Leo Gura more advanced content

[Nahm]

21 hours ago, 4201 said:

I'm not asking about what others think.

I am that other in this here scenario.

Quote

Do you personally support ideas of "higher" and "lower" teachings, or any other dualities I mentionned before?

I think in that experience there is personally support, and in this experience there is what I’m sharing forum, website and YouTube wise. Does that mean I think anybody should not share, and suppress, no. Do I think it would be better if everyone agreed, saw everything the same, heck no.  Also, personally is an idea, it’s already dualistic. It’s all just thoughts. 

Quote

Do you think pushing those ideas onto students actually help them heal/feel/awaken/etc.?

Seems more like sharing ideas. Which again, is all just thoughts. 

Quote

Do you have a conflict of interest that prevents you from answering this question directly?

Other than not existing, no. It’s just thoughts. 

[Nahm]

@BenG  nice. 

@4201

Have you ‘tried’ / experienced simply not believing the thought / concept (‘advanced’), not adding it as a concept, and basically instead seeing first hand if there is advanced this or that vs if it (‘advanced’) is / was a thought you kept believing each time it arose?  What happens when you inspect what you’re asking? Do you find ‘advanced’ anywhere? There’s also of course self inquiry, so weed out the ‘one’ who experiences the ‘advanced’. Might also be helpful to pop advanced in where what is. Essentially, see if it’s circular self referential ‘logic’, ‘for yourself’. 

[4201]

18 hours ago, Nahm said:

I think in that experience there is personally support, and in this experience there is what I’m sharing forum, website and YouTube wise. Does that mean I think anybody should not share, and suppress, no. 

Fair enough. I was under the impression that you did not personally support dualities like higher or lower, advanced or not and etc. I personally do not support them or believe in them but we in no way need to agree. Doesn't mean I dislike the people who believe in them, it's just those ideas do not feel right.

But if you think there is substance behind the ideas of there being "advanced" or "higher" teachings, why do you not point out this subtance to OP? If Leo is right in the claims he make about the "path" and you support those claims, why not back them up with evidence or demonstrate that they are true?

Perhaps there is some very clever jokes I missed from you in this thread, but to OP's eye all you did was probably make fun of his question. I feel like calling him a troll is the best way to make him feel like he's in an echo chamber, where questions that challenge Leo are not allowed.

4 hours ago, Nahm said:

Have you ‘tried’ / experienced simply not believing the thought / concept (‘advanced’), not adding it as a concept, and basically instead seeing first hand if there is advanced this or that vs if it (‘advanced’) is / was a thought you kept believing each time it arose?  What happens when you inspect what you’re asking? Do you find ‘advanced’ anywhere? There’s also of course self inquiry, so weed out the ‘one’ who experiences the ‘advanced’. Might also be helpful to pop advanced in where what is. Essentially, see if it’s circular self referential ‘logic’, ‘for yourself’. 

I really asked these questions because I was under the impression you would defend Leo beyond truth. Even if the defense is simply omitting to state a difference of thought or trying to steer threads that criticize Leo in other directions, I think it's slightly disingenuous and protects the beliefs that are being challenged.

Of course, advanced is nothing but a concept, a judgement. But you cannot say that without saying that Leo's claims of his content being "more advanced" than others is not true. Which is fair enough but this is what OP deserved to hear. When OP come up with a claim from Leo and they are like "is this actually true?" and all you do is challenge OP for asking the question, it comes across as defensive and unwilling to challenge Leo. There are things which can be said about Leo's claims, picturing spirituality as a difficult path with a "high" end is misleading imo. 

I don't think we should criticize Leo more necessarily but simply when someone asks a question we should be straightfoward in stating the truth regardless of who's ego it hurts. Otherwise it promotes the idea of this community being an echo chamber.

Edited November 27, 2021 by 4201

[Nahm]

@4201

I’m ‘struggling’ in two ways here. How you aren’t finding this hilarious… 

“What a cesspool. Ill be asking future questions elsewhere.”

That is comedic gold right there. 

The other thing I don’t get is why you’re asking me about any of this when what you’re asking about is Leo’s content, who you can ask. If you sincerely are interested in what I share, it’s not like I don’t have ample content available. 

[Nahm]

@4201

God damn it in hindsight I gotta say… so to speak, the point you make is superior. I still find this thread to be a trolling of a trolling and pure in it’s humor, but, indeed the greater point is the greater point, in the bigger picture or beyond this one thread sense. My apologies for that. 

