Mapping Out Leo's Psychedelic Insights Within Vedantic Perspective

[Preetom]

Note: Might be a long post. And again it might be helpful for those who are confused as it will present a straightforward conclusion. A claim Leo often makes which is the possibility of having the highest realizations for the first time. But this is simply not true as these things have been systematically mapped out since time immemorial. So hear me out. My guess is most people dont bother to study it or take it into consideration because they think it is traditional dogma and product of ''deluded illiterate people". But if the same message is told in a slightly different twist by a contemporary spiritual teacher or by a 21st century modern, educated man; everyone loses their shit. ?

Part 1: The mechanism of creation/manifestation

For any form to exist, there must be a trinity of subject-mechanism-objects or knower-knowledge-known. Religiously, it is known as the trinity of soul-god-world. So basically a subject perceives objects and god is the mechanism or principle that makes this perceptual connection possible by holding it all together.

Now in Vedanta, the absolute reality Brahman is prior to this trinity. This trinity is in fact relative and only 'seems' to exist from its own POV. Poetically speaking, This trinity is said to have borrowed existence from Brahman. We will make these fine distinctions here but connect it all together in the end.

Part 2: All of reality, cosmology explained in vedantic perspective!

So we can see that god is the macrocosm and the subject or individual ego is a microcosm of that god. Basically god is the total summation of all individual subjects and objects. Here I am going to explain things in terms of 3 bodies :

1) Gross body (product of food/the external form)

2) Subtle body(the subjective, private aspect that is not shared with other egos aka thoughts, sensations, feelings etc)

3) Causal body ( the unmanifest body which holds everything that is possible for individual ego in seed potential form. In modern terms, the deepest subconscious layers can be thought of as the causal body)

Now just like I as this individual subject have 3 aspects of bodies, similarly god as my macrocosm also has these 3 aspects.

1) Gross god aspect ( It is literally the absolute summation of all visible, external forms..from humans to animals to trees to insentient matter. Literally any form there is, was or can be, it is part of this Gross god. In Vedanta it is called Virat)

2) Subtle god aspect ( it is literally the absolute summation of all subjective feelings, thoughts, sounds, tastes, sensations, smells there are, were and can ever be. This is the psychic or subtle aspect of god)

3) Causal god aspect ( it is literally the absolute summation of all potentiality. In Vedanta, it is called Hiranyagarbha, meaning the highest heaven. This is also known as the universal cosmic mind in its unlimited, pure potential state)

This is the entire cosmology mapped out in Vedanta. Now where is Brahman in all of of this? None of it is Brahman. After total negation, Brahman is discovered as the solitary Reality prior to all of this.

Part 3: Connecting it all together and explaining Leos psychedelic experiences.

Does this ring some bells? Isn't Leo just talking about these aspects of god and cosmic mind through various metaphors and explanation? 

From this individual body-mind to the macrocosm god, there are infinite gradations, POVs, pieces, microcosms. What psychedelic does is that, it takes one from the microcosm of this individual body mind with limited knowledge graph to more and more expansive levels of the macrocosm. It can even ultimately take one to the highest macrocosm god where things like absolute omniscience, absolute will, absolute oneness becomes evidently clear (the places where Leo recently hit). Meditation, yoga and other spiritual practices are also tools that can take one from this individual ego level to more expansive macrocosm ego levels. All shiddhis or paranormal powers are basically manifestations of these higher realms.

Now what does Vedanta says about all this? Once again, none of it is Brahman. That universal cosmic mind is as much non-Brahman as my current individual ego self. So 'I' can travel from microcosm to the macrocosm, to the highest of heavens millions of times and still I will be equally distant from Brahman the Absolute. 

So what does the direct path prescribe? It says that there is no reason or necessity to take the scenic route. Upon right knowledge and contemplation, this entire trinity of soul-god-universe becomes annihilated and Brahman is found to be the solitary Reality. Right here, all communication fails.

