Emanyalpsid

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    442

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Emanyalpsid

  2. Posted

    Well, today a topic on the forum was closed by Leo. Without the topic breaking any rules and the discussion was in the subforum where it fits. Buddhism holds there is no absolute, this is in contrast with Leo's conviction.

    It seems Leo didn't want us to talk about it further. So he decides what we should and should not talk about, even within the rules of the forum. Thereby, he places himself above us.

    https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/28840-differences-between-hinduism-and-buddhism/

    Then I called him out as to why he did this, in this topic.

    https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/28966-why-did-the-topic-buddhism-hinduism-got-closed/

    This topic got closed also, without an answer.

     

    So the facts;

    - You are not allowed to doubt the absolute (the thing Leo preaches and holds for true)

    - Leo places himself above the rest

    - He does not account for his behavior to the community

     

    You tell me if that is cult-like or not.

  3. Posted · Edited by Emanyalpsid

    6 minutes ago, winterknight said:

    Follow the path and you will find that truth that is beyond words.

    If there is truth, there is non-truth, cause what would this truth be if it were not true?

    Truth beyond words is also supernatural.

    Quote

    No, "beyond nature" is itself a categorical description.

    Yes, of course the words "beyond nature" are. As these words are within nature, which is categorized. If it is not categorized, or beyond experience, it is outside nature or supernatural.

    Thank you for answering my questions, I know enough.

  4. Posted · Edited by Emanyalpsid

    4 minutes ago, winterknight said:

    Yes, there is truth, but it is not opposed to non-truth; non-truth is delusion, actually.

    If there is truth, there is non-truth, cause what would this truth be if it were not true? What is this truth?

    Quote

    No, it is not supernatural. Yes, it is a pointer to something beyond experience.

    If it is beyond categories, it is beyond nature.

     

  5. Posted

    3 minutes ago, winterknight said:

    Understanding can only go so far. So far as Brahman can be understood, I understand it. But the seeker must realize that the Truth goes beyond intellectual understanding.

    Okay, so it can not be explained and can not be understood. What truth? Is there a truth opposed to no-truth?

    3 minutes ago, winterknight said:

    If the Buddhist no-thingness can be fully understood and explained, then it is merely an object. Frankly I doubt that.

    It can be and it is not an object, you can explain the relative. If someone can understand the explanation is something else.

    May I invite you to read my explanations from page 6 in this topic? https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/28840-differences-between-hinduism-and-buddhism/?page=6

    3 minutes ago, winterknight said:

    Technically Brahman is beyond being experienced as well, experience being a category, and Brahman being beyond categories.

    Beyond being experienced? So, it is supernatural, outside nature.

    3 minutes ago, winterknight said:

    And Brahman is also not a name, merely a pointer.

    A pointer to something which is beyond experience?

    3 minutes ago, winterknight said:

    These things can all be only comprehended when the veils have been cleared from the mind...

    My mind is gone, I am fully open-mindedness.

  6. Posted · Edited by Emanyalpsid

    Sorry, I dont want to overload you. Thanks for asking the questions. I am just trying to understand Brahman. But it seems you cant understand it right? You have to experience it? Else, you would have been able to explain what it is. Or you can understand it but you have not understood it.

    To give a bit more background to why I am asking this. I am an enlightened Buddhist, meaning someone who attained nirvana in the buddhist context, and I am just trying to establish the differences between Brahman and what I will call here 'no-thingness' (which is not nothing) following Nirvana in buddhism. You are the only one I know of on this forum who attained enlightenment, in the Advaita vedanta view. Therefore, I hope that you would be able to help shine a light on this Brahman. 

    The no-thingness in buddhism can be understood and explained.

    So either there is a difference between Brahman and no-thingness. Meaning, no-thingness in buddhism can be explained and Brahman not.

    Or there is a difference between our understanding of these and they are the same. Meaning, you dont understand Brahman, but you do experience it.

  10. Posted

    I would like to know why the topic "differences between Buddhism and Hinduism" got closed.

    In the topic we established there are differences. And now we were coming to the heart of the issue you @Leo Gura decide that it has been clearly answered. Do you decide where or what we should talk about in the lines of the subforums and within the rules? Do you decide when something is answered or not?

    Apparently the Buddhism-Hinduism difference is an important aspect in enlightenment. People want to discuss this as there are posts in the topic. Instead of closing it, to me, it seems the topic should even be a pinned topic in the subforum. However, this is not my forum, it is your forum, so I dont decide the structure, form, or the rules.

