Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Leo Gura]

38 minutes ago, vibv said:

But I know that no one understands God.

You don't know that.

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Osho rejects the god which is a separate creator old guy sitting in the cloud . And he is true there is no God if that’s what’s meant by god in the minds of most people. That’s all.

That's not all. That's a stupid thing to bother rejecting.

A man of Osho's intellect should know better than to be rejecting a strawman.

[Someone here]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That's not all. That's a stupid thing to bother rejecting.

A man of Osho's intellect should know better than to be rejecting a strawman.

In his mind there is a meaningful difference between God and Godliness. He rejects Anthropomorphism of god . Maybe in your mind this is just a word game .

[vibv]

18 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You don't know that.

You may understand God on some facets, but not all.

Because you don't understand God on some facets that I do.

This is true for everyone, eventually. Given some level of development.

I understand that no single human can understand the whole. Because that would miss all the other facets of understanding.

Everyone carries a secret inside ones heart so to speak. And that is incomprehensibly beautiful. To deny that would mean to diminish what GOD really is.

Even if all of existence came together as one understanding of God it would still miss my unique piece of the puzzle, which is totally invaluable and it would be utterly incomplete without it.

Edited 5 hours ago by vibv

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, Someone here said:

In his mind there is a meaningful difference between God and Godliness.

That is the whole problem.

He doesn't grasp God. That is why he is resorting to these word games.

Edited 5 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Yimpa]

2 hours ago, iamlite said:

Even Osho came under Leo's pen  

5 hours ago, Jannes said:

classic 

 

whereof one cannot speak.... ohshit!

Edited 3 hours ago by Yimpa

[Phil King]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

There is no other word for God but God.

Could it be a language barrier thing since he is from the east and english is his second or third language and he doesnt see the signifigance of the word in the english language? Like if he acknowledged Brahmin or Atman or some hindu term instead of God, would it be valid? 

Edited 2 hours ago by Phil King

[Leo Gura]

15 minutes ago, Phil King said:

Could it be a language barrier thing since he is from the east and english is his second or third language and he doesnt see the signifigance of the word in the english language? Like if he acknowledged Brahmin or Atman or some hindu term instead of God, would it be valid? 

No. He is intelligent enough to understand what God points to.

Edited 1 hour ago by Leo Gura

[aurum]

Never seen that video of Osho before.

That is pretty condemning. If someone asked me "what is God?", that is not at all how I would answer it.

Even if I was going to critique the traditional, religious notion of God, I would make it clear that's what I was doing.

I would say something like "traditionally, God was thought of as X. This was wrong for Y reasons. But actually, God is Z". I would not just say "there is no God, it's all projection".

[Leo Gura]

@aurum Exactly.

[Adam M]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

That is the whole problem.

He doesn't grasp God. That is why he is resorting to these word games.

You can tell Osho was answering in a way that would land with his audience at the time. He was denouncing the Stage Blue Christian idea of God which gripped (and still does) many people.

He went on to say that you’re immortal consciousness.

He called it godliness, which is just a different word, I guess.

Of course, you could be right and Osho didn’t grasp God, but I find it unlikely. 

You might be misunderstanding his choice to speak his answer so that it lands better with a specific audience. 
 

 

Edit: I also wouldn’t be surprised if he was a charlatan. The blissed out slow-motion style of speaking is really jarring and a bit weird. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Adam M

[Rafael Thundercat]

In a Imaginary World Build God Is imagining to be this Alt Rigth Dude. 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DZIZ4PeCBMH/?igsh=MWZqeTAxemp0MTliMg==

God is Mad

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, Adam M said:

He called it godliness, which is just a different word, I guess.

I find that very suss.

[Eskilon]

22 minutes ago, aurum said:

Never seen that video of Osho before.

That is pretty condemning. If someone asked me "what is God?", that is not at all how I would answer it.

Even if I was going to critique the traditional, religious notion of God, I would make it clear that's what I was doing.

I would say something like "traditionally, God was thought of as X. This was wrong for Y reasons. But actually, God is Z". I would not just say "there is no God, it's all projection".

@aurum Read his books, like "The book of Secrets, and his commentary on the Dhammapada" There's plenty of times that he say God is all.

The logic is that the east doesnt view these methaphysical questions as objectively as the west -- they consider the questioner too, not just he profound question asked. So in the clip, Osho being a spiritual teacher, felt that his answer would help more the woman in question and the people there present at that moment. It's a device to maybe shock the ego-mind not just to confirm their beliefs.

Buddha did the same thing according to a famous story about the existence of God. He answered to an Atheist once "Yes, of course". To a theist he answered "No, absolutely not!". And to a inquirer he said nothing and remained in silence with the man. It's a device, to try and help people, and I agree that answering yes to all this people would be detrimental.

Edited 1 hour ago by Eskilon

[aurum]

8 minutes ago, Eskilon said:

@aurum Read his books, like "The book of Secrets, and his commentary on the Dhammapada" There's plenty of times that he say God is all.

The logic is that the east doesnt view these methaphysical questions as objectively as the west -- they consider the questioner too, not just he profound question asked. So in the clip, Osho being a spiritual teacher, felt that his answer would help more the woman in question and the people there present at that moment. It's a device to maybe shock the ego-mind not just to confirm their beliefs.

Buddha did the same thing according to a famous story. He answered to an Atheist once "Yes, of course". To a theist he answered "No, absolutely not!". And to a inquirer he said nothing and remained in silence to with the man. It's a device, to try and help people, and I agree that answering yes to all this people would be detrimental.

I found this video, which expands on his thinking.

This is more sophisticated. I'm also very fond of "Pure Consciousness" as a term.

But still, it feels like unnecessary resistance to the word 'God' to me. Why would 'Pure Consciousness' not suffer from the same problem as using 'God'? 'Pure Consciousness' could just as easily be taken as a static, finite thing.

You could argue he is switching up his answer as a teaching device, but that seems like unnecessary confusion to me.

Just say clearly what God is and what God isn't. 

 

[Leo Gura]

Pure Consciousness does not mean God was realized.

[Terell Kirby]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Pure Consciousness does not mean God was realized.

same case with Ralston.

No one wants to admit to themselves that they are hallucinating spiritual teachers, along with all their teachings.

[Yimpa]

4 minutes ago, Terell Kirby said:

No one wants to admit to themselves that they are hallucinating spiritual teachers, along with all their teachings.