Daniel Ingram: Psychedelics, Meditation and enlightenment

[IAmReallyImportant]

@Leo Gura

Can an ego recognize Love or just recognize an idea of Love? If Love is recognized isn't it the case that the ego is already dead? Can selfishness lead to selflessness?

If you sell someone an idea of something instead of the actual thing, isn't that a lie and therefore not true? However, as you said Truth equals Love.

Perhaps this is the reason why many enlightenment gurus do not teach Love.

Edited November 27, 2020 by IAmReallyImportant

[Leo Gura]

49 minutes ago, IAmReallyImportant said:

@Leo Gura

Can an ego recognize Love

It can.

Quote

If Love is recognized isn't it the case that the ego is already dead?

Not necessarily. An ego can come and go. It might be gone one moment and back the next.

Quote

Can selfishness lead to selflessness?

Of course.

Quote

If you sell someone an idea of something instead of the actual thing, isn't that a lie and therefore not true? However, as you said Truth equals Love.

Of course the map is not the territory. My words are just words. Truth cannot be spoken.

Quote

Perhaps this is the reason why many enlightenment gurus do not teach Love.

Firstly, many do.

Secondly, many aren't conscious of what Love is. It is not easy to become conscious of what Love is via traditional meditation. Meditation tends to lead to the Void, which gives people a false sense of completion. Traditional meditation only explores a narrow spectrum of consciousness.

[IAmReallyImportant]

@Leo Gura Thank you for your answer :-) Well, when I think about it, this seems to be conclusive. The only objection I have is: If a teaching is more indirect, isn't it also more conscious? For example, pointing to something with riddles or quests, rather than using terminology for the thing being pointed to. Because using terminology might leave room for fantasies. So it seems to me that the highest teachings are the most indirect.

Edited November 27, 2020 by IAmReallyImportant

[Leo Gura]

40 minutes ago, IAmReallyImportant said:

The only objection I have is: If a teaching is more indirect, isn't it also more conscious?

Lol

What???

[IAmReallyImportant]

59 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Lol

What???

I have to contemplate more about this. Maybe this is crap what I was thinking about.

Edited November 27, 2020 by IAmReallyImportant

[The0Self]

5 hours ago, IAmReallyImportant said:

So it seems to me that the highest teachings are the most indirect.

In my view:

The better the teaching, the more effectively it helps one get closer to seeing everything as a miracle. The best teaching is definitely self love. The best, most effective practices for a novice; the practices with the highest leverage, are probably forgiveness, gratitude, mindfulness, Metta (trains both concentration and love), and self love.

The higher the teaching, the more directly it turns one toward truth and unknowing. The highest teachings are Self Love and emptiness.

Somewhat to your point though, I don't feel that the highest direct pointings/"teachings" are even really teachings at all, since they don't aim to help anyone -- ultimately, there is no one that could be taught.

IME...

[IAmReallyImportant]

9 hours ago, The0Self said:

In my view:

The better the teaching, the more effectively it helps one get closer to seeing everything as a miracle. The best teaching is definitely self love. The best, most effective practices for a novice; the practices with the highest leverage, are probably forgiveness, gratitude, mindfulness, Metta (trains both concentration and love), and self love.

The higher the teaching, the more directly it turns one toward truth and unknowing. The highest teachings are Self Love and emptiness.

Somewhat to your point though, I don't feel that the highest direct pointings/"teachings" are even really teachings at all, since they don't aim to help anyone -- ultimately, there is no one that could be taught.

IME...

I agree. Somehow I feel that if someone tells you about stuff like god and infinite goodness, it is asked to just believe stuff. And if you tell them they shouldn't just believe something, this doesn't change much. Because they have to trust you in the first place. I mean Leo's teachings seem to be consistent, carefully thought about and I am also sure that he has experienced the stuff as well, even if I cannot know it. It is told that you have to experience it by yourself. However, because of the prolog many people could now be biased and are maybe less prown to see the experiences from a more neutral perspective afterwards, before enlightenment. 

No hate, I think what he does is great. I watch the videos over years now, but currently I just became more sceptical, because I was tricked by another spiritual teacher who was fake as I found out by myself. And my concern is not about fakness, but more about the developmental stage and amount of ego. So I can verify who is the best I can follow or listen to. However, currently it's hard to decide for me as actualized.org resonates the most, but some parts of the teachings seem questionable to me.

Edited November 28, 2020 by IAmReallyImportant