OldManCorcoran

It is valid because the fact of being precedes appearance. There is nothing to any particular appearance apart from the fact of its presence. Really think about what you refer to when saying "I am conscious of _" (like I am conscious of the sound of this music). In any statement about being conscious of anything, you won't find reference to anything except the fact of presence. Isness. Being. Being conscious of _ (whatever thing, like music) = the presence of _, and that's all it is. Nothing more. It is literally a communication that something is present. That is the all it means. Any perception from thought to sight, is perception. If it's a space alien made of sight, there is nothing to that except the visual phenomena which is the way the alien looks. If you believe you are the alien there might be the alien's thought perceptions. All of this is perceptions. Fundamentally there is nothing to any of that apart from their presence. When the alien appears visually, the visual appearance of the alien is present. When the alien's thoughts appear, the appearance of alien thought is present. Presence is the fundamental reality. The lack of distinction often referenced by gurus is to do with categorical divides. The same categorical divide which makes people do somersaults about life and death, because there is a concept that there will be a categorical shift across a divide from existence, which is thought to be a category containing all sorts of phenomena, and non existence which is conceptualized as eternal nothingness. People envision going into a dreamless sleep and never waking up. Actually, reality can freely and readily bleed between apparently distinct categories because categories are not actual. They are only thought perceptions, which are appearances, and are themselves not default to the fact of presence. There is not nothing and something or existence and non existence, because these are divided categories existent only in the mind of the one who has the idea. And presence precedes all. Even a husk of an idea remaining of category will keep it lingering, much like the idea of entering non existence, there is no necessity for such a thing to ever be actual but as long as even a remnant of an idea that this reality has categories exists, we cannot envision eternal appearances without the opposite. It really has to be seen through that neither is actual otherwise at least some idea of how something ought to be will remain. Because of the fact presence can cause a conceptual idea of what isn't present, as per the other categories above, it might not be a suitable word still. A suitable word would probably be something nonsensical that you make up, because such a term would not have an implied opposite. I know people enjoy the term God, Brahman, and various others. I think they are too humanized. So I would actually recommend making up a nonsense gibberish word instead. Honestly a nonsense word is the best way to destroy categorical thinking and to destroy any idea of traits being must have. Call it googlegoo or something, googlegoo doesn't create in the mind ideas of an opposing type of thing. Anyway... Any conceivable idea is going to consist of perception. So I just do not understand why anyone finds it interesting what reality is aside from the sheer fact of being. It would be cool if our universe were inside a marble being played with by an alien, I would love that to be true. That would still be preceded by the sheer fact of presence, though. There isn't anything else.

Good video.

Fucking lol. Some of the avatars genuinely look like that.

Your wording is heavily implying subjective solipsism which is focused on the idea of the current perceptions around you (I am sure the surroundings around this human character are different from the surroundings around yours), which will make it completely impossible for people to comprehend how it could be the case that they are seeing my visual field right now, as they will be focused on the fact of the visual field of the human character. At best it will cause a concept of a super witness who sits observing it all. And the ego may be shifted to the concept of that. I don't think that is an ideal result.

He means because it is realized there is nothing but existence. And not even existence because existence is a conceptual term which exists as an opposite category to a conceptual "non existence". Which is why people tend to view life as existence and death as non existence, which they think is an infinite nothingness they will go into. Because it is all this idea of categorically different states of being which are then conceptualized. All categories are thought perceptions and thought perceptions are appearances of reality and not default to reality. Sort of like they float on top of reality. In that way no thought or idea can ever actually be reality because it is an appearance of it. Reality precedes it. With absolute total loss of categorical thoughts, what is left is not any different but is no longer something or nothing or existent or non existent, for the sole reason that all of those things are conceptualized categories. And categories are thought appearances taking place within a reality which in absence of your mind is uncategorized. Without any category at all, there is nothing else to which anything could belong or be.

Can people stop trashing everyone's "shit genetics" and bragging about how great their genes are. Eventually someone unpleasant will sign up and see it and the results won't be very nice.

