Scholar

Love

There is not one way to think about reality, because reality is not one thing. You created a Story, notice this. All that you told us was a story. What is the nature of this story? It is complete, it is real, it is Truth. But even falsehood is Truth. Because all things are Circle and Circle is Truth. Mystery means Circle. Mystery is the means by which reality is created, upheld and dissolved. Really, Creation does not exist. Creation is an illusiory effect of the Circle. There is no cause and effect. What is the Circle? If every point on the circle created the adjacent point, what would this mean? It would mean that the first point was created by the last point, but the first point is the one who created the point that lead to the point that lead to the point (...) that created the last point that created the first point. This is impossible, yet this is what Mystery is. It is precisely what Reality is. This is how anything can manifest into existence. Including any possible framework for understanding reality. You could understand reality in Infinite ways. Reality is self-justification. But even this is just a story, and yet it is not a story. This is what Groundlessness means. Groundlessness is all Grounds. You live in a fairy tale. Ask yourself, what would be left of this fairy tale if you would let go of the story? If you let go of this fairy tale, what awaits are all other fairy tales. You can abandon and create new fairy tales forever. You little fairy-tale creation machine! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF1TvW4KDtA

I challenge you to go to a person who is a victim to conspiratorial thinking to educate them on how to consume media in a more conscious and reflective way. In my experience this is impractical. I view reaching the hearts of others and mitigating their fears as far more powerful. It is not really a metaphyiscal problem. In my experience education usally can serve as a preventative, but not as a cure. To even make a person receptive to the education, their hearts must be open. This is the ractial power of opening peoples hearts. However, this requires an open heart within the one who is aiding their brother and sister to open their hearts: You could say education is a good way to prevent someone from joining the KKK, but this is only true for those people whose hearts have been open enough to receive the education in the first place. You could watch the movie "American History X", as a good example for this. It showcases these dynamics quite well. If you will not address the fear, the close heartedness, it will manifest in other areas of life. You are playing whackamole instead of truly fixing the problem. Opening our hearts and the hearts of others will be what will lead us into a thriving future. If that will be a pillar in our education, then the world will be able to heal.

But the questions, why are they emotionally gratifying for some but not others? Why do some people have the need to form a coherent picture out of reality? Why are some people more susceptible to imposing narratives onto events? Why are connections made where there are no connections, or where we cannot know there are any connections? If you watch most conspiracy content today, they are fundamentally based on a narrative of the public (the victim) being manipulated by an elite (the government, corporations etc). Why is this so compelling to people? I do not think conspiratorial thinking is just a difference of belief in certain facts. I think there is a deeper root why certain facts are more appealling to an individual than others. I would seperate believing in a conspiracy theory from conspiratorial thinking. I can believe that a certain conspiracy is true without actually falling into conspiratorial thinking.

What is it about the dabblers that makes the conspiracy theories interesting to them in the first place?

Fundamentally, conspiratorial thinking is a result of a fearful mind and a closed heart. Notice this. If you are fearful, you become distrustful of others. Your heart closes and your mind will seek confidence. Conviction and paranoia are a hallmark of a fearful mind. A fearful mind and closed heart will look at the world through the lense of fear. It will attempt to find potential threats as a function of survival. It will construct or adopt an ideology that fits into this lense. You cannot fix this on a surface level. Instead you must address the fear and attempt to open the heart. This is the root of the problem. You have to change the lense from which your brother and sister looks at this world, and this you can only do if you touch their hearts. An open heart will result in an open mind. When you do not fear, you do not need certainty, you do not need to be distrustful.

