Martin Ball says physical reality is real

[Holymoly]

On 12/11/2026 at 4:48 AM, Leo Gura said:

A perfectly consistent and continuous dream is still a dream, it is just harder to escape.

You will notice Martin Ball still believes in an external material world. He doesn't have enough construct-awareness to see that he is dreaming the external world.

Which is why I said before that his energy work approach is not enough in this work. God-Realization requires understanding, not just high states or energy work.

He lacks the understanding that Everything is his own Mind.

What is meant by energy work? is it useful to do? I have been living with someone who claims to be an energy healer.

[OBEler]

@Leo Gura Martin Ball had proper God realization. He says you are God.  He got that point deeply. You are reality experiencing yourself he said. 

And still a materialistic worldview? How is that possible. 

Edited 21 hours ago by OBEler

[Leo Gura]

11 minutes ago, Holymoly said:

What is meant by energy work? is it useful to do? I have been living with someone who claims to be an energy healer.

Martin means it as unlocking energy in the body. He takes a massive dose and then has some kind of energetic shifts.

8 minutes ago, OBEler said:

@Leo Gura Martin Ball had proper God realization. He says you are God.  He got that point deeply. You are reality experiencing yourself he said. 

And still a materialistic worldview? How is that possible. 

Of course it's possible if the mind isn't thinking.

It is not enough to experience God, you have to understand what God is and what it isn't.

Just because a lion attacks you doesn't mean you understand lions.

Edited 20 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Hojo]

God is like the center of a black hole that sucking in stuff only there's no stuff to suck in. The energy is in a human body. Energy work is the human body.

 

It like a brain dead black hole that dosent even know its there. God have no energy. Shakti is the energy and it not God.

Whatever we think dying is like is what God is. You will die but you will still be there its everything you think it is except the fact that you stop existing. You will still be there.

Edited 20 hours ago by Hojo

[Thought Art]

@Hojo why isn’t shakti also God?

[Hojo]

@Thought Art God is always not that. While God create Shakti its not what it is. Its the absence of all Shakti. That why there is a seperation between God and Shakti. Shakti like the energy on the tv when its on God is like the tv is off.

There is absolutely no feeling or energy involved. Its completely still void of nothing but its aware.

Like a tv set turns off and there is still something watching the TV.

When we die and meet God we can't move feel or think when we are God.

We have to sit there till Shakti comes back.

But you can still emote till you eventually stop emoting and become one with eternity.

Like a tv turns off for awhile there is still a person sitting there that was watching the TV after the tv is off. Then eventually the person dissapears and turns into the off tv.

You will feel like a child that just got grounded and you can throw a really big tantrum.

Edited 20 hours ago by Hojo

[Joseph Maynor]

I did the 120x concentrate when I experimented with Salvia.  I didn't really resonate with his comments on Salvia.

[Hojo]

@Thought Art there is an upside. Eternity can last 1 day. It just depends on how much you struggle merging with eternity. Eternity dosent have to be a super long time. Its more about how easily you give up all your memories and emotions.

Like you can die for 24 hours and be back on earth. Or you can die for 2000 years and still be throwing a fit.

The tv set will automatically turn back on after you merge with eternity.

Edited 20 hours ago by Hojo

[Joseph Maynor]

6 hours ago, BuffaloBill said:

could it be that it's because he's a scientist at heart that he still clings onto a materialist worldview? and maybe he doesn't want to say too whacky things he'll lose credibility in the scientific community.

This is always a factor.  We do not want to tarnish our reputation.  

[OBEler]

@Leo Gura OK got it. 

I didn't know how important thinking could be. It's the ego mind which builds a worldview. So all your understanding is still an interpretation. But based on true experiences. That leaves a rest possibility that you are fundamentally wrong and reality could be something completely other. 

I really thought material worldview cannot survive after some 5 meo breakthroughs.

[Leo Gura]

Materialism gets very subtle and stubborn.

[Joseph Maynor]

Teachers tend to get caught up in their narratives that they like to present to their students.  

[Jodistrict]

In Hinduism, the view supports a particular practice for self-realization.  The view of Vedanta supports a renunciation practice.  Tantra supports living in the world.   Thus, all views are valid.  Pantanjali’s Yoga Sutras is dualistic, but if you read the entire sutras you will discover that it leads to non duality. 

Edited 15 hours ago by Jodistrict

[Breakingthewall]

16 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

It's entirely silly to put your stock in the unknown, especially when the known itself reduced to its ultimate, is essentially indistinguishable from nothing. But you can still give the credence to the unknown, by making the distinction. In other words, asking "can there be anything outside of consciousness?" is like asking "can there be anything outside of nothing?". It's not very fruitful but you can ask the question. I.e. it doesn't make much sense for there to be something outside of nothing. But you can always postulate a something that you don't know. Non-duality is when you say "cut the crap, you don't have to postulate shit, reality still is".

I humbly believe you are mistaken in equating nothingness and consciousness in terms of ontological category. Consciousness is merely a structure that integrates various levels, creating what we call experience.

There is nothing mystical or sacred called " The Consciousness"; it seems that way to us humans because we value consciousness above all else and equate the lack of consciousness with non-existence.

