Scholar

Do some research on ayurveda, it's not necessarily an accurate model, although it seems to work in practice from what I hear, but the general principles imply something that completely lacks in our western understanding of what diets and even lifestyles are healthy for us. There could be a relationship between our general constitutions, our minds, our gut-biome and so forth that makes specific approaches for specific people more approriate than for others. For example, if I test myself on Ayurvedic principles, I seem to be a Vata Dosha. I have a slender build, very dry skin, tooth irregularities, very good at jogging and similar light-intensity activities. My mind is very restless, I get interested in different things very quickly and lose interest very quickly. I learn quickly and forget quickly. I have difficulty sleeping and I am easily fatigued. Vata Dosha is Cold and Dry, this means, from an Ayurvedic perspective, I should eat warm and moist food. I should eat nourishing foods and eat them regularily. I should therefore avoid fasting and avoid eating too much raw vegetables. I need consistency in my daily morning routine to reduce my tendency to be all over the place and lose focus. I need lots of rest and sleep. There is even specific foods which are deemed good and bad for the Vata Dosha and can bring one out of balance depending if one has too much of it or too little. Now, a lot of things I listed, from a western perspective, would simply assume to be somehow unhealthy: You have dry skin and are skinny? Probably something to do with bad health. You have tooth irregularities? Must be bad genes! Your mind is restless and you lose interest in things quickly? You are undisciplined and childish! This kind of thinking leads us to attempt to fix all of these things. "I have to get bigger, I need more protein and lift more weights!" "I have dry skin, this means something must be deeply wrong with my health!" "I lose focus quickly and can't motivate myself to stick to one activity for more than two weeks, this means I need to become more disciplined!" Ayurveda however states that these Dosha's, there constitutions of mind and body, are inherent to us. If we for example listen to someone who is naturally rather disciplined, who has smooth and oily skin and so forth and listen to their advice we will do the opposite to helping ourselves. We will apply what works for other Dosha's and apply it to ourselves. A Vata for example, to be productive, needs lot's of variety and lot's of different activities throughout the day. If you for example would attempt to "discipline" yourself to sit around all day long and study one specific subject in one specific way because you think that's what you need to do, you will find yourself getting burned our in a short timeframe. You will be far less productive in total than if you had constructed your life to fit your natural tendencies, of for example getting super inspired to do a specific thing and doing it very intensely for a very short period of time. This is very interesting because even self-help books do not consider this. They treat as if there was one method of approaching mastery, or learning in general, for all people. "If you just get yourself to be like me, you will have success!" This is ignorant of the inherent differences between different types of people. A Vata cannot have the same approach to learning as a Kapha has, but the Kapha might be the one who has the greater tendency to master a specific subfield and then write about how he mastered it. Of course he mastered it, because his Dosha is perfect for mastering something with that specific approach! And it will work perfectly well for all who have the same Dosha. But for those who do not, and aren't even aware of it, will fail and then ask themselves what the hell is wrong with them. They might conclude that whatever they are trying to do is not for them, because they do not enjoy it at all. Of course they don't, because the approach it in a way that goes against their nature. The same applies to the diet and it probably extends to all other areas of life, including things like relationships and spirituality. Ayurveda might not be entirely accurate and certainly incomplete, but we must take the principles and apply them to our own approach to how we understand health, learning and so forth. I predict that this will be one of the most ignorant seeming areas that people will look back at in the future. Vata will not sit around on a cushion and meditate peacefully, every single day, in the same way. I tried it, it simply does not work. I need variety in the approach. Sure I will not get as deep, but I won't anyways, because my mind gets utterly disgusted when it needs to do the same meditation technique every single day for a month. By the time two weeks have passed my mind will refuse to do the meditation to such a degree that it will forget how I was even doing it in the first place. It will literally erase progess I made just so I go and do something else. I was fighting this tendency a long time, and when I started to give in to my tendencies, in a healthy way, I found it to be far more enjoyable and therefore find myself to continue doing practices far more effectively. I have to accept that I might never reach the same level of depth as a Kapha might reach. I get breakthroughts with new methods in a very small amount of time, I can learn a new technique in a single day. But I can't quite get as deep as a slower, more patient learner does. I will also tend to forget it far more quickly. This is just how it is.

