Leo featured in suicide cult article

[kieranperez]

I created unnecessary and agitated people's remaining suffering and reactivity out of my own reactivity. I apologize. 

[Inliytened1]

1 hour ago, kieranperez said:

I created unnecessary and agitated people's remaining suffering and reactivity out of my own reactivity. I apologize. 

No need. You said what you felt.  

[Danioover9000]

@SOUL

5 hours ago, SOUL said:

@Danioover9000  My impression is that culty behavior is way more prevalent than people realize, so much of society is ruled by it from social norms to religious belief to consumerism and on and on.

Even though there is definitely a concerted top down effort to control people, their thinking and behavior through all the means of society it appears people willingly volunteer themselves to be culty because of the desire to belong.

Even if Leo took every possible precaution to distance from any cultiness people would still behave this way because it's been ingrained in their conditioning to do so. It may even be accurate to argue that humans have a natural social disposition that leans towards it.

   We can say that societies and cultures at large do have some cultish elements to them, in reaction to differences in cultural values, moral frameworks of the population taught and ingrained, and various cognitive developments in each in group and out group, how they think, what collective states they experience day to day. We can see this more with smaller groups, both currently and in the past like with Charles Manson and Osho's Rajneesh compound, although in Osho's case in more his second in command that orchestrated attempts to take over Oregon county and political positions.

   However, to me it's more obvious that there is much more cult like dynamics with Youtube reactionaries that feel the need to stir up drama, gossip and rumours,  and clip out and take out of context pieces of information and misinterpret what is really being said properly for the views, and getting followers along the band wagon, versus a personal development website owner, who covers topics found in self help, but also philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology, non duality, spirituality, psychedelics use for personal development, who has repeatedly warned and had disclaimers in the description boxes down below each video against misuse, misunderstanding and not turning this work into a blind ideology. Again, no offense to Leo Gura, he lacks the qualities necessary to be a powerful cult leader. Those who are trying to make him out as a cult leader, are really not seeing that if he was a genuine cult guy, he would suck at it.

   I'd be familiar with what makes a cult leader a proper cult leader first, before accusing a person of being a cult leader, right?

[Inliytened1]

1 hour ago, vizual said:

@Inliytened1  You are the next one in line to lose your mod status if you keep up this nonsense. Just saying

Yeah well. It's not like it pays the bills 

[Danioover9000]

@vizual

1 hour ago, vizual said:

@Inliytened1  You are the next one in line to lose your mod status if you keep up this nonsense. Just saying

   That's a bit too harsh. Everyone has different learning curves and learn like A.I, trial and error. He'll sooner or later be a pretty decent mod. 

[Inliytened1]

Just now, Danioover9000 said:

@vizual

   That's a bit too harsh. Everyone has different learning curves and learn like A.I, trial and error. He'll sooner or later be a pretty decent mod. 

I'll try at least.  That's all we can do right?

[RMQualtrough]

3 hours ago, kieranperez said:

Gibberish. The amount passive aggressive behavior is screaming shadows on your end is the red flag. 

This is complete bullshit. Ramana Maharshi died of cancer as well as many other genuinely enlightened people. In fact, some of the most realized people tend to come die from pretty brutal diseases and so forth. This idea that enlightenment heals you or something is bullshit. Enlightenment is what is already absolutely true.

You. Are. Deluded.

The misconception you describe is probably to do with lacking first hand experience, which means a person can't really separate the jiva (which is like, the body, the ego) from the absolute totality of Brahman... In other words they can't see it as an appearance, and mistake that body or ego for the entity that is eternal and unchanging.

The body like all material objects is within Brahman. The body is as much a physical object as a boulder or plank of wood. There is nothing special about the material body.

The nature of all matter is Brahman. The ego is Brahman. Every thought and desire is one of the many appearances of Brahman.

These very enlightened people realize the body for what it is, which is just another appearance. I think one of them actually, when dying and his followers were all concerned, said something like: "Don't worry, it's just a body!" Because the essential nature of what all of existence is, is eternal. He recognized that his body, ravaged with disease, was just like a rock being eroded by waves or something; as in, just another appearance which was not that essential is-ness.

[RendHeaven]

Aw got here late 

I'm impressed by Adeptus here, he is showing an admirable level of respect.

A little thought I had, reading through the earlier exchange:

Unfortunately for Adeptus, Leo is correct in assessing his lack of understanding of consciousness.

