Joseph Maynor

I like the idea that it's tongue in cheek. Leo is basically showing us how absurd belief is by lampooning reasoning. That's how I read it. Pounds fist on table.

As you allege? Am I just supposed to take your word for it? That's a big claim. A belief to boot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor A lot of people don't even know what Ontology is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

Adyashanti is my favorite of the gurus I have seen so far. He appears to be the real deal. And Eckhart Tolle too. Both are amazing.

There's a bit of a paradox. You can learn all you want, just don't attach too much to it. I find that learning actually supports my skepticism regarding conceptual-truth because I have the counter-paradigm at hand for every paradigm. Therefore it is easier for me to suspend belief because all my beliefs are in high-relief. It's harder for your beliefs to hide when you've studied the shit out of Philosophy. Don't worry about being inconsistent. The problem is when you attach to the idea that beliefs are what is most true. We know that what is most true is the reality in the moment, which has little to do with retained-beliefs. So, there is no contradiction. It's a subtle issue and kinda hard to explain, but I gave it a shot.

I'm just a dude.

You could use the belief that 'reality is a dream' as a counter-weight paradigm to the paradigm that reality it is not a dream -- thus leading the student to suspend belief on either paradigm. That's how I tend to interpret these counter-weight theories. Some of you tend to want to believe these counter-weight theories quite literally, which is a fault in my view. We're trying to get people to SUSPEND clinging tightly to belief-paradigms and ideology in general.

Do you see that the premise question: What is reality made out of? is ridiculous? There is a metaphor right in that question. You start the search for thought with thought. Reality is not a cake. Asking what reality is made out of is a problematic premise to start with. Do you see? G.E. Moore, a Western Philosopher, famously stated that most of the errors in Philosophy result from a bad starting question. We get perplexed by a foolish question and get more lost by trying to answer it. Meanwhile, reality carries on undisturbed and ignored. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._E._Moore

I call BS unless I have direct proof. I'm starting to err on the side of BS and placing the burden of proof of these people making these wild claims. Most likely an alterior motive. Almost all explanations become clear when you look at motive -- or likely motive. People get into spirituality to be significant and to make money off gullible people. I bet this profession is older than prostitution. The con man button-holes his prey to earn his pay.

The impression the video had on me was rather odd. Something was off about it. I wasn't quite sure what was being communicated. I'm still not sure what to make of it. Maybe Leo has become too enlightened to communicate with us mortals anymore.

I'm not gonna name names, but I've been experimenting with watching lots of different videos lately, and I get a bad vibe sometimes where I can kind of tell there's deception going on -- like a kind of snake-oil salesman scenario. It's a sense I have. An intuition. Like -- ah! -- This guy is full of sh*t kind of vibe. 'Pretending' by Eric Clapton Here's the studio version of the song for comparison:

You can run but ya can't hide.

Some people let their creativity trump truth. I've noticed that. Truth has to wear the pants in this work -- or you're liable to go off into la la land. You'll be living in your replacement-story. We want you to get out of all stories, all fantasies.

Nobody's got a good Mooji vid to share with me? Impress me.

It seems like of a tongue in cheek video. Like a self-parody. Like a form of ironic humor. Am I right? Like -- you want to be mindfucked -- here you go!

I can see now why. I found Martin's article. http://realitysandwich.com/51650/terence_dmt/ // https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_McKenna

Haha! I finally cracked the code! Damn. For the longest time, I'm like where the hell are these people picking this sh*t up from. Now I know. Usually when people ask "what is he smoking", they're talking about me. But in this case -- I've been the one thinking 'whaddya smokin brah'?" haha. Damn. Something good.

He doesn't really resonate with me here. He seems kinda off to me. There's a weird vibe there. Kind of a creepy vibe. I've tried to watch some of his videos and it just never clicked with me.

I get it now. You guys are being confused by Jed McKenna's work. I finally figured that out. Dude!

This guy is gonna confuse you. This is an example of being led off a cliff. Too bad.

Watch this in its entirety: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume Read this! It's fascinating. 'Hume on Reason' http://www.humesociety.org/hs/issues/v5n1/winters/winters-v5n1.pdf

Allow me to preach to the choir SOUL: Detachment from belief allows freedom. It allows authenticity. You do beliefs, don't let beliefs do you. Instead of letting beliefs imprison you, you wear the pants in the relationship with beliefs. Beliefs have the power and certainty that you give them, and no more.

Find your life purpose, become enlightened, and get out of your own way. That's the key to success. I'm not kidding!

Any statement of the form 'Life is X', where X is a conceptualization, is false. This is an important principle to get. Some people seem not to grok this yet. Unless it's 'I am hungry', where you might be pointing out an actual feeling of hunger, so this statement wouldn't be false. It's pointing to something real, namely the feeling of hunger. As a pointer to the feeling it isn't false. But if you took it literally -- I am hungry -- that is false. So, pointers are not the same as beliefs. It's the identity beliefs that are false, and those are what we should be worried about.

Love is the result of removal of ignorance.