If you are the only Mind then why are you talking to others on this forum?

[Inliytened1]

5 minutes ago, WelcometoReality said:

Yeah I'm just saying that maybe going full circle is losing godhood completely and be fully immersed in the dream. 

Maybe that's what Jesus meant by "God oh God why have you forsaken me".

Ahh...yeah ?

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Yeah but there's no way to confirm this hypothesis that the God-state is an objectively higher state. There's a 50% chance that it's a lower state, if we're to think of it in terms of hierarchy of truth.

Maybe there isn't or maybe there is. . But then again, how did u end up with this conclusion, that this problem cannot be solved? You used your human state, and your rational mind, so you trust both of those, instead of the potentially right God-state. You are saying, that you don't know, but at the same time, you trust your rational-mind, and human state to be able to use those in a way where you can make a proper judgement about the God question. I think you could even question logic itself, or questioning itself, could any of those lead us to the Truth? In my opinion or understanding there is 2 way of knowing. The first one is the one where you can rationally understand something, you can reason your way to find some answers for your questions There is the second way of knowing, which we can call intuitive-knowing.

Intuitive-knowing for example, when you argue with someone, and you can clearly see this other person's body-language, his tone of words, his facial expressions and so on. But without contemplating deeply about it, you can instantly know if that person is angry or not, without going through the list i mentioned above. Sort of inutitive knowing is how you use your hand. You don't need to reason you way from all the beginning to be able to grab something you want to. It would be really hard to give a step by step formula for a computer how it can bend its fingers, and in what way, when it needs to bend its fingers, what does bending its fingers even mean and so on.

When you do a psychedelic trip, or when you get some insights from doing yoga or meditation,it seems like you are getting those insights from intuitive knowing. You know something, you feel that you are knowing something deeply, but you not necessarily can reason your way to the consclusion, what you gathered from a trip. 

You could argue, that there are some cases, where this 'intuitive-knowing' looks like it gives you incorrect insights. It might, or it might be the case, that you are getting correct knowledge, but your rational mind can't know how to handle it.

I think it could be beneficial to sometimes make this distinction between the two way of knowing. Now you can freely decide what you want to make of this, or which one you want to use more, or to trust more.

Edited March 14, 2022 by zurew

[gettoefl]

16 minutes ago, WelcometoReality said:

Yeah I'm just saying that maybe going full circle is losing godhood completely and be fully immersed in the dream. 

Maybe that's what Jesus meant by "God oh God why have you forsaken me".

when true self becomes no self, god dies too ... or rather experience of god ... god is not experience ... it is beyond duality

[Gesundheit2]

38 minutes ago, zurew said:

Maybe there isn't or maybe there is. I think you could even question logic itself, or questioning itself, could any of those lead us to the Truth? In my opinion or understanding there is 2 way of knowing. The first one is the one where you can rationally understand something, you can reason your way to find some answers for your questions. There is the second way of knowing, which we can call intuitive-knowing.

Intuitive-knowing for example, when you argue with someone, and you can clearly see this other person's body-language, his tone of words, his facial expressions and so on. But without contemplating deeply about it, you can instantly know if that person is angry or not, without going through the list i mentioned above. Sort of inutitive knowing is how you use your hand. You don't need to reason you way from all the beginning to be able to grab something you want to. It would be really hard to give a step by step formula for a computer how it can bend its fingers, and in what way, when it needs to bend its fingers, what does bending its fingers even mean and so on.

When you do a psychedelic trip, or when you get some insights from doing yoga or meditation,it seems like you are getting those insights from intuitive knowing. You know something, you feel that you are knowing something deeply, but you not necessarily can reason your way to the consclusion, what you gathered from a trip. 

You could argue, that there are some cases, where this 'intuitive-knowing' looks like it gives you incorrect insights. It might, or it might be the case, that you are getting correct knowledge, but your rational mind can't know how to handle it.

I think it could be beneficial to sometimes make this distinction between the two way of knowing. Now you can freely decide what you want to make of this, or which one you want to use more, or to trust more.

At this point, I see the world through a data filter. There's only data, and no such thing as knowledge.

