Leo's latest video - "what awakening feels like?"

[bammy32]

Hi @Leo Gura just watched your latest video on what awakening feels like & noticed an elephant in the room:

You didn't mention the word LOVE I think once when describing the different facets of God/Awakening. Only at the very end after mentioning your website/resources did you very briefly mention love in a list along many other things in a side rant about awakening.

My simply question is - was it intentional not to mention Love as a key facet/experience of awakening? if so, what is up with that?

Correct me if I'm wrong and it was mentioned & I missed it. I did hear you allude to peace/tranquility but that part still felt like a far cry from LOVE which you have stressed time and again as the crux of enlightenment / Truth / awakening - so what gives?

 

[Leo Gura]

I didn't want to complicate things with Love. Love is too advanced for an intro to awakening episode.

The realization of goes way beyond your basic awakening.

[Terell Kirby]

@Leo Gura have you ever thought about coming up with your own model regarding stages of awakening? You make use of a good metaphor by reference "dials" or "knobs" of consciousness that spin, infinitely, in each direction.

[Leo Gura]

There's not really a model for it. The facets can be revealed in any order. It varies enormously from person to person.

[Goldzilla]

How it feels like? Like winning the lottery ?

Edited August 15, 2021 by Goldzilla

[Endangered-EGO]

1 minute ago, Goldzilla said:

How it feels like? Like winning the lottery ?

@Goldzilla "Baby Jesus is going to come with a million dollars cash" -Matt Kahn.

 

You made me think of that quote

[Goldzilla]

@Endangered-EGO ?

[Thought Art]

Also, I am still confused on the relationship between psyche structure and awakening... 

Like, your beliefs, intentions, epistemology and metaphysics must affect the awakening or the quality of insight and integration of awakenings. Maybe even the awakenings themselves...

[Endangered-EGO]

@Thought Art As far as most mindfullness teachers explain it: it's about the awareness of the absolute 0. Its recognising where everything comes from and where everything goes to.

 

Shinzen Young said: It happens to everyone thousands of times a day, the difference is being conscious of it happening or not. Cessation, dissolution (bhanga) nothingness.

 

It's all about that "0".

 

I don't believe that what you mentioned (beliefs intentions etc.) play a role at all, because it happens through every culture with some people never having heard of spiritual practice, and it's a natural process. Apparently there's a correlation between no-self and age. That's why old people tend to enjoy having children in their presence because, post-egoic and pre-egoic stages are more about love than egoic people who are "serious" and "worried" all the time.

 

Sorry I went on a tangent.

[Thought Art]

4 minutes ago, Endangered-EGO said:

@Thought Art As far as most mindfullness teachers explain it: it's about the awareness of the absolute 0. Its recognising where everything comes from and where everything goes to.

 

Shinzen Young said: It happens to everyone thousands of times a day, the difference is being conscious of it happening or not. Cessation, dissolution (bhanga) nothingness.

 

It's all about that "0".

 

I don't believe that what you mentioned (beliefs intentions etc.) play a role at all, because it happens through every culture with some people never having heard of spiritual practice, and it's a natural process. Apparently there's a correlation between no-self and age. That's why old people tend to enjoy having children in their presence because, post-egoic and pre-egoic stages are more about love than egoic people who are "serious" and "worried" all the time.

 

Sorry I went on a tangent.

I had a friend who told me on a trip once "I found it!" He has found the truth. Only the next day he said it must have been an illusion. So, in that sense structure is important for integration I suppose.

[Endangered-EGO]

7 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

I had a friend who told me on a trip once "I found it!" He has found the truth. Only the next day he said it must have been an illusion. So, in that sense structure is important for integration I suppose.

Yes, well I have an other example. I had never meditated or anything and had a full blown awakening, while eating. Eternity, nothingness, no self, no external world, this is a dream.

I needed 6 months to "make sense of it" and what happened was I ended up saying. It was a change in perception that made me FEEL LIKE I was in a dream and FELT LIKE it was more true than anything else. The external world SEEMED like it didn't exist and SEEMED like a dream.

Basically I integrated a real intense awakening into the materialist paradigm. 

