Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Joshe]

"I will not be moved by this" - said with serious energy and conviction about how unmoved one is.

Feedback only stings when it's possibly accurate. 

 

[Yimpa]

Poise and Conformity are my new favorite words. PC. God loves PC

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Nick_98 It is a difficult question because the process is different for us all. Big topic.

Usually larger, charged up emotional reactivity arises from not only the reaction to the situation - but an inherent and unknown belief we hold that is ALSO being touched on. Addressing the (usually) false belief was the way I begun to deconstruct the emotions to a calmer state; calm enough to be able to assess them clearly. Really FEEL them, and not mask them with the fire of anger.

I believe some of what you describe relates to alexithymia - which is common in men. But I would not slap myself with a diagnosis like this because it doesn't do to pathologize unnecessarily.

The first step for me in this process was to allow all emotion/feeling. No suppression. Let the anger exhaust itself, and then ask again, after the fire was out, what was left? It took me a long time. 4 or so years of this process. Once I was able to identify the emotion/feeling - I then reverse engineered the feeling back to the thought - where did the feeling come from? What thoughts came up with it? What part of the situation am I judging or showing attachment to? Interestingly, and it may not be the case for you, many of my feelings of anger were rooted in shame. Shame for being who I am. Not allowing myself to be without fulfilling some function. Not being 'right' inside. The 'shame' belief is very common. The feeling reaction of shame, then anger, is rooted in the belief 'I am wrong' - as in, I am fundamentally wrong or broken in some way. Anger arises because we have the conflicting thought 'No, wait, I am not wrong!' counter to this shame/belief. This naturally results in shame/guilt spirals. Shame being 'I am wrong'. Guilt being 'I did the wrong thing'. Again, it is not the same for everyone. I speak of myself here.

My own observations have revealed some emotions are generated from thoughts, and some arise from unconscious beliefs. Some are pure survival instinct. Thoughts can arise from emotions/feelings also. They arise from many sources - inquiry will reveal the truth of them. Overall our attachments, desires and aversions, usually operate to ENHANCE whatever feeling is present. You will need to inquire into attachments you have. Which happens naturally as part of truth seeking.

Regardless, emotional work and inquiry is not prioritized enough. The long and short of my answer is; emotional/feeling enquiry & deep allowing of said feeling/emotion. Deep inquiry. To the level you inquire into the self regarding truth. Or ontology. Or phenomenology. Emotions and feelings are the greatest part of this work that is overlooked; how can we know truth if our own emotions could be clouding our vision in ways we cannot perceive? This is the other side of the coin - the feminine path. This compliments the heady cerebral masculine spiritual truth seeking. Both must come together. Yin/yang. 

How can we ever be clear regarding our beliefs and biases, if we aren't even aware of the emotions infecting and tainting what we receive as 'truth'?

These are my own insights I have through inquiry. Who knows, I may be totally wrong. Emotions and feelings are so nebulous. Very difficult. I am still working on this aspect myself and claim no expertise  

Edited 7 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Natasha Tori Maru]

I call the space between internal reaction and action 'grace' 

[Leo Gura]

I didn't mean you won't have an internal reaction. I meant don't react externally. That's what poise is.

[Leo Gura]

6 hours ago, Butters said:

you said something like humans being less important than certain bacteria, but earlier you made humans feel special by saying we are more conscious than animals, aka closer to God.

Both are true. Where is the problem?

[Nick_98]

54 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I believe some of what you describe relates to alexithymia - which is common in men. But I would not slap myself with a diagnosis like this because it doesn't do to pathologize unnecessarily.

When I've read this passage I had an intense feeling of an emotional reaction. I would say because of the need and desire to be flawless. I wouldn't describe it as "anger" it was ...... but a kind of emotional suffering . It was really a form of suffering when I've read this passage.

I don't know what to call it probably a feeling of "shame" or "Inadequacy". 

[Zen LaCroix]

On 2/9/2026 at 8:59 PM, Leo Gura said:

Early bird gets the worm.

Haha!

But it is proper that Feynman's estate had that video taken down. It is an abuse of his voice. But the content was gold. Oddly conflicting.

To explain how your mind constructed all of Reality.

If you want the book to get out there you're gonna have to do marketing like go on Diary of a CEO and speak with Steven Bartlett

[Natasha Tori Maru]

5 minutes ago, Nick_98 said:

When I've read this passage I had an intense feeling of an emotional reaction. I would say because of the need and desire to be flawless. I wouldn't describe it as "anger" it was ...... but a kind of emotional suffering . It was really a form of suffering when I've read this passage.

I don't know what to call it probably a feeling of "shame" or "Inadequacy". 

Very interesting reaction.

Very natural and normal to not understand what we are feeling with precision. When you think on this, it is a product of society/the social domain. Efficiency, effectiveness are prioritised. It is no wonder we cannot clearly feel our inner states. Most people cannot telly you the difference between stress, anxiety, worry, concern.

Shame is a big one. Biggest for me. It was rooted in false beliefs based on meaning making early on my life. 'I am a burden to others, not enough for them'. The truth is that there is nothing wrong. It is the world, more often than not, that is wrong. But when I was little it was too much to bear to think the wide world was bad. Much easier to think I was bad...

