Derek White

If you are having trouble with nihilism Leo has published a special episode just about it, and he has been talking about resolving this issue for as long as I can remember. I can name at least 5 videos where he resolves this problem. People following him really shouldn't be having this problem.

Is the difference that in do-nothing we are trying to chase a mystical experience and shutting our thoughts and movements, while in satisfaction we are not chasing and don't try to stop our thoughts and movements? I think I have been doing both of these at different times and merging them at other times without even realizing. I find that when I meditate I experience reality as it is on deeper and deeper levels, and that brings me a lot of pleasure, even if the experience is unpleasurable like sadness or pain, I feel pleasure on a higher level. Also, the thoughts stop on their own after some time. So in that sense these two merge together when I meditate; I don't need to do anything to feel satisfied, so I don't do anything.

@Leo Gura For me do-nothing has always been satisfying. I thought you satisfaction meditation was just another facet of do-nothing.

Leo says intermediate awakenings are almost impossible with normal meditation and yoga but, I have experienced all the intermediate awakening with very little do-nothing meditation, walking, contemplating, and listening to various teachers like Leo. I still feel I can squeeze more juice from these traditional practices since I didn’t even pursue then full-time. Does this make me special, idk? I’m guessing there are others like me. To all the people arguing and debating Buddhism and awakening, it is counter productive, it is not going to help anybody, you have to realize these things yourself not prove it from outside, you can’t even fully articulate these things, so please stop.

In my opinion, there are much more serious difficulties people face in work, like unfair job treatment, delayed salaries, no benefits, no unions, working in sweatshops, lack of safety regulations, corruption, abuse, racism, etc. All this is peanuts compared to colleagues not sending condolences. I don’t expect colleagues to do that, or wish me happy birthday or bring me presents on Christmas. That’s a very high expectation for any work environment. That’s something I expect close friends to do. I mean, in which work environment do they do that? Unless you’re a part of a tight-nit small business with family and friends, it’s doesn’t happen anywhere around the world. In my opinion, his expectations are too high, judging from a more global perspective.

Some of his complaints seem related to salary, category his courses were put under, tenure, etc. Maybe other forum members know more about these. Complaining about not receiving condolences on his mother's death... that's not something colleagues are obliged to do and that's not something related to the profession. I don't think that's something to complain about. It is something people give on their own free accord... one doesn't expect it from people. I thought it was weird of him to say that. On the other hand, congratulating someone on career advancement is way more normal in a work setting. I thought it was revealing and kind of petty that he focuses so much on this and compares it to career advancement, and counts the number of replies.

Sigh..., that's the wrong interpretation. It is suppose to mean your life will be richer in terms of it's depth of experience, it does NOT mean better off materially. Privileged people who don't take life seriously suffer more than many under-privileged people who have taken the time to invest in philosophy, wisdom, truth, beauty, career, life purpose, etc. The reward here is satisfaction and depth of experience, not material well meaning. There's a world outside of the US where people work way harder living under abject poverty, these people may even have more intelligence and talent, obviously people don't get the same results for the same amount of work, people are literally born into royalty still.

I’ve been listening to this podcast by Tristan Harris and Aza Raskin for almost a year now. It is one of the most intelligent podcasts I’ve come across. This takes a systemic approach to understanding the world’s current issues. I was waiting for someone to post a link to it in the forum before me, at last I thought I’ll do it myself. Here’s the links: Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4KI3PtZaWJbAWK89vgttoU?si=4N3i8mGoTEy3rKesyPJoJA&dl_branch=1 Apple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/your-undivided-attention/id1460030305

I have noticed that references are immensely important in getting a job where I live. However, under the garb of wanting to know more about a candidate to get a wholistic picture, they end up being the cause of undeserved job hiring, elitisms, favoritism, nepotism and corruption. References are more important than merit. I have seen people as cashiers and front end workers who can barely speak English fluently, the only reason they got the job, it seems, is because they knew someone in the corporation who was willing to be their refence, and often times this turns into clusters of curtain ethnicities (and even family members) keeping certain departments all to themselves since people of the same community are more likely to reference each other. I personally know people who tried to get a job without a reference but where unable to, but got a job without the employer checking their resume once they could convince someone to become a reference within the company. I have overheard HR people who are involved in hiring saving spots for their "children's friend". Isn't there a way to pass a legislation that puts a stop to such practices, especially ones where the reference is inside the company? There should be other ways to conduct the selection process without having practices that make it easier to enable favoritism in the name of lofty ideals. This seems like an important discussion but no one seems to be addressing it.

You can say that for any problem. We would be better off as a society if we actually addressed it. Maybe there are places out there which do not have this problem. We can definitely reduce its severity.

