Disagreement with Leo about the stage Green video

[Alexandar Edwards]

Good afternoon all 

First of all I'm a huge fan of Actualized and it has absolutely transformed my entire life over the past year or two. I love you Leo, you are my hero and I hope one day to shake you by the hand, hug you and thank you for everything you've put together here. 

Despite having watched most Actualized content, this is the first time I've ever instinctively disagreed with something Leo has said.

This is more a direct response to only a few words said in the stage green video and I'm hoping Leo himself will reply offering me an explanation, but I'm open to comments from anyone. 

So I've just watched the stage green video and I'm going to watch yellow this evening. As someone who is potentially 50% green, 30% yellow, and 20% orange with some mixed blue and red in there, I've been swimming in green for several years now and feel like I understand it quite well, including its limitations and extremes. However there was a moment towards the end of Leo's video where he says

"Stop caring about social issues so much" 

"They're important, but they're also not important at all"

"Society is progressing at the rate that it needs to be progressing at, society is perfect for this exact moment of time" 

I fully understand the limitations of green and the need to think about problems systemically rather than preaching and feeling that "love and compassion" will solve all our problems. However these statements by Leo shocked me as they do not make logical sense at all. Yes society will naturally progress and evolve as time goes on, yes politics is often a system of trial and error, yes the economy is like an organism with its own evolution and growth, but none of that means we as individuals should not be concerned and actively taking part in social evolution? ALL past social revolutions and large scale psychological transformation was instigated and accelerated by people who had began to progress to a more developed stage and used their understanding to educate others. 

I have found myself recently getting involved with vegan/animal activism, I wont go into too much detail about this, but I take part in groups who go out into the public and educate people about the animal agriculture industry and the horrors that are inflicted upon billions of innocent sentient beings across the globe. We advocate for polite and rational dialogue and our conversations are usually very productive, seeing many people make the connection between the food they buy and the animals they claim to love. We present facts, statistics, show slaughterhouse footage and politely encourage them to accept the truth which is that it is not necessary for our health or survival to consume animal products. If they take what we are saying seriously, we present them with more information and they often make the change to a vegan diet, if not then we thank them for their time and they go about their day. 

We do this because we understand that systemically, the root cause of animal abuse and slaughter is the consumer. It's supply and demand; the consumer makes the choice to buy animal products and hands over their money to the corporations, keeping them in business and the killing continues. We do not condemn or demonize the consumers, the slaughterhouse workers or food corporations for their actions, they are just part of a system, but a system which is founded upon pain, suffering and unnecessary mass slaughter and the root of that system the consumer and their financial support.

What I'm trying to say is that how on earth does social evolution occur if we as individuals not tackle the systemic issues ourselves? If no one spoke out for black people during times when white people enslaved them then how would we have ever stopped owning other humans? If no one had spoken out against smoking when its damaging effects were discovered then millions more people would be dying? If Gandhi had never spoken out against oppression and violence then India would never have evolved as its own independent nation and began to overcome their caste system. If no one "cared" about social issues we would have never evolved out of stage red! 

Even Sadhguru, Mooji, Rupert Spira and Eckhart Tolle all clearly care deeply about social issues and have devoted their entire lives to educating green/yellow psychology. A common theme is compassion for all regardless of their species, race or character. Sadhguru himself (who is clearly deeply turquoise) owns like a dozen high-consciousness businesses, do you think he would have established them and still be creating traditional yoga schools around the world if he just thought "Oh society is progressing at the rate it should be, it's perfect as it is!" and sat back and did nothing? 

I understand that these issues are clearly the Lesser Jihad and our priority should be inner growth, but I don't see why the two must be exclusive? If anything Leo himself has clearly stated that a high consciousness life purpose will only contribute to inner growth (the greater jihad). 

What's even more confusing is that Leo then goes on to say about how people have different levels of education, and implies that Green needs to stop demonizing other stages in order to relate to them and educate them. Which surely is "Caring about social issues"? He then even says that Yellow brings about an understanding of evil and you cannot fight evil with evil, only with "love and compassion" which is the thing he said minutes before as being unable to solve all our problems. To me it seems like evil/selfishness is the only real problem in the world and therefore love and compassion in some form or another IS the only thing that can solve all problems? Albeit in a systemic manner. I can only assume that many of the things Leo said here were badly phrased and I hope he can clarify that for me, it's unlike him to be so contradictory. 

Hope you're reading Leo and please let me know your thoughts. 

Much love

Alexandar

[Alexandar Edwards]

@Joseph Maynor  I don't think you quite addressed what I'm saying at all, I'm not talking about existential truth and I have no idea how you got that from what I've written. 

