A Theory on Leo’s Consciousness Exploring

[Osaid]

4 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

energetic happening.

Whatever it is, it has to happen now!

[Breakingthewall]

3 minutes ago, Osaid said:

Whatever it is, it has to happen now!

You are talking in the mental level. What means now? Now is the existence. You can't see the existence with the mind, you have to drop the mind completely. Zero mind. 

[Osaid]

23 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

What means now? Now is the existence. You can't see the existence with the mind, you have to drop the mind completely. Zero mind. 

"Now" means everything/existence.

Time (past and future) is how the mind creates dualities and limitations. Which is why I make chronological references to "now" all the time.

Edited June 16 by Osaid

[Breakingthewall]

28 minutes ago, Osaid said:

"Now" means everything/existence.

Time (past and future) is how the mind creates dualities and limitations. Which is why I make chronological references to "now" all the time.

Yes, but I am not trying to define existence, but rather explaining a moment in which existence has been cleansed of all its colorful clothing and has shown itself naked. It is always now, but now veiled, that creates time. If the veil dissolves, time disappears and the absolute manifests. The absolute has several facets, or can be perceived itself from differents angles. It is a mistake if you think: they are just visions, the one who sees them is the absolute. No. reality sees itself, there is no subject that observes. When reality manifests itself as total emptiness or total love, they are not two facets that an observer, always the same, the empty consciousness, observes. There is no such thing as empty consciousness, reality is self-conscious. There is no reality without awareness of itself, not awareness without reality. reality is infinite and is self-aware of its infinity, there is no such thing as consciousness projecting an image of nothing . does not exist. When the infinite void happens t ultimate reality manifest in it's essence, it's not an object of consciousness. It's reality concious of itself. 

Now waterriver would say: there are some rests of identification in you, that's why you have that experience. But I don't agree, that is the reality, the infinity perceiving itself without barriers. There is not something, let's say, superior, called conciousness, that create the infinity. It's just the infinity, that is empty and full same time . That is the subtle mistake that I see in waterriver, but who knows, maybe it's me who is wrong 

Edited June 16 by Breakingthewall

[Carl-Richard]

History repeats itself:

We should be hailing circular developmental models, not linear ones like Spiral Dynamics 😝

EDIT: Man, I used to be long-winded.

Edited June 16 by Carl-Richard

[Osaid]

50 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

History repeats itself:

We should be hailing circular developmental models, not linear ones like Spiral Dynamics 😝

EDIT: Man, I used to be long-winded.

Leo's answer to that is pretty succinct and represents his position today. He lumps enlightenment in with "states" and pegs it at the lower level of his model.

[Water by the River]

On 16.6.2024 at 0:45 AM, UnbornTao said:

How one uses language reflects the distinctions that one employs and where one is coming from. Neither have we met Ramana, etc.

About "this and that", it wouldn't be a problem if we weren't talking about the absolute. 

Take care not to cause diabetes with your "water."  

 

 

[Breakingthewall]

8 hours ago, Osaid said:

Leo's answer to that is pretty succinct and represents his position today. He lumps enlightenment in with "states" and pegs it at the lower level of his model.

Leo In his answers he does what he always does: he mixes the relative with the absolute. He says: you invented Buddha. That is a total error, on the absolute level, Buddha does not exist directly, he is mixed with the totality, on the relative level, Buddha is a possibility of the infinite as real as you. The whole Leo error comes from not differentiating relative Leo from absolute Leo. but he is right when he says that he spira, etc., they have not opened themselves to reality in all its depth, the same as you 😉.

Edited June 17 by Breakingthewall

[Osaid]

9 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

The whole Leo error comes from not differentiating relative Leo from absolute Leo.

If the relative exists, then the absolute isn't absolute. It's either one or the other.

Everyone here wants to be a non-dual dualist. Or a non-relative relativist. You, Leo, the lion guy, everyone!

9 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

they have not opened themselves to reality in all its depth, the same as you 😉.

😂

Can you blame me for not being in a psychedelic state 24/7? Or maybe I should go sit in a cave forever or something.

Edited June 17 by Osaid

[Breakingthewall]

2 hours ago, Osaid said:

If the relative exists, then the absolute isn't absolute. It's either one or the other.

Everyone here wants to be a non-dual dualist. Or a non-relative relativist. You, Leo, the lion guy, everyone!

😂

Can you blame me for not being in a psychedelic state 24/7? Or maybe I should go sit in a cave forever or something.

Haha I don't blame you, but the question is that we are not talking about psychedelic states but about complete openness to naked reality, to the perception of the infinite by itself without the clothing of form, to pure hardware without the confusion of maya. In short, to the total cleaning of the doors of perception.

