Aware Wolf

I've taken the bodhisattva vow -- so it was the compassionate thing to do. My live-in gf was upset though -- but she isn't a bodhisattva.

Well look up the fascinating story of Lama T Lobsang Rampa... Not a Tibetan, not a Lama, but a white guy from Devon UK.

Osho is my favorite bad boy guru. Osho is S Tier (highet). Leo is Tier F (lowest). Osho was a philosophy professor. I don't know -- did Leo even graduate? Osho had some good teachings, wrote many books. How many books has Leo written? I like Osho's three C's: Consciousness, Compassion, and Creativity. I also think his Free Sex was brilliant. Osho had Sheela who was ruthless in achieving goals. I think a better comparison for Leo is Bentinho Massaro. Bentinho has a center now, girlfriends, and seems to be bringing in the dough. So maybe Leo could make it as a cult leader. People aren't so discerning for gurus. See the documentary "Kumare" about an Indian - American guy who fakes being a guru and starts getting students. Hear all the people talk about the "guru bliss" they feel with him.

@Indisguise Funny I just went on a walk and was listening to Samaneri Jayasara Youtube channel and her audios of these oxherding pictures. VIII. Forgetting Both Person and Ox Preface: He has shed all worldly feelings and erased all thought of holiness. He does not linger where the Buddha is; he hurries right past where the Buddha is not. As he does not cling to either side, not even the thousand-eyed one can find him. Birds flocking around bearing flowers– that would be a disgraceful scene. I like the last line and find it kinda humorous.

Spiritual levels are Great ! /s They provide carrots and competition. Of course the teacher has mastered all levels. Spiritual levels are concepts. They put the Absolute into a neat box that consumers can understand. They add fuel for delusion. I think I'm a level 3 on Culadasa's map of enlightenment, but sometimes I'm level 4. Good days I've had level 5. Maybe I'm being too hard on myself and I'm really a level 5. Do other people outside of the System (Copyright) have the same meditation or spiritual experience as those within the system? Hardly ever. Is the Culadasa System and Map True? Sadhguru's? Ken Wilbur's? Raniere's NXIVM model? Is Scientology's? Is Leo pointing us all towards levels of consciousness and understanding we've never even dreamed of, like he says? Sure. My POV is that there's a selfing going on. Some days a large self (if there's anger or jealousy), somedays a smaller self (compassion and altruism). It's an illusion and somedays the illusion or mirage may be more apparent than other days. That's fine. It is what it is. Consciousness is the movie screen upon which everything plays. The play will change. Feelings, thoughts, insights, wisdom, clarity -- unveil upon the movie screen. Sometimes more wisdom dealing with a car problem, sometimes less wisdom inviting a stripper to live at my house. If my dog dies, unlike what Leo thinks that I should be perfectly okay with it (this is spiritual bypassing and disassociation) -- instead I'm sad and grieve for the loss.

God most likely is way beyond any of our concepts of Her. My working definition for God (also for Brahmin, Rigpa, Buddha Nature, Emptiness) -- ultimate reality. Yes, the bad part of me thinks that there is such a thing "God Consciousness" that c*nts will proudly tell me they've realized at the Vegan cafe before pedantically lecturing me about the dangers of vaccines and 5G. I find such statements a bit on the reeky side. What do it even mean? Can they display any siddhis? Can they even change the color of a one hair on their head? Do they have any insights beyond Absolute nondual cliches? Are they parroting some Internet Arahant guru? Sometimes I help myself to their French fries to see what God Level Consciousness does. Do people have spiritual experiences. Absolutely. Can they be transformative? Yes. Can they lead to a new insight and relationship and perspective with themselves. Yes. What does a legit God Realization, Emptiness, Brahmin, Rigpa, Total Universal Primordial Consciousness, Buddha Nature Realized individual look like? What do they think? What do they believe? Is there a set of perennial foundational beliefs, or is it depends? Does a yoga awakening look the same as a zen one as an Advaita Vedanta one or a Neo Advaitin one? Would one system recognize an awakened master from a different system? Is it climbing up the same mountain using different paths or are they different mountains? Is it one crystal with many different facets? What's the Endgame? The Dalai Lama says he's a simple monk. Leo Gura says he's God and can cure all diseases.

