Leo Do you agree with Rupert Spira?

[Esoteric]

@SQAAD @Regan Spira believes there are other people with their unique vantage points and sense perceptions. Still one consciousness according to his view. If you don't think your family has their unique and active vantage point right now he would call that a form of madness.

There is no doubt Ramana Maharshi thought other people were imaginary and did NOT have a vantage point. Yet Spira raises him as a gold standard, and that he was like a white dot on a white piece of paper. At the same time, if he knew his philosophy, he would have to say he had succumbed to a form of madness. 

[SQAAD]

2 minutes ago, Esoteric said:

@SQAAD @Regan Spira believes there are other people with their unique vantage points and sense perceptions. Still one consciousness according to his view. If you don't think your family has their unique and active vantage point right now he would call that a form of madness.

There is no doubt Ramana Maharshi thought other people were imaginary and did NOT have a vantage point. Yet Spira raises him as a gold standard, and that he was like a white dot on a white piece of paper. At the same time, if he knew his philosophy, he would have to say he had succumbed to a form of madness. 

I tend to agree with Rupert... Why is Leo kinda denying the vantage point of other people?

If i am honest i don't know if other people are conscious or not at this moment. I can only be sure of what is in my direct experience. But in this way i cannot deny or confirm the vantage point of someone else..

[Leo Gura]

33 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

I don't believe that any amount of God-consciousness could allow the human mind of Leo to suddenly be able to see through my eyes.

I see you. I am moving your body. I am you!

Wake up! 

[GreenWoods]

@RMQualtrough Awakening has nothing to do with the human mind. the human mind is an imagination within Consciousness just like a chair. 

And things like chairs are not dependent on a human mind.

45 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

. BUT you cannot telepathically know the contents of my mind right now. Because these objects are unique expressions right?

Existence = Consciousness.  If it is not within your consciousness right now then it doesn't exist. There is only one Consciousness. God can't split Itself.

50 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

It would be impossible to "experience" nonduality for obvious reasons.

I guess with nonduality you are referring to the formless Godhead/Singularity.  

You as God can 'experience' that.

God = Consciousness.  God can be conscious of Itself.

41 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

... There's not really a "you" anyway so I can't accurately say "you" were in nonduality before birth, and same upon death. .

Before birth doesn't exist. 

[RMQualtrough]

@GreenWoods This is where it is just difficult to discuss, because it's like people switch between absolute and relative. So when Leo says he is moving my body and IS me (etc) I can't say he's not, but that's not Leo the human, that's the voidness that is also presenting as Leo simultaneously.

If I asked Leo the human to describe my bedroom I am currently looking at, he would be unable to reply with an accurate answer even though the same awareness is looking through both of our eyes. The object of the self mind is unique.

When Leo says birth and death are fake he is talking from the absolute sense. There are separate objects within this and we could say those are born and die, exactly like how a thought comes and goes. I would say there is no self anyway just a constantly morphing object that has a sense of continuity due to memory function etc... Due to memory, the "object" which is a human mind grows and grows in scope with a backlog story to maintain a sense of self and all of that.

What you call God can only know itself via duality. It is impossible for the subject to experience itself in absence of object. If there was no duality within the absolute, which is like the unified container of both something and nothing, there would be zero experience, and also it would mean no object could ever manifest as anything anyway, because all things must be X and not Y to even be perceived at all. Like how red is red and not blue... Escape from this is not a possibility as there will never be nothing in absence of something or vice versa. And somethingness is absolutely dependent upon the appearance of duality.

[Adrian325]

21 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

@GreenWoods This is where it is just difficult to discuss, because it's like people switch between absolute and relative. So when Leo says he is moving my body and IS me (etc) I can't say he's not, but that's not Leo the human, that's the voidness that is also presenting as Leo simultaneously.

If I asked Leo the human to describe my bedroom I am currently looking at, he would be unable to reply with an accurate answer even though the same awareness is looking through both of our eyes. The object of the self mind is unique.

When Leo says birth and death are fake he is talking from the absolute sense. There are separate objects within this and we could say those are born and die, exactly like how a thought comes and goes. I would say there is no self anyway just a constantly morphing object that has a sense of continuity due to memory function etc... Due to memory, the "object" which is a human mind grows and grows in scope with a backlog story to maintain a sense of self and all of that.

What you call God can only know itself via duality. It is impossible for the subject to experience itself in absence of object. If there was no duality within the absolute, which is like the unified container of both something and nothing, there would be zero experience, and also it would mean no object could ever manifest as anything anyway, because all things must be X and not Y to even be perceived at all. Like how red is red and not blue... Escape from this is not a possibility as there will never be nothing in absence of something or vice versa. And somethingness is absolutely dependent upon the appearance of duality.

