73809

let's take the example from the other week. It was true that I felt something we can label as sad. It was true that I felt resentment of existence. It was true that I had a certain thought, and it was true that that certain though made my sadness worse. Is that correct? like, this is something I actually experienced, and the above describes it perfectly. AM I right or am I misunderstanding?

oh, it probably doesn't go without saying. I criticize Leo because my views differ from his. the words I choose to talk about thisness is different from the words he chooses. There was a time when I listened to everything Leo said, and did not seek out other wisdoms. I am past that moment. I arrived at the ... beliefs if you want to name it that, but I think your word for belief is ignorant, and that is one way we differ. I will freely call it belief, because I accept that belief, monkeymind, thought, senses, anything you can name really, is a part of my thisness. I don't say that these things are lesser than or different from consciousness. Again, this is how what me and Leo say differs. Edit: I know that the more I delve into different perspectives and thoughts, the less I am grounded in, well, the present moment, to try to point to what I mean. I know that all of my experiences are true, but I also know to seek wisdom and presence. as I was saying, I got to where I am now in my ability to communicate my spiritual journey because of Leo, and my criticism is nothing more than pointing out our different use of words. I say, there is no way of proving or disproving whether we experience the same thisness or not, and actually, I say that it is clear to assume we don't, as I don't think Leo's thoughts and he doesn't perceive my perceptions. We are both absolutley ignorant and yet we experience truth. I purposefully lowercased truth, because I don't think thisness is, well, all of Truth. It is both seperable and inseperable. I think calling thisness Truth is overambitious. But, I will call it Actuality. In that pointer, I agree with Leo.

beliefs? what are beliefs? beliefs are a part of conscious experience. Leo has spoken about the sneakiness of beliefs, and how they ruin your truth... they make you understand reality all wrong. That's kind of funny really, if you think about it. What seperates that statement from belief? what seperates actuality from belief? what seperates nothing or infinity from belief? belief is in my opinion as synonymous with actuality as it is its antonym. I am experiencing enlightenment. I think I am enlightened. Wait, these things are one in the same.... but then, they are also different. anything we say about enlightenment is just the pointer that we understand. and who knows, maybe we point at different things yet undescovered by the self actualization journey. Leo names thought as monkey mind. I name thought as consciousness. In this, we differ. sensation is experienced under the category of thought. aawareness is thought. why do I say this? because I literally don't think in words or images or anything. My thoughts transend the limit of sensation. the same can be said of my emotion. These things, they are just another way of framing consciousness to me.

@Thought Art heh. to answer your question, being is more than consciousness. Well, that depends on how you definie consciousness actually. god is and always will be a name. This makes it less than consciousness. Vocabulary has implicit meaning, and the meaning of god is... welll.... "That which is greater" .... and nonduality just isn't that. I see god as less than.... the indescribabeably, because god cannot escape its implicit meaning. I do not believe in any god, including this pointer nonduality thinkers use to point to what has better pointers to point to it. Leo basically worships god by self actualizing, and that is perfectly good for him. I do not pretend to know his experience or Truth; I only comment on my own, and compare it to his teachings so that you might see something you might not have realized on your own. Truth... Truth is as unknowable as it knowable. take that as you will. on infinity... it was one video, I'm pretty sure he said or implied that there was no more to experience than all of everything. And how exactly is any conscious being going to know that? they can't. Infinity is unbounded, and Leo definitely bounded it with his words. I stopped following him because of it. I had already been on the fence, for the words he used to talk about.... whatever..... just kept getting more and more namelike, and less and less a guidepost. But, that is only my opinion, again, take as you will. as foryour last question, I already answered it. oh wait, there's a hidden question after that. Yes of course I'm greater than Leo, but that does not mean he is not greater than I. Greatness is incomparable, really. Leo will never have what I have, and never have what you have, and you will never have what your brother has, everyone is greater in their, idk, truth, or whatever. actuality. it's just incomparable and uncombineable. it is seperated by our limitation as the experiencer of the present moment. Truth.... it is already gone as soon as we have it, idk, that kind of points to the possibility that we will never get it. sure, Truth can be described as.... thisness.... but Truth, it is... well... infinite, and to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if Unkowable existed beyond Truth, or if Truth existed beyond Unknowable, or maybe they are synonymous... lol I feel like I'm naming things, but my naming things is fundamental to.... who I am. Leo naming things (which, I only know that he has named god) just.... doesn't really fit what he pursues. calling it god is arrogance in my oppinion. god is unknowable, not actuality. like, I can see how one can say that like, godliness is actuality, but by definition we cannot look upon the face of god. Or at least one definition of it. We cannot speak its name. This does not make god.... well... anything. God is unknowable. That's like "undefined" in coding language, lol. Naming something god quite ironically is as arrogant as it is ignorant. Wait, those things aren't opposites, heh. As long as Leo names it god, the religious folk will feel objection to his words. I truly believe this is one word he should abandon, one pointer that fundamentaly fails to accomplish what Leo pursues by creating Actualized.org. lol I meant to make a quick reply, but it ended up meandering all over the place. Again, take it as you will, it is only meant to show you an alternate understanding of thisness. fundamentally, thisness is the same thing, for any of us, or is it? how can we tell the difference between the two?

