Emanyalpsid

Indeed, you could say they arose mutually dependent upon eachother. The brain creates consciousness and through this consciousness we perceive a brain.

Everything we experience points towards that consciousness is created by the brain; neural science, no consciousness when asleep (not dreaming) or unconscious, the innate behaviour (instinct) to preserve our body, change of consciousness if neurotransmitter activity changes, when taking psychedelics for example. There is no evidence or direct experience whatsoever, to support that there is a consciousness without a brain, besides you believing this. It is important, because if you deny that consciousness is created by the brain, you are going to ignore the signs your body and brain gives you, which could lead to unhealthy behaviour. Which could also inhibit your work towards enlightenment as being fully enlightened means to melt the body-mind duality. Meaning your mind melts with your body, you become a full human being. Without you being distracted by the mind, when it tries to create a distinction between your body and an experiencer (the self) out of not-knowing there is no separation between you and your body. You are just human. So, if you deny your body, you will never get fully enlightened. You see, this is where non-dualism is different from Buddhism. Non-dualists believe that consciousness exists upon itself, that it is the core of everything. So, basically they, rather literally, live in their head. Buddhists see that everything is non-dualistic, so there is not even a consciousness at the core. Consciousness arises together with, our perception of, reality. This however does not mean that reality is created by consciousness. There is so much evidence of earth and other planets being a lot older then humanity. But if you truly believe consciousness is not created by the brain, why not take it to the test and shoot a bullet through your brain to proof it. Guess you're not gonna huh?

Maybe you like to read this website. It explains everything in detail. When you reflect upon what you read the transformation of your self and your experience will come.http://www.foundationsofhumanlife.com

What I heard seems correct, although I doubt that he got to the end of it. As I haven't heard him talk about the dependent nature of reality, only about the self. So he definitely transcended the self but I don't know if he transcended reality. But he was more a philosophy entertainer and engaged in multiple philosophies.

To say; "I am enlightened," is a contradictio in terminis, however, I used it here as a reference to my state of consciousness. Enlightenment, as dubbed by Buddhism, means something totally different as enlightenment used by most people in the west. Your meaning of the word depends upon your interpretation, or experience, what it is. So, if you're not enlightened you can not make the judgement if someone is enlightened or not as you don't really know what to judge. How do you know if you are enlightened? Well that depends upon your interpretation. The common interpretation in the west of the concept enlightenment is non-self. The realization that you are not separate from your environment as you are only consciousness of reality and not something separate from this. The concept of enlightenment in Buddhism goes further though and means insight into the nature of reality as a whole and not only the self. Enlightenment in buddhism means; to dissolve. A short explanation of what this means; this is the realization that reality does not exist upon itself, but that it is of dependent origination. Therefore, its essence is empty. A flower is dependent upon space, time, matter, gravity, etc., therefore, the flower does not exist upon itself. Your consciousness is also from dependent origin as you need eyes and hands to see and feel the flower. Without consciousness there would be no reality, they came mutually dependent into existence. Therefore, it is not really perceived as what is perceived is being perceived through it. Therefore ,it doesn't need to know itself, as it knows, that itself came into existence through itself. Itself will dissolve. Itself is the ego of it, or the believe, out of ignorance that reality exists upon itself. Itself is what you are left with if the self dissolves. If you see through this you reached Nirvana. Now, you will probably not understand this at first, but lets hope you will. So what am I enlightened from, you might ask? fear, the desire for meaning, the chain of thoughts, desire to have a grip, dissatisfaction, egocentric emotions, frustrations due to a worldview that does not correspond with reality. Do I not experience them at all? No, but If they arise I do not suffer from them. To make this clear I will use a famous buddhist text; A monk sees his mentor crying besides a grave. The monk is thunderstruck and walks up to his mentor and asks; "Why are you crying?! I thought you learned us to not experience emotions?!" The mentor replies; "I am crying because I feel sad. " You see, it is not about denying emotions or thought, it is about understanding them. And with understanding them I mean a transcedental understanding as a direct insight into the nature of reality. If one realizes the emotions and thoughts have a cause and you realize this cause, you dont really suffer from them as you know how they came to be. You are then also able to take the cause away. How did it came to the point that I made this topic? I see in the other topic there is a great demand of teachers. Am I a teacher? You be the judge. Through questioning me you can question yourself. I will not give you a simple answer as you should think for yourself; you have to find the exit in the maze that is your mind. I had a lot of trouble understanding the texts about buddhism and that was mainly because they are not written in a way that my western logical thinking mind could understand them. All the books I read about it were mainly just copied texts from other books or texts. So after gaining the insight into it all I decided to expand my notes into a text someone else could understand. To share this knowledge and to help people understand buddhism and themselves better. That is why I opened the website: http://www.foundationsofhumanlife.com It should serve as a guide for your mind to understand it all. So, you might want to read it first as most of your questions are probably answered there. But don't just believe what is written. Reflect upon it from your own experience. I am also interested to hear what is unclear or could be improved. As from my environment I have not had any real useful feedback. Important note; if you start reading in chapter 13 instead of chapter 1, don't expect to understand what you read there. You can not understand a book or Buddhism if you skip to the last chapter and only read that. I understand your impatience though and I understand your assumption you can skip chapter 1 till 12 and still get it all. I was the same. I can not answer questions like if I can unlock cities, etc. I am only consciousness, I can't do anything. So, therefore, to prevent a horseload of irrelevant questions in relation to the path, I ask you to not post them here. For the path they are irrelevant. English is not my mother language, so please forgive my mistakes. Lets see where this goes..