@TruthSoldier

And to you as well, if in fact this inquiry is / was sincere, which it still doesn’t seem it was, which of course is simultaneously funnier. 

@BenG 

If there’s not a higher place to go, that there is, is misleading. 

[Raptorsin7]

@Nahm I don't know if your meaning to do it.

But you are coming across as dishonest and evasive.

[Nahm]

@Raptorsin7

Kind of just a bare accusation there. Care to elaborate? 

And are you certain it isn’t the comment on ‘higher places to go’, perhaps being received as a bit triggering? 

[Raptorsin7]

7 minutes ago, Nahm said:

@Raptorsin7

Kind of just a bare accusation there. Care to elaborate? 

 

On 11/26/2021 at 6:21 AM, 4201 said:

I'm not asking about what others think. Do you personally support ideas of "higher" and "lower" teachings, or any other dualities I mentionned before? Do you think pushing those ideas onto students actually help them heal/feel/awaken/etc.?

Why don't you give a clear, straight forward answer to the question?

A clear answer would be, no I do not support this, or I do support this. But you went on about how funny you found the thread, etc. 

I am giving you my impression of how you are coming across. Maybe you are being clear, and straight forward.

I'm not triggered by that idea. From my pov, it seems like this is it. And yet there is higher to go.

 

 

Edited November 28, 2021 by Raptorsin7

[Nahm]

45 minutes ago, Raptorsin7 said:

Do you personally support ideas of "higher" and "lower" teachings, or any other dualities I mentionned before?

Do you think pushing those ideas onto students actually help them heal/feel/awaken/etc.?

Why don't you give a clear, straight forward answer to the question?

In this experience there is an ineffable obviousness which to offer some communication could be accredited to cessation, which can not be communicated in any literal sense as it is too much a matter so to speak of direct experience & obviously much more so that there isn’t.  It does not seem to communicate anything when I say that higher is an idea and not a thing, lower is an idea and not a thing, teachings is an idea and not a thing, advanced is an idea and not a thing, duality is an idea and not a thing… that there are not these things… but thought makes it seem so.

Thus the question & phrasing there in makes no sense. The ‘question behind the question’ is really, how do I go about addressing thought attachment. Personally, is an idea, support is an idea. Might be somewhat communicative to suggest writing each of these words in a level manor on a piece of paper, and kind of taking a step back and visually seeing these are all thoughts, and then looking around the room for the actuality, or, the other than conceptual ‘things’, to notice there isn’t / aren’t. 

The simplest answer perhaps, is awareness is directly aware of sensation, perception, and thought. But this is not new info for you, isn’t it so?

Please, share your honest answer, or really just whatever arises as to… what could possibly be done here to answer any of what is being asked, which has not already been shared here…

And if any more clarity could in some way be said to be ‘needed’ or simply desired of interest… here…

And much less so, in a concessionary ‘helpful’ sense… here…

And then what I believe could be said to be a generous leaving of what I do share, in regard to understanding misunderstandings… here…

And then if there were any chance of meat remaining on the bone so to speak, and also for any one interested in the greater good, the actual implementation of said teachings, or even just an interest in hearing a pointing to delightful experiences ‘beyond’ thought attachment & concepts etc, like Siddhis, Shaktipah, etc… here… 

And if it were possible, that I could somehow yet still be more straightforward… more comprehensive offerings on how you are creating reality right now, and how this can be realized right now… 

 

What could possibly be said here in text which would be more straightforward and non-elusive than the videos shared? 

Quote

A clear answer would be, no I do not support this, or I do support this. But you went on about how funny you found the thread, etc. 

It is funny!!!  Look again at the videos above which have been offered, I don’t mean watch them all… just look… and then notice how funny it is to be asked if I support x, y, or z, concepts of separation / duality. 

I hope you ‘get’ or receive this lovingly… this entire matter is simply so absurd it is hysterical. If you, or @4201 or any one simply can not let go of the notion of separate selves and wether a separate self supports or does not support other separate selves ideas (dualities about dualities) what can possibly be said to you which was not shared in these videos? Please, offer whatever answer arises. I’ll share that. And do you see how funny that is or no?

Quote

I am giving you my impression of how you are coming across. Maybe you are being clear, and straight forward.

I'm not triggered by that idea. From my pov, it seems like this is it. And yet there is higher to go.

