What are the implications of Leo's claims about God?

[SpectrumDT]

10 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

He's not saying that, he's saying that he's seen a video of Leo and isn't sure if it's all b.s. He says that he is sure that it is possible to access mystical states and that Leo's advice is valuable for that, but that his description of God is the same as nothing.

 

23 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

 

For me, what the guy is asking is: if those statements are something that you know rationally, but that they mean nothing more on a real level than something that you know, it is the same as not knowing them, since knowing means absolutely nothing.

Let's see what he says 

Yes. As far as I understand, the only thing Leo really says in the video is: It is possible to achieve exotic states of consciousness. Everything else that Leo says in the video, as far as I can tell, is just attempts to describe how those exotic states of consciousness are like.

If Leo says that in certain states of mind you can get the feeling that you are identical with God, who in turn is identical with everything and with nothing, then sure. I buy that. I'm sure it's possible to reach such states of mind, and I'm sure that such experiences can be very worthwhile.

But near the end of the video (as far as I understand), Leo stresses the distinction between true insights and delusions. I don't understand this distinction. What is the difference between having a true insight that I am identical with God and having a delusion that I am identical with God? If they are both purely states of mind, what is the difference?

Put in another way: Let's imagine two fictional universes. In universe 1, it is possible to achieve the states of mind that Leo describes, and the "insights" you get are true. In universe 2, it is also possible to achieve the states of mind that Leo describes, but the "insights" are delusions.

What is the difference between universe 1 and 2? What could a person in universe 1 do or experience which a person in universe 2 could not do or experience and vice versa?

[Breakingthewall]

2 hours ago, SpectrumDT said:

Put in another way: Let's imagine two fictional universes. In universe 1, it is possible to achieve the states of mind that Leo describes, and the "insights" you get are true. In universe 2, it is also possible to achieve the states of mind that Leo describes, but the "insights" are delusions.

What is the difference between universe 1 and 2? What could a person in universe 1 do or experience which a person in universe 2 could not do or experience and vice versa?

8 hours ago, Razard86 said:

 

 

 

I would say that the two universes would be apparently defined, finite, otherwise they would not be universes, and ultimately infinite, since nothing can really be limited because that which limits it should in turn be limited, and so on to infinity.

then, you can have finite insights into the finite appearance, and infinite insights into the infinite appearance. What you cannot do is have finite and defined insights about the infinite, since they would automatically be false. and infinite insights cannot be translated into the structured and finite mind because then they would become finite. Infinite insights are unthinkable, they can only occur in the current moment, if you expand your mind and free yourself from structures.

In short, everything that is said about infinite reality is limited, and therefore false by definition.

[UnbornTao]

It's a matter of personal understanding. Have several direct consciousness otherwise all of this is nonsense. 

If it's true when directly realized that won't help you get laid or make you rich but it's what's true.