Leo Gura

Major Discussion Of Actualized.org Teachings & The Future

289 posts in this topic

No complaints here. I haven't done all the reading but I think I'm starting to piece everything together now. 

No more ego games from me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to say that your work has inspired me to look at the world again with a mysterious sense of wonder that I have always had, but that I have not found others who could relate to it with. It has helped me more than any other individual source to make sense of the world and to identify many of my own biases and ways in which I trick myself. It has given me a framework and something to relate my psychedelic experiences to, which has been immeasurably valuable in minimizing unnecessary suffering from the solitary nature of this work and for having some kind of map on where it might be good to look. I have three points that I have been thinking about for some time.

1. I think a lot of this drama and controversy just ties into a few key things in your videos. I don't think the negative reaction is primarily due to what you say in your videos, but rather due to how you say it. And it's not even anything very big, it's just these subtle expressions and ways of saying things which trigger people. As an example you might say I am God vs. You are God. This is a small difference but to an outsider the former word choice causes a whole other level of triggering. There are many people online who say even more radical stuff than you, but because of how they say it, there isn't as much uneasiness and backlash. So I think a lot of the drama could be eliminated with subtle tonality changes and word choices that don't need to affect the content itself. Maybe it's a sacrifice in authenticity, but it might result in calmer waters and be a net benefit.

2. Many people use this forum as an emotional unloading/venting place. I think this is one of the main causes of distraction here. Emotions are unloaded as baggage to other people without their consent and this is taken as some fundamental right that people hold, so that might be something that should be regulated to some extent at least. I mean posts and comments that have no genuine intention at looking at things from a new perspective or to actually solve the issue, they are just pure expressions of frustration, anger or bitterness. This brings me to my third point/suggestion.

3. Some kind of barrier of entry to the forum. I have been a part of many online communities, and the best ones have been the ones with some barrier to entry. This is probably not easy to implement in the forum, but a questionnaire when creating an account would be golden. Just basic questions to see if the user has read the rules of the forum and to see what their intentions are in using the forum. This can filter out a lot of spammers and trolls who don't have the energy to even look at the rules or have no interest in real development and learning. 

Also I think it's important to keep allowing criticism, at least when there is a genuine desire to find some common ground. It seems to me that for example @AdeptusPsychonautica's criticisms have been mostly good faith, with a desire to find some common ground. You would much rather have Adeptus as the (sometimes annoying) person pointing out potential problems than someone who was truly with bad intentions. And somebody needs to serve that function, that niche of pointing out criticism will inevitably get filled with a community as large as this. So having someone like Adeptus (who often acts in good faith) is a real blessing compared to what it could be. So it's good to keep good diplomacy with the "opposing" side, which will inevitably emerge regardless of who it is. 


Every perspective has at least a piece of the truth in it.

No one is capable of being 100% wrong.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

11 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

You're begging the question.

You take "separate conscious experiences" so utterly for granted that you fall hook line and sinker for the illusion.

"Separate conscious experiences" are an assumption. Necessarily. It must be. You have zero way to verify them, because you are unable to "step outside" of "your own" conscious experience and into "some else's."

YOU are actually the one speculating.

If you really Knew that I Am [The Reality], you would be unable to assert the text I've highlighted in bold.

You would simply stop at "I Am. Infinite Imagination."

There would be no more "from my point of view," no more "I am 'the reality'," no more "you appear to be my [imagination]," no more "but I would know that you are not right," and no more "solipsism" :D

So you're saying Leo needs to also stop at " I am. Infinite imagination". in all of his videos, instead of 2-3 hour long content? Otherwise he is not conscious he is The Reality? :D Cause he is talking in videos about solipsistic nature of reality, which, by your definition, would mean he is not fully conscious that he is [The Reality]. 

It appears if you become conscious you are "The Reality", you become a tree, by your words. 

Edited by Dodo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Samuel Garcia said:

How to become conscious of an other/ other minds if all I know is experience?

If you become infinitely conscious, you will know all there is to know.

I cannot give you the answer to the "other" question. You must come to it yourself.

Anyhow, let's not derail this thread any more with the solipsism question here.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Consept said:

Hmm im not sure, he could very well be doing it for views but i dont think that takes away from his points, some of which were valid. I also dont think its a bad thing to poke at actualized.org or any other group or person, as long as its not obviously false and done in bad faith. This seems like an attack on the character rather than a discussion of his criticism. 