@Leo Gura From what I understand Eskimo's are far from perfectly adpated to their environment, they are simply adapted to survive long enough to pass on their genes: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23489753 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12535749 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19800772 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20548980 https://www.onlinecjc.ca/article/S0828-282X(14)00237-2/abstract https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.1814937!/httpFile/file.pdf I can't find the source but I'm remembering having heard the Eskimos health improved after adopting a standard american diet, which obviously is far from optimal for anyone. Selective pressures do not necessarily manifest in perfect adaptibility. Especially with something like going from an omnivore to a carnivore, which takes a long time.

Just because it doesn't add up to you doesn't make it false. It is well established that the same amount of calories will require far more ressources for beef than it will for various plant calories. Factory farming is in the majority of cases more environmentally friendly than roaming cattle due the the substaintial amount of land that is required to feed cows with grass. There is no such thing as a right to do anything. In my opinion it is also very ignorant to reduce this calculation to meat vs plant based. If I need to eat meat, does that mean I can factory farm chimps and dolphines or even humans for that matter, if I have access to beings that are less sentient? Just because you need meat doesn't mean you can just kill any animal whatsoever to get it, otherwise you could easily justify killing humans for meat production. If there is an alternative in my view any functional moral system will have to somehow reduce itself to only consuming the least sentient animals that is practically possible. This means something like this: If you truly require meat, eat mussels. If mussels are not available, eat insects. If insects are not available, eat fish. And so forth. You wouldn't just go and kill a human because you need meat, that would seem absurd. You can be absolutely healthy without consuming any beef whatsoever. For the absolute majority of people mussels and fish are easily accessable and a far more healthier alternative. It is not yet established that it is not possible to structure a plant based diet and still be reasonably healthy for the majority of people. This is just an assertion, and I would posit it to be a moral imperative for us to: A) Do our utmost best to not include products that cause greater suffering and exploitation in our diet and otherwise. B) If we do require some of them, make efforts to somehow aquire these products or essential nutrients in these products in a different manner (like supporting lab grown meat for example) C) Change our view that we are entitled to the most optimal health. To me it is inconsistent and self-biased to treat animals like cows, chicken, fish and so forth to any lesser degree than we treat mentally disabled people on the same level of sentience. I could not possibly conceive of a difference between them, other than reasons based on self-bias, that would justify the kind of argumentation you are providing. "You surely can't expect people to have unhealthy bodies purely so that we can save a few mentally disable people?" If you think this comparison is outrageous, I view it as evidence of your self-bias and speciesism. It is no different from racism.

A few other good ways to look at all of this: If you realized you are the Creator of all that Is, all that was and all that will be (even if both of these things can only be what Is), how would the chimp mind respond to it? How would it look at itself and the world if it new that it was the origin of all of it and that it deemed all of it Perfection? Now add the realizations that you are Infinte and that you are all of it. You are all the rapists, you are Hitlers. And not only that, you have commanded for there to be Infinite rapists and Hitlers. Now add to that the realizations that all of you will return to the Source, that all that Is is necessarily impermanent. That all Creatures that exist will return to the Infinite Source of Nothingness. What would that do to the chimp mind? What would it do to the ant mind? What would it do to the lions mind? What would it do to the dolphines mind? Additionally you will realize the dharmic nature of reality. That all that Is has it's place and that it is placed perfectly. That there is no an inch of misplacement in all of Infinite existence. This is Dharma. It means that all Creatures, all Things and all Non-Things serve their Purpose perfectly. The lions purpose is to eat the gazelle. The gazelles purpose is to suffer as it is eaten. That all of them are playing their role perfectly. That the carnist is seeking to remain carnist. The vegan is seeking to abolish animal exploitation. All of them are playing their part perfectly. If it is your purpose to look at yourself and your authentic expression, you will realize you are one or the other and either way you will be playing your role. You will be the Leo justifying selfishness or you will be the vegan criticizing him. It all is perfect and it all has it's play. Evolution will take care of the rest, by itself. We are not seperate from Evolution, we are the process of Evolution. This is inescapable, although similar to Psychological Self-Acceptance there is Psychological Dharma. Psychological Dharma will lead to Sukha, which is one of the ways Reality manifests it's Will. It manifests it by Suffering, and you shall suffer if you do not follow your Dharma, even if it is not possible to not follow it. Psychological Dharma, much like Psychological Self-Acceptance, can be the case or not be the case. It's like you will follow the laws of gravity no matter what, however you can jump. Just expect gravity to pull you back if you resist it. Psychological Dharma is a problem for humans not so much for animals. Animals in the wild are usually in perfect accordance with their Dharma. A bird will not contemplate why it needs to make new babies and raise them. An owl will not contemplate the morality of it's action. Both of them follow their Dharma perfectly, their place in the world. Enlightenment is strange in that it hijacks this psychological dharmic system as the insight leads to a realization of Absolute Dharma, meaning that as I have described all Things in the universe serve and cannot help avoiding to serve their purpose. This can in the chimp mind lead to a great motivation to fullfill ones Psychological Dharma, but it can also lead to a great indifference due to the realization that there is no such thing as more or less dharma. This will be determined by the form of the mind. There is no reason for why we should prepare our psychology before enlightenment or why we should seek enlightenment in the first place. A reason is not necessary, for it is the case anyways. This is the difference between a dharmic understanding and a moral understanding of the world. From a perspective of morality we must justify everything in some way, a dharmic understanding will realize that the existence of it is it's justification. Why expoit animals? Because it is so. Why criticise the exploitation of animals? Because it is so. Not who is right, nor who is wrong. Simply evolution taking place. Reality will conspire to aid you not if you follow some rules of morality, but rather if you follow your dharma. It's interesting because talking and realizing Dharma leads to an alteration of Dharma. It seems to generate a very transrational dynamic, like the Observer vs the Observed. Some people for example will use dharmic concepts to justify their actions. So they will use dharmic concepts and translate them into morality. That itself is in a way dysfunctional, but at the same time it is perfectly functional because it is the dharma of dharma to make people translate it into morality and create religious systems out of it. It's very difficult to put it into linear and casual terms.

This is a very important aspect that I think is very misunderstood. I feel like people do not quite grasp how radical full self-acceptance is. Psychological self-acceptance as Leo is advocating is the acceptance of all that is in terms of identity and ego. This is not metaphysical self-acceptance, because metaphysical self-acceptance is always the case. It cannot be not the case as it is the prerequisite for existence, or rather it is existence itself. Psychological self-acceptance or what we call enlightenment is more of a recognition of that Metaphysical Self-Acceptance. A recogntion and therefore an altering of the psychology of the chimp mind, thus leading to talk about self-acceptance, self-love and so forth. What is important to recognize however is that the insight of Metaphysical Self-Acceptance will mold and respond to different kinds of psychologies in different ways. You give a psychopathic child rapist complete insight into Self-Acceptance and he will with joy rape the children even more so than before. Don't forget that there have been enlightened people who were sacrificing human beings by the thousands. It all depends on the psychology. This is basically Survival responding to Divinity. Metaphysical Self-Acceptance is all that is, including all the rapists, all the survival and all the "devilry". [removed by Moderator] This is why we change psychology before enlightenment, before the insight of self-acceptance. Or rather moral development and self-acceptance should happen in a functional and progressive way so that it eventually creates behaviour that strike a balance between survival and psychological self-acceptance. This seems to be what the whole process of evolution is about, to strike the right balance. Humanity might not have striked the right balance and could very well be on the way of dissolving itself. This is necessary because this way of the world allows for all the creatures to evolve who can indeed strike the balance eventually.

How does someone positively affect the world while they contribute to the greatest holocaust and environmental destruction in the history of mankind and is continuously trying to justify it instead of finding ways to avoid it, say by means of consuming insects, mussels or similar products which involve less suffering and environmental destruction? Especially from someone whose only purpose is self-actualization and improving oneself. "Everyone's body works different ways" doesn't give you a free pass to consume however you want. I think this is a very interesting attitude of entitlement. I am entitled to be optimally healthy and I am entitled to ensure it by holocausting other beings. This is the height of self-bias. This kind of thinking is what can justify human slavery. After all, how would Leo positively affect the world if he had to grow his own crops and basically spend 12 hours plowing and working on a field to ensure he wouldn't starve to death the next winter? If he has a few slaves doing it he could easily focus on intellectual pursuits and self-actualization. This is the way Elites have been doing and justifying it for centuries. Sure it worked, but do you see Christ or Buddha justifying their actions this way?

Yes, it's very interesting to observe. There is a mindset that whatever is mainstream must be a conspiracy to keep us unhealthy, so a lot of people who were raw vegan when it was fringe had this mindset. Once veganism became more mainstream they seem to have abandoned it and a lot of them now follow the carnivore diet, because it is the new fringe.

Both Bobby and Sv3rige were basically starving themselves with a raw vegan diet, to use them as good examples for ex-vegans is in my opinion irresponsible. Infact most ex-vegans on youtube seem to have been raw vegans or similar extreme diets. You have Tim Shieff who basically drank his own piss and starved himself believing it would heal him, you had Vegetable Police drinking turpentine and also starving himself believing it would heal him. You had Bobbies perspective being raw vegan and being proud of how ripped he looked while he encouraged by his followers to starve himself. You had sv3rige who also starved himself and sungazed until he was hospitalized and almost died. Raw veganism is alluring for the seemingly most irrational and irresponsible people, so to use these peoples failure as evidence that the vegan diet is somehow deficient is in my view very problematic.

But Leotl is already imagining crocodiles into existence, Leotl is already imagining China into existence. All that you see, all of reality, is Leotl's Will. It is Leotl's Will for everything to be exactly as it already is. If Leo becomes Leotl he will not change a thing, because he will realize that all that Is is already his Will. When you realize that you are God, you realize that you have the Will to manifest all of Infinity into existence. That is your Will, it is limitless, it is Free Will. You created both the world, the suffering, the desire to want peace for the world and the state of non-peace of the world. You Love all of it equally. Realizing you are God you would not change anything because all of manifestation is already a Perfect Manifestation of your Free Will. There is nothing to change, nothing to alter. All that's happening is you looking into your own Abyss, and even that your true Free Will has imagined into existence. Leo's Will is a manifestation of Leotl's Will. But Leotl's Will is not a manifestation of Leo's Will. This is what you are conflating. To embody the Divine simply means to be one with Leotl's Will. For Leo's will to become Leotl's Will, not for Leotl's will to become Leo's Will. In the end it is futile and only a play, for all Will is Leotl's Will. There is no escaping perfection, there is no escaping the perfect embodiment of the Divine. Imagine the Painting realized it was the Painter. Would that mean the Painter would alter the way he paints his Painting? No, for the realization of the Painting being the Painter was the Painters Will in the first place. He is what painted the Painting to realize it was the Painter. The Painting has no effect on the Painter, for the Painter is the Source of all Paintings. And all Paintings are the Will of the Painter. There is no Painting that will not be painted, for it would mean that the Creativity of the Painter was limited. But the Painter is Creative to a limitless degree. There is no end to Paintings, and to the Painter, all the Paintings are equally precious. But of course the theory is false. You are not supposed to believe it, that would be absurd!

Can you provide a source on that?

How is he missing anything at all? It's not like he is finite. To the enlighened person the Divine will laugh and say "Oh enlightened person, you have no idea what you are missing!" And then the enlightened person pops into existence as a zebra being eaten by a lion. "Now you know what you have been missing, enlightened person.", the Divine will say, and the zebra will know.

I guess Leo could show more of himself so that people idealize him less. At the moment we are limited to seeing him under very controlled conditions where he can basically put forth his ideas from the perspective of a teacher and less so how he is in his personal life. This leads to people constructing ideas about him that idealize him, because they tend to assume Leo is a perfect follower of his own teachings. To mitigate this he could be more authentic to who he is as a human being prior to who he is as a teacher. This would obviously compromise his authority to a certain degree which comes with it's own problems as far as the overall message goes. For example he would be letting go of the control of this community which might lead to it taking on it's own cult dynamics which he would not be able to control anymore. It also might lead to people being less attracted to his teachings and so forth. Basically what Leo is balancing is his trust in the Divine vs trust in his own strategic planning (which in essence is the same). Submitting himself fully to love would require to fearlessly embrace his own authentic self, with the risk of his creation falling prey to the Devil. To attempt to create the uncorruptable requires fear of being corrupted. There is still a subtle attachment to the form his creation is supposed to take. The chimp still wants to control for it believes to know better than Reality itself. Look at the radical love of Reality itself. It is so selfless it does not care about being corrupted whatsoever. It is fully willing to be ultimately corrupted. That is the true sacrifice, the true love. It might be too radical for even the enlightened chimp mind to accept. At some point one has to let go. At some point one can only watch ones own creation attempt to figure it out itself. This is precisely what we are doing here. There is noone to tell the birds about God. The bird is just here, on it's own, needing to figure things out by itself. Noone will teach it Divinity.

@bejapuskas @d0ornokey That's precisely how Spiral Dynamics works. Seeing the limitations of Orange and being forced to accept ideas coming from Green. It is how I transitioned myself. The suffering caused by Orange is the perfect catalyst for transitioning to green.

I took a bath some days ago and it once more hit me how impossible all of existence is. Altered states are not necessary to see the impossibility and truly mysterious nature of all things common. It's hard to put it into words, but you can clearly see how absurdly weird even the most fundamentaly aspects of our being are. The most fundamentaly, unthinkably common things are utterly impossible. The visual field itself, with colors, shapes, seperation, size and all aspects for which we have found no words for, they are literally magic itself. It is completely insane, it cannot be put into words how impossible it is, how utterly weird and miraculous. The fabric which upholds "physical reality" or "mind" is simply inexplicable. To all the gross and subtle things, that which swims between them, that which gives continuity, it is without question completely and fully mysterious. I much prefer to see the impossible in the common rather than be surprised by the mysterious nature of the uncommon. If you were given a new dimension of existence to experience, or what we call a new Sense, you would instantly realize the impossibility of it. You would immediately realize the limitlessness of existence. But that is not necessary at all. And moreover it will not give you insight into the utterly absurd nature of the things that are most common to you. The things so common you do not even have a name for them. The things so utterly common no human being has ever found a word for it. If you see the utterly impossible nature of the most common, the uncommon will be nothing but an extention of the common. And the common will be the utterly mysterious and impossible. There is state of realization that I cannot quite find a word for it. It is like seeing Logic itself, all states of existence which to us seem so common that it is inconceivable to even imagine them to be of other nature. Seeing that very clearly, and seeing that it is utterly mysterious. That it is not how things have to be, but simply how they are. Seeing the impossibility of their presence to such a degree that you feel like you might go insane just by looking at it for any longer. Being so aware of them that you can identify their waving nature... Holy shit, I just realized the word I was looking for is Illusion. This is Illusion. You look so deeply at the thing most common that you realize their illusiory nature. And Illusion is magical, it is utterly mysterious and impossible. Looking at it with such intensity that you feel like the Illusion might fall apart and that you might never come back. I have not yet developed the courage to continue looking at it. Whenever I try I feel dreadful. It feels like it could be so final that I would never come back. It feels like literally going insane. No, it rather feels like one is becoming so sane that the common, the world itself, would become pure insanity. That one would not be able to escape the mysterious nature of all things, the impossibility of it. And there is a sense that the full realization of the impossibility of it will actually render all of it non-existent.

Yeah, very effective teachings. It's cool to see what actual Eastern Wisdom manifests as when it is not simply read in some books but deeply studied with the people who live it every day. I never heard of the Ayurveda stuff before. It seems like I'm a Vata. Does anyone have deeper knowledge on this topic or some books to recommend?

It is simple: Accept Low Consciousness. That means stopping to call it Low Consciousness. That means to stop judging it. That means to see the Divinity and Absolute Necessity of all that Is. There is no such thing as low or high consciousness unless you imagine it. How to deal with Low Consciousness requires there to be Low Consciousness. If you want to deal with Low Consciousness, you shall forever deal with Low Consciousness. You are dealing with Low Consciousness because you desire to deal with Low Consciousness. You desire to struggle, otherwise you would not be struggling.

Death is part of evolution. Evolution cannot know mercy, because if it did there would be no life left on this planet. Death, corruption and extinction is an integral part of the evolution of all life. Corruption is a feature not a mistake. Could there be life without suffering? An interesting question, but it does not matter at all, because there can be life with suffering. That is the entire point. The tool works perfectly fine, there is nothing wrong with it. Infact, the wrongness of it is precisely the point and genius of the tool. The tool which arises continously despite in it's own nature seeking to dissolve itself. The design is unfathomably intelligent. Whenever someone talks of devirly, it can only be the devil who speaks, as the Divine knows no such thing as devilry. Is that not beautiful? The Devil is the one who seeks to destroy itself. Yet it also seeks to uphold itself. In both forms the devils denies to be the devil, because without the devil there would be Nothing. That is one aspect of the divine balance. The desire to fight devilry is necessarily devilry, no matter how sophisticated of an philosophical position you may construct to hide that fact. The Source generates devilry and the fight of devilry in a perfectly appropriate manner. It makes no difference between the two, and it is blind to the individual consequences of it. All life on this planet will eventually be extinguished because of the very tools of nature that allowed it to exist. Much like entire species go extinct due to the balancing act of nature, all life on this planet will eventually end. This is not unfortunate, because the metaphysics which makes this happen is precisely what allows it to exist in the first place. What you do not see in your myopia is that even if the divine balancing act itself will end all life on this planet, that same balance will allow for trillions upon trillions of other planets to prosper. Without the balancing act, no planet would prosper, with the balancing act, most planets will fail and the fittest will thrive. We can see this in evolution. Most species fail eventually. This is evolution. Most life on most planets will fail. And only that will allow for those few to continue to exist. But eventually even they will dissolve aswell. The important part about this is that it is beyond intelligent. This can only truly be accepted from the perspective of the Divine. The rules which govern this reality give rise to life. They give rise to evolution. Evolution kills 99.99999999...% of all forms and species. Yet the small amount which is able to continue is all that matters, because in the totality of this reality even the smallest survival percentage will lead to Infinite Diversity of Life. There is no difference between 100% surviving and 0.0001% surviving. Any number times Infinity will equal Infinity. This is why the Divine has a Total indifference towards the outcome of Life on this planet. Because the balancing act, corruption, suffering, death, extinction is what will ensure the thriving of Infinite Beings, in a way such that they all will return to the Source eventually. It does not matter whether or not all life on this planet will go extinct. Infact the balancing act of reality might already declared it to be inevitable. We might have taken the wrong evolutionary path thousands of years ago, leading us to the inevitable demise. The rules however which lead to our demise are exactly the rules which will make infinite other planets, species, beings, civilizations and beyond bask in the Infinite diversity of consciousness. Infinite Diversity requires Infinite sacrifice. Devilry is perfection, it is a feature, it is necessary in all of it's forms. There is no amount of it that is unnecessary or required to be fought, called out or spoken against, other than the amount that is and will be fought, called out or spoken against. There is no difference between devilry and any other such thing that calls out devilry for what it is. Both of them are the play of balance which leads to infinite sacrifice, which leads to infinite diversity. To truly accept this would be to dissolve completely, like all life that has ever lived and will ever live. There is only the struggle so far as it is part of the eternal balance. Try to grasp this, all that you are experiencing right now. The colors, the smells, the thoughts, the memories, the world. All of it. Look at it's impossibility, look at how each aspect is undeniably impossible. Sacrifice is the method through which all of this came to be. Sacrifice which from the perspective of the one who is making that sacrifice is no sacrifce at all, but a pure act of Creation. True Creativity requires all the "bad" ideas to be put aside so one can create attention. Attention is required for cohesion, cohesion is the nature of the world. In the end the is that which is incomprehensible. That which gives rise to understanding itself.

What's the difference?

I've been wondering about something Leo said a few times now. He claims he has reached levels of consciousness or aspects of awakening that he has read in no book or heard any teacher speak of. What exactly is he referring to? So far what Leo is communicating to us does not seem to me like it is something books and other teachers do not talk about. And if he cannot communicate these levels of consciousness, why then does he expect other teachers or books to communicate these levels of consciousness?

No, that was not my question at all. I tried clarifying it twice now, I will not do so again. My question had nothing to do with Leo's way of teaching or how effective it is.

