My thoughts of Leo and actualize.org. What do you think?

[Ges]

@Robed Mystic Just to be clear, I still think you and Leo are deluded. You more so than him. I am not defending you or Leo here. Just freely sharing my thoughts where you guys don't have the power to silence me.

[Ges]

13 hours ago, Phil said:

I was demoted & asked to leave for commenting on a thread in which the op was asking if there was perhaps a flaw in Leo’s communication, specifically in regard to there being a you which is avoiding the truth. The member pointed out and or questioned if that is misleading, and sited me as offering a more straightforward clearer communication in this regard. I offered once again, there is only love, that love is infinite and unconditional, there are no separate selves, there is no you which avoids a or a the, truth. I also was very transparent with Leo, as seen by the private messages shared publicly, in the suggestions of putting his own alignment so to speak, his own health and well being, first.

 

Honestly, I often feel as if I’m the only voice of compassion for Leo. But this likely relates to being the only one who’s actually spent some time with him. (In person if you will, as compared to a camera). I (once again) implore anyone interested to do the same. I feel strongly that anyone who does, will see the communications, his videos, very very differently, and would also have much more compassion for him, and would also suggest that he prioritize his own health & well being. Also, I only mention this aspect as he mentioned this. He seemed like privacy is exceptionally important to him, and I respect privacy. I otherwise would not, and never did, share publicly that we hung out. 

 

Getting back to your comment, there isn’t a problem. You’re saying there is a problem. Same thing Leo did. Miscommunications happen. So what. No self, no problem. Communication can always continue. No need to argue, nor accuse, belittle, re-contextual what was said, etc, etc.

 

I’m open to feedback. If I don’t understand what was said, such as here with @Joseph Maynor,  I simply ask for clarification. I don’t say we have a problem and talk about him in a demeaning manor. That’s asinine imo. I don’t say they are being cryptic or vague years later, just because I don’t understand what they said. This is glaringly defensive posturing & disingenuous (imo). 

 

It can not be my responsibility to clarify, when nothing is asked about what I said. When asked to, I am always happy to clarify. There’s never a problem, when there is no interest in being right, or defending stances of being right. Pain & suffering are more than amply self evident. These conversations are for the enjoyment of these conversations. It’s not personal, there’s no problem. 
 

Only one of us is saying you’re stupid. I didn’t say anything about you in regard to not understanding what was said at all, I said you can refer to it and to what you said, to see the difference. To see how you changed the context. In your most recent reply above, you are again changing the context of what was said and making gross accusations. I didn’t say it was out of context, as if there were a ‘right context’ it should be in, I said you changed the context of what was said. 
 

I also did not say that you are deliberately changing the context. I don’t think that at all. It is precisely because you are changing the context and not seeing that you are, as far as I can see, that I suggested comparing the two comments. That you might see that you are doing this. 

 

My time's over for now. I may or may not get back to this later.

 

[Mandy]

3 hours ago, Ges said:

What possible outcome that might satisfy your expectations?

That people I love see the indescribable value and relief in listening directly to their own suffering, the direct feeling, over trying to wrestle with the logic, causes and thoughts, judgements about it. Judgement here, but you don't seem interested in doing that at all. 

3 hours ago, Ges said:

That's what I examined and found not to be the case. And it's the most neutral thing to do/say from my pov. You can disagree with me, you're free.

When you examined were you thinking you knew what it was? Because if you examine something while thinking you know what you are seeing you will not be seeing. 

3 hours ago, Ges said:

But to keep suggesting that I'm not looking is just disrespectful, and really one more indicator that supports my conclusions that you guys aren't ahead. It seems to me, at least.

Of course we're not f***ing ahead! It's the end of being ahead or behind! How is the judgement "ahead" better than what you love or resonate with? 

 

You want to entertain ahead/behind labels? Ok. What's ahead, your direct seeing of the screen/the words before they are labeled screen or words or all your thoughts and implications about what they mean? Which is ahead, the direct feeling sensation in your body or the thoughts about what these words mean and how they fit in with that "to me". The real YOU is ALWAYS ahead. And yet in your thoughts of having to be the one who is (judgement) ahead you miss it and you always are behind. Which is why a lot of conversation in this thread is about which leader is ahead! 🤣 When the conversation is about which leader or group or whatever is ahead, the one entertaining it is always default behind. You want to be ahead of the rest? Here you go. You already are. 

3 hours ago, Ges said:

 

I want to add that you guys seem stuck with this whole "no judgement is true/allowed" narrative, which is nothing but a judgement judging other judgements if that makes sense. So I don't see why this one particular judgement should weigh more than any other judgement. If you can convince me why, then please go ahead. I'm all ears. Otherwise, I'll be sorry to inform you that you might be holding a dogma and failing to see it. You're a beautiful woman, Mandy. Maybe should look in the mirror more often.

