Karl-Heinz Mueller

Oh cool, so the Holy Inquisition now also locked Karl-Heinz' heretic final contemplation thread (for no given reason). Well, it had it's holy reasons, I'm sure! ^^ It may feel free to also lock or delete Karl-Heinz' account now, who will never return to this carnival club here ever again.

Dude, you claimed that #Mickey Mouse niveau

Alrighty, I decided to offer a as a parting gift a contemplation to this community before I depart from this community for good. If you are X * the variable X here you may fill with whatever comes to your mind, as for instance: your body your mind your heart your emotions Leo Love god the universe whatever then, if that X was who or what you really are, you could control it. That is to say, you could make these things go according to your will. And you could make them last for as long as you wish. And if you can not do that (which I bet everything that these is in the world for) you are not these things. Simple as that. Well then, I invite you to reflect further: Why does Leo (who - by his own admission - is „god‟) need to resort to material substances like 5-MeO-DMT to gain a „god‟ or „enlightenment‟ experience? Like, would „god‟ really need to do that? What kind of Mickey Mouse version of a god would that be? If he was in control of his „godhood‟, he could command these experiences at will and without further ado, and he could, once he had entered such an experience, make it last for as long as he wished to. Can he do that? I offer this for your contemplation. Anyway, that’s it from my part. Should any questions regarding this contemplation come up I would probably not mind to answer them. All the best Karl-Heinz Müller

There is need to discuss this at all. If you found out that control and will "really is", like you say, then show it. To yourself. Or to me. Come on, show it. Or ask Leo to show it. I'm waiting. ^^ And by the way: I'm just reacting to your comments, in case Leo would suspect me of "trolling".

Correctus. The everything you cannot control? I guess I need to take the "little dust in their eyes" back. ^^ Like I said, I offer this for your comtemplation. Again, it is up to you whether you do that contemplation. ^^ Do it without deluding yourself ~if you dare~ ^^

Seems like someone with "little dust in their eyes". Congratulations! No objections on my part.

Oh dear. Are we back to Mickey Mouse niveau again? This question pertains to you, so you can answer it for yourself. ^^ And, again, it is totally up to you as to whether you want to delude yourself in answering this question. ^^

Well, call it a wordplay, It is totally up to you whether you feel like deluding yourself in regarding not being in control of something as a meaningful or satisfactory definition of "being" something. ^^

I guess you can find the answer yourself, by answering my question:

Well, that's what is takes to be something, in an ultimate sense. Would any weaker definition of being, in an ultimate sense, satisfy you? If you clam to be something, but cannot control that what you claim to be, what petty form of being is that? After all you still may call it "being" if you like to, and even claim you are "god" (if you are particularly deluded or dumb), but all you do is deluding yourself with a petty wordplay.

Alrighty, so my thread "Overcoming Spirituality" was closed by Leo. I didn't expect all-too much out of it, indeed it was pretty naive of me to expect anything out of it in terms of any self-reflective reply of Leo, in the first place. Finally Leo remarked that I am As to that, Leo, both of us agree unanimously, and I consent wholeheartedly. I am clearly not ready for "this work" in the same why that I feel clearly not ready to join some kind of spiritual carnival association. Best Karl-Heinz Müller

Bruh, I guess you should read the discussion to its end and look up some of my later replies. I felt that my business here was to be someone who holds up a mirror to you Leo to make you aware of the red cardboard nose you are wearing. But for someone who is enshrouded in dark mist, any mirror of whatever kind is of no use. Having recognized that, my business here is over. All the best Karl-Heinz Müller

