Telepresent

I'd say yes and no to that. The reason dictatorships censor books, television, films, internet, and other media is precisely because it is what they say. The dissemination is extremely dangerous to status quo, and language in particular can be hugely damaging. One of the most prescient things about 1984 (and if you haven't read it, do!) is that The Party understand that thought is based in language, and that by restricting language, you can restrict potential concepts. Once you have a generation who don't know the word or meaning of 'opposition', how can there be an opposition? So I'd say it is absolutely what you say - provided that you understand that what you say is a symbol, and not the thing itself. But of course, it comes down to what you do. Whether physically or mentally. And that's often where the greatest censorship comes in. You say "sometimes authority says no". Most of the time in my life, that authority is actually a voice in my head. An idea that I picked up from my parents or teachers that means 'I must not disobey or I will be punished' which prevents me from going through a red light at three in the morning which is clearly stuck on red (hasn't changed for 15 minutes) and there is no other traffic around. But I still don't move because that would be 'bad' or 'wrong'. Authority lives in the mind before it lives in the world, and only so much as we recognise it. Beyond that, it's just 'the way things are'.

Ok, but you're now talking about evolution as though its a wider social/ecological instinct. You're talking as though there's some over-arching arbiter who keeps things 'in balance'. Look: we talk about the end of human life as if it's the end of the world. It's not. Something will survive, life will continue to go on and survive. Evolution has primed the mind to care about itself, and pretty much only itself (with a little expansion to your local tribe), not to give a shit about ecology, environment, and the rest of the world. Those conscious aspects to which we ascribe (conservation, charity, support, etc.) only form a tiny part of mind, and often one that is overwhelmed when it comes to self-interest (see every wind-farm that has been challenged by locals protesting that their back yard will lose value). And, (and please bear in mind these are questions that I'm playing with just as much as I write them, not challenges to suggest you are 'wrong'), why shouldn't the 'greater awareness of the universe' be interested to see what happens when we kill off this lot of organisms and start with a new batch? The dinosaurs were cool, but let's kill them off and see how these mammal things do. Maybe it's time to let these mammal things kill themselves off, and see how the amphibians manage? Why should our very mammallian perspective be treated as 'right'? We kill trillions of bacteria every day. Is that considered genocide? Why not? Doesn't the universe care about the evolution of bacteria? Maybe it's getting us out the way so they can thrive!

There's a deeper question in here: what is authority? Who is an authority? Why are they an authority? As someone who has spent most of their life treating everyone around them as an authority (to the expense of my own expertise and adulthood), this element is the biggest impediment to the feeling of freedom of speech I have encountered: just the simple feeling of not being good enough. They know better. They're smarter. They're more important. What do I know?

Ok, but why would mind want/need to do that? The whole purpose of mind is to preserve the organism to which it serves. Remember that mind is itself not an entity: it is the result of the programmed processes that the brain (part of the organism) goes through on a stimulus/reaction basis. So why would that mind want/need to operate as an aspect of all the exists? It doesn't benifit the mind or the greater organism

No idea. How does knowing help you? (P.S. I don't want to be rude: I just see a lot of these kind of questions and wonder whether people want to dig to the truth, or want to build an idea of enlightenment in their head. Any answer to the caveman question is an idea. I.e. worthless if you want to reach the truth)

Cool. From what to what?

Why? I'm not challenging, but genuinely asking: what makes mind a disease? Why? What is wrong with ego?

Just to knock this on its head (I'm not coming from a place of 'having answers', but of always questioning questions) - why should enlightenment have any purpose? You're writing from a perspective of enlightenment having a 'point'. What if it doesn't? What if it's just a potential thing, as much or as valid as any other potential thing? Your first question is permeated with a sense that questions need answers. That because we have questions, there ARE answers. A while back, I was listening to McKenna's Damndest audiobook, and I suddently realised something: he describes enlightenment as "the end of knowing". And we can easily take this to mean "the ultimate knowledge". But it can also mean "no knowledge". Approaching questions and the need for answers with the possibility of "no knowledge" in mind can take you to an interesting place: not of ignorance, but of eating through concept-models. As for the big question of "what is enlightenment?", if you are still asking that question and have ANY concept of what it is, that concept is wrong. It is wrong because it is a concept. I have no idea what it is, but I know that every imagining of what it is as been wrong, and is wrong because the imagining lives within the imagination. It's why I get buggy on these forums: I see too many people trading ideas on what enlightenment is, or what this means or that means, and not enough people calling out their own bullshit. The only thing I can suggest, really, is to Dig Dig Dig. Disregard what anyone says, including Leo, me, Mooji, Tolle, McKenna, Adyashanti, Spira or whoever the hell else, and do the maths yourself.