The situation here is a bit like a middle schooler critiquing a calculus professor, accusing the professor of making up "nonsensical scribbles" (or at least this is how the equations seem from the POV of the middle schooler who has not done any advanced mathematics)

- the professor then says, "you simply have not studied enough," and the middle schooler retorts, "yeah nice deflection there mate! these string of symbols are obviously nonsense but you're just unwilling to admit the truth because you're stubborn."

In this case, the professor gains nothing by attempting to defend his position. Nothing he says will convince the middle schooler otherwise. It's on the middle schooler to actually go and study calculus seriously. But for him to do this, the middle schooler must admit first that he actually has not studied mathematics much (if at all). If the kid thinks he's already got it all, he will forever be incapable of understanding where the professor is coming from.

So, how do we make sense of who is the kid and who is the professor?

It's simple: In the above hypothetical analogy, the calculus professor was once the middle schooler. However, the middle schooler has never been the calculus professor.

Leo has in the past been at Adeptus' current paradigm of skepticism and rational sense-making. He transcended this paradigm by realizing its contradictions and limits. In other words, although Leo no longer shares Adeptus' paradigm, he has actually traversed through it, and so he can recall through his own memories an intimate understanding of the limited paradigm from which Adeptus argues.

Adeptus on the other hand, is not and has not ever been at Leo's current paradigm of God-Realization. This foreign paradigm is simply outside of his comprehension.

Thus, Leo gains nothing by attempting to defend his position. Nothing Leo says will convince Adeptus otherwise. It's on Adeptus to actually go and study consciousness seriously. But for him to do this, Adeptus must admit first that he actually has not studied consciousness much (if at all). If Adeptus thinks he's already got it all, he will forever be incapable of understanding where Leo is coming from.

---

On a side note, the mod behavior here is disheartening. The emotionally-charged self-preservation is so obvious from a bystander's perspective. It does not fit the spirit of our work here. But I'm prone to having those proclivities myself, so I get it.

[Inliytened1]

@RendHeaven yeah your late.  I already dealt with Adeptus' criticism head on and cleared it all up.  

[AdeptusPsychonautica]

6 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

@RendHeaven yeah your late.  I already dealt with Adeptus' criticism head on and cleared it all up.  

@Inliytened1 I guess we can add "cleared it all up" to the list of phrases you don't understand the meaning of - wow, this list is getting quite long! ?

Honestly mate, your lack of self awareness is pretty amazing. Your contribution to this thread has been awful, switching between straw man arguments, cringe inducing arrogance, a complete lack of logic or reasoning, misunderstanding of basic vocabulary, emotional immaturity, and just being an outright bully by abusing your moderator status and banning people. You have some serious work to do pal, and the fact that you act like this as an outcome of your much vaunted "awakening" really raises some red flags. 

REALITY CHECK - you didn't clear anything up, you got cleaned up, and the atmosphere in this thread would have been A LOT "clearer" if you had kept your petty immature ego out of it ?

 

[AdeptusPsychonautica]

15 hours ago, zurew said:

It's flat out wrong only,if you are looking at it from your paradigm.You are using a different kind of epistemic foundation compare to most of the users on the forum, and thats all okay.

I would pretty much agree with what you are saying here in that there are different paradigms, and that one person could be speaking about one while another is speaking from the perspective of a different paradigm - no argument there

15 hours ago, zurew said:

However, your last sentence is an objective sentence, that "it is just flat out wrong", now speaking from a materialistic paradigm it could be true. It all depends on, in what structure you want to place that statement. 

None of this was stated as objective fact. The entire comment was prefaced with "in my opinion".

15 hours ago, zurew said:

Basically, all your critisism can be boiled down to this problem, that you and Leo are using different kind of epistemic foundations, and your criticism is only true and valid within your paradigm, Leo's claims will be true if you are using his foundations (or it can only be then realised). So for your critisisms to be objectively true, as you want it, you have to assume, that your worldview is objectively correct, and you can just assume that whole foundation(that you use) before you want to make a claim or a criticism.

Here I would disagree. While fully accepting that one can have different epistemic foundations, I think it is evident that Leo in the video I reference is actually making claims about things that will play out within (for want of a better term) material reality, so the paradigm he is straddling there is blatantly clear. Now while his head might have been somewhere else, the claims are firmly rooted in this paradigm.