It is interesting seeing perspectives play out in this case the pscychonaut guy and Leo. There will always be bias from either side Leo believes that hes doing great work that is helping many people awaken and this guy thinks his work is good but maybe in some cases too extreme in terms of certainty and manner of delivery to the audience. The thing is both of them are right from their perspective and also both can be right, its very possible Leo is doing great work and that there is spiritual arrogance and delivery methods that could, unintentionally, encourage people follow in a cultish way. The thing is though whatever you do there is always a dark side to it that youre not even really in control of, especially if it involves a group of people, i doubt there are any speakers or youtube people with large followings that dont cause some negatives to their followers or to the world, its then easy for others to pick on these negatives and class the person as all bad, without looking at what theyre actually trying to do or say. 

If this forum purports itself to be a high consciousness one it should be able to take on board criticisms, filtering out the bias and slander, and use it constructively to further look at ourselves and where we can improve, otherwise we're just like every other 'movement', defensive and insular. 

It has nothing to do with an ad-hominem. I issue this criticism of clickbaiting with newspaper all the time, but in this case the information comes from a person. What can I do if the dynamic is the same but there is not a team of journalist but a single person behind? All actors have an agenda. 

He's got all the right to create content and express himself. I have no problem with that. What I am taking issue more is to come here on this thread and complain that some people got triggered by his videos, when the very nature of the subject is emotional. Simple cause and effect. On this specific point, he's not having my sympathy, nor by calling this effect "cult like".  And this misrepresentation is quite problematic. Even though, I agree that some individuals who are using the forum on the regular have been particularly problematic.

Also, I've said that it was a 1-in-2. I don't say that growing his community is the sole concern, but my personal take on that matter is that Soonhei's suicide is a private event and not a public one that should be discussed on the public sphere, in order to respect his family. If I had my own channel, I would have chosen not to discuss it.

It's the first time that I issue any type of criticism over critiscism of Actualized.org. By no mean would I not want it to stop. But anything which is putting fuel or potentially firing up this story pandering on the cult narrative or Actualized.org responsability from far or close will not have my support.

 


Association with the wise is the root cause for obliterating all misery. -  Tripura Rahasya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please, no more attacking Adeptus. Let him be.

I might do a live conversation with him in the future to clear the air. He can be reasoned with and he's not a bad guy.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually intentionally and silently left the forum a week ago with no plans to return, but just heard on another channel about this. 

My main concern (and this started after some reflecting) was the Connor stuff recently and how I feel your videos and this community may have played a role. I see a lot of mentally and emotionally unwell people on your forum getting advice to do psychedelics and in general just taking on stuff that is way over their heads from where they are at. I just don’t think you have a degree of wisdom or embodiment or life experience that is needed to be a spiritual teacher yet or run a community of this size. You helped me a ton when I was younger with getting out of a victim mindset and taking action but as I caught up and got into psychedelics myself I found myself diverging with you more and more in many areas especially contradictory in experience as well. You’ll always have a special place in my heart Leo and you are a great dude and someone I still very much admire but I don’t feel I wanna continue following your project. I hope this recent event leads to an evolution of your work and this forum in some way that is more healthily and functional than how it is now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

36 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

This is where you must awaken to the Truth of the matter. Sorry, I can't tell you. I would to but you won't get it.

 

you can try me, I like to think I can understand "wacky" ideas and am able to hold paradoxes for inspection.

Quote

Does it really fail? Or are you just talking to yourself? What is failing if you are imagining the whole Universe for your own amusement?

It appears that I am identified with the wrong thing (with this point of view), which leads to this confusion. But maybe not since you wrote the following:

Quote

 

That's answer! You can't escape 1st person perspective. But what you can do is become infinitely conscious that 1st person perspective IS reality! It only seems like a perspective to the ego. It's not really a perspective. It's God, Absolute Truth, Infinity.

This is where psychedelics are powerful. If you try to do it through meditation it might take you 20 years. I don't know. Depends on how good you are at meditating. I'm not saying you couldn't, I'm saying it's difficult and rare.

 

You yourself here claim that said person cannot escape 1st person perspective. So you appear to assume he has a 1st person perspective, such as yourself. This is the same assumption I do when I say life is not solipsistic.

There are 7 billion different human 1st person perspectives that we know of. Lets not include animals and other beings etc.. Now we are all connected by the field of the present moment, but if you're saying the 1st person perspective is the One Reality and not just a perspective out of the whole, then you are clearly saying there are 7 billion different realities and they are all the One reality... How? 

