Are Leo’s teaching based on solipsism?

[Mason Riggle]

@Farnaby

28 minutes ago, Farnaby said:

You say we can affect matter with our minds. Why can’t you show me some proof of this claim? 

Push a mug across your desk.. did it physically move? How else did that happen, if not with your mind?

[abrakamowse]

1 hour ago, Mason Riggle said:

You say we can affect matter with our minds. Why can’t you show me some proof of this claim? 

Only by observing you are "creating" matter, affecting it. If you study quantum mechanics you will see that our observation makes the wave to become a particle and through that observation that particle becomes matter. (This is a super and oversimplified explanation). There's no particle, or atom or whatever, only a possibility and everything is at different states at the same time, until you measure it, it becomes a "particle" or what we consider "solid" or matter.

Search for the definition of matter by scientists and you will see they don't agree about what the hell matter is. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

Quote

In the Standard Model of particle physics, matter is not a fundamental concept because the elementary constituents of atoms are quantum entities which do not have an inherent "size" or "volume" in any everyday sense of the word.

 

Edited September 4, 2019 by abrakamowse

[Forestluv]

6 hours ago, Farnaby said:

Don’t get me wrong. I’ve always had a pretty open mind and been a skeptic even in regards to scientific claims.  

Being skeptical of scientific claims can still be within the scientific paradigm. E.g. A person may be skeptical of the scientific claim that wine prevents breast cancer, because the sample size was too small and they didn't run the proper controls. That is still within a traditional scientific framework. I am pointing to something more radical here.

6 hours ago, Farnaby said:

What I have trouble with is believing something that no one has been able to prove. 

I am not suggesting that one should believe something without evidence and proof. This gets to the heart of the pre-trans fallacy - the inability to differentiate between irrational and post-rational. 

If someone says that there is a dinosaur living in their backyard - this would be irrational from one perspective. From this perceptive, show me the evidence . Show me evidence there is a dinosaur in your backyard. . .  A very important point: I am not telling you to let go of this perceptive or that this perspective is wrong. What I am saying is that over-use of this perspective in all contexts will be very limiting.

A few points (again, I reiterate that this does not mean that certain perspectives are invalid or unuseful - this is about expansion).

1) What IS is prior to evidence and proof. 

2) What qualifies as "proof" is contracted within the current paradigm. Over time, what qualifies as evidence evolves and expands as we make new discoveries. What we accept now would appear like magic 500 years ago. Likewise, what will be understood in 500 years will appear like magic to us now. In 500 years, people will look back at us and laugh.

3) Experimental design is often limited due to previous conditioning and assumptions. Overall, science has shown slight, yet significant, data in favor of "paranormal" phenomena. Yet I believe this is under-detecting the phenomena. For example, using traditional scientific methodology to test for extra-sensory perception could actually be limiting the extra-sensory perception - the very thing that we are testing for!

6 hours ago, Farnaby said:

You say we can affect matter with our minds. Why can’t you show me some proof of this claim? 

I didn't make that claim. Yet I would explore how you conceptualize the terms "matter", "affect" and "our". In a certain context, I would agree with the statement that a mind cannot affect matter. In another context, I would disagree. This is much more nuanced than you are aware of. Reality isn't a binary system.

[Truth Addict]

@Serotoninluv

Nice!

[Inliytened1]

@Farnaby you are here on this forum for a reason.  It's your intuition.  Do the work.  We cannot do it for you   But if you do the work you can discover Truth for yourself.

[here-now]

@Farnaby Here's a Rupert Spira video that may be helpful (or not ):

 

[abrakamowse]

@here-now Solipsism is a belief and what Rupert says is direct experience.

Thanks for sharing! I always watch Rupert videos, but I missed that one somehow. Great insight.

 

[zeroISinfinity]

Awareness. Everything is in Awareness. Awareness created body. Awareness created seeming world. 

You are not person Who is Aware. Rather Awareness is Aware of body and world. 

Kinda Good starting position. 

Edited September 5, 2019 by zeroISinfinity

[Farnaby]

13 hours ago, here-now said:

@Farnaby Here's a Rupert Spira video that may be helpful (or not ):

 

@here-now Nice video! The only problem I see is if he really 100% believed what he’s preaching, why eat, why wear clothes or a clock? 

Also, if all is consciousness how come each persons experience is different? 