Your conceptualization of God sounds very religious and anthropomorphized, I am completely certain you would be better served mentally by Christianity. A number of similar people who have expressed similar things to you, who go into this sort of idea instead, just end up committing suicide.

I wouldn't go that far. There are some things even infinity cannot achieve ????

To be fair you can't expect to "verify" heavy drug trips without heavy drug trips. Staring at your palms for hours like you're on the special ed bus like some people do is never going to be a hallucinogenic trip. Obviously if someone thinks those practices are ever going to be a Salvia trip, they have more than earned their spot on that bus. Hallucinogenic trip occurrences often have no relevance to what reality fundamentally is, though. Who cares if an alien supermind is imagining this galaxy to save its planet from an overfarming of fossil fuels? It has no relevance, since existence precedes the alien. In my mind it is of zero importance. There is only one worthwhile insight, in total ego death like breakthrough with the toad, and who cares about the rest?

Consciousness is not what you think it is, because you haven't had ego death. Instead of a tree falling listen to a tune. Here's a melody: Listen to it. When you turn this melody off, I am going to listen to it. When I listen to it, you will be hearing it, even if you have a different song then playing. But you will not understand how because you will be sure that you are hearing whatever song you put on afterwards. "Your direct experience". Even if you are dead or asleep, when I listen to the song, you are hearing it. The inability to comprehend how, is because of the self based framework. Each and every time this melody plays, irrespective of who is there to hear it, or even if every living being in existence is long dead and the universe has ended, the melody plays. Existence exists as the experience of the melody. There is nothing else. Existence exists as hearing, as seeing, as touching, and whatever else. Existence exists as many things. In the comminication "I am conscious of this tune" is nothing at all but the verbalization that the tune is present. There is nothing to consciousness but presence. It is the sheer untouched fact of existence. In which there is nobody witnessing any of it. Because there are no perceivers of perceptions. There are perceptions. Each time they appear, they appear exactly the same.

No I wasn't. People come here from Google and think you're Leo's right hand man. You need to be more careful about posting than most, because you're meant to be representing his ideas. You need to actually be able to comprehend things before responding with random stuff.

If there's nothing to you but presence, why call it you? If there's nothing to consciousness but presence, why call it consciousness? If presence is nothing but an opposite to the concept of absence, and all concepts are thought-perception which cannot possibly be default to the fact of is-ness itself, then should it be named presence? Probably not if you wanted to have fundamental reality recognized as being devoid of category or division. But other than the uncategorized nature of reality, there is no better way to communicate existence than by the term existence itself. Every single modifier is misleading. Do you want to keep your mystical secret or do you want to be understood? It's not hard to be understood. It's as easy as calling being being, not calling it anything else. You can explain the rest the same.

Not even one word in that was materialist thought. The fact you got materialism from that quote is honestly a bit "special".

Yes definitely, and now you know that it does. Because if existence is to take the shape of the sound of a falling tree, there is the sound of the falling tree. Nobody needs to be there first. They never are. When animals give birth, dead matter emerges from other dead matter (and generally this to us will most prominently be a visual phenomena that is the appearance of the shape of a living creature, or the sounds they make). No wonder brains do not generate consciousness or hold it like a radio signal. It is all equally dead matter. Nobody is ever there. But does existence even necessarily have to be a perception? I don't see why it would need to take only the form of perceptions. Not that perceptions could ever be categorically different from anything which isn't perceived, since the idea of categorization is a mental thought perception which is only a shape taken by reality. And these shapes can never represent reality since they will always only be shapes and are always preceded by the pure fact of presence which is communicated when saying "I am conscious of purple", in which there is nothing to "being conscious of purple" except the sheer fact of the presence of that purple. Nothing else will ever be found in that statement except the communication that purple is present. It is the fact of presence being communicated and nothing more. In the common scientist's framework, no qualia can ever be what is actual to the world because it can never exist outside the mind that thinks it. The same way, a thought such as the idea of existent categories can never be anything other than a thought perception, and reality precedes thought perception. Thought perceptions will always just be shapes taken by reality. Something and nothing are other conceptual categories which exist as thought perception. Nothing ever changes if the concepts stop occurring, but the categorizations can stop happening. And all of these words and ideas are still more thought perceptions which are shapes reality is appearing as. Breathtaking.

