Aakash

@Dwarniel I editted it for maximum impact ahah! ??‍♂️

@Dwarniel I’ll make things simpler. Everything you know is a lie literally and that is basically what the ego is. The “thing” that thinks it knows what it’s talking about for sure. And who is that ? Thats dwarniel. So everything that dwarniel knows is a lie. So if everything dwarneil knows is a lie ? Then what’s the truth.. who is dwarneil? That is the true self questioning itself as to why it built the ego (dwarniel) in the first place. Which you will eventually find out it’s culture and conceptual information that lead you to think your dwarneil.

Ego is in its most accurate sense is a cross reference of two egos Vertical ego which is the degree to which you are not your truest nature. Then you have lateral ego the depth of ego the degree to which you haven’t MEASURABLY deepened a facet. There is a third part, which is cross-dimensional ego. Which is the degree to which you haven’t actualised as many facets as you KNOW of. The reason I say know of and not what is, is because that’s placing expectations to do better upon an already near perfect formulae For example, it turns out I was wrong and Jesus was stage teal. So by these standards I am actually SD yellow. That is my degree of ego density, given vertical and lateral ego. See I overestimated myself. With the traditional level version of ego density I would be turquoise with stripes of it. But the depth of each stage and it’s ego density is immense. Typically this is different to what I’m suggesting people think of as ego. This is my first and foremost new definition of ego. My second favourite definition of ego, was inspired by Leo and his embodiment. It is a high degrees of two facets. Absolute self love and absolute healing. When you try to end the suffering of others through your own understanding. Enlightened beings like to confuse their selflessness with self love and it’s a totally different ball game. This is where I personally see many people fall short because of the third definition of ego, which I personally don’t like. However, it is not to be discounted. Inefficable-less egoness. This is a reliquinish of all doership and all facets. Typically what Buddhist and some Hindus teach as emptiness. The mastery of emptiness is the Absence of a doer. Or in other words, complete absence of anything at all. It’s the extreme depthness of infinity a facet can get into. The ironic ego is therefore denoted as, anything short of a enlightenment or awakening into a single facet. The religious ego definition is any mind construct that believes itself to be a human living a human life and funny ego is the definition that there is no ego. The scientific ego is the portion of the psyche in your brain which leads to your belief and moral systems

First of all, I can say with 100% certainty that Leo has mapped out absolute infinity the best for the 21st century. Over the last day, I’ve found out an ironic plot twist. In all honesty it sounds like the biggest bullshit ever. I actually hate most religious dogma, but I understand it’s origin and so I think Leo’s body of work is the most honest. The correct words are all encompassing. his YouTube account doesn’t do his own experience justice. I don’t really care for arguing whether he’s enlightened or not. I’m just saying your own truth doesn’t do his own truth justice. The statement I highlighted is a false equivalency. There is a difference between being self-biased for survival purpose and being self-biased because you’ve reached a point where your experiences can only guide you, with your own knowledge. The equivalence is telling a baby to watch their diet vs telling a dietician to watch their diet. In the end, truth is truth, whether that was subjective or objective. To which truth is neither. Loving its own self is not an objective. To us it looks like an objective until it becomes obvious that it was just the case. Truth itself exists because it was made unknown to you in the first place by design. Otherwise you would know who you are. The whole point of truth is to find out what it means to be “you” which turned out to be “you are a not you , but rather “you” are actually god or absolute infinity thinking you are a seperate self” and how do we know it’s true ? Because if all seperate selfs were the same, the only obvious conclusion is if I didn’t have a seperate self , what would I be ? An enlightenment experience or an awakening experience is the answer. What ever the is and how many times that may be. So therefore what ever your enlightenment or awakening experience is, is a facet. It is the truth of the matter when you aren’t a seperate self, a false facets. There are major and minor facets for humans. Covering the major facets is what I call the all encompassing ones. Leo has shared the most of these facets, because that’s what understanding is. A facet by which god can understand itself. So to say that the Tao can not know itself is true. But it doesn’t mean you don’t try to understand it experientially. The greatest journeys in life are those never taken. ?

