A question to Leo

[Member]

42 minutes ago, SoonHei said:

@Someone here layer of appearance as singular.

H20 being ice

H20 being water

H20 being steam

 

Always looking at the ice,water,steam and that is looking at h20 also at the same time.

 

1 layer.

 

Or. Watching tv. Whatsoever appears on it, it's all appearing on 1 layer of screen. A fridge on the tv - sure there can be more behind the fridge, what it is made out of etc. But as you zoom into it or whatnot, it will still be appearing on the same screen. Again, 1 layer

?

I like the mirror and the reflection analogy. It appears to be two things such as you and your mirror image but it's actually one unified field of consciousness.

[Someone here]

8 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

There is the appearance of consistency - it seems like this is the part that is tripping you up...you mentioned it in a few other posts.  Such as when you look away from the moon and then look back it is still in the same spot.  But don't let that trip ya up into thinking there is a physical layer somewhere.  That's the work of an Infinite Mind.  

The point is it does appear and act as if it has a second layer.. And you do act and relate to it from the assumption that it appears to have a second layer..it's simple.. I only care about how I relate to it.. I'm not doing pure intellectual masturbation.. This has practical consequences.

So what difference does it make to call it physicality or work of mind?  Yes it is the work of infinte mind to design physicality. with two layers or who knows how much.  If it doesn't make sense to us.. Maybe because we need to stretch our mind's capacity to understand infinte capacity. At the end of the day saying that reality can't have a seoncd layer is just a limitation we imagine that infinite intelligence can't hide a part of itself from itself. It most certainly can. If it can't it's not infinitely intelligent no more. 

 

[Dodo]

13 hours ago, Someone here said:

Amazing video bruh  . Thanks for this. ❤️

I have a question.. You said that reality is NOT made of two layers.. The layer of appearance and the layer of "stuff behind the scenes". But rather it's just the layer of appearances.   You gave example.. You said My refrigerator is being held within my consciousness.. You said the refrigerator is the appearance of the refrigerator in the present moment and that's all that there is to it. There is no refrigerator behind the refrigerator.  And ofcourse that means there is no Leo behind Leo as well.   Now that's solipsism.  Please don't get critical about the label but that is what this philosophy is all about. 

Now you said that the universe is infinite mind and is literally capable of everything.. Universe =infinite mind.  Also you said why would the universe manifest itself through two layers (layers of appearance +layer of objectivity).. It's easier just to manifest itself directly as an appearance.   

My question to you... Why not? 

If the universe is infinite mind.. Why it can't msnifest through two layers? Or four layers?   Why can't my refrigerator exist when it's not in the first layer (being perceived)?  Isn't that you imposing a limit from your mind on infinte mind?. 

I hope the question is clear.  Thanks. 

 

Yes. 

There are many who claim there is nothing outside consciousness (perhaps this is only the practice, but its not specified and presented as absolute).

The mind cannot accept not knowing. Since I cant know it, then it doesn't exist?BRUH Leo, not But Leo.

Not knowing is a higher level of knowing. There is no proof of outside of consciousness, thats no proof. Thats just a statement: you wilk never know.

Can one accept and surrender? ❤ 

Leo, God is bigger than you, I know you know that. It's arrogance and it came off as arrogant in the video. I cant share the vid with anyone, it will not convince anyone of truth other than those who already have the same view.

And if its an exercise to find the Self, it is presented in a way too egoic way to work.

 

[Someone here]

9 hours ago, Someone here said:

@Leo Gura these just innocent questions.. Lol 

1- if it's from your pov that nothing is outside of consciousness.. Who are you talking to? Your audience.. There is no one at other side of the camera hearing you according to your pov!  And if from my pov.. Why am I talking to you if you are just an image in my mind?. I assume that based on how I understand your pov. Correct me if I'm wrong. 

2- seriously how can someone not be conscious of the Truth?  What am I conscious of right now then?  What is this if it's not the Truth?.  Please explain that without just dismissing it as neo-advaita nonsense.  Actually show me how is this view "false". I feel like im about to have a breakthrough and major insights if I could put some pieces together. 

