A question to Leo

[Nahm]

1 hour ago, Dodo said:

Maybe it does maybe it doesn't! Oh well.

I mean, yeah, but there’s just no need to say such things about anyone. It’s as if you recognized it’s projection, but nonetheless are saying “oh well!”. There is some ‘truth’ to ‘lessons’ reoccurring until we acquiesce, but I digress. 

Quote

Stuff gets deep when knowing clashes with not knowing. Both are true and neither. Mindfuck galore. Those shouldn't clash, they should merge and dance. We doing it all wrong bro and its all so silly. 

But any time I smell someone who think they know,   I will anchor not knowing, and if I see someone who think they don't know, will anchor knowing. Its a balancing act and I'm just learning . For if you push too much with the knowing, you become arrogant in your truth and that's not truth.

Honestly, this seems like justifying things you’ve said that were really a projection of ill intention. ‘Stuff getting deep’ doesn’t justify anything (imo) as there isn’t any actual ‘clash’. In that regard, ‘not knowing’ and ‘knowing’ are just dualistic thoughts, which can not even simultaneously appears, and therefore there is no possibility of them clashing. I think what you might mean, is there are some kind of ‘forces‘ of ‘not knowing’ & ‘knowing’ which are clashing together in some kind of like, metaphysical existential battle or something. But that’s not really happening. 

“Smell someone who think they know” is all yours. 

Quote

And you keep saying there is no you and in the next sentence defend  yourself from (be it unjust) criticisms etc its kinda weird too, no?!

The actuality of the ‘situation’ is weird. There is no defending of anyone or anything actually occurring. There is no ‘you’, as there is no separation. Yet ‘within’ this no separation’, here we are. You, me, etc, are words, language. Essentially, these are “thoughts”, and are for communication rather than identification. 

Quote

After all are you Nahm or are you the eternal?

‘Nahm’ is just a word. Just a thought. A name for communicating, not some actual thing. 

Quote

There seems to be still something. And I just want that something to be honest in its not knowing a bit more, because I just don't see it.

When the perspective said to be the not seeing of it is let go, ‘it’ is ‘seen’. 

Quote

Again, projecting! But hey, maybe we don't need people to confirm what we know all the time, not like you will lose the truth. 

Amen!  Never even had it. ?

Quote

About the Leo statement: 

Let me ask you something, since Leo in his recent video on the nature of reality claimed that for a fact "There is no other part to the fridge, only the image in awareness" "What other part of the fridge" etc...

Now this is a common view,

also Rupert Spira talks about this as a "new map of reality" " new way of seeing the world" which is more inline with direct experience, its like the religion of direct experience.

In the sentiment of being helpful, offering clarity...what was stated there prior to the word view is accurate. That you are seeing it / categorizing it / taking it to be a view is in a way, appropriate. If they suggest something, and that something is not recognized for what it is, then it is, from your perspective, their view. However, I would suggest it is the finger, and points to direct experience. Not a view on direct experience, but is the actuality of direct experience. Words / thoughts get circular ‘here’, only direct experience or in this case the ‘seeing’ what “direct experience” points to, would ‘do’. 

Quote

But this is such a sneaky and transparent belief system that you dont even see that you are ASSUMING that there is nothing there.

Same thing applies. Whatever anyone says about reality is, and can only be, interpreted as their belief or view, until the moon of it is directly recognized by the one hearing what the other is saying. I think calling it a belief ‘system’ is going too far, given that both Leo and Rupert clearly articulate the finger & moon situation. Imo, a belief system is more dogmatic, or religious, in the sense “you must adopt our beliefs to be a member of our organization / so you don’t go to hell when you die for all eternity, yada yada”. I would go so far as to say (and this is just opinion) that Leo & Rupert are arguably the front runners of the entire population in being the messengers (if you will) of Truth, and the seeing through the numerous belief systems already quite rampantly underway, and largely (and arguably) destroying all of our well being, and not to mention this planet relative to humans continuing to ‘exist’ on it. You might say, they have dedicated their life to being the very message. 

