Defense of Leo's harsh style & why you should Love him, not expect him to be loving

[Inliytened1]

14 minutes ago, zurew said:

Thats the best formula to make this place a cult (ignore and not just that but ban everyone who has even a slight disagreement about Leo or about his teachings). It seems that you really quickly changed your position on this, because in the other thread you were making some criticisms yourself. 

Its pathetic to say that this forum is about self development and about growth when criticisms can't be made or are not even considered and handwaved away with spiritual excuses and other bullshit.

Also notice that most of the criticisms here are not even about his teachings but about his methods, and about how he delivers those teachings and not just about that, because most of the comments that we have issue with aren't even teachings but random unhinged emotional comments targeted at members (that some of you consider as teachings, and that is obviously bullshit, because those cases he is just  being in a triggered state - calling someone a rat and stuff like that) .

I have criticized the way he talks down to people.  I don't do that personally because its not my style and I don't believe in belittling someone.  I've been belittled in the past and it's degrading and can cause trauma.  So that's not right to do.  However- I will not hesitate to kick you out of here if you don't support this work.

Edited March 18, 2023 by Inliytened1

[Gesundheit2]

6 minutes ago, zurew said:

Also notice that most of the criticisms here are not even about his teachings but about his methods

He seems to get the most triggered when people associate his methods with his teachings, which is quite ironic. One aspect of this is that he says God is Love, but then he acts in (at least seemingly) unloving ways. Then people complain and confront him about that, and then he says you don't understand Love. He makes a distinction between relative and absolute, and discards relative love for absolute love. It's not that hard to understand. People are asking him to be more relative-loving, but apparently he finds that silly only cares about absolute love. I think this is the crux of it.

On a somewhat different note, I think people who try to force or coerce others to share the same perspectives as theirs are actually seeking grounding in company more than anything else.

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Gesundheit2 said:

He seems to get the most triggered when people associate his methods with his teachings, which is quite ironic. One aspect of this is that he says God is Love, but then he acts in (at least seemingly) unloving ways. Then people complain and confront him about that, and then he says you don't understand Love. He makes a distinction between relative and absolute, and discards relative love for absolute love. It's not that hard to understand. People are asking him to be more relative-loving, but apparently he finds that silly only cares about absolute love. I think this is the crux of it.

This is probably part of it and the other part of it is that anything that he says is automatically considered as a teaching by some of the guys here, which is a bullshit and simply not true and is also dangerous. 

If we consider what one of the main mods @Inliytened1 said here, that "if you disagree with any of the teachings then you are out" , then if we combine that with "everything  what he says or posts here is a teaching",  then no one can disagree with him about anything, because that would automatically mean, that that guy is disagreeing with the teachings, but this is bullshit, because not everything what he says is a teaching. The "everything is a teaching" is just weaponised and is a cope to avoid criticism and pushback.

If the defenders acknowledge that not everything what he posts here is a teaching, and some of it is just unhinged, impulsive or even troll behaviour, then you have to accept that in those cases, he was just an asshole. 

If you don't acknowledge that not everything what he posts here is a teaching, then I am very curious about the argument that would establish, why it is necessary to behave the way he did.

 

Imo, a very weird thing to do is to take all the cases where he was offensive towards a forum member, and in some cases dehumanizing (by for instance calling a member a rat) and then try to defend all those cases by putting the label "teaching" on all of those to be able to handwave away everything. Its interesting though that only @Gesundheit2 was the one who tried to engage with some of the criticisms here without changing  the goalpost or without pivoting to a totally different point or discussion. Almost no one made any counter arguments about any of the criticisms.

1 hour ago, Inliytened1 said:

I have criticized the way he talks down to people.  I don't do that personally because its not my style and I don't believe in belittling someone.  I've been belittled in the past and it's degrading and can cause trauma. 

Then we obviously agree on that point. I haven't made any point that would have directly targeted his teachings, I only targeted his methods of teaching and the fact that sometimes he seemingly acknowledge a bad behaviour and then  immediatelly make a rationalization  and an excuse to why he was justified or why is was in the right to do what he did + he weaponises the Absolute and his teachings every time he is cornered with anything. Saying stuff like "you just don't understand" and similar things are used as a justification for his bad behaviour, and a sneaky way to change the goalpost (when at first and from the beginning it was about his methods/delivery of teaching and not about the substance of his teachings)

Whats the best way to handwave everything, and to never engage with any arguments or criticisms? Say that all of that is relative therefore don't hold any water and then with that indirectly justfy all your bad behaviour this way. 

