Gist of Leo's highest teachings?

[softlyblossoming]

1 minute ago, Nahm said:

More so… first thing in the morning, do something you love. Even if only 15 minutes… so to speak, ‘connect’ first. 

You can sit in a car, push pedals & turn the wheel, but if there’s no gas in the tank the scenery ain’t gonna change. 

Excellent. I'm going to try this for 15-30 minutes for two weeks. In the morning hours that follow, my spiritual practice will be to focus on bringing whatever divine feeling was inspired with me throughout the next activities.

[Federico del pueblo]

10 minutes ago, Nahm said:

@Federico del pueblo

That’s just thoughts my man. Direct experience is king. There’s no ‘doer’, but there is thought attachment. 

???

Sure, seems like there's nothing but thoughts.

Quote

More so… first thing in the morning, do something you love. Even if only 15 minutes… so to speak, ‘connect’ first. 

But all of this is just thoughts too, isn't it?

I'm just not sure why you keep talking like all kinds of distinctions don't have any value because they are just thoughts?

If I hadn't ever gone to school, "I didn't go to school" would just be a thought, but the consequences for my life would still suck.

Maybe the "highest teachings" of Leo are actually of value for someone even if it's just in their thoughts.

[Nahm]

@softlyblossoming

Awesome. Mindfulness. ?? 

[Nahm]

7 minutes ago, Federico del pueblo said:

Sure, seems like there's nothing but thoughts.

It does, but only until attention is shifted to perception & feeling. 

Quote

But all of this is just thoughts too, isn't it?

Yes. Banana is a thought. But you aren’t tasting one while reading this. 

Quote

I'm just not sure why you keep talking like all kinds of distinctions don't have any value because they are just thoughts?

Value is a tasteless belief. 

Quote

If I hadn't ever gone to school, "I didn't go to school" would just be a thought, but the consequences for my life would still suck.

Maybe the "highest teachings" of Leo are actually of value for someone even if it's just in their thoughts.

There is no actual experience of their thoughts. Unless of course siddhi’s are also prevalent in experience. 

[softlyblossoming]

15 minutes ago, Nahm said:

It’s (imo) a prod to elicit an admission of inauthenticity & common fear. 

The tiger would just eat me, but the monkey wouldn’t. 

Be the tiger. 

Cheers again, @Nahm. My personal translation of this cryptic (or at least, seemingly cryptic on my end) pointer:

• Everything is a prod to elicit an acknowledgement of the true nature of thoughts (all as untrue) and common fear (all as unnecessary).
• Yes, the real tiger (illusory content) would attack the body, but the monkey mind projecting a fake tiger (what's actual in the present moment) can't do that, so actually the tiger isn't a problem, it's just a monkey with an overactive imagination.
• "Be the tiger" means to notice the truth that thoughts are only thoughts (to see them literally = to become them = to be the actual tiger).

Edited February 19, 2022 by softlyblossoming
made it make more sense

[Nahm]

@softlyblossoming

The tiger isn’t experiencing monkey mind. 

Realistically, the tiger would just cuddle up to me and we would sit peacefully in cessation. But inevitably I would eat it. 

[softlyblossoming]

@Nahm The tiger just does his/her/their thang and doesn't overthink it. Spontaneous action and reaction without the middle-man of interpreting interpretations. I think I get what you meant now. Monkey is as monkey does, tiger is as tiger does, softly is as softly does, and so on.

[Federico del pueblo]

6 minutes ago, Nahm said:

Realistically, the tiger would just cuddle up to me and we would sit peacefully in cessation. But inevitably I would eat it. 

I would definitely not ask you to proof that to me if we really were in the Savannah

[Nahm]

@Federico del pueblo

Might be good, never know. Probably tastes like chicken. 

 

[Federico del pueblo]

1 minute ago, Nahm said:

@Federico del pueblo

Might be good, never know. Probably tastes like chicken. 

 

Could be true.

I'm just unsure about the 

Quote

Realistically, the tiger would just cuddle up to me and we would sit peacefully in cessation

part, but who knows, maybe he would if you managed to become a tiger yourself.

[Gregory1]

1 hour ago, Nahm said:

More so… first thing in the morning, do something you love.

Is eating crappy food allowed.¿

[Explorer_42]

12 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

leo's highest teaching is: stick 30mg of 5meo in your ass and then do it again. but strangely, this teaching, which really works and is revolutionary, nobody puts it into practice

I laughed way too hard on that one ? thank you ?

@Gregory1

Isn't everything allowed ?

Edited February 20, 2022 by Explorer_42

[softlyblossoming]

@Federico del pueblo Critical Enlightenment Theory: Differentiating Absolute from Relative Truth

