Are Trolls Real?

[Nahm]

@Lord Bwyra you're hilarious! thank you!!!!!!❤️❤️❤️❤️

[Joseph Maynor]

@Lord Bwyra We gotta be careful not to cling too much to enlightenment.  That's what I groked from your post.  Do enlightenment, don't let it do you.  I get this now.  But I have a different life-purpose than Leo does.  I think deep-diving enlightenment is part of Leo's life-purpose, so he's gonna go as far down that rabbit-hole as he can.  I have a similar mentality, but I've applied it to different subject-areas in my life.  The deep-diver mentality -- focusing on only few things in life but drilling down super-deep into them.  The opposite mentality is the shallow-skimmer mentality -- the mile-wide but an inch-deep approach to things.  Probably a middle-way between these two extremes is best.  I need to find that balance in my life.  Actually I have made progress on this this past year.  The secret is to watch your need to know, your need to be right, your need to understand.  Those will set you apart from enlightenment.  Not to beat this drum too dogmatically though, I hold my beliefs lightly now.  My focus is on what I want to create not on trying to be right.  I realize the futility of trying to be right in most situations.  It's an egoic desire and it doesn't give you any true peak-experiences in life.  We need to keep our eye on the ball and keep our priorities straight.  Proving that we're right doesn't do shit for us in most cases.  And what you're really doing is trying to quiet that neurotic part of you that can't stand not-knowing, so it's an egoic insecurity that drives the know-it-all mentality.  Know-it-alism is addicting like alcoholism.  So, there's the issue.  It's a tricky issue because the ego wants certainty, it wants things settled.  But that is a huge limiting-belief that can place you way out into the weeds in life, and it can be a dream-killer to your life-purpose vision.  Keep your eagle-eye on where that little hole is on the golf-course, you don't wanna be way out in the weeds before you get good-mind to course-correct.  This advice is not directed towards anyone in particular and it applies to me as to everyone else.  If you don't know very clearly where you want to go in life -- your desired final destination -- you’ll virtually guarantee that you’ll never get there.  

Videos on point to watch:

 

Edited August 19, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[Ananta]

37 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Do enlightenment, don't let it do you.  

Imo, Enlightenment is the recognition that the "apparent" you,  isn't "you", never was. 

[Lord Bwyra]

@Joseph Maynor Be careful you don't fall in to your own traps my friend.

In your previous to last post on this thread you cautioned to be weary of judgement. But do you not see that all language and thought is a form of judgement? So you are judging the act of judgement. This is a futile exercise. Completely pointless.

And now you are talking about the need to be right all the time which is of course problematic because you are also attempting to be right about letting go of the need to be right all the time. It's another one of those things that is just inherent in conversation. Everyone wants to be right. That's why they are seeking truth.

But as i suggested in an earlier post, it would perhaps be beneficial to somehow come together more in the way we converse so this being right can happen together, on a more collective level. Yet it's hard to do that when we are strangers online. We don't really know each other's views enough yet to be able to do that fruitfully i'm afraid.

That said, my posts on this thread have not really been about me and my need to be right and prove someone wrong. They may come across that way but that is not my intent. I have just noticed that some people claim to believe stuff yet they don't necessarily really believe what they say they believe or know what they think they know.

Of course I could be wrong about that but I at least want to find out. I have a very sensitive bullshit detector and when it goes off, I have to put my inquirer helmet on and start asking some serious questions. One thing that sets it off is when people start talking about being anti-rationalist or that everything is a hallucination and we can't really know anything about reality. I just don't think this is correct. And I don't think they really do either, they just think they do because they are caught up in their own ego bullshit (and they think they aren't).

I respect Leo as a thinker and I think his videos and courses are great. I've bought everything so far and will probably continue to support him because I l just like what he does and the care he puts into it. I can't think of anyone else in the personal development field who's really pushing the boundaries like he is and lets himself be questioned like this without losing it. So I hope he's cool with that.

