Important! - Nobody On This Forum Is AWAKE

[somegirl]

@Leo Gura Something else also interested me... You were saying in one of the videos ("what is the devil") that (I'm paraphrasing because it was long time ago) we should stop seeing people as evil because we are creating evil that way or something. Cause evil doesn't exist, it's just projection, we only see it that way (when it threatens our ego). Okay so, by that logic...

Why would you in your "infinite insights" blog say that CIA hiring sociopaths is digusting and disturbing? I mean it is, from a an average human perspective, but also, highly conscious person would know that by condemning evil in others, he just creates more evil. Isn't it so? 

Cause we wouldn't be able to see evil in others if we didn't have evil in ourselves.

Who are we calling evil if everything is interconnected? Only ourselves, no?

Your literal quote from the video: "Seeing evil in others does not solve the evil but in fact creates more evil" 

Other quote from the same video: "If you want to stop doing evil actions, you also have to stop seeing evil because in order to see evil you must project evil, therefore you create evil." 

This is just one example. 

This also applies to the situation where you got fed up with members here. We are not solving anything when we literally criticize others that they are this or that. We just perpetuate more of that.

This is my critical mind speaking. My intention is really just to see how you think, cause if you ask my logic, highly conscious person would be conscious of these things.

[Yimpa]

@somegirl Understanding the structure of how something works is not evil. If anything, it allows you to think outside the box and not want to be part of it anymore. 

Also, love includes everything, including evil. Yet, love is not bound by evil. Love sees through all illusion and transforms it into love. 

[Reciprocality]

On 24/03/2023 at 7:11 AM, Leo Gura said:

Anyone here who claims to be AWAKE, or to understand what AWAKE is, or what GOD is, or what CONSCIOUSNESS is -- is fooling themselves.

The only one here who understands these things is ME.

This does not mean, however, that I cannot sometimes be full of shit myself. I can. I am not perfect. But not on this issue.

Enlightenment is not AWAKE.
Buddhism is not AWAKE.
Nonduality is not AWAKE.
No amount of meditation is AWAKE.

There will be a lot of bitching and moaning over this issue. But I simply told you the truth.

You've been warned. This is way more tricky than you ever imagined. My function here is to guide people through every trick. But the problem is, they don't want to be guided because they already think they've figured it out. Don't be that guy.

@Leo Gura Are you kidding me? I thought you knew but its actually I who is the only one awake, everyone else here better pump those numbers up those are rookie numbers.

[Yimpa]

@Reciprocality  YOU AWAKE = ALL AWAKE

[Reciprocality]

@Yimpa No only me, mememe

[Leo Gura]

You are imagining all others. If you weren't, you wouldn't be GOD. GOD is infinite imagination and absolute sovereignty.

Edited May 30 by Leo Gura

[Reciprocality]

@Leo Gura For sure, the intellect imagines the coherence of everything, it imagines the essence of everything, it even imagines the contradictions of everything, and we imagine that we are that intellect and then we imagine that the intellect did not do any of those things but that instead all those things were true about the world itself and true independently of us.

But nothing would be given as a subject, substratum or substance for these imaginings if it weren't beyond the intellect which produced these imaginings, the intellect requires material, this is certainly contained throughout your teachings not least of which in your interpretation of Godels theorems where you can not for instance reduce maths to logic, so why would you then suddenly turn around and insist that the intellect imagines ALSO the substratum itself such as the senses?

[Leo Gura]

@Reciprocality That's where you're wrong.

The substrate of reality is literally your own mind. But not the conceptual mind. A deeper MIND.

The mistake in your understanding of this issue is that you have limited intellect down to something merely conceptual, the human mind. But it's a much wider thing than that. The intellect does not require material at the highest level. At the highest level the intellect IS material. So literally, the chair your ass is sitting on is made of intellect. In fact, your own ass is imaginary.

Edited May 30 by Leo Gura

[Water by the River]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The substrate of reality is literally your own mind. But not the conceptual mind. A deeper MIND.

Please let me invite for the daily Buddhism-bashing. Today, Huang-Po-style:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huangbo_Xiyun

"One Mind

Huángbò's teaching centered on the concept of “mind” (Chinese: hsin), a central issue for Buddhism in China for the previous two centuries or more. He taught that mind cannot be sought by the mind. One of his most important sayings was “mind is the Buddha”. He said:

All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but the One Mind, beside which nothing exists. The One Mind alone is the Buddha, and there is no distinction between the Buddha and sentient beings."

 

"All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but the Universal Mind, beside which nothing exists. This Mind, which is without beginning, is unborn and indestructible. It is not green nor yellow, and has neither form nor appearance. It does not belong too the categories of things which exist or do not exist, nor can it be thought of in terms of new or old. It is neither long nor short, big nor small, for it transcends all limits, measures, traces, and comparisons."

Huang Po, Blofeld John, trans. "The Zen Teachings of Huang Po"

Serious and non-profane comments on the inadequacy of that pointer/description welcome.

Selling Water by the River

[Reciprocality]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Reciprocality That's where you're wrong.

The substrate of reality is literally your own mind. But not the conceptual mind. A deeper MIND.

The mistake in your understanding of this issue is that you have limited intellect down to something merely conceptual, the human mind. But it's a much wider thing than that. The intellect does not require material at the highest level. At the highest level the intellect IS material. So literally, the chair your ass is sitting on is made of intellect.

