Re: Actualized.org: The Dark Side Of Meditation : Spiritual Ego & It's Delusions Vs Enlightenment

[Emerald]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

@Emerald Wilkins Next week's video should be: How To Walk Through Walls

Just to give ya'll something to gossip about.

Oh... Leo... I already mastered that years ago. Get up to speed... plebeian. 

[Richard Alpert]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Richard Alpert Oh, the arrogance.

I like you, but i feel you have started to build a little bit of superiority complex.

 

 

[Sri McDonald Trump Maharaj]

Guys... It would be great if you just took a break from the web to walk a little bit in nature and sit for a while before going deeper into this discussion. Or not...

Edited October 21, 2016 by Sri McDonald Trump Maharaj

[Azrael]

28 minutes ago, Psychonaut said:

Guys wait. I'm going to the store to get some caramel popcorn.

@Psychonaut Could you throw some into my apartment, please? This is way too epic.

[Key Elements]

@Leo Gura

You've changed gradually (for the better). I've noticed. Continue. Of course, like everyone else, I have to practice what I preach. Best of Journey. 

That guy needs to do his own journey instead of criticizing other people's journey. Eventually, no one will take him seriously. Life is not about talking about others; it's about finding your own journey. 

On 21/10/2016 at 2:57 AM, Leo Gura said:

There is more to this stuff than merely no-self.

 

I totally agree with your statement here-not only in meditation but in enlightenment as well. If you keep talking about no-self, it gets overblown and sounds like no direction. But, meditation and enlightenment are interconnected with life.

Edited October 23, 2016 by Key Elements

[art]

On 21.10.2016 at 11:59 PM, Emerald Wilkins said:

Oh... Leo... I already mastered that years ago. Get up to speed... plebeian. 

I see on Ralis chanel that you critize Leo heavily. I am referring to a comment on "An in depth interview I did on Enlightenment, Awakening, the post awakening process." :

"Leo's work has influenced me a lot for the better. But I don't resonate with psychedelics, despite having my awakenings while experimenting with them. A thought I've had for a long time before he started the psychedelics thing though, is that I think Leo is unaware of WHY he's seeking enlightenment and it's making his judgment get a bit clouded. I think he still holds the idea that enlightenment would somehow make his life worthy of something. He's still trying to outrun the reaper. I think he's seeking significance but not enlightenment... but he doesn't realize it. So, I think his newfound interest in psychedelics doesn't come from a positive place of open-mindedness like he believes. I think it comes from a negative place of desperation. He's been working SO hard and nothing has been paying off. I suspect that he suffers a lot. I follow his forum and he's been extra defensive lately and calls everyone closed-minded who critiques his interest in psychedelics. I hope that he doesn't get more lost than he is. He's wonderful at being confident in his views which is great for most public figures... but this can be a detriment to the seeker of truth. Either way, it's unfortunate that he's influencing so many people that now believe psychedelics are a path to enlightenment."

Why do you asume Leo suffers a lot?

Isn't this just conspiracy theories? Just assumptions from your own beliefs, dogmas and limited experiences. Also, how do you know psychedelics is not a path to instant enlightment, or can accelerate the process from your own limited 2 experiences?

From outside this looks like very unconscious judgements, maybe out of jealousy or something (assumption)... Sorry for being so harsh, but your arguments doesn't convince me a bit to stop listening to Leos advices on the path. Neither does Ralis.

BTW, I think your channel is great.. Ralis too..

[Emerald]

19 minutes ago, art said:

I see on Ralis chanel that you critize Leo heavily. I am referring to a comment on "An in depth interview I did on Enlightenment, Awakening, the post awakening process." :

"Leo's work has influenced me a lot for the better. But I don't resonate with psychedelics, despite having my awakenings while experimenting with them. A thought I've had for a long time before he started the psychedelics thing though, is that I think Leo is unaware of WHY he's seeking enlightenment and it's making his judgment get a bit clouded. I think he still holds the idea that enlightenment would somehow make his life worthy of something. He's still trying to outrun the reaper. I think he's seeking significance but not enlightenment... but he doesn't realize it. So, I think his newfound interest in psychedelics doesn't come from a positive place of open-mindedness like he believes. I think it comes from a negative place of desperation. He's been working SO hard and nothing has been paying off. I suspect that he suffers a lot. I follow his forum and he's been extra defensive lately and calls everyone closed-minded who critiques his interest in psychedelics. I hope that he doesn't get more lost than he is. He's wonderful at being confident in his views which is great for most public figures... but this can be a detriment to the seeker of truth. Either way, it's unfortunate that he's influencing so many people that now believe psychedelics are a path to enlightenment."