That there is nothing there, language & semantics aside, is about as true of a pointer as language can point. I can not in the literal sense, ‘know’ if, on their behalf, this is an assumption or not. If however, someone were to devise a means of this being seen with certainty, as to wether or not this is an assumption on their behalf...and I was offered the opportunity to place a bet on the outcome being that it is not an assumption of their behalf at all, I would indeed bet everything thing I have, so to speak. In short, they know what they’re talking about, it is not a belief or belief system, and it is not an assumption. The ‘assumption’ actually, is that there is something there. 

Quote

Its a blatant assumption. And everyone in the video comments was buying it and I was buying it for so long too! It's not Truth! If that's the truth of 5meo then LOL !!!

You’d have to take special care to note you can never actually know of someone’s assumptions, only your own (or not). The Truth can not be put into words, as it already is. The ‘truth of 5meo’, likewise, is a matter of direct experience. Just like if I said “Dodd’s, you gotta try a pumpkin spice latte from Starbucks - it delicious!”, and you’re like “nah, not me kinda beverage”...you can notice the difference between direct experience or not. Tasting it would be direct experience, thinking about how it tastes and mistaking that for the direct experience of it, would be mistaking the thought about it, for the actuality of it. (Of the taste, in this analogy) Btw...5meo & a pumpkin spice latte could be a pretty sweet day.   Almond milk & stevia of course. ? 

Quote

The Assumption is that since you never will know if there is something outside of awareness,

Not necessarily. That is deducible with logic. If I were to say “there is this thing (X) outside of awareness”, you could simply ask if I was aware of X. If there is something outside of awareness, there would have to be awareness of that very thing. 

Quote

that you can just push it out as irrelevant and something that anyone who believes otherwise has simply not gone deep enough etc etc. What a bunch of fools I tellya!

“Fools” is a funny term. There was a time I knew a lot about quantum mechanics, like, a lot. I also saw Richard Dawkins as someone who was forthright and had his science & facts straight, more so than others in his field. I was a fool! Then later down the path,  ‘I saw’ what they are, and what they were talking about actually is....and now I am a drunken fool! Fool circle?! Idk, lol. Aside, Richard Dawkins seems to be a stand up guy who does solid work. I would really, like super really love to talk with him on Skype. 

Quote

Those damnnnnnn materialists, assuming there is something outside of consciousness when they have never seen anything outside of consciousness

Daaamn Those Direct Experiencists, assuming there is nothing outside of consciousness when they are never going to be able to have a direct experience of anything outside of consciousness to confirm whether its true or false.

Can we leave it more like this in our minds: Outside of consciousness is something we will never know, so we should not assume neither Something NOR NOTHING. 

 

That can be a very tricky nuanced ‘place’ there. Consciousness as a word or pointer is synonymous and interchangeable with awareness. So the same example from above (with awareness) also applies, and can be logically utilized to see that there couldn’t be a thing outside of consciousness. 

A materialist (in this context) is someone telling you physical objects & the separation of them, is actual, as in, most fundamental. They might hold this belief to the degree that they are being honest in telling you this, but only because they are yet to inspect their own belief. People can be honest & tell a lie at the same time, when they don’t realize they’re doing so. The intuition however, is per se, not like a person. We each have one, so to speak, and wether to listen to it, dive into it, or not, is a one-off / up to each situation. 

So, “outside of consciousness is something we will never know” is in fact not a “true” statement, as a pointer. It is an assumption that there is an “outside of consciousness”, and further that there is “something” outside of consciousness. But again, whatever that could be said to be, can only be said to be, if one is conscious of it, so to speak. That makes it therefore not “outside of consciousness”. 

I fully agree with the sentiment of not assuming neither something or nothing, but I do not agree that is ‘the end of it’. It is a logical realization via detachment from ‘one’s own’ thoughts & opinions, but, I strongly suggest finding out, to the degree of absolute satisfaction.  

[Mu_]

@VeganAwake

@Nahm Let me know if this is in the realm of accurate.

Do you find it at all maybe pointing to something that neither Nahm or I have called anyone including you as not awake, and you some how (perhaps because your the most enlightened one here) are like a politician or a crass soul making rather large claims of certainty about us? 