@How to be wise words are like cameras. the camera captures a truth what you are talking about is a form of enlightenment which extends to infinity what leo talks about is a form of enlightenment which extends to infinity the odds are for majority of people, it will extend to infinity. capturing a truth or a picture frame of a section of what could be infinite , just doesn't do it justice better to call it infinite. i got it wrong, its not that unconditional love breeds deception its that unconditionality itself breeds self-deception. but leo's one incorporates your one. It just doesn't incorporate your extremities in his teachings. Which don't do his own experiences justice, nor anyone elses for that matter. its up to you which one you want to pick in the end. The only reward one gets is truth, if i'm being bluntly honest its not that love or intelligence is a benefit. Its from my limited view on things, peaceful operating in truth. the extremes you could take any teachings to; are the magnitude of its infinity. To the point where you can critic any other teaching incorrectly , when it doesn't accept your extremes. what i'm saying here will be rejected by extremes, it will get critic for the same reason as "not experiential" so invalid. but forms of enlightenment come in all shapes and sizes. Knowledge is but one of them, and being but another unfortunately

@Key Elements Yeah alright it’s all cognised together. Interesting . I agree then, it’s like I was trying to say in the end. Awakening is infinite it will go on forever. You would have to break the status quo of typical enlightenment. Imo.

@Key Elements Let’s say understanding is a real thing. We work with the absolute set. Instead of against them. Also what you said, is what I meant about working on their own. My point is that although we can help another being. As you’ve helped me to understand more. You can’t discriminate their own pathway. How does one be forceful without forcing ? The words have to be objective-less in the most strategic way. You have swayed my position on things and put things into context. My position of argument is not persuading myself, it’s persuading others who don’t want to hear what you have to say, or who wish to act like devils when there is no such thing. I wonder if the introduction to Leo’s teachings are changing the nature of understanding itself. So what ? God can be ignorant of even his own self as god. After awakening, this is what your trying to say and that is the duality exists. Rather the whole thing is one. But you are it and it is you. Therefore it becomes common sense to live a good life. This is because of a misconception about enlightenment from the mind of the being who becomes enlightened. Which is nothing but truth ? In a sense, if this is what you were saying. You would have gone full circle and arrived at the same place you always were, just with a different perspective. As oneness- both sides of duality. Well it’s not like it’s something new, it’s more like. Something feel like it’s sunk in more. But I won’t know until you say if that’s what your talking about.

@Key Elements I don’t disagree with yourself. I’m saying that it will happen anyway. Some will chooose the easy path and some will choose the harder path. Even if you tell them about the good life. They will choose themselves, your life becomes stress when you actively can’t detach from your own words. Which can only happen on enlightenment. So it’s a good choice that you picked. In fact, there’s nothing to lose. Werent you the one who said a masters goes about his job silently ? And again I don’t disagree. Love is a benefit when it comes to enlightenment that is great for the humans life and to experience a good life. Anyways what I’m saying overall is, kinda stupid. I’m saying do what ever you want but at the end of the day. The fact will be I will be the sad one and you will be the happy one. It’s true that the way you see things will change. But overall I agree. Thanks

@Key Elements I don’t really mind what’s picked. However, At this current point in time. I’m not a fan of false equivalencies. So sure, reflecting it isn’t such a bad idea. it is true that an unrealised person will alwAys misinterpret words until they have a form of realisation. Even if it’s by words. Neutrality is a simple life. Sitting still. As you said, do nothing. People are here on Earth for many reasons. Even doing nothing and winging life is itself a reason.

@Key Elements Then what was the point of realising truth ? There wasn’t if you say such words. But it’s like I said, you could be doing it and throwing out the words object-less-ly Which I think you are.

There are infinitely many facets, but there are major facets which can be all encompassing. The most important facets which I think Leo has actually realised the most of. As well as there are many more which he’s discoverd that haven’t been talked about. Missing any major facet, is not entirely bad. True self is realising true self. The magnitude of embodiment of true self which is awakening is not truth. But it has the apparent look to those themselves that aren’t truth realised. However, there’s no way to tell whether the person themselves are truth realised or embodying truth which can’t be done by truth itself. But is done by truth itself because being is non-dual. So we should say it is truth. I would. But the irony is the enlightenment itself is the truth. Not the realisation of awakenings like love. Words just don’t do these things justice.

