PolyPeter

the mushrooms can tell you how! but you have to be nice and ask politely.

First step: you are awareness, you are the witness of experience Second step: you are that in which all experience arises third one: we are all one, things and people. one, single, reality. Your reasoning is stepping in the way of knowing this directly osaid

in order to perceive the world in a subject-object relationship, distinctions must be imagined. but this does not contradict the fact that the source of the imagination is infinity itself, with no opposites.

There is what it Appears to be, and there is what it Actually is. When you make the distinction between them two, it does not make BOTH of them actually real. Maybe you are confusing concepts in your mind and truth itself.

Furthermore, You can dream that you are in reality and that you are not dreaming that you are in reality. Also, you can imagine that in this reality, you go to sleep, have a crazy dream, wake up, and live an entire life. Only to, at some point, realize that you can also remember that you were dreaming it up all along.

But in the limit, both higher and lower consciousness would be part of the same infinite consciousness.

Ohh...

"But Leo, the dream I had last night was loosey goosey! this reality right now feels real, and no crazy things are happening" This is the first thing that people tell me when I tell them reality is like a dream. Even though I know it is, I would love to know what could be a good reply to this.

Aha, so if you are not a materialist, what do you think reality is made of ? how does nothing "an entity" create a simulation ? how did you come to this conclusion, you seem pretty certain of it.

Are you a materialist?

there are plenty of arguments against why reality (God) cannot be a simulation A simulation has the characteristics of a logical system. God is not a logical system.

let me guess... ANOTHER SIMULATION!!!

hahaha no! for you to say something like this, you have to also make a distinction between what is a simulation and what is not a simulation also, what does it even mean to say that god is the simulation?

Hello there!!! I hope you are all doing epic. I am concerned about the quality of all of this work in the love domain. What I sense, is that after having watched many many hours of Leo's content, I ended up feeling mistreated. I am willing to try and understand your points of view on this, since I deeply value and enjoy most of the very advanced explanations and topics. I would not be the human I am today had I not come across the content on YouTube, and that is truly amazing, for the better. But today, I found that the style itself is a little bit not so gentle. I don't really know how to put it in words, but it feels like Leo is mad at humanity for not being awake enough, and I contrast this communication style in particular against Rupert Spira's style. I appreciate anyone taking the time to answer to this message. Thanks Leo in particular, a lot of the teachings are providing massive value into my well being, everyday. Saludos desde Córdoba, Argentina! 🎶

When you say absolute perspective, do you mean Truth? If that's the case, then, it is not a perspective. It is experience as it is, lacking a particular perspective. All of them united. None of them in particular. I know this might sound redundant, but having two distinct versions of Truth, Absolute and relative, sounds very weird after you have started the quest for it. Even if you didn't directly experience the lack of perspective, questioning conceptually if there is such a thing as Truth, after some work of course, takes you to: Either there isn't any Truth, in which case you fall into a paradox, or either there IS such a thing, in which case, because it is the truth, it will be true no matter the circumstances or perspective. This is why I rather not mix the terms, Truth & Perspective, or use Absolute Truth & Relative Truth, when talking about Truth. But I also understand the appeal to use this distinctions for explanatory purposes. I tried using relative vs absolute with the Physicist I mentioned earlier but it didn't even click.

Haha no of course! stay human neutral AI is messing my code everyday and I wish never to become an AI 🤖. It lacks -direct experience- of anything at all. Glad to know that you are aware of this and, btw, I like the direction of evolution the style. Keep them videos coming!! Saludos. Que estés bien!

I kinda see where you are going, but it seems very complicated to communicate in those terms, and very confusing to call two distinct things truth, why not just say that there is the Truth, and within Truth, there are perspectives, and not mix them both? Truth is not a perspective but the sum total of what is A perspective is not true, but a limited way of looking at the Truth. I will think about this more, and comeback later. This has been a cool chatting sessions with you guys!! thank you for your epic replies.

I have never heard of Theravada! will look into it. I am very serious about this stuff, and I am very serious about my life mission to help the rest of the world realize for themselves that this is a dream. My dream, your dream. God's dream. it is a very difficult to achieve mission, maybe not within this lifetime of my own. The very structure of the universe is such that it allows for all possible imaginable scenarios. I am imagining one in which a lot of humans are recognizing their imaginative nature, and the Oneness of it all! Without falling in any spiritual trap because those are pretty sneaky too.

