Leo Gura

@Raf_vd If you are conflicted about which path to take, you can take a psychedelic and ask it, "Which path is best for me?" and it will likely give you good answer. But this will only be effective if you're already familiar with many of the paths. It won't work so well if you only know a few paths, as your choices will be limited. It's a good idea to study the pros and cons of various paths. Then decide. Most people just stumble into one path randomly by accident. They don't shop around.

Not so much a belief as a realistic observation of human sexual behavior. I did not say you are doomed to failure. I just wouldn't bet my money on you succeeding

That's a dangerous assumption. Because I have awoken many times. That's a very dangerous idea which is precisely what I'm trying to help you to question. I'd like you to start imagining that even at high levels of consciousness those actions can happen. Because factually they DO! As you can clearly see throughout history. To define enlightenment as the absence of immoral action is very problematic. That's not what enlightenment is. I can't tell you how I know the things I know because what we're talking about here is too deep to explain in a simple linear sequence of words. Entire books would have to be written about it, and still most people reading them would not be able to understand it because they lack the requisite experience. As someone who studies this stuff professionally, I'm here to give you guidance about things you probably have never deeply studied or have direct experience of. That's the whole point of a good teacher, to show you things you aren't yet aware of. This does not make the teacher infallible, and yet he must still teach. So here we are. Make of it what you will.

Yes, that's very common and totally expected. Stage Blue represses sexuality a lot. Including of course their own homosexual impulses, which are denied so deeply they turn into violent homophobia. Yes, of course, but only at very advanced levels of this work. It's not for noobs.

Monogamy doesn't really work. It fails more than it succeeds. This is by design. It's supposed to "fail". IF true, then I agree all of that is problematic. Enlightenment does not mean what you think it means. It prescribes no specific ways of behavior. Enlightenment is realization of one's true nature. What one does afterwards is a whole nother matter. Survival needs are still operative. I sense that you are taking a judgmental attitude on this whole topic. This clouds your understanding of enlightenment. If a guy is conscious of his true nature but sexually abuses his students, I have no problem calling him enlightened because enlightenment is a very specific thing which does not hinge on moral actions. You must be careful not to equate enlightenment with some idealized notion of being Christ-like. Also keep in mind there are many degrees of enlightenment, many degrees of embodiment of it, and many stages & lines of development which are all independent of enlightenment. This is a very complex topic which is understood by very few spiritual teachers.

This is why in many of the best spiritual communities/ashrams/monasteries sex is simply not allowed and vows of celibacy are taken. Of course that still doesn't fully resolve the problem as sexuality is too strong a force to simply be suppressed. Sexual tension will still run high and it can get expressed in very creative ways. Buddhist monks commonly have sex with each other by rubbing their genitals between the other's legs. Technically it ain't "sex". Lol You have to really appreciate how powerful of a force the sex drive is. It's basically impossible to just drop it. And sex leads to lots of drama and ego games. I would never expect any teacher or human being to be "above it". Of course there are healthy and unhealthy ways of expressing it.

No, I mostly mean just sleeping with lots of people without going exclusive with any one. Abuse of power is a very relative thing and difficult to adjudicate. You'd have to be more specific by what that actually means. Yes, I suspect he does use his fame/status to help his own survival, which you could call an abuse of power. But then again, this is what survival is all about. This is how most people live. Famous people often use their fame to get easy sex. I'm not sure why there would be prostitution or even if this activity is a crime in his country. You'd have to specify what prostitution means in his case. Is he forcing women to have sex for money? Is he paying women to have sex with him? That seems farfetched. If he is, obviously that's a problem. Because it's clear he has some degree of enlightenment. What degree is hard to say. Probably not the highest degree. You can't really teach the things he's teaching without some degree of enlightenment. It's important not to conflate enlightenment with moral perfection. These are very distinct things.

@whoareyou I have been suspicious of Mooji from the very beginning. Not suspicious of his enlightenment -- I think that's legit -- but shadow issues. This is very common. Loose sexual activity tends to be extremely common in small spiritual communities. It's so common I don't even blink when I hear of it. I just expect it as a given. If a woman is going to sleep with Mooji, it's pretty obvious what the end result will be. It would be silly to assume he'd marry you and stay true to you given all the women who worship him. The problem is, when women worship him and then sleep with him, they only become even more attached to him and by that point they cannot help it. They will naturally get clingy, fall in love with him, but he's probably not gonna restrict who he sleeps with because at his level of consciousness it doesn't matter from his POV. And then this ends up emotionally hurting lots of women who fall in love with him because they want to make him go exclusive. It's every female worshiper's dream to be the one who gets Mooji all to herself.

