How Leo's teachings can be detrimental to your Spiritual development

[Scholar]

Leo posted this on his blog:

 

In this video, Freke and Wilber talk about the mystery of "What the hell all of this is" and how questioning your own existence is fundamental to having any insight into the nature of reality.

 

It seems to me that what Leo is either unaware of, or simply does not care about, is the fact that the sense of mystery, the sense of utter not knowing and realization of ignorance, is fundamental to aquiring any greater state of consciousness by natural means. The reason for this is because this sense of mystery is what guides your attention. Leo in the past talked about how you need superhuman concentration abilities to attain enlightenment through natural means.

This is not really true. All you need is focused attention. Not superhuman, focused attention over a long period of time. The foundation for that focus, for that guiding of attention, will be the sense of mystery you feel when you truly look at reality and are bewildered by it's existence. The sense of mystery is basically your primary tool to attain realization. Curiousity is the foundation of this work, there is nothing that beats it.

 

Every time Leo tells you what reality is, what Consciousness is, what God and Love is. Every time he does so and you believe him, your sense of mystery gets dimmer and dimmer. Your ability to look at reality in utter awe and bewilderment, and therefore focus on the most subtle of things within your experience, is impaired. And of course, once Leo has impaired that ability, he will go on and tell you to take psychedelics. He will tell you that you need those psychedelics unless you are special. Of course he would tell you that because he himself has destroyed his own curiousity. He has destroyed his own sense of mystery, and so the only tool left for him to explore the nature of reality are psychedelics.

 

Leo will tell you to not believe him, to not believe his concepts and ideas. To go look for it yourself. This is to me utterly irresponsible. You cannot expect a student who uses you as a teacher to not believe what you tell him. Even if the student tried not to, their mind would create a belief. And that belief, that certainty, will be detrimental to their path to realization. This is simply what will happen, whether intended or not.

 

 

When you have your fancy ideas about what reality is and what it is not, and more importantly, if you look for the answers within the realm of thought and ideas, you will not be able to guide your attention on the aspects of reality which require you to. In this work a question is a thousand times more valuable than an answer, because the answer locks your attention within thought, while the question has the chance to make you glimpse beyond thought and ideas, to look around in your own experience until you may stumble upon something you never stumbled upon before.

 

Attention is absolutely foundational. And to guide attention, a sense of mystery is absolutely foundational. This work cannot be done in a robotic way. Every time you sit down and do this work it has to come from that place of mystery. When your are truly bewildered, your mind will allow you to see beyond your current understanding.

When you are bewildered by the fact that a sensation of touch exists, when you are truly mystified by that, that is when your might is ready to look and see.

 

 

Everything that dims your sense of mystery will be detrimental. Even if you take psychedelics, if your mind constantly gives answers to itself about what it is seeing, then that is what your mind will be focused on. It's attention will be consumed with ideas and thoughts instead of that which is right infront of it.

"What the hell is this?", is all you need. No answers, no explanations. Only genuine curiousity, genuine recognition of mystery. From that place, this work will be effortless, joyful.

That genuine curiousity and sense of mystery is what needs to fuel your attention, it is what needs to fuel the seeing, the looking. When you take your psychedelic, you do not need to nurture your sense of mystery. You do not need to nurture you attention. You will be shown, but you will lack the tools to discover on your own. Unless you preserve your curiousity, unless every day you look at the existence in wonder and mystery. At that point, once your sense of mystery is dead, if you want to achieve ego death your only hope will be to bombard your mind with psychedelics until hopefully your ego dissolves in a way that doesn't turn your into a sleepless zombie.

 

I cannot say it will apply to everyone, but I would encourage people to watch out for this.

[Breakingthewall]

Well really the work we do is go beyond the concept, right? that that God is love, etc, is interesting as a curiosity, but reality is only direct experience, whoever has not grasped that essential idea has not understood anything. At one point, I think it is better not to watch videos, or read or anything, just observe, 24 hours a day. but before that if it can be motivating to describe the landscape

[SamueLSD]

21 minutes ago, Scholar said:

It seems to me that what Leo is either unaware of, or simply does not care about, is the fact that the sense of mystery, the sense of utter not knowing and realization of ignorance, is fundamental to aquiring any greater state of consciousness by natural means.

