RendHeaven

@Inliytened1 Yes I'm aware. But can you maintain that resolve when a loved one dies in front of your eyes? I don't think this is something that can be hand-waved away so easily, even after realizations of oneness. It's a total mindfuck, especially because your ego may want to grieve and your ideas about "oneness" might prevent you from being authentic in that moment.

@kieranperez Do you insist that your question goes beyond language, imagery, and symbols? Dissolve these and you no longer have a question. In fact, this could be said of all questions in this thread, although the way in which these symbols are dissolved differ from question to question. @cetus56 Am I being discouraged from answering certain questions? It's hard to tell. This particular one about gravity caught my interest, as I used to hold the same question in the past. Anyway, now that you ask: I do indeed have a question! "But Leo, how could you say that I was never born? I just watched my baby daughter being conceived, are you denying that this is how human beings come to be?"

@Leo Gura and all others, have you watched someone die or be born since integrating your non-dual experiences? @Rodrigo SIlva I'm tagging you in case we get interesting responses. I think this might be insightful for everybody. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the average person, when watching someone die, we might think: "oh, so human beings eventually cease to be." We think this because the human meat-bag that we observe, which was once animated, is now no longer animated. This apparent lack of animation tends to characterize what we call "physical death." We don't consider death to have occurred until the body stops acting. (breathing, heart beating, etc.) I am using "acting" and "animating" interchangeably. Along with this ceasing of animation, the distinct qualities that the human meat-bag once exhibited appear to cease as well: the things which we might call "personality" or "soul." "Personality" and "soul," it seems, are merely the labels we give onto the cumulative actions we observe of a human being. This is why we think of "souls" as exclusive to "sentient beings." It is conventionally agreed upon that rocks do not have "soul" simply for the observation that they do not act. So throughout the process of observing a "physical death," we might conclude that death is the ceasing of animation in a body and consequently the extinguishing of whatever self-animating qualities were contained within (i.e. "soul.") Furthermore, we tend to believe (unsurprisingly, due to culture): "I am a human being." This is a vague notion. Are we the body? Are we the soul? In my experience, most people I talk to believe that they are a soul of some type. The body is what is "had" by the "I." So what is the "I?" The soul! Of course! Well, the "soul" was seemingly shown to be annihilated through the process of "physical death." Since many believe that they ARE the "soul," this might lead us to think: "I will eventually cease to be." That is to say, we can make the abstract connection that just as the meat-bag before our eyes is no longer capable of animation, and consequently there is no "soul" to be found within, the same thing will occur to ME, the SOUL that I AM if MY body were to undergo this "death." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conversely, as the Greeks once thought, one might arrive at the opposite conclusion that, "though the body has died, the soul lives on!" One might argue this on the basis that since the body was possessed by the soul, "physical death" is merely the relinquishing of this possession, and that the "soul" is doing its "soul thing" elsewhere independent of the body. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, I understand that everything typed thus far is absolutely relative, grounded in nothing but circular, self-referencing imagery. Furthermore, it would be impossible to arrive at any of the conclusions above in the absence of a thinking mind. The biggest kicker is, this whole thing hinges on a false notion of "I." So I am not arguing for these conclusions whatsoever. Rather, I am doing my best to illustrate the common way of thinking about death, and I am acknowledging that there is a fair reason that one might imagine that they will eventually cease to be. It's not an accident that almost every adult human has some notion of nonexistence. This notion was deliberately arrived at through a combination of hearsay and observation. This notion is especially convincing if you happen to have the opportunity to watch a death occur right in front of your eyes. Personally, my grandmother is due to die within a week. This might sound (very) insensitive, but I'm weirdly looking forward to watching it occur. Of course, I love my grandmother (to whatever limits relative love has) and... now I just sound like a dick haha. Wow, it's very hard not to sound crazy the second you question cultural norms. (i.e "death" is "bad," "love" is "good") So anyway, have you witnessed what we call "physical death?" Or conversely, have you witnessed "birth?" It's easier to accept that "you were never born" or that "you can never die" while you are sitting alone in your room, but can you really say that while watching your grandma die? Well, I'll find that out soon, but I'm interested in hearing your take

You might want to look into this more. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you literally could not say that "falling" occurs if you eliminate things from your worldview. Actions cannot take place without objects. You have verbally eliminated objects, and yet you accept actions as occurring because physically you still believe objects exist. What happens if you seriously eliminate all objects, physically? That means when "I" "throw" "a rock" "up" and it "hits the ground:" There is no "I," and consequently no "throwing." There is no "rock," and consequently no "up" for it to aim toward. There is no "ground," and consequently no "hitting." This is certainly worth contemplating.