Grats Man! I'm happy to see you've released the thorn in your side which was your obsession with Solipisism. Ah, you saying your home reminds me of this:

I think @Phil has a point when he says @Forza21is touching a hot stove. We've discussed this on the other thread. But it's nice to have a stand alone thread and deal with this. But I get the feeling @Forza21 is suffering dealing with this question. My suggestion, as pedantic as it sounds, was watch ten more advaita youtube videos and things would become more clear. It's like when someone thinks Buddhists sing Hare Krishna, dance around in robes, and think an ant was their mother and life is suffering. If these people will Watch some good Buddhist videos (I like Doug's Dharma) and the picture becomes more clear. Solipsism is rarely if ever mentioned in advaita vedanta videos. Sometimes perhaps in passing. And in the earlier thread, when Swami Sarvapriyananda mentioned the word Solipsism, later he says: I see it as he says at 17:50, Paraphrasing: we're not saying one person, Aware Wolf, is projecting all of this World. What we're saying is all of us, all of us wakers, are projections of one Turiyem. Which you really are. All of us are appearing in that consciousness. There's this video, Enlightenment and Love by Swami Sarvapriyananda. Perhaps it could be helpful. As Love counters the disassociation of No Self (and No Others) or Solipsism. I like the book by Dennis Waite, Back To The Truth: 5000 Years Of Advaita. It's a thick book, but tries to explain everything in clear language. James Swartz also The Essence of Enlightenment. It's also good. Advaita Vedanta is different from Neo Advaita because Advaita Vedanta stresses the need for a good well-qualified teacher. Otherwise, you're liable to go wrong. Swami TV told me if a teacher doesn't detail where they studied Vedanta and under who -- run away as fast as possible. Our root problem, Advaita says, is ignorance. The solution lies in removing ignorance. I bring this up because of the article you shared. Who is Tom Das? Where did he study Vedanta? Under who? I looked at his About Me and all I see is that he read some books. You know who also read some books, quoted Ramana for his Solipsism video? (out of context) -- Leo Gura. Hope this helps. If you watch ten videos of swami Sarvapriyananda, Look at Arsha Boda videos (I recommend their Introduction to Vedanta series and Atma Boda playlists), watch the James Swartz retreat videos that @Faithliked, if you read those two books I recommended -- I'll eat my hat if you come back here and post that Advaita Vedanhas has a solipsistic problem....

well, I'll try an experiment. Can I say the opposite and it still be true? God, Brahman, Pure Consciousness, Buddha Nature -- EXPERIENCES EVERYTHING. It's pure and unpure. Holy and unholy. Formless and Form. The Formless is Form as the Heart Sutra says. Infinite and Finite. Both in time and outside of it. Does a dog have Buddha nature? The response in a koan was an emphatic MU! (NO) But how can this be as in a sutta we're told all being have Buddha nature? This Mu Koan is considered a "breakthrough" koan. In that solving it often shows the student has achieved kensho. (NO!). In another koan, the answer was a YES. There's this verse too: Has a dog Buddha-nature? This is the most serious question of all. If you say yes or no, You lose your own Buddha-nature.