Biologically there are certainly differences, for example between a human being and a mosquito. That’s one example of the limit of one form (the human skin) and the beginning of another form (the mosquito). 

Of course everything we experience is within our consciousness, but that doesn’t mean there’s no outside world that is needed for us to perceive anything.

[Mason Riggle]

@Farnaby yes, and why discuss the validity of the 'perception of others' if there are no 'others'.. just like there's no room.. if my perception of all you reading this were removed, what of all of you? 

Edited September 5, 2019 by Mason Riggle
changed 'of' to 'if'.. typo

[zeroISinfinity]

@Mason Riggle Everything is Aware. 

[Mason Riggle]

@zeroISinfinity yes, but this seems confused in the video.. he discusses 'other people's perceptions' (asking others about the existence of pink elephants and using the consensus of their perceptions to evaluate the validity of our own, as if there is a 'their perception' vs. 'our own' perception).. he's still creating this duality with his words. 

[abrakamowse]

 

8 hours ago, Farnaby said:

Of course everything we experience is within our consciousness, but that doesn’t mean there’s no outside world that is needed for us to perceive anything.

The thing is that you cannot know that "world" by itself. You are not perceiving a world. There's only "perception".

Let's say your hand touches a table made of wood. When that happens there's electrical impulses that are read by the nervous systems and those signals are sent to the brain, and the brain interprets it and says that "this is wood, it is hard or soft, cold or warm".. etc... All those elements (the arm, the brain, the electric impulses, body, the world) are made of the same material (if you want to think in scientific terms) of atoms/particles/whatever. 

So, you have a bunch of particles around there that in reality due to quantum mechanics we know they have no location, it is impossible to know their location or state and those particles create a body with a brain who is saying "Ey! I am touching a table made of wood"... 

 

But what there's there? an object? particles? Light? photons? who is touching what? Photons are touching other photons? 

 

This is not a belief, I know my knowledge in science is not so deep and I wrote everything very simple but all scientists know and accept more and more that consciousness has a big part in what we call "matter"...

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/this-physicist-is-arguing-that-consciousness-is-a-new-state-of-matter

 

The big problem here is that we cannot talk about what is consciousness or truth because words and ideas, thoughts etc are all created to hide truth. The only way to understand is to quiet the mind, stop the chatter and the calculations and logic and do the work and it will be revealed in an insight or an epiphany. It will transcend everything and we will grasp it in an instant, like a flash. But it will be hard to explain with words, because we need to know some "object" to separate it, and divide it and consciousness is a whole, with all properties together, good and bad, rich and poor, sad and happy altogether at the same time and our limited consciousness (our little ego) cant' grasp it.

Very hard to explain unless you meditate and experience it by yourself.

Edited September 5, 2019 by abrakamowse

[here-now]

@Farnaby  Thanks! Glad you watched it.

 

10 hours ago, Farnaby said:

The only problem I see is if he really 100% believed what he’s preaching, why eat, why wear clothes or a clock? 

 

Well, I don't know if this is "The Answer" lol, but this is how I see it :

Once the one, limitless Consciousness appears to limit itself, It forms into billions of slightly different perceptions (people). Then, through those perceptions, an apparent world comes into existence. (Although, it would be more accurate to say "apparent worlds" come into existence, because each perception is slightly different, so therefore a slightly different world is perceived through each perception.)

This apparent world (or worlds) is governed by apparent rules/laws. (There is time, space, gravity, etc... there is a "you" separate from "others"... and that "you" has to eat, wear clothes, use a clock, etc.)

10 hours ago, Farnaby said:

Also, if all is consciousness how come each persons experience is different?

 Good question. I don't know.  But, to me, that's like asking, "why is each snowflake formation unique if they all come from the one, undifferentiated substance water?"

Different people (as well as animals, insects, plants, trees, rocks, etc...).... it's all just the way Consciousness crystalizes, I guess. And maybe It does this so that it can look at and explore Itself from countless points of view.

[here-now]

Because I feel that Rupert expresses things a lot better than I can, here's another video to add to what I attempted to express above (starting at 8:53):

 

Edited September 6, 2019 by here-now

[here-now]

@abrakamowse

13 hours ago, abrakamowse said:

Thanks for sharing! I always watch Rupert videos, but I missed that one somehow. Great insight.

Thanks!