Haumea2018

There isn't a "most spiritually developed" person because it's not like being ranked #1 in chess in the world or something. Once you reach Sahaja Samadhi for all intent and purpose you've reached the end of seeking. There are literally tens of teachers like that these days. They all have different personalities, degrees of fame, interests outside of teaching, etc. Here's how you can tell who isn't in that category: 1) They advocate endless seeking in some way or another, whether as far as knowledge or practice. Anyone who tells you that there is no final liberation or that enlightenment "goes on forever" has not fully finished seeking. 2) They cling to concepts of enlightenment - in other words, anyone who doesn't tell you straight up "look, all I'm telling you is just some bullshit concepts, a model that you shouldn't take seriously, it's really impossible to effectively impart self-realization in words because you are going to take these ideas and make projections, and create a story at your own level of awareness, filtered through your current ego structure." 3) Anyone who fails to explain that enlightenment is a paradoxical surrender state or something to that effect is probably not finished. This is something you don't get to for a few years after reaching unity consciousness, or the no-object state. It is a surrender state because there is literally no strand of ego doing the cling/resist dance within yourself, and it is paradoxical because previously seeming opposites are not seen as opposites but two sides of the same coin, so to speak. But again, all of this is unimportant because the ultimate issue here is awakening further. You need a "more enlightened teacher" only at a point where you've outgrown your current teacher and he or she is keeping you stuck. If they are stimulating your awakening, they are obviously being helpful. Beliefs are not that important, the only thing that matters is as I said in 3) -- the relaxation of the cling/resist dance in your psyche until it's gone. Pay close attention to what you mentally/emotionally cling to and what you mentally/emotionally resist, and understand that this is the working of the ego.

Until your conditioned mental habits are altered, not that much. What most people don't know is that self-realization is not merely "spiritual" but "psychospiritual." After you attain unity consciousness (i.e. the permanent shift into the experience he's describing, consciousness without subject/object duality) it takes years to purify and integrate the psyche. You gotta have a ton of patience with the process, and there are no shortcuts. You still have to face all your demons, in other words "dark night of the soul" many times over.

Yes, everyone, you should instead listen to a guy who is daily demonstrating grandiose delusions exacerbated by substance abuse disorder. The guy who thinks he's more awake than Buddha, and refers to himself in third person, and aligns his personhood with divinity on a regular basis. Say what you want about Ramaji, he doesn't claim to be more awake than Buddha...or even his peers like Rupert Spira and others for that manner. Leo is the Pied Piper of substance abuse to a false awakening, and whoever follows him will regret it bitterly. He'll lead himself to a place where he is unable to function in everyday reality between trips and become yet another drug-abusing burnout. But hey -- it's your life, right? Follow Leo and pay the price. Absolute Infinity will use you either way: constructively or as a cautionary tale to warn off others. Your life, your choice.

Like what, out of curiosity?

OK, let's do a thought experiment. Think of everything you hate in your life right now. Everything you think is not what it should be. Now accept it. With 100% of your being. Stop resisting it. "But wouldn't that mean....?" No, it wouldn't. Accept it. Take the plunge.

So I would suggest you emulate God and know more about your ENTIRE self, include the parts you're running from. But you don't need a drug to do so. You just need to stop being afraid, and drop your resistance to what arises. Enlightenment is simply what is, what you're resisting. There is nothing beyond it, except in the mind. Just cool stories.

Show me on the doll where God touched you. Seriously...this is a great memory after come-down. You are never getting that in the normal state, and chasing it will not end well. This isn't doing anything to transcend the mind, which is the problem. This is all dualistic perception, and not merely as a tool of expression. When the mind is transcended, the problems go away because there's complete acceptance. It's not about FEELING GOOD AND SUPER-GROOVY LIKE GOD 100% OF THE TIME, ffs. It's about not resisting what is due to your false ideas of what should be. That's where the UNNECESSARY SUFFERING you're trying to avoid comes from. I have another cute poetic statement: if you keep running, you're running from something.

Apparently neither do you, if you have to stay on the line. Yeah, yeah, I know what you say to that: deeper and deeper. Endless depth. Sorry, Leo, it's about the being, not the knowing. There is no end to seeking of knowing. If you're not getting the message of what it is you're doing to resist "being God" in your "normal state" then I'm not even sure it's the right phone. Did you get THAT message?

When you've gotten the message, hang up the phone. If you have to stay on the line, you're not getting the message.

Of course it is - when you're talking to someone in duality that you've been through, you understand the traps. Seekers keep postponing enlightenment into a distant future. That's the thinking. What I'm saying is of course a duality, but it's better to focus on what you're doing to prevent that state RIGHT NOW and dropping the resistance than looking at it as a future attainment. Any communication is a duality. I hate that it's necessary. But if you keep it simple enough, you can nudge people in the right direction. I may have to add (or re-post) a song to the enlightenment song list.

