Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Butters]

@Leo Gura what do emotions like mild frustration or mild anger look like at higher levels of consciousness? 

Obviously when you're more conscious you don get lost in such emotions, but that's basic, I'm curious what it looks like from a much higher elevation in daily life.

Edited 10 hours ago by Butters

[gettoefl]

1 hour ago, Butters said:

@Leo Gura what do emotions like mild frustration or mild anger look like at higher levels of consciousness? 

Obviously when you're more conscious you don get lost in such emotions, but that's basic, I'm curious what it looks like from a much higher elevation in daily life.

If I may. Illusions are illusions. A nuclear bomb is the same a pin prick. All may be used to serve awakening. Nothing is different even if it looks a big deal.

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

7 hours ago, Butters said:

Leo did you already listen to the new Drake stuff? Would you ever consider dropping 43 videos in one day? 😝

I think his comeback is wonderful. This man has been using his art as a survival mechanism and has been dominating the scene since 2009. His hunger for success is unimaginable, appearantly him and his producers barely sleep and lock themselves in the studio until the album is done. Insane work ethic.

Drake's an undisputed emperor of vibes, and that's what ultimately matters the most in music, that it's fun and pleasant to listen to. His lyrics and flow variety are not bad either

[Nick_98]

When Leo posted about how imagining you are conscious to the point that you realize your world is imaginary I realized something. 

I realized i took actualized.org as a belief system , I still do. Most minds are not capable enough to question deeply the way actualized.org suggests. 

Till this point i take words from Leo with faith, I believe he is pointing to the truth , which makes me extremely delusional. 

When you think about it with your own mind you can literally go insane , how can someone claims that You are not born ? and You believe it ? Holy Cow!
Actualized is as I claim very hard to take it critically and easily you can fall in to delusions. That's because people lack leaders and people are in need of leaders. Everywhere you go there are people looking for leaders such as Leo to guide them. Which will causes this work to work only 1% of the time. the rest 99% are just followers of the leader. 

Painfully , I admit i am one of these followers. I still take this radical claims like you were not born with Faith , I believe there is an outlet to realize that , which is Literally insane. as I said before , How can someone make such a claim and people believe them ! HOLY COW!

[gettoefl]

15 minutes ago, Nick_98 said:

When Leo posted about how imagining you are conscious to the point that you realize your world is imaginary I realized something. 

I realized i took actualized.org as a belief system , I still do. Most minds are not capable enough to question deeply the way actualized.org suggests. 

Till this point i take words from Leo with faith, I believe he is pointing to the truth , which makes me extremely delusional. 

When you think about it with your own mind you can literally go insane , how can someone claims that You are not born ? and You believe it ? Holy Cow!
Actualized is as I claim very hard to take it critically and easily you can fall in to delusions. That's because people lack leaders and people are in need of leaders. Everywhere you go there are people looking for leaders such as Leo to guide them. Which will causes this work to work only 1% of the time. the rest 99% are just followers of the leader. 

Painfully , I admit i am one of these followers. I still take this radical claims like you were not born with Faith , I believe there is an outlet to realize that , which is Literally insane. as I said before , How can someone make such a claim and people believe them ! HOLY COW!

You take a time out from the timeless to sample the time-bound. In truth this makes no sense. In fantasy it is a hell of a ride. The work is saying, don't overstay your visa here. Do the work and step out of it. If you are ready. If not, have at it as long as you want. Just remember birth is always painful. Apparently.

[UnbornTao]

25 minutes ago, Nick_98 said:

When Leo posted about how imagining you are conscious to the point that you realize your world is imaginary I realized something. 

I realized i took actualized.org as a belief system , I still do. Most minds are not capable enough to question deeply the way actualized.org suggests. 

Till this point i take words from Leo with faith, I believe he is pointing to the truth , which makes me extremely delusional. 

When you think about it with your own mind you can literally go insane , how can someone claims that You are not born ? and You believe it ? Holy Cow!
Actualized is as I claim very hard to take it critically and easily you can fall in to delusions. That's because people lack leaders and people are in need of leaders. Everywhere you go there are people looking for leaders such as Leo to guide them. Which will causes this work to work only 1% of the time. the rest 99% are just followers of the leader. 

Painfully , I admit i am one of these followers. I still take this radical claims like you were not born with Faith , I believe there is an outlet to realize that , which is Literally insane. as I said before , How can someone make such a claim and people believe them ! HOLY COW!

It's great reading some real progress and honesty from time to time. Cheers. I suspect most people haven't had this realization.

[lostingenosmaze]

@Nick_98

Leo will continue to ignore posts like these while immediately replying and praising those whose beliefs align with his (teachings) because they supposedly changed their lives 🫠

[integral]

The argument of that atheist is so stereotypical.

"Then why is there child bone cancer?" 

Even if you're an atheist you could still reason that in the larger picture of things child bone cancer is good.

Cancer is good for cancer. God loves cancer equally to god loving children. this is logic that does not require awakening. You are so selfish you want your child to live and you want the cancer to die.

Edited 5 hours ago by integral

[zurew]

27 minutes ago, integral said:

The argument of that atheist is so stereotypical.

Yeah, but Stephen Fry made his criticism against a God, where the problem of evil is applicable (Against a type of Christian God , who is agential, can choose what world to create and will put you in hell forever if you dont abide by his commandments and if you dont worship him). Of course the argument wont work, if you equivocate on the term "God" and you swap it with your own notion of God.

This is a  mistake that Leo frequently makes and it doesnt matter how many times this is pointed out to him. He swaps the notions that are used in an argument with his own notions and then he pretends that he is making some profound counterpoint against the person who made the criticism (when in reality, he just fails to engage with criticism, because he only replies to a strawman, because Stephen Fry never made an argument against the type of God the way Leo uses the term "God").