How is it not even more ironic, that you accuse  us of things you admit don't even exist, such as others, or people or individuals, such as nahm and I.  Is just happening, yelling and accusing, no one with any volition of anything?

Oh, thats right, its not you doing it, just happening, and miraculously with opinions that are accurate to the truth?  Just happening accurate opinions and truths coming from nowhere.  Truths that no one knows, see's or can verify, because no ones there, just happening, but the ones exiting your body/mouth some how hold a validity, THAT AGAIN aren't happening from you or anyone and are somehow objectively true. 

Dude, lighten up maybe see some Truth in whats being shared.  I dont know but have you come to a place that if you were to reflect and see that maybe you were wrong or didn't see everything accurately that it would shatter what you have learned up to this point?  I know the fear, its like if your not enlightened then everything you've learned will have to be questioned and then maybe you can't trust what you've learned and understood and the well being found will disappear....

 

[commie]

4 minutes ago, Nahm said:

A name for communicating, not some actual thing.

How do actual things differ from things which aren't actual?

And do you not also use names when you're not communicating? Am I misusing names when I'm not communicating? Or are some names only for communicating while others can safely be used for other purposes?

[Someone here]

19 minutes ago, commie said:

 

What does "existence" mean in this context anyway? 

Very good question. I think here is the crux of the matter.  What does it mean to say that something exists? From the video Leo literally said "to exist is to appear". In other words to have a phenomenal quality that you can.. see touch.. smell.. taste.. hear right now. If you can't access it right now it literally does not "exist".  That means if you are not directly perceiving Paris or London or Madrid or New York right now.. They don't exist.  But see the absurdity and the circulation here.  You already assumed that to exist is to appear and then you negated the existence of whatever that isn't appearing right now. Simply because it's not appearing right now. Ofcourse that is true by the definition. But who told you your definition is true?  That to appear is to exist?  You don't know what you don't know DUH?  If stuff exist outside of appearance you can't confirm their appearance-independent existence from within the domain of appearances.  It's a lack in your end because you're stuck in your perceptions. A lack on your end isn't conclusive of what is supposed to exist outside of your limitations. Isn't that obvious? 

[VeganAwake]

1 hour ago, Nahm said:

There’s not something for a me to get. ‘That’d’ still be me. 

 

Yet again, “egoic love” is your construct, your offering - you’re saying this, not anyone else. You’re are again using semantics of seemingly non-individual implication and still missing that you are saying it, to a ‘me’. If there is such a thing or event or experience as ‘satisfying it’s specialness requirement’, it (evidenced plainly by that you are saying it) is coming from you. Had you asked, rather than accused / implied, I’d have said “egoic love” is a sort of misnomer / misunderstanding. But again, you aren’t really looking to contributing, nor are you asking and leaving room for reply, just making accusations and still projecting. Kind of a ‘dead horse’ at this point imo.  

“It” is not actually an “it”. “It” is just a passing perspective about ‘Nahm’. 

Nothing really matters indeed!  

I disagree. I think an approach of ‘taking it head on’ would be indicative of more of the same suffering that leads you to believe there is something to fight, or some adversary or spiritual ego that could be taken head on. I think if one takes ownership of their attitude, their intentions, what they say, and inspects & understandings any feelings in experience, it is not hard or tough to ‘crumble the cookie’. In a way that cookie is always just crumbling itself, and to make an adversary of it is futile. 

That is interesting. Were I to attempt to define myself, I don’t think I would have limited to that. Idk though. 

I think you mean reign, but otherwise I agree. Inspiration is divine. 

Nahm,

'I' know there isn't a 'you', 'you' don't have to keep repeating that. Again  they are words used as expressions for communication purposes... (when I said you, I was referring to identification with a thought or thoughts that believe it knows.

Yes there's nothing for the sense of 'me' to get because it never was.

Yes 'you' can't really take an ego/sense of self head on because it's mere identification with conditioned thoughts, sensations, belief's, concepts, labels, and contracted energy in the body (this again was an expression for communication purposes).... and the recognition that they don't equal a "ME" is the awakening. 