I'm wary to write this because I'm sure I come across as 'the guy who always harps on about Spiritual Autolysis'. However: If you haven't heard of Autolysis, isn't the technique described by Jed McKenna as 'like self-enquiry on steroids'. It's a process by which you attempt to write the truth. Just try to write something that is true, then examine the foundations upon which that truth is based, then examine the foundations upon which those foundations are based, and so on, until you reach bedrock. I primarily use autolysis, and as a result I'm now in a point where I'm more or less in a process of self-enquiry 24/7. From this experience, the thing that I wonder about with self-inquiry, is that it can feel very easy to do, with very little result. I sometimes feel like people are sitting in meditation and occasionally politely asking themselves 'what am I?', and hoping for an answer. Which won't happpen. There is no forthcoming answer: that's the point. You have to DIG and DECONSTRUCT. It can sometimes seem like an 'every now and then during a meditation' approach is what it's about. But it's not. It's about disturbing the bedrock of your life. So I've been in a process of autolysis for about a year, after I read McKenna's Spiritual Enlightenment: the Damndest Thing. It immediately struck a chord. I've been writing for at least 20 minutes every day, but there have been some days where I've written for hours and hours. And then it carries on when you're not writing. It's a very addictive thing. That's how I got into it. As for changes I've noticed in my daily life: I have an entirely different perspective on my life, on other people, and how I react to 'negative' outside influences. I don't believe a lot of the shit that my ego was so afraid of before, and I can actively recognise when my ego is trying to re-construct itself based around new stimuli. No-self experiences. I don't know. I've had a number of experiences where my perspective has fundamentally shifted for temporary periods. One was similar to that which Leo describes in his video about being at a meditation retreat. Others were very different. But there was always an "I" hiding in the background. That's the thing. It's always there, but hiding. However, I'm now at a point where I recognise "I" so clearly, that I understand the stillness that various teachers refer to. I understand and feel the void, emptiness, whatever behind the experiences I am having, despite the fact that I am still identified with ego. Truth is, I'm always very wary of any idea of 'an experience', because it gives you an object and a target and an idea that the Truth is something like an emotion or a sense or anything else that lives in your perspective. It's not. I can feel that. I can't tell you what it IS, but I can tell you it's not that

Something that has been helping me to re-centre myself when my mind starts running away and drift into fantasy-land: What is happening?

Perhaps this belongs in the thread about optical illusions, but for me this sums up my understanding of "I" perfectly. Spending a while contemplating this, and how I perceive/build reality, has done a lot.

I've been toying around posting this for a few days because a) I'm not sure how to say it, and b) I'm not sure what the point of saying it is. So I guess I'm posting this to get it out of my system. I hope it's of use! I've spent a long time fighting with the question of what a thought is. Whether a series of words, or sounds, or images, or a combination, what the fuck is going on there? I've spent a lot of time deconstructing my mind, to the point of recognising it as an intricate, complex, and super-fast pattern-recognition and future-predictive mechanism, which loves to define and make rules, because that's what it needs to operate. So how does that tie into thought? Well, what relation do I have to thoughts? I have the sound, the words, the image... And BANG, there it is: My mind is just another sense. My mind is not and cannot be 'me', if it is recognised by 'me'. Like sight, sound, taste, touch, smell, propreoception, temperature, everything else: my thoughts are merely the manifestation of a pre-existing mechanism below (or possibly within) some form of conscious awareness. They are, in other words, smaller than the consciousness awareness. And as all my thoughts are the only thing that constantly speaks, defines, and affirms "I... I... I..." over and over... that gives me some food for consideration.

Thanks for this response. A lot to dwell on

NO! Fuck that shit I don't give a shit about what Leo considers an 'appproptiately' considered the fae Your asking means That you need to pay attentiont to what the routines and rituals around you are and ask why you're playing them out

@awareemptiness Have you ever hear of the phrase 'Kill the Buddha'? The idea is that you should not treat the teachings of the buddha as sacred. Instead you should try to find the things the he was trying to find. In the same way, Leo is offering a perspective. It is limited, it is filtered through his particular life experiences, his particular cuture, his particular all kinds of shit, before it even reaches your computer, at which point you start to filter it through your particular life experiences, your particular cuture, your particular all kinds of shit... So, in answer to your question: fuck us and fuck us what we think. It's meaningless. Do what you need to do, pursue what you need to do, and if that contradicts a video Leo posts, so the fuck what?

Nice. I'm playing around with and exploring this at the moment: so if you don't mind, I'd like to play with ideas of truth for a little bit. What is your perspective on what truth is? Mine is very direct-experience based, even if it involves uncomfortable and difficult emotions, but it feels lie you have a slightly different perspective? I'd like to toss the frisbee around if you're game?

@philosogi Perhaps, I don't know. I've never tried to masturbate myself into higher consciousness. BUT I feel like some responses here are a bit 'guilty pleasure', which immediately means people are filtering both their experience and their expression of it Personally, I've read books which have suggested orgasm should be the gate to some enlightening whatever, and all they've done is made me think, worry, and judge more; and experience less.