    But, If someone interferes in a discussion, within this structure, form and rules, he holds himself more important than the public.

  13. Posted · Edited by Emanyalpsid

    10 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

    I think it would be closer to the Truth to say the mind exists within the Absolute, rather than the absolute exists within the mind. 

    This is often a point of confusion with the term "consciousness" and "Consciousness". Relative consciousness is within the mind. The mind is within Absolute Consciousness.

    ...truth... 

    The mind exists within the absolute and the absolute exist within the mind.

    If you can not look passed the mind, you will not see it.

    You are a former scientist if I remember correctly? Then you probably have a strong and resilient mind.

  14. Posted · Edited by Emanyalpsid

    6 hours ago, winterknight said:

    I have general recommendations here and here and in my book. Here are instructions on self-inquiry, suggestions for seekers to get psychoanalytic therapy, and instructions on what I call metaphorization here and here. More stuff on my website generally.

    Ah that is why you are here, I wondered.

    If Brahman or One is always there, even if formless so unable to conceptualize, in the strictest sense of non-duality, this is not non-duality. As this One or Brahman, which can not be conceptualized, is there, opposed to nothing.

    Truth is only in the mind.

  16. Posted · Edited by Emanyalpsid

    9 hours ago, Mu_ said:

    You definatley have awoken to some profound things and perhaps more than I, not sure anyone can say, however I think we, Hinduism and others will have to disagree that what your sharing is the WHOLE shibang.

    Of course, that why they differ and that's why we are talking about it. :) 

    Quote

    It seems, you/Buddhism seem to limit Absolute to be dependent on a mind and said humans independent verification of it which is not verifiable outside the mind, thus its not absolute (reminds me of the classic materialist debate).  Where as I and many others have seen and understood the Truth of whats behind/in/as/that which makes mind possible/this conversation possible/body possible, IS Source/God/Ininfinity, which is never not the case, is You and I and will always be and never not was.  And like your nicely put explanation that the body-mind distinction dissolves, such occurrences can and do happen in waking up to what I and others are talking about when Absolute is understood.  Honestly I don't think it makes That much of a difference, but was fun discussing.  Perhaps I and we better understand why perhaps there has been this Hinduism/Buddhist debate, maybe its hinging on this distinction (I honestly don't know enough about the history of the debate to comment).

     

    Also one last thing we can debate over which I use to take as truth, but question is, you said "This opens up the possibility to look at the flower without interference from the mind. This makes you able to see the flower as it is. You experience no-thing and see reality for what it is."

    Isn't the idea that what ever you call yourself, is seeing said flower as it really is, unclouded from the mind, just an idea?

    Can't conceptualize no-thing.

    Quote

      I mean doesn't Buddhism basically say there is no objective reality out there to be seen? 

    Different eyes see different things.

    Quote

    Theres just one's seeing?  Can one ever really say they see "clearly"?  Isn't This  a distinction that assumes that nothing is going on behind the process of seeing that would interfere in the seeing of said object clearly.  Can one know what they don't know/are aware of, is going on behind the process of seeing?  Even if one could, isn't the seeing clearly just one interpretative lens such as human seeing, and not all versions of seeing/feeling/sensing that are possible within this infinite possible universe?

    I see no-thing, you may see something. Neither is wrong or right. There is mind and no-mind. The important question is; where is suffering?

    Thanks for the connect and sharing btw! Through this discussion my understanding of Hinduism is also deepend, and the way I can explain Buddhism also.

  17. Posted · Edited by Emanyalpsid

    Is it wisdom gained through what you;ve pointed to in Buddhist understanding as everything being relative in relation to something else, conscious/reality, flower/soil/sun/earth, feelings/body/mind.  This wisdom is a no-thing?

    Exactly, this wisdom is a no-thing, it is not something but also not nothing. The thing with no-thing is that you can not conceptually grasp it, as there is no-thing to grasp. If you conceptualize it, you make a distinction, which turns no-thing into something. This wisdom is not gained by understanding, but by becoming aware in reality. Meaning, you have to look at a flower and not think about the flower.

    To relate this to the absolute where you are coming from; In your mind the absolute is there, being the absolute truth/ consciousness/ infinity/ god/ Brahman, however, it only is there in your mind as a direct experience. In your mind you can verify it. Like serotoninluv said;

    Because it is inexplicable. That’s the point. One needs direct experience to realize.