Why do you asume Leo suffers a lot?

Isn't this just conspiracy theories? Just assumptions from your own beliefs, dogmas and limited experiences. Also, how do you know psychedelics is not a path to instant enlightment, or can accelerate the process from your own limited 2 experiences?

From outside this looks like very unconscious judgements, maybe out of jealousy or something (assumption)... Sorry for being so harsh, but your arguments doesn't convince me a bit to stop listening to Leos advices on the path. Neither does Ralis.

BTW, I think your channel is great.. Ralis too..

I have always felt that Leo is using enlightenment for a sense of adding significance or meaning to his life, and I've mentioned it to him before in several comments in past videos. He mentions a lot, fearing regretting his life on his death bed and has also said in a comment that becoming a monk is really the only thing of significance, which seems to reveal an underlying urge to become significant. Of course, I don't know for sure as I only see him in videos and occasionally comments, so there is a high degree of assumption there. I see in him similar patterns to that which I had in myself prior to my experiences, and it seemed evident then that these were the mindsets that kept me attached to my sense of identity. Leo seems very attached to ideas of willpower and hard-work and his personal philosophy on life. He doesn't really ever seem to budge on them. Now in most scenarios, these strong values are virtues... and they are necessary in some degree. But they can be huge stumbling blocks as well when it comes to letting go of identity attachments. Also, he has been pretty defensive lately and seems to write off criticisms as simply closed mindedness and projection. 

So, to critique my own pettiness with the same brutality to separate the wheat from the chaff in what I'm saying... These are, of course, projections and judgements based upon my own experience of my tendencies toward just the patterns that I call him out on. And calling him out is definitely rooted largely in ego. I critique him on it because I often have these mindsets, and I see hints of them shining through in him and others. Since, I see him as more of an authority than me, I feel comfortable calling him out as opposed to other people who I keep my judgments to myself about. I also admire his work and he has inspired me a lot, so any critique I've given to him directly comes from an egoic desire to help someone who's helped me. I have a huge desire to be patted on the head. I'm also a competitive person. So, this competition comes into play when I criticize him. So, I think these are the main petty mindsets that I have, so bare these in mind when I lay out what's genuine about my criticisms.

From a more genuine concern for people, I also think that his advice is getting a bit dangerous considering how influential he is. That is because:

1. Leo is a seeker and thus doesn't really know the end that he seeks despite his copious amounts of research and consciousness work. I think he's really getting lost because he's using the - normally very effective - method of scoping out the end goal and putting all his attention and focus toward making that end goal happen. But the end goal of enlightenment is necessarily hazy, even if he's caught glimpses of it here and there. And it's very easy to convince yourself that you know more than you do. So, his hypothesis that psychedelics can lead to permanent enlightenment are necessarily speculative. So, despite the fact that many people can understand that his hypothesis is based in speculation and can make responsible decisions about it, there is a sizable minority who don't grasp this and will believe whole-heartedly that psychedelics are a means toward permanent enlightenment. 

2. Many of Leo's viewers are coming from a place of various perceived or actual deficiencies in life and are looking for improvement from his channel. Many of them are very young too. So, recommending psychedelics to someone in such a place of deficiency could be very detrimental. I think Leo, in his idealism, tend to assume that others are as intelligent as he is. It's the opposite of the Dunning-Kruger effect where intelligent people take for granted that they are average and assume that others can handle the same things as them. So, much of Leo's advice in what he believes that others can handle, many cannot. It can open the door for people to misuse or become addicted to the drugs, and they may easily deceive themselves into believing they are doing something of benefit. Also, on a similar note, I struggled a lot after my awakenings because I wasn't ready to be exposed to higher truths. Imagine taking someone who really needs to improve their life, then they get access to higher wisdom that seems to send them in the opposite direction. This was like, during my experiences, I realized that my drives for self-improvement and success were actually what was keeping me from the fulfillment that I sought. So, I took my hands off the wheel when it came to creating the life that I wanted because I didn't want to indulge the ego. Many may think they're ready, but are not ready.

3. He recommends doing the psychedelics over a course of time, on a regular basis to sort of wear down the ego over time. This just seems very dangerous to me, even for people who can handle psychedelics and a potential awakening that results from them.

So, there are real concerns that I have. So even though projection and unconsciousness has a lot to do with my criticism, there are still many things that genuinely don't sit well with me regarding Leo's advice on psychedelics and 5 MEO DMT particularly. 