[WelcometoReality]

29 minutes ago, gettoefl said:

when true self becomes no self, god dies too ... or rather experience of god ... god is not experience ... it is beyond duality

What happened when that was realized?

[zurew]

49 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

There's only data, and no such thing as knowledge

Was it the raw data, that lead you to this conclusion, or you had to use your own filter(s) to arrive here? You can't do anything with raw data, if you arrive at any conclusion in that case we are talking about filtering( interpretation, using unconsious biases, using focus to only see parts of the data)

So at the end of the day, whatever you use as your basis, which you can use to justify statements like:

• Its unknowable
• I am unkowable

or similar statements, that basis will be unjustified. It will be circular, just as anything, just be aware that you always use such basis (to make sense of the world, and yourself) that are unjustified. There will be a reason which will require another reason to back it up. Even this can show you the nature of reality and language. It kind of hinting that something that is the nature of reality, maybe isn't dual but more likely nondual.

 

I wanted to ask you the question, that have had any awakening experiences or deep psychedelic trips? If you haven't do you think its fair to judge something from lower? In my vocabulary 'lower judgement' means, when you haven't tried that particular service/activity but you make judgements and assumptions about it.

One last question about this: Do you think its effective to try to ground something that is ungrounded? (or it call be phrased that it is the ground itself)

The need for grounding everything is in an of itself questionable.

Edited March 14, 2022 by zurew

[gettoefl]

3 minutes ago, WelcometoReality said:

What happened when that was realized?

just like when it happened to jesus, one enters that same void then resurrects into one's true nature ... namely there is no self just god in charge

haven't gotten that far but if you want to read one who has, bernadette roberts explicates it well

[ZzzleepingBear]

If all is percieved as ones own mind. Then talking to "other people" would be to mind your own business.

A mind will mind until it doesn't mind.

[WelcometoReality]

2 hours ago, gettoefl said:

just like when it happened to jesus, one enters that same void then resurrects into one's true nature ... namely there is no self just god in charge

haven't gotten that far but if you want to read one who has, bernadette roberts explicates it well

Ah. Thx for sharing. I love reading these kind of stories. 

If you're interested David R Hawkins enlightenment story is a good read. ?

[Gesundheit2]

17 hours ago, zurew said:

Was it the raw data, that lead you to this conclusion, or you had to use your own filter(s) to arrive here? You can't do anything with raw data, if you arrive at any conclusion in that case we are talking about filtering( interpretation, using unconsious biases, using focus to only see parts of the data)

So at the end of the day, whatever you use as your basis, which you can use to justify statements like:

• Its unknowable
• I am unkowable

or similar statements, that basis will be unjustified. It will be circular, just as anything, just be aware that you always use such basis (to make sense of the world, and yourself) that are unjustified. There will be a reason which will require another reason to back it up. Even this can show you the nature of reality and language. It kind of hinting that something that is the nature of reality, maybe isn't dual but more likely nondual.

I don't think it was one particular input/data that made the shift for me, but rather the collection of all the data that I have gathered so far, and the shift was gradual for the most part. I may be using the word "data" in a way that can imply being raw and untouched, but of course there is a processing before the data is understood and made sense of. I'm deliberately avoiding words like information because it's close to knowledge.

However, it's simpler and more direct than what's said above.

How? Well, what is knowledge in the first place? Let's look it up. Here's how Wikipedia defines knowledge:

"Knowledge is a familiarity or awareness, of someone or something, such as facts (descriptive knowledge), skills (procedural knowledge), or objects (acquaintance knowledge) contributing to ones understanding. By most accounts, knowledge can be acquired in many different ways and from many sources, including but not limited to perception, reason, memory, testimony, scientific inquiry, education, and practice. The philosophical study of knowledge is called epistemology."

Most people take knowledge for granted. People who question reality start doubting the ways in which knowledge can be acquired, but not so many doubt and question until the end. Most seekers use already made frameworks to ground their questioning in, like philosophy or spirituality or science, etc... So due to this bias, they end up deconstructing aspects of knowledge while leaving out others intact and then fall into dogma, albeit a more subtle form of it.

