Posted October 11, 2018 6 minutes ago, Outer said: Leo hasn't done anything wrong. I agree. Egoless wasnt following the guidelines, he was allowed to proselytize a long while before he got banned. Dont look at me! Look inside! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 11, 2018 (edited) @Outer Let's get real. It's ban on an internet forum, not a kick out of job. If they really want, they can take the lesson and create a new account. Edited October 11, 2018 by Girzo Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 11, 2018 5 hours ago, How to be wise said: A lot of people just want to share there ideas about spirituality and so forth. Granted a lot of those people don’t know what they are talking about, but they will share it nonetheless. I think you are using the term "sharing" ideas quite broadly. I would consider at least four subcategories of "sharing" ideas: propagandizing, conflicting, debating and exploring ideas. Propagandizing ideas is a major distraction from learning. These are people intent on spreading their ideas (often erroneous) with no interest of engaging in dialog. Conflicting ideas are people that ignorantly challenge others with the intent of conflict. For example, if I went to a forum for learning Chinese and told the teachers that they actually don't speak Chinese and posted up a bunch of Chinese text to prove my point. Then I go off telling the students what it is really like to live in China (I don't speak Chinese and I have never been to China). The Chinese teachers try to explain that I don't understand Chinese and to be open to learning. I tell them they are wrong and I cut and post some more Chinese images and text to prove my point. This is distracting and misleading to students on the forum that actually want to learn Chinese. This type of conflict instigation occurs on this forum with psychedelics and nonduality. People with no direct experience sometimes parrot what they've read online or stuff they just make up. Debating ideas: I think a lot of people think debating ideas is a great learning method. I see that mentality for some on the forum as well as in academia. IME, I don't think debate is an efficient learning method. It is a middle level Orange zone - I think it can be somewhat useful for high blue to elevate to Orange (Blue eventually sees they are irrational). The problem with debate is that both sides defend their views and want to "win" the debate. Instead of expanding one's mind - it contracts one's mind. Their ideas are often reinforced. Look at some debates between Richard Dawkins and religious zealots. Both sides defend their own position and very little comes out of it. Exploring ideas: This is the learning zone IMO. This is where people are doing self inquiry. Where they realize they don't know it all. Where they are introspective and are open to challenging their own beliefs. It is where "winning" is no longer about being right. "Winning" is about learning and expanding oneself. It is where truth becomes more important than being right and proving others wrong. It is where people say things like "Interesting, I've never thought about it like that". It is where people get curious about psychedelics, chakras, shamanic breathing etc. It is where they try the practices for themselves. It is where people get curious about what Leo means when he says "I am God". It is where they question their belief of what God is and are open to deepening their understanding of God. . .. On this forum, Emerald is a great example. On the national scene, Deepak Chopra is a great example. He explores ideas of science and spirituality. Discussions he has at green and higher levels are beautiful. Yet, when Richard Dawkins enters the picture - it gets ugly. Dawkins is a brilliant geneticist, yet doesn't know shit about spirituality. But he tries to debate and "beat" Chopra (who is much more spiritually advanced). It seems like the average consciousness on the board is upper-orange transitioning to green. This is the transition from debate to exploring. This will be uncomfortable for blue and orange level people. They will want to propagandize, conflict, debate and to pull others down into debate. They will complain that they don't have free speech. They will complain that they are being silenced. We saw this with the blue-orange JP crowd. And if an orange-level Richard Dawkins crowd entered the forum - we would see it with them as well. And it's not just about those that defend blue-orange ideology. Those of us at Green and higher need to be mindful not to drop down to mudslinging and low-level debates. It's easy to fall into that trap - it's happened to me. Personally, I want to continue increasing my level of consciousness and to develop better interpersonal skills so I can learn faster and better help others to evolve. There are countless forums on the internet centered at red, blue and orange. There are much fewer forums centered at Green or Yellow. It takes work to maintain that higher level. . . Consider spiritual Satsangs with Adyashanti or Rupert Spira. This is a high Green audience. The audience is not there to propagandize, initiate conflict or debate. The audience members want to learn, explore and evolve. Watch a two hour Satsang with Adyashanti and a two hour debate between Dawkins and a religious zealot. It's obvious which crowd is learning and evolving. They are worlds apart. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 11, 2018 (edited) 17 hours ago, Leo Gura said: People who start claiming nonsense like, "You are not God" will be banned. There is not going to be any discussion tolerated on this matter because it is pure ignorance spoken by a devilish ego. I hope this isn’t taken the wrong way and I don’t want to be banned, but the above statement raises a big red flag for me for several reasons including but not limited to the following: not everybody shares the same meaning for the word ‘God’. And actually the word ‘God’ is optional anyway. If you’re coming from Ego you’re gonna think of the word ‘God’ as pointing to something ‘out there’ and not ‘in here’. The above quote also sounds very characteristically Stage Blue thinking to me. Are you trying to protect people from misleading ideology? That sounds like religion to me. Anyway, it seems out of character for a Stage Green, Yellow, or Turquoise person. The Green person would value the diversity, the Yellow person would be interested in discussing the matter extensively, and the Turquoise person would try to help the person on their path very gently and compassionately. But this banning idea sounds very Stage Blue, very ideological, very rigid to me. It’s also kind of heartless. Put yourself in the shoes of someone getting banned for disagreeing with you. There needs to be more empathy there which seems to be conspicuously absent, which actually surprises me with your new video on ‘Love’ where you talk about being compassionate and loving. It’s one thing to talk about love and compassion, anybody can do that. But do you practice love and compassion? See, the practice is what’s actual. Edited October 12, 2018 by Joseph Maynor Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 11, 2018 17 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said: I hope this isn’t taken the wrong way and I don’t want to be banned, but the above statement raises a big red flag for me for several reasons including but not limited to: not everybody shares the same meaning for God. If you’re coming from Ego you’re gonna think of God as ‘out there’ and not ‘in here’. It also sounds like Stage Blue thinking to boot. Are you trying to protect people from misleading ideology? That sounds like religion to me. Anyway, it seems out of character for a Stage Green, Yellow, or Turquoise person. The Green person would value the diversity. The Yellow person would be interested in discussing the issue, and the Turquoise person would try to help the person on their path. But this banning idea sounds very Stage Blue, very ideological, very rigid to me. I hear you. Blue and Orange levels have a different meaning for "God" than Green and higher. When I was Orange level and first heard Rupert Spira talk about God, I was totally turned off. I think a blue or orange person would get triggered by the statement. Yet, a high Orange ready to transition to Green would probably ask "What does he mean when he says "God"? That was the question I asked when I heard Spira talking about God. Can we really have a forum for all levels? I try to imagine myself teaching my genetics course with a range of levels. Imagine me teaching a genetics course with junior high students, high school students, college students and graduate students. It just wouldn't work. That's probably why nobody does it. . . Imagine if Adyashanti's audience was a mix of red, blue, orange, green and yellow. I don't think it would work well. From my perspective, when there is significant blue and orange in the mix, there is significant propagandizing, conflict and debate - which interferes with evolving. Do you think it is wrong to set a standard of upper-orange to lower-green? If a blue-orange person refuses to evolve to this level and wants to drag people down with propagandizing and debate - do you think it's wrong to give them the boot? There are plenty of forums centered at blue-orange. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 11, 2018 5 hours ago, Leo Gura said: @How to be wise I'm conscious enough to know they are not conscious enough to know what they are talking about. If someone tells me "You are not God", they are straight up ignorant of nonduality. Case closed. I'm not gonna entertain their delusions any further. Being openminded does not mean that I'm tolerant of bullshit. Just the opposite. A deep understanding of nonduality makes it extremely obvious to spot who's full of shit and who hasn't reached the deepest levels yet. Egoless was promoting a dualistic Christian version of a separate God. Which is pure devilry. It's obvious these people have not even bothered to do the basic research, to read the books, let alone to have direct experiences of the advanced and subtle things being discussed here. But these devils don't just stop there. Then what they do is they use the PM system to corrupt the minds of other members behind the scenes, out of sight -- trying to recruit them to their narrow-minded ideology, slowly sowing seeds of doubt and controversy. It's devilry plain and simple. And I'm not gonna sit by and watch it unfold. Devils who come here trying to run their tricks will get slapped across the face. If you want a forum where devils run free, there are thousands of such forums available across the web that you can