Leo featured in suicide cult article

[kieranperez]

2 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

You have to clean up your own shadows. God will not do that for you

Gibberish. The amount passive aggressive behavior is screaming shadows on your end is the red flag. 

2 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

But ailments ultimately lie within the mind.  In an infinite state of consciousness you will have no ailments. It is only as a mortal being and your need to survive as this being that you can suffer 

This is complete bullshit. Ramana Maharshi died of cancer as well as many other genuinely enlightened people. In fact, some of the most realized people tend to come die from pretty brutal diseases and so forth. This idea that enlightenment heals you or something is bullshit. Enlightenment is what is already absolutely true.

2 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

"I can help you to discover that you are God. When you do realize that you are God, this will instantaneously solve every single problem in your life, not only that but it will heal you, it will heal you of every disease and problem that you have"

Yes. In God Consciousness you WILL be cured of all ailments.   I have confirmed this.  However- once back in the ego these things will return.  It may take years to return but the further you sink back into the ego they shall return.   But Leo did not lie.  In a state of God Consciousness you will be cured of everything  because you will be God. 

You. Are. Deluded.

[kieranperez]

1 hour ago, Inliytened1 said:

that is a great point.  Only awakening can reveal this.  And you can only awaken if if you are open to other paradigms.

Awakening has nothing to do with paradigms or relative distinctions. The truth is the truth. What the mind makes up is what the mind makes up. 

4 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

I love you but stop deflecting.   What was the criticism about the community again?

You want me to apologize to @RMQualtrough? 

Fine.. I can take it on the chin..sorry dude.  Does that make you happy?

Let's get back to the criticism at hand.  Get to what really upsets you.  Because I know it's not Leo's talk of healing.

 

6 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

It was to help him not turn his back on his intuition.  I bid you the same.  Did you have a response to my last reply to you or did you take a deeper look at your own criticism and realize where you could make improvements....I didn't see a response.

This is just screaming shadow. 

Edited March 9, 2022 by kieranperez

[kieranperez]

14 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

It's OK.  You have had your glimpses on DMT.  But then you doubt those awakenings and you return to science and the materialist paradigm..   you are the worst of the worst.  You are one who has seen the Truth but then turns their back on it for their culture.  I pity you.

1. DMT has nothing to do with enlightenment 
2. Still screaming shadow.

[Inliytened1]

@kieranperez you have all the answers.   And yet you are not enlightened 

 

[Breakingthewall]

I guess that he refers to the fact that you, as a god, realize that everything is perfect as it is, with cancer, without arms, etc.

Edited March 9, 2022 by Breakingthewall

[Inliytened1]

2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

I guess that he refers to the fact that you, as a god, realize that everything is perfect as it is, with cancer, without arms, etc.

Talk is cheap -  strip yourself of arms and see if you agree.

 

.

[Thought Art]

Perhaps time to lock 

Guys, just chill 

[Jacob Morres]

10 hours ago, AdeptusPsychonautica said:

good faith discussions with me

you are the king of good faith discussions

[vizual]

@Inliytened1  You are the next one in line to lose your mod status if you keep up this nonsense. Just saying

[kieranperez]

I created unnecessary and agitated people's remaining suffering and reactivity out of my own reactivity. I apologize. 

[Inliytened1]

1 hour ago, kieranperez said:

I created unnecessary and agitated people's remaining suffering and reactivity out of my own reactivity. I apologize. 

No need. You said what you felt.  

[Danioover9000]

@SOUL

5 hours ago, SOUL said:

@Danioover9000  My impression is that culty behavior is way more prevalent than people realize, so much of society is ruled by it from social norms to religious belief to consumerism and on and on.

Even though there is definitely a concerted top down effort to control people, their thinking and behavior through all the means of society it appears people willingly volunteer themselves to be culty because of the desire to belong.

Even if Leo took every possible precaution to distance from any cultiness people would still behave this way because it's been ingrained in their conditioning to do so. It may even be accurate to argue that humans have a natural social disposition that leans towards it.

   We can say that societies and cultures at large do have some cultish elements to them, in reaction to differences in cultural values, moral frameworks of the population taught and ingrained, and various cognitive developments in each in group and out group, how they think, what collective states they experience day to day. We can see this more with smaller groups, both currently and in the past like with Charles Manson and Osho's Rajneesh compound, although in Osho's case in more his second in command that orchestrated attempts to take over Oregon county and political positions.

