On Leos video about his health, and his metaphysical position

[FrankTheTank]

Hi there,

 

I just watched Leos new video in his blog about the state of his health and I wanted to take the opportunity to talk (again) about and question Leos metaphysical understanding of reality. There is currently one thread about it in the meditation, consciousness forum subsection “Leo are you contradicting yourself” but I think there should be a more conversation about it.

As a side note I have multiple sclerosis myself so I know what chronic illness and suffering is about.

So, when I watched Leos video I found it to portray a very down to earth human struggle and I thought: what about all the talk of “I am god” and everything is subjective and you construct all of reality. Imo. this would be a good opportunity to elaborate on Leos metaphysical position. Are the health issues objectively real, meaning they are caused independent of Leos state of mind, or are they “just hallucinated” by Leo? If Leo is God and creates all of (his) reality the “cure” for the health condition should be possible by somehow adjusting his “imaginary”/creative output. Why go to a classical doctor who tries to fiddle with ones body, why the talk about genetic causes of disease, arent all these at bottom rather illusory/secondary concepts? What are the primary ontological and causal factors in the universe?

To be honest I find it soothing when I listen to people (like Leo) who claim that they became deeply  convinced by some experience or insight that the, rather harsh, classical materialistic position is seriously flawed and that some more uplifting true reality is indeed the case. And when I saw Leos health video I felt disappointed/let down – not by Leo personally but by seeing that, when the shit hits the fan all the fancy, lofty talking about deep, allegedly undisputable, radical insights into the nature of reality, about being God and love and everything is just imaginary and subjective and radical Absolute Truth and what not, suddenly falls flat.
It leaves me with the impression that Leos spiritual metaphysical position was not a deep unshakeable conviction after all. Rather it was a superficial, shaky house of cards all along, a lofty pipe dream formed and fueled by spiritual ideology/role models and perpetuated by uncritically accepted, psychedelics infused emotional and mental states. But when you pull on one pillar (suffering in that case) it all immediately crumbles to ashes, and I find to witness that rather disillusioning – even though I appreciate Leos willingness to openly share his struggles.

Don’t get me wrong my point is not a “gotcha”/told you. I am still (I had a post about this a year ago - https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/36350-can-leo-do-anything-demonstrable-superhuman-and-going-foreward-for-actualizeorg/?page=1) interested to try to get to the truth about metaphysics and reality and I respect everyone with the same aspiration and I acknowledge that this is a difficult and nuanced journey.

 

Be well

--Frank

[Leo Gura]

Everything is imaginary, but that does not mean you get to imagine whatever you want.

By your silly logic I should be able to turn into a dragon on command and shoot fireballs out my ass.

What you're missing is that Leo's ego is not in control. I could die tomorrow of cancer and none of that would contradict my metaphysics, since God is a tautology, God -- paradoxically -- cannot change anything about himself, and is perfect no matter what happens.

It is the ego which thinks it can control reality and have all its wishes fulfilled. Awakening does not grant you control over reality. It merely surrenders you to whatever reality happens to be.

If an enlightened person breaks his leg, he must go to a traditional doctor to fix it. He can't just wish it away. And yet, that broken leg is of course imaginary. Just because something is imaginary does not mean that ego gets to control it.

Make no mistake about it, when your health deteriorates enough, your entire life will crumble. Doesn't matter how enlightened you are. Your ability to live is 100% contingent on good health -- which could go at any moment for a thousand different reasons.

You could get hit by a bus tomorrow. And enlightenment will not save you from that.

[Himanshu]

39 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

If an enlightened person breaks his leg, he must go to a traditional doctor to fix it.

Curious. I have read some accounts in Yogic lore where they claim to accelerate the healing of the body - including one by Sadhguru in which he supposedly healed his fractured ankle in an hour. No other spiritual traditions seem to claim that. Do you think there is something there?

47 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Make no mistake about it, when your health deteriorates enough, your entire life will crumble. Doesn't matter how enlightened you are.

That's a good reminder, thanks.  

[Leo Gura]

@Himanshu Ramana Maharshi died of skin cancer on his arm.

