Death is akin to a DMT trip

[AtheisticNonduality]

@RendHeaven You have a little misinterpretation at the beginning of the cascade. In the previous thread I linked, I claimed Emptiness was "larger" and more ontologically expansive than form.

"I'm conscious that form and formlessness are the same, but I have the sense that formlessness is 'larger' because space can't confine it.

The Emptiness is in my field of experience, yet there's also Emptiness outside the border of vision.

If Emptiness has the entire realm of space and time and conception and thoughts plus more, it seems more profound than form (and this was not logically deduced; it's something I actually have access to; my senses/experience are like an island in an ocean of Emptiness or a Void).

I can't imagine a Self without Emptiness holding all of reality, including form, together."

Leo replied and said that Emptiness could not be beyond form since both were completely identical.

And then here Leo became inconsistent when he said Consciousness goes beyond space and time (obviously because this contradicts his claim Emptiness can't transcend form). With the Platonic analogy of gold and shapes, we have to drop the qualities of color. It is simply a fact that Consciousness is Emptiness, is completely transparent. This is the permanent Nothingness that escapes transience but which permeates it. The main part you're attacking in your response is where I took some of the truth of the principle Leo established to upend its supposed denial of space and time. He or you might say that Consciousness unifying with space and time destroys their reality because reality is singular and cannot allow for multiples, but I could equally say as a demonstrable and irrefutable theorem that Consciousness = Reality and Consciousness = its manifestations, therefore its manifestations = Reality = Real. The individual forms are real even though they are the same ontological entity or eventually go by a single name.

55 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

When you really get it, you will be unable to utter such statements as the one I highlighted above in red.

The issue this all points to is that Leo's primary frustration/difficulty here is that a microscopic fraction of the people here have awakened, to match his standards. And he sees them speaking about things with which they have no direct experience, so he attempts to sidestep this by saying, "No, that doesn't exist!" Rather than engaging in actual philosophy. The concern is that all of these statements, like those of space denialism or time denialism, will get believed (which is concerning since they aren't true, or are at least partial truths) or used to misinterpret the whole system and drag people off into a trap in the darkness instead of pulling them along the correct path.

I've said previously that people finding this project hundreds of years after Leo's death will need some definite work to hold on to or a masterpiece (magnus opus for the summum bonum) to read and understand every truth, every position, every piece. That's why the systematizing is important.

[RendHeaven]

3 hours ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

Leo replied and said that Emptiness could not be beyond form since both were completely identical.

This is a proper response, since whatever distinction you approached him with is self-made and arbitrary...

3 hours ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

And then here Leo became inconsistent when he said Consciousness goes beyond space and time (obviously because this contradicts his claim Emptiness can't transcend form).

This is not a contradiction, since he does not strictly equate Emptiness and Consciousness. When Leo uses the words: "Consciousness" "God" "Love" "Infinity" or "You" he speaks of an infinity beyond infinity which mere "emptiness" does not faithfully represent. There's a reason that, if you were to ask him: What is real? What is truth? He answers you with "Consciousness" as opposed to "Emptiness" or "Void." That's not to say that any of these are different substances. It's all the same Oneness. It's merely a matter of - how fully have I realized this Oneness in state and speech? If you are under the impression that Emptiness is the greatest Whole, it is likely that you are still missing Consciousness.

3 hours ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

With the Platonic analogy of gold and shapes, we have to drop the qualities of color. It is simply a fact that Consciousness is Emptiness, is completely transparent. This is the permanent Nothingness that escapes transience but which permeates it.

Yes! Good catch. The next paragraph after the part I previously quoted reads: "For were [the underlying substance] similar to any of the entering forms, on receiving forms of an opposite or wholly different kind, as they arrived, it would copy them badly, through obtruding its own visible shape. Wherefore it is right that the substance which is to receive within itself all the kinds should be void of all forms [...] So likewise it is right that the substance which is to be fitted to receive frequently over its whole extent the copies of all things intelligible and eternal should itself, of its own nature, be void of all the forms."

But also, careful with the statement "Consciousness is Emptiness." Maybe it's not a strict equality. Maybe Consciousness has all the properties of Emptiness + something more. How would you know?

3 hours ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

Consciousness = Reality and Consciousness = its manifestations, therefore its manifestations = Reality = Real. The individual forms are real even though they are the same ontological entity or eventually go by a single name.

Sorry man I feel like I'm beginning to sound redundant.

