Feedback about the Curt Jaimungal interview

[RMQualtrough]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@Gregory1 I agree with most of your feedback.

The biggest problem is that we jumped around so much that to newbies they will totally be lost and it will not make sense.

It's hard to give simple answers to some of his deep questions because it requires a lot of laying the foundation.

If he asks me something like, "Does free will exist?" that answer requires so much preamble. Just saying Yes or No isn't gonna cut it. And then as I try to lay down the preamble, the original question easily gets lost.

I am definitely drawing lessons from this interview to improve in the future about how I articulate things. I could certainly have been more clear and concise.

<3

I've found you clearer and more concise in your own personal videos where you make a video about a specific topic.

E.g. your video on why there's something rather than nothing. A similar topic came up on interview, but I think in the personal videos you manage to get things across in a clearer manner.

I think some other speakers have an advantage because they are very familiar with this type of interaction. E.g. Rupert Spira teaches audiences and takes many questions, Bernardo Kastrup has had to learn similar skills when earning his philosophy phd... I doubt the topic will arise again but a deeper explanation on the difference between human and metaphysical love would be good. It is automatic to assume emotion with that word.

Also #1 thing I thought, is that it would be good to have more exercises and pointers for answers rather than saying people have to be more conscious. Even if they won't get it, the Advaita Vedanta style leading down self inquiry etc would be great I think.

Look forward to your next video with Curt.

[Blackhawk]

Leo's interview is the longest on the channel. So congrats @Leo Gura for beating everyone in the channel.

Edited September 8, 2021 by Blackhawk

[Adamq8]

4 hours ago, Matt Skinner said:

I guess this is typical of Frank’s perspective on Leo’s teachings right?

It always seems to me like Frank emphasizes a “you’re already awake” mentality or like, “There’s nowhere to go, awakening is just an experience so don’t place too much meaning on it.” And dismissing psychedelics.

I haven’t watched most of the interview yet, nor am I super familiar with Frank’s work, for context. Just sharing the comment.

How is Leo's view really so different then what Frank is saying here?

You are still stuck with using language which inherently creates dualities and a seperation. 

But I find it amusing that Frank is more or less obsessed with Leo, have anyone else noticed it?

There is ofcourse value in his message, but Frank is a metaphysician as well no matter how he believes he is just enlightened and has transcended mind.

He nevertheless uses models of awakening formulated by mind.

and then actually we might reconsider one thing,  who is to say that enlightenment or franks natural state is that which is the ultimate truth?

Actually deeply question this notion of that enlightenment is the ultimate truth.

It can certainly be the most freeing thing i don't doubt that, but I do doubt that you can infer a ultimate status to it and that it somehow transcends mind is a thought, and ofcourse it matters what is meant when we say mind.

Frank have to come to terms with, that he is also looking at the elephant from his point of view.

And it is bound to be reflected through a filter as he is accusing Leo of.

Ever wonder why there is disagreements in non dual circles as well?

Because it is being filtered through an individual agent with his own biases.

Absolutly im 100% for the notion that you can reduce the biases of mind to a large degree, but you will never ever get 100% free from it.

 

Edit: i don't think @Leo Gura that a conversation with Frank as some are suggesting, would be fruitful at all tbh, i believe that Curt will ask you for a conversation with him and Frank. 

 

[Matt Skinner]

48 minutes ago, Adamq8 said:

How is Leo's view really so different then what Frank is saying here?

It’s not, necessarily. My understanding is that they’re basically pointing to the same thing, but emphasizing different aspects of it. Frank’s cultivation of continuous high baseline consciousness vs. Leo’s emphasis on reaching the highest states possible through whatever means available, plus integrating ego development and worldly understanding.

I’m in no position to say Frank’s approach is inferior to Leo’s, but Leo’s methods and teachings resonate with me more.

54 minutes ago, Adamq8 said:

Frank have to come to terms with, that he is also looking at the elephant from his point of view.

This is what I was struck with when reading Frank’s comment. Doesn’t seem to acknowledge his own blind spot, idk. He doesn’t seem to acknowledge the intrinsically paradoxical nature of reality the way Leo does, the way the absolute and the relative are simultaneous and one. Again, though, I’m not familiar enough with his work to really be assessing it him like that.