Wow, first time I hear someone saying that here! I know he is human (not "human too", but "human only"). Like I said, it would be okay for me too, but is not okay after he said that, no to mention all his god jokes. That casts an infinitely huge dark cloud over his entire work. Noone must complain about having troll armies flood on them after having proclaimed such a travesty to the entire planet. Thank you, you expressed it very well. Yeah, if I look at some the the threads here it kind of feels like as if I had entered a regulars' table of spiritual carnival orators (Büttenredner), with people competing with each other about who can make the best jokes, and the more ridiculous those jokes are, the better they are recognized. Like if I was to, say, come up with a weird concoction of the Mahayanic Heart Sutra mixed with some Waldorf education mixed with some new agey shaman mysticism and flavoured with some Celtic folklore perhaps, and make it sound great and how it helped me to "realize universal godhood", the table would go like: Wooow! That’s so deep! Give us more of that, swaying to and fro with their beers. And then if someone perhaps has an inkling of reality, sensing perhaps that this here is a joke, he is quickly recaptured by his peers, going like „naah bro, you only limit yourself! Come on, have more beer!" And if he then insists, he is issued a caution to be expelled from the club. Sehr gerne!

Hi Leo, Hi everyone, I have been consuming your stuff for some time by now. I was actually wondering whether it would be worth the time here to write a lengthy comment. I really do think that many of your non-esoteric teachings on your channel are quite valuable and courageously unconventional. And I also think that we should develop ourselves, and grow and refine our consciousnesses. That is good stuff, I appreciate it! From what I know I think that you are amongst the top league of Youtube high consciousness content providers. And I pull off my hat for that fact that you put it out for free. Props for doing that! But! With all due respect, Leo, in what follows I do not intend to adulate you, since that would be rather boring and not provide for a good discussion. I would like to share my overall critique of your teachings. And since other people also find the way you teach as somewhat aggressive, I say „If you dish it out, you have to be able to take it.‟ ;-) I myself like to be outright and outspoken, so to me it is not such a big problem. My critique is not all-encompassing. I did not watch every single of your videos. But a good chunk of it. Don’t let being as good as you are delude you into believing that you are infallible (you not rarely sound as of you believe yourself to be that). In every of your videos I have to more or less frown at several points due to the flawed reasoning that you display, or I notice points where you contradict yourself, even to things that you mentioned minutes ago in the same video (I could cite examples if you are interested, but they are not my main point here). Well, that is all okay, we all make mistakes and err from time to time. Yet I would not expect such mistakes of someone who thinks he is „god‟ (even the way you define that catchword)… It also sometimes seems to me that you wish to maintain a kind of „aura of enlightenment‟. You address too little self-doubt in your videos. Because you have to. Since if you would admit your doubts or occasional mistakes your teachings would not be as well received anymore (more on that later). Overall I get the impression that you – thanks to all the personal development and study you have done – have grown a huge, even somewhat arrogant and overbearing, spiritual ego. I miss humility a bit. This calling-yourself-god stuff is probably the most ludicrous outgrowth of it. From the way you speak I get the impression that you regard yourself as highly spiritually advanced, but that does not make you being exempt from ordinary manners. Straight away, I think it would be honest if you would just admit that you are just some guy, a human being of material form with quite some clever insights into life and the world, but whose spiritual pursuit is at odds with materialist science. As to that topic: What made me very curious, and what for the sake of transparency I think everyone of us needs to know, is why you did not react to this guy’s invitation to discuss with him, which you yourself wanted to do. Were you afraid? Was that one of your egoic defense mechanisms, afraid of transparency? Of course, materialist science is your natural enemy, that is why bringing it into disrepute is part of your agenda. Polemically imitating your manner I can just as well say that: „that is all it is… a spiritual ego that tries to defend its own spiritual deceptions.