   However, to me it's more obvious that there is much more cult like dynamics with Youtube reactionaries that feel the need to stir up drama, gossip and rumours,  and clip out and take out of context pieces of information and misinterpret what is really being said properly for the views, and getting followers along the band wagon, versus a personal development website owner, who covers topics found in self help, but also philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology, non duality, spirituality, psychedelics use for personal development, who has repeatedly warned and had disclaimers in the description boxes down below each video against misuse, misunderstanding and not turning this work into a blind ideology. Again, no offense to Leo Gura, he lacks the qualities necessary to be a powerful cult leader. Those who are trying to make him out as a cult leader, are really not seeing that if he was a genuine cult guy, he would suck at it.

   I'd be familiar with what makes a cult leader a proper cult leader first, before accusing a person of being a cult leader, right?

[Inliytened1]

1 hour ago, vizual said:

@Inliytened1  You are the next one in line to lose your mod status if you keep up this nonsense. Just saying

Yeah well. It's not like it pays the bills 

[Danioover9000]

@vizual

1 hour ago, vizual said:

@Inliytened1  You are the next one in line to lose your mod status if you keep up this nonsense. Just saying

   That's a bit too harsh. Everyone has different learning curves and learn like A.I, trial and error. He'll sooner or later be a pretty decent mod. 

[Inliytened1]

Just now, Danioover9000 said:

@vizual

   That's a bit too harsh. Everyone has different learning curves and learn like A.I, trial and error. He'll sooner or later be a pretty decent mod. 

I'll try at least.  That's all we can do right?

[RMQualtrough]

3 hours ago, kieranperez said:

Gibberish. The amount passive aggressive behavior is screaming shadows on your end is the red flag. 

This is complete bullshit. Ramana Maharshi died of cancer as well as many other genuinely enlightened people. In fact, some of the most realized people tend to come die from pretty brutal diseases and so forth. This idea that enlightenment heals you or something is bullshit. Enlightenment is what is already absolutely true.

You. Are. Deluded.

The misconception you describe is probably to do with lacking first hand experience, which means a person can't really separate the jiva (which is like, the body, the ego) from the absolute totality of Brahman... In other words they can't see it as an appearance, and mistake that body or ego for the entity that is eternal and unchanging.

The body like all material objects is within Brahman. The body is as much a physical object as a boulder or plank of wood. There is nothing special about the material body.

The nature of all matter is Brahman. The ego is Brahman. Every thought and desire is one of the many appearances of Brahman.

These very enlightened people realize the body for what it is, which is just another appearance. I think one of them actually, when dying and his followers were all concerned, said something like: "Don't worry, it's just a body!" Because the essential nature of what all of existence is, is eternal. He recognized that his body, ravaged with disease, was just like a rock being eroded by waves or something; as in, just another appearance which was not that essential is-ness.

[RendHeaven]

Aw got here late 

I'm impressed by Adeptus here, he is showing an admirable level of respect.

A little thought I had, reading through the earlier exchange:

Unfortunately for Adeptus, Leo is correct in assessing his lack of understanding of consciousness.

The situation here is a bit like a middle schooler critiquing a calculus professor, accusing the professor of making up "nonsensical scribbles" (or at least this is how the equations seem from the POV of the middle schooler who has not done any advanced mathematics)

- the professor then says, "you simply have not studied enough," and the middle schooler retorts, "yeah nice deflection there mate! these string of symbols are obviously nonsense but you're just unwilling to admit the truth because you're stubborn."

In this case, the professor gains nothing by attempting to defend his position. Nothing he says will convince the middle schooler otherwise. It's on the middle schooler to actually go and study calculus seriously. But for him to do this, the middle schooler must admit first that he actually has not studied mathematics much (if at all). If the kid thinks he's already got it all, he will forever be incapable of understanding where the professor is coming from.

So, how do we make sense of who is the kid and who is the professor?

It's simple: In the above hypothetical analogy, the calculus professor was once the middle schooler. However, the middle schooler has never been the calculus professor.

Leo has in the past been at Adeptus' current paradigm of skepticism and rational sense-making. He transcended this paradigm by realizing its contradictions and limits. In other words, although Leo no longer shares Adeptus' paradigm, he has actually traversed through it, and so he can recall through his own memories an intimate understanding of the limited paradigm from which Adeptus argues.