I really am wide open to feedback, critique, etc. It would be appreciated if it was specific to the content, and not ‘how a you is being’, given that there is this content. I have no problem whatsoever of pulling videos down, editing, and reposting them to youtube. Really. That is ideal, as I am sharing, yet have no answers at the same time. I don’t know if you ‘get’ that… all I can say is here’s (the content)  where I’m coming from so to speak… and that I’m open to tweaking any of it. It isn’t like it’s really mine you know? 

@TruthSoldier

The gift that keeps on giving. Well done sir. Your work here will echo & billow the hallows of mankind unending. 

[Iesu]

On 11/25/2021 at 0:19 PM, TruthSoldier said:

Trolling? Leo stated in his videos he has "had insights that almost nobody on the planet would understand"  and "Stuff so advanced there is almost nobody to communicate it to".

How is it trolling to ask if these have been made available since he released those video's which were a year or two old? 

It's a pretty straight forward question actually...

The play of ego's here is very surprising to find especially on this forum of all forums.

your profile picture on a website for enlightenment and self-transcendence is dick butt. 100% a troll 

Shouldn't that first line tell you it's a SOLO kind of thing 

On 11/26/2021 at 5:18 AM, TruthSoldier said:

What a cesspool. Ill be asking future questions elsewhere.

You're the one who started the thread x D 

Edited November 28, 2021 by Iesu

[4201]

On 27/11/2021 at 0:06 PM, Nahm said:

@4201

I’m ‘struggling’ in two ways here. How you aren’t finding this hilarious… 

“What a cesspool. Ill be asking future questions elsewhere.”

That is comedic gold right there. 

I must just be really blind lol

18 hours ago, BenG said:

@4201

Wouldn't it be fair to say that any ideas about supporting or not supporting dualistic concepts of "higher and lower" is already a form of dualistic thinking?

Yes. I assume we are individuals with opinions. Do you support BLM, do you not? This is dualistic thinking indeed, support or not support. Perhaps I should dig deeper into those assumptions but as far as a "conversation" is going, the dualities that form opinions are kind of part of what a conversation is. By communicating (like creating youtube videos or forum messages), we can assert what someone supports (sometimes, not always).

18 hours ago, BenG said:

Similarly, if there's not a "higher" place to go, it's impossible to mislead people because there's nowhere to lead them in the first place.

Even if the mentionned destination doesn't exist people are still "lead" into a path where the mentionned destination is supposedly at the end. I would call this "mis"-leading but we are free to define words as we see fit. If I tell you there's a waterpark on the top of a mountain and you go for it and you realize your starting position and the mountain are all inside a waterpark, it was quite misleading imo.

18 hours ago, BenG said:

I'm saying this is the consequence of your position. It's paradoxical and self-defeating.

If you are interested in the fully non-dual position (which is not mine) I highly recommend you to watch @Nahm's videos. Personally I'm not qualified to explain this stuff. My only "position" or "question" in this thread is why @Nahm produces content which conflict claims Leo make yet refuses to explicitely say it whenever those claims are challenged by other people. Why is he either pretending like he agrees or try to change the topic when dualistic statements made by Leo are being challenged? This is what that has been bothering me for a very long time, on a very dualistic personal level.

2 hours ago, Nahm said:

@4201

God damn it in hindsight I gotta say… so to speak, the point you make is superior. I still find this thread to be a trolling of a trolling and pure in it’s humor, but, indeed the greater point is the greater point, in the bigger picture or beyond this one thread sense. My apologies for that. 

I really don't understand clearly how you see it as trolling. It might be silly for you but there are legitimately people who watch a lot of Leo's videos and kinda start believing everything he says. Then they find some claim that do not add up and they are confused. They come on the forum and all they experience all this "backlash" for criticizing without really having the confusion resolved.

On 27/11/2021 at 0:06 PM, Nahm said:

The other thing I don’t get is why you’re asking me about any of this when what you’re asking about is Leo’s content, who you can ask. If you sincerely are interested in what I share, it’s not like I don’t have ample content available. 

It really wasn't a question about your views or Leo's views but rather why you act in a way to seemingly purposefully not challenge Leo's views that might not agree with the ones you publish in your videos. Isn't this an opportunity to clear up the confusion instead for OP?

In the end I was more or less just curious of your "Leo bias" as I always have been curious about it. Is your Leo bias something I'm imagining or is it actually there? That's what I was trying to answer with my questions. At least your replies in this thread initially made me think it was actually there but I could have been wrong.