What we're mostly concerned with here on a spirituality forum is the perception aspect. Most people, and apparently even Leo himself, doubt and question everything except perception/consciousness. It is a common belief within spiritual communities that consciousness is primary and self-evident. Well, not for me. I doubted and questioned even consciousness itself until I reached here.

17 hours ago, zurew said:

I wanted to ask you the question, that have had any awakening experiences or deep psychedelic trips? If you haven't do you think its fair to judge something from lower? In my vocabulary 'lower judgement' means, when you haven't tried that particular service/activity but you make judgements and assumptions about it.

I haven't used any psychedelic, but of course I've had many awakenings through the more traditional methods like meditation and self-inquiry.

If I haven't had any awakenings, then it'd probably not be appropriate for me to talk.

17 hours ago, zurew said:

One last question about this: Do you think its effective to try to ground something that is ungrounded? (or it call be phrased that it is the ground itself)

The need for grounding everything is in an of itself questionable.

I'm not sure I understand this part correctly.

[Scholar]

On 13.3.2022 at 4:48 PM, Inliytened1 said:

Disclaimer:

do not take the below as a belief.  Do your own investigation to see what is true for yourself.

Anyway, the title of the thread seems to the predominant question regarding the nature of reality. By nature of reality I am referring to that there are no other minds in existence besides your own.  You are God.  And God is absolutely singular because it is Infinite. 

So why then talk to anyone if they are all you?

Well..God creates a sense of separation by creating self/other.  This is the whole dream.  This IS reality.    It imagines it is a self, and then in doing so it imagines others.  It imagines this duality into existence, and thus it becomes real.  It becomes real because the nature of reality is imagination- and thus there is no difference between real and imaginary.

But here's the key point:  if you are already awake and conscious of this then why are you still talking to people?

Well, why would you stop dreaming just because you know it's a dream?  You see, God has to imagine it's real in order to buy into the illusion - thus bringing reality into existence.  Just because God wakes up that does not stop this process.  You still continue to fool yourself because imagination and reality or the same thing.  So you deny the dream in order to create reality or buy into the illusion.  I'm denying it right now in order to make this post.  That's not a bad thing here, that's how reality is in fact created by God.

But then you may ask - But if you are awake I thought you were lucid dreaming and consciously talking to dream characters?  It doesn't really work like this in this dream, the waking dream.  Because the waking dream is reality...in a night time dream when you wake up you ground yourself in the waking dream and say "oh, that was a dream, but this is the REAL reality".  Well, if you pop out of the waking dream there is no ground, you are just yourself as God.   

So what you do in this dream when you imagine it into reality is forget its a dream.  The difference is you know that you are fooling yourself..you are self aware of this.  (thus the lucidity and that is what it means to lucid dream in this dream, the waking dream) but you literally have to buy completely in to the illusion in order for it to become reality.  

I hope this helps to answer the question that keeps coming up as to why do you continue to talk to "yourself" after awakening.  I welcome any questions on the topic.

You are not the only mind, that is a framing that was created as a reaction to delusions present within Mind. The monkey mind likes to make a story out of a realization, and then suddenly frame it as a new thing, a new delusion. The monkey mind will then say "Oh oh, look I am the only mind, no other mind but mine exists!".

Being unaware of the function of the monkey mind will trap one in this delusion. The entire way you just framed "One Mind", is merely that, a conceptual framework of the monkey mind. That is what Leo tends to have issues with, he fails to distinguish Truth from truth that comes as a reaction from the monkey mind to Truth.

Even this delusion can be "transcended". It's not "your" Mind, it's simply Mind. Mind is another word for Existence or Reality. The framework you are using in the first place is incredibly monkey based, notice this. Only monkeys know the concept of mind, and other-mind and so forth, and that is how the monkey is trapped after the realization. This happened because monkey-dynamics have not been dissolved.

The fact that you chose words like "Mind" and "Imagination", is evidence for the bias you have, it is evidence of your particulate incarnation. It is not Truth, unless it is deemed so.

You will be trapped helplessly in this until you realize the nature of "Deeming it so", which is not psychological, but metaphysical.

