The Epic **** of Leo Gura

[Haumea2018]

Leo literally says ideologies are bullshit.

This guy in essence says "no, my ideology of rationalism/materialism/scientism/whatever "objectivity" is supposed to represent" isn't bullshit.

OK -- cool story.  Make a video proving that it isn't by showing that its fundamental assumptions are true.

Good luck with that.

"Objectivity" is as superstitious a dogma as any religion.

Edited November 22, 2018 by Haumea2018

[Sockrattes]

18 minutes ago, SOUL said:

Ask yourself if the answer to that question would quench the existential yearning of ego to justify itself through self identity or would you just be on to the next question to seek an answer for.

None of it.

As strange as it sounds i remember past lives. And i want to end this process. I remember how i meditated a lot in at least one of my past lives. Since i'm here asking this questions i can tell that i haven't succeeded to break out.

My question is wether i'm doing the right thing to get rid of it or not.

Edited November 22, 2018 by Sockrattes

[Nahm]

(Insert Gif of Leo eating popcorn here)

 

 

 

 

“Oh, on Thanksgiving even, great, thanks guys”

[Emanyalpsid]

48 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Stage Orange rationalists may see Turqoise as irrational, whoo whoo, scam artists and/or threatening. They will not be able to comprehend three developmental stages higher.

This is not surprising at all. Stage Orange will try to pull higher stages down. This fella, Jordan Peterson, Richard Dawkins etc. It’s part of the holistic dynamic.

This is just using SD, which itself is Nothing more then a belief System, to devaluate others by trying to Point them somewhere, in this imaginary scale, based upon your Interpretations. 

You are not even going into the Points he makes in the Videos, but you go straight into using another belief System to try and dismiss him.

[Emanyalpsid]

21 minutes ago, Haumea2018 said:

Leo literally says ideologies are bullshit.

This guy in essence says "no, my ideology of rationalism/materialism/scientism/whatever "objectivity" is supposed to represent" isn't bullshit.

OK -- cool story.  Make a video proving that it isn't by showing that its fundamental assumptions are true.

Good luck with that.

"Objectivity" is as superstitious a dogma as any religion.

He just Looks at situations from reality, does he Mention any ideology?

[Forestluv]

35 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

This is just using SD, which itself is Nothing more then a belief System, to devaluate others by trying to Point them somewhere, in this imaginary scale, based upon your Interpretations. 

You are not even going into the Points he makes in the Videos, but you go straight into using another belief System to try and dismiss him.

As well, you will not be able to understand this perspective until you have reached a particular developmental stage.

Ratinalists will view the trans-rational as irrational. Rationalists are unable to see their own mode of being is irrational. Objectivists are unable to comprehend relative and integral modes. No SD needed, there ya go. .

[Emanyalpsid]

1 hour ago, luckieluuke said:

Leo has never said that he reached enlightenment. The "psychotic" episode in the video was induced by psychedelic and Leo explained afterwards that it was an enlightening experience but not THE everlasting enlightenment.
I have a feeling Leo takes his lessons from psychedelic experience to literal. Like Carl Jung said: "beware of unearned wisdom"
This guy "unspiritual" seems very aggressive, pushing his agenda. Get a bad vibe from him.

Who said he did?

[Haumea2018]

Quote

He just Looks at situations from reality, does he Mention any ideology?

Wow...that would be quite a claim to make.

Let's break it down further.

What are his fundamental assumptions about reality?

If he can explicitly state them, I'll play.  Otherwise, it's not something to take seriously even for a moment.

 

 

Edited November 22, 2018 by Haumea2018

[Emanyalpsid]

56 minutes ago, Haumea2018 said:

This guy is just not very coherent if you watch the entire video.  Over the course of the video he contradicts himself, special pleads, etc.

He doesn't understand himself or non-duality very well.  This is what happens when your parents force-feed you something as opposed to you coming to it organically.  He was never ready for it in the first place.  

