Learn Advaita Vedanta

[Joseph Maynor]

5 hours ago, Baller said:

 

I agree in principle, but I don't think he came to that via logic but rather he did have psychedelic experiences of the infinite and then when he came down his ego "snapped back" with a vengeance as would be true for any strong narcissist and then he channeled the experience through the filter of the ego and its conceptual maps.

 

This is pretty much what e.g. Ram Dass warns against in "Be Here Now" on pp.98-99.  Psychic inflation in Jungian terms.

This is the elephant in the room the issue you raise.  It shows the dangers of the use of psychedelics on the path.  I've used many psychedelics myself, but I never came to the kinds of conclusions Leo has.  Psychedelics are just one tool on the path.  There are many other tools.  You must remain humble, exploratory, open, and patient to gather them as they emerge over time.  Everybody wants a fast enlightenment.  Obviously, that's what someone is going to try to sell you too who knows something about sales and marketing.  It's a category mistake ultimately.  Sadhguru calls this "mortgaging your sense".  You could also call it commodifying spiritual enlightenment to make money.  Some of these structural issues must be seen like someone's need to earn a living in the "field" of spiritual enlightenment, and how that structures many things down the chain including the behaviors we see from individuals, and so on.  The desire to sell a magic pill to people to become spiritually enlightened is totally foreseeable and totally shallow in hindsight.  But young people, or people young on the path, are going to be influenced by these things without understanding some of the larger structures at work, and without having the experience to know.  I don't think Leo himself knew.  He was basically documenting his own spiritual enlightenment journey until he decided to coronate himself as the "one right" teacher.  Again, the problem with the student shape-shifting into the teacher based on their own authority.  That can be problematic as we know via the benefit of hindsight.  I appreciated the two below videos from our friend Rob.  I've done DMT, LSD,  Psilocybin Mushrooms, Salvia Divinorum, many times, but haven't done 5-MEO-DMT.  I just want to say what I've experienced and what I haven't to be honest because I understand/foresee my own bias.
 

 

Edited April 10, 2022 by Joseph Maynor

[Baller]

 

 

40 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

It shows the dangers of the use of psychedelics on the path.

 

Yeah, I agree.  My conclusion is that if you have a personality disorder, especially NPD, psychedelics are to be avoided.

 

My own experience is that I did have a short period of mild inflation, but then I was brought back to reality by some experiences and reoriented myself.  Certainly it was nothing close to what apparently happened to Leo, thank God.  I didn't think I was an avatar of Absolute Infinity (LOL, love that Leonism) or the only object in existence but I did think the experience qualified me to teach others.  But there was so much more to let go of.

 

But yeah, you have to integrate any apparent "progress" on the path, otherwise you're going to get humbled and quickly.  Humble yourself or get humbled.

[Aware Wolf]

1 hour ago, Joseph Maynor said:

@Forza21 I think what Leo misses is he thinks his finite consciousness is Brahman.  So when he hears Atman = Brahman he takes it that way.  But what that really means is the underlying consciousness behind all finite consciousness/finite beings is God or the Self.  The human's mind is not the Self.  And someone please correct me here if I'm wrong.  Basically Advaita Vedanta makes room for all consciousness containing beings because all of them share in God or the Self.  This is not solipsism.  Solipsism would be assuming that your finite consciousness is God and then assuming everything else is a part of you.  That's not what Advaita Vedanta is saying.  Advaita Vedanta makes space for other conscious beings to exist.  I'm glad so many of you are into Advaita Vedanta.  Isn't it wonderful!  The art too.

 

 

Basically that's what I believe also. 

 

There's an Ultimate Reality. Mahayana Buddhists call it Buddha Nature. Zen people may call it Mu. But there's tons of names for it. Forest monks call it Original Mind. Dzogchenpas, Rigpa. Advaitins, Brahman. 

 

All beings have (are) Buddha Nature. All beings are Brahman. 

 

The greeting, Namaste, means something like "I greet the Divinity that is inside you."

 

Leo errs when he quotes Ramana's "There are no others." For solipsism support. 

 

If he's using it to buttress his Solipsism it's out of context. Very careless to do this. Leo is no scholar. Part of any good author is to build trust with the reader. Here Leo is playing too fast and loose. 

 

Think of a clay pot. There appears to be many types of clay pots. Yet there is only clay. There appears to be others, but there is only Brahman.  There are no others. This is what Ramana meant. 

 

One can google "Ramana There are no others, and there's a lot of discussion on it. I think Ramana used gold instead of clay here. 

 

All that one gives to others one gives to one’s self. If this truth is understood who will not give to others?

.  - Ramana 

 

 

What exists in truth is the Self alone. The world, the individual soul, and God are appearances in it like silver in mother-of-pearl. These three appear at the same time, and disappear at the same time. The Self is that where there is absolutely no “I” thought. That is called “Silence”. The Self itself is the world; the Self itself is “I”; the Self itself is God; all is Siva, the Self.

