Scholar

The one about world domination, however you could see some of it in his previous videos.

It is also fascinating to see how a teacher can focus solely on the students and not turn the same helpful analysis to one of his fellow teachers.

I don't think Leo is arrogant per se, but his entire style has that kind of vibe which many people would perceive this way. Watch the latest Connor Murphy video, he basically adopted his style.

I am simply making people aware of this problem, as it is something that can easily be overlooked even if you think you are aware of it. Same, but this isn't about the validity of Leo's teachings, this is about a particular pitfall that I can observe in this forum and that I have in the past observed in myself. And I am here to help some of you to be more aware of committing to Leo's principles, one of them being to focus your energies on questions not answers. Just because you suggest improvements or raise awareness of certain issues doesn't mean you are dismissing literally all of that which you are criticizing. I feel like many of you are being overly defensive.

I feel like you are not receptive to the improvements I am suggesting. I don't want you to stop talking about the truth, i am only pointing to areas in which I believe sensitivities could be helpful for those on the path. I don't think it's reasonable to have an entire style based around a persona that is very certain, some might even say arrogant, authortative, belittleling of other perspectives, and then expect those who listen to a persona like that to come away without any of these qualities, or to incorporate the ideas that are presented in an unhealthy manner. I don't think you can wave all of that away because you made some disclaimers. Sure you can just keep saying that it is your style and you will not compromise, but as I said I view this as insensitive. And I think it will attract and maybe even created the kind of minds that you then will have to ban for various reasons. I think this is a lack of responsibility, a responsibility that if you adopted I think would only improve your content. Initially this wasn't even supposed to be a critique of you Leo, but rather a reminder and help for this community. If everyone were able to responsibly watch these videos while upholding their sense of mystery, I would have no issue with it. But this is not the world we live in. And I disagree that it is true for most of the teachers out there. There is a certain embodiment that I think you lack. I think you have been teaching all of this while you were a student of the very subjects you were teaching. I think this kind of position of having to uphold the seeker persona and the teacher persona is a challenge, because you have to reflect your teachings confidently, but especially as a seeker it puts you into a vulnerable position where you have to justify yourself. When I watch WIlber for example I get a very different kind of energy, and I think it might be because of his in-person teaching experiences. I think this whole "Talking to a camera" and this forum thing creates a disconnect for you which makes it more difficult for you to intuitively develope the kind of sensitivities I speak of.

I think you are not making it clear enough that you are creating a map, not being a guide. This is not about whether or not it's bad to present these spiritual ideas. You cannot make spirituality a teaching product for the masses because each individual has their own path to tread on. I don't know why you would not adopt a more sensitive approach to how you help people on their path. Because this is all it is about, is it not? Surely you do not want to just create an ideology. I am not even saying that the answers you give shouldn't be given, but they have to be given in a way that is constructive to the path. It seems like you do not want to contend with these sensitivities and just give everyone the answers because it is easier, and it probably feels good to you aswell. Again, I don't really think that, espeicially most of your recent work, is teaching people how to be more spiritual, you are teaching them concepts. You are an explorer who creates a map, you are not the guide who will follow along with someone who is passing through the terrain to help them get to the destination. There is nothing wrong with being the explorer who creates the map, but I think people would benefit if this was being made more clear. Much more than just a few words about it in each video. You are still taking the role of the guide, especially here in the forum. I think one healthier option would be to give people the tools for them to determine where they are at and create content around those stages. Some answers might be useful once I have attained a certain level, and some question can be useful when I do not know what to question anymore. But on the other hand, some answers can be harmful to me if I am not at a certain level of development. Whether you want it or not, many people here view whatever you say as absolute truth. If you never talked about love, and then suddenly talked about love, without anything changing in the experience of many of the people who follow you, they will immediately start talking about love and adopt it all as an ideology. This is very clear what you look at this forum. To me it seems like you underestimate how difficult it is to make any true use of all the answers you are giving. You yourself have a process and a mind that most people don't really ever see. They aren't conscious of the bulk of the work. They don't see the humble Leo who is questioning everything he is thinking. They just see the Leo who is spouting the truth with a confidence unmatched. This is what they see, so this is the energy that is being communicated. Ironically, they are not present the mind that lead to all the answers, rather they are presented the mind that already has achieved all the answers. The Leo seeker persona is a different from the Leo teacher persona. This creates a dynamic in which people view you as the authority, instead of their own experience. Excellent point. I think this forum and it's community foster the energy of #3, because the teacher is presenting his philosophy in this way. I am very sensitive to the energies of people and I usually mirror it back to them unless I make a conscious effort not to. I have notice a particular state of energy within this community, or atleast within my own place sat within this community. For example, when I myself contemplate all of these questions, I would be far more humble and confused about everything I am saying. But if I were to present this energy of uncertainity within this community, it would feel to me like it would be received as a weakness. It would not be taken as seriously. Leo has a tendency to be very dismissive of the positions of others, or atleast this is what I have perceived. I think there reason why I do perceive it this way is because he constantly signalling that he is an authority. He does not talk to you on an equal level, he usually talks down on you. You can feel this energy, and someone like me who wants to point out something they feel might be wrong with that authority will have a tendency of doing this from a place of defensiveness and ego. This means I will present my ideas with certainty, even authority, instead of coming from a level of looking eye to eye. In a way I am presenting my "teacher" persona here. I will have to be more conscious of this and try to present a more authentic expression. I am glad you noticed this forest. Me perceiving of this energy and it's effects on me is actually the reason why I wrote the entire post in the first place. See how tricky this is. I am aware of this and yet still I fall into this, which makes me believe that people who are largely unaware of this might fall into this same trap. This is my attempt to bring this to the awareness of this community.

