What's your opinion on Actualized.org (Reddit Nonduality thread)

[UnbornTao]

On 22/01/2024 at 0:09 AM, Osaid said:

Everything that exists is experience by definition, so how can something which is permanent like enlightenment fit into something transient? Very simply, it is a subtraction. It is a lack of false identity. A lack of something can exist in all experiences.

If you're not seeing the color red, is "not seeing red" an experience? If you are not seeing a false identity, is that an experience or a state? Is it an experience to not experience something?

Is the lack of something, an experience?

 

Experience is indirect.

I'd refrain from conjuring up cosmologies around this topic however convincing they are; direct consciousness is what does the trick.

Edited January 23 by UnbornTao

[Osaid]

43 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Experience is indirect. I'd refrain from conjuring up neat cosmologies around this topic however rational and convincing; only direct consciousness does the trick.

What is the difference between experience and direct consciousness? How can you experience something indirectly?

I would normally refrain from creating rationalities, but it seems you have rationalized some kind of distinction between experience and enlightenment. I am explaining to you how enlightenment seemingly occurs within all experiences, since that was related to the contention you brought up. I agree that enlightenment is not a state or transient experience since that would create a duality, but again, it manages to exist within all of those things because it is always the case, so that needs to be reconciled.

Edited January 22 by Osaid

[Thought Art]

10 minutes ago, Osaid said:

What is the difference between experience and direct consciousness? How can you experience something indirectly?

Wha oh 

[UnbornTao]

13 hours ago, Osaid said:

What is the difference between experience and direct consciousness? How can you experience something indirectly?

Experience is a process and about something, direct consciousness is realizing what the thing itself is. For example, we experience objects through our senses, and yet seem to be unconscious of the nature of object-ive reality, what objects are. That we perceive something doesn't imply we are conscious of what it is existentially.

Quote

I would normally refrain from creating rationalities, but it seems you have rationalized some kind of distinction between experience and enlightenment. I am explaining to you how enlightenment seemingly occurs within all experiences, since that was related to the contention you brought up. I agree that enlightenment is not a state or transient experience since that would create a duality, but again, it manages to exist within all of those things because it is always the case, so that needs to be reconciled.

It is absolute, not an experience. 

Edited January 23 by UnbornTao

[Osaid]

5 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Experience is a process, direct consciousness is "being the thing itself". Whereas experience is about something, direct consciousness is being in the same place, so to speak, as the thing being contemplated. For example, we experience objects (through our senses) but lack direct consciousness into the nature of object-ive reality, what objects are. That we perceive something doesn't imply we know what it is -- this is an indirect, relative encounter.

You ultimately have to reconcile that there is no difference between anything that is experienced and what is absolute. It is mostly just a scenario where you are seeing a rope as a snake, so to speak. And you have to recognize the rope as the rope. The rope is absolute, not the snake. There are no objects in any experience, even if you think there are. There are no snakes in any experience, even if you think there are.

You are already "being the thing itself", you just think that you aren't. The goal is to find out why you think that, and how you think it. You are already directly conscious of everything, you just think that you aren't. There is no alternative to being directly conscious. If there was a flux in "being something" and "not being something", that would be a duality.

You can absolutely know what your perception is, because you are perceiving it. It is all in front of you. It is you. Your experience can't hide anything from you because you are it. You can't partially perceive a color or sound, you can either perceive color or you can either perceive sound. Awareness is never partial about what it is aware of. So then, what are you currently aware of as yourself? Your current experience always has the answer, you just have to question it.

There is no such thing as anything relative in experience, just the thought of it. The thought itself is infinite too, where is the edge of your thought? The location of it? The distinction of it?

[Mada_]

On 22/1/2024 at 9:50 AM, Osaid said:

It's not a teaching. You can literally become aware of exactly what your experience is, permanently. It is awareness of what your experience is, just like being aware of sound or sight or taste. There is an objective experiential shift that can happen where you become aware of this. It is not a teaching or a claim or an insight or anything intellectual. I am telling you that I became aware of something in my experience, and that this is the exact same awareness that non-duality, Buddhism, and all the other enlightened teachers before me have been pointing to. They are all pointing to the same thing, and they have been for centuries. Leo has not become aware of what they have been pointing to and he has tricked himself into thinking that he has somehow transcended it or found something more true through psychedelics. There is not a single enlightened person out there who agrees with Leo, and there is a very good reason for that.

Yeah I’ve had no dual experiences, none of what you’re saying is new stuff, especially on this forum, and has been covered in Actualized.org videos for years 

[Osaid]

2 hours ago, Mada_ said:

none of what you’re saying is new stuff

You're not going to reinvent absolute truth or enlightenment, unlike what Actualized.org proposes. Actualized.org does not cover what I am saying, the owner of the site literally denounces non-duality now. They do not understand non-duality, and they come to terms with this by saying "what I have realized is more true." 