No I actually meant rain as in the ego rains down on others with its toxic moisture....joking ❤....yes I meant reign thanks...its my talk text use that makes me sound like a robot and misspell.

Edited October 21, 2020 by VeganAwake

[Member]

None of you here understand what God consciousness is ? There's nothing mysterious beyond infinity which can/cannot be known. I think that you guys need a healthy dose of Self since you're denying everything by saying that nothing matters, you are nothing, nothing is happening... Stop doing that... you're diminishing your potential which is infinite btw. There's nothing selfish in being great and amazing ?

[Dodo]

31 minutes ago, Nahm said:

I mean, yeah, but there’s just no need to say such things about anyone. It’s as if you recognized it’s projection, but nonetheless are saying “oh well!”. There is some ‘truth’ to ‘lessons’ reoccurring until we acquiesce, but I digress. 

Honestly, this seems like justifying things you’ve said that were really a projection of ill intention. ‘Stuff getting deep’ doesn’t justify anything (imo) as there isn’t any actual ‘clash’. In that regard, ‘not knowing’ and ‘knowing’ are just dualistic thoughts, which can not even simultaneously appears, and therefore there is no possibility of them clashing. I think what you might mean, is there are some kind of ‘forces‘ of ‘not knowing’ & ‘knowing’ which are clashing together in some kind of like, metaphysical existential battle or something. But that’s not really happening. 

“Smell someone who think they know” is all yours. 

The actuality of the ‘situation’ is weird. There is no defending of anyone or anything actually occurring. There is no ‘you’, as there is no separation. Yet ‘within’ this no separation’, here we are. You, me, etc, are words, language. Essentially, these are “thoughts”, and are for communication rather than identification. 

‘Nahm’ is just a word. Just a thought. A name for communicating, not some actual thing. 

When the perspective said to be the not seeing of it is let go, ‘it’ is ‘seen’. 

Amen!  Never even had it. ?

In the sentiment of being helpful, offering clarity...what was stated there prior to the word view is accurate. That you are seeing it / categorizing it / taking it to be a view is in a way, appropriate. If they suggest something, and that something is not recognized for what it is, then it is, from your perspective, their view. However, I would suggest it is the finger, and points to direct experience. Not a view on direct experience, but is the actuality of direct experience. Words / thoughts get circular ‘here’, only direct experience or in this case the ‘seeing’ what “direct experience” points to, would ‘do’. 

Same thing applies. Whatever anyone says about reality is, and can only be, interpreted as their belief or view, until the moon of it is directly recognized by the one hearing what the other is saying. I think calling it a belief ‘system’ is going too far, given that both Leo and Rupert clearly articulate the finger & moon situation. Imo, a belief system is more dogmatic, or religious, in the sense “you must adopt our beliefs to be a member of our organization / so you don’t go to hell when you die for all eternity, yada yada”. I would go so far as to say (and this is just opinion) that Leo & Rupert are arguably the front runners of the entire population in being the messengers (if you will) of Truth, and the seeing through the numerous belief systems already quite rampantly underway, and largely (and arguably) destroying all of our well being, and not to mention this planet relative to humans continuing to ‘exist’ on it. You might say, they have dedicated their life to being the very message. 

That there is nothing there, language & semantics aside, is about as true of a pointer as language can point. I can not in the literal sense, ‘know’ if, on their behalf, this is an assumption or not. If however, someone were to devise a means of this being seen with certainty, as to wether or not this is an assumption on their behalf...and I was offered the opportunity to place a bet on the outcome being that it is not an assumption of their behalf at all, I would indeed bet everything thing I have, so to speak. In short, they know what they’re talking about, it is not a belief or belief system, and it is not an assumption. The ‘assumption’ actually, is that there is something there. 

You’d have to take special care to note you can never actually know of someone’s assumptions, only your own (or not). The Truth can not be put into words, as it already is. The ‘truth of 5meo’, likewise, is a matter of direct experience. Just like if I said “Dodd’s, you gotta try a pumpkin spice latte from Starbucks - it delicious!”, and you’re like “nah, not me kinda beverage”...you can notice the difference between direct experience or not. Tasting it would be direct experience, thinking about how it tastes and mistaking that for the direct experience of it, would be mistaking the thought about it, for the actuality of it. (Of the taste, in this analogy) Btw...5meo & a pumpkin spice latte could be a pretty sweet day.   Almond milk & stevia of course. ? 

