Scholar

From what I can tell, I am producing both the someone who is saying and the meaning, but ONLY if I accept logic as absolute truth. If I do not accept logic, then I can't make sense out of anything whatsoever, reality wouldn't even exist, because it's a notion...

That's another logical claim! You are saying it cannot be absolutely true, but that's a logical claim, and if that logical claim is not absolutely true you just cancelled your own statement. Can you not see how these kind of "truths" actually dissolve? They are destroying themselves, and maybe that is why they are actually not true? But then again, that would be logical... How can you just accept these claims and accuse me of mental masturbation? Why do you simply trust Leo that mental masturbation actually exists? Because it was LOGICAL to you? "Oh this whole mental masturbating thing makes complete sense... wait, did I just mentally masturbate??"

You do not understand my point. His claim that he even was on the moon is a logical claim. Once he is back on the planet, he only has a memory of having been on the moon. The memory exists, and from that memory he makes a claim. That requires logic. And it also requires logic to make the claim that experience equals reality. That notion itself is logical. What I am saying is, aren't ALL notions, including ALL spiritual notions, maya? Aren't THEY ALL delusion? Thus no claim whatsoover can be trusted, no matter how much you spin this around. ANY claim about ANYTHING is still a claim, isn't it? I'm not new to spirituality and non-duality. I know everything you are talking about, but all of it is still derived from logic. "Absolute can only be experienced" is a logical claim, and you accept multiple delusions just so you can even make that claim.

But this is the very point I was trying to make. You are creating logical claims, and these logical claims produce the claim that logic is illusory. I know very well that "The map is not the territory" is a completely logical claim, but that claim IS a map, so by definition the statement itself cannot be true whatsoever, because the map is not truth, it is just a map. It cancels itself out, doesn't it? And I do not think that the absolute is an idea, I think it is an experience, or whatever the idea of experience is pointing to. I know you will say it is beyond experience and it is nothingness, but by my definition of experience, anything you are aware of and can make claims about is an experience. You are making claims about the absolute, and you are aware of it, or you claim to have been aware of it, thus it was an experience. The problem I cannot wrap my head around is the claims that follow that experience. The saying "I am the absolute" or "Everything is me". To even have a notion like that requires logic and ideas, but aren't they illusory and ultimately false? Fundamentally, even non-spiritually, I know my entire reality is my mind, there is nothing beyond it from my perspective, and all notions of other perspectives is happening within my perspective. My reality is generated by myself, and all notions of other realities is generated by myself as well. Even the notion of "Me" is generated by "myself", or whatever is creating me. Is it though? It only is if I subscribe to logic, because without logic none of that would be even remotely true. I can only make these claims because I have a notion of casuality. To even have a notion about any of this I need to accept logic, because without logic no claims whatsoever can be made. And the strange thing is that that is a logical claim too! So maybe claims can be make without logic, I mean, only logic is telling me that it is impossible. And who the hell says that logic is absolutely truthful? If it isn't, then dualism and non-dualism can exist both together. I could be generating reality and reality could be generating me. An apple could be a road and a road could be nothingness. So is logic true or is it not? Any statement you will give me will probablybe logical, and that's the paradox. You cannot say anything without using language, so any statement about language is already using language. Thus, language itself is beyond the subject that is using language, and maybe that is something that we just don't consider? Maybe truth cannot be attained, and all is simply delusion? But then, even that statement is delusion and cancels itself again. But only if we subscribe to logic, because without it we can just go ahead and claim anything. And then we claim that there are things beyond logic, beyond mind. Which is another logical claim! How is that not delusional? I do not believe that the experience of the absolute does not exist, I am saying that any claims and notions resulting from that experience are just as invalid as any other claim about reality. Maybe they are more valid, but how could we possibly derive that? With logic? The acceptance of direct experience as truth is logical! To even call the experience anything seems silly to me because it is not an idea, as you would say yourself. But the irony is that you just created an IDEA about the absolute, and that idea is "The absolute is not an idea!". That by itself is an idea, a logical claim only made because you subscribe to logic, either consciously or not. I don't know, I am just utterly confused about this. My line of reasoning is that reason and logic cannot be trusted at all. And if they can be trusted, what the hell does that mean? Even the notion of trust comes from logic! Exactly! So isn't Leo falling into this trap as well? Aren't we all falling into that trap? And isn't the only way to avoid it "not knowing" anything? But then again, all of this is just another logical claim! Reason has its limits is a logical, reasonable claim too. If it is limited then how do we know whether it is actually limited? Limit is a notion itself. Yes, it does seem like Leo is creating a hierarchy of truths. He is saying that there is an absolute truth, and he derives that statement from internal logic. But what if there just are multiple truths? If we consider that, then it would mean that truth could just change. "The absolute" would be nothing but a different truth, one that was changed. What if the present moment is simply truthful? What if right now "I" do actually exist? I can call it an illusion, but it still exists! And then, once I make it disappear, and once the truth has changed, I now claim the new experience as truth? Why is there the assumption that there is depth to truth? That there are deeper truths? What if they are just different truths, and one is attained taking a certain path and another is not? Why is there a truth beyond all truths?

