Leo Gura

Well, to understand this you would have to become conscious of what "other" is. You might be shocked to discover that "other" is your own imagination. The problem here is that the truth may not be comfortable or useful to your survival, especially if the only thing keeping you alive is your belief in others. You have to be careful with your illusions. If you believe that Christ is the most real thing, and then you discover that Christ is just a fiction of your mind, and all you want to live for is Christ, then you very well might get the idea to kill yourself. This would be silly, but people do silly things all the time. If you want to be safe, just commit to not harming your body. Don't take anything as a prescription for bodily harm. It's really not so complicated. I have stated this rule before: don't harm the body.

This is simply, factually, not the case for the vast majority of people -- if you study the many cases of people's awakenings. I can't speak for you. I can speak from the extensive experience I have of seeing and reading about people's awakenings. Only very, very rarely does a human being simply go to full awakening is one breakthrough. It is so rare so to not be worth talking about. And even then, I would still say the person is not Infinitely Conscious. If you were truly Infinitely Conscious you could not walk or talk, and in fact, you could not hold onto that swole body There are so many radically different modes of consciousness that boiling it down to one thing is just ridiculously limited. You don't even understand what no-self is until you smoke some salvia and can't even remember your own name or that you were ever human. That's some serious no-self. When you turn into a coffee table, that will be some deep no-self.

Imagine a 6 year old being told that he will go to heaven when he dies, and how good heaven. So he jumps off a bridge. Imagine a 6 year old being told that there is no God and no meaning to life and everyone he loves will one day die. So he jumps off a bridge. We can keep going with the examples. Feel free to invent your own.

You push to survive until you can push no more. That's how life works. People have different capacities and will to push. Some can push for 4 years, others can push for 4 months, others can push for 4 days. But we all have our limits. Don't assume you can push forever under any circumstances. At some point you will tap out. The point of survival is to never reach that point.

This thread will soon be getting locked, so whoever wants to, speak your last words. I will not be adding to this thread any more.

He can do it just for fun, if that's what he's into. Anything in life can be done for the fun of it. Just be honest with yourself if that's why you're really doing it.

This is false. Many people have temporary and partial awakenings which come and are lost. In fact, this is the most common type of awakening. The temporariness of an awakening has absolutely no relation to its truth value. It is true and genuine even if it lasts 1 second. That's some no-true-Scotsman position. But if 40 years of professional Vipassana meditation haven't completely dissolved the self, then what hope do these folks have here? You are treating this issue too flippantly. I know many people who have fully realized no-self. But they have not realized God or Infinity or Love. Because those are higher and more challenging realizations. No-self is one of the easiest realizations. I could name names to you of serious people who I know for sure have not realized God, Infinity, or Love. And that is after years and decades of serious practice. So this issue is not merely one of argument for argument's sake. There is something profound which people are missing and refuse to acknowledge they are missing. You could be missing it too and not even know it. The bottom line is that dissolving the self is not the same thing as God-realization. But, dissolving the self is important, so I don't ague with that. It's just not sufficient. No-self is not Infinite Consciousness, and no amount of logic you use will change that. It does not matter if your no-self is temporary or permanent, it is still not God-realization nor Infinite Consciousness. Also, God-realization and Infinite Consciousness has nothing to do with full dissolving the ego-self. It may dissolve or it may not and it does not matter from the perspective of Truth/Consciousness. It only matters from the relative human perspective. Which is important, but it is not all-important. I agree that permanently dropping the self is not the same as a peak experience of consciousness. I have never said otherwise. And I agree that permanently dropping the self is an important part of this work. But it is not the end-all-be-all and there are much bigger things beyond. This is false. You have always been God, so that's a moot point, but you are not fully conscious of what God is even if you drop the self. Realizing God is a distinct realization from no-self regardless of its permanence. Telling people that they will realize God simply by dropping the self is not correct and it will prevent people from God-realization. This is the only reason I am here arguing with you. It is deeply misleading and I don't want this idea fed to my audience. You fundamentally misunderstand my communication about God-realization. You are taking me to be saying something about form. I am not. That is not what God-realization is about. And anyway, form and formlessness are identical, so to even make such a distinction and minimize form is already a subtle duality you're creating. I don't know where some of you guys got this idea that I am against no-self. No-self is a basic, easily insight which I have had many times and I teach no-self. I have always taught it. But then I went on to realize much greater things which make no-self look like child's play. It is not that Frank is pro no-self while Leo is anti-no-self. Leo fully understands no-self but is telling you there is something way deeper which is being missed by even very serious practitioners of nonduality. But you guys are dismissing this. Well, I can't force you to listen. Somebody someday will get it. But not with this kind of closedminded and dismissive attitude. I hate doing these nondual debates but what you are saying here goes against something very fundamental that I have committed to teaching. And so I feel obliged to make these corrections. It is like you walked into a yoga ashram and started teaching Zen. Well, what do you expect will happen? If you want to teach your version of nonduality, by all means teach it to your audience, Frank. I have never interfered with whatever it is you teach to your audience. And I have no quarrel with you. But also, please respect that I have certain things that I teach and I don't like being drawn into these clickbait debates. I have better things to do than argue about the existence of God and Love. If you disagree with me about God and Love, my teachings and this forum is not for you. It is not healthy or proper to follow a teacher who you fundamentally disagree with.