2 hours ago, Raptorsin7 said:

Why don't you give a clear, straight forward answer to the question?

A clear answer would be, no I do not support this, or I do support this. But you went on about how funny you found the thread, etc. 

I am giving you my impression of how you are coming across. Maybe you are being clear, and straight forward.

I'm not triggered by that idea. From my pov, it seems like this is it. And yet there is higher to go.

I was more or less just being a drama queen about how Nahm never criticize Leo even when I think Leo is wrong 

But you make a fair point.

 

If I were to answer OP directly I'd tell him to keep in mind that Leo likes to romanticize his awakening stories with various fancy adjectives like "higher", "advanced" or "radical". Those have little impact on your development or the insights that are being shared. At the end of day you will find what you want by focusing on what you want, not through magic unreleased "advanced" videos. 

[Nahm]

3 hours ago, 4201 said:

Yes. I assume we are individuals with opinions. Do you support BLM, do you not? This is dualistic thinking indeed, support or not support. Perhaps I should dig deeper into those assumptions but as far as a "conversation" is going, the dualities that form opinions are kind of part of what a conversation is. By communicating (like creating youtube videos or forum messages), we can assert what someone supports (sometimes, not always).

Even if the mentionned destination doesn't exist people are still "lead" into a path where the mentionned destination is supposedly at the end. I would call this "mis"-leading but we are free to define words as we see fit. If I tell you there's a waterpark on the top of a mountain and you go for it and you realize your starting position and the mountain are all inside a waterpark, it was quite misleading imo.

If you are interested in the fully non-dual position (which is not mine) I highly recommend you to watch @Nahm's videos. Personally I'm not qualified to explain this stuff. My only "position" or "question" in this thread is

why @Nahm produces content which conflict claims Leo make yet refuses to explicitely say it whenever those claims are challenged by other people. Why is he either pretending like he agrees or try to change the topic when dualistic statements made by Leo are being challenged? This is what that has been bothering me for a very long time, on a very dualistic personal level.

What you’re really saying there is “Nahm produces content which conflicts claims”.

Nahm’s content is the unexpected result or product of cessation and is not in conflict with anything. Cessation means, cessation of the activity of thoughts in regard to the separate self, ego, or finite mind. This is exactly the same as saying there isn’t, and wasn’t, a Nahm. You could also simply say not two, or nonduality. 

Quote

I really don't understand clearly how you see it as trolling. It might be silly for you but there are legitimately people who watch a lot of Leo's videos and kinda start believing everything he says. Then they find some claim that do not add up and they are confused. They come on the forum and all they experience all this "backlash" for criticizing without really having the confusion resolved.

You’re pulling a switcharo there with “it”. “It” there isn’t this thread, which is indeed funny. “It” there as you’re using “it” is “Leo’s content and people believing everything he says”. I’m not saying that’s silly or funny. I’m saying feel free to ask me until you’re absolutely satisfied about any claims I’ve made in my content. I am saying  you asking me about other people’s content is silly, again, given that if you want my two cents there are my videos. 

Quote

It really wasn't a question about your views or Leo's views but rather why you act in a way to seemingly purposefully not challenge Leo's views that might not agree with the ones you publish in your videos. Isn't this an opportunity to clear up the confusion instead for OP?

Notice you just said it wasn’t a question about Nahm’s views or Leo’s views…. and then you say Nahm act’s in a way to seemingly purposefully not challenge….(wait for it)…. Leo’s views.

What is the desired outcome of this ‘challenging of views’?  Do you think Nahm is going to say something new, which wasn’t already said in Nahm’s twenty thousand posts & videos… and then you’ll have some big epiphany? 

If you are interested in ‘challenging someone’s views’, you are free to. If you want to make content stating your views, you are free to. If you want to produce conflict, you are free to. Even if you want to say that someone else is creating the conflict, you’re free to. 

Quote

In the end I was more or less just curious of your "Leo bias" as I always have been curious about it. Is your Leo bias something I'm imagining or is it actually there?

Essential Meaning of bias:

A tendency to believe that some people, ideas, etc., are better than others that usually results in treating some people unfairly.

You are apparently as you say imaging it is there. You are not being forced to, even if you are being told to, or told it is right, or that you should, or should believe it. Even if every one does, still, you are never forced to do so. 