I am reminded of a philosopher, initials KW. I have never been a fan. Sometimes reading him I have been unsure if he's a genius -- or a fool. Now I'm probably more on the fool side, since he makes careless mistakes in his writing. If he mangles badly a story from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and gets the story wrong like an episode of Drunken History -- why should I trust him that he's he's concocted the future perfect religion in his Religion of Tomorrow: A vision for the future of the great traditions--more inclusive, more comprehensive, more complete -- as the book blurb tells me. Okayyy. But there's meat with KW. There's a solid attempt here. Then there's the Tibetan lama, T Lobsang Rampa. A fascinating story of the author of The Third Eye, one of the first books (1956!) on Tibetan Buddhism written by someone who claimed to be a Tibetan Lama. Instead, he was a plumber from Devon, a white guy! Later books include his, "My Trip to Venus" where Lobsang hijacks a flying saucer he finds on the Tibetan plateua. There's also a book dictated to him by his pet Siamese cat. It's easier to discard T Lobsang Rampa than KW. There's probably legit philosophy guys who still like KW. Not so much with T Lobsang Rampa. He was a hit and hugely popular because at the time there wasn't much known about Tibetan Buddhism and people had little knowledge that it was mostly all bullshit. But a good story. Leo Gura is more like T Lobsang Rampa. Most of Actualized org fanboys are young, white, males with little spiritual experience. They may have read Eckhart Tolle and then found Leo on the Internet. Leo Gura is just a dude. He gets an awful lot wrong. He badly mangles even basic zen in his video on the zen oxherding pictures. He has no idea on how no mind in zen works. But that doesn't stop him from lecturing on it and leading people badly astray. He engages in faulty logic. I've detailed and other have too myriad examples on this thread. His "How To be Funny" video is cringe. Leo simply is not funny. Although it's funny in a cringe way. I doubt his video on financial advice would be considered well done by anyone who does financial help. I wouldn't even trust his video on his soup is any good. I think it's just soup. I don't tink Leo has written any book despite being such a high teacher more evolved and awakened than anyone before -- because his schtick doesn't translate well into print. What are his insights? What are his teachings? -- I don't see much even coherent much less anything profound. Perhaps I'm wrong -- so let's consider Leo's standing in the spiritual and philosophical world. What do other people think? Oh. He's not considered shit? No one treats Leo as a legitimate teacher (higher than Buddha and Jesus)? He's a joke? HIs followers have bad repuations at dharma centers, monasteries, and ashrams -- because often they're resistant towards instruction and have trouble following rules because they think they know it all?

I see it as he says at 17:50, Paraphrasing: we're not saying one person, Aware Wolf, is projecting all of this World. What we're saying is all of us, all of us wakers, are projections of one Turiyem. Which you really are. All of us are appearing in that consciousness.

Not to quibble. But the author uses the watchmaker argument. This has been refuted. He also says something can't come from nothing. But quantum theory says you can. https://medium.com/@jordanflagel/how-something-came-from-nothing-d4c3009b49f3 Maybe there's a god, maybe not. How do we define God? Spinoza's god? A talk with a Christian author on the problem of suffering, he told me he saw God as similar to Avalokitishvara, the Buddhist bodhisattva of compassion. Not omniscient or all powerful. Interesting. However we define God most likely we will be wrong. God is beyond our concept of h*m. And evidence or proof of God seems elusive.

You didn't read what I wrote. Please read more carefully. This in no way addresses what I said. So a state government steps in and sets up guidelines. Many states already have this in place. I know in my state a student already had the right to bring in legal counsel. They already could ask questions and cross examine. But ya, sure. good for Kentucky. Do police next. And military for sexual harrassment/rape problem. Again, if you ask someone, who is more open to other points of view: 1) A college graduate or 2) Someone who thinks colleges are liberal indoctrination and brain washing students -- Most people would choose #1. It's such a Right Wing cliche, oh universities are BRAINWASHING our kids! lol, I think universities are one of the few areas left that aren't controlled by the Right wing. Local schools, check. Police, military, churches, -- check. It's too bad there's not much due process in Right Wing controlled organizations, huh? I don't see you crying crocodile tears about how Police investigate themselves on complaints and how a citizen who complains about police misconduct find the deck badly stacked against them. I don't see Kentucky rushing to pass any laws protecting a citizen's due process and right to not be beaten, killed, or harassed by police. It's funny how the right wing gets its panties in a wad over the due process rights of an accused sexual predator at universities -- but when it's military that has a huge issue with the due process rights of sexual assault victims in the military -- there's crickets. Or they say, well boys will be boys. Or Russia envy -- the Russian military doesn't do sexual harrassment seminars!

I thought of Autism as a possibility too. I wrote this in my journal: A friend pointed out a video on Leo’s Blog, Adventures in Vegas 4, where he walks around a loud dance club, filming himself. He is smiling and nodding, but it’s weird not only because his nodding is not in time to the music – there’s a lack of any self-awareness of how hilarious he is. This is where I began to think Leo is on the Spectrum. See for yourself: https://www.actualized.org/insights/adventures-in-vegas-part-4 It reminds me a bit of an SNL skit, with grandmaster level head nodding: Jim Carrey head dance song SNL "What is love"

There was a Stephen King book and series (more than one) where dualing forces setup in the US. The good force sets up in Boulder, Colorado. The bad force sets up in Las Vegas.

@Joseph Maynor It's kinda sad a new person comes here, tries out the forum, and leaves.

We live in a world that indoctrinates. News, marketing, social media. It's ridiculous to single out universities. There's actually quite a bit of due process. There's often many levels of judicial boards. The due process may end with state universities with the Governor of the State. After that, people are free to try the courts. Universities can be criticized for many things, but a lack of due process isn't one of them. I think you're right in some cases Universities can indoctrinate. Maybe students become less racist, more open, reflective, and open to other points of view. In many cases, people have a good university experience and start to question long-held beliefs. I remember a few years ago, Texas wanted to outlaw "Critical Thinking" classes because they might teach students to question what their parents taught them and their beliefs. As a recent Republican presidential candidate said, "I love the poorly educated!" I'm watching "Super Pumped" about Uber who had a history of harrassing women employees. HR was no help. Uber got sued. Anyway, any organization has to struggle with dating, relationships, and harrassment just as universities do. Some companies take an easy road and just ban any intra company relationships, because it can get complicated. Although a ton of people meet through work and start successful relationships. Universities, unless they're ultra religious, can't ban relationships. So it gets complicated. And so you have college workshops urging students to get consent at EVERY stage of sexual progression. Then there's Bill Burr. Often comedians function as truth-tellers in a society. He brings up the "No means NO!" and in his bit, say's that's not really true... I love the 'you get a BAD READ in court" ... Certainly rapicious capitalism doesn't treat young minds any better. Police stopping a black person -- I don't see Black people getting the benefit of due process. The police, military, churches are indoctrination factories too but somehow Right Wingers don't have a problem with them. It's only when the Right Wing doesn't like the beliefs that there's an issue.

From Google: "Does kissing someone count as assault? Yes. This includes any unwanted touching of a sexual nature such as kissing, fondling, oral sex or intercourse." Is a kiss without consent? Often, people think that only forced intercourse, or rape, is really sexual assault, but any sexual activity performed without permission constitutes sexual assault. This can include kissing, exhibitionism (showing someone your genitals without permission), groping, and rape. * My take is that unless the person has given explicit consent, it can be considered an assault. Does that mean all the kissing of strangers on New Year's Eve by tradition is an assault ? -- probably but unlikely you'd be charged with assault. I googled and found this: https://www.instyle.com/politics-social-issues/andrew-cuomo-forced-kissing-sexual-assault It talks about how the New Year's Eve tradition and Surprise Kiss are movie tropes. When I saw Leo's nightclub video it struck me too as cringe. It's not behavior one thinks of when they envision an Totally Awakened God Conscious person. Leo claims God Consciousness but scavenges around a Las Vegas dance club in search of sensuality and makes out with bar hags. Huh. Universities wrestle with the consent dilemma. It's one thing I suppose to kiss someone at the end of the second date. It's another when a girl is walking back to her room, a guy forces her against the wall, and shoves his tongue down her mouth, then laughs with his friends. Both are kisses. Maybe they're both unwanted. WIthout explicit consent you don't know. I think most of us might be okay with the first kiss, the second date scenario, but think the second one is clearly more like sexual assault. But why this is, is hard to put into university guidelines. Certainly someone agreeing to go on a date isn't necessarily consenting to anything sexual. What if the second date guy, makes an excuse to get her up to his room, throws her on the bed and starts groping and kissing? You get how tricky, contextual, it all could be. If I'm drunk at a Las Vegas club, and Leo came up and kissed me -- I'd take it serious. It might not end well for Leo.

