Joseph Maynor

@Annie I think part of what has enabled Leo are well-meaning people who want to excuse or deflect these issues from discussion. I can't tell you how many times I was told that his critics are the problem, they're projecting, can't we just lay off Leo and become moral relativists and live and let live! Who's to say, right? This is classic enabling. I'm not saying you're deliberately doing this, and I feel like you are coming from a good place -- but I've seen this same enabling move/archetype over and over again -- an excusing/acceptance move from really examining truth. What's worse the abusive father or the overly submissive mother who conditions/steers her kids not to criticize things? I know we would all love to stick our heads in the sand (or in the clouds) and think of rainbows and butterflies, but there is a time and place in one's development, a kind of masculine attainment where we do discuss things like adults with an aim to unconceal many things, which is honoring truth for real. There are many available aspects within this community, it doesn't need, in my opinion, to be reduced to one theme or focus to the exclusion of other matters/topics of discussion. You can see the variety of threads already available in this young community -- its huge and vast in the sense of having something for everybody. There's nothing stopping anyone on here from creating a thread that doesn't yet exist that helps to widen that already existing discussion for even more personalities to resonate with.

Wow. I gotta say this is very insightful and I appreciate your response. This makes sense because Leo comes from the field of marketing. He started his own Internet marketing business which I recall him saying made him a lot of money. It seems as though his target audience is young men. I know he's done videos advising young people. I don't know much about marketing at all. I think having all these very awake people around Leo for so long also kind of legitimized him because it could be easy to think -- well if these very conscious people are here (in many cases working for him for free), this must mean Leo is very conscious. But in reality they were there because he had the spiritual community. Leo held himself out as the most awake person on the planet and all these other people were there kind of reinforcing that even if it's painful to consider that, even working as his moderators for a long time. It reinforced the impression that Leo was legit as a spiritual teacher to have all those very conscious people support him. Now, many of these people have come to this community, which has been a change to this dynamic. It's true that over the years Leo has banned many highly conscious teachers from his forum and blocked negative comments under his YouTube videos. And it's also true that those working as his moderators didn't do enough to reverse or challenge Leo as to what was occurring. Leo just kept "cracking down" and making several posts since 2017 about how he was going to get tougher and tougher regarding banning people -- and many of the people that were banned were the teachers on there who were questioning what was happening on there. I distinctly recall when Leo started to use the God language and refer to himself as God and I saw this as a huge red flag. There's that notorious post from me on his RationalWiki Page (see SOURCE below) where I called him out on this right at that time, and he just doubled-down on it and went full bore in that direction after that point. This is where things really took a darker turn in 2019 in my opinion. I did not write that RationalWiki article, but that/my forum post is included within it. SOURCE https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/File:Leo_the_prophet.png

The way that Advaita Vedanta uses God, Self, and Truth are very different from how these three words are used in Western Philosophy. Spinoza viewed God as the being corresponding to the whole of reality which he thought is the only substance that truly exists. Spinoza reduces mind to intellect and doesn't really talk about consciousness. Spinoza doesn't use Self in the way Advaita Vedanta does. Spinoza uses truth to signify true ideas, and only God contains all true ideas whereas man's ideas are necessarily inferior and limited compared to God's ideas. Jung uses Self which is interesting -- and for those of you who can make the comparison between Jung's use of the term Self and Advaita Vedanta's use of that word, that would be interesting to flesh out. When people say Truth without qualifying that this is an Eastern Philosophy term, this bugs me, because in the West we typically don't use the word truth that way. It sounds very dogmatic to Western ears to say you're in Truth or whatever. That's not how truth is used in Western philosophy. Truth as a standalone noun is rare in the West. It's often used as an adjective modifying another noun, i.e., a true idea, a true statement, a true belief, etc. The way God is used in Advaita Vedanta is very different from the way it is typically used in the West. Even the Western Idealists tend to use God as more of infinite intellect rather than infinite consciousness. There are exceptions to this, such as, Hegel. But even Hegel has a very intellectual account of God even though he accounts for consciousness too. I'm just riffing here to draw come comparisons. If you want to discuss any of the points raise here deeper, I can go into more instances, examples, details.

It’s like a guy who says I’m better than you so frequently that you actually start to believe it.

I'm sorry. I think I might have misinterpreted your initial post as making the point that Leo steers clear of intoxicated women with the quotes you gave. I think I misinterpreted you. Let me know if you see anything that I don't in this.

@Lester Retsel The way it works is if walk dangerously close to that line and the government (or a private individual in a civil case) comes after you for sexual assault, then you have to prove consent was given, and that depends entirely on circumstances or a question of fact. If the jury finds that the intoxication level was too high considering all the admissible evidence, they can reject the defense of consent. The defendant has to prove consent as a defense to the sexual assault charge or claim. I would worry about anything that vitiates consent if I were engaging in sex with intoxicated strangers.

This is the general rule of law regarding consent for sex and intoxication. https://www.dartmouth.edu/consent/sex_drugs_alcohol/index.html

It's sin city. I love Vegas but it is. Whatever addiction you have, Vegas will find it and exploit it.

