How come people claim to observe and experience the same torments in hell ?

[MellowEd]

This guy was also a non Christian who experienced the same torments in hell.

 

[thierry]

Maybe restraining yourself a little bit before meeting God would be a good Idea ? 

[Water by the River]

13 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Read the books Conversations With God. It explains how consciousness after death works.

thanks for mentioning that.

And for a very similiar perspective not from a channeler, but a first hand Out-of-body explorer of these afterlife-realms: The books of Jürgen Ziewe.

[TheAlchemist]

@MellowEd If you really need to have a hell in the world as a way of being released from guilt/shame/sin etc. then maybe that will be granted to you. You can envision all those who wronged you and mocked God being tortured for eternity as punishment. Does that bring you a deep satisfaction? What makes you think God requires torture for justice to be served?

Sounds like a very human idea.

Edited January 24 by TheAlchemist

[Bazooka Jesus]

On 23.1.2024 at 2:32 AM, MellowEd said:

Thanks for sharing. I hope George Carlin accepted Christ after mocking God on stage for all those years.

Dude... if George Carlin is not doing stand-up in hell, then I'm not going there.

[MellowEd]

1 hour ago, TheAlchemist said:

@MellowEd If you really need to have a hell in the world as a way of being released from guilt/shame/sin etc. then maybe that will be granted to you. You can envision all those who wronged you and mocked God being tortured for eternity as punishment. Does that bring you a deep satisfaction? What makes you think God requires torture for justice to be served?

Sounds like a very human idea.

Since God is only good He is also righteous. We must be judged, not only for the good we have done but also the bad. If I am in court for murder and tell the judge about my good deeds that won't help me, as I would still be a murderer. God is merciful and has provided a perfect sacrifice. I can choose to accept His sacrifice and walk out of the court or take the punishment myself. Our actions have ripple effects so my crime would have a big impact on the world. 

I would not wish it upon my worst enemy to be held accounteble for his actions or words. I hope and pray that the people who have abused me repent. 

If I tortured your child, would you sacrifice youself for me? How would you justify torture? 

The Lord takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life.

 

Edited January 24 by MellowEd

[Marten98]

19 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Read the books Conversations With God. It explains how consciousness after death works.

https://www.greatgenius.com/truth-about-what-happens-after-death

Those are the relevant excerpts.

 

[Rafael Thundercat]

Whatsoever one experience one experience. Experience is infinite

[Water by the River]

3 hours ago, Squeekytoy said:

It's important to note that all of that is still part of the dream. None of that is actually happening, all of that is imagined/hallucinated in the same way as everything else.

The ones who truly understand nonduality aren't necessarily saying that there isn't a sense in which the individualized soul is on a journey that encompasses more than just this life or even this reality. What they're saying is that all of that is still only illusory, not ultimately real.

So Leo thinks he has a bigger picture than true nonduality, but it's actually the other way around. Mind you however that most or all of what passes for nonduality in the spiritual marketplace is NOT the genuine article. So in that sense Leo is right. Just not final. 

Agree on all points. Even the soul-game is an appearance, ultimately not real. But equally real or unreal as ones car, for example. And endures death, which the car can not claim when the scrap press comes along...

"How wonderful it is that in the infinite ocean of myself the waves of living beings arise, collide, play, and disappear, in accordance with their nature" 2.25 Ashtavakra Gita

And for (not true/full) Nonduality: Also agree. Nonduality is most often a merging/unity experience, where the separate-self/individuality can still be well and alive, and hijack the nondual unity-state. "I realized nonduality/Reality", "I am pure awareness", "I am God", "I am whatever", "I realized *whatever*". And what triggers most likely a unity/nondual-state with the separate-self still well and alive, later interpreting the experience in a way that doesn't kill/transcend but boost and extend the lense/filter/illusion of the separate-self to God-like proportions? What could that be? 

Or (true) Nonduality, to truly realize that one has ever been, always is, and never can not be Infinite Reality itself. That Reality is impersonal, groundless, empty and infinite, absolute potential, no separate-identity left, no inner-blabla-talk of any(!) kind still believed and not immediately cut off, seen as illusion arisings within ones True Infinite Self. The illusion is seen through.... Pure groundless Being is realized, containing this and any possible world/apperance. That (and only that) can end the suffering/(aka resistance to what is) which is the essence of what any separate-self is at its core.

