Leo Guras SICK Logic on Happiness (Youtube)

[Torkys]

This guy found a way to generate views

Quote

 

"dEBUNK leO, forum share and I veiws"

                                                - UnSpirituality, 2018

 

 

[Charlotte]

That guy is triggered TF. It's hilarious how much!! 

[Emanyalpsid]

There is a famous story in Buddhist texts, it goes something like this;

A monk sees his mentor crying besides a grave.

The monk is thunderstruck and walks up to his mentor and asks; why are you crying?! I thought you learned us to not feel emotions?!

The mentor says; I am crying because I feel sad.

[Emanyalpsid]

He is basically spot on with almost everything he says. Although I don't like his patronizing style. Interpreting a non-dual experience as absolute infinity, or only you, the absolute truth, makes you go on a path which is even more deluded from reality as people believing in the ego. It is also a path which is very hard to get back from as it is so deeply manifested. Leo became already convinced of enlightenment before the non-dual/ enlightenment experience, that the experience grounds his believe so deep it is all he sees. He tells in his video's that people have the wrong thought, so he must be right. He has a lot of knowledge, so he became the truth.

@Leo Gura Dude, I hope I can get through to you man, as I know you have the right intent. You interpreted your non-duality experience according to your believe in enlightenment. You deny all of reality, because reality got distorted and therefore you believe it is not real. Reality only got distorted because your consciousness got distorted! Not because you created everything through your consciousness. Now you are leading people, according to your beliefs, which are deeply manifested through the interpretation of your intense experience, away from reality.

Just consider the possibility that I might be right. How you came to the believe in absolute infinity or enlightenment, and I mean not through your non-duality experience, but before that? It is not to late to return, you just took a wrong corner. That is why psychedelics are so dangerous. You only have to admit to yourself that you might be wrong, or don't know something. I'm not trying to bash you here, I'm trying to reach you from reality.

Can I ask you to read this entire topic? To get what I'm trying to show you? 

https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/25468-the-definite-guide-to-non-duality-enlightenment-and-the-nature-of-reality/

Don't be pride man. But don't deny the fact that you are hugely responsible for what people are doing after reading your texts and seeing your videos. Not in a judicial kind of way, but in a moral sense. People are easily convinced by convincing people and you are very eloquent and convincing. The promotion and use of psychedelics make their beliefs also deeply manifested.

Although I think my attempts are useless. You have strayed to far, also because you have created your community. You have become almost the same as every guru, who you despise yourself, the only thing making you different is you actively promote psychedelics which block everyone's objectivity, but then you say that people should reflect upon their own experiences. See what you are doing there?

Also you are using the Spiral Dynamics thingy to categorize people so you can dismiss their views by saying they are in a lower spiral and have not experienced how you see things in your turquoise zone. The spiral dynamics system is a system which can easily be utilized by people to patronize others in order to maintain their own beliefs.

You are trying to form reality to your own mind.

Edited September 24, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[Emanyalpsid]

On 18-9-2018 at 9:33 PM, Serotoninluv said:

This is a good example of an Orange-level rational thinker that is unable to utilize relative thinking. He has a limited definition of "happiness" and he assumes his idea of happiness is normative. (It applies to him and everyone else). Everything he hears goes through his lens of what happiness means. Without relative thinking, one becomes rigid. It is no surprise that he is disturbed by what he hears.

@Leo Gura See how serotoninluve is doing this with SD here? 

Watch this video and also part 2, 3 and 4 on you. Note that he has a patronizing style, but that probably comes from his 30 years of believing in and following a non-dualist. According to what he says he also did psychedelics, Ayahuasca etc, I don't know if he does this in these videos. I know you can't do anything about it, I don't patronize you. I want to reach you.

I know it is hard to see through your own beliefs, especially because of your experiences, you also have many followers who confirm your beliefs as their beliefs are based upon your beliefs and experiences which you spread, and then they experience the same because they believe in what they hear and see from you. Also your entire life and livelihood is based upon it all. Only pride stands in the way.

Edited September 24, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[Sahil Pandit]

@Leo Gura  I mean Leo, he's got a point. U see all them books back there? 

[Shadowraix]

@Emanyalpsid If anybody is following Leo blindly without putting into the work to verify it for themselves then they are already doing it wrong.

Leo has always promoted not to just believe him but to put what he says into practice and truly figure out if it works or not.

Everything he has said is nothing new. Nonduality has existed for thousands of years.

Yes spiral dynamics can be used to dismiss people because people stuck in a specific part of the spiral don't see the inherent problems with it while those above it do. Turquoise has problems too, it'll take rising above that to figure it out though. All SD does is explain their way of thinking.

You don't need drugs to experience such things, they just accelerate the growth of it.

If somebody has an either-or thinking mentality you'd likely dismiss that too because its a false dilemma.

 

Edited September 25, 2018 by Shadowraix

[Barry J]

Did Leo Gura really say that if your child is kidnapped  and raped that you will be happy?!

[Richard Alpert]

I have read Zenn´s books, switched few emails with him, watched his videos.