Everything is a judgement or an assertion except directly, FOR YOU. Either that judgement feels good or it feels bad. And if we avoid feeling, or the directness of them then our judgements and assertions are very conflicting. Confusing. Deceptive. Looking for conflict outside to resolve the inner kind. And this conflict creates/is suffering. And when someone expresses out of that conflict, you know. And you also generally know if they are expressing it because they can't stand to believe it or hold it anymore and are releasing it or if they are just seeking conflict outside to try to relieve, just a little bit, how they are feeling. And I would say, don't f-ing settle for seeking that kind of relief when you can apocalypse the whole damn misunderstanding by going to now and seeing there isn't anyone holding on to it. While we're making judgments bliss, clarity, and love feels a whole lot better than being right or getting the upper hand for a moment. But who is judging? 

 

I'm confused as to how your perception of my physical appearance has anything to do with me or the credibility or "ahead" or "behindness" of my words. If I look in the mirror, I am the looking, I am not the object. And that Knowing of beauty itself is far more beautiful than any finite conditional judgement anyone come up with at any given moment.

3 hours ago, Ges said:

And I said explicitly that my thoughts are useless and shall be dismissed asap if you don't like them or find them offensive in any way.

You are the one that can certainly do that. You are the only one who can dismiss your own thoughts. However if I go out in the world and express my thoughts I want those thoughts to come out of what I know myself to be, clarity, inspiration and love as much as possible. Not only the expression but I want to align with and FEEL clarity and love as my top priority because nothing compares. 

 

 

[Ges]

18 hours ago, Phil said:

I was demoted & asked to leave for commenting on a thread in which the op was asking if there was perhaps a flaw in Leo’s communication, specifically in regard to there being a you which is avoiding the truth. The member pointed out and or questioned if that is misleading, and sited me as offering a more straightforward clearer communication in this regard. I offered once again, there is only love, that love is infinite and unconditional, there are no separate selves, there is no you which avoids a or a the, truth. I also was very transparent with Leo, as seen by the private messages shared publicly, in the suggestions of putting his own alignment so to speak, his own health and well being, first.

 

I don't think you were transparent. He was talking about something related to your communication style and moderating the forum (strict business), and you were deflecting that with your suggestions on his personal choices and life. Not that I disagree with you on that, but that it was inappropriate and irrelevant to the conversation, imo. At least, that's what I remember from the screenshots.

 

18 hours ago, Phil said:

Honestly, I often feel as if I’m the only voice of compassion for Leo. But this likely relates to being the only one who’s actually spent some time with him. (In person if you will, as compared to a camera). I (once again) implore anyone interested to do the same. I feel strongly that anyone who does, will see the communications, his videos, very very differently, and would also have much more compassion for him, and would also suggest that he prioritize his own health & well being. Also, I only mention this aspect as he mentioned this. He seemed like privacy is exceptionally important to him, and I respect privacy. I otherwise would not, and never did, share publicly that we hung out. 

 

Maybe.

 

18 hours ago, Phil said:

Getting back to your comment, there isn’t a problem. You’re saying there is a problem. Same thing Leo did. Miscommunications happen. So what. No self, no problem. Communication can always continue. No need to argue, nor accuse, belittle, re-contextual what was said, etc, etc.

 

Glad you said that.

 

18 hours ago, Phil said:

I’m open to feedback. If I don’t understand what was said, such as here with @Joseph Maynor,  I simply ask for clarification. I don’t say we have a problem and talk about him in a demeaning manor. That’s asinine imo. I don’t say they are being cryptic or vague years later, just because I don’t understand what they said. This is glaringly defensive posturing & disingenuous (imo). 

 

I have seen at least 4 people complaining that they don't understand much of what you say. And I have pointed out to you exactly that a year or so ago. Maybe you remember maybe not, but I did tell you that it seems like you like to get up on your high horse and speak in crypto and it's a bit annoying. You doubled down and kept going in the same direction without addressing my point. You know that you speak in crypto, maybe on purpose maybe not, not really my business. But what I expect from you is clear communication and transparency. Not dancing around the point and distracting away from it like you've been doing up until now (at least here in this particular discussion).

 

18 hours ago, Phil said:

It can not be my responsibility to clarify, when nothing is asked about what I said. When asked to, I am always happy to clarify. There’s never a problem, when there is no interest in being right, or defending stances of being right. Pain & suffering are more than amply self evident. These conversations are for the enjoyment of these conversations. It’s not personal, there’s no problem.

 

If you don't think it's your responsibility to clarify, then it is also not your right to ask me to re-read what you wrote. You can't have it both ways. There is a miscommunication, but you assume that the problem is on my part. You should examine that assumption and really drop it, because it's not only me who finds it hard to unpack your language. Notice that almost nobody else talks similarly. Everyone is down to earth with their use of language with other people. I take that as an indication of the desire to connect on the same level. As opposed to things with you where it seems like you're trying to communicate from above all the time (imo).

