Someone here

I don't think direct experience is a paradigm. It's literally the only thing you will ever encounter in your life!

Please stick to the topic guys!.

I don't understand.

@Jacobsrw I will try to put it in a different way. All that exists right now in this field of awareness is this body that I conveniently call "me" and the stuff around me and... nothing else. "You"for example is just this profile image that's appearing inside this field of awareness. That's literally what "you " are at this moment of awareness. How can I know whether there is an actual person behind that? . It's sort of like when you are dreaming other people appear as if they are real and independent from your awareness but when you wake up you discover they were just an extension of your mind. Is it the Same with "real life"?

So if I define myself as pure awareness that's prior to the ego persona that goes even more extreme in solipsism. Because you are not just denying the independent existence of "others" but also of "yourself".

No I can't!

Yet the movie content is the only thing that can appear. The screen as the screen in its purest form is not anything. You could call it "pure potential". But we only know from it what is manifested yet. What does pure potential as pure potential look like?

What's more real.. The screen or the movie?

Where is the screen?

Well that's still part of reality. To have a creative vision for something and to bulid it and bring it in the world. I don't think that's what Leo means by imaginary. I'm not even sure what does he mean by that! I think he means it in the sense like God is dreaming the world. What difference does it make to say God Is "dreaming" or "imagining" the world and saying God is "creating" the world? It just tries to make things appear less real but it will always fall short. It's pointless to speak about the world being imaginary so long as it appears real.

I don't have his number. And besides he is a public figure I don't think he will respond to me lol.

Sure! When it was unmanifested yet it wasn't real. Or you could say it was real as a potential like a seed for a tree. So again it either exists or has some kind of existence (different degrees). "imaginary" has no place in the spectrum.

I'm not imagining anything. Even the stuff that I am actually imagining (thoughts and images in my mind) are real as that. The imagination is not an opposite to reality. The imagination is a part of reality that is less solid but real nonetheless. It doesn't add anything to say that everything is imagination so long as it exists. A monster in a nightmare for example is as terrifying and painful as a waking state monster.

Well it's hard to respond to all this. But I will just say this.. There's no such thing as imaginary thing. A thing is either real or it doesn't exist and that's it. There's different levels to this (waking state..dream.. Objects.. Thoughts.. Actuality.. Hallucinations etc.) But all these are real. they just are different types of phenomenon. That's it . I don't think I'm qualified to argue with you. But I think that fact that I just stated above is beyond arguing. We can conceptualize all we want but I don't want to get distracted from this particular point. You might object that I'm constructing this.. Here we are getting lost in a conceptual game. To communicate we have to use concepts and constructs so saying that I'm constructing my reality by using concepts is somehow a smart trick to deceive from something that's so obvious and beyond concepts . we need to step outside of the concept and look around us and see the actual thing

Probably for a similar reason why Leo says no one has ever accessed the levels of consciousness he has accessed. Not to say that they are lying but that's how followers follow you. You can't bulid a new reilgion by saying "I'm no one special I'm just humble and I don't know anything".

The thing is that all he can see is the natural world (the movie). No one can see something else nor can he see how is he constructing the natural world. That's precisely what he is disagreeing with. This identification with our bodies and the world around us is not a privilege.. It's a chore. It's the default state that we find ourselves in. Disidentifying with it from his pov is a mental disorder "disassociation" and works as escapism from the" real" to the imaginary world of "love and God and woo woo BS". What you call imaginary is real from his perspective and what you call real is imaginary from his perspective. And vice versa. I'm actually by his side at this point in my journey. That doesn't mean spirituality has nothing to offer. But like everything else when it's taken to extreme levels it can be counter productive and work against it's own purpose. I disagree with his rude attitude btw. That's not how to have a civil discussion.

Lmao.

So what am I supposed to do now? Lol.

Shooting me will produce enlightenment. The ego is the veil. Once the ego dies all that is left is pure truth. Lol

I totally understand that. And that's exactly my point!! Without having a frame of reference to contrast the two different perspectives how could you know that? You have to first experience what's it's like to be ignorant deluded rational person in order to be able to transcend. The first thing that a blind man does after he gets healed from his blindness is throwing away the stick that guided him for lots of years

I'm not. I'm pointing out that both need each other. You can't have something without it's opposite. Look at the yin Yang symbol. Without people like Sam Harris you can't have people like Leo lol.!

Without rationality you couldn't even coin the term (Arationality or post-rationality). They go together. They need each other. Open your mind to the possibility that rationality and post-rationality both contain some facet of the "truth" (if such a thing can even exist).

Oh my bad. I misunderstood the way you phrased it was a bit confusing.

Even when you are pointing out the limits of rationality you are using rationality. Because =causality. You are stuck.