How does it disprove it? Can you not see that you are assuming the experience of everyone else aswell when you say the "We don't believe him". You treat the ego as if it could follow instructions like a robot. When you watch a video and when Leo talks about what he talks about in the way he does, there will be many people who will, whether aware or not, whether trying not to, take what he says as a belief. You infact can see this all the time in this forum. People come here with questions and they expect an answer to it. And many times Leo actually gives them the answer. He doesn't consider how far into their development they are, whether or not the answer will be even helpful for them at all. He just gives them the answer. But that itself will diminish the curiousity. Because the very fact that a person comes into this forum and asks a question shows you that they do have curiousity. They seek to resolve that curiousity. And instead of Leo telling them that they should use that curiousity to point it inwards, he will give them an answer. He took away the very fuel they could have used to come to a further realization. I never assumed the experience of everyone else, I stated that this will not apply to everyone. Although I do believe this will apply to a majority of seekers. You are diminishing the problem by saying that it would only apply to me. But this openmindedness needs to be nurtured. You cannot just assume that everyone will be open minded because you tell them so. That's like telling your 4th grade students to do their homework and never checking on it at all. The ego is a tricky thing, and my entire point is that Leo treats teaching as if it was a factory assembly line, instead of a unique process that requires attention for each individual. It would not be a problem if Leo did not position himself into the role of a teacher. You seem to have taken a very defensive position. I do not think you are actually engaging with what I am saying. Familiarize yourself with the case of Martin Ball.

https://www.amazon.com/Nordic-Naturals-Algae-Omega-Vegetarian/dp/B009KTUGSS Something like that is what you should look out for. As I said the algae's fats are the very same as the fishes fats, so it should have the same effect. Wish you all the luck, may love prosper.

@CultivateLove I understand. The reason why I might be harsh, which is something I have to work on in the future, is because of how disproportionate the suffering you are experiencing is to the suffering the animals are experiencing. The ego is a very tricky thing, and it will try to justify anything. The reason why I am a vegan is because I know the evil I am capable of. I look at it and I choose not to be the person who puts a blind eye. And I am certainly not someone who can claim they thrive on a vegan diet. You could for example consume insects and mussels if you do need them to sustain yourself. There are a few things about what you say that in particular makes me think you are not honest with yourself, or atleast your ego might be putting blindfolds on. For example, baby male chicks, even in free range farms have to be killed. I don't really think there is a way around that. With fishing, you have the fish themselves suffer and you have a tremendous amount of more animals suffering as a result of being by catch. Our oceans are already overfished and the ecosystems might collapse in the near future. But more importantly, look at how the ego acts to justify itself. It was said that: "I do, but judging by the way you're framing your 'point', it seems you do not realize that it doesn't matter if you go fully vegan and spend your entire life fighting for animal rights, you are STILL living through each and every possible incarnation that could possible ever exist, including all the brutally killed and tortured animals. There is NOTHING you can do to change it. " Can you not see that you could justify any action this way? You could justify terrible things done to humans, after all it wouldn't make a difference. I do not subscribe to Leo's philosophy, and I certainly will not subscribe to it if what he is claiming is not my lived direct experience. There is too much oppurtunity for my ego to simply justify it's own behaviour and remain stagnant. This is why I am so against revealing these deeper truths to everyone in these highly conceptualzied philosophies that get tied into ethics aswell. By the way, the fish oil is truly unnecessary because fish cannot synthesize the fats you are taking. They are getting them from algae and planktons, which you can get directly. They are molecularly identical. Also, consider that the way you think animals are treated is not truly the way they are treated. The farms are not the same as the slaughterhouses these animals are sent to. And if you are not a complete moral nihilist, consider how much even one such instance is worth in terms of your own well being. Don't do it from a moralistic point of view, just try looking at it from a place of compassion Here is a video of a danish cow in tremendous suffering, viewer discretion advice. It is disturbing footage. You cannot expect humans to treat animals respectfully while they are killing them all day long, every day. This demands a psychology that cannot be found in a healthy individual. They have to view the animals as objects, otherwise they wouldn't be capable of doing what they do. Here is a good video on what slaughterhouses do to the soul of the slaughterhouse workers: I have heard so many times people claim "But in our country it's different", and a little research usually reveals it is not the case.