 

18 hours ago, Phil said:

Only one of us is saying you’re stupid. I didn’t say anything about you in regard to not understanding what was said at all, I said you can refer to it and to what you said, to see the difference. To see how you changed the context. In your most recent reply above, you are again changing the context of what was said and making gross accusations. I didn’t say it was out of context, as if there were a ‘right context’ it should be in, I said you changed the context of what was said.

 

Don't try to gaslight me like that. Yes, I am accusing you of gaslighting. I replied to your question. The context you suggested was replied to. Then later, I changed the context, and that's fine. You don't get to control the narrative as you like. There is another person who is talking with you and they have the right to navigate the narrative with you without dismissing each other. There's not a problem with expanding on the current context. It's only a problem when the original context is ignored, like you are doing here. You're focusing on the little vocabulary "mistakes" and ignoring the fact that I actually did answer to your question very simply and directly without dancing around or distracting. What I say after that does not hurt the communication, because it's already included, not dismissed.

 

18 hours ago, Phil said:

I also did not say that you are deliberately changing the context. I don’t think that at all. It is precisely because you are changing the context and not seeing that you are, as far as I can see, that I suggested comparing the two comments. That you might see that you are doing this. 

 

You did not say much. All of your apparent passive-aggressiveness is a projection of mine that is happening in my head. Let's move on from this, okay?

 

Edited April 16, 2022 by Ges

[Ges]

2 hours ago, Mandy said:

Of course we're not f***ing ahead! It's the end of being ahead or behind!

I'm not talking about egoic titles. You can be ahead without being egoic, and you can be behind while being egioc (unsurprisingly that makes a lot of sense). Egotism and advancement are not mutually exclusive.

Edited April 16, 2022 by Ges

[Faith]

@Ges

My word, who pissed in your cheerios this morning!?! 😂

 

 

 

[Ges]

28 minutes ago, Faith said:

@Ges

My word, who pissed in your cheerios this morning!?! 😂

 

 

 

 

 

I'm just hoping it's not you, I would be pissed otherwise 😂

 

Actually, I have been dealing with an electrical problem for 2+ hours, but I don't think it's the main reason. I find that I tend to go overboard a lot when I'm arguing for some case. I like the roller-coaster.

But you're right, I should learn to control it a little bit.

 

@Phil Please disregard whatever useless things I said. Sometimes I have problems controlling my temper.

[Phil]

@Ges

No worries at all. No problem either! 🙂

More relatable than you might suspect. I was born into controlling a temper, in the environmental sense. 

Much respect for that you are saying whatever you’re saying, to me. 🙏🏻 

[Faith]

@Ges Hope your electric issues are resolved now. That can be frustrating! 😖

 

I like the fact that you can self-reflect and then self-correct. 

 

[Unknown]

12 hours ago, Ges said:

 

Oh, Mandy! Oh, Mandy Mandy Mandy! I so wanna pinch your cheeks right now.

What is this about? Are you not reading what I'm writing? I did examine the judgement and said that it is possible that I am wrong, crazy, deluded, etc. What else do you want me to do? Nod along in silence? Become a doormat for Phil's perspective and everything you guys say? What possible outcome that might satisfy your expectations?

 

It is obvious that I did no re-contextualization of anything. Phil asked a question, and I answered it directly.

Is it possible that X might be true? Yes it is possible. No questions or doubts. See, very simple and direct.

Now, where does that leave us? Well, either we accept X as true, or deny it as false, or remain neutral about it. I guess there aren't that many choices after all.

 

Now, should I just take X for granted as true like Phil and you are suggesting? Or should I deny X entirely? Or should I remain (or at least try to) neutral about it? I chose the latter, then was accused of changing the context, when all I did was "going meta" like you guys like to call it.

 

You see, for you to suggest to me to examine judgement, there is the assumption that you somehow hold a more expanded perspective on the matter. But is this true? That's what I examined and found not to be the case. And it's the most neutral thing to do/say from my pov. You can disagree with me, you're free. I didn't offer much of an explanation, so that would be understandable. But to keep suggesting that I'm not looking is just disrespectful, and really one more indicator that supports my conclusions that you guys aren't ahead. It seems to me, at least.

 

All I did in my response was that I said: I acknowledge that I might be having wrong judgement as you suggested. But after examining my judgements, I don't think I do, and here are my thoughts. If you have a problem with them, feel free to disagree. I hold no expectations from you regarding my thoughts. And I have no attachment to them either. I am happy to change my thoughts whenever I'm convinced they're false. Simple, is it not?