 Watch this. It's short and disproves that statement. Also watch his earlier videos, sounds like you are talking about his really advanced stuff. 

31 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Every time Leo tells you what reality is, what Consciousness is, what God and Love is. Every time he does so and you believe him, your sense of mystery gets dimmer and dimmer.

The thing is we don't believe him. This is crucial. 

Keeping this in mind: For others, it opens them up to new possibilities. Someone who is determined on this path doesn't settle with answers given by Leo, but sees them as a point in the right direction to go there and experience it for oneself. To see if it is true in direct experience. 

I think you should say " Every time he does so and I believe him, my sense of mystery gets dimmer and dimmer.", not ". Every time he does so and you believe him, your sense of mystery gets dimmer and dimmer."

You're assuming the experience of everyone else, when this is clearly your problem. Which is not a bad thing. You can work on that. 

24 minutes ago, Scholar said:

You cannot expect a student who uses you as a teacher to not believe what you tell him. 

Yes, yes you can. OPENMINDEDNESS - not the same as belief. 

26 minutes ago, Scholar said:

This is not really true. All you need is focused attention. Not superhuman, focused attention over a long period of time.

Athletes who excel above the majority are called superhuman. That level of discipline is a feat.

Also that level of awareness transcends the mind, which is what the human is, so it makes sense to call it superhuman imo.

[SamueLSD]

40 minutes ago, Scholar said:

When you take your psychedelic, you do not need to nurture your sense of mystery. You do not need to nurture you attention. You will be shown, but you will lack the tools to discover on your own..

Incredibly misinformed. You clearly have very limited experience with psychedelics. 

Psychedelics aren't just for awakening anyway. They are for healing, and developing in a more relative sense too.

Is a psychedelic not a tool, anyway? 

44 minutes ago, Scholar said:

 hopefully your ego dissolves in a way that doesn't turn your into a sleepless zombie.

What do you mean by this? I'm yet to hear of psychedelics doing this.

[Scholar]

33 minutes ago, SamueLSD said:

Watch this. It's short and disproves that statement. Also watch his earlier videos, sounds like you are talking about his really advanced stuff. 

How does it disprove it?

33 minutes ago, SamueLSD said:

The thing is we don't believe him. This is crucial. 

Keeping this in mind: For others, it opens them up to new possibilities. Someone who is determined on this path doesn't settle with answers given by Leo, but sees them as a point in the right direction to go there and experience it for oneself. To see if it is true in direct experience. 

I think you should say " Every time he does so and I believe him, my sense of mystery gets dimmer and dimmer.", not ". Every time he does so and you believe him, your sense of mystery gets dimmer and dimmer."

You're assuming the experience of everyone else, when this is clearly your problem. Which is not a bad thing. You can work on that. 

Can you not see that you are assuming the experience of everyone else aswell when you say the "We don't believe him". You treat the ego as if it could follow instructions like a robot. When you watch a video and when Leo talks about what he talks about in the way he does, there will be many people who will, whether aware or not, whether trying not to, take what he says as a belief.

You infact can see this all the time in this forum. People come here with questions and they expect an answer to it. And many times Leo actually gives them the answer. He doesn't consider how far into their development they are, whether or not the answer will be even helpful for them at all. He just gives them the answer.

But that itself will diminish the curiousity. Because the very fact that a person comes into this forum and asks a question shows you that they do have curiousity. They seek to resolve that curiousity. And instead of Leo telling them that they should use that curiousity to point it inwards, he will give them an answer. He took away the very fuel they could have used to come to a further realization.

I never assumed the experience of everyone else, I stated that this will not apply to everyone. Although I do believe this will apply to a majority of seekers. You are diminishing the problem by saying that it would only apply to me.

33 minutes ago, SamueLSD said:

Yes, yes you can. OPENMINDEDNESS - not the same as belief. 

