Scholar

See this is where I think you are missing a piece of the puzzle. But it really doesn't matter.

See, this is the dogma I am trying to point out. You have already completely given up on the highest enlightened state for Truth itself. This unawareness, this is the Truth that you sacrifice "Infinite Love" for. That is the most selfless act. It's not going back to being selfless, that's selfish! To be truly selfless is to make ego, suffering and separation reality by letting go of the "highest Truth". See, we can frame this any way we want. My framing isn't more truthful than yours. But notice how to take this "path" seriously you really need to pretend that your view is more truthful. You might intellectually agree with me, but deep down you actually do give more importance to your own viewpoint. Otherwise it wouldn't be your viewpoint. And that's okay. Leo's entire philosophy contains like subtle morality. When he calls people devils for example, he implies some sort of objective "goal". But I could equally frame him for being a devil because he is escaping the most Selfless state because he is suffering. Now it would be silly to do this, but equally it is silly to call a mother a devil because her love is limited to her child. That blindness is precisely what is so selfless ironically!

No I am just using this language because people here use it, it's all nonsense, literally. None of it is "true" at all. People on this forum don't have the problem that they don't know all the intellectual in and outs of models of enlightenment that you, Leo and others provide. None of this helps them, they know all of this shit. You are just circle jerking around pretending you are teaching others. Most people here have the problem that they just think and interpret too much and spend way too much in the thinking mode of their mind, including even during meditation and tripping. They take all of this way too seriously, including the need to get to the path. It doesn't matter, it shouldn't be so stuck up and full of self importance. People actually think getting enlightened is more important than any other aspect of life. This only makes sense if you are suffering or have attachments, like wanting to know "truth". Nobody needs to get enlightened, there is no point. If you want to, sure, but you will end up being unenlightened anyways. Where do you think you come from in the first place? There is no need for recognizing and becoming aware of any of this. You already have been and at that point you decided to become this very "unawareness" that you are. If I was talking to different people, I would make up a whole different story, but this is the story that is appropriate here in my eyes.

You mean people outside of Japan hate it.

@Inliytened1 Maybe this language will help you: You know how you think it takes consciousness to realize you are God and Love and Nothingness? It takes awareness? Well, imagine one day you become so aware that you literally dissolve into Godhood, into literally Infinite Awareness. You know what this Infinite Awareness will become aware of? It will literally be so aware that it will make itself aware of being separate from itself. It will realize that it is not God, that it is a monkey sitting here suffering. It will be so aware that it will become unaware. That's true awareness. That is Ultimate Awareness. That is Ultimate Consciousness. It is Infinitely Powerful. It is literally Magic. That's how "conscious" all of us are. You cannot top that, because it's the Ultimate. Indeed. I am quite calm my brother, but I agree none of this makes sense. Unless we pretend it does.

See, all of this nonsense that there is nobody to suffer and that suffering is an illusion is something that you can only pretend to be true because you pretended there was suffering which you got over in the first place. None of this is deeper, more truthful than the rest. Suffering is as real as literally anything you could possibly say, think or become aware of. The hierarchy of realness of that you came up with is just as real as my non-hierarchy of realness. That's the entire point of realness! You can make anything real! If suffering was not real, if the one who suffers was not real, then reality wouldn't be infinite. It would be limited to whatever your little chimp mind happened to think after whatever happened to it. Your deconstruction is as "unreal" as anything else. When you unravel it all, you will find yourself right back where you began. The deconstruction is the construction of that which is being deconstructed.

But there is. Just because you are pretending that there isn't doesn't mean that there is no pretending that there is! I can draw whatever I want, what else would I draw? I agree with you brother, but we are both wrong.

Here is the path: You sit down, you get enlightened. You get enlightened again. You get so enlightened that you return to being normal. You get so enlightened that you realize that everyone around you has always been enlightened and has already achieved the full path. You realize there is nobody who is unaware of anything. They are all conscious of the ultimate nature of existence, they are all aware of that which you have spent years to become aware of. They have deconstructed it all. Infact, they have deconstructed it all so much, that the only last thing you have to achieve their final level of enlightenment, is to forget completely about enlightenment, truth and all the nonsense you have gathered. And then you suffer, you suffer as you always have. That is your sacrifice and your ultimate Truth. You cry about how you want to stop suffering, and seek, utterly aware, but blind to the truth. Your blindness is your ultimate awareness. And one day, you decide you want to seek truth and love. And you sit down so you get enlightened.