So from vedantic perspective, all the 'ultimate' mysteries and insights found through psychedelics or spiritual highs are still inside the dream/Maya. No matter how expansive or oneness one feels, its still a state, just different facets of macrocosm, all of it are non-existent, non-Brahman. 

That's why nowadays all of Leos psychedelic insight videos start with the common theme "by far my greatest breakthrough/deepest trip ever/ its not like anything I've ever had before" - a regular claim he has already made over a dozen times. Hell yeah! The more one gets to infinity depth, it becomes more infinite without end, so this 'traveling' never comes to an end. The more one sees, the more there is to see.

Brahman is the total annihilation of this dream. It is called nirvana or total extinction for this reason.

Part 4: some simple suggestion

1) its okay not to have 100 psychedelic breakthroughs or spiritual highs. No need to feel inferior about that. You are still yourself, one, intimate after 0 or 1000 highs.

2) this psychic traveling, expansiveness, shifts that happen from microcosm to many levels of macrocosm with psychedelics or spiritual practices can be helpful if it shows one that how one is not exclusively this particular ego body mind. This can make the surrendering of individuality easier. 

But this same 'traveling' can backfire and work as a roadblock if one nests into any particular facet of the macrocosm. Basically the ego identity and some god identity both are similar roadblocks if one gets stuck there. One has merely shifted into a more illuminating, fantastic dream and yet to discover the reality of Brahman

3) Instead of being confused with every half baked non duality theories and fads around, make a systematic study and logical scrutiny of this subject. All the absolute-relative conflating tendencies arise from not knowing this subject matter properly. There is probably not a single objection or doubt that hasn't been raised and discussed in this study.

Hope you learned a thing or two reading this post. Good day ?

Edited June 24, 2019 by Preetom

[Ananta]

31 minutes ago, Preetom said:

Now what does Vedanta says about all this? Once again, none of it is Brahman. That universal cosmic mind is as much non-Brahman as my current individual ego self. So 'I' can travel from microcosm to the macrocosm, to the highest of heavens millions of times and still I will be equally distant from Brahman the Absolute. 

Yup!

Finally someone who knows what's up around here!

[zeroISinfinity]

@Preetom You are not distant from Absolute. You are it. 

Not your ego self. But what YOU really are right now. Yes it is really THAT simple. 

Yes NIRVANA, Conciousness in purest "form" requieres ego death. And by this I mean literal extinction of your entire life universe everything. Feels like death then Miracle happens. 

[Leo Gura]

@Preetom Brahmin and Maya are identical.

Don't underestimate psychedelics.

Your mapping of my realizations is your own imagination at work.

[Garuda]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@Preetom Brahmin and Maya are identical.

@Leo Gura

I think you mean Brahman not Brahmin

And no they are not identical. Vedanta can be refined and they can be shown to be different. But that is just down from different philosophies. 

Edited June 23, 2019 by Garuda

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Garuda said:

@Leo Gura

I think you mean Brahman not Brahmin

Yes

2 hours ago, Garuda said:

And no they are not identical. Vedanta can be refined and they can be shown to be different. But that is just down from different philosophies. 

All differences are imaginary.

There exists only one thing: consciousness. The end.

[Ananta]

 

Ok, so, the world IS Brahman, in the sense that it is created out of, permeatated by and within Brahman, but Brahman is not the world, because the world can be negated and Brahman is still there, as it's the substratum of all things, so not dependent upon the world for its existence. 

Recap: The world is Brahman, but Brahman is not the world.

[Leo Gura]

@Anna1 That is wrong. EVERYTHING is Brahman. Your nonduality is incomplete.

If you have 2 things, that is duality!

The distinction between Brahman and world is something Brahman (You) is imagining.

All difference is God's imagination at work. So if you see a difference between things, you can be sure that you created that difference.

It would be wise of you guys to listen to what is being said here.

[Ananta]

@Leo Gura Everything IS Brahman, but Brahman isn't everything. If you can negate it, then it isn't pure awareness.

Just like I said about the world, above. Brahman exists without its "relative" reflection. 

