Mapping Out Leo's Psychedelic Insights Within Vedantic Perspective

[bmcnicho]

@Preetom Ah ok, I'm starting to see the distinction you're drawing.  There seems to be a debate between various spiritual traditions of self-transcendence vs self negation.  I've been studying Gnosticism a lot recently and it's similar to Leo's teachings in that it describes unifying with and becoming some higher thing.

Whereas what you're describing sounds more like realizing that you never existed in the first place and just being aware of reality as it is.

I could see how that approach would be less prone to zen devilry, although the things Leo describes sound fascinating!  I should be careful though, because I have a fairly significant stage red shadow which could easily corrupt my work

[Preetom]

5 hours ago, bmcnicho said:

@Preetom Ah ok, I'm starting to see the distinction you're drawing.  There seems to be a debate between various spiritual traditions of self-transcendence vs self negation.  I've been studying Gnosticism a lot recently and it's similar to Leo's teachings in that it describes unifying with and becoming some higher thing.

Whereas what you're describing sounds more like realizing that you never existed in the first place and just being aware of reality as it is.

I could see how that approach would be less prone to zen devilry, although the things Leo describes sound fascinating!  I should be careful though, because I have a fairly significant stage red shadow which could easily corrupt my work

Yes the traps and dangers are so sneaky and endless. The weird thing is That which obeserves a system and tries to make some tweaks, is itself part of the system. Its like the thief dressing up as the police to catch himself. Whenever one thinks he has an upperhand over 'it', actually it is 'it' that has the upperhand.

Another thing to clarify is that vedanta does not teach panpsychism or a version of it like ''everything is consciousness" or ''all is god". Thats just an upgrade of the traditional religious god. Whereas religious god is an old man in the cloud and separate from his creation, the panpsychic god is actually one and the same with its creation. 

But vedanta doesn't teach that. At best it concedes as "Brahman alone 'seems' to appear as everything. But Brahman never actually becomes anything in reality. Just like the illusion of snake on rope, the rope never actually becomes a snake even while seeing that illusion"

This is illustrated in a letter exchange between swami Vivekananda and one of his american disciples sister Nibedita.

She wrote to swami how the teachings that everything is god, the mundane is spiritual helped her.

In reply Vivekanda said "who told you that everything is god? I dont remember teaching such whacky doctrine. The realization is only God is. Everything is not"

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by Preetom

[Jkris]

@Preetom ???

[tsuki]

Quote

D.: Jesus Christ cured people of their diseases. Is that only an occult power (siddhi)?

Maharshi: Was Jesus aware at the time that he was curing men of their diseases? He could not have been conscious of his powers. There is a story related as follows: Jesus had once cured a man of his blindness. The man turned wicked, in course of time. Meeting him after some years, Jesus observed his wickedness and asked him why he was so. He replied saying that, when he was blind, he could not commit any sin. But after Jesus had cured him of blindness he grew wicked and Jesus was responsible for his wickedness.

D.: Was not Jesus a Perfected Being possessing occult powers (siddhi)?

M.: He could not have been aware of his powers (siddhis).

D.: Is it not good to acquire them, such as telepathy, etc.?

M.: Telepathy or radio enables one to see and hear from afar. They are all the same, hearing and seeing. Whether one hears from near or far does not make any difference in hearing. The fundamental factor is the hearer, the subject. Without the hearer or the seer, there can be no hearing or seeing. The latter are the functions of the mind. The occult powers (siddhis) are therefore only in the mind. They are not natural to the Self. That which is not natural, but acquired, cannot be permanent, and is not worth striving for.

They denote extended powers. A man is possessed of limited powers and is miserable; he wants to expand his powers so that he may be happy. But consider if it will be so; if with limited perceptions one is miserable, with extended perceptions the misery must increase proportionately. Occult powers will not bring happiness to anyone, but will make him all the more miserable!

Moreover what are these powers for? The would-be occultist (siddha) desires to display the siddhis so that others may appreciate him. He seeks appreciation, and if it is not forthcoming he will not be happy. There must be others to appreciate him. He may even find another possessor of higher powers. That will cause jealousy and breed unhappiness. The higher occultist (siddha) may meet a still higher siddha and so on until there will come one who will blow up everything in a trice. Such is the highest adept (siddha) and He is God or the Self.

