Leo Gura

I am saying something deeper which you and all your Buddhists are missing. Because you're not seriously thinking. When you say you have transcended or negated Buddhism, you haven't. It still runs your whole mind and worldview.

@Water by the River Those platitudes and cliches are not the same thing as seeing through Buddhism. See, you had to think just to generate those defenses. And it wasn't any kind of deep, serious, original thinking.

This is precisely false. DMT will take you to consciousness. End of story.

Makes me wonder if you've actually ever Awoken.

This is where I would suggest that you contemplate and think deeper. Buddhism is a sneaky and strong thought system, despite its pretenses to "no-mind" and so on. The irony is that it takes a lot of thinking to convince yourself that Buddhism is the ultimate path to Truth. And if you didn't do that then you wouldn't be a Buddhist nor would you hold Buddhism in high regard. You have to think in order to admire Buddhism. And then when I come along and viciously attack your Buddhist ways, you gotta do a lot of thinking to defend yourself. So this is very, very sneaky.

Mind is everything you see. Everything you see is yourself. And that's what reality is. You are reality. And there is no reality without you. Which is why you're so selfish to begin with.

You guys sure do love to attribute some crazy things to fapping. Like if you fap or don't reality is so fragile that the Earth will fly off its orbit.

Calling it metaphysical is a redundancy. Solipsism has always been the metaphysical claim that all that exists is your mind. The day you find something outside your mind, you let us know.

It is a common misconception that just because you're Awake that you will be healthy. But that's just not necessarily the case. So it's good to hear of examples where these assumptions are demolished.

Whether they are or aren't, they are still not talking about what I am talking about. We're just talking about different things. No doubt that deeply embodied, masterful spiritual teachers are rare. But that's not what I'm talking about or concerned with. Buddhism places such as strong emphasis on training people to act pious and spiritual that once they have been so trained it comes very difficult for a student to look at that and say, "But that's not getting to the core of CONSCIOUSNESS!" It requires a whole course to explain. Which I'm half-way done with outlining. But ultimately you can still use what I said to guide yourself beyond Buddhism. The bottom line is, Buddhism is imaginary and you can go beyond it if you just start questioning it deeply and using psychedelics. My ultimate advice is to tell you to question everything, of which Buddhism is just one part. There's nothing special about Buddhism. It must be questioned just like every other system of human thought. My method is just the insane questioning of everything that exists, and really using your mind in that questioning rather than shutting it off. How do you even know the Buddha was Conscious? People don't question these things.

That video does not even describe what you say: zooming out for infinity. It's equating samadhi with something like remote viewing. Which is a strange characterization of samadhi and it has little to do with 5-MeO. I've never had remote viewing or visions on 5-MeO-DMT but it can affect you differently.

I have no idea what this means.

The point is that even if he is not doing that it doesn't say anything about his understanding of consciousness. You can train yourself to act moral and pious without actually being very conscious. That's what Buddhists tend to do. It's a brute force behavioral training. Like training a dog to follow.

I studied Shinzen's work a lot and personally asked him a ton of questions. In the end I came to the conclusion that his understanding of Consciousness is not as deep as what I have experienced, and that is because it cannot be done with meditation. But it took me many years to realize that because Buddhists know how to play a great spiritual game. It takes so much consciousness and independence-of-mind to see through Buddhism. Which is why I warn about it. I am vocal about it because no one else is and it's so easy to overlook.

How did his ideas change? He's a sweet guy. It's just that his techniques will not yield a high understanding of God.

Unfortunately Peter is not the type to do much discussing. He's pretty set in his ideas.

I have gone back and forth a lot in my views of Ralston. In certain ways he's an utter genius. But in other ways perhaps I put his work on too high of a pedestal. For a long time I had a deep positive bias towards his work. But sometimes I wonder if I give him too much credit. I've been torn on that. I have discovered aspects of spirituality which are completely beyond his teachings. But there is still a lot of value in his teachings. That's a very good question. I don't have any answer. I just know for a fact that they do. At least for most people. For some people they don't work. Maybe Ralston is one of those few.

A lot of that needs to be revolutionized with video courses and lectures. The whole university system is quite an outdated model. Then again, something is lost with video. Hard to say how to strike a good balance there. It needs some creative innovation.

1) Again, people in this work just love to conflate consciousness with good behavior. 2) But to be fair, spiritual teachers who have many followers need to keep their sex drive in check because it can get so abusive. Sex drive is not a problem so long as it is exercised in a healthy, non-toxic way.

This is great. This is untrue. An even higher form of God-Realization is realizing that Mind is God.

Keep in mind, as you get older you need less sleep. So Sadhguru's age is also an important factor. If you're a young guy in your 20's you're not gonna have the sleep quote or sex drive of a 65 year old guru. A lot of young people follow these old gurus, but the guru is so old he's in a totally different stage of life so copying him too much can be very misleading. A more interesting question is what was Sadhguru like in his 20's?

Calming the mind can be good, but it also has some serious limits. You need mind to reach very advanced understanding of God. One of the reasons I've been able to reach new kinds of understanding of God and Consciousness -- this alien stuff -- is because I did not take the standard path of just silencing my mind. And it paid off in some amazing ways. If you just shut off your mind your understanding of Consciousness will be quite limited in the end. You may get other benefits but your understanding will be lacking. Which is exactly the issue with all the Buddhists. They can sit for days in bliss under a tree, but they don't understand the mechanics of God. Many of them even dare to claim that God doesn't exist. Which is just embarrassing.

I try to do that. The issue is that I cannot know which methods will work best for you because you have different genetics than me. So the reason I try to be accommodating is to accommodate your unique genetics. It's easy to mislead people in this work by assuming everyone's genetics are the same. This is one of my biggest critiques of traditional spiritual teachings. They treat everyone the same when that's clearly not the case. And spiritual people tend to be extra quirky by default.

Many such people enjoy teaching and it can be hard to do research 365. Also, advanced university classes require a pretty knowledgeable and qualified teacher. Also, being a good teacher requires a lot of skill and experience. Just some college kid will not be a great teacher of anything. To be a great teacher requires at least 5-10 years of teaching experience.

Finally we will be able to run Crysis on full settings