Another Critique on Actualized.org

[Lento]

2 hours ago, Consept said:

If you don't have skepticism then what's the difference believing whatever you believe and say Christianity? (I've heard similar arguments from Christians) 

There's skepticism that assumes itself to be a correct position, which is actually false, and it contrasts itself with religion. That is false skepticism. It's just another unconscious belief system, only having one more layer of deception and sneakiness, claiming that it is correct and that it is superior to religion. This type of skepticism stems from fear (selfishness), just as much, if not even more than, religion.

And there's skepticism that is aware of itself, and that is skeptical of itself, it has no ground to stand on. This is true skepticism, but it itself does not like to be called true because it actually isn't. Trueness is relative and it requires a ground(s) of pre-existing assumptions. This type of skepticism stems from Love (fearlessness), and it comes after going full-circle, it comes after passing through the gateless gate, it comes after enlightenment.
True skepticism sees itself as a mere tool in your suitcase alongside belief and other tools, it does not favour one on the expense of another. False skepticism, on the other hand, denies beliefs, while running itself on its hidden toxic metaphysics.

Going back to the 'virus' metaphor, what is a virus but a command/program that has gone out of control? You see, the command/program itself can be useful as long as it is used well and kept in check. Corruption stems from unconsciousness and closed-mindedness.

The last point I'd like to make is that, look at kids.. Really observe them and try to remember.. Weren't you a believer as a kid? Sure you were. Weren't you open-minded as well? Sure you were. See, these two traits don't contradict or invalidate each other. Only a fearful/logical/linearly-thinking/ignorant mind would use one and reject the other. But there's logic, and there's also Truth. If you want to live like a kid again, then enlightenment is the way. Truth is the way. Meditation is the way ❤️

(I realised that maybe you already know all that, but I'll leave it for others just in case) ?

Edited December 9, 2019 by Lento

[LfcCharlie4]

@Lento I like your description of using Skepticism and Beliefs in a way that serves you as an individual, all must be thrown into the blazing fire and surrendered, and whatever remains after is meant to be in our lives  

@TRUTHWITHCAPITALT I get your points, but not all teachers say the same things and you'll notice subtle differences between them due to their depth and level of awakening and embodiment. 

A perfect example is Eckhart (btw I love him) and Ramana, the first time reading Ramana gave my ego a huge fright as it is SO much more profound than Eckhart's teachings, hearing things such as 'The World Doesn't Exist', 'All is The Self' after Eckhart was a big realization I was only in the baby pool so to speak. I am not saying it can be monopolised but there is certainly depths to spirituality it is not as black and white as awakened/unawakened. 

I'm glad you find Leo helpful and a great teacher for you  I would just recommend learning from more than 1 teacher, as it's easy to become ideological and think the teacher is perfect etc, it's like only ever using 1 source for an essay, it's bound to be biased!

[Consept]

1 hour ago, Lento said:

There's skepticism that assumes itself to be a correct position, which is actually false, and it contrasts itself with religion. That is false skepticism. It's just another unconscious belief system, only having one more layer of deception and sneakiness, claiming that it is correct and that it is superior to religion. This type of skepticism stems from fear (selfishness), just as much, if not even more than, religion.

And there's skepticism that is aware of itself, and that is skeptical of itself, it has no ground to stand on. This is true skepticism, but it itself does not like to be called true because it actually isn't. Trueness is relative and it requires a ground(s) of pre-existing assumptions. This type of skepticism stems from Love (fearlessness), and it comes after going full-circle, it comes after passing through the gateless gate, it comes after enlightenment.
True skepticism sees itself as a mere tool in your suitcase alongside belief and other tools, it does not favour one on the expense of another. False skepticism, on the other hand, denies beliefs, while running itself on its hidden toxic metaphysics.

Going back to the 'virus' metaphor, what is a virus but a command/program that has gone out of control? You see, the command/program itself can be useful as long as it is used well and kept in check. Corruption stems from unconsciousness and closed-mindedness.

The last point I'd like to make is that, look at kids.. Really observe them and try to remember.. Weren't you a believer as a kid? Sure you were. Weren't you open-minded as well? Sure you were. See, these two traits don't contradict or invalidate each other. Only a fearful/logical/linearly-thinking/ignorant mind would use one and reject the other. But there's logic, and there's also Truth. If you want to live like a kid again, then enlightenment is the way. Truth is the way. Meditation is the way ❤️

(I realised that maybe you already know all that, but I'll leave it for others just in case) ?

