Joseph Maynor

It's humbling to think that babies are enlightened. Right? Talk about paradoxes! We go our whole life-long to arrive back as babes at the end of the day. What the hell is the intermediate phase for? That's the $10,000 question. Obviously we had to learn something in there.

@How to be wise Maybe. If you think about it, it could be possible. Let's say we concede this. Now -- how do we confirm it? See? That's the issue. Testimony is way-down on the scale in terms of Epistemological-weight.

@Truth Wow. Beautiful and succinct explanation. Thank you!

Gotcha Maxx. It's because any concept would be a part of Being. This is nothing but Being. And Being is no-thing. Thank you! I wanna make one point here which is not always clarified properly: just because it would have to be always said. This may appear to be some kind of logical exercise or conceptual exercise -- but really the language is tracking the awareness here, not the other way around. Does that make sense? You're not gonna become enlightened by grokking theory alone. It doesn't work like that. So, when I talk in theory-cliches, the sentences always track what I am already aware of. But that doesn't do shit for you, see? You gotta look into this stuff yourself by examining your reality yourself. There's no easy, primrose-path around doing this introspective work. Awareness is much more important than theory. But theory is very important too.

You are part of my dream. That's what this is to me. You're part of me. You're one of the happenings that I am aware of. I'm also aware of these words now. They almost look like skeletons. And I love you! You're a sage.

This reminds me of something I remember Leo said in one of his videos, and I think he was quoting a third-party source: A mosquito is a wondrous object if seen as an end in itself.

Thank you Leo! You tailored that to me, I can see.

This is so important to keep in mind. So important. As I grow I gotta remember this. It is so tempting to talk from where you are versus where the person who asked the question is. Like -- lemme boost you to my level; but this is often met with confusion. The more you grow, the more you have to work on putting yourself in the shoes of others. This video goes well with this advice:

Don't forget the Taoists who came from Ancient China. And what Maxx said.

Here's a good one to watch:

I don't read them much anymore. It's been a couple of weeks since I read them. For some reason people tend to under-emphasize theory in enlightenment. I'm still trying to understand why. Theory is needed for non-enlightened people to become enlightened. The level of realizing you need no more theory is a very high level. And it's probably feigned a lot too. Yeah, I'm Mr. Tough Guy, I don't need anymore theory; I'm better than you are. This chest-thumping over not needing theory leaves me suspicious. There's nothing wrong with theory per se. It's how it's clung to that is the problem. Look at how may videos Leo has made! Leo realizes the utility of theory too. I feel like I need to be a defender of theory in Enlightenment a lot. I need to wear that hat a lot. If you wanna become enlightened, y'aint gonna do it while merely sitting on the toilet one day, let me assure you. It's a little bit more complicated than that.

(1) I have 4 raisins in my hand. (2) My pet baboon comes grabs all of them out of my hand. (3) How many raisins do I have in that hand now? Assume the answer is zero. What controlled that thought and inference? You gotta look at these questions pragmatically not theoretically. A theoretical answer ain't gonna really tell you much.

That's interesting. Could you say the opposite theory with the same degree of certitude?

The very basis of writing contains words such as I, me, mine, yours, hers, that, this, them, those, the, it, a (indefinite pronoun), to, [any general concept, e.g., "concept"], cause, good, true.

@Nahm Haha. What you said is great! Probably true.

It took me quite a bit of stewing in the theory, but I'm a very conceptual person, so I'm sure it was overkill. I have a huge stack of notes that I review from time to time containing theory and information. My notes fill one of these totally expanded out: https://www.amazon.com/Smead-Straight-Cut-Expansion-Redrope-73234/dp/B001L1RFOG/ref=sr_1_32?ie=UTF8&qid=1506013393&sr=8-32&keywords=expanding+folder

Monet

The awareness of happenings.

@How to be wise Sure. I think it depends on how you want to define the term "science." Is Leo's work a science? What about in the broad sense of science? I think the biggest problem that Enlightenment faces is that people are so scared of death that they will never embrace death, which is what Enlightenment is: The death of the illusion of life. It takes a leap of faith to face-down our own Egos, and also a lot of courage and emotional-labor. What is the difference between science and knowledge? Maybe instead of trying to pidgeon-hole Enlightenment Theory as a science, we become ok with it just being knowledge. Or maybe we stop needing to label or categorize it in a meta way period. The theory works -- and at least in the way that Leo explains it, it is already rich in both breadth and depth. So, I think we already have what you think we need. It's just that Enlightenment needs (1) outstanding teachers; and (2) people willing to do the work. Those are the two key variables as I see it. On a separate note -- I think it's a fascinating question though about whether Enlightenment is a way to save the world. Think about it -- if the world is a dream, who are you saving? You are playing a video-game in your own mind. There are no Egos to reform. Instead of saving the world, you are just watching a dream unfold. See? Enlightenment goes deep. People don't want to believe this stuff. Enlightenment is basically telling people that their lives are not real. If you're stuck in the ego-paradigm this is gonna sound like death before death -- like killing yourself before you die, which sounds crazy. From the egoic perspective, Enlightenment looks like a life for losers who can't handle life and thus need to think it away. To the Ego, Enlightenment looks like the ultimate way to stick your head in the sand in life -- a systematic denial of reality. Like committing philosophical suicide. Egos might think that Enlightened folks are just people who want to die but don't have the balls or ovaries to take their own life for real. Or maybe they believe that Enlightened people are a bunch of losers: loafers who have conned themselves out of being successful in life through a kind of silly rationalization. And you wonder why more people don't pursue Enlightenment? Well, Enlightenment smells like poo to the Ego. It's like -- who would keep a bunch of mosquitoes as pets? Let 'em fly around the house? Probably not, right? You're gonna get ur ass bit badly! Same with Enlightenment. Ego-death hurts. Enlightenment is gonna be counter-intuitive by its very nature.