‟ I myself come from a Buddhist background, but was thankfully able to outgrow that stuff. That, to my experience, not many spiritual people seem capable or willing (I guess: most probably capable, but not willing) of performing. But why? Since we are at the topic: Why don’t you have a look at Early Buddhism? I see all your spirituality as a piecing-together and blending of old brahmanic teachings with new age hippy stuff, making it your own kind of cult. From what I have seen you are completely oblivious to Early Buddhism, which would wipe out your beliefs about non-dualism, god, nothingness as god.. Anyway, I know what it is like. I do meditate, I went on meditation retreats, I used to believe in reincarnation, enlightenment, karma, non-material realms – the whole gamut. I was married to the spirituality for many years. So… I kind of know my craft. But my „spiritual ego‟ was not able to defend itself against the rough honesty of existential, materialist nihilism. Are you afraid of that? Now, I know you well enough, you will probably say that I am deluded and don’t see the full picture, and so on. And what I reply to that is that you are not honest enough to see through your own spiritual craving. You deliberately picked out a form of spirituality that suited you and now take any bias to reinforce it. I know that one problem about giving up long-cherished beliefs is losing one’s face. It was quite embarrassing for me to reveal to my social environment at some point that I had renounced my faith in the teachings of the Buddha. Since before for years I had been talking to people a lot about Buddhist philosophy and occasionally even tried to encourage other people to look at Buddhist teachings and win them over and so on, then at some point you having to admit that I found out that I was wrong and misguided was not all-too pleasant. And it was emotionally inconvenient as well. Since Buddhist spirituality guided my world-view and gave me purpose and direction, and then I had to realize that I was naked in the cold... Let us face the facts: I guess that in your situation it would be far more unpleasant, since you have created a huge identity around being „the spiritual guy‟ („god‟, that is...) along with even a long-standing Youtube channel were you have been delivering that stuff to the whole planet for a decade. If then at some point you have to realize that you were completely mistaken, admitting that would get you into big trouble. What is more: that would feed the trolls for years to come. So in a sense you are imprisoned by now. You have invested so much into it that you now have to stick to that stuff, since contradicting it by now would be a huge mess. If you ask me, I would nonetheless encourage you to take that step …but I know how the ego works. ;-) And when I now say that, I would not be surprised if spiritual people will try to ridicule me or come up with some clever paradoxical spiritual nonsense, or be ultra-loving (to show my non-compassion) or whatever ...since I „do not understand the spiritual complexity and succumb to the ego mechanisms‟ yada yada yada… the usual thought-terminating clichés, those knockout arguments which you in turn reproach the opposite side (the materialists) for, but generously commit yourself, and which, if you were able to let go of them, would enable you to see through your fallacies. „You see? You guys have spiritual egos trying to defend themselves. That’s all it is.‟ Frankly, if you ask me than you can go and buy yourself a scoop of ice cream for the great „insights‟ that you had while under the influence of hallucinogenics. Of course you can always claim that there is stuff that is not accessible to the rational mind. For obvious reasons: claiming that is a survival strategy. The rational mind is the natural enemy to your ridiculous beliefs. So for those beliefs to be able to survive, they need to delude people into thinking that there was anything that is not accessible to the rational mind... "You see? The ego trying to defend itself" ^^ If you were honest and careful in your arguments than you would admit that all that probably shows is that the brain seems to be able to perform fancy stuff while under the influence of drugs. Apply Occam’s Razor, for a change. There is no need to get spiritual about it. But if you go about it with the preconceived notion of non-duality, enlightenment, emptiness, and all that stuff, than of course that is what you can experience with drugs, it is just a confirmation bias. That’s all. Just the fact that you, admittedly, can hardly (if at all – which I doubt) gain access to this stuff by non-material ways, that is, by not resorting to a material substance, should show you that what you experience is induced by a material cause, and belongs to the material world only. You yourself once mentioned something along the lines of „trying to achieve these states without hallucinogenics‟ would