Gopackgo

@StephenK To be honest, I feel like the concept of the void itself is really more to emphasize uncertainty and unknowability than anything else. Its about groundlessness. Thats why I was so interested in why that seems to appear to you as dread, and not solid. I mean thats clearly a projection (like everything else), but for a lot of people, seeing the nature of reality is a release from needing to defend positions. On the other hand, I have had moments (especially right after realizing this) where I was scared because I felt that I could no longer distinguish what was real, and I was scared that I might have been going insane. That passed and settled into groundlessness. What all this means to me is that because you are willing to confront this, it is likely that those feelings will fade. I think its scary because an objective reality is the very basis of identity. It is where the self gets a foothold to project/distinguish/ and criticize reality. Realizing that is a load of shit is obviously deeply disturbing.

@StephenK Thank you so much for sharing that. I think you are very wise to investigate this further and to confront the feeling as a sensation and not just a mental interpretation. I will share what the "void" means to me as best I can. There are many angles to it, so this is just how it appears to me. The void to me is the recognition of absolute subjectivity. It is realizing that because reality is composed entirely of perspectives, and mediated through sensation and perception, we have absolutely no access to whatever is out there except as it is constructed in awareness. This means that whatever is "out there" is formless, and the way it appears to us is not how it naturally exists. By formless, I mean it has no set definition, and is absolutely free to appear in any way. In fact, if there is an "out there" no life form has ever accessed it. In truth, the world we experience as the outer world is a total construction of the brain. Experience as a whole is actually one seamless output, but we seem to separate it into an inner and outer world. This creates the illusion that we (as selves) are moving through the world, and trying to accomplish life. In reality, in a way, it is more like we are walking through our own mind/mental construction. This means that we are literally everything that we interact with, we are all the problems that we see. We are everything. Beyond that, reality is completely unknowable, because whatever is out there is entirely undefined. From our perspective it appears as it does, but really, if you imagine somehow separating yourself from your own consciousness, and experiencing reality directly, you come to the conclusion that this would be impossible, because without consciousness, nothing would appear. In that way, reality lacks objective solidity, because it is entirely dependent on the perspective that is viewing it. This means that contrary to popular belief, there is absolutely no ground from which someone can justify their beliefs as absolute, because that would require that there is an objective reality that exists independent of the person in question. That just isn't the case. Another way to think about it is: If there even was an objective reality, from whose perspective would it appear? A human? An ant? An atom? A quark? So the void is the nothing that contains everything. It is absolutely undefinable, and awareness in inseparable from it. It is one thing. Nothing arises independent of the perspective that contains it. That groundlessness is what can cause a lot of anxiety, because it undercuts the basis of identity, which in my mind is generally composed of beliefs that are projected as absolute truths. It actually means that you are simultaneously nothing, and everything. Any distinction between the 2 can only be a conceptual distinction created by the mind in order to ground itself and build a framework of beliefs, so that it can better predict/plan/interpret the world. The amazing thing is that the bottom can fall out of the reliance on those projections, and functioning can still happen.

I find this very interesting. It seems to me that depersonalization disorder could be closely tied to a non-dual awakening, although I know that maybe it is not. I have always wondered if it is just a difference in perspective or it is something else entirely. Would you mind explaining what it is about reality that seems off to you? Is it the unknowability of it, or does it seem like a lack of solidity that makes you uneasy, or is it something else entirely? You don't have to respond if you don't feel comfortable, but I am curious about this. Thanks. Also, Im not trying to invalidate your experience or feelings, or to say it is an awakening gone wrong. I am sure that what you have experienced has been unpleasant. I am just curious.

@TeamBills The way I see it, enlightenment is a broad term encompassing many different things. It is used in Hinduism, Buddhism, and ad vita at least. Non-duality is kind of like the fundamentals that are common to each. Non-duality is actually probably the basis of most world religions. No self is a non-dual principle, as is oneness (non seperation), the nature of reality as unknowable, and no free-will. That's all that is coming to mind right now. The way it appears to me is that "enlightenment" in these philosophies refers to a non-dual awakening, which can come in as many shapes and sizes. Some can be a 1 time epiphany that can change perspective forever, some are slower and happen over time. Thats just a short description. A lot of what Leo is talking about these days are non-dual insights.

@Joseph Maynor To be honest, it was the same for me. I was very rational minded. The first time I watched this video, I couldn't even finish it because it caused so much angst. A year later, I was confused and didnt understand why nothing seemed to work out the way I wanted it to. I was and am still in law school and I took up meditation to try and figure myself out. One day after a deep meditation with a very vivid dreamlike vision, I walked right into the house and went to my computer and pulled up this video. As soon as it got to the point where he says "you are not an entity inside your body" my mind went completely clear and my perspective instantly changed. That was just the beginning. Since then my life has been exactly the same, but also very different in regards to perspective. There is just something about how Leo explains things that really resonates with me. I think it has to do with how he explains things in a way that makes sense to a formally rationally dominated mind. He really has a gift for delivering fundamentals in a way that is stripped of all the excessive mystical baggage.

I am familiar with this. I felt it during meditation (especially in concentration meditation) and then it became permanent after what I would consider an awakening. It's normal. I don't know what causes it, but i feel it constantly. Just let it be. Meditation changes the brain. For me this change has seemed to be felt very physically in my body. This makes sense because many of the changes that happen are to the parietal lobe and frontal lobe. The parietal lobe houses part of the sensory center of your brain. The frontal lobe is right behind your forehead, and houses other sensory centers that relate to facial movement. To be honest, I don't know if that is why this happens, but it is the best that I have come up with.

