Raze

Frank Yang's video response to Leo's video - about stage Turquoise

259 posts in this topic

25 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Plot twist: cessation itself is something you're imagining right now. It never happened.

You guys don't appreciate how fucked up this gets. Everything you think happened to you, never happened. Every single one of your prior awakenings is imaginary and designed to keep you from realizing you are God right now.

You are constructing a Buddhist dream when you tell yourself, "I went to a Buddhist retreat last year. I meditated for 10 days, and I had a cessation. I realized the Buddha's highest teaching." << THAT is the Buddhist dream! You are not God-realized.

Deny it all you want. That's exactly what you do to maintain your dream.

@Leo Gura Why God wants to maintain the illusion at all cost and trick you with all his intelligent power? why can't God make this whole thing a little more loose, so that it could be easier to awaken? what I'm wondering is why God is so serious about the game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, m0hsen said:

@Leo Gura Why God wants to maintain the illusion at all cost and trick you with all his intelligent power? why can't God make this whole thing a little more loose, so that it could be easier to awaken? what I'm wondering is why God is so serious about the game?

Stop assuming God is something else than you.

That will make all this mumbo jumbo of trying to get it way less confusing.


Spirituality is not the renunciation of life

It is the art of living fully

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what the Buddha taught about non-being and impermanence to his most advanced students (Makes you wonder how enlightened are those preaching non-being and non-self really?)

Tathāgata was the term that Sakyamuni referred to himself as, instead of the pronouns me, I or myself.   Tathāgata is the Buddha that most Buddhists, those on the Long Paths, don’t want to discuss.

“Those who cannot accept that the Tathāgata is eternal, cause misery”-Mahaparinirvana Sutra.

What? How can Buddha say that; didn’t he say everything is impermanent?

The Buddha said the Self is “indestructible like a diamond” -Mahaparinirvana Sutra.

No way! The Buddha said there was no self.

“I will now show you the nature which is not produced and not extinguished” -Shurangama Sutra.

Buddha said that “Buddha Nature [the Tathāgata] is the True Self and like a diamond, for example, it cannot be destroyed” Dharmaksema.

Yes, Buddha taught impermanence, suffering, Emptiness, non-self for child-like students; yet on the day of Parinirvana, the Tathāgata taught eternity, happiness, and the Self, saying , “now, when his students have overcome the sickness of false views and possess a healthy, more mature appetite, he can teach them the Tathāgatagarbha.”

“Those who hold the theory of non-self are injurers of the Buddhist doctrines, they are given up to the dualistic views of being and non-being; they are to be ejected by the convocation of the Bhikshus and are never to be spoken to”-Lankavatara Sutra 765.

So why did Sakyamuni Buddha speak of non-being?

He told a story of a woman with an ailing infant. The sickness of that child requires that it temporarily desist from drinking its mother’s milk while the medicine which has been administered to it is assimilated. To facilitate this, the mother smears her breasts with a bitter substance, and this deters the infant from suckling at his mother’s breasts. But after the medicine has been absorbed, the child can drink the health-bestowing mother’s milk to his heart’s content – although at first he is hesitant and fearful of doing so. This relates to the doctrine of non-Self, Emptiness (which many commentators on Buddhism equate with “non-substantialism” or “non-essentialism”) and Self: when his students are still spiritually “sick”, the Buddha gives them the bitter medicine of “non-Self” and Emptiness; but when they have progressed into greater health and maturity, he teaches them the reality of the Tathagatagarbha. 

A commentator mentions how early in this sutra the Buddha has to reprimand his enthusiastic “non-Self”-championing monks who “repeatedly meditate upon the idea that there is no Self” for being perverse in their understanding of Dharma and wrong-headedly applying the teaching of non-Self where its writ does not run – to the real Self.

“As when a garment is cleansed of its dirt, or when gold is removed from its impurities, they are not destroyed but remain as they are; so is the skandha self freed from its defilements”- Lankavatara Sutra 756.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

43 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You are constructing a Buddhist dream when you tell yourself, "I went to a Buddhist retreat last year. I meditated for 10 days, and I had a cessation.

