Leo's DemystifySci Podcast Appearance

[Michal__]

Anyone else can't pee on 5 meo even if they really want to? :DD

[LoneWonderer]

I have to be honest in my opinion here that others have also pointed out. It in no way is meant as a mean jab but an observation. The colored cape you are wearing is immediately off putting and gives off cult vibes. In my opinion it degrades a sense of seriousness and trust that needs to happen for the layman audience.

The interviews were good on the other hand. She was waaaay too cocky and asured of her position and wasn't really that open to entertain deeply anything you were saying. He on the other hand came off more curious. These conversations are really hard to have if there is no foundations in Leo's work. Maybe for next time a restructuring of priorities? Like focusing on what is the most important yet relatable information I can convey to people in 3h to get them excited and interested in actualized.org teachings knowing full well that the audience watching has 0 spiritual work under their belts.

Edited 11 hours ago by LoneWonderer

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

I know all those positions and they are garbage. Not worth discussing.

That doesnt make much sense to me as a reasoning for why you dont discuss them.

How does normie positions in any way at all less garbage and more worth discussing than non-normie positions?

Edited 9 hours ago by zurew

[UnbornTao]

14 hours ago, AerisVahnEphelia said:

it doesn't matter that leo is enlightened or not, why the fuck anyone care to prove anything, the moment you'll get those level of insights you understand that really you're just yelling at walls.
no one is going to confirm, because god is absolute.
you really think you can share anything of your reality or that anyone can ( yes and no, absolutely yes ).
if that happen it's as miraculous as fucking cosmic heaven coliding stars, but fucking miracle happen all the time.

you all still using lasers & ruler when even using telepathy isn't possible in this space.
 

it doesn't even fucking matter, relatively the number of distinctions and construct you can produce is infinite & finite, but finite only for the human self, which cannot be grasb, so might aswell be basically infinite.

you all mad, everyone just confined to fucking insanity, thank god, I've enough sanity for all of us.

Can you clarify what you're trying to say?

[Davino]

I think it would be helpful to reference your work when talking in interviews.

E.g. if you wanna know more about evil: Go watch what is The Devil? What is Goodness? Etc. A full 3h lecture on the topic...

[UnbornTao]

14 hours ago, Nemra said:

@UnbornTao, I am not a believer in Leo, especially recently, which is not to say I won't agree with him.

Psychedelics annihilate the authority of Leo, to be honest. He is just a guide who can help.

Look at what's behind the act of agreeing. But okay, I'll take your word for it.

In any case, weren't you approaching them with preconceived ideas about what they would do for you? And where did you hear that? What were you expecting to experience, and why? Subtly, it's a form of confirmation bias.

"You'll find X", and people find (create an experience of) it.

14 hours ago, Nemra said:

I speak for myself.

Maybe psychedelics work on you differently. You have to consider that could be the case.

Maybe. Or maybe I no longer fool myself into mistaking an experience for an 'awakening.' Again, why do you think I bring up masters?

These are the excuses and resistance mentioned above.

Without any prior sense of what enlightenment is, this trap seems virtually inevitable with psychedelics. And look at the forum - especially those who have drunk the Kool-Aid - which you can tell if you pay attention.

14 hours ago, Nemra said:

You can superficially make that logical connection, but if you didn't become conscious of what the universe was before you were born, then you don't really know what you are talking about.

I know that being drunk exists in a different domain from what is, and a change in state does not change that. It's just a significant part of, and influence on, what we consider life to be.

Remove every perceptive faculty at your disposal, including the mind, and see what 'state' you find.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

That doesnt make much sense to me as a reasoning for why you dont discuss them.

Because it is easier to discuss from a clean slate than trying to correct a flawed foundation.

The distinctions and categories in academic philosophy take longer to correct than to just start from scratch.

Getting into the weeds of academic philosophy is really only appealing to academic philosophers, not normal people. Why make my discourse intentionally arcane? I frame things in a way that requires no education in academic philosophy.

I could go all philosophy-nerd. And I try not to.

Edited 7 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Hojo]

Kastrup says reality is mind when its not mind. Its something else. Hes mistaking the drone ( nothing) for mind. He is putting 2 seperate things together. Not the void of nothing that it truly is. At least from what I can remeber he says nature is mind.

Your mind is reality but there is something that is no mind. That is more reality.

Edited 7 hours ago by Hojo

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Because it is easier to discuss from a clean slate than trying to correct a flawed foundation.