She probably just doesn't understand SIBO that well. I doubt she made some technical mistake.

@samijiben You will understand when you realize that if you don't trust direct experience, there's nothing you can say or do at all. You are overlooking the fact that all of your reason, thinking, imagining, math, logic, science, and doubt IS direct experience. If you truly doubt direct experience, then you cannot even complete the thought: "What if direct experience is false?" because that thought is direct experience and therefore your own thoughts annihilate themselves before they even start forming.

Oh yeah, then how about you remove the break peddle from your car? (In case you're dumb: don't do that.)

In general, the topic of death is very taboo in society. And for good reason. If you question death too much, you might cease to fear and hate it, and then how would we live? Life requires a fear and hatred of death. That is the ultimate bias. And playing with this bias is dangerous. Which is why exoteric religions demonize and try to control esoteric religion. Esoteric religion fundamentally is about questioning death. And you cannot allow that in a civilized society.

I think SoonHei realized that asking Nahm was pointless because in the end who are you trusting but yourself? In the end he was sure that he has a good idea going and that he was convinced that the end result would be something he wanted.

That is tragic of course. But how do you explain Sadhguru's wife leaving behind her kid and family? Selfishness? Or maybe there is some higher purpose you are not seeing? Or maybe you believe Sadhguru killed her?

That is a classic appeal to nature fallacy. Nature does not care what you do. Nature has no rules. Mahasamadhi is a classic spiritual tradition and practice. Comparing spiritual behavior of humans with animals is very misleading, because animals do not do advanced spiritual work. Animals also don't suffer in the same ways humans do. Trust me, if your suffering became great enough, you would kill yourself.

As I told Connor Murphy when he was trying to tell me that I was afraid of his crazy antics, I told him to make a distinction between fear and caution. If some self-help book tells you to be fearless, does that mean you should disable the break peddle in your car? You see how easy it is to take an innocent piece of advice such as: "Be fearless" and twist it into: "So I should never use the break peddle and never use condoms." It's very hard to make advice that fool-proof.

That's also not necessarily true. If he was truly ready to move on from material existence, then staying back for the sake of others would not be proper. Sadhguru's wife committed Mahasamadhi when they had a young daughter. You could say it was selfish of her, but that's your judgment. You don't know what was right for her. My guess is that Sadhguru does not regard her a selfish. He himself told his followers that he would do Mahasamadhi some time ago. These things are not as black and white as they seem. But this much is very clear: IF you care about survival, don't do things which remove every last preference against survival. Otherwise, what will keep you alive? Every one of you has to decide what is the bare minimum survival you're willing to accept. And if that bare minimum hits zero, realize that you are as good as dead. So either change your mind quick or prepare to meet your maker. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam tell you that if you die you are going to heaven. But who interprets that as an invitation to jump off a bridge?

We actually don't know this. Maybe it was lack of fear. If one completely ignores all fear, and all caution, there is little stopping you from jumping off a bridge. Fear is there for a reason: to keep you alive.

