My Latest Solipsistic Insight

[Carl-Richard]

11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@OBEler The problem is that your notion of what ego is, is too broad. You are including sense experience into ego, which is incorrect. If you nuke the ego, you will be left with your present experience minus ego. The colors and shapes you see is not ego. Ego is just your finite self-image.

The "colors and shapes" you see is your personal dissociation (a part of the Veil of Maya, the Markov blanket), and labelling the colors and shapes as distinct entities is an operation done by the conceptual mind which the ego is a siamese twin to ("conceptual" can technically be task-oriented and "selfless" but also self-oriented as in the default mode network). But it's perfectly fair to use "ego" more broadly to refer to all these things (I personally tend to use "personal mind" for this). Nevertheless, using the term Absolute to refer to any of these things (as isolated limited things), is a mistake.

Edited 7 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[r0ckyreed]

Peter Ralston argues (which I kinda agree with) that perceptions, colors, sounds, etc. are part of survival. We perceive relative to survival. Our nervous system was adapted to sounds and colors because those senses flourished survival.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

The "colors and shapes" you see is your personal dissociation (a part of the Veil of Maya, the Markov blanket), and labelling the colors and shapes as distinct entities is an operation done by the conceptual mind which the ego is a siamese twin to ("conceptual" can technically be task-oriented and "selfless" but also self-oriented as in the default mode network). But it's perfectly fair to use "ego" more broadly to refer to all these things (I personally tend to use "personal mind" for this). Nevertheless, using the term Absolute to refer to any of these things (as isolated limited things), is a mistake.

It is not mistake. You do not understand what I am talking about. You are parroting Buddhism theory at me, and I directly understand God in ways you cannot comprehend and none of your theory can explain.

Edited 5 hours ago by Leo Gura

[r0ckyreed]

Buddhism is a mental trap and so is blindly following any teacher like Ralston, Gura, Spira, or whoever. Those characters are teachers but it is up to the self to decide whether to wake up or remain asleep.

I still haven’t deconstructed the external world yet despite my meditation, contemplation, and trips. For me, the stuff behind my head is as much real as the stuff in front of my head.

Edited 6 hours ago by r0ckyreed

[Carl-Richard]

43 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It is not mistake. You do not understand what I am talking about. You are parroting Buddhism theory at me, and I am directly understand God in ways you cannot comprehend and none of your theory can explain.

Yes because Markov blankets are propietary of Siddharta Gautama 500 BC, of course.

Tell me, how is a sensation, as distinct from a shape, absolute? Surely, the absoluteness occurs before any such distinction, correct?

Edited 5 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[RendHeaven]

@Carl-Richard "Mickey Mouse is Absolutely Mickey Mouse."

[Leo Gura]

34 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Yes because Markov blankets are propietary of Siddharta Gautama 500 BC, of course.

Tell me, how is a sensation, as distinct from a shape, absolute? Surely, the absoluteness occurs before any such distinction, correct?

Everything is ONE.

Buddhism has rotted your mind.

What you regard as "sensation" is actually God. You just lack the consciousness required to recognize it as such.

Yes, Mickey Mouse is God. Mickey Mouse is Absolute.

What I am telling you is so advanced you would need to meditate for 100 years to understand it.

And that's still just the tip of the iceberg of my understanding of God. This is easy stuff compared to the hard stuff. You have no chance of understanding the hard stuff at the rate you are going.

If you don't understand that Mickey Mouse is Absolute, what do you understand?

I can only be so nice for so long.

Edited 5 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Carl-Richard]

23 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Everything is ONE.

Buddhism has rotted your mind.

What you regard as "sensation" is actually God.

It's God when God pulls the blanket over its eyes. Lack of sensation is also God. Are you telling me the void is a sensation?

Edited 5 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

It's God when God pulls the blanket over its eyes. Lack of sensation is also God. Are you telling me the void is a sensation?

It is ALWAYS God.

Everything is always God. The only question is, Do you see it?

