Who Wants Actualized Psychedelic Retreats?

[vibv]

36 minutes ago, Davino said:

All cooperation must involve a surrender of individuality and autonomy

I think that the Highest Autonomy is equivalent to the Highest Collaboration at some point of development.

[Carl-Richard]

31 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

I know he didn't invent any of it but he did separate the wheat from the chaff so to speak.  So credit to Actualized.org for that while also pioneering new ground.

Leo is not the only New Age guru.

 

31 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Furthermore I do not consider mysticism part of the religion itself but let's say you could theoretically.

Why? It was invented by religions, it is a part of religions and has been a part of it for millennia.

 

31 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

And let's say mysticism means direct experience or actuality.  The foundation of religion is it is a belief system.  So you would be essentially saying that you "believe" Truth can be found via mysticism (empirical investigation)  And the distinction here is I"m not saying to do that..I'm simply saying hold no beliefs and conduct an empirical inquiry for yourself. Don't put that into a container called religion where you believe it may lead to Truth. Nothing is assumed but rather look at such things as "open curiosity"  and let scientific exploration (empirical investigation) sort things out for you.  I feel this is lost on most religion today.  Even with Buddhism mysticism is baked into the belief system.  And so I don't feel Actualized is a New Age Religion.

The foundation of religion is the search for the sacred. It's true that belief is involved: you believe there is such a thing as the sacred, you believe you can describe it roughly and take steps towards achieving it. You believe that, not just Christians. Your religion places individualism and postmodernism as doctrinal and methodological cornerstones: "find it out for yourself", "you don't have to subscribe specifically to one doctrine or one tradition". That's described as New Age, New Age religion.

Edited 11 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Inliytened1]

8 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

 

The foundation of religion is the search for the sacred. 

Well - maybe that's what it started out as.  But something got lost in translation.  Again I may be generalizing here and I shouldn't.  I'm speaking more about mainstream Christianity. 

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Emerald said:

100%

Spot on.

The cult of hyper-individualism and superiority through isolation (that's also a social forum which operates completely off of group think).

The exaggerations you guys do of my work never cease to amaze me.

Have I told you to isolate? No

Have I told you not to collaborate? No

Edited 9 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

Well - maybe that's what it started out as.  But something got lost in translation.  Again I may be generalizing here and I shouldn't.  I'm speaking more about mainstream Christianity. 

There are some scholars that have a slightly different definition (search for "significance" in ways related to the sacred), which could capture some of the more mundane expressions of religion that we see today (e.g. going to church for the communal aspects and not so much for the sacred aspects).

But yes, as a foundation, you find the sacred, and then you find various expressions around that which can be more or less direct or tangential. This is perhaps captured by Leo's "fake vs true spirituality" distinction, in that those who care less about the sacred (truth, Consciousness, the Absolute) and more about things that bring significance to their own lives (e.g. community, belonging), would be less "truly" spiritual.

And you might notice the definitions aren't really that dissimilar anyways (at least on the surface), because you can load "significance" with the sacred itself, and mysticism (because for some, these bring a lot of significance to their lives). And when you simply define religion as the search for the sacred and then specify the different dimensions (intellectual, mystical, communal, etc.), you can explain the variety by simply people weighing the different dimensions differently (and therein you reconstruct an analog for "significance").

Edited 9 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Spiral]

Seems very interesting, but I'm going to the US any time soon

[Inliytened1]

51 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

There are some scholars that have a slightly different definition (search for "significance" in ways related to the sacred), which could capture some of the more mundane expressions of religion that we see today (e.g. going to church for the communal aspects and not so much for the sacred aspects).

But yes, as a foundation, you find the sacred, and then you find various expressions around that which can be more or less direct or tangential. This is perhaps captured by Leo's "fake vs true spirituality" distinction, in that those who care less about the sacred (truth, Consciousness, the Absolute) and more about things that bring significance to their own lives (e.g. community, belonging), would be less "truly" spiritual.

And you might notice the definitions aren't really that dissimilar anyways (at least on the surface), because you can load "significance" with the sacred itself, and mysticism (because for some, these bring a lot of significance to their lives). And when you simply define religion as the search for the sacred and then specify the different dimensions (intellectual, mystical, communal, etc.), you can explain the variety by simply people weighing the different dimensions differently (and therein you reconstruct an analog for "significance").

