SeaMonster

It's the worst cope. It's a kind of denial. The feelings are more real than any nondual dogma which you don't actually believe in deep down (otherwise you wouldn't have those feelings.) The feelings are telling you to get your act together, and you're ignoring that, which means you don't want to deal with the problem.

C'mon, you can't possibly be serious. Firstly, they are so vague as to be entirely subjective in application and interpretation, even to the point of one point contradicting another. It's just feel-good pabulum. You may as well just say, "hey students, look out for evil teachers who want to control and exploit you and stick to good teachers who want to help you." That's how effective the code is in my opinion -- but it sure creates a centralized authority to be exploited by evil forces later on.

I don't understand how you could have arrived at that conclusion given any reasonably diligent observation of the current "liberal values" culture (i.e. Green postmodernism.) Post-modernism is pretty much obsessed with perceived power imbalances which may result in abuse and attempts to redress it, but it is woefully lacking in the ideas of self-responsibility, heroic overcoming and in general what you deride as hyper-individualism. So you get a sort-of castrated spirituality which as you said "does no harm" but potentially prevents any kind of good along the way. Because, you know, sometimes a teacher may need to convey some harsh truths to a student that may hurt some fee-fees and violate a code. So this is another version of your "liberal values" safe space culture. There really isn't a way to guarantee a safe space spirituality because by its nature what one WANTS to hear on the spiritual path isn't always what one NEEDS to hear.

Have as many codes as you like. Let a thousand codes bloom. Let teachers be transparent about their own code of ethics. Allow potential seekers to compare and contrast. Nothing to do with preventing cults. The whole idea of a cult is that the seeker believes that the teacher knows something no-one else (including some fucking board) knows and is willing to tolerate anything to parlay that knowledge or ability into liberation. I mean, this is sort of the case with Leo and many of his followers, e.g. Would this code prevent Leo from having followers despite him not signing off on it? No, because they trust him and not the fucking board.

Wait, I thought you didn't like all-or-nothing ideas? Who says that this is the case and that it's either this board or nothing?

And do you also consider the potential unintended consequences of this action, or is it all just stuff for the better in your imagination? Because it isn't.

Nah, that's all very nice talk but ultimately this is about centralized authority and power and elitism and all the same problems that plagued the old religion. And you have no real answer for that, just that you're wiser and better than the ancients and it will all turn out better. Which it won't, because you're not.

And how many bad examples would be ok for us not to bother with (since you don't like all-or-nothing philosophies?) Like, give me a threshold percentage. You mean presents bad ideas in a palatable manner? He is not wiser than the Tao Te Ching, which is the antithesis of his Conscious Politics.

Nah. Leo says a million different things at odds with each other: some of them right on the money and some just straight up nonsense. He is channeling his Enlightened Politics bullshit and his irrational idealization of government (which may be a necessary evil, but to idealize it is just twisted) and applying it to spirituality.

We live in a world of the Internet where it's virtually impossible to hide anything, so people can gather all kinds of information they need and communicate in a decentralized manner. These boards are what's outdated. Top-down is obsolete, and is something to be captured by controllers and manipulators.

No, says the Daoist, and honestly, you're very intelligent but you should get beyond Leo's teachings once in awhile -- you're unduly influenced by his very questionable opinions on things. You have trouble understanding that power corrupts apparently, and any idealization of power is naive narcissism (---> Leo Gura.)

Duuuuuuuude. You literally sound like a communist - it's not a bad idea, it just hasn't been properly implemented yet - we will pull it off! Just hubris and lack of experience, sorry to say.

It's not the same, but if I keep hearing that - FOR WHATEVER REASON - some teacher has been particularly effective at getting people enlightened, I assume it's because he has some insight that translates into effectively helping people overcome their ego traps. Now, such teachers are NOT drones like your typical credentialed Ph.D. psychotherapist and tend to be highly individualistic and so trying to make them into such is very wrongheaded.

You've pretty much described religion. How effective has that been at awakening people?

