Science Podcast Appearance Coming Soon

[UnbornTao]

37 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

He's simply not conscious of it, so he is not going to change. You can't talk someone into Love Awakening.

And you talk about rigid framing.

Behold, a believer.

Do an episode on belief. 

45 minutes ago, CARDOZZO said:

Let's see Leo. The old man is open to change. He knows that death is coming. Everything is possible 😎

Isn't this pretty much the issue? One's framing (because it is a framing) is taken for granted as true and the contradicting parties are held to be the ones that are closed-minded and lacking in consciousness. You just have to reframe the disagreement as "The other just needs an X (which might be a belief system) Awakening."

[Leo Gura]

26 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

And also, look at how people just create a worldview out of this. 

You are asking things of me that I cannot prevent.

I cannot stop people from turning things I say into a worldview. That is true of any teaching and teacher. You can likewise adopt Ralston as a worldview. You can be Ralston's yes-man. Brendon has done it. You seem to be going down the same path.

Anything that I teach, you can come in and say, "But you guys are just parroting what Leo said." Even though many people here have had direct awakenings to Love. But you dismiss them all as just Leo parrots. Well, that problem is on you, not them.

Edited 5 hours ago by Leo Gura

[UnbornTao]

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You are asking things of me that I cannot prevent.

I cannot stop people from turning things I say into a worldview. That is true of any teaching and teacher. You can likewise adopt Ralston as a worldview. You can be Ralston's yes-man. Brendon has done it. You seem to be going down the same path.

Again, I don't give a duck. You have a lot of Leo's yes-persons here. I should have clarified that you yourself provide the cosmology for others to adopt. 

Revisit the Teal Swan thread and the videos on listening. 

Edited 5 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

you yourself provide the cosmology for others to adopt. 

No moreso than Ralston.

You can't have it both ways.

When I say something you disagree with, it's "cosmology". When Ralston says something you agree with it, it's not.

This is a cheap double-standard.

Anything Ralston disagrees with he calls "cosmology". It's a stupid trick. It is impossible to show Ralston wrong because anything that contradicts his worldview is "cosmology" in his worldview. This is circular and self-biased as fuck. It is no better than scientists calling anything that challenges science "psuedo-science". The same stupid trick.

That's what paradigm lock is. Ralston is paradigm locked.

Edited 4 hours ago by Leo Gura

[CARDOZZO]

41 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

I think he was just asking for a way to contact him. 

Is it? @LoneWonderer 

If so, you can contact him here:

https://chenghsin.com/contact/

Edited 4 hours ago by CARDOZZO

[Joseph Maynor]

Why is Peter Ralston so special?

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Just talking about the human condition in circles now.

[Carl-Richard]

7 hours ago, lostingenosmaze said:

Two podcasts is absolutely not many. Pure projection.

Who are these schizos lol. The dude was skeptical whether or not he would go on a podcast. He has gone on a podcast before.

🤢

[UnbornTao]

29 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No moreso than Ralston.

You can't have it both ways.

When I say something you disagree with, it's "cosmology". When Ralston says something you agree with it, it's not.

This is a cheap double-standard.

Anything Ralston disagrees with he calls "cosmology". It's a stupid trick. It is impossible to show Ralston wrong because anything that contradicts his worldview is "cosmology" in his worldview. This is circular and self-biased as fuck. It is no better than scientists calling anything that challenges science "psuedo-science". The same stupid trick.

That's what paradigm lock is. Ralston is paradigm locked.

I'll repeat that agreeing and disagreeing are irrelevant and not my concern. 

Hmm, I think we desperately need a video on listening. But who would make it? And who would listen to it?

Leave the person aside and consider that a set of beliefs can be, at least partly, inconsistent with direct consciousness. Direct consciousness is not a worldview, even though it could be made to fit into one. But at that point it would no longer be true. It would be something believed.

Are you sure that the reason you gave, both to us and probably to yourself, is the real reason you aren't willing to talk to him?

Is it about fostering an open discussion, or about defending one's worldview?

Edited 4 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Starlight321]

I know psychedelics do not raise your base state but the awakenings and insights from it are often superior to normal retreats. That everything is love is a rather low hanging fruits on psychedelics. Ralston has changed his mind on the differentiation between nothingsness and form and it's absoluteness after his recent awakening last year or the year before, so he can be wrong. 