    Outside the mind there is no verification, so the absolute does not exist outside the mind and can therefore not be explained. Now if we look at the mind, is the mind absolute? Is there nothing outside your mind? Of course you only directly experience your mind, but does this mean there are no other minds? If you talk with other people, you realize that there are other minds. So the mind is not absolute.

    If you realize that your mind is not absolute, it is dependent upon something. This something seems to be your body as different minds are in different bodies. This causes the body-mind distinction to dissolve. Now there is no my mind anymore and therefore no distinction between my mind and reality.

    This opens up the possibility to look at the flower without interference from the mind. This makes you able to see the flower as it is. You experience no-thing and see reality for what it is.

     

  18. Posted

    52 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

    This got me thinking of different modes of learning and understanding. We are most familiar with the traditional mode of learning by reading information, thinking, analyzing, discussing thoughts, thinking some more, figuring it out, building concepts etc. 

    Yet, there are other modes of learning and understanding. Other modes that take in information, yet not through words and thinking. This mode utilizes intuition, empathy and emotion.  These modes are inexplicable in words because they are nonverbal modes.

    When the intellect mode and intuition/empathy/emotion mode are misaligned, internal conflict and tension may arise.

    I agree, if you focus too much on the verbal information, you tend to neglect or overlook the non-verbal information. This shifts our 'perception' towards the intellect.

  19. Posted · Edited by Emanyalpsid

    1 hour ago, Mu_ said:

    Yes I do get what your saying and glad you shared it, since  I was trying to expand my understanding of Buddhist thought and realization.  That said, I dont necessarily think its the ultimate or final understanding.  Hell dont even want to say that since it may be impossible to make such a claim. 

    But I think what Seratoninlove is pointing to and perhaps others as well (I agree with them) is there is a recognition that is not relative, that is understood and realized (and yes within the human form), that is termed nothingness/infinity/god/nondual in Hinduism I believe and other practices which isn't clear you actually understand or have seen, perhaps since your awaking is just enough and you no longer need/want to seek more (your questions have been answered, your awake and happy, and that is fine), but none the less doesn't mean you've seen and understood everything. 

    Yes this is the absolute in the relative of human form. If something is absolute, it is not non-dual as it is something opposed to nothing.

    Quote

    Then again you later made a comment that alluded to the nothingness that you leave unlabeled is the same as what Seratonin/others/me are talking about, and "maybe" it is, but if you don't understand or see that this nothingness/infinity/nondualness is the source and ground of it all, is in everything and is You and I and is not relative, is and always was the source, then no its not the same.  It really may not be that important honestly since the understanding doesn't create happiness and freedom necessarily, its just more knowledge and Truth.  So if your happy and understand reality to the degree your happy with and can help others, do so, just keep an open mind there is always more, and in this case, there is this piece of Truth you haven't understood, which again, doesn't mean you need/have to.

    If I referred to nothingness, I meant no-thingness. Which is literally no-thing, but also not nothing. It is relative and therefore unlabeable as it is no-thing.

    If truth arises, no truth or belief arises. Truth is only truth opposed to no truth or belief. As knowledge is only knowledge opposed to no knowledge. It is just a creation of the self trying to label something, by labeling it. The self is very stubborn and tries to hold onto things by trying to label something to identify to. To have a sense of grip, an illusion to be in control of your consciousness as being something out there as a source. You can identify with a so-called truth or knowledge. This truth or knowledge only exist in the mind.

    This mind is open for everything. :) I can put any truth in it, but it will only be my truth. I can put any knowledge in it, but it would only be my knowledge. Absolute in the relativity of my mind. The truth is in my mind and the belief is outside my mind. The knowledge is in my mind and no knowledge is outside my mind. My mind can verify things, therefore claim a truth, outside my mind there is no verification, therefore no truth or belief.

  20. Posted

    The irony on this forum is that a lot of people are pointing to the absolute and say you have to experience it to know it, without having any explanation to what it is.

    Which makes it almost the same as a religion like Christianity. Besides this, these people on this forum, who point to this absolute, behave and react as if they hold the absolute truth, however they cant explain it.

    I can explain everything, however, I do not claim to any truth.

  21. Posted · Edited by Emanyalpsid

    I worked my way through some, but I was fortunate to not be deluded by different non-duality interpretations and by some half-ass advice from people who are somewhere on the path, but dont know which path and dont know where they are. That would only have confused me and I would most likely had not attained Nirvana by now.