It's not about him or me or you. It's about the ideas we exchange. Do they have merit? Lets talk about it and find out. And why not challenge each other when we are not in full agreement or understanding. Just like "real eyes" challenged me earlier about the logical fallacy thing, which was interesting because I had to go back to see what I wrote and argue my case. If i would've seen the fallacy (i still don't), i would've admitted it and that's that.

I'm not always perfect in the way I conduct myself and sometimes I say things that I regret. And I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong when I am or if I suddenly understand something that I may have overlooked.

Joseph I generally like your posts and I really admire how peacefully you engage with everyone here. I also subscribed to your youtube channel awhile ago so keep up the good work.

Some people think Leo is an authority figure and everything he says is holy.

I don't.

Truth is the only authority and we all serve that whether we like it or not.

[Joseph Maynor]

44 minutes ago, Anna1 said:

Imo, Enlightenment is the recognition that the "apparent" you,  isn't "you", never was. 

All beliefs are existentially false, even the belief that there is no you.  And even this sentence needs to eat itself.  

[Joseph Maynor]

@Lord Bwyra I agree with you.  We are trying to squeeze 3-dimensional reality into a 2-dimensional space with our language, writing, speaking, judgments sometimes.  This is useful to solve practical problems in the world, but can fail us when we talk about truth, knowledge, reasonable judgments, etc.

Because everything is so context-dependent it is hard to set forth too many context-independent claims.  This is one reason I try to cling less to dogma now.  But for every case where you determine that clinging is unwise, you can find an example of where it is wise.  I get it, let's not bullshit ourselves.  We need to cling to knowing.  But it's subtle.  More subtle than most people have the attention to delve into.

So, when I communicate, I run the risk of contradicting myself, and I don't deny that.  At the end of the day, all I can say is I have been benefited by my work and by theory, but I am also very aware of the dangers of context-independent judgments -- or claims that are made across- the board.  But then again, sometimes those might apply in particular contexts.   And for personal development purposes this is actually a key paradigm to start to warm up to -- this dynamic-balancing paradigm -- but don't cling too hard to it like it is "the answer".  Just explore it.  It kinda puts judgment into context, but even this ignores situations where judgment is the context!  In an intellectual treatise, judgment is the context, so it is hand-waving to say, put your judging into context in that scenario.  Ah, it gets tricky.  And it should be tricky!  Life is tricky.  Beware of people who try to give you non-nuanced answers.  But sometimes those apply too!  My point is kinda between the lines here, as it must be.

Writing in a small space sort of leads to making dichotomous statements.  There's a disconnect between what I can say and how I actually treat this stuff in my life.  I wish I could bottle how I actually dynamically-balance theory with practice in my life, but language cannot capture this.  

But I agree with you, and my theory of truth reflects these issues.  It's a complicated issue.  But we cannot say that there is no truth out of one side of our mouths, while espousing truths out of the other side.  That issue stinks, and it must be dealt with.  I agree.  I have some ideas about how to do that, but I would have to divulge my theory of truth here to do it.  This is why I am writing my Philosophy book, to deal with this issue and many more.

It is bullshit to say not-knowing is a virtue across-the board.  It is also bullshit to say knowing across the board is good.  Things are much more 3-dimensional and nuanced than this kind of 2-dimensional, overly-trite stipulation.  I get it.  This is why I became a philosopher and why writing a philosophy book is the meat of my life-purpose to attempt to come to an answer -- paradoxically -- to this issue and to many more issues.  And here I am warning about the dangers of clinging of need to know!  Telling people to dump their need to know is bad advice and sometimes it's good advice, it depends on the context and situation.  