be „a waste of time‟. But I know the way the cookie crumbles. Your egoic spiritual defense mechanisms will that and come up with fantasy. Why would I deny and fight against spirituality? Because I want to defend my materialist ego? Actually, I would love to live in a world that is mystical, spiritual and somehow endowed with meaning and direction, but I am honest and experienced enough to no longer fall for that lie. I don’t like to kid myself. I would like to see materialism proven wrong, but none of that spiritual stuff convinces me anymore. If your thinking is sharp enough, you notice the fallacies and trick of your mind quite easily. And why should scientists think differently than I do? What agenda should fuel their disenchantment of the world other than the quest for truth? Capitalism, perhaps? Lol. Ego business? How come? In fact, by disenchanting the world science has inflicted on us humans what Freud appropriately has called „narcissistic injuries‟. Narcissistic injuries neither serve capitalism nor the ego. They were simply inevitable with the progress of science. What spirituality (as a backlash, so to speak) has been trying to do is to re-enchant the world. But since science is so good, spirituality these days has to resort to especially tricky things and esoteric reasoning, that are often, say, of epistemological nature and cannot be downright falsified. So then if anyone tries to attack that spirituality, these attacks are suffocated and ridiculed, thereby using the same defense mechanisms that you are blaming the materialists for using them. You will, for instance, call materialists narrow-minded, or say that science has an ego is just trying to maintain itself by putting down spirituality. If you ask me, that is what you are doing. Science is just disenchanting the world with the gloves off. I am not in the least bit intimidated by your teachings, if that is what you think. What worse could the world get than what science has turned it into? To use one of your favourite phrases: „Stop bullshitting yourself!‟. In addition to that, I don’t know if you have ever noticed Leo, but what I personally don’t like about the way you teach is that you blurt some of your theories, for instance your series about the mechanisms of survival, as if you have realized something of ingenious brilliance and crazy significance, while in fact most people with some common sense or decent education are able to understand and are half-aware of this stuff, anyway. When I watched that episode I was literally just bored of it, even anticipating correctly what was to come. But you proclaim that stuff as if you speak from some kind of higher plane of existence. In your episode „Is gender a social construct‟ you ask something like: Where in the nature you find gender? And that nature does not now any such categories. Well, that is a good point. But then again, where in the nature you see your „spiral dynamics‟? Nature does not know such stuff. Would you mind applying that same constructivist skepticism to your own ideas (Spiral Dynamics, in this case), for a change? What I see is just growing complexity amongst society, resulting in people of more complex consciousness, sometimes even more refined consciousness, if you will. But to argue that we are developing along lines of spiral dynamics and categorizing people into stages of spiral dynamics is a coarse generalization. Why is it that some people can embody a range of many stages in one person? Because that same persons spirals through many levels of consciousness in one mind? Anyway, I do miss skepticism of you applied to your own teachings. You like what you teach and don’t bother to apply some skepticism to it, unless it serves your purposes. I think that you are over-confident, especially about your esoteric stuff, and it does not seem to me that you apply double standards, guided by your likes and dislikes. You proclaim your stuff without a shimmer of doubt, as if you were infallible, which I guess is necessarily to convince oneself and others of it. And you do not even shy away from defending your own carnal craving for an intimate relationship with the opposite sex that you mentioned in the episode about „Burning through karma‟ by simply redefining the ancient idea of karma to suit your purposes. Please look up the definition of karma as it is understood in Early Buddhism and recognize that you just like to gerrymander your spiritual ideas to your liking. Just as you like it. Because it serves your purposes. It is all ego business. Again, I think you have some quite valuable and insightful stuff on your channel. But I would like to encourage you to outgrow spirituality. And to stop deluding people. Alright, this shall do for now. I could go into this stuff with more detail, but I would like to hear an initial comment on it first. Best Karl-Heinz

