• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Ellenier

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Location
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,922 profile views
  1. Amen to that ?? I think that's how it works, yeah. Not sure about his view on that; I think he has some QM related stuff, but I had enough after this video @fox_unit Yeah, my thoughts exactly. To someone who suggested that Leo encourages open-mindedness he wrote just 1h ago: "It's a cult. He's a cult leader. He does not encourage open-mindedness. He preaches solipsism and then says that if you don't accept what he says as absolute truth, that's your brain fighting what you secretly know to be true. It's clear as day." He's literally doing the same cult-psychology thing (of which he's accusing Leo of doing) in the same sentence lol.
  2. Yeah, I think it's quite fascinating how he can actually have some (relatively) valid and rational criticique primarily regarding the other guys while at the same time just defending his emotional attachment to his materialistic POV. You can literally see how he's not neutraly analyzing there and just emotionally bashing any other perspective than materialism - he doesn't even try to understand what's said. But I don't think a discussion would do anything there. He's literally projecting that Leo wants his viewers to kill themselves, that's too far gone to even argue with, I guess. No. That's exactly what he says. Something like the brain is creating consciousness. When I watched that it hurt A LOT. Found it again ???: Exactly. There's actually not even a need for Dave to bash anything, since nobody is trying to convince him of anything. It's literally just ego bs, creating an emotionally loaded story to reinforce his own "true" perspective. And yeah, afaik there are some materialistic explanations of QM, but Leo doesn't even use QM in order to justify mysticism. Okay, the title "QM debunks materialism" is a bit click-baity but I just saw it as another pointer towards nonduality.
  3. Yeah, reminds me of Leo's entry in the rationalwiki True, I just stumbled upon one of those a while ago and found it to be quite entertaining.
  4. He usually makes good videos on science topics, but now he uploaded this: At about 40 mins in he talks about Leo (and also features Deepak Chopra and other ppl I don't know as well in his video). The first part about Deepak Chopra and some guy named "Spirit Science" on YT i actually found to be quite funny, but then as he goes on he tries to depict Leo as a cult leader and sociopath who's manipulating his viewers i. a. to kill themselves. Basically he takes parts of random actualized.org videos completely out of context in order to establish the narrative of a cult leader. You can clearly see that he has no clue about what Leo is talking about and that he's just projecting his own assumptions/concepts onto him. For example he says stuff like "quantum mechanics is the well he draws his lies from" which makes absolutely no sense or that Leo tries to convey to the viewers that his perspective is the absolute truth while other peoples perspectives are flawed (he calls it gaslighting while not even understanding what is meant by absolute truth). He also basically says that Leo is contradicting himself by saying he is god and that you are god too or by being omniscient and yet being surprised by his doorbell ringing in one of the live awakening vids. W/e, watch the part for yourself. I guess that's how materialists interprete this stuff and nonduality. Im actually a bit spooked b/c prof. Dave usually explains stuff like really good and he also does a great job at roasting flatearthers, but depicting actualized.org as a cult and so massively misinterpreting this stuff is pretty ooga booga and probably even dangerous (and shows that he doesn't even have a clue what he's talking about or that he's very closed-minded at the very least).
  5. Can confirm. That's literally what got me my first deep awakening. I think I even watched Leos Neti-Neti video back then
  6. @Mu_ Thats also my biggest question. People like Tony Parsons, Jim Newman and Andreas Müller spent years meditating (when it comes to Parsons, I'm not that sure) and now they tell everyone that it did absolutely nothing? I'm sure they would not be in that position if they hadn't meditated. One the other hand, wasn't the awakening predetermined in the first place, so that the apparent human in his apparent story had to undergo years of meditation? @Nahm Of course the answer had to be like this @allislove Yeah I think that must be the case for (almost) all teachers.
  7. Let me introduce you to the analogy of John Smith and King Lear. I'm not sure, if you've already heard of it I really like Rupert and watch a lot of his videos and explanations. There's this one about grace vs. action that he made and it really appealed to me. But then there was Jim telling his audience something along the lines "it is all bs and self-deception" Thats the same concept I have about this enlightenment stuff
  8. Thanks for your explanations Yeah, that's what I oftentimes think: That is already the case. The things I that dont like already appear in this space without judgement. My resistance against them is already appearing in this space without judgement. The fact that everything appears means that it has already been accepted without judgement. But somehow it isn't understood or embodied by this person. But then, why does Jim Newman for example deny that meditation/self-inquiry in any way contributes to an awakening or the final realization? Why doesn't he tell his audience that "yup, you are not the doer but if this "you" feels like doing self-inquiry, it will help, even if nobody does it and your feeling of having chosen to do it is illusory"?
  9. Hey guys, again, I am in doubt of what the hack I'm actually doing and as usual, this is the perfect moment to seek confirmation on this forum So my question is: In which way do Jim Newman/Tony Parsons/Andreas Müller vs. "conventional teachers" such as Rupert Spira even talk about the same thing? Personally, I resonate more with the neo-advaita claims, since I feel sooooo sick of this "progression towards enlightenment thing" that always makes me feel like getting better and better but never reaching an end of the search. As a daily practice, I do self-inquiry. And these neo-advaita people confirm my doubts, like Tony Parsons makes fun of "conventional" teachers: "If you haven't found it yet, try harder/meditate even more/etc.) or Jim Newman laughing about even doing self-inquiry. Of course, these critique points have come to my mind, too and it is always like the neo-advaita people take the words right out of my mouth, when they criticize "conventional teachings" or trying to do anything to one day attain enlightenment. And because both parties seem to have so many problems with each other, I am again confused. Do they actually talk about the same thing? I mean, I miss kind of an acknowledgement for the other point of view on both sides. If they talked about the same thing, wouldn't they say "Yes, you can look at it, as if you can do nothing to bring about enlightenment OR you can somehow use your resources and if an apparent 'I' with free will appears, then talk to it, as if it could do anything about it. Both points are equally valid." But they don't do that. They rather criticize each other, as if the other approach didn't work out. Has one party had a specific realization that the other didn't? Hope you can clarify that for me Thanks very much
  10. If love would be just an emotion happening inside a human being, then yes, love would be imaginary as every other emotion and every other sensation as well. Thankfully love is not an emotion of a human being, it's actually the reason and the "engine" of creation(=imagination) itself. The love you might feel for another person is just a tiny sliver of this infinite love and you just misinterpret it as the experience of an emotion, while it's actually your true nature.
  11. @SoonHei Thanks for that explanation. Its helping and not helping me a lot And Morpheus: How bout stop looking for it?
  12. @Display_Name Thanks, I'll try to! @Rilles Ah, right. I would say I have had some glimpses but nothing "manifest".
  13. @Beginner Mind I'm currently at a point where I am glad for every disappointment as long as it reveals my wrong beliefs ^^