But this openmindedness needs to be nurtured. You cannot just assume that everyone will be open minded because you tell them so. That's like telling your 4th grade students to do their homework and never checking on it at all. The ego is a tricky thing, and my entire point is that Leo treats teaching as if it was a factory assembly line, instead of a unique process that requires attention for each individual.

It would not be a problem if Leo did not position himself into the role of a teacher.

 

25 minutes ago, SamueLSD said:

Incredibly misinformed. You clearly have very limited experience with psychedelics. 

Psychedelics aren't just for awakening anyway. They are for healing, and developing in a more relative sense too.

Is a psychedelic not a tool, anyway? 

You seem to have taken a very defensive position. I do not think you are actually engaging with what I am saying.

 

25 minutes ago, SamueLSD said:

What do you mean by this? I'm yet to hear of psychedelics doing this.

Familiarize yourself with the case of Martin Ball.

Edited December 3, 2020 by Scholar

[Moksha]

I have nothing but gratitude to @Leo Gura for this forum. I love this place, and have learned a lot here.

@Scholar, I agree that Mystery and self-inquiry are key to spiritual growth. Awakening is more than conceptual curiosity. Any answers made of thought are only a trap. You can benefit from a guide, but ultimately it is a soul journey that must be made alone. It is diving into the chasm of Mystery within ourselves, and learning to see with spiritual eyes.

[UnbornTao]

@SamueLSD @Scholar “Most people, in fact, will not take the trouble in finding out the truth, but are much more inclined to accept the first story they hear.”

I agree with that conclusion. If you follow Leo and are a member of this forum, watch out for self-deception. We likely believe many claims he makes and we are good parrots, especially in spirituality. I sometimes uncritically take what he says at face value. 

[SamueLSD]

43 minutes ago, Scholar said:

He doesn't consider how far into their development they are, whether or not the answer will be even helpful for them at all. He just gives them the answer.

Because it is what people beg for. Most don't settle for a riddle, or being told the answer cannot be communicated. Give them the egoic answer they want and they will realise for themselves they cannot do anything with thought / belief. 

43 minutes ago, Scholar said:

How does it disprove it?

He speaks of nurturing the sense of awe. I hope you watched it.

43 minutes ago, Scholar said:

But that itself will diminish the curiousity. 

Where? Can you actually back this up? Again, this seems like your problem. Maybe not only you. The fact that people settle for mere words as true answers is problem of the mind, not Leo.  He says himself the answer has to be rediscovered by you. 

 

43 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I never assumed the experience of everyone else, I stated that this will not apply to everyone. Although I do believe this will apply to a majority of seekers. You are diminishing the problem by saying that it would only apply to me.

Of course people are going to misinterpret things! No matter how you convey it. That is the individuals problem. This forum is here to help with those problems but it doesn't change the fact. 

43 minutes ago, Scholar said:

But this openmindedness needs to be nurtured. You cannot just assume that everyone will be open minded because you tell them so. That's like telling your 4th grade students to do their homework and never checking on it at all. The ego is a tricky thing, and my entire point is that Leo treats teaching as if it was a factory assembly line, instead of a unique process that requires attention for each individual.

Dude, he has hours of videos talking about open-mindedness .  YOU must nurture it!  He has to assume his viewers are open minded, he can't force them to be. 

He also mentions sooo many time how the process is unique for everyone as everyone is incredibly different. It seriously sounds like you are talking about some few specific posts or videos. 

43 minutes ago, Scholar said:

You seem to have taken a very defensive position. I do not think you are actually engaging with what I am saying.

Yes. I am defending psychedelics because they deserve to be, they are very useful. You made an incorrect statement and I am critiquing it.

43 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Familiarize yourself with the case of Martin Ball.

 

Every chemical has side effects to certain people. You said yourself everyone is unique. That is a generalisation based on one persons experience. I have never experienced this, majority haven't. Otherwise it would be common knowledge. 

Edited December 3, 2020 by SamueLSD

[SamueLSD]

8 minutes ago, Arzola said:

@SamueLSD @Scholar “Most people, in fact, will not take the trouble in finding out the truth, but are much more inclined to accept the first story they hear.”

