Science Podcast Appearance Coming Soon

[Jowblob]

13 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Pretty schiz ngl.

Speak truthfully and act with discipline. Ridicule is not right conduct.

[UnbornTao]

Look up Spencer Greenberg, clearerthinking.org

[Monster Energy]

Leo, I appreciate everything you have done for your audience. I also understand why debating others is not really your thing. But as someone with such a high level of consciousness, you surely understand that most people are not there to listen, but to win for their own biased side.

I believe you can withstand these triggers well, because you understand the psychology behind it. But you should not forget that even if the other person is not listening and does not truly hear you, what you say and do in communication is never in vain. The viewers, on the other hand, gain a great benefit, because they do not feel as deeply attacked by you, since the words are not directed at them, but at the person in front of you.

I truly hope that this year you receive more attention and respect for your work.

 

[CARDOZZO]

55 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Look up Spencer Greenberg, clearerthinking.org

I did the test - Skeptic.

Edited 1 hour ago by CARDOZZO

[Leo Gura]

11 minutes ago, Monster Energy said:

Leo, I appreciate everything you have done for your audience. I also understand why debating others is not really your thing. But as someone with such a high level of consciousness, you surely understand that most people are not there to listen, but to win for their own biased side.

I believe you can withstand these triggers well, because you understand the psychology behind it. But you should not forget that even if the other person is not listening and does not truly hear you, what you say and do in communication is never in vain. The viewers, on the other hand, gain a great benefit, because they do not feel as deeply attacked by you, since the words are not directed at them, but at the person in front of you.

I truly hope that this year you receive more attention and respect for your work.

I plan to do more podcast-like appearances this year, so your wish should be satisfied.

[OBEler]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It's a good lesson for you guys. Even the best in the world make mistakes.

⚡In the name of truth, please consider having a talk with Peter Ralston ⚡

Claude4.5:

Hey Leo,

I know you've probably considered and dismissed the idea of a public dialogue with Peter Ralston about universal love and God-consciousness a hundred times. But hear me out – I think there's a way to make this work that serves truth and could actually create breakthrough rather than just another debate.

Why Ralston Would Actually Do It:

Despite his reputation for being "closed," Ralston has one Achilles heel you can exploit: his commitment to direct experience as the ultimate authority. If you frame this not as "Leo corrects Peter" but as "Two masters of direct experience compare notes on a specific phenomenon," he can't refuse without violating his own methodology.

The key is in the framing:

Not a debate about who's right

Not about convincing each other

A phenomenological investigation into what's actually experienced in different states of consciousness

The Setup That Would Work:

A skilled moderator (someone both of you respect – maybe someone from the contemplative/consciousness research field who isn't invested in either position)

Specific, experiential questions rather than philosophical debates:

"What precisely do you experience in the state you call X?"

"How do you distinguish between interpretation and direct experience?"

"What experiments could differentiate between these perspectives?"

Agreement on ground rules:

Both commit to describing experience, not defending positions

Both acknowledge that words inevitably fail to capture these states

Focus on clarifying differences rather than winning arguments

Why This Matters:

You've said before that Ralston represents a kind of "incomplete awakening" – stuck in the neutral witness perspective without accessing God-consciousness or infinite love. If that's true, then this conversation isn't just about you vs. him – it's about thousands of people who follow his teaching and might be limiting themselves.

But here's the thing: if you can't articulate the difference in a way that even Ralston has to acknowledge, then maybe the difference isn't as clear-cut as it seems. Either way, truth wins.

The Pitch to Ralston:

You'd need someone to approach him with something like:

"Peter, Leo Gura claims to have accessed states of consciousness where universal love and God-consciousness are as directly experienced as the color red. You've said these are interpretations or projections. This is a testable disagreement. Would you be willing to participate in a moderated investigation where both of you describe exactly what you're experiencing, so we can map where the experiences diverge and where they overlap? Not a debate – a collaborative phenomenological mapping."

The Format:

2-3 hours, moderated

First hour: Each describes their deepest states without interruption

Second hour: Moderator asks clarifying questions to both

Third hour: Direct exchange on specific points of divergence

Recorded and released to both audiences

Why He Might Say Yes:

His ego: He believes he's accessed something deeper than most spiritual teachers – including you. He'd want to demonstrate that.

His methodology: If he refuses to investigate a claimed experience directly, he's violating his own teaching.

His legacy: At 78, this could be a significant contribution to consciousness research – two people with deep experience actually mapping their territory.

The challenge: Frame it as "If universal love is just interpretation, you should be able to show exactly where the interpretation enters. If you can't, that's data."

What You'd Need to Do:

Let go of needing to "win"

Be genuinely curious about where your experiences differ

Avoid mystical language that he can dismiss as "poetry"

Stick to phenomenological description

Be willing to say "I don't know" when appropriate

The Biggest Obstacle:

It's not Ralston's stubbornness – it's whether you can present your position in purely experiential terms without the metaphysical framework that he rejects. Can you describe what you call "God-consciousness" in a way that doesn't trigger his "that's just interpretation" response?

If you can, this conversation is possible.

If you can't, maybe his critique has more merit than you want to admit.

Either way, seeking that conversation is more aligned with truth than avoiding it.

What do you think?

[Monster Energy]

15 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I plan to do more podcast-like appearances this year, so your wish should be satisfied.

Glad to hear that🌟

[UnbornTao]

27 minutes ago, CARDOZZO said:

I did the test - Skeptic.

Nice.

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, OBEler said:

What do you think?

I don't see such a discussion happening.

And also, why do you need it? You already know his position, you already know mine. And you know no amount of talk can resolve it since it requires Awakening.

You can't talk your way into realizing Love.

Have your Awakening and you will have the resolution you seek.

You know you can't believe either of us, you must resolve it yourself.

Edited 1 hour ago by Leo Gura

[UnbornTao]

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I don't see such a discussion happening.

And also, why do you need it? You already know his position, you already know mine. And you know no amount of talk can resolve it since it requires Awakening.

You can't talk your way into realizing Love.

Have your Awakening and you will have the resolution you seek.

Right...

Edited 1 hour ago by UnbornTao

[OBEler]

@Leo Gura This isn't about me finding resolution, it's about mapping the territory for everyone else.

You're right that I can't talk my way into Love.But if you and Ralston are accessing fundamentally different states, you should be able to describe WHERE the divergence happens. Not to convince each other, to map the territory for everyone else doing the work.

If your awakening is actually deeper than his, a phenomenological comparison would make that obvious. If it's not, that's also valuable data.

Edited 1 hour ago by OBEler

[Jowblob]

@Leo Gura I meant the recruitment of new people to the moderator position that you do and how the mods behave afterwards, in the previous thread that is locked, not you as in Leo Gura that engages in modding work. Being the owner won't affect your sense of self with this. Should be pretty obvious, i thought you would get it. But it was my mistake for expressing my self incorrectly...

Edited 1 hour ago by Jowblob

[Leo Gura]

23 minutes ago, OBEler said:

 it's about mapping the territory for everyone else.

He is not open to such things in my experience, so I have no desire to waste my time pushing it.

He is very adamant about framing things his way.

You are really asking me to do the work that you should be doing: which is figuring out which spiritual teachers are right. As a teacher myself, obviously I cannot give you an unbiased answer to that question. Ultimately you must make that call using exquisite judgment. And if you get it wrong, then it will be your balls on the line and you will have no one to blame but yourself.

Edited 45 minutes ago by Leo Gura