Hypocrisy of having no morality

[jim123]

In his videos Leo has said that there is no such thing as ”right” or ”wrong.” He even said something along the lines of: ”I could detonate a nuclear bomb and not feel bad about it.”

But here’s how hypocrisy comes in with this philosophy. If I said on this forum that I’m going to go out tomorrow and murder a bunch of people, you would condemn me and say something like this:

Oh, you’ve misunderstood us completely. You need to seek some professional help.

But wait a minute, I thought murder wasn’t wrong. I thought murder wasn’t evil. If there is truly no such thing as ”right” or ”wrong,” why would you react that way? And I’m sure that many of the spiritual teachers who believe in the same stuff would also react in a similar way. Why? Because they are hypocrites. Either there are such things as right and wrong, or there are not. Which one is it? Choose one.

On the other hand, if you actually are completely fine with people wanting to do such evil things, then this forum is basically a forum for psychopaths. I guess all the mass-murderers and other psychopaths are the ones that are spiritually enlightened then.

Edited December 3, 2019 by jim123

[Leo Gura]

The point is, right and wrong are relative notions.

There is no absolute right and wrong. But in the relative world -- relative to living a decent human life -- you should not kill people, because it will not end well for you. But again, this is all relative. If you want things to go badly for you as a human, by all means, go for it. You will either end up in jail or killed by the police. Maybe if you're extremely lucky you can get away with it, OJ style. But even then, you'll still live a miserable life. Don't forget, OJ still served 10 years in prison thanks to his criminality.

This is where Understanding Relativism comes in. Watch that video and contemplate it deeply until you understand what relativity means.

[jim123]

@Leo Gura

What about something like lying. In many cases you can get away with stuff and make your life better by telling lies. But nevertheless lying is considered ”wrong.” No-one really likes to tell lies even if they could get away with it.

Saying that you could be the biggest liar in the world and that there would be absolutely nothing wrong about it is a pretty bizarre thing to say. If you tell a lie, you know that it wasn’t true. You know that you tricked people.

[Leo Gura]

@jim123 There would be nothing wrong about it from the absolute perspective. From the relative perspective there would be consequences you'd have to deal with.

Your actions have natural consequences. So long as you accept those, nothing is wrong.

Yes, but what's wrong with not telling the truth? That's a freedom you have. Tricking people is part of how life keeps on living.

There exists no one in reality who can determine whether lying is wrong, other than you. So if you believe it is wrong, it is wrong, for you, because you imagine it to be so. But don't expect others to necessarily agree.

[infinitelove]

@Leo Gura with consequences , you mean karma?

I understand the relativism of morality  as doing wrong things will make me more away from the truth , love or more selfish.

[hamedsf]

@infinitelove  the ending scene of mafia 1 game would explain everything for you:  

 

[Leo Gura]

38 minutes ago, infinitelove said:

with consequences , you mean karma?

You could say that.

[Lento]

I don't consider it a hypocrisy.

People are responsible for what they say. And here Leo is not anonymous. If he tells you to kill people, you will get caught and you both will get sued for it.

I could easily say anything to you and be irresponsible, because I am anonymous.

If you're fine with going to the jail, be free. Leo clearly doesn't want that.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Lento

[LfcCharlie4]

He's talking from an absolute persective as the Self does not judge and allows all, as the Self is literally everything therefore, accepts everything. 

However, if you open your heart and deepen your love you will not be able to harm others, or will at least minimize this harm. You will become more emotional than ever, for example I teared up at a movie in the UK based on 0 Hour Contracts and how employers are exploiting workers and ruining families and people's lives, you begin to see the injustices in the world more. 

When you love that deeply, you will merely want to serve and help people, not go out and kill. 

However, this is a deep facet of awakening, and most may not even talk about love. Charles Manson was considered enlightened by many (Very early stages of no self etc) and look how he acted...

Early stage awakened beings can still wreak havoc, however, those who have attained truly deep awakenings are HIGHLY unlikely to act in such ways due to the depth of love they have awakened to, and when you realize EVERYTHING is the Self as are you, you are merely harming yourself, who wants to do that?

[mandyjw]

This is not philosophy and can't be understood a level of thought. The mind wants to twist love into the greatest evil that there is, because to the mind it is a threat. If you're having a hard time understanding the "philosophy", then meditate more and think less. Pay attention to how you feel. pay attention to which thoughts make you feel good and which thoughts make you feel bad. Connect with intuition that is beyond thought, but inherent within your being. Then you can revisit the topic and ask the questions. 

