Why do appearences exist?

[Leo Gura]

An appearance is that which doesn't exist, by definition.

The problem is that you're attached to non-existence being some black void. No. Non-existence is the natural world. Look around you! You're inside of non-existence! Everything you see doesn't exist. That's what NOTHING is! Nothing is everything.

You won't get this without enlightenment.

[egoless]

15 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

An appearance is that which doesn't exist, by definition.

The problem is that you're attached to non-existence being some black void. No. Non-existence is the natural world. Look around you! You're inside of non-existence! Everything you see doesn't exist. That's what NOTHING is! Nothing is everything.

You won't get this without enlightenment.

Leo, I will see your Enlightenment on camera and we will celebrate it. I will follow you into the void. You will never outgrow me! 

P.S. If you are not Enlightened yet than how do you understand the Nothing yourself?

[Girzo]

@egoless how I see it; most people will agree that what you see or hear is not "real", it's a subjective perspective created the moment you see it. Now you just need to drop an idea that there is a "brain" where it happens or objective physical reality which is percived. There's only this personal illusory perception which is Nothing.

You can say it either exists or don't exist, because it's of different quality and neither of these words describe it in full, that's why capitalized words are used to indicate that.

I am sorry I can't describe it better, but I don't fully understand that yet myself.

[Joseph Maynor]

Existence vs non-existence is a duality.  Reality is non-dual.  Do you appreciate the implications of this fully?  

Existence is a concept that the Mind is laying on top of reality.  So is non-existence.  So is the “existence vs. non-existence” opposition.

Use concepts, but don’t become trapped in them.  Don’t be the bug that is trapped by the spiderwebs.  You wanna be the greasy bug that doesn’t get caught in those webs.  That’s the next level for you.  

Notice that even the word “appearance” is a duality.  It’s too snapshotish, too discrete, too individuated.  You gotta grok the deeper issue here.

Use theory, but don’t cling to it so hard.  This is so hard to teach someone.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[egoless]

Yesterday me and my friend smoked some weed and I offered her to watch Leo's last video. After we discussed and she made several points and I kinda agree with her. First of all she said: "I can touch the wall and it is solid. - So far this is my proof that the universe may be material." Leo is not Enlightened yet as he says so what is your proof Leo? Also you did not bring any solid proof that brain does not exist actually. You just made counter statement without any proofs or did I miss something?

[Shin]

The problem is that you want proofs instead of actually do the work to see what he's talking about yourself.

We tell you it's not something that can be think of, it's one of the few things that can only be known by first hand experience.

You can't think of it and you can't have a perception of it, so you need to find an another way.

Quote

I do the work already quite intensively. But if someone came to you and told you that the earth is flamingo in reality. And you should do 69 push ups daily for 5 years to experience this truth yourself. Would you do it? What's the difference here? 

@egoless The difference is there isn't dozens of mystics that talk about that.

Study all mystics, gather informations, they all say the same thing, even some scientists and philosophers.

They may use differents words, but they point to the same thing.

Edited November 28, 2017 by Shin

[egoless]

@Shin I do the work already quite intensively. But if someone came to you and told you that the earth is flamingo in reality. And you should do 69 push ups daily for 5 years to experience this truth yourself. Would you do it? What's the difference here? 

[Leo Gura]

24 minutes ago, egoless said:

"I can touch the wall and it is solid. - So far this is my proof that the universe may be material."

It's been over 100 years since quantum mechanics has proven to you that that wall is made mostly out of empty space. And the little sub-atomic particles which are there are not particles at all, but clouds of potential -- fields. And what are fields? Nothing. And when you're not looking at that wall, it exists in a state of superimposition: both existing and not-existing at the same time.

So even your very own materialist science has disproven you.

But of course you never bothered to really contemplate your own materialist science, nor has your friend. Because you don't really about understanding reality, you are lazy and sloppy. All you care about is your survival.

[egoless]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

It's been over 100 years since quantum mechanics has proven to you that that wall is made mostly out of empty space. And the little sub-atomic particles which are there are not particles at all, but clouds of potential -- fields. And what are fields? Nothing.

But as you mentioned in the video the science has been mistaken many times over the course of history. So far the only thing you know is you bump your head in the wall and you end up in hospital. Call it hallucination or not you still end up fuked up. 

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, egoless said:

you still end up fuked up

That's your hallucination.

You speak so confidently about being fucked, yet you have no idea what you are.

Talk about putting the cart before the horse.

[egoless]

@Shin Yes you are right. And that is actually the only thing what motivates me to continue. Plus I believe in authenticity of Leo. He may be deluded himself - yes this is also possibility. But he won't lie about his experience I am sure. And I know his  intellectual possibilities. He is witty enough to avoid major pitfalls.