Yet your trips are also dream of a memory of having them in the past that you are constructing right now. So unless you're in full God mode right now it will always be a construction of a dream but even this construction is occurring always in the present moment

4 hours ago, GreenWoods said:

either there was no consciousness. And these 2 seconds never happened. Like time travelling 2 seconds into the future. And you have no memory or idea of what might have happened during these 2 seconds 

If I'm the only one that exists, the whole universe literally completely disappeared during cessation

Edited by Enlightenment

"Reality is brutal and it does not care about being fair to you."

                                                                                            -- Leo Gura

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, m0hsen said:

@Leo Gura Why God wants to maintain the illusion at all cost and trick you with all his intelligent power?

So that life could be possible.

There cannot be life without a very strong sense of "reality".

So ask yourself this: if you were God, and you could create life, but life required you to create a nearly inescapable illusion, would you do it? Or would you say, "Fuck life. No life for anyone. Life is evil."

Quote

why can't God make this whole thing a little more loose, so that it could be easier to awaken?

God has made it easy to awaken. That's why God imagined psychedelics ;)

The problem is you're too afraid to awaken. That's what makes it difficult. You don't want it. You want to play games. And so your wish is granted.

If God forced awakening upon you God would be a devil. You wouldn't wish awakening to be forced upon your worst enemy unless he really wanted it and was ready to handle it. It would be like dropping a metric ton of gold on someone's head. It sounds good only to the naive fool.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Enlightenment said:

Yet your trips are also dream of a memory of having them in the past that you are constructing right now. So unless you're in full God mode right now it will always be a construction of a dream but even this construction is occurring always in the present moment

Yes, of course.

Luckily I'm conscious that I'm God right now.

I am not in full God mode, but I don't need to be. All modes are God and the highest mode cannot be sustained by a human anyway.

Quote

If I'm the only one that exists, the whole universe literally completely disappeared during cessation

Or so you imagine ;)


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Enlightenment said:

If I'm the only one that exists, the whole universe literally completely disappeared during cessation

@Enlightenment Your belief of "whole universe" disappeared, along with everything else you imagined . And only God/Consciousness remained, Aware of Itself.

And from the absolute perspective, all of that is right now imagined to have happened.

 

@tatsumaru Nice!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Enlightenment said:

I think Frank misunderstands Leo. When he says I've been there in God-consciousness/realization state persistently over a year and a half and then went beyond to completely lose any center - this is not a state Leo talks about

I also went through the stages to completely lose the center, like that bubble of self gets bigger and bigger until it dissolves completely but those are all still unalerted states of consciousness "sober" states. They don't feel nearly as solipsistic as 5-MeO trips, not even close.

It's important to make this distinction because Leo talks about more ecstatic states which are clearly "alerted" states of consciousness. There's a pretty clear sort of feeling to them like when you snort 5-MeO and start to feel the effects, it's pretty clear you've ingested the substance and it's alerted state now. There's no such feeling to natty states Frank talks about, but as a tradeoff you miss a shitton of ecstasy and deep "understanding" Leo would call it

At the same time, Frank has this obsession with "it" having to be a natural state which is unalerted. I personally don't see why a constant state of 5-MeO (even if alerted and chemically, artificially induced) wouldn't be "it"

I agree with Frank about cessation showing clearly consciousnesses impermanence. And the problem is that Leo should IMO become much better meditator to have a more complete understanding and Frank should do more powerful psychedelics now, after his center/self-loss

Frank misses much much deeper levels of solipsistic God discovery and Leo misses dependent origination, cessation expieriences

 

Great post. You should share it with Frank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

43 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

All modes are God and the highest mode cannot be sustained by a human anyway.

Humans are imaginary. So of course We can imagine "humans" that can sustain all modes aka Infinity aka "We" . 

:-) ;)

Edited by WaveInTheOcean

Can you bite your own teeth?  --  “What a caterpillar calls the end of the world we call a butterfly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, GreenWoods said:

@Enlightenment Your belief of "whole universe" disappeared, along with everything else you imagined . And only God/Consciousness remained, Aware of Itself.

And from the absolute perspective, all of that is right now imagined to have happened.

 

 

" from the absolute perspective, all of that is right now imagined to have happened." is a believe you are having in the present moment, so it is not real.

