognitive? I doubt it, but to communicate it, yeah. It may be strictly cognitive for humans.

By your definition of an Experience being an awakening, then it would be possible for a baby to have it. Although the understanding and change in structure of what happens/is (Experience) as a necessary part of awakening. A ball can smack a baby’s face. It would Experience it. I wouldn’t say it had an awakening about balls, smacking, or of anything really. If that smack resulted in the baby having an insight into the workings of color, inertia, pain, mass, elasticity, which could all be structured/intuited/grasped from the Experience of the ball, then just the Experience wouldn’t necessitate an awakening nor insight. The distinction of Experience and structure/context falls apart since an awakening changes the very Experience to incorporate that changed structure, for that and future Experience. So, if an awakening to love happens, an Experience of it would be drastically different, as it would encompass the structure of that love into its being/Experience/Consciousness itself. After the structure is attained, the Experience is superfluous, unneeded. Yet the Experience without the change in structure has no lasting effect.

Edited 5 hours ago by ZeroZeroes
Remove abbreviation

[Carl-Richard]

@ZeroZeroes Feel free to rewrite all of that while dropping the unnecessary abbreviation of terms. When the words abbreviated are already short and you use many abbreviations, it can reduce comprehension rather than increase it.

Edited 5 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[ZeroZeroes]

@Carl-Richard Done

[Davino]

On 21/9/2026 at 5:01 AM, Carl-Richard said:

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. 

Certainly what someone who has never Awoken to Perfection or Authority would say.

I'm gonna be plain and direct, there is an Awakening were you Realize that Reality is Absolutely Perfect and that day your whole life will be changed forever. I cried for hours, I thought I was gonna die of Love, those levels of Infinite Perfection are among the most exquisites and you can't come and shit in them and delude other people into thinking that is a conceptual mind game. You don't know what you are talking about, you are playing within invisible limitations within your consciousness work, push yourself to the edge again and again and again and again and see what happens: your life will be transformed forever and you will share it and someone will shit on it. It's the arrogance to say what Awakening can or cannot be, like have you ended the path, can you absolutistically close Reality, if only that tells that Infinity hasn't been Realized that the nature of God, of existence is not seen with the humbleness that in every moment you can be hit with such a monstrous Awakening that you thought you were at the end but you realise you are just starting.

[Leo Gura]

I wouldn't particularly even call Perfection its own kind of Awakening, it is just a classic facet of God. You could realize it when you realize God, or it can just slip your mind until another Awakening later.

Many of these facets are delayed until more Awakening later because the mind cannot know everything at once. It is hard to realize Perfection and Love and Truth and God and Nothingness and Infinity and hallucination and Self and Unity and Omnipotence and Omniscience and Eternity and The Absolute and Being and Intelligence, all in the same 30 minutes. That is not going to happen.

You would be lucky if you realize all that in 20 Awakenings.

Edited 2 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Monster Energy]

Maybe because realizing you’re everything is easier than realizing you control everything. Omnipresence and omniscience can happen without needing to feel like you’re in control. Omnipotence is a whole different beast. Maybe there’s simply no one left to drive the car.

 

 

[Carl-Richard]

I like how the presumption is that something being conceptual makes it less profound or valid, or that it is somehow offensive to label it as conceptual if it is experienced as profound. Very interesting.

I mean, in a certain sense, there is nothing more profound than immensely eternal ego death where there is no way back and you're inside a black hole for eternity but you're somehow existing on a physical plane simultaneously.

But realizing (conceptually) the immense perfection and necessity of reality being what it is, that's also profound. But of course, it's not the same as being that perfection for eternity. You're not merely crying for a few hours. It's for eternity.

Edited 16 minutes ago by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

@Carl-Richard The problem is, when you say "conceptually", you use that as a term of belittlement. Your mind regards conceptual things as less real or valid, as "Maya". So then you take Perfection to be a concept, but Perfection is not just a concept, it is absolute.

The point of all these talks is that very deep and rare consciousness is being missed, by almost everyone. So just be careful that you don't argue yourself out of the deepest and rarest consciousness.

When I speak of higher kinds of Awakenings, like Alien Awakening, I am NOT talking about concepts! I am talking about consciousness that will make you shit your pants. Concepts do not make people shit their pants.

Edited 1 hour ago by Leo Gura

[Lyubov]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course.

Mind = Truth.

Yes.

But not just that. You need to realize that the nature of Truth/Mind is that nothing outside itself exists to validate it.

As long as Mind is asking others to validate it, then Mind has not yet realized that Mind is God/One.

Being God means knowing there is no one who can tell you what is right.

Notice that all of math is self-evident. Math does not require asking anyone what is true. That's why math is so powerful.

Interesting the parallel to the teaching I keep saying here that you have inherent worth and value as you are now. You do not nor ever need validating. This truth trickles right down to relationships and daily living. It’s pretty cool how all of this connects like a beautiful puzzle or woven tapestry. 

[Carl-Richard]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

@Carl-Richard The problem is, when you say "conceptually", you use that as a term of belittlement. Your mind regards conceptual things as less real or valid, as "Maya". So then you take Perfection to be a concept, but Perfection is not just a concept, it is absolute.

It is a belittlement of the Absolute to conceptualize it, but as you say, the human mind has to belittle the absolute to "understand" it (conceptually). But me saying that is not saying "you're not having a profound experience, you're just deluded". No, it is very profound. My conceptualizations of "solipsism", "aloneness", "perfection", etc., were very profound. It's just I see what my mind was creating as a response to encountering with the absolute; concepts about the absolute. Love/bliss/energy is also very profound, and it is also "Maya". You see, there is no hyperbolic, black and white scapegoating here. It's clearly labelling what is going on.

[Leo Gura]

15 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

It’s pretty cool how all of this connects like a beautiful puzzle or woven tapestry. 

Yes, and that goes 1000x deeper than you yet appreciate. So keep digging deeper to find more gold.

14 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

It is a belittlement of the Absolute to conceptualize it, but as you say, the human mind has to belittle the absolute to "understand" it (conceptually). But me saying that is not saying "you're not having a profound experience, you're just deluded". No, it is very profound. My conceptualizations of "solipsism", "aloneness", "perfection", etc., were very profound. It's just I see what my mind was creating as a response to encountering with the absolute; concepts about the absolute. Love/bliss/energy is also very profound, and it is also "Maya". You see, there is no hyperbolic, black and white scapegoating here. It's clearly labelling what is going on.

What you are talking about is not what I am talking about.

I am talking about consciousness no one understands or has experienced.

[Carl-Richard]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

What you are talking about is not what I am talking about.

I am talking about consciousness no one understands or has experienced.

Now that's belittlement.

[Carl-Richard]

You can conceptualize your encounters with the absolute, and those conceptualizations can be very profound (or the conceptualizations that happen right after encountering the absolute and when your mind tries to make sense of it can be very profound). I'm not equating that to like some insight into some mathematical proof or concept in physics. If you think that, then that's of course belittling. Nevertheless, it is conceptualization when your mind encounters something (be it the absolute or not) and it starts speaking language and spinning, well — concepts, and narratives about what it just encountered.

Edited 41 minutes ago by Carl-Richard