Not necessarily. That is deducible with logic. If I were to say “there is this thing (X) outside of awareness”, you could simply ask if I was aware of X. If there is something outside of awareness, there would have to be awareness of that very thing. 

“Fools” is a funny term. There was a time I knew a lot about quantum mechanics, like, a lot. I also saw Richard Dawkins as someone who was forthright and had his science & facts straight, more so than others in his field. I was a fool! Then later down the path,  ‘I saw’ what they are, and what they were talking about actually is....and now I am a drunken fool! Fool circle?! Idk, lol. Aside, Richard Dawkins seems to be a stand up guy who does solid work. I would really, like super really love to talk with him on Skype. 

That can be a very tricky nuanced ‘place’ there. Consciousness as a word or pointer is synonymous and interchangeable with awareness. So the same example from above (with awareness) also applies, and can be logically utilized to see that there couldn’t be a thing outside of consciousness. 

A materialist (in this context) is someone telling you physical objects & the separation of them, is actual, as in, most fundamental. They might hold this belief to the degree that they are being honest in telling you this, but only because they are yet to inspect their own belief. People can be honest & tell a lie at the same time, when they don’t realize they’re doing so. The intuition however, is per se, not like a person. We each have one, so to speak, and wether to listen to it, dive into it, or not, is a one-off / up to each situation. 

So, “outside of consciousness is something we will never know” is in fact not a “true” statement, as a pointer. It is an assumption that there is an “outside of consciousness”, and further that there is “something” outside of consciousness. But again, whatever that could be said to be, can only be said to be, if one is conscious of it, so to speak. That makes it therefore not “outside of consciousness”. 

I fully agree with the sentiment of not assuming neither something or nothing, but I do not agree that is ‘the end of it’. It is a logical realization via detachment from ‘one’s own’ thoughts & opinions, but, I strongly suggest finding out, to the degree of absolute satisfaction.  

I cant believe you are not understanding me. Re-read what I wrote. You are saying "Because you cant prove that there is something outside of awareness since once I show it to you, its in your awareness, THAT DOESNT MEAN that you can assume that there is nothing outside of awareness!!!! The correct Honest answer would be: I Dont Know!! Both the materialist is projecting AND the direct experience-ist is projecting. Projecting nothingness is still projecting!!

Seriously, NahM! Re-read what I said. You are playing circles, you are running in circles!! I cannot believe you dont see it>...! You sound to me like someone who is super smart but doesnt see the most obvious thing!! What the heck? 

And the thing with 5meo its the same for a Christian with the Bible or any other religious 100% sure of itself dogma I have seen. I bet it gave you some pretty deep stuff. I have taken drugs before. But experiences != Truth Be it nondual experiences.

A Christian tells you : read the bible to know the truth

A 5meo-ist tells you : Stick some 5meo up your butt

Well hmmm How about I just trust in What Is and be radically honest instead! There is more love in helping an old woman cross the road, then in getting drugged and experiencing infinity. Just sayin 

 

Edited October 21, 2020 by Dodo

[Nahm]

1 minute ago, commie said:

How do actual things differ from things which aren't actual?

There aren’t any actual things, so they don’t differ from that there aren’t any actual things. 

1 minute ago, commie said:

And do you not also use names when you're not communicating?

No, I do not also use names when I am not communicating. 

1 minute ago, commie said:

Am I misusing names when I'm not communicating?

That’s really up to you. You’re speaking in double negatives, which might be a confusing the inquiry.

1 minute ago, commie said:

Or are some names only for communicating while others can safely be used for other purposes?

Example?