I agree with that conclusion. If you follow Leo and are a member of this forum, watch out for self-deception. We likely believe many claims he makes and we are good parrots, especially in spirituality. I sometimes uncritically take what he says at face value. 

I'm not denying it is a problem. But its a recognized problem Leo mentions quite often, and I don't see how he makes it worse. We literally do it to ourselves, and not only with self development.

[OctagonOctopus]

A lot of distraction going on in here  

 

[UnbornTao]

@SamueLSD yeah, just a reminder for us.

Edited December 3, 2020 by Arzola

[Leo Gura]

It is problematic to give students all the answers, but the reason I do it is because it is just as problematic not to. When things are left vague and ambiguous it's not like the mind will be blank. The mind will fill in the blank with wrong ideas.

This is why I dislike the Zen style and I do not teach in that style. My mission is to create a robust catalogue of answers. If you don't like that then don't watch.

Personally I find Zen highly misleading by trying to be mysterious. In the end I don't see any Zen students understand what I have understood.

The bottom line is, you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't.

I don't like playing Zen games. I tell the answer exactly as I see it. It is your job to not get lost in concepts. My work is highly conceptual. I have no interest in doing teachings like Rupert Spira or Mooji.

[Nahm]

@Scholar

I think you’re missing the golden lining here. You can’t just tell someone they and knowledge & understanding are illusory and expect it to just ‘click’. Imo there is always the theme, or caution, to not believe ‘me’. By the time this is realized life is so blissful it’s not problematic, it’s hysterical. 

[Javfly33]

15 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It is problematic to give students all the answers, but the reason I do it is because it is just as problematic not to. When things are left vague and ambiguous it's not like the mind will be blank. The mind will fill in the blank with wrong ideas.

This is why I dislike the Zen style and I do not teach in that style. My mission is to create a robust catalogue of answers. If you don't like that then don't watch.

Personally I find Zen highly misleading by trying to be mysterious. In the end I don't see any Zen students understand what I have understood.

The bottom line is, you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't.

I don't like playing Zen games. I tell the answer exactly as I see it. It is your job to not get lost in concepts. My work is highly conceptual. I have no interest in doing teachings like Rupert Spira or Mooji.

Your last video is pretty "hands down" to the real thing though... as always, why not do both.

[Gesundheit]

24 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Personally I find Zen highly misleading by trying to be mysterious.

It doesn't seem like Zen is actually trying to be anything. It destroys your knowledge and then gives you tools instead, and the rest is up to you. That's why I like it, because it is practice-oriented instead of theory.

In your latest video, it was good to see you making a live guidance for direct realization. But we can always criticize anything, even that guided inquiry, we can say that it's so good that it will possibly make a lot of people co-dependent, needy, and lazy. Like you said; You're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't.

Edited December 3, 2020 by Gesundheit

[Forestluv]

Isn't it curious how a mind can lack curiosity of curiosity? Isn't it mysterious how the mind can suck they mystery out of mysterious?

Notice different mindsets:

1. Does this teacher's teachings deter from spiritual development?

2. How does this teacher's teachings deter from spiritual development?

3. Here is how this teacher's teachings deter from spiritual development.

Of these three framings, which has the highest level of curiosity, unknown and mystery? I would say #1 has the most and #3 has the least. #1 has the least assumptions and the most space for creation, exploration of mystery and discovery. We could ask "What are his teaching's?", "What is spiritual development?", "what is deterrence along a spiritual path?", "is deterrence the same for all seekers on a spiritual path?". There are lots of possibilities we can explore.

Notice in #2 how there is an underlying assumption that cuts off a lot of curiosity, unknown and mystery. It restricts the space. Here there is an assumption that the teacher's teaching do deter from spiritual development. It cuts off the path of curiosity/unknown/mystery IF the teacher's teachings deter. It is known, without mystery, that the teacher does indeed deter spiritual development. It is much more focused. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. If someone is taking a tour of a jungle, it can be helpful for the tour guide to guide people along a path. Yet there is still room for curiosity/unknown/mystery with framing #2. We don't know the mechanisms of how the teacher deters spiritual development. There are all sorts of explorations. What are different mechanisms of deterrence? Which are most effective? And on and on. 