@CultivateLove There is something to consider here, an opportunity for growth. The reason why I said your reaction was telling was because it was defined by the ego. It did not come from your heart, it came from a place of fear and suffering. This is relevant becaue it means that the decision you have made that I was questioning was one made from a place of survival. It was made from a place of fear and suffering. This is why when I point to anything that threatens the ego, the ego seeks to defend itself, justify itself. It is blind to my possible ignorance, it's heart is closed. It knows only one thing, survival. This is what has been demonstrated. Love will reveal itself in a way not known to the ego. When the ego is attacked, love will instead look at the one who is attacking with compassion. For example, a loving response would have been: "My brother, I can see and understand your compassion for animals, I can see it makes you hurt when you realize that others are contributing to their suffering and death. I will think about what you have said, but I cannot asure you that it will change my decision." I could have been more loving, too. And you might have not reacted this way in the first place. But this is what I have to learn, to touch within my brothers and sisters the heart, not the ego.

I have attempted this on this forum many times and it has never done much good. I understand your fear and suffering. You feel threatened by what I have said and you have responded accordingly. In your fear you are not ready to open your heart. I will not argue with you my brother or sister, but I hope you will one day find the love to face your fears.

@CultivateLove Namaste.

You reaction is telling.

Watch "The Social Dilemma" on netflix. It is not just harmful for the brain, it is especially harmful for society at large.

From a non-dual perspective this is a simple equation. Do you rather want to be bloated and have whatever problems you are as a vegan, or do you want to have your throat cut open every day, be pulled from the oceans and sufficate and then being possibly ripped apart while alive, be killed right after you were born as a baby chick day after day. That equation is pretty simple if you are a sane individual. You either suffer a bit, or tremendously. The truth is you probably just do not realize that you are the one being pulled from the oceans, that you are the one whose throat is being cut open and who is suffering day in day out. How many of your own lifes are worth to get rid of the little discomfort you experience when vegan?

What's the point of addressing it? Anything he could possibly say will not be the truth, it will simply be a concept to satisfy your mind and make it certain of one way over the other.

What if that's how the ego dies in a psychedelic? What if you are given the choice for permanent ego death? I've been having a dream in which I also felt like I could make the decision to die right now, and it truly felt like I would physically die, stop breathing and my heart would stop. I always fought my way out of it. But I wonder what would happen if I did it. Could be some advanced trickery of the ego to survive.

The true mind bender: What is denial?

Love you guys. Imagine having to do all of this alone in a cave 2000 years ago.

Sure, I am trying to work from within what I understand of Leo's philosophy. From my understanding he in the past made the distinction between the relative and the absolute, and would have claimed that "Truth is Love" is an Absolute Truth. If this is not the case anymore, I would be confused as to why he would say that someones teachings or enlightenment is incomplete, as he claims that those who have a complete enlightenment would know that Love is the Ground of Being so to speak. Anyone who would deny that would not have seen reality as deeply as he has. The relative-absolute distinction is paradoxical but that is just the way it is.

The fact that when you put all of this into language it turns out with paradoxes and "contradictions" is the most beautiful illustration of why language is lmiited and simply does not work int capturing any of this at all. Language is like trying to play 4D chess on 2 dimensional chess boards.

You have drawn a dichotomy between objectivity and subjectivity that does not exist. They are both the same. All subjectivity is ultimately Truthful.

And more importantly Leo, if you say there are two realities. In one which contains "Truth is Love" and one which contains "Truth isn't Love", then it is quite impossible to disagree about what reality is, as each one of you is referring to a different reality. It could not be the case that you disagree about one singular reality if both of them are two different realities. You aren't truly disagreeing, you are just describing what is Seen. Therefore, the disagreement is an illusion.

In his reality Truth is Love. It has to be if Truth is Love. In his reality there simply is a thought "Truth isn't love". That's all. Truth is Love (if it is). Truth doesn't change by what you belief in. Truth can be Love without Ralston ever realizing it. Infact, no being ever could realize it, and it would still be the case. It doesn't go deeper at all, it's just beliefs and ideas. Ideas and beliefs are powerful, sure. But they are not Truth itself, they are part of it.

This is a prime example of how love can heal a humans body, mind and soul. This is what the future of mankind looks like. Full of love and compassion. Some people think that loving and having compassion for others is a burden, but it is quite the opposite. It will be the foundation upon which our civilization will thrive. It will be what heals us and this planet. There is no difference between giving love and receiving it. This must be understood.