[Inliytened1]

5 hours ago, Dodo said:

I cant believe you are not understanding me. Re-read what I wrote. You are saying "Because you cant prove that there is something outside of awareness since once I show it to you, its in your awareness, THAT DOESNT MEAN that you can assume that there is nothing outside of awareness!!!! The correct Honest answer would be: I Dont Know!! Both the materialist is projecting AND the direct experience-ist is projecting.

 

You are missing something very important here.  Being!  You see you can directly know the answer - but not via proof - by BEING reality itself!  Absolute Truth is prior to proof. In a state of pure Being you can become directly Infinity itself - in which you become directly conscious of yourself.  And in doing so you have the realization that infinity (you) are the collapse of all dualities - the collapse of everthing and nothing.  Nothing is everything.  Just pure infinity or pure Awareness.  So what you get is a hologram for reality - or a mind - or consciousness - or this!   The substance of which is nothing.  And you realize that physical objects behind the scene are all imaginary and held within your consciousness.  Proof is not needed nor could it ever grasp the Absolute - because you ARE it.

[Nahm]

1 minute ago, VeganAwake said:

Nahm,

'I' know there isn't a 'you', 'you' don't have to keep repeating that. Again  they are words used as expressions for communication purposes... (when I said you, I was referring to identification with a thought or thoughts that believe it knows.

When you are referring to a ‘you’ as identification with a thought that believe it knows, you are attributing believing to a thought, but a belief is simply a thought you’ve been repeating. You would actually be identifying, with the thought, that there are thoughts, which believe or know. 

1 minute ago, VeganAwake said:

Yes there's nothing for the sense of 'me' to get because it never was.

The spaghetti monster also never was. So it would sound a bit odd to keep talking about it, only to be make the point that it never was, to the spaghetti monster, which isn’t. 

1 minute ago, VeganAwake said:

Yes 'you' can't really take an ego/sense of self head on because it's mere identification with conditioned thoughts, sensations, belief's, concepts, labels, and contracted energy in the body (this again was an expression for communication purposes).... and the recognition of there unreality is the cure.

You’re still projecting that onto nothing. If it’s yours, as in, ‘where you’re at’, imo, just own it and begin inspecting it. 

1 minute ago, VeganAwake said:

No I actually meant rain as in the ego rains down on others with its toxic moisture....joking ❤....yes I meant reign thanks...its my talk text use that makes me sound like a robot and misspell.

Yes. I often blame my wife. ? jk. 

[Someone here]

Careful guys don't mess around with Nahm too much.. He will roast you and completely deconstruct every word you say and you might not know your way back home again. Just sayin ?

Edited October 21, 2020 by Someone here

[Dodo]

2 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

You are missing something very important here.  Being!  You see you can directly know the answer - but not via proof - by BEING reality itself!  Proof is prior to Absolute Truth.  In a state of pure Being you can become directly Infinity itself - in which you become directly conscious of yourself.  And in doing so you have the realization that infinity i(you) are the collapse of all dualities - the collapse of everthing and nothing.  Nothing is everything.  Just pure infinity or pure Awareness.  So what you get is a hologram for reality - or a mind - or consciousness - or this!  And you realize that physical objects behind the scene are all imaginary and held within your consciousness.  Proof is not needed because you ARE it.

I cannot miss being, my friend. No one can miss being. And what you are saying is that when you become absolutely ignorant of not knowing, you are all knowing. What a brilliant " enlightening " catch-22!  But you are the enlitnd1 so who am I to speak amirite?

[Inliytened1]

4 minutes ago, Dodo said:

I cannot miss being, my friend. No one can miss being. And what you are saying is that when you become absolutely ignorant of not knowing, you are all knowing. What a brilliant " enlightening " catch-22!  But you are the enlitnd1 so who am I to speak amirite?

Yah or just do self inquiry.

You aint awake.  Sorry to pull a Leo but you ain't

That doesn't make me better.  Isness is isness.

 

[Dodo]

2 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

You aint awake.  Sorry to pull a Leo but you ain't

 

"The reason people will not change their mind is because they BELIEVE they have the absolute correct answer. This places a tight lid on flowing discovery of new aspects of life. It takes cognitive dissonance to enlighten one out of their solid beliefs."