Here's the thing with contemplation, if you have a burning question and want an answer, contemplate it. But the real answers won't ever come to you through thinking. Don't trick yourself into thinking a bunch of thoughts and imagining scenarios that feel awful. That's not contemplation at all, it's the ego making you suffer. 

[Nickyy]

9 hours ago, jim123 said:

In his videos Leo has said that there is no such thing as ”right” or ”wrong.” He even said something along the lines of: ”I could detonate a nuclear bomb and not feel bad about it.”

But here’s how hypocrisy comes in with this philosophy. If I said on this forum that I’m going to go out tomorrow and murder a bunch of people, you would condemn me and say something like this:

Oh, you’ve misunderstood us completely. You need to seek some professional help.

But wait a minute, I thought murder wasn’t wrong. I thought murder wasn’t evil. If there is truly no such thing as ”right” or ”wrong,” why would you react that way? And I’m sure that many of the spiritual teachers who believe in the same stuff would also react in a similar way. Why? Because they are hypocrites. Either there are such things as right and wrong, or there are not. Which one is it? Choose one.

On the other hand, if you actually are completely fine with people wanting to do such evil things, then this forum is basically a forum for psychopaths. I guess all the mass-murderers and other psychopaths are the ones that are spiritually enlightened then.

 

8 hours ago, jim123 said:

@Leo Gura

What about something like lying. In many cases you can get away with stuff and make your life better by telling lies. But nevertheless lying is considered ”wrong.” No-one really likes to tell lies even if they could get away with it.

Saying that you could be the biggest liar in the world and that there would be absolutely nothing wrong about it is a pretty bizarre thing to say. If you tell a lie, you know that it wasn’t true. You know that you tricked people.

You can lie unconsciously or you can lie consciously. The first means you're doing it to maintain your ego, the second means you're doing it because you understand that it might be the best thing to do for now considering the context and dependent on how inclusive your thinking is.

There are many interpretations of lies, at lower levels it's a very black and white approach to lying. But when your thinking becomes more complex then you can discern when it's right to lie. 

It's the same with stealing. At lower levels of development stealing is considered wrong, end of story.

But what if you stole something to save a person from starving? This action then puts stealing into a whole other context. Stealing is now an act of love.

So negative things aren't always negative and positive things aren't always positive. It's all dependent on who's observing.

The problem humanity faces right now is that it's not communally complex enough to think in very complex terms like green, yellow and turquoise can.

 

 

[Scholar]

8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@jim123 There would be nothing wrong about it from the absolute perspective. From the relative perspective there would be consequences you'd have to deal with.

Your actions have natural consequences. So long as you accept those, nothing is wrong.

Yes, but what's wrong with not telling the truth? That's a freedom you have. Tricking people is part of how life keeps on living.

There exists no one in reality who can determine whether lying is wrong, other than you. So if you believe it is wrong, it is wrong, for you, because you imagine it to be so. But don't expect others to necessarily agree.

Why do you limit morality to this relativistic stage green understanding? No action could ever be good or wrong, as only goodness and wrongness can be goodness and wrongness.

 

To believe something is wrong is the same as to believe something is blue. It is a fundamental and deliberate deception, a way how the mind plays around with dualities. It conflates ideas and all sorts of objects or dimensions of existence for each other. It says the chair is blue, when only blue is blue. It says killing is wrong, when only wrong is wrong.

 

Why do you limit yourself to this kind surface level analysis? I keep noticing this.

It is like you do not see the layer between delusion and illusion.

Yes, all of this is illusion, but so is the very notion of illusion. So is blueness, so all there is. Yet, to say good and wrong is relative is not merely illusion, it is delusion aswell. This is the dimension which I see lacking in so many spiritual teachers, and I wonder why. It is so foundational and so obvious.

It's like people just skip over it and don't bother looking. Yes world is illusion, but world is also delusion. Delusion is that by which all duality dances with each other.

 

If this was seen, it would not even make sense to ever say something like "From the absolute perspective nothing is wrong with this.". That would rely on so many delusions that it would be utterly incoherent to even say it. And it is incoherent if truly inspected. It is the essence of incoherence, incoherence itself is that which it is.

 

Imagine a swarm of fish. Your level of analysis is the following:

"Swarms of fish can have all sorts of different shapes. There is no true shape to swarms of fish! Every swam can have any shape relative to itself and other swarms."

