Leo's perspective on suicide?

[Breakingthewall]

4 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

I too did a lot of research. MND is idiopathic in nature, but there is some genetic causes also, I believe?

One pattern we came across was pesticides. My aunt grew up in an area of Australia (farming and agriculture) that has a large quantity of cases of MND in a small locale. Farmland. The hospitals noticed the large volume of cases from the one area and a small information, research and support group was founded. They are currently doing investigation but it is suspected agricultural pesticides may be a contributing factor. 

My aunt swam every day in the rivers in the area.... diagnosed with MND after a lot of confusion and misdiagnosis for 16months. She is 70 years old.

6 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

 

From what I've read, there was a high incidence in the Italian football league, and the reason was never determined. It was also seen in former professional athletes and military personnel, and on the island of Guam for a few years.

The point is, the triggers can be many, but the process itself is not understood. There is a genetic form of ALS, but it behaves differently. The latest research suggests that ALS is not a single disease but something triggered by multiple factors, perhaps a prion or mitochondrial component.

Not only are motor neurons affected, but many other cells as well. However, motor neurons are extremely demanding cells, with axons up to half a meter long, and are the most susceptible to dying.

[Someone here]

15 hours ago, Joshe said:

I agree with you. My point is about communication.

99% of the time, people contemplating suicide are not the people you described - they're just people going through a rough patch and looking for reasons to go through with it or not.

Imagine someone pops up a thread saying they want to off themselves and then a bunch of people are like "don't do it bruh, suicide is never the answer" and then some epistemic genius chimes in "well, actually, if the person is suffering enough, it can be the right answer." How is that not reckless and weird? 

Also, imagine a respected leader said "suicide is sometimes the right answer" 225 times to a community that regularly deals with suicidal thoughts. How is this not reckless and weird? 

The alternative is to just never say it - keep it to yourself to avoid inadvertently contributing to immense suffering. 

I totally disagree .

The suggestion seems to be that Leo should soften his views or totally lie about them to avoid the possibility that someone might misuse his words and kill themselves . Leo’s words alone can  never cause another person to take their own life. Leo’s work is fundamentally about pursuing and communicating “ The Truth” (or at least what he thinks is the truth )..not muddying his message to avoid every possible misunderstanding. If the subject of death or suicide arises  then it should be discussed honestly and rigorously rather than avoided or distorted out of fear of how a small minority of people might interpret it. You want him to straight away lie about his honest opinion on suicide just so that no one will kill himself ? Nope . It’s none of his business that a lot of people are suicidal here.

A spirituality forum is   NOT a psychiatric hospital.Its purpose is to explore ideas including difficult and controversial ones. That doesn’t mean people should be reckless or insensitive.. but it does mean that discussions cannot be  silenced by the most vulnerable possible audience.  Otherwise meaningful inquiry becomes nearly impossible. 

The forum already makes this distinction clear. It includes guidelines and disclaimers stating that it is a place for discussion..not a substitute for professional mental health care.  Someone going on some forum and reading a guy saying “death is love “ and then kill himself is such a cartoonish thing to believe. Who would actually do that ? Do you think  people lack basic common sense or reasoning?  People who kill themselves do that because they are not seeing any hope or light at the end of the tunnel of their daily hellish suffering. 

 

[Bashar]

On 29/06/2026 at 0:30 AM, Someone here said:

Would you open up about the specifics?

I've chronic pain in stomach and chest. No test finds anything. Became allergic to weed, and can't have alcohol without pain. Also have chronic fatigue syndrome, can't really enjoy music or do anything as it's too tiring. Too ill to work or even enjoy my free time. 

I'm only sticking around for first contact, which is expected in early 2027.

Edited yesterday at 08:36 PM by Bashar

[Someone here]

59 minutes ago, Bashar said:

I've chronic pain in stomach and chest. No test finds anything. Became allergic to weed, and can't have alcohol without pain. Also have chronic fatigue syndrome, can't really enjoy music or do anything as it's too tiring. Too ill to work or even enjoy my free time. 