4 hours ago, Lento said:

How do you know skepticism is the right way to derive real insights and awakenings?

What if all the problems/depression /etc... you have in your life are due to the skepticism that had infected your mind like a virus would infect your computer?

(Hint: They are).

I agree with you in terms of your take on skepticism, I was more using Christianity as an example. You're right in that an enlightened being wouldn't be skeptical as in a fearful questioning, but the point is that most are not enlightened on this forum, most are seeking and to teach that they should unquestioningly accept the teachings of someone who it's debatable whether they're enlightened themselves is potentially not the best path to go down. Even Leo says discover for yourself. 

[electroBeam]

5 hours ago, Lento said:

How do you know skepticism is the right way to derive real insights and awakenings?

What if all the problems/depression /etc... you have in your life are due to the skepticism that had infected your mind like a virus would infect your computer?

(Hint: They are).

It's very easy to be happy: law of attraction, psychotherapy, Escher Hick's stuff, etc.

But it's not easy to be honest. And honesty and happiness are not the same.

What if you're goal isn't to know the truth, but to be happy? 

Some people are ok with suffering and depression so long as it brings them Truth.

 

@mandyjw what's interesting is there seems to be 2 approaches, including everything, and dropping everything. 

[Bill W]

26 minutes ago, Consept said:

I agree with you in terms of your take on skepticism, I was more using Christianity as an example. You're right in that an enlightened being wouldn't be skeptical as in a fearful questioning, but the point is that most are not enlightened on this forum, most are seeking and to teach that they should unquestioningly accept the teachings of someone who it's debatable whether they're enlightened themselves is potentially not the best path to go down. Even Leo says discover for yourself. 

Hey man, I'm butting in here!

The bit I've bolded above.  Who is teaching that they should unquestionably accept the teachings of someone? Leo? Are you saying that Leo is teaching others to unquestionably accept his teachings? 

[mandyjw]

7 minutes ago, electroBeam said:

It's very easy to be happy: law of attraction, psychotherapy, Escher Hick's stuff, etc.

But it's not easy to be honest. And honesty and happiness are not the same.

What if you're goal isn't to know the truth, but to be happy? 

Some people are ok with suffering and depression so long as it brings them Truth.

 

@mandyjw what's interesting is there seems to be 2 approaches, including everything, and dropping everything. 

There seem to be two approaches, truth and love, but the duality or difference between them has to be dissolved if you want either of those things. It's so shockingly simple to the intellect and the ego that there is nothing but love, that it seems to take a whole lot of work, study, and even suffering to get it. If it didn't, you would appreciate it, and if you didn't appreciate it, it wouldn't be love. 

 

[Consept]

59 minutes ago, Bill W said:

Hey man, I'm butting in here!

The bit I've bolded above.  Who is teaching that they should unquestionably accept the teachings of someone? Leo? Are you saying that Leo is teaching others to unquestionably accept his teachings? 

I was specifically talking about this comment by @Lento - 

Quote

6 hours ago, Lento said:

How do you know skepticism is the right way to derive real insights and awakenings?

What if all the problems/depression /etc... you have in your life are due to the skepticism that had infected your mind like a virus would infect your computer?

(Hint: They are).[\quote]

 

 

I also said that Leo says to discover for yourself and in general im talking about the atmosphere on the forum, ive seen many times someone ask an honest question just to be told 'you dont exist' or something like that. Although that maybe a true statement it doesnt necessarily help and honestly if i was younger and didnt really listen to other teachers id find that very confusing. 

Edited December 9, 2019 by Consept

[Bill W]

14 minutes ago, Consept said:

I was specifically talking about this comment by @Lento - 

I also said that Leo says to discover for yourself and in general im talking about the atmosphere on the forum, ive seen many times someone ask an honest question just to be told 'you dont exist' or something like that. Although that maybe a true statement it doesnt necessarily help and honestly if i was younger and didnt really listen to other teachers id find that very confusing. 

Gotcha. With comments like "you don't exist" or "it's all a dream" I just laugh at that. I don't take it seriously, but perhaps not everyone can laugh it off. I know it's not intended to be a joke. 