It's a metaphor for the human psyche. Wow. Duh. That's so obvious now! Thank you Leo. We as humans are just like the Greek gods... immortal, neurotic man-babies. I wonder if the creators of this myth understood the literalness of immortality.

It's even trickier because academics that build their lives around the construction and maintenance of thought-stories need to be taught (if Truth is their goal) that thoughts are limited. E.g., a philosophy major who has a genuine intuition for Truth-seeking but is lost in reading Kant and Nietzsche needs to temporarily adopt a "get rid of thoughts" mentality to reach the next level of development. If you swooped in at that moment and informed him that there is no need to eradicate thoughts, it will be very easy for this person to twist that teaching such that he can let his thought-stories about "the truth" survive.

@Leo Gura There is only one video game that has ever influenced me on a deep existential level. It is also perhaps the single most conscious piece of art/media that I have ever encountered. The game is called Shadow of the Colossus, originally released for PS2 back in 2005 but now there is a graphic remake for PS4: https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Colossus-PlayStation-4/dp/B071WPKD5P?th=1 I can not recommend it enough. Though I cannot say much without spoiling the brilliant ending, I will say that it explores devilry (precisely as described in your video: what is the devil?) like no other work of art has. The very fact that Shadow of the Colossus is a video game (where one takes control of a character and is responsible for their actions) allows for its exploration of devilry. The narrative impact would not be anywhere near as powerful if this were a movie, for example. Furthermore, the game has a rare simplicity and serenity. It consists of 16 back-to-back boss fights (no mobs) and breathtaking scenery. It's also rather short. You can probably complete it in ~10+ hours. If you ever play a video game in your life ever again, Leo, remember this!

A yellow country is almost impossible at our current state of development for the reason that a yellow country will have to admit that it itself is collective delusion.

Do you think you can expand on this? I understand this intuitively but not on an intimate level. Immortality = no limits = no fear = no need to defend/preserve/manipulate... Does that sound about right? This is precisely why I've always been skeptical of the Greek Pantheon, by the way. Supposedly each individual god is immortal, but they all act like neurotic man-babies. I still wonder what the Pantheon is supposed to be a metaphor for. I struggle to see any nondual implications (whereas the Hindu gods, for example, are clearly facets of the same Whole).

I wonder what you're like in real life

@Everyday All plans eventually fail. I always gather my resolve and blast through the laziness with passion and fury only for it to burn out within a week or so. This pattern is constantly on loop. I've more or less accepted this. Ideally the fluctuations will lessen, but it's really tough. I cannot trust myself to tame this with "willpower." At this point, the strategy is patience. As long as I bounce back, I consider myself on the right path. On another note, will you be going back to college this year? Interesting how this thread has "college" in the header but you don't talk about it that much anymore!

So was it worth it?

This book is a monster. You're a champion for that

This. I got hit by a HUGE wave of this for the last few days. I started off the week really pushing my spiritual practices to the next level, and really expanding my consciousness. Next thing I know, I'm being a lazy piece of shit and the more I fight it the more I indulge. It's amazing how progress is followed by regression, ALWAYS. I'm slowly pulling things together for another burst in an upward trajectory... I hope this is sustainable Do you experience similar ups and downs?

@jim123 I'm not suggesting that we should deny Jesus. I am simply suggesting that he is a big question mark. "Jesus," metaphysically, is an idea. All of his teachings are an idea. You don't know if the idea of Jesus is any more real than the idea of Circe from the Odyssey. Therefore, although these ideas may be insightful, we cannot be certain that one idea is the "most correct." Anytime you claim that an idea is the "most correct," you yourself are the one granting it authority. If you were perfectly honest with yourself, you would see that: There is no real authority behind any of Jesus' teachings. There is no real authority behind any of Leo's teachings. This leaves us in a tough spot where we do not have anywhere to turn to or any superior to cite. Luckily, this is exactly where you must begin if you mean to seek Truth. You cannot seek Truth so long as you place false authority on an idea. Tl;dr: Is Jesus right? Nobody knows. Is Leo right? Nobody knows. Investigate both teachings personally.

@jim123 My dude, for all you know, "Jesus" is the invention of someone's imagination Your are giving him too much authority.

