Gesundheit

Okay. I revoke your bot identity. Looking back, I may have been a little bit too perfectionist. However, something about this still feels strange for me for some reasons, but I'm not going to continue with the discussion. For me now it's time for more contemplation. Thanks for your time, and sorry for any inconvenience.

@Farnaby ?? Thank you. Exactly. @Carl-Richard @Moon Not even once have I seen a moderator disagreeing in the way you're describing. But even that I wouldn't consider disagreement. I'm talking about something similar to Sadhguru's views on psychedelics, or Ralston's views on both love and psychedelics, etc... These kinds of things mods never disagree with Leo about. Notice these are just two examples. There is also politics. But the point is that the disagreements have to be clear and not simply some relative multi-perspectival matters. There are things that are binary. You can't say love is an absolute truth and reality is not love at the same time. You have to have an opinion, or remain silent. All mods seem to agree that reality is love. That's what I'm referring to here.

@Forestluv I'm sorry. I took a quick overlook at your latest posts and didn't read them thoroughly. You don't seem to give any examples for the thing I'm asking about. For that reason I don't want to keep engaging with this discussion as you're probably defending some position with a dogmatic attitude. I've asked you twice to show me an example of a moderator disagreeing with Leo, or vice-versa. And I was generous and agreed with you that these kinds of disagreements are "tier 2" level. Yet, you never gave me even one example. For the last time, show me one example of such disagreements so that I may be able to see what I'm missing. Something like Ralston disagreeing on Love, or psychedelics. Otherwise I gotta apologize, and this discussion will be over.

Becoming more conscious is a relative thing. Imagine a society where everyone adopts idealism as the mainstream ideology, to make discoveries within materialism would create an expansion higher than to keep studying idealism. God is the devil.

I don't see a valid reason for shutting down the thread though. This is the place for discussing these things after all. Otherwise, why does the forum even exist?

Sorry, but that does not apply when it comes to spirituality. I could spend 40 years on the path and reach nowhere significant while trying all the techniques, and some other guy who is born naturally talented could realize God and have more clarity even than Sadhguru or Adyashanti. Spirituality is not a science. You don't get insights by adding information, but by removing false information. Awareness is a major component in spirituality, and it's unquantifiable. So I don't know how you're comparing the two. I don't agree with that. New insights are appreciated more often than not only if they're in agreement with former insights. For example, Leo says reality is love. I say it's not, and that that's just a partial truth. This is a direct disagreement that always ends with the same conclusion. Anyone who does not agree with Leo is "not awake", and Ralston is "probably playing coy". I don't want to start a discussion about this. Just giving one example. Show me one example.

And so is materialism.

No, no no no no no no. That's totally incorrect. The truth is "unpointable" so to speak. It can be described, but all descriptions would be equally true, whether materialistic or idealistic or anything else.

Knowing the truth is impossible. It would take an infinite number of thoughts to know the whole truth. But yeah, a seeker can become conscious of the truth, even though it doesn't have anything to do with either materialism or idealism. Truth is not a philosophy or an ideology. It's un-understandable, because it's infinite.

Doesn't sound like a newbie to me. They seemed to have a certain level of realization, and imo they deserve a chance to get more clarity or offer better explanations for what they said. Nothing inflammatory or trollish about that thread. Imo this is irrelevant. Who knows? The poster didn't even get a chance to reply to my response. Maybe they'll be able to change my understanding.

@meow_meow And what about this most recent one?

lol that's a nice story that the nondualists like to tell themselves. In reality, it makes no difference whatsoever whether you are a materialist or a nondualist. The truth will still be the truth, untouched, as it is. Absolute.

This is a really good way to put it. You excel at expression. I sincerely admire that. However, I'm saying that on the vertical axis, we can take turns. Leo is not always the teacher, and we are not always the students. This taking turns dynamic is very valuable, and imo it would be a shame to dismiss it. Even if I was, I would still be humble. But no, I'm not. Sure. Show me one example of this on the forum.

@meow_meow You asked a question, and I gave you an answer. ?? Maybe I should have been clearer. In real life, your life is at stake. You have to make rules to protect yourself from psychopaths and criminals. The internet is very different. You can't kill others with words. Of course you can argue about the impact of words and its importance, but that's your responsibility for the most part. Otherwise, you shouldn't use the internet. There are a lot of disturbing stuff on there. Plus, it's impossible to know the outcome of any communication. Leo may say that everything is love, and then as a result you may go and break-up with your bf/gf, or even worse, go and kill others because everything is love.