I'm only sticking around for first contact, which is expected in early 2027.

Sorry to hear . You are a living breathing soul ..so am I ..so I totally feel your pain. 
and mad respect for opening up .  
please utilize the healthcare section and the mental health issues section for this situation. Don’t come at it from “if solipsism is true then my suicide won’t hurt others because there are no others “ ..stop looking for excuses to justify killing your self . That’s spiritual bypassing and obviously is completely off even for you let alone others . Write down your physical & emotional problems and make threads in the sections I mentioned. You are completely anonymous. Nobody will recognize you. I hope you are already doing something about it like I would not wait two seconds to go speak to a specialist. I was suicidal at some point in the past and most people were but they just want to sound like they are tough and unshakable but all of that is lies and ego..you are completely vulnerable..you might go to bed tonight and never wake up again ..so live in alignment with the truth ..that is you are vulnerable. So allow yourself to be vulnerable. Cry ..express emotions.. I hope there are people In your life who you can do that with ..that’s all I can suggest for you.

Edited yesterday at 09:35 PM by Someone here

[Breakingthewall]

2 hours ago, Bashar said:

I've chronic pain in stomach and chest. No test finds anything. Became allergic to weed, and can't have alcohol without pain. Also have chronic fatigue syndrome, can't really enjoy music or do anything as it's too tiring. Too ill to work or even enjoy my free time. 

I'm only sticking around for first contact, which is expected in early 2027.

Obviously, I don't know if this is true, but I intuitively see life as a mission. If I enjoy it, great, but the mission is the goal, not the enjoyment. I want to feel, at the moment of my death, that I gave what I could and that I tried my best.

It's difficult to know which path to take at any given moment; you have to be able to read reality and intuit the right option.

I believe that if you align yourself with reality, even if you're sick, life acquires meaning. It's essential to find meaning in human life, since human life is always hard. Spirituality tells you no, that you're here to be happy, just be now, but just being is never enough being human. Human system always need a vector. 

[Joshe]

On 6/29/2026 at 11:36 PM, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@Joshe that doesnt address anything I said or the potential issues with your way of deriving knowing. 

If you're good at generating and evaluating inputs, inference is fun. If you're not so good at it, maybe you're reluctant. 

Maybe I can lift your fear (jab + hypothesis + genuinely wanting you to see something you don't) around being wrong and improve your epistemology:

 

"Inference" is not a bad word. It's the most natural thing a mind does. You can label "this is inference, this is not" all you want. But it's not making you any more rigorous. At the end of the day, what matters is not an inference label, but: is the reasoning sound?

Being able to generate inputs and objectively evaluate them is what matters. These are two different faculties. You need both.

And what is the point of doing all this anyway? 

To arrive somewhere. To upgrade a hypothesis into a conclusion you'll actually stand on such that it can be acted from. That's the whole point. 

I didn't give you my entire method for arriving at the 99% ballpark. I gave you something that I thought you might be able to use to generate more questions or ideas that which, upon verification, could lead you somewhere. Here's more what my process actually looked like:

First, I ask myself "how prevalent does the majority seem to me?" And I realize that I've encountered the truly stuck minority maybe once or twice and the majority hundreds or thousands of times (direct experience).

This generates a hypothesis: the stuck group is a very small minority. It's not proven, but now I have an input to work with. 

From here, I considered the prevalence of pharma TV commercials that name suicide as a side effect of medications a large share of the population is on, rising suicides across several demographics - including kids, addiction, marital misery, financial and legal crisis, and a few other things I'm forgetting. These are all people NOT in the minority, and their prevalence is massive. So, this is where convergence starts to take shape. 

Then, I try to resolve it: If I picked 10 suicidal people, how likely is one to be in the stuck group? Not likely. 20? No. 50? Maybe one. That puts me at 98%. Then, I consider the sheer volume of the majority some more and realize it's possible the number is 1 in 500, 1 in 1000, or even 1 in 10,000, but I stay conservative and keep the ballpark estimate at 99% because I don't need the exact decimal to prove my point.