The Void is Infinity, as is everything else.

Edited 4 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Nemra]

7 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

The "ego mind" is the subjective perspective and derivations/abstractions of those structures (e.g. thoughts are abstractions of sensations).

Well, I disagree with that.

By your definition of "ego-mind", you have pretzeled your experience so much so that you ignore the actuality of your experience. Your definition is deceptive because it tries to equate ego with experience, but then it says the ego is an abstraction of the experience itself.

Your experience doesn't depend on your ego.

There are always things in your experience that your ego isn't constructed on, due to experience being infinite.

So, your experience is more fundamental than your ego.

Your experience absolutely exists because it is self-evident, e.g., red is red, square is square, pain is pain, sound is sound, etc. The limitations of your experience are actual. You cannot get out of your experience no matter how hard you try. It is solipsistic.

Edited 1 hour ago by Nemra

[Leo Gura]

If you got a lobotomy, you would lose ego, but perception would not be affected. Ideally speaking.

Edited 2 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Joseph Maynor]

We always want the other to lose ego so we can get our way easier lol.  

[Mellowmarsh]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I directly understand God in ways you cannot comprehend and none of your theory can explain

Is Leo referring to Spinoza’s God?

Or Leo’s God? 

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It is ALWAYS God.

Everything is always God. The only question is, Do you see it?

The Void is Infinity, as is everything else.

The point of contention is that senses are thought to be a specific thing, and you can experience a state without sense content, i.e. cessation or the void. The absolute is not a specific thing. It's all things. So when you say "senses are absolute", it's limiting the absolute, thus it's not absolute. "But if all things are absolute, then senses are absolute because it's a part of all things". Yes, in that case, you can call everything absolute and you would make a video on Absolute Spiral Dynamics, Absolute Nine Stages of Ego-Development Theory, Absolute Politics, Absolute Cooking with Leo. But then nothing becomes absolute.

What is "the absolute" actually pointing to? It's pointing to an experience of yourself as God. That experience is not the same as the average joe having a taste of ice cream at Cosco or whatever; of course, it's not structurally different, because God is again absolute and independent of such structure ultimately. But you wouldn't call that average joe "awake" just because he is having experiences of senses. Heck you even call us not awake, us who claim to having had experiences of God. No, the absolute is fundamentally beyond all that. It's an experience beyond all specifics of experience. It's the totality.

So when talking about the absolute, if you're indeed talking about the experience of yourself as God, it would make sense to try to honor that totality, not get hung up in "your senses are absolute" as if that is a point to get hung up on. Unless, you take everything to be equal to senses, even the state of cessation or the void.

[Leo Gura]

25 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

The point of contention is that senses are thought to be a specific thing, and you can experience a state without sense content, i.e. cessation or the void. The absolute is not a specific thing. It's all things. So when you say "senses are absolute", it's limiting the absolute, thus it's not absolute.

No. You just have a limited grasp of the absolute. The absolute is not limited by anything. It is certainly not limited by your logic.

Quote

"But if all things are absolute, then senses are absolute because it's a part of all things". Yes, in that case, you can call everything absolute and you would make a video on Absolute Spiral Dynamics, Absolute Nine Stages of Ego-Development Theory, Absolute Politics, Absolute Cooking with Leo. But then nothing becomes absolute.

No. That's a strawman of what is being pointed to.

Quote

What is "the absolute" actually pointing to? It's pointing to an experience of yourself as God. That experience is not the same as the average joe having a taste of ice cream at Cosco or whatever; of course, it's not structurally different, because God is again absolute and independent of such structure ultimately. But you wouldn't call that average joe "awake" just because he is having experiences of senses. Heck you even call us not awake, us who claim to having had experiences of God.

It is not the same experience because the average Joe's consciousness is not high enough to recognize the absolute.

Quote

No, the absolute is fundamentally beyond all that. It's an experience beyond all specifics of experience. It's the totality.

