Lack of kindness within this style

[PolyPeter]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

You are right that my style has been harsh which is why I have been softening it lately. But it's still not going to ever be that Rupert Spira style.

I don't like soft and sweet styles of teaching because they do not properly represent the difficulty and seriousness of this work. It's like someone talking sweetly about war.

But I know my style is offputting to plenty of people.

Hi Leo! 

Yes I can see evolution within your work, without missing the -straight to the point- style, you are coming up with better ways to communicate very difficult topics, it starts to have a very artistic approach, which for me is making it even more interesting to listen to. 

Using the right words, the right tone with the right intention is a skill that cannot be taken from granted and will certainly not be suitable for every single human on earth, and I get that! sometimes I struggle to communicate what absolute infinity entails.

What can I contribute in this conversation? 

I've been thinking about this for a while, and in order to enhance what I want to communicate, I tried talking with Claude 3.7 sonnet so it is very clear with an example 

Let's say, infinity:

"When approaching the concept of absolute infinity, it might help to start from our shared experience rather than abstract theory.

Consider how we typically think about infinity in mathematics or philosophy—as something endlessly extending, always more. But absolute infinity points to something qualitatively different. It's not just endless quantity but encompasses all possibilities simultaneously.

Think of how your awareness works right now. The thoughts, sensations, and perceptions you experience all appear within your consciousness. This consciousness itself has no definable boundaries or limits—it's not located in a specific place, doesn't have a shape or size, yet it contains everything in your experience.

Absolute infinity is similar but on a cosmic scale. It's not simply "very big" but rather the boundless ground of being from which all finite things arise. It's not separate from anything that exists—it's what everything is made of, including the awareness reading these words.

What makes this challenging to grasp is that our minds naturally work with boundaries and distinctions. We're trained to see ourselves as separate entities moving through a world of other separate things. But absolute infinity suggests that this separateness is only an appearance within a deeper, unified reality.

This isn't about dismissing your everyday experience but rather inviting an exploration of what makes that experience possible in the first place."

I am aware that writing this is very different than exposing it in a video, but it seems that it could, by the structure, be a starting point towards a way of communication that allows for the mind to be more open to this ideas. 

What do you think? 

[Breathe]

4 hours ago, PolyPeter said:

I would not be the human I am today had I not come across the content on YouTube, and that is truly amazing, for the better. But today, I found that the style itself is a little bit not so gentle. I don't really know how to put it in words, but it feels like Leo is mad at humanity for not being awake enough, and I contrast this communication style in particular against Rupert Spira's style. 

I can relate, I think I was away for a few years, if not longer.

Leo's way of teaching of non-duality is not for me. But he did turn me on to psychedelics and politics.

This would not be my choice for finding love and acceptance.

I come from a Zen background, which I never felt at home at either.

I found a small, politically engaged, Theravada group that I have come to call home.

If you're serious about this stuff, seek out a city with a rich spiritual and creative culture. Also, don't discount some of the intimate communities online if that's the best you can do. There are teachers out there that have a smaller following, and they can be solid.

Ultimately, there are no ideal communities or one-stop shops. But also be careful about mixing and matching conflicting teachings. It will only lead to confusion.

Use discretion and don't put anyone on a pedestal.

Be well.

Edited Saturday at 11:18 PM by Breathe

[PolyPeter]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

It's pretty simple.

I wish this was the case!!! 

If metaphysics was pretty simple, then it would certainly be understandable by many people. And maybe taught at school since first grade. But it appears not to be the case. It also happens that, at the same time, we accept current mathematics and logic as the main tools for rational thinking, which, because of the value we as humanity have been able to extract from them, it seems pretty solid! We came up with the internet and technology, which enhances survival, and therefore the appeal. 

Metaphysics turns out to be difficult to understand conceptually from the very beginning, and also pretty emotional challenging if you feel that science is the source of truth and sense-making machinery for you. It took me a while to start to comprehend the value of epistemology and to question how we come to know anything at all. So I wouldn't agree that this is easy, in particular when survival gets in the way to such a degree.

[PolyPeter]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

The correct perception

Hi Breakingthewall!

I have a problem with this way of saying it. I don't really believe there could be such a thing, a perception is what you perceive, and because you perceive it, it actually is part of reality, wether it is a concept or something you can feel with your body. 

what I think you are trying to say, is that, for you to comprehend what reality is, you must go beyond your perceptions, and make an observation of the nature of the perceptions, and try to find something that stays forever the same, in this case, the I itself, without any color, shape or time-space limitations. 