As long as the majority significantly outnumbers the stuck minority, then broadcasting permission-messaging at volume to a receptive audience harms more than it helps. 

Notice I didn't reference any studies here, yet I was still able to arrive at the right answer on my own. You can verify it yourself by having your AI tools attempt to come up with a ballpark number. They'll arrive very close to mine but likely through a different method.

If you're going to criticize someone's method, you should probably have one of your own that you can use to point exactly to where their reasoning breaks. And to save people from having to explicate their entire sense-making process, how bout you come in good faith and do some of the verification process yourself, rather than just claim their processes are shit.

Also, it would be super cool if you'd stop peacocking epistemic virtue. You love letting people know when they're making "assumptions and inferences", which is fine if they're not backed by much, but it's annoying and comes across like social positioning when you sidestep their reasoning while offering nothing and calling their processes shit while not being able to explain why.

I've laid my entire process bare here. If you can show me how it generated a false conclusion, I'd love to hear it. Gonna be hard to do since I'm not wrong, lol. 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Joshe don't waste you efforts. 

I don't have any issues thinking in such ways.

I just pointed out you were essentially making up numbers because you didn't actually pull from a source.

[Joshe]

And a new logical fallacy is born. 

"The Armchair Fallacy: dismissing a conclusion by reclassifying the reasoning that produced it as an inferior epistemic category—"mere" inference, unsourced, armchair—without demonstrating any flaw in the inputs or the inference itself."

Edited 2 hours ago by Joshe

[Inliytened1]

Does it really matter what the percentages are? If even one individual can be saved by a less lax position on suicide then it's worth it.  

The problem is it's not 100 percent one way or the other.  So there is a dilemma for guys like Leo who teach over you tube.   The audience could be anyone. Notice with his retreat there is heavy screening.  You can't do that here so you should be much more careful in what you put out since you can't regulate the audience.  But ask yourself why he doesn’t just accept anyone for his retreat but he will teach his deepest stuff to anyone. Well..until a certain video was pulled.  So he gets it... It's a matter of keeping to that standard.

Edited 2 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Joshe]

2 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Does it really matter what the percentages are? If even one ondicodual can be saved by a less lax position on suicide than its worth it.  

The problem is its not 100 percent one way or the other.  So there is a dillemma for guys like Leo who teach over you tube.   The audience could be anyone. Notice with his retreat there is heavy screening.  You can't do that here so you should be much more careful in what you put out since you can't regulate fhe audience. 

I agree, but we're dealing with some complex mental gymnastics and self-deception here. Leo's and his supporters on this claim not tightening up on the death/suicide rhetoric makes space and provides compassion for the stuck minority. This is their justification.

My thinking was that by highlighting the prevalence of the majority, the cost-benefit would become clear, because it's just common sense. But Leo's supporters on this can't see it. 

I've since realized no argument would work to change Leo's behavior because this isn't really about making space for the stuck minority. It's about being free to make any statement you want. Figured this out from my armchair, lol. 

If it were truly about compassion, you'd be like "oh shit, yeah, that makes sense, I definitely shouldn't be saying things like this: "Only one way to find out" in a forum post titled "suicide consequences" where members are venting frustration and desire to suicide and asking questions about the afterlife.

Everyone here should be able to look at this and call it reckless and irresponsible. And given the patterns, deduce his rhetoric on this topic is not about compassion. A compassionate person would not act like this.

[Joshe]

On 6/30/2026 at 0:30 AM, Jirh said:

Permission is not promotion.

I agree. I'm saying the existence of positive or permissive suicide messaging increases suicide rate. 

On 6/30/2026 at 0:30 AM, Jirh said:

No one would even consider suicide unless they're going through unbearable suffering.

This is absurd (best term I could find, not trying to be insulting). Is a 14 year old having a temper tantrum and who wants to kill themself experiencing unbearable suffering? 