Leo posted this on his blog: In this video, Freke and Wilber talk about the mystery of "What the hell all of this is" and how questioning your own existence is fundamental to having any insight into the nature of reality. It seems to me that what Leo is either unaware of, or simply does not care about, is the fact that the sense of mystery, the sense of utter not knowing and realization of ignorance, is fundamental to aquiring any greater state of consciousness by natural means. The reason for this is because this sense of mystery is what guides your attention. Leo in the past talked about how you need superhuman concentration abilities to attain enlightenment through natural means. This is not really true. All you need is focused attention. Not superhuman, focused attention over a long period of time. The foundation for that focus, for that guiding of attention, will be the sense of mystery you feel when you truly look at reality and are bewildered by it's existence. The sense of mystery is basically your primary tool to attain realization. Curiousity is the foundation of this work, there is nothing that beats it. Every time Leo tells you what reality is, what Consciousness is, what God and Love is. Every time he does so and you believe him, your sense of mystery gets dimmer and dimmer. Your ability to look at reality in utter awe and bewilderment, and therefore focus on the most subtle of things within your experience, is impaired. And of course, once Leo has impaired that ability, he will go on and tell you to take psychedelics. He will tell you that you need those psychedelics unless you are special. Of course he would tell you that because he himself has destroyed his own curiousity. He has destroyed his own sense of mystery, and so the only tool left for him to explore the nature of reality are psychedelics. Leo will tell you to not believe him, to not believe his concepts and ideas. To go look for it yourself. This is to me utterly irresponsible. You cannot expect a student who uses you as a teacher to not believe what you tell him. Even if the student tried not to, their mind would create a belief. And that belief, that certainty, will be detrimental to their path to realization. This is simply what will happen, whether intended or not. When you have your fancy ideas about what reality is and what it is not, and more importantly, if you look for the answers within the realm of thought and ideas, you will not be able to guide your attention on the aspects of reality which require you to. In this work a question is a thousand times more valuable than an answer, because the answer locks your attention within thought, while the question has the chance to make you glimpse beyond thought and ideas, to look around in your own experience until you may stumble upon something you never stumbled upon before. Attention is absolutely foundational. And to guide attention, a sense of mystery is absolutely foundational. This work cannot be done in a robotic way. Every time you sit down and do this work it has to come from that place of mystery. When your are truly bewildered, your mind will allow you to see beyond your current understanding. When you are bewildered by the fact that a sensation of touch exists, when you are truly mystified by that, that is when your might is ready to look and see. Everything that dims your sense of mystery will be detrimental. Even if you take psychedelics, if your mind constantly gives answers to itself about what it is seeing, then that is what your mind will be focused on. It's attention will be consumed with ideas and thoughts instead of that which is right infront of it. "What the hell is this?", is all you need. No answers, no explanations. Only genuine curiousity, genuine recognition of mystery. From that place, this work will be effortless, joyful. That genuine curiousity and sense of mystery is what needs to fuel your attention, it is what needs to fuel the seeing, the looking. When you take your psychedelic, you do not need to nurture your sense of mystery. You do not need to nurture you attention. You will be shown, but you will lack the tools to discover on your own. Unless you preserve your curiousity, unless every day you look at the existence in wonder and mystery. At that point, once your sense of mystery is dead, if you want to achieve ego death your only hope will be to bombard your mind with psychedelics until hopefully your ego dissolves in a way that doesn't turn your into a sleepless zombie. I cannot say it will apply to everyone, but I would encourage people to watch out for this.

Communicating in a forum makes is harder be conscious of these dynamics. We only see words, not each other.

You are right, I focused too much on Leo and too little on the advice. This is fundamentally about the flame of curiousity and how to uphold it. Rather than censoring and criticizing Leo, I should find ways to give people the tools for them to recognize their own flame of curiousity and nourish it. How to watch Leo's content without dimming that flame. That would have been constructive, it would have been loving, rather than fearful. If I had been loving instead of fearful, my message could have been received by the hearts of others. What I have done was fear, so all it did was create more fear. @Forestluv I have realized something about the dynamic of this conversation. Because the place from which I have viewed this issue was fear, my heart and mind was closed. The responses I have received did not open my heart. You have pointed out issues within the mind, but the fundamental problem was where the mind was operating from, not how it was operating. The lack of openness within me had one cause, it was fear. If we want to help our brothers and sisters, I think rather than just telling them what they are doing wrong, we must make them recognize the fear within themselves. That is the root of the problem. If I had operated from love, open-mindedness would have naturally flourished and biased would have melted away. The dynamics of mind which you would have pointed out would have had no need to be analyzed. In the future when you see this kind of behaviour from me and you want to point it out, you could try to point out within my response the fear and lack of love. Before I can open my eyes, I must open my heart. Before I can open anyone elses eyes, I must open their hearts. I think the analysis would have been helpful if you had opened my heart before communicating it. But if you had opened my heart, chances are there would have been no need to point to the mind anymore. Love opens your eyes and mind like no other thing possibly could. It is not about the message itself, but the place it came from. It came from fear, it is obvious if you read it.