Door #3 has the least amount of room for curiosity/unknown/mystery. Here it is known that the teacher's teachings do deter spiritual development and it is known how the teacher does it. The knower of this will now describe the mechanism. Here, there is no room for curiosity of exploring mystery, since there is only a sliver of mystery. There is only one thin slit of curiosity/mystery available. The receiver would need to be curious of the knower's mechanistic construct. This is the most grounded and focused of the three options. In some contexts this also has value and is practical. 

I find it curious that a mind would choose the least curious/mysterious option (#3) and utilize a known non-mysterious mechanism to describe how another mind is deterring from curiosity and mystery. To me, the OPs essay itself lacks curiosity/unknown/mystery. The OP seems to know exactly what is happening and sees no mystery in what it assumes is happening. There doesn't seem to be any curiosity. 

[Consilience]

1 hour ago, Forestluv said:

I find it curious that a mind would choose the least curious/mysterious option (#3) and utilize a known non-mysterious mechanism to describe how another mind is deterring from curiosity and mystery. To me, the OPs essay itself lacks curiosity/unknown/mystery. The OP seems to know exactly what is happening and sees no mystery in what it assumes is happening. There doesn't seem to be any curiosity. 

Wow that’s meta ?

[Moksha]

@Forestluv Isn't lack of curiosity a form of judgment? Judge not, that we be not judged.

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Consilience said:

Wow that’s meta ?

Yea, I kinda out-meta'd myself

22 minutes ago, Moksha said:

@Forestluv Isn't lack of curiosity a form of judgment? Judge not, that we be not judged.

You may have revealed a mystery within the mystery. . . 

[Scholar]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It is problematic to give students all the answers, but the reason I do it is because it is just as problematic not to. When things are left vague and ambiguous it's not like the mind will be blank. The mind will fill in the blank with wrong ideas.

This is why I dislike the Zen style and I do not teach in that style. My mission is to create a robust catalogue of answers. If you don't like that then don't watch.

Personally I find Zen highly misleading by trying to be mysterious. In the end I don't see any Zen students understand what I have understood.

The bottom line is, you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't.

I don't like playing Zen games. I tell the answer exactly as I see it. It is your job to not get lost in concepts. My work is highly conceptual. I have no interest in doing teachings like Rupert Spira or Mooji.

 I think you are not making it clear enough that you are creating a map, not being a guide. This is not about whether or not it's bad to present these spiritual ideas. You cannot make spirituality a teaching product for the masses because each individual has their own path to tread on.

 

I don't know why you would not adopt a more sensitive approach to how you help people on their path. Because this is all it is about, is it not? Surely you do not want to just create an ideology. I am not even saying that the answers you give shouldn't be given, but they have to be given in a way that is constructive to the path. It seems like you do not want to contend with these sensitivities and just give everyone the answers because it is easier, and it probably feels good to you aswell.

 

Again, I don't really think that, espeicially most of your recent work, is teaching people how to be more spiritual, you are teaching them concepts. You are an explorer who creates a map, you are not the guide who will follow along with someone who is passing through the terrain to help them get to the destination. There is nothing wrong with being the explorer who creates the map, but I think people would benefit if this was being made more clear. Much more than just a few words about it in each video. You are still taking the role of the guide, especially here in the forum.

 

I think one healthier option would be to give people the tools for them to determine where they are at and create content around those stages. Some answers might be useful once I have attained a certain level, and some question can be useful when I do not know what to question anymore. But on the other hand, some answers can be harmful to me if I am not at a certain level of development.

 

Whether you want it or not, many people here view whatever you say as absolute truth. If you never talked about love, and then suddenly talked about love, without anything changing in the experience of many of the people who follow you, they will immediately start talking about love and adopt it all as an ideology. This is very clear what you look at this forum.