You know what - if I were to be ultra-precise, your reflections have truth from within whatever state of consciousness you put forth your assertions from. Your project continually seems to be - giving an Absolute quality to otherwise relative appearances. The fact that they appeared at all in this sea of Oneness makes them true for you. This framing reminds me of a passage I love by author Zadie Smith, who writes: "Suffering is not relative; it is absolute. Suffering has an absolute relation to the suffering individual - it cannot easily be mediated by a third term like 'privilege. If it could, the CEO's daughter would never starve herself, nor the movie idol ever put a bullet in his own brain." I found this fascinating and somewhat true despite the ultimately relative nature of suffering. This is one of those mindfucky moments when the absolute and the relative appear to bleed into each other. Perfectly true from certain states - but perhaps not true in ALL states.

I will continue to insist that if you alter your state of consciousness radically enough, everything you advocate for here in this thread will burn away into laughter and silence reverence. You will laugh at yourself for ever speaking on the reality or unreality of things as though your words meant anything

3 hours ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

I've said previously that people finding this project hundreds of years after Leo's death will need some definite work to hold on to or a masterpiece (magnus opus for the summum bonum) to read and understand every truth, every position, every piece. That's why the systematizing is important.

IMO Leo's trajectory is perfect. His message could not be clearer, for those meant to hear his message. Reality is Infinite, and it is You. Anything else he ever says is in service of getting you to grok this. The details frankly don't matter. People in the future do not need Leo's airtight meta-construct-logic-web. Leo himself doesn't want this. Have you seen his most recent upload here? He elegantly argues that perhaps he should deliberately involve falsehoods in his teachings, for this may awaken you more than a spotless teaching. Leo doesn't give a fuck about technical precision anymore - his concerns are way beyond that.

Edited July 20, 2022 by RendHeaven

[Razard86]

13 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Careful, existence is not a concept. It's an Absolute.

Once you realize that you are not any specific form, but existence itself, then you exist absolutely and become immortal.

The only reason I know this is true is because of my car accident. I felt like my body was within me and I was dragging it with my will. My body felt dead. So I know this is true.

[thisintegrated]

On 19/07/2022 at 11:15 PM, thisintegrated said:

omg why you guys overcomplicating this so much.

Space and time are products of consciousness.  No consciousness = no space and time.

Again.

[AtheisticNonduality]

1 hour ago, RendHeaven said:

This is a proper response, since whatever distinction you approached him with is self-made and arbitrary...

There is a hypocrisy here, which in philosophical logic is a self-refutation. For each one, you'll get a hypocrisy point.

But first of all, the distinction between Emptiness and form (or capitalized Form if you'd like) is not arbitrarily created. It's created because they are distinct in reality, outside of the conceptual mind, experientially, directly experientially. I have form, and that form is Emptiness. I also have non-form, Emptiness qua Emptiness, which is outside of form. If Emptiness covers the entire breadth of the formed world (of perceptions, the physical, the mental, in all senses and human faculties) in addition to being totally outside of that, we necessarily conclude Emptiness is ontologically more comprehensive or wider, since it is completely immanent (spanning the realm Everythingness) and transcendent (being retreated into itself with no form there). This is not conceptually invented; this is "seen" with the eyes of its own witnessing, its own self-defining and self-revealing. My visual field is Nothingness with form; outside my visual field's boundaries (we are claiming the existence of boundaries because they are consequential) is Nothingness with Nothingness alone. Though all of this is able to be seen as nondualistic.

I of course said before that denying this transcendence of Emptiness outside of form (because it supposedly violates the principle of Oneness, even though we speak of one thing over there and another over here all the time and don't think that distinction is ultimately a denial of reality) becomes self-refuting when you emphasize the transcendence of Consciousness outside of form (form = the qualities that adhere to space and time). The only way for Consciousness to transcend form is to be Emptiness, since that which is Emptiness is the only existence that might assume any formed finite existence, is the only Infinite existence through its boundlessness that is compatible with all bounds.

But perhaps the stated transcendence does not place Consciousness outside of what we call the space and the time; it only denies their multiplicity with an oppressive unity. And yet the forms exist in their unity, as images, as people, as the sky, as such as what you are.

Quote

This is not a contradiction, since he does not strictly equate Emptiness and Consciousness. When Leo uses the words: "Consciousness" "God" "Love" "Infinity" or "You" he speaks of an infinity beyond infinity which mere "emptiness" does not faithfully represent. There's a reason that, if you were to ask him: What is real? What is truth? He answers you with "Consciousness" as opposed to "Emptiness" or "Void." That's not to say that any of these are different substances. It's all the same Oneness. It's merely a matter of - how fully have I realized this Oneness in state and speech? If you are under the impression that Emptiness is the greatest Whole, it is likely that you are still missing Consciousness.

It depends on what direction you're traveling in. Emptiness transcends form. Yet you could also have a form that excites itself to such a degree it becomes (realized as) an infinite form, going up in intensity of form. But ultimately Consciousness must be Emptiness and Emptiness must be Consciousness, both the same Infinite unities and One set of infinities.