"Objectivity" is nonsense.  Nonduality is about the nonconceptual, but he is so stuck in his concepts that he commits a category error by comparing the philosophy of "objectivity" (i.e. rationalism, I suppose?) with the philosophy of nonduality, as opposed to nonduality itself.  "Nonduality" is a pointer to direct experience, not an intellectual construct that can be rigorously tested through "objectivity."

In other words, he just doesn't get it.  He's in his head filtering everything through a mental map and not seeing into the nature of things directly.  The problem is that mental maps are just arbitrary bullshit, but he doesn't see that.  

 

 

He explains it Pretty clear in his last Video. Guess you should look it again if you didnt.

[Jack River]

30 minutes ago, SOUL said:

Is that your story that you are sticking with? Baha

Fosho ? 

but don’t concern yourself with the story, but the nature of “the story teller” 

[Emanyalpsid]

55 minutes ago, Flammable said:

@Emanyalpsid  Have seen him before, just watching the Part 3 right now. 

Quite incoherent and self-contradicting description of things, mingled with a lot of assumptions which are not explained further - especially the ones about substance dualism. 

Also, he takes a few Ramana Maharshi quotes out of context in order to strengthen his argument, where what Ramana was trying to point out was the transcending of the I AM to nothingness 

Comparing Leo and this guy, the latter rings a lot more of my bullshit radars and contradicts more of what my direct experience is  Since this is the only thing I have, I will probably stick with my direct experience rather than this guy's concepts.

Thanks for sharing though, it is always good to have ideas challenged.

He explains Pretty cler what substance dualism is.. Maybe look it again? 

Where is he incoherent or self-contradicting? 

Your bullshit Radar..? 

Edited November 22, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[Flammable]

@Emanyalpsid  Read my comment again, stop simplifying everything to look at it again  I edited out a last bit to add something.

[Emanyalpsid]

8 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

As well, you will not be able to understand this perspective until you have reached a particular developmental stage.

Ratinalists will view the trans-rational as irrational. Rationalists are unable to see their own mode of being is irrational. No SD needed, there ya go. .

Ah this is the best Thing of a good belief System, you are not able to get it if you havent reached a certain stage….lol 

So you cant say it is bullshit, because you have not attained Level 80 to see how it all fits together, lol. That is the same as saying you are not the Pope and have no good Connection to god.

[Emanyalpsid]

1 hour ago, Sockrattes said:

Holy ****. I'm watching this video right now. I'm 12 minutes in and i can already say that this guy has no clue what he's talking about. He's opposing non-dualism just because it is religion and religion is bad by default?!

 

Leo is right about him. He is a materialist. Just let me explain what i mean by that:

In the west there is science, philosophy, religion and all the other disciplines and subjects and all of them have either continued development or dogmatism as a basis.

Science and philosophy are progressing. Direct experience or logical deduction are the means here.

Religion is dogmatic, because you have to belief in it and for the most part, you are not allowed to question it.

This is the materialist-reductionist approach.

In the east there is no such distinction: Philosophy and religion are one and the same. Religion is not something to be believed in, because there is simply nothing too believe. Everything in eastern religions/philosophy MUST be experienced, otherwise it makes no sense.

This is a holistic approach.

So he is using materialist-reductionist arguments, which would apply against "western religions", since they are dogmatic, as if they would apply to eastern religions as well.

That's strange, since he have read so many books about spirituality, he still didn't get it.

He is not really opposing it, he says it has useful Things.

[Forestluv]

16 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

Ah this is the best Thing of a good belief System, you are not able to get it if you havent reached a certain stage….lol 

So you cant say it is bullshit, because you have not attained Level 80 to see how it all fits together, lol. That is the same as saying you are not the Pope and have no good Connection to god.

A better analogy: one cannot explain calculus to someone who doesn’t understand algebra. 

[SOUL]

27 minutes ago, Sockrattes said:

None of it.