He didn't need to have depression or even suffering to do what he did. He may simply have wanted to transcend material reality. Of course that's very rare, but this seems like one of those extra rare situations. Which is what makes it difficult to preempt such things. Out of a million people, one guy might think jumping off a bridge is a good idea to get closer to God. In a certain sense, the only thing that keeps you alive in the material world is fear. Fear of what would happen if you quit survival. But of course if you quit survival you will not survive! And SoonHei's messages clearly show he understood that, but just didn't care. Fear of death is precisely what keeps you alive. If you lose your preference of life over death, there is literally nothing stopping you from dying. Even someone who is let's say full enlightened, still must have a preference for life over death, otherwise they would not be around to talk to you. Those people who completely lose their preference for material life will simply disappear from material life. That's how life works. If you don't want it, you lose it. Because life and survival are very active processes. You gotta keep working on survival every day to stay alive. Even if you are woke as fuck. Chop wood, carry water, do laundry.

A video on the much misunderstood notion of solipsism has been planned for a long time. I am taking my time with it because it requires a lot of thought.

Safeguards had already been in place, and more will be put in place. I fully agree with having safeguards. For example, I recorded a video about the dangers of psychedelics last week specifically as a safeguard against abuse. It's in the publishing queue, although now it will have to be delayed. I have no passion to share ideas with people that will cause harm. The point here is improve one's life.

@charlie cho Warning: Tread lightly here. A) I told you that that last video was the most advanced communication I ever made. Things were spoken there that few teachers understand. It is very radical. You are still not appreciating that the things I spoke about in that video are not what you learn from other teachers. There is a tendency to dismiss what I said as, "Oh, Leo is just acting like he's better than others, that's just him acting out, nothing to see here." If that is your attitude, then you did not understand the communication. "There are no others" is an advanced truth you still do not have an understanding of. Like really! You don't get it. You don't get how radical it is. No guru will be there to hold your hand the day you get it. It will send you into an existential spiral despair and horror. Then maybe you will understand. B) I certainly have much spiritual work left to do. I shoot the video as I am, at whatever development level I am at. I cannot do otherwise. And I have never made any promises or guarantees to you about my embodiment or energy or stage or whatever other standards you evaluate me on. In the end, I'm just a guy sharing his ideas with you. I am not your guru, we have no formal relationship. I'm a YT philosopher. I am on a spiritual journey and I share my insights. That's what Actualized.org is. So set your expectations appropriately. Remember, when I started Actualized.org I was a self-help life coach. Today I am where I am. And who knows where I will be in 5 or 10 years. I make no pretenses about my embodiment or the like. I share my realizations and insights as they come to me. I am also not infallible and not immune to self-deception, as I have stressed many times in the past. So you should think for yourself and verify everything in your direct experience.

Pre-rational >> rational >> trans-rational Trans-rational it NOT irrational. Be careful with this classic pre/trans fallacy. Genuine spirituality is more than rational. Consciousness makes you more intelligent, not less.

I understand some of you feel that way, but I am not here to be who you think I should be. I see that many of you are into this idea and are frustrated that I don't indulge your ideas of how an ideal guru is supposed to behave. But at some point you will understand that consciousness and love can be expressed in many different ways, not just as a bleeding heart. To me, mind IS heart. But I know what you mean and I understand why you want it. But from my POV what you want of me would not be true to who I authentically am. The more conscious I become the more authentic I act, but the more it turns some of you off because it does not fit your image of some happy go lucky blissed out feminine guru who personally loves you. I don't personally love you. I love you in a deeply metaphysical way which you probably do not feel or understand. And I am not going to try to fake a personal love for you to fit some stereotype of the ideal guru.

Unfortunately that does not stop the trolls and cynics. But we shall see. I expect backlash over all this regardless. We will try to make the best of it. The problem with running any kind of spiritual community is that scandals like this will happen because humans are humans and collective ego dynamics are at play. I notice plenty of you have grievances with me and we will probably need separate thread to let you air them out.

Maybe. Still contemplating how to speak about this. The issue here is that people love to use such cases as an excuse to demonize the work. So I'm in a position where on the one hand I have to speak about the dangers of spiritual work, but on the other hand I have to do it in a way where devils don't weaponize my words against me. It's a challenging position to be in because there is PR aspect to all this and I'm not here with a PR team. People are itching to demonize Actualized.org in any way they can and so I have to be mindful of that while also being sensitive Soonhei's family and so forth. This issue is serious but it also needs to be framed correctly because I already see people using this as an excuse to let their projections and criticisms of my teachings run wild. I have a lot of nuanced things to say on the matter but the nature of this beast is that people don't like to hear nuanced things, they like to demonize and smear reputations.