Leo On Charlie and Ben Podcast

[RendHeaven]

4 minutes ago, Phyllis Wagner said:

Why is not possible to formulate one perfect meta perspective that everyone can just take on as dogma? Why does everyone need to walk their own path and do the work all over from zero?

This sounds like a dumb question at first but on second thought it is brilliant.

I encourage you to find your own answer. This is such a good question - don't let it go to waste by allowing someone else's answer cloud your personal intuition/realizations

[Shin]

13 minutes ago, Phyllis Wagner said:

Why is not possible to formulate one perfect meta perspective that everyone can just take on as dogma? Why does everyone need to walk their own path and do the work all over from zero?

Read some history and you'll understand quickly

[Carl-Richard]

15 minutes ago, Phyllis Wagner said:

Why is not possible to formulate one perfect meta perspective that everyone can just take on as dogma? Why does everyone need to walk their own path and do the work all over from zero?

Not everybody can wield the ring of power.

[mandyjw]

19 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

This sounds like a dumb question at first but on second thought it is brilliant.

I encourage you to find your own answer. This is such a good question - don't let it go to waste by allowing someone else's answer cloud your personal intuition/realizations

[Forestluv]

6 hours ago, knakoo said:

Let me rephrase "how could you possibly know how awake someone is from what they say to a mainstream audience?"

When someone is talking to a baby sometimes they dumb down their speech. 

There are different ways to get a sense of one's expertise level. Probably the easiest is to have a 1 on 1 conversation with them. Being an outside observer watching someone talking to a beginner audience can be more difficult, yet an expert can still tell because they can see minor errors. For example, if an expert in English was watching someone teach a beginner audience English and the person said "An example of the past tense is 'Paul was sleeping when the alarm went off". The expert would know that is an error, it is not the past tense - it is the past progressive tense. It's possible, that the person was dumbing it down, yet it's becomes fairly obvious if the person doesn't know the difference between the two tenses.

And it's super easy for an expert to tell when they are having a conversation with another - even if that conversation is for an begginner audience. For example, the host may say "You claim that there are different forms of the past tense. Can you give us an example?". The expert guest then responds "An example of the past progressive is 'Paul was sleeping when the alarm went off"". The host then says "Huh?, That is the past tense. Why are you saying it's another past tense". . . Here it is obvious that the host is not an expert. This isn't dumbing down to help the audience. 

[Endangered-EGO]

@Leo Gura I really loved your guest appearance. It gives publicity and it opens up the bubble of this community too. And teachers absolutely NEED to communicate with each other. For the sake of everyone.
Just so you know what podcast I would absolutely love to see you in in case you are interested in:

-Sam Harris: This would be really entertaining and you might actually be able to make him shift from his materialism agnosticism towards deeper understanding. He knows about epistemology and philosophy, and you do too. You will probably "lose the debate" by playing by his rules, but he had a pretty interesting conversation with rupert spira about conciousness, and rupert didn't even go deeply into it. He says that consciousness is an emergent property to matter, like flow is to water. This is not more logical than the alternative Idealism. If you were able to pinpoint the exact things he should question, this would help me (and him, and you) enormously.

-Bernardo kastrup: Well Idealism vs god. He does a lot of podcasts recently.

- Theories of everything with Curt Jaimungal: He asks the RIGHT questions, he asks all of them, and he will probably ask questions none of us would think about. Very underrated podcast.

- Joe rogan of course: The world wants to know. Let's talk about aliens and DMT.

-Shinzen Young: THIS. Probably the most underrated teacher today. He has an algorithmic solution to every step of the path. If I had to chose one podcast you do, this one is it.

What do you think about potential conversations with them?

 

[knakoo]

3 hours ago, Forestluv said:

There are different ways to get a sense of one's expertise level. Probably the easiest is to have a 1 on 1 conversation with them. Being an outside observer watching someone talking to a beginner audience can be more difficult, yet an expert can still tell because they can see minor errors. For example, if an expert in English was watching someone teach a beginner audience English and the person said "An example of the past tense is 'Paul was sleeping when the alarm went off". The expert would know that is an error, it is not the past tense - it is the past progressive tense. It's possible, that the person was dumbing it down, yet it's becomes fairly obvious if the person doesn't know the difference between the two tenses.

And it's super easy for an expert to tell when they are having a conversation with another - even if that conversation is for an begginner audience. For example, the host may say "You claim that there are different forms of the past tense. Can you give us an example?". The expert guest then responds "An example of the past progressive is 'Paul was sleeping when the alarm went off"". The host then says "Huh?, That is the past tense. Why are you saying it's another past tense". . . Here it is obvious that the host is not an expert. This isn't dumbing down to help the audience. 

Yes I suppose what @Leo Gura is claiming is not impossible. But then I am very curious to know what Sadhguru said that makes Leo certain that he doesn't know God.