Adeptus on the other hand, is not and has not ever been at Leo's current paradigm of God-Realization. This foreign paradigm is simply outside of his comprehension.

Thus, Leo gains nothing by attempting to defend his position. Nothing Leo says will convince Adeptus otherwise. It's on Adeptus to actually go and study consciousness seriously. But for him to do this, Adeptus must admit first that he actually has not studied consciousness much (if at all). If Adeptus thinks he's already got it all, he will forever be incapable of understanding where Leo is coming from.

---

On a side note, the mod behavior here is disheartening. The emotionally-charged self-preservation is so obvious from a bystander's perspective. It does not fit the spirit of our work here. But I'm prone to having those proclivities myself, so I get it.

[Inliytened1]

@RendHeaven yeah your late.  I already dealt with Adeptus' criticism head on and cleared it all up.  

[AdeptusPsychonautica]

6 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

@RendHeaven yeah your late.  I already dealt with Adeptus' criticism head on and cleared it all up.  

@Inliytened1 I guess we can add "cleared it all up" to the list of phrases you don't understand the meaning of - wow, this list is getting quite long! ?

Honestly mate, your lack of self awareness is pretty amazing. Your contribution to this thread has been awful, switching between straw man arguments, cringe inducing arrogance, a complete lack of logic or reasoning, misunderstanding of basic vocabulary, emotional immaturity, and just being an outright bully by abusing your moderator status and banning people. You have some serious work to do pal, and the fact that you act like this as an outcome of your much vaunted "awakening" really raises some red flags. 

REALITY CHECK - you didn't clear anything up, you got cleaned up, and the atmosphere in this thread would have been A LOT "clearer" if you had kept your petty immature ego out of it ?

 

[AdeptusPsychonautica]

15 hours ago, zurew said:

It's flat out wrong only,if you are looking at it from your paradigm.You are using a different kind of epistemic foundation compare to most of the users on the forum, and thats all okay.

I would pretty much agree with what you are saying here in that there are different paradigms, and that one person could be speaking about one while another is speaking from the perspective of a different paradigm - no argument there

15 hours ago, zurew said:

However, your last sentence is an objective sentence, that "it is just flat out wrong", now speaking from a materialistic paradigm it could be true. It all depends on, in what structure you want to place that statement. 

None of this was stated as objective fact. The entire comment was prefaced with "in my opinion".

15 hours ago, zurew said:

Basically, all your critisism can be boiled down to this problem, that you and Leo are using different kind of epistemic foundations, and your criticism is only true and valid within your paradigm, Leo's claims will be true if you are using his foundations (or it can only be then realised). So for your critisisms to be objectively true, as you want it, you have to assume, that your worldview is objectively correct, and you can just assume that whole foundation(that you use) before you want to make a claim or a criticism.

Here I would disagree. While fully accepting that one can have different epistemic foundations, I think it is evident that Leo in the video I reference is actually making claims about things that will play out within (for want of a better term) material reality, so the paradigm he is straddling there is blatantly clear. Now while his head might have been somewhere else, the claims are firmly rooted in this paradigm.

As previously highlighted in this thread he is not talking in solipsistic metaphor, but claiming physical ability over human disease and ailments - and he (Leo) himself has agreed that he was overstepping the mark by making such claims, so I really don't think there is much else to debate in regards to this point.

So while I fully understand and appreciate different paradigms, to try and apply it here as a counter to these criticisms really is unnecessary retroactive woo woo white washing. Is it that hard to admit that that guy said some things he shouldn't have said, when he himself admits as much?

I think its also worth highlighting a double standard here around such paradigms, and the Connor Murphy phone call debacle is a perfect example. Clearly Connor was making similar OBJECTIVE claims about what he could do with material reality - again, the paradigm that was "on the table" here was absolutely evident, and Leo was ABSOLUTELY RIGHT to state that Connors claims were delusional. There was no question that Connor is "using different kind of epistemic foundations", no - he was simply acting delusional. I sincerely doubt there is anyone here who would argue in favour of Connor Murphy having a different epistemic foundation as a reasonable justification of his behaviour or the things he was saying, but based upon your reasoning YOU SHOULD, hence the double standard. Maybe something for you to think about?