@Someone here

@Leo Gura to me these are the most important questions. You can skip over them but you must explain that especially the first question to consider your view correctly.  Because seriously if you are just a ghost in my mind.. Why am I talking to you? Or anyone for that matter? 

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

You are being dumb in how you're thinking about this whole thing. 

I don't know why you occasionally insult your followers or anyone who doesn't agree with you.  There was a thread about your cocky attitudes sometimes. You promised you will work on that. Cuz such statements are completely unnecessary and not helpful in any way at all 

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The claim is not that something disappears when you close your eyes.

The claim is that it disappears and reappears precisely however many times you close and open your eyes.

 your claim is it literally disappears when you are not seeing it. You mean the moon literally ceases to exist in every possible sense at the moment it is not perceived because being perceived is what existence is in your opinion.     The fact that is reapears again when you look again seems less compatible with that claim. It should be more likely to not find the moon again when you look again since it literally dissappeared from existence when you stopped looking.  So why and  how did it appear again?   If you say it's not the same moon.. This is true in a sense obviously its a new moment and a new appearance.. But you can't say it's a totally new moon.. If that's true you couldn't be able to make sense of anything in your life if that's how it works. It will be impossible to make sense of the world. 

Edited October 20, 2020 by Someone here

[Dodo]

@Leo Gura "can I suggest that there is an Absolute Truth which you can never know by the mind and that if you're not open to this, you are being dogmatic and clinging"

Leo's mind: "There is nothing outside of consciousness " That's true, for us, in direct experience ! Not the Absolute truth yet. You can never know, by definition if there is anything outside of consciousness. Not knowing does not mean knowing there is nothing!! 

That's the same delusion as the atheist who says "There is no god" vs the atheist who is correct in saying "I don't believe there is god". 

One is a statement of certainty coming from the false assumption of knowing, the other is correct knowing that he doesn't know. Same here on a more advanced level @Leo Gura

[Reciprocality]

 

7 hours ago, Mikael89 said:

A gold necklace is made out of gold.

There's a difference between necklace and gold. Necklace is dependent on gold for its existence, but gold isn't dependent on necklace for its existence, since the gold can be melted into many different things, like rings, earrings, etc.

In this example gold is the Absolute, and necklace is the appearance/relative. There is a difference between gold and necklace, but it's still nonduality, because no matter what you always only have that one piece of gold (which can even be cut into many pieces, but it's still the same gold.)

If gold were the absolute, it would not need the relation to a non-existent neckless, neither the forms to which it could be melted for a proven point. It could be of no difference to a neckless neither, which were your point of the second quoted statement.

[seeking_brilliance]

Stare at the moon long enough and it'll fade away. No need to close your eyes. Move your eyes again and it'll reappear, like magic! 

[seeking_brilliance]

@toocrazytobecrazy it's not only the moon, but the whole world fades away. Try it. 

When the world reappears, so does all the others who could tell you that the moon never went anywhere. Do you trust them? 

Edited October 20, 2020 by seeking_brilliance

[seeking_brilliance]

@toocrazytobecrazy sorry, please see addition to my post above

[seeking_brilliance]

5 minutes ago, toocrazytobecrazy said:

for you

I am the moon, when it's appearing. 

[seeking_brilliance]

1 minute ago, toocrazytobecrazy said:

maybe you disappeared, and reappeared.

Is there a difference? 

[Member]

@Dodo Dude for something to exist there has to be some motion or change of some sort. Without time, nothing exists. Without a mind, there is no time. Mind precedes time. So how can you doubt that the is nothing outside of consciousness? Start thinking logically instead of throwing this "not knowing" dumb teaching. You're encouraging ignorance. Being spiritual doesn't equal to being naive and ignorant.

[seeking_brilliance]

10 minutes ago, toocrazytobecrazy said:

why do you ask me? 

Two reasons,  it was rhetorical, and also I enjoy hearing responses

[seeking_brilliance]

@toocrazytobecrazy for fun. 