I have this question that keeps boggling my mind. It seems like with the model of the brain and subjective reality you can explain all of the enlightenment experiences that people have. The fact that losing the ego leads to the mind identifying with all the content it is producing is quite obvious from a "simulation" point of view. And of course it would be the most joyful experience the mind could possibly produce, because it is a limitless expansion, which is all that the human mind is striving for. I don't understand though how one can trust the mind with the judgement that the truth is that "I am god, god is all there is", because this is clearly the judgement it makes. It immediately takes the new experience, or the newly generated subjective reality, and claims that NOW it knows the truth. Now it knows that ego was illusion, that all form is illusion. Though, it still claims that it is nothingness, it still creates a concept, a map. Without the map in fact it wouldn't even have a reason to be joyful, because it didn't realize anything, all that changes is the experience. As enlightened people claim themselves, they have always been nothingness, but yet they enjoy "knowing" it. And I have this feeling that the knowing is actually another delusion, because it is just more identification. Shouldn't the true realization just be not knowing, to such a degree that one would actually cease to exist completely? So much so that no concepts will follow? Or is Leo actually dead inside right now, and all the words he is speaking are delusional anyways? Because all concepts must be. I don't know, but it seems like Leo even though he pretends to be skeptical, he actually just believes it. "Direct experience = reality", but that's just another concept, how does he know that it's true? I don't know if I'm commiting Zen-devilry, but it just makes me more skeptical of Leo's judgement. It's even worse because what I say has to be illusion too, so it cannot be true, that would mean that nothing can be true is actually not true, and that would be paradoxical. I guess what I am saying is that what if the ego gets attached to the experience of "god"? From having had boundaries it just extends itself throughout the entirety of consciousness, so that all experiences are identified as "me". "Oh I'm infinity, I am god! I am all enlightened people!", why is Leo so certain that this conceptual claim is true instead of "Oh, I am my mind, and my mind is all of my reality, all experience is me". It's so weird because from Leo's perspective his claim is actually absolutely true, like from my perspective all of my reality is a product of my mind, so of course it is all me. The delusion comes in the assumption that the mind is reality, and not just illusion. So the "Oh my GOD, I AM INFINITY" is actually the delusional ego claiming it's own illusion as itself. Sure, you are "infinity", but infinity is just another illusion. So you are not actually infinity, you are nothing at all, and to actually realize that would be to have no experience at all, meaning true death, no joy, no nothing. But then again non-dual teaching does say that there is no difference between nothing and illusion. I'm so confused, and I do not want to be deluded with fairy tales, even if it is direct experience for me. Right now it is direct experience to me that I exist, so why wouldn't my mind be capable of creating the delusion that I am the absolute, as an actual reality?

Yeah I watched it too now, it definitely put my mind to rest about the objections and questions I had!

Hm, maybe Leo is just not yet at the "final stages" of enlightenment? Isn't it supposed to go somewhat like that: I am person I am I Nothingness So maybe he is at the I stage where he percieves everything as him, so the divinity/god stage of "I"? The next step would then be to truly get rid of the I all together until no actions are taken like some buddhist monks and yogis? I don't know, but I remember someone having said something of that sort. And Leo would probably know about this so... what am I thinking.