It doesn't really matter, but somewhere in North America. I see clusters of a particular ethnicities and even families in some cases dominating particular fields by referencing each other. It makes it harder for talented new comers, immigrants, refuges, and under privileged people to survive. This problem is not just in companies but also in the govt. jobs. Companies can have a contract with the govt. and the line can be quite thin sometimes. For example, someone I know worked for a company that had a contract with the govt. and it later got acquired by the govt. so the employees and the practices remained. This government organization also had the problem I mentioned. If I'm not wrong this kind of "corruption" is common around bureaucracies in the world. But how far do you want companies to take this liberty In a world and economy dominated with privately owned companies? This would be and is grossly unfair, if would just keep the wealth and power in the hands of those who already have it and make it harder for skilled poor people from moving up society who lack networks in certain areas. It prevents social mobility and actually skilled and deserving people from coming up. If you value merit than there are tons of systemic issues with this practice. We are basically saying whether on not you get a job is more dependent on who you know and less on your merit. There are so many problems if you think about it. The best people for the job are not winning in this system, it's the ones with contacts. If you are somebody who's parents didn't help you or didn't have a big network, you moved cities, immigrated, or people from your background don't know people in a particular field then the systemic problem really starts kicking in. Like someone is able to get a job at McDonalds because they got a family member working there, how is this not a systemic problem, meanwhile you can keep applying and won't get in. This is the definition of corruption. I guess if you believe in free market capitalism then it may not be a problem for you, but it is not a meritocracy and gives a upper hand to the privileged. For example, the real estate agents in my area are part of various companies. They help sell and buy homes. What they do is they give preference to real estate agents who are from the same company, this way the money stays within the same network of people. Like if I'm a real estate agent who brings a buyer to an agent from a different company, the guy may raise the price for me because I'm not part of his company and lower it for a realtor he knows or is from his company. This makes things harder for the buyers and sellers. Perhaps this is not the best example and this is just one case. But there is a lack of honesty and fairness, people are getting ahead cause they are part of a privileged group, the best realtor is not winning in this situation and his customers are also losing.

This is a great video and a youtuber. For those of us who are too lazy or too busy to read up on colonialism this video helps us see these effects though a well known fictitious world. Sometimes good fiction can make learning more accessible to laymen.

Along with a conceptual understanding bias, Leo has a bias toward American/Western culture. Spiral Dynamics and his talks suggest other culture are something humans have evolved past or are inferior to Western culture; or that's what many people probably take away from his teachings. All his teaching are framed in a Christian vocabulary as well. I don't think Leo knows these other cultures too well since he hasn't lived among them. Many of these "primitive" people seems to live in harmony with nature, have sustainable life styles, have lives filled with meaning and purpose, have a deep spiritual tradition and a sense of community. Our modern Western culture seems to be filled with lack of purpose, nihilism, confusion, loneliness, unsustainable ways of living, and hedonism. It may be better in some areas, but I don't think I have enough confidence to say it's better overall. Sure, these other cultures may have less personal autonomy but they live sustainably, have a community, and don't live just for themselves. Who's to say which one is higher or lower? If anything we need to learn from them.

No, it's more like you will transcend your desire for chocolate ice cream once you reach high levels of consciousness because there will be no like or dislike at that level.

I'm not worried about your embodiment. I'm just having a conversation. Embodiment is understanding. You cannot understand color without seeing it.

Lol not just praise, everything you do is manipulation! Otherwise why else would you do anything? Your purpose is to "manipulate" reality to the version of it you want. When you praise something, at the very least you want the other person to feel good about what they did. That's manipulating/changing reality. Why do you care if the other person doesn't feel good about what they did? Why do you want to make other people feel good? If you were truly selfless, you wouldn't care to praise anybody. Everything would just be perfect as it is. When you accept everything as it is that's true love. I'm not saying don't manipulate, just be mindful that you're doing it. Manipulate mindfully.

You mean a reasonable amount of understanding without having to fully embody the thing you are trying to understand. In which case it's still partial understanding. Embodiment and understanding are not different, they are the same. You need to shed biases to make better blueprints, which is basically embodiment. But it is desirable to embody god or higher states of consciousness, is it not? Or maybe you think it will happen on it's own, no need to rush it? Isn't this whole thing coming because you are not conscious enough? If tomorrow you raised your level of consciousness then perhaps you would value embodiment over understanding. Raising of consciousness tends to change one's set of values. Like, this whole thing is coming because you embody Leo Gura and are attached to Leo Gura, you fear embodiment, you fear losing your false self, but that also keeps you alive.

No you can't. Your understanding will be incomplete. To fully understand Hitler you would have to embody Hitler. The same is true of levels of consciousness. You cannot know level 100 consciousness if you are at level 1. Even if you reached level 100 and fell back to level 1, then you will only retain a fraction of understanding of level 100 not all of it. It's sort of like a blind man trying to understand color, except in consciousness's case, the blind man only understands color if he is seeing it in real time. Not to mention, there are limits to how much you can understand if you don't embody. Embodiment basically means shedding of biases. If you have biases towards your culture, sex, food, etc. then you can't get an accurate blueprint. To do that you would need to let go of these attachment to be meta/unbiased, which is embodiment. In this way, embodiment and understand are not two different things.

