Jg17

To us Mahasamadhi is a concept, so regarding that concept of I am querying how it can simultaneously propose a) that the whole universe ends and b) that other people are left behind to verify the mahasamadhi. It must be a concept created by people who have not died and therefore have not directly verified it. The claim is that it amounts to the end of the universe and yet the universe has not ended, so it has never happened? Unless the universe restarts and knowledge of its previous ending can persist, or there is some way to know directly that Mahasamadhi exists without experiencing it, almost as if we have the theory for an atomic bomb but have never detonated.

@Leo Gura You said “While I love the idea of being the first and greatest, I have read reports of a Western guy who attained mahasamadhi from LSD. He was actually meditating in a cave, did a bunch of LSD, and simply left his body for good. A guru in India later verified that the dude left his body and didn't simply die by suicide or overdose. If you believe the stories that is.” This seems illogical. I can appreciate it might be paradoxical but perhaps you can point me to a flaw in my perspective? Elsewhere you have described mahasamadhi as God - as the only being there is - ceasing to imagine the physical universe. If so then there should be no one else left behind to verify, no? Otherwise it is not the whole physical universe which is dissolving, but only one perspective of it, since others still exist to verify another’s mahasamadhi. I believe I heard you say that mahasamadhi means no one is left behind, you bring the whole reality with you. If I’m wrong then by solving the contradiction I might uncover and transcend some hidden assumption. Or maybe I’ve misunderstood something basic. I wonder if you might say something such as I am the only being and I am imagining others. Does that then mean in this universe there has never been a mahasamadhi - only hearsay of it - since i have not done it? It’s tricky stuff...

I did a quick search on this forum and couldn’t find anyone talking about this. The aim is to have one million people in meditation simultaneously. I’m not sure about it myself but I dunno, thought some of you might be interested. more info: http://www.globalpeacemeditation.com/#

I'm not sure what you mean

@Mulky You’re still creating a division between the manifest actions of form and consciousness, implying that consciousness is some different “pure, underlying, true reality”. Form = consciousness, as @Inliytened1 said. Consciousness is the substance of everything, including learning, understanding, creating etc. There are different forms/states of consciousness but it’s all consciousness. The world and all aspects of your personal experience are consciousness.

How exactly do you mean consciousness doesn’t exist?

“Consciousness just observes” is the typical subject/object duality. There’s ultimately no “this” here which watches “that” over there. It’s all observed yet there’s no separate observer. The observer is also an object. Or all objects are identical to the subject. (It can be formulated in different ways.) Notice that the thing which you’re calling the observer is itself observed.

The distinction between man made reality and actual reality is only relatively true. All three levels - the actual reality(1), man made computer game reality(2), game-character-made game within a computer game reality(3) - are aspects of the One Infinite reality. Computer games are in reality. Games within games are - obviously - in games, thus are in reality. All is Reality. A game character cannot create a more advanced game (level 3) within a game (level 2) because (3) is a possibilty implicit in (2). Similarly, the game (2) is a possibility within actual reality(1). In other words, you can't get more infinite than infinite! The character within the game cannot create a new game because everything he does is already part of the original game. Both creating a new game within the game and trying to understand the game he's in are possibile actions within the Infinite Game! Am I making sense?

See the Understanding Duality series if you haven't already. Subject/object is the first duality addressed in part 3.

Great post. Thanks.

@Leo Gura "The cause & effect chains of nature are impossible for your scientists to fully unravel because they were designed by an Infinite Intelligence which struggles to even know itself." Is this to say that Infinite Intelligence is in fact limited - finite - in at least this one way? If it desires to know but doesn't, why? It's similar to the idea that the one thing an omnipotent God lacks is limitation. And from that it follows that our reason for being is to resolve that contradiction? In this way man completes God: We are God, feigning limitation via self-deception, simultaneously finite and Infinite; Infinite in actuality, finite in appearence. And so God's struggle for self-knowledge is not different from mine and your struggle for self-knowledge? 'Can God create a lie so convincing even he is fooled?' seems a better version of 'Can God create a rock so heavy even he can't lift it?' What I'm hearing is that He/we/I did! What about a puzzle so difficult that even He can't solve it? Because that's been my experience thus far! I dunno.

Sorry this is off topic from the thread but @mandyjw I clicked on the link to your channel for no reason and saw your vid titled Nonduality, Humpty Dumpty...”. I had the same ‘insight’ about the rhyme during my contemplation of sameness and difference, a couple weeks ago. I’ve never heard anyone else make the nonduality connection and thought it was quite funny. From my contemplation journal: 2/7/19 “Ha! incredible. It’s [Humpty Dumpty] damn near a 4 line creation myth hahah. Wikipedia says it’s a riddle - think I just solved it :)))” After that I listened to the rhyme on Spotify and heard a second verse with lyrics which were new to me and which add some further symbolic significance: “Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall, he wasn’t pushed and he wasn’t bumped, Humpty Dumpty bungee jumped.” It means God willed it! It was a choice - he didn’t slip unintentionally, he jumped. And he’s safe, he knew it was safe, he had the bungee cord tied to him all along, though it won’t feel like that while he’s falling I also associated this with the fall of Adam.

If I say I’m going to throw a chair at you then I’m not going to throw a banana at you. If I say I’m going to throw God at you, it could be the chair or the banana

@SOUL Everything other than a chair is the absence of a chair. Dual means two and “chair” implies theres something that is a chair and something that isn’t. This isn’t the case for God.

@Rilles He can’t appeal to every personality at once. Think of how many people weren’t interested even before he spoke about spirituality. Nothing could be inviting for everyone. Some will resonate and some won’t. It doesn’t seem like you’re criticising “devil” because it inaccurately describes the phenomena. You said it’s offensive and open to misinterpretation. I think those are the responsibility of the listener, not the speaker.

That’s a very abstract question. It depends on the context: how the word is used / in what sentence, who is talking and who is listening, and on the speakers intent and the listeners interpretation.@Rilles which is more offensive, pig or Neanderthal?

@Rilles ego and survival machine are equally tainted or misleading terms, as is God. One has to use the language that’s available. The essence isn’t in the words anyway. There’s no perfect word that wouldn’t spawn misinterpretation.

@SOUL every concept is dualistic. Every word points to a section of reality and simultaneously defines what is not that thing. If you’re going to speak you are going to be speaking in dualism. Devil is a useful concept if you will stop denying its intended meaning. Truth is already true. Not saying anything doesn’t help beginners. How useful would a 90 minute video of Leo in silence be? There’s already plenty of silence! Concepts hook your interest and hopefully goad you into transcending them via practices / realisation. The nondual truth is already true. Dualistic concepts serve as aids or stepping stones to transcend dualism for yourself.

@SOUL God loves devils. God doesn’t moralise. It’s all God. Devils are God imagining they’re not God. Leo uses “Devil” in a precise way, not to call people bad.