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

[Blackhawk]

@Leo Gura Have you read the book "Perfect brilliant stillness" by David Carse? I'm just curious.

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Blackhawk said:

@Leo Gura Have you read the book "Perfect brilliant stillness" by David Carse? I'm just curious.

No

I have no interest in books about enlightenment.

[Blackhawk]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

No

Thank you for answering.

It would be cool if you would read it.

You can download it here for free, because it's not copyrighted: https://www.perfectbrilliantstillness.org/book/ (Scroll down a bit for the whole book).

[Leo Gura]

@Blackhawk Zero interest

[Blackhawk]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Blackhawk Zero interest

But what if that's you being closed-minded? I'm not saying you are, but is it possible that you are? (I don't know the answer).

Edited August 16, 2021 by Blackhawk

[wildflower]

16 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

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.

There is confusion, no one is saying or making any claims about what God is or isn't.  There are just different states of consciousness, some you experience infinite God, some you are not conscious of it, the underlying principle is all states are conditioned... 

What we are saying is, there is an infinite ways to view what you think God is. Im not talking about the experience of whatever you classify a conscious experience of God is, but your view of it. These are two subtle nuanced differences. The Buddha taught to relinquish all views, to go past infinite conciousness (there's 2 more states of Jhana after this), and explicitly warns about getting stuck at this stage.

No one is saying God is a content of psychedelic's, but your concious experience and realization of God and Absolute is a by product of it, or so it seems from following your journey. I mean there is just a multitude obvious easy ways to test any of your claims sober (omniscience etc)

But we get what you are saying: everything, including you whether you are conscious of it or not, is God at all times, no matter what state of conciousness or level you are in

[Leo Gura]

26 minutes ago, Blackhawk said:

But what if that's you being closed-minded? I'm not saying you are, but is it possible that you are? (I don't know the answer).

The beauty of Absolute Truth is that you need nobody to validate it for you.

If you seek validation, you're not awake.

12 minutes ago, wildflower said:

There is confusion, no one is saying or making any claims about what God is or isn't.  There are just different states of consciousness, some you experience infinite God, some you are not conscious of it, the underlying principle is all states are conditioned... 

What we are saying is, there is an infinite ways to view what you think God is. Im not talking about the experience of whatever you classify a conscious experience of God is, but your view of it. These are two subtle nuanced differences. The Buddha taught to relinquish all views, to go past infinite conciousness (there's 2 more states of Jhana after this), and explicitly warns about getting stuck at this stage.

God is Infinity. This is not a "view" or "condition" or "position" or other such silly thing.

God is Infinity. Period. The end. This is not "Leo's take". This is what anything is, Absolutely.

The Buddha is something you are imagining.

Quote

No one is saying God is a content of psychedelic's

That is exactly what Frank was quoted as saying above. Go read the quote.

[The0Self]

20 minutes ago, Blackhawk said:

But what if that's you being closed-minded? I'm not saying you are, but is it possible that you are? (I don't know the answer).

I'm not necessarily on Leo's side here but there is a point where even close-mindedness can be seen as inseparable from the co-creating of reality. Also, there's a point where any further doubt, belief, or deliberation is completely unnecessary -- maybe you were already knowingly operating with that principle.

[Blackhawk]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The beauty of Absolute Truth is that you need nobody to validate it for you.

If you seek validation, you're not awake.

I wasn't thinking about validation. I was thinking about:

1. You said that there's more facets for you to discover. So maybe the book could reveal new facets? Who knows.

2. You are updating your book list every now and then. So maybe you could add that book to the list, if you think that the book is good.

Edited August 16, 2021 by Blackhawk

[wildflower]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The beauty of Absolute Truth is that you need nobody to validate it for you.

If you seek validation, you're not awake.

God is Infinity. This is not a "view" or "condition" or "position" or other such silly thing.

God is Infinity. Period. The end. This is not "Leo's take". This is what anything is, Absolutely.

The Buddha is something you are imagining.

That is exactly what Frank was quoted as saying above. Go read the quote.

Actually I think you guys are talking about the same thing. You are pretty hard faced about the way you define and articulate things. Any concept word or linguistics we use to describe anything is limited, 'God' is merely a word to point towards something; 'the map is not the territory' like you always say.

