Leo Gura

As if he is even reachable given his audience size.

I am happy if they just come and watch some videos with an open mind. What I don't like is people demonizing the work as if it isn't something serious.

Well, I would think that more than 1% of folks comprehended my answers to Charlie. It wasn't exactly rocket science. Honestly, if one can't understand what I told Charlie, what is the point of following my work? If it's just a numbers game then the Charlie convo was a success. I would think at least 20% got it. So the question is, how many people have to get it for it to count as a success? If 1000 people watch Eckhart Tolle and 10 of them convert, does that mean Tolle did well? Can Tolle convert 500 of them?

The only way to eat cheap is basically a lot of empty carbs/sugar. Veggies, fruits, meats, good oils are all expensive.

Actualized.org You assume a normie will get it. They won't. I can sit there in full God-mode and the normie would be like, "This dude is insane. He says nothing and probably high on drugs. He proved nothing to me." YOU get embodiment because you are deep student of this work. Charlie's audience does not get embodiment. They wil just see a hippie. I once showed a video of Peter Ralston to a guy and told him, "Look this dude is really enlightened." And the guy said, "He looks insane." and that was the end of the conversation. I learned to be more direct and concrete with my responses and examples. My mind is very abstract and most people can't follow the abstractions. They need simple, simple examples -- which are harder for me to generate than abstractions. Generating crystal clear examples on the fly is not easy. In retrospect, if Charlie ever again asks me, "How do you know you are love? Isn't is just a memory?" I will ask him, "How do you know you were born? Isn't that just a memory? How do you know you have a mother? How do you know orgasms are real?" Two can play that game. See, responses like that would tighten up the conversation. But it's not so easy to whip out pithy responses like that which stop a silly question dead in the water. Generating such pithy responses is actually not a casual conversation, it's very laser targeted and premeditated. You have to anticipate how the question will place you into a long multi-threaded explanatory chain and cut it off at the root by flipping it back on the questioner. It is more like verbal combat.

Okay then, show me. Solve it. After you. Show Leo how it's done. You don't understand what awakening is or what Buddhism really teaches. Impermanence does not contradict Absolute Consciousness. Everything impermanent is Eternal and Absolute.

I have no idea. I have not heard anything negative. I assumed Charlie was happy with it. But who knows. The thing is, his Orange audience will turn on him if he goes too far into Turquoise/mysticism. They will eat him alive. So these types of interview could earn him some backlash. Anyone who associates with my ideas too much will face backlash from normies: "How dare you invite his lunatic to your show! I trusted you."

You're just selfish and too scared to give it up.

You answered your own question. Selfish people hold political positions which serve them personally the most. It's class bias. I would expect someone with $100 million dollars to be a conservative just for the tax breaks. That's only one factor. Another factor is that they are selfish and self-biased, which means they vote only based on what personally serves them. A stage Orange person's worldview is commonly all about unchecked capitalism. The more she benefits from unchecked capitalism and materialism the more that worldview will feel true and real. Jenner is entitled and materialistic as fuck. Of course she doesn't care about helping poor people by deconstructing capitalism. Her entire run for gov is just a personal publicity stunt, like Kanye West and Trump. That's how these people operate. They don't give a fuck about actually doing good governance. To them this job is a way to be famous and grift off the fame.

You can even love Hitler. If you dare Why the fuck not? What is hating him going to do for you? You feel good hating Hitler? Yes or no? I'm asking you.

Well, that's an open question. We'll see about that. To guide people to Infinite Love.