Anyways, Vedanta breaks things down. This thread is about Vedantic perspective.

Edit- Geez, do u go back and edit all the time. I'm not changing my post.

Edited June 24, 2019 by Anna1

[Leo Gura]

The Vedantic perspective is also imagination. As all perspective or analysis is.

[Ananta]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The Vedantic perspective is also imagination.

So is your perspective.?

*I see you edited, again.....hehe

Edited June 24, 2019 by Anna1

[Preetom]

3 hours ago, Mikael89 said:

@Preetom But..

What about "All is Brahman"?

I'm right now reading Ribhu Gita which goes on and on and on about that everything is Brahman.

Okay I'll try to explain this dilemma with 2 classic examples. See if it makes sense.

The duality of nothing-everything is already a concession. "All is Brahman" is a similar statement to "Michael's dream at last night is nothing but his mind". But take a look at your mind. Is last night's dream exclusively your mind? No. Because your same mind can produce infinite amount of other dream worlds. And ultimately that one dream really has no existence at all other than in your mind. It only feels real as long as it is perceived. This is the paradigm lock of all knowledge and perception. It feels real only when it is happening now.

Have you noticed that whatever happening right now feels most real? But where is this sense of reality coming from? This sense of reality is not actually coming from things. These current same thoughts and forms will lose significance and reality when you forget about them. If you are not seeing the sun, then the reality of sun is very dim for you now. So no 'thing' exclusively has reality. That sense of reality actually comes from you the Brahman.

Vedanta scrupulously maintains this discriminating view so that no form can ever exclusively claim ownership of absolute reality.

Why not saying that both all and brahman are real? No they are not both real. To illustrate this there is the example of clay and clay pots.

A clay pot is in and through nothing but clay. Clay can exist without clay pot but clay pot cant exist without clay. So its 'potness' is really only a self fulfilling unreal superimposition. Now if you strictly say "the clay pot is clay" that will be a true statement just like the statement "all is brahman".

But you see it already concedes this pot as something real and distinct and then made connection with clay. Whereas in reality the clay remains same whether its a pot or not (in the context of this metaphor). The very idea of pot, world, all is already a concession and in that case they are really nothing but products of Brahman 

These are all teaching pointers and further discussion actually only breaks down language and the teaching without any outcome.

So as Anna has pointed out the 'all' is like a mere shadow product of Brahman. In the same way even concepts like existence, consciousness, bliss etc are nothing but superimposed definitions on Brahman. They are helpful teaching pointers but there is nothing one can exclusively grasp and ascribe it as Brahman.

This is illuminated in a Bhagavad gita verse where Krishna tells Arjuna "the entire universe is sustained with merely a fraction of my being"

Similarly all real things in universe, all potentials and all 'unreal' things are nothing but Brahman. But Brahman is not exclusively any of them.

[Natasha]

13 minutes ago, Mikael89 said:

I agree with Anna (I agree with Advaita Vedanta).

"The world is Brahman, but Brahman is not the world." just means that Brahman isn't limited to the world.

The drawing in the sand is Brahman.

If you erase the drawing, is Brahman gone and dead then? No.

So, the drawing is Brahman. But Brahman isn't (limited to) the drawing.

Yes, beautiful illustration, @Mikael89

[Preetom]

49 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The Vedantic perspective is also imagination. As all perspective or analysis is.

 

48 minutes ago, Anna1 said:

So is your perspective.?

*I see you edited, again.....hehe

The thing is we are now only destroying the teaching pointers.

Its like we were supposed to go to a city. At the middle of the road we see a signpost pointing instructions to reach that city. Now instead of taking notes, we break and destroy the signpost, start a campfire with it, nesting there and singing kumbabya thinking we have accomplished a great feat and there is no city to go to ?

I know this metaphor is crude compared to the directness of the real thing. But compared to the real thing, every metaphor is crude haha so that was a fun thought

The real knower of brahman aka the enlightened one has no confusion about Brahman. He IS brahman so for him there is absolutely no misconception about what brahman is or is not. For him the Vedas(knowledge) have become Avedas(ignorance) and all the brahman talk is redundant and unnecessary.

