jelmar35

@Leo Gura Thanks!

Hi all, I was wondering what your views are on this particular topic that was addressed on Wolfgang Smith's recent interview on Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal. My question is about the discussion around 1:48:44 in this video: Specifically, Smith claims that the Vedic and Christian versions of union with God are different and in fact polar opposites, yet both valid. The Vedic version would be one of "self-immolation," which I understand to be the realization of the no-self and true self that are very typically discussed here. The Christian version is, however, the exact opposite, where "everything becomes more real". I do not really understand this, but it reminded me of what Leo once said, that also ideas and concepts exist. So, any ideas? Can any of you perhaps articulate this second version of union with God in a way that there is a chance of me somewhat grasping this? I am wondering if this second version is something worth pursuing. Btw, amazing that this man can think so clearly at his age.

@Swarnim Thank you, man. My awareness has indeed been getting subtler and subtler and I notice there is still a lot that I am missing. I will continue my journey.

@Sempiternity @Swarnim Awesome guys, thanks for taking the time. @Swarnim Yes, with transcending (2), I basically meant the state you would have if you had zero thoughts at all (as in "zero voices/images in the head"). So, if I understand it correctly, the distinctions between colors do result from imagination that precedes (2). So to transcend distinctions between colors, I would have to do more than just transcend thoughts. Or is it the case that when all interpretation ceases, the truth of a lack of distinctions just becomes apparent. I indeed have not really had any huge mystical experiences. I have had glimpses of no-self and have become quite adept at noticing my own thinking. You have said that at the level of God's imagination, all distinction disappears, but is it not this imagination that creates (the appearance of) distinction? I would be fully content btw with an answer like "meditate more, do psychedelics" etc. Nevertheless, it feels like making this more concrete would make it easier for me to know what to look out for. Thanks

@Sempiternity My question already assumes what you are saying.

@Sempiternity I have heard this so many times. Of course (2) falls under (3) and everything is God's imagination. This does not address the subtlety I put forward.

Hi all, I was wondering if someone could clarify some things about God's imagination. I have been practicing mindfulness for quite some time now and have been able to distinguish two types of imagination that are both a product of the ego: 1. Superficial everyday imagination, like picturing a dragon. 2. The drawing and connecting of concepts. For example, presently I see the qualia that correspond to a smartphone. The ego then calls that a smartphone (by assigning a lable) and connects it to other concepts through an elaborate worldview. I can see how one would get a type of non-duality by coming very aware of (2), where this drawing stops. My problem is this, however: the qualia precede (2)! The qualia (that my ego would call fingers) still move as fingers would. If I would transcend (2), even though I might not make distinctions conceptually anymore, the quale of red is still different than the quale of blue. Hence, if God (me) creates everything through imagination, this imagination must be of a different type than (2). It must be a type of imagination that causes there to be red and blue, before the ego can grab on to these experiences and intepret them. God's imagination must be deeper, this I will call (3), which should ultimately decide which quale should go where. However, here is my problem. By transcending (2), you have already killed distinctions between objects. But through (3), these objects should still move and change as they do. This requires objects to be distinct on the level of (3) as well. So, by transcending (2), are we actually fooling ourselves, because God actually also imagines distinctions, which we are then denying? Funamentally, my question is: Does God imagine the cup's qualia only (a) or the cup as an object with properties that result in the qualia (b)? If (b), is the ego right in calling the cup a cup? And if (a), how can we account for the predictable change in qualia? In Leo's videos, I am always confused when he says "you imagine." I know I (the ego) imagines my parents through (1) and (2), but do I (God) also imagine my parents? Thanks a lot for any help.