Jump to content

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


Forza21

Recommended Posts

@lxlichael

14 hours ago, lxlichael said:

1. Leo has been irresponsible with his powers, so he'll be held accountable if no other, then me. It's rather straightforward. One cannot support a teacher because a "teacher is positive" while neglecting the negative, it logically negates the positive. A positive and a negative cancel each other out, aka demotion.

2. People have suffered from his manipulation, abuse and irresponsible dissemination of haphazardly accurate information. He has not harmed me in anyway, however it doesn't matter if I have been harmed, I know that those who I care about could be and have been.

3. It's a simple matter of universality here, I have the means and power, so it is my responsibility to do it, just as we elect and remove politicians from office we can remove people who play the role of teacher and leader while they are influencing a large audience. All may be fair in love and war but this is neither and he has indeed acted "unfairly" by many stretches, so he will be removed, call it fair or unfair, it will happen as that is right cause based on moral principle.

4. We cannot deny morality when we're simultaneously in support of anything, "anything goes" philosophy is neither in support of a teacher or against it, only the philosophy of "anything goes", which is a logical contradiction, a false negation of inherent morality that should follow the path of any teacher and in so doing, their responsibility, thus what they should be accountable for versus what they're not going to be held accountable for. 

1. No, only in so far as there are reasons to believe that holding someone accountable will change their behavior, would it in general have the potential to bear fruits more than it costs to commit to it. I personally posses minimal capacity for empathy except for people I have a relation to, Children in general and disabled people, and zero when the harm is self conflicted. Every adult who took their own life or harmed themselves due to the opportunities Leo presented them I consider radically responsible for their own actions. 

2. While it is true that Leo presents these people with opportunities they do not have the wisdom to take, Leo in speaking what he believes in so far as my ethics are concerned is entirely in his right.

I understand well that you will fight for these people, though there are many fights to have had in this life and to me it seems that the desire to fight here is rather irrational.

3. It is precisely in understanding how limited you are you can actually impose the power by means of that limit, it is naive to believe that you have any power over Leo, unless you will actually do unthinkable things, in which case you would be truly limited right now if the chances of getting caught were worthwhile to you.

If a unit of negative and a unit of positive cancel each other out, which I certainly do not agree with then I know of not many people whose positive contribution supersedes their negative as much as in Leo's case.

Even though universality is a simple matter, the world and our place in it is not, it is curious how I the rationalist must tell you this.

4. It is perfectly correct that anyone who acts in the world denies their own essence when they simultaneously says that "anything goes", and indeed a contradiction were it considered the way you do. Though at the same time morals are inherently relative.

There are no "should be held accountable for" unless you determine so, unless you both posses the means as you said to hold them accountable and that it in the aftermath were the better outcome, for this reason ethics becomes a matter of calculation and a matter of what you have reason to expect and not to.

You simply don't know if it is your responsibility to do it, it is a belief. So as a synthesis you are better of considering your power as limited by your rationale and not the other way around.

The alternative would be to live in constant fear of yourself.

Edited by Isomorphic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Ah. Leo. Leo. I have my own review that I've done and I am tempted to post it as a standalone review. 

The thing that tends to annoy me about Leo, is he's part of this follower trifecta along with Daniel Ingram and Culadasa whose devotees tend to adhere  to a map and overestimate their knowledge and attainment. Worse, sometimes they believe they think they've found the Truth* (copyrighted) and will lecture me on how I'm doing it all wrong or I'm misunderstanding the profundity of their guru and his map. 

You don't find this at all, or as much with people like Deepak Chopra or Eckhart Tolle.  Or any other teachers, basically. I like Joseph Goldstein, but I'm not going to go on message boards and defend him. He can take care of himself. 

Then there's all the red flags about Leo. The blanket advocation of drug use. The freakin' huge ego.  The claims to be God, God Consciousness. Omniscience which Actualized fanboys seem to skip over or try to interpret so it sounds less crazy.  

Leo has a very good communication style. But he gets a lot of things wrong too. But it's said so confidently ...

“If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason.” ― The Buddha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Aware Wolf said:

The freakin' huge ego.  The claims to be God, God Consciousness. Omniscience which Actualized fanboys seem to skip over or try to interpret so it sounds less crazy.  

Wait.. wait.. are you telling me you don't think he's God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Forza21 It seems to me you're more or less trying to guesstimate the winds of consensus. When it comes to this topic of spirituality, I've generally become disillusioned with it, so I'm not attached to Leo if I don't like him (metaphysically). But I operate from a place where I do not take terms like "enlightenment" as a given, and I have no reason to believe all of us are taking about the same thing at all. All the evidence instead shows me everyone is talking about different things

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@AppleJuice While it is certainly the case we all express enlightenment in various ways as to make it seem completely amorphous as in constituting no object/predicate for identification as precisely what we better expect of this realization which despite it occurrence in diverse contexts has the ability to remove any one of them.

Our expressions relates to it the way objects relates to the space we place them in, they bare a necessary connection which itself will always confuse. For we think we have discovered space by induction from its objects, when what we have is made objects imaginable in and out of experience by our intuition of space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Iesu said:

I have had nothing but the worst experiences because of leos teachings and he told it was ego bullshit when I wanted to killself because he said other was a projection of your own mind

 

 

 yeah. Solipsism, it is great excuse to develop pretty big spiritual ego, it expands it, instead dissolving😉  I was at the edge of suicide too, because of that.  It's dangerous.  And all he says about it that "you just can't handle the truth" . Bullshit. Truth is infinite love, and it doesn't hurt. 

 

Edited by Forza21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Forza21 said:

 

 yeah. Solipsism, it is great excuse to develop pretty big spiritual ego, it expands it, instead dissolving😉  I was at the edge of suicide too, because of that.  It's dangerous.  And all he says about it that "you just can't handle the truth" . Bullshit. Truth is infinite love, and it doesn't hurt. 

 

Facts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Iesu said:

I have had nothing but the worst experiences because of leos teachings and he told it was ego bullshit when I wanted to killself because he said other was a projection of your own mind

 

Lol enlightenment isn't even an experience

Edited by Iesu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Forza21 said:

 

 yeah. Solipsism, it is great excuse to develop pretty big spiritual ego, it expands it, instead dissolving😉  I was at the edge of suicide too, because of that.  It's dangerous.  And all he says about it that "you just can't handle the truth" . Bullshit. Truth is infinite love, and it doesn't hurt. 

 

"Leo's teachings"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't resonate with Leo's content on his forum anymore. He doesn't engage people in the forum other than a short message and in  most times its about pick up . It seems he doesn't embody his own teachings and is more so intellectualizing them. He's a genius in my view, but doesn't embody nor engage his questioners on a level that Eckhart Tolle or Rupert Spira would. 

Edited by Living Water
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zeroguy said:

Greatful we have @Phil.

Hope he will write that book and of course make more videos on spirituality and life in general.

Love you all guys.❤

Truth is simple :You are Infinite Love forever.

I'm glad too. 
@Phil ! course and book! please! 😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/25/2022 at 11:42 AM, Zeroguy said:

Greatful we have @Phil.

Love you all guys.❤

Truth is simple :You are Infinite Love forever.

+1

Good to see people seeing past Leo's spiritual ego 

 

you are the other me

The poem famously draws on "Phil"osophical concepts held by the Mayan people known as In Lak'ech, meaning "you are the other me." The poem also draws, although less prominently, on Aztec traditions, such as through the appearance of Quetzalcoatl.

😘

 

@Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By clicking, I agree to the terms of use, rules, guidelines & to hold Actuality of Being LLC, admin, moderators & all forum members harmless.