Scholar

I also do sense that Leo is hiding it for marketing reasons. It could have been something that would be damaging to his reputation if it went public, I do not really buy the "I don't want to tell you because it's a distraction" claim. But in the end who knows.

I disagree. To me this person seems philosophically and scientifically illiterate. To be careful and not blindly believe Leo's positions is something we should already be aware of as Leo himself is advocating for that. What exactly in his critique seems reasonable and valuable to you?

Do you guys think there is anything to this?

How do you know anything you just said? How do you know the question you asked even makes sense or is valid to ask? You are begging the question here big time.

How do you know that, and what is "existing"?

Why do you think that such a thing as creation even exists?

It seems like he is one of those people who blindly accept spirituality without having a solid scientific foundation. He deluded himself into spirituality without understanding it, and now that he caught up on some of the scientific literature he is bashing his previous believes. It's like a person who was raised christian and then went atheist because of how silly Christianity is. Maybe this is why you learn philosophy and science before you become spiritual. From what I can tell he does not yet recognize the mind-reality problem and it's significance.

Yes, I think the problem is that we conflate concepts with reality. So when we say "Nothing is what is left when you remove everything, it's still something!" we are actually talking about the concept of nothing. The concept of nothing is actually something, it is the concept of "The absence of everything!". It's nothing but a delusion of language, and has as much to do with nothingness as the concept of red has to do with redness. I just want to poke into Leo's logic, because he values concepts so much when they do not seem to have much to do with what is beyond.

The problem is I know that, but it doesn't help at all. I am not conscious that my ideas are delusional, and when I am I fall back to it as soon as I become more conscious of reality.

After listening to so many of Leo's videos, and other enlightenment content, I feel like I already know the answer and it's so hard to ignore it when I am self-inquiring. It's like I am always trying to find that the answer is true, instead of being actually curious about my reality. I used to be very curious, before I knew Leo I spent hours and hours thinking about reality and what it is, I came to all sorts of conclusions like reality being necessarily unlimited and infinite, but I didn't know of spirituality back then and it was more of an intellectual exercise. Now that I know how significant it is to inspect consciousness, I cannot do it because I already feel like I know the answer. Whenever I am self-inquiring I am trying to get rid of my self, because I already know that I am not what I think the self is. I am using the Neti-Neti method with a clear expectation of what will happen and it's just useless. It kills my curiosity. The only times where I seem to get deep is when I question language, when I question the meaning of words until they make no sense anymore, and that is when I don't actually think about enlightenment at all, but I am actually curious. Though even that is being corrupted by the ideas I have, whenever I realize that I am getting onto something I immediately think of enlightenment and am like "Wow, this is it, this is how I will get to the truth!" and then it's all for nothing. How do I get rid of all these ideas and concepts? Or how can I use these concepts to aid me on my inquiry instead of being road-blocked by them? I have this problem that I am only curious when I try to investigate matters on my own, when someone makes me question something about reality that I then have to figure out by myself. This is when I can actually inquire into the nature of things. Listening to teachings to me is almost like adding delusions to my conceptual framework. It's like spoiling a movie for me that I then don't care to watch anymore. I know that the experience of watching the movie is different from the information I was told, but that does not change the lack of curiosity and the inability to actually, consciously inspect the mind.

I have no access to them.

Is it not ironic that you say the egg came from outside of consciousness, when the concept of "outsideness" itself is something that is actually in your consciousness?

Yes but that means reality is clearly limited to logic! All has no opposite in your opinion because it makes no sense to you logically, or because you have not become aware of it. But that limits reality to either of those two things: Nothing can exists completely outside of your awareness. Reality is bound to logic. Both of these things limit reality, why would such a limit exist?

But not being able to have an opposite is a limit, is it not?

If reality has no opposite, reality is not limitless.

But then, is your thought of a thought of a rock not being a rock actually a thought of a rock not being a rock?

From time to time I do entertain the idea that Leo might be some sort of super-genius charlatan. Who knows... he might have deluded us all.

But the all is the source of suffering, if one is conscious of being the all, why do something about something the all has created in the first place?

Is it possible, or is there already a practice, that combines martial arts and enlightenment work? I wonder if it is possible to use Martial Arts, or aspects of it, to achieve ego death.

@pluto @Michael569 Is chlorella and spirulina not dangerous due to it likely containing neurotoxins?