Fortunately now I know that materiakism is just ONE paradigm, and not the best one for changes in perception/awakenings.

Intuitive knowledge doesn't need paradigms I guess.

 

[wildflower]

The interesting way Leo frames awakening is just in relation to temporary states of consciousness or changes in perception, and interpretations of these states. For example the Buddha frames enlightenment in a completely different way, he's concerned with suffering and the end of suffering, and pretty much didn't care about any of these metaphysics or never to be taken as absolutes.

I guess you could classify Leo as an absolutist, and Buddha a non-absolutist

Which almost seems the opposite of Leo - he doesn't renounce anything material at all in regards to sense pleasures for example. It's almost Leos version and Buddha are completely orthogonal 

[RedLine]

27 minutes ago, wildflower said:

The interesting way Leo frames awakening is just in relation to temporary states of consciousness or changes in perception, and interpretations of these states. For example the Buddha frames enlightenment in a completely different way, he's concerned with suffering and the end of suffering, and pretty much didn't care about any of these metaphysics or never to be taken as absolutes.

 

Yess. Very good comment.

Leo despise non-dual stage and theravada buddhists despise God-realizations as intermediate realizations. For me they are not compatible because, in some sense, they consider thier stuff is "ontologically superior". It is not just a matter of preferences.

 

Personally, I don't have any position. I'm just confused about this radical difference between the two groups.

 

[Adamq8]

@RedLine @wildflower  Buddhism today is more of materialism then any other religion, they only believe in phenomena and they ultimate is sorta nihil void non existence. 

It is a certain type of individuals that takes that metaphysical claim and wants it.

Look at the godless religion and see that it is viewing everything as suffering and their whole point is non existence lol.

There is a different interpretation of buddhism which is before the theravada interpretation,  the Nikayas,  buddhism was exactly like advaita vedanta, it was the path to the godhead/absolute/brahman.

And the soul was the goal, transcendence. 

You gotta remember that certain claims about reality is dogma and a bias which is a totally metaphysical claim, according to their beliefs.

Take the ontological claims a bit loosely, it is interpreted by a mind, conciousness knows itself thats how it is, but hpw the mind wants to box it in afterwards is totally a bias.

I can sincerely doubt that people who claim that they really grasped GOD realization in its whole for just 5 seconds would afterwards create a duality and say that something is beyond oe higher then that, no thats a interpretation of your mind.

The thing is , when Conciousness recognizes INFINITY and that it is that, both fucking buddhism and Leos are absolutly 100% right both of them, lol infinity says all, its a sealed deal, infinity means it never ends, is everything and nothing, it can be however it wants to appear, unlimited.

Thats why to try to box it in with your mind is impossible.

It cant be contained,  not with language,  only conciousness can grok it because it is existence and reality itself.

It transcendence everything yet in everything 

[wildflower]

6 minutes ago, Adamq8 said:

@RedLine @wildflower  Buddhism today is more of materialism then any other religion, they only believe in phenomena and they ultimate is sorta nihil void non existence. 

It is a certain type of individuals that takes that metaphysical claim and wants it.

Look at the godless religion and see that it is viewing everything as suffering and their whole point is non existence lol.

There is a different interpretation of buddhism which is before the theravada interpretation,  the Nikayas,  buddhism was exactly like advaita vedanta, it was the path to the godhead/absolute/brahman.

And the soul was the goal, transcendence. 

You gotta remember that certain claims about reality is dogma and a bias which is a totally metaphysical claim, according to their beliefs.

Take the ontological claims a bit loosely, it is interpreted by a mind, conciousness knows itself thats how it is, but hpw the mind wants to box it in afterwards is totally a bias.

I can sincerely doubt that people who claim that they really grasped GOD realization in its whole for just 5 seconds would afterwards create a duality and say that something is beyond oe higher then that, no thats a interpretation of your mind.

The thing is , when Conciousness recognizes INFINITY and that it is that, both fucking buddhism and Leos are absolutly 100% right both of them, lol infinity says all, its a sealed deal, infinity means it never ends, is everything and nothing, it can be however it wants to appear, unlimited.