[Alexandar Edwards]

@Joseph Maynor  I didn't say I didn't understand what you said, I understood what you said perfectly, it just has very little bearing on the issues I have raised which are social issues. The statement I'm concerned with is when Leo says "SOCIETY is perfect at this moment of time" not REALITY. I understand the metaphysical notion behind what you're saying, that everything is inevitable and reality is just the way it is, but what you are speaking about is not what this topic is relating to which is a more specific area of social mechanics.

Thank you for your input, but it's totally off-topic. 

[Leo Gura]

@Alexandar Edwards

Your question is coming from a certain level of consciousness: duality.

Your question is really about survival, not being or Truth. Survival demands constant manipulation. That is life. Improving society is a function of survival. Think of politics as nothing more than hunting squirrels in the forest to make sure you don't starve to death. That's what government is fundamentally about.

There's nothing wrong with improving society, just like there's nothing wrong with hunting squirrels to survive, but there is a meta-issue: your preoccupation with survival is keeping you from realizing that the world is an illusion.

What if one day you wake up and realize that all of this work you've been doing to improve society was happening inside a dream state? Such that slavery, racism, evil, nuclear weapons, science, and even your mother and father do not exist because they were just a dream? How silly would you feel then to have worried so much about all that stuff?

2 hours ago, Alexandar Edwards said:

Even Sadhguru, Mooji, Rupert Spira and Eckhart Tolle all clearly care deeply about social issues and have devoted their entire lives to educating green/yellow psychology.

These are awakened people you are talking about it. To them, reality is just a dream. Nothing is serious. Whatever actions they take to "improve society" is just for shits and giggles. They are shooting at squirrels in the forest just for fun. It's a form of self-amusement. They are detached from it. They would not really care if the entire planet was nuked tomorrow. They would be just as happy. It would not be a problem for them in the same way that seeing the Earth get nuked on TV isn't a problem for you -- because you are conscious it isn't real to begin with.

All human suffering is unreal.

This kind of level of consciousness is difficult to fathom for someone who has not awoken from the dream. It is unimaginable that this could be possible.

The reason an enlightened sage is good at helping people is because he is already dead inside. There is nothing for him to fear or lose. The world does not need improving, yet there is nothing else to really do here but help improve the world. That is the paradox. But you won't understand this at stage Green. You need some enlightenment experiences to understand it.

P.S. Morality is a function of survival. Not Truth. The ultimate truth is, there are no problems whatsoever and evil doesn't exist. Yes... detachment is a very radical and counter-intuitive thing.

P.P.S. Advanced sages don't usually come out and say this so bluntly because they would be crucified by ignorant people for saying such things.

[SpyAquamarine]

Let me be out there:

Say that source (ALL of everything) wanted to explore itself in the totality of every single thing that is possible in this especific plataform of this time space reality of the now (that actually doesn't really exist).

Here we are. All of us and them and this and that. Volunteers. Source fragmented (but not separated) eager to come and make it happen.

I have great respect for the sufferers. They were the most passionate at jumping in the adventure, going to the most uncomfortable extreme.

[Viddiben]

@Leo Gura Beautiful

[SpyAquamarine]

27 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Alexandar Edwards

The reason an enlightened sage is good at helping people is because he is already dead inside. There is nothing for him to fear or lose. The world does not need improving, yet there is nothing else to really do here but help improve the world. That is the paradox. But you won't understand this at stage Green. You need some enlightenment experiences to understand it.

 

That is when inperfection 'becomes' perfection

[Alexandar Edwards]

@Leo Gura  Thank you for your response brother, I assure you I have had several immensely deep awakening experiences through the use of psychedelics where I experienced full ego death and broke through the illusion of reality into absolute nothingness and absolute infinity. 

"From my perspective" upon reflection of these experiences this only gave me even deeper insight into the ultimate beauty of reality and the need to educate society and try to guide people towards principles of unity and compassion clear throughout green and yellow. To say that caring about social issues is something to let go of just doesn't make sense to me, it's almost nihilistic. If all is one and all is me then all those billions of beings being oppressed, human and animal alike are also me in some way or another and we should be fighting for basic rights of compassion for all living beings. This is a common theme among devout sages who have been known to live in solitude to limit their impact, their "footprint" on nature as you yourself said. These sages even sweep the floor to avoid killing insects as they walk, some only eat the fruits of plants to avoid uprooting whole organisms needlessly because life is a miracle, it is precious in every sense and should be treated with reverence.

I understand the need to transcend morality to achieve a non-dual state and enlightened comprehension, but until I'm able to achieve that naturally through meditation and such, I don't see how it makes any sense at all to stop caring about other living beings and fighting for their rights. I don't see it as a survival issue, I don't NEED to be environmentally conscious and care for others to survive, in fact it would be easier not too, but then to me that WOULD be the ego? Putting ones own survival over the basic rights of other living beings? To me it seems more of an ego sacrifice to devote oneself to the liberation and protection of others through education and elevating the consciousness of society just as you are with actualized? 

