Scholar

The point of the post is for people to watch this video and then potentially start a discussion, Rebel Media is well known on here and it's pretty solid, information from a stage yellow perspective.

I won't spoon feed information to you, how entitled can you be?

I don't have time for that, let the ignorant stay ignorant, not my problem.

I disagree, I think another leader with different dispositions would have not acted in the way Putin did. You have a very one-sided view of the world. The unique personalities and mind-sets of individuals, especially world leaders, have a tremendous impact on the trajectory of the world. Of course Putin was only elected because his people were on a certain level of consciousness, and this incident will serve well to show them their own limitations. But that doesn't mean that Putin has no responsibility nor that he is a prime cause for this conflict. A pure geopolitical analysis is not sufficient to explain state-action. And I agree, the people of russia will have to suffer for this significantly, as they have allowed for Putin to exist for such a long time. They need to see the limitation of their level of consciousness, and sadly the situation demands for it to have happened that way. I would not bring moralism into whether or not people will condemn Putin. Putin will be condemned and that will serve an essential function for the evolution of human-kind. It serves little good to just protect Putin for the sake of being "unbiased", as that itself constitutes a bias aswell. A bias that if we just follow unconsciously will lead to delusion aswell. This is one of the limitations of higher levels of consciousness.

That doesn't mean is isn't delusional, that doesn't mean he has no ego and that doesn't mean he is acting in the actual interest of the russian people. Hitler also thought he was looking out for the security of his country and the human race, doesn't really change the facts that what he did lead to the destruction of his people. A more conscious politician would have not initiated war and would have actually had his people's interests in mind. Putin is highly nationalistic, the main motivation for why he did this was that he desires Russia to be a powerful country, and he wants to be the one who made it happen and changed the legacy of his nation forever, no matter the cost. He refuses to align his nation with the actual place it holds in the world order, and rather bathes in nostalgic visions of a russia that is in any way a significant actor on the world stage. That time is over, and the more he will resist reality, the more his people will suffer for it. Putin is not really as smart as you seem to think. He is not only incredibly deluded about the proper position of the russian state, but also incompetent in regards to leading a nation in a military conflict. Everything he did so far precisely achieved the opposite of any supposed goals he might have had. He woke the EU from it's lethargic slumber and actually lead to a unification of the western nations. Everything he did so far compromised national interests, and any amount of moralistic justification for what he did will not change that. Putin acts in the same way in the interests of his nation as Trump does, just that he is not as blantatly a charlatan as his US counterpart.

I agree, the claim Dr K made was that they seemed to have shown in clinical practice that certain dosha's would tend to have certain symptoms occur when infected with covid. The entire idea of Ayurveda is, in the way he is framing it, is that there are certain genetic expressions of human beings that correlate to certain way the metabolism works, physical features being expressed and then that also correlating with personality/brain expression. It's not really that absurd of a theory, it could very well be that there are clusters of genetic expressions that come together or cause each other in some way, and ayurveda being a kind of pre-scientific model for that. So maybe there is a reason why certain people have a certain metabolism, linked to something that tends to also effect the way the brain developed etc. Infact it could even just be a genetic clustering of certain traits, the point is that the claims being made is that these models seem to be in some form functional and descriptive of some underlying reality, giving predictive power to as he mentioned the prevelance of certain symptoms among people. He is basically saying that dosha's describe some underlying reality, and whatever that underlying reality is also influenced in what way a virus like Covid will affect the organism, after all, there must be some underlying reason for why some people tend to develope certain symptoms over others. Either way whether or not it's true is a different question, but the way it is being framed as complete pseudoscience is really unfair. It is not really scientific yet at all, because there is not yet the data on it. That doesn't mean that there is no clinical data, that might very well be the case. Maybe some doctor discover this in his clinical practice and, much like we couldn't have made scientific claims whether exercise is good for the body before we had the research on it, it might still be the case that it indeed does help people.

How do we even know this is legitimate?

I think Leo has been like this since he was on camera, I don't think it has anything to do with what happened recently. I am INTP too and I seem to not have these blindspots, and I know INTP people who don't have these blindspots either, so I think it is something in addition to that, that causes this blindness. And I don't understand what is surprising about me pointing this out. The cause for this is irrelevant, I am trying to aid Leo in seeing his blindspots.