This however does not change the fact that students should watch out for this dynamic. Again, the point here was not really to change Leo's behaviour or content, but rather to make others aware of this. The thread is not called: "How Leo's teachings are detrimental to your spiritual development and why Leo should change", it is called "How Leo's teachings can be detrimental to your spiritual development". I think it is valuable to point out the issues I have pointed out, even if Leo has made disclaimers about this, I do not think they are enough for everyone so I created this thread. A student shouldn't get attached to the ideas, and a student should be constantly aware of the little metaphyiscal mystery curiousity flame within him, and guard it at all costs. If they notice Leo's videos dim that flame, they atleast have the option to then find ways to avoid that dimming of the flame. I recognize that my initial post was too provocative and judgemental. It did not come from a place of love, but rather a place of fear.

Not every thread is about self-development. When someone points out an issue he observes within a given society, not always is it appropriate to point to the flaws of the individual who is pointing out the issue. It seems like there is an underlying assumption here that the issue I am describing is not real and that it is limited to my own projections. This is already very close-minded. This thread was not about the importance of curiosity, it was about the importance of a very particular curiosity, a unique kind of curiosity that I described in my first post. It seems to me that you could have dismissed any criticizism possible with the way you are looking at this. You do not seem to recognize the complete relativity of what you deem distracting. To you, this thread is a distraction from an opportunity of self-observation. To someone else, your persistent pointing out of this individual problem is a distraction of the pointing out of the societal issue. You yourself are actively engaged in creating a story of a problem, and you are quite persistent at doing this. You are here protecting your own story, your own problems, and it seems like that is your priority, rather than listening to what the student is saying. Everything can be a distraction. There is a time and place for everything. I am glad that you are trying to help, but as so many times before, your impersonal communication feels to me inappropriate in this setting. It is perceived primarily as a dismissal, rather than a genuine effort to help.

The one about world domination, however you could see some of it in his previous videos.

It is also fascinating to see how a teacher can focus solely on the students and not turn the same helpful analysis to one of his fellow teachers.

I don't think Leo is arrogant per se, but his entire style has that kind of vibe which many people would perceive this way. Watch the latest Connor Murphy video, he basically adopted his style.

I am simply making people aware of this problem, as it is something that can easily be overlooked even if you think you are aware of it. Same, but this isn't about the validity of Leo's teachings, this is about a particular pitfall that I can observe in this forum and that I have in the past observed in myself. And I am here to help some of you to be more aware of committing to Leo's principles, one of them being to focus your energies on questions not answers. Just because you suggest improvements or raise awareness of certain issues doesn't mean you are dismissing literally all of that which you are criticizing. I feel like many of you are being overly defensive.

I feel like you are not receptive to the improvements I am suggesting. I don't want you to stop talking about the truth, i am only pointing to areas in which I believe sensitivities could be helpful for those on the path. I don't think it's reasonable to have an entire style based around a persona that is very certain, some might even say arrogant, authortative, belittleling of other perspectives, and then expect those who listen to a persona like that to come away without any of these qualities, or to incorporate the ideas that are presented in an unhealthy manner. I don't think you can wave all of that away because you made some disclaimers. Sure you can just keep saying that it is your style and you will not compromise, but as I said I view this as insensitive. And I think it will attract and maybe even created the kind of minds that you then will have to ban for various reasons. I think this is a lack of responsibility, a responsibility that if you adopted I think would only improve your content. Initially this wasn't even supposed to be a critique of you Leo, but rather a reminder and help for this community. If everyone were able to responsibly watch these videos while upholding their sense of mystery, I would have no issue with it. But this is not the world we live in. And I disagree that it is true for most of the teachers out there. There is a certain embodiment that I think you lack. I think you have been teaching all of this while you were a student of the very subjects you were teaching. I think this kind of position of having to uphold the seeker persona and the teacher persona is a challenge, because you have to reflect your teachings confidently, but especially as a seeker it puts you into a vulnerable position where you have to justify yourself. When I watch WIlber for example I get a very different kind of energy, and I think it might be because of his in-person teaching experiences. I think this whole "Talking to a camera" and this forum thing creates a disconnect for you which makes it more difficult for you to intuitively develope the kind of sensitivities I speak of.

