wildflower

There's no denial, there's no doubt consciousness is dreaming this up, depending on your definitions of dreaming, and what level of conciousness is doing what level of dreaming But it's still confusing, your communication is vague borderline purposeful equivocation and it's impossible to know what your meaning with your language. In the relative domain their are relative laws and rules? I think I've even heard you say this in other videos, can you see how this is confusing to follow? You the Leo who is reading this message, do you belief Leo can dream up anything he wants and impose it in 'reality'?

I appreciate the reply, that's not what Im asking. Im speaking specifically about clarity on Leo's epistemic views as it's not clear from his videos

No no, none of that is hard to grasp, it's just the clarity on Leo so I can understand his videos, I find them hard to follow as I dont understand his epistemology, furthermore he implicitly switches without explicitly stating his stance

Okay makes sense I guess, but do you agree that any time we are communicating to each other by definition we cannot be Absolutely Conscious? Individual/relative communication would drop at the absolute level? The reason it's confusing me is because in the videos you seem to switch context all the time with no warning, you reference all different levels of consciousness but implicitly, so it's not clear at all what level your referencing in dialogue, and it seems to change Like even now I have no idea what you think. You say 'you' are imagining Leo, are you talking at the relative level, absolute level, both or neither lol. Who are you referencing when you say 'you', the relative wildflower incarnation or Absolute Conciousness? Also you just ignored the request the stance on solipsism (you actually vaguely mentioned the term in a video)

See this is where I'm trying to clarify things, so please slow down and follow me: On the absolute level God is alone, but relatively in his fragmented state (me and you and every other sentient thing in the universe) we are relatively not alone, can you see the distinction and importance of this? Me and you both exist right now to communicate to each other, even if we are instantiations of God. But an instantiation of God doesnt equate the totality of God, do you see the difference? You are a relative incarnation of God right now, not the absolute total incarnation of God. You might be able to 'kill' your relative perspective/incarnation and become the infinite God, but that isn't the same as the thing that is replying to this post which is a relative incarnation of God

I appreciate that, and appreciate the inherent limitations of language or any relative construct. But I don't think this is the case here, for example Martin ball is someone who is extremely easy to follow his views on things, who is also into 5 MEO DMT and absolute truth and God Leo almost insinuates that he thinks none of us are really here in this plane, as though he is alone as infinite God incarnated in his own dream, and none of us actually exist. The other view is that we are all the sum totality or constituents of infinite God in their or our dream. But this view recognizes that I exist as much as Leo and you exist, in the same volition and same sovereignty with the same relationship to Infinite God, I don't take any more precedent over you or Leo in relationship to God. But this doesn't seem to be Leo's position

In terms of full absorption Jhana (dissolution of any self) as taught by some Buddhist traditions (Pau Auk Sayadaw), but also monks like Ajahn Brahm. How is this infinite consciousness different to infinite consciousness on psychedelic's? How would you know unless you did both? Leo seems to claim that Buddhist meditation is the the reduction of consciousness and psychedelic's the power of consciousness to infinity.... but their is a 6th Jhana of infinite consciousness? How is that any different? Im not talking about the western Jhana's were self and reality still remain and are a weak dissapated version, but full absorption into a nimitta with no ego or self? Obviously full Jhana is classed as one of the hardest meditative states to achieve, but I'm not talking about degree of difficulty Full absportion == full absorption into a nimitta, annihilations of self or form or agent or doer etc https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books/Ajahn_Brahm_The_Jhanas.htm

There is full absorption into a nimitta, where all sense of self and material perception, agent, doer anything remains. I will edit it and define this criteria, in my original post. This is the only Jhana I am talking about: full absorption into nimitta, total dissolution of any doer, agent, form etc For conversation sake, you could change it to the 7th or 8th Jhana (neither perception or non perception), but I am only talking about full absorption The main point I'm trying to discuss, is what could possibly be the difference in state of what Leo describes as his infinite consciousness vs traditional full absorption Jhana states, besides the fact Jhana full asborption is no self or form, lasts longer, and has more stages? In pau auk monastery you have to master full absoprtion which is several hours in any one Jhana.

Hey just want to be clear for the discussion not to be corrupted, I am only talking about full absorption, if you haven't heard about it or practiced it, you probably haven't achieved it, and will only distort the thread. Soft Jhana (what you are describing) isn't the same as full absorption nor nearly the same. Please don't turn this thread into a conversation about different depths of Jhana etc, please if you can start a new thread. My original post outlines the discussion focus of this thread

@BipolarGrowth did you do full absorption as described by Ajahn Brahm

Hey all, I have recently discovered Leo, and I agree with pretty much everything he states, but one thing confuses me. He has hinted at perhaps what he says and how he behaves being too different things, while simultaneously claiming the opposite, or perhaps he has already spoke or clarified this before. If so please help. He talks about selflessness, renounciation, non pursuing of material form pleasures, and the amount you pursue this, the more selfish you become, the less your capacity to love, the further away from God. Which is completely true But then he talks about sex and porn or masturbation, and it seems as though he has no problem with this. He also claims he's the most awake person on the planet or ever lived. I can't reconcile this? Does he wilfully and consciously engage in sense pleasure pursuits? And does he think hes the most awake person on the planet.