  - Ramana 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Joseph Maynor]

@Aware Wolf  I remember when Leo released his very first video on spiritual enlightenment.  This is very instructive to watch if you want to understand where Leo started in all this in 2015.  Notice how conceptual he is in this video -- it's exceedingly conceptual/intellectual.  It's very black and white too.  He's "talking around" spiritual enlightenment a lot and he confidently assumes he has the "one right answer" even at this early stage in his path.  He makes himself out to be the expert even though he is still young on the path.  It's the same person/personality throughout all the changes of clothing.  We're all like this too.

 

Edited April 10, 2022 by Joseph Maynor

[Baller]

Talk about cherrypicking by Leo.  Here's a better Ramana Maharshi quote:

 

Quote

Without the “I”, there is no “you” nor “he”, nor “she”, nor “it”. When the “I” enquires into its
source, the “I” itself subsides, and the second and third person also disappears. Reality, our
own natural state, shines forth.

 

[Forza21]

1 hour ago, Baller said:

Talk about cherrypicking by Leo.  Here's a better Ramana Maharshi quote:

 

 

Yeah, i think that way too.
Ramana taught that there is no I, and there are no others. But if there is no I, there is no "me" , the ego is an illusion.  It was constantly missed on actualize.org, i wonder if by mistake, or on purpose?


So basically 

Vedanta: Ones from experiential level. All is the Self, and it can observe each other from different points of views.

Solipsism: Mind level idea.  All others all living zombies, there's none conscious but "my -ego" which is an illusion. 

What the fuck?

And have you noticed, that God-realization might be used to justify not dropping an ego? "God" as a word, may have that implication that it's SOMEONE, a Person-like.  Buddha forbid using this world, because he knew, that it might be misleading. That's why in Buddhism there's no talking about "God" whatsoever.  Ego can very easy trick us into thinking that it's God... and that way avoids disappearing.

 

Edited April 10, 2022 by Forza21

[Baller]

1 hour ago, Forza21 said:

Yeah, i think that way too.
Ramana taught that there is no I, and there are no others. But if there is no I, there is no "me" , the ego is an illusion.  It was constantly missed on actualize.org, i wonder if by mistake, or on purpose?

 

My sense is that it's a mistake due to narcissism.

 

1 hour ago, Forza21 said:

And have you noticed, that God-realization might be used to justify not dropping an ego? "

 

Actually, when you look at "stages of enlightenment" models like the Ten Oxherding Pictures/Maharish Mahesh Yogi/David Hawkins, etc., God Consciousness is a middle stage, so not a complete realization.  So yeah, you can very much get stuck there if you don't drop the dualistic God concept. (Last stage is identity with God, i.e. no separate Self but The Self.)

Edited April 10, 2022 by Baller

[Aware Wolf]

I too am chuffed to see this Advaita Vedanta discussion. Thank you for the thread. I'd like further discussions on Advaita Vedanta. 

My take on Leo getting Ramana's quote so very wrong is that Leo doesn't care a whit about what Advaita Vedanta thinks. Leo is Leo. Leo expounds Leoism. He has no lineage, no teacher, no exteneded retreat time. Leo read a lot of books. Leo in his taken-down video on Solipsism claims his teachings can be scientifically validated because they are reproducible. Because he's done multiple drug trips and got the same insight and findings each time.That He is God. Okayyy. 

 

This is when I started yelling at the screen, "Doesn't work this way, Bucko!" -- you can't use your drug fest fueled insights as "scientific" evidence. (right, @Adeptus Psychonautica  ?) -- even if you have them repeatedly. Geezus. 

I don't quite get how his Leoism works. If it's Solipsistic and he's God -- what's the point of him trying to teach us anything?  Solipsism, can be a belief The cosmos sprang into existence when you became sentient, and it will vanish when you die....There's only Leo and His Mind. It seems peculiar then he gets upset when people leave his forum, start another, and will ban people who make an account on the rival forum. If he's  really god, he created all this. Why teach at all if it's just you? 

 

In Leoism, Are we or are we not gods?  assume by the way he teaches that he's teaching a path to God consciousness. Which would seem to indicate that we're all god, we just don't know it yet. But this isn't solipsism. Is Leo's version of Solipsism different and allow for other beings? 

I don't know if there are any answers to the questions I bring up here. I suspect Leo is just confused. Even if he's not, he's not communicating it very well and that's something he's supposed to be good at.  

@Joseph Maynor thanks for the Leo early video link. If I watch Leo -- sometimes I feel like I have to take a shower afterwards. Instead I could watch Samanari Jayasara of someone's classic work of someone who know's what they are talking about. 

[Faith]

6 hours ago, Aware Wolf said:

I too am chuffed to see this Advaita Vedanta discussion. Thank you for the thread. I'd like further discussions on Advaita Vedanta. 

Your welcome 🙏 

 

I'm a bit under the weather today, but wanted to post this excellent link on God/Isvara by Rory Mackay.

Anyone who talks about God on this thread should know just what God/Isvara means in Advaita Vedanta (The Self with attributes, Saguna Brahman, The absolute with qualities).