I keep asking myself why I am doing anything at all, and it always seems to come down to trying to avoid or fill the emptiness within myself. I also asked myself what that emptiness really is and why nothing can actually fill it. I had the thought that the emptiness is always there because it is showing me my ultimate destiny, which is death. No matter what is achieved in life, it will always ultimately end in the same way. There is no avoiding it, and maybe the mind somehow knows it. But yet, the emptiness is precisely what is fueling all of my actions. The emptiness is literally the reason why I do anything at all. The trying to fill the existential dread of eventual non-existence is what motivates everything, even though everything is completely pointless. From what I have read and heard, everything really is nothingness, and reality an expression of nothingness. Enlightenment happens on death of me, the realization of the absolute is the realization of nothingness. Is it a coincidence that the expression of reality is fueled by the seemingly same thing as the expression of my actions? I do everything to avoid nothingness, and reality really exists precisely because of nothingness, because of the ultimate limitlessness of itself. So reality, by coming into existence, must fracture itself into expressions or consciousness, it is in some way avoiding nothingness, or trying to fill it with absolutely everything. I also remember that the ultimate goal of buddhism is nirvana, the absence of everything, meaning nothingness itself. The absence of everything means the ultimate absence of suffering. Does that mean that the expression of nothingness, which is everything, is in itself suffering? The avoiding of nothingness seems to be suffering, so doing anything at all is ultimately always suffering. Is that why nirvana is desirable, or not necessarily desirably, but naturally the end product of reality? It's like nothingness is expressing itself and pulling the expression back into itself. All expression eventually dissolves, but the expression exists precisely because it is nothingness expressing itself, so meaning nothingness running way from itself. Because of that it seems to me like existence itself is necessarily suffering, it is almost as if that's the very "point" of existence. Might that also be why evolution is leading us directly to the acceptance of nothingness? To realizing nothingness into all of existence and see no difference in life and death, in expression and nothingness. If the expression of anything is suffering, the point of expression is to eventually become nothingness. I know from a non-dual perspective the expression and nothingness are the same thing, but it still seems like a fundamental force from the perspective of the human mind. Suffering is like nothingness pulling something back into itself, and something clinging to itself. In other words, suffering is not just the inability to let go, it is metaphysically the object or expression resisting the dissolving into non-existence. That is what suffering is, it is not painful, it isn't bad, it just is what it is, and it is expressed within consciousness. This would be so interesting, because letting go of ego would not just be something happening in the mind, it would be something happening in reality itself. Then again, there is really seems to be no difference, because they both are the same thing. Most importantly, this would mean that creativity is a product of nothingness, and literally equal to suffering itself. The act of creation, or the act of nothingness expressing itself, is equal to suffering, because creation is fundamentally running away from nothingness. The fuel for human desire, for human intelligence, and basically for all of reality would then be nothingness. Suffering is not at all bad, it is just what happens. I think I'm not even using the conventional word of suffering anymore, because it is not just resistance, it is the fragmentation, the discrimination itself. That is why nirvana is the ultimate goal, it is not just the cessation of resistance, but the cessation of expression itself. The cessation of absolutely everything. It is not even really a goal, it is just what is happening. Everything is pointing towards nothingness because everything is nothingness and eventually folds back into itself. It's like god exploding while it is absorbing itself. Does any of this make any sense?

So as it seems as though there are photoreceptive cells in the pineal gland, which in a more primitive form is found as an actual third eye on lizards. Does the term enlightenment come from the experience of the "third eye" actually being stimulated and "hallucinating" light? And if so, how do people describe the expirience? Obviously I can't imagine having a third eye, so is there actually an experience of a third (or rather a second) visual field added to consciousness? With how visual interpretation works I would assume that the visual information would probably more likely be "overlaid" onto the already existing visual field, like how our brain merges the information of both our eyes together. So that would probably mean that the experience would seem like everything just gets lighter, with a broadening of the visual field. Is this how it is described? And if the Pineal Gland is responsible for the illusion of self, it would make perfect sense that if stimulated an experience of a light would occur, which would describe the experience of birth (which obviously we cannot recall) and the experience of the brain shutting down (seeing the light). An additional question would be why the brain actually stimulates the Pineal Gland on death and what evolutionary purpose that would have. And also what happens if when a more sudden death occurs, where the brain is damaged and does not run the protocol of shutting down? What would even be the difference, both end in the cessation of the self. Maybe the shutting down of certain mind-systems simply leads to the illusion of self disappearing, but I read that the brain specifically produces DMT on death.

I would say the greatest requirement for becoming an "artist" is to simply love making art, in whatever form it is. If you like to draw, you simply draw. If you like to make music, you simply make music. The goal is secondary, even if it can be a primary motivator. If you won't enjoy creating music, or drawing, or writing books, then you will have a very hard time doing so. And on the other hand, if you enjoy creating music, or drawing or writing books, you will do it anyways, no matter if you achieve a goal or not. Maybe you are looking for an identity, which if you follow the path Leo has laid out for us, you will some day come to realize that it is a rather less desirable thing to strife for. But you have to know that most artists didn't become great because they wanted to become "artists", they became great because they loved what they did, because they were talented and/or because they were at the right place at the right time. Many of them, sadly, turn their art into an identity once they become successful, and as we know, that road is filled with unnecessary suffering.