join. The purpose of moderation is not to censor free speech, but to weed the forum of low-quality members. It only takes a small handful of low-quality members to turn a forum into a cesspool. Because it's the low-quality members who tend to be the most devilish, the most arrogant, the biggest know-it-alls, the biggest bullshitters. This should be a forum disclaimer Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 11, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Outer said: Consider adding the possibility to your comment that you're taking Leo out of context of what's happened. I referenced Leo's actual quoted language which I cited, but you've failed to even say what exactly you're alluding to. Give reasons for your conclusions and maybe we'll have something tangible to discuss. Edited October 11, 2018 by Joseph Maynor Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 11, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, Outer said: Well, I don't think Leo will ban anyone who says that "[I think] you're not god." in the far future even though he said that. It matters how your attitude is. See how [I think] made that sentence different? What about adding an exclamation mark at the end? How will that show your attitude differently? Why the thought control in the first instance though? That's the elephant in the room here. Look, if somebody's trolling or otherwise violating the basic forum guidelines, that's a different issue. But what Leo and you seem to be talking about is banning people who disagree with Leo's opinions about metaphysics. That's religion bud. It's religion that turns metaphysics into an ideology that people wanna fight for. Leo shouldn't be clinging to any ideology at all. And this isn't a moral should. It's a should that comes from realizing that clinging to ideology is an illusion, it's Maya. It's pointless suffering. You thinking you've got metaphysics figured out and clinging to that is you being stuck in Ego, stuck in Samsara, stuck in Thought. Remember, what reality actually is has nothing to do with Thought or Experience. Don't cling to Thought, don't cling to Experience. Just detach and watch this stuff and try to help others on their paths, wherever they are on their path. And try to learn from people to try to advance on your path. But I welcome diversity personally. I want the people on here who disagree with me. As long as you're not an abusive troll, I have no problem with you. And the few truly abusive trolls on here seem to have nine-lives too, which is paradoxical. Edited October 11, 2018 by Joseph Maynor Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 11, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Outer said: Please don't straw man me. (1) Give reasons to support your claim that I'm doing a Straw Man; and, (2) Answer my initial question about your claim that I've misrepresented Leo. You completely evaded this question. I'm not gonna play games with you. I've been there, done that with you. I'm not gonna waste my time engaging with you unless and until you can give reasons for your claims and rebuttals. Edited October 11, 2018 by Joseph Maynor Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 11, 2018 5 hours ago, Leo Gura said: @How to be wise If someone tells me "You are not God", they are straight up ignorant of nonduality. Case closed. So much for the don’t-know mind. Also, Sadhguru hates using the word God. Plenty of times he told people that God doesn’t exist. He also says that questioning never ends. So why can’t you question this God even though you experienced him. Are you incapable of that? I understand that it was a profound mystical experience, but can you still not question that? I’m not saying falsify it, but just keep your mind open. Case closed sounds like a pretty bad idea. "Not believing your own thoughts, you’re free from the primal desire: the thought that reality should be different than it is. You realise the wordless, the unthinkable. You understand that any mystery is only what you yourself have created. In fact, there’s no mystery. Everything is as clear as day. It’s simple, because there really isn’t anything. There’s only the story appearing now. And not even that.” — Byron Katie Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 11, 2018 @Leo Gura can banned people read the messages you send them? I sent a message to source mystic but it seems pointless now cuz he's banned lol. Hark ye yet again — the little lower layer. All visible objects, man, are but as pasteboard masks. But in each event — in the living act, the undoubted deed — there, some unknown but still reasoning thing puts forth the mouldings of its features from behind the unreasoning mask. If man will strike, strike through the mask! How can the prisoner reach outside except by thrusting through the wall? To me, the white whale is that wall, shoved near to me. Sometimes I think there's naught beyond. But 'tis enough. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 11, 2018 6 hours ago, Leo Gura said: @How to be wise That you are God is not up for debate or discussion. Look and you will see that it's true. Of course most egos don't want to look. Which is why they resort to all kinds of devilry instead. For people who say "you are not God", I think a problem only arises when the person saying this creates a very toxic discussion, especially if the person uses many fallacies and emotional nonsense. Hark ye yet again — the little lower layer. All visible objects, man, are but as pasteboard masks. But in each event — in the living act, the undoubted deed — there, some unknown but still reasoning thing puts forth the mouldings of its features from behind the unreasoning mask. If man will strike, strike through the mask! How can the prisoner reach outside except by thrusting through the wall? To me, the white whale is that wall, shoved near to me. Sometimes I think there's naught beyond. But 'tis enough. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 11, 2018 The word “Leo” should be banned in topic titles... Leo did that Disproving Leo Leo has lost it etc All of those are sneaky ways to avoid doing the inner work. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 11, 2018 (edited) one question. how can someone start doing the inner work without questioning god? saying someone is god without saying someone is not god, would there still be nonduality? not questioning at all is very dogmatic. there is dogmatism in zen without question, but does it have to, if the question is formulated as a question and not as a statement maybe? how can someone enter a path without questioning in the first place? so if someone asks the question. you would say: you are god. ??? but it doesn’t mean someone stopped questioning, did it? and what would happen if someone would say: i am god. ??? what then? Edited October 11, 2018 by now is forever multiple questions Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 11, 2018 10 minutes ago, now is forever said: one question. how can someone start doing the inner work without questioning god? saying someone is god without saying someone is not god, would there still be nonduality? not questioning at all is very dogmatic. there is dogmatism in zen without question, but does it have to, if the question is formulated as a question and not as a statement maybe? how can someone enter a path without questioning in the first place? so if someone asks the question. you would say: you are god. ??? but it doesn’t mean someone stopped questioning, did it? Guy's, c'mon. . . There is a difference between open-minded questioning and a closed-minded strike. For example: "Can someone explain to me what Leo means when he says "I am God"? I am questioning the meaning of God that I was told in my church during my childhood" VS. "Leo said "I am God"!!!!!! How delusional!!!!! He is a cult leader!!!!!!" Let's stop conflating the two. We highly encourage self inquiry. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 11, 2018 (edited) @Serotoninluv it‘s a strangeloop question. Edited October 11, 2018 by now is forever Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 11, 2018 (edited) 10 hours ago, Gabriel Antonio said: The word “Leo” should be banned in topic titles... Leo did that Disproving Leo Leo has lost it etc All of those are sneaky ways to avoid doing the inner work. I don't think so. Why are we moralizing about content on here? There's a huge gulf between your guy's theory and practice. Stop trying to control reality to your liking. You only cause yourself suffering. You guys are supposed to be teachers on here. A true teacher takes no offense of Ego. They might be pained by Ego, but that's different from taking offense to Ego. Pain is part of Experience and it's not clear that you have any control over Experience. Edited October 12, 2018 by Joseph Maynor Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 12, 2018 the good part of threads like this is that they trigger lots of illusory mental patterns. it's very easy to smell egotistic delusion! if we all pay close attention with enough humility, we become able to see through our own lies! this is a task of high caliber! unborn Truth Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted October 12, 2018 9 hours ago, Serotoninluv said: I hear you. Blue and Orange levels have a different meaning for "God" than Green and higher. When I was Orange level and first heard Rupert Spira talk about God, I was totally turned off. I think a blue or orange person would get triggered by the statement. Yet, a high Orange ready to transition to Green would probably ask "What does he mean when he says "God"? That was the question I asked when I heard Spira talking about God. Can we really have a forum for all levels? I try to imagine myself teaching my genetics course with a range of levels. Imagine me teaching a genetics course with junior high students, high school students, college students and graduate students. It just wouldn't work. That's probably why nobody does it. . . Imagine if Adyashanti's audience was a mix of red, blue, orange, green and yellow. I don't think it would work well. From my perspective, when there is significant blue and orange in the mix, there is significant propagandizing, conflict and debate - which interferes with evolving. Do you think it is wrong to set a standard of upper-orange to lower-green? If a blue-orange person refuses to evolve to this level and wants to drag people down with propagandizing and debate - do you think it's wrong to give them the boot? There are plenty of forums centered at blue-orange. Well said. Guidance and Awakening into the Unknown My YouTube Insights Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
