I think Leo is triggering the insanity that is already within you

[Artaemis]

6 hours ago, The observer said:

every little thing is fine theres no need to worry 

I'm just playing around. 

Edited April 23, 2020 by Artaemis

[Artaemis]

@The observer I think it's funny now when people assume heavy intent behind my words.  Used to be much more difficult for me to know what to do. 

Edited April 23, 2020 by Artaemis

[SoonHei]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Unconditional love is impossible for a finite being with any sense of self.

So when this sense of self is at zero on the scale of 0-10 - then the window for unconditional love is open, correct?

@Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

34 minutes ago, SoonHei said:

So when this sense of self is at zero on the scale of 0-10 - then the window for unconditional love is open, correct?

@Leo Gura

For self to be zero, you'd have to stop existing materially.

An enlightened human still has self. Enlightened human's self is not at zero.

[Forestluv]

15 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

For self to be zero, you'd have to stop existing materially.

Would you consider a 5Meo-induced null void as zero? No senses, no perception and no awareness since there is no thing to be aware of. 

[Leo Gura]

10 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Would you consider a 5Meo-induced null void as zero? No senses, no perception, no awareness since there is no thing to be aware of. 

In that moment I guess so.

But then you return to human form and you still have a self and biases.

Having any kind of form at all requires having biases, which requires biased consciousness, which requires limited love.

You can't love rattlesnake bites as a human. Because you have to worry about maintaining your human form.

It's just basic logic. The need to survive limits you.

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, Meta-Man said:

Because of me only having access to MY subjective consciousness and not the rest of all the rest of the infinite amount of infinities. That’s the bias, correct?

Well, you imagine all the rest. But you are imagining being one way which excludes other possibilities.

To be a human you have to not imagine being a kangaroo.

A finite object is exclusive. A dog is a dog because it is not a cat, not a tree, not a chair, etc. So a dog is a finite thing. A dog is part of God, but the dog is not the highest expression of God because it excludes all the other things God could be. A dog is a partial expression of God.

The highest expression of God is Nothing, wherein all finite things cancel each other out.

[Nak Khid]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Well, you imagine all the rest. But you are imagining being one way which excludes other possibilities.

To be a human you have to not imagine being a kangaroo.

A finite object is exclusive. A dog is a dog because it is not a cat, not a tree, not a chair, etc. So a dog is a finite thing.

 

It's all the same  thing, kangaroos, dogs and chairs are God 

[Inliytened1]

@Pookie God or conciousness is a shapeshifter.  It is dreaming its finite and therefore it is finite.   It is in a finite, limited state of consciousness.

When you hit divine mystical states there is a mystical shift in consciousness and Infinity is tapped.  It depends on the degree but in such a state God (You) may reveal certain realizations.   There is no sense of self or linear time and space in such divine states.

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, Nak Khid said:

It's all the same  thing, kangaroos, dogs and chairs are God 

They are finite parts of God.

[Forestluv]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

In that moment I guess so.

But then you return to human form and you still have a self and biases.

Having any kind of form at all requires having biases, which requires biased consciousness, which required limited love.

That’s consistent with my 5Meo experience. 

Getting into the subtleties of bias. . . .would you consider “empty perception/imagination” to be a bias? For example, right now I am looking at scenery. I would consider the perception itself of that scenery to be a bias. 

[Forestluv]

12 minutes ago, Pookie said:

If i understand correctly, no human is fully God enlightened, because to be so would mean that human must die in every sense, ego and physical, and become again one with God. Only God can be God. 

I don’t necessary disagree with that. I was contemplating a particular moment induced by 5Meo. Any explanation I give is not it, because any explanation is a contextualization of the mind. 

[Leo Gura]

23 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

would you consider “empty perception/imagination” to be a bias? For example, right now I am looking at scenery. I would consider the perception itself of that scenery to be a bias.

Yes, all perception is a sort of bias.

If you were totally without bias, you would commit mahasamadhi. You intellect would become so equanimous and unbiased that you could not prefer to imagine one thing over any other, and this would end the entire universe of form.