Leo, no offense but these kinds of posts make me think you are autistic, and I am not even saying this to offend you but I genuinely think that you lack some sort of function in your mind in regards to the social/empathy. Interestingly enough is that you are moralizing alot in this post. The reality is the reality, people cannot handle things and they need help, this phenomena is only getting worse. We can't just ignore this issue, we have policies in place to avoid unnecessary harm to these individuals, and one of these are medical ethics. This especially. The guy wasn't suicidal because he couldn't play the game anymore, he was already depressed and that game was probably one of the few things that gave him joy in life, and when that was gone it was enough to push him into suicidality. You seem to have a real lack of experience in regards to mental health problems, like I said you very much remind me of Destiny, he was arguing the very same way you do, calling these things dumb and not really understanding them. You are extremely fortunate in regards to the mind you have, and you do simply not realize how much of an exception it is (which was the case with Destiny aswell). This is why alot of your advice on self-help just doesn't apply to most people, their mind won't allow for it. "You gotta handle them", is something someone would say who has a kind of mind who never really had a true difficulty handling something. You never failed at mental health, you do not see how bad it can get. You are like "lol, auto-immune disorders? Haha, just eat healthy my dude, I also have a stomache ache sometimes, you gotta be able to handle that", meanwhile the person you talk to has barely energy and focus to do anything for more than 2 hours a day. I think Destiny took a huge dose of mushrooms that put him in an existential crisis and depression for over a year where he had panick attacks and everything, and that's what it took for him to realize how silly his perspective on life was, where he just thought everyone was like him and had to get their shit together. He had no idea what kind of mind states are possible. Mind-states that you can't just handle, or reason your way out of, or tough through. Mind-states that completely disable you and the way you function, where you don't even know what it was like before you had them. I think you know all of this you just have a difficult time truly integrating it, it's like you know it intelectually but you don't truly know it, which is why you probably have to experience this for yourself, and suffer.. And of course we can help such people, we do all the time, and we seek to protect the vulnerable people from being exploited by sharks. How is that not the most conscious thing to do?

We have very different perceptions of what a moderator is and their role. In the end you have to ask Leo what he wants from moderators, it's his house as he likes to say.

I think you are trying too hard find holes in my proposal. People usually don't consciously abuse their power. If there is a guideline for moderators in place that I suggested, it will reduce the instances of biased decision-making occuring, aswell as give members a better perception of the moderation team in regards to how they enforce the rules. It's pretty simple, once you start debating with an individual, you don't moderator that individual. So, each time you start debating with someone, as you are doing right now with me for example, you do have wavered your moderation role so to speak. I think moderators will be able to make a conscious effort, as like I said I think most of them already do, to watch out for this dynamic. For example, right now you are compromised and should not moderate my behavior, instead another moderator should take over that role. What I am expecting is a conscious effort of moderators to follow certain guidelines to minimize decision-making based on their own bias.

I don't think Moderators would necessarily back either other's asses, I would hope they are more mature than that. Yes, and because people love to do so I think the policy I have suggested would help mitigate that perception.

I don't think it would make moderation extremely tedious, it's a bit weird that you are saying that imo. Not at all all moderation decisions would have to be checked by another moderator, it would only have to be in the rare cases where a moderator argues with a member on-topic, and then sees a guideline violation. The entire point of a moderator is to be a moderator, you are not just a member with power tools, in general a moderator ought to try to uphold his position as a moderator and not engage in debates the same way members do, if they seek to moderate. I don't think that's hard to accomplish at all, I think most moderators are by default kind of following that rule, you seem to be an exception because of how you love arguing with others, from what I have seen. I also like to argue with others, which is why I wouldn't take the role of a moderator if I had the opportunity (which I shouldn't have because of how confrontational I can be sometimes) because of that. If I would take it, I would reconsider my approach to how I talk to people and either be very strict about what I just described above, or not participate as much in arguing with others. @Michael569 comes to mind who also likes to argue, but I haven't seen him debate and then do moderation in the same context.

Why do moderators have to engage in discussion to know the context of a violation of the guidelines? I dont agree at all. Again, there is a conflict of roles. When I debate about animal rights as a moderator, I become biased. Whether or not I want to, the entire point of bias is that I am unaware of it. At that point, my decision making ability is compromised, therefore I have to set aside my sword of moderation, engage in the fist fight, and if there is a rule I think was broken I just report or message another moderator. That moderator doesn't have to have participated in the debate about animal rights to know whether or not guidelines were followed. This is why inherently debate-bro like moderators will always have a conflict of interest.

You misunderstood my post, it was in regards to first arguing about content (for example something like debating whether Dr K is wrong), and then become active in the moderator role in the context of that conversation. I clarified why I thought that was problematic, it has nothing to do with arguing about moderation choices. I am saying that when you participate in a conversation, to avoid bias and perception of bias, you ought to put aside your role as a moderator, and if you think there is a violation ask another moderator to take over. Example, I argue with Moderator Y about why it's wrong to consume animals, we argue and argue, then Moderator Y moderates our conversation. That is problematic. What should happen is that once Moderator Y starts to participate in the argument with me, they ought to set aside their role as moderator and if they think there is a breach of TOS, notify another moderator to take a look at that so that someone who has no bias can look and make the decision.

I think people are pointing out a valid dynamic with moderators, which is one of the reasons why I wouldn't want to be a moderator. Someone like @Carl-Richard is very active in arguing with members, in which case he is kind of changing his role from moderator to member. There is a reason why in debates, the moderator is someone who is not participating in the debate. It gives them the ability to focus on moderation and be as unbiased as possible. Once a moderator starts arguing with someone in the forum, they basically should stop considering themselves a moderator in the context of that conversation, to avoid A) being perceived to be biased in regards to moderation and B) to avoid being biased in regards to moderation. In that case, another moderator has to take the role of the moderator and consider the moderator participating in the conversation as another member, otherwise the lines kind of become blurry which we all know from the recent Dr K/Mr Girl drama, that it will lead to problems. It's a bad move to have a moderator argue with a member in terms of content, and then start moderating them in regards to TOS violations. These two things should be considered separate processes and moderators, due to their role, should I guess tend to avoid arguing and focus on moderation.