[Eskilon]

14 minutes ago, zurew said:

Yeah, but Stephen Fry made his criticism against a God, where the problem of evil is applicable (Against a type of Christian God , who is agential, can choose what world to create and will put you in hell forever if you dont abide by his commandments and if you dont worship him). Of course the argument wont work, if you equivocate on the term "God" and you swap it with your own notion of God.

This is a  mistake that Leo frequently makes and it doesnt matter how many times this is pointed out to him. He swaps the notions that are used in an argument with his own notions and then he pretends that he is making some profound counterpoint against the person who made the criticism (when in reality, he just fails to engage with criticism, because he only replies to a strawman, because Stephen Fry never made an argument against the type of God the way Leo uses the term "God").

@zurew In that case, Leo can just say that the agential God view of the person is absolutely wrong. And Leo's "version" is absolutely correct because it's non agential and absolute and therefore explains everything leaving no room for error.

[zurew]

42 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

And Leo's "version" is absolutely correct because it's non agential and absolute and therefore explains everything leaving no room for error

Leaving no room for error and also leaving no room for substance and only leaving room for being vacuous - when it comes to Leo talking about a non-agential God being "loving".

Btw - it does leave room for being wrong about the specific properties of God. You cant deduce anything specific from something being Absolute, and you will find a bunch of gurus and idealists agreeing with you on God being Absolute and disagreeing about the specific properties of God.

Edited 3 hours ago by zurew

[Eskilon]

25 minutes ago, zurew said:

when it comes to Leo talking about a non-agential God being "loving".

Yeah, I guess this one is realy tricky. Cause you can't really define love or really explain it, so you can't really blame Leo here. You need first hand experience.

 

27 minutes ago, zurew said:

Btw - it does leave room for being wrong about the specific properties of God. You cant deduce anything specific from something being Absolute, and you will find a bunch of gurus and idealists agreeing with you on God being Absolute and disagreeing about the specific properties of God.

Correct. But also incorrect, because God must be the sum total of all possible properties so, it's tricky.

[integral]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

Yeah, but Stephen Fry made his criticism against a God, where the problem of evil is applicable (Against a type of Christian God , who is agential, can choose what world to create and will put you in hell forever if you dont abide by his commandments and if you dont worship him). Of course the argument wont work, if you equivocate on the term "God" and you swap it with your own notion of God.

This is a  mistake that Leo frequently makes and it doesnt matter how many times this is pointed out to him. He swaps the notions that are used in an argument with his own notions and then he pretends that he is making some profound counterpoint against the person who made the criticism (when in reality, he just fails to engage with criticism, because he only replies to a strawman, because Stephen Fry never made an argument against the type of God the way Leo uses the term "God").

That's reasonable if the god he's imagining is the one that sends you to hell for murder, then that's a God who has a fixed human good/bad agenda. And is not all loving.

So yeah I get why they get stuck in that one atheist perspective for life.

But as an atheist you would then go to all the other different definitions of God from the other religions and the all loving nature of God is harder to dispute.

At that point I assumed they just point to well it's all unknowable because there's no evidence. Being unaware of favoritism to their own epistemology.

And making the assumption that reality is unknowable.

[zurew]

3 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

Yeah, I guess this one is realy tricky. Cause you can't really define love or really explain it, so you can't really blame Leo here. You need first hand experience.

Yes you can absolutely blame him, because he frequently gives   a justification for why God allows certain things (often times he doesnt give the justification what you gave, but a version where the implication is that God is agential and that different state of affairs could have been realized)

Constantly switching between existential language (where Love is metaphysical and doesnt have anything to do with action) vs action/agential language  (where love is cashed out by what an agent  does and not by its nature) is a big mistake.

But this isnt just with love, this is with selfishness and with other notions as well.

[integral]

@zurew  but Leo's whole point is that epistemology can lead to direct knowing of reality.

So it's not about logical reasoning within a paradigm vs other paradigms. It's about doing epistemology to know what Paradigm is true

Edited 3 hours ago by integral

[zurew]

1 minute ago, integral said:

But as an atheist you would then go to all the other different definitions of God from the other religions and the all loving nature of God is harder to dispute.

2 minutes ago, integral said:

but Leo's whole point is that epistemology can lead to direct knowing of reality.

So it's not about logical reasoning within a paradigm vs other paradigms. It's about doing epistemology to know what Paradigm is true

People here on actualized.org for some reason dont realize, but going with a mystic epistemology doesnt automatically answer  the question of which specific version of God is actually correct (other than the fact that God is Consciousness)

There is a reason why for instance Ralston disagrees with Leo on love.

There are also many many mystics who will cash out God in slightly different ways.

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Eskilon said:

therefore explains everything leaving no room for error.

Leo's solipsism doesnt explain anything btw, it leaves you with an infinite number of unexplained brute facts. Its the most vacuous thing you can ever go with.

Even a low tier physicalist view leaves you with more explained facts than Leo's view.

[integral]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

People here on actualized.org for some reason dont realize, but going with a mystic epistemology doesnt automatically answer  the question of which specific version of God is actually correct (other than the fact that God is Consciousness)

There is a reason why for instance Ralston disagrees with Leo on love.

There are also many many mystics who will cash out God in slightly different ways.

For God its true alot of us are along for the ride, we dont have the equipment to verify alot of it.

His work is very broad and it all ties into itself in a unified framework were every branch is easy enough to make sense of.

It then all comes together into one metaphysics.

So its not all pure naive following him, his work has so much value in every domain, i cant say Ralston or others really capture such a unified scope. 

Edited 2 hours ago by integral