Gesundheit

Actually you can experience slight visual hallucinations if you meditate with your eyes open. The trick is to focus on one object, and one object only, and keep staring at it for as much as possible. At some point you will notice color changes and movements and even patterns will start to appear out of nowhere. Best objects for this kind of meditation are mosaic or any object with a bunch of colors and different details. It's really hard to stare at solid-colored objects. The key to this practice is to create stillness on the outside (vision) until it gets reflected on the inside. So if you move your eyeballs it won't be stillness and it won't work.

Well, at least now Leo has become upfront about his position. Feel free to leave. No one is forcing you to agree or stay. If Leo wants his forum to be discussing politics from a left-wing angle, it's his forum and we have no saying in that. Godspeed.

??

Awareness is experience minus the story.

Alternative title: The Paradigm-lock of Reducing Everything Down to Perception.

One of the most important and life-changing distinctions I've started learning to make after my vacation/retreat is the distinction between being soft and harsh with others. Before that, I didn't know such distinction exists except in theory. I used to just be blunt with everyone and expect them to be the same with me because that's how the general environment in the city I where live. Now I truly realize that I live in one of the least developed places in the entire world. Even to have gone to another city in the same country felt like a huge leap. This is because of the huge gap in development between us here and the rest of the world, besides the amounts of traumas that we'd had to endure during the civil war, which we're still suffering the consequences of. My vacation/retreat was very eye-opening. I've learned many things besides my mystical insights. I'll make a list below of a few examples for the things I've noticed to be different from my city. But generally and fundamentally, here in my city, there's very little concern or respect for one's well-being physically, let alone psychologically, even between friends and amongst families. We're expected to not be affected by anything at this point, or if we're affected to suck it up or do something about it by ourselves without appealing to authority. Now it's become somewhat more easier (still kinda hard though) for me to distinguish between situations where I need to show some aggressiveness or disrespect, and where I need to be soft, loving, and generally more positive, regardless of the interaction itself or the content of the message. This is huge for me as I have been interacting with others rather unconsciously, for the most part, regarding this aspect, for my entire life up until this point. Life here is very opportunist and machiavellian, and everyone is extremely corrupt and unconscious. There is a civil law and courts and everything, but they're too corrupt they're completely ineffective, it's almost like they don't exist. Here money and social connections are above the law. Law only exists in theory, and as a way for higher classes to oppress and control the classes lower to them. This is the case all over the country, and it's not particularly exclusive to my city, but still my city is definitely on the top of the most corrupt places on earth list. The list of examples for what made this change for me: Public transport drivers there were generally more polite, unlike here. Here you say thank you, but they rarely respond. They don't smile. They curse each other and it's kinda normalized (due to competition). They don't return the change. For example, if the ticket is 75 (insert currency name here) and you give them a 100 (currency name), they will say they don't have a 25 change, and so they get to earn an additional 30%+ of the fee for themselves for each straphanger. People using public transport were generally more cheerful and laid-back there. I've heard multiple jokes. For example; once someone took off the bus, and people started to exchange seats. And then I hear the guy next to me chuckling and saying: are they playing checkers?! lol People here stare at you for no apparent reason in a very strange way. Even if you're just normally walking down the streets, people will stare at you like you're some sort of an alien or a criminal or a terrorist (not really sure what their looks mean). People there (and I assume everywhere else) don't care to look at anyone normal for more than a second or two. I've confirmed this observation from my friends so I'm not biased or seeing things at all. I've asked a few friends here and they stated that people look at them in a really weird way. Women here aren't able to sit in the seat next to the bus driver. It's frowned upon. There, women have more rights and freedom relative to here (I've seen a lot of female owners of supermarkets there, which is extremely rare here and limited to Christian areas), although relative to first world countries there's no comparison. The reason why that is the case, is because there are many sects in Islam. In my city, the Sunni sect is predominant. There, the Shiite sect is predominant. Sunni is more fundamentalist than Shiite. It is closer to Salafi Wahabist fundamentalism even though still not really close. Of course, everything I said here is generally speaking. There are certainly exceptions in both cities, but generally, that is the case. At first, I hesitated to write about these insights so that I can be more neutral and objective. I didn't want to jump to conclusions very quickly so I waited for about a month. And man, I struggled so much to settle down and accommodate once again to this city. It's really hard and painful to go back to contraction after expansion. This explains a few things for me. The more developed I get; spiritually and cognitively and so on, the harder for me it gets to get along with the people here. This explains the strong obsessive desire to kill others that I've experienced twice in the past few months. I'm torn between two modes of being. I either have to suppress my growth and succumb to the status quo, or I have to be myself and let shit be. The problem is that letting shit be could really mean shit. There could really be a friction between me and others which could get me killed or make me want to kill. I really feel like I'm stuck in a place where I don't belong and that something really odd is going to happen if I keep moving up.

Not up to me, unfortunately.

Yeah, I know. Here we are talking about the relationship between ego survival and physical survival. What I'm saying is that the two are unrelated, contrary to popular belief, even though it seems like they're at least somewhat related. Some people even think that they're one and the same thing. But to me it doesn't seem like that anymore. All thinking seems like a huge BS and a complete illusion that only provides a feeling of safety against the harsh reality of not-knowing. Thinking only covers up the fear underneath it, and the more thinking one does, the more fearful he is. To let go of fear and thinking is the biggest challenge in life. I can't do that, even though I am quite certain of what I'm saying. It's really, really hard.