I don't think that's a good idea, Mods are there to moderate, they need to be communicating with members and the members need to know that they are talking to moderators to establish that they have to follow their rules. The entire point of a moderator is that they have power.

I think Leo's primary motivation for this is his thing about "Every teaching but mine is not about awakening and I want to tell you that they are all wrong and will no longer be tolerated around me.".

I never said there is something fundamentally wrong with what you do, I just think it's stupid. Whether or not you are a troll is separate from that. Yes, Leo does behave like a troll often on this forum, I criticize him for that all the time. I think he is often immature and toxic, so for you to think that this is a gotcha is funny to me. If someone comes to a forum to antagonize people so that their "audience" can relish in that to me is troll behavior, and I think what Leo said in that post you quoted applies. You're just here to stirr drama, and you admit to it. You have a difficult time tracking what I am saying, because I am not saying that it's simply what you say that makes you a troll, it's how you attempt to get it across. You could have made the same points you made in a non-inflammatory way, but you choose not to do so. Again, either you are a troll and doing this consciously, or you are still unaware of the dynamic going on. Whether or not you think it's justified to troll is irrelevant to me.

lol, look at my post history I am one of the most critical people of Leo on the forum, but you are just bad faith. You view everything as a confrontation, everything you look at you view through a lense of wanting to debunk it. I was actually good faith to you, because I assumed that you are not a troll. But you just admitted to me that you do know how people will react to it, which as you can see is completely unhelpful. You are either aware of this or not. If you are, you are a troll who is just antagonizing people and wasting your and their time. If you are unaware of it, I refer back to my previous post and recommend to you, that if you want to change anything outside of just stirring drama, to adjust your tone. You can't just say: "I am just providing valid criticism to help the people of this forum, I am not a troll." and then say: "I am completely aware that the way I present my criticism is inflammatory and doesn't change peoples minds."

Like I said, the issue is not the critique itself but how you package it. You basically scoff at Leo and his teachings, and then you come here wondering why everyone is antagonistic towards you. That's just a lack of self-awareness. Leo is pretty resistant to feedback as is, so I don't think your style of communication will find any success with him.

To be fair, you are reacting to a cheeky comment that was meant as a joke as if it was some formal argument put forth for you to examine, that alone can make it easy to perceive you as a troll. But other than that, even if you have valid critiques, the way you bring the across is pretty toxic from what I have seen, which also makes it easier for people to dismiss you entirely.

Very interesting how long it has taken Leo to realize the whole thing about not spoiling it for others, and there not being a need to have anyone do this at all. I feel like that was more of a unravelling of his ego, because from an outsiders perspective it was very transparent why he did certain things in the past, and why he continues to do so. My critique for a long time was that Leo is kind of doing two things at once, one is basically being a psychonaut/conscioussnessnaut and being an explorer and doing the work, and the other is trying to be a teacher and leader. I think that is kind of unhealthy, because these two things are kind of opposed. Teaching takes a lot of dedication, and not only that, because he constantly keeps realizing new things he basically has to constantly adjust and reject his previous teachings, which just confuses students. So he kind of doesn't want to take responsibility for what people do with his teachings but at the same time he still wants them to know about Truth, which obviously leads to problems. IMO Leo should have first done the whole process of self-discovery, put out his discoveries without trying to convince anyone whatsoever (which is the main objective of his videos), and if he then wanted to teach he should have dedicated himself to that properly. Wow he even goes into the whole thing about how he was to explicit with the teachings. @Leo Gura These realizations you have about how you should teach are to me very basic things that you should have understood with a little bit of self-awareness and self-reflection, which to me means that you on a developmental level have something lagging behind, so I would recommend to address that because it should have not taken this long, with this many people pointing it out to you, with your practicing so much meditation and self-awareness work, to figure out. I don't know if you maybe have some psychological condition that limits you in this way (I have the impression you might be somewhat autistic although that is just a feeling), but I think it definitely limits your ability to be a good teacher. The reason why I have this impression that you are "autistic" stems mostly from the few videos I have seen you interact with others, so the interviews mainly. And your general insensitivity in regards to how others feel. You very much remind me of Destiny in this way.

I don't think he can bring himself to do that, his response would be something like "Defend what? There is no "Nahm" and there is no "position".There is only Truth. Love, love, love".

I think Nahm just needs to learn to not get so attached to his teacher role. I think it is lack of awareness actually, that he is unable to see that he has attached himself to a certain mode of operation/perspective. Every single of his posts is written from the same perspective, and maybe that is because he has an identity on this forum that he is he "teacher" guy, so basically a spiritual identity. He does not notice that he is undermining other aspects of reality by doing so.