Amen

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, RMQualtrough said:

So when Leo says he is moving my body and IS me (etc) I can't say he's not, but that's not Leo the human

Leo is moving your body and it is you, what you see is the same as what he sees. Your experience is exactly than mine, but for a trick looks different. Looks an experience. Everything you think is happening to you is not happening, it is a trick. Now I am having a coffee in a cafeteria for breakfast, and maybe you are working, and another is being tortured by narcos. We are all the same at this very moment, and none of this is happening, it is a multiple mirage. A single thing with the appearance of many. I am imagining the other people in this bar, and they are imagining me, and we are all the same at this exact moment, and our experience isn't happening

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, RMQualtrough said:

What you call God can only know itself via duality. It is impossible for the subject to experience itself in absence of object. If there was no duality within the absolute

False

[RMQualtrough]

21 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

False

How comes? As far as I can tell, if all objects of perception are removed (which isn't actually possible) there would be no experience ever. What would be experienced if there were no apparent things to experience? Nothingness can't be perceived in absence of an apparent something.

You can say there is no subject and object when seeing red, e.g. that there is just seeing, but I think that is a pairing. I can't verbalize why because I know what it is like to "become" the perceived objects, but I think that is just recognition of absolute nonduality STILL taking place in an apparent duality.

Dreams are also duality within nonduality. You could never see a landscape in a dream if you weren't seemingly located somewhere in the dream, which is then dual even though we know it is all manufactured by a singular mind.

I see multiplicity of any kind as an apparent duality.

[RMQualtrough]

53 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Leo is moving your body and it is you, what you see is the same as what he sees. Your experience is exactly than mine, but for a trick looks different. Looks an experience. Everything you think is happening to you is not happening, it is a trick. Now I am having a coffee in a cafeteria for breakfast, and maybe you are working, and another is being tortured by narcos. We are all the same at this very moment, and none of this is happening, it is a multiple mirage. A single thing with the appearance of many. I am imagining the other people in this bar, and they are imagining me, and we are all the same at this exact moment, and our experience isn't happening

If it wasn't appearing to be happening then you could not say you are having breakfast or that I am working. The fact it is appearing to be happening is what matters, and that is never going to end.

I was glad to hear Leo on Curt's podcast as he verbalized what I think which is that you can't just will a million dollars into your drawer, as there's a deeper level of imagination that is beyond our self mind. Which explains absolutely everything. It's not the self imagining things into existence, it is indeed your perceptions which grant them an actuality/form. I get that. But it is on a deeper level than the finite mind we talk to each other from right now.

If there wasn't an appearance of many (trick, illusion, whatever it may be termed) you could literally post right now precisely what I am seeing. Well, actually I don't think there would be an experience of anything because any form requires finitude. E.g. to appear red it must not appear blue and green and yellow. It might appear as those things to other creatures or w.e. but you see what I mean. I don't think infinity can be perceived. Infinity, consciousness, and nothingness, seem to be completely identical... And the process of experience appears to be exactly like dreaming, where there is an apparent world given form via perception and duality. Both the nothing and something being ultimately one, precisely like a dream.

Edited October 2, 2021 by RMQualtrough

[Breakingthewall]

@RMQualtrough

19 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

 

The point is to understand that I am not in a bar and you are not working. A while ago, after hours of meditation, it was clear. now I am totally back into the character and what I wrote before seems nonsense to me. As you say, if it seems that I am in a bar, it is that I am, if it seems that there are two of us, somehow we are two. it's a very well done trick

[RMQualtrough]

8 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

@RMQualtrough

The point is to understand that I am not in a bar and you are not working. A while ago, after hours of meditation, it was clear. now I am totally back into the character and what I wrote before seems nonsense to me. As you say, if it seems that I am in a bar, it is that I am, if it seems that there are two of us, somehow we are two. it's a very well done trick

Nah it makes sense. That is what I mean it becomes difficult to put differing points across, because I understand and see the validity in the statements made from the perspective they are being made from.

What I think I could say is that without the trick there would be no experience ever. And that the trick can never possibly end. The trick involves something singular presenting as multiple precisely in the way a dream happens. Without that duality inside the dream there is no experience of the dream, it never takes form, there's just nothing.

To fully encompass reality, I think all elements should be accounted for. Illusions are still real. When you see the snake is a rope, the fact is, the rope is still there. The fact we can't write down what each other is seeing right now is an element of multiplicity.

