Tim R

Member
  • Content count

    599
  • Joined

  • Last visited

5 Followers

About Tim R

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

562 profile views
  1. In that case one mustn't claim that which can't be disproved to be true. That's right! But that's not the same as saying "nothing outside your awareness exists". Because "your" awareness extends into infinity. It doesn't stop at the walls of your bubble. The "bubble" is egoic projection. It's projecting the ego (sense of "I") onto perception which one has confused with consciousness. That's how (elaborate) solipsism works. Yes, perception is bound by consciousness (aka existence), but not the other way round.
  2. This is my (attempt of) constructive critique of some of the fundamental assumptions that Leo makes and that some people on this forum share (or simply believe to be true because Leo said so). It also ties in nicely with solipsism, which is for many on this forum an issue because they basically feel themselves trapped inside their head. The claim that I want to deal with is: "nothing outside you consciousness/awareness exists." I think that's not true. Not so long ago there was a thread about "does my kitchen still exist when I'm not in it?" The problem at hand is of course whether the world exist outside you're "bubble" (as Leo likes to call it (see his video on "guided exercises for realizing that you're god")) or not. This "bubble" consists of: your entire sensory field. You're visual field, your auditory experience, etc. And outside this bubble there seems to be nothing at all. This is where I disagree. I say: only because we're not conscious/aware of something, that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. To think that the bubble is the whole universe is confusing perception with consciousness. Let me give you an example: only because from a visual (sensory) point of view you're not aware of your head, that doesn't mean that your head doesn't exist. Because for example you can feel your head with your fingers. So this means, that your sensory experience of something is not a 100% reliable source for truth. Because you can get into all sorts of illusions. When you look at the waves that a pebble makes when you throw it into a pond, you're experience tells you that the water is flowing away. Until you put a leaf on the waves and realize that the water is simply going up and down. When you look at the moon, it looks like a circle. It's not a circle, it's a sphere. But you're "direct experience" tells you that it's a circle. It only looks like it's a circle. Equally, only because you can't perceive your kitchen, that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It exists, but you can't perceive it. Just like UV-radiation exists, but you can't perceive it. Or the gravitational pull of Alpha Centauri on your body; you can't perceive it, and yet it exists. If consciousness is the ground of existence, you don't have to be aware of your kitchen because the kitchen is aware of itself. And so forth, the whole Universe (outside your little bubble) exists because it is aware of itself. I believed in solipsism for quite a while and it seemed very persuading to me that your bubble is the whole universe. But now I'm starting to entertain the idea that Leo has overlooked this very subtle step from limited, solipsistic perception to consciousness and is now confusing one with the other. I think he has developed a very elaborate form of solipsism that rests on assumptions that one simply can't disprove (like "imagining" everything), but solipsism nonetheless. And I think "the bubble" aka Solipsism is also an illusion. Consciousness encompasses more that your bubble. In fact, there's no bubble. It only looks like there's one. Leo's highest source of truth is direct experience and he relies on that and nothing but that - there I think he fell into a trap. And this is a very tricky trap because it can make literally every illusion look like it's valid (aka not an illusion, but truth), as I showed to you. Doesn't have to, but can (and does). After all, if @Leo Gura really believed the bubble to be true, why shoot the videos? To whom are you talking? Nobody? Yes, but "nobody" in what sense? The sense that we don't exist because you can't see/hear/smell/taste (aka "aren't conscious" of) us? Of course you're conscious of us! Ok thanks for reading, I'm looking forward to discussion, just please don't let this escalate Love, Tim
  3. @SirVladimir Best of luck to you! Take care
  4. @Preety_India Haha yes, it doesn't explicitly and only mean that. But it also means that. Because if you are rich, you will get richer since you have the means to get richer. And if you're poor, the rich will take what you have because you're poor and they're rich. It's called the "Mathew-Principle" and it's applicable in many, many fields. Art for example: if you're a good artist, you sell well. The better you sell, the more attention you attract. And that sets up a feedback loop by which you'll get more and more famous and successful - equally, any other artist who doesn't do as well, won't be able to keep up with your success and therefore simply drowns in the ocean of competition. "Pareto distribution" is also a key word btw: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution
  5. @Preety_India Mathew 25, 29: "For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away." Welp. That's what happens in late stage capitalism, nothing particularly surprising. They will get even richer lol. Until they have taken everything they could get their greedy paws on - and then this whole structure will simply collapse like a house of cards. When there's nothing to take and nothing to spend, their money will become worthless. Unless they invest in public structures - which would basically be the transition towards a green(er) economy and society.
  6. @StateOfMind What. Sure you did: What do you think of his new album?
  7. Begin: around 9am. End: depends on how much there's to do Can be very difficult. Lab work is demanding work. When in lab: taking samples and solving problems (just doing science basically) When not in lab: studying the theory behind it The whole day
  8. Leo said in an other thread "you can have an infinite number of awakenings" To me this makes his notion of "awakening" meaningless. Like an infinite amount of dollar bills is also completely worthless.
  9. Yes of course I understand that reality is groundless and without limits, but it doesn't make my brain melt. Which is why I think I don't see it yet. Hm. I guess that's the reason I don't recognize it - I have a limited and distinct notion of Infinity in my head which prevents me from actually seeing it.
  10. Ok. I just watched the video Leo shared in his blog today and my brain started to melt after around 6 minutes. For those who haven't seen it yet, here you go: Now here's my question: how on earth could it be possible to become conscious of absolute infinity?! It can't be contained?.. At this point I'm not even sure if I want to become conscious of what is meant by the last Omega Ω Infinity. Infinity = Zero ? Because it has no fixed value since it always escapes, right? But is the experience of Infinity actually the experience of Zero? (sorry if this is getting too theoretical) I don't get it. I don't know whether I want to experience it. It must be the most.... everything. Most everything. If it doesn't bring me closer to liberation - then what's the point? Do you recognize infinity in your daily life?
  11. Just try to be aware of it when it "takes over". It's alright, there's nothing to condemn here. The spiritual ego isn't anything bad, don't forget that! But equally, it isn't anything good. To condemn the spiritual ego is just more ego. So, try to accept it. But only as much as you can. Neither repression nor insincere acceptance will do the trick. Therefore just try to accept it as much as you can.
  12. Nonduality means: this implies that Up implies down. Good implies bad Here implies there Let's take "up implies down" as an example: what is "down"? Not up. What is "up"? Not down. Or "good" and "bad". How do you know what is good unless you also know what is bad? Both constitute each others' existence. The moment you say "this is good" you are implying that something else must be bad. You define "this" in terms of "that" and vice versa. And this principle applies for absolutely everything in the universe.