Thanks for your input.

[Adamq8]

58 minutes ago, Matt Skinner said:

It’s not, necessarily. My understanding is that they’re basically pointing to the same thing, but emphasizing different aspects of it. Frank’s cultivation of continuous high baseline consciousness vs. Leo’s emphasis on reaching the highest states possible through whatever means available, plus integrating ego development and worldly understanding.

I’m in no position to say Frank’s approach is inferior to Leo’s, but Leo’s methods and teachings resonate with me more.

This is what I was struck with when reading Frank’s comment. Doesn’t seem to acknowledge his own blind spot, idk. He doesn’t seem to acknowledge the intrinsically paradoxical nature of reality the way Leo does, the way the absolute and the relative are simultaneous and one. Again, though, I’m not familiar enough with his work to really be assessing it him like that.

Thanks for your input.

I agree totally.

To me it seems more like Frank is throwing words around just to make it sound advanced.

I do not doubt at all that he has had awakenings, or that he is exceptionally skilled when it comes to meditation and the different Jhanas, but it is not complete in my honest opinion.

 

[Purple Man]

 For Curt, as a host who´s had brilliant minds in his podcast before, the way to show total respect to Leo Gura is giving him the same treatment, making him intellectually work hard, oblige him to  earn his points. He totally did show respect to him,  and tried to be fair in the sense of making Leo explain things in the way human mind works, without faith leaps, without detours. Curt was also awesome in his open-mindedness.

The problem is that For Leo or any other mystic, it is impossible to give an algorythm that takes you from human to divine. The mystic knows some things that can´t adequately be explained in those terms, because you can only say what is, not why it is. Many of the exchanges ended up with Curt being frustrated because he wanted to access a knowledge that you can only enter through  meditation and psychedelics, precisely the two only roads he´s not willing to travel.

But both did it well, and that is the most that one can expect in a conversation from a mystic and a human framed mind.

Edited September 8, 2021 by Purple Man

[nistake]

This meme could've been used as an answer to almost every single question of Curt

[UnbornTao]

@Leo Gura isn’t ontology more fundamental than metaphysics and epistemology? What is is prior to knowledge or even “reality”.

In contemplation, what we are basically doing is asking an ontology question: “What is X?” Right?

So, with that wider use, why don’t you emphasize it?

Edited September 10, 2021 by Arzola

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, Arzola said:

@Leo Gura isn’t ontology more fundamental than metaphysics and epistemology? What is is prior to knowledge or even “reality”.

In contemplation, what we are basically doing is asking an ontology question: “What is X?” Right?

I use the word metaphysics and ontology synonymously.

Ontology is a subset of metaphysics. You should look up the definitions of those words in the dictionary.

"What is X?" is the core question of metaphysics.

I prefer to say metaphysics because it connects with physics and stresses the concept of "meta", and sounds less arcane than ontology.

Of course you can use whatever words you want.

[Synchronicity]

18 hours ago, Adamq8 said:

Actually deeply question this notion of that enlightenment is the ultimate truth.

It can certainly be the most freeing thing i don't doubt that, but I do doubt that you can infer a ultimate status to it and that it somehow transcends mind is a thought, and ofcourse it matters what is meant when we say mind.

I think this is a very valuable point. It does seem that many of us in the spiritual community place Enlightenment on a pedestal above everything else when we should all be open to more possibilities contained within Truth

[Being Frank Yang]

Someone asks me to respond to the section about cessation in that section of the video. A cessation isn't the ultimate truth. It's simply a tool, but one of the most efficient one to re-wire the mind and cause the damage in permanently shifting your base line consciousness.  

My criticism isn't psychedelics per se, but that if there's no permanent shifts in moment to moment experience, there is no AWakening/Realization. There is no god realization without permanently dropping the self, and cessations are simply one of the tools to chip away the self and Self. Both psychedelic trips and meditative experiences are temporary transcendence of the self, not the permanent dropping away of self.  See consciousness is like a rubber band. The more you can contract the more you can expand.  It's almost impossible to lock in "God Consciousness" without contracting it to Unconsciousness, until the 2 merge as One.

