Breakingthewall

It's very obvious, Life is a self-preserving system within a universe. Self-preserving implies a will to preserve itself, to repair itself, to strive to be. Suffering is everything that goes against that will. In the end, life dies; its will to be is overcome. This is suffering. The suffering of a cell is the same as the symbolic suffering of a psychological mind, only in another dimension.

He's trying to build a guru image, I think it was totally clear. If you ask him anything that he can't answer he will lie, he already have done hundreds of times

Life is a balanced system of a complexity that goes beyond our comprehension. Obviously, it would be better for us if there were no wars, child prostitution, or fentanyl, but if you want to see reality from a broader perspective, you have to set aside human bias. Perhaps if everything were as you say, humanity would collapse in 40 years; on the other hand, with things as they are, I colonized galaxies in two centuries, to give an example. Perhaps that's not optimal for you, but you're not the one who chooses. The movements of life are cosmic movements; we can't judge them from particular perspectives, only observe and try to understand

Life is suffering in the sense that all life is will of permanence being impermanent. And all that stuff about unconsciousness, human violence, injustice, are the ways that reality finds to maintain the exact tension for optimal progression

Life is war. No war, no life. The essence of life is the war against non-being and against other living beings. Life is more or less like the Warhammer novels. Then it's shocking that there is suffering? It's normal on a total war. Suffering is the norm.

What means that?

Needing an external creator to explain reality is a projection of the ego. All human cultures have done this, as well as believing that identity continues after death. Buddhism takes a further step and begins to understand reality without needing a creator and without needing the continuity of egoic identity. Modern spirituality takes a step backward and, calling itself non-duality, places power once again in an external entity, consciousness, which imagines reality. It says it isn't external, since it is you, but with the peculiarity that you don't know how you are imagining reality; therefore, that fact is external to you. Theism disguised as enlightenment.

Why and on what basis does a guy who meditates make those kinds of claims? Doesn't he realize how crazy he seems? I mean, based on his subjective feelings, emotions, and projections, he knows that the chain of causality of reality is an illusion.

There is a barrier that separates you from your true nature; it is the movement of forms, the becoming. It absorbs you completely and makes you see everything as dualities, qualities, nuances, differences, solitude, companionship, one, two. What reality is is always here, just beyond becoming, beneath it, immediately below, millimeters away. only flatten the differences; what remains is the essence. The essence is everything This does not mean that differences should be eliminated, but rather that if you stop taking them as a basis, as the foundation of what is, they become transparent, then the nature of reality shines through them.

It depends! If Leo had started with ambiguous ideas, no one would have listened. Leo's message is direct and resonates with people, and it has a unique quality: it stems from states of openness induced by psychedelics, but openess in great extent. It has inevitable structural flaws because Leo immediately developed a worldview, and now he can't undo it, but the foundation, the root of his message, points in some way to openness. Afterward, 99.9% of people will remain on the surface, but at least they will have opened their minds to spirituality as a possibility not as a belief but as a reality

Great that you like, I really try the most deep understanding that I can. Just because it's a fascinating topic in which real perceptions are mixed with the inevitable psychological need for permanence inherent in being human; it's like an unavoidable tension.

Absolutely. All the reductionist speech of non duality is exactly that, spiritual bypassing. A mental movement to feel better avoiding complexity . That's why it's so accepted, because it's comfortable and simple

Well, it depends, maybe they are delusional in some ( or great) extent. Let's see Ramana, papaji, mooji, adyashanti, gangaji . They and others gurus of non-dual spirituality point a central concept that is rarely examined with rigor: the Self. It is claimed that when identification with the body, the mind, or personal history ceases, something remains that is what we “really are.” This experiential residue is then labeled Self, Being, Consciousness, or Presence. The problem is not the experience itself, but the ontological leap that is made from it. The problem is that all of them after saying that there is not identification, identify that self as consciousness . So, that self is because there is observation , awareness. Awareness of what? Pure awareness! That's simply anthropomorphize reality and replace one center and one identification with another, one closure with another. Ramana and Papaji operated from a place of closure, with an absolute limit, however peaceful they may have been. Nisgardata, for example, operated from a place of openness, which was very different. But Nisgardata wasn't an intellectual and his explanations are too opaque. Look this: the reasoning is usually circular: the Self is said to exist because there is observation, and observation is said to occur because the Self exists. This explains nothing. It merely converts the fact that experience occurs into a supposedly separate entity that “possesses” it. This is the same conceptual move that, in other contexts, led to the postulation of a soul or an ultimate observer. It's a limited frame, absolute limit in 2 directions: subject and object, even they try to fit in saying that both are the same. So consciousness is a creator of forms? Why? Because it's a dream. Another leap to fit it. If "the consciusness" is dreaming, it's an entity that does things. An absolute identification. Just the old theism with different clothes. Food for the ego. Believing “I am consciousness” does not dissolve closure; it replaces it with a subtler, more pleasant, and more stable one. One problematic identity is abandoned only to adopt another that appears unquestionable. But there is still a center, still appropriation, still a position from which one says “this is what I am.” 100% limited, closed, unenlightened. True openness does not consist in finding a better identity, but in ceasing to fix any identity as a foundation. It's not simple, and those gurus give simple solutions, so people accept them as true. But they are limited. The absolute is simply unlimited. Do you think I'm thinking too much? I don't think so. Just the necessary to don't fall in delusions

There are two completely different aspects. One is realizing that you are what is, therefore you cannot not be; the other is understanding the nature of what is. You might think, for example, that it is a god full of love who plays fun games or something like that, but that conceptual structure has a closure, an absolute limit, so even if you believe you have realized that you are what is, at an energetic level your system remains closed, limited. The real opening has not occurred. Then really you didn't realize what it is On the other hand, that opening could have occurred, and from it you develop a coherent structure that explains how what is manifests. Why would you do this? Why not?

Those kinds of ideas are very frustrating because they create a kind of effort to reconcile the comforting (and somewhat childish) notion that there is an external entity that loves you with being a homeless fentanyl addict. Indeed, it resembles St. Augustine's idea that God, who is love, created you knowing you would be condemned to eternal hell. Yes I think that the nature of life is to move forward. If you don't swim with the current, life will crush you. Maybe someone doesnt care about that, but if there is choice much better flowing with the flow