Hi Leo, I don't have any fundamental disagreements with you on anything. I only have one gripe: Why don't you take any action against users like @Preety_India? She has spammed this thread multiple times, made multiple posts about unrelated topics here. She makes multiple posts in sub-forums which if made by other users would probably get banned for not being serious enough. Like the user before me said, her behavior on the forum is very irritating. There are too many things to list. In all honesty, you and the mod seem biased toward her. If it was any other user you would have banned them or at least told them to clean up their act. Just because she is friends with some people here and is an old member doesn't mean she should get away with bad attitude. You can't have a proper conversation with members like her. The worse part about is that once you encounter such members you start to talk in their language. I have seen my posts get nastier after having conversations with her. She just ruins the whole experience. I've had arguments with other users but none have been as bad as her. It also creates a sense of unfairness; you go easy on some members and hard on others. And if you want me to leave this forum for pointing this out I gladly will, I think it's completely unfair that a user like this exists under your nose and you do nothing about it. If it was anyone else you would do something about them. I was about to point out the same thing, @Tetcher2 beat me by seconds. Very well put. Also, I just think that your own posts on the forum can be very insensitive. I know you're going to say as you become more conscious you start caring less what other have to say, but I would tell you that if you truly don't care then you should stop posting videos to help people all together. If your goal is to help people, your occasional insensitive comments here create needless drama and are not helping. Being "authentic" shouldn't mean blurting anything that comes to your mind. So that something to be aware of as well.

The video was meh, it had a lot of technical words which I didn't understand and talked about suppressing emotions which I don't agree with. I think women are more selective when choosing partners (it has to do with historical and survival reasons). Men, on the other hand, will have sex with almost any woman, even if they are below them in value. It's the difference between trying to attract a rock star versus struggling to attract even one partner. I think most women don't realize that men have to struggle hard to sell themselves to be attractive. It's an active role. It's like women want a knight in shining armor, but men will not mind having sex with just any woman and they have to struggle to get that, it doesn't come walking to you. And the knight in shining armor will not mind having sex with women below him either. It's not symmetrical, women are a lot more selective, unlike men. From the male perspective, the problem is women are too selective. Don't turn this into a negative, but we shouldn't ignore it either.

It's a good video as usual. I have one minor objection, towards the end when you start deconstructing Jordon Peterson's metaphysics, you make it sound like going from green to yellow means losing your mind in nihilism and relativism and ultimately reaching infinite love. This is more like enlightenment. Green to yellow would be realizing nihilism and relativism to a degree, and then consciously constructing a hierarchy of values because you need that to live. You were talking about how JP can get enlightened, but it came across as moving from green to yellow. What happens is you start with a little bit of relativism, then you start valuing going deeper into relativism, and then ultimately you give up relativism as a value as well, you kinda missed that middle step. Basically I'm saying you made it sound like every stage yellow person was God realized, which isn't true and those are separate things. I would still recommend to avoid making videos reacting to outside trends, events and people. The rest is up to you. Maybe you're trying to reach a broader audience with this.

Leo Gura, now. This is reactionary by his own definition.

Oh man, I hate to see you do reactionary content. You even said you won’t do reactionary shit. Make original shit please, if you can. There are so many other cool topics that you can choose from. This would’ve been an acceptable blog video, though your core audience already knows the faults of JP. You’re repeating yourself and making videos about things that can be easily inferred from previous material. You said you won’t do this in a recent video too. Where’s the integrity part 2?

He has a problem with the scientific method. There are other ways of knowing other than the scientific method. Scientific method isn't the best method to Truth either. Besides, how do you know your categories, your measurements and assumptions are correct? The whole scientific method is based on categories and language, which is based in duality. All this is duality, in reality there is only non-duality, all categories are illusions. Plus, there's stuff you can never prove, actually you can't prove anything, see Leo's "Explicit vs Implicit Understanding" video for that. Science is good for understanding things within maya or the illusion. The only method is raising of awareness or consciousness itself. Consider this, how do you know the scientific method is accurate? Through awareness. So ultimately there is only awareness that's the deciding factor on truth. Why don't you ask awareness directly for truth?

Could have given shorted and straight forward answers. For example, Charlie asked Leo how would a normal person question the assumption that only living beings have consciousness? Leo could have pointed out that the line between living and non-living isn't so clear, or that living beings are themselves made up of non-living things. Instead, he went on a long speech which didn't address the question directly. He should use paradoxes and limitations in language and logic to open people's minds. Also, it would be a good idea to tell people that just because reality is an illusion, doesn't mean they have to stop surviving. When Leo says to deconstruct reality people take that as going to the hills and leaving everything behind. I would also like to mention Charlie was exceptionally open minded and familiar with Leo's work. This is the easiest, most understanding interviewer Leo's going to get. I was familiar with his channel but now I am going to check out his channel properly, he seems like an intelligent guy.