Max Richter is pretty nice for those melancholic vibes:

I have been contemplating morality these past few weeks, I read up on moral philosophy and the more I think about this topic the more confused I get. There are so many positions on this, and it seems like they are almost all linked to suffering. Previously I thought that morality was relative, that it depended on the (mostly sub-conscious) preference of the subject. Like when I say reality should not be a certain way, then I am really saying that I do not want reality to be a certain way, that I have an expectation towards reality to manifest in a particular manner I desire. For example when I say I do not want someone to be hurt, I say that, even if it is not articulated, because there is an expectation of suffering from the empathy I will feel. It's not just an expectation, but it seems like the idea of that possible manifestation of reality is making me suffering in the moment itself, and my inherent drive to avoid that suffering leads me to choices I make towards alleviating suffering of others. I have reached a point, just a few moments ago, where I am not sure anymore what suffering actually is. It seemed so self-evident a few minutes ago, but now I just do not understand it anymore. Why is suffering bad? What about the experience of suffering is intrinsically undesirable? Or is suffering itself "undesire"? But what are it's actual qualities? What is truly the difference between suffering and joy? It was unquestionable for me that suffering for all of eternity was inherently bad, but now I don't even know anymore what that would mean? Like all other experiences it seems to me like it is nothing but a driver for certain behaviors, but why does that matter? I know I will care about my own suffering, but I do not understand why that even matters? So what that I will suffer and resist reality? I would want to ask why it would be significant, but I am not even sure what significance means anymore. Does anyone have thoughts on this?

@SOUL I think I know what you mean now.

I don't know, the more curious I get about suffering the less able I am to investigate it. I did some strong-determination sitting in an uncomfortable position until my butt hurt so much that I was going to vomit, and the only reason I stopped is because I didn't want to make a mess. That might have been an excuse my mind made up, but as I watched the suffering I really couldn't find anything bad about it. All it was was a feeling that changed my thoughts and my attitude, or perspective. It made my curiosity disappear and I could feel myself being pulled towards a behavior that would make the experience of pain cease to exist. Though the more I looked the less badness I could observe in that resistance. I also noticed that it takes focus to resist to surrender to the resistance, I had to be conscious of the energy that was pulling me towards a certain behavior so that I would not actually act out said behavior. I noticed myself surrender to that kind of energy afterwards in multiple occasions, when I have been not focused on the experience of suffering and instead just let myself act out the way my mind set itself out to act. Though I still do not see the evil within suffering. In fact, the more curious I get about suffering the less it seems to affect me. I do not fear shame nearly as much as I did before, simply because I am actually curious as to what will happen if I actually experience shame. Before I was always trying to avoid suffering, even when I was trying to surrender to it. When I listened to gurus, or even to Leo, it seems like I was using the techniques and the advice as a way to free myself of suffering eventually. When I previously attempted strong determination sitting, it was terribly straining, I was not able to take it for long. After having read up on morality, what is truly good and evil, I think I have cultivated a true curiosity for suffering. I actually do want to know what will happen if I suffer, and what about it seems so intrinsically bad. I am not doing it for some greater purpose, to learn how to not suffer, or to somehow become a stoic person who can take anything. There is a part in my mind that truly wants to know what kind of suffering it takes for me to finally see it's nature, and whether or not it carries any significance. Can I truly know suffering if I am deeply curious about it? And how can I keep my curiosity alive in the presence of unbearable suffering? How do we go about the investigation of suffering? There is an uneasy feeling that seems to be actually more powerful than the suffering itself, it seems like there is a fear of the curiosity itself, rather than the suffering I am experience while investigating it. The kind of "Will I actually go insane if I keep going with this?"-feeling, which I remember I had when I was visualizing what it would mean to be actually dead, though that was years ago.

When I listen to spiritual teachers they usually talk about what is causing suffering and how to avoid it, but I have not yet seen someone explain why it is bad or what it truly is. Yes, attachment to things causes suffering, but is losing something you are attached actually suffering? That just seems like language games to me and it does not really explain anything but the mechanics of it. You are right, maybe it is a paradox and the mind cannot grasps it, but then why are we so certain of suffering being intrinsically bad? The problem with strong-determination sittings is that they are voluntary and that once the mind cannot take it anymore it will give in. But what happens when the mind cannot take it anymore but cannot give in? What happens when one knows that it will not stop? Aren't those drastically different forms of suffering? Like when you lose someone you love, you know that they are gone forever, and there is nothing you can do to make them come back. That is suffering that you cannot just give in to, it's not just a test. But maybe I don't even need to experience such intense suffering to learn about it. I would agree that suffering is well described as some sort of seeking-energy experience, after all that is what it actually does. It makes us do things that we otherwise wouldn't. It seems like this energy can become incredibly intense, so much so that it damages the structure of the mind. But it seems to me like Leo is going further than that, like this energy is something that should be avoided because after all it will make you act in a certain way that will make you avoid it anyways. It's like there is no escape of it. But then, I don't understand why that is. It seems so circular, we "should" avoid suffering because suffering will make us try to avoid it. When Leo says it's stupid to act this way I actually think he is making a moral statement, because stupidity implies that one acts out of order of how one ought to act to reach a certain goal. There is nothing stupid in the universe if there is no goal to anything that is happening, though as soon as you set up a goal, one can act stupidly because on can act in misalignment with that goal. And maybe when Leo says it's stupid, he means because programmed into my mind is the avoidance of suffering, as some sort of biological imperative, which by acting against it I create actions that might be deemed as stupid, because obviously it will put me in situations where I will act in accordance to my biological imperative either way. Though I don't understand why he deems this objectively stupid, how is this biological imperative actually valuable if that is subjective? And even worse, it's not even subjective, it's seems to be more like a stone rolling down a hill. It is just what is happening in the mind.