@Raptorsin7 Whatever I'm called to do. I don't know specifically what that will be in several years. I just want people to understand that enlightenment isn't a destination. It's RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW if you drop the resistance. Destination is in the mind, which is dualistic and projects a nonexistent future. You don't have to do anything to get there, just understand you are ALREADY DOING SOMETHING TO BLOCK IT. So slip into surrender. Stop blocking it.

You're asking the right questions, which means close, but stop thinking of it as some distant destination. Everyone is really THAT close. It's just a question of surrender vs. resistance. Again - simple if not easy.

Pay attention to what you are resisting and note the price you are paying for it. Be open to more of what you were resisting yesterday, today. You don't have to LIKE IT, but acceptance is a must.

Don't get cutesy. Acceptance of what is is not medication, i.e. trying to avoid the issue. I'm not oversimplifying anything. It is simple. Which is not to say it's EASY. You description of that state is coming from YOUR CURRENT STATE, i.e. you're back into the mind. When you are permanently enlightened, it does not mean you never experience negative emotions - you simply have stopped resisting them. You are flowing with it. The point is, pay attention to what you are resisting. THAT is the ego; that is the lack of acceptance. And that is what must go.

@Raptorsin7 The basic conundrum of spiritual seeking is that you are avoiding WHAT IS. You are repressing emotions, in other words: you are resisting. This isn't complicated -- there are no higher states to reach for. Stop resisting negative emotions. If you feel pain, feel pain. If you feel sad, feel sad. You'll feel bad and it will pass. When you resist, it never passes and then you have to medicate via whatever means (sometimes it's not drugs but other addictions.) So, just don't be afraid to feel bad. FEELING BAD is the only way to get to liberation.

Psychological addiction for people who can't handle the mundane, normal states of consciousness. You have to honestly ask why people would take psychedelics on an ongoing, indefinite basis, as opposed to maybe a few times to break blockages. Always ask what the more likely explanation is -- that the people have a problem and are self-medicating, or that they are some special special being that know more than everyone else and are totally dismissing any drawbacks to continuous use.

"Paradise" is for people who cannot accept the now. It is for escapists in other words. People who don't like their normal state and want better. Every remarkable spiritual teacher has said to accept the now. It is the mind that makes it "not paradise" now. The falsity of dualistic beliefs. You don't need psychedelics to escape the now, you need to embrace the now! What you resist persists - there is no escape. If you're thinking that salvation is at some point in the future, after your 1000th trip, you are chasing your own tail.

Revelations are cool stories. They are in essence quasi-religious teachings, that one only understands when one awakens to that permanent state (and then ironically no longer needs them.) You cannot successfully transmit that kind of knowledge. It does not "take" at the same state the student is in. I think it's exactly what he's doing, although he may not be aware of it. Like you said "Leo's descriptions are cool stories. But what he's pointing to is not. " That's exactly my point. You cannot "get" what he is pointing to, so all you get out of it are the cool stories. You only "get" it by permanently living in that state.

If it's the same exact story, why do you and Leo claim that psychedelics are "deeper" or better? Then it's not the exact same story, is it? And again, it's an idiosyncratic definition of "awakening." It's what you and Leo claim "awakening" is. Having some experience and remembering its implications, in essence. No serious spiritual teacher thinks it's remotely the same thing. That's like saying, hey, why don't you jump off a bridge, you've never tried it, you might like it! I have tried psychedelics a few times, and they were good experiences, but they also taught me when to say when. And endlessly taking them to go "deeper" is patently unwise.

But again, I see the same confusion in your comment that I see in Leo's. This apotheosis of "understanding." That's just a cool story, bro. Who told you this "understanding" even matters? Or - the other possibility - is that they don't need psychedelics and see their drawbacks clearly.

OK, I think there is real confusion on this forum about what being "awake" entails. Leo keeps insisting that it has to do with what appears to be a certain metaphysical understanding/knowledge -- which is basically "a story" - concepts. But that is his opinion, his idiosyncratic definition. As far as I know no other reknowned spiritual teacher agrees with that. They all point to realizing The Self, or The Absolute. So you have a choice at this point: either Leo is right and everyone else is wrong, or Leo is wrong, that he has a skewed understanding of what being awakened is. How many other spiritual teachers have claimed supremacy in being awake? How would one know such a thing - because of certain assumptions about what others know? Is Leo psychic, or is he making some unwarranted inferences based on what he thinks others should have been teaching were they as "awake"? Ultimately, this boils down to Leo's "because I say so." There's no way to crosscheck it with other independent sources. What would a reasonable person conclude, presented with such a stark choice?

First composition about SD Orange, Green and Yellow, from 1978.

Basically, egolessness doesn't mean anti-materialism. It means the disappearance of a one-sided, imbalanced attachment to the material. Rejection of the material may in itself be a manifestation of some form of ego. "Hey, look at me, I'm so spiritual!" The ego can manifest in many ways, and some of them resemble the traditional or popular conception of the "enlightened" or pious.

The only way to get there is by embracing your perceived imperfections, not by rejecting them. It's a paradox, I know. Besides, Bernie would tax the hell out of you in that bracket.