Questions for Leo on Truth and Liberation

[Arugoel]

I've just recently discovered the treasure trove that is Leo's Youtube channel.  First off, I want to acknowledge Leo for his willingness to speak so boldly, this is very much appreciated and admired.  It's evident that Leo has an extraordinary depth of understanding with regard to reality (at least relative to my understanding).  I realize that the Absolute cannot be spoken or imagined, but in terms of how we choose to conceptualize and speak about the Truth, I'm wondering which of the following is more accurate to Leo's view.   

1. I am God imagining/constructing a flow of conscious/experiential states and I alone exist. [Like solipsism]

2. I am God imagining/constructing a flow of conscious/experiential states but the experiential set (that is my life) is only one of many experiential sets.  In other words, my personal experience isn't the only set of experience that exists.  Consciousness alone exists but the total field of consciousness dissociates into segments and the experiential set (that is my life) is only one of many conscious segments.  As such, although I'm imagining/constructing the outer image of "my wife," she is actually and truly having a conscious inner life of her own in which she (as the same God) is imagining/constructing the outer image of "her husband."  [Like idealism]

3. It is more paradoxical than what's presented above.  For example, #1 is closer to the Absolute Truth, but #2 is simultaneously true on a relative/dualistic level.  

Or perhaps none of the above will suffice and you can offer me a forth option.  

And second question, how does Leo think about the notion of a final liberation (in the way that it's spoken about in the Indian spiritual traditions, sometimes called Mahasamadhi), where one would permanently extinguish karma and eliminate the cycle of birth/re-birth?

Of course, I'd prefer to hear from Leo himself, but if anyone feels they have a strong grasp on how to answer these questions with the necessary nuance and detail then I would very much appreciate your input, especially if you can direct me to a video where Leo specifically addresses these topics.  Thanks!

[Leo Gura]

You assume there is a difference between self/other. That difference is something you're imagining.

[Arugoel]

Thanks Leo, I really appreciate your response.  I acknowledge that I'm imagining a difference between self/other in instances where I imagine "other" experiential sets dissociated from "mine."  However, this doesn't necessarily entail the second step of acknowledging that nothing exists beyond what is directly apparent, does it?  How is it that those two steps get conflated?

I know we are working in the limited domain of language, but if you're willing, I'd like clarity on which conceptual narrative captures your deep insights more accurately.  For example, I can't tell whether or not you're saying that, right in this very instance, I alone am conscious and you are essentially a dreamed-up character, or if that would be a newbie mistake to take seriously.  Is it possible to be more explicit or is the truth too paradoxical to say anything further (I did watch your video on explicit vs implicit understanding, which was great)?   

Or perhaps, would you be able to contrast your view with a straightforward rendition of Idealism?  I know that you aren't interested in playing philosophical games, but at the moment, I feel that some conceptual clarity could be beneficial.  For example, Bernardo Kastrup would agree with you that there isn't a real distinction between self/other and that reality is non-dual in the absolute sense, but yet this doesn't lead him to solipsism, he maintains dissociation as a seemingly real phenomenon.  Isn't it possible for God to dissociate seemingly multiple alters despite separation not truly occurring in any real sense?  Or is your take that God can only imagine/construct one perspective?  If God is infinite in all ways, then wouldn't God have infinite perspectives?  

Even if it is only on a conceptual level, I'd very much appreciate if you could help me find clarity on the above.  Either way, thank you for doing what you're doing!

[Leo Gura]

You are God dreaming. There is nothing but your dream. You dreamed up Bernardo Kastrup and everyone else.

Idealism doesn't go far enough.

[Arugoel]

Ok but, am I God dreaming multiple (infinite) perspectives (and deluding myself into only acknowledging one perspective), or am I God dreaming one perspective and "that" is all that exists?  This is the crux of the question.  Because, as God, I could be simultaneously dreaming  "everyone's life," but be in a state where I only know about "my life."  Which is different from I am God dreaming "my life" and nothing else exists.  Is it possible to explicitly clarify?