If Ramana couldn't heal himself, good luck.

Healing some things may be possible, but there are many things you cannot heal.

[JosephKnecht]

1 hour ago, FrankTheTank said:

If Leo is God and creates all of (his) reality the “cure” for the health condition should be possible by somehow adjusting his “imaginary”/creative output.

Metaphysically speaking, everything is God. FrankTheTank is also God. But as long as you are FrankTheTank, you are separate from God and do not command His Will.

When FrankTheTank aims the barrel of his Tank at himself and destroys himself, he becomes Nothing, he becomes God. But when you become nothing, you no longer have a direct effect on reality. If previously your tank was able to shoot at others, now when you are nothing, you can no longer shoot at anyone. Thus, to affect reality you must be something and as long you are something, you are not God.

Literally speaking, Leo is not God because he is Leo. Leo would be nothing without the Father(God), but the Father needs his son to co-create His kingdom.  

 

 

[Gesundheit]

It's misleading to think that the materialistic paradigm is flawed. It is rather limited/partial than flawed I would say.

[Leo Gura]

Materialism is horseshit. But that doesn't mean you can all the sudden avoid common life consequences.

Stop linking those two things in your mind.

A video game world isn't real, but that doesn't mean Mario can run through walls just by realize that.

[mandyjw]

It's about resolving duality. There is wanted and unwanted. You cannot rid yourself of your wants but you can become conscious that what is unwanted is illusory. That's how the law of attraction works, what you think about you get more of. What you fear shows up to face you. Not because you've been this bad person who has so little self control that they can't control their thoughts, but to show you that your fear is love. 

There is no duality between material and... not. It's nothing and something at the same time. Therein lies its potential. When you judge something as unwanted you give it substance and meaning, yet you also wish it away. It's the most painful recognition of duality, because it's a terrible misunderstanding. 

We do this with illness and we do it with the ego. We make the devil real, breathing life into it ourselves and we paint its face with our minds, and then wish our very own creation would cease to exist and leave us alone. 

[Gesundheit]

56 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Materialism is horseshit. But that doesn't mean you can all the sudden avoid common life consequences.

You can't say it's horseshit as long as it has consequences. A thing is only horseshit when it's completely useless, and even horseshit isn't completely useless since it may be used as a fertilizer. Maybe "wrong" is what you mean by "horseshit". But even then that would be misleading and actually wrong since "wrong" implies that whatever consequences suggested must be wrong. So basically you're contradicting yourself.

[Eren Eeager]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Make no mistake about it, when your health deteriorates enough, your entire life will crumble. Doesn't matter how enlightened you are. Your ability to live is 100% contingent on good health -- which could go at any moment for a thousand different reasons.

Do health issues for example affect an enlightened master psychologically? Is he still psychologically vulnerable? can he get depressed and will he lose his enlightenment if he become depressed?

Edited July 26, 2020 by Eren Eeager

[FrankTheTank]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Everything is imaginary, but that does not mean you get to imagine whatever you want.

By your silly logic I should be able to turn into a dragon on command and shoot fireballs out my ass.

What you're missing is that Leo's ego is not in control. I could die tomorrow of cancer and none of that would contradict my metaphysics, since God is a tautology, God -- paradoxically -- cannot change anything about himself, and is perfect no matter what happens.

My question would then be in what sense is the word "imaginary" the right term, as "to imagine" indicates to me that the world is not objective but hallucinated and controled in the mind of an entitiy.
If we (in our ego state) have no way (even through altered states of consciousness) to change the apperance of things.
And if God cannot change things "about himself" (does that mean God can/does not change the objects/apperances (my broken leg) in the world?).
Who/what can make a change to the things/apperances in the world? On whos "mind?" is the world supervenient?

If materialism is horseshit - who/what and by what mechanism does make the creation of the universe and the change in it happen?
How comes "all" people do agree (more or less) on the objects and their characteristic, that are out there - like the tree and its color in front of my window?
What entities/how many are there in the universe in your opinion?
Does our Mind/Psyche run/supervenes on our Brain function? Why is my ego only aware of my conscious states?
Do you take the view of rupert spira that all of the world including all the people/protagonists and their lives are just a dream in on Gods mind?