Of course, all I intended was to kid you! ^^ Or perhaps you didn't get my point. If scientists would not have been bold enough to go against our wishful thinking, we would still believe in a geocentric world view. Look up "narcissistic injuries" and "Freud", if you would like to better understand my point. And if you guys here don't muster the boldness to go against your wishful thinking that you are the universe and god and love and Leo's urine, you will (apart from being dumb) keep on deluding the world.

Interesting. Thank you. I did not hear of that distinction yet! Added to my "need to check out-link iist". "Neutral monism" is what I currently prefer, if you will. @universe: Thanks for picking it out... Oh dear... Now I see..... And do these replies appease you? Oh I did not recognize yet the extent of Leo's flaws and dishonesty. Well anyway. Leo is not the Universe. It is a waste of time to point this out but If he was the universe, he could control it. And neither are you, user "universe", who gave himself the telling name. Simple equation: If you were the universe, you could control. Can you? No. So you are not the universe. You cannot identify with ANYTHING, but your deluded, wishful thinking will not entertain that thought. Well this discussion here served a purpose for me at least. I am at a loss for words now to express how untrustworthy of a teacher Leo is. Well if I was you guys who will continue to stick around in this forum I would encourage you to start some kind of revolt against Leo, to not let him get away with his spiritual excrement (I was again struggling to find a word for it, "nonsense" would be an euphemism...). I would really hope that you guys and He Himself @Leo Gura will at some point in your life reach a level of non-delusion that we will be able to laugh at this together. Indeed, from what I have seen some of the people in this forum I guess already are at that level. But they perhaps lack the boldness and disagreeableness to raise their voice against it.

Thank you, @Byun Sean, for that good comment! That was a very good reply that inspired me. Why did I not get such a sound and well-spoken comment from His Enlightened Majesty aka "god" himself? Speaking from my current perspective, I would assume a neutral monism with a materialist inclination. I am not tied to that view, but a matter-mind-duality seems very unlikely to me. I was not bluffing when I said that I would actually love to believe in some kind of spiritual way, which is why I will take your can Carl Friedrichs input seriously. Also, I’m just interested in that stuff. Perhaps I should have categorized my critique into three categories. One is the theme of materialism vs non-materialism, the other one is about the more or less blatant flaws in Leo’s character, such as bad manners and arrogance, and the last one hare his spiritual wrong views, like, say, godhood and gerrymandering the idea of karma to his liking Now getting things wrong and having character flaws and wrong views wouldn’t be such a big thing to me, I know no person that would be entirely free of that. So that would be okay, I can and have to live with that all the time. But if someone then announces himself to be god AND enlightened AND has such a huge following on Youtube and elsewhere AND is on my radar because I watched a good chunk of his material, I kind of feel an impulse and and urge to rebel against that. Which is why I put this critique here. That’s the least I can do. As for wrong views, I mean, his idea of karma idea would suit a calendar motto. And his god view is profoundly ridiculous. I did my schooling. But, as opposed to Leo, I went to a school named Early Buddhism. The idea of Early Buddhist non-self denied the possibility any form of identification of oneself with anything. That makes sense to me. From that point of view then, the brahmanic idea then to identify oneself with everything in a god-like fashion then is considered doubly wrong. I love about Early Buddhism because it is so outspoken. It wipes out so much esoteric nonsense, which is why I was able to take it very seriously. Which is why I also think that @Leo Gura should go back to school (not his own school, however), but from what I see here he „acts too cool for school‟. I mean, he having after publicly announced being god or having filmed and published to the entire planet his „enlightenment experiences‟ (I loved the scene where he claimed omniscience of everything going on in the universe whilst being clueless about the upcoming bell-ringing package deliverer :D), followed by his comment on me here – if you ask me, all of that made him become somewhat of a joke figure to me. I mean, how can you guys take him seriously? But since, like I estimated in my initial comment, Leo cannot go back and revoke his godhood/enlightenment anymore, he will probably take that to his grave. No wise person would ever have done that.

To be completely honest, I can't help but feel at least some amount of schadenfreude to have your complete absence. ^^ Never said that I was a holy person. The attached youtube video I did not see thanks to a Firefox add-on that blocks external elements. The two of us should really not waste time with each other, but what goes around comes around, as they say. Anyway, where did we leave off. I will do some research into Carl-Richards input. But since I seem to have Leo's complete absence as well (riding it out), I guess this is kind of otiose here. Admittedly, it was quite foolish of me to expect that Leo would admit any mistakes or answer my question about Rob. But it "never hurts to ask", as they say.