I think this is an issue in the typical teachings, because an inexperienced seeker will immediately wonder why they can't walk through walls or possess your body etc. Or think that UV rays don't exist if we don't perceive them. The "God level imagination" we do not control explains the existence of things which nothing perceives, and also explains the concept of existent-nothings like UV... Formless "things"... I understand that no thing has an actual set appearance external from perception. That is God-imagination.

[Leo Gura]

Something is Nothing.

Formlessness is Form.

Perceptions are God.

Your mistake is discounting perceptions as something less than God/Infinity/Absolute.

All qualia are Absolute Truth.

[mandyjw]

13 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Yeah, but that does not imply the highest consciousness.

It's actually easy to use the present moment to avoid the highest consciousness.

The thought or ideal of the present moment can be used to seem to exclude what can never be excluded. "Highest consciousness" infers exclusion as well. 

"Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you. For there is nothing hidden that won't be revealed." - Jesus

 

[Inliytened1]

8 hours ago, SQAAD said:

I tend to agree with Rupert... Why is Leo kinda denying the vantage point of other people?

It's not a denial of anything it is an Awakening that you can have as God to a particular facet of Truth.  That this is precisely a dream and all of it is being held within God Consciousness and God Consciousness is none other than what you are.  It's just that right now you have imagined otherwise - that you are a human self with other human selves.  Self/other is just another duality that can be collapsed.  It may seem like a word game but I assure you it is the furthest thing from.  

[Leo Gura]

@SQAAD Why do you deny the vantage point of the characters in your dreams?

When we say life/reality is a dream, that is PRECISELY what it is. That's not an analogy. That is literal.

Why are you making it so complicated?

It's a dream. The end.

[GreenWoods]

6 hours ago, RMQualtrough said:

. It is impossible for the subject to experience itself in absence of object. 

There is always only the Subject.

Sometimes It imagines Itself as imaginary objects, and sometimes not.

The Subject can experience Itself without objects, because the Subject is Consciousness, so It can be perfectly conscious of Itself.

4 hours ago, RMQualtrough said:

you can't just will a million dollars into your drawer, as there's a deeper level of imagination that is beyond our self mind. Which explains absolutely everything. It's not the self imagining things into existence,

The reason why that is not possible for the self mind, is because it is an illusion, there is only the Self Mind.

[Zeroguy]

23 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@SQAAD Why do you deny the vantage point of the characters in your dreams?

When we say life/reality is a dream, that is PRECISELY what it is. That's not an analogy. That is literal.

Why are you making it so complicated?

It's a dream. The end.

Yes it is. 

It is Love. 

[Purple Man]

18 hours ago, RMQualtrough said:

can only experience things via finitude and limit.

The great physicist, David Bohm, had a interesting theory, where he affirms that "light" in itself (not the beams we´re able to watch going from one point to another, but "light" in a self-referential mode) is infinite, not a part of space/time, thus invisible per se. And to become manifest, it freezes itself into beams that reduce their speed to create space/time objects. That is, every object is light, but light at reduced speed, with beams going forward and back in a congealed pattern, which we perceive as limited, although their real nature is eternal.

Edited October 2, 2021 by Purple Man

[RMQualtrough]

15 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Something is Nothing.

Formlessness is Form.

Perceptions are God.

Your mistake is discounting perceptions as something less than God/Infinity/Absolute.

All qualia are Absolute Truth.

I understand you on most of this. I understand that any thing is in a state of formlessness when not perceived and that ALL things inherently have no form at all and are thus infinite etc.

I understand that red is red, sound is sound, etc. I understand the fact they are happening is a certainty.

How I view this however is that all Qualia is EXTREME finitude. Literally one thing in absence of infinite others. Absolutely and inherently there is nothing out there etc etc and thus you are looking at nothingness/infinity in actuality, but the perception exists and perceptions themselves are all limited and finite. I don't think red the perception is infinite, evidently it is not blue when perceived as red. It COULD be perceived as blue but then it wouldn't be red.

Red is red, yes, absolutely it is infinity because that's what all things are, but when redness is perceived, it is red and red alone.

That is also how I would interpret a dream. Obviously the entire dream is a single mind, and that is like this here. But be it illusion or whatever you call it, it is experienced as dualistic and very finite. The existence of a finite perception does not rob it of its true nature like how a finite perception in a dream does not suddenly give that perception a reality beyond imagination taking place in mind.

Edited October 3, 2021 by RMQualtrough