Here's the paradox.  You wanna cling to knowing and cling to not-knowing at the right place and the right time depending on what you are doing.  See?  But what does this advice do for us?  What's the cash-value of telling somebody this?  It doesn't yield any of the luscious context-independent claims that we yearn for.  Like Socrates expecting a definition of Justice in a couple of sentences.  I hope I am making some sense here and communicating somewhat what I am attempting to communicate.  Damn these words!  I feel like Monet being reduced to pencil and paper when I write sometimes.  Like a jazz trumpet player being reduced to playing a kazoo.  But I still get in there and give it a go because reading, writing, and discourse has helped me so much.  I have faith in it from a high-level standpoint, although it's a love-hate relationship, as it should be!

This video doesn't get at the judgment issues so much, but kinda sets up what I am getting at with balancing.  It's pointing in a nice direction that dove-tails with what I am saying.  Although, there are more statements I make in my theory of truth that I do not state here.  And that theory is expansive and nuanced.  I would have told Socrates that the answer he is looking for is a treatise not a couple of sentences.  Justice is a treatise not a convenience-store 2 sentence cliche.  A voluminous treatise.  I dream of telling this to Socrates -- dude, the problem is your overly-trite expectation of what the answer should look like.

 

Edited August 20, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[RichardY]

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Matthew 7

19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.

20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

Ecclesiastes 3

[RichardY]

The meaning and purpose of dancing is the dance. Like music, also, it is fulfilled in each moment of its course. You do not play a sonata in order to reach the final chord, and if the meanings of things were simply in ends, composers would write nothing but finales.

Alan W. Watts

[Nahm]

@RichardY is that God's word?

[RichardY]

@Nahm No idea really. Intuitively sounded right to me for some reason, though perhaps other cultures and religions have better expressions for the limits(Logos?) that can be said in words.

[Ananta]

1 hour ago, Joseph Maynor said:

All beliefs are existentially false, even the belief that there is no you.  And even this sentence needs to eat itself.  

Why do you say it's a belief? ....

[Joseph Maynor]

40 minutes ago, Anna1 said:

Why do you say it's a belief? ....

If you put it into language or a vocalization it is no longer existentially True.

Non-dual reality doesn't tell us there is no self.  That is the monkey-mind putting that claim together.

Monkey-see, monkey conclude.  Reality doesn't give a shit about monkey conclusions.  

But even these claims must eat themselves.

No-self is a distinction and all distinctions are existentially false.  But of course, this claim needs to eat itself too.

This is Absolute Truth we're "talking about" here, see the problem?  Talking about.

Even no-thingness is a distinction.  

Reality just is.  Existential knowing is BE-ing, not conceiving.  

Edited August 19, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[Ananta]

50 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Non-dual reality doesn't tell us there is no self.

You apprehend what you are, by seeing what you're not (Neti-neti). In seeing what your not, you see its unreality/falseness, then you can "BE" what you are. Beliefs need not apply. 

 

[Natasha]

54 minutes ago, Anna1 said:

You apprehend what you are, by seeing what you're not (Neti-neti). In seeing what your not, you see its unreality/falseness, then you can "BE" what you are. Beliefs need not apply. 

 

@Anna1 That's actually a really good point. Direct experience is not a belief and thus can be trusted as legit.

[Joseph Maynor]

4 hours ago, Anna1 said:

You apprehend what you are, by seeing what you're not (Neti-neti). In seeing what your not, you see its unreality/falseness, then you can "BE" what you are. Beliefs need not apply. 

 

If that conclusion works for you, I have no reason to convince you otherwise.  You seem to really want to believe in conceptual claims, as do most of us.  Your argument doesn't fly with me though.  Enlightenment is really good at telling you what you are not, but it doesn't do much to tell you -- conceptually -- what you are, or anything else for that matter.  And Neti-Neti certainly does not prove-up all the positive claims that are made about enlightenment.  Most of the claims about enlightenment are simply scaffolding, designed to guide you and to be kicked-away at the right time.  A big problem I see is that people want to treat the scaffolding like beliefs.  This is a huge trap.  All beliefs are existentially false.  The problem is that nobody wants to remain silent to be the Truth, they want to cling to knowing the Truth conceptually.  I hope you see this trap.  I do, and I'm not claiming that I don't fall into it either.  But I am mindful of it.  Thought-stories are not the Truth, they're egoic fantasies.  But you've heard this many times before, I'm sure.  And if you've not been sold on this by now, I assume it doesn't work for you.  And that's fine.  I don't assume my role is to twist your arm into my way of thinking about the issue.  That would be really arrogant of me.  There is more than one way to skin a cat.