Quote

That's what I was trying to answer with my questions. At least your replies in this thread initially made me think it was actually there but I could have been wrong.

I was more or less just being a drama queen about how Nahm never criticize Leo even when I think Leo is wrong 

But you make a fair point.

If I were to answer OP directly I'd tell him to keep in mind that Leo likes to romanticize his awakening stories with various fancy adjectives like "higher", "advanced" or "radical". Those have little impact on your development or the insights that are being shared. At the end of day you will find what you want by focusing on what you want, not through magic unreleased "advanced" videos. 

I’ve been working a lot on some other projects recently, but I will make a video literally showing everyone the Flying Spaghetti Monster very soon. Most of your minds will refute and you likely won’t even be able to see it. The FSM is a highly complex, incredibly advanced teaching. It could take you thirty one years to even begin to grasp. 

(Are you laughing?)

If not, you probably just need to get laid.

(now…? Laughing…?)

[Iesu]

30 minutes ago, Nahm said:

What is the desired outcome of this ‘challenging of views’?  Do you think Nahm is going to say something new, which wasn’t already said in Nahm’s twenty thousand posts & videos… and then you’ll have some big epiphany? 

I’ve been working a lot on some other projects recently, but I will make a video literally showing everyone the Flying Spaghetti Monster very soon. Most of your minds will refute and you likely won’t even be able to see it. The FSM is a highly complex, incredibly advanced teaching. It could take you thirty one years to even begin to grasp. 

(Are you laughing?)

I am lmao 

Hard to challenge Leo when ecstasy has you on your ass 

[softlyblossoming]

2 minutes ago, BenG said:

Almost incommunicable levels of truth and wisdom.

@BenG Well then, I demand that you communicate it to me. Promptly.

[softlyblossoming]

3 minutes ago, BenG said:

I don't think you have the "sauce" to understand such things.

@BenG I've never been so offended in my life. And yet this reaction alone speaks volumes my unbalanced inner pasta dish.

[Fearless_Bum]

2 minutes ago, BenG said:

 Well done! I can't even think of a way to top that. <3 u 4vr

@BenG parmasean cheese works wonders. 

[4201]

6 hours ago, Nahm said:

What you’re really saying there is “Nahm produces content which conflicts claims”.

Nahm’s content is the unexpected result or product of cessation and is not in conflict with anything. Cessation means, cessation of the activity of thoughts in regard to the separate self, ego, or finite mind. This is exactly the same as saying there isn’t, and wasn’t, a Nahm. You could also simply say not two, or nonduality. 

I don't believe it can be "not in conflict with anything". By talking about cessation or the "upsides" of cessation or by explaining to someone how to attain cessation you promote that cessation in a way. I could literally take every sentence in your videos and say the exact opposite of them. Wouldn't this be in conflict?

I don't think there can be a message without a any bias because the message itself implies there was something to be communicated in the first place.

I have absolutely no problem with the content of your videos however. I think they are amazing (although perhaps something thick and hard to understand but that's a me problem).

My point is that by being on this forum and not saying anything about an idea X of Leo and (possibly, up to interpretation) trying to steer the conversation away from critizing that idea X of Leo, you are implicitely promoting or defending that idea X of Leo. Yet that behavior is dualitstic and "conflicts" (IMO) the non dualistic teachings of your video. For instance there was a moment where Leo was hardcore ranting about genetics being the main reason why he can't be enlightened or was saying he could not be awake without psychedelics. Those claims are definitely dualistic in nature yet I never saw you say anything about it. At this point it's not even about the collateral damage of people around believing Leo, even Leo would probably benefit from being challenged on this point. For instance in April Leo was spotted spreading doomer genetics ideas in this thread. Tried to challenge it at the time (I recall this was not my first time) and Consilience as well. It probably didn't have much effect since in June he was still using genetics as an excuse in this other thread.

Everytime I saw this I was like "Why the hell is Nahm not challenging him on this?" In what world does letting Leo believing those self-limitations about genetics is what is "the best" for him and for others? 

6 hours ago, Nahm said:

You’re pulling a switcharo there with “it”. “It” there isn’t this thread, which is indeed funny. “It” there as you’re using “it” is “Leo’s content and people believing everything he says”. I’m not saying that’s silly or funny. I’m saying feel free to ask me until you’re absolutely satisfied about any claims I’ve made in my content. I am saying  you asking me about other people’s content is silly, again, given that if you want my two cents there are my videos. 

