Inliytened1

Michael Jackson was the shit. So sad he's gone.

Oh yeah for some reason I thought it was a different thread. Thanks

@Hojo wrong thread?

@Carl-Richard idealism minus solipsism is multiple consciousnesses existing simultaneously no? So what if all the other consciousnessness were to end. You would have solipsism.

@Carl-Richard ok..let's take it a step further. you agree witb the premise of idealism or materialism? Let's take idealism- which i assume you hold as a worldview - well, If reality were infinite and you were the last and only conscious being on earth - would reality really need to have all the other "frames" - an infinite amount of them just sitting out there empty of conscious beings? Would this be the most efficient design given that it is a mental structure? If you agree with idealism then there would not need to be other frames sitting there for no one. It's the same premise here other than you would have multiple consciousnesses existing simultaneously. Only the frames necessary would exist. However if all the others were to end other than yours you would have solipsism by default. So really it's not a big leap from idealism

He's not teaching that directly. That is an immediate red flag to me. Did he delegate this to one of his guys or who is this?

@Leo Gura so he took a distorted view of some guy talking about the Israeli flag (which is not a shield) and then took it as a way to attack Israel and claim genocide. Nice. I like how he snuck this in out of nowhere in the middle of the video. Bias of the highest order.

That's cool. What's that basic practice?

Ok. I haven't really listened to a lot of Sadhguru's talks or works because namely is it free and available like Leo's? I'm not sure. I don't doubt he's awake but in a way I do doubt it until I have listened to hours of his work and talk. I haven't done that. So maybe you know better than I. But I see him more as an entertainer

The difference between him and Sadhguru is vast but to your point i think the immediate difference is Leo doesn't have monetary goals as his highest value. I knock on the guy a lot but he stays true to his values and limits distortion of the Truth. That says a lot about character and who you want to listen to as a teacher. Corruption is a strong word. Sadhguru is far more distorted. And for the record I think you're right on spending too much time here. Sort the wheat from the chaff and move on

Agreed. But that is the God or Truth within you wanting to grow and expand. Haha. The egoic part wants to trap you because it seeks only immediate pleasure. It doesn't seek to trap you necessarily but it's distorted view of reality focuses only on immediate gratification, thus ultimately keeping you in the hamster wheel. It's the God in you that counteracts this.

He could learn a lot here. But he won't. He still thinks with enough money he can transfer consciousness into another body and achieve immortality. That to him would make him God and give him Infinite power. Haha.

Thats true and it agree with that. As long as you are expecting some level of distortion of the Truth via the lens of the self. I think its important to set expectations accordingly. You make it sound in the video like it's black and white and expect that you can reach perfection as the self. Just try to live truthfully but if you slip up thats Ok - and if you don't value Truth as the highest today that's OK. Try in your life if you can. If you don't thats also OK. Distortion is OK. What I'm saying is be wary not to demonize distortion.

Interesting. Ok i agree with that. Unfortunately most people even though they care have their care distorted. I would say distortion of the Truth is a better word then corruption in this case. Their version of Truth is distorted thus even if they did care it will get them a distorted version of Truth Few will be able to dismantle their beliefs.

Well said.

Spiritually speaking the self is.a fabrication. So you have fabrication then wanting to hold Truth as it's highest value. The answer here is awakening to your true nature which is Truth or God. Still the ego will want to play it's deceptive.games. These are wise words but unfortunately they will fall on deaf ears because the ego is so.stuck on deception. Aligning oneself with Truth doesn't necessarily have to be by emodiying it. I think the highest understanding is that all is Truth regardless of embodiment. Because even if you yourself are able to embody Truth to the a high degree- which will still be finite - you will not be able to alter the rest of the population or society's level of Consciousness. Embodiment turns out to be an egoic endeavor.

@Leo Gura how do you address that the self itself is anti-truth? How can yiu expect somrthing that is anti-truth to be true? Very difficult to be true when you are surrounded by a lie.

Yes he was saying not placing Truth as the highest value was corruption. Now, even if this is true it's going to be an upwards climb explaining it to the theist. Although he does preface things by saying the people that need to hear this most are the ones that won't - or something along those lines. Also the problem is the ego itself is a lie and the survival of the ego is based on an illusion! So therefore survival itself is based on a lie. It's very difficult to base your life on Truth even if you realized it because survival is so anti-Truth to begin with by nature. Truth is actually discovering the self was fake. Or an illusion. So if fhe self is fake then all of life is fake too 😀 so how do you make Truth your priority when you yourself are a lie? Hehe.

Well i think the issue is that in your own mind you give certain values certain meaning. So how you prioritize them is relative to that scale. Everyone has their own scale. Is there Absolute Truth? Yes. This would change your scale. But the problem is unless you've realized what Truth is, it will just have a regular place in your scale. Some religious folk do prioritize God over anything else but not all - and this is usually the highly pious. You can't escape perspective here. Leo can talk all he wants about how Truth is the highest value and it is. But the problem is in how one view's Truth. You can't call her corrupt if her whole scale is skewed to begin with. Thats not really corruption that's a lack of consciousness.

Who would have thought Guy Pierce.

If you are a fan of westerns I highly recommend this film. It's dark..very dark. But one of the best westerns of all time It's a hidden gem because it didn't get the attention like for example some of Kevin Costners new films did. Anyway I will start a separate thread on greatest westerns but I think outside of Unforgiven this is one of the best.

Splendid! However i was about 30 minutes in and i see a lot of holes in the video. Will report back later with a complete analysis I think the premise is great the problem lies again In what is Truth. For example your sample of the girl choosing love over Truth will cause her problems -but prior to that you dont consider religion Truth. However it could be her Truth. So if the girl doesn't understand what Truth is and to her it is her religion then this dismantles your entire argument.

Ok but this goes back to what we were saying about the relative. It's a dream. So when you dream at night aren't you only dreaming one particular configuration? Yet all of reality is in that particular configuration because in truth it isn't about the configuration. Or one could say that particular configuration is also the entire board. Like the Tower of David is in the sand. You can make any configuration out of the sand yet it's still the same sand it's just what you see it as in your mind's eye. But in that moment it is the Tower of David.

I see the subtle distinction you are making. I've noticed it too. But also notice that you can see the relative and the Absolute as identical as well, as they are, because they're one. It's just that the average bear doesn't really grasp this, so that's why when someone talks about Solipsism it can be so gosh darn confusing for them. They haven't even come full circle to realize that the relative and the Absolute are one thing, and thus you can talk freely about it like that. Or that the form and the formless are one. Same idea.