Mario can not go through the wall by himself but God/the programmer/the hacker could give Mario the abilty to go through walls or teleport Mario on the other side of the wall and if we all are God then why is there no way that we can access the ability to do it?

While you might be unhappy with one way or the other I put my argument in words I think you understand what I try to get at.
I think to make progress on our metaphysical views and to communicate them its important to have a kind of position paper on our basic metaphysical assumptions and state clearly and briefly what we think about the basic metaphysical entities/questions.

[Mu_]

1 hour ago, FrankTheTank said:

My question would then be in what sense is the word "imaginary" the right term, as "to imagine" indicates to me that the world is not objective but hallucinated and controled in the mind of an entitiy.
If we (in our ego state) have no way (even through altered states of consciousness) to change the apperance of things.
And if God cannot change things "about himself" (does that mean God can/does not change the objects/apperances (my broken leg) in the world?).
Who/what can make a change to the things/apperances in the world? On whos "mind?" is the world supervenient?

If materialism is horseshit - who/what and by what mechanism does make the creation of the universe and the change in it happen?
How comes "all" people do agree (more or less) on the objects and their characteristic, that are out there - like the tree and its color in front of my window?
What entities/how many are there in the universe in your opinion?
Does our Mind/Psyche run/supervenes on our Brain function? Why is my ego only aware of my conscious states?
Do you take the view of rupert spira that all of the world including all the people/protagonists and their lives are just a dream in on Gods mind?

Mario can not go through the wall by himself but God/the programmer/the hacker could give Mario the abilty to go through walls or teleport Mario on the other side of the wall and if we all are God then why is there no way that we can access the ability to do it?

While you might be unhappy with one way or the other I put my argument in words I think you understand what I try to get at.
I think to make progress on our metaphysical views and to communicate them its important to have a kind of position paper on our basic metaphysical assumptions and state clearly and briefly what we think about the basic metaphysical entities/questions.

Awakening is a very interesting thing and one could say its in its infancy in terms of how its understood, quantified and expressed here on earth.  On the one hand it can easily be wrapped up into as simple as a word or phrase as "One", or "All is One" or "All is God".  There's no duality or material so to say in this expression and understanding.  And while its true, lots of interesting nuance and subtly is often lost in the expression of and experience of/as "God" in this way. 

Your questions Are simultaneously God, and bring up the Infinite nuanced depth of mechanics and working of systems (which again are simultaneously and always God) that so to say influence and hold together structures of reality.  These structures often have what one could call rules, like gravity, but like all sandboxs where things are made or sprout up from nothingness, the rules can and do change as well (and yes they may hold together for what one could call 15 billion more years). 

You ask about entities which is something I have some familiarity with, and there are entities that you could say from the nuanced level we are cells in the body of, just like we have cells/life forms in/as us that make up our body so to say.  These entities have agency so to say, just like we appear to have and feel agency (even if ultimately it is ALL God simultaneously).  You could say "Its all one and simultaneously its infinitely nuanced and changing", but still this wouldn't fill out the whole picture or exactly express what's happening.

Edit:  Oh and to answer your question about being able to heal anything or do anything through "Will".  It's neither unattainable nor a prerequisite to waking up to God/What you are. 

[Bando]

hmm makes ya think...

[Leo Gura]

7 hours ago, FrankTheTank said:

My question would then be in what sense is the word "imaginary" the right term, as "to imagine" indicates to me that the world is not objective but hallucinated and controled in the mind of an entitiy.
If we (in our ego state) have no way (even through altered states of consciousness) to change the apperance of things.
And if God cannot change things "about himself" (does that mean God can/does not change the objects/apperances (my broken leg) in the world?).
Who/what can make a change to the things/apperances in the world? On whos "mind?" is the world supervenient?

If materialism is horseshit - who/what and by what mechanism does make the creation of the universe and the change in it happen?
How comes "all" people do agree (more or less) on the objects and their characteristic, that are out there - like the tree and its color in front of my window?
What entities/how many are there in the universe in your opinion?
Does our Mind/Psyche run/supervenes on our Brain function? Why is my ego only aware of my conscious states?
Do you take the view of rupert spira that all of the world including all the people/protagonists and their lives are just a dream in on Gods mind?