You really will need to tell me what's funny about the first page of this thread. I find this whole exchange quite funny but that's not what you were laughing at "with Leo". But as I mentionned above, it's not your content I have a problem with but the position you have in this forum that is being implied by lack or avoidance of discourse, but only about Leo.

6 hours ago, Nahm said:

Notice you just said it wasn’t a question about Nahm’s views or Leo’s views…. and then you say Nahm act’s in a way to seemingly purposefully not challenge….(wait for it)…. Leo’s views.

Yeah I mean it's about the "way of acting" not about the exact content of the videos of anyone. The way you act about Leo's views and Leo's actual views are different topics imo. But yeah it doesn't really make sense to talk about this without talking about the specific views either. The whole issue is just that your forum behavior doesn't match up what is communicated in your videos, but only when it's about Leo, from my pov. I could double check your videos but that would just tell me "yup, Nahm is indeed pro non-duality" but then I check back on the forum and I would see you challenge everyone's dualities except for Leo's. I admit this might only be my own mis-interpretation, but I'm just communicating what I'm seeing from my pov.

6 hours ago, Nahm said:

What is the desired outcome of this ‘challenging of views’?  Do you think Nahm is going to say something new, which wasn’t already said in Nahm’s twenty thousand posts & videos… and then you’ll have some big epiphany? 

Of course there isn't a "desired outcome". If you were to mechanically change your behavior to criticize Leo more to respond to my criticism of you without actually seeing what I meant, it would feel quite bad honestly. I'm not looking for a big epiphany, I'm just communicating what I think is a bias I see in you without a need for you to "fix it" or agree with me. At the end if our exchange wasn't helpful too bad but I personally am not looking for anything out of it.

 

6 hours ago, Nahm said:

Essential Meaning of bias:

A tendency to believe that some people, ideas, etc., are better than others that usually results in treating some people unfairly.

You are apparently as you say imaging it is there. You are not being forced to, even if you are being told to, or told it is right, or that you should, or should believe it. Even if every one does, still, you are never forced to do so. 

Perhaps I should simply have been much more direct. Why do you not call out Leo on claims and beliefs he shares that hurt himself and the community? I always assumed the reason why you didn't was because of a bias you had for him. Perhaps I was wrong but if I don't have a proper explanation on why, I'll likely keep "leaning toward" the possibility that you have a bias toward Leo.

If I perceive it that way, others may perceive that way too. Other than you, many members here have a true bias for Leo. IMO everyone having a bias toward one thing is what creates an echo chamber. This contributes to an overall worsening perception of the forum by external people which leads to less people being helped by your insights.

At the end of the day I really don't care if I'm right or not. I don't "need" to throw you into a category of either biased for Leo or not. I'm simply observing this collection of individuals on the forum and observing their collective bias, from my own pov.

 

6 hours ago, Nahm said:

I’ve been working a lot on some other projects recently, but I will make a video literally showing everyone the Flying Spaghetti Monster very soon. Most of your minds will refute and you likely won’t even be able to see it. The FSM is a highly complex, incredibly advanced teaching. It could take you thirty one years to even begin to grasp. 

(Are you laughing?)

If not, you probably just need to get laid.

(now…? Laughing…?)

I feel like I'd be funny if everyone involved was "into" the joke. "Haha that person is stuck believing they'll find happiness with "advanced" or "complicated" youtube videos". Whenever the person who was stuck seeking "advanced" realizes it, then it may be funny but as long as they are confused and mislead it just feels sad to me.

Or do you actually think Leo was saying it as a joke and is perfectly aware that you can be free and total, right now? At least from my honest POV, I think Leo believes this stuff and seeing him believe it doesn't make me laugh. I wish him to be free from those ideas, just like the genetics stuff or the "can't wake up without psychedelics" stuff.

 

4 hours ago, BenG said:

Thanks. These are good responses. Sorry if my post to you came across a bit arrogant. I feel in hindsight that it probably did.

You are totally welcome in any conversation friend, no need to apologize. I personally enjoy debates and conversations much more than I should. If there's any thing I said that bothers you feel free to reply to it and don't be afraid of coming across as arrogant. You really aren't. Perhaps the way I formulated my answer made you feel that way. I just had a lot to reply at once and didn't really re-read myself. 