If you look to the snow with orange tinted glasses, the snow would look orange -to you-, but it doesn't make the actual Snow White. If you really want to know what the snow looks like, without your glasses, you have to first realize that the glasses my be the source of distortion, and then, if you decide, take them of and look at the snow. 

This is to the same to saying that there is a correct way of looking at the snow, but rather that the snow itself can have different colors if you chose to look at it from a particular perspective. and that if you want to look at the snow without the filters, you must, take the filters of!

the problem with reality itself is that the whole EGO is distorting reality in order to look like something. but you can stop looking at reality through the ego at any time. You have to decide to do it, even if the ego you identify as will scream you better not do it.

Am I making any sense here?

[Breakingthewall]

22 minutes ago, PolyPeter said:

Hi Leo! 

Yes I can see evolution within your work, without missing the -straight to the point- style, you are coming up with better ways to communicate very difficult topics, it starts to have a very artistic approach, which for me is making it even more interesting to listen to. 

Using the right words, the right tone with the right intention is a skill that cannot be taken from granted and will certainly not be suitable for every single human on earth, and I get that! sometimes I struggle to communicate what absolute infinity entails.

What can I contribute in this conversation? 

I've been thinking about this for a while, and in order to enhance what I want to communicate, I tried talking with Claude 3.7 sonnet so it is very clear with an example 

Let's say, infinity:

"When approaching the concept of absolute infinity, it might help to start from our shared experience rather than abstract theory.

Consider how we typically think about infinity in mathematics or philosophy—as something endlessly extending, always more. But absolute infinity points to something qualitatively different. It's not just endless quantity but encompasses all possibilities simultaneously.

Think of how your awareness works right now. The thoughts, sensations, and perceptions you experience all appear within your consciousness. This consciousness itself has no definable boundaries or limits—it's not located in a specific place, doesn't have a shape or size, yet it contains everything in your experience.

Absolute infinity is similar but on a cosmic scale. It's not simply "very big" but rather the boundless ground of being from which all finite things arise. It's not separate from anything that exists—it's what everything is made of, including the awareness reading these words.

What makes this challenging to grasp is that our minds naturally work with boundaries and distinctions. We're trained to see ourselves as separate entities moving through a world of other separate things. But absolute infinity suggests that this separateness is only an appearance within a deeper, unified reality.

This isn't about dismissing your everyday experience but rather inviting an exploration of what makes that experience possible in the first place."

I am aware that writing this is very different than exposing it in a video, but it seems that it could, by the structure, be a starting point towards a way of communication that allows for the mind to be more open to this ideas. 

What do you think? 

An intellectual understanding of infinity is important to facilitate a real opening to infinity. Infinity, as you said, isn't very large; it's total. Opening to the total can't be done from the mind, because the mind is limited; therefore, the mind must cease and it's energetic barriers must fall, It's all about that.

[Breakingthewall]

Just now, PolyPeter said:

This is to the same to saying that there is a correct way of looking at the snow, but rather that the snow itself can have different colors if you chose to look at it from a particular perspective. and that if you want to look at the snow without the filters, you must, take the filters of!

Let's say that an absolute perspective encompasses any relative perspective, while a relative perspective is limited to itself, therefore it could be said that the absolute perspective is absolutely real, and the relative perspective is only relatively real. Let's say that absolute is more complete than relative, therefore it could be said that the absolute perspective is true. But the relative is also true relatively 

[PolyPeter]

24 minutes ago, Breathe said:

I can relate, I think I was away for a few years, if not longer.

Leo's way of teaching of non-duality is not for me. But he did turn me on to psychedelics and politics.

This would not be my choice for finding love and acceptance.

I come from a Zen background, which I never felt at home at either.

I found a small, politically engaged, Theravada group that I have come to call home.

If you're serious about this stuff, seek out a city with a rich spiritual and creative culture. Also, don't discount some of the intimate communities online if that's the best you can do. There are teachers out there that have a smaller following, and they can be solid.

Ultimately, there are no ideal communities or one-stop shops. But also be careful about mixing and matching conflicting teachings. It will only lead to confusion.

Use discretion and don't put anyone on a pedestal.

Be well.

I have never heard of Theravada! will look into it.

I am very serious about this stuff, and I am very serious about my life mission to help the rest of the world realize for themselves that this is a dream. My dream, your dream. God's dream. it is a very difficult to achieve mission, maybe not within this lifetime of my own. The very structure of the universe is such that it allows for all possible imaginable scenarios. I am imagining one in which a lot of humans are recognizing their imaginative nature, and the Oneness of it all!

Without falling in any spiritual trap because those are pretty sneaky too.