Let's not fool ourselves.  With mainstream Christianity and Judaism there is no search for the sacred.   But as you said even that is corrupt because it is a belief.  You should do it out of curiosity not that you believe there is some sacred truth out there.   Actualized i believe aligns with this at least at the beginning. The earlier stuff.  Even moving forward It's hard for a teacher who has found Truth not to admit it exists at all.  But still here it remains a curiosity as far as to answer questions like what am I, what is reality.  And, what is Truth, if it exists.  I think overall Leo had been very careful not to corrupt his work.  There is going to be some corruption in everything. 

Edited 8 hours ago by Inliytened1

[ivarmaya]

Im interested.

[Emerald]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The exaggerations you guys do of my work never cease to amaze me.

Have I told you to isolate? No

Have I told you not to collaborate? No

You have stated OFTEN that 'Once you get to a high enough level of development, interacting with people doesn't give you anything.' And you have called yourself "above it".

It shows that you value solitude and isolation... and you don't value collaboration and community. And you position solitude and isolation as the thing that superior people "the adults in the room" do.

So, even if you never say verbatim "Isolate yourself and never collaborate." there's plenty of young guys on this forum who look up to you that will go, "Leo has transcended his need for social connection and community. I want to reach the level he's at!"

Then, they just convince themselves they don't have that need because they're trying to model themselves after you... and isolate themselves and put themselves in a more vulnerable position because of that where they're not getting those basic human needs met.

And there's a lot of potential for further social stunting because this community echo chamber really glorifies social isolation and lauds being "above" the need for human connection. 

Most of these young guys are already nerdy guys who struggle to socialize. The last thing they need is someone to say, "The most developed people don't even value human connection and don't have need to socialize."

They can simply be like, "Actually, I'm not a guy who struggles with social connection. I'm just like Leo... above and beyond the need for social connection, as other people are like children compared to me!"

So, even if I take for granted that that's not what you're doing... (which I don't, as it's clear to me that connection is a basic human need. So, I see people who say they've "transcended" the need to socialize like I see Breatharians who have apparently "transcended" the need for food)... your anti-social self-back-patting will certainly influence a lot of guys in the direction of isolation.

[pursuitofspirit]

@Leo Gura will you be dosing alongside participants or will you be more of a trip sitter / guide? 

[Leo Gura]

12 minutes ago, pursuitofspirit said:

@Leo Gura will you be dosing alongside participants or will you be more of a trip sitter / guide? 

I am not there to trip, I am there to teach and create a space for you.

Edited 5 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Inliytened1]

@Emerald i am not going to comment on his preferences regarding his social life and whether he chooses to be among people or not. But I can tell you from an enlightenment standpoint if he is going to hold a retreat it really can't be a group hug type scenario.   If God realization is the goal he basically has to regurgitate his videos but in person.  With a more personal touch.   The whole group mentality is irrelevant because you would be there for the God realization teachings. 

Young guys here,, if they are here, and willing to attend the retreat, shouldn't be hung up on social development or personal development.  If that's what they lack they shouldn't even be attending one of his retreats at all.  He has said many times if you don't have your personal development goals handled or your basic life needs taken care of first then don't even involve yourself in spirituality. This would be about spirituality and spirituality alone.  

But on a personal note I actually salute him for being alone and not having to have someone there all the time whether it be a friend or a girlfriend.  This is actually very paramount in a young man's growth - to be alone and be happy doing that.  Because you can't have. a meaningful relationship with anyone if you can't be happy alone first.

[Leo Gura]

49 minutes ago, Emerald said:

You have stated OFTEN that 'Once you get to a high enough level of development, interacting with people doesn't give you anything.' And you have called yourself "above it".

It shows that you value solitude and isolation... and you don't value collaboration and community. And you position solitude and isolation as the thing that superior people "the adults in the room" do.

So, even if you never say verbatim "Isolate yourself and never collaborate." there's plenty of young guys on this forum who look up to you that will go, "Leo has transcended his need for social connection and community. I want to reach the level he's at!"

Then, they just convince themselves they don't have that need because they're trying to model themselves after you... and isolate themselves and put themselves in a more vulnerable position because of that where they're not getting those basic human needs met.