Oh, are you still wasting your time with me undeserving fool? To the extent that I believe that I infer it from the fact that they mostly disagreed with me, but I did not (yet, perhaps) or hardly see them disagreeing with Leo. What insecurities and fears of mine? Did you you even bother to enquire into the individual whom you are talking to? ^^ I said initially that my critique is not all-encompassing, and there are even things about Leo that I like, as well. But the points I mentioned I feel confident that I did enough enquiry to feel competent and sturdy enough to place my critique. It seems that some people here I get along quite well and we are able to reciprocate respect. I do not ask to get along well with everyone. And to be fair, as for the two of us I had relinquished that hope after I read:

Yes, I am. Why would I not? What I a bit miss here is some open-mindedness to non-Leoic views. ^^ Like I said, it feels like that everyone who has views that do not accord with Leo's ideas about the world and his wife is a stupid, underdeveloped idiot that has to stay behind after school. From what some people post here I get the impression that you including Leo himself are the ones who should get some home schooling outside of your education system, but I guess we can go back and forth here forever. Anyway, some interesting posts were made here, thanks for those! By the way @Leo Gura I still waiting for a reply to some of my questions.

From seeing your posts above I would kindly decline that invitation! Now that being said it does not mean that I find it extremely unlikekly that, if I do enough research and "go to school" that I would end up coming to the same conclusions that Leo did. More so, that eveyone that does not end up at the same conclusions is "full of shit". ^^ Just looking at his definition of, say, karma, "god" (I almost feels awkward to me to use this word without quotations marks) and non duality, it does not seem likely to me that what Leo holds is true. Just that one about karma alone is enough for me to be sure that Leo has definitely not the brightest bulb in the box, as they say.

I guess it will be locked soon! I'm surprised anyway that they give a forum for heretics like me...

Okay, well that sounds interesting. I will do devote some investigation into that when I have the leisure. Thank you! Oh, so is this forum meant as a worship place for Leo? Oh, Sorry! Nobody told me that! Didn't force you to read my stuff. People seem to have varying kind of bones then. Dayum, you exposed me! I did not want to convey any message whatsoever, all I do here is using the "most efficient" way there is to garner attention. And you fell for my trap! Cool! I can pleasantly endure to be a noble renunciant of any of your knowledge.

I would need more time and research to articulate it properly, but I do tend to advocate some kind of neutral monism, which I somewhat sloppily tend to refer to as materialism. I believe that matter was first and mind came later. We have a good understanding that he have of physics, of the big bang, and the laws of nature, of biological evolution, and it seems credible to me that there is an objective nature. You may deny that if you like, and come up with epistomological skepticism, brain-in-a-vat argument, calling yourself god, and what have you. But that is not all-too credible to me. If we accept that, then mental phenonema did not exist before biological life did not exist. So I guess that life forms and mental phenomena seem to be in some way able to be of the same nature, in a way that we have not yet been able to understand. Who am I to tell whether we well be able to understand that at some point? I’m just some philosophically inclined guy to whom that seems to me more likely than idealism. For one thing, I felt like letting off the steam that has been accumulating whilst watching a good chunk of Leo’s videos. For another because I feel that people need to be more cautious about Leo as a teacher (which every good spiritual teacher would encourage his students to be). Especially with regards to spiritual teachers I think it never hurts to approach them with an appropriate amount of initial mistrust. Leo promotes his stuff as if he knows it all, and does not seem to bother to show or encourage any kind of doubt of skepticism about his own stuff, as I mentioned, probably also for economic reasons, and probably also due to blind spots, which is understandable but doesn’t make it better. So if he is not going to do that, someone also may do that job, and I currently felt inclined to do that. Leo wiping away my arguments in the way he did in his post here to me is another good indicator that he is not trustworthy as a spiritual teacher. Whether that is noble depends on what you regard as noble.

Like I said, that is the best anti-materialist argument that I know of. But it doesn't altogether satisfy me. Explaining why would probably require another comment at least of the length as the one above.