@Bill W "Direct experience" is "Truth." Got that? I'll say it again "Direct experience" is "Truth." Why the quotes? Because the label DIRECT EXPERIENCE and the label TRUTH are precisely NOT True in the most absolute sense. The thing which these labels point to - now THAT is what is True. Not True as a label, but True in the most absolute sense. When some asshole on this forum says "I am God" or "All is One," I want you to notice that the statement is inherently NOT True in the most absolute sense. The map is not the territory. Obvious stuff. The totality of territory cannot be communicated because communication is within territory. Therefore, we use maps. "I am God," "All is One" - these are maps. Now, it's your job to recognize that what is being communicated is a map. It's your turn to look for the territory. To really answer your question: Yes, all statements made on this forum are not "the Truth." However, most people here understand the limits of communication, and attempt it anyway. As long as you are lost in maps, you will not find Truth. "which map is better? which map is more right?" The answer is none of them, lol. The most accurate map is not a map

@SOUL Such a big deal out of words... For the sake of clarity and communication, Leo needs a label for selfish people. Of course, we are all selfish to varying degrees. So this label includes all of us. "Devil" is Leo's chosen word precisely because it reflects the Christian archetype. What is the Devil? The devil is one who separates himself from God out of ignorance (thereby forgetting that he IS God). This perfectly describes most of us. It is precisely the mechanism by which selfishness arises. Are you suggesting that Leo should stop labeling entirely? Surely not. It's a necessary teaching tool. Note that all labels are inherently independent of moralization. If a particular label seems wedded to a particular moral, that is culture and brainwashing at work. Devilry is simply an observation. YOU are the one adding the moral context. No shit Leo is aware that the devil isn't real. It's all God. But he must communicate selfishness nonetheless. Clearly, the fundamentalist Christian priest who hates gays has (ironically) forgotten more of his Godhood than the bisexual Starbucks barista. If your gripe is that the label should be something other than "Devil," then you are distracting yourself. Would it soothe you if we all agreed to say "selfish people?" That doesn't cut to the point quite as much though, does it? It doesn't encapsulate the critical aspect of "forgetting God."

@LastThursday Good insight.

This is really tricky. Of course "observation" is included within Aristotelian contemplation - without observation, there is no "thing" to contemplate about. But I don't think he stops there. He could not say half the things he says if he really let go of his mind. At some point, the mental chatter begins, and he starts to categorize. Any time "the mind" "acts," thinking occurs. In the very definition you've given, contemplation is equated to the mind acting. "A thing" can be finite and exhibit an infinite amount of states, lmao (thereby not being finite) All these distinctions are just so preposterous. This man walks up to reality with a big phat sharpie and actually thinks his lines matter. It's amazing.

Yes, but note that Aristotle's Prime Mover is credited only for setting the universe in motion, not for creating the substance of it. So really, it doesn't have full God status. He has no direct experience of it - it is a figment of his imagination. Furthermore, it is explicitly stated that the Prime Mover somehow has a love for contemplation and knowing itself - through thinking. So actually, Aristotle is still paradigm-locked into thinking that thoughts are the only way to have knowledge. Though he calls the Prime Mover indivisible, he does not fathom that it is literal absolute infinity. In the same book (or was it the Physics? Can't remember) he draws the distinction that a conceptual infinity exists, while an actual infinity cannot. Bah. Lost in concepts. Of course, if I said this to an academic, he would call me arrogant and get defensive. These are really tricky grounds. Regarding direct experience, you either get it or you don't. Aristotle simply did not get it.

Honestly, even "small glimpses" are really impressive considering how philosophers tend to be hyper-intellectual. In a weird way, being conventionally intelligent is actually a hindrance if your goal is to have awakening experiences. Too much mind stuff. Nonstop. The delusion tends to run so deep that in most cases, the basic (relativistic) distinction between thoughts and awareness is never made. I mean, try telling Aristotle that you could understand something without thinking about it And for them to have glimpses of oneness despite this delusion? That's actually pretty cool.

Unlearning goes so, unbelievably deep. You can unlearn and undo your whole life in the service of Truth. I wonder if Dr. Nicole is aware of this.

"Physical external objective reality." When you're really conscious, it becomes seriously laughable. Not in the sense that you immediately realize that "everything is imagination!" (No, I'm nowhere near Leo levels of awareness haha) But rather, you can get in touch with the raw mysteriousness of what is. And you see how you explain away the mystery as "here I am looking at these objects" Just utter nonsense. But then we always somehow slip and forget, and "physical external objective reality" appears self-evident once more. It's so absurd. And funny