Their quest for rightness and truth is as futile as the philosophers quest for moral reality. It's all just overthinking. Protect your thoughts at all costs, because without them, what will you have left?

There is no path, there is no ground to see There is nothing to achieve. It's not important at all. You don't have to be anything before you can be everything without friction. You made all of this up and you are pretending it is real. That's the point.

Ground them in what? Ground them why? This is an attempt of survival. There is nothing to ground, there is nothing to understand. There is no such thing as maturity, there is no such thing as integration. That's all what you made up to justify survival. Everything is nonsense, that's the entire point. To make sense out of it means to unravel it. To realize the ground means to see it was never there and fall right through it. You can create any ground. Leo is creating his own personal ground. You can create your personal ground. The thing is that because the ground is made of nothing at all, you can make anything of it you please! Because it's nothing! Nothing doesn't need anything to exist, it needs no cause, it needs no justification, it needs no Truth of itself. To remember the Circle means to forget it. There is no reason to it, it simply is.

Why did they only strike one of the videos?

The problem with these criticisms is that they are just assertions and so surface level it shows that the people who posit them usually don't even have any kind of sophisticated intellectual development. It's just lazy, there is not even anything to respond to. These people aren't even being rational or scientific, it's pure sophistry.

I love how oranges have to take any opportunity to "debunk" veganism lol. They get triggered by it even if it's not the topic at hand.

Here we go:

Itt is inevitable that intellectualizing about the Divine will create significant resistance. When you take the Divine and turn it into idea, it becomes falsehood in the eyes of your brothers and sisters. This is actually a good thing, it is wisdom, because ideas could not possibly be truthful, they could not possibly be the Divine. It forces you and them to embody the Divine, and that is all you have to do. If you embody it, you will naturally pull your brothers and sisters towards the Divine, whether they know it or not. Your interactions will naturally have more grace and appeal. To the ego, heaven seems like hell. If you show the ego what heaven truly looks like, he will be disgusted by it. Of course he will, because he is thriving in hell. You tell a person from the middle ages that future generations will accept homosexuality, will be abandon Christianity and live democratically, their reactions will be to do anything possible to avoid that from happening. That is the nature of the ego. It needs to recognize it's own current limitations to be able to grow beyond them. So the dynamic here is very tricky, because just by having openly talked about all the issues, you have already painted yourself in a corner of having to defend everything you have said. You cannot guide the ignorant towards their own death, because you have told them that they will die! As you know yourself, you cannot market consciousness to the masses. You cannot use an unconscious process and expect it to increase consciousness. And thinking is unconscious. You are trying to make them think themselves into more consciousness. All of these people have problems precisely because they value thinking so much. What they need to do is engage the parts of their minds that are non-thinking, that are unifying, holistic. And of course they won't do that if not even you do that! Falling into thinking will cause suffering and disharmony, as it is causing for you. If you do not overthink it, you embrace it as a part of the process of unification and you naturally come to do that which is appropriate. That is wisdom. There won't be any need for justifications, for judgment, for any of these excuses and explanations. People are not reacting against you in here just because the normies reacted a certain way, but because you quite obviously display some lack of wisdom, lack of embodiment. In my view this is what will render you teachings most inattractive to future generations, because they will see clearly your attachments and how your ego was struggling to go beyond them, in 1080p.

I think Leo would greatly improve in these conversations if he would engage fully in R-Mode during them. Leo's mind is too fragmented, he spends too much time in L-Mode, making him unable to experience the process of conversation in unity. It causes awkwardness and a general conversational clumsiness, a lack of flow. The best evidence for this is that at some point Leo was asked if he right now was in a state of Awareness/Love. A beautiful teaching moment for Leo, if he is able to see it as such. You could see it in his face, his surprise. Then he took a moment to engage into the Unity, and exclaimed "Now I am in it!". This means that Leo has not integrated this awareness into his life, and it is because he engages L-Mode most of the time, especially when he is lecturing and explaining things. If the conversation had been done from a place of Unity/R-Mode, the audience would have felt it, and the impact would have been greater than any of the explanations Leo made. In my opinion, Leo's attachment to intellectualism is what is holding him back the most. And it is interesting how sneaky his mind justifies the disunity he causes by way of putting that very intellectualism on a pedestal.

