Solipsism and Leo

Batman · August 7, 2021

4 hours ago, justfortoday said:

I will try my best to explain. And this is the most BS-free shit I’m gonna say here.

There is nothing. Nothing, because it is uncreated, is eternal, an infinite set of mathematical energy. This is the universal self which is metaphysically, a mirror with nothing to reflect on.

This tiny mirror, sliver of consciousness, morphed and twisted itself like a pretzel to face itself. This created an infinite reflection that created consciousness, as self reference.

You are that mirror right now. Everything around you is a reflection of yourself. It is situated right where your imaginary face used to be.

You are literally infinite. How else would you perceive things that seem to be far away from you?

You are like a 360 degree camera situated everywhere and anywhere. The entire universe is your true body.

You don’t control your body.

The “air” or “space” around you is nothingness and it basically uses your imaginary body like a puppet. It is all a dream happening nowhere.

Whoever is reading this is right now God. There aren’t two instances of consciousness running at the same time.

That doesn’t mean that a SCENE is not real. Many characters can partake in the scene but they’re not “on” as you are.

In this way God is democratic. Every character gets to have the absolute consciousness as it is required, absolute and necessary.

You are something, impregnating nothing with your consciousness. You exist. That’s it. You are the animating force of the entire universe.

Thats what you are. The void, or reflection-less mirror upon which all lifetimes will appear.

You are pure love, pure unity.

RendHeaven · August 7, 2021

@Batman Hey at least the last line was good shit

14 minutes ago, Batman said:

4 hours ago, justfortoday said:

You are pure love, pure unity.

**OBEler** · August 7, 2021

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes, I would disagree with him. He's not fully awake. He's still playing games.

It is absolutely the case that you are creating all of reality. But I am not talking about the ego-you.

Martin Ball clearly says also that the ego-you does not create all of reality. Listen again he says "each one of you" so he speaks from the ego perspective. I think you misunderstood him.

Leo, you once recognized by yourself that the biggest misunderstanding is always from which perspective you speak (Absolutely vs relatively, ego-you vs god-you). You now misunderstood martin Ball because you thought he speaks from god-perspective. Dont be surprised if many people here also misunderstand you if you do not clearly say from which perspective you speak.

wildflower · August 7, 2021

11 hours ago, Godishere said:

@wildflower dude, my only question is... How the fuck have you not realized you are God in a dream if you have done psychedelics 200 times? ??

That is truly astonishing

No where in any of my posts have I insinuated implicitly or explicitly whether I have or have not realized I am God in a dream, you completely missed what I am saying, or the point of this thread. Extremely bizarre

9 hours ago, Ry4n said:

I think he was talking about the ego-you. The ego-you does not dream up reality but is rather another byproduct of the dream itself. I think this is where a lot of people are getting confused. "You are dreaming up yourself" may be a more useful pointer for those who haven't realised no-self. Without this many people will walk away from your teaching style thinking in a very egotistical way "ahhh yes! I am God! hahaha I am so woke" Or something along those lines. @Leo Gura It's a pretty devastating misinterpretation to make.

Exactly, this guy gets it, there is no differentiation between ego-you and God-you in the videos, such that many people will think ego-you == God-you, which it feels tons of people on here do

6 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

bwahaha you just said you were going for no BS and then immediately said "mathematical energy" with no context or explanation with a straight face lmaoo I'm gonna be charitable and assume that you were being poetic/figurative, though if you meant it literally I'd love an explanation

There is a difference between questioning from "above" and questioning from "below" - especially regarding metaphysics.

When you question from "above," you totally embrace the guru's position and more - you've realized more than him metaphysically, and so you see the precise limitations of the guru's paradigm (for you have already traversed that territory). The new paradigm from where you currently question does not exclude what the guru is saying, but it embraces his teachings AND MORE (of which the guru has yet to realize). Your comparison is sincere, and you have no interest in who's right or who's wrong. At a certain level of awakening, you can be so certain and lucid of your True Nature that the realm of language, communication, ideas, philosophies, teachings... these all become like a playground to you to frolic in. You detect immediately and certainly when a teaching is self-deceived or lacking, and at this point you have no will to fight against it or to disprove it. You'll question it just enough to sense its deception, laugh, and then move on with your day unperturbed.

When you question from "below," you subtly reject the guru's position without ever having embraced it; you've realized nowhere near as much metaphysically as the guru, but you are personally in denial of that. You think you know the limitations of the guru's paradigm, but you don't really, as you've never even bothered to traverse that territory. The paradigm from where you currently question is bias-affirming and ignorant, and you simply have more to realize before you can begin to sincerely compare (but this is hard to admit). Due to being cut off from your True Nature, you carry existential doubts which you wish to dispel. Your main interest is to either prove the guru wrong or to prove yourself right; or even more subtly, you may demand that the guru publicly demonstrate his rightness, and only then will you be open to his teachings. Either way your mind is mired in the game of rightness vs wrongness. For some reason language, communication, ideas, philosophies, teachings... these all have a dense importance to you, as though something would be lost if you ever let them go. Since you are not certain and lucid of your True Nature, whenever you detect that a teaching is self-deceived or lacking, you must always be wary of your own ego misinterpreting. When you encounter an unpalatable teaching, you feel the need to resist it, and your questioning has an agenda.

I'm not gonna prescribe you to either camp, although I encourage you to self-diagnose. Keep in mind it's totally possible to see yourself questioning from "above" for certain teachers while questioning from "below" for others... everything I just laid out is context-sensitive and of course, relative. In a strange-loopy way, I also encourage you to question anything I just wrote, but be wary of whether you're coming from "above" or "below"

This is completely not relevant to this thread, and misses the point of my posts, but I appreciate the effort for the long response

wildflower · August 7, 2021

5 hours ago, OBEler said:

Martin Ball clearly says also that the ego-you does not create all of reality. Listen again he says "each one of you" so he speaks from the ego perspective. I think you misunderstood him.

Leo, you once recognized by yourself that the biggest misunderstanding is always from which perspective you speak (Absolutely vs relatively, ego-you vs god-you). You now misunderstood martin Ball because you thought he speaks from god-perspective. Dont be surprised if many people here also misunderstand you if you do not clearly say from which perspective you speak.

Exactly it's easy to follow Martins position, not saying I agree or disagree with him. Timestamped here: quite clearly he isn't a hardcore solipsistic on the relative level. He makes his position very clear

This is Martins qoute:

of my mind and you know because that