 

To me it seems like you underestimate how difficult it is to make any true use of all the answers you are giving. You yourself have a process and a mind that most people don't really ever see. They aren't conscious of the bulk of the work. They don't see the humble Leo who is questioning everything he is thinking. They just see the Leo who is spouting the truth with a confidence unmatched.

This is what they see, so this is the energy that is being communicated. Ironically, they are not present the mind that lead to all the answers, rather they are presented the mind that already has achieved all the answers. The Leo seeker persona is a different from the Leo teacher persona.

 

This creates a dynamic in which people view you as the authority, instead of their own experience.

 

5 hours ago, Forestluv said:

Isn't it curious how a mind can lack curiosity of curiosity? Isn't it mysterious how the mind can suck they mystery out of mysterious?

Notice different mindsets:

1. Does this teacher's teachings deter from spiritual development?

2. How does this teacher's teachings deter from spiritual development?

3. Here is how this teacher's teachings deter from spiritual development.

Of these three framings, which has the highest level of curiosity, unknown and mystery? I would say #1 has the most and #3 has the least. #1 has the least assumptions and the most space for creation, exploration of mystery and discovery. We could ask "What are his teaching's?", "What is spiritual development?", "what is deterrence along a spiritual path?", "is deterrence the same for all seekers on a spiritual path?". There are lots of possibilities we can explore.

Notice in #2 how there is an underlying assumption that cuts off a lot of curiosity, unknown and mystery. It restricts the space. Here there is an assumption that the teacher's teaching do deter from spiritual development. It cuts off the path of curiosity/unknown/mystery IF the teacher's teachings deter. It is known, without mystery, that the teacher does indeed deter spiritual development. It is much more focused. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. If someone is taking a tour of a jungle, it can be helpful for the tour guide to guide people along a path. Yet there is still room for curiosity/unknown/mystery with framing #2. We don't know the mechanisms of how the teacher deters spiritual development. There are all sorts of explorations. What are different mechanisms of deterrence? Which are most effective? And on and on. 

Door #3 has the least amount of room for curiosity/unknown/mystery. Here it is known that the teacher's teachings do deter spiritual development and it is known how the teacher does it. The knower of this will now describe the mechanism. Here, there is no room for curiosity of exploring mystery, since there is only a sliver of mystery. There is only one thin slit of curiosity/mystery available. The receiver would need to be curious of the knower's mechanistic construct. This is the most grounded and focused of the three options. In some contexts this also has value and is practical. 

I find it curious that a mind would choose the least curious/mysterious option (#3) and utilize a known non-mysterious mechanism to describe how another mind is deterring from curiosity and mystery. To me, the OPs essay itself lacks curiosity/unknown/mystery. The OP seems to know exactly what is happening and sees no mystery in what it assumes is happening. There doesn't seem to be any curiosity. 

Excellent point. I think this forum and it's community foster the energy of #3, because the teacher is presenting his philosophy in this way. I am very sensitive to the energies of people and I usually mirror it back to them unless I make a conscious effort not to. I have notice a particular state of energy within this community, or atleast within my own place sat within this community.

For example, when I myself contemplate all of these questions, I would be far more humble and confused about everything I am saying. But if I were to present this energy of uncertainity within this community, it would feel to me like it would be received as a weakness. It would not be taken as seriously. Leo has a tendency to be very dismissive of the positions of others, or atleast this is what I have perceived. I think there reason why I do perceive it this way is because he constantly signalling that he is an authority. He does not talk to you on an equal level, he usually talks down on you. You can feel this energy, and someone like me who wants to point out something they feel might be wrong with that authority will have a tendency of doing this from a place of defensiveness and ego. This means I will present my ideas with certainty, even authority, instead of coming from a level of looking eye to eye.

 

In a way I am presenting my "teacher" persona here. I will have to be more conscious of this and try to present a more authentic expression. I am glad you noticed this forest. Me perceiving of this energy and it's effects on me is actually the reason why I wrote the entire post in the first place.

 

See how tricky this is. I am aware of this and yet still I fall into this, which makes me believe that people who are largely unaware of this might fall into this same trap. This is my attempt to bring this to the awareness of this community.