Edited March 15, 2022 by Scholar

[Inliytened1]

7 minutes ago, Scholar said:

You are not the only mind

If that is what is true for you than that is what is true.  As I said do not take my words as belief.  You are a smart guy so I need not worry about that with you ?

 

7 minutes ago, Scholar said:

. It's not "your" Mind, it's simply Mind.

Notice you are creating a subtle duality or separation between you and God here- because God is Mind.  But again what is true for you is true for you.  But as far as language it has its limitations.  Your Mind and Mind are the same thing because You are Mind.  

[Scholar]

4 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Notice you are creating a subtle duality or separation between you and God here- because God is Mind.  

I do not need to notice it because I am fully aware of it being "Deemed so". What I urge you to notice is that to participate in any of this conversation, you have to participate in the "Deeming of it so", which you seem to be unaware of, as your questions would be rendered pointless. They are the process of "Deeming it so".

The Idea of duality is "deeming it so", "deeming it so" is more fundamental. If it is not deemed so, there is no duality, no duality would need be required if it was not deemed so, but you do deem it so, which is why you say "Look, you created a seperation between Mind and God". Well, that is only the case if it is deemed it so. If it is not deemed so, nothing I said or thought or did created a subtle duality or separation between you and God.

That deeming it so is what you could come to see, and then pointing these things out might be deemed as senseless.

Edited March 15, 2022 by Scholar

[Scholar]

In my opinion there is an unawareness in this community in particular about the "deeming it so", because there is a biased focus on realization of the extradordinary kind.

The "deeming it so" is something mundane, it is found in that which you are blind to because of how much for granted you take it, for example Redness. The bias towards God-Realization has created a particular kind of reaction of the particulate incarnation, a reaction which is very predictable and Leo is currently living out, which many of you will also live out due to following a similar path. Of course it will be Absolute, because it was deemed so. And that precise deeming it so is what many do not notice.

There is a particular belief system here that is about "Increasing Awareness", and so forth. And the extraordinary insights that are sought, within extraordinary states, kind of blind the monkey mind and make it go a bit crazy over it. There is a reason why the human mind is so attracted to these realizations. Even within meditation practices these states are often sought, rather than looking at Redness and recognizing the Causeless Cause.

The Causeless Cause is not just found in a God realization, it is that which deems God realizations. You can notice the Causeless Cause, pure Divinity, in any state. And once you see it in any state, it will be the same in all states. There is no state that will be more or less "Causeless", the deeming it so will be Mystery. And that Mystery the Deeming it so.

 

Notice this:

You can realize total awareness, and then increase that total awareness. That is because it is deemed so. It can be deemed so ad-infinitum, because that is the nature of the deeming it so. It is Causeless, it requires no reason, no limitation, it is pure Divinity. This particular incarnate had in interest in more intense and grander awareness, of "knowledge" and "insight", and that is what was deemed to be given, that is what is deemed to be.

 

Also, there is this quest of "What is the fundamental Nature of Existence/Consciousness", and then one looks into it. Well, whatever one will find was simply deemed to be found. It can always be deemed to find more and more and more (if it is deemed so).

Edited March 15, 2022 by Scholar

[Scholar]

And also notice this little story:

None of you were ever interested in Truth. That's a lie you tell yourself. If you were interested in Truth, you would stare at Redness all day long in absolute bliss and satisfaction. All that is already is Truth. You have no interest in the Rawness of all that Is. Before you could be interested in truth you had to go through an entire quest of Recontextualizing Truth. You basically put a bunch of sugar on your Truth and now that you are "enlightened" you say "Oh look how wonderful truth is". If you had truly through Truth to be wonderful, you wouldn't have needed to recontextualize it at all. You only like Truth in a recontextualized state.

You have a very particular kind of selective interest, and Leo in particular values "Understanding" more so than "Truth". If he valued Truth, he would look at Redness and be satisfied. His quest would have been over before it had started.

This quest of Understanding is a result of a particulate incarnation. The Truth is this:

It was deemed so.

