God as "Selfless"

[Javfly33]

On 31/3/2021 at 10:48 AM, Leo Gura said:

no self = The Infinite Self

A rock is selfless because it doesn't imagine itself as a self.

Why do you assume God incarnates into rocks? 

Or do you mean the *appearance of the rock that appears in my POV?

[Leo Gura]

46 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:

Why do you assume God incarnates into rocks? 

Or do you mean the *appearance of the rock that appears in my POV?

You are God, and God is Everything.

These are not assumptions.

"My POV" is the ego illusion.

[PureRogueQ]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You are God, and God is Everything.

These are not assumptions.

"My POV" is the ego illusion.

God is God, he is not everything and he is not nothing. 

Ego is your whole experience and it does not matter if you are enlightened or not, 

 

 

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, PureRogueQ said:

God is God, he is not everything and he is not nothing. 

Ego is your whole experience and it does not matter if you are enlightened or not, 

No

[Javfly33]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

You are God, and God is Everything.

These are not assumptions.

"My POV" is the ego illusion.

Well hum.. ok ? ?

I guess one day I'll get it. Radical openmindness ?

Edited April 2, 2021 by Javfly33

[Leo Gura]

@Javfly33 If you have difficulty getting that a rock is selfless, perhaps you should see a doctor

[Matt Skinner]

@Gianna If I remember correctly, Leo addresses your point directly in this video. I relate to your confusion about the conceptual distinction between “selfless” meaning no-self and “selfless” as we usually associate with generosity, kindness, sacrifice, etc. Even though, ultimately, there is no real distinction.

I think of it like this: God is infinite and total/one. But also God is Love and infinitely selfless (as you might think of a generous person). Because God is everything, it has nobody outside of itself to share its love with, so it must fragment itself into finite perspectives. God self-induces a sort of amnesia (aka ego) in order to share its love with itself through awakening.

Or, something like that. It’s very mind-fucky  

Edited April 2, 2021 by Matt Skinner

[Leo Gura]

Think of it like this: a TV screen has no persona until it displays some persona played by an actor in a movie. It would be silly to suggest that the TV has the person it is displaying, or some other persona, because the TV can display infinite personas. The only way the TV can display infinite personas is precisely because its "true persona" is null.

That's how God is. God cannot have a self because God imagines all possible selves and non-selves alike.

A chameleon who can change all of his colors has no color. He is -- paradoxically -- colorless. A colorless chameleon is an infinite chameleon. Colorless = Infinite Colors. No-self = Infinite Self.

[Matt Skinner]

@Leo Gura The TV/movie screen analogy remains one of the clearest pointers to no-self and meta-awareness I’ve come across.

Haven’t heard the chameleon one. I think that maps very well onto the Infinity = Nothingness concept!

Question though—does Love address the “why” component of God’s fragmentation? Aka why does God fragment itself into finite perspectives. Like, God delights in realizing itself as infinity by first limiting itself. Or is it more just the fact that limitation is intrinsic to infinity, so it could be no other way?

Hopefully that makes sense

Edited April 2, 2021 by Matt Skinner

[Javfly33]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

@Javfly33 If you have difficulty getting that a rock is selfless, perhaps you should see a doctor

I don't have a problem seeing that a rock is selfless. The thing is, imo there isn't a rock. It's just a proyection of my consciousness/it's just being.

So of course being it's selfless. But I was doubting if you meant that there was a POV of a rock where God was Incarnating.

If you meant the first yeah I agree 

 

[Leo Gura]

19 minutes ago, Matt Skinner said:

@Leo Gura Haven’t heard the chameleon one. I think that maps very well onto the Infinity = Nothingness concept!

That's a even deeper mindfuck to be had here: Notice that for a chameleon to truly be infinite, it would not only need to be colorless but also formless, thus allowing it to become any other thing. Imagine a chameleon who is such a good chameleon that he had to surrender even his chameleon identity because he needed to in order to mimic a rock, or a bird, or a human. But in this case, if the chameleon really became so strong and good at his function, he would no longer be merely "mimicking" those objects, he would literally BE those objects.

So a true Chameleon cannot even be a chameleon. He must be a non-chameleon Chameleon

And if you understand that, then you understand why God must have no identity: precisely so he would take every identity fully, without mimickery. See? God can't just pretend to be rock or a bird or a human, God has to actually BECOME those things, otherwise how would they come into existence?

19 minutes ago, Matt Skinner said:

Question though—does Love address the “why” component of God’s fragmentation? Aka why does God fragment itself into finite perspectives. Like, God delights in realizing itself as infinity by first limiting itself. Or is it more just the fact that limitation is intrinsic to infinity, so it could be no other way?

Hopefully that makes sense

The why is more radical than you think.

God IS Love. Love is Truth. Love is Absolute. Therefore literally nothing but LOVE can ever exist. So if a thing exists, it's ultimate cause is always simply LOVE. Reality is LOVE, and LOVE is EVERYTHING, and God is EVERYTHING. Therefore all the finite stuff is just literally what God is. The end.

[Leo Gura]

11 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:

 But I was doubting if you meant that there was a POV of a rock where God was Incarnating.

I never said anything about a rock having a POV. "Having a POV" IS the self! The problem here is not the rock's POV (which you imagine) but that you believe that YOU have a POV! That is the ego illusion. You don't really have a POV, there is Absolute Being, not a POV. Ego imagines the notion of POVs because it needs to feel like it has one. The entire notion of having a POV is wrong.

[SS10]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

I never said anything about a rock having a POV.

Am I 'more' God than a rock is?