Yeah thats also what buddhism points to. However there is a way to make the emptiness of essence clear through words, that is why I wrote the website. Hopefully it makes it easier for people to understand themselves. By reading it, they will be confronted with themself through themself. So I push them a bit you might say. Or better said, I take their hand.

I'm not going to repeat everything all over again. But I will say this and that will be the last of if from my end. You want to communicate something but you don't get that you will not able to know if someone understands it or not if you do not speak his language. Unless you speak to some tabula rasa who never heard anything before and had no previous thought at all or someone who just blindly accepts what you say. You only send, but dont know how to receive. I get your insight but there are probably only a few who will understand you and get it too.

"I would have more luck getting through with somebody who hadn’t read a single page of literature. And with someone who saw the importants of humility." This indirectly means that I dont see the importance of humility according to you. Humility is not an attribute of someone, it is projected by someone on someone. So, the fact that you say this, says a lot about you. Whether it is directed at me or not doesnt matter.

Oops dropped the ball there dude. "And with someone who saw the importants of humility." And how should I show more humility to you hmm? Tell me what I should have done better.

Yeah, when humans engage in social interaction there tends to arise a norm. This has a purpose though. Yeah I know your I is nowhere and nothing. However, the body from which you perceive is somewhere. Although I know you can't do anything about it, don't be surprised that people won't engage in conversation with you if you only talk to yourself. This has nothing to do with them being not enlightened, but with them being a human being.

Yeah I was telling him how this is covered in buddhism, but he wasn't really listening. I also tried to show him that apparently some things still exist for him, as he spoke of attention being unconditioned.

I dont know where you are from, but where I'm from this is seen as asocial and rude. I got the essence of what you were saying, however you did not get my points, but how could you.

I don't understand your language and the meaning you give to concepts. But you are also not realy engaging into conversation, but more holding a conversation with yourself. You use sentences like; it seems to me that.... So I will stop here. Peace man.

I got your point earlier, but I was trying to show you some differences, advantages and disadvantages and asked you some questions for you to see this. You however don't seem to respond to what I'm trying to show you or are not trying. Thats fine, but I'm not going to repeat myself constantly. Language has its advantages and disadvantages in trying to spread knowledge. It is not the method that is wrong, it are the people who use it that dont understand it. Your method is the same as every other method, besides that yours is not verified and improved over generations. You seem to think that your thoughts are free, that you are the thinker of your thoughts and therefore if you dont have to think in terms with what other people say you are free. The self, at its core, is for every human the same. Therefore language is useful in explaining how people can dissolve it. You have the advantage of the ability to go deep into a subject over multiple generations and the disadvantage of people not understanding the concepts which are used. However the concepts used in a method are a very useful guide for people who are already thinking. And people who are not thinking are also not interested in following a method as they are already there. Of course your method has the advantage of not being lost in concepts in language, but you have the major disadvantage that you are trying to invent the wheel for yourself. Maybe you have built a wheel, but if you meet other people it could be that they already have a car. You however will not be able to understand how they got there as you don't speak their language. For example, I did not follow the traditional buddhist path, most of my insights came from using psychedelics. You seem to think that authority is something bad, it is also a way of progress if it comes from someone being the first to do or see something. It depends upon the people who look at the authority if the authority has any power. Therefore, the buddha is not worshipped. The only thing of interest is his method. Your suggestion is wishful thinking. Don't misinterpret my message as critique. I have a lot of respect if you got where you came without using a different method. But even your words, you have not invented yourself. If you have some self invented words, you used letters out of an existing alphabet. See where I'm going with this? And I believe from your posts in this topic you have not completely dissolved the self yet, which I tried to show you. But hey, if you are happy, what are we talking about?

What is suffering for you and what is peace?

We speak two different languages in English. You have your own concepts and a way that they sound logic to you. I use concepts from various fields; psychology, philosophy, buddhism etc. because most people use them, so we can understand each other. You however, have your own concepts, which I dont know about and dont understand, and logic, which I can't follow. So if you wish that people who use the concepts I use to understand you, you are going to have to learn them. If we dive in your language we have to invent language all over again as most concepts are thought out of in our language. That is the advantage of using a method. If you don't want to then don't.