@Forestluv I think you're being a little bit too generous here to assume that either mods or Leo can claim such levels. Especially when it comes to spirituality, you can never know other people's life experiences and insights and their depth. To me, it's rather stupid to evaluate insights based on the source/person. Everyone is prone to delusion equally. And we can derive insights from a meatball. So I can't really see the point here, unless you mean you've figured everything out and you're on top of the world and therefore can never learn anymore. But let's put all that behind and focus on the main point: I've never seen two "native speaking Spanish teachers" disagreeing on anything here on the forum. Also, don't you think it's arrogant to assume that all others that disagree with Leo are always at a "student" level? Maybe sometimes, but always? Come on. Just because some people show their disagreements in different ways than you wish for does not automatically make them at a "student" level. The level of insight does not have to necessarily match the level of expression. Some people are better at expression than others. That doesn't make the insights of those others of less value or less truth. These are two different parameters. I may suck at communicating my insights to a materialist. That doesn't mean he's correct, obviously.

@meow_meow I would have slapped you for that answer, but unfortunately we're on the internet and I can't do it.

Because obviously words are just words.

@Forestluv What you're saying is in no way exclusive to moderators/Leo. A lot of highly developed people are on the forum as well, and they disagree with Leo. That doesn't make them underdeveloped, but just honest.

Here's the catch: They're only stuck (pragmatism/materialist paradigm) from your pov. However, from their pov, you are the one who's actually stuck (philosophy/mental masturbation). Enjoy the meta view.

This kind of reply (gaslighting/strawmanning) makes me wonder if some of you (mods) have an independent mind of yours or if Leo can somehow control you telepathically. None of you seem to have ever disagreed with anything Leo says. Not even once have I ever seen a moderator having a discussion with Leo with an opposing opinion. You're never in disagreement. And I'm not talking about some toxic pointless kind of back and forth arguing, just a simple civil disagreement. Never. Not even once. Is this a coincidence? Or does Leo's enlightenment somehow come in the same package with the green letters? Dude, your way not thinking at all. Start using your mind.

See, this gets problematic, because we should also assume the same thing about the other side. Of course, assuming we want to be objective. And honestly, phrasing it like this makes it sound like Leo is the ultimate authority that knows better than everyone else, and that everyone else is just puppets that are supposed to be nodding their heads to whatever he says. These lines are completely drawn arbitrarily. Who is ignorant, and who is not? Of course, Leo would think that everyone else is ignorant except himself. And I would think everyone else is ignorant except myself. And you would think everyone else is ignorant except yourself. But this eventually becomes an excuse for closed-mindedness. Okay, we have the truth right here. Anyone who disagrees cannot be above us, and therefore they're below us, and therefore they're wrong and deluded. And BAM, they deserve the ban. Even though, a lot of times the critics are generally very neutral and don't have sharp edges or any trollish attitudes, you'll usually see Leo bashing them with something harsh. And now you're justifying this behavior as the right thing to do. Come on, man. Plus, these new policies are probably motivated by some political disagreements about how corrupt Trump is. I've only seen Leo emphasizing on the guidelines and forum policies after he started his political route. Before that, he was very tolerant of all perspectives and the forum was doing very well.

No problem, and best of luck there.

I could hear the ban hammer in the nearby

I would feel offended if someone said something like this to me. I understand that you love animals and can't stand the thought of them being hurt, but be careful not to hurt people while protecting animals. Everyone deserves love and compassion. And quite frankly your post is literally shaming the other person for sharing their truth, that's how it will be interpreted by them. Anyone who has common sense will interpret your post as a personal attack, not as a genuine advice. I know you didn't intend to, but hell is paved with good intentions. I can imagine the same information delivered, even in a higher quality, if you won't let being triggered control your response. There is a gap in communication here, and you can work on it. It's not entirely the OP's fault. People who are giving advice should be the ones with more understanding and more compassion, not the other way around. The receiver should show respect and give love in return. That's how the healthy dynamic looks like. It starts from you, not from the receiver.