Of course Infinite Self-Understanding. I would say the biggest thing is that your consciousness becomes "Absolutized". By which I mean, everything you are conscious of is seen as existing absolutely and eternally. For example, right now as I type this and look at my hands, I know for a fact that my hands are Absolute. My hands exist for Eternity. My hands are God's hands. I exist Eternally and I will never die. I don't claim to be above Jesus. I am Jesus and everything else in the Universe. When you fully awaken you will realize that performing miracles is unnecessary because that assumes reality isn't already perfect. If you assume for a minute that reality as you see it is and has always been absolutely perfect, then the idea that you should interfere with the flow of reality in order to manipulate it with miracles can be seen as a delusion. It's ego who thinks that miracles ought to be performed because ego is unable to see that what is already the case is perfect. Ego actually believes it can improve reality, which is pure hogwash. You can't make reality any more perfect than God has. This is the core arrogance and delusion of the ego. The ego wants powers to manipulate reality to suit itself. But God-realization is the death of that ego. The ego does not end up with special powers. The ego is killed so deeply that it never even existed. Well, actually you're very wrong about that. If you actually became infinitely conscious you would realize that making the state permanent is an egoic desire and that you do not want the state to be permanent precisely because God-mode is so boring. You didn't become a human by accident. You decided to become a human because it was in the higher Good and because you are playing an Eternal game of hide and seek. You think you want infinite power, but once you get it, you will realize that existence becomes totally meaningless and pointless. And thus you will decide to lower your state of consciousness -- to fall asleep -- so that you could struggle to awaken again. You cannot awaken without falling asleep. And God cannot be all-powerful unless it is capable of putting itself to sleep. God definitely puts itself to sleep and this is not a fault or error within God. It is the very structure of what God is. God is an infinite dreamer. God is not just the highest state of consciousness, God is all lower states of consciousness too! Your idea is to lock God down into the highest state of consciousness. But this is precisely a mistake which would limit Infinite Consciousness. The bottom line is you do not understand what you're asking for because you are not infinitely consciousness. If you dislike the lower states, you misunderstand God. You are not understanding the depth of the Love because your ego is still biased and selfish. You only want the highest love, not the lowest. But Absolute LOVE must include the lowest. It is you who don't get it. Humility is irrelevant. What I told is you is true and accurate. If you don't want to accept it that's not my problem.

I don't even know if I want to at this rate because there is no benefit in it for me when people are so set on misunderstanding what is said. It's like a projection nightmare. These ideas will only make sense to the right audience. I cannot take a room full of clueless, closedminded materialists and convince them of anything spiritual. To attempt such feats is an exercise in stupidity and demeaning to my intelligence. That's what's called casting pearls before swine.

I didn't have any worry. You assume I did for some odd reason. You frame it as though I had some desperate need for people to understand. No. I wasn't stressing out. Sigh... you just can't win with some people. You are the one who's framing me as defensive. But, hey, you are constructing your reality, so frame away.

That's exactly what makes a conversation confusing. If I let the conversation just go anywhere, nothing would be understood at all. Letting someone pepper you with random questions about God is a recipe for disaster. Let me try to pepper you with random rapid-fire questions like: Does God exist? What is God? How do you know? But what if you're deluded? But what if you're hallucinating? Prove it to me But science says there is no God But science says your enlightenment experiences are just brain activity If God exists, why did the Holocaust happen? What if truth is just pragmatism? These questions cannot just be asked casually in conversation. You can't be like, "Relax, just have a casual conversation, bro. Don't worry about anything." And then be like, "Bro! You didn't explain God in a slam-dunk way like you do in a 3 hr prepared lecture." A casual conversation meanders and explains little. If anything I'm getting criticized for being too casual. I was just having a pleasant conversation with Charlie. I was not trying to build a rock solid case for anything. This was not some logical proof I was constructing. He asked me random questions and I answered them with awareness to how my answers would trigger normie defenses. I was not nervous or tense at all. These kind of talks are very easy for me personally. The problem is that a casual convo will not explain Truth to any normie listening in. If you ask me for a random example of a scientific paradigm change, and I respond with Einstein, this will tell you nothing about why science is fundamentally misguided.

Well, that assumes you've already got enough air to hold you over. Which means you were breathing to begin with. But anyway, there's not much point splitting hairs about this. These low level needs are obvious and no one is disputing them. And their precise order is irrelevant since your body handles that stuff for you automatically anyway. It knows the order you need when. The order is gonna be contextual too. You are not going to drink water if you know there's a crocodile right where you drink.

I understand it without explanation.

When Ramana Maharshi got cancer his followers tried to get doctors to come look at him to heal him. His response was something along the lines of: "Who cares? It's just a body." When you are that awake you literally don't give a fuck about anything. No condition of life is better than any other. An fully awakened person cannot die. He is conscious forever, regardless of what happens to his body. So losing the body makes no difference.

That's the catch-22 of this business. On the one hand you guys want me out there talking to people on normie shows. Then when those normies fail to understand anything or run amok, then you say: Look what you did, Leo! Pick what you want: 1) Do you want normies to know about God, or 2) Do you not? If you want normies to know about God, then realize that they will fuck it up badly, as they have for the last 2000 years. Or if you don't, then stop telling me that I should go on Joe Rogan and such. How do you imagine Joe Rogan fans will react to what I teach? They will think I'm insane and they will blame Rogan for having me on. That's how normies react to Truth. I can't fix that. There is no way to make Actualized.org a mainstream accepted teaching. That expectation deeply misunderstands the depth of the epistemic quagmire society is in. God cannot be mainstreamed. Not unless you completely pervert it into falsehood.