Not quite, with reality I mean everything we experience, including consciousness. So, when someone reaches Nirvana, sees through this non-existence, every concept, phenomenon, experience, object, etc. is empty of an essence, because it is conditioned. However in your mind attention is unconditioned. You don't know how to explain it, but you tried to define it by trying to explain what it is and what it is not. Therefore you posted in this topic, to verify if we experience something similar. You did however not go into my questions how you know if it is unconditioned and if it is always present. You don't investigate it, because you believe it exists upon itself. You identify with attention, you are attention. If you believe something exists upon itself, you can give meaning to it through itself. That is the deepest level of the self. The self is the believe in itself, so one does not realizes this until one does. However, you know I can only point you to something, you have to figure it out for yourself. If you want too of course.

I know what you mean, but the thing with the Buddha was that he went very deep and saw that the whole of reality didn't exist upon itself, not only the self. So he saw that we are not only not-self, whole of reality is not-self. By thinking it exists upon itself it is part of ourself. It is only out of ignorance, or not-knowing, that we hang on to something like attention and believe that it is unconditioned and exists upon itself. And I don't mean the concept attention but the actual experience. In other words you cling to it but don't see that there is nothing to cling to as it does not exist upon itself.

Well, Buddhism or what it is really about, is not really a train of thought in it's essence. It tells you to do self-inquiry, to learn about your self in order to dissolve the self, the same as what you did. The self is in essence the same as we are all humans. This is verified, not by a train of thought, but by the direct experience of others. That is the advantage of using a method. The advantage of only focusing on your own thoughts is that you are not distracted by looking for meaning in what others say in a method. The problem is that you don't really know where you end as you can not relate this to someone else his experience until you learn about other methods. So, because you used the word 'unconditioned,' this triggers me as this means that you think that something would exist upon itself. If something exists upon itself, there is a self left.

How come you say this? Mutual dependency is also a conditioning but no causation. However, they more you say, the less I understand what you mean. You are very convinced that it is unconditioned, however god is also unconditioned. Therefore you will not verify what it is, because it is in your believe unverifiable. If you sleep, in the moments without dreaming, is it still there, I mean present in awareness? If you are unconsciousness, is it still there present in awareness?

No, equanimity is everything without will/desire/choosing I still get the feeling your attention is what buddhists call equanimity. But if you can't explain it, maybe you want to look at it a bit more to understand what it is. If it is really unconditioned or not. How this attention came to be. If it is, it came to be and is therefore not unconditioned. If you don't want to, then don't. Indeed logic and language are decisive for understanding each other. Therefore, it might be interesting to read a bit into Buddhist texts. Not the original, but the common. Also, if you don't want to, then don't. Also, because you are posting here, there must be something for you to find here.

Thanks for trying, but I don't follow your logic yet. Also, I dont really know where you want to go with all of this? "When I say attention that means to the whole of something not a part of the whole. To me that is an unconditioned observation. Observation that doesn’t exclude parts, or that doesn’t move in a particular direction as will/desire/choice. So when I use the words concentration/focus that to me implies observation directed on a point/part of the whole. To me that activity of focus/concentration is seeing through the veil of thought/self. It is a movement that arises out of thought and its reaction according to conten/the thinker. " In that sense, attention is the opposite of focus. You mean awareness of what is without focussing and without interpretating? That is what I mean with equanimity. "So attention is none of that. It’s unconditioned. It doesn’t exclude, not of control, will/desire/choice. And is not observing through the bias/prejudice nature of thought/as the thinker(a seeing/observation uneffected by the process of identification with what is familiar)." How can something be unconditioned?

If someone learns from what you are saying or showing, you are teaching, but only then. Everyone can say they are a teacher

Interesting notion for the readers is; if you dont like my style of teaching or any others style of teaching for that matter, and therefore avoid me or them, it comes from your ego's desire to not experience them. By avoiding me or them you are actually comforting your ego. So comfortable teachers are the most ineffective in the long run, in contrast to what most people say or believe. Feels good doesnt it? There are no free rides here. The only question for you remains; which teacher is really enlightened and who just think they are? Therefore, always reflect upon your own experience. And with experience I mean, not what you think but what you perceive without thought. I'm confrontational by choice, you need to be confronted with yourself to see through yourself. You can also do this yourself, but then you wouldn't be here. So I greet you, I am destiny.

If Leo becomes fully enlightened he will see that he was just preaching his own interpretations. He then has some explaining to do if wants to help others go further. A big chance he will lose a lot of followers, who cant follow the u-turn. However, because Leo is so convinced of himself I dont see him reaching full enlightenment real soon. I dont know if he is even searching or trying anymore. He achieved a lot up until now though, made a lot of helpful videos, courses, etc. Created a strong community. Now there's the danger of becoming a self-convinced guru. Happened so often in the past with others. After enlightenment there is just as much to do as before enlightenment.