I too am chuffed to see this Advaita Vedanta discussion. Thank you for the thread. I'd like further discussions on Advaita Vedanta. My take on Leo getting Ramana's quote so very wrong is that Leo doesn't care a whit about what Advaita Vedanta thinks. Leo is Leo. Leo expounds Leoism. He has no lineage, no teacher, no exteneded retreat time. Leo read a lot of books. Leo in his taken-down video on Solipsism claims his teachings can be scientifically validated because they are reproducible. Because he's done multiple drug trips and got the same insight and findings each time.That He is God. Okayyy. This is when I started yelling at the screen, "Doesn't work this way, Bucko!" -- you can't use your drug fest fueled insights as "scientific" evidence. (right, @Adeptus Psychonautica ?) -- even if you have them repeatedly. Geezus. I don't quite get how his Leoism works. If it's Solipsistic and he's God -- what's the point of him trying to teach us anything? Solipsism, can be a belief The cosmos sprang into existence when you became sentient, and it will vanish when you die....There's only Leo and His Mind. It seems peculiar then he gets upset when people leave his forum, start another, and will ban people who make an account on the rival forum. If he's really god, he created all this. Why teach at all if it's just you? In Leoism, Are we or are we not gods? assume by the way he teaches that he's teaching a path to God consciousness. Which would seem to indicate that we're all god, we just don't know it yet. But this isn't solipsism. Is Leo's version of Solipsism different and allow for other beings? I don't know if there are any answers to the questions I bring up here. I suspect Leo is just confused. Even if he's not, he's not communicating it very well and that's something he's supposed to be good at. @Joseph Maynor thanks for the Leo early video link. If I watch Leo -- sometimes I feel like I have to take a shower afterwards. Instead I could watch Samanari Jayasara of someone's classic work of someone who know's what they are talking about.

Basically that's what I believe also. There's an Ultimate Reality. Mahayana Buddhists call it Buddha Nature. Zen people may call it Mu. But there's tons of names for it. Forest monks call it Original Mind. Dzogchenpas, Rigpa. Advaitins, Brahman. All beings have (are) Buddha Nature. All beings are Brahman. The greeting, Namaste, means something like "I greet the Divinity that is inside you." Leo errs when he quotes Ramana's "There are no others." For solipsism support. If he's using it to buttress his Solipsism it's out of context. Very careless to do this. Leo is no scholar. Part of any good author is to build trust with the reader. Here Leo is playing too fast and loose. Think of a clay pot. There appears to be many types of clay pots. Yet there is only clay. There appears to be others, but there is only Brahman. There are no others. This is what Ramana meant. One can google "Ramana There are no others, and there's a lot of discussion on it. I think Ramana used gold instead of clay here. All that one gives to others one gives to one’s self. If this truth is understood who will not give to others? . - Ramana What exists in truth is the Self alone. The world, the individual soul, and God are appearances in it like silver in mother-of-pearl. These three appear at the same time, and disappear at the same time. The Self is that where there is absolutely no “I” thought. That is called “Silence”. The Self itself is the world; the Self itself is “I”; the Self itself is God; all is Siva, the Self. - Ramana

What is true? What is real? Sam Harris says we should want our beliefs to be true and that basically the closer our beliefs map onto Reality, the less we'll be bumping into hard objects. We should constantly be checking for new evidence and better arguments. If I was abducted by aliens and had an abduction experience.... If when I woke up there was no physical or other evidence. I would be cautious to make such a bold claim that I was abducted by aliens. Maybe it happened. Maybe not. I would first get a physical checkup. I would want to rule out any physical cause, e.g., a brain tumor. Maybe it was a false experience. Maybe it was a dream. I should look for conforming -- or disconfirming evidence. I would be cautious if I decided to put my experience out there. I would try to present myself in a down-to-earth way. I would use simple declarative sentences and be ultra careful that my story and answers are 100% accurate. If someone asks me if I've had therapy, I'll admit to it, that I've talked to a therapist for situational depression. I'm mindful of how people who claim alien abductions can come across. Leo, Ingram, Yang, Sadhguru, Bentinho, etc etc -- are often very careless with facts. They get a lot of stuff wrong. If they are so careless (or lying) to get basic stuff wrong, why should I believe them when it comes to their larger claims? The parallel for my alien abduction example is for people who claim some sort of total enlightenment or special attainment. 99% of those who make such a claim are lying, crazy, delusional, grifting or predators. Why put yourself in such a rogue's gallery of characters?