Of course.

But this is what is being missed:

"Every swarm of fish contains swarmness. Independent of the shape of swarm, swarm is present in all swarms of fish. It is not merely the fish that create the swarm, the swarm itself exist as swarmness itself. That is which swarmness is, and all swarm are swarmness."

It's like you lack insight into the structure, into the essence of that which is being labelled. You are lost in the shape of the swarm and do not recognize swarmness itself. You do not see that the swarmness is not merely a collection of fish, that swarmness is swarmness. The shape of the swarm, of any swarm, is not swarmness itself.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Scholar

[Leo Gura]

@Scholar Good/bad/right/wrong are things you invented for the purpose of survival as an imaginary self.

No self, no right or wrong.

[Scholar]

54 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Scholar Good/bad/right/wrong are things you invented for the purpose of survival as an imaginary self.

No self, no right or wrong.

They are however not socially constructed, as much as anger, blueness, hearing is not socially constructed.

No blueness, no noness, no noself.

All is illusion, what I am pointing to is not as fundamental as what you are pointing to.

Goodness is as much invented as blueness is. 

It is not for survival, it is for expression itself.

Survival is more surface level analysis then what I am pointing to and all is illusion/imagined is too deep and fundamental.

You see quarks and biology, yet you might not see the chemistry inbetween, the molecules which are made of quarks and give rise to biology.

You are throwing the ball either too high or too low. 

 

There are layers between Absolute and Relativity. There is absoluteness in all relativity, and there is relativity within Absolute. However look at how binary that is, it is more like a dance of waves that are playing with each other and the interactions between them themselves are what we can observe too.

It lies in the crust of Unity and Reflectivity. Not the surface, nor the light, but reflectionness itself.

 

Goodness cannot be Invention, as only Invention is Invention, and only Goodness is Goodness. Pure duality is still illusion, but duality flowing into itself is delusion. The world is delusion, and all dualities that make world are illusion.

 

You see all the fish in all the oceans, the greatest of depths. You see all the birds and all the insects in the skies, high as it goes. Yet you seem not to see the critters which walk upon the earth, which crawl through the dirt and climb through the trees.

That which slumbers between the Ground of Being and the World. That which was so subtle, you have not noticed that it has dissolved when you fell into the Abyss, because all your eyes were trained to see is the World, not the parts which the World is made of.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Scholar

[Leo Gura]

57 minutes ago, Scholar said:

They are however not socially constructed, as much as anger, blueness, hearing is not socially constructed.

That's precisely wrong. Right and wrong are FAR more socially constructed than anger or blueness. Which is obvious if you notice that no two humans agree on what is right and wrong, good or bad.

To realize the relativity of good & bad does not even require awakening. It's a lot more obvious than that. A child can understand it using a bit of logic.

[Forestluv]

7 hours ago, Scholar said:

To believe something is wrong is the same as to believe something is blue. It is a fundamental and deliberate deception, a way how the mind plays around with dualities. It conflates ideas and all sorts of objects or dimensions of existence for each other. It says the chair is blue, when only blue is blue. It says killing is wrong, when only wrong is wrong.

I'm trying to get clear on your ideas here. It doesn't seem like you may be putting a twist onto relativity. It seems like you are essentially saying that to call "A" as "B" is deception. For example, a chair is blue. Or, killing is wrong. . . . Rather, "A is A" and "B is B": blue is blue, a chair is a chair, killing is killing and wrong is wrong. If so, this is one exercise I do when I walk through nature. I notice myself saying things like "that flower is beautiful". There are two aspects of relativity here. There is a flower relative to non-flowers and beautiful relative to non-beautiful. It seems like you are saying that this is conflating two relativistic dimensions of existence, which I would agree with. We can remove a dimension of relativity by saying: the flower is a flower. I would agree that is is "purer" in the sense that it is only one dimension of relativity, yet there is still relativity. A flower is a flower relative to what? There is still labeling a flower as a "thing" relative to non-flowers. 

If we say "wrong is wrong" , wrong relative to what? Without any contrast, there is no blue, chair, killing, wrong, flower or beauty. Without contrast, there are no dimensions of distinction and we can go one step further. "wrong is wrong" is now "IS is IS" - and we don't need the extra IS's. It becomes One IS. . . . Thus, there is no right or wrong at an absolute level (with no dimensions of relativity). You seem to have removed one dimension of distinction, yet still have a dimension of distinction. Saying "blue is blue" is still a distinction from what is not blue. If Everything was blue, there would be no blue to say "blue is blue"'.