To me it is obvious that there are 7 billion different perspectives that are connected by the One Reality of Now. It is the now itself, not any perspective out of the 7 billion, that is the reality. So we can say reality is solipsistic only if we all identify with the present moment itself and then only the present moment exists, which is absolutely true, but wouldn't be any of our relative experience alone.

But what you appear to be doing is you're saying that your POV is absolute and if everyone follows this teaching and gets to "I am the only reality" I bet it would cause mayhem. Just like in my dreams where everything is acceptable. That's because most people who would follow this teaching will not be identified with the present moment, but rather with their bodymind organism and their first person perspective "within that" bodymind organism. Basically, will mix Truth of Oneness with Ego and we will have 7 billion people thinking they are the one and only God...

Now they can go do anything, it was exactly the solipsistic mindset that can be seen in SoonHei and this cannot be denied, even if what you're saying is absolutely true in absolute sense after you take more psychedellics... Lets mention also that SoonHei did use psychedelics. 

TLDR: In my opinion solipsism is milk mixed with poison. It looks like milk, tastes like milk, it's probably milk... The poison is not visible, but it is relevant. I think solipsism is Truth mixed with ego. 

Edited by Dodo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It would be wise of you to acknowledge that the way you do your videos is fuel for the reptilian brain, so don't be too surprised when you call everything a cult, that you get people who vehemently disagree with you.

It's a rather low blow to call something people love a cult, and then when they respond to you passionately that it is not a cult, then you use that as evidence to validate your original theory. This is called confirmation bias and self-fulfilling prophecy 101 and there's nothing nuanced or sophisticated about how that works. This is basic self-deception and it misinforms your own viewers who I assume you would rather be educating rather than triggering.

See... you could do this with any popular brand. You could call CNN a cult, you could call Tesla a cult, you could call any spiritual teacher a cult, you could call Nintendo a cult, you could even call a university a cult -- and if the brand has passionate fans you will have triggered them to instinctively attack you, and then you would use that as evidence that they are a cult. But what you're doing there is not anything rational or scientific, it is just poking a hornet's nest.

When you make triggery videos, people get triggered.

If you're going to be using the cult word, maybe actually read some books about what cults are and are not. Or if you don't want to read, I have videos about it: Cult Psychology - Part 1 and Cult Psychology - Part 2.

The problem with your critiques is that you clearly have not listened to much of my teachings. Or if you listened, you were listening with an eye for clickbait drama psychedelic stuff rather than actually bothering to hear the teaching.

   Well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

13 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

but also if you disagree with core things I teach about Love, Truth, Consciousness, levels of awakening, psychedelics, and God-realization. If you have fundamental disagreements on these points, voice them out, say your peace, and then we'll see if you are suitable to stay on this forum.

First of all, I think you've handled the situation well, I think it's good to address these issues and not shy away from recent events by making a video 

I ofc don't think you condone suicide, or that anyone on this forum is responsible for the man's death.

that said, I do think the forum would be better if everyone were to speak in riddles less and celebrate the beauty of human existence more

as for the quote above, it's a weird one because I love what you teach and agree with a lot of the things, especially regarding psychology, politics and personal development, but spirituality too mostly. however, I still question some statements you make like saying you've reached 'Complete God-Realization',  with the issue purely being the use of the word 'Complete', and not you saying you're God-realized, as:

1.) To me, that would mean existing as pure infinite consciousness, not as Leo experiencing pure infinite consciousness from Leo's mind inside Leo's body, and so you haven't actually become infinite consciousness outside of the mind or body

2.) To me, 'complete God realization' would mean to know what is unknowable to humans, like where existence came from, how existence came to be, things that we can only speculate on as humans, but that actual infinite consciousness would have experienced

3.) you've said the same exact words during previous awakenings, when at the time they were your deepest ones, only to then say the previous time wasn't 'complete God realization' after a deeper awakening, and that this new time is. and no this isn't me not getting that each awakening was complete in and of itself, I get that, that's not what I'm denying, I'm denying that you are completely god-realized because you imo you can't possibly know whether or not you could become more 'God-realized' or not, and therefore imo can never you're 'completely' God-realized' , especially when claiming so as a human

3.) you claim you achieved this after 130-ish awakenings, but don't know what'd happened after, say, a 1000

4.) you've said many times that there are infinite degrees of awakening, so how'd you know you've reached the end

5.) as I've said before, think of all the psychedelics that could exist throughout the universe that could enable deeper God-Realization, or all the other species that could be more evolved at experiencing consciousness compared to us

6.) you always return to you after experiencing God, whereas imo to reach 'Complete God-realization' would be to be infinite for infinity