[Member]

23 minutes ago, toocrazytobecrazy said:

how do you know world disappeared? maybe you disappeared, and reappeared.

The world is made of your perceptions. For you to disappear and reappear into this world, there has to be some form of consciousness making you reappear. Existence doesn't magically appear in dead matter. The world is either dead or alive ad infinitum.

[integral]

@Member From my direct experience all that is arising is form. Do you agree? Then why cant we speculate that there are things other then form? Why isnt it possible that there are things that exist that will never arise? Outside of arousal. lol 

[seeking_brilliance]

Here's a fun response from philosopherAI:

https://philosopherai.com/philosopher/does-something-disappear-when-im-not-looking-at-i-7d9186

[Nahm]

@Someone here

Even with all the patience and humility you’ve displayed, I feel you ignored my comment by chalking it up to Nahm’s crazy. 

 

[Member]

21 minutes ago, integral said:

@Member From my direct experience all that is arising is form. Do you agree? Then why cant we speculate that there are things other then form? Why isnt it possible that there are things that exist that will never arise? Outside of arousal. lol 

It's not only form, it's existence. You can be blind and exist, perceive or feel but this still occurs within a conscious mind. For a thing to exist it has to be conscious of itself and does not depend on other consciousness to keep on living. You can die and I can still live long enough without needing you to imagine myself being alive. But consciousness needs to make sense of existence so it project things outside of it, no matter what form or sensation it takes. Form is always changing but it isn't 'outside'. It is a mirror of you, a projection of your own mind.

Edited October 20, 2020 by Member

[Consilience]

 

9 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

I will, of course, that's my devotion. Nothing shall escape my microscope.

So now we're talking facts? Okay, but how about you stick to your facts and I stick to mine? You don't see me so I don't exist. I don't see you but I believe you exist. To talk to someone you don't believe exists is asinine. No? Being true to your facts should make you almost paralyzed. Although, to me, it doesn't seem to be the case at all.

Maybe it's not me who wants to believe in a second layer. Maybe it's you who's denying anything your current paradigm.

You're undermining thought as if carries no truth whatsoever, and yet you're using thought to tell me what's true and what's not. You will say: but I'm pointing you to your direct experience. Discard the pointer and look at what it's pointing to. And my reply will be: yeah, but that would require a leap of faith on my part to trust your pointer and give it value. After all, what if you're deluded? What if you pointing me to my direct experience is nothing but a delusion? You see, I don't take these things for granted anymore.

You're assuming that perception is the ground layer of reality, or raw reality. Is this assumption true or false?

Yeah, poor me.

All I can say is regardless of whether you deny perception/consciousness, it’s here, it’s primary, it’s completely undeniable. Any extra metaphysical claims about the substance of reality are subject to unfalsifiable skepticism. Rather than chasing a phantom substance which may or may not exist, enlightenment is about discovering the nature of what is Absolutely True. This requires careful concentration into the heart of what underlies perception, all experiences, and all thoughts. When you’ve studied epistemology and direct experience long enough, you’ll understand why Leo as well as a great number of people on this forum have let go of the need for thoughts to explain Absolute Truth. More specifically, why we make the claim that thoughts cannot explain Absolute Truth. 

The truth of the matter is that any thought cannot be Absolutely True due to the nature of thoughts existing as functions of time which is of course an illusion constructed by the mind, the fact that thoughts are symbolic representations of reality (the map is not the territory, never has been, never can be), and finally, the fact that all reason and rationality will always dissolve into an infinite regress of reason where one must eventually concede that they’re taking on a belief. Thoughts can be used to talk about the nature of thoughts, exactly what Im doing now, but this still isn’t the nature of thoughts Im speaking of. Less mental masturbation and more direct observation dude. 

And again, whether you want to chase phantom metaphysical substances which cant ever be proven due to the nature of conscious experience only having the ability to exist as experience, by all means go for it. But it’s not really the type of work you’ll get very far with.