Edited November 29, 2021 by 4201

[4201]

21 minutes ago, BenG said:

You sure? I don't agree because in this case, the act of misleading to an imagined "higher place" would itself be the highest place (since everywhere is the highest place). So, the idea of misleading would lose all meaning. Then again, maybe I'm just playing a game of armchair philosophy, idk.

What if I convince you to come to "earth" but to do so you need to cross 3 mountains by foot and 2 lakes by swimming and at the end I'm like "haha jk earth is everywhere actually" isn't that misleading? Or if I insist that "my yard is earth" but not yours, isn't that misleading too? Both are leading you to believe something incorrect about what earth is.

If you create the concept of there being a higher place then there must be a lower place (according to your concept). Otherwise everything is equal height and so the concept of height simply lose its meaning. If I lead you to a position in a flat plane pretending I'm leading you to the maximum height, I'm not being honest about what I'm doing even if theorically any point is maximum on a flat plane. You are still being lead to believe that you are moving "up", from a non maximal point to a maximal point while in fact you were already at a maximum.

Edited November 29, 2021 by 4201

[Nahm]

2 hours ago, 4201 said:

I don't believe it can be "not in conflict with anything".

Cessation means no thoughts (beliefs are thoughts). 

Quote

By talking about cessation or the "upsides" of cessation or by explaining to someone how to attain cessation you promote that cessation in a way.

The separate self, which is said to attain cessation, literally is, the very activity of thought spoken of. 

Quote

I could literally take every sentence in your videos and say the exact opposite of them. Wouldn't this be in conflict?

Knock yourself out. I am being forthright when I tell you, I do not see a conflict in that. I honestly and very simply do not get how you do. I would think it would be pretty misleading, yes, but I would think people would tell you that in abundance, and you would either listen or not. You might experience some conflict, but again I am at a loss as to how I or anyone else would. 

Quote

I don't think there can be a message without a any bias because the message itself implies there was something to be communicated in the first place.

The message is unthinkable, unbiasable, needs no messenger, and there is nothing to be communicated. 

Quote

I have absolutely no problem with the content of your videos however. I think they are amazing (although perhaps something thick and hard to understand but that's a me problem).

My point is that by being on this forum and not saying anything about an idea X of Leo and (possibly, up to interpretation) trying to steer the conversation away from critizing that idea X of Leo, you are implicitely promoting or defending that idea X of Leo.

Yet that behavior is dualitstic and "conflicts" (IMO) the non dualistic teachings of your video. For instance there was a moment where Leo was hardcore ranting about genetics being the main reason why he can't be enlightened or was saying he could not be awake without psychedelics. Those claims are definitely dualistic in nature yet I never saw you say anything about it. At this point it's not even about the collateral damage of people around believing Leo, even Leo would probably benefit from being challenged on this point. For instance in April Leo was spotted spreading doomer genetics ideas in this thread. Tried to challenge it at the time (I recall this was not my first time) and Consilience as well. It probably didn't have much effect since in June he was still using genetics as an excuse in this other thread.  Everytime I saw this I was like "Why the hell is Nahm not challenging him on this?" In what world does letting Leo believing those self-limitations about genetics is what is "the best" for him and for others? 

Yeah I mean it's about the "way of acting" not about the exact content of the videos of anyone. The way you act about Leo's views and Leo's actual views are different topics imo. But yeah it doesn't really make sense to talk about this without talking about the specific views either. The whole issue is just that your forum behavior doesn't match up what is communicated in your videos, but only when it's about Leo, from my pov. I could double check your videos but that would just tell me "yup, Nahm is indeed pro non-duality" but then I check back on the forum and I would see you challenge everyone's dualities except for Leo's. I admit this might only be my own mis-interpretation, but I'm just communicating what I'm seeing from my pov.

Of course there isn't a "desired outcome". If you were to mechanically change your behavior to criticize Leo more to respond to my criticism of you without actually seeing what I meant, it would feel quite bad honestly. I'm not looking for a big epiphany, I'm just communicating what I think is a bias I see in you without a need for you to "fix it" or agree with me. At the end if our exchange wasn't helpful too bad but I personally am not looking for anything out of it.

Perhaps I should simply have been much more direct. Why do you not call out Leo on claims and beliefs he shares that hurt himself and the community? I always assumed the reason why you didn't was because of a bias you had for him. Perhaps I was wrong but if I don't have a proper explanation on why, I'll likely keep "leaning toward" the possibility that you have a bias toward Leo.