I also have a bit of an issue with how questions are avoided sometimes, like in this image, rather than acknowledging the possibilty of other psychedelics in space, or even the existence of space itself,  you just said 'all of that is imaginary', which whilst I obviously know you're getting at the fact we imagine space as a thought when we think of it, to me that's a fruitless statement in the context of that conversation, as I could say the 5-meo is imaginary, or the supermarket is imaginary, but you still use 5-meo to experience God, and the supermarket to eat, just like space is still there when you call it imaginary, and so it's really saying nothing when you say that and is just an easy way to avoid objections

Screenshot 2021-05-21 at 13.31.45.png

lastly, I have a slight hesitance towards how people so dogmatically claim that 'all that exists is what the mind imagines/is conscious of', when for the mind to be able to imagine in the first place it must be supported by a beating heart, and to say the heart doesn't exist because the mind isn't imagining it seems counterproductive, as the mind can not imagine without the beating heart, and is to be dogmatic about the word exist, which means 'to live, to have reality', which you could say the heart does through itself. to say it doesn't exist, or the universe doesn't exist, when they're not being imagined, is to ignore the fact that all imagination is happening within the universe, which is non-negotiable and which we're always rooted too, so it just seems problematic to make claims so dogmatically just because we're constructing our own subjective experiences. imo just because the mind is constructing what it's experiencing doesn't mean the other things in the universe that the mind isn't experiencing are non-existent.

I think a better way to phrase 'all that exists is what the mind imagines/is conscious of' would be 'all one experiences is what the mind imagines/is conscious of'

 

this may seem like a lot, but really it's a few objections I'm sceptical of, in comparison to hundreds of things I do agree with

 

 

Edited by Regan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

I have no problem with that. What I am taking issue more is to come here on this thread and complain that some people got triggered by his videos, when the very nature of the subject is emotional. Simple cause and effect. On this specific point, he's not having my sympathy, nor by calling this effect "cult like".  And this misrepresentation is quite problematic. Even though, I agree that some individuals who are using the forum on the regular have been particularly problematic.

If i got 40 messages aggressively coming at me in a short space of time Id have probably reacted the same way, theres levels to be being triggered. I appreciate though it is a very delicate subject and obviously peoples emotions are very heightened, im with you in that i probably wouldnt have talked about myself, especially not straight away. Also i dont feel like actualized.org is a cult at all but there were some other valid criticisms that i think were relevant and worth exploring  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Leo Gura  most of your videos are gold and full of wisdoms.  Your channel is really ahead of its time.
I also learned a lot from this forum.  So thank you everyone!    

I had awakening before I found actualized.org but your videos and this forum have brought my awakenings to new levels, deeper and broader.

 

I see some challenges in this forum such as consciousness gaps, language barrier, confirmation bias, misleading.   But how else it can be?  Spiritual work is never easy anyway.

 

I try to contribute, but sometimes I feel like, either people either already know what I'm talking about, or having no clue.   

Thank you for not turning it into a cult. It would be nice to be able to come here from time to time, but I respect whatever decision you made.  


Hakuna matata

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I would caution strongly against is this subtle demonization of the mentally ill. I ran a poll a week or so ago to see if mental illness was as prevalent here as I intuited. The results came back that over 50% of people who responded had a connection to mental illness themselves in either having it in the past before consciousness work, a clinical diagnosis, or a conviction that they have mental illness although not clinically diagnosed. Results may be skewed some as mentally ill people could be more likely to respond to such a poll of course, but cut the result in half if you want. That’s still 1/4 of the community. If you really want to turn away the mentally ill or talk in ways that steer them away from the work, you are probably going to create more suffering and death than if you had simply accepted them and promoted greater understanding of mental illness in the community. 
 

Take the time to read the responses to this thread/poll. 

 

Also, so many people have been throwing around words like stupid describing not only Sunny’s decisions and thought process as well as labeling other people's opinions on the matter as stupid. What I say to these people is you know nothing of the nuances of human intelligence, or you have the understanding but are being lazy, myopic, and counterproductive in labeling people as such. Simply painting opposition as stupid is so ridiculous and damaging to the whole situation that I’m absolutely astonished that I have to even bring this up. Calling someone stupid is not being highly conscious in any sense of the phrase. Calling someone stupid in these situations helps absolutely no one. It triggers people so they lose all ability to connect with your perspective in many cases, and your labeling of them as such while considering yourself intelligent or at least not stupid, as I’m sure everyone saying this does, is creating a difficulty in your own ability to communicate with them, truly connect with their authentic perspective, etc. 
 