People in the comments say they found Leo arrogant, condescending, overconfident, lacking in humility and so forth. Leo doesn't do interviews often, but I found some of the answers a bit clumsy, where he avoided answering the question directly because he seemed to have not immediately an precise answer at hand, so he kind of did the politician talk. That's atleast what the optics were, I think Leo is not as skilled in this kind of rhetoric because he has not done many of these conversation. It's something that needs to be developed. In terms of optics what was especially bad was when he didn't have an answer at hand when he was asked about what science got wrong in terms of their methodology, he could have expanded more clearly what the assumptions in the methodology, not merely ideology, of the newtonian worldview were and how that changed. Also, to answer questions about "How do you know X?" with "How do you know Y?", usually look pretty bad in terms of optics aswell, especially for stage orange people. Just by framing that a little bit differently I think this problem could be avoided. I found in general there were too many assertions made that went on unexplained, and because of how radical most of these assertions are to people, they will view any avoidance of explaining in detail any of them as problematic and untrustworthy.

The latest Vsauce video actually quite surprised me, because it gets to the core of this issue. Isolated reasoning will inevitably lead to problems, because reasoning is evolved to be a social process. We live in a time in which everyone can basically isolate their reasoning and form really dysfunctional world views as a result.

Listen to the latest JRE with Christopher Mellon, for the skeptics.

The actual reason is that he engaged too much of his time in the L-Mode of his mind. He values intellectualism to such a high degree that he engages in it to the detriment of his spiritual development. L-Mode is "Left Brain", and R-Mode is "Right Brain". Leo's life purpose is centered around the "Left Brain" Functions, and I would speculate he remains in that mode for most of the day. It leads to judgement, division, arrogance, separation. You can take as much psychedelics as you want, if this will be your general mode of being you will remain such. This is primarily habitual and not about personality, however personality probably created a bias towards seeking out one mode of being over the other. You can see the consequences of residing in that Mode often when Leo is talking on this forum, or on camera. If you want to evolve spiritually in an embodied way, you have to ensure that you remain in the R-Mode for most of the day. If you spend 8 hours every day intellectualizing and being L-Mode, you will never reach the level of Holistic experience as someone who for example has his life purpose centered around an activity that is R-Mode. Much of meditation is about simply residing in R-Mode, as deeply as possible. The intellectual will have no other choice but to pump himself full of psychedelics, but even that will only get him so far in terms of embodiment. From what I know Leo is not interested in embodiment, but I think because so many people here lean towards specific personality traits that he does aswell, which is the case for me even too, viewing him as an example for us to follow can be detrimental to us especially if our goal is embodiment. The depths of development you can achieve by structuring your life around residing in R-Mode as much as possible, especially if you have an L-Mode tendency, are staggering.

These pesky radicals! How dare they look at animals as if they were individuals deserving of basic forms of respect and well-being?

Why would I tell them this? We are talking about people of the first world countries, who do have alternatives, or can indeed live life perfectly well without consuming any milks at all. These are the members of this worldly community who have to take charge in the adoption of responsibility. Nobody is changing anything by saying that we must change the institutions. To change the instutitions you need individuals who feel the responsibility to help change the instutitions in the first place. The institutions are the result of the social change, not the other way around.

The solution is to have the members of society grow so they indeed can make the easy choice between oatmilk and cow milk. See, the individuals in our society are so underdeveloped that they struggle even adopting such few responsibilities. Again, the problem you are trying to fix is the very thing you need to grow and get rid of the problem. This is the best opportunity of grow mankind will ever have. The people who don't understand why they ought to buy oatmilk over normal milk are the very people who uphold the current status quo, the system and the corporations. You cannot change the system without changing the people. This is something that has been tried numerous times throughout history, and it continously failed. It is not black and white, institutions must change, but this change will only happen as a result of the growth of the individuals within society. We live in a society that views the subjugation of individuals for luxury benefits as completely justified. This kind of society cannot ever hope to have institutions that are fair and justice. Look how many people here struggle to find ways to justify this subjugation, as people have done in the past. Fundamentally, this is the very problem that we need to get past. The desire to subjugate for the pursuit of individual freedom, rather than to take on responsibility for your own actions.