(edit)

I hear you saying to find my life purpose and have it be something of a higher-consciousness nature, and I feel like I've finally found it which is helping people realise that eating animals and their secretions is unnecessary, harmful to our health and causes immense pain and suffering on a gargantuan scale. Educating people through polite dialogue and factual scientific information, and now you're saying that this is something of a fools errand? I just don't see it, most yellow thinkers seem to be the ones concerned with preserving systems and nature like you have just said in your video about Yellow, but how could they be doing that if they just "Stopped caring about social issues" and accepted "society is just the way it is" and sat back and did nothing? 

Even though reality is an illusion, inside the illusion there still exist conscious beings who experience pain and suffering and deserve freedom and happiness. Surely the only reason anyone even seeks enlightenment is to know the truth and to have complete peace of mind... happiness in a sense? Surely it is of the highest levels of consciousness that we must strive to afford all that exist here in the illusion the right to live in peace, even if they don't have any chance of obtaining enlightenment, to them the dream feels real, when they are abused or suffer it feels real. Why else would life be evolving towards compassionate stages like green, yellow and turquoise if it wasn't in the steady realization that all here in the dream just want to be at peace? It is surely the highest goal? I don't see how you cannot see this, your entire life purpose with Actualized is helping others to reach their highest potential and speaking about enlightenment which is the pinnacle of inner peace? 

Edited July 8, 2018 by Alexandar Edwards

[Leo Gura]

41 minutes ago, Alexandar Edwards said:

I don't see how it makes any sense at all to stop caring about other living beings and fighting for their rights.

You understand -- right? -- that most of the evil done in the world is done by people fighting for their rights?

Fighting for rights is ego 101.

Quote

I don't see it as a survival issue, I don't NEED to be environmentally conscious and care for others to survive, in fact it would be easier not too, but then to me that WOULD be the ego? Putting ones own survival over the basic rights of other living beings? To me it seems more of an ego sacrifice to devote oneself to the liberation and protection of others

I know you don't, which is why I went out of my way to underscore that it is a survival issue.

The ego is very sneaky. It loves to don the veil of devoting oneself to the "protection of others" when in fact you are devoting yourself to advancing your own egoic agenda. Devotion creates a self-righteous ego which then goes on to commit great atrocities. All great atrocities are done in the name of good, freedom, liberation, truth, rights, fairness, etc.

What do you think terrorists and Nazi's are doing? They are trying to make the world a better place.

"Make the world a better place" is ALWAYS relative to your ego! There is no such thing as an objectively good world. A good world for one group is a bad world for another group. Which is why conflict happens.

Even if you think you can get all of mankind to work peacefully together, that is still mankind's collective ego. Who's to say that mankind is a good thing, and not a cancer in this universe? You? Mankind? Ha! Do you see the conflict of interest problem?

This is very important to understand. Otherwise you will still be under the ego's influence.

Consider: the only reason you care about mankind is because you identify with being mankind. That's your ego. If you were an ant, you wouldn't care about mankind at all. Nor would you care about slavery, human rights, or anything else of that sort.

Your self-identification extends far beyond your physical body. You identify with all sorts of abstract self-images, like the image of "being a decent human being who fights for the rights of the weak and the poor against the oppression of the strong and greedy". That's YOUR self-image! It turns you on. You get off on it. Playing this role is an addiction.

[Alexandar Edwards]

@Leo Gura  I understand that rights are a self agenda and a form of ego, I understand that morality is subjective. I'm not talking about "Making the world a better place" for the sake of some zealous self-righteous cause because I want to be a good person or I want people to think I'm great. I'm simply talking about not causing harm to others when it is not necessary. Causing harm to others for an unnecessary reason or simply for pleasure is absolutely the most selfish egotistical and evil thing that can be done by a person! 

It seems that by your logic I could just start raping children and murdering black people and say "Well why not? If I had compassion for others it would just be my ego trying to be self righteous!"

I'm only talking about peace relative to my ego insofar as that I am experiencing the sensations of this body, I feel pain and I have the capacity to suffer and I can see that others also have those capacities so therefore I can see that I do not want pain and suffering inflicted upon me and it would be hypocritical of me to inflict pain and suffering upon others whilst claiming they should not do it to me. 

Edited July 8, 2018 by Alexandar Edwards

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, Alexandar Edwards said:

It seems that by your logic I could just start raping children and murdering black people and say "Well why not? If I had compassion for others it would just be my ego trying to be self righteous!"

That's right, you can. Absolutely nothing is stopping you from doing that.

