SeaMonster

There are other conditions that share many of the same symptoms, e.g. schizoid personality disorder or even simply having social anxiety. Autism is a highly trendy self-diagnosis these days. Genuinely autistic people have a REALLY hard time socially adjusting; they are very different not just because they are shy or anxious or isolated, but because there are real differences in wiring and deficit in processing social situations. Just off your posts, you don't strike me as necessarily autistic, especially since you're self-aware in how you deploy rudeness, e.g.

I would assume that any girl approaching me while I play basketball alone (which I actually do) either wants something or is so openminded and outgoing as to be a good candidate for a deeper conversation, so that makes sense.

If solipsism is true, Britney Spears is a figment of your imagination.

The word for solipsism that's not the Wikipedia definition of solipsism is not solipsism: it's nonduality or its other variations. Solipsism is inherently egocentric.

This is an opportunity for you to examine how you would like to have your cake and to eat it too. You want to be "authentic" yet you don't want to face any resistance or disapproval to your "authenticity." But that's not how reality works -- that's not an adult view of things. You want reward without risk, in essence (the fulfillment of being authentic without any potential drawbacks.) There are no MAGIC WORDS THAT WORK here.

A lot of people have unrealistic expectations about enlightenment. Enlightenment is just an opportunity. The major obstacle on the road to becoming whole is removed, but you still have to travel down that road. So yes, it is in a sense a new beginning, not an end or destination or arrival.

Because it's a form of self-delusion and it doesn't work. You can't simply enjoy a life premised on perpetuating a lie.

It is not an option to not suffer. Everyone suffers; some people wind up more resilient, compassionate, and wise for it, others become bitter, feel cheated and become envious of those whom they perceive as not suffering or suffering less. The difference is ENTITLEMENT. If you feel entitled not to suffer, you're more likely to wind up in the second group.

Yeah, his take ignores basic human psychology. Humans require contrast; infinite pleasure cannot be maintained anyway because the perception of pleasure and pain depends on experiencing contrast. Even if you're enlightened, you experience the same contrast, it's just its no longer the case that there is unnecessary suffering due to belief in a false self. It's too simplistic to think that if extreme pain is synonymous with evil, that infinite pleasure is synonymous with good. Stable extremes are both a problem. When you have to tell this to everyone who disagrees with you, you might be the one in too much pain to face the truth.

Like he did to the psychotherapist in the video?

The only way to get better is to face and accept the truth of one's own behaviors -- without harsh self-judgment (i.e. by understanding that all behaviors have a cause.) There is nothing wrong with seeing selfishness or manipulative behavior in oneself if you remove moral self-condemnation from the equation and focus on the ROOT CAUSES of the behavior. The problem is reacting defensively to things that need to be contemplated objectively. Also, looking for an ideal therapist is counterproductive because it plays into the BPD idealization/rejection dynamic, so it's not particularly helpful advice. I think you're overreacting to an informational video as if it's the same situation as a one-on-one therapy session.

"Your own field of consciousness" is an idea created by the intellect. That I have to point this out on a supposed spirituality forum is rather pathetic (i.e. you all fail.) That's kind of Spirituality 101 (that the I-thought, i.e. "my", is illusory.)

Literally no-one who believes solipsism is true ACTS as if it were true, including you, Leo. From this one can conclude either that (1) it isn't true or (2) it is true but virtually irrelevant as far as having any impact on human existence, since human beings are incapable of living this truth. So the natural conclusion is that it's just a mindfuck people like you use to mess with people - there is no other discernable purpose to promulgating it.

So by that logic, since Leo recognizes Tate as a sociopath, Leo is a sociopath? Well played, genius. Levels of testosterone, maybe. Tate may be a pimp with higher testosterone than Leo, so naturally he's made a lot more dough off it. I do agree that narcissists can have various levels of testosterone.

The most hilarious part of this forum is posters pretending that Leo is not a narcissist himself. That's how deep the cult programming is here.