If you genuinely believe that, then the whole subject is moot -- all reports of enlightenment are lies or self-delusion and why bother to pursue it in the first place? I assume testimonials have some degree of accuracy. Yes - I'm saying that going by which teacher resonates with you - as YOU said - is less effective than to go by some kind of external measure such as a reputation or testimonials.

And this is a most naive take, given that many people have incurred spontaneous awakenings via trauma or accident, or even sexual violation. Not that teachers should harm the ego, but you still don't see how your mentality on this subject is full of wishful thinking.

That's not true. Teachers can have reputations, testimonials, etc. You may not know which teacher will be effective for you with certainty, but you may certainly make a better educated guess which teacher to try. "Which teacher you resonate with" = whose sales pitch most appeals to your ego.

That's where you are wrong -- you believe it's another consumer product. Consumer products are about satiating the ego. Spirituality isn't.

I'm making it relevant because it's the reason why people seek teachers in the first place. You can't ignore that issue as part of the conversation. If a teacher is more effective than others, some people will not give a shit that he does not subscribe to some of the tenets of the code. They ultimately want to get enlightened. This whole thing really smacks of something like codes for psychotherapy, and psychotherapists can be notoriously ineffective (but they are still ethical!) A teacher should be self-responsible and have their own clearly stated code, but a board is just absurd in my opinion. I'm sure Jac O'Keefe is a fine teacher, but I don't think she has thought through all the implications here.

Re-read what I said. It's not that they make the teachings less effective, it's that they don't necessarily make them EFFECTIVE in the first place. So at best you have a teacher that does no harm, but no good either (and is doing no good its own form of harm?)

The problem with Ethics Boards, though, is that it smacks of a power structure which is misleading in its existence. Namely, that "spirituality" is another consumer product to be treated as a consumer product. This implies a whole set of presuppositions and expectations that do not apply in spirituality. It also creates the possibility of capture by corrupt forces that will wield that power to their own ends. In other words, make changes supposedly for the benefit of the seeker that aren't. It's better to have a standalone code that teachers themselves voluntarily adopt -- or even competing codes -- without a centralized authority. (Basically, all these ethics rules all sound nice - but a teacher can be entirely ethical and entirely ineffective. So what do you do about that?)

I'd say the saving grace of Green is that it creates enough trouble to usher in Yellow, so that at least reasonable people can understand the proper role and purpose of Blue and the lower stages. The mania of cult-like irrationality that sweeps through it is not fun to behold at all, though.

I don't believe that a set of psychedelic experiences can get you the whole way there, and I see ZERO evidence that anyone has reached full liberation using only psychedelics. They do certain things well, and have their uses, but the problem is the same problem as with any tool used in spirituality - the ego always captures the "seeking" process and uses it for its own ends. There has to be an element of genuine sacrifice, letting-go and uncertainty in order for full awakening to happen. If you're thinking, "oh, I'll just do psychedelics a bunch of times and I'll be fully enlightened" that is already evidence that the ego is firmly in charge of the process. Psychedelics cannot overcome the fact that one cannot INVOLUNTARILY, PASSIVELY become fully enlightened. With shaktipat, e.g. you're paying someone a lot of money to do sessions -- and you have no guarantee if/when it's going to work. So there is a real element of letting-go-of-control involved. There is a real TENSION to overcome (the ego will keep telling you that you're an idiot for paying a lot of money for something that isn't working.) The ego likes a path, a straight line, certainty, guarantees (how do I accomplish this?) It wants to control not only the end but the means, and can get picky about the means. But that's entirely the opposite of "letting go."

The problem with Orange is obvious from the beginning: everyone is NOT equal in a functional, down-to-earth sense which manifests in serious inequality...and that brings Green, which attempts to enforce the idea that everyone is equal via a romantic irrationalism that tells you that all inequality is systemic corruption. So modernity (and post-modernity) is two layers of stupid. But we get a lot of technological advancements and feel-good safe spaces as a compensation.

That's forum dogma. Regular shaktipat can get you enlightened within a year, and then you work on integration.