I think if you think about it logically, the response to a nuclear weapon is not another nuclear weapon of mass destruction. You would have a revolt, by your own people- against it. Rather you would want to make that decision prosecuted. Namely, by death as the only retribution. But the fear still lurks that there could be a possibility of it happening and so it’s even less likely. Why do stand offs end up in negotiations ? Because when power is balanced, negotiations must be fair. @Leo Gura that comment was uncanny on so many levels. Never heard someone say that ever.

@Inliytened1 Ahh I see thanks for the explanation.

@Inliytened1 Yes agreed. So your right the absolute no perspective is still a perspective or filter and so all words including non -duality are a filter. But it is truth. The awakening of love is probably worth it for living a “great life” for your human. It’s not particularly necessary for enlightenment.. Anyways yeah, it’s because the facet is infinite. So even an awakening is not absolute. No matter how total. But truth is permanent.

@Inliytened1 Yes as long as you remain as that. Regardless of more awakenings and how you act as a dual enlightened being in the dream. Then that’s the truth I’m talking about. That actually includes love aswell. Do you consider this absolute no perspective? And still a perspective

@Inliytened1 Okay not perspective that’s not what I mean. I just mean the perciever of the perspective. No-self

Yes it’s not about having no perspective. It’s about becoming perspective itself. These are two different things. Do you agree with this ? The overall aim of enlightenment is to become perspective itself. The reason being is because awakening is infinite. Which includes the facets of love. I don’t really like to say this. But it’s not even that you guys have arrived at absolute love. It’s that you arrived at infinite love. Then it’ll go to infinite love x infinite love , then infinite love x infinite love x infinite love to infinity and these will be 3 different awakenings. For this reason I say, that it’s incomplete if you take this vantage point. That you yourself are the absolute with a free will. However, the solution to all of this is to become perspective itself, which is not the same as having no perspective. It’s being okay to take on any perspective and play it out.

@Truth Addict AHAHAHAHA! bet you had some absolute soda aswell ? very funny ?. Your now closer to awakening that a few others lol!

@Truth Addict I can surprise you. Do you know that there is a facet of god called absolute fried chicken. It’s eating chicken. I wonder if you had this awakening yet ? in the sincerest of ways, I’m not actually joking. For an enlightened being to become fully awoke. They would need to have the awakening to absolute fried chicken.

Love is a funny thing. It needs no reason to do what it does. What reasoning is low consciousness ? The one where the person feels insecure with their body ? The one where the person feels passion when they look at their tattoo ? The one where it is to look cool for others ? The one where it’s simply just a lovely piece of art? What makes it low consciousness and what makes it high consciousness. It is what is. Speaking of false equivalencies then it’s low consciousness activity.

It is not the ego which delivers us from hell but ourselves.

@Jack River LOL yeah. But your completely right aswell of course

@Key Elements I editted what I said. Simply put it’s that very notion of. I don’t know whether you are attached to your own story of awareness. If you aren’t then that’s great, your in the ideal situation. Ahah yeah I’m not sure. It’s not like I’ve undergone the process. It just took me a long time to realise how it works. I’m not convinced that people here aren’t attached to their story when dealing with infinite love etc. It doesn’t sound like it. But hey it’s like I said. You can’t ever know, the only person who can know enlightenment is yourself

This is a crook! The idea is wise and very true. However, to acknowledge it as absolute truth is untrue. It’s a pseudo-partial-absolute truth. It’s a game of cat and mouse. The only person who can tell you if you know what you are is yourself. Anything seperate to this is a pseudo-truth. Because the position you take is relative itself. You would have to admit that the definition of true self is relative itself. Which nobody wants to admit. That truth is incomplete. Let alone persuading others of such a farce. So I’m not saying your wrong. I actually agree with you. I’m saying that these awakenings are not contained in enlightenment but are contained in maya

@Key Elements But this is adding stipulation. You didn’t understand my analogy. The enlightened being is a wife beater. The man who sings songs or doesn’t sing lullabies about enlightenment are both wife beaters.