Welcome to liberation

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, Alexandar Edwards said:

I'm simply talking about not causing harm to others when it is not necessary. Causing harm to others for an unnecessary reason or simply for pleasure is absolutely the most selfish egotistical and evil thing that can be done by a person! 

"When it's not necessary" is a highly subjective call. The ego always finds it convenient to do unnecessary things.

A person who does violence to another doesn't do it gratuitously. In his mind, he feels it is very necessary -- selfless even.

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, Spacious said:

Would you place freedom of speech under this assessment? If yes, how come?

Of course!

Not just freedom of speech, but even self defense and the right to life.

The truth is, you have no rights. All "rights" are just inventions of the human ego to make life easier for the ego in an otherwise brutal reality.

The reason you value freedom of speech is because your ego wants to mouth off its agenda without being limited. Egos hate having their agendas limited in any way. It hinders the ego's survival ability.

If we passed a law which said that I could rape your child, but you are forbidden to ever speak of it, not even in court -- that would be a huge problem for your ego.

[Alexandar Edwards]

 

10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That's right, you can. Absolutely nothing is stopping you from doing that.

Welcome to liberation

But it's not self-righteousness, I'm not moralizing! I'm just stating simple reasonable fact that I do not want to be harmed and therefore I do not want to harm others?!

Edited July 8, 2018 by Alexandar Edwards

[Alexandar Edwards]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That's right, you can. Absolutely nothing is stopping you from doing that.

Welcome to liberation

Yes, morality is fabricated but it's fabricated out of realization of truth which is that other living beings have the capacity to suffer the same as oneself? 

@Leo Gura

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

"When it's not necessary" is a highly subjective call. The ego always finds it convenient to do unnecessary things.

A person who does violence to another doesn't do it gratuitously. In his mind, he feels it is very necessary -- selfless even.

Okay but that person IS acting more egotistically than one who would NOT cause harm unnecessarily. 

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, Alexandar Edwards said:

But just because they're inventions of the mind it does not make them invalid or mean they do not relate to truth, or at least express a valid part of it? 

"valid" and "invalid" are also inventions of the human mind.

The Truth is TOTAL. It includes Nazis, rape, murder, genocide, war, slavery, hate, racism, sexism, abuse, violence, theft, and a trillion other things. That's TRUTH.

What I'm trying to do here is show you that you are cherrypicking the truth to suit your ego. Which is something you'll have to outgrow if you really want to reach liberation and peace.

Truth and politics don't mix very well. Have you noticed? Have you wondered why that is?

[Alexandar Edwards]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course!

Not just freedom of speech, but even self defense and the right to life.

The truth is, you have no rights. All "rights" are just inventions of the human ego to make life easier for the ego in an otherwise brutal reality.

Just because a concept is just a concept it doesn't make it invalid, you said yourself that the peak of yellow is playing with concepts to preserve systems?!

[Alexandar Edwards]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

"valid" and "invalid" are also inventions of the human mind.

The Truth is TOTAL. It includes Nazis, rape, murder, genocide, war, slavery, hate, racism, sexism, abuse, violence, theft, and a trillion other things. That's TRUTH.

But that still doesn't mean we should stop having compassion for others?! If anything it proves that we should have infinite compassion for others! 

[Alexandar Edwards]

11 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

 

What I'm trying to do here is show you that you are cherrypicking the truth to suit your ego. Which is something you'll have to outgrow if you really want to reach liberation and peace.

I know you think that I'm some kinda hippie who has joined a movement and identifies with it strongly and wants to preach about it. And on some level that is probably true and something I will overcome one day. But the issue I'm raising here is not with the moral validity of my own views, but a statement of truth which is self evident. Compassion for others is not something to just let go of because it's only an idea in my mind and constitutes something of my ego. Compassion for others IS part and parcel of absolute truth and the realization of the inherent oneness of all reality. 

 

If you are me and I am you then why the fuck would I cause harm to myself for no reason after realizing that truth? 

Edited July 8, 2018 by Alexandar Edwards

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, Alexandar Edwards said:

Compassion for others is not something to just let go of because it's only an idea in my mind and constitutes something of my ego. Compassion for others IS part and parcel of absolute truth and the realization of the inherent oneness of all reality.

Oneness is a very tricky thing. Let's say you are not compassionate, does that mean you are less one?

There is a danger of taking on "compassion" and "goodness" as truer than "hate" and "badness". But that just perpetuates the duality. The deepest levels of consciousness are beyond compassion, beyond human concerns, beyond being good.

The distinction between love and hate must collapse in the end.

The ultimate litmus test would be this: when you see great hate, are you still able to love? Does your compassion extend to the perpetrator as well as the victim? Or are you cherrypicking?