LastThursday

I've never been one for schemes for understanding life. My sister was very much into Tarot when she was younger, maybe she still is. I never understood the appeal. I think this reluctance stems from two sources: being comfortable with the mystery of life, and not wanting to be tied down by faith in a particular system. I learned early on that life was freer and more fun if you didn't live it rigidly. A lot of New Age thinking is about systems for understanding life and I get that a lot of people find solace in that. The mystery and unknowable nature of reality can be too much for a lot of people. People need certainty, control and stability in their lives - a grounding for existence. There is of course no such thing, which is why exposing yourself to the harsh glare of reality can be terrifying. There is a sense of vertigo as we look into the groundless abyss of reality and we shy away from it, instead clinging to our systems and rituals and beliefs. Of course to continue living in this reality there is a constant fight against entropy, by using the weapon of energy. Otherwise known as survival. We have to keep intact the machinery of our bodies by constantly taking in chemical energy and having big brains to avoid all sorts of dangers. So in order to keep on existing in this particular reality we have to ground ourselves in survival. So like it or not survival is the informal ground of existence. Naturally, being humans nothing is simple. Survival is so intricate and nuanced that most of us don't even realise we're doing it. When you walk that well trodden path across the park instead of taking the pavement around the edge, you are practicing energy conservation: survival. When we're scared to confront the boss because we're unhappy with him, that's survival: the potential loss of employment could directly impact our ability to survive. We are totally beholden to our instinct to survive, so much so that we would rather lead a mediocre and lacklustre life than upset our survival chances. We are forced into ways of being by Entropy herself. But again being humans nothing is simple. Against the ground of survival we are also spiritual beings. We believe in fanciful notions of something greater than us; magic; systems of divination; knowing what can't be ordinarily known. This is in complete contrast to survival; there is an inbuilt friction in our natural makeup. We become sad and despondent precisely because a part of us knows that there's more to life than pure survival. So which part is truer? If there is a system for living life it's this: spirituality and survival. It's not one or the other. If we authentically want to be human we have to intermingle the two and not be ashamed of it, this is our true nature. We should strive to unleash our potential as spiritual beings, but also unleash our potential for being skilled survivalists. Both go hand in hand.

@Aturban you are the Big Bang and you are at the centre of it. Everything is because of you.

Hahahahahahahaha.....

What on God's Earth are people? First things first. Why do you identify so heavily with people? Why not place your trust in cats or magpies? Second things next. How is it possible to even recognise a person? Are we born with a template of an "average" human imprinted into our DNA, which then expresses itself in the intricate connections of our neurons? Or if it is indeed a blank slate, then how do we first distinguish the form of a human from all the other noise in our environment? Puzzling. There is of course the blindingly obvious template of our human bodies. But arguably the most important feature of a person is her face. And yet we have no idea what our own faces look like; so the self-template idea is a bit shaky. But I wouldn't say it's without merit. We can at least see everything below our shoulders. That should be enough to provide a template for what to look out for in our environment. Still, it's problematic. For one how do we learn to distinguish between "our body" and "all the other stuff" in the first place? You see how relative all this knowing is? How would you get enough of a grip on knowing, to distinguish both yourself and other people from everything else in consciousness? Third things last. You could flip your viewpoint and just accept the relativity. So that it's not possible in actuality to distinguish people from everything else and from you yourself. Instead You is a hybrid entity. You are both you and them (and everything else including the cats and magpies). After a while it makes perfect sense, but You have to let it sink in. Everything in Your experience is a chaotic mess, but the one thread linking all that mind boggling consciousness is that it's Yours. You are the common denominator for all experience. Every person, every cat, every black and white bird and blade of grass goes through Your filter and your prejudices and interpretations. Yours. You. You are the ground in all the relativity. So for every boss that irritates you, every mother that treats you like a kid, every brother that loves and hates you and every friend that doesn't want you to change, there is a You behind them. You not separate from them. You are them. They are you. There is no template and there is no blank slate. There is only You.

