About Leos recent ”I’m god” video

[ttm]

At some point Leo said something along the line ”if teacher doesn’t talk about love, his teachings are incomplete”. That sounded very much as coming from ego, ”finally I’m sure that my teachings are better than”. I suspect that this wasn’t a generic notion, but that Leo had a specific teacher who doesn’t talk about love in mind there..

Thoughts?

Edited February 20, 2020 by ttm

[Gili Trawangan]

Most nondual teachers do talk about Love. So it's not that it's "better than" anything, nor coming from ego. Manifestation is Love, and this can be realized. Or not

[ttm]

1 minute ago, Gili Trawangan said:

Most nondual teachers do talk about Love. So it's not that it's "better than" anything, nor coming from ego. Manifestation is Love, and this can be realized. Or not

Most, but not all. And that was precisely ”the trick”. If you consider that he was referring to a specific teacher, you could easily see how the ”better than” comes into the picture. If that was generic notion about love, there would’ve been no need to classify anyone’s teachings as incomplete.

[pluto]

You don't need to talk, the best teachers are the quiet ones who live simply and give, love, help others living life simply one step at a time, feed the pigeons, treat and take care of all living things as they were his/her own children, just observing a being of such can give you more wisdom and truth than a guru speaking 10000 words to you. There are deeper layers of communication that occur, verbal is a very very small aspect of true communication.

I remembered more from telempathically communicating with the waves, the wind, the trees, the elements in 1 hour on mushrooms than a whole year going back and forth with conscious people and listening to gurus talk.

You are your greatest teacher, in the silence and stillness the highest truth resides.

Edited February 20, 2020 by pluto

[Visionary]

2 hours ago, ttm said:

In some point Leo said something along the line ”if teacher doesn’t talk about love, his teachings are incomplete”. That sounded very much as coming from ego, ”finally I’m sure that my teachings are better than”. I suspect that this wasn’t a generic notion, but that Leo had a specific teacher who doesn’t talk about love in mind there..

Thoughts?

It's actually a very needed message in this niche. You think becoming conscious is equal to becoming less discerning?

[ttm]

11 minutes ago, Visionary said:

It's actually a very needed message in this niche. You think becoming conscious is equal to becoming less discerning?

Please, read my messages again. If it is still hard to understand what is being said, I can try to be more clear.

 

[Visionary]

I read it even twice and I still would reply that.

[ttm]

39 minutes ago, Visionary said:

I read it even twice and I still would reply that.

OK. Could you elaborate on what made you think that I thought that become conscious would mean becoming less discerning? I can’t understand how my messages could even be interpreted like that. 

And for clarification, by ”that’s very needed message” you mean that you also think that a teachers that don’t speak about love have incomplete teachings?

[Apparition of Jack]

@ttm Having a spiritual teacher not talk about Love is like having a math teacher not talk about addition. You could try to do it but such a basic requirement of the topic would be lacking in your understanding that you'd find it hard to really get a handle on all the rest of it, and would show that the teacher themself has gaps in their understanding too.

[Chilli]

@ttm Read Adyashanti's take on Love. He explains how Love and Truth are fused together because they are ultimately the same thing. I have personally experienced this through mystical experiences. From this point of view, a teacher that doesn't speak of Love, in a way, does not speak of Truth. 

 Even if Leo were to be coming from an egotistical place, it does not matter. Because from what I observed, the message "if teacher doesn’t talk about love, his teachings are incomplete" is pure. Why worry about Leo's enlightenment? The only enlightenment you should worry about is your own.

 I hope this is helpful to you.

[ttm]

4 minutes ago, Chilli said:

@ttm Read Adyashanti's take on Love. He explains how Love and Truth are fused together because they are ultimately the same thing. I have personally experienced this through mystical experiences. From this point of view, a teacher that doesn't speak of Love, in a way, does not speak of Truth. 

 Even if Leo were to be coming from an egotistical place, it does not matter. Because from what I observed, the message "if teacher doesn’t talk about love, his teachings are incomplete" is pure. Why worry about Leo's enlightenment? The only enlightenment you should worry about is your own.

 I hope this is helpful to you.

If Love and Truth are ultimately the same thing, why is it not enough to speak of Truth to speak of Truth?

I think you misunderstood me, I’m not worrying about Leo’s enlightenment, nor pretty much anything else for that matter. Do you think that it’s bad to analyze what and why is being said or is it just not cool to discuss about it?

It’s not worrying for me, but more of an investigation. In the end, nothing really matters, but that’s not a good reason for me to stop doing anything.

33 minutes ago, Apparition of Jack said:

@ttm Having a spiritual teacher not talk about Love is like having a math teacher not talk about addition. You could try to do it but such a basic requirement of the topic would be lacking in your understanding that you'd find it hard to really get a handle on all the rest of it, and would show that the teacher themself has gaps in their understanding too.

Yes, that assertion was included in Leo’s claim. To me it seems unsubstantiated claim, based on that in the end, ”Love” is just a word. The reality is what it IS, and whatever word used is not that, what is. The whole point of spiritual teaching is to use words to point to the ”place” words cannot reach. Or silency..

4 hours ago, pluto said:

You don't need to talk, the best teachers are the quiet ones —

You are your greatest teacher, in the silence and stillness the highest truth resides.

