Leo's views on morality are really pissing me off.

[Sizeable Oof]

In his recent video, Leo said Chinese oppression of the Uighurs/Muslims is "neither good nor bad";

And that the fact China is responsible for mass production of various goods at cheap prices,

demonstrates how morally judging the actions of the CCP is "not black and white" (paraphrasing here).

 

NOW, China could mass produce products without this oppression and horrible mistreatment to The Uighur Nation.

Why is it so hard to say what they're doing is evil? Why when you are walking on the spiritual path you have to become so tolerate, that you would even tolerate the worst actions mankind is doing.

Morality cannot be completely undermined, if you try to do this, it will lead you to absurd views like these. I wonder how Leo would feel if his own family would've been victimized by the CCP.

edit: also "people wanna reunite bathrooms after they've been divided for thousands of years" LMAO yes we all remember the famous ancient seperated bathrooms discovered in archeological excavations. This video's by far the one most filled with inaccuracies and mistakes. SAD.

Edited December 9, 2019 by Sizeable Oof

[TrynaBeTurquoise]

Evil from your egos point of view. The trying to stop evil just perpetuates evil, thats the whole lesson here. Turn inward.

[cetus]

@Sizeable Oof Welcome to the forum. Your point is well respected but it belongs in the Society, Government, Politics area of the forum.

[Nak Khid]

@Sizeable Oof  For reference purposes for people reading this thread. Please add the title and location of the video in your opening post also in fairness to Leo complete sentence verbatim quotes and time stamp for the time in the video,  thanks

Edited December 9, 2019 by Nak Khid

[Leo Gura]

Morality is something your mind invented to aid its survival. Which is obvious if you just reflect a little. This is why no two people agree on what is right and wrong. For everything you think is evil, there will be at least one person who thinks it is good.

The problem is that you are so gullible you believe your own mind's biases.

[Conscious life]

@Sizeable Oof don't be pissed off. We got you hundred cover. Just browse actualized.org content. 

[Scholar]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Morality is something your mind invented to aid its survival. Which is obvious if you just reflect a little. This is why no two people agree on what is right and wrong. For everything you think is evil, there will be at least one person who thinks it is good.

The problem is that you are so gullible you believe your own mind's biases.

This is only true if looked at from a limited relativistic perspective.

The wholistic experience of suffering for one person, if to be integrated as that exact experience of suffering into another persons experience, will be judged equally as bad, as the judgement itself is part of the wholistic experience of suffering.

 

The only reason why people disagree on what is bad is because of their limited perspective. And to say someone enlightened does not judge is because he removed goodness and badness from his experience. If you remove redness and blueness from your experience, redness and blueness will cease to be part of it.

 

Good and Bad is not found in the intellectual framework of how we come to produce these experiences, but in the experiences themselves.

Red and blue are also things that mind "invented" to aid survival. Does that mean red and blue does not exist, in any meaningful sense of the word? Does it mean that red and blue cannot be integrated into a healthy consciousness?

 

In other words, is it possible to retain the essential nature of the framework of morality and yet not include it in ones identity? Or is the loss of identity a loss of morality too?

 

The reason why find this relativistic perspective so limited is because it implies that morality, or the essence that matters to us, which is goodness and badness, are not attributes of any situation or object that we conflate it with. While that is true, it does not mean that goodness and badness do not exist, they exist as much as warmth and cool, white and black and so forth.

To agree on what is right and wrong would be like agreeing what is warm and cool. Nothing is warm outside of the experience of warmth. This is the fundamental delusion that I think needs to be pointed out. It is not "Nobody agrees on what is warm, therefore warmth does not exist!"

Edited December 9, 2019 by Scholar

[Leo Gura]

@Scholar Don't start this confusion once again. You keep conflating relative and absolute domains in contexts which are clearly relative.

What OP needs to become conscious of is that his notions of good/bad, right/wrong are self-biased and totally relative, invented by his ego-mind to aid survival of the ego-mind.

This is a crucial realization for liberation. Without this realization one will forever remain judgmental and enslaves to social conditioning.