@Leo Gura Okay okay Ive thought about what you said and it makes sense, the substratum is created from god and imposed on us and we by being imposed by it developed the intellect required to first think we understood the substratum itself when all we understood were our own interpretation of it and then that interpretation became literally REAL for us, and then we live in the delusion that we are not ALSO the one who imposed the substratum on ourself. The only assumption I have to make is that it is possible for one thing to preserve its limited and also unlimited identity at one and the same time.

The semantics of the situation is a bit more problematic than just assuming, accepting or knowing that I am god, because it would still be absurd to use the concept of intellect and the concept of imagination beyond the limited places they were found, if I were god these words would be insufficient for the reality I created.

And also, I never disagreed that the substrate itself weren't mind, and it weren't implied either, there is undeniably a totality in our experience, and it is certainly not physical.

[Razard86]

On 5/27/2023 at 6:35 PM, somegirl said:

@Leo Gura Something else also interested me... You were saying in one of the videos ("what is the devil") that (I'm paraphrasing because it was long time ago) we should stop seeing people as evil because we are creating evil that way or something. Cause evil doesn't exist, it's just projection, we only see it that way (when it threatens our ego). Okay so, by that logic...

Why would you in your "infinite insights" blog say that CIA hiring sociopaths is digusting and disturbing? I mean it is, from a an average human perspective, but also, highly conscious person would know that by condemning evil in others, he just creates more evil. Isn't it so? 

Cause we wouldn't be able to see evil in others if we didn't have evil in ourselves.

Who are we calling evil if everything is interconnected? Only ourselves, no?

Your literal quote from the video: "Seeing evil in others does not solve the evil but in fact creates more evil" 

Other quote from the same video: "If you want to stop doing evil actions, you also have to stop seeing evil because in order to see evil you must project evil, therefore you create evil." 

This is just one example. 

This also applies to the situation where you got fed up with members here. We are not solving anything when we literally criticize others that they are this or that. We just perpetuate more of that.

This is my critical mind speaking. My intention is really just to see how you think, cause if you ask my logic, highly conscious person would be conscious of these things.

Stan Lee is the creator of the world of Spider-Man. If Stan Lee judged evil, he couldn't create heroes and villains, create trial and tribulations, and thus Spider-Man could never exist. What Leo is saying you can awaken from the world you created and release yourself from the identity of the character and realize you are the creator.

But is is very hard to break character, because you have taken your role as the character as REAL. You are in a story that is a creation of your own mind. Since everything is your own mind, the only way you can realize you are the creator is you have to let go of the entire storyline of your character. Since your character is a psychological construction no different than being on the set of a movie as an actor and playing a character, you need to psychologically kill the character by admitting it isn't real. 

If you can let go of your fantasy of what you are, then you can discover what you are. 

[Breakingthewall]

11 hours ago, Water by the River said:

All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but the Universal Mind, beside which nothing exists. This Mind, which is without beginning, is unborn and indestructible. It is not green nor yellow, and has neither form nor appearance. It does not belong too the categories of things which exist or do not exist, nor can it be thought of in terms of new or old. It is neither long nor short, big nor small, for it transcends all limits, measures, traces, and comparisons."

 according to my current understanding, which is recent and surely must be quite nuanced, reality is not a mind, it is the total infinity that it is. total infinity gives rise to a mind that has attributes such as intelligence and will, which limits and creates forms getting blind to the infinity and creating the finite. this mind is also limited in some way because if it were not, it would not create limitation. Ultimately, the absolute is undifferentiated, infinite, and total, without creation or activity.

Edited May 30 by Breakingthewall

[Leo Gura]

24 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

mind is also limited in some way because if it were not, it would not create limitation.

MIND creates limitation precisely because it is unlimited.

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

MIND creates limitation precisely because it is unlimited.

you call it mind because it imagines limitations, right?  if it did not imagine anything and simply were the infinite being, would you still call it mind?

Edited May 30 by Breakingthewall

[Vibes]

51 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

you call it mind because it imagines limitations, right?  if it did not imagine anything and simply were the infinite being, would you still call it mind?

He calls it Mind because it's literally Mind. The physical world is inside / is your Mind. When you touch something you think has substance, you're "touching" your Mind from within your Mind. 

Edited May 30 by Vibes

[Moksha]

32 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

you call it mind because it imagines limitations, right?  if it did not imagine anything and simply were the infinite being, would you still call it mind?

I prefer awareness or god or absolute, but it is the same regardless of the name. It is infinite reality, within and beyond imagination, whatever you call it.

[Breakingthewall]

Maybe i didn't explain good. What if there is nothing definite, just the infinity formless without any limitation. Is it  a mind?

Edited May 30 by Breakingthewall

[Vibes]

15 minutes ago, Moksha said:

I prefer awareness or god or absolute, but it is the same regardless of the name. It is infinite reality, within and beyond imagination, whatever you call it.

What do you mean by beyond imagination?

 

[Bazooka Jesus]

16 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Maybe i didn't explain good. What if there is nothing definite, just the infinity formless without any limitation. Is it  a mind?

Dude, you can call it mind, consciousness, intelligence, reality, existence, this, God, John Wayne... what does it matter which name you give it?

[Moksha]

11 minutes ago, Vibes said:

What do you mean by beyond imagination?

Changeless, timeless, infinite, motionless, immaterial, energyless, inexperienced, unconditioned absolute reality.