I think I read your comment wrong. It sounded like you were saying Leo is telling people to accept his theory and teaching without question, which I don't think is the case. 

All of Leo's teachings are a concept, an idea, a belief. That's what I think is important to remember. There is no need to have nightmares or depression about not existing and all that jazz. 

[Consept]

14 minutes ago, Bill W said:

Gotcha. With comments like "you don't exist" or "it's all a dream" I just laugh at that. I don't take it seriously, but perhaps not everyone can laugh it off. I know it's not intended to be a joke. 

I think I read your comment wrong. It sounded like you were saying Leo is telling people to accept his theory and teaching without question, which I don't think is the case. 

All of Leo's teachings are a concept, an idea, a belief. That's what I think is important to remember. There is no need to have nightmares or depression about not existing and all that jazz. 

Lol i get you, i normally dont pay attention to those comments either but it was just within the context of the discussion.

[Adam M]

@electroBeam thank you for sharing your perspective. Many valid criticisms.

One thing I wanted to set straight.

Higher consciousness is not better than lower consciousness. I agree that it is extremely easy to fall into the trap of thinking that stage yellow is superior to stage orange or that the higher chakras are superior to the lower ones.

 

The way that I interpret Leo's phrasing:

 

When we are giving value judgements to certain stages of consciousness. We are always judging them relative to the ultimate goal of self-actualization and leading the most fulfilling life that one can lead. In actuality, all value judgements are made up. But relative to the goal of self-actualization, stage yellow is further along the path than stage orange and so on.

 

Good and bad are always relative to a certain goal or outcome.

[ajasatya]

10 hours ago, electroBeam said:

There seems to be this idea going around here that the student is fully responsible for his or her actions and therefore the teacher cannot be criticised for the bullshit he or she says. 

This idea only goes so far. Do you have the same view with an ISIS leader? Or a Zen teacher that molests a student? or a KKK leader?

Have some decency for God's sake. If you aren't ready to teach, don't delude people into thinking you know what you're talking about. Teachers aren't responsible free.

Well, you've completely distorted and misunderstood what I said.

If someone is doing something illegal and you know it, it's your duty to report such person to the police, otherwise you're considered a criminal as well. I am not defending people who rape, molest, kill, torture or whatever.

Everyone can be criticized, period. And everyone can also say whatever they want as long as it's not against the law.

I didn't say that teachers are responsible free. That's the opposite of what I said. I said that everyone should be fully responsible for their own life.

I'll say it again. Everyone should be responsible for their own life. What you should not do (even though you're allowed to) is to blame someone else for your disgrace if that person has done nothing against the law. I will always criticize such practice.

[Lento]

3 hours ago, electroBeam said:

It's very easy to be happy: law of attraction, psychotherapy, Escher Hick's stuff, etc.

But it's not easy to be honest. And honesty and happiness are not the same.

??‍♂️

You're saying that as if it is the truth. But you wouldn't know, would you? (Unless you already know, which puts you in a really dishonest position) ?

@LfcCharlie4 ?❤️

@Consept I was using a specific pointer trying to help electroBeam in his specific situation, as I thought I was doing with you. Of course, it's not a general advice. Just trying to get him out of the box he's locked up himself in. Maybe just the final straw that'd break the camel's back..

Edited December 9, 2019 by Lento

[Nak Khid]

5 hours ago, electroBeam said:

It's very easy to be happy: law of attraction, psychotherapy, Escher Hick's stuff, etc.

But it's not easy to be honest. And honesty and happiness are not the same.

What if you're goal isn't to know the truth, but to be happy? 

Some people are ok with suffering and depression so long as it brings them Truth.

Stop the bullshit, you are one of the most unhappy people in this forum . 
So you are too busy with your rigorous meditation practice and relentless pursuit of the truth you don't have time to be happy?
I suspect not
Being happy can be very difficult for some people and you (and I) and are probably examples of them.
People can be neurotic and unhappy for years and be in psychotherapy at the same time.
The Law of Attraction is part cognitive therapy and part magical thinking nonsense.
Negative thinking can be inherited, even epigenetic.  Or or can be environmental. Whatever the source the negativity can bury deeply in the subconscious mind  and became structural in the brain,  taint our thoughts and will require dedicated practice to undo.