If I perceive it that way, others may perceive that way too. Other than you, many members here have a true bias for Leo. IMO everyone having a bias toward one thing is what creates an echo chamber. It could be worse, it could be better, I don't really mind it that much because it's not that bad right now but it makes no sense to me that you would have a bias for Leo as well because from my exprience with you, you seemed to be very well aware of biases.

At the end of the day I really don't care if I'm right or not. I don't "need" to throw you into a category of either biased for Leo or not. I'm simply observing this collection of individuals on the forum and observing their collective bias, from my own pov

I feel like I'd be funny if everyone involved was "into" the joke. "Haha that person is stuck believing they'll find happiness with "advanced" or "complicated" youtube videos". Whenever the person who was stuck seeking "advanced" realizes it, then it may be funny but as long as they are confused and mislead it just feels sad to me.

Or do you actually think Leo was saying it as a joke and is perfectly aware that you can be free and total, right now? At least from my honest POV, I think Leo believes this stuff and seeing him believe it doesn't make me laugh. I wish him to be free from those ideas, just like the genetics stuff or the "can't wake up without psychedelics" stuff.

Leo’s content, forum & business is, his business, and not mine. Challenging someone’s beliefs is combative and fruitless when they are not interested, inspecting or asking.

The most fundamental aspect of the forum, is q&a. I don’t hold any bias, at least that I am aware of, over anyone here. Ime we’re all parallel. If there are specifics you want to ask about, I’ll gladly share my view. It is silly to ask me about Leo’s content or beliefs / dualities, on Leo’s forum, of which he is readily available & accessible for you to ask. 

The things I presume you’re talking about when you say dualities, is stuff like different states, people being higher or lower than other people, teachings or teachers being higher or lower, etc, etc. If what you are saying is that I do not generally share my view which is to the contrary of these dualities, I am at a loss as to what to say. Read a couple pages of my comments, I guess…? 

 

Also, if you look back on this thread to my first comment, you’ll see you replied to it quite selectively really. The first thing I said was how could content be advanced, when advanced is content. You proceeded to claim I don’t make comments, like the comment, you replied to. Leo gave no answer to the op question, and yet your interest in me seems to be paramount. 

Why is that? 

 

@BenG

“Arm chair philosophy’ was pretty generous there. Not your best work sir, bit of a farfalle. 

[4201]

7 minutes ago, Nahm said:

Leo’s content, forum & business is, his business, and not mine. Challenging someone’s beliefs is combative and fruitless when they are not interested, inspecting or asking.

The most fundamental aspect of the forum, is q&a. I don’t hold any bias, at least that I am aware of, over anyone here. Ime we’re all parallel. If there are specifics you want to ask about, I’ll gladly share my view. It is silly to ask me about Leo’s content or beliefs / dualities, on Leo’s forum, of which he is readily available & accessible for you to ask. 

In my experience, I don't think it's fruitless nor does it need to be combative. I agree that going after Leo directly might not do much if he's not open. But being clear about your difference in position is imo much more healthy than avoiding the conversation altogether. If you avoid stating your difference in position people likely will assume you agree with him and his views (despite your videos) and I think this is quite detrimental to the people following along.

This thread was originally a question based on a claim made by Leo. Wouldn't have challenged this claim made by Leo helped OP?

To be fair in your first post you do imply that the idea of there being "advanced" content is a bit ridiculous. But it was so ambiguous I really couldn't tell whether you were saying that or saying that OP is ridiculous for trying to criticize's Leo's use of the word. Like your "joke" assume that we understand you differ from Leo in this position about advanced content. But to literally anyone who comes in with the fear of everyone agreeing with Leo and it being an echo chamber, it doesn't come across as a joke. It really just seemed like you were trying to steer the thread away from criticizing Leo. And calling OP a troll is really the top way of making him defensive and not see that you were joking.

Looking back I can see how I indeed assumed you weren't joking and defending Leo because that's what I believed about you from your previous interactions. Are you purposefully not explicit because of a bias or a fear of creating conflict? Or is this just you being cryptic in general?(tbh many of your messages feel like hard to crack riddles to me) I just don't know, but now that I understand the "joke" it's much less of an issue as I first thought. My bad. 

That being said I'd still be mindful of how newbies (kinda like me) are likely to interpret your message. If your messages have multiple interpretations possible and one of them make you seem like you are being defensive (e.g. name calling someone who criticize Leo) then it's likely to hurt the community by excluding anyone who isn't a hardcore Leo follower, imo.