He is legit. One of the few who are legit. read his books and judge then.

He is exposing false and questionable teachings so people would not have to spend 30 years on path. 

 

[Richard Alpert]

4 hours ago, Barry J said:

Did Leo Gura really say that if your child is kidnapped  and raped that you will be happy?!

yep. and he also said that if you sit in a box for a month you should also be happy.

who wants to test these theories, any volunteers?

[Forestluv]

16 hours ago, Emanyalpsid said:

@Leo Gura See how serotoninluve is doing this with SD here? 

I'm curious about your subjective interpretation. What is it that you *think* I am doing with SD?

[Emanyalpsid]

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

I'm curious about your subjective interpretation. What is it that you *think* I am doing with SD?

Well you defined him as an orange level thinker based upon your beliefs in SD, by doing so sustaining your beliefs.

[Forestluv]

6 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

Well you defined him as an orange level thinker based upon your beliefs in SD, by doing so sustaining your beliefs.

Gotcha. I like SD as a framework, yet I can see how it can add unnecessary complexity. The idea of Orange-level thinking was unnecessary for my point and it would be more efficient to leave it out. Going one step further, my point would be clearer if I focused on the thinking rather than the person. The person actually has nothing to do with it and adding in personal critiques can give a scent of arrogance or superiority on my part. My original statement might have an underlying tone that I am a higher level conscious being looking down upon the lower Orange level guy. 

It would be better to rephrase my statement as:

"This is a good example of pure rational thinking that does not integrate relative thinking. There is a limited rational definition of "happiness" and an assumption that the rational idea of happiness is normative. (It applies to the person and everyone else). Everything heard goes through a rational lens of what happiness means. Without relative thinking, one becomes rigid. It is no surprise that in this situation a limited rational view is associated with feelings of disgust."

[Scholar]

It seems like he is one of those people who blindly accept spirituality without having a solid scientific foundation. He deluded himself into spirituality without understanding it, and now that he caught up on some of the scientific literature he is bashing his previous believes. 

It's like a person who was raised christian and then went atheist because of how silly Christianity is. Maybe this is why you learn philosophy and science before you become spiritual. From what I can tell he does not yet recognize the mind-reality problem and it's significance.

[Emanyalpsid]

2 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Gotcha. I like SD as a framework, yet I can see how it can add unnecessary complexity. The idea of Orange-level thinking was unnecessary for my point and it would be more efficient to leave it out. Going one step further, my point would be clearer if I focused on the thinking rather than the person. The person actually has nothing to do with it and adding in personal critiques can give a scent of arrogance or superiority on my part. My original statement might have an underlying tone that I am a higher level conscious being looking down upon the lower Orange level guy. 

It would be better to rephrase my statement as:

"This is a good example of pure rational thinking that does not integrate relative thinking. There is a limited rational definition of "happiness" and an assumption that the rational idea of happiness is normative. (It applies to the person and everyone else). Everything heard goes through a rational lens of what happiness means. Without relative thinking, one becomes rigid. It is no surprise that in this situation a limited rational view is associated with feelings of disgust."

What do you mean with relative thinking?

[Forestluv]

34 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

What do you mean with relative thinking?

Relativism. In a nutshell, people's views on subjective matters (such as emotions) are relative to that person (based on their life history, social conditioning, genetics etc.). 

Absolutists and objectivists want their view to be considered absolutely true or objectively true. They hate relativism.

Relative thinking can be used in both healthy and unhealthy ways. In a healthy way, relative thinking allows letting go of attachments to beliefs and allows for understanding someone else's perspective at a deeper level - and allows empathy to enter. For example, rather than demonizing a criminal - understanding that the criminal has a relative perspective that has been shaped by his life history (perhaps he suffered child abuse his whole life). This can allow empathy for BOTH the victim and the criminal (from one relative perspective, they are both "victims"). In an unhealthy way, a person could use relativism to absolve themselves of harm they are causing others. For example, imagine an alcoholic that totaled the family car, had an affair and got suspended at work. His wife may tell him that his behavior is unhealthy and is harming the family. The alcoholic could respond "That's just your relative perspective. Your idea of what "unhealthy" and "harm" means is is relative to your social conditioning. My perspective, relative to me, is that I am not causing any harm to the family. We both have our own relative truth. Neither of our perspectives is better".

My impression of the video is that the speaker believes his perspective is normative (it is true for him and everyone else). In this case, there is only one meaning for "happiness". He uses pure rational thinking. In this situation, I think a higher conscious perspective would be a mix of both rational and relative thinking. At the very least, I think he should acknowledge retaliative perspectives. It would have made his argument much more convincing. 

[Emanyalpsid]

Ah thanks, so rational thinking and relativism are not mutually exclusive. One can think rational and also put it in perspective. I think he is just only being rational to make his point.

[Forestluv]

27 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

Ah thanks, so rational thinking and relativism are not mutually exclusive. One can think rational and also put it in perspective. I think he is just only being rational to make his point.

Both modes of thinking are tools. Sometimes using a handsaw is best, sometimes using a chainsaw is best.