On 6/30/2026 at 0:30 AM, Jirh said:

And when things gets real, people will do what they have to do, regardless of my opinion or anyone's opinion.

Have you heard of the Werther Effect? I didn't know about the name until I started engaging on this topic, but I already understood it. Maybe this is something fundamental you need to understand about this topic. 

On 6/30/2026 at 0:30 AM, Jirh said:

Permission also helps. In many cases, the sense of freedom and agency can be the wall between life and death.

The opposite of the Werther Effect is the Papageno effect, which shows that creating space to acknowledge and discuss suicide while emphasizing coping and making it through is associated with lower suicide rates. But that's not what's going on here.

Also, if "permission" helps, then it also harms. You can't say permissive messaging doesn't emotionally impact the majority (because if someone is going to do it, they're going to do it anyway) and then say it does impacts the minority.

On 6/30/2026 at 0:30 AM, Jirh said:

Would you rather know that there is an end to the suffering? Or believe that you're eternally stuck?

Everyone already knows there's an end. It's just a matter of making the decision. Of all the people who are contemplating the decision, a very small minority should hear the permissive messaging, because to broadcast permissive messaging to the majority, is common-sense reckless, and there's no paradox to resolve here.

Edited 1 hour ago by Joshe

[cetus]

7 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Figured this out from my armchair, lol. 

And a fine brandy.

[Joshe]

Just now, cetus said:

And a fine brandy.

😂

[Inliytened1]

32 minutes ago, Joshe said:

I agree, but we're dealing with some complex mental gymnastics and self-deception here. Leo's and his supporters on this claim not tightening up on the death/suicide rhetoric makes space and provides compassion for the stuck minority. This is their justification.

My thinking was that by highlighting the prevalence of the majority, the cost-benefit would become clear, because it's just common sense. But Leo's supporters on this can't see it. 

I've since realized no argument would work to change Leo's behavior because this isn't really about making space for the stuck minority. It's about being free to make any statement you want. Figured this out from my armchair, lol. 

If it were truly about compassion, you'd be like "oh shit, yeah, that makes sense, I definitely shouldn't be saying things like this: "Only one way to find out" in a forum post titled "suicide consequences" where members are venting frustration and desire to suicide and asking questions about the afterlife.

Everyone here should be able to look at this and call it reckless and irresponsible. And given the patterns, deduce his rhetoric on this topic is not about compassion. A compassionate person would not act like this.

I don't think it is a matter of compassion, it is a matter of pausing and thinking things through regarding the ramifications of your statements as a public figure.  I understand about the case for the minority, but the issue is not what is objective, it's about being thoughtful about whether you should be so blunt to such a mixed audience.   If he stopped and thought about it long enough he would come to the same conclusion as you.  But he's being lazy and that is irresponsible as you say.  But he wants to get what's true out, no matter the cost.  To him, that is compassion.  He believes what he is doing and saying is the higher good - case and point - his own teachings on everyone has good intentions.  

And by the way, he's always been lazy on the forum. That's the whole problem.  He thinks he has a pass to be lazy here because it's just a forum.  Who cares.  I am guilty of it too.   

Sorry about the crappy grammar my phone keyboard is jacked up but I went back and edited

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Inliytened1

[Someone here]

39 minutes ago, Joshe said:

I agree, but we're dealing with some complex mental gymnastics and self-deception here. Leo's and his supporters on this claim not tightening up on the death/suicide rhetoric makes space and provides compassion for the stuck minority. This is their justification.

My thinking was that by highlighting the prevalence of the majority, the cost-benefit would become clear, because it's just common sense. But Leo's supporters on this can't see it. 

I've since realized no argument would work to change Leo's behavior because this isn't really about making space for the stuck minority. It's about being free to make any statement you want. Figured this out from my armchair, lol. 

If it were truly about compassion, you'd be like "oh shit, yeah, that makes sense, I definitely shouldn't be saying things like this: "Only one way to find out" in a forum post titled "suicide consequences" where members are venting frustration and desire to suicide and asking questions about the afterlife.