The phrase "absolute love" is also used in a weaponised manner, where it is just assumed that everything what he does comes from the place of Absolute love and therefore considered as a teaching and by that he basically can't do anything wrong or criticised for anything , and that is a super scary position to have and to defend someone with.

You guys need to take a position or at the very least contemplate on what is a teaching and what is not a teaching and on what comes from the place of Absolute love and what comes from the place of relative love: 1) Everything what he does comes from the place of Absolute love therefore it is justified all the time 2) Some of his behaviour comes from the place of relative and selective love, therefore not everything what he does is necessarily justified. If you take the first positon, then you basically assume and say that he is in God mode 24/7, which is imo a very silly, and delusional position to have.

 

This discussion is almost never about the main or important part which is this (that no one , not even one mod have answered yet): Where do you draw the line, when it comes to the ethics between a spiritual teacher and his members? What do you allow Leo to do and where is the point where you say that this is not okay and open your mouth and talk about it?

 

1 hour ago, Sincerity said:

Who the hell looks up to him as "all-powerful God" who doesn't do anything wrong?

Thats the logical extension of all the justifications that some of the guys made here. (like: 1) everything what he does comes from the place of absolute love and is just a teaching, 2) everything is relative anyway guys, so because nothing could be considered objectively bad or wrong, none of your criticisms hold any water [basically putting him on a pedestal in a way, where no ethical standards could be applied to him], 3) he did so much good and give us some many things for free, that you guys shouldn't criticise him or be ungrateful [which said alone makes it so, that as long as he delivers valuable content he can do basically whatever he feels like])

 

Honestly the biggest problem here is not just him saying some bad words here and there, but more about the process how those things are justified and what those justifications entail and about what principles it shows behind all those words. I described above what justification were used and why those are super problematic and how those justifications if accepted could also be used to justify much much worse behaviour as well.

So far the justifications that were used by Leo and by the mods either shows an ethical system that is very prone to abuse or it shows that neither Leo nor the mods have thought deeply about the ethics of  the"relationship  and allowed behaviours between members and the spiritual teacher".

Edited March 18, 2023 by zurew

[Water by the River]

 

"Ken Wilber: The downside comes with people that only use psychedelics or drugs and I found that over the years they just become mean.

It's somehow just kind of closes them down it's like you keep doing it and you keep doing it you keep doing it it doesn't quite cause the transformation.

It can cause a peak experience but generally not a transformative experience and some people like David Deida will say that in order for altered changes of state to contribute to transformation a permanent transformation it has to be basically endogenous and not a exogenous it has to be has your own source

People who do that (Psychedelics) the people that do use both (Meditation and Psychedelics) and use it as a sacrament i think an enormous bit out of it."

As always: Consider the different perspectives and draw your own conclusions.

PS: Lot of Leos work contains extraordinary metaphysical explanations that are in my perspective absolutely marvelous. I wish him permanent happiness, liberation and the bliss of constantly resting in his True Being, that will then radiate as love and compassion.

 

[gettoefl]

2 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

I have criticized the way he talks down to people.  I don't do that personally because its not my style and I don't believe in belittling someone.  I've been belittled in the past and it's degrading and can cause trauma.  So that's not right to do.  However- I will not hesitate to kick you out of here if you don't support this work.

key word is this ... not to be confused with its cousin his

leo should stop talking about this as his ... it is nothing to do with him and he should know better than to claim it as his own

i say give up use of the word my

[Nilsi]

How people complaining about this perceive Actualized.org

[Carl-Richard]

6 hours ago, Jowblob said:

If you would understand consciousness or God or yourself you would find many valid reasons for his behavior at that point

Leo himself has said that this behavior is not ok (read the quotes Gesundheit brought up).

Edited March 18, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Arthogaan]

3 hours ago, Nilsi said:

How people complaining about this perceive Actualized.org

[StarStruck]

This place is becoming a creepy place.

[Bobby_2021]

You are here to learn.

Less time correcting others and wanting them to behave in ways that you like. It's not going to happen.