I think the real question is: What difference does reincarnation make if the part of you that cares about reincarnation dies with the body/there is no memory of a previous life? To me, it seems that a lot of reincarnation dogma is a way that the self projects itself beyond death because it cant tolerate the idea of non-existence. Other ways it might do this is to conceptualize heaven/hell, or maybe it can take the form of worrying about it's legacy. Maybe there is an afterlife/reincarnation, but maybe it can't be known until death happens. In my mind, it is sort of irrelevant. I'm not asserting that as truth, and I am not denying that some people's experiences of past lives are void by any means. Maybe I will experience that one day. But, it seems that the line of questioning what happens after death arises from not being able to accept that physical death will occur. You just have to look at your own experience, and question what motives there might be for those concepts to exist.

Today, I came home and rewatched this video. It's Leo's first video on non-duality. I wanted to repost it to encourage those who are on the path to rewatch it as well. It is still the best video on youtube about non-duality (in my humble opinion). It is good to revisit the fundamentals from time to time.

Just because meaning doesn't exist objectively doesnt mean that what is meaningful to you is less valuable. A lot of times when these kind of emotions come up, it can help to reframe the issue. Instead of thinking as these emotions as bad and trying to remove them, think of them as aliveness. Aliveness is totally free to manifest in anyway that it wants to. Allow yourself to feel the emotions fully and ask yourself, is this really a problem? Or is it one part of an infinite scale of aliveness. Without the "bad", "good" can't exist. It is all part of the continuum, but if you deny a portion of your existence, then it has the potential to resurface and embolden itself in other portions. To call something a problem is to deny it's validity.

Great quote.

I mean, if interest arises spontaneously, it seems like a broad sampling of what resonates to each person is ideal. Reality is composed of perspectives, so it seems like the more perspectives that are understood, the more open you are to what is. There is a shift that happens where you stop comparing your experience against what others say that it should be like to where you focus on your direct experience and find meaning in a lot of different perspectives. That's a big difference, and to be honest, given the nature of reality, it would seem that it's obvious that different perspectives are going to resonate to different styles of teaching. The more perspectives you can accommodate without conflict, the more readily you can understand reality, because you can only draw on what you already understand. If there is some perspective that doesnt work for you, that doesnt mean that it is invalid in the terms of absolute truth. In that way, I really find Leo's videos to be useful because they expose me to more than one way of thinking/perspective. As he has gone on, he has gotten softer and softer in what he thinks the right way is, which also rings true to me, because in the end, we are talking about unknowing.

In Buddhism, the swastika symbol is considered auspicious footprints of the Buddha.[7][11] It is an aniconic symbol for the Buddha in many parts of Asia and a homologous with the dhamma wheel.[2] The shape symbolizes eternal cycling, a theme found in samsara doctrine of Buddhism.[2] The swastika symbol is common in esoteric tantric traditions of Buddhism, along with Hinduism, where it is found with Chakra theories and other meditative aids.[68] The clockwise symbol is more common, and contrasts with the counter clockwise version common in the Tibetan Bon tradition and locally called yungdrung.[70] From Wikipedia. LOL. You are right. I always assumed he did it for Nazi reasons. I guess maybe not. You know what they say about assuming.

At least partially, reality being a dream can be thought of in terms of meanings, and emptiness. In a purely subjective reality, it means that there is no objective external world. Every individual body creates it's own reality. We are brought up to assume that there is a world outside of us that looks exactly as we see it, and so the mind assumes that meanings that exist in the subject are meanings that exist externally. It's not just meanings, it touches every aspect of life, because everything that we apparently come into contact with is consciousness, or just a manifestation of the subject. In this way appearance is emptiness because it is completely devoid of inherent values or meaning. A lot of identity consists of what meanings are projected as absolute and objective, and the reliance on the idea that reality has inherent meaning. So thinking of reality as a dream is useful to start breaking down that reliance and undercutting positions that we hold as absolute in nature. The problem is that the self hears that reality is a dream, and wants to use that as a way to obtain external circumstances that it thinks will make it happy. In doing so, it misses the point of what that means, but that's not a bug of the teaching. It's actually an opportunity to see how manipulative the conceptual mind is, that it will distort any teaching to get what it thinks will make it free. I think the idea of reality as a dream has many facets, and this is just one of them, but this is what came to mind when I saw this. Everything is consciousness. It is not solid, nor is it naturally imbued with meaning or definition. It really couldn't be any other way. Even if there was an external physical reality, no person or lifeform has ever had direct access to it, they have only had access to their subjective construction. (Actually, we are our subjective construction). In a lot of ways, you can actually see this projection happening in this conversation, because how you react to thinking of reality as a dream, is entirely dependent on how you define the word "dream" and "reality". If someone happens to hold a similar definition as you do, then you tend to agree with what they are saying. If you hold a definition of the words as objective/absolute, and someone else says something that conflicts with the definition that you project into the "world", then it might cause conflict. It just so happens that on this forum, people hold these ideas closer and deeper to their core identity, and therefore are more likely to feel the need to react more strongly to another's conflicting definitions. This isn't a bad thing because it helps progress society, but In a lot of ways, this explains a lot about the human condition.

There is a book called confessions of a sociopath, in which a sociopath explains how their life has gone, and how they think. One of the things thats interesting is that when she was about 25, she went on a contemplative path and came to the conclusion that she didnt have a self. It's pretty interesting.

Also, I just want to say that I am in no way denying your experience. I believe that you are suffering, and I feel for you very deeply. The best thing that you can do is bring your awareness to the thoughts when they arise, and better understand how your thoughts arise and why they are cyclical. On the other hand, you are a natural expression of reality. Denying a portion of your own experience will ensure that you continue to perceive a problem with that natural expression.