No. The absolute is here and now. Always. It does not give a fuck about whether you are seeing a kangaroo or a void.

A kangaroo is as absolute as your Buddhist void.

Quote

So when talking about the absolute, if you're indeed talking about the experience of yourself as God, it would make sense to try to honor that totality, not get hung up in "your senses are absolute" as if that is a point to get hung up on. Unless, you take everything to be equal to senses, even the state of cessation or the void.

You are the one hung up on voids.

I don't need to be in any void to be fully conscious of Absolute God.

When I go to Costco, I know I am strolling through the Absolute. You would too if you weren't so stubborn.

There is more Absolute Truth in my pinky than in all the Buddhism you've read.

You cannot reach the levels of consciousness I'm speaking from through study.

You are overlooking that your void penetrates and unifies with all form to the point of absolute identity.

My pinky IS your void.

Edited 1 hour ago by Leo Gura

[JoshB]

6 hours ago, r0ckyreed said:

I just did with the examples I gave. If someone scares me from behind, then it is implied that they existed behind me before I was aware that they touched me.

Are you really going to say that what is behind you doesn’t exist because you aren’t perceiving it now? Because I can turn my head and that stuff exists. 
 

This isn’t a strawman. This is just how consciousness works. When I go out to my car and find it has been vandalized, I don’t just assume I am hallucinating it. I assume that someone vandalized my car while I was unaware. I can even view camera footage of that happening that wasn’t in my awareness before. Things have causality to it.

Please help me understand how I could be wrong here. I just don’t see how my human perceptions are all that exist. I could lose all my perceptions, but that doesn’t mean sound or color no longer exists. It just means I have lost access to them and no longer exist in my experience.

Because its NOT human perception. Your human perception is not all there is, your perception as God is all there is which includes ANY and ALL Human Perception. Its Absolute perception. Youre still identified as a human and NOT GOD.

Saying all your perception is human is by definition strawman because it's coming from the ego.

You are absolutely hallucinating all of it. In a dream at night if I vandalize your car you absolutely imagined that.

Edited 53 minutes ago by JoshB

[JoshB]

30 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

There is more Absolute Truth in my pinky than in all the Buddhism you've read.

Lol

@Carl-Richard 

Nothing=Everything but you seem to have a bias towards the nothing aspect of infinity.

Edited 52 minutes ago by JoshB

[Mellowmarsh]

17 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No. You just have a limited grasp of the absolute. The absolute is not limited by anything. It is certainly not limited by your logic.

No human being can know or grasp the absolute. Because you are the absolute knowing that cannot be known. So it’s not even relevant to point out the idea of a limited grasp of the absolute to someone whilst simultaneously knowing the absolute is not limited by limits.

Any claim to know this absolute knowing places limitation on what is absolutely unlimited as there’s nothing outside or beyond infinity that can claim any knowledge of it. It’s already the knowing that cannot be known. Therefore, any claimed knowledge of the absolute is another illusion.

[JoshB]

5 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

No human being can know or grasp the absolute. Because you are the absolute knowing that cannot be known. So it’s not even relevant to point out the idea of a limited grasp of the absolute to someone whilst simultaneously knowing the absolute is not limited by limits.

Any claim to know this absolute knowing places limitation on what is absolutely unlimited as there’s nothing outside or beyond infinity that can claim any knowledge of it. It’s already the knowing that cannot be known. Therefore, any claimed knowledge of the absolute is another illusion.

Every state of consciousness is the absolute but not every state is conscious of the absolute. No you can absolutely know what the absolute is. And absolutely not know what it is either and be self deceived about it.

With an infinite variety and flavor of self deceiption to go along with it.

Edited 48 minutes ago by JoshB

[Leo Gura]

The funny thing is, realizing the absolute is just the beginning. There is so much more consciousness of God beyond that.

You guys cannot even comprehend what I've been conscious of. You are all way too closedminded.

Edited 47 minutes ago by Leo Gura