And there's a lot of potential for further social stunting because this community echo chamber really glorifies social isolation and lauds being "above" the need for human connection. 

Most of these young guys are already nerdy guys who struggle to socialize. The last thing they need is someone to say, "The most developed people don't even value human connection and don't have need to socialize."

They can simply be like, "Actually, I'm not a guy who struggles with social connection. I'm just like Leo... above and beyond the need for social connection, as other people are like children compared to me!"

So, even if I take for granted that that's not what you're doing... (which I don't, as it's clear to me that connection is a basic human need. So, I see people who say they've "transcended" the need to socialize like I see Breatharians who have apparently "transcended" the need for food)... your anti-social self-back-patting will certainly influence a lot of guys in the direction of isolation.

Again you exaggerate what I said.

And you ignore all the times I tell people to go out and socialize.

If anything there is a cultural stigma against introversion, solitude, and monkhood. To even talk about being a monk automatically gets people like you coming in and saying how dangerous it is.

I explicitly warned people not to copy me but to pursue their organic desires. I said this because I already know that people like you want to accuse me of creating isolated, socially dysfunctional men. See, I know all your tricks.

Edited 5 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Emerald]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

Again you exaggerate what I said.

And you ignore all the times I tell people to go out and socialize.

If anything there is a cultural stigma against introversion, solitude, and monkhood. To even talk about being a monk automatically gets people like you coming in and saying how dangerous it is.

I am most certainly not exaggerating.

You often talk about being above the need to socialize.

And it doesn't matter if you say, "Go socialize with women" on the dating section of the forum.

If you present yourself as "above it" and you say "once you get to a high enough level of development, you don't get anything from other people or social interactions" as you frequently do, people who look up to you will want to imitate that.

And it is very dangerous to isolate yourself. 

Being a monk isn't too dangerous if you live in a monastery among other monks. The purpose of living in a monastery isn't social interaction, so that need is still something they're semi-foregoing... though meeting somewhat just by being in the same space as others. So, they still have a support system in a monastery, and they don't have to worry about survival because the institution takes care of them. There is a social support system built into monastic life.

But being a monk that goes out in the wilderness and sits on a mountain is VERY dangerous. And cutting yourself off from human connection (if you're a house holder) is also very dangerous.

There are serious consequences to foregoing basic human needs and spiritually bypassing them.

That is why I see this glorification of transcending social needs in a similar vein to how Breatharians see themselves as transcendent of the need for food.

They didn't really transcend those needs of course. They're either lying to themselves and others and still eating.... or they're not eating and in the process of eventually starving to death.

Just like someone who claims to have transcended the need for human interaction. They're either lying to themselves and others and still socializing (like on this forum)... or they're not socializing and reaping the psychological (and physical) consequences of not having a social support system.

 

[Inliytened1]

33 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I am most certainly not exaggerating.

You often talk about being above the need to socialize.

And it doesn't matter if you say, "Go socialize with women" on the dating section of the forum.

If you present yourself as "above it" and you say "once you get to a high enough level of development, you don't get anything from other people or social interactions" as you frequently do, people who look up to you will want to imitate that.

And it is very dangerous to isolate yourself. 

Being a monk isn't too dangerous if you live in a monastery among other monks. The purpose of living in a monastery isn't social interaction, so that need is still something they're semi-foregoing... though meeting somewhat just by being in the same space as others. So, they still have a support system in a monastery, and they don't have to worry about survival because the institution takes care of them. There is a social support system built into monastic life.

But being a monk that goes out in the wilderness and sits on a mountain is VERY dangerous. And cutting yourself off from human connection (if you're a house holder) is also very dangerous.

There are serious consequences to foregoing basic human needs and spiritually bypassing them.

That is why I see this glorification of transcending social needs in a similar vein to how Breatharians see themselves as transcendent of the need for food.

They didn't really transcend those needs of course. They're either lying to themselves and others and still eating.... or they're not eating and in the process of eventually starving to death.

Just like someone who claims to have transcended the need for human interaction. They're either lying to themselves and others and still socializing (like on this forum)... or they're not socializing and reaping the psychological (and physical) consequences of not having a social support system.