 

 

[Emerald]

11 minutes ago, John Flores said:

@art The biggest contradiction about enlightened people is that they are often closed minded about how to get enlightened. I have heard enlightened people get angry or scared.

 

They hold on to what they value. She obviously holds on to the no drug zone for enlightenment. I personally believe drugs are the main way to get enlightned in this atheistically dogmatic generation.

I had my awakenings as a result of experimentation with entheogens. So, my speculations aren't really based in closed-mindedness. I do recognize them as speculations though. I speculate that they cannot bring about permanent enlightenment because they did not create any permanent expanded awareness for me, even in the slightest. But they did make me believe that I had achieved something, and much chaos ensued in my life because I didn't understand the nature of paradoxes and I started to choke out practical truths for higher truths that I had access to during those experiences. One bit of wisdom that has stuck with me was that it was clear that I didn't need the entheogen to get back to that state. I think entheogens can catalyze a samadhi experience and give a glimpse of non-dual awareness, but that they will not result in a permanent shift. In fact, I found that my resistance and identification simply doubled down, and I became a lot more rigid. 

[Emerald]

Just now, John Flores said:

@Emerald Wilkins I called up Noah Elkreif when he was still able to spare a few minutes and the first thing he aggressively asked me was "are you high!?", I said no, wait what? "Are you on drugs!?". I said I never even did drugs in my life! He then says okay, good, because I don't give advice to people who are on drugs. Now that we got that cleared, what did you want to ask me?

 

I do understand where you are coming from, but I have had a hard life. The people in my X religion are some of the most egoic and antagonistic people in the world - they like to kill God ?....point is, sometimes drastic measures are needed.

 

The population that Leo is really targeting are atheists and closed minded regions. This excludes Chrisitianty which is probably the most enlightened one there is and touches upon the truth about God more than anyone (since they throw out logic and can transition more easily to understanding that they are God like Jesus was). Therefore, I understand your concerns, but think it is a worthwhile gamble. If I knew Sam Harris was in this forum I would tag him and think he would agree with Leo's approach as many enlightened people do.

I was agnostic leaning heavily atheist and I know for a fact that I wouldn't have been interested in spirituality, if it hadn't been for my entheogen induced experiences. If it gave me anything, it's that I was able to see far beyond my grasp and understand how reality actually is for a short time. So, it was a very intense and out of nowhere initiation to the spiritual path. I fell down many a rabbit hole and my life suffered for it over the course of the years directly following those experiences, despite the fact that life is better for me now in light of them. But I could have gotten so lost that I couldn't recover from it. So, for those who were already interested in psychedelics and would have done them anyway, I say "sure, why not? If it's that important to you." For those who weren't interested in psychedelics before but now think of them as a path to enlightenment, I say proceed with caution and be very honest with yourself about why you're doing it. Know your limits. That said, I don't recommend using them repeatedly for anyone as this can cause some issues over time. Also, if a person has a genuine awakening from them, they should expect that their entire worldview will be turned on its ear. The ramifications of this can be intense and life-changing, for better and worse. 

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, John Flores said:

I personally believe drugs are the main way to get enlightned in this atheistically dogmatic generation.

This is not the right attitude.

You ought to be doing the bulk of the heavy lifting yourself, not through drugs.

Be careful how you interpret the things I say. I say many nuanced things which are very easy to misinterpret and get yourself lost.

When I speak about psychedelics, I speak about them as a way to open minds, not as magic pills or ways to escape inner work.

[Emerald]

Just now, John Flores said:

@Emerald Wilkins In my old religion we used to say. "And God will be a King over all the earth, during that era He will be One and His name will be One"

 

If you can find a better way to fulfill the prophecy than Leo, by all means, but i back Leo up all the way.

I respect your beliefs. But I do want to caution you about making Leo or anyone else into a messiah or an answer to some perceived deficiency of reality. If you're seeking enlightenment, you should recognize that your beliefs are beliefs. These will get in the way of your ability to see what is true beyond the frameworks of the mind. 

[Emerald]

Just now, John Flores said:

@Emerald Wilkins We don't have beliefs. Everything just is lol. Every belief is true and every belief is not true. 

Our thoughts created this universe. God is thought. Look at the universe, I looks like a bunch of neurons. Our thoughts are constantly changing this universe or existence 

My advice was more on the practical wisdom level and not the higher wisdom level. I'm just saying to be careful putting too much stock in any person. I'm sure that Leo would agree with this statement too. 

