MetaSage

I don't understand this negative connotation that is given to "objectifying". Bodies themselves are held as objects in our culture. Bodies seem to be objects, in fact. Your own body in fact is considered to be an object by no other than you! Just an existential consideration not directly related to the theme of this thread. I just thought it would be useful to open up the discussion a bit and be more honest.

Holding a negative future. Creating a hopeful image of the future dissipates depression.

it’s a joke

Phil, When can the book list and especially the book be expected? Some of us are salivating over it xD

Ideas to change our culture

Wishing is not enough. “If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.” You have to do something. Commit to a course of action and be patient. Create the person and circumstances that allow you to achieve what you want. Use intelligence and creativity. Go at it soberly and diligently, like a monk would do. And don’t take me too seriously, I’m a guy on the internet. Live your life as you want.

Doctor Strange is awesome. A new one is gonna be released soon. In the first one you can see Stan Lee reading The Doors of Perception, by Huxley. It’s always mystical and psychedelic.

If you’re already vaccinated, I assume you’ll be fine. Cold showers help me breathe better and feel my whole body; they may help you relax and rest, too. Not a doctor. Besides, I have no fucking idea. ;)

Why caffeine?

Thanks

Appreciate it

I’m in both places at once. Hallelujah! lol

“You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.” I think he recently changed it.

Yeah. I dislike him putting his personal name in his profile’s signature: “…You are Leo.” His ego may have taken over in that expression. Or I’m misinterpreting something.

Could you clarify?

That sounds great. You’re probably right in that a lot of stuff is done in the name of enlightenment which really isn’t, even if it is beneficial to an individual or a collective. Besides, there really isn’t much straightforward communication on this aspect. About enlightenment: no, I don’t think so. Enlightenment is becoming deeply and directly conscious of the absolute nature of existence, I hear tell. That includes You. I think that not enough attention is put on the inverse attitude, which is playing coy, not being explicit about what you’re conscious of. You may as well ask Eckhart Tolle if he’s conscious of being God. I anticipate that, in order not to cause trouble for himself, he’ll answer no. Society at large is not open to individuals claiming they’re God.

I recall he’s also said that you are God. At times, as you point out, his ego certainly seems like it has taken over (with arrogant remarks and the like). He may say you are the truth and then say “I’m the greatest” or something. I don’t know, let Leo deal with his life. Hopefully he’ll polish up/change his communications so that his ego doesn’t stand in the way. No shortage of gurus. :D

Playing devil’s advocate for fun: Liking a teacher is irrelevant when it comes to his enlightenment. The world can dislike you yet that wouldn’t invalidate one’s consciousness of the truth. What I’m pointing up is a failure to create the distinction between “self” or personality (what we’re referring to as Leo in this case) vs enlightenment, which may be valid and true. I mean, he strikes me as a transparent, smart guy—maybe too transparent sometimes. What we’re left with are his assertions, as with any other teacher. The Islamic guy who claimed “I am the Truth!” was killed for “heresy.” How arrogant, uh? In short, anyone can become enlightened and you don’t have to like her personality. A judgmental attitude will make you discard many teachers whose private lives you don’t know. This is a mistake, imo. Many are comfortable playing the role of teacher with its subsequent expected behavior patterns and mannerisms. So they adopt a soothing, slow voice and have to avoid being seen angry, bored or impatient. How different would a teacher be if you knew her intimately? How would your image of her change? Radically different, most likely. Just a human on the surface, with his own private life, dysfunctions, negative and positive traits, controversial opinions, etc. So what? In the end, we’re talking about different things. Find a guru whose personality you strongly dislike. Now: What difference does that make? The actuality of enlightenment still exists for him, regardless of our expectations and assumptions about how teachers should be. Playing from both perspectives here.

@Adeptus Psychonautica Well, yes. Overall, I agree. Listening to other teachers is more effective then. For a ruthlessly honest guy, I recommend Vernon Howard.

Alan Watts and Chogyam Trungpa were alcoholics The Buddha shat and ate and probably wasn’t a good cook. :D Gandhi was a womanizer Nissargadatta smoked cigarettes like crazy Adi Da looked like a stoned cult leader and yet Ken Wilber said he’s the most awakened guru he’s ever met Osho liked cars, a lot ;) See? You can be enlightened and do X or Y. They still have a self, with a body, a mind, preferences, opinions, etc. They don’t stop being humans; they can still fuck up and do stupid things. For example, Ramaji, presumably enlightened, voted for Trump. Leo has valid and useful communications, and then there’s his personal shit. So, the teacher and the persona behind the teacher are different. People easily confuse those two. Seems to me that being either in favor of, or against, a teacher misses the point. Simply listening to what the teacher says is best, if you want. To be clear, I’m not implying blind acceptance, but openness (if you’ve previously decided for yourself that he is to be trusted). I don’t understand why a guru must behave in a way predetermined by students’ expectations of “enlightened” individuals.

I’m open that Leo may have had profound enlightenment experiences. By their nature, communications about enlightenment are bound to be easily misunderstood and misinterpreted even if expressed lucidly. I think the rest is irrelevant. I don’t know why you care so much. You spend so much time with these sorts of arguments that you may be equally involved in Leo’s persona as his “fanatics.”

Okay

@Joseph Maynor I was simply going to convey a very similar message as the one above. Not directed to you in particular. I don’t care about arguing who’s the “right” or better person. Some people show arrogance but maybe a communication can have value beyond the individual that is doing it, regardless of how it sounds. People confuse the person with the communication, and think that since they dislike the person, then the communication is false or unworthy. That includes believing in him because you like the teacher or how the communication sounds. The point is to watch out for self-bias and to be open. It’s more about getting yourself (your biases, preferences, etc.) out of the equation as much as possible. I have yet to contemplate what listening is, but what’s above sounds like a good beginning for me.

Nice. I watched it a couple years ago and liked it, too. There’s also one of Bodhidharma, another Zen master. Recommended.

Was going to say the same.