 

You make it sound like being alone is starving yourself to death.  Whats really wrong with it? As I said I think its healthy to be able to exist alone because then as a man you will never be codependent or need to have someone there to be happy.  It's fundamental actually.  It doesn't mean socialization or having a relationship with another should be shunned but there is nothing wrong with either choice.  As long as you can provide for yourself.  There is another member of the forum that is completely happy living off the land in Europe I believe it's @Daniel Balan .  Whether he has social relationships i don't know but that's his choice.  The point is either should be OK as long as you can provide for yourself. No one is saying to go starve yourself on a mountain for enlightenment  but if you do want to do that its your choice.  You act like his listeners are complete idiots.  To even be a listener here you would have to have a certain level of intelligence and awareness.  I think you are the one over dramatizing things.

Edited 4 hours ago by Inliytened1

[pursuitofspirit]

58 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I am not there to trip, I am there to teach and create a space for you.

Sweet.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

We should probably get some clarity around transcending socialisation and just experiencing less of a need for it in general.

It's like food - some people compulsively eat and make bad decisions with it. It forms a compulsive addiction due to unlived highest values. As you fulfill those values the compulsive need to escape into food lessons. You begin to eat to live, rather than live to eat. 

In my personal journey this effect was mirrored in the social domain - I looked to more socialisation when younger. As I got further into healing and then spiritual work, my need for socialisation lessoned. And I realised I simply needed much less that I previously presumed. 

I am willing to forego a lot of socialisation in the pursuit of quality over quantity. The need will always be there just like food. 

I do not think Leo has said recently he wants zero socialisation in a pathological way - in fact earlier in this thread he displayed good interoception remarking faciliated contact with others was healthy and he felt a need for it. I think he simply discerns that a lot of the social domain can involve recursive echo chambers, and is aware this has an effect on him. As it does is all. The old saying goes 'You are the sum of your top 5 people'.

So I think this retreat may also be a way to have a social experience aimed at quality over quantity. And a process to vet people to avoid excessive wasted time socialising to find quality. Shared experience is a way to connect in a more profound way than anything else. And I think the sorts of people to attend will be surprising. You just never know who is a seeker.

To my opinion Leo hasn't been so black and white lately with these sorts of statements. 

The same way he has had more emotional stability and (what appears to me) peace, as opposed to his previous conduct on the forum regarding violent expletives. Sorry Leo I do not mean to use this against you, as you have exposed yourself in a way others have not. Which opens you to critisizm. This is merely to give evidence of growth. 

I perceive Leo has healed some issues behind the scenes. And my conviction here is reflected in my actions - I would never have accepted the Moderator position under the previous Leo (lets pretend that Leo died 🤪)

I suppose this looks like I am defending - this is just my subjective observation of the patterns of his posting, content and tone.

[Hojo]

It scary for a woman to be alone cause it reveals the insanity. Its not like that for men being alone is a godsend to man. Its like a relief. I have been alone for 5 years beside work and have never been happier.

A woman is scared to be alone for one night. They start making up stuff about people breaking in and stuff. Every sound like an axe murderer waiting to strike. That is insanity.

A woman at work came down to Canada from Philippines she said when she first came here she literally went insane cause it was so quiet. She said she looked out the window and saw zombies.

Edited 4 hours ago by Hojo

[Natasha Tori Maru]

12 minutes ago, Hojo said:

It scary for a woman to be alone cause it reveals the insanity. Its not like that for men being alone is a godsend to man. Its like a relief. I have been alone for 5 years beside work and have never been happier.

A woman is scared to be alone for one night. They start making up stuff about people breaking in and stuff. Every sound like an axe murderer waiting to strike. That is insanity.

A woman at work came down to Canada from Philippines she said when she first came here she literally went insane cause it was so quiet. She said she looked out the window and saw zombies.

No. You need more variety of experience with women. This is rather sexist.

[Hojo]

@Natasha Tori Maru I interact with woman all day non stop. I literally don't interact with men. If men are social creatures that borders dangerous to be alone women are 12 x worse social creatures. That means to me that if God locked up every man and every woman in a room by themselves woman go insane 12 x faster on average.

I don't know where you are getting sexist from unless you are looking to get triggered.

Edited 3 hours ago by Hojo