What enlightenment does tell you positively it shows you, and what you conceptualize from what it shows you it ain't.  Boy I hope this makes sense.  It is really hard to talk about enlightenment or to write about it I am finding.  This is why I like the idea that enlightenment is about BE-ing the Truth.  It gets at what I see as the most accurate pointer to enlightenment.  Just BE non-dual reality.  That's it!  Reality is the non-dual whole.  As soon as you say anything about it you poo in the beautiful pool so to speak.  Let the pool stay crystal clear and just enjoy it without modification.  It doesn't need to be anything other than what it is, anything more than what it is.  But our monkey-minds hunger for conceptual truth about non-dual reality like a heavy-person might pine for a doughnut.  We have a powerful craving to know.  We lick our chops to know like a dog with a bottom-less pit stomach eats until it barfs.  We're addicted to conceptual knowing.  For what it's worth, and I'm not assuming I am right and everybody else is wrong -- clinging to conceptual beliefs about non-dual reality can set you 100 miles apart from enlightenment.  Enlightenment is pre-linguistic, a-linguistic, a-conceptual.  Just BE what is.  I don't know, maybe I am on the wrong track, but it feels so right to me.  This is how I practice enlightenment.  This doesn't moot conceptual thinking as to other matters, it just moots beliefs trying to capture non-dual reality.  Enlightenment is like going through the gateless-gate.  (I stole this last sentence from one of Leo's videos haha.  It's good.)

I'm at this point with my enlightenment where beliefs about enlightenment don't really count for much.  The stories are fun to read and get me thinking about enlightenment, but BE-ing reality is where the rubber-meets-the-road for enlightenment to me.  But I never would have arrived at this destination without a lot of scaffolding to guide me here.  The journey is worth as much as the destination in enlightenment.  But I have found that at some point you have to kick away the theory training-wheels and just be the damn Truth.  It's so trivial it almost seems like a joke.  This is why the journey to get here is so important.  The ego will not drop need to believe until it sees the Truth and understands the futility of trying to conceptualize enlightenment, so you gotta go on the journey to see with your entire being why this is True.  You gotta feel it in the marrow of your bones -- like damn!  this is never gonna work!  It's an epiphany that I think Self-Inquiry, in part, is trying to lead you to.  But I am still open to talking about and thinking about all these issues.  I don't wanna be a dogmatist myself.  Beliefs don't count for much from an existential standpoint.  But this statement must eat itself.  Now you know why I say the statement must eat itself -- all thought-stories stand at cross-purposes to non-dual being.  Like the difference between drawing a cat and petting a real cat.  The real cat might tentatively sniff at your nifty drawing, but it would probably show no interest in it otherwise.  

Edited August 20, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[Ananta]

@Joseph Maynor It seems what I said triggered or disturbed you. I mean, talk about monkey mind, wow! Sorry about that. Have a good night. 

Edited August 20, 2017 by Anna1

[Leo Gura]

Most of you guys are just speculating. I don't hear anyone here speaking from a direct consciousness of the absolute nature of reality.

I'm starting to regret telling you about psychedelics because it just makes you skeptical of me.

I've told you what reality is. It's a radical thing.  If you don't like how it sounds, oh well. That is that. These are things a Zen monk with 20 years expereince can still fail to grasp. You have almost no hope of grasping it unless you commit your whole life to this, are spiritually gifted, or you do some very serious investigating using psychedelics.

Good luck

[Lord Bwyra]

@Leo Gura But Leo the same could be said to you and that has been my point on this thread. Yet you fail too admit this and this makes you look very arrogant and extremely unenligthened. And hence why I think you are just tripping and basking in the afterglow

You seem to think you have a monopoly on "direct consciousness of the absolute nature of reality".