 

https://www.unbrokenself.com/vedanta-god/

 

 

 

[Aware Wolf]

3 hours ago, Faith said:

Your welcome 🙏 

 

I'm a bit under the whether today, but wanted to post this excellent link on God/Isvara by Rory Mackay. Anyone who talks about God on this thread should know just what they are talking about in the Vedantin sense. (The Self with attributes, Saguna Brahman)

 

https://www.unbrokenself.com/vedanta-god/

 

 

 

Not to quibble. 

 

But the author uses the watchmaker argument. This has been refuted. 

 

He also says something can't come from nothing. 

 

But quantum theory says you can.

https://medium.com/@jordanflagel/how-something-came-from-nothing-d4c3009b49f3

 

Maybe there's a god, maybe not. How do we define God? Spinoza's god? A talk with a Christian author on the problem of suffering, he told me he saw God as similar to Avalokitishvara, the Buddhist bodhisattva of compassion. Not omniscient or all powerful. Interesting. 

 

However we define God most likely we will be wrong. God is beyond our concept of h*m. 

 

And evidence or proof of God seems elusive. 

 

 

[Joseph Maynor]

The way that Advaita Vedanta uses God, Self, and Truth are very different from how these three words are used in Western Philosophy.   

 

Spinoza viewed God as the being corresponding to the whole of reality which he thought is the only substance that truly exists.  Spinoza reduces mind to intellect and doesn't really talk about consciousness.  Spinoza doesn't use Self in the way Advaita Vedanta does.  Spinoza uses truth to signify true ideas, and only God contains all true ideas whereas man's ideas are necessarily inferior and limited compared to God's ideas. 

 

Jung uses Self which is interesting -- and for those of you who can make the comparison between Jung's use of the term Self and Advaita Vedanta's use of that word, that would be interesting to flesh out. 

 

When people say Truth without qualifying that this is an Eastern Philosophy term, this bugs me, because in the West we typically don't use the word truth that way.  It sounds very dogmatic to Western ears to say you're in Truth or whatever.  That's not how truth is used in Western philosophy.  Truth as a standalone noun is rare in the West.  It's often used as an adjective modifying another noun, i.e., a true idea, a true statement, a true belief, etc.

 

The way God is used in Advaita Vedanta is very different from the way it is typically used in the West. Even the Western Idealists tend to use God as more of infinite intellect rather than infinite consciousness.  There are exceptions to this, such as, Hegel.  But even Hegel has a very intellectual account of God even though he accounts for consciousness too. 

 

I'm just riffing here to draw come comparisons.  If you want to discuss any of the points raise here deeper, I can go into more instances, examples, details.

Edited April 11, 2022 by Joseph Maynor

[Faith]

22 hours ago, Aware Wolf said:

But the author uses the watchmaker argument. This has been refuted. 

Do you mean that intelligent design has not come from a creator (Saguna Brahman)?

 

Where in Vedanta has it been refuted? Please site your source.

 

Anyways, seems spiritual ppl pretty loosely use the term God now a days (ie, God consciousness,  God realization,  I am God, etc.). Which I never know what does that person think God is? What is their definition of God? 🤔

 

In Vedanta, God (aka Isvara) is consciousness plus Maya, which is a power within consciousness where Brahman takes on the Sattva guna and becomes the creator, then creates with the only "substance" available awareness. Like a spider creates its creations out of its own body. So, everything in existence/ the dharma field, is God/Isvara.

 

22 hours ago, Aware Wolf said:

He also says something can't come from nothing. 

It's a very long article. Please site the quote or better yet the paragraph. Since we don't know in what context this was said. 

 

Edit: Actually, it just seems as you flat out disagree with what he said and that's fine. Advaita Vedanta is not quantum theory.

22 hours ago, Aware Wolf said:

However we define God most likely we will be wrong. God is beyond our concept of h*m. 

 

Since this is an Advaita Vedanta thread. I was trying to clarify how Vedanta defines God/Isvara. 

 

[Faith]

12 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

The way God is used in Advaita Vedanta is very different from the way it is typically used in the West.

Right, it's not some big jiva in the sky with likes and dislikes, according to Advaita Vedanta.

[Forza21]

14:43

 

i think its not The only time Swami says something solipsism like. How do you see it? 
 

 

 

[Faith]

9 hours ago, Forza21 said:

14:43

 

i think its not The only time Swami says something solipsism like. How do you see it? 
 

 

 

You must be misunderstanding when you listen to him, because it's very clear to me that he is not saying solipsism is how the world appears, except when someone is dreaming, then the dream is in the dreamers mind.

 

Through maya pure consciousness projects this whole universe is what he's saying. 

[Aware Wolf]

16 hours ago, Forza21 said:

14:43

 

i think its not The only time Swami says something solipsism like. How do you see it? 
 

 

 

 

I see it as he says at 17:50, Paraphrasing: we're not saying one person, Aware Wolf, is projecting all of this World. What we're saying is all of us, all of us wakers, are projections of one Turiyem. Which you really are. All of us are appearing in that consciousness.