    If you stick to a paved path you have a good chance to reach the top. If you are trying to make the path for yourself, you end up somewhere, but this most likely will not be the top. Then you are trying to become buddha by yourself.  But everybody should do what they please. 

     

  22. Posted · Edited by Emanyalpsid

    Sadly, the several users dont understand what I am saying. Only Mu_ seems to understand my messages. The dependent origin goes beyond the absolute, meaning you let the absolute go. The absolute is something opposed to nothing, so you are still something (!). In Nirvana, in the buddhist context, there is complete emptiness, which is not something, it is no-thing, but this is not nothing. Everything becomes relative, meaning non-existence. This is not no existence. It is a place between existence and no existence, in the relative space in between. This no-thing is between something and nothing. There is non-perception, which resides between perception and no perception.

    This something and nothing are explained by dependent arising, like distinction and no-distinction, etc. 

    So, I understand and know what you are pointing to, but I am trying to explain how a buddhist sees this. However, none of you seem to be listening or are open to hear what I say, besides Mu_. You are pointing to this absolute, and I am saying; I see this absolute but look at this.

    I don't make it personal, I am just a human being, so a lot of behaviour I can tolerate and some I can not. We are social creatures, thats why we are here. :)

     

  23. Posted · Edited by Emanyalpsid

    57 minutes ago, p1xelmonk said:

    lol claims to have attained literal nirvana while posting such snide, ego-fueled remarks on internet forums. actualized.org/forum is such a goldmine. go spend your time and energy doing something actually impactful is that's where you're at.

    :) And how should one behave after attaining Nirvana, according to you hmm? Look I have compassion for the guy, just as I have compassion for a murderer, this however does not mean I should tolerate all their behaviour. This was just me saying; Leo stfu if your only trying to defend your truth, without giving any further explanation than saying everything is absolute and do drugs to see it, and leave no room for the possibility your truth might be up for debate, without me actually saying this. Cause if I would say this directly to him, I would get banned. He does not want to hear he might be wrong as he is right. Its his forum, so I should conform to his rules. Therefore, I stopped into the direction he did not want me to go.

    This thread is discussing the known differences between Hinduism and Buddhism, which there are, elsethey would not be different. So to claim they are not, without knowing what buddhism is really about, meaning what nirvana constitutes in a buddhist context, is just being close-minded or one-eyed.

    However, we are al in this together and I celebrate Leo for a lot of interesting videos he made and starting up this website, he is really doing the work. In every good marriage there are tougher periods, but we are going somewhere here. Ill post a nice tune to lighten up the mood.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI1Xe1sAPgY

  24. Posted

    On 10-12-2018 at 4:50 PM, QandC said:

    @Beeflamb You do not hear or read between the lines

    He is pointing towards the moon but you're looking at the finger. Actualized is the total opposite of a cult, because that is dogma

    The best way to explain "Leo's" work for us is Nothingness in words, in a modern way to make it understandable

    It is not so complicated to be honest, and still super complicated

    When I read many of these posts on this forum I don't know whether I wanna laugh or cry, so many are so far away from what is really being said. 

    The dogma here is absolute. If you claim something else than absolute, you will find a moderator or Leo to come and correct you pretty fast.

  25. Posted

    On 10-12-2018 at 4:44 PM, Beeflamb said:

    Or is this type of content at such a high level that everyday society has no means of grasping this information and simply labels it as a cult society?

     

    What I've learned here at actualized has been very eye-opening and impactful in a way that lower level self-help has failed and failed. I feel lifted. Yet I find some outside sources trying to expose actualized.org which again makes me question my mental changes.

     

    Perhaps I am putting too much of my faith into Leo after watching hours of his content, but it really sticks. Leo.... are you a master manipulator, or are we really living above and beyond the others?

    I think a distinction can be made between the self-help and the spiritual (enlightenment etc.) part. The self-help is grounded in the physical world and offers a lot of help with coping and flowering in the world. This is not really up to debate. 

    The spiritual part however is grounded in the mental world. There are different views on enlightenment and Leo, and a lot of people in this community, hold that there is an absolute, which is consciousness and everything is in this. In that sense, they are denying the physical world to exist out of material. For them the absolute is truth and the rest is wrong. This view clashes with other views on enlightenment and that is why other people want to 'expose' actualized. Everybody thinks they are right and others, who think or perceives things differently, are wrong. Some claim the truth and the rest looks for the truth. However, you could also grow plants or go fishing.