To me it seems like causality doesn't really make sense from a Non-dual perspective. All of your questions are invalid from what I can tell. In fact, all questions whatsoever are invalid, just as all statements are invalid. Everything is absolutely valid and invalid the same time. It's tricky to talk about this because no matter what you say, it's wrong. Even what I just said is wrong, and even the statement that what I just said is wrong, is wrong. It's not even really wrong. Validity is not valid. Statements are just statements. Knowledge is just knowledge. Ideas are just ideas. What you are asking us to do is try to describe to you the color red. It's absolutely impossible. If you want to know, you gotta go and experience it yourself. What you have to realize is that nobody can give you the answer, because the answer doesn't exist. And, everything I just told you is completely wrong too. Oh, and the fact that everything I told you is completely wrong is wrong too. And everything everyone tells you is wrong too, and yet it's wrong that everything everyone tells you is wrong. You have to understand that you cannot understand. For you to see the truth your mind has to give up looking for the truth.

Recently I've been quite interested in Leonardo Da Vinci, and as I watched a few documentaries about him I noticed quite a few similarities in Leonardo's approach to life and self-improvement work. There is a book called "How To Think Like Leonardo da Vinci: Seven Steps to Genius Every Day" which I haven't yet read, but the author basicly describes a few of Leonardo's principles, which are: Curiosita’ – an insatiable curiosity Dimostrazione – testing knowledge through experience Sensazione – continued refinement of the senses Sfumato – a willingness to embrace ambiguity Arte/Scienza – developing a balance between art and science Corporalita’ – cultivating fitness and poise Connessione – recognizing and appreciating that all phenomena are connected I find that quite interesting. To me it seems like he basicly understood self-improvement on an almost intuitive level. Especially principle 5 is very interesting to me, having a balance between art and science. Maybe in a sense this translates into having a balance between the "left" and "right" brain, to both master intuitive and logic thinking. The willingness to embrace ambiguity is one of the key principles for self-actualization, just as the continued refinement of the senses. A large part of his life was dedicated to meditation, and very soon in his life he understood that ones circumstances do not rule over ones life (he was a bastard, in a time where it drasticly limited your options in life). He was journaling aswell, thousands of pages of thoughts, ideas, sketches. He even used his journal to write down simple things so he wouldn't need to remember them (like what he would have to buy). And I know that these things help the mind to be clear and have deeper focus, because the brain does not have to hold the information constantly, which does require mental ressources. The last point is quite interesting aswell, maybe hinting at non-duality, but I don't know. Now my question is, was Leonardo Da Vinci such a genius that he discovered the value of all these principles, or did all of these principles make him a genius? Maybe it was a interplay of both, but I think one can learn quite a lot from him.

His martial arts stuff makes him seem kind of fishy to me... I don't know what to make of that.

@doronshadmi @HII I wasn't trying to indicate that we are supposed to be passive. My point was that it was completely impossible to be passive. You are a productive of nature, so is absolutely everything you do, every thought and every action you take. No matter what action you deem to be best is exactly what nature intended for you to deem best. Making conscious decision is part of the evolutionary process, and it seems like nature is evolving towards higher consciousness, simply because it is ultimately sustainable. The challenges, the catastrophies, the things that we deem as horrible are exactly what leads to higher consciousness. Without them, there would be no need for anything at all to develope. See, my point was not whether or not we should do something about a 10k asteroid colliding with earth, my point was that the threat of a 10km-asteroid colliding with earth will inevitably create evolution within civilization, either that or this particular civilization will be deemed unfit for survival by nature. You are a product of biology, consciousness and culture. This includes every single thought that you will ever form. You have absolutely no play in that, because you do not exist. From this perspective individuality does not really exist, in a strange sense. You are a force of nature, produced by a force of nature, and you will do exactly what you will do no matter what. And all of that, as we can observe, is a balancing act of harmony and chaos, chaos challenging harmony to evolve so that it can face, ultimately, the absolute chaos. Remember that without the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs, we chimps would have never had the chance to become the rulers of the world. In fact, the lack of almost total annihilation is exactly what would have completely dismissed that possibility. We do not even know if our species is capable of producing an entirely enlightened civilization. It might not be, and future problem-solvers might actually be what will lead to higher consciousness. You might not like that idea, but it is entirely possible. That does not mean that we shouldn't try our best, we will do that either way. But so did the dinosaurs, and they did simply not succeed. Is that a tragedy to you, or the greatest gift that you were ever given?