Thanks again for your help.

[Leo Gura]

@Arugoel Check your direct experience which is true.

[Arugoel]

Yes my direct experience is true, but my direct experience would remain the same in both cases, and thus that can't solve the question...

What if I ask: is my direct experience the whole truth or not?  Either way, the answer is imaginary, so that's not relevant.

Do you have any insight into this question?  

 

[Leo Gura]

@Arugoel The answer to your question is: Become God-realized and you will understand.

[Vision]

I'm not fully actualized in this area, but one thing I suggest you consider contemplating is how no amount of thinking and speculation will solve the problem of not having reference experiences for what you want.

If you want Truth and Liberation, do the practices. This will build a foundation of experience that you can refer to when topics like these are being discussed.

If all you're doing is rearranging your prejudices, you are spinning your wheels. 

[Nahm]

@Arugoel

https://youtu.be/1TxOmW3Iz_c

 

[Arugoel]

@Leo GuraLeo

Thanks Leo, I appreciate your response.  I hope you won't take the following as argumentative, that isn't my intention.  As it turns out, I just stumbled into you answering this exact question 30 minutes into your video on understanding duality (part 3).  You said:

"Part of God's fullness is that it can split itself into an infinite number of fragments, and also it can reunite them through communion and through communication, so that's literally what's happening right now, see we are in communion right now.  I am God communicating to God... simultaneously you are God creating and imagining me.  We've fragmented ourselves, you created a fragment of you and I created a fragment of me and as we are becoming conscious of these fragments now we are unifying them together and then we're transcending them and realizing that we're in communion, and we do that through communication, intimacy, bonding, sex, and so forth.  So there you go, that answers that!"

I'm now contemplating why you felt like you had to dodge the question when you were willing to explicitly explain it in your video.  Did you feel that this answer may deter me from pursuing direct realization?  Can you comment at all on why you felt the need to remain so vague in your response?  

[Leo Gura]

Anything I say to you in the videos is just a relative explanation. It is not what's absolutely true.

Absolute Truth cannot be spoken, and my understanding of it grows and evolves every week.

None of your ideas of awakening are awakening. You're not even close.

If you're serious, take a psychedelic. These talks will get you nowhere.

[Karmadhi]

@Leo Gura What methods do you use these days to increase your consciousness and understanding? You said you do not really use psychadelics much  anymore, now you just contemplate and meditate? So how do you manage to still increase your consciousness and understanding at this point.

[Nahm]

On 9/16/2021 at 9:06 PM, Arugoel said:

If God is infinite in all ways, then wouldn't God have infinite perspectives?  

If infinite is infinite, there isn’t any thing to be had. No ways, no perspectives, etc. 

[Arugoel]

@Nahm

Thanks for your input.  Just for clarification, that's not what I meant by "perspectives."  I don't mean conceptual perspectives/ways.  You know when @Leo Gura talks about what is actual vs imaginary?  I'm talking about "that which is actual."  

My question might be phrased better as: If God is infinite in all ways, then could there be infinite instances of that which is actual?

I think the reason for my question is that, although the difference between what is actual vs imaginary is apparent, it's not so clear as to whether or not one should then imagine the conclusion that Leo seems to be implying.  As such, I was hoping for Leo to clarify the implications of his words.  But, perhaps it's not that simple, and I can appreciate that, I just felt there was no harm in trying.

For example, when Leo said above, "you dreamed up Bernardo Kastrup and everyone else."  This statement has many potential implications, all of which wouldn't be verifiable in direct experience, because in all cases, "that which is actual" just is what it is.  The idea of having dreamed up Bernardo Kastrup and everyone else is itself an imaginary concept and not what is actual.  

See the problem?  I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm genuinely asking these questions with respectful intent, and although it might seem so, I'm not purely stuck on theory.

[Arugoel]

@Leo Gura

Disregard the above.  I just saw your new video on 5-MeO-MALT, I get your perspective.  Thanks for spelling it out so clearly, much appreciated.