About Leos recent ”I’m god” video

[Visionary]

1 hour ago, ttm said:

Ok, I see you avoid the question, I also understand why you do so. This was interesting nevertheless. Thank you for answering though, it’s awesome that you take part on the dialogue!

And because it seems that people read a lot of things in my posts that aren’t there I want to emphasize that I’m not disrespecting you in general, in fact you are very big contributor to things that lead me to where I am now (regarding freedom from suffering and understanding reality) and I’m very grateful for your work! It’s still interesting to see how even in that ”stage” there can easily be that kind of stuff going on.

 

I think you will be amazed when you realize how much egotistic stuff can be hidden in that kind of wording and rationalizing.  The fact you are using words ”my doubts” sounds to me like you are adding quite a few things to what I was saying. Or maybe I understand the word ”doubt” differently than you, but I was asking thoughts regarding something I noticed. Nevertheless you seem to concentrate on the question whether or not the statement (word love is essential) is factual. This has nothing to do with my actual question, although it is interesting sidepoint to think about. But still, no one really answered my comments about that, so maybe it wasn’t that interesting..

I actually did not focus on it. I presented it as an option, because its still unclear to me what you're after. What is it you want to know my friend? Explain clearly without giving us the room to apparently project our own stuff on your thought streams. It seems everyone is twisting and misinterpreting your words. Which is hilarious. What I mean by that is yours to project on.

Edited February 21, 2020 by Visionary

[Forestluv]

53 minutes ago, ttm said:

Do you twist my words intentionally? Thanks for sharing, though.

Thats another good one to add to the list. ?? 
 

The observations weren’t directed at you personally. Perhaps someone reading the thread will find it helpful. 

[Gili Trawangan]

5 hours ago, Johnny5 said:

Or maybe Peter Ralston and Jed McKenna have long since transcended all the ideas associated with Love, and prefer not to infect their audience with it.

Because they know it can only turn into a trap until you've become directly conscious of it. And even then it still turns into a trap.

How is it a trap once you've become directly conscious of it? 

[Gili Trawangan]

I still remember reading a bunch of threads here about Love and being confused, especially after an awakening that was very profound but where the Love aspect (apparently) wasn't there. I just didn't get it.

If Leo and others hadn't emphasized Love as much I could have easily been satisfied with the understanding I got from that awakening. I asked loads of questions here about the topic, and was frustrated with the answers cause I just didn't get it. But I remained open-minded.

A few months later I had an awakening to Love, I had kept looking because it had been pointed out to me that something big was missing. So I really don't understand how people can defend the omission of Love from nondual teachings. In my personal experience, it was crucial to hear about the Love aspect from different teachers, including many people here on the forum.

[Gili Trawangan]

1 hour ago, Johnny5 said:

In a word: Reification.

Which is what the mind does. This is a technical term in Buddhism. You can think of it as erroneously explicating the implicit, and then believing the explication. Like a gestalt, a thing in itself. That's one way of formulating delusion. That's what creates the illusion of objective reality.

Ego turns everything into a trap, co-opts everything into its own act. This would be a far more valuable thing to teach.

If you follow truth by eliminating the false, you will inevitably find out about love. But people stop way too soon when they have some sort of insight or experience and then think that's it, now they are "awake", lol... That's what happens when you're not really looking for truth but just for something that scratches your itch.

This is why people seem to think that acting lovingly has anything to do with waking up, for example. People who have genuine experiences or insights into love fall for the very same trap, and are all the more convinced of it because they know about love but they don't know about the mind's tricks, let alone truth.

Through reification, the mind generates the illusion of things existing objectively. Even states of consciousness and mystical experiences are reified and turned into something seemingly objective, whereas they too are themselves only dreams.

By objectifying the subjective, you continuously create the illusion of something "other". Reification is what seemingly grants reality to illusion (which means everything).

And then that becomes the basis for exceedingly elaborate stories around it. That's how you get all these "enlightened" ego's.

Business as usual.

That's why "I am" is the only true knowledge, why the content of consciousness is always necessarily untrue, and why mysticism is just an outer layer of containment. Mystical experiences are created in exactly the same way as the material world. Just another day at the office for Maya.

That's true for any concept/word. I thought you were referring to Love in particular. I still don't see any reason why a teacher would want to teach truth using a bunch of concepts but leave out Love.

I agree with most of what you said though.

[ttm]

8 hours ago, Visionary said:

I actually did not focus on it. I presented it as an option, because its still unclear to me what you're after. What is it you want to know my friend?

I was after thoughts on what was going on there. But Leo's message pretty much cleared it up.

8 hours ago, Visionary said:

It seems everyone is twisting and misinterpreting your words. Which is hilarious. What I mean by that is yours to project on.

Hilarious is not the word I would use, it's rather wearing, someone could even say frustrating. I mean, it's not like you couldn't verify that for yourself, my messages are still there. But, at the same time, it is very understandable why people do that.

8 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Thats another good one to add to the list. ?? 
 

The observations weren’t directed at you personally. Perhaps someone reading the thread will find it helpful. 

Well, it's nice that this one you put on the list without twisting it around, thank you for that! Observations may not be directed at me personally, but still you created your narrative by twisting my words.

For example: "You can't tell me what's true. I'll tell you how it is" why did you have to put that there? I didn't say that, because that goes exactly against the whole point of the previous sentence.

For example2: "If it's too hard for you to understand, I'll try to make it more clear for you" why did you have to put those "for you"s there? I didn't say it. How you presented it, it sounds like I'm saying that the fault was in reader.

You are not going to go to the "I didn't say you said those things, these were just made up examples of my own responses in situations where I am not asking the question with a genuine desire to learn, grow and expand." road, are you?

This thread has potential to be very helpful to attentive reader, let's hope it will be.

[Forestluv]

@ttm The main point was about the orientation of asking questions, rather than the verbatim choice of words. In some contexts, too much focusing on words is a distraction from what is being pointed to. Yet I can now see how the word choice had an unintended impact. 

When the mind asks a question and already has an answer in mind (or a thick mental filter), there is often a mental dynamic in play that restricts the mind in a contracted state. And the mind often wants to control the narrative. 

For me, this awareness has been important to allow space to explore, grow and expand. Yet this doesn’t seem to be resonating with you, which is ok. Feel free to dismiss it if it isn’t helpful to you. It’s not about you personally. Perhaps this will resonate with someone else reading the thread. Or perhaps I’m on my own frequency here. 

[Chilli]

On 2/20/2020 at 8:57 AM, ttm said:

If Love and Truth are ultimately the same thing, why is it not enough to speak of Truth to speak of Truth?

You still haven't grasped the fundamental sameness of Love and Truth. To speak of Truth is to speak of Love and to speak of Love is to speak of Truth. There is no duality, no difference. You are only imagining they are distinct, sepparate things.

[ttm]

10 hours ago, Chilli said:

You still haven't grasped the fundamental sameness of Love and Truth. To speak of Truth is to speak of Love and to speak of Love is to speak of Truth. There is no duality, no difference. You are only imagining they are distinct, sepparate things.

That if didn't mean that I disagreed with it, anywhere I haven't said that there's any separation, duality or difference. You say that "To speak of Truth is to speak of Love and to speak of Love is to speak of Truth" - don't you agree also that To speak of Truth is to speak of Truth?

Maybe an analogy helps: If the name of a person was John Sebastian Hancock, would it require to use word Sebastian when speaking of him? If he is referred only with his first name John, would that be somehow incomplete reference?