Yes, I also feel like this is more closer to truth than ”using word love is essential”.

[mandyjw]

Because Love as a concept that is even less helpful than the symbol of the heart in my avatar, it makes sense that some teachers do not speak of the entire purpose of creation and being. It also makes sense that because you are all teachings and everything in between them and in "you" and in that "Love" they merge and go to die in union, that this would ultimately be inconsequential. 

I wonder if teachers who don't speak of love don't speak it out of love or if they don't speak it out of fear of misleading their students. Likewise I wonder if teachers who speak of love speak of it out of fear that their students will miss it, or if they speak of love out of love. 

Let Love speak itself when it so desires. As infinite creation it is already doing just that. 

[ttm]

@Leo Gura what’s your honest take on my original question? Did you have a specific teacher in mind? In retrospection, how do you see that comment you made in that video?

Edited February 20, 2020 by ttm

[Visionary]

8 hours ago, ttm said:

OK. Could you elaborate on what made you think that I thought that become conscious would mean becoming less discerning? I can’t understand how my messages could even be interpreted like that. 

And for clarification, by ”that’s very needed message” you mean that you also think that a teachers that don’t speak about love have incomplete teachings?

Yes, I also think that. And with thinking that,  I am discerning, just like Leo. Your doubts were: Leo might be coming from ego with that statement. So it's quite easy to understand why I thought this way. Unless you were refering to love being something egoic. Which seems stupendous to me. It's not that hard my friend.

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, ttm said:

@Leo Gura what’s your honest take on my original question? Did you have a specific teacher in mind? In retrospection, how do you see that comment you made in that video?

You are Love.

But you aren't conscious of that. But you could become conscious of that if you listened to me rather than try to project egotistical motives on me.

Plenty of spiritual teachers are simply not conscious of what Love is. And you are falling into that trap. I pointed that trap out to you, yet you resist taking the trap seriously.

What more can I do? I have told you the highest truth. Get it, or don't. Up to you.

[ttm]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

You are Love.

But you aren't conscious of that. But you could become conscious of that if you listened to me rather than try to project egotistical motives on me.

Plenty of spiritual teachers are simply not conscious of what Love is. And you are falling into that trap. I pointed that trap out to you, yet you resist taking the trap seriously.

What more can I do? I have told you the highest truth. Get it, or don't. Up to you.

Ok, I see you avoid the question, I also understand why you do so. This was interesting nevertheless. Thank you for answering though, it’s awesome that you take part on the dialogue!

And because it seems that people read a lot of things in my posts that aren’t there I want to emphasize that I’m not disrespecting you in general, in fact you are very big contributor to things that lead me to where I am now (regarding freedom from suffering and understanding reality) and I’m very grateful for your work! It’s still interesting to see how even in that ”stage” there can easily be that kind of stuff going on.

3 hours ago, Visionary said:

Yes, I also think that. And with thinking that,  I am discerning, just like Leo. Your doubts were: Leo might be coming from ego with that statement. So it's quite easy to understand why I thought this way. Unless you were refering to love being something egoic. Which seems stupendous to me. It's not that hard my friend.

 

I think you will be amazed when you realize how much egotistic stuff can be hidden in that kind of wording and rationalizing.  The fact you are using words ”my doubts” sounds to me like you are adding quite a few things to what I was saying. Or maybe I understand the word ”doubt” differently than you, but I was asking thoughts regarding something I noticed. Nevertheless you seem to concentrate on the question whether or not the statement (word love is essential) is factual. This has nothing to do with my actual question, although it is interesting sidepoint to think about. But still, no one really answered my comments about that, so maybe it wasn’t that interesting..

[ttm]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

 

I have told you the highest truth. Get it, or don't. Up to you.

I forgot to address this in my previous reply.

I’m sorry, but you really can not tell me the highest truth. And you know this. The highest truth is found from very different place than your words.

[remember]

the entanglement of karma produces shadows.

some people would ask: how can a lamb reign over wolves. ..... exactly.

Edited February 20, 2020 by remember
teaser: it’s not the wolve in the lambs wool

[Forestluv]

After I ask a question, if I find myself responding in the below ways, it is often a sign that I am not asking the question with a genuine desire to learn, grow and expand. It's generally a sign that I already have an answer in mind and I'm filtering people that agree or disagree with me. 

"You are avoiding my question.  I know why you are avoiding the question. . . "

"You don't understand my question, go back and read it again. If it's too hard for you to understand, I'll try to make it more clear for you ". .  . 

"You can't tell me what's true. I'll tell you how it is". . .

For me, these are generally orientations that set up inter-personal conflict dynamics and hinder me from expanding.  

[ttm]

51 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

After I ask a question, if I find myself responding in the below ways, it is often a sign that I am not asking the question with a genuine desire to learn, grow and expand. It's generally a sign that I already have an answer in mind and I'm filtering people that agree or disagree with me. 

"You are avoiding my question.  I know why you are avoiding the question. . . "

"You don't understand my question, go back and read it again. If it's too hard for you to understand, I'll try to make it more clear for you ". .  . 

"You can't tell me what's true. I'll tell you how it is". . .

For me, these are generally orientations that set up inter-personal conflict dynamics and hinder me from expanding.  

Do you twist my words intentionally? Thanks for sharing, though.