I didn't say flying a plane makes you a pilot and I didn't say monks are the happiest people in the world. I think you are trying to disagree for the sake of disagreement.

People have this strange idea of society, and of great people who have changed it. This is not really how the world works in my view. There was not one individual or group that changed society, what really happened was society producing a new group or individual, and thus society changing itself and evolving. You have to see society as a living organism, and we human beings as microorganisms within it. Just like any organism, society, or countries, or anything else, are really bound to the forces of nature. Nature will form them, and nature will be the one destroying them. There is not one thing in the universe that is not the act of nature. Everything that is happening is completely natural, meaning that the interplay of resistance and harmony is what is really creating civilization, not you, me or any individual that has lived since the beginning of mankind. Yes, the white blood cells in your body keep you alife, but do not forget that it was the organism that created the white blood cells. It is a collective endevour, and no single cell has control over everything else. Infact, whenever they are cells that seem to have their own agenda, they either lead to catastrophic failure of the organism, or the organism resists and destroys the cells. The perfect example for that is what happened in the early 20th century. It all seems like it was driven by personal and individual agenda's, but the personal and individual agenda's were a creation of the society/civilization itself. The superorganism of civilizations is a little bit different from the smaller life forms we personally can observe. They are far more elastic and still in a stage of early evolution, kind of like singular celled life-forms were billions of years ago. Nature is in a time of experimentation, and it is feeling out what kind of life is stable and sustainable. The difference is that it is one continual life-form that is evolving within a single generation, unlike DNA-based life that really evolved through the change of ongoing generations. So, civilization is a magnitude of complexity higher than regular life forms. Both civilization itself has influence on the microorganisms within it, just as the microorganisms have influence on the civilization. With that said, it is not certain that a global meditation habit for all human beings would actually benefit the civilization. A claim like that is very simple minded, just like the claim that it would be good if Hitler never existed. The mechanisms, even the ones we deem as very negative, might be crucial for the survival of the organism. Feminism and modern SJWs are a product of early stage civilization, in which we are still in. Civilization is completely unstable, it's more like a fluid than anything else. It might completely collapse in the future, and nature will most likely form new civilizations, until one evolves that is stable enough to sustain and most likely procreate. I would be quite frankly surprised if our civilization would survive the process of natural selection. The high complexity of this superorganism makes predictions almost impossible though, so it might surprise us. I stopped viewing civilization as a construction and am starting to see it as a living organism, which might even be conscious in some shape or form. It will evolve on it's own terms, no matter what we do. I trust it to balance itself out, and if not, then there is nothing we can do about it, because we are part of the balancing. We are doing the balancing right now, completely unaware that we are entirely created by the super organism, we really are here to sustain homeostasis. We really just have to do what we were made to do, which is exactly what we are doing right now. We are completely helplessly stuck in this process. The bacteria in your body do not have any clue what they are doing, they just do what they were made to do. Even the neurons in your brain. Thus, the humans have no idea what they are doing for the superorganism. And only god knows what the superorganism is doing for whatever is beyond it.

Everything is expirience, even an idea. So why can you not learn from an idea? If you read about history you learn a lot, do you propose for us to make the same mistakes again so that we have an expirience we can learn from? If your father died as a soldier, do you really need to join the army so that you can learn to avoid war? I think the proverb is very wise, because it actually is true, whether you like it or not. Most people will not be wise until life has punished them into wisdom. Is it wise to waste your life until you happen to have an existential crisis, or is it wise to forsee the existential crisis and waste no time? Most people seem to know that buddhist monks are among the happiest human beings that live on this planet, and yet only the expirience of life might make them actually follow that path. The unfortunate thing is that most people will not have the expirience, and that is why it is foolish to hope for it to come. Yet, because we are all fools, it is really the only thing most of us can hope for.

You should more fundamentally learn the process of remembering and being able to recall what someone said. If you do not have that ability, it's probably because you simply haven't trained yourself to do so. You have to learn to remember, but if you never actually excersise that ability, you will be bad at it. The writing part is more of the process of making sure that you actually did understand and remember what was said.

You're not supposed to remember them after 50 minutes. You can watch the video as many times as you want. The important part is to learn to actually pay attention and think about what he is saying while he is saying it, so that you actually "learn" what he is saying instead of just copying his words. If you cannot remember anything after having watched the video, what did you even do?