[Leo Gura]

24 minutes ago, Zen LaCroix said:

If you want the book to get out there you're gonna have to do marketing like go on Diary of a CEO and speak with Steven Bartlett

Sure. That's the easy part. The hard part is just finishing the book. Once it is done then I will have many options for promotion.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

27 minutes ago, Zen LaCroix said:

If you want the book to get out there you're gonna have to do marketing like go on Diary of a CEO and speak with Steven Bartlett

I really dislike Steven Bartlett. Perpetuates a lot of covert messages and never pushes guests when they share completely batshit stuff.

[Sempiternity]

20 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Sure. That's the easy part. The hard part is just finishing the book. Once it is done then I will have many options for promotion.

Hey Leo, out of curiosity, are you self-publishing or going through a publishing company. I did a bunch of research on the pros and cons of each option and super curious which direction you plan on going with for yourself. 

[Leo Gura]

16 minutes ago, Sempiternity said:

Hey Leo, out of curiosity, are you self-publishing or going through a publishing company. I did a bunch of research on the pros and cons of each option and super curious which direction you plan on going with for yourself. 

I am not sure yet. It depends on what kind of deal the publisher is willing to accept. I would like to use a major publisher but if their terms are too unfavorable then I will be forced to do it myself.

Once the book is all done then we'll see which publisher is serious about publishing it. I don't know what their level of receptivity will be. Will they understand the importance of the book? Will they see its potential?

Of course that all depends on how well I write it. So that's my focus now. I have to make it great.

Edited 6 hours ago by Leo Gura

[integration journey]

28 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I am not sure yet. It depends on what kind of deal the publisher is willing to accept. I would like to use a major publisher but if their terms are too unfavorable then I will be forced to do it myself.

Once the book is all done then we'll see which publisher is serious about publishing it. I don't know what their level of receptivity will be. Will they understand the importance of the book? Will they see its potential?

Of course that all depends on how well I write it. So that's my focus now. I have to make it great.

Good luck! What about the new courses?

[Joseph Maynor]

I still feel like the issue of reactivity vs. nonreactivity is unclear to me, although it is clearer today than it was even a few years ago, and I am much less reactive than I used to be.  It's definitely not as simple as be nonreactive.  I find that often people who are obsessed with nonreactivity are reactive but they want to be seen as nonreactive as a kind of spiritual attainment.  You can see this when they get triggered, and then the reaction is sometimes weirdly huge, even if it's done indirectly or passive aggressively.  Everyone reacts.  All I can say is I have improved in this area but it took a long time.

[Leo Gura]

15 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I find that often people who are obsessed with nonreactivity are reactive but they want to be seen as nonreactive

If someone slaps you across the face, you will react internally. You can't help that. But be non-reactive externally.

This is not about being emotionless. It's not allowing others to make you react in stupid ways that weaken you.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

5 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I still feel like the issue of reactivity vs. nonreactivity is unclear to me, although it is clearer today than it was even a few years ago, and I am much less reactive than I used to be. 

If we are defining reactivity as being the external action following internal state change - you can definitely remain graciously stoic. "Poise" as Leo terms it. The internal reaction remains - it is just that we do not act out a compulsion in reality. Perhaps you are referring to our internally perceived 'state' change when we react with a feeling/emotion to some external information, when you refer to:

12 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

 I find that often people who are obsessed with nonreactivity are reactive but they want to be seen as nonreactive as a kind of spiritual attainment.  You can see this when they get triggered, and then the reaction is sometimes weirdly huge, even if it's done indirectly or passive aggressively.  Everyone reacts.  All I can say is I have improved in this area but it took a long time.

In my experience the internal feeling/emotional reaction will occur, depending on our current state, complexes & biology. Naturally so. Human experience. It is how well we manage this internal reaction that is the 'space' we inhibit that lets us see clarity and act with calm confidence. The more conditioning we accumulate during our lifetime experience can result in the amplification of what is felt - leading to a compulsion to act out. Reply to the forum post. Defend. Attack. Or some other such action. I think the above quoted passage from you is a statement regarding those who suppress felt emotions/feelings. And those who spiritually bypass these felt states. Coupled with this, there is often an 'ideal' that is being adhered to. 

"Spiritual people, awakened people, enlightened people do not do 'such-and-such'.

Spirituality, awakening or enlightenment 'non-reactivity' does not exclude us from biology & incentive structures. 

[Joseph Maynor]

15 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

"Spiritual people, awakened people, enlightened people do not do 'such-and-such'.

Regarding the spirituality angle: When it's a badge of honor to be seen as nonreactive, it's definitely easier to suck things up and take the higher road.  However, once someone slips into a moral reframing, e.g., this person is no good for us or for for such and such, the nonreactivity turns to reactivity.  This can show up as reactively schooling someone to be nonreactive.    

[Natasha Tori Maru]

9 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Regarding the spirituality angle: When it's a badge of honor to be seen as nonreactive, it's definitely easier to suck things up and take the higher road.  However, once someone slips into a moral reframing, e.g., this person is no good for us or for for such and such, the nonreactivity turns to reactivity.  This can show up as reactively schooling someone to be nonreactive.    

Hmmm, and moral reframing often feels safer than the raw hurt. We choose to feel the sting and allow the pain - or we can decide someone is toxic and move into righteousness. And that sneaky move into righteousness is a move to reclaim power - power we think we 'lost' in the exchange. As if anyone could reduce our power or sovereignty without us allowing it in the first place! 

We engage in lots of emotional and thought ju-jitsu. All to evade feeling states that end up causing the discordance that results in an outward reaction!

Many 'spiritual' conversations degrade into these loops.

Edited 4 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru