Feedback for Leo on inspiring "serious" spiritual work

[matcha]

Having followed Leo's videos for many years and having gone deep with spirituality and also hopping off the spirituality train multiple times, I wanted to take the opportunity to reflect on why I've previously had so much trouble with taking spiritual work seriously in hopes that I can help Leo understand why so many viewers aren't serious, and maybe help others with not falling into the same traps as me.

The main issue: Not integrating and checking Leo's teachings. The main way I'd engage with Leo's videos would be that I'd watch the videos, try my best to understand the ideas through trying to follow the logic Leo presents in the video (but in my own way), then try to consider different implications. This is after all the way one goes about "learning" most things in life (i.e. in my academic career this technique has served me extremely well). I have to imagine that this is already more serious than many viewers, but it's missing the most key ingredient which is a lack of direct experience to 'check' Leo's teachings for myself which then also allows one to holistically integrate said experience (as opposed to trying to integrate some kind of 'teaching' on face value which often ended up with me just misunderstanding the teaching).

I know Leo does say in many videos and on the forum to not accept his teachings as dogma and to validate the teachings for oneself, but I have to say, this disclaimer is really all for naught given the rhetorical style of Leo's videos. Leo's videos can be viewed as some kind of lecture/persuasive essay where Leo will walk you through an insight (it's premise, meaning, significance, maybe even an exercise, etc.) and explain some logic and reasoning behind it while addressing natural counter arguments. This is all good for a semi-intellectual discussion about an insight, but in my opinion and experience, this is antithetical to inspiring viewers to do serious spiritual work. The videos are presented as if spiritual work is some kind of 'intellectualizing activity' where one considers premises, logic, and counterarguments to try to build up to some intellectual conclusion to the point where even if there is a disclaimer to not turn spirituality into some kind of intellectual game, any sensible viewer would think otherwise.

However, I do understand that there does need to be some amount of appealing to viewers' intellectual minds as most people wouldn't accept any teaching unless there was some kind of intellectual basis. Likewise, I can't say I know how to fix said "teachings", after all, teaching this kind of stuff is incredibly tricky and nuanced already (where Leo truly does do a phenomenal job). I will say though, I would appreciate if Leo could integrate this disclaimer about "not accepting his teachings as dogma" and "not turning insights into just an intellectual game" into the content of his teachings, rather than as a side note, such that a listener would have the right idea even if they never heard the disclaimer. I don't think this is pandering to a lower audience, after all even very serious and earnest people will have misunderstandings when such a key point is relegated to a one-off statement here and there, where understandably, it would be cumbersome and repetitive to reiterate this disclaimer any more than once. One possibility would be to do less of the "intellectual explaining" (relying on your audience to not be so naive that they need intensive intellectual coaxing), and more getting to the 'core' of the insight and how one might be able to integrate the understanding in grounded ways. Would love to hear feedback though on this entire perspective.