Which is the real power? Is it to increase prosperity or bring about peace? That which results in peace is the highest perfection (siddhi).

Arunachala, Sadhu (2010-06-30T23:58:59). Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi . Sri Ramanasramam. Kindle Edition. 

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by tsuki

[Preetom]

@tsuki

Thank you for your input

[Leo Gura]

@Preetom Don't speak for me please.

What I say does not contradict what you say.

God is all form, and if all form disappears, God is the emptiness that remains. There is only one thing: God. It can take many forms or no form at all, and there is no difference between form and not-form unless you hold that there is.

Way too much hairsplitting going on in this thread. It's a discussion about nothing.

[tsuki]

13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It's a discussion about nothing.

[Preetom]

53 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Preetom Don't speak for me please.

What I say does not contradict what you say.

God is all form, and if all form disappears, God is the emptiness that remains. There is only one thing: God. It can take many forms or no form at all, and there is no difference between form and not-form unless you hold that there is.

Sorry but my purpose was to contrast and map things out in Vedantic perspective.

Like I said, this is not for you if you are enlightened. For god, there is no misconception about what god is or is not. But for a seeker who is confused, it is absolutely crucial. If this distinction is not properly understood, then all sorts absolute-relative conflation happens. Then the ego demands the absolute formless explained in it's own terms, on it own form ground.

54 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Way too much hairsplitting going on in this thread. It's a discussion about nothing.

And yet this is the most important Nothing to talk about as there is no worthwhile things to talk about in contrast 

Take care

 

 

[tsuki]

29 minutes ago, Mikael89 said:

@Preetom @tsukiLove this stuff. Nothing better than cut through bullshit. Thanks.

4 hours ago, Preetom said:

@tsuki

Thank you for your input

You are both welcome 

[Nahm]

@Preetom The Ramen noodles are Brahman noodles. 

[Preetom]

1 hour ago, Nahm said:

@Preetom The Ramen noodles are Brahman noodles. 

No. You are mixing up the real with the unreal ?

[Nahm]

@Preetom It’s LOVE dude. It doesn’t think, it is. Is it separate, a reserved, un-everything? LOL That’s a thought. So simple, so convoluted. Love you.  

[Nahm]

@Anna1 What Leo told you is True. Reality is pure, pristine, untouched, untarnished, crystalline love, being. The first act is nothing, no act. The second is forgetting. What is the third act Anna? The teachings are for act two, not three, because three is nothing.

[Nahm]

@Mikael89 Yes, of course. Thinking and trusting a teaching or teacher is one dualistic way to go. I’m not knocking it. Don’t mind my silly moon pointing. At the same time, nothing is hidden from you, right now. 

[Forestluv]

@Mikael89 You have access to the source. Now is the best teacher. Spend time in nature, let go of thought stories and open to receive that which is freely Now. Just be and observe nature. She is an amazing teacher. 

Theories tend to be too complex and keep the mind in thought stories. 

[Ananta]

7 hours ago, Nahm said:

@Anna1 What Leo told you is True. Reality is pure, pristine, untouched, untarnished, crystalline love, being. The first act is nothing, no act. The second is forgetting. What is the third act Anna? The teachings are for act two, not three, because three is nothing.

I don't think you understand my understanding. 

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by Anna1

[Nahm]

@Anna1 But what if you did. ??

[Ananta]

1 hour ago, Nahm said:

@Anna1 But what if you did. ??

What If I did what?

I don't recall asking any questions. I clearly stated what I meant already in my post earlier in the thread. Perhaps you didnt understand what I was saying, but it is of a Vedanta perspective.

[Nahm]

@Anna1 ? What if you did..think I understood your understanding. Then what would you think?

[Ananta]

Just now, Nahm said:

@Anna1 ? What if you did..think I understood your understanding. Then what would you think?

Then I'd think I must be speaking jibberish because u don't seem to get what I mean. *sighs* 
But, that's okay....