 

You see, I can also play this game so your solipsistic perspective is not more real than my materialistic perspective because both are thoughts that are arising in the present moment. That´s why Leo and Nah discourse doesn´t make sense, because what they are attacking is as false as what they are stating, from the Absolute perspective.

 

All these solipsistic game is just neurosis and dishonest dialectic arguments. The idea "you are imagining everything" is also false because it is an idea!!

 

 

Edited by RedLine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Enlightenment said:

@GreenWoods It's quite simple. Imagine you sit during deep meditation very alert and aware, eyes open. You see a moving car outside a window, and then cessation occurs, there is no experience whatsoever during this time, and then at some point, let's say 2 seconds later consciousness appears again and so the car was teleported from your POV. Like you would edit out frames from the movie. It's like being fully alert, then instantly falling into a deep sleep or even better deep anesthesia, and then reappearing again fully conscious without the drowsiness/fogginess like right after you wake up in the morning.

Timestamped:

 

Interesting video.  I'm not sure how I feel on what he's sharing.  I don't know if I've heard of cessation ever described that way, it honestly sounds pointless in a way.  Most interpretations of cessation I've heard or read about is a connection so to say to no-time, no-dimension, no identification, no pushing or pulling anything, and as such its generally blissful, and fulfilling in a way that is undescribable. 

The way he describes it, which I would not know why anyone would want to try to do so since you can just go to sleep or have someone punch you unconscious and still go through what he's saying is cessation.  I mean if you learn to appreciate it after it happens, by all means, however you can just appreciate with love and gratitude after waking up from sleep every morning and not dedicate any time toward the type of cessation he is talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, RedLine said:

" from the absolute perspective, all of that is right now imagined to have happened." is a believe you are having in the present moment, so it is not real.

You are right. When I wrote that, it was purely a belief. 

I just cranked up consciousness, and now it isn't belief any more. 

26 minutes ago, RedLine said:

You see, I can also play this game so your solipsistic perspective is not more real than my materialistic perspective because both are thoughts that are arising in the present moment. That´s why Leo and Nah discourse doesn´t make sense, because what they are attacking is as false as what they are stating, from the Absolute perspective.

All these solipsistic game is just neurosis and dishonest dialectic arguments.

We are always playing games, no matter what we do.

23 minutes ago, RedLine said:

. The idea "you are imagining everything" is also false because it is an idea!!

It is pure understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

I would not know why anyone would want to try to do so since you can just go to sleep or have someone punch you unconscious and still go through what he's saying is cessation.  

??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 minutes ago, GreenWoods said:

 

It is pure understanding.

No, pure understanding is just silence and peace, it is not a methapisical idea about reality. I have been trap in that solipsistic perception for a while and I I had this deep realizaion recently: both "reality exists" and "reality is imaginary" are false, in the same degree of falsehood; present moment is ARATIONAL

Edited by RedLine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RedLine said:

No, pure understanding is just silence and peace, it is not a methapisical idea about reality. 

I also wouldn't necessarily call it an idea. It's more like recognition. No thoughts or concepts required. 

9 minutes ago, RedLine said:

 I had this deep realizaion recently: both "reality exists" and "reality is imaginary" are false, in the same degree of falsehood; present moment is ARATIONAL

Can you explain why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, GreenWoods said:

@Enlightenment The way I see it, this car experience means that:

  • either there was no consciousness. And these 2 seconds never happened. Like time travelling 2 seconds into the future. And you have no memory or idea of what might have happened during these 2 seconds 
  • or, you do remember something of these 2 seconds. And in that case, a very small amount of ego consciousness was still present. Enough to register stuff happening, but not enough to register it as a conscious experience. 
  • (or the 3rd point of my previous post. unconsciousness from the ego's pov. But Consciousness from Consciousness'/God's pov)

(from the relative perspective. From the absolute, past is imagination anyway).

 

What you, Frank, and the guy in the video are basically saying is that Ultimate Nothingness is not identical to God, Consciousness and Being. That this Ultimate Nothingness is prior to God=Consciousness=Being. That these are impermanent phenomena arising out of the permanent ground which is Ultimate Nothingness.

 

This contradicts my awakenings. It probably contradicts the awakenings of most people on here, I guess.

