RendHeaven

No, I'm questioning your integrity as you copy-paste Rumi ?

-retardation is so key lol

This question is so backwards lol

lol

Not to put you on the spot but you do realize how bold of a statement this is? Putting rep over truth is in some ways the definition of human. If you always adhered to the truth you would just die.

Wow, we are in identical boats

There we go. Someone who's properly studied I salute you brother.

proud of you brother

I felt that in my soul ?

key word

I have no view! but thanks for the charitable follow up

@appealtothirdpartyentityforthesecondtimethisthread this guy thinks he's actually talking to someone other than himself ? Edit: I mean this lightheartedly

Book of Job type beat

Actually, I agree. This is what I speak of. You do not currently have this. It is evident in your speech. You have relative ideas and nothing else. You own a map about everything which claims to not be a map. Let's shut up and do the work.

You're lost. Godspeed.

This is a proper response, since whatever distinction you approached him with is self-made and arbitrary... This is not a contradiction, since he does not strictly equate Emptiness and Consciousness. When Leo uses the words: "Consciousness" "God" "Love" "Infinity" or "You" he speaks of an infinity beyond infinity which mere "emptiness" does not faithfully represent. There's a reason that, if you were to ask him: What is real? What is truth? He answers you with "Consciousness" as opposed to "Emptiness" or "Void." That's not to say that any of these are different substances. It's all the same Oneness. It's merely a matter of - how fully have I realized this Oneness in state and speech? If you are under the impression that Emptiness is the greatest Whole, it is likely that you are still missing Consciousness. Yes! Good catch. The next paragraph after the part I previously quoted reads: "For were [the underlying substance] similar to any of the entering forms, on receiving forms of an opposite or wholly different kind, as they arrived, it would copy them badly, through obtruding its own visible shape. Wherefore it is right that the substance which is to receive within itself all the kinds should be void of all forms [...] So likewise it is right that the substance which is to be fitted to receive frequently over its whole extent the copies of all things intelligible and eternal should itself, of its own nature, be void of all the forms." But also, careful with the statement "Consciousness is Emptiness." Maybe it's not a strict equality. Maybe Consciousness has all the properties of Emptiness + something more. How would you know? Sorry man I feel like I'm beginning to sound redundant. You know what - if I were to be ultra-precise, your reflections have truth from within whatever state of consciousness you put forth your assertions from. Your project continually seems to be - giving an Absolute quality to otherwise relative appearances. The fact that they appeared at all in this sea of Oneness makes them true for you. This framing reminds me of a passage I love by author Zadie Smith, who writes: "Suffering is not relative; it is absolute. Suffering has an absolute relation to the suffering individual - it cannot easily be mediated by a third term like 'privilege. If it could, the CEO's daughter would never starve herself, nor the movie idol ever put a bullet in his own brain." I found this fascinating and somewhat true despite the ultimately relative nature of suffering. This is one of those mindfucky moments when the absolute and the relative appear to bleed into each other. Perfectly true from certain states - but perhaps not true in ALL states. I will continue to insist that if you alter your state of consciousness radically enough, everything you advocate for here in this thread will burn away into laughter and silence reverence. You will laugh at yourself for ever speaking on the reality or unreality of things as though your words meant anything IMO Leo's trajectory is perfect. His message could not be clearer, for those meant to hear his message. Reality is Infinite, and it is You. Anything else he ever says is in service of getting you to grok this. The details frankly don't matter. People in the future do not need Leo's airtight meta-construct-logic-web. Leo himself doesn't want this. Have you seen his most recent upload here? He elegantly argues that perhaps he should deliberately involve falsehoods in his teachings, for this may awaken you more than a spotless teaching. Leo doesn't give a fuck about technical precision anymore - his concerns are way beyond that.

