Leo On Charlie and Ben Podcast

[herghly]

@Leo GuraHe gave you loaded questions which can't be answered so casually. 

As someone who watches all your videos, I enjoyed watching you be interviewed.  I'd like to see you on Paul Chek, or Aubrey Marcus (just don't talk to them about vax's!)

[Space]

Honestly I feel that the podcast when really well. Charlie genuinely surprised me with his open mindedness and willingness to try and understand certain topics. I didn't think you guys were gonna get right into the meat of things, and talk about Consciousness, God etc. 

Leo your clarity of thought and conversational ability are quite impressive. 

Even before watching it, I knew that there would be some challenges for Leo. As Leo has said, its literally impossible to fully explain this stuff in a short space of time! It simply can't be done - no matter how good with words you are. It requires such a an enormous amount of additional theory, as well as actual personal experience.

I feel grateful that I have years and years of context and direct experience for what Leo is talking about. So I understood everything. But of course this isn't gonna be the case for most viewers. 

@Leo Gura Do you think you learned a lot from the experience? Looking forward to seeing how you tackle the next barrage of podcast questions!  

[Carl-Richard]

Seems like this adds to my hypothesis from 2 months ago : 

On 14.3.2021 at 5:10 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Although I don't see the reason to have zero discussions at all, the path that Leo has taken with Actualized.org is, shall we say, quite inaccessible to most people, and disproportionately so compared to other non-duality teachings (as has been clearly demonstrated in previous comments). Therefore, at this point, any deliberate attempts to extend your outreach will most likely not be worth the time, because 1. the majority of the impact will consist of fresh newbies who will be taken too aback by the teachings, and 2. people who are ready for such teachings are doing whatever they can to look for it and will most likely find it anyway or have already found it (I mean how hard is it to find a 1 million subscriber YouTube channel?).

 

Edited May 8, 2021 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Meta-Man said:

I think the important thing being missed here is; 

The emphasis is erroneously put on intellectually and verbally explaining God. However, the true teaching is not verbal, nor intellectual. The true teaching lies in the embodiment of God. Without it, the words have no strength or power. ‘Who you are speaks so loud I cannot hear what you say’. That is why the guru himself IS the teaching. His presence IS the teaching.

Have you seen how Stage Orange people react to that approach? "He is saying a bunch of nothing, talking in riddles, woo-woo spiritual bullshit". There is a reason many people even on this forum don't vibe with people like Sadhguru (and he's not even the worst offender in this field!). I think the "L-mode" approach is not such a strategical mishap as you portray it to be. I think quite to the contrary.

 

1 hour ago, Meta-Man said:

Trying to convince normies is a fools agenda. Those who are ripe will naturally discover the Truth. When the student is ready, the teacher appears.

Well, we certainly agree there, but wasn't that the main reason for doing the interview in the first place?  I remember some people saying that discussions will add depth and nuance to what has already been presented in the 2hr monologues, but 1. that is certainly not the case for first-time interviews (and frankly just the interview format in general), and 2. especially not if you want newbies to follow what is being said.

Edited May 8, 2021 by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, diamondpenguin said:

how do you even begin to rework that system?

Actualized.org

1 hour ago, Meta-Man said:

The true teaching lies in the embodiment of God. Without it, the words have no strength or power. ‘Who you are speaks so loud I cannot hear what you say’. That is why the guru himself IS the teaching. His presence IS the teaching.

You assume a normie will get it. They won't. I can sit there in full God-mode and the normie would be like, "This dude is insane. He says nothing and probably high on drugs. He proved nothing to me."

YOU get embodiment because you are deep student of this work. Charlie's audience does not get embodiment. They wil just see a hippie.

I once showed a video of Peter Ralston to a guy and told him, "Look this dude is really enlightened." And the guy said, "He looks insane." and that was the end of the conversation.

51 minutes ago, Space said:

@Leo Gura Do you think you learned a lot from the experience? Looking forward to seeing how you tackle the next barrage of podcast questions!  

I learned to be more direct and concrete with my responses and examples. My mind is very abstract and most people can't follow the abstractions. They need simple, simple examples -- which are harder for me to generate than abstractions. Generating crystal clear examples on the fly is not easy.

In retrospect, if Charlie ever again asks me, "How do you know you are love? Isn't is just a memory?" I will ask him, "How do you know you were born? Isn't that just a memory? How do you know you have a mother? How do you know orgasms are real?"

Two can play that game.