I think you are not making it clear enough that you are creating a map, not being a guide. This is not about whether or not it's bad to present these spiritual ideas. You cannot make spirituality a teaching product for the masses because each individual has their own path to tread on. I don't know why you would not adopt a more sensitive approach to how you help people on their path. Because this is all it is about, is it not? Surely you do not want to just create an ideology. I am not even saying that the answers you give shouldn't be given, but they have to be given in a way that is constructive to the path. It seems like you do not want to contend with these sensitivities and just give everyone the answers because it is easier, and it probably feels good to you aswell. Again, I don't really think that, espeicially most of your recent work, is teaching people how to be more spiritual, you are teaching them concepts. You are an explorer who creates a map, you are not the guide who will follow along with someone who is passing through the terrain to help them get to the destination. There is nothing wrong with being the explorer who creates the map, but I think people would benefit if this was being made more clear. Much more than just a few words about it in each video. You are still taking the role of the guide, especially here in the forum. I think one healthier option would be to give people the tools for them to determine where they are at and create content around those stages. Some answers might be useful once I have attained a certain level, and some question can be useful when I do not know what to question anymore. But on the other hand, some answers can be harmful to me if I am not at a certain level of development. Whether you want it or not, many people here view whatever you say as absolute truth. If you never talked about love, and then suddenly talked about love, without anything changing in the experience of many of the people who follow you, they will immediately start talking about love and adopt it all as an ideology. This is very clear what you look at this forum. To me it seems like you underestimate how difficult it is to make any true use of all the answers you are giving. You yourself have a process and a mind that most people don't really ever see. They aren't conscious of the bulk of the work. They don't see the humble Leo who is questioning everything he is thinking. They just see the Leo who is spouting the truth with a confidence unmatched. This is what they see, so this is the energy that is being communicated. Ironically, they are not present the mind that lead to all the answers, rather they are presented the mind that already has achieved all the answers. The Leo seeker persona is a different from the Leo teacher persona. This creates a dynamic in which people view you as the authority, instead of their own experience. Excellent point. I think this forum and it's community foster the energy of #3, because the teacher is presenting his philosophy in this way. I am very sensitive to the energies of people and I usually mirror it back to them unless I make a conscious effort not to. I have notice a particular state of energy within this community, or atleast within my own place sat within this community. For example, when I myself contemplate all of these questions, I would be far more humble and confused about everything I am saying. But if I were to present this energy of uncertainity within this community, it would feel to me like it would be received as a weakness. It would not be taken as seriously. Leo has a tendency to be very dismissive of the positions of others, or atleast this is what I have perceived. I think there reason why I do perceive it this way is because he constantly signalling that he is an authority. He does not talk to you on an equal level, he usually talks down on you. You can feel this energy, and someone like me who wants to point out something they feel might be wrong with that authority will have a tendency of doing this from a place of defensiveness and ego. This means I will present my ideas with certainty, even authority, instead of coming from a level of looking eye to eye. In a way I am presenting my "teacher" persona here. I will have to be more conscious of this and try to present a more authentic expression. I am glad you noticed this forest. Me perceiving of this energy and it's effects on me is actually the reason why I wrote the entire post in the first place. See how tricky this is. I am aware of this and yet still I fall into this, which makes me believe that people who are largely unaware of this might fall into this same trap. This is my attempt to bring this to the awareness of this community.

How does it disprove it? Can you not see that you are assuming the experience of everyone else aswell when you say the "We don't believe him". You treat the ego as if it could follow instructions like a robot. When you watch a video and when Leo talks about what he talks about in the way he does, there will be many people who will, whether aware or not, whether trying not to, take what he says as a belief. You infact can see this all the time in this forum. People come here with questions and they expect an answer to it. And many times Leo actually gives them the answer. He doesn't consider how far into their development they are, whether or not the answer will be even helpful for them at all. He just gives them the answer. But that itself will diminish the curiousity. Because the very fact that a person comes into this forum and asks a question shows you that they do have curiousity. They seek to resolve that curiousity. And instead of Leo telling them that they should use that curiousity to point it inwards, he will give them an answer. He took away the very fuel they could have used to come to a further realization. I never assumed the experience of everyone else, I stated that this will not apply to everyone. Although I do believe this will apply to a majority of seekers. You are diminishing the problem by saying that it would only apply to me. But this openmindedness needs to be nurtured. You cannot just assume that everyone will be open minded because you tell them so. That's like telling your 4th grade students to do their homework and never checking on it at all. The ego is a tricky thing, and my entire point is that Leo treats teaching as if it was a factory assembly line, instead of a unique process that requires attention for each individual. It would not be a problem if Leo did not position himself into the role of a teacher. You seem to have taken a very defensive position. I do not think you are actually engaging with what I am saying. Familiarize yourself with the case of Martin Ball.

https://www.amazon.com/Nordic-Naturals-Algae-Omega-Vegetarian/dp/B009KTUGSS Something like that is what you should look out for. As I said the algae's fats are the very same as the fishes fats, so it should have the same effect. Wish you all the luck, may love prosper.