2 hours ago, Mada_ said:

Yeah I’ve had non-dual experiences

Yes, you've had what are called "awakenings" or "enlightenment experiences" or "kensho." I'm talking about enlightenment, which is different from all of those things. You can have an infinite amount and variety of non-dual experiences or awakenings, but they are ultimately just temporal identity shifts, nothing permanent or true.
 

 

Edited January 23 by Osaid

[UnbornTao]

@Osaid You seem to be holding enlightenment as something experienced.

Experiencing is indirect as it is a process mediated by biological senses. You perceive, say, a pencil, but what is it? 

It can be easy to confuse state, beliefs and unusual experiences with enlightenment, it's better to remain open and to keep contemplating.

Edited January 24 by UnbornTao

[AerisVahnEphelia]

Or you understand your core experience and what it entails or you don't.

 

[Argonaut]

I'm confused by the difference between having no identity and realizing that you're God. Aren't those the same thing?

Realizing that you're God is almost like a non-identity since you're everything and nothing, right? Identity is dualistic if you're claiming to identify as one thing as opposed to other things... but realizing that you're God means that you identify as all things and also nothing. Realizing that you're God is the only non-dual identity. If nonduality is all about how there's only ONE thing... isn't God a good word for that one thing? Like what else would this magical shit be?

Kinda confused about the whole deal with the word "experience" too. I understand that people don't use that word since "experience" implies a process over a period of time, which doesn't actually exist since time is an imaginary concept in the present. Realization might be better, but then again, that makes it sound like an ego had some kind of insight. Same with awakening and enlightenment. Who awakened or was enlightened?

I feel like any word that someone uses could be torn to shreds and we're just using semantics as a way to spiritually dunk on each other without actually clarifying anything lmao 

[Osaid]

42 minutes ago, Argonaut said:

Realization might be better, but then again, that makes it sound like an ego had some kind of insight. Same with awakening and enlightenment. Who awakened or was enlightened?

I feel like any word that someone uses could be torn to shreds and we're just using semantics as a way to spiritually dunk on each other without actually clarifying anything lmao 

The best way I can explain it is exactly how I explained it before. Enlightenment is fundamentally subtractive, which means it is a "removal" of false identification. That is why it is often described as a "non-experience." This "removal" happens in an instant, it is a very simple experiential shift that can be triggered by questioning and examining what you are. People do it through self-inquiry, meditation, etc. You're not gaining anything and you're not experiencing anything new, but it is a recontextualization. It is like that optical illusion where the bunny switches to a duck and vice versa, the picture doesn't change at all, but perception somehow does. I might be losing brevity by trying to explain it so simply and clearly, but I think it is very helpful to know that there is an objective aspect to it where you literally lose your ability to think about yourself or have emotions towards an imaginary self, this is the part which is not really communicated very well in my opinion, and I think it clears up a lot of confusion. Like there are definitely objective and measurable consequences to being enlightened, like a difference in energy and sleep and how you react to thoughts. 

 

Edited January 23 by Osaid

[Osaid]

40 minutes ago, Argonaut said:

I'm confused by the difference between having no identity and realizing that you're God. Aren't those the same thing?

It is the same thing, yes. But it is not your ideas of it. If you are not aware of it then that means you only have ideas of it. You can't be aware of the color red by having ideas about it, you either see it or you don't.

"Finding God" or "looking for God" is the wrong objective in my opinion, because that means you are chasing after an idea. If God is supposed to be your experience, then you simply have to question what exists in front of you, which is just your own experience. What are you experiencing right now? You don't question "God", you question experience. If you understand your experience, then you will understand God, you don't have to worry about God prior. "God" is just a word someone made up to point you towards the direction of your current experience.

Edited January 23 by Osaid

[UnbornTao]

On 23/01/2024 at 10:34 PM, Argonaut said:

I feel like any word that someone uses could be torn to shreds and we're just using semantics as a way to spiritually dunk on each other without actually clarifying anything lmao 

That's deliberate. At best, debates on this matter open doors for introspection; at worst, the exchange and mutual agreement validate what might fundamentally be a pretension of knowing.

Regardless of what's said, start by confronting your experience.

If you're ruthlessly honest with yourself, are you deeply conscious of your own nature, beyond dogma and philosophy?

Edited January 30 by UnbornTao

[lostingenosmaze]

@uchralganbat

[Thought Art]

@uchralganbat Relax. Stop spamming. Thanks for trying to look out for everyone. I can see you care about people. You don’t need to like Leo. But, I can see you are making false assumptions about him. He is very social these days, enjoys people’s company, loves his family. Some of his videos are very deep and not that applicable to most peoples lives. But, many of his videos are very useful. Leo does not teach that you isolate yourself. He teaches you to socialize, because that’s healthy. But, also to spend time alone because that’s how you can study, practice, etc. So it’s more about balance.
 

Relax, take a breather. I don’t know if me replying is worth it but thought I’d engage with you anyway.

Take care…
 

 

Edited January 30 by Thought Art

[Chrisd]

Well I like Leo