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, SS10 said:

Am I 'more' God than a rock is?

Haha, you are the rock, silly

God is EVERYTHING. God is YOU. You can't be more God because you are always 100% God. Everything is always 100% God. But not everything knows it.

A donkey always has an asshole. But does he know it?

[Javfly33]

45 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I never said anything about a rock having a POV. "Having a POV" IS the self! The problem here is not the rock's POV (which you imagine) but that you believe that YOU have a POV! That is the ego illusion. You don't really have a POV, there is Absolute Being, not a POV. Ego imagines the notion of POVs because it needs to feel like it has one. The entire notion of having a POV is wrong.

@Leo Gura Yeah I am pondering that I might be God and this is not a POV but just the whole thing/universe.

But since you also exist as an idea in my mind which eventually will materialize (as you said, I "will" experience some day to create actualized.org. Since time is imaginary that "will" is also "now". So in a sense, your pov exists! Therefore there are two POVs! (Mine and yours) So it is safe to say this is a pov. At least metaphorically.

Just to diferenciate myself from you, I make that distinction. Is useful for me to use the word "pov" even if it's not technically true "now".

[Matt Skinner]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

So a true Chameleon cannot even be a chameleon. He must be a non-chameleon Chameleon

This is beautiful.

And your point about mimicry is actually really helpful. Mimicry implies identity and distinction: if “A” mimics “B”, or vice-versa, that means A and B must be different and separate from each other. But for GOD to mimic anything, God would have to be finite in some way like A and B. Since God is INFINITE, any mimicry that occurs is purely relative and still within the domain of God. God mimicking God, which I guess is just being.

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

God IS Love. Love is Truth. Love is Absolute. Therefore literally nothing but LOVE can ever exist. So if a thing exists, it's ultimate cause is always simply LOVE. Reality is LOVE, and LOVE is EVERYTHING, and God is EVERYTHING. Therefore all the finite stuff is just literally what God is. The end.

This makes sense to me conceptually. The concept that God is Love resonates with a deep part of my intuition, but I think it’s buried under too much mind/lack of consciousness at the moment. I still associate Love too much with an emotional state (lower-order love), and therefore chase my own tail trying to figure out how that = Truth = Infinity = God = Nothingness.

The latter concepts I just listed are still somewhat elusive to me experientially, but less so than Love, I think. Love is probably my biggest blind spot. (Still haven’t had any big obvious awakenings besides maybe God/realizing I am consciousness which is all that exists).

Basically, I just need to get more conscious! Lol thanks for your input as always Leo.

[Leo Gura]

@Matt Skinner Think of Love this way: humans love certain things but not other things. Why are humans selective in their love? Why don't they love EVERYTHING equally? Because humans have a self they which to survive. This self is finite, therefore it cannot embrace/Love infinitely. A finite self must have a bias to love some things over other things, because some thing might kill it or harm it.

But God has no self! Since God has no self, it has nothing to defend and nothing to lose. Therefore it can Love absolutely EVERYTHING, because why not? Why not love EVERYTHING? Only if you have a self that is biased. But God is Infinitely Conscious, therefore it cannot sustain the illusion of a finite self, and therefore it simply is LOVE as a pure Absolute.

Think of it this way: why would reality as whole not love itself completely? I mean... reality as a whole cannot be harmed by anything because it is everything already, and it cannot be any better than it is because "being better" is a notion only the ego cares about.

Notice this: if you didn't care about getting a survival advantage in life you would not care about one thing more than any other. And if you didn't care about one thing more than any other, you would care about all things equally. But if you care about all things equally, see the beauty of everything, which grow infinite. And so you would fall absolutely in love with EVERYTHING because you don't need it to be different than it is.

The only thing that keeps you from falling in love with absolutely EVERYTHING is the ego wanting things to be different.

Ta-da!

[Juliano Zn]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

I never said anything about a rock having a POV. "Having a POV" IS the self! The problem here is not the rock's POV (which you imagine) but that you believe that YOU have a POV! That is the ego illusion. You don't really have a POV, there is Absolute Being, not a POV. Ego imagines the notion of POVs because it needs to feel like it has one. The entire notion of having a POV is wrong.

What do you mean that I believe I have a POV? It seems like my POV is direct experience and cannot be wrong. 

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, Juliano Zn said:

What do you mean that I believe I have a POV? It seems like my POV is direct experience and cannot be wrong. 

Yes, well, if you could understand what I meant you would become enlightened right this second. Ego must prevent you from understanding it. Your life hinges on you not understanding.

I mean that colors and sounds and feelings are happening, but they are not happening to anyone, they are not happening to a human "you". As odd as this sounds, the colors and sounds and feelings that are happening right now are NOT happening to you. They are happening without you. But they are happening. I am not denying colors and sounds and feelings. I am just denying that "you" they seem to happen to.

This is explained in great detail in my video: What Is Perception?

[Juliano Zn]

20 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes, well, if you could understand what I meant you would become enlightened right this second. Ego must prevent you from understanding it. Your life hinges on you not understanding.

I mean that colors and sounds and feelings are happening, but they are not happening to anyone, they are not happening to a human "you". As odd as this sounds, the colors and sounds and feelings that are happening right now are NOT happening to you. They are happening without you. But they are happening. I am not denying colors and sounds and feelings. I am just denying that "you" they seem to happen to.

This is explained in great detail in my video: What Is Perception?

I have watched that video 3 times and still don't get it haha.

I might watch it again while on mushrooms. I know you have said that it's better to trip in silence and all, but this question about POV got me excited to try it.