But answer this: if you were in an accident and your memory were reduced to zero, and you could not distinguish one instant from another, and you were an alien living for hundreds of billions of years, even all of eternity, yet for you everything were the same non-time, no process, no happening, just a static now without differentiation in which a million years and a second were exactly the same, and there was no difference between anything, would you be conscious?

Of course, a Buddhist would answer: exactly!!! This alien would reach the perfect consciousness, the rigpa, sunyatta, pure emptiness. Well, if it's really pure, it's exactly unconsciousness. Anesthesia. No time, no process, no registration. When the Buddhist or meditators say that they reached pure emptiness, they are operating from a system that register information, it's just another state of the mind, being conscious of yourself as a human without the chattering of the mind. Then, in this mind without barriers, the revelation of the source could happen, but it's always from the human interface that register the process 

Edited 15 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Leo Gura]

35 minutes ago, Jodistrict said:

The view of Vedanta supports a renunciation practice.

It is not a renunciation. The point is to eliminate distraction so the world can be recognized as God. Then you can live fully in the world. You do not renounce the world. You only renounce it temporarily to quiet its noise.

The last ox-herding picture is the monk laughing in marketplace.

Edited 15 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Carl-Richard]

12 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

God makes the devil want to vomit. That's not a bug, that's a feature.

Shut up.

 

12 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Tripping is not enough, you must also use your mind properly.

People keep thinking they can slide by without philosophy, but that's just not so.

The guy has written 35 books. You're so stuck up your own ass it's vertigous.

 

You people are unironically treating a guy who talks about how there is only one being that exists and it's God and it's You like he is some scientific materialist like Richard Dawkins, only because he uses a different set of words than yourself, because you parrot Leo and have never entertained deeply any frameworks outside of that, and because Leo is so far stuck up his ass that if somebody does not use the same words as him, there must be something deeply wrong and their view of the world is completely invalid and corrupt and "non-awake". Complete bullocks.

Edited 9 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Eskilon]

18 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

You people are unironically treating a guy who talks about how there is only one being that exists and it's God and it's You like he is some scientific materialist like Richard Dawkins, only because he uses a different set of words than yourself, because you parrot Leo and have never entertained deeply any frameworks outside of that, and because Leo is so far stuck up his ass that if somebody does not use the same words as him, there must be something deeply wrong and their view of the world is completely invalid and corrupt and "non-awake". Complete bullocks.

@Carl-Richard Leo even said buddhism is not about god-realization lmao.

Yeah bro, buddha went trough barely having meat on his bones to just calm his mind and not having any inclination towards truth at all. All the sutras is just a cheap psychology trick for you to calm down your mind and nothing else, there's no trascending there at all

He was "just" trying to trascend suffering bro, god-realization and trascending suffering is not deeply related bro.

If the teacher doesnt preach YOU ARE GOD, YOU ARE GOD, YOU ARE GOD they are not teaching god-realization.

Like the concept of indirect and subtleness does not even cross leos mind I swear.

Edited 9 hours ago by Eskilon

[Rodrigo Costa]

One thing Martin Ball says in one of his interviews is that the God experience he had with 5meo-DMT wasn't visual like Ayahuasca, but more like a feeling.

In fact, how can any kind of consciousness be real without a feeling to substantiate it? 

Feelings are more fundamental than thoughts, aren't they?  All living beings have one kind of feeling or another. Very few living beings have thoughts. 

 

 

 

[Inliytened1]

@Rodrigo Costa

Stop defending him. If he can explain it then let him do so. Otherwise fuck him. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Inliytened1

[kavaris]

On 11/11/2026 at 10:26 AM, Leo Gura said:

You do not control your hallucination.

 

On 11/11/2026 at 0:09 PM, Wilhelm44 said:

But does that not imply some form of continuity of this hallucinated universe ?

The universe is not like a beginning, middle end universe. However, in the parts that we do feel we are *made in the image of our felt world*, that match our reflected ideals... i wanted to add that.... none of us *plan out* steps towards a destination. Not concretely. That is, things have always been like a vaguery-of-happenings, which i guess might mean something, like i mean, there have been moments where many steps were planned out, but the point being like, if you imagine what it would be like to have everyone understanding this vaguery of happenings, that we are just feeling our way forward, thatd be a different kind of communication, cause it would no longer work to try and construct the vaguery of happenings. Like its two worlds, at odds w/ each other -> the felt world and that one thats trying to rewrite the data on the felt experience (but thats like tryina put two different kinds of memory into your computer from 19 years ago or something; incompatible, right?)

I had a dream very recently that it was the end of the world, for some reason, but rather than get hung up on it, a traced back the original inception of that dream, which started in another dream... point being, theres alot of directions that one could investigate, to start to understand this vaguery of happenings, but the physical world is a pretty low consciousness place to be looking. I mean, its difficult to *get beyond* the self, if we did nothing but analyze the physical self and how its experienced the world. In that way, its not even right to be talking bout the physical world as if it is true/real to mean like, some definitive way of experiencing. Especially considering the *idealized parts* of experience, and how they exist as a vaguery of experience. I mean, even the idealized parts, you have to ask where you are getting the idea for them? I mean, its very very felt. *You feel like*, and then you *act*... You feel that its a certain way, that you try to do something to interact w/ it.

Edited 2 hours ago by kavaris