He answers with "Consciousness" out of his own bias. I would not use the word "Consciousness" because it is potentially a conflation with the lowercase consciousness of just humankind. What psychological aspects belong to is consciousness; what the highest reaches of mysticism belong to is Consciousness. There is a terminological mess, part of the case for proper systematization.

He also needs to more carefully explain the Love and Infinity and You, systematically, not just with ambiguities in this case and definitely not with intentional falsehoods . . .

Quote

But also, careful with the statement "Consciousness is Emptiness." Maybe it's not a strict equality. Maybe Consciousness has all the properties of Emptiness + something more. How would you know?

Go cannot get around Emptiness. This statement is a bit concerning. As if you don't have it in your direct awareness and don't actually know what it is. Reading about Platonic philosophy won't suffice, but as a logical pointer, Emptiness cannot not exist in forms, cannot not be in Consciousness either, because it is the very ground of nonexistence and existence themselves. If something doesn't exist, it has no form and is in Emptiness, and if everything doesn't exist, it has no form and is in Emptiness; and if something does exist, it must still be Emptiness because whatever is its boundary will not have a clear demarcation to separate it from Emptiness because Emptiness does not subscribe to boundaries (though it exists as only itself outside boundaries); and it must still be Emptiness because there is absolutely nothing that could remove it from form and there is nothing in form that could deny Emptiness' reign and ocean surrounding-ness.

Quote

Your project continually seems to be - giving an Absolute quality to otherwise relative appearances.

You are giving an otherwise Absolute quality a relative appearance (and getting your second hypocrisy point by the way). The first step is living and thinking in the relative world, distinguishing things for pragmatism and instinct. The second step is realizing the Absolute and differentiating it from the relative, seeing how it is different from the relative in basic existence and principles and consequence. But the third step is realizing that differentiation was a mental construction, because that is how humans make sense of phenomena as well as the highest phenomena, and that there is an Absoluteness that allows for no border at all between the Absolute and the relative. The only border that can exist here is between your conception of the Absolute and your conception of the relative, not an Absolute separate from one of its creations, for if an Absolute were separate from one of its creations, it would not really be Absolute; or the creation would not exist at all and be "illusory" or "Maya" or whatnot, which is incoherent since something which exists necessarily exists. There is is an absurdity of something that exists which does not exist. This is why I maintain the supposition of the "illusion" of reality is itself, in a way, the real illusion because it is an inaccurate statement about reality's structure.

Or this can all be overcome by admitting the existence of space and time, however deceptive or illusory at first before we grasp it better.

Quote

IMO Leo's trajectory is perfect. His message could not be clearer, for those meant to hear his message. Reality is Infinite, and it is You. Anything else he ever says is in service of getting you to grok this. The details frankly don't matter. People in the future do not need Leo's airtight meta-construct-logic-web. Leo himself doesn't want this. Have you seen his most recent upload here? He elegantly argues that perhaps he should deliberately involve falsehoods in his teachings, for this may awaken you more than a spotless teaching. Leo doesn't give a fuck about technical precision anymore - his concerns are way beyond that.

Technical precision will become more important the more falseness corrupts the higher level of reality we'll be accessing.

[AtheisticNonduality]

6 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

Again.

no

[thisintegrated]

3 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

no

Why must you turn every thread into a masturbatorium??

The ideas discussed in this thread are simple.  Yet you're making them sound complicated for no reason.

Edited July 21, 2022 by thisintegrated

[AtheisticNonduality]

3 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

Why must you turn every thread into a masturbatorium??

The ideas discussed in this thread are simple.  Yet you're making them sound complicated for no reason.

You said Consciousness and space and time exist together dependently.

Leo literally does not believe in the exist of space.

Or time.

Additionally, you didn't address any of his claims.

Because you deal in low amounts of information only.

[thisintegrated]

 

34 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

You said Consciousness and space and time exist together dependently.

Leo literally does not believe in the exist of space.

Or time.

Additionally, you didn't address any of his claims.

afaik Leo has the same perspective on this as me.  Though he doesn't really talk about it.

Space can't exist for anyone without time.

At any one moment, all that can be visually experienced is some "pixels" on a "screen".  This, by itself, can never result in "space".  Space is only possible when there is "change", and the previous state is given a reference point.

All there is is experience.  Any underlying logic behind reality is just that.  Logic.  Not anything real.  When you're dreaming, logic doesn't come into play at any point during the dream.

 

34 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

Because you deal in low amounts of information only.

wat

[RendHeaven]

3 hours ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

which in philosophical logic is a self-refutation. For each one, you'll get a hypocrisy point.

You're lost. Godspeed.