Thats why to try to box it in with your mind is impossible.

It cant be contained,  not with language,  only conciousness can grok it because it is existence and reality itself.

It transcendence everything yet in everything 

That is not my interpretation of any of what Siddhartha spoke of and what concepts he was trying to convey. He is basically saying, you can make all types of claims and have all types of experiences, but what use are they if they don't help with suffering. He taught the 8 fold path as a way to reduce and eradicate suffering, but not as a philosophy or theory but to test as a working hypothesis and embody yourself.

What did he teach? essentially everything is interconnected, and that if you want to transcend your human biology and psychological views, you need to renounce it, and the degree to which you renounce it you will reduce your suffering. Contrast this with what a lot of people here think: have God realization then you can smoke crack, casual sex and it's amazing, no suffering, do what you want.

That is the antithesis of the Buddhas teaching, smoking crack and pursuing sense pleasure within them contains suffering. The goal isn't to be able to do all these actions and volitions without suffering: it's to realise these actions always lead ultimately to suffering, and to abstain from them, this is true wisdom. But of course no one wants to accept this, even those who have had God realizations, although ultimately they'll realize; just one more thing to let go off.

[RedLine]

1 hour ago, wildflower said:

That is not my interpretation of any of what Siddhartha spoke of and what concepts he was trying to convey. He is basically saying, you can make all types of claims and have all types of experiences, but what use are they if they don't help with suffering. He taught the 8 fold path as a way to reduce and eradicate suffering, but not as a philosophy or theory but to test as a working hypothesis and embody yourself.

What did he teach? essentially everything is interconnected, and that if you want to transcend your human biology and psychological views, you need to renounce it, and the degree to which you renounce it you will reduce your suffering. Contrast this with what a lot of people here think: have God realization then you can smoke crack, casual sex and it's amazing, no suffering, do what you want.

That is the antithesis of the Buddhas teaching, smoking crack and pursuing sense pleasure within them contains suffering. The goal isn't to be able to do all these actions and volitions without suffering: it's to realise these actions always lead ultimately to suffering, and to abstain from them, this is true wisdom. But of course no one wants to accept this, even those who have had God realizations, although ultimately they'll realize; just one more thing to let go off.

Yes. That is the correct interpretation of the Buddha.

Here´s what a buddhist would answer to Leo´s video (the answer is not for the last video, but it applies too):

 

 

Edited August 16, 2021 by RedLine

[Blackhawk]

Many of the teachers disagree with each other.

Leo says "those other teachers are so fucking wrong".

And the other teachers say "Leo is so fucking wrong".

So how to know who is right? I don't know. So my position is: I don't know.

[Moksha]

@Blackhawk Acceptance of not knowing is the beginning of wisdom. The biggest obstacle to awakening is the demand of the conditioned mind to know. Your eyes open when you are ready, not to know, but to be.

[The] things which had entirely filled my attention on that first occasion [chronicled in The Doors of Perception], I now perceived to be temptations – temptations to escape from the central reality into false, or at least imperfect and partial Nirvanas of beauty and mere knowledge.

- Aldous Huxley

[The0Self]

@RedLine I agree with Frank there but I think if Leo replaced the word awakening with insight in the title of the video then Frank would also agree with Leo. I know Leo is not talking about the same enlightenment/liberation Frank is talking about, because Leo specified several iterations of it, meaning it’s not total liberation. Enlightenment is pretty much the end of mystical experiences altogether, which is why psychedelic use tends to die down after it.

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, wildflower said:

I guess you could classify Leo as an absolutist, and Buddha a non-absolutist

You just don't understand what Buddha taught.

Buddha taught the Absolute Self.

God is not a belief and it is not a projection. That is nonsense and obviously coming from the mouth of one who has never realized what God is.

God is infinite imagination. Yes, anything you imagine is God. Including all of Buddhism and your notions of enlightenment and liberation and so on.

I am tired of explaining this over and over again to you guys and Frank. I will explain it no longer. Either you get it or you don't.

GOD IS NOT A CONTENT OF PSYCHEDELICS. People who say this are fools and not even worth talking to.