The problem is, you guys just seem to be arguing over maps, or misunderstanding about labels on maps.

I dont think anyone can seriously argue away that this universe does't fulfill any reasonable (non theological) linguistic definition of God, I also think most materialists like Harris would agree. The problem is nuanced, as whenever we reference God, it always feels anthropomorphized, or some ego-self having hijacked God (similar anthropic view) 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Blackhawk said:

I wasn't thinking about validation. I was thinking about:

1. You said that there's more facets for you to discover. So maybe the book could reveal new facets? Who knows.

If I want to discover more facets I won't do it via a book, I must do it directly.

[Blackhawk]

15 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

If I want to discover more facets I won't do it via a book, I must do it directly.

But if this nonduality stuff is true, doesn't it mean that if you read a "external" book, you are actually just reading yourself and discovering more of yourself? All happening internally, inside yourself, directly. So then it wouldn't matter whether you do it internally or "externally".

The thing you first label as indirect (reading a book), could cause something which you label as direct.

Edited August 17, 2021 by Blackhawk

[Adamq8]

You cant capture infinity and Reality and say oh it is this way but no that way, in the beginning NETI NETI is a great thing but one should see that even if Frank and Leo talks about differences,  it is still A MIND who is doing the interpreting,  like Frank, he is doing metaphysical claims all the time and he pisses at Leo for doing it too, lol it is unavoidable..

Infinity includes and transcends it all, it is impermanent/permanent, it is everything and nothing. 

In his stages with GOD / NOTHINGNESS / CESSATIONS etc, that is pure MIND who puts its "experiences" on top of others, making a claim that this "experience" is more important then another, YEAH for him perhaps, likewise LEO has another, i dont doubt the wokeness of any of them, they certainly are.

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Blackhawk said:

But if this nonduality stuff is true, doesn't it mean that if you read a "external" book, you are actually just reading yourself and discovering more of yourself? All happening internally, inside yourself, directly. So then it wouldn't matter whether you do it internally or "externally".

The most advanced truths I talk about so far beyond anything you could get from a book that your suggestion is laughable.

Books can only take you so far. After that you must jump.

[Adamq8]

@wildflower https://youtu.be/-_QNT-TH6rE

@RedLine

[Blackhawk]

35 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The most advanced truths I talk about so far beyond anything you could get from a book that your suggestion is laughable.

Books can only take you so far. After that you must jump.

Okay.

[wildflower]

The thing is in Leo latest video he talks about conciousness being self illuminating - the way he describes it, is literally the exact terminology that Daniel Ingram and frank yang have both used. Literally the exact same way of describing reality when awakened, this self luminating  quality. It just becomes a pissing contest. The goal isn’t consensus or to understand each other, it’s to try to be more awake then the other person and to not concede anything linguistically, makes no sense

[Leo Gura]

11 minutes ago, wildflower said:

The goal isn’t consensus or to understand each other, it’s to try to be more awake then the other person and to not concede anything linguistically, makes no sense

That is a common mistake people make when listening to what I say.

The goal is never to out-do anyone. The goal is simply to become as deeply conscious of reality as possible.

By flattening awakening, you make it impossible for yourself to reach the highest degrees of consciousness. Which is the saddest thing in the world.

If you manage to convince yourself that consciousness is flat, you will forever lock yourself out from the highest self-understanding.

I know of many awakened people who have such a shallow consciousness of reality. And they will never move any deeper because they believe that they are done.

Most awakened people are like those who have lit a candle. And I am telling you to fly into the sun.

[wildflower]

I appreciate your effort, and don't get me wrong, you seem much friendlier and open to discourse in your videos, text is a bad format of communication, so sometimes the succinct text communication makes it seem more like that.

Here is a video of daniel ingram using the exact same terminology of luminous as you do in your latest video. Look I could be wrong, but it seems to me you guys speak about the same phenomenological experience: 

 

[wildflower]

Heres another video with timestamp of him referencing the same luminousity you do: 

 

Im only posting him as he was Frank Yangs guide to awakening

Edited August 17, 2021 by wildflower