Jizoan

"boundless emptiness" - I like it! And great other points too! @Pinocchio True, I'll give it a go some day soon!

I agree with most of your points - but I don't see why after realizing there is no ego we necessarily assume anything else about our being. Saying "I simply am", YES! Why do you then also say "Through my physically manifested nervous system the Universe (or Consciousness) is seeing itself." Another option is the universe creates a derivative system (you) which conceptualises a simpler version of the universe (and this concept is actually an illusion. How do you know that your concept of being the universe observing itself isn't an illusion just like the ego used to be). That seems to be the case to me, although I wouldn't declare fact either way.

Interesting thought, and in real terms of finding final enlightenment you may be correct. But more pragmatically, I don't think casting away thoughts and concepts are the best way to go. Without thoughts and concepts, I won't even be able to bring myself into shutting off thought during meditation - and I wouldn't be able to write this sentence (and neither could you ). We all have assumptions, and we generally don't question them. Using thought we can realize what our current assumptions are - if we never think we don't even know that we have assumptions. eg. before realizing there is no self, we have to think and realize we have this pre-held assumption that we are a human being.

@Pinocchio Thanks mate I appreciate - although Leo says "Jed's views of meditation are too myopic and dogmatic." haha I'll give it a read if I ever have a lot of spare time, but reading a book takes a long time so I might read others first

@Akim great points, I am very interested in seeing a reply. @Ramu The ego is definitely a construct of the mind (and so is my concept of my brain), but after killing off the ego entirely there is still experience/awareness. So I don't think losing your ego makes you understand nothingness; I think that is another step in enlightenment. "nothingness" seems to be outside experience too (that's what Leo indicates in his videos) and I agree there must be something outside our experience. We can call it the "universe" or "nothingness". BUT, I see no indication why we are the entire nothingness then, why can't we be an epiphenomenon of the "nothingness", just like mass is a phenomenon of no-mass lightspeed particles? Or we could be a finite part of the infinite nothingness. To me we seem to be derived from the nothingness, or to be a very small part of the nothingness. I would love insight as to why my perspective is incomplete or flawed however

Thanks for the replies guys. Any more answers would be greatly appreciated, I am still pretty confused! Just to be clear, I am not stating I know better than everyone else, I am more looking for answers and opinions on the parts I don't understand. We can't conceptualize enlightenment I'm sure, but i think we can use concepts and thoughts to realize our own errors in thought and assumptions at least! So if anyone can spot my incorrect assumptions that would be golden!!

I like your idea of a fractal, but why do you think this is the case? "you can't be the experience without being the nothingness" - my point was aren't we a part of the nothingness then, we are not all of the infinite nothingness itself. "Can't subdivide infinity" why not? humans don't understand infinity, so we cannot make claims either way? "mathematicians are clueless" - I'm not sure about that, and don't think mathemiticians are claiming you can subdivide infinity either... in fact I've heard many mathemeticians admit the existance of infinity is totally philosophical and it is used more as a tool in maths than a hard fact. BUT infinity does have finite parts to it, that is fact. all numbers from 0 to infinity include the set of numbers from 0 - 5 (even though there infinite real numbers between 0 and 5, plus we're not even considering imaginary numbers yet!) "To be the result of something else is to be in the illusion of finiteness and duality." What is the illusion of finiteness and duality? How do we know there isn't the illusion of infiniteness and non-duality? And why do you think this statement is true? "You can know this to be strictly illusory and having no independent existence at all because it is logically absurd." What is "this"? finiteness and duality? Again, why do you think so? The gun, brains, time and space could all be finite, but why does that mean they are not real? [I understand the concept of the brain only exists in my reality as a concept, but that doesn't mean there isn't something out there corresponding to my concept of the gun] "There is only absolute infinity? Why do you think that? Maybe for all we know something else exists, not finite, not infinite, but something else (ie. a singularity). Sorry if I come across as critisizing. I'm just trying to understand rather than just believing anyone's word for it. Belief won't help one understand a concept as we all know.

Why do you think that Ramu? Why ARE we the universe, instead of a subset of its parts?

Consider this: when the brain is totally destroyed, what remains? "Nothingness" yes? Fine. But wouldn't that indicate that the true self is derivative and lives "inside" the nothingness, rather than that we are the nothingness itself? In the same way that one would say, experience isn't the brain - but it lives inside the brain and it is created by the brain?