[Emerald]

Just now, John Flores said:

@Emerald Wilkins Leo is a gift. Lol. Don't get too inflated Leo lol

How is life going for you? 

[Emerald]

Just now, John Flores said:

@Emerald Wilkins There is no way to respond to your question without sounding high, so I plead the 5th

 

I still want more money, an apartment, monetary independance, this one chick who looks like an angel. But other than that, pretty good 

That's good to hear. 

[Prabhaker]

7 minutes ago, John Flores said:

I still want more money, an apartment, monetary independance, this one chick who looks like an angel. But other than that, pretty good 

But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

[Prabhaker]

5 minutes ago, John Flores said:

I lean very rational and practical. Because everyone is after money and it is the ego's fuel

I will tell you one of the deepest laws of life. You may not have thought about it at all. You have heard – the whole of science depends on it – that cause and effect is the base. You create the cause and the effect follows. 

Religion knows about a second law which is still deeper than this. But the second law which is deeper than this will look absurd if you don’t know it and don’t experiment with it. Religion says: Produce the effect and the cause follows. This is absolutely absurd in scientific terms.

There is a situation in which you feel happy. A friend has come, a beloved has called. A situation is the cause – you feel happy. Happiness is the effect. The coming of the beloved is the cause. Religion says: Be happy and the beloved comes. Create the effect and the cause follows.

Jesus says the same thing in different words: Seek ye first the Kingdom of God, then all else will follow. But the Kingdom of God is the end, the effect. Seek ye first the end – the end means the effect, the result – and the cause will follow. This is as it should be.

I tell you, it is easier to create the effect because the effect depends totally upon you; the cause may not be so dependent on you.

[Prabhaker]

5 hours ago, John Flores said:

I lean very rational and practical. Because everyone is after money and it is the ego's fuel

I am not against money -- I am against money-mindedness! I am not against possessions, I am against possessiveness. And these are two totally different dimensions, diametrically opposite to each other.

To be against money is stupid. Money is a beautiful means -- a means of exchange. Without money there cannot be an evolved culture, society or civilization.

5 hours ago, John Flores said:

I still want more money, an apartment, monetary independance, this one chick who looks like an angel.

I can understand the need for money, an apartment, monetary independence but 'chick who looks like an angel' is beyond comprehension. 

Money is love of things, not of persons. The most comfortable love is of things because things are dead, you can possess them easily. You can possess a big house but you cannot possess even an ugly chick, in fact nobody can.

The more money you have, the more things you can possess; and the more things you can possess, the more you can forget about persons. Then only 'chick who looks like an angel' will try to possess you ...but you can't start with wasting your time and money for so called love. You want money , contentment and love simultaneously, I think it's not practical.

Edited October 24, 2016 by Prabhaker

[David1]

On 10/24/2016 at 4:04 AM, Emerald Wilkins said:

I have always felt that Leo is using enlightenment for a sense of adding significance or meaning to his life, and I've mentioned it to him before in several comments in past videos. He mentions a lot, fearing regretting his life on his death bed and has also said in a comment that becoming a monk is really the only thing of significance, which seems to reveal an underlying urge to become significant. Of course, I don't know for sure as I only see him in videos and occasionally comments, so there is a high degree of assumption there. I see in him similar patterns to that which I had in myself prior to my experiences, and it seemed evident then that these were the mindsets that kept me attached to my sense of identity. Leo seems very attached to ideas of willpower and hard-work and his personal philosophy on life. He doesn't really ever seem to budge on them. Now in most scenarios, these strong values are virtues... and they are necessary in some degree. But they can be huge stumbling blocks as well when it comes to letting go of identity attachments. Also, he has been pretty defensive lately and seems to write off criticisms as simply closed mindedness and projection. 

So, to critique my own pettiness with the same brutality to separate the wheat from the chaff in what I'm saying... These are, of course, projections and judgements based upon my own experience of my tendencies toward just the patterns that I call him out on. And calling him out is definitely rooted largely in ego. I critique him on it because I often have these mindsets, and I see hints of them shining through in him and others. Since, I see him as more of an authority than me, I feel comfortable calling him out as opposed to other people who I keep my judgments to myself about. I also admire his work and he has inspired me a lot, so any critique I've given to him directly comes from an egoic desire to help someone who's helped me. I have a huge desire to be patted on the head. I'm also a competitive person. So, this competition comes into play when I criticize him. So, I think these are the main petty mindsets that I have, so bare these in mind when I lay out what's genuine about my criticisms.