You cannot live like this 24/7, it may be something that is always in the background, but you are going to see the appearance and perceive it as finite, because that is what this dimension of existence is like. Meditation, or psychedelics, have the function of making those doors glass for a few moments. note that what I said yesterday was with 2 small puffs of weed and two hours of meditation. is this psychedelic state? I could have held a press conference if necessary.

The problem is not: all those who make psychedelics blah blah blah like Wilber or whoever says. is: some of those who make psychedelics and persevere in their confusion, because they have not cleansed their being of fear, narcissism, sadness, lack, etc. etc.

Edited June 17 by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

 

2 hours ago, Osaid said:

the relative exists, then the absolute isn't absolute. It's either one or the other.

They are both, and I will explain it clearly, without the Leo error of: you are imagining reality.

you are the absolute in a relative experience. You are the absolute because you are the total infinite, and you are relative because you are the total infinite taking a form among infinite forms. On the surface you are limited by all the other infinite forms of reality, which being infinite cannot not take infinite forms, but just below the surface of the form you are the total infinite abyss. That abyss is exactly the same in me, in you, in a dog and in an atom. It is the absolute.

To cleanse the doors of perception is to see through the veil of form and open yourself completely to the abyss, which is unthinkable. Nonduality is superficial, Leo is right, but he is wrong because he mixes the absolute with the relative. His opening is not clean, he maintains much, or part, of the "Leo" form, with what for him is a consciousness that is imagining or projecting images. This is absolutely wrong, dual, egocentric and limited .all forms are absolute dimensions, holons, and all are the absolute beneath the surface.

awakening, or enlightenment, is the clear awareness of the absolute without the veil of form. Awareness, or conciousness is always the case, it's a continuous. But it is always limited by the form. Enlightenment is unlimited reality concious of itself. Why form is relative and infinity absolute? Because the form is impermanent. It's circumstance, change, limited, and the infinity is immutable, absolute . Encompass all change, then, there is zero change. 

Reality is self-conscious, therefore, it is always aware of itself. So, if the form is a guy chased by a pride of lions, reality will be aware of that absorbing form. If you eliminate the lions and are able to make the form more and more tenuous until it becomes absolutely transparent, consciousness, which is always the case because reality entails consciousness, will perceive the absolute, what you are. and this is extremely challenging, because it is infinite. It is not something normal, as Spira and Ralston say, they are limited, they do not know what they are talking about. It is something from another dimension: the unlimited dimension, and "you" as form are used to the limited dimension. Leo gets this right, it's much deeper, infinitely deeper.

Edited June 17 by Breakingthewall

[Someone here]

Buddha is a hallucination 🍻

 

[Ramu]

@BlessedLion the Mystics, Sages, and Non Duality itself are imaginary.  There is only Consciousness,  in which those aforementioned categories are contained.

[theleelajoker]

So the best thing I take from this thread are the four imponderables. Thx for mentioning did not know that before.

I googled it and it actually expands into more interesting stuff.

• The ten indeterminate questions

• The fourteen questions

• The sixteen questions

I mean, it's fun and stuff to talk about these things. I get it, and I do it, too.  At the same time I can see why those questions should not be discussed and are "a unwise reflection" and lead to attachment to views relating to a self."

I wonder how many percent of this forum's content would disappear if one excluded all the content dealing with the back and forth about these questions. What's what, who's right, who doesn't get it, who does and does not see clearly etc etc.

I'll go into my day doing my own questions. If's anyone up for discussing them with my, hit me a PM

• How will my first coffee in the morning taste?
• Will the cute barista girl be there?
• Will I feel like asking her out? Or am I totally fine just having small flirts in the morning?
• How much milk will be juuuust right for my coffee?

[What Am I]

19 minutes ago, theleelajoker said:

So the best thing I take from this thread are the four imponderables. Thx for mentioning did not know that before.

I googled it and it actually expands into more interesting stuff.

• The ten indeterminate questions

• The fourteen questions

• The sixteen questions

I mean, it's fun and stuff to talk about these things. I get it, and I do it, too.  At the same time I can see why those questions should not be discussed and are "a unwise reflection" and lead to attachment to views relating to a self."

I wonder how many percent of this forum's content would disappear if one excluded all the content dealing with the back and forth about these questions. What's what, who's right, who doesn't get it, who does and does not see clearly etc etc.

I'll go into my day doing my own questions. If's anyone up for discussing them with my, hit me a PM

• How will my first coffee in the morning taste?
• Will the cute barista girl be there?
• Will I feel like asking her out? Or am I totally fine just having small flirts in the morning?
• How much milk will be juuuust right for my coffee?

Thanks man, I actually wasn't aware of the extended lists of questions. I have little doubt that they were identified to redirect monks back to vertical development rather than horizontal. Intuition tends to suggest that it can be a trap of sorts. A way of looking at the moon in a pond's reflection.

Edited June 18 by What Am I