Yes but not only that. There's hatred of aspects or parts of the self, and there's hatred of the self as a whole. The latter is the real driver behind the wheel, and it is the enabler of the hatred of aspets/parts. The whole concept of shadow work is based upon the belief that lack of awareness is problematic, without acknowledgement of the positive consequences that come from being unaware. That, and the belief that high awareness is an all-positive thing and a completely ideal model of being with no negatives whatsoever. The desire to change oneself is seen as a good thing while it actually isn't.

That drawing is really cool!

lol no. I have personally witnessed several cases where even children would do mean things to animals. One of my friends who was 14 y.o. at the time kicked a cat down from the 5th floor and it died. He says he hates cats. I myself used to have sadistic thoughts towards my own rabbit when I was a kid. It was because I wanted him to be more intelligent but he wasn't. I did not hurt him though but the thoughts I used to have were strong. Maybe I was born a psychopath idk.

I prefer not saying. Ah, Kashmir! There's an Arabian famous perfume called Kashmir. Not my favourite though lol.

Where exactly in India? Because it's a very large country that extends on multiple climatic zones.

It's worth mentioning that shadow work leaves out a greater shadow of self-hatred afterwards, so it's important stay mindful of that.

@willmarin I will answer that for you. Leo prefers Android because it's easier to jailbreak than iOS. That's because Leo loves jailbreaking things. Plus, it's called iPhone, which means devil-phone, so... @Leo Gura Correct me if I'm wrong

Thanks for sharing but... LMAO how did you know?!

Well, I'm not sure about that anymore. Because: It's a map drawn by the ego-mind, so it's self-created and therefore groundless. Insane people survive. Intellect does not prevent death.

@mandyjw It's not separate factors of course.

I see. So, we're somewhere in the middle with a number of drawings of drawings of drawings of maps. Now, the question for me is; shall we reach a point where we stop drawing maps? Or shall we continue drawing maps forever? Science is about drawing more and more maps to infinity, but will that process ever stop? Or perhaps more accurately, is it better to stop it? Or doesn't it matter? These are the kinds of questions that I struggle with. Because to align with truth means to align with evolution/future. And I am not certain of the future. Also I have a deeper problem that is kinda out of context; it's that you equate being with absolute truth (I used to). Now I've come to start doubting that. Idk I just felt like sharing.

You're too oversimplifying reality by reducing it to one factor. Infinity means infinite factors. Watch out.

@Leo Gura I'm contributing to your thread since you said you want objections for your future videos. But somehow my point is still not getting across. There are a few points that you make both here and in the video that I don't find quite correct. I'm questioning the grounds of your work. You said that true science should be based on consciousness and non-duality as if those things were absolute truth. But whether they are actually absolute truth or not is not my question. My question is that there is absolute truth whatever that is, and then there is a concept that we make about it. In order to align science with truth, we'd have is to align two concepts together. This problem is inescapable. However, you're claiming that you're suggesting a form of science where you can align science as a concept with truth as an absolute. But how can that ever work? How can we align a concept with a non-concept? Is that possible, even in theory? I hope the message is clear now.

I like Leo's analogy of that tribal scientist with the yellow flower. The scientist was curious, he went out and tried things for himself and then made conclusions to the best of his abilities. That scientist did not think about truth. He did not even think about science. He made a number of experiments, and reported what happened while ruling out the things that did not concern him. In that analogy, there's no concept of science or truth. These concepts did not emerge at the time. The moment they started to emerge was the moment he took his conclusions to the tribe. Someone in the tribe may have objected to his discoveries. At that point, the scientist would have to provide a convincing case for his claims. He would have to make distinctions as to use concepts like truth and falsehood to make his tribe believe him. I seriously can't think of any other way than that for "truth" and "falsehood" concepts to emerge. I think after making the first distinction between truth and falsehood, concepts like "science" and "the scientific method" can emerge based on what truth and falsehood concepts mean according to the tribe.

From Wikipedia; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism "In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience. It is one of several views of epistemology, along with rationalism and skepticism. Empiricism emphasizes the role of empirical evidence in the formation of ideas, rather than innate ideas or traditions. However, empiricists may argue that traditions (or customs) arise due to relations of previous sense experiences. Historically, empiricism was associated with the "blank slate" concept (tabula rasa), according to which the human mind is "blank" at birth and develops its thoughts only through experience. Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasises evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Empiricism, often used by natural scientists, says that "knowledge is based on experience" and that "knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification". Empirical research, including experiments and validated measurement tools, guides the scientific method." Isn't that exactly what you teach about consciousness, except that you emphasize more on the subjective experience rather than consensus ("objective" truth)? I've found two other concepts that may be more compatible with your teachings; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_idealism And https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_idealism Which one is closer? Okay, but then if it's a dream and an illusion, how can one distinguish between truth and falsehood? What are the criteria? You said that the current science contains falsehood, but how do you distinguish between truth and falsehood inside a video game? Based on what would you consider something truth and something else falsehood? Okay, let's say that's true. Now we have a concept that truth is not a concept. From this one concept we create our method? Is that what you're saying? If that's our basic assumption, how is it different from an a priori? When we say truth is not a concept, we would have to exclude concepts from our method, and so we would require a method that contains no concepts. Right? But how can we do science without concepts?

@Leo Gura How do you reconcile the fact that even the science you're advocating is largely based on empiricism and the fact that empiricism is just a theory? Because according to the Wikipedia article below, empiricism is known by the senses, but theory is invented by the mind (ideas), so? Idealism suggests that reality comes from the mind, while empiricism suggests an independent universe. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism Also how do you reconcile a working science within an immaterial universe? Isn't practicality/Empiricism a proof of materialism? Or at least a strong point that suggests materialism?

That's not Leo in the video. Unlike that passage, the video is well-prepared, well-presented, , and most importantly, very nuanced.