Cessation is beyond form and formlessness. Existence or non-existence, beyond eternity or infinity since there's no space or time there. Yes some Buddhists think it's a pre-requisite to enlightenment but others don't. But even people who don't practice cessation or even meditation, 9 out of 10 times they've had them on the path to Awakening. 

Ultimately what cessations do is allows you to see in real time how the entire universe is be created moment by moment. And that form and emptiness/existence and non-existence are one.  It's also a way to loosen your attachment to both form and formlessness; existence and non-existence. People who haven't had cessations tend to get stuck in States of Consciousness/Being/existence/Love mode, but it's also very easy to get stuck in Non-Being/emptiness mode. 

The Natural State is the merging of being and non-being, hence the experience of it is like having a permanent cessation merging with infinite consciousness and all the states in between. Neither consciousness nor not conscious. Both and neither dead nor alive.

[Leo Gura]

@Being Frank Yang Dude, you're not saying anything new. This is nonduality/awakening 101. God is all possible states.

Cessation is not at all necessary to realize this. And it doesn't contradict Love or God or Infinity in any way.

You keep making these arbitrary distinctions when all distinctions are imaginary.

There is no such thing as non-consciousness, non-being, nor death. These are all imaginary.

[Being Frank Yang]

20 hours ago, Adamq8 said:

How is Leo's view really so different then what Frank is saying here?

You are still stuck with using language which inherently creates dualities and a seperation. 

But I find it amusing that Frank is more or less obsessed with Leo, have anyone else noticed it?

There is ofcourse value in his message, but Frank is a metaphysician as well no matter how he believes he is just enlightened and has transcended mind.

He nevertheless uses models of awakening formulated by mind.

and then actually we might reconsider one thing,  who is to say that enlightenment or franks natural state is that which is the ultimate truth?

Actually deeply question this notion of that enlightenment is the ultimate truth.

It can certainly be the most freeing thing i don't doubt that, but I do doubt that you can infer a ultimate status to it and that it somehow transcends mind is a thought, and ofcourse it matters what is meant when we say mind.

Frank have to come to terms with, that he is also looking at the elephant from his point of view.

And it is bound to be reflected through a filter as he is accusing Leo of.

Ever wonder why there is disagreements in non dual circles as well?

Because it is being filtered through an individual agent with his own biases.

Absolutly im 100% for the notion that you can reduce the biases of mind to a large degree, but you will never ever get 100% free from it.

 

Edit: i don't think @Leo Gura that a conversation with Frank as some are suggesting, would be fruitful at all tbh, i believe that Curt will ask you for a conversation with him and Frank. 

 

I'm the last person to tell you there is nothing to do you're already awake lol it's true on the ultimate level but on the relative level there is A LOT of work being done. Even afterwards. ALl those debates are pointless and entertainment, as long as you put it on paper it's biased.  The better way to measure non-duality BBC is to have a survey of describing people's moment to moment experience, perception and etc (even that's an inference when it comes down to "subject experience").  Instead of talking about how much you can lift and the science behind your training philosophy, compare the physiques of 2 bodybuilders side by side.  

 Jefferey Martin describes what he calls "enlightenment dogmatism" which i find very interesting. People who's had Realizations tend to think their own awakening is the highest most profound, even very awakened, ESPECIALLY the very awakened ones fall into this trap lol. But when he sits down with beings from different traditions who seem to have disagreement about this stuff on paper are actually describing the same thing

Just now, Leo Gura said:

@Being Frank Yang Dude, you're not saying anything new. This is nonduality/awakening 101. God is all possible states.

Cessation is not at all necessary to realize this.

Cessation is not necessary, nor is it the ultimate Truth it's just a useful tool is all.  But the point is it's hard to Realize and lock in all possible states without the entire range of consciousness, from unconsciousness to super consciousness.  

[lmfao]

20 hours ago, Adamq8 said:

Ever wonder why there is disagreements in non dual circles as well?

Because it is being filtered through an individual agent with his own biases.

It's because there are large differences in what people are saying is true. Jed Mckenna seems to have very different view of truth than Leo. Leo seems to have a very different view of truth from Peter Ralston. 

 

Much argument comes from us slaying our own Gods. Say for example that I listened to X guru for a very long time. I created it and put it into untrue narrative, unknowingly, but then eventually realise this. I will burn it down because that is correct action to do. 