See, responses like that would tighten up the conversation. But it's not so easy to whip out pithy responses like that which stop a silly question dead in the water. Generating such pithy responses is actually not a casual conversation, it's very laser targeted and premeditated. You have to anticipate how the question will place you into a long multi-threaded explanatory chain and cut it off at the root by flipping it back on the questioner. It is more like verbal combat.

[blackchair]

need to get a new haircut right now but Will watch the episode with no judgement.

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, Meta-Man said:

My assumption is that they will never get it. Only those who are ripe will ever get it and they are never normies. And that is 99% down to genetics.

Well, I would think that more than 1% of folks comprehended my answers to Charlie. It wasn't exactly rocket science.

Honestly, if one can't understand what I told Charlie, what is the point of following my work?

If it's just a numbers game then the Charlie convo was a success. I would think at least 20% got it.

So the question is, how many people have to get it for it to count as a success? If 1000 people watch Eckhart Tolle and 10 of them convert, does that mean Tolle did well? Can Tolle convert 500 of them?

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Meta-Man said:

And the next question is, on what level and how deeply do they have to get it for it to count as success?

I am happy if they just come and watch some videos with an open mind.

What I don't like is people demonizing the work as if it isn't something serious.

[mihaipaulstd]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Well, I would think that more than 1% of folks comprehended my answers to Charlie. It wasn't exactly rocket science.

Honestly, if one can't understand what I told Charlie, what is the point of following my work?

Folks could understand what you told Charlie if they were more openminded to radical possibilities.

Using a language that even lower stage people could relate to and then slowly advancing it to more abstract concepts might be a great strategy.

Your challenge here is to ease folks up and open them up, just like with girls.

The "self vs Self" part of speech was very inspiring to me, since the conversation was natural and more bidirectional. Questions and answers were shorter and symbolic. It felt alive.

That part opened me up. Now that you did, you can talk anything conceptual from this point on. It will be flawless.

Edited May 8, 2021 by mihaipaulstd

[Breakingthewall]

@Leo Gura have you thought about writing? maybe you would reach more people

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, Breakingthewall said:

@Leo Gura have you thought about writing? maybe you would reach more people

I am writing a massive book.

[Adamq8]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I am writing a massive book.

How many pages do you estimate will be the end result? Like 1000 pages?

Really looking forward to that one

[Breakingthewall]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I am writing a massive book.

I look forward to it. it can be revolutionary.

[DnoReally]

7 hours ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

More like R-Modafinil mode.

nice

[TheDao]

I especially appreciated this video. Usually because you go slow I have to put in much attention to stay alert. I like this speed. Some things you talked about clicked a bit better. Do need a bit of background to make sense of what you are talking. For the mainstream your talking like some sort of strange space cadet I guess.

[Ben_P]

I always hoped I’d see Leo on joe rogan, but after watching the recent podcast I can’t see it doing much good. I’d love to see him talk to Sam Harris though, imagine if Leo opened his mind, surely some of his fans would follow suit? I mean a material atheist who actually realised he’s believing in a false ideology, that could be a key turning point in history. 

[Phyllis Wagner]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I don't even know if I want to at this rate because there is no benefit in it for me when people are so set on misunderstanding what is said.

It's like a projection nightmare.

These ideas will only make sense to the right audience. I cannot take a room full of clueless, closedminded materialists and convince them of anything spiritual. To attempt such feats is an exercise in stupidity and demeaning to my intelligence.

That's what's called casting pearls before swine.

Isn't it more like a skill, to present these ideas in a simple & charismatic fashion. Look at sadhguru, Spira or Eckhart tolle, they know exactly how to phrase these things clearly. Its just triggering  newbies to hear someone talk about being in the possesion of the ultimate truth etc. It'a just a short conversation, so its probably best to not even go into certain directions.

Edited May 8, 2021 by Phyllis Wagner

[Spiral Wizard]

11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The problem is dumbing it down to a level the audience can follow. Dumbing it down in the right way takes a lot of skill and I still need to get better at that.

Sadhguru is a master at this.

I admire his ability to non-violently communicate wisdom in a fashion that is accessible for many people across the spectrum of consciousness and development. 

[mihaipaulstd]

13 minutes ago, Phyllis Wagner said:

Isn't it more like a skill, to present these ideas in a simple & charismatic fashion. Look at sadhguru, Spira or Eckhart tolle, they know exactly how to phrase these things clearly. Its just triggering  newbies to hear someone talk about being in the possesion of the ultimate truth etc. It'a just a short conversation, so its probably best to not even go into certain directions.

Exactly, simplicity and wisdom are the ultimate Truth reflections.

The elegancy of metaphors and pointers as a tool to teach Truth cannot be replicated, because it is impossible.

[Nahm]

Awesome Leo. Great to see!