Just want to say again that I hadn't watched all your videos, and just watching now the dangers of misapplying spiritual teachings. I asked in my original post if you had spoken about these things, which you have, so my bad, wasn't ever intending any conflict etc, just clarification Hopefully there is no tension between us. Btw your an INTP within Jungian psychology if thats interesting for you Im not sure but explains your quest for truth. Im an ENTP which is similiar

No worries, like said above I just seen your video were you disclaim this topic. There is no division, its all good, was just seeking clarification

What Leo isn't recognizing or admitting for some reason is that self and suffering and non-self/selflessness and not suffering are inversely correlated on a single continuum. That is to say the more selfish you are the more you will exist independently and will suffer, and the less selfish you are the less 'you' will suffer. This is a game of words or concepts at some point, because the less selfish you are, the less of you there is to even suffer or care about suffering, this is a type of paradox, but none the less it should be understood

It just doesn't make sense, nor do you follow any of what your saying yourself, which means you don't truly believe it. What I'm saying is this: in the fabric of reality must be breadcrumbs or truths that guide the universe to awakening. In your reductive equalization of all conscious experience, awakening couldn't even be possible, there is no mechanism to which to awake Your not being honest with yourself. Why did you create Actualized.org, why did you pursue awakenings, why do you still have and run Actualized.org, why did you do 30 DMT trips, why do you talk about truth at all. If you truly believed it was pointless, there woudn't be a mechanism for you to do any of the above, you don't actually believe its pointless, by definition of you doing it at all, do you see? Update: I just seen the end of your God forgives devilry video, I hadn't watched the ending, where you literally address this topic itself. So fair play

That's not true, it's all a matter of perspective and epistemic views, don't you see that? If you think Leo is an independant agent from you, independantly chosing to kill your family, then sure. But thats not True. You couldn't blame Leo, you could only blame the universe, or God, or you.

Sure, but this is the hypocrisy I mentioned in the first part of this thread. I actually disagree with you, being selfless produces an overall better set of states of consciousness. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding between us. The self isnt some fixed entity, it's a continuum. Some actions behaviours and epistemic views lead to a more reified self, more selfishness, less truth, more suffering. Some do the exact opposite, they lead your conscious experiences to more selflessness, more truth, more connectedness, less suffering. This is exactly what is happening, what I have outlined above is contained within your direct experience if your honest. For example doing cocaine everyday and arguing with everyone you interact with as your worn down and irritable is extremely selfish, and will cause huge amounts of negative states of consciousness for you (suffering). You can try it, become a cocaine addict, then become sober and tell me which one you prefer. There is a truth within this that aligns with the ultimate Truth, do you see the connection? If you believed what you are saying, you wouldn't be creating youtube videos in the first place. There is a contradiction here. In fact if you truly believed what you are saying, you would sit exactly where you are right now without doing anything at all until your death, as to do anything other than that would be falsehood or evilry, as to pursue anything other than what you are doing this second is to make a distinction that something else is better which is ultimately false? Do you see where this is going. Either full awakening isn't possible from our finite self, then all of this is pointless, it is possible but shouldn't be pursued which makes this all pointless, or it is possible and should be pursued then what your saying doesn't make sense

This isn't hard to understand though, the universe is just an amalgam of an infinite number of relative contexts. From the absolute level there is an absolute contexts that contains all others. Good/bad is just a relative contextualization compared against another, that doesn't hold at the absolute level. What I don't understand is when in your videos you say, being more selfless is Good, yet in this thread you posit that all actions are good, removing the need to become more selfless, including more selfish actions being equally Good as selfless actions. Either we are trying to become more selfless which you insinuate in your videos, or we shouldn't as there is no possible distinction or improvement to become more Good. This also invalidates awakening too, as awakening is no more Good than being unconscious. So why not shut this whole site down? Can you see how its hard to follow what you are saying?

Nothing is preventing me though, I genuinely don't hold judgement on anyone whos commited these atrociites

Agreed, but that in and of itself doesn't inhibit me from forgiving any one atrocity does it, just means I'm conscious enough to realize the truth that the 'person' who committed the atrocity couldn't have been any other way, there's no one to forgive, and any blame could that could even exist it would lie on the universe itself

Why is that not true, I can sit down and wish this for anyone in the world whos alive whos commited what we are classing as an atrocity

No, I will still wish Leo is loved, happy, safe and peaceful ,

Can you give me context for the first part please, if I sit down close my eyes and wish that Leo is loved, happy, safe and peaceful - this is creating much evil?

Okay no problem, can I ask you, should one try to become more loving and selfless in life? Or is this trying to become more loving and selfless an egoic act that is problematic?

Gotcha and agreed. 1) Is the convergence here for not for one of us (which is simultaneously all of us), not to realize and embody this to the point it leads to a singularity and end of the duality? 2) See above, as in doesn't this road lead to a singularity or awakening as described in your 30 days of consciousness video 3) But embodiment really just means living in line with the truth, essentially, isn't that what all this is about in the first place? Addendum: when I use the word embodiment I mean the removal of hypocrisy, nothing more Also, Im not in anyway shape or form judging or demonizing jerking off or watching porn in any capacity. But just opening a conversation to the fact it's ultimately causing suffering for all involved, so when you understand and accept it, why do it? I want to be super clear: I don't care if you jerk off or not it doesnt alter my perception of you, just having a conversation Or let me put it this way: if you stop doing it, your life should improve, as your becoming less selfish, and closer to realizing love and God