 

I think people are missing the point with Adeptus’ comments, video, etc. There are some biases at play for sure, but everybody should know that’s happening on both sides. I gave some criticism on his video and way of interacting with people too, so don’t think this a one-sided approach. 
 

He is actually quite open to actualized.org’s deepest teachings compared to the average person. If we can’t find a common ground with someone like him, this community better buckle up for quite the bumpy ride as popularity grows over time and more tragedies are sure to come due to sheer and unavoidable probability alone. He has done psychedelics and likely other methods and has shown to take spirituality as something important to him. Adeptus is just someone closer to being grounded in consensus reality (more aligned with current collective ego). If you easily discard this type of information, you’re setting yourself up to have more issues down the road. If we’re taking these teachings seriously, consider Adeptus as like a specific type of immune cell in your body. You are the Totality of Existence. What you call Adeptus is an integral part of You. Another human in your present moment awareness is like a typically autonomous function of your human body. You can’t control your liver too well consciously, but it’s still a part of you. Other humans are similar. Adeptus is not a liver lost to cancer or cirrhosis. He’s still performing a healthy role imo whether it’s a popular one to those here or not. I think it would be quite unwise to remove him from the forum and many others who are representing a similar perspective as him. If someone becomes a constant distraction and problem, that’s a different situation. He hardly ever posts. 
 

When an injury swells to a detrimental level, it’s still acting according to its purpose in trying to help the higher holon, but it is overcorrecting. Any response to this overcorrection is oftentimes bound to be an overcorrection of its own type which has its own collateral damage. In a similar way, very rarely do we see a completely and utterly proportional response which handles any type of interpersonal interaction perfectly. 
 

Adeptus, Leo, and other members commenting on that situation are still seeing too much of an “other” in the person in debate or disagreement, or at least it certainly appears from my perspective. 
 

I’m not free from any of these points as well. This post is an overcorrection. Don’t discard it though. 
 

I’m not some enemy of the community who is against Leo’s core teachings. This community and Leo’s teachings are very important to me. 


You mistake my Raja Yoga. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

@Consept I don't like to argue with you because you never show any understanding about my point and always tend to take me out of context.

I did not send him 40 messages in one go. So your wording is completely off.

It was me and him having a conversation over a whole 4 hour period on his channel. He was replying to my messages and I was replying to him.  I was compelled to reply to his messages because he was also constantly mentioning me. So I had to reply to all of his mentions. It wasn't only me talking. There was a back and forth exchange between me and him over a 4 hour period. It wasn't exactly a friendly conversation because right from the get go he was calling me a fool and not ready to discuss anything in detail but skirting around the issue 

In the beginning our conversation was friendly. It only got hostile towards the end 

However things cooled down between me and him at some point and I left his comments.

Please try being a bit considerate and understanding rather than trying to portray some sort of a nasty picture of me 

Arguments happen all the time. Especially when such videos are involved. I didn't personally attack him and I don't mind him attacking me either if he felt hurt he had every right to attack me.

Please don't try to make a big deal out of this. The video was triggering. Leo was also triggered. My comments were triggering. His comments were also triggering. It was the heat of the moment.. everything was triggering. It happens. 

You shouldn't take that to make me look bad

 There was nobody good or bad here.

 

@herghly sorry got tagged.

I understand, I was just trying to see it from his perspective, it wasnt really an attack on you personally I was just making the point of seeing why he would be triggered. But apologies if you feel attacked i dont want to make you feel bad or look bad and i do get that emotions were flying.  

I honestly try my best to see your side in any debate we've had and even if i disagree i try and be as respectful as possible, however i feel that you dont give much flexibility in your positions, you speak with a certain vibe of 'this is just how it is', which is cool but you have to appreciate you may not always be 'right' or there maybe a fuller perspective and at the very least it stifles the conversation. But we can agree to disagree if you dont feel that to be the case, we dont have to have a debate about it. Theres no hard feelings on my side and i hope none on yours 9_9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the way that Actualized.org explores a wide variety of topics from some very open-minded perspectives.

I also like the helpful community members and the fact that Leo is a very active participant on the forum.

I would like to see more sensitivity, for example the latest video starts by explaining that a person's family have informed us that a member has taken their life and then moments later says "I'm assuming it's true. Let's just treat it as though it's true... alright so let's say it happened". To me this came across as insensitive.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Regan I cannot speak for others ofc but what you've mentioned is a thing I've given much thought over time.