[Davino]

I have a very strict forward method to know how truthfull a teacher is. 

How much bullshit he receives? 

The more, the better he is.

If at some point they want to kill Leo you know he is arriving at his peak. The ignorance of how sages fit in society historically shines for his absence here. If someone speaks the Truth, he must get bullshit, there is no other way around. 

 

Sidenote:

Intelligence is like a knife. Leo's mind is so trained to dissect and cut through all the bullshit that it's hard to use it or receive it without being cut. It's simply the way things are. Go to a bhakti master and drown in his love if that is your path, or be still in silence if that is your path, but Leo is a sage and that implies a diamond mind that cuts everything and itself.

[Devin]

7 minutes ago, Davino said:

I have a very strict forward method to know how truthfull a teacher is. 

How much bullshit he receives? 

The more, the better he is.

If at some point they want to kill Leo you know he is arriving at his peak. The ignorance of how sages fit in society historically shines for his absence here. If someone speaks the Truth, he must get bullshit, there is no other way around. 

 

Sidenote:

Intelligence is like a knife. Leo's mind is so trained to dissect and cut through all the bullshit that it's hard to use it or receive it without being cut. It's simply the way things are. Go to a bhakti master and drown in his love if that is your path, or be still in silence if that is your path, but Leo is a sage and that implies a diamond mind that cuts everything and itself.

I have a teacher I know you'll love, you probably haven't heard of him, Andrew Tate?

[Bobby_2021]

22 minutes ago, Davino said:

I have a very strict forward method to know how truthfull a teacher is. 

How much bullshit he receives? 

The more, the better he is.

If at some point they want to kill Leo you know he is arriving at his peak. The ignorance of how sages fit in society historically shines for his absence here. If someone speaks the Truth, he must get bullshit, there is no other way around. 

 

Sidenote:

Intelligence is like a knife. Leo's mind is so trained to dissect and cut through all the bullshit that it's hard to use it or receive it without being cut. It's simply the way things are. Go to a bhakti master and drown in his love if that is your path, or be still in silence if that is your path, but Leo is a sage and that implies a diamond mind that cuts everything and itself.

This is the truth. ?

[Stovo]

It's funny because Leo literally says the same shit in his videos that he does here but it comes across 10x worse here because it's in written form. 

Perhaps some feedback for Leo would be to be more mindful of how written communication comes across. 

[Breakingthewall]

I don't understand why it is said so much that leo is so harsh and all that, when he only bans those who have insulted him 20 times in a row, and they have been intentionally acting for a long time to discredit his work. He bans really very few people

[Devin]

38 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

I don't understand why it is said so much that leo is so harsh and all that, when he only bans those who have insulted him 20 times in a row, and they have been intentionally acting for a long time to discredit his work. He bans really very few people

I don't think the grievance is the banning but the personal attacks accompanying them.

[StarStruck]

3 hours ago, Devin said:

I have a teacher I know you'll love, you probably haven't heard of him, Andrew Tate?

People need to learn to stop licking ass and trying to make an idol or demigod out of person. It is just a perspective.

Everybody is just trying to figure life out. With a teacher a better litmus test is this:

The people who say they know everything know nothing, and people who say they know nothing they know everything. 

 

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Devin said:

I don't think the grievance is the banning but the personal attacks accompanying them.

Well, a little emotional outburst after being insulted and repeated 20 times that the work you believe in and give your all to is a scam, it's not something weird. Leo is a guy who explains how to realize the absolute truth. He has done it and he explains to you in the best way he can how to do it, and that's it. He is not a saint, or an example to follow. in fact, there are no examples to follow, all of that is bullshit.

[Davino]

3 hours ago, Devin said:

I have a teacher I know you'll love, you probably haven't heard of him, Andrew Tate?

Put it into proper context please.

You understood me perfectly, everyone that read that quote also understood it correctly. Don't play games with me.

[Danioover9000]

@StarStruck

On 3/17/2023 at 8:36 PM, StarStruck said:

Criticism was not done on this forum but in a YouTube video by British guy who is not a member of this forum. 

 

   Screw that British guy! He is not justified to give a fucking critic of Leo when he himself is deeply a hypocrite! I say Leo actually deserves an annual break from this work and to file lawsuits to those who slander him and his work given the amount of BS flung his way.