5 hours ago, electroBeam said:

It's very easy to be happy 

If it was so easy you would have taken care of it and then continued in your pursuit of  "the truth"
For many it is not easy. It takes practice and work and that is itself  one of the truths.
In fact you can't even get to the other truths and neglect this one

5 hours ago, electroBeam said:

But its not right for me anymore, so now after 3-5 years, I'm finally leaving, to go find a 'boring' teacher that just wants to enjoy life, and doesn't take spirituality too seriously. 

Yes you were on to something here but have you made any such effort since you made this remark earlier on Friday?
I made a new thread recently called >>

This is Buddhist method and also practiced by Ram Dass but it actually goes back to earlier Vedic  roots.
You might want to look at the videos I posted there.  This whole concept may sound wishy washy to you " Loving Kindness Meditation"  but you may find an aspect of this helpful to you,fundamentally so.   It involves meditating on good will statements to particular people, even heinous ones and also to the the world but it is done in  stages and it begins with such statements made to yourself. The monk who speaks there has h is own take on it talks about not forcing, not being overly serious about it and having fun doing it.

For certain people,  this loosens something that has become hard and inflexible

and not practicing happiness and giving permission to ourselves to be happy is precisely why insight and truth have no place to flow in.

This can't be achieved intellectually or by just watching a videos. No it has to be a routine practice like breathing
and it must be engaged with people in the world.   Maybe this particular method  is not for you but when you said you wanted to find a teach teacher that just wants you to enjoy life, you are are on the right track.   This might not be the right track for other people but for you (and I) it is.

 

 

 

[w4read]

I feel like it's easy to just accept all the spiritual stuff in which you don't understand. At least that was the case for me, as I had been implementing all his other teachings like taking 100% responsibility, accepting reality as it is, doing meditation and so forth, finding only those simple rules to be basically life transforming. I think that when you have such powerful experiences by just applying those simple habits, it's easy to just buy everything else raw because then you're kind of convinced that everything the teacher talks about is valid, and you then become this uncritical follower who just accepts anything no matter how little you understand of it.

[kira]

 

[electroBeam]

6 hours ago, kira said:

 

reminds me of when immigrants complain about the laws of US or Australia, and then the blue stage rednecks tell them to go back to the country they came from. When actually criticism of a country is valuable for making it better.

You must be a blue stage person  

[Forestluv]

26 minutes ago, electroBeam said:

reminds me of when immigrants complain about the laws of US or Australia, and then the blue stage rednecks tell them to go back to the country they came from. When actually criticism of a country is valuable for making it better.

You must be a blue stage person  

Those immigrants have moved their families to live in the US, often at extreme sacrifice and peril. Immigrants are often oppressed, ostracized and targeted for abuse - even though they contribute to the country through hard work and paying taxes. Sending them back to the "country they came from" would impose extreme hardships on them. 

To compare that to disgruntled users that complain/criticize on an internet forum is waaay off the mark, imo. 

I think a better comparison would be people that are offered free classes to learn a foreign language. Constructive criticism is fine. It is helpful to the foreign language coordinators to improve the classes. Yet if someone was complaining in a toxic manner, I think it would be appropriate to ask them to tone it down, to criticize in a respectful manner or to leave if they were that upset. There are people working to provide them free access and if they are that upset, leaving is no hardship at all to them. 

[electroBeam]

19 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Those immigrants have moved their families to live in the US, often at extreme sacrifice and peril. Immigrants are often oppressed, ostracized and targeted for abuse - even though they contribute to the country through hard work and paying taxes. Sending them back to the "country they came from" would impose extreme hardships on them. 

To compare that to disgruntled users that complain/criticize on an internet forum is waaay off the mark, imo. 

I think a better comparison would be people that are given free classes to learn a foreign language. Constructive criticism is fine. It is helpful to the foreign language coordinators to improve the classes. Yet if someone was complaining in a toxic manner, I think it would be appropriate to ask them to tone it down, to criticize in a respectful manner or to leave if they were that upset. There are people working to provide them a free access and if they are that upset, leaving is no hardship at all to them. 

Sure, but the motivations for why an American tells an Italian immigrant to go back to their country, and why a forum user tells another forum user to leave are the same. They both don't like change, or are unhappy with their belief system being criticised.