From a more genuine concern for people, I also think that his advice is getting a bit dangerous considering how influential he is. That is because:

1. Leo is a seeker and thus doesn't really know the end that he seeks despite his copious amounts of research and consciousness work. I think he's really getting lost because he's using the - normally very effective - method of scoping out the end goal and putting all his attention and focus toward making that end goal happen. But the end goal of enlightenment is necessarily hazy, even if he's caught glimpses of it here and there. And it's very easy to convince yourself that you know more than you do. So, his hypothesis that psychedelics can lead to permanent enlightenment are necessarily speculative. So, despite the fact that many people can understand that his hypothesis is based in speculation and can make responsible decisions about it, there is a sizable minority who don't grasp this and will believe whole-heartedly that psychedelics are a means toward permanent enlightenment. 

2. Many of Leo's viewers are coming from a place of various perceived or actual deficiencies in life and are looking for improvement from his channel. Many of them are very young too. So, recommending psychedelics to someone in such a place of deficiency could be very detrimental. I think Leo, in his idealism, tend to assume that others are as intelligent as he is. It's the opposite of the Dunning-Kruger effect where intelligent people take for granted that they are average and assume that others can handle the same things as them. So, much of Leo's advice in what he believes that others can handle, many cannot. It can open the door for people to misuse or become addicted to the drugs, and they may easily deceive themselves into believing they are doing something of benefit. Also, on a similar note, I struggled a lot after my awakenings because I wasn't ready to be exposed to higher truths. Imagine taking someone who really needs to improve their life, then they get access to higher wisdom that seems to send them in the opposite direction. This was like, during my experiences, I realized that my drives for self-improvement and success were actually what was keeping me from the fulfillment that I sought. So, I took my hands off the wheel when it came to creating the life that I wanted because I didn't want to indulge the ego. Many may think they're ready, but are not ready.

3. He recommends doing the psychedelics over a course of time, on a regular basis to sort of wear down the ego over time. This just seems very dangerous to me, even for people who can handle psychedelics and a potential awakening that results from them.

So, there are real concerns that I have. So even though projection and unconsciousness has a lot to do with my criticism, there are still many things that genuinely don't sit well with me regarding Leo's advice on psychedelics and 5 MEO DMT particularly. 

 

 

I don't get the distiction that is made between 'enlightenment' and 'permanent enlightenment'. What Leo described in the 5MEO-DMT video is enlightenment. Realizing, experiencing that you are Brahman/God... is it. You can't 'unrealize' it. It is permanent. What more profound insight can you have? Leo sais he's not enlightened because maybe he doesn't want his quest to be over?

[David1]

6 minutes ago, John Flores said:

@David1 It's mysterious why we chose not to let our quest be over. Even after enlightenment there are stages of "death" and complete connection with reality. Even then, some enlightened people choose to help people through this world and not just by connecting to reality -- everything is a mystery 

Buddhists have a saying...'after enlightenment, the laundry'. I guess people expect the world to stop turning or anything but not the laundry please

[Emerald]

26 minutes ago, David1 said:

I don't get the distiction that is made between 'enlightenment' and 'permanent enlightenment'. What Leo described in the 5MEO-DMT video is enlightenment. Realizing, experiencing that you are Brahman/God... is it. You can't 'unrealize' it. It is permanent. What more profound insight can you have? Leo sais he's not enlightened because maybe he doesn't want his quest to be over?

Enlightenment means to have the personal self drop away completely and for good. A glimpse is just a glimpse. If you experience a temporary drop of the personal self but it comes right back, it is of little value to your pursuit of enlightenment beyond having extra motivation and faith, because memory and thoughts cannot understand enlightenment. Even if you have a memory of what it's like, it is not enlightenment and it puts you no closer to it. I think motivation is important to take into account here. Having experienced this shift, I now seek it for the primary reason that it feels so much better to be that way. So, I seek it so that I can be at peace. Despite my experience with it in the past, I don't have that peace now. I'm still attached to the personal self. So, despite experiencing it... I am not enlightened now. There is a qualitative difference, and not just a 'Oh... I saw it and now I know and it's a done deal.' So, even if you have an experience where the personal self drops away, this is not enlightenment. It is a glimpse. 

Also, a key quality of being enlightened is a complete cease to the seeking process. It just comes about, and it's undeniable. If Leo is still seeking then he is correct in saying that he isn't enlightened. EVERYONE seeks except for the enlightened. If he were grasping at seeking and didn't want his quest to be over, that means he's definitely not enlightened... as this too is a form of grasping and seeking. 

Edited October 25, 2016 by Emerald Wilkins