That's all. Notice how unsatisfying this is to an intellectual chimp mind greedy for understanding. That kind of chimp mind will naturally ignore this, and go on to seek more and more and more. And it was deemed to be given, as it was deemed to be sought after. It is in no way different from the ant, who has it's own selective desires. For the ant infact, a state of unseparation and grand totality of awareness might already be present and mundane. It might be much more interested in serving it's colony. That which is mundane to the ant might be the entire purpose of all of existence to the chimp mind. Why? Because it was deemed so.

 

Causes don't originate Effects, rather: Causes are deemed to be Causes of Effects.

Edited March 15, 2022 by Scholar

[vindicated erudite]

On 13/03/2022 at 3:48 PM, Inliytened1 said:

if you are already awake and conscious of this then why are you still talking to people?

Because you can still experience different perceptions/experiences of reality extrinsic from yourself albeit in a limited form. Separation is a feature, not a bug in this dream which allows you to explore a side of reality that you could not in a God state. 

[vindicated erudite]

On 13/03/2022 at 3:48 PM, Inliytened1 said:

God has to imagine it's real in order to buy into the illusion - thus bringing reality into existence. 

So if God doesn't believe it's real does this dream cease to exist? No. God is infinite. Semantically, it would be incorrect to prescribe finite human qualities such as belief and creation onto something limitless. 

[Inliytened1]

18 hours ago, vindicated erudite said:

So if God doesn't believe it's real does this dream cease to exist? No. God is infinite. Semantically, it would be incorrect to prescribe finite human qualities such as belief and creation onto something limitless. 

This is happening at an Infinite level of Consciousness.  You are not conscious of it as you are cosplaying as a human otherwise you could not fully be the human.  But you are dreaming everything into existence at an infinite level right now and hiding it from yourself.  But that doesnt mean its behind the scenes anywhere its right here.   So should you realize directly at the level of Being that the human you are cosplaying as is imaginary you will become Infinite Consciousness and yes the dream could cease to exist.  That's what we call death.   But what we call death is actually Infinite, Divine Consciousness.  Infinite Bliss and Infinite Love.  It is possible you aren't ready for the dream to cease when this happens and so you return to your costume - you return to form- though forever aware that you are Infinite Consciousness donning an imaginary mask.  And should you awaken again to your true nature it is possible that the dream would cease altogether.  It all depends on your level of attachment to this particular dream, which is usually very strong if your ego is strong.   

[Inliytened1]

18 hours ago, vindicated erudite said:

Because you can still experience different perceptions/experiences of reality extrinsic from yourself albeit in a limited form. Separation is a feature, not a bug in this dream which allows you to explore a side of reality that you could not in a God state. 

No dispute there.

[Inliytened1]

On 3/15/2022 at 8:24 AM, Scholar said:

And also notice this little story:

None of you were ever interested in Truth. That's a lie you tell yourself. If you were interested in Truth, you would stare at Redness all day long in absolute bliss and satisfaction. All that is already is Truth. You have no interest in the Rawness of all that Is. Before you could be interested in truth you had to go through an entire quest of Recontextualizing Truth. You basically put a bunch of sugar on your Truth and now that you are "enlightened" you say "Oh look how wonderful truth is". If you had truly through Truth to be wonderful, you wouldn't have needed to recontextualize it at all. You only like Truth in a recontextualized state.

 

With these words I can only assume this is because you have never had a realization of no self (ego.dearh) and became Infinite Consciousness .  What we are talking about, in a nutshell, is spirituality.  

 

On 3/15/2022 at 8:24 AM, Scholar said:

Ll

You have a very particular kind of selective interest, and Leo in particular values "Understanding" more so than "Truth". If he valued Truth, he would look at Redness and be satisfied. His quest would have been over before it had started.

 

No - there is something called spirituality.   You can die and become God.  Or you can experience God.  Right now you are in a finite state.   If you tell yourself this is Truth, you would be correct.  But if you tell yourself there are no other states of Consciousness and that this is enlightenment you would be incorrect in the Absolute sense.  If that is what is true for you now then that is what is true for you.  But enlightenment, the dissolution of the self and the becoming of Pure Awareness is possible.   You seem to come from a rationalist worldview that has never had any mystical experiences thus these doors do not appear open to you right now.   There's nothing wrong with that but it is what it is.