What I have come to theorize is that, essentially, the Big Bang or w.e. is proposed as the beginning of Spacetime arose from Awareness/Brahman/Infinite Consciousness.

Everything else follows from there just as science dictates.

The brain is made of matter and matter arose from the "everything". I believe complex human consciousness to be quite accidental. I think what we experience is a huge conglomeration of acts of awareness... A robot vacuum is exhibiting an act of awareness when it detects a wall, you can bust out a dictionary and see that must be the case.

The brain I see as a sort of centralized hub which allows a person to experience the millions of inputs as a single thought thread. That is a conclusion I can semi support scientifically, you can look into things like the surgery which splits the brain and the impact on the individual's consciousness, or you can hum while mentally thinking of something else, or dream and realize all the landscapes and characters appear and talk without you seemingly directing it.

Consciousness as experienced is immaterial, proveably it has no size, etc. And same for elements of it such as the redness of red, the taste of chocolate. These are immaterial things. So I figure consciousness and those things are being grasped from somewhere outside of space and time.

You could never in infinite years reach into spacetime and grab the nature of these things because they are not physical objects.

There is no doubt that from a relative position messing with the brain can remove or alter certain things, for example red may turn to green. The wavelength of light is the same but the subjective nature of it can change...

All subjective things have the ability to cease into "nothingness" and also "come out of nothingness" literally, which I can also prove if desired. So that is why it is easiest to place them outside space and time so as to explain how it can seemingly exit and re-appear inside of it at will.

Share this post


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

If i got 40 messages aggressively coming at me in a short space of time Id have probably reacted the same way, theres levels to be being triggered. 

I'm embarrassed because I can only agree that this member is sometimes difficult. Both externally and internally. But that person seems to benefit so much from the environment that one can also argue that this is what this forum is for.

Nobody here is a representative (except maybe Leo and the mods whenever they are operating through their pseudo) nor has actualized.org forum member as its identity as the end of the day.

16 minutes ago, Consept said:

 I appreciate though it is a very delicate subject and obviously peoples emotions are very heightened, im with you in that i probably wouldnt have talked about myself, especially not straight away. Also i dont feel like actualized.org is a cult at all but there were some other valid criticisms that i think were relevant and worth exploring  

I'm certain there was. I haven't finished the video yet.

The sensitivity and the emotionality around this topic makes it hardly the moment while considering all interest, which is why I've judged creating a video on this subject now as selfish. This has been derailing attention and adding salt on the wound while there was already a lot of fragility.

Anyway. I'll leave this discussion there.

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Please, no more attacking Adeptus. Let him be.

I might do a live conversation with him in the future to clear the air. He can be reasoned with and he's not a bad guy.

 


Association with the wise is the root cause for obliterating all misery. -  Tripura Rahasya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@RMQualtrough I agree! the source of existence runs through everything

I'm just saying that when one reaches God-realization, aka self-awareness that we're infinite consciousness, it can't be known that it's 'Complete' God-Realization, aka infinite self-awareness that we're infinite consciousness, as it's:

  1. coming from our human minds, not as the source itself detached from everything
  2. to say that is to say you couldn't reach deeper levels of awakening, which would mean awakening is not infinite if there's a threshold
  3. how would you know there's a threshold? you'd just think you've reached it, but you'd never know for sure
  4. who knows what else is out there in the universe that could help us reach deeper levels, or could help other species reach deeper levels. the truth is we don't know whether things of the like may exist
Edited by Regan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Regan Consciousness has to be infinite. The terms are annoying because there are not enough. There ought to be a distinct term for consciousness stripped of the layers on top, and normal experience of what we usually refer to it as.

Anyway. The thing itself has to be infinite if it is not inside space. If it is not in space then literally it is sizeless hence it is not bound at all by space so it can be a point or an infinite.

There is no deeper awakening for the simple reason that it is completely irreducible.

When you are going towards these states, elements of you and your brain start to shut down. More and more shut down until you reach, you would hope, the most pure version of it that you can experience. Or close enough to logically be able to bridge the gap and feel what it is etc.

You cannot divide pure awareness into anything smaller because awareness is proveably binary: On or Off. There is no in between. When we use terms like semi conscious that is referring to the way a human being experiences humanness, e.g. thoughts and feelings, which meditation often tries to get you to detach from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

i guess what i mean is, each awakening may be infinite in and of itself, but the understanding of that infinity can itself go on for infinity, making 'complete' understanding impossible to be sure of, at least when experienced as a human

@RMQualtrough

Edited by Regan

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