Mario can not go through the wall by himself but God/the programmer/the hacker could give Mario the abilty to go through walls or teleport Mario on the other side of the wall and if we all are God then why is there no way that we can access the ability to do it?

While you might be unhappy with one way or the other I put my argument in words I think you understand what I try to get at.
I think to make progress on our metaphysical views and to communicate them its important to have a kind of position paper on our basic metaphysical assumptions and state clearly and briefly what we think about the basic metaphysical entities/questions.

The bottom line is that you are in no position to understand such things without years of profound personal awakenings.

It cannot be explained to you because it is completely outside the mind's ability to comprehend. Anytime I say, you will try to fit within a materialist, dualist, human, relative paradigm. And that just cannot work.

[Nak Khid]

12 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Everything is imaginary, but that does not mean you get to imagine whatever you want.

By your silly logic I should be able to turn into a dragon on command and shoot fireballs out my ass....

If an enlightened person breaks his leg, he must go to a traditional doctor to fix it. He can't just wish it away. And yet, that broken leg is of course imaginary. Just because something is imaginary does not mean that ego gets to control it.

 

Somebody could imagine a dragon was standing in front of you
and likewise you could imagine the the dragon had a top hat 

but you are saying  that if you break your leg
you could  imagine it being instantly healed 
but despite this, you say you must go to the doctor.  

This is what people mean when they something is real and not imaginary 

 

[Inliytened1]

15 hours ago, Nak Khid said:

 

 

 

This is what people mean when they something is real and not imaginary 

 

What is meant by it is that reality isn't made of matter.  There isn't a bunch of dumb matter outside your door existing for no one.  Ask yourself the question can something exist independent of consciousness.  If you contemplate this enough you will see that it can't.  And it will be incredibly obvious.

Reality is thus a Mind.  It is an infinite Mind.  This too can be realized.   You're finite mind however, cannot manipulate the Infinite mind because it exists as a part or within the entire Mind.   Just as a finger cannot control the entire hand - it can only control itself.  It would take the finger realizing it IS the hand to do that - thus becoming the entire hand.   But in order to do that it would need a shift in consciousness - and that is mystical because it defies the rules or confines of the game.  And yet it is possible.  So in order for you to manipulate reality you have to become reality.   Mysticism is simply God's creation of a back door that can bypass the rules altogether.  And when you discover it you wake up or beat the game!

[anaj]

Using the movie as an analogy: If you're lucid within the Matrix, meaning you _know_ it is all a simulation, but still are embedded within it, and you know the real cause of any health condition is the code that runs the simulation, even though that same code also renders a bunch of preceding apparent causes, you'd _still_ go to the doctor, as you recognize that this is the mechanism whereby the matrix code allows for healing within the simulation to take place. There is no contradiction, only a recognition of the rules of the game. 

[Display_Name]

@Leo Gura

I think you are limiting yourself. You don’t have to be in Godmode to manifest. It can be done from baseline, it just has more limits and takes longer. But basic health issues are VERY doable, and have been done by people with far less god consciousness than you. With your consciousness it should be cake. At the very least, your subconscious will actualize the necessary healers, doctors or procedures, which are basically detours or permission slips if the necessary belief or consciousness for a direct healing isn’t there yet.

I think you have just been too acceptant of your reality, reinforcing it, and not manifesting effectively, assuming there’s nothing to be done at baseline.

Neville Goddard, Joseph Murphy. Check these two out, and try it out earnestly. 

Edited July 27, 2020 by Display_Name

[High-valance]

On 2020-07-26 at 2:52 PM, FrankTheTank said:

My question would then be in what sense is the word "imaginary" the right term, as "to imagine" indicates to me that the world is not objective but hallucinated and controled in the mind of an entitiy.
If we (in our ego state) have no way (even through altered states of consciousness) to change the apperance of things.
And if God cannot change things "about himself" (does that mean God can/does not change the objects/apperances (my broken leg) in the world?).
Who/what can make a change to the things/apperances in the world? On whos "mind?" is the world supervenient?