Americans don't target immigrants for no good reason - this is just liberal BS. They target immigrants because they change their country, either by working for less and take jobs, because immigrants complain about Christmas(hence why its now happy holidays), changing social norms, or criticising the government for their invasion on the middle east (a lot of immigrants from the middle east do). This causes Americans to react. They don't like people changing their country.

And what happens when you cause change in a little hippy commune? Same thing. What happens when you voice change in this forum? Same thing. People here are addicted to insights, chasing something imaginary, believing in outlandish beliefs, mental masturbation, excessive positivity. They don't want someone to change that or to reveal that's what happening, because just like the Americans, this way of life is making them happy and any change to that will make them miserable. 

Of course forum members can leave while immigrants can't. But the motivations behind forum members and Americans are the same. This was the point I was making

But besides that, this idea that you shouldn't criticise any courses because you can just leave is a silly and dangerous idea. You can criticise whoever you want, and in some cases you should. In fact a whole section of this forum is dedicated to criticising things they have no need to be apart of.

Lots of people on here criticise evangelicals. Should we tell them that if they don't like evangelicals then they should just not watch them? Why is this forum criticising cults like Mooji's? "If you don't like mooji then just don't watch". Why are you criticising

See I think the above statements are foolish. just because its non compulsory, doesn't mean its unethical to criticise it. This forum is ok with criticising other cults, but when someone does it to them, its all "you can leave if you don't like it". Sure and you can leave Mooji, evangelicals, hillsong, rational scientists, etc. Alone aswell. 

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, electroBeam said:

Sure, but the motivations for why an American tells an Italian immigrant to go back to their country, and why a forum user tells another forum user to leave are the same. They both don't like change, or are unhappy with their belief system being criticised.

I'm not referring to criticism itself or motivations. I'm referring to degree of conditions. Imo, your analogy was unfair based on degree. 

For example, imagine an immigrant family that has lived in a country for several generations. The younger generations don't even speak their native tongue anymore. They don't even know anyone from the original country. In their current (home) country, they are subjected to brutal discrimination and abuse. They call out that this isn't fair and there should be just laws. Someone tells this person "if you don't like it, leave the country". . . Now imagine someone in a movie theater watching a free movie. This person is annoyed that a few people in the theatre are whispering. He believes this is disrespectful.  He complains to the manager. The manager thinks he is complaining in a rude manner and tells him "If you don't like it, you are free to leave the theatre".

In both examples, each person was asking for change - the other person didn't like them asking for change and said they were free to leave. In this regard, there is a direct comparison. I have no problem with that. What I'm pointing to is degree. The immigrant exposed to brutal conditions and abuse is a more severe degree than someone at a free movie annoyed by whispering. The inequality of degree is the unfair comparison in my view. I've notice that people often try to leverage snd legitimize their position by choosing to draw an analogy to a condition more severe in degree than their own. On the flip side, it trivializes the more severe condition. That is the unfairness. 

[Inliytened1]

3 hours ago, Limbo said:

I don't really have many critiques of what Leo discusses in his videos per say, I'm more disturbed by the way he says the things he says.

I can understand that it may be frustrating to try to get people to learn about higher pursuits like spiritual enlightenment and self actualization,
and that people must seem dumb and juvenile to behave the way they behave and pursue the things they pursue. 

The problem is when he talks to people about pursuing these ideals he delivers his messages in a way that sounds incredibly arrogant, condescending and sanctimonious. When he gives people advice it's often delivered with cutting insensitivity, provocation and a tinge of bitterness.
I get that he may actually be morally superior, better equipped to face life, more knowledgeable and genuinely more insightful than most, but when he makes a show of it in this way, it really detracts from the work and makes it less appealing to pursue.

It's like "oh, you want me to subject myself to incredibly challenging ego work? open up my own emotional and psycho-spiritual shitbag making me incredibly vulnerable? only to be belittled and berated by you along my path so that one day I can become an awakened asshole too?"
... not very appealing.

I also think that Leo underestimates his audience quite a lot. We're not all complete morons, we're already open to this work and we know quite a lot too. The people who watch your videos and use your forum are not accurately represented by the people you bump into on the streets of Vegas. Calm down.

You are projecting here.  If you can jump between perspectives you can in essence lose the sense of self and see things from multiple perspectives.  From his perspective maybe that is just his teaching style.   And it comes from a place of love.