"Becoming a madman" is just a fear you have that keeps you from realizing you're God.

They all worked. That's like saying, if you had 130 orgasms, the first 129 didn't work. In the same way you count orgasms or dreams. There are many degrees of awakening and consciousness. Consciousness can expand or contract without any limitations. How do you think you got unwoke in the first place? If consciousness could not contract, you could not awaken because you'd already be woke and spirituality would not exist since you would be fully conscious that you're God at all times. You also could not be human. You can only be ignorant of things because your consciousness is contracted. Uncontracted consciousness is absolutely omniscient. If you are not aware of how you created every hair on your ass, your consciousness must be contracted. Since you create everything. Do you honestly think that God does not know how it created the hairs on your ass? If no, you're underestimating God. If yes, then you've separated yourself from God. If you are not omniscient you are not fully conscious. It's just that simple.

That is not possible because without addressing the confusions and defense mechanisms it will not penetrate the mind. The mind has an immune-system-like shield which instantly gets activated when any serious metaphysical issue is brought up, or any serious deconstruction is done. It may feel that way to you, but if you listen to the entire thing, I answered all his questions. It just took some time. If you ask me a question like, "What are the problems of science?" or "How important were psychedelics in your life?", there is no quick way to answer that such that a normie would get it.

Because it is impossible. Charlie would not know what questions to ask in what order to get something like one of my videos. This is why I rarely do conversations with people. The interviewer does not know the depth of what he is asking. We waste most of the time clearing up confusions and defense mechanisms. To get a conversation as substantial as one of my videos the interviewer would need have a depth of consciousness and knowledge that I have. Such people nearly do not exist. And if they do, they don't have massive YT channels or general audiences. There is a fundamental limitation in explaining these topics to a general, causal stage Orange audience. No amount of skill can overcome that limitation. The best that can be done is a bit better. But it will never be some homerun that leads to some profound awakening. Conversation is not suited to this work. Which is why I generally avoid it. If I want to explain something serious, having a person asking me question is actually an obstacle. My videos are as dense and direct as things can get short of a book. Any conversation I have will be less dense because it will meander around and devolve into an infinite chain of follow up question. Conversations are not lectures. They are just random questions. Imagine trying to learn calculus with little mathematical experience by asking random questions for 2 hours. It's impossible. It would all sound like word salad and woo-woo. I have spent more time studying these issues than you spent years learning mathematics. And you still suck at math. And I consider Charlie a good stage Yellow interviewer. Just imagine how bad it would get if I was speaking to a defensive Tier 1 person like Richard Dawkins. It would get real bad. And that's exactly as it should be, because the interviewer and his audience are playing a game of defending their constructions of reality. What is not understood by people is that a conversation is never a genuine inquiry into truth. Truth cannot be reached via conversation, ever. Because the person you are talking to does not even exist but in your own mind. If you were conscious of the truth you would not be having a conversation in the first place. Conversations are for entertainment, not truth. If you expect my podcast appearances to deliver you some epic deep understanding, you should drop that fantasy now because it won't happen. The format does not allow that. If you want some deep understanding of anything I talk about you'll need 10 hrs minimum. Just to understand Spiral Dynamics takes at least 20 hours of study. And that's way easier to understand than something like science or God.

My only frustration is not enough time. I enjoyed the conversation. These kind of conversations are very easy for me. The problem is dumbing it down to a level the audience can follow. Dumbing it down in the right way takes a lot of skill and I still need to get better at that.

The problem is that the questions Charlie asked were so deep it would require a 5 hr conversation. Something like deconstructing science just cannot be done in 60 minutes because there are too many defense mechanisms to address. Deconstructing science would take at least 5 hrs. And we talked about a lot more topics than that. Each topic Charlie asked about is a 5 hr conversation. This is the difficulty of talking about this stuff in a casual way to a general audience who has zero foundation in metaphysics or epistemology. It is like trying to explain calculus to an audience who never even learned arithmetic. Charlie's audience is gonna be very stage Orange so they will be extremely skeptical of anyone who questions science. That is a huge red flag in their mind. Because if science can be deconstructed their whole reality collapses and that is totally unacceptable. Which is why my videos are so long.