I'm following my guidelines that if I talk on Advaita Vedanta I'll sound like a fool... :-) BTW, this is something some people (Leo Gura) have no problem doing videos on subjects that are outside their expertise. I like this next video. It's by a zen guy and he puts in "True Self" for "Brahman" . Whatever. Words! The world is illusory, Only Brahman is real. You are Brahman.

LOL. Okay S Tier Bad Guru Boss level: Osho. Osho is my candidate for premier bad boy guru. I've met disciples of his and they lived at Rajneesh Puram Oregon. But of course they weren't aware of all the bad stuff going on. Many times they still like Osho and blame it all on Sheela, his secretary. Wild, Wild Country is a great series. Leo would be way down lowest Tier F category, I think. For a guru, there's no free love, no sex scandals, no finanacial scandals, no physical or sexual abuse.Perhaps because Leo doesn't have an ashram. There's only so much damage you can do with an Internet Forum and your fans being horny guys who need to be hosed down. If we rated gurus only on their forums, Leo Gura would def be a higher tier.

Exactly. Words have power, which is why no one uses the "N Word" If Leo said he was at a "Clear" level -- this would signal something different and people would have different reactions that what he does claim: Total God Consciousness, Omniscience, and ability to cure all disease. If someone calls themself a pastor and teaching Christianity and they're good teachings. Fine. But if he calls himself The Messiah and claims power of angelic legions....well this is like a Red Flag. There's a lot of stories of cults that end tragically with these words. Who was Keith Raniere? THE VANGUARD Who was Osho? BHAGAVAN (which means God) Who is Bentinho Massaro? A Level 8 God Being (Jesus and Buddha only being level 7s) Who is Frank Yang? THE ARAHANT Words. But you might want to hold onto your pocketbook and not drink the Kool Aid....

Ya, that's what drives Buddhists a bit mad. Ingram and Yang use a Buddhist framework to buttress their claims. The term Arahant has a specific definition in the tradition. Even if you want to be broad in what an Arahant can or cannot do, an Arahant is on the same level as a Buddha. Both Ingram and Yang talk about Jhana and use Buddhist maps and concepts as evidence of their attainment. However. Like I said, they get a ton wrong. I could go into detail here. Google Analayo's review of Ingram's book and you'll see a scholarly article that is a take-down of Ingram. Perhaps one example might suffice. Ingram uses his dreams as evidence he's cleared high levels of Buddhist insight. Let’s play a game -- I’ll give the Daniel dream or experience and you guess the Insight knowledge Daniel obtained: 1) a dream of a witch zapping things with her wand; 2) A dream of being a Gerbil on a wheel and seeing God; 3) Being on a hike, legs tired, shoulders hunched. It’s funny. Here’s a guy, a MD, so he’s obviously educated. He writes a book that’s readable enough. He delves into meditation maps and stages with technical fury. Yet, he gives the most juvenile responses for his Insight Experiences. What is this, a joke? You saw a witch? Little green men? Fairies? No joke -- Ingram gives watching TV as leading to high equanimity. This can drive Buddhists a bit batty. If Ingram and Yang claimed to be "A Grand Poobah" -- no one would care. The nice thing about Neo Advaita and their awakenings is that they're not hijacking some other traditions definition of what it means to be awakened. If you take some Ramana and Nisargadatta books and put yourself in a cabin for a month, you can come out awakened. And there's Neo Advaita types that do this and start a YouTube channel. I can't and don't say they're wrong. It's a different concept of awakening than the Arahant model or Tibetan God Level Buddha or high level Bodhisattva model. It's definitely more do-able. In fact, I often enjoy watching them as often they're enthusiastic and it's fun.