This whole thing screams lack of construct-awareness and lopsided bias for self-made fictions. I'm about to use a lot of words here but believe me that none of this is meant to be a counter-construct. Rather, my aim here is to burn all constructs to the ground, including my own. "Space and time have to exist just as much as Consciousness does" - you literally just made that up. Your statement has the same philosophical weight as the flying spaghetti monster. I don't say this to try to dunk on you: from my POV I seem to see something that you seem to be missing, and I wish to make this clear. Before I say anything else, you make the mistake of treating space and Consciousness as two distinct bedrock substances, both somehow equally fundamental. This is apparent in the way that you attempt to bound (your concept of) Consciousness by (your concept of) space: And yet you also seem to be on-board that Consciousness circumscribes All. If you acknowledge that your pursuit is to mutually bound Consciousness and space, please see that you are cognitively operating in duality while backwards-rationalizing your duality by paying lip-service to so-called "Oneness." Let's cut the crap: if reality is ONE BEDROCK SUBSTANCE, it can't be both "space" and "consciousness." Either Space eclipses consciousness or Consciousness eclipses space. And whichever one we decree is greater makes the lesser NONEXISTENT through OSMOSIS. Leo's recent video on not-knowing is really crucial for you. If you've already seen it, I urge you work on integrating the lessons immediately. Nearly 100% of everything you claim to know (including concepts of what does or does not exist) is spawned nigh-arbitrarily on the spot by your own hyperactive mind - that is to say, there is nothing fundamental or true about any of your knowledge. This is abundantly, inarguably the case when you introspect from the vantage point of supremely elevated consciousness. The only reason you fight tooth-and-nail for the "existence" and "reality" of "space" and "time" (or any other "thing") is because you're closed off to the possibility of their Absolute absence. It is in fact YOU who is maintaining a rigid duality in thrusting forth the assertation that "space (qua space) exists." When Leo or I say that space does not exist, this is not a dualistic assertion. Nor is it a knowledge claim. Rather, we are choosing to not confine our minds to a narrow, arbitrary insistence. We honor the blank canvas of not-knowing wherein our constructs fall apart like sand castles, for this is the only way to gaze upon the truth with clarity. A passage from Plato's Timaeus - clearly a nonduality analogy: "Now imagine that a man were to model all possible figures out of gold, and were then to proceed without cessation to remodel each of these into every other,- then, if someone were to point to one of the figures and ask what it is, by far the safest reply, in point of truth, would be that it is gold; but as for the triangle and all the other figures which were formed in it, one should never describe them as "being" seeing that they change even while one is mentioning them; rather one should be content if the figure admits of even the title "suchlike" being applied to it with any safety." In this hypothetical, Plato gives us the example of someone who models "all possible figures" out of gold. If I were to point at one of the figures and ask you, "what is that?" the only real answer here is "gold!" even if this gold took the shape of a triangle. To say that the figure itself is a "triangle" is untrue, for it is in fact "gold." Likewise with the square-shape. We are so tempted to say "Look! it's a square!" but the moment we say that, the square is remolded into a circle. So now we must amend our statement: "Oh wait, no, its a circle now! But it used to be a square!" If this is the level at which you are identifying + knowing these figures, Plato would say that you risk being unsafe, for truth is not on your side. Your cognition is at the whims of flux, and at every turn what you once thought was right becomes wrong. By declaring that these shapes exist, you are getting bewitched by a façade, while being totally ignorant of the underlying being and substance at play. It matters not in what way the gold is configured. All that is true and Absolute is this: IT IS GOLD. Likewise now with space and Consciousness. Consciousness is free to appear to you in the shape of a concept which you call "space." So is this apparition real? does it exist? What is the true being here? If you answer "that thing right there is real, and it is space," then you are getting bewitched by a façade. All that is true and Absolute is this: IT IS [ Consciousness ]. When it comes to BEING, there is only ever ONE answer. Consciousness, God, Infinity, Love - whatever you want to call it is fine. The labels are interchangeable. But it is singular. This singularity leaves no room for "space" or "time" to be bandaged on top as something distinctly recognizable. Insofar as space/time ever existed in any capacity - on the level of BEING it is fully absorbed and vaporized by INFINITY as though it never were. This is the necessary fate of all finitudes. "You cannot sidestep the terminological issues, so you have to create a system of language to understand them. This is why intellectual rigor and philosophical technicality are important. Substantial for the Actualized book, the imprint of which upon reality could be extraordinary. No issue, no aspect, can be left unturned." I hope you can respect the "intellectual rigor" of this word cascade even if you feel somehow compelled to disagree. This one was for one philosopher to another That being said, respectfully, your entire methodology is limited and frankly untrue. I'm surprised that an Actualized fan is this wedded to language and finite sense-making. If you really care about TRUTH, you would be well-served to just NUKE your entire paradigm of meaning, and to re-learn life as a nobody. When you really get it, you will be unable to utter such statements as the one I highlighted above in red. I enjoy this kind of intellectual questing, but really only as entertainment. I'm painfully aware that it all means nothing. ----- Tl;dr Just go bask in a state of no-space and you'll see how myopic it is to claim that space is in any way Absolute/on the level of Consciousness. Your relative map that attempts to combine the relative with the Absolute through language is holding you back.

??? Got chills. I love you both

Yes, obviously. But not in the way that you are arguing for it. You are placing a blinding emphasis on partial things appearing real, and using the rhetoric of "its all one" to anchor your sense of sanity. When you actually have Absolute cognition, you wouldn't be asking the questions you're asking right now, nor would you scramble to salvage relativity.

A strong woman desires to feel wanted, not needed

Haha yeah, becoming a man with no relationship needs is a grueling, lonely quest, and it's not for the majority of people. So the majority of women will not find someone like this in their lifetime. But, I mentioned it anyway because it is possible! For most people it's a better path to accept that you have needs, and to learn to communicate them maturely.

You triumphantly declare this from within your vantage point of relativity. Your statement doesn't fly from the throne of Absolute cognition. Oneness is not merely a bunch of relative things glued together. Grasping the WHOLE of Existence at once literally VAPORIZES relativity. If you actually want Eternity and Omnipresence, you have to cut your umbilical cord to relativity. Which is why no human you know is actually Eternal or Omnipresent, including the most advanced spiritual gurus.

Not just women - all human beings with relationship needs are truly fragile. That's not a bad thing. Fragility has its silent boons. I just write like this to remind us of what it takes to find and maintain a stellar relationship. It's a big trap IMO to think that thriving relationships are not a skill - to think that they'll somehow be easy and without challenge.

Time for some good ol' intellectual circle jerking --- If we admit that Consciousness contains space and not the other way around - this means that Consciousness is the WHOLE and space is the PART. Since the (magnitude of the) whole is greater > than the part - this necessarily means that there are aspects of Consciousness which exclude space. If Consciousness = Existence - we must admit that there exists aspects of Existence in which there is (literally) no space. If that is the case, whatever "reality" or "being" we've ascribed to "space" is now seen as contingent and partial. We realize we are unable to declare Absolute being to space. It becomes untenable to say that space is. However, we can still say that space is not. Why? Because "space," from its very conception, is a fabrication of Consciousness. It was never a first-order being. In the eyes of the Absolute, "space" is the phantom offspring of the only thing that is. i.e. it's not. Really, it only makes sense to say that some-thing exists while Consciousness is in a straightjacket of relativity and obscurity. It may sound like Leo or I am privileging Absolute cognition over relative cognition in a biased way - perhaps. But just remember that the Absolute is Eternal and Omnipresent; the relative is not

Nobody denies the observed properties (symptoms) of a so-called "space" and "time," rather we deny the insistence that this rigid sense-making construct called "space" and "time" somehow maintains an independent first-order being outside of consciousness.