Hi Breakingthewall! I have a problem with this way of saying it. I don't really believe there could be such a thing, a perception is what you perceive, and because you perceive it, it actually is part of reality, wether it is a concept or something you can feel with your body. what I think you are trying to say, is that, for you to comprehend what reality is, you must go beyond your perceptions, and make an observation of the nature of the perceptions, and try to find something that stays forever the same, in this case, the I itself, without any color, shape or time-space limitations. If you look to the snow with orange tinted glasses, the snow would look orange -to you-, but it doesn't make the actual Snow White. If you really want to know what the snow looks like, without your glasses, you have to first realize that the glasses my be the source of distortion, and then, if you decide, take them of and look at the snow. This is to the same to saying that there is a correct way of looking at the snow, but rather that the snow itself can have different colors if you chose to look at it from a particular perspective. and that if you want to look at the snow without the filters, you must, take the filters of! the problem with reality itself is that the whole EGO is distorting reality in order to look like something. but you can stop looking at reality through the ego at any time. You have to decide to do it, even if the ego you identify as will scream you better not do it. Am I making any sense here?

I wish this was the case!!! If metaphysics was pretty simple, then it would certainly be understandable by many people. And maybe taught at school since first grade. But it appears not to be the case. It also happens that, at the same time, we accept current mathematics and logic as the main tools for rational thinking, which, because of the value we as humanity have been able to extract from them, it seems pretty solid! We came up with the internet and technology, which enhances survival, and therefore the appeal. Metaphysics turns out to be difficult to understand conceptually from the very beginning, and also pretty emotional challenging if you feel that science is the source of truth and sense-making machinery for you. It took me a while to start to comprehend the value of epistemology and to question how we come to know anything at all. So I wouldn't agree that this is easy, in particular when survival gets in the way to such a degree.

Hi Leo! Yes I can see evolution within your work, without missing the -straight to the point- style, you are coming up with better ways to communicate very difficult topics, it starts to have a very artistic approach, which for me is making it even more interesting to listen to. Using the right words, the right tone with the right intention is a skill that cannot be taken from granted and will certainly not be suitable for every single human on earth, and I get that! sometimes I struggle to communicate what absolute infinity entails. What can I contribute in this conversation? I've been thinking about this for a while, and in order to enhance what I want to communicate, I tried talking with Claude 3.7 sonnet so it is very clear with an example Let's say, infinity: "When approaching the concept of absolute infinity, it might help to start from our shared experience rather than abstract theory. Consider how we typically think about infinity in mathematics or philosophy—as something endlessly extending, always more. But absolute infinity points to something qualitatively different. It's not just endless quantity but encompasses all possibilities simultaneously. Think of how your awareness works right now. The thoughts, sensations, and perceptions you experience all appear within your consciousness. This consciousness itself has no definable boundaries or limits—it's not located in a specific place, doesn't have a shape or size, yet it contains everything in your experience. Absolute infinity is similar but on a cosmic scale. It's not simply "very big" but rather the boundless ground of being from which all finite things arise. It's not separate from anything that exists—it's what everything is made of, including the awareness reading these words. What makes this challenging to grasp is that our minds naturally work with boundaries and distinctions. We're trained to see ourselves as separate entities moving through a world of other separate things. But absolute infinity suggests that this separateness is only an appearance within a deeper, unified reality. This isn't about dismissing your everyday experience but rather inviting an exploration of what makes that experience possible in the first place." I am aware that writing this is very different than exposing it in a video, but it seems that it could, by the structure, be a starting point towards a way of communication that allows for the mind to be more open to this ideas. What do you think?

you are welcome! What do you think about the idea that the identification with a certain mode of thinking, even the suffering that gets created by being unable to be certain /beforehand/ about the results of a -full surrender-, is what is causing you pain instead of something that has to do with the full surrender itself? let me know if this makes any sense or I'll try to reformulate it if it doesn't.

Hi, Schizophonia When you say dry, what do you mean precisely? Do you ever think that this might be causing some of the viewers to misunderstand the point or to not be focused on the topic and instead distort the communication?

Ohhh 🥹 🖤

to begin with, I think that something pretty silly about this forum that could be enhanced, is the looks!!! it is a fully functional forum, but really an old-style looking forum, with a couple of bugs here and there. I can't help it but to think that the experience of using this forum, may contribute to the messages being sent. even though it might not be the most important thing in the world, I think it can be much better and by enhancing the looks, enhancing the experience and therefore the overall energy. this can be done by Leo himself if he wanted to, nowadays there are so many tools that would allow for him to update the entire website frontend in a couple of hours and have a massive user experience improvement. what do you think about this idea? do you have any other ideas?