But before that, the teaching scrupulously maintains its position and perspective to act as a good signpost. This distinction is absolutely crucial for realization.

Edited June 24, 2019 by Preetom

[Jkris]

@Anna1 ???

[Jkris]

@Preetom ???

[Ananta]

@Jkris Ty ?

[bmcnicho]

@Preetom This is probably a very broad question, but from the vedantic perspective, which spiritual techniques lead to Braman and which spiritual techniques only lead to macrorealities?

If it would take too long to explain, do you know of good resources to learn more about this?

[Preetom]

@Jkris

Thank you.

My original purpose of this post was to draw a distinction between what Leo is doing and vedanta perspective.

Leo is intellectually oriented and he is keen on using elements of god like time, space, causality in turn to understand the mechanism, layers, how, why, when, whats going on behind the curtains of god.

Now i am not disparaging that or saying Leo is doing something bad. My purpose was to contrast it with vedantic perspective in order to show that this project is not relevant to ''waking up". 

It is possible to be enlightened and there are many cases of it without having even a fraction of juicy insights Leo has been formulating. All this levels, understanding, insights, expansions are within the microcosm-macrocosm range. 

The purpose of my post was to shed some light on this topic and try to dispel the unnecessary struggle and confusion of many people around here who got the false impression about enlightenment from Leos recent herculean feats. All of a sudden this awakening business got so complex.

In vedantic terminology, with contrast to Brahman, even God is as unreal as my current limited ego self. So even the realization "i am god" or "i am all" is not the finality of it.

The intended realization is to discover that I am Brahman, the unchanging, solitary reality no matter which level or state i am in, in this range of microcosm ego to macrocosm god. 

Edited June 25, 2019 by Preetom

[Preetom]

13 minutes ago, bmcnicho said:

@Preetom This is probably a very broad question, but from the vedantic perspective, which spiritual techniques lead to Braman and which spiritual techniques only lead to macrorealities?

If it would take too long to explain, do you know of good resources to learn more about this?

Spiritual practices like various forms of meditation, yoga, visulization, tantra etc can lead to shiddhis aka more and more expansive, cosmic ego. These are all basically various forms of concentration and disciplines and they are all activities of the ego which are usually very secret within corresponding traditions and usually requires decades of brutal training...like becoming a master Olympic javelin thrower. That wont happen in few days or months. And of course like other physical/mental traits, some are already ahead or talented in particular paranormal realms.

On the other hand, the direct path to enlightenment consists of understanding this distinction between real and unreal clearly and then self inquiry all the way. The strategy is to dissolve the trinity of subject-god-object. The nature of this trinity is that if one can completely see through the subject, then the entire trinity collapses because the subject is the thread on which all of this hangs upon. Thats why self inquiry targets precisely that. The closest, most intimate and important thing in your life: yourself. You cant be deluded about that.

Now even in this direct path, some may start developing paranormal powers, as the limited egoic boundaries start getting erased. One should be extremely vigilant not fall for them as the real deal. They are but nice scenes along the way. Thats why all the greatest masters made this distinction clearly and instructed to leave these things alone if ones sole purpose is enlightenment.

If one gets caught up in a particular realm, that is called yoga-vrashta(the one who has diverted from the path of yoga). Whatever realm he is roaming in for however long, he is not waking up.

This is illustrated by a talk between Swami Vivekananda and Sri Ramakrishna. One day vivekananda complained to his guru about why he is not attaining even any glimpse of spiritual powers in spite of a lot practices whereas others around him often describe having various spiritual highs, experiences and powers. Ramakrishna replied that Vivekananda is lucky that those things are not bothering him.

Later when Vivekanada reported to his guru that he might be developing a sense of clarivoyance, Ramakrishna told him "stop your practices for a while and let these pests leave you first. Then start again".

The path is extremely sneaky and full of traps...until its not