[Scholar]

33 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That's precisely wrong. Right and wrong are FAR more socially constructed than anger or blueness. Which is obvious if you notice that no two humans agree on what is right and wrong, good or bad.

To realize the relativity of good & bad does not even require awakening. It's a lot more obvious than that. A child can understand it using a bit of logic.

Again, you fail to see what I am pointing to. I actually am mind blown that this is so difficult to see.

You are referring to a conceptual idea of right and wrong, much like there is a conceptual idea of color, how it arises and so forth. This is surface level, this does not go into any depth at all.

 

Goodness is not merely a conceptual idea, if you sit down and observe how the conceptual idea arises and what it is linked to, you will observe that what Goodness is actually far better categorized as is an emotion. It is deeply imbedded and influences how we perceive all sorts of things.

Nobody agrees on what is Good and Bad because in each individual mind Goodness and Badness emerges at different kind of mind-states. It works exactly the same as Anger does. Some people get angry at some things and others get angry at other things. However, they can never disagree upon what Goodness and Badness itself are. That would be like disagreeing on what Blue is. That can only be part of a conceptual framework, it can only ever be a confusion of labels.

To say something is "Bad" is like saying something is "Annoying". This is delusiona, nothing can ever be annoying. Trees cannot be annoying, trees are trees. Annoyance can emerge in the presence of trees and therefore there can be a conflation of two dimensions of reality (namely colors and the emotions of annoyance), but that does not mean the delusion is socially constructed.

 

It is exactly the case that anger is as much socially constructed as right or wrong, literally. Your perception of what will make you angry will also make you perceive it as bad, vice versa.

 

But all of this is still too surface level. I am talking of one layer deeper.

The layer in which only anger is anger and only goodness is goodness. In that layer, goodness is not created or correlated to anything. It comes directly from the source itself, it is an expression of all possible dualites. It is Pure, and it is there. It is just as much a fascet of existence as Blueness is, and it is just as Absolute as Blueness is. It is not relative as much as Blue is not relative.

 

You do not truly see the mysteriousness of goodness and badness. You think it is an invention of a chimp, like some sort of tool it has created. As if Blue and Red were tools a chimp created.

Goodness, like Redness, is utterly mysterious. It can exist on it's own, with no survival agenda, with no chimp to cling to it. It can be a pure expression of duality. It just happens that the chimp mind found use for that dimension of existence. It found that with it, it could create the Play of the World.

And no, it was not the Chimp Mind which found that to be the case. It was a far Greater Mind, a Mind which can make pop Blueness and Redness, Goodness and Badness, into existence, just like that.

 

That is completely beyond survival, it is pure Expression, pure Dance. However, that Pure Goodness or Badness would obviously not have such a label. It would not have all the moralistic notions attached to it which you currently do. It would be pure, like Suffering is. Like Redness is. Like Shouldness is.

15 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I'm trying to get clear on your ideas here. It doesn't seem like you may be putting a twist onto relativity. It seems like you are essentially saying that to call "A" as "B" is deception. For example, a chair is blue. Or, killing is wrong. . . . Rather, "A is A" and "B is B": blue is blue, a chair is a chair, killing is killing and wrong is wrong. If so, this is one exercise I do when I walk through nature. I notice myself saying things like "the flower is beautiful", then I may say "the flower is flower and beautiful is beautiful". This removes an aspect of relativity, yet there is still relativity. The flower is a flower, relative to what? It is still labeling a flower as a "thing" relative to another thing. . . If we say "wrong is wrong" , wrong relative to what? Without any contrast, there is no blue, chair, killing, wrong, flower or beauty. Without contrast, there are no distinctions and we can go one step further. "wrong is wrong" is now "IS is IS" - and we don't need the extra IS's. It becomes One IS. . . . Thus, there is no right or wrong at an absolute level. You seem to have removed some distinctions, yet still have distinctions. Saying "blue is blue" is still a distinction from what is not blue. If Everything was blue, there would be no blue to say "blue is blue"'

Of course, without contrast there no Duality, there is no Maya. I am not trying to go that deep here.

And look carefully: There s no Good and Bad in Absolute, relative to what? There being Good and Bad in Absolute? These language games make no sense to even talk about, as the presence of the sentence itself is duality, thus the grasping of that will always be the proof of duality.