• Relative truths = truths that depend on other truths to be true (including all scientific facts and conventional knowledge)
  • Delusion = unconsciously mis-recognising relative truths for absolute truths that have been mis-recognised ("taken to be") absolute
  • All scientific facts and conventional knowledge = relative truths (truths that depend on other truths to be true) = (ultimately speaking) delusion
• The absolute truth = the one ultimate truth that is always true
  • AKA: that which remains true independent of all circumstances and relative truths (it's unchanging and untouchable)
  • AKA: that which remains true independent of anything but itself
    • AKA: is self-validating/directly-experienced
    • AKA: needs no explanation (or other "middle-man") to understand/know itself
  • AKA: that which is true under all circumstances
  • AKA: nothing at all
  • AKA: everything at once
  • "cessation" is just another word for this nothing-everything that is the absolute truth
• Absolute truth cannot be understood with/known to the thinking mind because the thinking mind only ever understands/knows relative truths.
• Absolute truth cannot be understood/known by the self/ego, because the self/ego is an illusion comprised/consisting of the relative truths that the thinking mind (unconsciously) holds to be absolutely true when they are in actual fact relative. Basically, the self/ego is made out of all of the truths that are being unconsciously mis-recognised as ("taken to be") absolute, despite having really only been relative this whole time.
  • This mis-recognition occurs because the truths constructing the self are relative truths that seem, at first appearances, to be true all of the time. In order to reveal (see for ourselves) that what we thought was ultimately true all of the time is secretly only relatively true (true because of other things we believe to be true), we can do this by bringing the thinking mind to a state of calm or stillness by meditating on relaxing thoughts.
  • By calming down our anxious thoughts and/or coming to a place of rested stillness, we (as the ego) can see for ourselves first hand that everything we had previously known so conclusively to be true (including the very processes we had once mis-recognised to be ourselves) are in fact changing, and so cannot be ultimately true all of the time. From this place of real rest, we derive insight into:
    • The impermanence [→ and therefore relativity → and therefore ultimate untruth] of the (now seen to be relative) truths we have/had been taking for lasting, real, absolute, independently true truths.
    • The reality that what we had once thought to be ourselves does not need to be who we are. When the thinking mind is calm and still, we can actually disidentify/disentangle our sense of self from the many processes of the thinking mind, including the very ones we had utilised to bring ourselves to that very same calmed/stilled place from which the insight became possible mere minutes ago. 
    • The ultimate unsatisfactoriness of our habit of seeking satisfaction in relative truths, and the reality that this can and will never bring about total effortless happiness forever. BUT that by repeatedly recognising supposedly absolute truths for the relative truths they really are, another way may indeed be possible to uncover (aka the discovery of the spiritual path). 
• Recognising the absolute truth = effortless total happiness forever
• The self/ego cannot recognise the absolute truth, ever

4 hours ago, Federico del pueblo said:

4 hours ago, Nahm said:

Might be good, never know. Probably tastes like chicken. 

 

Could be true.

I'm just unsure about the 

Quote

Realistically, the tiger would just cuddle up to me and we would sit peacefully in cessation

part, but who knows, maybe he would if you managed to become a tiger yourself.

Nahm and your difficulty communicating looks like it stems from the inherent impossibility for descriptions of the absolute truth to 'mesh'/'work' with descriptions of the material world (AKA relative truths AKA conventional facts). The difficulty arises because relative truths can't make sense from the perspective of absolute truth, and vice versa. Because it isn't possible for one perspective to make sense from the other, agreement between them is utterly impossible.

Nahm's point (I think) is that him and the tiger are ultimately both just appearing "in cessation" (as nothing) already. This would be him describing the absolute truth. By contrast, your point that you can't chill out together because one's a tasty human and one's a hungry tiger would be an example of a relative truth.

Nahm doesn't really care about debating scientific facts (as these are relative truths) because his real motivations are to bring you to recognise the absolute truth (and make you smile in the process).

So all he's really up to is using whatever relative truths you share and imply (e.g. ""xyz" is what would really happen") as a way to point you to recognise that none of those will ever be the absolute truth of the matter. 

The great thing about recognising absolute truth is that doing so instantly solves all of your problems forever. In contrast, we can know as many relative truths as we ever will, but, in being relative to a specific/particular set of circumstances, relative truths can never be enough to solve all problems under all circumstances. Because life continually presents us with new circumstances with new problems in them, it is imperative that we recognise that solutions that come from the mind (which are always relative to the circumstances in which the mind finds itself, has found itself in the past or could find itself in the future) do not and can not solve all problems conclusively, and so embark on the quest for the one true final solution: recognising the absolute truth.

On the other hand, because the absolute truth is absolutely true under all circumstances, it solves all problems to the recogniser instantly upon recognition. It's like how when you're happy you don't need to recognise that you're happy because you just are. That's the case for people who've recognised absolute truth. They pretty much get to live in a personal heaven in which problems no longer even appear to exist at all whilst the only thing that does appear to exist to them is the absolute truth (which feels similar to total effortless happiness forever)!

Basically, recognising absolute truth is the only game in town and relative truths are really just a means to that ends.

Nahm wants you to recognise the absolute truth (of which the realization that all things are already in cessation (are already nothing) could hopefully bring you closer to) because when someone recognises the absolute truth, they instantly realize that life is totally good, and they feel nothing but effortless total happiness forever.

I hope this helped, and I apologise to all readers if I got anything wrong or it's unhelpful.

[Nahm]

@softlyblossoming

It’s just a guy talking about animals. 

[RMQualtrough]

@softlyblossoming

 

[VictorB02]

 

33 minutes ago, RMQualtrough said:

@softlyblossoming

 

I was wanting to make a satire exactly like this of how ridiculous some radical non-dualists are. ?

Person: "Hey what's up man"

Radical Nondualist: "Did you just refer to me as an illusionary separate self? Obviously there is no me! God you are so ignorant!"

Edited February 20, 2022 by VictorB02
typo

[Federico del pueblo]

@softlyblossoming

Oh thanks!

That was actually really helpful! ?

[Nahm]

Nondualist & nonduality is a duality. 

? 

 

 

 

? 

[Federico del pueblo]

1 hour ago, softlyblossoming said:

Plus I lowkey had a vested interest in your growth because I wrote so much in that other thread lol 

Yeah you did!  Ah these good old times...

And this is all really good for your Karma ?

[softlyblossoming]

@Federico del pueblo I'm glad it is appreciated, mate! 

One day we'll look back at these long days asking and answering questions on the forum and see how little we knew