As previously highlighted in this thread he is not talking in solipsistic metaphor, but claiming physical ability over human disease and ailments - and he (Leo) himself has agreed that he was overstepping the mark by making such claims, so I really don't think there is much else to debate in regards to this point.

So while I fully understand and appreciate different paradigms, to try and apply it here as a counter to these criticisms really is unnecessary retroactive woo woo white washing. Is it that hard to admit that that guy said some things he shouldn't have said, when he himself admits as much?

I think its also worth highlighting a double standard here around such paradigms, and the Connor Murphy phone call debacle is a perfect example. Clearly Connor was making similar OBJECTIVE claims about what he could do with material reality - again, the paradigm that was "on the table" here was absolutely evident, and Leo was ABSOLUTELY RIGHT to state that Connors claims were delusional. There was no question that Connor is "using different kind of epistemic foundations", no - he was simply acting delusional. I sincerely doubt there is anyone here who would argue in favour of Connor Murphy having a different epistemic foundation as a reasonable justification of his behaviour or the things he was saying, but based upon your reasoning YOU SHOULD, hence the double standard. Maybe something for you to think about?

[Tim R]

12 minutes ago, AdeptusPsychonautica said:

"using different kind of epistemic foundations"

Haha I love that one? what a lovely post-modern way of talking. 

[Inliytened1]

1 hour ago, AdeptusPsychonautica said:

@Inliytened1 I guess we can add "cleared it all up" to the list of phrases you don't understand the meaning of - wow, this list is getting quite long! ?

Honestly mate, your lack of self awareness is pretty amazing. Your contribution to this thread has been awful, switching between straw man arguments, cringe inducing arrogance, a complete lack of logic or reasoning, misunderstanding of basic vocabulary, emotional immaturity, and just being an outright bully by abusing your moderator status and banning people. You have some serious work to do pal, and the fact that you act like this as an outcome of your much vaunted "awakening" really raises some red flags. 

REALITY CHECK - you didn't clear anything up, you got cleaned up, and the atmosphere in this thread would have been A LOT "clearer" if you had kept your petty immature ego out of it ?

 

So is this your new criticism because the healing stuff just didn't work out?  If thats the case I'm OK with it!  Do I have work to do?  Sure...we all do.  But I think we broke it down here that what you call delusional is in fact spirituality.  Whether you like that fact or not just really doesn't matter to me.

[zurew]

32 minutes ago, AdeptusPsychonautica said:

Here I would disagree. While fully accepting that one can have different epistemic foundations, I think it is evident that Leo in the video I reference is actually making claims about things that will play out within (for want of a better term) material reality, so the paradigm he is straddling there is blatantly clear. Now while his head might have been somewhere else, the claims are firmly rooted in this paradigm.

My argument was not about defending Leo's claim, my argument wanted to be about, that 'everything in the mind'. Even if i don't use awakening kind of arguments, i can say that if i use idealism as a foundation, then from that position it can be easily argued why every aillments is in the mind. I wanted to target that, i didn't want to defend Leo's claim, because, frankly i don't know if it is true or not.

 

36 minutes ago, AdeptusPsychonautica said:

As previously highlighted in this thread he is not talking in solipsistic metaphor, but claiming physical ability over human disease and ailments - and he (Leo) himself has agreed that he was overstepping the mark by making such claims, so I really don't think there is much else to debate in regards to this point.

The "debate" is not much about defending his claim on my part, its more about the fact, that neither me neither you know if such a thing that 'you can cure all ailments' is possible or not. Or that it is possible to do powerful things. The intellectually honest position is , that we don't know, now you can call bullshit on it, and you can say that it is not true, and that it is impossible, but that will stay merely an opinion not a fact. It does not mean that Leo was right about it, or that you are right about it, it means that from my and your pov , we don't really know. So i am arguing for more open-mindedness here, i am not defending Leo's position.

 

Btw, correct me if i wrong, but i think that you have more problem with not the claim itself, but the consequences that it can have on other people ,when they hear such a message.

43 minutes ago, AdeptusPsychonautica said:

I think its also worth highlighting a double standard here around such paradigms, and the Connor Murphy phone call debacle is a perfect example. Clearly Connor was making similar OBJECTIVE claims about what he could do with material reality - again, the paradigm that was "on the table" here was absolutely evident, and Leo was ABSOLUTELY RIGHT to state that Connors claims were delusional.