If materialism is horseshit - who/what and by what mechanism does make the creation of the universe and the change in it happen?
How comes "all" people do agree (more or less) on the objects and their characteristic, that are out there - like the tree and its color in front of my window?
What entities/how many are there in the universe in your opinion?
Does our Mind/Psyche run/supervenes on our Brain function? Why is my ego only aware of my conscious states?
Do you take the view of rupert spira that all of the world including all the people/protagonists and their lives are just a dream in on Gods mind?

Mario can not go through the wall by himself but God/the programmer/the hacker could give Mario the abilty to go through walls or teleport Mario on the other side of the wall and if we all are God then why is there no way that we can access the ability to do it?

While you might be unhappy with one way or the other I put my argument in words I think you understand what I try to get at.
I think to make progress on our metaphysical views and to communicate them its important to have a kind of position paper on our basic metaphysical assumptions and state clearly and briefly what we think about the basic metaphysical entities/questions.

With regards to your question of why we agree about the nature of objects such as trees 'out there', or more generally put, why we seemingly share the same reality about which our experience to a significant extent converges such that it is consistent among observers, I would suggest the following considering, although with the caveat that the map is not the territory, language is limited so don't take this to literally, and also that I'm not someone who's had many deep awakenings so what I'm about to say isn't deeply grounded in direct experience. But what I'd suggest is that the shared context in which we are all embedded is more or less analogous to a shared dream, the contents of which such as trees are being self-generated in all the various dreams by the same collective psyche or mind generating the shared dream or imagined 'reality'. 

We might also think of this as kind of similar to the way we currently view the so called 'external world' but only that it is not a world outside and independent of consciousness made of non-conscious physical stuff, but rather a domain of consciousness, a stream of experiences or mental goings on which we might call the collective psyche self-generating our experience of a shared world with qualities and properties whose nature we all seem to basically agree on. 

So in some sense, what's out there is not the external physical world of objects, but a mental or phenomenal world of mentation by virtue of which we recognise a shared environment. Although 'out there' is a non-literal way of putting it, and that sort of phrasing is sort of materialistic terminology and a materialistic way of putting things. 

This might also help to understand why we can't change the world at will, because it is this trans-personal collective mind or consciousness that constitutes our world and thus also the manner in which it unfolds. If the trans-personal collective consciousness unfolds according to certain patterns and regularities and self-generates our seemingly collective world it isn't then a surprise that our seemingly collective world also unfolds according to certain patterns and regularities that we have come to call the laws of nature, which we also btw, might metaphorically view as the code or programming determining the rules and thus the way its metaphorically simulated world, self-generated by the trans-personal collective mind as the metaphorical programmer, unfolds independently of volition. Therefore we can't just walk through walls or turn blue whenever we want (at least for the most part). 

Further, mind or consciousness does not supervene on matter or the physical, meaning consciousness or mind does not come from matter or biology/the body-brain system. There is an undeniable relationship between consciousness/mind and body but not a causal relationship of the type that gives primacy to the physical and according to which the brain or biology generates consciousness. Biology and brains are images or appearances in consciousness which tend to correlate very strongly to subjective states. But correlation does not necessarily imply causation so to say. Rather biology is an image of a process of localisation of consciousness in a stream of consciousness, like a whirlpool is an image of a process of localisation of water in a stream of water. Does a whirlpool generate water? No! As such, for the same reason that a whirlpool doesn't generate water the body-brain system doesn't generate consciousness. 

Remember, these are just words, and words aren't the truth. Don't believe any of this stuff but with that said if you're interested in understanding a consciousness or mind-only view of reality better I'd recommend to check out Bernardo Kastrup, either on YouTube, or his blog 'Metaphysical speculations' or his books in which he deconstructs the mainstream materialist paradigm in which many of us are so deeply entrenched. 

Edited July 27, 2020 by High-valance

[Leo Gura]

It's a false and dangerous to assume we all share the same reality. We do not.