PS: Leo is not the standard of enlightenment for me. I am ever grateful to Leo, for this forum and many other things, but if you think this ego trick of awake and asleep will work, you must think you're talking to yourself! 

Edited October 21, 2020 by Dodo

[Inliytened1]

6 minutes ago, Dodo said:

"The reason people will not change their mind is because they BELIEVE they have the absolute correct answer. This places a tight lid on flowing discovery of new aspects of life. It takes cognitive dissonance to enlighten one out of their solid beliefs."

You are talking to  someone who was the biggest athiest that ever lived my man - materialism bothered me since i was a kid but i was a total athiest.  And i went with the materialist paradigm..so I was shocked when i discovered this stuff was the real deal.  I would never have believed it if i didn't hit mystical states of consciousness in 2018 from Meditation / self inquiry.  

[SoonHei]

popcorn and this thread is yummy

[Javfly33]

@Dodo Instead of contemplating about objects outside/inside awaraness, I suggest you to contemplate about people (Points of Views like the one you have).

Do the same inquiry, Being aware of a Point of View VS Not being aware of a Point of View.

Following your logic, you are right that the fact that you are not experiencing the Point of View of Barack Obama, that doesn´t mean that Barack Obama Point of View doesn´t exist.

So nobody is actually denying your logic. But your logic is using the word "existence" as it would be the simplest word in the world. Existence is a tricky word.

Is the same 'existence' you experiencing Barack Obama Point of View vs you thinking that Barack Obama Point of View exists? Are both scenarios the same, really? 

Is the same to think/imagine you fuck a hot girl vs actually fucking her? 

Edited October 21, 2020 by Javfly33

[commie]

20 minutes ago, Someone here said:

From the video Leo literally said "to exist is to appear". In other words to have a phenomenal quality that you can.. see touch.. smell.. taste.. hear right now.

...

If stuff exist outside of appearance you can't confirm their appearance-independent existence from within the domain of appearances.

Such definitions only impoverish language. Unless one intends to play word games, better only speak of appearance and leave existence out of it. By leaving existence out of it, one could also perhaps focus on doing something useful with whatever doesn't appear.

That said, I doubt your "in other words" is quite accurate. Evidently appearance is supposed to be inclusive of conceptual objects.

[Inliytened1]

8 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:

@Dodo Instead of contemplating about objects outside/inside awaraness, I suggest you to contemplate about people (Points of Views like the one you have).

Do the same inquiry, Being aware of a Point of View VS Not being aware of a Point of View.

Following your logic, you are right that the fact that you are not experiencing the Point of View of Barack Obama, that doesn´t mean that Barack Obama Point of View doesn´t exist.

So nobody is actually denying your logic. But your logic is using the word "existence" as is something as clear as water. Existence is a tricky word.

Is the same 'existence' you experiencing Barack Obama Point of View vs you thinking that Barack Obama Point of View exists? Are both scenarios the same, really? 

Is the same to think/imagine you fuck a hot girl vs actually fucking her? 

Yah you can look at is awareness is exploring itself from an Infinite number of angles simultaneously - but the substance is nothing.  Nothing permeates through everything, such that there is nothing happening right now.

[The0Self]

49 minutes ago, Dodo said:

Let me ask you something, since Leo in his recent video on the nature of reality claimed that for a fact "There is no other part to the fridge, only the image in awareness" "What other part of the fridge" etc... Now this is a common view, also Rupert Spira talks about this as a "new map of reality" " new way of seeing the world" which is more inline with direct experience, its like the religion of direct experience. But this is such a sneaky and transparent belief system that you dont even see that you are ASSUMING that there is nothing there. Its a blatant assumption. And everyone in the video comments was buying it and I was buying it for so long too! It's not Truth! If that's the truth of 5meo then LOL !!! The Assumption is that since you never will know if there is something outside of awareness, that you can just push it out as irrelevant and something that anyone who believes otherwise has simply not gone deep enough etc etc. What a bunch of fools I tellya!

However, the experience that there's something beyond the appearance is dualism. There is nothing else other than unbounded everything. These words are everything, the past is everything, the future is everything, typing is everything. That's what they're pointing to.