:: language didn,t originate :: :: the production of sounds for the purposes of communication # coevolved like our tongues and vocal chords :: the one thing that all languages have in common are that humans speak them with tongues in their heads :: speech is part of a system along with tongues # vocal chords # and brains :: tongues and vocal chords are part of a system with faces and windpipes # and on it goes until the entire human organism is involved :: :: if the tongue evolved to improve the chances of ingesting food # then it also evolved to improve the chances of speaking :: it doesn,t take a linguist to see the survival value in efficient communication between members of a close knit community :: just as it is impossible to say when the first human hand appeared [[ because each successive hand was only minutely different from the one before ]] # it,s equally impossible to say when the first word or sentence was uttered :: no # a word is inseperable from the non=language sounds that humans make # where each successive generation,s sounds became more and more wordlike over the entire evolutionary history of humanity :: :: the structure and nuance of language is as intricate as the %bandwidth% of the tongue # brain # human system allows :: and # language is an intricate part of the human system :: future language will evolve into ever more complexity and efficiency # until that is we no longer need to speak to survive ::

There's only one person who can actually answer the question. Perhaps when he's more established and understood (I'm hoping), it won't be so much of an issue. I liked the authentic nature of the videos, but I do question the utility aspect - other than to prep you for what to expect - I mean it's not as if you can experience what he is experiencing: you have to do that for yourself.

It makes me wonder what is a thought in the first place. I mean are emotions and thoughts separate or not? Also if you speak out loud, instead of talking to yourself, is that a thought? If you take notes, are the notes thoughts in physical form? Anyway. It depends on the type of activity. If I'm thinking about design for a project or trying to solve a maths or computer problem, I'd say that's nearly entirely visual with no internal chat. From that I get a sense (not really a feeling) of how things fit together and work. For playing and reading music, my fingers do the thinking. It's more like my fingers "think" and then I get the auditory and tactile feedback of the instrument to tell me how play next. I read music badly, but again there's no internal chit chat, just looking and playing. However, if I'm rehearsing for an upcoming situation (because I need to get my facts straight) or presentation, there'll be a lot of internal chat as I go through imaginary dialogue over and over again. If I'm writing, I put the words down and then read them to myself to make sure it sounds good and it flows well. So, a bit like an auditory sound check. But there's a kind of visual thinking which goes on as well, with punctuation and word length and word choice. For an activity like computer programming, thoughts are wordless (you can't speak code!). They kind of just arise and I just type then test. It's a bit like speaking, but without words. For other situations where I don't have enough information or when in social situations it's mostly just thinking by feeling my way in the moment - like an intuition. But I couldn't really describe it in any way.

My opinion is that it's a matter of balance. Ideally Leo would be able to publicly document all the facets of spirituality, not just philosophy and meta-physics, but the physical nuts and bolts, the day-to-day process. Documenting the process of an enlightenment experience for example requires nuance. Videos like this can be interpreted in wildly different ways and some of them are very negative. On a human level, it must be difficult to take a high level of criticism for something you've put love and effort into. But also there needs to be a balance between utility (is the video useful for others), entertainment (does it bring in revenue for his business), documentation (is it breaking new ground), expression (embodying and showing others what you teach). If the balance is wrong then I wouldn't blame Leo for not wanting to continue with these sorts of videos. There are other ways to teach.

What is attention and focus? Attention is what leads us. Some of that attention is innate like being intensely gripped by anything to do with people. Some of it learnt like being excited by the latest console game. All our decisions and motivations are governed by attention. And we try to manipulate attention so that we can shift into newer more elevated states of being. Procrastination, motivation, desire are all driven by attention. Most of our attention is uncontrolled and uncontrollable: that's our humanity, our curse and our blessing. We are mostly attentive to what our ape biology wants. The fraternal twin of attention is focus. If attention is the grip then focus is the strength of the grip. Focus can expand and contract, be tight or be wide, intense or light. When we lose ourselves in a film, our focus is warped into the world of the plot. When we're in the zone or in flow, our focus glides without friction. When we're threading a needle our focus is at a pinpoint. If attention leads, focus keeps us there. But focus is also the the thing that remembers and forgets. If we focus in the right way we can forget who we are whilst playing Bach - and when we stop, we remember ourselves again. Focus allows us to slow down and sleep and dream, focus snaps us back when we wake up again. Focus is the ultimate superpower. We and the world only exist when our focus says we do. What happens when we reduce attention, when we meditate for example? Then focus is let loose. We start to notice it wildly fluctuating, growing and shrinking, constantly in motion. Our attention chases it, instead of focus chasing attention. But eventually it can be tamed and it becomes still. Only then does it start to seep into everything, colouring all of our attentions with the same essence. That essence of serenity, calmness, bliss, beauty and love.

The answer lies in working out what a @Someone here actually is. Because your solipsism springs from there. Even if one day you "woke up" and found yourself experiencing two people's consciousnesses simultaneously - that only tips the probability scales, it doesn't answer the question.