@Grant6 You've just listed all the problems and all the questions you know you need to address Breathe Let yourself listen to them, rater than be overwhelmed by them. I would also consdier addressing them through writing. Just write the question, and keep writing whatever response your mind come up with. Then keep going.

Hello Spicy Pickles! I hope you're not too freaked out by this interview. I basically want to point out that you're wrong. You know you're wrong. People may talk about their 'moment', but nobody actually has an out-of-nowhere-sudden-success thing happen. There's certainly no exam where you're expected or asked to justify the cost of your degree. So even if your family cares, and even if it's very important in your day-to-day life, let me promise you that we are thinking bigger-picture. Play the long-game with us. Nobody wins. Nobody fails. We just keep playing the game. And when we feel defeated, we pic ourselves up, and somehow find reserves we didn't know were there, and put them on the table But back to @spicy_pickles: what situations to you want to appear confident in, and where do you feel least confident?

@Lorcan Hello! I'm sorry, the answer I wrote below (while relecant to you) was more about me. What a boob. The only answer I can offer right now, reading your shit, is that no, you are not procrastinating longer. Procrastination is important, so long as you know when you are doing it and for how long it should last. What's been talked about above is really useful. But if you haven't explored it yet: have you asked your parents this question yet? Because they are probably in a better position to help you work out how to maximise your time, and I imagine they will be thrilled with a teen who wants to work out how to split his time effectively between health/family/& mental health. It may just be worth telling them you're conscious of these things. I expect you parents will be thrilled you're thinking about your ongoing relationship with them

@SimpleTruth Hello Peter! Nice to hear from you - great to hear your story! How do you think we can help/support each other? Is there anything you want help from from us? As someone who is playign around with ideas of self-identification, I would love to hear about any radical shifts you're willing to share over the last 24 hours!

Right. Ok. Everyone's having a big laugh on this thread (and so have I, reading it) but there's an important underlying suggestion Most of these comments seem to come from embarrassment, or escalating a joke that is based on implicit embarressment. Of what? There are actually a lot of ligitimate questions raised on this board. Yet most of the responses feel emotional, not considered, because it's a laugh. And I agree, it's been very funny to read. I've laughed out loud several times. But... I'm here for a purpose. There's stuff here which is useful for our purpose, if we can get over our childish responses. Let's have a go. Sex and spirituality: what do we think?

Cool. Great. (remember I am no expert) My suggestion would be that you take several complimentary approaches. A suggestion would be a rotating process of SDS, some kind of embodied meditation (such as vipassina), and some kind of processing (such as spiritual-autolysis or self-inquiry) which allows you to follow up on how you're feeling, and process it with regard to your life and circumstances. We sometimes forget there's no race. It's perfectly possible to spend a little while meditating, self-inquiring, and just working yourself out, before you bother with the bigger questions. If that's what you want to do, do that. Don't feel you have to jump into no-self or enlightenment just because someone else says so. It's your life. It's your experience. Make it what you want. If you want to lay in on Sundays, lay in on Sundays. You're allowed.

@Gabor Bornemissza Hello! I'm not enlightened, so take what I say as assumptions from someone who's been playing in this creek at little longer. What I've noticed so far is that identification and negative-identification change. So I may lose the potential payoff from something that might be the cause of great anticipation, but I'm saved from feeling like shit if it all goes wrong. In exchange, I have a MUCH MUCH greater appreciation for what is happening right now. I can't begin to explain to you how much of what actually IS right here and right now I have sqandered by worrying, remembering, projecting and remorse-ing. I still get hit by the positive, and by the negative: the difference is that I can experience the negative and recognise it as a feeling, and a meaning, without then dwelling on it for the rest of the night. That seems a decent trade-off for not getting excited over things I'm going to anyway.

@RossE You know the film The Matrix? Imagine, once you woke up from the Matrix, that someone inside it asked you whether or not you could return to believing in the reality the the Matrix provides. Even when you're inside the Matrix, you know it is false: you may experience it sensorially, but ultimately you know its falseness. The difference is that the jumps we hit during this exploration are not so extreme as that presented in the film, and also go further that that presented in the film. The movie provides an example of one-jump-as-all. From my experience so far, it's lots of mini-hops, knowing that there are many mini-hops coming, even if I don't know what they are yet! (I'll also point out that, at this point, I have not experienced 'no self', or 'unity consciousness', or anything else that anyone else might call an 'enlightenment experience'. At the same time, I am extremely aware that I have stripped away vast swathes of my ego and, as a result, my perspective on what the world is has permanently changed - in extrememly funadamental ways, and that I don't need to have had a transcendental experience to recognise that my perception a year ago was completely false. So if you're worried about experiences of no-self... don't worry too much. There's more fundamental work that needs doing.)