[PolyPeter]

4 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Let's say that an absolute perspective encompasses any relative perspective, while a relative perspective is limited to itself, therefore it could be said that the absolute perspective is absolutely real, and the relative perspective is only relatively real. Let's say that absolute is more complete than relative, therefore it could be said that the absolute perspective is true. But the relative is also true relatively 

I kinda see where you are going, but it seems very complicated to communicate in those terms, and very confusing to call two distinct things truth, why not just say that there is the Truth, and within Truth, there are perspectives, and not mix them both?
 

Truth is not a perspective but the sum total of what is 

A perspective is not true, but a limited way of looking at the Truth. 

 

I will think about this more, and comeback later.

This has been a cool chatting sessions with you guys!! thank you for your epic replies.

[Breakingthewall]

21 minutes ago, PolyPeter said:

metaphysics was pretty simple, then it would certainly be understandable by many people. And maybe taught at school since first grade.

Maybe would be like that if they explain it clearly. First, you must habitually put yourself in absolute perspective. This is extremely difficult because there are significant energy barriers that force us into relative perspective. Most teachers speak from a relative perspective, about relative matters.

[Breakingthewall]

8 minutes ago, PolyPeter said:

I kinda see where you are going, but it seems very complicated to communicate in those terms, and very confusing to call two distinct things truth, why not just say that there is the Truth, and within Truth, there are perspectives, and not mix them both?
 

Truth is not a perspective but the sum total of what is 

A perspective is not true, but a limited way of looking at the Truth. 

 

I will think about this more, and comeback later.

This has been a cool chatting sessions with you guys!! thank you for your epic replies.

There is an absolute perspective, It's very difficult to be open to it for long; it's very alien, inhuman. Too inhuman. The human pulls you from its thick, emotion-filled mud. The absolute perspective is total, open, free. You are reality, the infinite being. You are that; that's reality. Being human is one aspect among infinite aspects. The human mind, with its entire structure of thought, means the same thing as an ant's: absolutely nothing. It's difficult to situate oneself in that dimension

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, PolyPeter said:

What do you think? 

Style of thought and speech is not just something one can change on a whim.

I am not going to turn myself into a neutral AI. If anything, I want to not be an AI.

[Hojo]

Dealing with people is hard especially the same thing over and over eventually you snap. You can see if you watch destiny every other day hes like im too lenient to im too harsh. The fine line is becoming AI

Edited Sunday at 12:57 AM by Hojo

[PolyPeter]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

Style of thought and speech is not just something one can change on a whim.

I am not going to turn myself into a neutral AI. If anything, I want to not be an AI.

Haha no of course! stay human 

neutral AI is messing my code everyday and I wish never to become an AI 🤖. It lacks -direct experience- of anything at all.

Glad to know that you are aware of this and, btw, I like the direction of evolution the style. Keep them videos coming!!

Saludos. Que estés bien!

[PolyPeter]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

Maybe would be like that if they explain it clearly. First, you must habitually put yourself in absolute perspective. This is extremely difficult because there are significant energy barriers that force us into relative perspective. Most teachers speak from a relative perspective, about relative matters.

When you say absolute perspective, do you mean Truth?
If that's the case, then, it is not a perspective. It is experience as it is, lacking a particular perspective. All of them united. None of them in particular.

I know this might sound redundant, but having two distinct versions of Truth, Absolute and relative, sounds very weird after you have started the quest for it. Even if you didn't directly experience the lack of perspective, questioning conceptually if there is such a thing as Truth, after some work of course, takes you to: Either there isn't any Truth, in which case you fall into a paradox, or either there IS such a thing, in which case, because it is the truth, it will be true no matter the circumstances or perspective.

This is why I rather not mix the terms, Truth & Perspective, or use Absolute Truth & Relative Truth, when talking about Truth. 

But I also understand the appeal to use this distinctions for explanatory purposes. I tried using relative vs absolute with the Physicist I mentioned earlier but it didn't even click.

[The Crocodile]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Style of thought and speech is not just something one can change on a whim.

I am not going to turn myself into a neutral AI. If anything, I want to not be an AI.

But we already have a Leo AI.

[Breakingthewall]

8 hours ago, PolyPeter said:

know this might sound redundant, but having two distinct versions of Truth,

That of the truth is not the approach imo. Relative perspective is relatively true. If you get hit, it hurts, etc. Absolute perspective is absolute being. It is not relative to anything else; it is. From absolute perspective, you realize there is no creation, no cause and effect, only being. In infinity, nothing is created; nothing has a cause or effect. You are, period. It is total reality, and the explanation for what appears is that it is what you are. And you realize your essence, what you are. The divine, the infinite that is.