The distinctions and categories in academic philosophy take longer to correct than to just start from scratch.

Getting into the weeds of academic philosophy is really only appealing to academic philosophers, not normal people. Why make my discourse intentionally arcane? I frame things in a way that requires no education in academic philosophy.

I could go all philosophy-nerd. And I try not to.

But you dont start from a clean slate, in the sense that you assume that they are new atheist types and you start from attacking that foundation.

Its also the case that I dont think you can really skip using arcane language, because you cant do philosophy with just using vague terms where each term can be interpreted a 1000 different ways. You are forced to define terms at the end of the day. The general population's culturally induced intuitions around metaphysics are so far removed from your view, that you need a lot of and careful explaning to do so that they wont misunderstand things . There is a reason why most of your close fans still not understand in a lot of cases what you are saying despite the fact that they have consumed 100s of hours of your content.

If we were to run a test on your close fans where they would be forced to describe your views in detail in a non-vague manner where they would need to differentiate your view from other Idealist views, they would fail horribly, because even though they are using the exact same terms as you, each have a different understanding of what those terms mean.

[Leo Gura]

35 minutes ago, zurew said:

you assume that they are new atheist types

Scientists are not blank slates. They have a default worldview.

[Leo Gura]

39 minutes ago, zurew said:

I dont think you can really skip using arcane language

The language I use does not require people to read obtuse academic philosophy. That's part of the value I offer. Usually to get the kind of intellectual depth my videos offer would require reading very heavy, elitist academic tomes. I make very deep things accessible to normies.

Edited 4 hours ago by Leo Gura

[zurew]

56 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I make very deep things accessible to normies.

I disagree, again even after consuming 100s of hours of your content, most people cant reproduce your views in detail that you would say that its accurate enough. They use your terminology, but each have different understanding what those terms mean.

Instead of people having to learn a 100 new technical words, they learn 5 new terms where each term have a 100 different interpretation and application to it.

Creating a semantic landscape isn't easier this way - in fact its harder - because the reader and or listener is forced to infer which definition is used under the exact same term at that particular application or moment.

[Joseph Maynor]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I know all those positions and they are garbage. Not worth discussing.

All of analytical philosophy is nonsense.

This is because Anglo-American Universities wanted to structure philosophy like science.  I had my fill of analytic philosophy in college.

[Leo Gura]

41 minutes ago, zurew said:

They use your terminology, but each have different understanding what those terms mean.

Sure, that's natural and healthy.

I don't want you to be a copy of me.

Get the gist of what I point to and make it your own.

Edited 2 hours ago by Leo Gura

[zurew]

One other point - next time I think you should clarify if your really want to bring up love, that you are not talking about action-guiding normative type of morality, you are talking about reality descriptively.

[UnbornTao]

On 2/16/2026 at 10:51 AM, Davino said:

Yes but less if done correctly. With a teacher you have his awakening, the transmission and the interpretation of the communication. Moreover, you have different consciousness, psyches, personalities, gender, historical and cultural times, genetics, and so on.

With yourself, you cook it to your own taste.

And of course, you only reach to being self-taught, once you have exhausted others teachings, this I thought came without saying. My point was to proceed further with real spirituality, in the same way that Mozart learnt to a certain point from other and then had to carve a new pathway of music, self-taught, of course. Now people can arrive to that level and real music begins when continuing further.

Deluded.

In the same way, imagine you spent your whole life thinking someone is deluded, not knowing the difference. What does that leave you with? 

Moreover, it may be the case that teachers are a complex intermingle of truth and falsehood and that one needs to develop the ability to dissect and extract the truth from every perspective like a surgeon removes a tumor and studies the beating of the heart crack open.

I know, I've spent many years deeply studying mystics from around the world from all ages, putting to test their techniques and pointers.

I've presented you in this thread with my methodology to judge the quality of teachers after my extensive work. I'm curious to know what is your methodology and then maybe we can contrast and learn from each other.

Probably you just go by vibes and validation of your own unconscious axioms of what reality is, you have not done enough work to invent your own framework, check mechanisms, error correction, bias correction, to study a new teacher. For example, I see a new teacher X and I know how to proceed, I've done it hundreds of times, you just go with vibes, it's just casual work for you but you go on trying to lecture me when I've just traversed the space to exhaustion, but when I do so you accuse me of bragging, hence the paradigm lock. Otherwise, I'm curious to know what is your methodology and then maybe we can contrast and learn from each other.