Great question - I think states of flow pose a huge problem to what we think of as ourselves. Personally I suspect that in a work state, we are basically a function executing itself, with no real consciousness in the picture at all. Of course that point could be made for any state of consciousness at all. This all points to the fact that we are not consciousness itself - although to me this is where I get completely lost. The paradox is one I cannot see through

Hi everyone. First off I'd just like to say great idea of making this forum Leo, great idea! So the question I have summed up in a sentence is: in the Clare Graves & Spiral Dynamics theory (which I felt was so accurate in the first tier) from the perspective as a yellow, what is the transitional dilemma and what is aqua like? So, I'm pretty scared of over-raking myself, but I feel like I am a yellow - I have done a lot of self seeking for years now, and when watching Leo's Clare Graves & Spiral Dynamics, I could follow the system right up to yellow, and I could see in my life how I went from blue, orange, green, yellow. I do associate myself with yellow quite a lot when hearing about their qualities, but as to what might be next seems alien to me, and what aqua could be for me. I want to aim to change myself for the better (obviously), but is there any advice for yellow except to be open minded (which is working really well lately)? I have read about aqua but I'm not too sure about what I read - even the other colours seemed off in their descriptions. Here is my theory, any thoughts? Yellow is like enlightenment.1 in which you realize your ego, gain a strong and real sense of losing the self, seeing life as the pure-experience it is just in this moment. But, at this stage, as to what reality actually is, is still a bit of a mystery - and studying about quantim physics and science in general doesn't help that much. This seems to be where I am at I would say, and although I am learning new realizations steeply (as compared to before), I cannot tell where this is leading, and I just feel a bit lost as to what I should be changing into with these new realizations. Aqua is like enlightenment.2, as a common example, what people say Buddha would have reached. This would be complete connection with reality (I have heard that is a theme). Also, do you guys think there is anything more than aqua or even yellow? The brain should have some physical limit as to its comprehension, there must be a limit somewhere right This was sort of hard to communicate with language but I hope that is clear and all. Thanks in advance for any relpies guys and girls! PS I didn't put this in the Video Requests section, but if Leo made a video regarding my question I'd be pretty stoked

My green phase was getting really excited about sharing new ideas I had learnt that changed my views - such as atheism (as opposed to Christianity) learning of the ego, learning the other colours in tier 1 and how they are manifesting, etc. But it quickly became apparent that society does not care about my ideas. Hence the need for yellow where it is up to the individual to create results and not relying on society and ideas themselves themselves. I think green was easy to abondon in my particular case because I didn't have any good friends who were also green (most of my old friends were Christian and blue, and newer friends orange). Good point Emerald - definitely there are parts of me well below yellow. Yellow is my highest level I would say that I can even grasp as to what it is, but perfecting it into my life is still an ongoing process.

Perth Australia

Not sure how the reply system works but I thought I'd keep streams of though on different replies. Well I am currently spending 8 hours on weekends with very ambitious projects - right now I am in the rasing capital stage with my own business, but I actually do have some pretty ambitious goals for the further, better-funded future - just for anyone's interest for me it is regarding how disgracefully we fund research we actually need for medicine and science, and instead we are blowing billions on military spending every year. I have a logistics-considering plan and all, but it is taking A LOT of work. I find myself being "awake" very rarely however, as I am always reading about this or working on that. That relates to my previous question, as when reading on something technical for example, I am pretty much in a different world not attached to reality at all - if that makes sense. As in 3 hours would fly past without myself ever realizing that I am a consciousness at all, but instead my entire consciousness was just focused on the task. Is this the right way to be living as a yellow (if I am one), or should I do feel strongly like I am in yellow, but that's to be expected right. I feel sure, but I'm skeptical that I am fooling myself of course. Any ideas on where I actually am anyone?

Ok, I think I understand your points. By "being stuck in the head too much", does that mean a) he/she spends too much time in his head? As in he/she is contemplating too much and not letting go and living and experiencing life, and she needs to do that more often? or another way: meditating all day will not solve the world's problems, so get yo head and start doing?" b) during general experiences, such as when reading something during work, then he/she is stuck in the head more? Is it an experiencial thing going on all the time? If it is a), would you say what your thoughts are on Aqua's transformational dilemma? Can he only reach it once all the world's problems have been sorted out? Also, do you think that enlightenment/aqua (either one) has a strong relation with being a part of reality? I have head people say this, but I truly cannot comprehend that being true, or what that would be like if it was true rather. I understand and have experienced myself as a consciousness, as pure experience unfolding right now - but that I would describe as "being a consciousness" rahter than "being reality". And then of course the claims of connecting with the universe, and being one with the universe are sometimes also claimed - which I find extremely hard to take seriouslessly. Experience to me doesn't seem at all like I have a connection with the other side of the universe, and there is no good mechanism in science that would begin to consider such a reality. Hope you have time to reply to this one as well! Thanks for your great service - honestly. I'm sure your work has already helped 1000's of people that will change the world for the better.

Hey Markus, I cannot remember where I heard this first but I reckon it's a great quote for your situation. Imagine your religious and obsessed with heaven, what is heaven, where is heaven, how can I prepare, etc.. so for the religious person to "get enlightened" on heaven, it is not finally realizing what heaven is like, it is realizing that heaven is not there, there no heaven in heaven, or as that quote puts it "there is no there there". I've head Sam Harris say it, not sure if he came up with it. imho, I would say this is enlightenment, but inseat of heaven, it is "I" or "me" or the ego. The ultimate goal by asking "what am I" is to cross off all your perceptions and conceptions of "I", and leave you realizing: there is no me "there is no there there" or "there is no me in me" (the last one can be my own quote ) Any thoughts on my idea anyone?