As strange as it sounds i remember past lives. And i want to end this process. I remember how i meditated a lot in at least one of my past lives. Since i'm here asking this questions i can tell that i haven't succeeded to break out.

My question is wether i'm doing the right thing to get rid of it or not.

Let me recontexualize it for you to see if it may help this cycle you think you are in. It's not your past lives, it's all lives, it's all life. Your ego is trying to tell a story of past lives to identify with it to justify what it believes it is and what you do in service to this identity.

Just let go of the idea and every time the ego wants you to agree with it, don't endorse it and say 'it's all lives, it's all life, i am here now'. So just be present in this moment.

It may take awhile but eventually the ego will let go of that idea and just be present because the ego is just recalling the past to create it's identity so give it 'presence of being' to believe in. It's that simple.

[Emanyalpsid]

39 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

If you go on Zzenn’s YouTube page you’ll see he attacks a lot more people than just Leo.  He also attacks Teal Swan pretty heavily too among many other people.  I don’t think the attacking approach  is a sustainable way to become a teacher.  It’s an underhanded way to get attention, but you also sow seeds of ill will too.  People who live by the sword die by the sword. A real teacher is not a certified asshole who bullies and laughs at other teachers.  You can read that energy right away and tell that it has nothing to do with Enlightenment or being a teacher.  It’s just a way for Zzenn to feel like he’s building his channel — on the backs of other teachers.  There’s no compassion there.  It’s mockery like an angry little kid would do who was probably bullied himself.  If you’re Enlightened, you’re not gonna make those kinds of videos period.  So, use your judgment when assessing teachers.  Read that energy, it speaks volumes.  That bullying energy.  Enlightened people don’t bully other people — not like that anyway.  I mean, come on!  You gotta look at actions as well as words when you assess somebody, a teacher or anybody for that matter.  It’s like shooting a hole in your boat before you make it to the other side of the lake — you lose credibility no matter now sound your message might be.  You gotta watch how you go about doing things as a teacher.  But if you’re Enlightened, you probably aren’t worried about attacking, bullying, and laughing at other teachers.  Just sayin’.  Something doesn’t add up, and you can read that energy right away.  Actions!  Actions are as important as words in this work.

Who says he is a teacher? Who said he is enlightened?

So you can not say to someone who says something, it is wrong, without it being a cry for Attention? So we can not say anything To what someone else says, cause it would be a cry for Attention... Look at part 1 or 2 from his Video again.

Its no mockery if he Comes with solid Arguments and sees they are just full of shit and want to build a Living by trying to convice gullible People by putting Videos on YouTube where they preach things. You are free to mock him though.

Edited November 22, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[Flammable]

@Emanyalpsid  No urge for explaining or arguing about it, so let's say you are right  Enjoy the concept, the direct experience or whatever was found. 

Cheers for sharing this again anyhow. Nothing wrong with it fundamentally 
 

Edited November 22, 2018 by Flammable

[Haumea2018]

There are no "solid arguments." There are plausible arguments only if you buy the underlying premises (which are appeals to popular prejudice.)

The claim that he has no ideology can't be taken seriously.

 

[Aaron p]

@Emanyalpsid I can tell straight away that that guy is massively misunderstanding what Leo is saying. It's actually quite arrogant of him to be that aggressive, especially when he thinks Leo is wrong because he doesent understand what he's actually saying. 

In the first few minutes leo is stating a very simple insight regarding the subconscious protection of the ego. That's why you feel a physical "jump" and and an emotional recoil if anyone says something against something that you strongly believe in. It's a protective mechanism...I have them as well. Anything your heart wants to protect. And that guy has his mind made up that Leo is wrong and he's Gona prove it. 

This guy sounds hasty, overdramatic, manipulative sounding...be careful. But the good news is you don't have to believe leo anyway. Test it! Especially when it scones to meditation and enlightenment work...it actually works against you if you believe something about it. Leo says himself not to believe him. So infact I agree with this guys motive...question leo! Don't believe him, see for yourself