The mistake you're making here is you're stretching the meaning of the concept of "proof", extending it to mean truth, thereby rigging your argument to win by definition. If you do that, then yes, you can say everything is proof. But this is a sloppy way of thinking which lacks nuance. Proof is precisely not everything. Proof is a concept designating a specific type of thing. It is not equivalent to truth. As a simple example, if someone actually committed a murder, that would be truth, but the proof of it is something else. DNA evidence, a bloody knife, video camera footage, verbal testimony from eye-witnesses, etc all of that is proof, but none of it is identical to the murder itself. To say that the murder itself is the proof is a sloppy way of thinking which fails to understand what the notion of "proof" is supposed to designate. As you can see in the above example, truth is prior to proof. You can have a murder with zero proof, but you cannot have proof of a murder which never occurred. Proof is a secondary phenomenon. Truth is a primary phenomenon. Of course, ultimately, when you get to nondual consciousness, proof will collapse into truth as everything becomes oneness. But you have to be careful here not to conflate absolute and relative domains. Proof only occurs in the relative domain. Truth occurs in all domains because it is everything that is. As an example, a donkey has not idea what proof is. You cannot prove anything to a donkey because proof is a conceptual human activity. But the donkey IS truth. Even though the donkey also has no concept of truth, it is BEING truth, whether it knows it or not is irrelevant in this case. You have to be careful with how you define your terms when doing philosophy, otherwise you end up playing word games. Here's how the dictionary defines "proof":

Again, all of that assumes the reporting is accuate and not exaggerated or taken out of context. That's a big assumption unless you have personal experience of being inside that community. The reason I skimmed the article is because I have no idea if what's being reported is accurate and I intuit a bias on behalf of the reporter. Ultimately I don't know. Of course I encourage anyone entering any kind of spiritual community to be very mindful of red flags and cult behavior, which is why I realease 2 videos about cults and put 4 books about cults in my book list. Armed with such information it will be very hard to get sucked into a cult.

Excellent quote. Heed this wisdom.

Locked for being a low quality post. People making low quality posts on a regular basis will be banned. Gotta clean up this forum.

Domino #2 has fallen.

@Rilles No, I am making meta points about how easily your mind distorts what you see. I have no loyalty to Mooji and I have no idea what he is like in person. Neither do you unless you met him.

@PatternsFormThought You have been warned and if you keep spreading ignorance here agressively will get you banned. Be here with an open mind to learn, not to spread your ideas. I have no interest in retorting you given your attitude and arrogance.

@PatternsFormThought The way you frame this whole topic is trolling and demonstrates a lack of nuance. If you want to discuss things feel free to start specific threads, but just ranting against meditation or enlightenment without acknowledging the vast diversity of legit spiritual paths is just spreading your own ignorance. Nuance! Naunce! Nuance! All of this is much more complicated than you currently understand. Be here to learn, not to rant.

Again, observe your reactivity and projections. You are behaving like a devil and you are fooling no one here with such ego games.

That is true. I merely skimmed it. Go back and read my comment again. I did not simply defend Mooji, I made a meta point about this whole topic. Whatever wrongs Mooji may have made the journalist does not understand the much deeper dynamics which underlie spiritual movements. This is a very nuanced and complex matter. Legit spiritual teachers are very easy to demonize. I did not miss that. But you have to be mindful of your own projections here. Having sex freely does not necessarily mean anything bad. Monogamous sex is your own standard and expectation. Most of this relative and subjective. Forcing people from leaving is a serious problem if true. I said so myself. I do not like that approach to spirituality, but you must also understand that worship is a legit spiritual path for many people (bhakti yoga). It is not a path I would encourage but people have done it for thousands of years, and it can produce results. It's not merely ass-kissing. Again, a relative matter. What exactly does "smuggling" mean here? Running a community requires lots of money. Somewhat problematic but not too bad. This would be common to virtually all spiritual communities/monasteries/gurus. Again, you have to factor out your own projections, judgments, and the journalist's ignorance and bias about how spiritual communities work. ------- None of this is a defense of Mooji. It seems his community has some cult-like features. But you need to look at it without judging it if you really want to underatand it. This is a meta point. I have no loyalty to Mooji.

Watch your projections. I engage people in discussion more than any other Youtuber alive. I have answered tens of thousands of peoples critiques, questions, and comments. It is almost a full-time job because the ignorance and devilry from some of you guys has no end. If you understood what a cult really was you would realize Actuized.org is nowhere close to a cult and will never become one so long as I'm alive. What you guys do after I'm dead is another matter.

Holon

This would be a big mistake. War is a real thing (as part of the dream). And sometimes it requires action from you, depending on the situation. Just because you're enlightened does not mean you become immune to survival threats. Sometimes, yes. Depends on the details of the situation. Some wars are aggressive and unnecessary. Some wars are defensive and prevent even greater damage in the future. For example, letting Hitler conquer Europe and execute all the Jews would have been a mistake (relative to human life). You have to be careful not to conflate relative and absolute matters. This requires nuance. Simplistic solutions such as: no war ever, will actually result in greater evil. Violence must be done consciously. Which is very tricky to pull off. This is the problem of good and fair policing and justice. The process is easily corrupted by devils. But a world with 7 billion egos and zero police cannot work.

Yes I don't care about the reading rate. I care about understanding the material and enjoying the process.

War is a very complex thing. Do not boil it down to simply ego. You must both: 1) Understand the uselessness of war. 2) Understand the necessity of war. When a tyrant has captured your country and enslaved half your people, you will understand the necessity of war.

No, I read normally because I find it more enjoyable. Plus the kind of stuff I read these days is not be skimmed. It's to be deeply studied, underlined, contemplated, and re-read again. The top rated books on my book list are worth re-reading several times. And they must be studied, not just read. A few of my top rated books need to be re-read 5 times just to start to understand their full potential. Understand that reading is not a binary thing, like, Did you read that book? Yes/no? Reading has many degrees of comprehension to it. Do not make a mockery of reading by boiling it down to a quantitative measure like number of pages or books read. It's not enough to read, you must deeply study, contemplate, and do exercises.

Do not post on this forum while high.