Edited November 28, 2017 by egoless

[egoless]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

That's your hallucination.

Who is me though? You mean hallucination inside the hallucination? Do you mean that I am the hallucination and world I see is another layer of hallucination? What is the first layer of hallucination then?

[egoless]

@Leo Gura Leo stop blaming me for believing random stuff. You should know already that I am definitely not a believer. I don't believe in science and I don't believe in anything blindly. I question everything. When you claim that everything is hallucination of course I will question it. I am not lazy. Definitely not in contemplation part.

[Alex K]

@Leo Gura @egoless @Shin But quantum potential still exists therefore it is not nothingness, it's somethingness! You guys tell that "something" is "by definition" but your "defintions" are wrong. If something is couched into nothingness - it is not nothingness! Nothingness does not equate "No thing", semantic of the word is not the sum of semantics of it's parts you guys!!! Nothingness should stand for mathematical nothingness only meaning (stupidly rough) "less than 1 / (absolute infinity)".

"An appearance is that which doesn't exist, by definition." - Wrong definition. When you tell that something does not exist it should mean that it is nothingness as in 1/a.inf. But even with non duality, appearances, illusions should consume/are contained in some portion of existence, even as some potential, they are obviously not "nothing at all"!

I am very very thankful to Leo because his latest video finally gave me conclusive evidence as to why brain and neurons are not iron clad - because all the theory and evidence about them are based on a bunch of subjective impermanent observations while the consciousness/being is the only fact.

@Joseph Maynor When we talk about existance and non existance, we do not really divide the reality with them - so it is not a duality. We use them as perfect categories. Obviously there is a part of reality which constitute appearances. But this part is not really dual, it is still a part of endless gooey all-encopassing existence.

Edited November 28, 2017 by Alex K

[Joseph Maynor]

On 11/27/2017 at 1:39 PM, see_on_see said:

"Why" is just another appearance. You ask it as if there's an "outside" to existence somehow. But notice that without existence first, there would be no "why". "Why" depends on existence, not the other way around. Also "why" relative to what, or to whom? To you? To a butterfly, to a tree? "Why" only makes sense in the domain of concepts, not for existence. Appearances exist "because" existence is infinite and therefore includes all appearances too, including "why".

Beautifully said.  

[Joseph Maynor]

On 11/27/2017 at 0:48 PM, egoless said:

None of you know what you are talking about. Or at least it very much seems so... 

You’re assuming that reality can be literally conceptualized instead of figurally so.  All our theories are figurative.  The Mind reinforces the belief that they should be literal.  That doesn’t mean you dump theory — because that would mean you didn’t shake the trap because you are still buying into the true/ false paradigm regarding beliefs.  What you gotta do is embrace the idea that language is metaphorical and never literal.  You’ll still use language, but you’ll change the expectations you have around it.  You’ll become less rigid with theory and become more creative with it.  There’s a reason the more Enlightened a person is the less they argue over conceptual issues.  That trap is fully seen through.

Edited November 28, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[Joseph Maynor]

20 hours ago, egoless said:

Leo, I will see your Enlightenment on camera and we will celebrate it. I will follow you into the void. You will never outgrow me! 

P.S. If you are not Enlightened yet than how do you understand the Nothing yourself?

Why are you assuming Enlightement is a destination?  It’s more like a process.  It’s the result of having your awareness raised throughout your entire life.  

Edited November 28, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[Serge]

@egoless What Leo's trying to say is that all beliefs are false. They live in the mind. And anything that lives in the mind is not real. You can imagine an unicorn in your mind, as well as an atom. Materialism is just a model. The fact that you can hit your head over the wall and injure yourself doesn't prove materialism. The only thing it proves is - the fact that you hit your head over the wall and injured yourself. The experience = the experience, everything that is - just is. No more layers needed.

Your focus shouldn't be on the attempt of explanation of reality, but on reality itself. The explanation is just a pointer. Focus on what it points to. And what it points to doesn't live in the mind. It's an experience.

Edited November 28, 2017 by Serge

[Nahm]

The wall will still be the wall, but everything inside of you changes. You could look at the wall until you understand it is not there, or you could look inside you until you understand you are not there.  Most of it just disappears., ultimately all of it.  If that’s not magic, I don’t know what is. Anybody remember Grover, on sesame st, doing the super hero alter ego and using his “power of observation”? 

Still though, why this is, I say, is for the most logical, simple, rational, ordinary, relatable, personal, and intimate reason...and done using the magic of self and no thing. 

[Faceless]

An appearence is an impression. A representation of an external form. A production of thought.