You see the first example isn't even yours, it's from Peter Ralston, how do I know that? Mmm...

You haven't exhausted teachers hence you cannot go beyond them, they are like anchors in your mind. While the one who has freed his mind, learns the truth from everyone and has a groundless mind. If you go to search a diamond you don't care to swim in a river of shit, others just see the river of shit and say why get dirty for the possibility of maybe finding a gem, hence they are satisfied with silver. The mystics takes a deep plunge and may only find shit, but when a gem appears, it's rare and no one will understand nor go through the process of cleaning their psyche and crowning the jewel. That's the methodology I follow after exhausting the first layer of investigation with a teacher. That's also what I'm doing with you now, I've already gotten the first layer gold after years listening to you and now I'm getting a deep plunge into your consciousness and psyche to see if there is any gem in there.

Actually, I feel the need to explain myself in more detail, because there's clearly a gap in communication I'm failing to bridge. From our past discussions, it's evident this still isn't clear.

Let's start with the claim that you think you understand the work of these masters. Ha. That assumption is worth examining - not because it is impossible but because most of us approach it intellectually. This is not seen for what it is, as I've seen from our past discussions.

If we were serious students of Adi Da - sitting in his presence - I guarantee we'd realize within five minutes, if we were paying attention, that we don't realize what he was talking about. The same applies elsewhere.

You don't need to join Scientology and adopt its practices to see this. It's simply a function of paying attention to what's actually going on - not an esoteric ability requiring years of breathing exercises or herbal regimens.

Notice that if you strip away the accompanying philosophy from many of these teachings, what remains is a simple action: breathing a certain way, stretching the body, and variations of these. There's also the assumption that something you do will get you enlightened as an effect of the practice. The rest tends to be elaboration. And techniques are fine for what they are - but they serve the body or the mind. Healing, regulation, mastering attention. These are worthy goals but they're not the same end. Inquiry is essentially the only practice aimed at discovering the truth directly. What does fasting have to do with discovery?

A related issue is deciding what to listen to based on how it looks or sounds - assuming truth has to arrive in a particular form. I'd be curious whether Krishnamurti is someone you've spent real time with.

As for spiritual 'curricula' - there's a reason I refrain from discussing that. It's largely irrelevant. Ask Ramana; he'd probably tell you this isn't LinkedIn. Credentials get invoked to validate or dismiss, and that's a distraction. For what it's worth: I've devoted my life to this work for about a decade - hundreds of hours of study and contemplation - and it's essentially the only thing I do.

Now, regarding methodology: the sports example - the one you're attributing to Peter Ralston - is mine. I'm not sure how you concluded otherwise, but it's worth pausing on that move, because it's illustrative. The argument was about being grounded. I know that the language and the way I come accros can be used as an excuse to dismis this, as you've heard Leo say this. Hey, this is a good training ground to practice listening. If you think it is the same work as some of these guys, this is not true. And yet you might be thinking that it is!

You've said what I share has been helpful, but from our conversations it's clear you don't fully grasp it. And it's precisely this predisposition to claim understanding that I'm trying to dismantle. At times, what comes through beneath the apparent charity sounds like, 'Yeah, thanks - but I'm beyond that,' or it reads as subtle social maneuvering.

As for others who might be seen as less far along - I deliberately refrain from saying certain things because I know people will take words and turn them into beliefs. That would require a kind of lying: telling people what they want to hear, on top of whatever I'm still unconscious of. That, again, relates to the quote from that Tibetan lama. Thinking that one has "exhausted" these masters is pure delusion. You are not even doing the same work.

The assumption that one is above these masters is also worth revisiting, seriously.

[Yimpa]

 

[Nemra]

7 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

In any case, weren't you approaching them with preconceived ideas about what they would do for you?

Yes.

Before I used them, I invented a bunch of scenarios in my head of what would happen to me.

However, I was so wrong. Wrong to a radical degree.

7 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

Maybe. Or maybe I no longer fool myself into mistaking an experience for an 'awakening.' Again, why do you think I bring up masters?

These are the excuses and resistance mentioned above.

Without any prior sense of what enlightenment is, this trap seems virtually inevitable with psychedelics. And look at the forum - especially those who have drunk the Kool-Aid - which you can tell if you pay attention.

It's not a mere experience. It's beyond that.

It's was like stripping away of all my constructions that I have invented in a few seconds.

Direct consciousness.

Also, you say I believe in Leo, and then you bring up the masters. We should be consistent, don't we?