[Leo Gura]

14 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

inconsistent with direct consciousness.

Again, a cheap trick.

Anything I say which you dislike is not direct consciousness in your view. But anything Ralston says that you like is direct consciousness.

You call things you disagree with "beliefs" in order to dismiss them.

Love is not a belief. You are smart enough to know that what I teach is not beliefs.

[UnbornTao]

55 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You are asking things of me that I cannot prevent.

I cannot stop people from turning things I say into a worldview. That is true of any teaching and teacher. You can likewise adopt Ralston as a worldview. You can be Ralston's yes-man. Brendon has done it. You seem to be going down the same path.

Anything that I teach, you can come in and say, "But you guys are just parroting what Leo said." Even though many people here have had direct awakenings to Love. But you dismiss them all as just Leo parrots. Well, that problem is on you, not them.

I call BS on that, sorry. Like Christians claiming a Christ Awakening. 

There are things that are deliberately left unsaid. Don't you think it is easy for people to talk? I can chat away too. With some effort, you'd have believed the same about me. Talk is cheap. And certainly, I could have complemented that with a psychedelic trip report and all the extra bells and whistles. But in the end, it would've just been a self‑indulgent exercise. It would've started with me believing in something, and then trying to retroactively confirm it in my own mind.

Edited 4 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Joseph Maynor]

Maybe we need to do an inquiry on direct experience because it is deeper than might look at first glance.

[Leo Gura]

It is absurd that anyone spiritual would dare to deny that God is Love.

That is what you are arguing for and it is silly.

[Joseph Maynor]

God is Truth, Love, Beauty, Wisdom.

[Leo Gura]

27 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Hmm, I think we desperately need a video on listening. But who would make it? And who would listen to it?

We don't need a video on listening. We need a video on self-deception. And luckily that video exists. 3 parts even.

But who is smart enough to grasp it?

[Terell Kirby]

13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It is absurd that anyone spiritual would dare to deny that God is Love.

Guys, it's no use arguing over.

We can either investigate for ourselves if God is Love or refuse the call.

But notice that refusing the call and defending a position gets you no where in this work.

Anything Leo has claimed, as arrogant and bombastic as it may sound, i've tried to go on a personal investigation into it myself to validate or invalidate it.

He's never asked us to believe him

Edited 4 hours ago by Terell Kirby

[CARDOZZO]

39 minutes ago, Terell Kirby said:

Guys, it's no use arguing over.

We can either investigate for ourselves if God is Love or refuse the call.

But notice that refusing the call and defending a position gets you no where in this work.

Anything Leo has claimed, as arrogant and bombastic as it may sound, i've tried to go on a personal investigation into it myself to validate or invalidate it.

He's never asked us to believe him

100%

The point is to experience for yourself. Beliefs are everywhere. What I need is only deep insights to navigate reality as an empowered polymath, create value, help humanity. 

These guys dedicate their whole lifes to spirituality/philosophy. If you get 10% of the value, you won in the lottery.

We don't need to be at Leo/Ralston/Wilber/Ramana quality of consciousness.

Edited 3 hours ago by CARDOZZO

[UnbornTao]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Again, a cheap trick.

Anything I say which you dislike is not direct consciousness in your view. But anything Ralston says that you like is direct consciousness.

You call things you disagree with "beliefs" in order to dismiss them.

Didn't you hold consciousness to be a function of the brain when arguing in favor of drugs as a means to awakening? And do you consider things like so-called "absolute color" awakenings to be direct consciousness?

It's possible that some of our distinctions aren't as rigorous or precise as those made by certain masters - hence the value of a conversation.

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Love is not a belief. You are smart enough to know that what I teach is not beliefs.

Honestly, people will just believe this. They already do. They like it and don't really care about what's true, even though they may think they do. They're after a better experience. And who isn't?

And of course they'll adopt it. It's much better than listening to some disagreeable jerk who's seen as taking away their candy.

Alright then, let's feel good about ourselves. It's soothing. It's comforting.

And when all is said and done, what is true?

[lostingenosmaze]

5 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

And when all is said and done, what is true?

What Leo said so, obviously. But he never said to believe him either, obviously, no matter how many times he said it's true and it's never his worldview or that Love was never a perspective. BUT if you actually tried to test it and failed to see it you obviously haven't tried hard enough.

This doublespeak is all so tiresome, honestly.