You have to be able to distinguish between two types of ethical systems ('ethics' in its literal sense of "how does one live a good life?".) Those which rationalize and enable the ethicist's psychopathology and those that challenge it. Same really goes for metaphysical systems (e.g. solipsism = enabling narcissism.) But back to ethics: the proof is in the pudding. The burden of proof is on the ethicist to demonstrate that his path leads one to a good life, otherwise you simply conclude that it's another ego protection strategy that favors safety over meaning and fulfillment.

There is nothing more valuable than having strong emotions which one diagnoses as dissatisfaction with oneself. I'm serious: that's the first step towards personal growth and even enlightenment. You should be very encouraged. Except the goal is not to be "good" but to be "whole." Self-acceptance comes only after the ENTIRE SELF is revealed. Right now there are parts that are buried or undeveloped.

Complete and utter denial, bro, but whatever, it's your life. Post this kind of crap anywhere else besides this forum where such shit is enabled and people would laugh at you and rightly so. There is kind of dark explanation for Leo's popularity, it seems. He's a Copium dealer for people who don't want to deal with reality.

It's the worst cope. It's a kind of denial. The feelings are more real than any nondual dogma which you don't actually believe in deep down (otherwise you wouldn't have those feelings.) The feelings are telling you to get your act together, and you're ignoring that, which means you don't want to deal with the problem.

There are 4 yoga paths: karma yoga, bhakti yoga, jnana yoga and raja yoga. Jnana yoga is the path of knowledge or intellect. Every path is not for everyone. Most people on the forum are innately cerebral, so jnana yoga is not for them. IMO it's more for people who are naturally impulsive or sensual or emotional. That type of practice would force them out of their comfort zone, which is the whole idea behind yogic practice. So all these discussions must be held in their proper context -- namely that people are different, have different innate tendencies/personalities/biological predispositions. THERE ISN'T ONE UNIVERSAL PATH. E.g. I've learned to recognize that karma or raja yoga was more appropriate for me. If a cerebral person does jnana yoga, they are basically indulging their ego (why e.g. I've said multiple times that Leo is plainly on the wrong path for his own progress, he likely needs bhakti yoga.)

C'mon, you can't possibly be serious. Firstly, they are so vague as to be entirely subjective in application and interpretation, even to the point of one point contradicting another. It's just feel-good pabulum. You may as well just say, "hey students, look out for evil teachers who want to control and exploit you and stick to good teachers who want to help you." That's how effective the code is in my opinion -- but it sure creates a centralized authority to be exploited by evil forces later on.

I don't understand how you could have arrived at that conclusion given any reasonably diligent observation of the current "liberal values" culture (i.e. Green postmodernism.) Post-modernism is pretty much obsessed with perceived power imbalances which may result in abuse and attempts to redress it, but it is woefully lacking in the ideas of self-responsibility, heroic overcoming and in general what you deride as hyper-individualism. So you get a sort-of castrated spirituality which as you said "does no harm" but potentially prevents any kind of good along the way. Because, you know, sometimes a teacher may need to convey some harsh truths to a student that may hurt some fee-fees and violate a code. So this is another version of your "liberal values" safe space culture. There really isn't a way to guarantee a safe space spirituality because by its nature what one WANTS to hear on the spiritual path isn't always what one NEEDS to hear.

Have as many codes as you like. Let a thousand codes bloom. Let teachers be transparent about their own code of ethics. Allow potential seekers to compare and contrast. Nothing to do with preventing cults. The whole idea of a cult is that the seeker believes that the teacher knows something no-one else (including some fucking board) knows and is willing to tolerate anything to parlay that knowledge or ability into liberation. I mean, this is sort of the case with Leo and many of his followers, e.g. Would this code prevent Leo from having followers despite him not signing off on it? No, because they trust him and not the fucking board.

Wait, I thought you didn't like all-or-nothing ideas? Who says that this is the case and that it's either this board or nothing?

And do you also consider the potential unintended consequences of this action, or is it all just stuff for the better in your imagination? Because it isn't.