The framework which doesn't use the you word is so easy it can be explained to absolutely anyone and they will understand what you're saying. It is a common idea for people with the whole droplets and oceans, but death has no involvement of whirlpools expanding back out into rivers or any other similar ideas. The appearance of whatever constituted the person is gone, there doesn't need to be an expansion into God any more than any particular temporary sensory experience doesn't die and expand into God. A color doesn't go to Heaven when you don't see it anymore. If you choose to comminicate using a conceptual framework including the idea of a self, you will inevitably on some level transmit to people an idea of some remnant of a witness or ego. You can't actually escape it. Because nobody will understand that if they are watching TV in bed, and someone walks by a landmark they saw earlier in that day, that they are seeing the landmark. They will always proclaim "I am not seeing the landmark, I am in bed!" But to say the sight itself of the TV screen and the sight itself of the landmark exists, there is no confusion at all. If your friend texts you that they are looking at the Eiffel Tower and you'd been there earlier and saw it but are now in bed watching TV, the reason nobody is shocked by this is because intuitively nobody has any issue with the existence of various appearing phenomena. ALL OF THE CONFUSION is in the idea of who sees it. And that demonstrates the fact so clearly, that I cannot believe anybody would still choose to use the self framework at all. Existence appears as the sight of the tower and every single time it takes the shape of the sight of the tower, it is completely identical. Every single time it is the sight of the tower and nothing more. Regardless of who is stood there seeing it, because nobody ever sees it, there is the sight of the tower and it is present. And then it's not. And then it is. Then it's not. Every single time the same exactly as though you were there yourself, because the entire experience of seeing it is the shape reality has taken.

I can't even fathon someone reading a forum then staring at their hand and thinking that's ego death, and being unable to function for a week. Incomprehensible levels of influencability, like one of the dudes who get breathed on by their sensei and start convulsing on the floor. For real though, good objects for meditation tend to be quite overpowering. I have a very bright yellow/orange teddy bear and that's quite good. It's easier to get lost in something visually overpowering.

They disagree due to having different conceptual frameworks with which to convey a message. I don't see how or why anything matters except what reality fundamentally is. Why does it matter if it's all an alien playing with a marble like Men in Black, when the alien itself is a manifestation of reality. Surely it only matters what the fundamental reality of which the alien is part of actually is, who would care about anything other than that?

It happens, to nobody, so realistically he's right. Obviously if there's still somebody there, it's not ego death. You aren't going to encounter ego death by reading the forum no way.

I'm not writing anything like that for people here, it's for people who get here from Google. Because a normal person who might be open to learning some of the ideas Leo expresses, read embarassing statements by Leo's sheep herd, and then decide based on that that Leo must also be idiotic and don't watch his videos. I've watched Leo's videos and found many of them profound. However, if I'd never seen a Leo video in my life but ended up here from Google, and read some of the village idiot postings, I would think they must be accurately reflecting Leo's own ideas and I would never have bothered to watch a single video to know that is not the case.

How comes? ?

Moderator privileges being suspiciously prevalent among the most well trained parrots. Makes sense in a lot of ways to help push out a uniform idea, yet I would get annoyed at people using my exact language and catchphrases. I could never be a cult leader because that would annoy me too much. To be honest I would probably say so. "Hey guys you don't have to copy my words verbatim".

A lot of mid 1900s quantum physicists were heavily into the Upanishads. I know some of them wrote books on the subject.

Oh yes that makes sense.

Honestly is kind of reminiscent of drug trips. Except not terrifying.

Can you explain? "True self = no form = all forms How can no form be equal to all forms? Because no form is the inclusion of all form. Once you start focusing on just one form, you stop the inclusion of all forms, then you become form." This doesn't seem to make any sense to me.