I don't think Frank is at all saying what this guy is saying.  Find my comment in the OP's video on frank yang, in which he responded to (I go by Into The Unknown on youtube).  He explains in further depth what he's trying to say.  I feel on some level he's pointing roughly the same thing Leo is in many ways, with less emphasis on You are consciously creating everything and more emphasis on Its arising as everything of no-ones volition or intention (this idea is a very eastern thought idea from what I've learned from Alan Watts, and is one I hold highly as well).  Frank seems to have a different idea of development through stages than Leo on some level, but admits that these can be thrown out eventually and aren't holy rules in which all who awaken follow these linear sequences. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GreenWoods said:

I also wouldn't necessarily call it an idea. It's more like recognition. No thoughts or concepts required. 

Can you explain why?

Because reason is you trying to change reality, it is an ego (egoism) activity. Reason is you trying to escape from present moment. Reason is desire. If you would be 100% satisfied with the present moment, why would questions (reason is basically answers to questions) arise? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tatsumaru said:

Here's what the Buddha taught about non-being and impermanence to his most advanced students (Makes you wonder how enlightened are those preaching non-being and non-self really?)

Tathāgata was the term that Sakyamuni referred to himself as, instead of the pronouns me, I or myself.   Tathāgata is the Buddha that most Buddhists, those on the Long Paths, don’t want to discuss.

“Those who cannot accept that the Tathāgata is eternal, cause misery”-Mahaparinirvana Sutra.

What? How can Buddha say that; didn’t he say everything is impermanent?

The Buddha said the Self is “indestructible like a diamond” -Mahaparinirvana Sutra.

No way! The Buddha said there was no self.

“I will now show you the nature which is not produced and not extinguished” -Shurangama Sutra.

Buddha said that “Buddha Nature [the Tathāgata] is the True Self and like a diamond, for example, it cannot be destroyed” Dharmaksema.

Yes, Buddha taught impermanence, suffering, Emptiness, non-self for child-like students; yet on the day of Parinirvana, the Tathāgata taught eternity, happiness, and the Self, saying , “now, when his students have overcome the sickness of false views and possess a healthy, more mature appetite, he can teach them the Tathāgatagarbha.”

“Those who hold the theory of non-self are injurers of the Buddhist doctrines, they are given up to the dualistic views of being and non-being; they are to be ejected by the convocation of the Bhikshus and are never to be spoken to”-Lankavatara Sutra 765.

So why did Sakyamuni Buddha speak of non-being?

He told a story of a woman with an ailing infant. The sickness of that child requires that it temporarily desist from drinking its mother’s milk while the medicine which has been administered to it is assimilated. To facilitate this, the mother smears her breasts with a bitter substance, and this deters the infant from suckling at his mother’s breasts. But after the medicine has been absorbed, the child can drink the health-bestowing mother’s milk to his heart’s content – although at first he is hesitant and fearful of doing so. This relates to the doctrine of non-Self, Emptiness (which many commentators on Buddhism equate with “non-substantialism” or “non-essentialism”) and Self: when his students are still spiritually “sick”, the Buddha gives them the bitter medicine of “non-Self” and Emptiness; but when they have progressed into greater health and maturity, he teaches them the reality of the Tathagatagarbha. 

A commentator mentions how early in this sutra the Buddha has to reprimand his enthusiastic “non-Self”-championing monks who “repeatedly meditate upon the idea that there is no Self” for being perverse in their understanding of Dharma and wrong-headedly applying the teaching of non-Self where its writ does not run – to the real Self.

“As when a garment is cleansed of its dirt, or when gold is removed from its impurities, they are not destroyed but remain as they are; so is the skandha self freed from its defilements”- Lankavatara Sutra 756.

Thats really interesting, thanks for sharing.  Since I never really fully understood Buddhism and deeply read, I just assumed thats what no-self meant anyways.  I think another reason I thought this was because of another saying from vedantic philosophy I believe.  Basically its the argument that if there is only a singularity, no distance, no time, no volume, no space, then there is basically no-selfs and thus experience is arising for no-one or no-thing, what could really be said of anything as such, lol perhaps just thoughts of itself, but now im just rambling, hahaha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now