No peace is possible so long as one believes in right and wrong.

[Apparition of Jack]

@Sizeable Oof I think what you’re asking here is “Does Leo support the Chinese genocide of the Uighurs?” In which case the answer is obviously no. Genocide is an incredibly low-consciousness endeavour that harms everyone involved (including those doing the genocide.) But that wasnt the point Leo was trying to make, he was saying that even this - as terrible as it is for human egos - is still just dependant on incomplete ego-judgements. From an absolute POV, everything is utterly perfect the way it is, including all the wars, rape and murder on this planet. The question is not “how do we judge these things?”, the question is “how do we raise our consciousness enough to get to the point where the need for these judgements falls away?”

Edit: Just to be clear I’m also not saying we don’t need to work actively to prevent these things. It’s incredibly hard to self-actualise when you’re locked in a concentration camp run by authoritarians. The point is that we shouldn’t make judging and condemning violence and hatred as evil our life’s work, but rather make awakening and liberation our life’s work, which is what will ultimately reconcile human suffering.

Edited December 9, 2019 by Apparition of Jack

[Scholar]

29 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Scholar Don't start this confusion once again. You keep conflating relative and absolute domains in contexts which are clearly relative.

What OP needs to become conscious of is that his notions of good/bad, right/wrong are self-biased and totally relative, invented by his ego-mind to aid survival of the ego-mind.

This is a crucial realization for liberation. Without this realization one will forever remain judgmental and enslaves to social conditioning.

No peace is possible so long as one believes in right and wrong.

I am only saying this because I feel like there is a tendency to focus too much on the relativity, I notice a lot of people falling into excessive relativism. The kind of consciousness that is required to truly transcend morality is profoundly rare and in my view most people delude themselves into ideology instead of actually discerning the truth for themselves as a result of true curiousity.

This is only possible in a situation where moral choices hold little to no weight. In a high cost environment this kind of relativism would tend to be regrounded into a more integral perspective. While the high cost environment also tends to limit ones identity, that is precisely the challenge that is needed for a healthy transition through the spiral.

 

There are a ton of people who basically get stuck at stage green level of understanding morality and project it onto the higher stages. To truly transcend morality would mean to transcend identification while being tortured to death. It does not mean to simply call morality relative while still holding onto ones own particular framework like a tick.

When morality is not closely inspect as an object of consciousness, it allows the ego to reject the intellectual framework while the underlying objects of consciousness that actually constitude morality still remain. For example, one could continue to judge, to create goodness and badness and simply deny that it is in essence morality.

For example, one gets annoyed in traffic, but when confronted about the consequences of ones actions and the terrible suffering that comes with it for other beings, one will quickly pull the relativistic card to avoid responsibility. This is only possible in a time in which we do not experience the consequences of our actions. If the same kind of suffering would  be inflicted on the person getting annoying in traffic, they would very quickly think about when they pull the relativity card.

 

Someone who is getting tortured and is so beyond identification that they accept that state of mind are in my mind at a proper place to pull that card in a meaningful way. Everything else to me is more about suiting the egos needs than actually having any insight into the illusiory nature of morality. The great thing about reality is that it has it's way of regrounding people who delude themselves. Apathy is not the same as relativity, yet relativity is apathy's greatest friend. To truly test one's insight into the relativity of morality, one has to do it out of a place of compassion and empathy. This is the only way one can see whether one is deluding oneself or not.

[Nak Khid]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Morality is something your mind invented to aid its survival.....

This is why no two people agree on what is right and wrong.

 

Two or more people might agree that certain things aid their survival and others don't

Hence  forum guidelines or behaviors regarded by laws that ascribe right and wrong behavior

Edited December 9, 2019 by Nak Khid

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Nak Khid said:

Two or more people might agree that certain things aid their survival and others don't

Hence  forum guidelines or behaviors regarded by laws that ascribe right and worn behavior

Again, only because it serves both of their survival agenda.

A collective fantasy is still a fantasy.

[Nak Khid]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Again, only because it serves both of their survival agenda.