"There is no one subject to samsara, no sense of individuality, no goal or means to the goal in the eyes of the wise man who is always free from imagination and unchanging like space" 18.66 Ashtavakra Gita

"When the sage has realised that he himself is in all beings, and all beings are in him, it is astonishing that the sense of individuality should be able to continue" 3.5 Ashtavakra Gita

And even something with imagination and God and realization is in the Ashtavakra Gita: "Recognising [Realizing] that [all] things are just constructions of imagination, that great soul lives as God here and now". 18.28

The only thing I didn't find in the Ashtavakra Gita is Alien & company. But since its quite hard to contradict that Alien & company are also imagined and merely appearing illusions arising in the Reality of ones own True Being...

But hey, what does Water by the River know? NOTHING. But that quite profoundly. 

Selling Water by the River

 

[UnbornTao]

Agreeing our way to enlightenment!

[Water by the River]

6 hours ago, Squeekytoy said:

Wtf are you talking about.

Boomeritis, Wilber: Sidebar H Boomeritis Buddhism?

[MellowEd]

" I knew instinctly i'm a sinner and deserve to be here"

[Water by the River]

"I don't know why, but they prefer that way"

[UnbornTao]

@Squeekytoy Pointing out this social game is not producing direct consciousness, whether an agreement is reached or not.

Edited January 25 by UnbornTao

[Water by the River]

16 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

@Squeekytoy Pointing out this social game is nothing, whether an agreement is reached or not.

Wilber, Eye to Eye. The three strands of knowledge.

-> All valid knowledge is similar because it entails 1) a prescription for attaining the knowledge in question, 2) the actual attainment of the knowledge, and 3) social consensus as to the validity of the knowledge attained. These are the "three strands" that constitute all knowledge and science.

And yes, point two IS the generation of actual data. In our case, gnosis, Rigpa, Satori, or however one wants to call it. "Speaks" for itself, doesn't need any external validation. But if its the same for all beings (UNIVERSAL UNCHANGING (Unborn Tao ) Infinite Consciousness/Reality), the outcome of the path walked to the end shouldn't be too different... And that is point 3.

And if I read any text any culture any century any tradition, I know exactly what they are all pointing to. Actually, I am it. And you too. 

Water by the River

 

 

[Yimpa]

You can surely imagine how to get out of hell if you can imagine how you ended up in hell.

[UnbornTao]

2 hours ago, Squeekytoy said:

This wasn't a little chat with two people sharing opinions and felicitating eachother on how much they agree or not. It was about pointing out critical flaws in what Leo "teaches".

Assuming any of us really knows what's he's talking about. Seems to me like a chitchat and exchange of beliefs. Giving assertions about the nature of reality while not acknowledging the real possibility that they are believed to be true. I'm judging the way it comes up as it stinks of intellect. In this context that might not be useful, may even be a hindrance. But then again, one might know what he's talking about and being honest about it.

[MellowEd]

1 hour ago, Yimpa said:

You can surely imagine how to get out of hell if you can imagine how you ended up in hell.

If God was an imagination and you claim to be God, you still wouldn't be able to imagine a single grain of salt into exsitence.

The people God showed hell to knew it was for all eternity, like the Holy Bible states.

[UnbornTao]

2 hours ago, Squeekytoy said:

And you know what you're talking about? 

For damn sure we know what Leo isn't talking about.

Doesn't matter what it stinks of to you. How about you judge what's being said on its own merit, rather than your assessment of whoever says it. What the fuck do you care about them anyway. You just barge in ridiculing the conversation without even knowing what's being said or why, and now you're making excuses for it. Wanna guess what that stinks of? 

I'm judging where I assess you're coming from, which sounds to me like hearsay and intellect, no interest in engaging in this. I'm saying, if it's the case that direct profound consciousness is lacking, then conclusions and parroting cosmologies is of no use, so better be honet about that. It's entertaining, but looking for agreement or validation for what is essentially a belief is looking in the wrong place, but have at it.

Edited January 25 by UnbornTao

[Water by the River]

10 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

I'm judging where I asses you're coming from, which sounds to me like hearsay and intellect, no interest in engaging in this. I'm saying, if it's the case that direct profound consciousness is lacking, then conclusions and parroting cosmologies is of no use, so better be honet about that.

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

"Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."