@CultivateLove I understand. The reason why I might be harsh, which is something I have to work on in the future, is because of how disproportionate the suffering you are experiencing is to the suffering the animals are experiencing. The ego is a very tricky thing, and it will try to justify anything. The reason why I am a vegan is because I know the evil I am capable of. I look at it and I choose not to be the person who puts a blind eye. And I am certainly not someone who can claim they thrive on a vegan diet. You could for example consume insects and mussels if you do need them to sustain yourself. There are a few things about what you say that in particular makes me think you are not honest with yourself, or atleast your ego might be putting blindfolds on. For example, baby male chicks, even in free range farms have to be killed. I don't really think there is a way around that. With fishing, you have the fish themselves suffer and you have a tremendous amount of more animals suffering as a result of being by catch. Our oceans are already overfished and the ecosystems might collapse in the near future. But more importantly, look at how the ego acts to justify itself. It was said that: "I do, but judging by the way you're framing your 'point', it seems you do not realize that it doesn't matter if you go fully vegan and spend your entire life fighting for animal rights, you are STILL living through each and every possible incarnation that could possible ever exist, including all the brutally killed and tortured animals. There is NOTHING you can do to change it. " Can you not see that you could justify any action this way? You could justify terrible things done to humans, after all it wouldn't make a difference. I do not subscribe to Leo's philosophy, and I certainly will not subscribe to it if what he is claiming is not my lived direct experience. There is too much oppurtunity for my ego to simply justify it's own behaviour and remain stagnant. This is why I am so against revealing these deeper truths to everyone in these highly conceptualzied philosophies that get tied into ethics aswell. By the way, the fish oil is truly unnecessary because fish cannot synthesize the fats you are taking. They are getting them from algae and planktons, which you can get directly. They are molecularly identical. Also, consider that the way you think animals are treated is not truly the way they are treated. The farms are not the same as the slaughterhouses these animals are sent to. And if you are not a complete moral nihilist, consider how much even one such instance is worth in terms of your own well being. Don't do it from a moralistic point of view, just try looking at it from a place of compassion Here is a video of a danish cow in tremendous suffering, viewer discretion advice. It is disturbing footage. You cannot expect humans to treat animals respectfully while they are killing them all day long, every day. This demands a psychology that cannot be found in a healthy individual. They have to view the animals as objects, otherwise they wouldn't be capable of doing what they do. Here is a good video on what slaughterhouses do to the soul of the slaughterhouse workers: I have heard so many times people claim "But in our country it's different", and a little research usually reveals it is not the case.

@CultivateLove There is something to consider here, an opportunity for growth. The reason why I said your reaction was telling was because it was defined by the ego. It did not come from your heart, it came from a place of fear and suffering. This is relevant becaue it means that the decision you have made that I was questioning was one made from a place of survival. It was made from a place of fear and suffering. This is why when I point to anything that threatens the ego, the ego seeks to defend itself, justify itself. It is blind to my possible ignorance, it's heart is closed. It knows only one thing, survival. This is what has been demonstrated. Love will reveal itself in a way not known to the ego. When the ego is attacked, love will instead look at the one who is attacking with compassion. For example, a loving response would have been: "My brother, I can see and understand your compassion for animals, I can see it makes you hurt when you realize that others are contributing to their suffering and death. I will think about what you have said, but I cannot asure you that it will change my decision." I could have been more loving, too. And you might have not reacted this way in the first place. But this is what I have to learn, to touch within my brothers and sisters the heart, not the ego.

I have attempted this on this forum many times and it has never done much good. I understand your fear and suffering. You feel threatened by what I have said and you have responded accordingly. In your fear you are not ready to open your heart. I will not argue with you my brother or sister, but I hope you will one day find the love to face your fears.

@CultivateLove Namaste.

You reaction is telling.

Watch "The Social Dilemma" on netflix. It is not just harmful for the brain, it is especially harmful for society at large.