Also this is a huge trap as it creates a Duality between Absolute and Relativity which literally is one more duality. When I look at what Is, it is more like a dance than this binary machine thinking.

 

Sometimes I feel like Leo is not reading what I am writing and just skipping over it. Maybe he has no time.

 

When I use these concepts i always move in the sphere of Maya. I don't think this way when meditating, it would be absurd.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Scholar

[Forestluv]

@Scholar

You say: "Nobody disagrees on what is Good and Bad because in each individual mind Goodness and Badness emerges at different kind of mind-states. It works exactly the same as Anger does. Some people get angry at some things and others get angry at other things"

I don't think you are seeing how this is a relative construct. You have constructed a things called: Good, Bad, disagreement, individual, mind, mind-states, anger, people, things, other things. There is an enormous amount of relativity here.

When you say "some people get angry at some things. . . ". Anger relative to what? (not anger). People relative to what? (other people). Some things relative to what? (not other things).  

If you remove the relativity, you lose the distinctions and there are no longer things called "wrong, right, anger" etc. These are relative constructs that are being created, yet you seem to promoting them as universally true. 

 

 

[Scholar]

9 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Scholar

You say: "Nobody disagrees on what is Good and Bad because in each individual mind Goodness and Badness emerges at different kind of mind-states. It works exactly the same as Anger does. Some people get angry at some things and others get angry at other things"

I don't think you are seeing how this is a relative construct. You have constructed a things called: Good, Bad, disagreement, individual, mind, mind-states, anger, people, things, other things. There is an enormous amount of relativity here. What you are saying is true from one relative perspective and not true from other relative perspectives. You seem to be promoting these relative ideas as if they were objectively, universally true. . . I think that is what people are pointing you to. 

 

 

What I talk about has nothing to do with constructs or ideas. I am no constructing Blueness, as much as I am not constructing Suffering.

Maybe I am in the sense of being God and imagining all that, which I would frame differently anyways, but that is obviously not what we are talking about.

 

We are not talking about Ideas, we are talking about the Substance of Goodness, the Substance of Redness. While I am framing this understanding in language and with relative terms and concepts, it has nothing to do with what is pointed at. Notice how many different ways of explanations I am able to deliver, how many conceptual frameworks I can construct that are foreign to each other. I do not care about these things, I want Leo to see, or atleast know that he can already see.

 

The layer I am refering to is prior to Relativity. It is not prior to Absolute. Blue is Blue, to say Blue is Relative is to say Blue is Relative. But Blue is Blue.

This is not language, the language is there for you to see through delusion and through the world. What is another relative perspective supposed to be? Perspective is an idea within Now. Now is not Perspective. Now is Now.

Blueness does not exist in Perspective, rather Blueness lies next to Perspective. It is not the child, but a silbing of Perspective.

I am not married to spritualistic ideologies that have been constructed. I am not satisfied with common sense, as I can clearly see the absurdity which keeps it together. The absurdity which is so obviously mysterious and inexplicaple.

There is no Subjectivity in that sphere of mystery. There is no Relativity. That is all Chimp Talk, as much as what I am doing now.

 

I can Chimp talk forever, I can Chimp Talk with different bricks, different frames. It doesn't matter, this is not about the Chimp talk.

 

 

Edited December 3, 2019 by Scholar

[Cepzeu]

I think you are trying to point to the nature of something being itself. i.e. Good is Good, Bad is Bad etc. in other words saying the fundamental nature of something is itself. And that this distinction is between Absolute and Relativity. 

I think you are chasing your own tail a little bit because you can make distinctions about what something is ad infinitum and from infinite perspectives. 

From an absolute perspective BLUE is BLUE and NOT-BLUE i.e. non-duality. From a relativistic perspective blue is a colour seen relative to a human's eye sight, for example. Even though you are saying BLUE is BLUE (i.e its fundamental essence) this is still relativity because to distinguish BLUE being BLUE you have to accept that it is not NOT-BLUE, which is duality. From an absolute perspective BLUE is infinity.

To insist that the nature of something is its nature is just mind and word games. It doesn't get you anywhere. And fundamental nature of anything (as you describe it) is just concept i.e. Swarmness is a concept made to identify swarms within infinity. It's not really its fundamental nature, it's just an illusion made by mind. The fundamental nature of a swarm is Swarmness, not-Swarmness, and everything in between, i.e. infinity.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Cepzeu