[knakoo]

So I suppose Nahm interviewing you @Leo Gura would not make a lot of sense it terms of reaching a new audience. What about you interviewing any moderator who is interested and then posting the results on your blog ? That would be awesome.

[King Merk]

@WaltJ I’m a big fan of Leo (obviously since I’m on the forum) and have been following Paul Chek for the last 8 years or so.

I think they would make an amazing podcast episode together.

@Leo Gura please look into Paul Chek and consider doing his podcast 

[Christdas]

I think Leo underestimates the civility of people like Richard Dawkins as interviewers. Here is an interview with Richard Dawkins of someone quite aligned to what Leo might have to say. Its quite a good conversation:

 

Edited May 13, 2021 by Christdas

[Leo Gura]

@Christdas I would not be so easy on Dawkins as that kind old man.

Dawkins would get such a dose of deconstruction that he would start shitting his pants.

[Flowerfaeiry]

On 5/7/2021 at 4:09 PM, 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.

Love you Leo, didn't love watching the interview. Nice to see you putting yourself out there though. The interviewer asked extremely deep and poignant questions that I wanted to hear your answers to, but they just didn't hit the nail on the head like in your videos. 

I agree, dumbing your answers down in the right way will make a huge impact. 

[Christdas]

@Leo Gura If you intend to greatly evolve from what you produced with Charlie, then I'm open to that. Though I think much of what you discussed with Charlie would run quite smoothly with Dawkins and he would in fact agree with you on points such as relativism.

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Christdas said:

@Leo Gura If you intend to greatly evolve from what you produced with Charlie, then I'm open to that. Though I think much of what you discussed with Charlie would run quite smoothly with Dawkins and he would in fact agree with you on points such as relativism.

As soon as I start to deconstruct science he will throw a hissy-fit.

It's all about the defense mechanisms. As long as you don't trigger them you are okay, but as soon as you start triggering them his mind will close all the way down. Because it's not about truth for him, it's about his self-preservation.

[Raptorsin7]

It takes two to tango. Hopefully there are some podcasters where both people bring out the best in each other.

[OneIntoOne]

On 5/7/2021 at 7:01 PM, Leo Gura said:

The problem is that the questions Charlie asked were so deep it would require a 5 hr conversation.

Something like deconstructing science just cannot be done in 60 minutes because there are too many defense mechanisms to address.

Deconstructing science would take at least 5 hrs. And we talked about a lot more topics than that.

Each topic Charlie asked about is a 5 hr conversation.

This is the difficulty of talking about this stuff in a casual way to a general audience who has zero foundation in metaphysics or epistemology. It is like trying to explain calculus to an audience who never even learned arithmetic.

Charlie's audience is gonna be very stage Orange so they will be extremely skeptical of anyone who questions science. That is a huge red flag in their mind. Because if science can be deconstructed their whole reality collapses and that is totally unacceptable.

Which is why my videos are so long.

@Leo Gura

After watching this podcast i said to my self:

Some things you just gotta stomach. If a person has no burning desire to know the truth there is no way you can verbally and logically give it to them.

I felt this subject is juts not something it can be discussed in Pop society as a 60 minutes entertainment video while eating popcorn.

Give it up, whoever wants to know will eventually find it.

[AuthenticSelf]

Appreciate your explanation comments in this thread @Leo Gura, my first impression of the interview was that a normie wouldn't be able to understand anything you talked about and think of you as crazy, but it makes sense that you needed a lot more time per question to unpack.

Perhaps memorizing and parroting off concise snippets like your Actualized Clips would work well in interviews like this, it seems that's how most famous people interview anyway ie. they always say the same things the same way - if the goal is to get people to follow you and explore your more long-form content. Just my 2c.

Edited May 13, 2021 by AuthenticSelf

[The0Self]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

As soon as I start to deconstruct science he will throw a hissy-fit.

It's all about the defense mechanisms. As long as you don't trigger them you are okay, but as soon as you start triggering them his mind will close all the way down. Because it's not about truth for him, it's about his self-preservation.

Dawkins seems very open to deconstruction. He’d probably love it. No one has given him the opportunity thus far.

Or not, of course.

Edited May 13, 2021 by The0Self

[The0Self]

BTW, Leo definitely refers to God actually being no-God. God has no free will because it can only be a perfect manifestation of unconditional (infinite) love. So where is God? There's only unconditional love. So idk why people argue on here about God. God is no-God. Realizing you are God usually comes before realizing there's no you -- simultaneous with realization of unconditional love, which is more of an un-realization.

Edited May 13, 2021 by The0Self

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, The0Self said:

So where is God?

God simply IS Love.

It is not a mistake that God cannot be something else. God must be absolutely tautological. There is no option for it to be otherwise, which is what makes it so amazing and powerful.