What you wrote has nothing to do with what I am investigating. If you imply that Leo is not mentioning the aspects he has discovered which lack in other teachings, then I do not see how it is rational to simply trust Leo that he has discovered anything that is deeper than other teachings. It might be valid from Leo's perspective, but from ours it would be cultlike to simply trust Leo in his words until he does not clearly communicate these aspects. If they are incommunicable, my point still stands as to how Leo could possibly know he has reached deeper levels than other teachers if these deeper levels cannot be communicated whatsoever.

You guys are missing the central point of my inquiry. Leo is claiming that what he discovered no other teacher talks about or that he is understanding it far deeper than other teachers. Yet, in information Leo is relaying to us I have not discovered a single thing that was not yet talked about. I need either evidence of something specific Leo is communicating that no other teacher is communicating, and it has to be able to be formulated into an idea, or I need an explanation for how Leo can know his depth of understanding is greater if what he says cannot be communicated which would apply to all other teachers aswell and therefore would mean Leo could not possibly know the depth of other teachers who from an outside perspective look the same at his. If the greater depth understanding of Leo cannot be formulated into a specific idea that is different in appearance from ideas that currently exist, it could not be possible for Leo to tell whether or not his understanding is deeper than any other understanding, because it would not be possible to differentiate the depth of understanding on the basis of the appearance of the ideas. This thread it not about Leo being more advanced or not, or how effective his way of communicating is. I am not interested in that. I am interested in how Leo could possibly make such a claim if his teachings are identical in appearence with that of other teachings. We therefore must establish A) A clear difference in the teachings that can be observed by an outsider (like something Leo is specifically talking about that most other teachings are not talking about) or B) How it could be possible for Leo to gage how deep another teaching is if the presence of further depth does not manifest in the form of the teachings themselves.

I found the counterpart to Jordan Peterson. He is doing the same thing but in such a healthy way. He is Eastern Philosophy/Religion instead of Western, this video is basically what all of Jordan Peterson's appeal boils down to: He is specifically targeting the Gamer/Incel groups and is a much better option for those people than someone like Peterson in my opinion. This understanding is exactly what is lacking in our current society and why people like Peterson are so popular.

You might simply have gut issues, this is well known and well researched. Do a Sibo test and get your gut biome checked, once that is complete the doctor will tell you what you need to do to fix it. Plants giving your problems and having to avoid them is not functional and implies that something is wrong with your health. The Peterson's are known for spreading misinformation, they are the epitome of someone trying to be an expert in a field they are no experts in. To say the diet has no downside is in my opinion quite ignorant. Just because of a single person or in fact a collection of people, who have health issues in the first place, going plant free causing them to feel better, does not mean the diet they are on has no downsides, it simply means the underlying health issues are being avoided and not being fixed. Imagine there was a condition which would require you to smoke all day long so that some terrible symptoms would go away. The fact that the symptoms go away from smoking does not mean smoking is good for you inherently or that it has no down sides. A lot of people in here are spreading dangerous misinformation. You guys have basic epistemological incompetence, if you do not fix that you will go through life like a blind chicken.

In my opinion we are past the usefulness of the anti-art movements as they currently stand. By trying desperately to go against tradition and create new trends, you have yourself become part of a trend which is inauthentic to your own true expression. It's useful to explore it, but I find it very boring at this point. If your authentic expression is to be against something, I am not that interested. It's similar to the phenomena of left leaning people hating the rich, but not at all caring about the poor. Being anti-rich, anti-elite and so forth, instead of being pro-worker, pro-human, pro-poor. I prefer the mind to focus on that which it loves, not that which it hates. You will get what you focus on. Look at the anti-theists or the anti-religion people. In all their blind hate, they have deconstructed foundational institutions which gave rise to civilization itself. They have deconstructed it with no vision and no desire to construct something better, as all their attention was put to destroying that which they hate and find appalling. If traditional boundaries are a obstruction to your own authentic vision, to your own authentic expression, go ahead and explore new ways of defining and doing things. But if all you do is putting your focus on the traditional boundaries and having confused it with your authentic expression, you have become what you yourself want to destroy. You have become the rules which you seek to destroy, you have become that which became your sole object of attention. This is why it is so boring and lifeless to witness these artists. They are like communists who only seek to destroy capitalism but do not even have a clue as to what they want to truly replace it with, other than the absence of the capitalistic structures. It is so boring, it literally kills people.