Two times spring to mind: I quit my job of seven years, without any sort of plan and lived off my savings. If I were to do it again, then I would definitely have a plan or a purpose for doing it. All I did was burn through my money and in the end I had to go work again! I booked a flight half way round the world to New Zealand, booked a hostel and went. No plan and a small rucksack: one long sleeved shirt, one short sleeved shirt, thin walking trousers you could turn into shorts, thick walking trousers, a pair of boots, a pair of flipflops, some underwear, toiletries. I had a ball, met a ton of people, regained some of my youth back and did some amazing things (bungeeeee). It was exactly what I needed at the time.

I know it's probably a very broad question and maybe the answer is no. But there's this middle ground between pure survival and pure spirituality that isn't discussed much here. It seems like it boils down to two things. There are systems for living: minimalism, twelve rules, religion etc. etc. But there are also ideals: pursuing happiness, caring for the environment, being grateful and so on. But to me these all feel contrived - surely there isn't a one-size-fits-all way to live? What should be the aim for living both as an individual and as a community? Should there be an aim for living or should it just be free and unguided? Is it just a pix and mix of ideas to suit your situation? What do you think?

Thanks all for your great answers and insights - I'll go contemplate (and live life). Kudos to @xxxx for actually looking up info on killer whales, I've learned something new too.

Stop stumbling. Take a step back and ask: what is truth? Surely it's just something which is true? What does that really mean?

There's a deeper point here about re-inventing ourselves in general. It's clearly possible to do it, we naturally change from year to year; but is it desirable? Yes, we could personally manifest new energies, but I would say this could cause problems socially. Like it or not we are type cast by our friends and families and colleagues and to suddenly become "someone else" would be hard to deal with. The flipside is that we can just "inhabit" whichever character is appropriate to our circumstances. I would say this is incredibly powerful if done right. If done wrong this could be interpreted as social manipulation or a form of sociopathy. I think the dangers of this labelling by peers is very real. Be prepared for pushback!

Is this a realisation someone must have or is it a truism? Is it enough to simply live life mindlessly or must you also mindfully develop spiritually in parallel? Is guidance needed in being spiritual or does it come naturally? I believe killer whales play with their kills (seals), and chimpanzees go to war. What makes them different to us? Or is it just sheer scale of numbers that makes us potentially unbalanced? Isn't this just anthropomorphising animals; can we use animals (and trees for that matter) as proxies for how to live life? Should we rid ourselves of "concern"? Or is that just being concerned about concern? i.e. a waste of living?

I can imagine and ask questions, that's my true nature as a human. So I'm asking and imagining. But ultimately how life is/was lived doesn't matter, the Way is the Way? However a human lives her/his life is the way a human should life his/her life?

So living shouldn't concern itself with being problem free - because there will always be problems? Is there room for reducing the number of problems? Should that be an aim for living?

So happiness in all its guises is important for living? If it's all interconnected then we should aim to think and act in a systemic way to ensure happiness and survival, as a minimum baseline?

Again, like @mandyjw's answer, I suppose the meta aim of living is simply to raise your baseline of awareness first? Or should this actually be a continual pursuit, like, where should you stop? I suppose my original intention was thinking of broad strokes rather than nitty gritty. But perhaps it's all personal and nitty gritty anyway?

Two ticks for "Do what you want". Does this way of living require a certain amount of spiritual development? If so should the aim of living initially be to "get spiritually developed"? And then to live life in a kind of clear intelligent improvisation moment to moment?

Ok maybe my wording was weird. I meant question in a rhetorical kind of why. Maybe goal is a better word. You want to reach a goal of "constant experience of consciousness without the ego", but you have already reached that goal. It's like saying: I want to experience a room without a chair, because the chair is ugly and makes me suffer. The room is Truth, but the beauty and ugliness of its furniture is not Truth. You're already standing in the room, but the furniture is distracting you.

It seems to me like you're seeking the answer to a question you already know the answer to. That's just a story of the mind. Why get rid of the ego? Why meditate? What has will and mental health got to do with it? Why the struggle? As you say, with or without ego, with or without meditation, with or without will and mental health, with or without struggle, "There is just consciousness".

Two levels. Two truths. Is the ego state of consciousness any better or worse than any other state of consciousness? Why the frustration if you already know the truth?

My insight is: If you want to create insights on demand, then you have to have good questions. These are interesting or exciting questions you don't already know the answer to. Eventually you will get an answer, which is an insight. The harder the question, the better.