@Serenity I agree. But you can't deny that people come to Vegas to party. If you live there and you're practicing pick up there you know you're dealing with a bunch of tourists who are intoxicated with many things. It's the perfect place to target women for one night stands. I could see why someone who wants to practice pick up artistry would move to Vegas to take advantage of this unique situation.

People don't come to Las Vegas for 2 or 3 nights to go to church. This is a city where people come for a few days to party and then to go back home. Leo knows this. I know this. I've been to Vegas numerous times myself. If you're right at the place where partying is happening, and you situate yourself right in that funnel, then it is what it is despite what you might say. Anybody can say anything, but look at their actions. Leo was into pickup back in 2014 as I recall so he knows what he's doing in Vegas. If what you're looking for is sex, Vegas is the place to be. See 10' 30'' timestamp in the below video where Leo explains why he moved to Las Vegas.

He'll come back. I think he's just making a point. We do have a problem with not knowing who's who behind these avatars. It takes a while to figure any online community out. When you're thrown into it without knowing, that's not a good feeling. It's the nature of this technology in or day and age. (I don't know where Dave has been, I haven't seen him on Leo's forum either. I hope he's well.) It takes a while to learn who's behind each avatar and the character of that person too in any online community. There's a lot of good and very well-developed people in this community. Of course someone will likely scoff at me here and make fun of me for trying to seem like some kind of moral high-horse or whatever, and that's totally foreseeable too in my experience. It always happens like a natural reflex for someone to challenge anything that stands tall or sticks its neck out there. It's a way to gain a quick dopamine hit of glory with very little skill needed.

@Lester Retsel We don't who is behind these accounts, so I wouldn't take this single interaction personally or indicative of this community. We've had issues with people trolling on here from Actualized to sabotage or to stir up trouble. I was hoping Adeptus (Rob) would engage with you since he's a smart guy and I figured that discussion might be useful to everyone. I know he lives in Scotland, so he's likely on a little bit later time schedule than we are.

Nevada has a terrible law when it comes to sexual matters. Nevada is notorious for loose laws. But legality does not equal morality. if someone moves to Nevada to take advantage of these loose laws, that could be interpreted as messed up. It depends on the context and the person. Everything needs to be seen and taken as a whole when we judge someone or something. Nevada is kind of a lawless place, which has pros and cons. I enjoy Las Vegas and travel there often. But what good laws do in the form of the Leviathan (as Thomas Hobbes realized, see video below) -- is protect the public/the collective from the predatory individual. The U.S. State of Nevada Consent Law: https://www.shouselaw.com/nv/defense/nrs/200-364-age-of-consent/ https://www.shouselaw.com/nv/defense/legal-defenses/consent/ https://grassodefense.com/las-vegas-age-consent-laws/#:~:text=The age of consent in Nevada is 16.,age of consent is higher. Philosopher Thomas Hobbes on dealing with the issue of how the rational collective might curtail the selfish individual:

Hey Rob. I appreciate your posts. One thing I want to add that I think rankles people is when someone holds themselves out as a spiritual enlightenment teacher as their day job, and then acts in ways that seem to discredit that. But in this case Leo is hurting his own professional reputation most of all. Unless someone wants to argue that teaching guys pick-up artistry techniques (and using them) to get sex is right in line with who/what a professional spiritual enlightenment teacher is or should be doing. Especially in a person who claims to be the greatest spiritual teacher ever (Leo has said this many times) and claims countless "total awakenings". But when you're in business you don't get to decide, it's your market that decides. So, if you radically reframe yourself within a profession you run the risk of moving outside of your market who expects certain things/behaviors from any professional. If I were to sell someone a course on how to get spiritually enlightened ("realize you are God") and to become "completely omniscient" for $1,000 which Leo has floated (see his video below), I would be looking for certain signs that person is qualified as an expert in that field. I suggest people watch the below videos. There is a cringe here as you admitted (I'm not trying to put words in your mouth) -- there's scam radar frankly going off from my perspective, and I think going down that rabbit hole is useful for people to understand what's going on here. If someone is running around manipulating women, how do I know that person is not trying to manipulate me?

@Faith Great post. Lots to consider. Yeah, there's an aspect of ourselves that never changes. I remember asking my dad when I was in college studying philosophy if at his age (I think he was in his late 50's) whether he still felt like the same person and he said yes. There's an aspect of ourselves that never changes. I don't know how I feel about Rupert Spira, but I take everything a bit at a time. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt at first, unless evidence emerges to advise me otherwise. I feel like there are pros and cons and strengths and weaknesses to every perspective including my own. This is why interpersonal development work is important and necessary for personal development work.

@Aware Wolf I remember when Leo released his very first video on spiritual enlightenment. This is very instructive to watch if you want to understand where Leo started in all this in 2015. Notice how conceptual he is in this video -- it's exceedingly conceptual/intellectual. It's very black and white too. He's "talking around" spiritual enlightenment a lot and he confidently assumes he has the "one right answer" even at this early stage in his path. He makes himself out to be the expert even though he is still young on the path. It's the same person/personality throughout all the changes of clothing. We're all like this too.