I would hold Leo to that same standard, i am holding you right now.The standard is, that there are x number of things that you don't know about, and making claims about things or attacking things that you don't know , is problematic in my opinion. But i understood why Leo did what he did there, and i understand (or assume) why you do this right now. You want to protect people from irresponsible messages, that you think is bullshit, and you don't want them to hurt themselves, or to be in a position where they can harm others.(again i am assuming a lot here, feel free to correct)

[Jahmaine]

This is what it looks like to me when I read some of the convos here.

[AdeptusPsychonautica]

3 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

So is this your new criticism because the healing stuff just didn't work out? 

Well its not new criticism is it mate? I have been consistent in calling out your glaring intellectual/emotional/irrational flaws and shitty behaviour throughout this ENTIRE THREAD, so if that is what you mean by "new" then sure! ?‍♂️

***adds "new" to the list of words @Inliytened1 does not understand***

I'm not sure what you are referring to in regard to "the healing stuff not working out". As far as I can see I have offered reasonable arguments to all points that have been raised, and while I admit I am slightly biased here - I think its fairly obvious that I owned you. Still if there is some outstanding topic you would like me to address then feel free to highlight it, although I must admit that I am growing a bit weary of your clumsy jabberings and lack of integrity, so I would prefer to deal with those who are more reasonable and intellectually capable - I hope you understand.

3 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

Do I have work to do?

You seriously do, and honestly you have no business being a moderator while you are doing it. Your behaviour is appalling and if I was Leo I would be embarrassed by your display here. In my opinion there is no place for self aggrandizing bullies in the spiritual space, let alone moderating them.  

3 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

But I think we broke it down here that what you call delusional is in fact spirituality.  

Literally nowhere did we break it down to that, and I don't think you even know what spirituality means (along with most other words in the English vocabulary). I mean can you link me to where this particular strand of the conversation happened? That's a rhetorical question btw because I know that you cannot ?

I hate to take this kind of position and fully appreciate it looks bad or snobby, but you are not capable of keeping up with me on any level, and explaining basic things to you is becoming tedious. Please leave it to your more rational peers to have the big discussions, which will give you additional time to masturbate over how awakened you are(nt).

Edited March 10, 2022 by AdeptusPsychonautica

[Inliytened1]

8 minutes ago, Jahmaine said:

This is what it looks like to me when I read some of the convos here.

That's pretty funny.  Trump meditating would be a sight to see.  But spirituality isn't about transcending the ego.  That is just called humility.  And I know a lot of us here can use. a dose of that - including you.

[zurew]

 

9 minutes ago, Jahmaine said:

I read it with Trump's voice, it's pretty funny 

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, AdeptusPsychonautica said:

Well its not new criticism is it mate? I have been consistent in calling out your glaring intellectual/emotional/irrational flaws and shitty behaviour throughout this entire thread, so if that is what you mean be "new" then sure!       

***adds "new" to the list of words @Inliytened1 does not understand***

I'm not sure what you are referring to in regard to "the healing stuff not working out". As far as I can see I have offered reasonable arguments to all points that have been raised, and while I admit I am slightly biased here - I think its fairly obvious that I owned you. Still if there is some outstanding topic you would like me to address then feel free to highlight it, although I must admit that I am growing a bit weary of your clumsy jabberings and lack of integrity, so I would prefer to deal with those who are more reasonable intellectually capable - I hope you understand.

You seriously do, and honestly you have no business being a moderator while you are doing it. Your behaviour is appalling and if I was Leo I would be embarrassed by your display here. In my opinion there is no place for self aggrandizing bullies in the spiritual space, let alone moderating them.  

Literally nowhere did we break it down to that, and I don't think you even know what spirituality means (along with most other words in the English vocabulary). I mean can you link me to where this particular strand of the conversation happened? That's a rhetorical question btw because I know that you cannot ?

I hate to take this kind of position and fully appreciate it looks bad or snobby, but you are not capable of keeping up with me on any level, and explaining basic things to you is becoming tedious. Please leave it to your more rational peers to have the mature dialogue, which will give you additional time to masturbate over how awakened you are(nt).

Yeah..it's kinda making you look snobby at this point

Again - i guess we need to rehash.  Leo did not claim he was able to cure all ailments.  He claimed he discovered that it is possible in a state of God Consciousness.  Miracles are possible in these states of consciousness. 

[Jahmaine]

@Inliytened1 regardless of the conversation happening here, you do seem quite pedantic. 
If you had to self analyse, gun to your head, which spiral dynamic stage would you say you inhabit the most?