Everyone here should be able to look at this and call it reckless and irresponsible. And given the patterns, deduce his rhetoric on this topic is not about compassion. A compassionate person would not act like this.

@Joshe  

Yes..If you want to know what death entails the only way is to actually seek what death entails. So what’s your issue? Did Leo hit a nerve because he roasted your worldview with an uncomfortable truth?

By the way..how exactly are you planning to escape death brother? How do you imagine your final days or your final moments will feel? Have you convinced yourself they’ll be effortless?  And don’t ask “What’s the connection?” Connect the dots. That’s the entire point. Rest assured no legal investigation is coming for Leo. He can go on YouTube and openly say that physical reality is imaginary ..unreal dream you’ll eventually wake up from and somehow nobody demands a legal investigation over that. Funny  how  selective people become when deciding which ideas are reckless. To him all of this is a hallucination in his mind ..well actually in your mind .

Edited 1 hour ago by Someone here

[Inliytened1]

7 minutes ago, Someone here said:

@Joshe  

Yes..If you want to know what death entails the only way is to actually seek what death entails. So what’s your issue? Did Leo hit a nerve because he roasted your worldview with an uncomfortable truth?

By the way..how exactly are you planning to escape death brother? How do you imagine your final days or your final moments will feel? Have you convinced yourself they’ll be effortless?  And don’t ask “What’s the connection?” Connect the dots. That’s the entire point. Rest assured no legal investigation is coming for Leo. He can go on YouTube and openly say that physical reality is imaginary ..unreal dream you’ll eventually wake up from and somehow nobody demands a legal investigation over that. Funny  how  selective people become when deciding which ideas are reckless. To him all of this is a hallucination in his mind ..well actually in your mind .

If you want a true example of what @Joshe is trying to convey it is when @SoonHei took his life.  This was a young guy, not enlightened, that took all this stuff as a belief.  But he left behind a family (a new wife and young child if I recall) all because of spirituality.  And no one here tried to talk him out of it.  I do not place blame on any one particular person but perhaps we all failed as a community.  There are others such as @WaveInTheOcean as well. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Inliytened1

[Joshe]

3 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

He wants to get what's true out, no matter the cost.

100%. You got it. Although I disagree with "to him, that is compassion". It reads more to me like a post-hoc rationalization to skirt accountability so you can be free to toss your truths out where ever you want.

Leo loves to generate ideas and to see things. And to him, "hard truths" are especially interesting.

What is the most common response a person who loves to generate and share ideas would have if people told them their idea generation and sharing was having a detrimental impact?

If the person was compassionate, they'd probably want to know about it and adjust. If there weren't, they'd probably find justifications. "Sharing my truths is my compassion" is quiet convenient. 

19 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

 If he stopped and thought about it long enough he would come to the same conclusion as you.

If my read is right, then this is false. He's consistently said things like "I'm not going to be your sweet guru" just because you can't handle these truths. He's pressed this matter quite firmly many times. When people ask for a change of posture to reduce harm, it seems to usually be met with something like this. 

[Someone here]

@Inliytened1 you’re gonna die physically anyways so this is no issue .death in spirituality isn’t physical..it’s watching your illusions fall apart while you  still alive..if you go back to these two people and read their history they were probably at peace with it .

Edited 1 hour ago by Someone here

[Inliytened1]

2 minutes ago, Joshe said:

 

If my read is right, then this is false. He's consistently said things like "I'm not going to be your sweet guru" just because you can't handle these truths. He's pressed this matter quite firmly many times. When people ask for a change of posture to reduce harm, it seems to usually be met with something like this. 

Then again I bring you back to why did he pull the Solpsism video? 

Edited 1 hour ago by Inliytened1

[Joshe]

1 minute ago, Inliytened1 said:

Then again I bring you back to why did he pull the Solpsism video? 

Good point. I wasn't around during that time so IDK the dynamics around it.