I could ramble, nervously shuffle my hands, engage in meaningless thought to logically explain the particulars of how miscommunications happens, but that's pointless. 

Edited September 9, 2021 by lmfao

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Being Frank Yang said:

But the point is it's hard to Realize and lock in all possible states without the entire range of consciousness, from unconsciousness to super consciousness.

Which is why I advocate psychedelics.

I'm all for exploring all possible states of consciousness. Explore away! Use whatever methods work for you. Not all methods work well for all people.

[Being Frank Yang]

2 hours ago, lmfao said:

It's because there are large differences in what people are saying is true. Jed Mckenna seems to have very different view of truth than Leo. Leo seems to have a very different view of truth from Peter Ralston. 

 

Much argument comes from us slaying our own Gods. Say for example that I listened to X guru for a very long time. I created it and put it into untrue narrative, unknowingly, but then eventually realise this. I will burn it down because that is correct action to do. 

I could ramble, nervously shuffle my hands, engage in meaningless thought to logically explain the particulars of how miscommunications happens, but that's pointless. 

I'd say most of this disagreement is in concepts and words people use. I'm willing to put my money on the fact that if you can go inside a person  who claims to be enlightened and experience the world through his eyes that you'll experience the same thing. Sure the content might be different but context would be identical, but content = context so yeah. It's impossible to "know", "imagine" or "experience" what THIS is like before you're there there, it's as simple as that.

4 hours ago, Synchronicity said:

I think this is a very valuable point. It does seem that many of us in the spiritual community place Enlightenment on a pedestal above everything else when we should all be open to more possibilities contained within Truth

because there is a "there" there, the Source of consciousness is the same for everyone, everywhere at all times. The whole point of the journey is to go from surface of consciousness (conventional reality, ego state, form etc)  to the Source (deathless, cessation, emptiness) , you can say this is like going from 1st jhana (very solidified fabrications) to 9th (no fabrication. No consciousness). But a lot of people get side tracked, and instead of going vertically down they stray away to the horizontal.  Although there is nothing wrong with exploring different states of consciousness! And going downwards you will inevitably  encounter many w0nderful mystical experiences of both hell and god realms, but if you get caught in experiences you run into the trouble of becoming a jhana or psychedelic junkie and never truly reach the Source lol.

And see when you reach the Source it loops back to the surface, closing the circuit. Now Source is everything and everywhere at all times, appearance, Infinite is the finite, source = appearances, NIrvana = Samsara blah blah.  

 The whole notion of spirituality and even enlightenment itself also becomes another ground to eventually transcend. 

[Average Investor]

Finished the interview today. That host is terrific. I really enjoyed his questions and probing of Leo's arguments. It surprised me how well Leo articulated himself in this as well. 

[Purple Man]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Which is why I advocate psychedelics.

I'm all for exploring all possible states of consciousness. Explore away! Use whatever methods work for you. Not all methods work well for all people.

Leo, if (and I think we agree on this) there is a conscious, immutable, unmanifest substratum (Godhead, to call it somehow) that is our ultimate nature,  beyond any appearence and any possible way of existence, I understand that the exploration of all possible states of consciousness you speak about is for the sake of enjoying creativity, of enjoying the manifest, the mutable, not to find in those states the ultimate truth, isn´t it?

Edited September 9, 2021 by Purple Man

[AdamR95]

7 minutes ago, Purple Man said:

 I understand that the exploration of all possible states of consciousness you speak about is for the sake of enjoying creativity, of enjoying the manifest, not to find in those states the ultimate truth, isn´t it?

@Purple Man How do you suposse to realise formlessness without form? Exploring form is the way to realise formlessness.

[Purple Man]

21 minutes ago, AdamR95 said:

@Purple Man How do you suposse to realise formlessness without form? Exploring form is the way to realise formlessness.

Well, several considerations: First, for form to be necessary in order to realise formlessness, it would take formlessness (that is, Godhead, Source) to be unconscious in the absence of form. Besides, "realizing" is a feature of the mind. The mind needs form to realize formlessness. That does not mean that formlessness needs form to exist. If that were the case, there would never be a universe created into existence. 

Edited September 9, 2021 by Purple Man