A collective fantasy is still a fantasy.

yes, morality is based on establishing rules people perceive to be either a threat to their collective survival or an aid to it.

But the will to survive is not a fantasy agenda it is an innate intinct

 

Edited December 9, 2019 by Nak Khid

[Bno]

@Sizeable Oof Morality is an illusion. However, don't confuse this with low and high consciousness. When you have high consciousness you're more likely to do some of the things you are currently perceiving as "moral."

Edited December 9, 2019 by Bno

[Thewritersunion]

@Sizeable Oof my response: Sizeable OoF

[silene]

A lot of forum members appear to subscribe to something similar to the Buddhist Two Truths Doctrine ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine  ) - I do more or less myself - which posits there are relative and absolute truths or perspectives (or conventional and ultimate, or a similar description). I have seen many debates like this which hinge on a mixup between the two types of perspective. Most of us are firmly established in the relative perspective with little awareness of the absolute, so we interpret the narrative from that side; someone like Leo is presumably spending more time in the absolute perspective. But we don't have a good language to describe the absolute, often people use the same name like 'morality' for both relative and absolute, so unless you are pretty familiar with this subject, it's very easy to get the wrong end of the stick. 
  
I don't have a good solution to this problem, with written text sometimes people use an uppercase when referring to the absolute, eg Consciousness vs consciousness, Truth vs truth, although this isn't very consistent.  Also that doesn't work for the spoken word. My hope is that this will work itself out over time. 

Edited December 9, 2019 by silene

[Forestluv]

14 hours ago, Sizeable Oof said:

Why is it so hard to say what they're doing is evil? 

It's not hard at all to say what they're doing is evil. That is very very easy to say. It is much much harder to see things through another perspective. In this case, through the perspective of the Chinese government and much of the Chinese populace. 

14 hours ago, Sizeable Oof said:

Why when you are walking on the spiritual path you have to become so tolerate, that you would even tolerate the worst actions mankind is doing.

Not at all. The spiritual path does not require that a person becomes complacent. For example, a spiritual person could act as a diplomat between the two sides. This spiritual person may see how the Chinese treatment of the Uighur people is evil from one perspective and not evil from another perspective. Perhaps this person could help illuminate these perspectives allowing better understanding between the Uighur and Chinese people. This would not be complacent tolerance. This would actually be very grueling difficult work - it would probably put the spiritual person's life in danger. 

[Jacobsrw]

@Sizeable OofTo say something is bad is to undermine the good, to say something is good is to undermine the bad. 

I feel you completely misunderstood what was said in the video. From what I gathered, Leo was speaking in reference to the absolute, where morality is a complete fiction - relative to humans. Something is only bad relative to whom it threats, and good relative to who it nourishes.

So, in other words labelling good and bad is complete contradictory and dependent on how it is pontificated.

Also notice, being annoyed at another is ones own morality attempting to impinge on someone else’s.

Edited December 10, 2019 by Jacobsrw

[Nak Khid]

17 hours ago, Bno said:

When you have high consciousness you're more likely to do some of the things you are currently perceiving as "moral."

why?

[Nak Khid]

Quote

Leo Gura said:

Lesson #1: Don't buy agriculturally zoned land when building a commune.

Lesson #2: Don't have sex outdoors in eyesight of conservative rednecks.

Lesson #3: Poisoning a city's water supply with diseased beavers = bad

Lesson #4: Assassinating government officials = bad

Lesson #5: Bombing government offices from the sky using your private jet = bad

Lesson #6: Injecting people with lethal drugs = bad

Lesson #7: Taking in homeless people = bad

Lesson #8: Drugging homeless people with tranquilizers = bad

Lesson #9: Arming your commune with Uzi's = bad

Lesson #10: Buying untraceable handguns = bad

Lesson #11: Mass immigration fraud = bad

Lesson #12: Wiretapping people = bad

Lesson #13: If you have a biological weapons lab on your property, you've probably taken a wrong turn somewhere in your life.

(from thread about Osho)