I have never not been Enlightened. There is nothing for me to pursue other than that which I admire, that which I find joy in, that which fulfills me, that which serves a greater purpose. If someone were to ask me if I were enlightened, I would say "Of course, I have always been, especially way back when I was a newborn baby, and especially now." If someone would ask me, "How do I become enlightened," I will say "If you don't already have it you will never Truly obtain it." Enlightenment is not an accomplishment, it is not pursuable, for it is all the Truth we can ever know, and that Truth is seperable from all that can ever be True, despite any claim any spirit may make that it is inseperable. Leo said that reality already happened and everything is fate, and he can't be more wrong. Maybe he realized his error. I doubt it. Leo believes reality already exists in every possible way, again he is wrong. Infinity has no bound, no limit, and what Leo describes is a limit. As much as all of infinity has already happened, there will always be more infinity to...... what exactly? It transcends Existence, Consciousness, and Truth. Infinity is as indescribeable, unknowable, unobtainable, inexistent as it is the negation of all that. Infinity will always be greater than anything you can possibly percieve. Leo is not any more enlightened than I, yet he is better at guiding you to realize enlightenment than I ever will be. I suffer. So be it. This does not negate my enlightenment. I rejoice. So be it. This does not negate my enlightenment. I don't doubt that some if not all of you will say, "No, 73809, you are not enlightened, do not give up your pursuit of it." I say, the only pursuit I have is stepping into the next moment. Yet, the next moment never comes. This duality is my enlightenment. I am self, and will never not be self. I pursue a different "heaven" than Leo, for he embodies No Self in every way that he possibly can. Until Leo realizes that god is not Truth, that Truth is greater than Consciousness, he will never truly obtain his enlightenment, he will continue to be seeking. And the irony is, when he believes he understands what I have just said, it will only prove that there is more of this duality for him to reconcile into his No Self. He can never describe what his Truth is in a way that will bring you to it. Just thought you might like a different perspective, yet I would not be surprised if this disappeared without a single reply. This post.... it is not for anything other than the expression of one spirit's journey. Take it as you will.

Well said!

@xxxx you are both imagined in the same truth. Thinking you are god can catch you like this, tricking you into thinking you are the only thing real. You imagine yourself just as much as you imagine your brother, what is real is now. But as soon as you speak of it, it’s story.

What does it mean to surrender? As in, surrender to what is.

Thank you for the replies!

Expression is natural. I’d wouldn’t know if it was core, maybe it is that seems alright to me. Expression is doing, really. You can’t do without expression. You can’t express without doing. Action is expression, they basically mean the same thing. Expression is just an alternative label to action, which implies emotion, it implies thought, it implies opening up, among other things. But really expression just means doing. Humans won’t cease to exist lol. Tho I’d argue that humans are a notion. They don’t really exist in the first place; this idea that we’re all the same is just an idea. You only know your direct experience; and the idea that humans exist isn’t true or false. It’s a story you tell yourself. Believe it if you will. I believe it! Lol! Humans! Imagine that! Crazy! As far as this human business is concerned, I’d say we’re expressive creatures. Human emotions... I say, emotions don’t really exist. They’re just sensation mixed with thought! Emotions are a story we tell ourselves. What’s real? What is direct experience? Are emotions there? My emotions are sensations mixed with thoughts. Illusory really. So no, they aren’t a means for survival, tho I guess you could argue they’re selfish, in that the ego is selfish. What’s selfish though? What does that really mean? enlightenment is illusion. it doesn’t really exist. it implies a change, and there is no change. You’re already awake! The idea of waking up is the idea of the self, there is no self. Existence just happens, there is no you. Enlightenment is transcending the ego. The ego is the delusion that you exist. The need to express is another illusion. you don’t need to express anything. That’s just a story you’ve woven. In reality, “expression” is just another word for action. Do you have a need to act? No, but action occurs. Action is the present moment unfolding. Expression is the present moment unfolding. It’s as necessary as existence, really. Is existence necessary? I’d say so.

Survival is easy lol i think you’re onto something that people copy tho. Copying others is only the natural instinct

Trust comes naturally when you are awake. If trust isn’t easy, you’re doing something wrong. Of course I trust myself; I’m the “person” I gotta live with. Best to trust that!

The ego is an illusion; you think that you have a self but you don’t. The ego is all the conflict and identity that comes with thinking you have a self. You are no one. no need to have a strong ego to transcend the ego. Just wake up!

Maybe you’re conflicted. But imo it’s perfectly okay to do whatever. Nothing wrong with being overweight. Nothing wrong with self indulging! If you like junk food then eat it; why you gotta shame yourself for wanting junk food? There’s a reason junk food tastes so good; it’s pure energy. Sugar and carbs are great! Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise! Besides, watching your weight is about the calories you get. And a balanced diet doesn’t mean you’re not eating junk; it means you’re getting good nutrition despite what junk you do eat of course, if you want to self-regulate go right ahead. but don’t shame yourself for having cravings; junk food is good. Masturbation is good. If you truly want to not do them, it will be easy to not do them. But like I said maybe I’m lucky and don’t get it. Do what you want to do; and be clear with yourself what that is! Don’t guilt yourself for conflict at any rate. You seem to have conflicting desires. But it doesn’t have to be difficult! If you want to self regulate and not eat junk food, then you need to remind yourself why. Refraining should be easy! You just gotta be clear with yourself on what exactly it is you want. And like I said, nothing wrong with wanting junk food and masturbation! Don’t let some health nut tell you otherwise! If you truly want to be healthy, then it’ll be easy. But that’s assuming you’re not conflicted. I don’t know what else to say, hope I’m helping!

Desires are natural to the human. Humans have desires. Being desire-less is just as natural as being with desire is natural. They both occur. Don’t shame desires; for they are natural to have.