[RendHeaven]

3 hours ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

But the third step is realizing that differentiation was a mental construction, because that is how humans make sense of phenomena as well as the highest phenomena, and that there is an Absoluteness that allows for no border at all between the Absolute and the relative.

Actually, I agree. This is what I speak of. You do not currently have this. It is evident in your speech.

You have relative ideas and nothing else. You own a map about everything which claims to not be a map.

Let's shut up and do the work. 

[AtheisticNonduality]

@thisintegrated This guy @RendHeaven thinks there's a difference between the Absolute and the relative. Also he hasn't even attained Emptiness yet.

13 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

Space can't exist for anyone without time.

He does not believe in time, thereby causing him to not believe in space, which is nonsense. You could say be or because both points in time are the same, or both points in space are the same, therefore an ultimate change never truly occurs. Yet, a change does occur. Space and time exist. Any of this spatiotemporal denialism is just a semantic failure, or self-contradictory.

Edited July 21, 2022 by AtheisticNonduality

[thisintegrated]

30 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

@thisintegrated This guy @RendHeaven thinks there's a difference between the Absolute and the relative. Also he hasn't even attained Emptiness yet.

He does not believe in time, thereby causing him to not believe in space, which is nonsense. You could say be because both points in time are the same, or both points in space are the same, therefore an ultimate change never truly occurs. Yet, a change does occur. Space and time exist. Any of this spatiotemporal denialism is just a semantic failure, or self-contradictory.

Space exists in the same way space exists within your computer's OS, or inside a video game.  So "kinda, but not really".

[AtheisticNonduality]

1 hour ago, thisintegrated said:

Space exists in the same way space exists within your computer's OS, or inside a video game.  So "kinda, but not really".

I take full responsibility for the existence of space lol

[Someone here]

If a tree falls in the woods .....

[axiom]

@RendHeaven You've got a talent for dissecting metaphysical puzzles with an exceedingly rare linguistic fluency and creativity. Very impressed. 

[RendHeaven]

5 hours ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

@thisintegrated This guy @RendHeaven thinks there's a difference between the Absolute and the relative. Also he hasn't even attained Emptiness yet.

@appealtothirdpartyentityforthesecondtimethisthread this guy thinks he's actually talking to someone other than himself ?

Edit: I mean this lightheartedly

Edited July 21, 2022 by RendHeaven

[AtheisticNonduality]

@RendHeaven Aurobindo summarizes your view well as:

"Since the knowledge of the One is Knowledge and the knowledge of Many is Ignorance, there can be, in a rigidly analytical and dialectical view, nothing but pure opposition between the things denoted by the two terms; there is no essential unity between them, no reconciliation possible. Therefore Vidya alone is Knowledge, Avidya is pure Ignorance; and, if pure Ignorance takes a positive form, it is because it is not merely a not-knowing of Truth, but a creation of illusions and delusions, of seemingly real unrealities, of temporarily valid falsehoods.  Obviously then, the object matter of Avidya can have no true and abiding existence; the Many are an illusion, the world has no real being. Undoubtedly it has a sort of existence while it lasts, as a dream has or the long-continued hallucination of a delirious or a demented brain, but no more. The One has not become and can never become Many; the Self has not and cannot become all these existences; Brahman has not manifested and cannot manifest a real world in itself: it is only the Mind or some principle of which Mind is a result that thrusts names and forms upon the featureless unity which is alone real, and being essentially featureless, cannot manifest real feature and variation; or else, if it manifests these things, then that is a temporal and temporary reality which vanishes and is convicted of unreality by the illumination of true knowledge."

And yet:

". . . the later exaggerated idea of absolute separation from the true truth of Self and Spirit, of an original illusion, of a consciousness that can be equated with dream or with hallucination, did not at first enter into the Vedantic conception of the Ignorance. If in the Upanishads it is declared that the man who lives and moves within the Ignorance, wanders about stumbling like a blind man led by the blind and returns ever to the net of Death which is spread wide for him, it is also affirmed elsewhere in the Upanishads that he who follows after the Knowledge only, enters as if into a blinder darkness than he who follows after the Ignorance and that the man who knows Brahman as both the Ignorance and the Knowledge, as both the One and the Many, as both the Becoming and the Non-Becoming, crosses by the Ignorance, by the experience of the Multiplicity, beyond death and by the Knowledge takes possession of Immortality."

This is The Life Divine pg. 508.

[Matthew85]

@Someone here If your desire to know is strong enough and you are willing to put in the disciplined work, you can learn to project your consciousness out of your body. Then you won't have to speculate about what happens when we die, you will know. 

Awakening and death are two completely different things. 

[RendHeaven]

On 7/22/2022 at 10:45 AM, AtheisticNonduality said:

Aurobindo summarizes your view well as:

I have no view!

but thanks for the charitable follow up