Who Wants Actualized Psychedelic Retreats?

[UnbornTao]

@Davino No matter the conceptual machinations one undergoes or the amount of wishful thinking involved, what a chemical can do is alter brain activity. Since you're making that argument, you likely want to believe, or already believe, that they lead to awakening. But how could they? Direct consciousness is not a function of physiology or the brain, nor is it a shift in mind-state. You're chasing the bells and whistles of chemically induced states - which, by the way, can be beneficial, impressive, and dramatic.

It easily goes over one's head that "enlightenment" (becoming directly conscious of the true nature of oneself or existence) is neither a perception, a state, nor an experience. It's not even awareness. Now, where do the drugs have their effect? In your experience and cognition. There's no way for a "doing" to produce an absolute result, because the latter isn't a process. And everything occurs as a process. This is an essential insight to have that will change the way you look at this matter. 

I suspect many of you will choose to remain within that mental framework and narrative, yet the teachers I mentioned elsewhere highlight a fundamental issue with that position which we've been overlooking throughout the conversation. It's wise to listen to them.

Edited 9 hours ago by UnbornTao

[zurew]

3 hours ago, Davino said:

The misunderstanding is equating the horizontal dimension of spirituality with the vertical.

There are ever-present truths, consciousness of existence or pure presence. Somehow you're fixated with that and think spirituality is limited to that.

Explore the horizontal dimension and the vertical. Limiting yourself to any of those will suffocate your development, do both and more.

Tell that to Leo, who conflated the vertical dimension with the horizontal and who prioritized the vertical. If enlightenment is taken to be the whole horizontal dimension then it doesnt make sense to use the language he did "enlightenment is lower" or "enlightenment is an illusion" since enlightenement under how you phrased it would be the ever present truth and it also doesnt make sense to say that everything is depended on states because by definition that move would deny ever-present (the whole horizontal dimension) truth that is avalaible under all vertical dimensions.

It would be a clear category error even under how you described this whole thing ,becuase it would be like saying the x axis is lower than the y axis.

This is why we said that enlightenment (the horizontal dimension) isnt depended on any particular level or state of consciousness  (vertical dimension), which is perfectly compatible with the whole model your described.

Edited 8 hours ago by zurew

[pursuitofspirit]

@Leo Gura so are you taking more of a materialist metaphysics stance when you are saying that states of consciousness depend on brain chemicals? Or is your view more like Aldous Huxley's stance that the brain is a sort of modulator of Consciousness at Large? 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

tl:dr words r hard, words fail? 🤪

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, pursuitofspirit said:

@Leo Gura so are you taking more of a materialist metaphysics stance when you are saying that states of consciousness depend on brain chemicals? Or is your view more like Aldous Huxley's stance that the brain is a sort of modulator of Consciousness at Large? 

No.

I make no metaphysical claim when I say that chemicals raise your consciousness. This is a pragmatic claim.

Chemistry and the brain are imaginary.

Materialism is entirely false.

There is no chemical, but you'd be a fool not to take it

Edited 4 hours ago by Leo Gura

[pursuitofspirit]

12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No.

I make no metaphysical claim when I say that chemicals raise your consciousness. This is a paragmatic claim.

Chemistry and the brain are imaginary.

Materialism is entirely false.

There is no chemical, but you'd be a fool not to take it

Gotcha.

[Emerald]

On 10/3/2025 at 7:57 AM, Leo Gura said:

Very different. Ayahuasca is pure group-think. There will be none of that with me.

But I have no problem with people drinking Ayahuasca.

I think you'd benefit most of all from a communal Ayahuasca retreat.... especially since you have a resistance to it.

A little dose of what you call "group think" would be very healing for you.

But also consider... this forum is group think... and your retreats would also be group think.

It's just group think that's lead by you as the thought leader.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@zurew @UnbornTao @Water by the River

You three do not have the intelligence to understand what I am saying. So I will not bother explaining it to you any further.

I know this is your playspace Leo - but I really think this isn't possible for you to know  

I have been reading the discussion and I believe language is really shooting us all in the foot.

I can sense frustration on all sides, but there is no meaning to be taken in such a way.

You have had an exceptional experience - there could be some definition or assumption within your terminology that hasn't fully been expressed. You could literally be using words with a very nuanced set of definitions that require fleshing out for further understanding of your experience and worldview. And due to the uniqueness of such an experience, there may be no language to express it. 

 

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Emerald said:

I think you'd benefit most of all from a communal Ayahuasca retreat.... especially since you have a resistance to it.

A little dose of what you call "group think" would be very healing for you.

But also consider... this forum is group think... and your retreats would also be group think.

It's just group think that's lead by you as the thought leader.

I am beyond that.

And no, what I teach is not group-think. If you guys turn it into that, that's on you. I didn't teach it that way.

What I teach is so not group-think that most of you still don't get it because you need it to fit the spiritual group-think you see everywhere else.

When it finally comes to choosing between the radical things I say and group-think, most of you will choose the group-think because it fits your human needs more, and after all, 'Leo is just some arrogant guy trying to be better than everyone else'.

Edited 4 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Emerald]

23 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I am beyond that.

And no, what I teach is not group-think. If you guys turn it into that, that's on you. I didn't teach it that way.

What I teach is so not group-think that most of you still don't get it because you need it to fit the spiritual group-think you see everywhere else.