This is the elephant in the room the issue you raise. It shows the dangers of the use of psychedelics on the path. I've used many psychedelics myself, but I never came to the kinds of conclusions Leo has. Psychedelics are just one tool on the path. There are many other tools. You must remain humble, exploratory, open, and patient to gather them as they emerge over time. Everybody wants a fast enlightenment. Obviously, that's what someone is going to try to sell you too who knows something about sales and marketing. It's a category mistake ultimately. Sadhguru calls this "mortgaging your sense". You could also call it commodifying spiritual enlightenment to make money. Some of these structural issues must be seen like someone's need to earn a living in the "field" of spiritual enlightenment, and how that structures many things down the chain including the behaviors we see from individuals, and so on. The desire to sell a magic pill to people to become spiritually enlightened is totally foreseeable and totally shallow in hindsight. But young people, or people young on the path, are going to be influenced by these things without understanding some of the larger structures at work, and without having the experience to know. I don't think Leo himself knew. He was basically documenting his own spiritual enlightenment journey until he decided to coronate himself as the "one right" teacher. Again, the problem with the student shape-shifting into the teacher based on their own authority. That can be problematic as we know via the benefit of hindsight. I appreciated the two below videos from our friend Rob. I've done DMT, LSD, Psilocybin Mushrooms, Salvia Divinorum, many times, but haven't done 5-MEO-DMT. I just want to say what I've experienced and what I haven't to be honest because I understand/foresee my own bias.

@Forza21 I think what Leo misses is he thinks his finite consciousness is Brahman. So when he hears Atman = Brahman he takes it that way. But what that really means is the underlying consciousness behind all finite consciousness/finite beings is God or the Self. The human's mind is not the Self. And someone please correct me here if I'm wrong. Basically Advaita Vedanta makes room for all consciousness containing beings because all of them share in God or the Self. This is not solipsism. Solipsism would be assuming that your finite consciousness is God and then assuming everything else is a part of you. That's not what Advaita Vedanta is saying. Advaita Vedanta makes space for other conscious beings to exist. I'm glad so many of you are into Advaita Vedanta. Isn't it wonderful! The art too.

If you look at some questionable spiritual teachers, they were that way before they got into spiritual enlightenment. They were that same guy or gal just now in different clothes, spiritual clothes. It's amazing how much we don't change, but we bullshit ourselves and others by manipulating appearances. I'm pretty much the same guy I was before I got into any of this stuff too. I think we think somehow a person can change dramatically/drastically just because they changed a suit of clothes. It's not so easy to change your personality. I think this is one of the keys to understanding spiritual bypassing. Just because your awareness is enhanced doesn't mean that you're going to be able to modify your conduct so easily. Think of all the times you knew you should do something but could never bring yourself to do it. We all have deep habitual behavioral patterns that control us. We hate to think this way though and want to believe if we change our suit of clothes that we can change our actions. But then you realize -- nothing has changed.

We're all balancing a tightrope between our own finite perspective and also serving the whole or the infinite perspective. You just don't see that in everybody due to the selected information that passes online. People can feign a kind of perfection nowadays because nobody can see them in all their being-in-the-world. So we lie! We conceal. We abstract. We present the best side of ourselves -- what we think will get us ahead or a cookie. We pretend, we front. We're not honest, and it really exists on a spectrum and has a lot to do with how developed you are (on some level); how independent of money you are, and how good you are, which depends on many factors not decided by "you" alone. Schopenhauer was onto this issue of "will" driving things from an absolute perspective. Those of you who are interested in exploring this should check out the below video. You can see how many of the existentialists were reacting to the issues that Schopenhauer raised that didn't go away/die in the West.

@Iesu Because the laziest and least-aware people are going to take "there is no definition in any dictionary for the word gullible" as a fact and internalize that. For that reason alone I would not transfer that meme in seriousness, but I might do it to make a point, which I give Leo the benefit of the doubt of doing. But that meme that there is no definition of gullible minimizes/suppresses awareness of the the concept/word "gullible." It suppresses/represses it. It was a red flag for me and I'm not sure what to make of it. You might not want gullible people to know what "gullible" means. Think about it! I'm not saying Leo is doing this though. I see many things, and this is just something I noticed and wanted to share. If I wanted to scam or con you I wouldn't want you to look up the word "gullible" in any dictionary, online or otherwise. That would not be in my interest. "Gullible" means "easily duped or cheated".

@Iesu His newest video is good too. He's growing a lot and is already very developed too. He has teachings that I've never seen anywhere else. I enjoy relating with him. The second video is Lewis Waller's newest video on YouTube star Mr. Beast which gets into the topic of business in postmodernity which we've got to understand to make sense of the bigger picture of things. I enjoy relating with him as well and have learned much from his work.