Sadhguru explains it perfectly here:

https://isha.sadhguru.org/us/en/wisdom/sadhguru-spot/mahasamadhi

Quote

"An equanimous intellect is an intellect that does not discriminate between good and bad, high and low, joy and misery, pain and pleasure. Mahasamadhi means a great equanimous intellect –- the highest level of equanimity of the intellect. That means your intelligence lost all external input."

That is the pure Godhead or Infinite Consciousness.

Pure Infinity cannot have form. Because it's love is so great that it cannot prefer manifesting one thing over any other. This is pure lack of bias. A perfect symmetry which looks like nothing.

But of course this symmetry can be broken at any time and unleash a torrent of imagination and form. If it wants to.

Try to imagine what our physical universe was before the Big Bang. It was just Pure Infinity. Every planet and star was merged into one infinite point. Then it all exploded, taking on various biases. The symmetry was broken.

Asymmetry is, of course, not a bad thing. It's part of the Perfection. Asymmetry has a kind of beauty to it.

Or think of a blank white canvas. We could say it's perfectly unbiased. It is an infinite possibility space. But as soon as the painter makes a single stroke of the paintbrush, it has become biased. Each new stroke limits the possibility space.

There is a necessary trade-off between being finite and infinite. For a thing to materialize, it must go from the realm of abstraction and pure possibility to something very concrete and limited. If you are a designer you're well aware of how this works. Your design starts off as pure abstraction and gets progressively more concrete yet limited and finite. If you want to write a book, you start with an abstract idea and then you hone it down into something more concrete, and once you finish writing it, the book is completely limited. It cannot be anything else but what you wrote.

You cannot publish a book in the abstract. You must put concrete words to your story. The same story can be expressed with many different words, but you must choose a specific set of words, otherwise you've got no book to sell. The trick is to realize that a book in the abstract is MORE REAL than an actual written book.

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, Meta-Man said:

@Leo Gura

But if ‘you’ reach The Ultimate Singularity, I still don’t in this ‘pov’ consciousness. So that means your ‘Singularity/Infinity’ is just one of an infinite number?

Or wut?

Hehehe... that's mindfuck.

If you reach The Ultimate Singularity, you will realize that there never was a Leo. I was just your imagination!

LOL

It's all you baby. Leo is you.

Think of it this way: it's like you have been suffering from a bad case of split personality disorder your whole life. And awakening heals all the splits in you.

You imagined Leo so that you could poke yourself awake.

Poke, poke

Wakey, wakey

[Inliytened1]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

Hehehe... that's mindfuck.

If you reach The Ultimate Singularity, you will realize that there never was a Leo. I was just your imagination!

LOL

Thats the mindfuck and the elegance. 

 

[Jack Sully]

It's never been explicitly said, but it seems Leo and others here a [very subtle] dualistic "better than" applied to union with God as opposed to form.

Does this not defeat the point of getting closer to Pure Love? Because the Godhead has no bias—form is loved perfectly.

Can you love your own formness as much as the Godhead loves it? That, to me, seems like the greatest challenge.

 

 

 

[fridjonk]

Here Mahasamadhi is shown performed. 

You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach. That's God's finite limitation in a nutshell. 

Edited April 23, 2020 by fridjonk

[Forestluv]

47 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes, all perception is a sort of bias.

If you were totally without bias, you would commit mahasamadhi. You intellect would become so equanimous and unbiased that you could not prefer to imagine one thing over any other, and this would end the entire universe of form.

It seems like a deep 5Meo trip revealed an essence of this and there was a returning. Yet the construction and appearances during return did not involve a “me”. That didn’t return until very late in the process. In this sense, there was no “me” to commit to anything - first, because there was nothing to commit to and second because there was no “me” to do a committing. Perhaps at a transcendent level there was a noncommitting and a decision to return. Yet this was transcendent to me. After the self returned, there was no sense I had any options or could have committed to anything, because I wasn’t there. I didn’t exist. Yet perhaps a transcendent “I” existed and decided not to commit. 

I’m currently within a personal/human imagination and if given the option to commit permanently to that which was revealed, I would choose ‘no’. I would consider this preference to be a bias. 

[Nak Khid]

You have to be initiated into Shambhavi

 

[Inliytened1]

@Nak Khid your sarcasm seems to reek of laziness.