Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[Yimpa]

15 minutes ago, aurum said:

Respect for that ex-Neo Nazi.

The fact that they judge you for the color of your shoelaces is a great feat in absurdity.

[aurum]

24 minutes ago, Yimpa said:

The fact that they judge you for the color of your shoelaces is a great feat in absurdity.

Don't you know fascists love  *color*

 

[Sophophile]

@Leo Gura Sorry to interrupt here, but could you please check the personal message I sent you ?

 

[Water by the River]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@Water by the River Buddhist apologetics is like Christian apologetics.

Christians think that they can defend their dogma by finding one or two highly conscious Christians. Buddhists do the same. In this way the self-deception is sealed.

"Among all things existing in the animate and inanimate universe, there is not one single thing that has not been created by me, nor is there a cause that does not derive from me. Thus I am the essence of all, and nothing surpasses me. I am superior to the three dimensions, to the Buddhas of the three times, to the Vidyadharas, to the Bodhisattvas, to the beings of the three worlds, to the whole animate and inanimate universe, because I am the maker of all. Before there was any other teaching I, that am the source, pure and total consciousness, disclosed the teaching of pure and total consciousness."

Apologetics? 

Doesn't sound quite apologetic to me . 

 

Chanting "Listen, Sattvavajra! I will show you your own nature. You are me, the source. I am and have always been pure and total consciousness. What is pure and total consciousness?" by the River

 

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Water by the River said:

"Among all things existing in the animate and inanimate universe, there is not one single thing that has not been created by me, nor is there a cause that does not derive from me. Thus I am the essence of all, and nothing surpasses me. I am superior to the three dimensions, to the Buddhas of the three times, to the Vidyadharas, to the Bodhisattvas, to the beings of the three worlds, to the whole animate and inanimate universe, because I am the maker of all. Before there was any other teaching I, that am the source, pure and total consciousness, disclosed the teaching of pure and total consciousness."

Apologetics? 

Doesn't sound quite apologetic to me . 

 

Chanting "Listen, Sattvavajra! I will show you your own nature. You are me, the source. I am and have always been pure and total consciousness. What is pure and total consciousness?" by the River

 

Sounds very profound, like the revelation of the nature of reality, but if you read it carefully, it's dual and absolutely false. 

The speaking entity says that it is the creator of all things animate and inanimate, which implies an evident duality in addition to the action of creating and the creative will, that implies limitation and finitude.

After that it claims to be pure and total consciousness, which is impossible, since if it were pure consciousness it would not be out there creating things but rather it would be that, pure consciousness, which on the other hand does not exist, since without an object there is no consciousness. As much as mystics say that they reach a state of empty consciousness, there is still an object which is in this case the same subject, really the same as always, consciousness is the perception of oneself, but reality exists without consciousness and there is no creative entity that speaks of Buddhas and dimensions. There is a potential that develops to infinity, and Buddhism is plagued with contradictions that are assumed because they sound profound, same than other religions 

[Davino]

I went through the Facebook videos and that is some very nasty, twisted and corrupt corporate behaviour. Lmao. Very eye opening. Thanks for sharing Leo.

What most surprises me is the shameless deceiving covering attitude.

[Daniel Balan]

Leo said to check out how many lower perspectives characteristics does Neo Nazism tick! Here you have the notes from his video! 

 

[Leo Gura]

9 hours ago, Water by the River said:

"Among all things existing in the animate and inanimate universe, there is not one single thing that has not been created by me, nor is there a cause that does not derive from me. Thus I am the essence of all, and nothing surpasses me. I am superior to the three dimensions, to the Buddhas of the three times, to the Vidyadharas, to the Bodhisattvas, to the beings of the three worlds, to the whole animate and inanimate universe, because I am the maker of all. Before there was any other teaching I, that am the source, pure and total consciousness, disclosed the teaching of pure and total consciousness."

Apologetics? 

Doesn't sound quite apologetic to me . 

Still no mention of God.

And again, you can cherrypick whatever gems from a group of a billion people. That does not stop the self-deception of the tradition as a whole.

The entire spiritual domain is based on genetics. So just because you find a few genetic freaks who are super advanced in a tradition is highly misleading to more avarage practioners. That's the game being played here. If you have the perfect genetics you don't even need to practice, you can just sit and know everything.

Edited Friday at 09:18 PM by Leo Gura

[integral]

https://www.actualized.org/insights/look-a-horse-in-the-mouth

If an atheist were to read this they would only see a criticism without the solution.

Quote

It’s amazing that it never occurs to most scientists today that counting the number of teeth on a horse is not a good way of understanding horses, nor ultimate Reality.

What is the correct epistemology?

Edited Saturday at 03:17 AM by integral

[Leo Gura]

44 minutes ago, integral said:

What is the correct epistemology?

Direct consciousness.

Be the horse

Edited Saturday at 03:50 AM by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

45 minutes ago, integral said:

If an atheist were to read this they would only see a criticism without the solution.

Solution is to do serious philosophy.

[gettoefl]

Quote

Here's an A–Z of deep epistemological pitfalls—the mental and social traps that obscure, distort, or block access to truth—and a brief note on how each one holds back genuine truth-seeking:

A – Authority
Outsourcing your thinking to supposed experts or institutions overrides inner knowing and discourage direct inquiry.

B – Belief
Rigid belief clings to conclusions and resists new insight, conflating trust and truth.

C – Crowd-wisdom
If most follow it, it is likely foolish.

D – Dogma
Dogma mandates loyalty over understanding, making questioning feel like betrayal rather than discovery.

E – Echo chambers
Staying in ideological bubbles limits exposure to alternative perspectives, reinforcing existing biases.

F – Fear
Fear of being wrong, isolated, or condemned keeps inquiry shallow and truth at arm’s length.

G – Groupthink
Conforming to collective opinion silences personal insight and blinds us to possibilities beyond consensus.

H – Hubris
The arrogance of “knowing” makes one unreceptive to deeper truths that require humility to perceive.

I – Ideology
Ideological frameworks reduce complexity into rigid categories, distorting reality to fit a narrative.

J – Justification
The need to justify current beliefs twists perception and suppresses dissonant evidence.

K – Knowledge-as-possession
Treating knowledge as something to own or wield turns learning into ego accumulation rather than truth-alignment.

L – Logic (misused)
Overreliance on linear reasoning can trap us in closed systems that are internally consistent but divorced from reality.

M – Misidentification
Confusing thoughts, roles, or identities with truth itself obscures the awareness that perceives all these things.

N – Nihilism
Dismissing all meaning as illusion can block the discernment needed to recognize reflections of deeper truth.

O – Opinion
Treating opinions as if they were truths clouds discernment and stops inquiry at the surface level.

P – Paradigm lock
Attachment to a worldview makes it hard to see what lies beyond it, even when it’s breaking down.

Q – Quantification bias
Reducing everything to what can be measured devalues what is subtle, qualitative, and experiential—like love or consciousness.

R – Rationalization
Twisting facts to protect beliefs leads to dishonesty with oneself and undermines authentic knowing.

S – Self-deception- Ignorance of one's own bias

T – Tribalism

Defining truth in terms of what your group thinks breeds conflict, bias, and blind loyalty.

U – Unconscious assumptions
Hidden premises shape what we see and think without our awareness, steering perception away from truth.

V – Verification fetish
Demanding empirical proof for everything blinds one to inner knowing, intuition, and experiential truth.

W – Word-traps
Overattachment to language can obscure meaning, especially in spiritual matters where the truth is often wordless.

X – Xenophobia (of ideas)
Fear or dismissal of unfamiliar perspectives can block insight from unexpected sources.

Y – Yearning for certainty
The craving for absolute answers leads to premature conclusions and resistance to the unknown.

Z – Zealotry
Excessive fervor for an idea or system blinds one to nuance, doubt, and the need to continually refine understanding.

Each of these distorts the inner compass that would otherwise guide toward truth. 

-AI

 

Edited Saturday at 10:53 AM by gettoefl

[Yimpa]

On 2/27/2025 at 1:18 PM, Princess Arabia said:

Who is Wood Jesus?

https://www.instagram.com/meowgura/p/DGR2XPcptQO/?hl=en

[Raze]

This chart is nonsense. It counts shows like Theo Von or Phil McGraw as conservative when they are mostly non-political and have interviewed liberals multiple times. Lex Fridman has roughly equal amounts of conservative and liberal guests. That’s not the same as a full on political show like TYT. It’s also missing the daily show and msnbc. 

Edited yesterday at 12:52 AM by Raze

[Leo Gura]

@Raze They may feel non-political but this is actually most dangerous because such shows have huge sway over undecided voters.

Rogan is not very political but he skews his audience to the right over time by subtlely dripping on their minds about the "crazy" left.

Theo Von is a Trump supporter. No?

These comedian podcasts are dangerous sources of politcial influence because they aren't overtly political. The power is with shows that are not overtly partisan but gradually shift their viewers against Green.

They did leave out Destiny for some reason. He should be a big blue dot on the chart.

Lex is relatively neutral. I agree he should not be classifed as a right-wing influencer.

They didn't include FoxNews either. They were comparing non-mainstream online sources.

I think the chart has a few problems but the overall picture is correct.

Edited yesterday at 01:52 AM by Leo Gura

[Jayson G]

@Leo Gura I literally just made a twitter account today as there is an indie dev community on there to network with, and when you're making a profile and they ask you "Select who to follow" .. It literally showed the top trump supporters in the top 100 people showed. Elon Musk, Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson, DOGE account, its insane. I don't think its just who people are following, I think Elon Musk and Trump very conveniently planned to game the Twitter system to make it purely MAGA agenda. I can't say for sure, but it really seems like it. 

[Leo Gura]

@Jayson G Of course Musk has rigged Twitter against Green. He has no shame. Twitter is now Musk's personal propaganda machine.

Edited yesterday at 01:18 AM by Leo Gura

[Jayson G]

@Leo Gura Honestly looking at that graph you posted, and just seeing how pervasive it is, and even actualized.org helping to avoid such traps .. Im just grateful many of us are not indoctrinated in this, and can avoid this trap and traps like this. 

Sometimes all this self-deception content you post can increase my suffering, but at the same time without all this, I know for sure I'd get caught in traps, and this helps avoid such traps. 

Edited yesterday at 01:35 AM by Jayson G

[Jayson G]

@Leo Gura I smoked weed like 100+ times age 18 to 22 during college. I've quit since, and I'm 29 years old. I checked, and I currently have 0 symptoms of 10 listed of schizophrenia. Are you saying also that this could be a concern later in life? or that you would develop it relatively soon after smoking? 

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, Jayson G said:

@Leo Gura I smoked weed like 100+ times age 18 to 22 during college. I've quit since, and I'm 29 years old. I checked, and I currently have 0 symptoms of 10 listed of schizophrenia. Are you saying also that this could be a concern later in life? or that you would develop it relatively soon after smoking? 

If you were gonna get it, you would have by now.

Schizophrenia is quite rare even if the odds are 6xed.

Edited yesterday at 01:49 AM by Leo Gura