When it finally comes to choosing between the radical things I say and group-think, most of you will choose the group-think because it fits your human needs more.

It doesn't matter if you intend it as group think or not.

First off, people are influenced by thought leaders. That's just the reality of it. 

You can't be in the business you're in without inviting some level of group think. Anyone who steps into a leadership position and creates a movement can only do so because human beings have a natural tendency towards "group think."

Without group think, there would be no Actualized.org... or any other group, movement, philosophy, or institution. And the entirety of civilization is only able to exist because of group think.

So, there is a positive and a negative side to group think. All the best and worst things come from it. But when we refer to it in the positive, we refer to it as a movement or institution or community or organization... etc.

That's why I said that a communal Ayahuasca ceremony would do you some good... as you have a strong polarization against this component of being human.

But moreso than that... any leader that presents themselves as certainly and "beyond that" as you do will invite lots of group think... as you are claiming superior leader status when you do that. You are conveying, "Look at me and listen to me. I am different than you and better than you."

So, you may discourage group think with your direct words. But you encourage group think with the way you share your perspectives, as your positioning is always like, "Alright you plebs. Try to get on my level. But I bet you can't as you guys just aren't on my level."

If you want to really discourage negative group think to the highest degree that a thought leader is capable, you have to walk the walk of being a bit more humble and human.

And a big part of that is not blaming people who watch you for falling into group think. The reality is that human beings are incredibly vulnerable. And it's incumbent upon leaders to check themselves if a sizable portion of their audience is falling into negative group think.

The reality is that you're not "beyond" anyone. You're human like everyone else. And accepting that would likely help you tremendously towards your stated goals.

[Carl-Richard]

57 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I am beyond that.

And no, what I teach is not group-think. If you guys turn it into that, that's on you. I didn't teach it that way.

What I teach is so not group-think that most of you still don't get it because you need it to fit the spiritual group-think you see everywhere else.

That's so fucking dangerous to say.

[vibv]

6 hours ago, zurew said:

If enlightenment is taken to be the whole horizontal dimension then it doesnt make sense to use the language he did "enlightenment is lower" or "enlightenment is an illusion"

He said that enlightenment, or better yet what we mean by that term collectively, is dogma & group-think. Which is true.

Edited 1 hour ago by vibv

[vibv]

9 hours ago, Davino said:

The misunderstanding is equating the horizontal dimension of spirituality with the vertical.

[...]

Amazing post! Thank you for actually shedding some light in here.

I'd even go so far that horizontal awakening usually prefaces the vertical one (which was the case for me). The error lies in thinking that the Horizontal Absoluteness (which is Absolute!) would contradict the existence of any other Absoluteness.

Edited 1 hour ago by vibv

[zurew]

8 minutes ago, vibv said:

He said enlightenment - better: what we mean by that term collectively - is dogma & group-think. Which is true

I dont think its even a coherent sentence that you made there  - what does it even mean that having a particular definition behind a label is dogma? We have usually shared meaning behind the terms we utter and thats a good thing because thats what allows us to communicate. What you did there is precisely the move that doesnt engage with anything and this is the move that makes it about semantics.

People tell you what they mean by a given the term - engage with that meaning if you want a substantive talk - suggesting what meaning should be put behind a given label is just not engaging with whats being said.

If people tell you exactly  what they mean by the term enlightenment - engage with that meaning - dont do the Leo move where you redefine the word and then start to engage in equivocation.

Edited 1 hour ago by zurew

[vibv]

5 minutes ago, zurew said:

I dont think its even a coherent sentence that you made there  - what does it even mean that having a particular definition behind a label is dogma? We have usually shared meaning behind the terms we utter and thats a good think because thats what allows us to communicate. What you did there is precisely the move that doesnt engage with anything and this is the move that makes it about semantics.

Exactly! Because you keep missing that point that all words & semantics are fundamentally unable to carry the meaning of those things.

Edited 1 hour ago by vibv

[zurew]

On 2025. 10. 12. at 11:49 AM, Leo Gura said:

Enlightenment is imaginary. Humans invented enlightenment to keep themselves from actually realizing God.

You have to understand how ingenius God is at hiding. God invented enlightenment just to hide itself from you. Only the smartest will see through the enlightenment illusion.

Does this sounds like someone who acknowledges the horizontal?

[vibv]

4 minutes ago, zurew said:

Does this sounds like someone who acknowledges the horizontal?

What Leo wrote there sounds perfectly logical to me  

You're not able yet to grasp the weight of what he said.

Edited 1 hour ago by vibv

[zurew]

26 minutes ago, vibv said:

What Leo wrote there sounds perfectly logical to me  

So parse through his statements while inserting in the definition for enlightenment I gave and make it make sense.

 

"Becoming conscious of the nature of Reality/Existence is imaginary. Humans invented becoming conscious of the nature of Reality/Existence to keep themselves from actually realizing God. You have to understand how ingenius God is at hiding. God invented becoming conscious of the nature of Reality/Existence just to hide itself from you. Only the smartest will see through the enlightenment illusion."

Edited 1 hour ago by zurew

[vibv]

3 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

II can sense frustration on all sides

 

What I'm experiencing is challenge & playfulness.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@vibv That may very well be.

It might be useful to ask oneself: What is at stake here for me?