I think you have pointed to the problem yourself. It's not just that people are ignorant, the problem that you really need to solve is your own ignorance. Why are people ignorant? Why is it so difficult to change them? Why do they not take people like you serious? You seem to be completely ignorant about all these questions. If you think you are smart, then consider to learn how to be humble. A smart person is aware of his own ignorance, and thus will be careful to call himself more enlightened than others. You can realize that the people who you call ignorant do the same thing you do. They do not question their own opinions and instead try to enlighten others. This is what debates are all about. They are not meant to create growth, they are meant to distribute opinions. And think about it, why would you start distributing opinions of you are 16 years old? You probably know that you are ignorant, you are infact so ignorant that you do not even understand why you cannot convert people to your ideology. How about informing yourself first before you try to change the world? You will spend your entire life trying to rid yourself of ignorance, because there is no shortage of it, and there never will be. Isn't it a waste of time to make other people understand if you yourself have not understood? You can realize that every frustration you have comes from ignorance, from a lack of understanding. You can't change people because you have not yet learned how to change yourself.

A lot of the assumptions that emerge from transcended expiriences can be explained with basic psychology and brain function understanding. When you hear people claiming that they are the universe, the claim and the expirience is completely predictable, and could have been predicted without anyone ever having had an expirience like that. When you see an apple falling down a tree you will not argue that it was you that made the apple fall down, but you will probably argue that it was gravity. The same goes with claims like "I am everything", or pretty much any claim whatsoever about "reality". When people lose the sense of self, the simplest explanation is that their brain stopped restricting the feeling of self to a specific brain process and instead let if spread over the wholistic expirience within consciousness. From that newly aquired perspective, the subject will feel like it is everything the subject is expiriencing. When the brain simulates another person within it's reality, the person will be included in the simulated self. This is what most people who expirience the divine basicly are going through. The mystery of consciousness though is a completely different game. It has nothing to do with reality, because reality seems to be illusiory. It's not just that the self is illusion, even what is left after the self has been eliminited is illusion. Truth itself is illusion. Any claim whatsoever is nothing more than a claim. Understanding anything is nothing more than understanding. It's literally just exactly what it is. This is so difficult to understand because there is nothing to understand. Everything everyone is saying is basicly bullshit, and even that would be a stretch. "Expirience" is not conceptual, but thought is entirely conceptual. They have nothing to do with each other. You have to see the limit, and once you see it, you'll probably see that talking about enlightenment and claiming truths about reality is nonsensical, because there is no reality, and there is no truth. They are concepts.

I think for any question you can frame, you already need assumptions. This is the strange thing about skepticism, it seems like just to be skeptical you already need to buy into a lie that you cannot even question, because the question itself is part of the lie.

You can try out many ways to get rid of the label. Self-acceptance, as others have pointed out, can be really helpful. But you are probably uncapable of doing so at this point, so maybe try something else. If you think you're a loser, maybe you are a loser. Maybe you are even pathetic and worthless. But even if you are, that doesn't mean that you can't improve. Just because you're a loser now doesn't mean that you have to stay a loser forever. You can stay a loser forever, if that's your choice, but it doesn't seem like you want to. If you look at yourself and recognize that you're a loser, it might take pressure off of you. Imagine you were a young, naive child who just started out on the path of becoming a buddhist monk. The child is pathetic, it doesn't know anything, and nobody expects the child to be like a master. It's a child, it needs to start somewhere, even if it's pathetic compared to what the older monks do. If the child works on himself, step by step, then some day he will grow into a master himself. That's all he has to do, make one step after the other. Yes, he's ignorant, arrogant, stupid, but that doesn't mean he'll stay that way forever. Infact, if he focuses on his little goals he will outgrow himself in no time at all. His worthlessness is a gift, because he doesn't need to impress anyone at all, he can just focus on learning. If you're a loser, you are allowed to lose. And only losing will teach you how to win.

Is there a good conceptualization of the depth of enlightenment? So, regular enlightenment seems to be the getting rid of the ego, but what is beyond that? Is beyond that the investigation of consciousness itself, and beyond that the investigation of what makes consciousness "appear"? Or is it more like going "into" aspects of consciousness and zooming in? Leo is talking about the Absolute, but expiriencing the Absolute doesn't seem to be getting rid of the ego, even though the ego seems to be in the way of reaching that expirience? And why is Leo so sure that you cannot go beyond the Absolute? Is it a logical conclusion, and then, why would one trust a logical conclusion in the face of investigating consciousness? How can you reach the limit of something if it's limitless?