 

I want to add that you guys seem stuck with this whole "no judgement is true/allowed" narrative, which is nothing but a judgement judging other judgements if that makes sense. So I don't see why this one particular judgement should weigh more than any other judgement. If you can convince me why, then please go ahead. I'm all ears. Otherwise, I'll be sorry to inform you that you might be holding a dogma and failing to see it. You're a beautiful woman, Mandy. Maybe should look in the mirror more often.

 

 

Where is this coming from? Who are you talking about? Surely, I'm not involved.

I have no reputation to uphold, nor anything of the sorts. I am not an enlightenment teacher or anything. I don't even talk about spirituality that much anymore. And I said explicitly that my thoughts are useless and shall be dismissed asap if you don't like them or find them offensive in any way.

With all due love, just wanna say thank you for reminding me to log the fuck off of forums in general and stop wasting a sinful amount of time dicking around with pointless arguments with strangers and shit, LOL. 

[Kevin]

43 minutes ago, DMT Elf said:

Just curious what everybody thinks about this.

 

Leo has said in the past that he's capable of forming a better cult than Osho's if he wanted to. Despite my respect for Leo, (which I've mentioned is high), I found this claim rather amusing. Does anybody agree that he could, or is he talking shit?

 

Is the great Leo Gura capable of forming a bigger and better cult than Osho??

 

Votes please!! 😁❤️

I don't think he could. He doesn’t have that wise Bearded Indian guru look. He looks too normal.

[Aware Wolf]

48 minutes ago, DMT Elf said:

Just curious what everybody thinks about this.

 

Leo has said in the past that he's capable of forming a better cult than Osho's if he wanted to. Despite my respect for Leo, (which I've mentioned is high), I found this claim rather amusing. Does anybody agree that he could, or is he talking shit?

 

Is the great Leo Gura capable of forming a bigger and better cult than Osho??

 

Votes please!! 😁❤️

 

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. 

[WhiteOwl]

1 hour ago, DMT Elf said:

Is the great Leo Gura capable of forming a bigger and better cult than Osho??

The guy who has read a lot of books + done a few retreats (like millions of others) and who has a very successful yt channel where he presents the knowledge, is to be compared to someone like Osho? That seems to me like asking if someone with a successful film review site is now capable of making movies like Tarantino. That would be very unlikely things work out like that, but you never know.

 

If someone claims to be the best film-maker to ever exist, but they haven't made any movies, i'm not buying it. 

 

Talking about love up and down doesn't have anything to do with actual love. 

 

If you want an answer to your own question, maybe watch the only clips that exists of him interacting with other real people (the vegas ones), and ask your question again.

 

@Aware Wolf Bentinho is out around real people.. can't see how they can be compared even the slightest. Making youtube videos is so narrow compared to what Bentinho is doing, not to praise him or anything. 

Edited April 16, 2022 by WhiteOwl

[Orb]

@DMT Elf Leo's having the ego trip that every 16 year old who takes a shitload of psychedelics has. Only difference is he started late, and people take it seriously bc hes a grown man. 

[Orb]

@DMT Elf don't look at the thoughts, look at the activity.

 

This is precisely why people are fooled.

[Orb]

@DMT Elf yep 🙂

 

We are all innocent children, but our vocabulary gets improved, thoughts become more structured and then we call ourselves adults 😉.

[Jonas Long]

33 minutes ago, DMT Elf said:

@Orb

Yeah, I can see that. He doesn't always seem to carry himself with the grace one might expect from someone of such "high consciousness". 

I also do think it's possible to separate the teaching from the teacher.

If you separate the teacher, in this case leo, from the teachings, you get a mix of very well covered territory and legit spiritual teachings, and then his contribution, which consists of dopey shit like his "moth" metaphor, which literally is the stuff of 16 year olds getting high for the first time.  The stuff coming from him alone, and not taken from elsewhere at all is really silly.  That's why its a cult of personality.

[Jonas Long]

1 hour ago, Aware Wolf said:

 

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. 

...osho wrote zero books.  They are just transcripts of his speeches.  But leo won't even have that it's true. 

[Kevin]

1 hour ago, DMT Elf said:

 

Long scraggly beard = enlightenment status +10

Comes from India = enlightenment status + 30

 

Damn, I don't stand a chance. 😬

ya man make sure you get enough merit in this life so you can reincarnate as a wise Indian man. Also wearing a robe helps.

 

In all seriousness though I’m sure there was something about Oshkosh presence that drew people in. Maybe I’m biased but I don’t thing Leo has that magnetic presence.

[Aware Wolf]

1 hour ago, Kevin said:

ya man make sure you get enough merit in this life so you can reincarnate as a wise Indian man. Also wearing a robe helps.

 

 

 

Well look up the fascinating story of Lama T Lobsang Rampa... 

 

Not a Tibetan, not a Lama, but a white guy from Devon UK.