NEWSFLASH: you don't and never will.

Weak idiots will not see that because they just want some leader to tell them how to live without questioning anything (99% of people are like that).

Just because you say something doesn't make it so. No matter how many times you repeat or are convinced of it yourself.
You are not an authority on these topics, nobody is.

Whether a monk does this for 20-30 years, doesn't mean shit.

Right now we are using words to communicate with each other. Ultimately they will always be just fingers pointing at the moon (at best) and never the moon itself.

And you are also not the only one to have experimented with psychedelics. I've done them quite a lot! And so have others on this thread. I've come across many people who get overly-excited when they experience all that deep shit and then eventually it wears off. They think psychedelics help them but ultimately they don't do shit. Just entertainment. Yes it can inspire but it's all a lie. Not the real thing. And when the drug wears off you are left with "sometimes i feel the high on my walks", etc.

You are not enlightened, if you were, you wouldn't be communicating so defensively.

Once again, you keep on separating yourself from others or "you guys" and this appears that you have got drunk on your own kool-aid.

This is very unbecoming of you.
 

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I'm starting to regret telling you about psychedelics because it just makes you skeptical of me.

Yes because your ego as Leo Gura the spiritual sage is now under enormous threat when even his followers stop taking him seriously. He starts regretting his moves and forgets that this was never about him.

Fear not though friend because YOU don't matter.

The true spiritual aspirants are here for much deeper reasons than following some guru.
There are no gurus.

"If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."

We are here for truth.

At least I am

 

[Lord Bwyra]

I’m gonna bow out of this conversation for now as I feel I have nothing further to contribute at this time but look forward to seeing you elsewhere on the forums or reading the discussion on this thread if it continues.

Funny how the title of Leo’s thread can be kind of interpreted in different ways now. Not sure if that was intentional or not.

Then again, perhaps we are all channeling something greater than ourselves in everything we do, say or write or create. We are all striving not just to understand all THIS but to share our understanding or lack of it with each other as well.

I'm sure our journeys and ideas will continue to evolve.

[Joseph Maynor]

3 hours ago, Lord Bwyra said:

I’m gonna bow out of this conversation for now as I feel I have nothing further to contribute at this time but look forward to seeing you elsewhere on the forums or reading the discussion on this thread if it continues.

Funny how the title of Leo’s thread can be kind of interpreted in different ways now. Not sure if that was intentional or not.

Then again, perhaps we are all channeling something greater than ourselves in everything we do, say or write or create. We are all striving not just to understand all THIS but to share our understanding or lack of it with each other as well.

I'm sure our journeys and ideas will continue to evolve.

The answer is that non-dual reality laughs at troll and real.  Troll and real are ego.  Reality ain't ego.  Reality is a-conceptual.  But even these beliefs need to eat themselves.  Sorry.  I think the lesson here is we gotta stop asking stupid conceptual questions about enlightenment.  I'm not addressing this to anybody here.  It's just an observation.  And it used to be directed at me, so that's how I really learned it.  I could be wrong.  And I make no claim to know Leo's intention for the question.  To even think that there is an answer or even a question is egoic.  Reality just is and it is One.  Non-dualism is just that -- not two.  In non-dualism the question isn't how thin we should slice the baloney, it's where we should lock away the knife. 

I think it's really healthy to assume that we are all wrong about enlightenment.  If nothing else, it prevents tainting the beautiful thing that non-dual reality is.  Being humble about conceptualizing enlightenment is a good practice.  I assume I am wrong in everything I say here.  And it doesn't matter at all.  What matters is BE-ing non-dual reality.  So long as I can do that, I could care less what is said about it by me or by anyone else.  It's all just like birds squawking in the background while I am sitting here trying to enjoy a nice steak dinner.  Like that.  I'd rather be reality than be right any day.

Edited August 20, 2017 by Joseph Maynor