My impression of the speaker is different. People restricted to one mode of thinking get upset, disgusted and d defensive when confronted with higher level thinking they don't understand. If he was capable of using both modes of thinking, I think he would have had a more meta view. Calmer, wiser and more inquisitive.

For example, I'm uncertain of Leo's relative usage of the term "happiness". He could be using the term in the traditional / rational sense. I.e. happiness is a feeling people experience when good things happen for them. In this context, I can see how someone would get upset because if someone experienced happiness while their child was being raped, that would mean their child getting raped is "good". Within that scope, of course someone would get upset. Yet, Leo could also be using the term "happiness" in a deeper, more nuanced way. For example: "true happiness"  is not about satisfying one's desire for self gratification. Perhaps "true happiness" is beyond the self. The human mind is so highly conditioned, that very few people could understand even the basics of the concept.

Personally, I don't have a clear idea on how Leo was using the term "happiness", so I am unable to form an opinion about it.

 

[Barry J]

It’s a dumb thing to say because it is untrue. Anybody who thinks they can be happy through horrifying circumstances is detached and deluded. This is not the goal of any credible practice. And it is not wise to sell this myth or even or use as a device to uncover our triggers or attachments to absolute truth ie it’s not clever

I assume Leo was young when he made this video as I doubt he would advocate this sort of mentality now, surely?

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Barry J said:

It’s a dumb thing to say because it is untrue. Anybody who thinks they can be happy through horrifying circumstances is detached and deluded. This is not the goal of any credible practice. And it is not wise to sell this myth or even or use as a device to uncover our triggers or attachments to absolute truth ie it’s not clever

I assume Leo was young when he made this video as I doubt he would advocate this sort of mentality now, surely?

I've found people tend to have highly conditioned minds that are resistant to deeper truths. Sometimes using a common word in a different context, or a radical context, can throw the ego off it's defensive posture for a moment and allow a person to recontextualize and gain insight. Yet, it can backfire as well. One example is with "freedom". Most people think of freedom as having free time, doing leisurely activities, having the money to do what they want, being free of worry and stress etc. Yet, that is not true freedom. That is self-centered seeking and temporary relief. True freedom is not dependent on conditions. It is absolute and ever present. True freedom is present during sex, watching movies, while getting raped, while sky diving, while mowing the lawn, while eating lunch, while being tortured in a prison. . . This is a deeper realization of true freedom outside their comfort zone. It's the truth. Lots of teachers stay within students' comfort zone. Sometimes people need to get pushed outside their comfort zone to grow. It can be uncomfortable. Teachers have challenged some of my dearly-held beliefs and sent me into discomfort and distress. As well, I've challenged people's beliefs into their discomfort zone. I've learned that people have a "stretch zone" that is conducive for learning. Beyond that there is a "panic zone" which becomes counter-productive. 

This particular video seemed to trigger a lot of people into a highly defensive and judgmental mode. Perhaps the child rape reference was an over-reach that sent people into lock-down mode. Yet rather than spiraling into a mental storm, why not get interested in why the mind-body got so intensely defensive and angry? One could contemplate "What is happiness"? Is happiness dependent on conditions? If someone answers "No, I believe in unconditional happiness", then Leo's video is nonthreatening. If someone answers "yes", than there is no unconditional happiness. In fact, there would be no unconditional love. If we take unconditional happiness off the table, how can we let unconditional love remain. Could a parent feel love for their childs' rapist? If not, all that talk from wise spiritual teachers about unconditional love is just a bunch of feel-good bullshit. All the books on unconditional love, aspiring to unconditional love that is talked about in churches, self help groups, yoga, spiritual retreats. All bullshit. It's either unconditional or conditional.

If you believe happiness is conditional, where should we draw the boundaries for appropriate conditions for happiness? Under what conditions is it acceptable to experience happiness? Are these the same conditions for everyone? If someone else's boundaries of happiness differ from your own, at what point would you judge that person as unethical or deranged? Don't just consider extreme examples. It's easy to only consider the extremes. Also consider grey areas. Where is your threshold? At what exact point would someone cross over into the unethical and deranged category? Or, is it a continuum? Would you judge a person to gradually progress from "normal happy" to "slightly deranged happy" to "moderately deranged happy" to "evil deranged happy"?. If someone experienced happiness of child rape, does that make that person evil? Or was that person conditioned over their lifetime to experience happiness in horrific conditions? Are they truly making a choice in that situation to produce hormones and neurotransmitters leading to the sensation of happiness? Or are the happy feelings beyond their control? Should we feel disgust or compassion for such a person? Or would it depend on the circumstances? What if the parent was repeatedly raped during their childhood and they used happiness as a defense against experiencing trauma? . .  Is your perspective of what happiness is universal? Could other cultures have a different framework for happiness?

Surface level spirituality is easy. Reading up on Spiral Dynamics is easy. Challenging deeply-held beliefs is hard. Challenging deeply-conditioned beliefs is hard. It's really uncomfortable and people avoid it. Sometimes the work requires radical open-mindedness.